2 POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



and impressive character, as with the merging of many tribal 

 deities into a national god, and of various national gods into a 

 single supreme power, they come to be regarded as the super- 

 naturally given utterances of the invisible, omniscient, omnipres- 

 ent, but still manlike governor of the universe. The precept or 

 direction, therefore, takes the form of a command, and right and 

 wrong in action are made synonymous with obedience or disobe- 

 dience to such command. Along with development in definite- 

 ness and consistency of a code thus made up goes increasing 

 stress upon the pleasures and pains by enunciation of which the 

 commands are accompanied. Right action, or obedience to the 

 will of the divine ruler, is attended by divine approval, and is 

 fostered by promises of heavenly reward ; wrong action, as dis- 

 obedience to his will, calls down divine anger and the threat of 

 penalties in the future life. 



"Whatever may be the particular differences separating the 

 various theological codes of conduct from one another, they thus 

 reveal striking similarities in sundry important respects. With 

 greater or less distinctness they all claim supernatural origin; 

 establish their behests and their interdicts upon the basis of ex- 

 ternal, ultra-human yet still manlike authority ; and find support 

 for their declarations in the presentation of consequences lying 

 outside the natural order. The theological system of conduct of 

 the low savage tribe and that developed among the nations of the 

 civilized world of course differ in the character of the acts distin- 

 guished as good and bad, in the quality of the rewards and pen- 

 alties offered, in the attitude of mind encouraged, and in other 

 equally significant ways. Yet they have these points in common : 

 the commands are supernatural, the sanctions are supernatural, 

 the code is based upon ultra-rational considerations and backed 

 by the presentation of ultra-rational results. 



That it is the theological code of conduct which, throughout 

 the Christian ages and down even to our own day, has been al- 

 most universally accepted as the one possible foundation of mo- 

 rality, we need not here pause to insist. If the tables of the law 

 given to Moses on Mount Sinai are not still regarded as the 

 original source of our knowledge of the distinctions of conduct, 

 there is still a tacit belief that such knowledge depends upon 

 supernatural revelation. As by one course or another, therefore, 

 our commonly held ideas of morality lead us back to the theo- 

 logical root, it will be well to note the bearings of theological 

 principles upon the questions with which morality is concerned. 

 The following points are, I think, specially worthy of attention : 



Since the theological code of conduct regards virtue simply as 

 obedience to divine command, and measures morality by the cor- 

 respondence of action with the divine will, we are bound to infer 



