52 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY.— SUPPLMEENT. 



ment of the community, would certainly not be 

 effectual, and could not long be maintained. 



It has been no part of my purpose to enter 

 into an examination of any questions as to par- 

 ticular doctrines of religion. I have throughout 

 used the word " religion" in a sense exclusive of 

 all systems, usurping that name, which take no 

 cognizance of morality, or which are repugnant, 

 in their practical precepts, to the general moral 

 sense of mankind ; and I have not dissembled my 

 belief that Christianity (regarded in its general 

 aspect, with reference to the points of agreement 

 rather than those of difference among Christians) 

 does fulfill the conditions necessary for moral effi- 

 cacy. Error, inconsistency, incompleteness, or 

 admixture of foreign elements, in particular 

 modes of apprehending or representing it, must, 

 no doubt, as far as they prevail, and in propor- 

 tion to their importance, detract from the author- 

 ity, or deteriorate the quality, of its influence. 

 So also must the mere fact of disagreement. But, 

 notwithstanding all these drawbacks, Christianity 

 is the great moral power of the world. It has 

 often been supposed to be declining, but has, as 

 often, renewed its strength; nor has any other 

 power been found to take its place, where it has 

 seemed to lose ground. As to other forms of 

 religion it may, without difficulty, be admitted 

 that such elements as they have in common with 

 Christianity may be expected (except so far as 

 they are neutralized or counteracted by other 

 contrary elements) to tend, in their measure, 

 toward the same standard of morality. It is 

 proper (as I suppose) to Christianity, rightly un- 

 derstood, to assert the identity of its own essen- 

 tial principles with those of natural religion, 

 while teaching that the moral government of the 

 world has been so conducted as not to leave man- 

 kind dependent upon natural religion only ; and 

 it refers to a common origin with itself all the 

 elements of religious belief, consistent with its 

 own doctrines, which have been, at any time or 

 place, accepted among the nations of the world. 

 These propositions, and also that of the presence 

 of the religious principle in any practical belief 

 of the moral sense, appear to be in accordance 

 with what is said by St. Paul in the nineteenth 

 and twentieth verses of the first, and the four- 

 teenth and fifteenth verses of the second, chap- 

 ters of the Epistle to the Romans. 



Rev. Dr. MARTINEAU.— In order to esti- 

 mate aright the moral influence of declining re- 

 ligious belief, the relation between morals and 

 religion must be accurately conceived. They 

 may be regarded as independent, or as identical, 



or, again, either may be taken to be the founda- 

 tion of the other. The following positions will 

 serve as a sufficient ground for the opinion which 

 I shall offer : 



A sense of duty is inherent in the constitution 

 of our nature, and cannot be escaped till we can 

 escape from ourselves. It does not wait on any 

 ontological conditions, and incur the risk of non- 

 existence should no assurance be gained with 

 regard to a being and a life beyond us. Even 

 though we came out of nothing, and returned to 

 nothing, we should be subject to the claim of 

 righteousness so long as we are what we are. 

 Morals have their own base, and are second to 

 nothing. 



Apart from this intrinsic consciousness of 

 ethical distinctions, no ontological discoveries 

 would avail to set up a law of duty, and give us 

 the characteristics of moral beings. A Supreme 

 Power might dictate an external rule, and break 

 us in to obedience by hopes and fears of unlimit- 

 ed extent. But by this sway of preponderant in- 

 terests we are not carried beyond prudence ; and 

 in the absence of a law within, responding to the 

 demands from without, we do not reach the con- 

 fines of moral obligation ; and, in case of failure, 

 we incur the sense only of error, not of sin. 

 Theology cannot supply a base for morals that 

 have lost their own. 



Does it follow that, because morals are indige- 

 nous, they are therefore self-sufficing ? By no 

 means. Though religion is not their foundation, 

 it is assuredly their crown — related to them as 

 Plato says dialectic is to the sciences, Sxrirep 

 Bpiyicbs -rots /j-adrifxaffLv 1 — the coping that consum- 

 mates them. Be the genesis of the conscience 



what it 



may. 



we learn from it at last that there 



is a better and a worse in the springs of action 

 which contend for us, and that, while it is open 

 to us as a possibility, it is closed against us as a 

 right, to follow the lower when the higher calls. 

 The authority which stamps the one as a tempta- 

 tion, and the other as a peremptory claim, is not, 

 we are well aware, of our own making; for it 

 masters us with compunction, and defies all re- 

 peal. Nor is it the mere expression of public 

 self-interest ; for it extends beyond the range of 

 social action, and covers the whole voluntary 

 field. Speaking with a voice before which our 

 whole personality bows, and which equally gives 

 law to other men, it issues from a source tran- 

 scending human life, and infusing into it a moral 

 order from a more comprehensive sphere. It 

 postulates a superior will in communion with 

 1 Bep., vii.,534 E. 



