126 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY.— SUPPLEMENT. 



" higher " or " nobler " than another is as sim- 

 ply unmeaning as to talk of a bed being nobler 

 than a chair, or a plough than a harrow. Whether 

 it be the bed, or the plough, or the human act, it 

 may be more useful than the other article with 

 which it is brought into comparison ; but to 

 speak in either case of " nobleness " is as the 

 sound of a tinkling cymbal. Or rather, which is 

 my present point, the fact of antitheists using 

 such language shows that their practical belief 

 is so far essentially opposed and (as I, of course, 

 should say) immeasurably superior to their spec- 

 ulative theory. To my mind there is hardly any 

 truth which needs more to be insisted on than 

 this, in the present crisis of philosophical thought : 

 when antitheism successfully conceals its hideous 

 deformity from its own votaries, by dressing it- 

 self up in the very garments of that rival creed 

 which it derides as imbecile and obsolete. I 

 heartily wish I had space for setting forth in full 

 and clear light the argument on which I would 

 here insist. I may refer, however, to Mr. Mal- 

 lock's article, for an excellent exposition of it 

 from his own point of view ; and, in particular, I 

 cannot express too strongly my concurrence with 

 the following remarks : 



" All the moral feelings" (he says) "at present 

 afloat in the world depend, as I have alread}' shown, 

 on the primary doctrines of religion ; but that the 

 former would outlive the latter is nothing more 

 than we should naturally expect : just as water 

 may go on boiling after it is taken off the fire, as 

 flowers keep their scent and color after we have 

 plucked them, or as a tree whose roots have been 

 cut may yet put out green leaves for one spring more. 

 But a time must come when all this will be over, 

 and when the true effects of what has been done 

 will be<?in to show themselves. Nor can there be 

 any reason brought forward to show why, if the 

 creed of unbelief was once fully assented to by the 

 world, all morality — a thing always attended by 

 some pain and struggle — would not gradually 

 wither away, and cive place to a more or less suc- 

 cessful seeking after pleasure, no matter of what 

 kind." 



I would also recall to Sir J. Fitzjames Ste- 

 phen's remembrance an admirable statement of 

 his, which occurred in the work on " Liberty, 

 Equality, and Fraternity." " We cannot judge 

 of the effects of atheism," he says, " from the 

 conduct of persons who have been educated as 

 believers in God, and in the midst of a nation 

 which believes in God. If we should ever see 

 a generation of men, especially a generation of 

 Englishmen, to whom the word 'God' has no 



meaning at all, we should get a light on the sub- 

 ject which might be lurid enough." ' 



So far I have used the word "morality" in 

 that sense which I account the true one. But a 

 different acceptation of the word is very common ; 

 and it will be better perhaps briefly to consider 

 our proposed question in the sense which that 

 acceptation would give it. Morality, then, is of- 

 ten spoken of as consisting in a man's sacrifice 

 of his personal desires for the public good ; so 

 that each man more faithfully practises " moral- 

 ity" in proportion as he more effectively post- 

 pones private interests to public ones. I have 

 always been extremely surprised that any theist 

 can use this terminology; though I am well 

 aware, of course, that many do so. To mention 

 no other of its defects, it excludes from the 

 sphere of morality precisely what a theist must 

 consider the most noble and elevating branch 

 thereof, viz., men's duties to their Creator. Con- 

 stant remembrance of God's presence, prayer to 

 him for moral strength, purging the heart from 

 any such worldly attachment as may interfere 

 with his sovereignty over the affections — these, 

 and a hundred others, which are man's highest 

 moral actions, are excluded by this strange ter- 

 minology from being moral actions at all. Still, 

 in one respect there is great agreement between 

 the two " moralities " in question, for under 

 either of them morality very largely consists in 

 self-denial and self-sacrifice. 



Now, if it be asked in what way morality, as 

 so understood, would be affected by the absence 

 of religious belief, I think the true reply is one 

 which has so often been drawn out that I need 

 do no more than indicate it. Firstly, apart from 

 theistic motives there is no sufficient moral lev- 

 erage ; men would not have the moral strength 

 required for sustained self-denial and self-sacri- 

 fice. Secondly and more importantly, if theistic 

 sanctions were away, no theory could be drawn 

 out explaining why it should be reasonable that a 

 man sacrifice his personal interest to that of his 

 fellows. 



On this matter I am glad that I have the op- 

 portunity of drawing attention to a very fine pas- 

 sage of Mr. Goldwin Smith's, published in the 

 Macmillan of last January : 



" Materialism has, in fact, already begun to 

 show its effects on human conduct and on society. 

 They may perhaps be more visible in communities 

 where social conduct depends greatly on individual 

 conviction and motive than in communities which 

 are more ruled by tradition and bound together 



1 Second edition, p. 326. 



