THE E1HICS OF EELIGIOX. 



335 



is good reason to subject these now brought for- 

 ward to the most searching check. But no ob- 

 jection, at all events to the comparative part of 

 the foregoing analysis, can have any serious value 

 which is not founded on the statement of definite 

 facts — that is to say, on the publication by the 

 railways of the United Kingdom of those statis- 

 tics of their annual working which are given to 



the shareholders of American, French, and In- 

 dian lines. In the absence of this information, 

 no shareholder can be aware whether his proper- 

 ty is likely to improve to the value of some of 

 the former, or to deteriorate to the negative con- 

 dition of the Belgian railways, or of the Ameri- 

 can colliery lines. 



— Fraser's Magazine. 



THE ETHICS OF EELIGIOX. 



By Peofessoe W. KINGDON CLIFFORD, F. E. S. 



THE word religion is used in many different 

 meanings, and there have been not a few con- 

 troversies in which the main difference between 

 the contending parties was only this, that they 

 understood by religion two different things. I will 

 therefore begin by setting forth as clearly as I 

 can one or two of the meanings which the word 

 appears to have in popular speech. 



First, then, it may mean a body of doctrines, 

 as in the common phrase, "The truth of the 

 Christian religion;" or in this sentence, "The 

 religion of Buddha teaches that the soul is not a 

 distinct substance." Opinions differ upon the ques- 

 tion what doctrines may properly be called re- 

 ligious ; some people holding that there can be 

 no religion without belief in a god and in a future 

 life, so that, in their judgment, the body of doc- 

 trines must necessarily include these two ; while 

 others would insist upon other special dogmas 

 being included, before they could consent to call 

 the system by this name. But the number of 

 such people is daily diminishing, by reason of 

 the spread and the increase of our knowledge 

 about distant countries and races. To me, in- 

 deed, it would seem rash to assert of any doctrine 

 or its contrary that it might not form part of a 

 religion. But, fortunately, it is not necessary to 

 any part of the discussion on which I propose to 

 enter, that this question should be settled. 



Secondly, religion may mean a ceremonial or 

 eult, involving an organized priesthood and a 

 machinery of sacred things and places. In this 

 sense we speak of the clergy as ministers of 

 religion, or of a state as tolerating the practice 

 of certain religions. There is a somewhat wider 

 meaning which it will be convenient to consider 

 together with this one, and as a mere extension of 

 it, namely, that in which religion stands for the 

 influence of a certain priesthood. A religion is 



sometimes said to have been successful when it 

 has got its priests into power ; thus some writers 

 speak of the wonderfully rapid success of Chris- 

 tianity. A nation is said to have embraced a re- 

 ligion when the authorities of that nation have 

 granted privileges to the clergy, have made them 

 as far as possible the leaders of society, and have 

 given them a considerable, share in the manage- 

 ment of public affairs. So the northern nations 

 of Europe are said to have enjbraced the Catho- 

 lic religion at an early date. The reason why it 

 seems to me convenient to take these two mean- 

 ings together is, that they are both related to the 

 priesthood. Although the priesthood itself is not 

 called religion, so far as I know, yet the word is 

 used for the general influence and the professional 

 acts of the priesthood. 



Thirdly, religion may mean a body of pre- 

 cepts or code of rules, intended to guide human 

 conduct, as in this sentence of the authorized 

 version of the New Testament : " Pure religion 

 and undefiled before God and the Father is this, 

 to visit the fatherless and widows in their afflic- 

 tion, and to keep himself unspotted from the 

 world " (James i. 27). It is sometimes difficult 

 to draw the line between this meaning and the 

 last, for it is a mark of the great majority of re- 

 ligions that they confound ceremonial observ- 

 ances with duties having real moral obligation. 

 Thus in the Jewish decalogue the command to do 

 no work on Saturdays is found side by side with 

 the prohibition of murder and theft. It might 

 seem to be the more correct as well as the more 

 philosophical course to follow in this matter the 

 distinction made by Butler between moral and 

 positive commands, and to class all those precepts 

 which are not of universal moral obligation un- 

 der the head of ceremonial. And, in fact, when 

 we come to examine the matter from the point 



