ORIGIN OF LAW, RELIGION, AND MANNERS. 65 



will, on the average, tend to show their irajDatience in all 

 directions. 



That Law, Religion, and Manners are thus related — 

 that their respective kinds of operation come under one 

 generalization — that they have in certain contrasted charac- 

 teristics of men a common support and a cpmmon danger 

 —will, however, be most clearly seen on discovering that 

 they have a common origin. Little as from present ap- 

 pearances we should suppose it, we shall yet find that at 

 first, the control of religion, the control of laws, and the 

 control of manners, were all one control. However in- 

 credible it may now seem, we believe it to be demonstrable 

 that the rules of etiquette, the provisions of the statute- 

 book, and the commands of the decalogue, have grown 

 from the same root. If we go far enough back into the 

 ages of primeval Fetishism, it becomes manifest that 

 originally Deity, Chief, and Master of the ceremonies were 

 identical. To make good these positions, and to show 

 their bearing on what is to follow, it will be necessary 

 here to traverse ground that is in part somewhat beaten, 

 and at first sight irrelevant to our topic. We will pass 

 over it as quickly as consists with the exigencies of the 

 argument. 



That the earliest social aggregations were ruled solely 

 by the will of the strong man, few dispute. That from the 

 strong man proceeded not only Monarchy, but the concep- 

 tion of a God, few admit : much as Carlyle and others have 

 said in evidence of it. If, however, those who are unable 

 to believe this, will lay aside the ideas of God and man in 

 which they have been educated, and study the aboriginal 

 deas of them, they will at least see some probability in 

 the hypothesis. Let them remember that before experl 

 ence had yet taught men to distinguish between the possi- 

 ble and the impossible ; and while they were ready on the 



