126 REV. PREBENDARY WACH, D.D., ON ETHICS AND RELIGION. 
respect to its due observance, if deprived of that support, 
in modern civilization? Forces sufticiently dangerous are 
undermining its observance among ourselves, and the 
statistics as to the relation of the sexes in some parts of the 
continent exhibit a widespread revolt against it. Now the 
difficulty in this case arises from the fact that many of those 
who break away from this law do not recognize that they 
are violating any principle of righteousness. ‘They do not 
regard the Christian Jaw on this subject asa just one, and 
they make a boast of breaking through it. They say that a 
freer system is in conformity with nature, and they are 
determined at all events to try the experiment. On the 
principles cf the Ethical Societies, who is to say them nay? 
‘The only rule recognized according to the principles of such 
societies 1s harmony with the higher dictates of nature ; but 
who is to determine what those dictates are? Mr. Leslie 
Stephen, in the essay he contributes to this volume on The Aims 
of Ethical Societies, says (pp. 262-266) that ‘it is naturally 
our opinion that we should promote all thorough discussion 
of great ethical problems in a spirit and by methods which 
are independent of the orthodox dogmas” . . . “We 
must abandon much of the old guidance. . . . We must 
question everything, and be prepared to modify or abandon 
whatever is untenable. We must be scientific in spirit, in so 
far as we must trust nothing but a thorough and systematic 
investigation of facts, however the facts may be interpreted.” 
What, on these principles, is to prevent well meanmg 
people—people who would say that they want to lead a 
“good life”—from saying that they question the Christian 
law of marriage, and wish to experiment on the Mahommedan 
law? If I mistake not, this is no more than has been actually 
said and done. 
It will also be obvious, from the latter consideration, that a 
much wider problem is raised by this simple and everyday 
difficulty. If, indeed, it were allowed that the Mahomme- 
dan civilization is in this point as deserving of respect as 
our own, the dilemma would arise that a man in pursuit of 
the good life might legitimately act on either the Mahomme- 
dan or the Christian law of marriage, except as far as other 
and collateral reasons restrained him. But if it be recog: 
nized that the Mahommedan law is inconsistent with the 
best moral development of human nature, by what arguments 
is a Mahommedan to be persuaded to abandon it? In his 
view, no such inconsistency exists. An appeal to his higher 
