175 
complex state and they are then physical rhythms, in a more complex state 
they are biological rhythms, and in a still more complex state they are 
sociological rhythms. Here you see why he has to say what we have heard 
about happiness. He sees these atoms in a certain theological rhythm. He 
cannot find anything like virtue in a system like that, and therefore he 
starts by assuming that you must make virtue bend to this idea— you must 
lay it down that that w r hich virtue produces is happiness, and, therefore, 
that virtue is happiness. He seems to think that these rhythmical motions 
do produce happiness, and that virtue must come under that head, as it 
cannot come into his system in any other form. The answer to his system 
is that these rhythmical motions are not everything, and after a short time 
we shall probably find the ideas that run throughout his philosophy exposed 
as fallacious and insufficient. 
Eev. Flavel Cook. — It is hardly fair to ask Professor Wace to 
explain another man’s theory ; but it would be interesting to know how the 
following case would be dealt with by Mr. Herbert Spencer. It may be 
known to those present that there was, so to speak, sanctioned in Japan a 
certain relationship which would be unhesitatingly and universally con- 
demned in this country as a vice — nothing more nor less ; but there it was 
considered as a matter promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest 
number. It was by no means reprobated, was a well-established usage, and 
was regarded as tending to make life easier, to put the conditions of marriage 
and happiness within the reach of many who would otherwise not be able to 
obtain such conditions. We will suppose that the Japanese having only a 
very limited idea of man’s being, and the object of man’s true happiness, 
would say on their theory of human nature : “ This is good ; pleasure is 
the result ; therefore it must be good.” Let us suppose, also, the entry of 
God’s word, giving them light, so that they become aware of the higher end 
of existence — that there is something beyond the physical relations and the 
various requirements of society — that there is such a thing as the conscious- 
ness of a spiritual nature ; they would then say : “ What we have hitherto 
thought of only as pleasure, we now know to be evil.” Query, — as soon as 
they accept the spiritual teaching brought to them from the West — the teaching 
that man has a higher organization — that there is a higher aim for man’s 
being than simply to eat and drink and enjoy himself as a mere animal — 
do their actions become bad? Were they good at first? They suppose 
they were. Do they continue to be good, or are they now rejected as 
bad ? If so, were they bad at first ? I should like to know how, according 
to Mr. Herbert Spencer’s view, this point would be dealt with. 
Professor Wace. — Perhaps it is, as Mr. Flavel Cook says, a little hard to 
call upon me to answer such a question. The problem is, indeed, precisely 
one of those which I should like to put to Mr. Herbert Spencer himself 
if he were in this room. One of the great difficulties of his theory is that 
it is hard to see how it can condemn any experiment in morality. Mr. 
Spencer says that we must have a general knowledge of the conditions of 
