1884.] 
Hylo-Idealism ? 
387 
the second volume of his history, had there been a necessity 
to touch the subject in any way, would have been all-suffi- 
cient. The wantings of Theologies, even with a citation of 
all their horrors, can add no glory to Hylo-Idealism. Then 
follows a dissertation upon Mr. Bradlaugh ; what has it to do 
with the question, except perhaps to show the animus of the 
writer ? Mr. Bradlaugh asserted his opinion, and accepted 
his position. He had accorded to him perfect freedom of 
discussion. Of what has he to complain ? that general 
opinion is adverse to the propositions he promulgates. The 
wonder is that he, so able a man, has arrived at so illogical 
a conclusion ( vide Maurice Davies’s “ Heterodox London,” 
p. 1 16 et infra). So also we are told that the principles of 
Catholicism can claim no superiority over those “ which 
inspired the French Revolution,” whatever its result. The 
sense of wrong aroused the people, and they triumphed ; 
law and order were perverted, the conception of a God 
banished, and greed, rapine, and murder reigned supreme. 
This is the result of the Ego and Hylo-Idealistic thinks ; a 
despotism linked with irreligion blotted out all good, and 
ended in the establishment of a military despotism which 
was restrained by no a( 5 t deemed needful for the consolida- 
tion of its power, and was subversive of the rights and 
freedom of all who came in contact with it. What has this 
to do with Religion ? which, in its true sense, exemplifies the 
humanitarian principle “ Do as you would be done by.” 
Then follows an exposition of Pantheism ; the grand ideal- 
isations of the Greek mind are sneered at ; “ sun and rain 
are translated by imagination into smiles and tears. The 
author would have been wise, before he gave vent to his 
imaginings, to have consulted Max Muller, Cox, and the 
first two vols. of Grote’s “ History of Greece ” : he then 
would have had some conception of the hold religious 
aspirations— Pantheistic if he pleases — had on the common- 
alty of the nations of Greece. Their idealisations, making 
gods and demons care-takers, were emblematic, and became 
the conscious cognition of the providence of the Supreme 
God. It would also have been wise to have consulted the 
works of Max Muller and Monier Williams before giving a 
pronounced opinion of the Vedas and other sacred works on 
the primitive worshippers of India. It is easy to conceive 
that a man who concentrates his religious (?) ideas in the 
Ego could never rise to the sublime conceptions of primitive 
worshippers. Every enquiry rightly directed as to religious 
belief finds the germ and intent of the founder, be the 
creed what it may, moral, pure, or humanitarian. Redoes 
