diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 3 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 36772-8.txt | 7112 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 36772-8.zip | bin | 0 -> 149559 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 36772-h.zip | bin | 0 -> 279311 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 36772-h/36772-h.htm | 7365 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 36772-h/images/illus1.jpg | bin | 0 -> 45969 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 36772-h/images/illus2.jpg | bin | 0 -> 44074 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 36772-h/images/illus3.jpg | bin | 0 -> 33615 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 36772.txt | 7112 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 36772.zip | bin | 0 -> 149515 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 |
12 files changed, 21605 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6833f05 --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +* text=auto +*.txt text +*.md text diff --git a/36772-8.txt b/36772-8.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..47138c8 --- /dev/null +++ b/36772-8.txt @@ -0,0 +1,7112 @@ +The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Hearts of Men, by H. Fielding + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: The Hearts of Men + +Author: H. Fielding + +Release Date: July 17, 2011 [EBook #36772] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE HEARTS OF MEN *** + + + + +Produced by Barbara Tozier, Bill Tozier, Mary Meehan and +the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at +http://www.pgdp.net + + + + + + + + + + + + THE HEARTS OF MEN + + BY H. FIELDING + + AUTHOR OF "THE SOUL OF A PEOPLE," ETC. + + + NEW YORK + THE MACMILLAN COMPANY + 1901 + + PRINTED BY KELLY'S DIRECTORIES LIMITED, + LONDON AND KINGSTON. + + + + +DEDICATION. + +To F. W. FOSTER. + + +As my first book, "The Soul of a People," would probably never have been +completed or published without your encouragement and assistance, so the +latter part of this book would not have been written without your +suggestion. This dedication is a slight acknowledgment of my +indebtedness to you, but I hope that you will accept it, not as any +equivalent for your unvarying kindness, but as a token that I have not +forgotten. + + + + +CONTENTS. + + + +DEFINITIONS OF RELIGION 1 + +INTRODUCTION 4 + + +PART I. + +I. OF WHAT USE IS RELIGION? 13 + +II. EARLY BELIEFS 21 + +III. IDEAL AND PRACTICE 28 + +IV. SCIENTIFIC THEOLOGY--I 37 + +V. SCIENTIFIC THEOLOGY--II 45 + +VI. WHENCE FAITHS COME 55 + +VII. THE WISDOM OF BOOKS 64 + +VIII. GOD 72 + +IX. LAW 84 + +X. THE WAY OF LIFE 92 + +XI. HEAVEN 101 + + +PART II. + +XII. THEORIES AND FACTS 113 + +XIII. CREED AND INSTINCT 124 + +XIV. RELIGIOUS PEOPLE 136 + +XV. ENTHUSIASM 145 + +XVI. STRENGTH AND WEAKNESS 155 + +XVII. MIND AND BODY 165 + +XVIII. PERSONALITY 173 + +XIX. GOD THE SACRIFICE 185 + +XX. GOD THE MOTHER 196 + +XXI. CONDUCT 202 + +XXII. MEN'S FAITH AND WOMEN'S FAITH 212 + +XXIII. PRAYER AND CONFESSION 221 + +XXIV. SUNDAY AND SABBATH 233 + +XXV. MIRACLE 242 + +XXVI. RELIGION AND ART 254 + +XXVII. WHAT IS EVIDENCE? 266 + +XXVIII. THE AFTER DEATH 277 + +XXIX. OPTIMISM AND PESSIMISM 287 + +XXX. WAS IT REASON? 298 + +XXXI. WHAT RELIGION IS 308 + +XXXII. THE USE OF RELIGION 316 + + + + +THE HEARTS OF MEN. + + + + +RELIGION. + + +"The difficulty of framing a correct definition of religion is very +great. Such a definition should apply to nothing but religion, and +should differentiate religion from anything else--as, for example, +from imaginative idealisation, art, morality, philosophy. It should +apply to everything which is naturally and commonly called religion: to +religion as a subjective spiritual state, and to all religions, high or +low, true or false, which have obtained objective historical +realisation."--_Anon._ + +"The principle of morality is the root of religion."--_Peochal._ + +"It is the perception of the infinite."--_Max Müller._ + +"A religious creed is definable as a theory of original +causation."--_Herbert Spencer._ + +"Virtue, as founded on a reverence for God and expectation of future +rewards and punishment."--_Johnson._ + +"The worship of a Deity."--_Bailey._ + +"It has its origin in fear."--_Lucretius and others._ + +"A desire to secure life and its goods amidst the uncertainty and evils +of earth."--_Retsche._ + +"A feeling of absolute dependence, of pure and entire +passiveness."--_Schleiermacher._ + +"Religious feeling is either a distinct primary feeling or a peculiar +compound feeling."--_Neuman Smyth._ + +"A sanction for duty."--_Kant._ + +"A morality tinged by emotion."--_Matthew Arnold._ + +"By religion I mean that general habit of reverence towards the divine +nature whereby we are enabled to worship and serve God."--_Wilkins._ + +"A propitiation or conciliation of powers superior to man, which are +supposed to control the course of nature and of human life."--_J. G. +Frazer._ + +"The modes of divine worship proper to different tribes."--_Anon._ + +"The performance of duty to God and man." + +It is to be noted that all the above are of Europeans acquainted +practically with only Christianity. + + * * * * * + +The following are some that have been given me by Orientals: + +"The worship of Allah."--_Mahommedan._ + +"A knowledge of the laws of life that lead to happiness."--_Buddhist._ + +"Doing right." + +"Other-worldliness." + + + + +INTRODUCTION. + + +Some time ago I wrote "The Soul of a People." It was an attempt to +understand a people, the Burmese; to understand a religion, that of +Buddha. It was not an attempt to find abstract truth, to discuss what +may be true or not in the tenets of that faith, to discover the secret +of all religions. It was only intended to show what Buddhism in Burma is +to the people who believe in it, and how it comes into their lives. + +Yet it was impossible always to confine the view to one point. It is +natural--nay, it is inevitable--that when a man studies one faith, +comparison with other faiths should intrude themselves. The world, even +the East and West, is so bound together that you cannot treat of part +and quite ignore the rest. And so thoughts arose and questions came +forward that lay outside the scope of that book. I could not write of +them there fully. Whatever question arose I was content then to give +only the Buddhist answer, I had to leave on one side all the many +answers different faiths may have propounded. I could not discuss even +where truth was likely to be found. I was bound by my subject. But in +this book I have gone further. This is a book, not of one religion nor +of several religions, but of religion. Mainly, it is true, it treats of +Christianity and Buddhism, because these are the two great +representative faiths, but it is not confined to them. Man asks, and has +always asked, certain questions. Religions have given many answers. Are +these answers true? Which is true? Are any of them true? It is in a way +a continuation of "The Soul of a People," but wider. It is of "The +Hearts of Men." + + * * * * * + +Before beginning this book I have a word to say on the meanings that I +attach to the word "Christianity" and a few other words, so that I may +be more clearly understood. + +There was a man who wrote to me once explaining why he was a Christian, +and wondering how anyone could fail to be so. + +"I look about me," he said, "at Christian nations, and I see that they +are the leaders of the world. Pagan nations are far behind them in +wealth, in happiness, in social order. I look at our Courts and I find +justice administered to all alike, pure and without prejudice. Our +crime decreases, our education increases, and our wealth increases even +faster; the artisan now is where the middle class was a hundred years +ago, the middle class now lives better than the rich did. Our science +advances from marvel to marvel. Our country is a network of railroads, +our ships cover the seas, our prosperity is unbounded, and in a greater +or less degree all Christian nations share it. But when we turn to Pagan +nations, what do we see? Anarchy and injustice, wars and rebellions, +ignorance and poverty. To me no greater proof of the truth of +Christianity can be than this difference. In fact, it is Christianity." + +I am not concerned here to follow the writer into his arguments. He is +probably one of those who thinks that all our civilisation is due to a +peculiar form of Christianity. There are others who hold that all our +advance has been made in spite of Christianity. I am only concerned now +with the meaning of the word. The way I use the word is to denote the +cult of Christ. A Christian to me means a man who follows, or who +professes to follow, the example of Christ and to accept all His +teaching; to be a member of a Church that calls itself Christian. I use +it irrespective of sects to apply to Catholic and Greek Church, Quaker +and Skopek alike. I am aware that in Christianity, as in all religions, +there has been a strong tendency of the greater emotions to attract the +lesser, and of the professors of any religion to assume to themselves +all that is good and repudiate all that is evil in the national life. I +have no quarrel here with them on the subject. Nor do I wish to use the +word in any unnecessarily narrow sense. Are there not also St. Paul and +the Apostles, the Early Fathers? So be it. But surely the essence of +Christianity must be the teaching and example of Christ? I do not gather +that any subsequent teacher has had authority to abrogate or modify +either that teaching or example. As to addition, is it maintained +anywhere that the teaching and example are inadequate? I do not think +so. And therefore I have defined my meaning as above. Let us be sure of +our words, that we may know what we are talking about. + +In the word "religion" I have more difficulty. It does not carry any +meaning on its face as Christianity does. It is an almost impossible +word to define, or to discover the meaning of. It is so difficult that +practically all the book is an attempt to discover what "religion" does +mean. I nearly called the book, "What is the Meaning of Religion?" + +In the beginning I have given a few of the numerous meanings that have +been applied to the word. It will be seen how vague they are. And at +the end I have a definition of my own to give which differs from all. +But as I have frequently to use the word from the beginning of the book, +I will try to define how I use it. + +By "religion," then, generally I mean a scheme of the world with some +theory of how man got into it and the influences, mostly supernatural, +which affect him here. It usually, though not always, includes some code +of morality for use here and some account of what happens after death. + +This is, I think, more or less the accepted meaning. + +And there are the words Spirit and Soul. + +I note that in considering origins of religion the great first +difficulty has been how the savage evolved the idea of "God" or "Spirit" +as opposed to man. Various theories have been proposed, such as that it +evolved from reasoning on dreams. To me the question is whether such an +idea exists at all. It may be possible that men trained in abstract +thought without reference to fact, the successors of many generations of +men equally so trained, do consider themselves to have such a +conception. I have met men who declared they had a clear idea of the +fourth dimension in Mathematics and of unending space. There may be +people who can realise a Spirit which has other qualities than man. In +some creeds the idea is assumed as existing. But personally I have never +found it among those who make religion as distinguished from those who +theorise upon it. The gods of the simpler religious people I have met, +whether East or West, have been frankly only enlarged men, with the +appetites and appearances and the powers of men. They differ from men +only in degree, never in kind. They require food and offerings, they +have passions, sometimes they have wives. The early gods are but men. If +they are invisible, so can man be; if they are powerful, so are kings. +It is only a question of degree, never of kind. I do not find that the +God that the Boers appeal to so passionately has any different qualities +in their thoughts from a marvellous man. Truly they will say, "No, God +is a Spirit." Then if you reply, "So be it; tell me how a Spirit differs +from a man, what qualities a Spirit has that are inconceivable in man," +they cannot go on; and the qualities they appeal to in their God are +always very human qualities--partiality, forgiveness, help, and the +like. + +Many men will say they believe things which they do not understand. I +enter into the subject so fully later I do not want to write more now. I +only wish to define that the word God, as I use it, in no wise means +more than "the Personality who causes things." + +And again about soul. What is soul? The theologian gets up and answers +at once that soul exists independent of the body. So be it. Then who has +the conception? And what is it like when you have got it? Have +Christians it? Then why can they not understand resurrection of the soul +without also the resurrection of the body? They cannot. Look at the +facts. It is such a fact it has actually forced itself into the creeds. +Angels have bodies and also wings. Ghosts have bodies and also clothes. +They are recognisable. I know a ghost who likes pork for supper. They +sometimes have horses and all sorts of additions. The body may be filmy, +but it is a body. Gas is filmy and quite as transparent as a ghost. + +Perhaps the people who have put the transmigration of souls as one of +their religious tenets really have the conception of a soul apart from +any body. I doubt it even here. But this also will come later. + +Meanwhile, when I use the word "soul" or "spirit," I do not infer that +it is separable from the body or inseparable. I mean simply the essence +of that which is man; the identity, the ego existing in man as he _is_. +I think, indeed, this is the correct meaning. We say that a city has +fifty thousand souls. Have they no bodies? When I wrote "The Soul of a +People" I certainly did not omit their bodies or ignore them. On the +contrary. And no one supposed I did. I do not either mean to postulate +the inseparability of body and soul. Soul means essence. + +Finally, there is the word reason. What is that? By reason I mean the +faculty of arranging and grouping facts. It is the power of perspective +which sees facts in their proper relation to other facts. The facts +themselves are supplied as regards the outer world by the senses of +sight and hearing and taste, of touch and sympathy; and as regards the +inner world of sensations, such as hate, and love, and fear by the +ability to feel those sensations. + +Reason itself cannot supply facts. It can but arrange them. By placing a +series of facts in due order the existence of other facts may be +suspected, as the existence of Neptune was deduced from certain known +aberrations. The observation of Neptune by the telescope followed. + +In other words, reason may be called "the science of facts." + + * * * * * + +I offer no apology for this introduction. Most of the confusion of +thought, most of the mistiness of argument, is due to the fact that +people habitually use words without any clear idea of their meaning. A +reviewer of "The Soul of a People" declared that Buddhism was a +philosophy, not a religion. I asked him to give me a list of what he +accepted as religions, and then to furnish a definition of religion that +would include all these and exclude Buddhism. I am still waiting. No +doubt he had never tried to really define what he meant by his words. +Instead of using words as counters of a fixed value he threw them about +as blank cheques, meaning anything or nothing. + +When you find confusion of argument in a book, want of clearness of +expression, when you see men arguing and misunderstanding each other, +there is nearly always one reason. Either they are using words in +different senses or they have no clear idea themselves of what they mean +by their words. Ask ten men what they mean when they say, Art, beauty, +civilisation, right, wrong, or any other abstract term, and see if _one_ +can give a satisfactory explanation. + +This is an error I am trying to avoid. + + + + +CHAPTER I. + +OF WHAT USE IS RELIGION? + + +Of what use is religion? + +All nations, almost all men, have a religion. From the savage in the +woods who has his traditions of how the world began, who has his ghosts +and his devils to fear or to worship, to the Christian and the Buddhist +with their religion full of beautiful conceptions and ideas--all people +have a religion. + +And the religion of men is determined for them by their birth. They are +born into it, as they are into their complexions, their habits, their +language. The Continental and Irish Celt is a Roman Catholic, the Teuton +is a follower of Luther, the Slav a member of the Greek Church. The +Anglo-Saxon, who is a compromise of races, has a creed which is a +compromise also, and the Celt of England has his peculiar form of +dissent, more akin perhaps in some ways to Romanism than to Lutheranism. +A Jew is and has been a Jew, a Hindu is a Hindu, Arabs and Turks are +Mahommedans. + +It is so with all races of men. A man's religion to-day is that into +which he is born, and those of the higher and older races who change are +few, so very few they but serve strongly to emphasize the rule. + +There have been, it is true, periods when this has not been so. There +have been times of change, of conversions, of rapid religious evolution +when the greater faiths have gathered their harvests of men, when +beliefs have spread as a flood threatening to engulf a world. No one has +ever done so. Each has found its own boundary and stayed there. Their +spring tide once passed they have ceased to spread. They have become, +indeed, many of them, but tideless oceans, dead seas of habit ceasing +even to beat upon their shores. Many of them no longer even try to +proselytise, having found their inability to stretch beyond their +boundaries; others still labour, but their gains are few--how few only +those who have watched can know. + +Some savages are drawn away here or there, but that is all. The greater +faiths and forms of faith, Catholicism, Lutheranism, the Greek Church, +Mahommedanism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and many others, remain as they +were. Their believers are neither converted nor convert. Men born into +them remain as they were born. They do not change, they are satisfied +with what they have. + +They are more than satisfied; they are often, almost always, +passionately attached to their faith. + +There is nothing men value more than their religion. There is nothing so +unbearable to them as an attack upon it. No one will allow it. Even the +savage clings to his fetish in the mountain top and will not permit of +insult to it. Men will brave all kinds of disaster and death rather than +deny their faith, that which their fathers believed. It is to all their +highest possession. The Catholic, the Chinese ancestor worshipper, the +Hindu, the Calvinist, the Buddhist, the Jew--their names are too +numerous to mention--none yields to any other in this. It is true of all +faiths. No one faith has any monopoly of this enthusiasm. It is common +to all. + +But wherein lies the spell that religion has cast upon the souls of men? +The influence is the same. What is the secret of it? + +Can it be that there is some secret common to all religions, some +belief, some doctrine that is the cause of this? If so, what is it? If +there is such a common secret, why is it so hidden? + +For hidden it certainly is. + +Nothing can be more certain than that no one religion recognises any +such secret in the others. It is the very reverse. The more a man clings +to his own religion the more he scorns all others. Far from +acknowledging any common truth, he denounces all other faiths as +mistaken, as untrue; nay, more, they are to him false, deliberately +false; the enthusiast believes them wicked, the fanatic in his own faith +calls all others devilish. The more a man loves his religion the more he +abominates all others. A Christian would scorn the idea of the essence +of his faith being common to all others, or any other. If there be any +common truth it is a very secret truth. + +Is there any secret truth? If so, what is it? + +There is a further question. + +There is probably no one thing that we learn with more certainty than +this, that whatever exists, whatever persists, does so because it +fulfils a want, because it's of use. It is immaterial where we look, the +rule is absolute. In the material world Darwin and others have shewn it +to us over and over again. When anything is useless it atrophies. So +have the snake and the whale lost their legs, and man his hairy skin and +sense of scent. Males have lost their power of suckling their young; +with females this power has increased. Need developes any thing or any +quality; when it becomes needless it dies. Where we find anything +flourishing and persistent we are sure always that it is so because it +is wanted, because it fills a need. + +Religion in some form or another has always existed, has increased and +developed, has grown and gained strength. + +Therefore religion, all religions that have existed have filled some +need, all religions that now exist do so because they fulfil some +present use. From the way their believers cherish them the need is a +great and urgent one. These religions are of vital use to their +believers. + +What is this great common need and yearning that all men have, and +which, to men in sympathy with it, every religion fulfils? + +Can it be that all men have a like need and that all religions have a +common quality which serves that need? + +Can it be possible that all races, the Englishman, the Negro, the +Italian, the Russian, the Arab, the Chinaman, and the Pathan, have the +same urgent necessity, and that their urgent necessity is answered by so +many varying religions? If so, what is this necessity which religion +alone can fill, what is this succour that religion alone can give? What +is the use of religion? + +These are some of the questions I ask, other men have asked the +same--not many. The majority of men never ask themselves anything of the +sort. They are born into a religion, they live in it more or less, they +die in it. They may question its accuracy in one point or another, for +each man to some extent makes his own faith; but nearly all men take +their faith much as they find it and make the best of it. It does not +occur to them to say, "Why should I want a religion at all? Why not go +without?" They feel the necessity of it. Even the very few who reject +their own faith almost always try for some other, something they hope +will meet their necessity. They will prefer one faith to another. But +they do not first consider why they want a faith at all. They do not +ask, "Of what use is any religion?" + +Yet this is in the main the subject of this book, these questions are +the ones I ask, the questions to which I seek an answer. I will repeat +them. + +Why are all peoples, all men religious? Is the necessity a common +necessity? If so, what is it? + +Why does one form of religion appeal to one people and another to +another people, while remaining hateful to all the rest? + +Notwithstanding their common hate, have all religions a common secret? +And if so, what is that? + +This book of mine is in part the story of a boy who was born into a +faith and who lost it; it tries to explain why he lost it. + +It is the story of a man who searched for a new faith and who did not +find it, because he knew not what he sought. He knew not what religion +was nor why he wanted it. He knew not his need. He sought in religion +for things no religion possesses. He was ill yet he knew not his +disease, and so he could find no remedy. And finally it is an attempt to +discern what religion really means, what it is, what is the use of it, +what men require of it. + +There may be among my readers some who will read the early chapters and +will then stop. They will feel hurt perhaps, they will think that there +is here an attack upon their religion, upon all they hold as the Truth +of God. So they will close the book and read no more. I would beg of my +readers not to judge me thus. I would ask them if they read at all to +read to the end. It may be that then they will understand. Even if it be +not so, that the early chapters still seem to be hard, is it not better +to hear such things from a friend than from an enemy? Be sure there are +very many who say and who feel very much harder things than this boy +did. Is it not as well to know them? + +These early chapters are of a boy's life; they may be, they should be if +truly written, full of the hardness of youth, its revolt from what it +conceives to be untrue, its intense desire to know, its stern rejection +of all that is not clear and cannot be known. Yet they must be written, +for only by knowing the thoughts of the boy can the later thoughts of +the man be understood? + +And I am sure that those who read me to the end, though they may +disagree with what I say, will admit this: that, thinking as I do of +religion, I would not unnecessarily throw a stone at any faith, I would +not thoughtlessly hurt the belief of any believer, no matter what his +religion; because I think I have learnt not only what his faith is to +him, but why it is so, because I have found the use of all religion. + + + + +CHAPTER II. + +EARLY BELIEFS. + + +The boy of whom I am about to write was brought up until he was twelve +entirely by women. He had masters, it is true, who taught him the usual +things that are taught to boys, and he had playfellows, other boys; but +the masters were with him but an hour or two each day for lessons, and +of the boys he was always the eldest. + +Those who have studied how it is that children form their ideas of the +world, of what it is, of what has to be done in it, of how to do it, +will recognise all that this means; for children obtain their ideas of +everything, not from their lessons nor their books nor their teachers, +but from their associates. A teacher may teach, but a boy does not +believe. He believes not what he is told, but what he sees. He forms to +himself rules of conduct modelled on the observed conduct of other +people. Their ideas penetrate his, and he absorbs and adapts them to +his own wants. In a school with other boys, or where a boy has as +playfellows boys older than himself, this works out right. The knowledge +and ideas of the great world filter gradually down. Young men gain it +from older men, the young men pass it to the elder boys, and the bigger +to the smaller, each adapting it as he takes. Thus is wisdom made +digestible by the many processes it passes through, and the child can +take it and find it agree with him. + +But with a child brought up with adults and children younger than +himself this is not so. From the latter he can learn nothing; he +therefore adapts himself to the former. He listens to them, he watches +them, unconsciously it is true, but with that terrible penetrative power +children possess. He learns their ideas, and, tough as they may prove to +him, he has to absorb them, and he has not the digestive juice, the +experience that is required to assimilate them. They are unfit for his +tender years, they do not yield the nourishment he requires. He suffers +terribly. A man's ideas and knowledge are not fit for a boy. + +And if a man's, how much less a woman's? A boy will become a man; what +he has learnt of men is knowledge of the right kind, though of the wrong +degree. But what he learns from women is almost entirely unsuitable in +kind and in degree. The ideas, the knowledge, the codes of conduct, the +outlook on life that suit a woman are entirely unfitted for a boy. +Consider and you must see how true it is. + +This boy, too, was often ill and unable to play, to go out at all +sometimes for weeks in the winter. He seemed always ailing. Thus he had +to spend much of his time alone, and when he was tired of reading or of +wood carving, or colouring plates in a book, he thought. He had often so +much time to think that he grew sick of thought. He hated it. He would +have given very much to be able to get out and run about and play so as +not to think, to be enabled to forget that he had a brain which would +keep on passing phantoms before his inner eyes. There was nothing he +hated so much, nothing he dreaded so deeply as having nothing to do but +think. In later years he took this terror to his heart and made it into +an exceedingly great pleasure, but to the child it was not so. + +Therefore, when he was twelve and was sent at last to a large school, he +was different to most boys at that age; for his view of the world, his +knowledge of it, his judgment of it, were all obtained from women. He +saw life much as they did, through the same glasses, though with +different sight. His ideas of conduct were a woman's ideas, his +religion was a woman's religion. + +Are not a woman's ideas of conduct the same as a man's? Is not a woman's +Christianity the same as a man's Christianity, if both be Christianity? +And I reply, No! A thousand times no! There is all the world between +them, all that world that is between woman and a man. + +As to man's religion I will speak of it later. The woman's ideas of +conduct and religion which this child had absorbed were these. He +believed in the New Testament. I do not mean he disbelieved the Old +Testament, but he did not think of it. Religion to him meant the +teaching of Christ, that very simple teaching that is in the Gospel. +Conduct to him meant the imitation of Christ and the observance of the +Sermon on the Mount. He thought this was accepted by all the world--the +Christian world at least--as true, that everyone, men as well as women, +accepted this teaching not as a mere pious aspiration, not as an +altruistic ideal, but as a real working theory. War was bad, all war. +Soldiers apparently were not all bad--he had been told of Christian +soldiers, though he had no idea how such a contradiction could +occur--but at least they were a dreadful necessity. Wealth and the +pursuit of wealth were bad, wicked even, though here again there were +exceptions. Learning was apt to be a snare. The world was very wicked, +consciously wicked, which accounted for the present state of affairs, +and most people would certainly go to hell. The ideal life was that of a +very poor curate in the East End of London, hard working and unhappy. +These are some of the ideas he learnt, for this is the religion of all +the religious women of England; of all those who are in their way the +very salt of the nation. Their belief is the teaching of Christ, and +that is what this boy learnt. This is what "conduct" and "religion" +meant to him. + +I must not be misunderstood. I do not intend to suggest that this boy +was any better than other boys, that his life was less marked by the +peccadilloes of childhood. He was probably much as other boys are as far +as badness or goodness is concerned. His acts, I doubt not, did not very +much differ from theirs. After all, neither boys nor men are very much +guided either by any theoretical "Rule of Life," nor by any view of what +is the true Religion. He acted according to his instincts, but having so +acted the difference between him and other boys came in. Other boys' +instincts led them to poach a trout out of a stream, and rejoice in +their success if they were not caught. This boy's instinct also led him +to poach a trout if he could, but he did not rejoice over it. Poaching +was stealing, and that was a deadly sin. He was aware of that and was +afraid. + +Other boys' instincts made them fight on occasions and be proud of it, +whether victor or vanquished, to boast of it publicly perhaps; anyhow, +not to keep it a secret or be ashamed of it. This boy's instincts also +led him several times into fights; but whether victor or not--it was +usually not--he could not appear to be proud of it. The Sermon on the +Mount told him he ought not to have fought that boy who struck him, but +should have turned the other cheek, and he knew very well that it would +be regarded as a sin. It must be kept secret and he must be ashamed of +it, and so with many things. It never occurred to him then to doubt that +the Sermon on the Mount did really contain the correct rule of life for +him, and that any breach of it must be a deadly sin. Among other results +this friction between the natural boy and the rule of conduct he was +taught he ought to adopt, gave the boy a continual sensation of being +wrong. He knew he was continually breaking the Sermon on the Mount and +also other rules of the New Testament. He was perfectly sure he did not +live at all like Christ, and he had a strong, but never then +acknowledged certainty, that he didn't want to. All this, with the +continual reproof of those around him, gave him an incessant feeling of +being wicked. He could not live up to these rules, and he was a very +wicked little boy bound for hell, so he thought of himself. + +It is difficult to imagine anything worse for a boy than this. Tell a +boy he is bad, lead him to believe he is bad, make much of his little +sins, reprove him, mourn over him as one of wicked tendencies, and you +will make him wicked. Perpetual struggle to attain an impossible and +unnatural ideal is destructive to any moral fibre. For the boy soon +begins to distrust himself, his own efforts, his own good intentions. He +fails and fails, and he loses heart and begins to count on failure as +certain. Then later he abandons effort as useless. What is the good of +trying without any hope of success? It is useless and foolish. To save +appearances he must pretend, and that is all. But at the time he went to +school he had not quite come to that, for the stress of the world had +not yet fallen upon him. He still believed in what he was taught was the +ideal of life, and tried, in a childish, uncertain way, to act up to +it. + + + + +CHAPTER III. + +IDEAL AND PRACTICE. + + +Such was the boy who went to school, and such was the mental and moral +equipment with which he started. + +He found himself in a new world. He had stepped out of a woman's world +into a man's, out of the New Testament into the Old, out of dreams into +reality. For the ideas and beliefs, the knowledge and understanding, the +code of morality and conduct, in a big school, are those of the world. +This filters down from the world of men to the world of little boys, and +the latter is the echo of the former. It is an echo of the great world +sounded by childish hearts, but still a true echo. Then this boy began +to learn new things, a new morality vastly different from the old. And +this is what he learnt: that it is not wrong to fight, but right. +Fighting is not evil but good, all kinds of fighting. The profession of +a soldier is a great and worthy one, perhaps the highest. To fight men, +to kill them and subdue them, is not bad but good--provided, of course, +it is in a good cause. A war is not a regrettable necessity, but a very +glorious opportunity. Both men and boys rejoice to know of battles +greatly fought, of blood and wounds, of death and victory. It makes the +heart bound to hear of such things. Everyone should wish to be able to +do them--in a good cause. Is not the cause of our country always a good +cause? When this boy arrived at school he learnt suddenly that a war was +going on. It was a small frontier war such as we often have. He had not +heard of it at home. Now he heard of it all day. Masters announced +publicly any victory, holidays were given for them, out of school hours +the boys talked of little else. The illustrated papers were full of +sketches of the war, and the weekly papers of accounts of marches and +battles. Boys who had relations, fathers, or uncles, or elder brothers, +at the front rose into sudden fame. Big boys who were hoping to pass +into Sandhurst or Woolwich were heroes; the school was full of the +enthusiasm of the success of our armies. Parties were formed and +generals were appointed; hillocks in the play green were defended and +assaulted, and many grievous blows were given in these mimic fights. One +boy nearly lost his eye. To the boy of which I am writing all this was +new, it was new and delightful, and extraordinarily wicked. + +This was not his only awakening, this was not the only subject on which +he learnt new rules. Soldiers must fight, and so must boys, if +necessary, in a good cause. To a soldier all causes are good when his +country bids; to a boy all causes are good when his school code tells +him. Turn the other cheek? Be called a funk and a coward, be derided and +scorned by all the school, be told to be ashamed, and, worse than all, +feel that he ought to be and was ashamed? Not so. Not so. A boy must +fight, too, when his schoolboy honour bids. He even learnt more still +than this. Battle was not always a disagreeable necessity, it was in +itself often a pleasure. "To drink delight of battle with his peers" is +no poet's rhetorical phrase; it is a truth. There is a sheer muscular +physical pleasure in fighting, as all boys know. True blows hurt, but +the blows that hurt most are not on the body, and there is, too, a moral +strength, a moral pleasure, that comes from battles. It is not +disgraceful to fight, it is not even disgraceful to be beaten, but it +would often be very disgraceful not to fight, to turn the other cheek. +All wars are not bad things. They are the storms of God stirring up the +stagnant natures to new purity and life. The people that cannot fight +shall die. He learnt this lesson, not as I have written it. He did not +realise it, he did not put it into words as I have done. It sank into +him unconsciously as the previous teaching had done--and sorely they +disagreed with each other. He learnt other lessons, many of them, in the +same way. He learnt that money is not an evil but a good. When he found +his pocket-money short this soon dawned upon him, and the lesson did not +end there. He found that wealth was almost worshipped, that it had very +great power. He found everyone engaged in the race for wealth, everyone. +His spiritual pastors and masters were no more exempt than anyone else. +They encouraged the race. A boy's schooling was looked upon as his +preparation for the battle of life in which he was to struggle for money +and honours. Men who had attained them were held up to his admiration. +Not the pale-faced curates of the East End, but the great statesman and +soldier, the bishops, the lawyers, the writers, the successful merchants +who had once been at the school, were emblazoned on the wall. No meek, +struggling curate would find a niche there. The race was to the strong, +not the weak. He was learning the law of the survival of the fittest, +and he was further learning that the Sermon on the Mount is not a guide +to be the fittest, in this world at any rate. + +I must try again and guard against misconception. The school was a good +school, the tone was good, the masters were all men of high character, +of considerable learning. No school could have been better taught; but +this was the teaching of the school, as it is and must be of all schools +that are worth anything: a boy must be brought up on truths, not +imaginings; he must learn laws, not aspirations; he must be prepared for +the world as it is, not as a visionary might see it. + +Therefore this boy learnt at school the great code of conduct which +obtains in the world. Shortly, it is this: not to be quarrelsome, but to +be ready always to fight for a good cause, be the fighting with sword or +fist, with pen or tongue, by word or deed, and when fighting to hit hard +and spare not. He learnt to desire and strive for wealth and honour, +which are good things, not in immoderate excess, which injures other +forms of happiness, but in due and proper amount. He learnt that he +should speak the truth in most things, but not in all. There are worse +things than some lies. There are some lies that are not a disgrace, but +an honour. He learnt that learning was not a snare, but a very necessary +and very admirable thing also, and of all learning that knowledge of the +world, the wicked world, the flesh and the devil, was the most +necessary. Such in broad lines were what he learnt from his +schoolfellows, the code filtered down from above, the code of a public +school. A very admirable code, but how different from what he had first +learnt. There were worlds between them, the immensity that lies between +fact and ideal. + +And yet all this time, while this public school code was being driven +into him by precept and example, by coercion and by blows, all this +while, every morning at prayers and every Sunday thrice, he heard the +other code taught in the school chapel. The masters taught it, and the +boys were supposed to accept and believe it--during chapel hours. Once +chapel was over, once Monday morning came, and the other code ruled. No +one remembered the theoretic code of Christ. Boys who brought it forward +in daily life were disliked. They were not bullied, no! but they were +left alone. The tone of the school would never have allowed bullying for +such a cause, but there was an instinctive repulsion to those boys who +talked religion. The others inwardly accused them of cant. Boys who +alleged religious reasons for refusing to fight, to poach, to smoke +occasionally, to commit other little breaches of discipline, were +suspected of bringing forth religion as a cloak to hide the fact that +they were afraid to fight and poach and that smoking made them sick. +That they were very often rightly suspected this boy had no doubt. It +was his first introduction to cant, and it surprised him. Was, then, the +attempt to realise the precepts of Christ in daily life either a folly +or an hypocrisy? As far as he could see it was both. + +It must not, of course, be imagined that he thus faced the problem and +gave this answer. He no more faced the problem than any other boy does, +than the great majority of men do. He simply grew up according to his +surroundings, agreeing with them, accepting the rule he found accepted, +developing as his environments made him. But although he did not +mentally face and enumerate his difficulties, he was aware of them just +the same. He was clearly conscious of a conflict between fact and +theory, between teaching and example, between reality and dreams. He +became year after year also more clearly aware of a repugnance rising +within him to religion and to religious teaching. He shrank from it +without realising why. He supposed it was just his natural sin. It was, +of course, that he was proving its unreality as a guide to life. He +began to shrink, too, from all religious topics, from religious services +and religious books. They jarred on him. He found himself also losing +his reverence for his religious teachers--for all his teachers, in +fact--for they all professed religion. Their words had grated on him +first, the difference between what they professed to believe and what he +knew they did believe. Unaware of the reason till much later, almost +unconsciously there grew up in him a contempt towards all his teachers +and masters, a sense that they must be and were hypocrites and +impostors. He found himself at eighteen far adrift from all guidance and +counsel, shunning religion because he saw that the teachings of Christ +were quite unadapted for the world he had to live in, scornful of and +contemning his teachers for what seemed to him hypocrisy. + +It was not a satisfactory state for a boy, and the less so because it +was still almost unconscious. He felt all that I have said, the +avoidance, the dislike, but he had not yet faced it to himself and said, +"Why does Christianity jar upon me and seem unreal, what are its +difficulties?" Nor, "What is it that causes my dislike and contempt of +my teachers? They are better men in all ways than I am. They are good +men. I shall never be as good. I honour them in their lives. I admit +that. What is the difficulty?" He was adrift without compass or pilot, +and he did not know it. Yet he was already far from the safe harbour of +trust and belief. The storms and darkness of the sea of life were before +him, and there was no star by which he could steer. He made no effort, +raised as yet no alarm, for he knew not that his anchor had dragged, +that he had lost hold, perhaps never to regain it. + + + + +CHAPTER IV. + +SCIENTIFIC THEOLOGY--I. + + +About this time he read the "Origin of Species" and "The Descent of +Man." This surprised him. It was not only that this was his first +introduction to the science of biology, his first peep behind the +curtain of modern forms into the coulisses of the world that interested +him, but there was here contained a complete refutation, a disastrous +overthrow, of all that system of the Creation which he had been taught. + +If Darwin was right, and he seemed to be right--nay, even his once +adversaries now admitted he was right, if not in his details yet in his +broad outline--if he was right then was Genesis all wrong. There was +never any garden of Eden, never any seven days' creation, never any +making of woman out of a rib; the world was not six thousand years old, +but millions. Man himself could count his pedigree back tens of +thousands of years. It was a fable; and not only was it a fable, but +this fable contained as a kernel not a truth--then it would be +understood--but a falsehood. The theory of the whole story was that man +had fallen, that he used to be perfect, that he walked with God, but +that he fell. Such was the idea. And the continuation was that Christ +was required to atone to God for man's disobedience, to lead man slowly +back to the Paradise he had lost. + +And now it was clear that the garden of Eden was all a fable, that man +had never been perfect, that he had evolved slowly out of the beast. He +had risen, not fallen, and stood now higher than ever before. The first +part was false, and if so, must not the sequence be false also? As a +whole the fable held together; destroy the foundation and the +superstructure must come crashing into ruin. Oh! it was all false, the +whole of it, Old and New Testament together, an old woman's tale. And +then suddenly his eyes were opened. He saw many things. His instincts +that he had not understood were now clear. Yes, of course, the +supernatural part was all a fable, a mistake; nay, more, it taught the +reverse of truth, and the moral part of it was all wrong too. The +morality of the Old Testament was that of a savage, the morality of the +New a remarkable ideal totally unfit for the world as it is now or ever +has been. The man who followed it would commit a terrible error. It was +therefore untrue also; more than merely untrue, it was dangerous, as a +false teacher must be. For long he had instinctively seen that this was +so, now he knew why. At the touch of science the whole fabric of +religion fell into dust. Christianity was a fraud, and there was an end +of it. + +But still the church bells rang and the people went there. Priests +preached this belief and people held to it. Darwin had written more than +ten years before and his book had been accepted, but still religion had +not fallen. Men and women, as far as he could see nearly all men and +women, still professed themselves Christians. How was all this possible? +How could it be that this disproved Jewish fable still held together? It +was wonderful. There must be a reason. What is it? + +Can it be possible, he thought, that there is an explanation, that +religion can justify itself, that it may still have reason? There are +people who call themselves scientific theologians. They write books and +they preach, and they can be asked questions. What have they to say? So +this boy collected some of his difficulties and tried to find out what +scientific theology thought of them. Let me name briefly some of them:-- + +_The Fall of Man._--Theology says he fell, science says he rose. What +does Scientific Theology say? + +_The Character of God._--In the Old Testament God is represented +frequently as bloodthirsty, as partial to the Jews, as unjust, as given +to anger, as changeable. How is this? + +Again, God is represented as the only Almighty, the only All-present, +All-seeing, All-powerful; yet without a doubt the facts detailed show +the Devil to be certainly All-present, and, as far as man here is +concerned, has considerably more power and influence than God. God made +the world, but the Devil possesses it. Why? + +_Prayer._--How can this be necessary? If God knows best what is good for +us, why pray to Him? Can He be influenced? The Bible says yes. Then is +not this a very extraordinary thing, that if God knows what is best for +us, He should have to be asked to do it--that He won't do it unless +asked? + +About Christ. He was God, yet He died to atone to Himself for the sin of +man. What is the meaning of all this? Why did God allow man to crucify +Himself in order to atone to Himself for a former sin of man, and what +is the meaning of all this? Has it any? + +Most important of all, as to the example and teaching of Christ +regarding conduct. What did it mean, and why did everyone profess it and +no one believe it? + +These, of course, were not all his difficulties. There were hundreds of +them. There is not a verse in the Old or New Testament, not a dogma, not +a belief of Christianity, that does not furnish ground for question. +These I have mentioned are but some of the most prominent. They will +serve as examples of what he sought to learn. + +And these were the answers he received. + +The History of the Creation is an allegory. It is not in conflict with +science, but in accordance with it. There is no difficulty. The seven +days of creation mean seven periods; we do not know how long these were. +The chronology of Archbishop Usher was, of course, in error. It is a +wonderful testimony to the inspiration of the Bible, the accuracy with +which the account of Creation therein fits in with the facts we have +recently learnt. + +The story of Adam and Eve is an allegory of life. A child is born +innocent and pure, and he falls. The knowledge therein referred to, the +fruit, means useless questions into the secrets of God, such questions +as you are now engaged in. Had you accepted Christianity as a child does +you would never have fallen into the slough of infidelity in which you +are now. You, like Eve, have been tempted by the Devil with the fruit of +the knowledge of good and evil, and have fallen. But the help of Christ, +the knowledge that he died for you, can now save you. That is the +answer. + +You ask of the character of God in the Old Testament. You say that He is +represented by His acts as revengeful, as unjust, as hasty, as very +partial. Man cannot criticise the acts of God. He may seem to you so, +but are you sure you can judge rightly? God cannot be all these. His +injustice, His revengefulness, His partiality were merely effects +produced in your mind. They do not exist. He is all-merciful, and +all-seeing, and all-powerful. If the Devil seems to have more power in +the world than God, it is simply because God allows him. If the Devil +seems all-present it is because he has legions of demons to do his will. +God is all-merciful, all-powerful, all-just; believe this and you will +do well. The answers to your difficulties about prayer are also very +simple. God is not influenced by prayer. He is merciful and will always +do what He knows to be best for you, whether you pray or not; but He has +ordained prayer for you, not because of its effect on Him, but because +of its effect upon yourself. Prayer, humiliation, softens the heart of +the suppliant. His cry to God will not change God, but will change him. +This is the explanation. It is very simple, is it not? + +The doctrine of the Trinity can be best understood from an analogy of +man. Consider how a man can be a father, a husband, and a son all at +once. There is no difficulty here. Where, then, is the difficulty with +God? God as the Father of man, the righteous Judge who punishes man for +his wickedness, He vindicated His law; but God the Son, the pitying +nature of God, had compassion on man, and therefore gave Himself as a +sacrifice for man; God the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of God, entered into +man's heart and sanctified it. Cannot you thus understand the manifold +nature of God? + +The teaching of Christ? His example? You do not understand that? Was not +His life the perfect life, His teaching the perfect teaching? You say +that this teaching cannot be followed now in its entirety. Is it not the +wickedness of man that prevents it? Did each man act up to this +teaching, to this example, would it not be a perfect world? Let each man +try his best and the world will improve. Such as I have written were the +answers he found to his questions. I do not say that these are always +the answers that are given. It may be there are others. It may be that +in the years that have passed since then new explanations have been +evolved. + +Although I do not think that is so, as only a year ago I saw some of +these very replies written in a well-known Review as the authoritative +answer of scientific theology to these difficulties. However that may +be, these are the answers the boy received, such were the guides given +to lead him out of the darkness of scepticism into the light of faith. + + + + +CHAPTER V. + +SCIENTIFIC THEOLOGY--II. + + +What thought the boy of these explanations? Do you think they helped him +at all? Do you think he was able to accept them as real? Did they throw +any light into the darkness of his doubts? + +The boy took them and considered them. He considered them fairly, I am +sure; he would have accepted them if he could. For what he was looking +for was simply guidance and light. He had no desire for aught but this. +If he revolted now from the faith of his people it was because he found +there neither teaching he could accept nor help. If the scientific +theologian shewed him that the error was in him and not in the faith the +boy would, I think, have been glad. So he took these explanations and +considered them, and this is what he thought. + +They tell me that the seven days of creation are seven epochs. I did +not ask that. To my question whether man has fallen, as the Bible says, +or risen, as science declares, no reply has been given. + +There is only a specious likening of a man's life, saying that man falls +from the innocence of his childhood to sin through the knowledge of +evil, and requires redemption. My question is avoided, and a new sophism +given me which is also untrue. A child is not innocent. It is only +ignorant and weak. Its natural impulses are those of a savage. It +requires to learn the knowledge of good and evil to subdue these +instincts. This symbolism of the child is utterly false. A child is to +us a very beautiful thing because its tenderness, its helplessness, its +clinging affection awaken in us feelings of love, of protection, which +we feel are beautiful. All men should, all men I think do, love +children, but the beauty is in the man's emotions that are awakened, not +in those qualities of the children that awaken them. + +To go beyond this and say that a child should be a model to man is to +display ignorance of what children are, to mistake effect for cause, to +exalt childishness into a virtue. Theologians use this argument, which +is merely a play upon our affection for children, to try and induce us +to accept their theology with the same ignorant confidence that a child +accepts all it is told by its parents. It would suit theologians for all +men to be babes in this sense, in their senselessness. But if theology +will bear the light of reason, why ask us to accept it blindly? Why? Is +it because it will not bear scrutiny? + +And surely of all the answers, this answer about the character of God is +the most extraordinary. "God is not really unjust or partial, or +revengeful. That is merely the impression His acts make on us." Truly +here is an argument. How can anyone, even God, be judged except in His +acts? If His acts are revengeful, is not He revengeful? "No!" says the +theological scientist, "that is merely your ignorance. Events make a +wrong impression on you." + +How, then, am I to judge which are wrong and which are right +impressions? God acts, as it seems to me, angrily; He is not angry. On +other occasions He acts, as it seems, mercifully. How am I to know that +this impression of mercy is not an error? How, in fact, am I to know +that anything exists at all? If God's anger and partiality and +changeableness are merely impressions of my mind, are not all His +attributes merely impressions also, and do not exist? In fact, is not +God Himself merely an impression and He does not exist? Where are you +going to stop? The theologian will doubtless say, "When I tell you." +But then he is unfortunately arrogating to himself an authority which +does not exist, an authority to twist and turn the Bible to suit his own +sophisms, an authority to bind your mind which no one has given him. +Impressions forsooth. What impressions can any candid mind have of the +scientific theologian? And when the boy read the explanation of the +difference between the all-presence of God and the all-presence of +Satan, I am afraid he laughed. + +But prayer is a serious matter. No one can feel anything but sorrow to +see the explanation of God and prayer. The theological scientist again +repeats the Bible words and has his own explanation. No, God is not +moved by prayer. This is merely another wrong impression of ours, an +impression taken from the Bible words. The action of prayer is not +objective, but subjective; its effect is not on God, but on you. + +Now mark what he has led himself into. Prayer will purify a man. To ask +God for what he wants won't make the slightest difference in God's acts, +but will in your own feelings. Nevertheless, as of course no one would +or could pray unless he hoped to be answered, man must be told that God +does listen. But this is not true. Therefore, according to theological +science, the Bible directly tells us a falsehood in order to lead us +into a good action. Is there any escape from this? There is none. The +whole meaning and reason of prayer is that God _does_ listen, that He +_does_ forgive if asked, that He _does_ help us and save us. Unless a +man held this belief firmly he would not pray. Try and you will see. +Imagine to yourself, as the theologian declares, that God is quite +unmoved by prayer, and that the action of prayer is subjective, and see +if you can get up any prayer at all. It is impossible. How much fervency +will there be in a request you know will not be granted or attended to? +How much subjective action will follow that prayer? The subjective +action is absolutely dependent on your belief that God does listen and +is influenced by your prayer. But the scientific theologian says your +premise is false. + +Can you imagine this theologian's prayer? Can you see him kneeling and +uttering supplications to a god whom he knows he cannot affect or +influence, and pausing now and then to see how the subjective effect on +himself was getting on? But it is not even a subject to be bitter over, +only to be sad. Truly, if I wanted to make a man an atheist and a +scoffer, a railer at all religion, at all religious emotions, at all +that is best in our natures, I would take him to a scientific +theologian and have him taught the scientific theological theory of +prayer. + +And again, though the boy understood how a man could be the son of his +father, the husband of his wife, the father of his son, three different +relations to three people, it did not help him to understand how he +could be so to one person. A man cannot be his own son and his own +father, and have proceeding from him a third person different and yet +the same. The argument seemed to him childish. + +As to the teaching of Christ, of what use is a teaching that is suitable +only to an ideal state of things? Is it any use to me to tell me that if +everyone agreed at once to follow this teaching the world would be +perfect? Even if this were true, what would be the use? The world never +has accepted it and does not do so now. No one does except a few people +who are called visionaries or fanatics. Even the Quakers only accept a +part, and it is well for them that their fellow citizens do not accept +even that part, or these Quakers would soon be robbed of their wealth. A +nation of Quakers would be a nation of slaves. All this talk of what +would happen if at a given signal all the world became perfect is +useless dream talk. I want realities. This code of Christ is not a +reality. No quicker way of destroying civilization and all that it +means could be desired than by attempting to follow it. We must be ready +and prepared to fight other nations, we must have armies and navies, and +we must honour them. We must have magistrates, and police, and prisons, +and gallows. + +"I went," thought the boy, "to these theological scientists, for help in +my everyday life, for clear directions and explanations, and what do +they give me? A mass of words meaning nothing, words and words, and +tangled thoughts; evasion and misrepresentation, misty dreams and +cloud-hidden ideals. They cannot explain, and therefore the whole thing +is false. There is no truth anywhere in it. The whole teaching of the +Bible, from the Creation down to the incarnation of Christ and His +second coming, is one huge mistake. Why people keep on believing it I +cannot say. But anyhow I have found out its falseness, and I will not. +Let it all go. It will make no difference and be rather an advantage. +What use have I ever had from this religion that has been dinned into +me? It gave me false ideas of the world and nature which I have had to +unlearn. It gave me an unworkable code of conduct which I never tried to +follow, but I got into trouble for it. To call oneself a Christian is +merely a way of talking. No one is so really, and the only difference +between me and the others will be that while they are not Christians but +think they are, I am not a Christian and know I am not." + +Was the boy glad or sorry? I do not know. I think perhaps he was both. +He felt like a man who has shaken off a burden, a load that contained +mere weight and no useful thing. He would step more lightly in future. + +But he felt, too, like a man who has skirted a precipice, secure in that +a railing fenced him in from danger, when he suddenly discovers that the +railing is decayed to the core and will vanish at a touch. He felt dizzy +and afraid, and the feeling grew upon him. + +May be, he thought, it is a good thing to have a religion. People of all +faiths, of all nations, seem to cling to theirs very strongly. It is the +one thing they cannot bear to lose. Yet I do not know what they get from +it. At least I do not know what people get from Christianity. What I +look for in a faith are these three things. + +I wish an explanation of my origin, of the origin of man and his +relation to this world, and to what there may be beyond this world. I +want an explanation I can accept, and that is not contradicted by the +knowledge we acquire from other sources than religion. + +And I want a guide to life. I want a guide to life as it is. For I have +to live in the world as it exists, and I would have help and direction +to do so well. I want a teaching and an example I can refer to in my +everyday troubles. + +Finally, I would know something of the Hereafter. I would desire to hear +of the after death. I cannot believe that all non-Christians, including +myself and the majority of Christians, go to hell. That is repulsive. +Nor can I believe in the heavens they tell us of. If all be true that +they tell us, it has no attraction this Christian heaven. To be for ever +singing praises is not life but monotony. Did any man in health, and +strength, and sanity ever yearn to die in order to reach this Heaven +they tell us of? Did not Aucassin say long ago that if he were to +believe the monks Heaven was a place for the poor and maimed, the +foolish, the childish and silly, the stupid, the cowards, the ugly, the +undesirable, the failures of earth, and that he cared not for it? +Whoever was unfit for earth was the more fit for heaven. No! If there is +another world it must be different from the conceptions of Heaven and +Hell as are taught. And I would know. These seem to me the essentials of +religion. They are the three things I want. I have not found them. It +may be that in the other greater faiths that hold the world I may find +what I seek. I cannot say. But meanwhile I must do without. It is better +to have no compass than a faulty one. It is better to watch for the +stars, even if the night be thick and it be hard to see. + +Such, I think, was what he thought. Whether he ever found what he +sought, whether any faith can give what he asks, whether indeed these +three things are essentials of religion at all, will be found in the +latter part of the book. This part is but the introduction to explain +why and by whom the search was made, and what was sought. + + + + +CHAPTER VI. + +WHENCE FAITHS COME. + + +From the East has come all our light. All world religions have begun +there, have grown there, have mostly spread there. + +Brahminism and Buddhism, Judaism and Christianity, Mahommedanism and +Parseeism, the cult of the Taoists and Confucians, every belief that has +been a great belief, that has led man captive, has come from the East. +Even the Mythologies of Greece and Rome were from Asiatic sources, from +Babylon and Chaldea. In the North we have originated only Thor and Odin, +Balder and the Valkyries. + +I do not think anyone who has lived in the East can doubt why this has +been so. Where is it man's thoughts are deepest and strongest, where is +it that his heart responds to the heart of the world until they beat +throb for throb? + +It is never in the North; for the cold winds and dreary skies, the rain +and cloud and gloom, do not draw a man out from himself, but drive him +in. Every keen breeze that blows, every shower, every grey day, reminds +him not of his soul but of his body. It must be kept warm, it must be +fed, it must be housed. He cannot forget that the outside world must be +guarded against, is an enemy to be feared. + +And man must live in houses with other people. He cannot be alone, he +cannot ever feel alone with just himself and the world. Yet it is only +in solitude, when alone with Nature, that she will talk to you. For her +voice is very low, and there must be a great silence before she will +tell her secrets. + +But there in the East it is not so. For weeks and months, for half the +year may be, one perfect day is joined to another by more perfect +nights. + +Only there can man be alone. Only there, in the limitless silence of the +desert, in the unending forests, can you live and forget all other men, +and yourself almost, and be alone with Him who is God. + +You want but little, no house to shelter you, no fire, but very little +food and drink and clothes. You do not feel that restless desire to do +something born of cold winds and skies. Your roof by day is the palm or +tamarind, by night you watch the stars wheeling over your head. There +is no one to commune with but Nature, and if you love her as she should +be loved; if you woo her as she would be wooed; if you can send out your +soul to lose itself with her in the wonders of the infinite, then shall +you hear the music of the stars. + +Thus has all religion come from the land of the sun: light is the fount +of faith. + +Never till you have been to the East can you know what faith is. Have we +not religion, nay religions, in the North? Yes, but not as they have +there. Do we not believe in the West? Yes, but not as they believe. +Faith lies there in the great distances, in the dawn, the noon, the +sunset, in the holiness of the dark. It has sunk into the heart of man. +Consider, what do you see when you land anywhere in the East, what +strikes you most, what is most prominent, not in the landscape, but in +the people? + +It is their religion. + +You watch the people in the streets and you ask, Why has the merchant in +that shop trident marks on his forehead? Because he is a Hindu and +follows Vishnu. And that clerk who gave me money in the bank, why has he +those other marks? Because he is a Brahmin. And that money-lender seems +to have rubbed his forehead with ashes? He is a Chetty. + +They carry their religion about with them, they are proud of it, they +desire all men to know it. See that man's beard, he is a Mahommedan; and +yonder man with a green turban, he is a Seyid. They would not desire you +to doubt it. + +Did you ever see Englishmen praying in the streets? Perhaps never. +Certainly if ever you have seen it you condemned it as unnatural. "Let +him pray at home," you have thought. "He is parading his piety." But +here in the East it is different. + +Go by the morning train, leave Rangoon Station when the sun is shining +on the great pagoda, and you will see men and women and children lean +out of the carriage windows to salute it, to murmur a prayer. The +Mahommedan spreads his cloth and turns to Mecca, and prays no matter +where he may be. He is not ashamed. It does not seem to him strange. He +does it absolutely naturally, as all these people do all the things that +pertain to their faiths. Neither his fellow-believers nor the adherents +of other faiths wonder. + +The Hindu may hate the Mahommedan for social reasons, and the Buddhist +may hate both, but they do not despise each other for being religious. + +It would never occur to a Hindu to despise or jeer at a Mahommedan for +spreading his cloth at the street corner and praying. He thinks the +faith a mistaken faith, _he_ would not have it. But if a man is a +Mahommedan it is right of him to pray, of course. + +I have never heard, no one has ever heard, one Oriental jeer at another +for being religious, for obeying the commands of his faith. But I have +heard Christians and teachers of Christianity do so very often. We will +jeer at a Mahommedan for praying, at a Hindu for observing his caste, at +a Buddhist for raising his hands in honour to his pagoda, at a Chinaman +for protecting the graves of his fathers. For in the West we have never +known what real religion is. We have it not ourselves, and so we cannot +recognise and honour it in others. No brave man will mock at another +brave man, though an enemy; no one who has loved mocks at another lover, +though he love strange things. Only those jeer who do not know, and the +Christians of the West jeer at the faiths of the East, at the simple +natural religion of the people, because they know not what religion of +the heart can be. + +In Europe, what difference does a man's faith make? None. He may live a +lifetime with other men and no one know or care what his faith may be. +Unless he is a poor man and in need of mission, it is considered +impertinence to ask. But here in the East a man's faith is everything. +You cannot get away from it even for a moment. It is an essential part +of him. + +There is another thing that strikes one very soon. These Oriental +religions have little or no organisation. Here in Europe there is +nothing so organised as religion. Consider the Catholic faith and the +organisation of Rome. It is a marvel of government, of very strict +government indeed. And the other forms of Western Christianity are not +much behind. The Greek Church is organised as a branch of Government. +So, too, to a lesser extent is the Anglican Church, and if the +Dissenting bodies, as we call them, are not connected with the State, +they have nevertheless a strong system of government. + +These organisations are not now, of course, so strong as they were. They +used to drag the men into religion by force, by State aid, they used to +insist on conformity and punish laxity of observance. That is now gone, +but a strong and continuous pressure still exists, exerted by the +Churches in many ways. All Churches in Europe are always having +"missions." Our great cities are full of them, and the country is not +free of them. There has to be a continual shepherding of the flock or +the Church might dwindle sadly. Men have to be preached at and caught +one way or another. All through Europe immense sums are spent yearly in +Christianising the poor. + +In the East nothing of this exists. There is no head of Hinduism; that +of the Sultan in Mahommedanism is merely nominal; how slight the +organisation is of Buddhism those who have read my former book will +know. + +Hindus are guided by the race of Brahmins, who in turn are guided by no +one. They are a great community themselves, without any organisation or +binding authority. They need no Pope, no Acts of Uniformity. They are +Brahmins because they are so. And so it may be said in general. Faiths +in the East require no strong organisations to hold them together. +Religion is innate in the believers. It seems wonderful. And they have +no missions. If a man feels the need of faith he will seek it and obtain +it. It is there for him if he will come. And all do come. How many +millions in Europe, even in England, have no religious usages? Can you +in the East find one man? + +When you think of Europe and its faiths you seem to be in a garden where +the hedges are carefully clipped and the flowers are trained and pruned, +and where you may not walk on the grass. It is all order, and method, +and restriction, for the flowers are exotics and would die without the +tending, they would vary if they were not kept true to type. But the +East is Nature's garden, where the flowers grow wild everywhere; no one +tends them or cares for them, but each grows his own way, developes his +own power and strength, from the lowest grasses to the gorgeous orchid +or the poison lily. + +Therefore it may be that in this East, this country whence all religions +have come, where the whole air breathes of faiths and all life is full +of them, the man who has lost his early beliefs may learn new ones. +There is so much to choose from, so many varieties of thought and +emotion. + +In this Empire of ours are all the great religions. It is the home of +Brahminism, of the mystical forms of Hinduism, beyond which it has never +spread. There are more Mahommedans here than under the Sultan of Roum. +There are the Parsees here, fugitives long ago from Persia on account of +their faith, the only sun worshippers who are left. There are Jews who +came here no one can tell how long ago, there are Christians who date +back may be eighteen centuries, there are Armenians and Arabs. Within +this Empire live the only race professing a Buddhism that is pure and +without superstition; and beside these there are a hundred other cults, +superstitions, or religions, call them what you will. + +From the spirit worship of the Shan plateau to the dignified philosophic +theories of the Brahmo Somaj is a space as wide as the world can show, +yet may it be bridged with religions that differ but by small degrees +till the whole be passed. + +If anyone want a faith here are enough and to spare. "Therefore," +thought the boy, who had now become a man, "I will seek here for what I +want. I know what I want. I have it clearly before me. I have even +written it down. It is not as if I was undertaking a blind search for +something of which I was not sure. These are my three essentials: a +reasonable theory of the universe, a workable and working code of +conduct, a promise in the after life that gives me something to really +desire, to really hope for, to be a haven towards which I may steer. I +will take each subject, each section of a subject, separately and read +it up. I will read up these faiths from books, I will study them as I +can from the people, and I will see what they are. Surely somewhere can +be found what I desire, what I desire so greatly to find." + + + + +CHAPTER VII. + +THE WISDOM OF BOOKS. + + +Therefore the man got books and read them. He read books on Hinduism, +many of them; he read the Vedas and the sacred hymns. He learnt of +Vishnu and Siva, of Krishna and the milkmaids. He found books on caste +and read them, of how these were originally four castes which +subdivided. He read of suttee and the car of Juggernauth. He then turned +to Mahommedanism and the life of Mahommed. He read the Koran. He learned +the early history of the faith, of its rise, of the glory of its result, +of the fall of its great Empire. He saw it had much to do with Judaism, +there were great similarities, there were also differences. He read of +Parseeism, that taught by Zoroaster which they call fire worship; he +read of Jainism, of the cult of the Sikhs, of many another strange +faith; he learned of the spirit worship of the aboriginal tribes among +the mountains, of Phallic worship and its monstrosities. + +He read of Confucius and his teachings, of Laotze and his doctrines, of +ancestor worship among the Chinese, of Shintoism in Japan. + +Most of all he read about Buddhism. There was something here that +attracted him more than in all the rest. In the life of Gaudama the +Buddha he found a beauty that came to him as a charm, in the teachings +of the Great Teacher there seemed to him a light such as he had not +seen. Mystery and miracle and the supernatural had always jarred on him, +they had an unpleasant savour, as of appeals to the lowest elements in +the minds of the credulous and ignorant. Truth he thought should not +need such meretricious attractions. Here was a faith that needed none of +these things. It could exist without them. It contained explanations, +not dogmas. It was reasonableness instead of hysteria, it denounced +mysticism and the cult of the supernatural. + +It took the man several years to read these books, and he lived those +years much alone. His house lay half up a mountain side. Below him lay +tangled masses of hills clothed with dense forest, with here and there a +clearing. Before him was a jagged mountain wall, behind a great bare +dome of rock. It was always wonderful to sit and watch, to see the sun +rise in gold and crimson behind the peaks, while all below lay in a +white mist; to watch the sun rays fall and the mist grow thinner, +showing faint outlines of tree clump and hill contour, till all the mist +was gone and the world was full of golden light. Daily he saw the marvel +of the dawn. He learnt to love it as the most beautiful of things, most +beautiful because full of the promise of untold glory. For the most part +his life was very lonely. There were the labourers who worked for him, +the black, half-nude people who came in gangs in May and left in +February of each year. They were not of his world. He directed their +work, he paid them, but he did not know them. He wondered at them, that +was all, and there were scattered here and there throughout the hills +other Europeans, who lived much the same life as he did, and whom he met +occasionally at their houses or his, or at the club ten miles away. He +liked them, some of them were his best friends, a great part of his life +was theirs also. + +But there was, aside from his friends, aside from the merry meetings, +the games, the chaff, the laughter, another life apart. There was a life +he lived to himself, in another world it seemed. His world was of the +mountain and the fell, of the brooks that laughed down the precipice, +of the giant trees, the tangled creepers, the delicate orchid far above. +His thoughts were with them and with his books, for they should be +brothers. He read and he watched, and he tried to understand; he asked +of nature the meaning of these religions, to tell him the secret that he +would know. What is the truth of things--what do you mean? And I----What +do _I_ mean? What is the secret of it all? + +The mountains and the trees answered him and told him secrets, the +secrets of their hearts, but not the secret he would know. They murmured +to him of many things, of beauty, of love, of peace, of forgetfulness. +They sang the world's slumber song. + +But of whence, of how, of whither they told him nothing, only they +ceased talking when he asked, they ceased their song and there was +silence. They could not tell. + +So he lay upon the rocks and read, and the hills and trees wondered +because they knew not of what he read. "Take care," they whispered; "why +trouble? Life is so short, surely it were wise to make the best of it; +for no one can answer what you ask. We die and fall and new trees grow +again, the hills are newly clad each year. The old return in new forms. +We can tell of ourselves, we are not afraid. Our lives are full of +delight. Death has no terror for us. But you? Of you we know nothing. We +have no echo to your words." + +Yet the man read on. He dreamed and read and dreamed again. + +"I have three wants," he said. "I would know whence I came, I would have +some rule to live by, I would know whither I am going. Religions, many +religions profess to tell men these things, surely somewhere there will +be truth. Nearly all men are satisfied with their religion, cannot I +find one that satisfies me? It is so little that I ask, I have here so +many answers. Amongst them I will be able to find what I want." +Therefore he read on. But in the thoughts of many teachers there is not +clearness, but confusion. In a multitude of counsellors there is not +wisdom, only mist, only the strange shadows made by many lights. He +found that he did not gain. "Sometimes," he said, "I agree with one, +sometimes with another. No one seems to be altogether true. There is +Truth, perhaps, but not the whole Truth. This will not do." + +At last he said to himself that he would make a system. He would take +certain ideas from various faiths, he would put them together, he would +compare them one by one and see what he learnt. + +There is, he said, the First Cause. What do religions say about this +First Cause? There is Brahma, and Jehovah, and Ahriman, with Ormuz; +there is the Buddhist doctrine of Law, there is the Christian Trinity. +These are some of the chief ideas. What can be made of them? Have they a +common truth? Are the great religions utterly at variance about this +First Cause, or can they agree? I will take this point and consider it +first. What is the First Cause? Then I will pass to another. What does +life mean? Why are we here? Is there any explanation of this? For what +object does man exist? To what end? He did not mean what is the end of +man, but what is the object of man, of life? To whom is it a benefit +that man exists? To God--if there be a God? If not, to whom? It cannot +be that existence is an aimless freak, that it has no object. But what +can this object be? What was to be gained by creating man at all? That +was question number two. There is no answer to this question. + +There were many other questions that he asked. And when he had framed a +question he sat down to his books to find the answer. He worked at them +as problems to be solved. He sought in the various faiths described in +his books the answers to these problems. What he found will be shown in +the next few chapters; but let it be understood again how and why he +sought. + +He had been born in a faith and brought up in it, and had abandoned it. +He left it because he sought in it certain helps to thought and to life +that it seemed to him religion ought to give. More, it seemed to him +that these answers were of the very essence of religion. His fathers' +faith gave him answers he could not accept, it gave him a rule of life +he could not follow, that seemed to him untrue. Yet would he not be +satisfied with ignorance, he would search further. He wanted a religion, +a belief, and he would find it. + +For I want it to be understood very clearly that he was no scoffer, no +denier of religion. It was the very reverse. He so much wanted a faith, +it seemed to him such an eminently necessary thing, that he would not be +content till he had one that he could really accept and believe. He +hated doubt and half acceptance. He wanted a truth that appealed to him +as a whole truth, that held no room for doubt. + +"All men," he said, "have religion. They love their faiths, they find in +them help and consolation and guidance, at least they tell me so. Why +am I to be left out? Men say that religion is a treasure beyond words. +Then I, too, would share in the treasure. But I cannot take what has +been offered me. It does not seem to me to be true. I _cannot_ believe +it. This religion repels me. I cannot say how greatly it repels me. They +say it is beautiful. It must be so to some. It is not so to me. Its +music to me is not music, but harshest discord. It is not surely that I +have no desire for religion, no eye for beauty, no ear for harmony, I +know it is not that. No man loves beauty more than I do. There are +things in this faith I have rejected that appeal to me. I see in other +faiths, too, ideas that are beautiful. But no one seems all true, and +none answers my three questions. Yet will I look till I find. + +"And meanwhile there are the hills and the woods. These are my dreams. + +"But surely in my scheme I shall discover something." + + + + +CHAPTER VIII. + +GOD. + + +Sitting on the hillside when the hot season was coming near its end he +saw the thunderstorms come across the hills. From far away they came, +black shadows in the distance, and the thunder like far off surf upon +the shore. Nearer they would grow and nearer, passing from ridge to +ridge, their long white skirts trailing upon the mountain sides, until +they came right overhead and the lightning flashed blindingly, while the +thunder roared in great trumpet tones that shuddered through the gorges. +The man watched them and he saw how gods were born. It was Thor come +back again--Thor with his hammer, Thor with his giant voice. Thus were +born the gods, Thor and Odin, Balder God of the Summer Sun, Apollo and +Vulcan, Ahriman and Ormuz, night and day. + +So were born all the gods. You can read of it in Indian, in Greek, in +Roman, in Norwegian mythology, in any mythology you like. You can see +the belief living still among the Chins, the Shans, the Moopers; for +them the storm-wind and earthquake, the great rivers and the giant +hills, all these have causes, and they who cause them are gods. From +these have grown all the ideas of God that the peoples hold now. They +were originally local, local to the place, local to the people, and as +the people progressed so did their ideas of God. + +It seemed to the man lying on his hillside easy to follow how it all +arose; for, indeed, was it not going on about him? Did not the forest +people speak of a god in the great bare rock behind him? Were there not +gods in the ravines, gods in the hidden places of the hills? It was so +easy to realise as he watched the storm-cloud bursting before him, as +the lightning flashed and the thunder trumpet sounded in the hills, that +men should personify these. Nay, more, he saw the wild men about him +actually personifying them. He could understand. + +God was the answer to a question; as the question grew so did the +reply. + +The savage asks but little. He does not ask "Who am I?" "Who made the +world, and why?" Such questioning comes but in later years. He fears the +thunder; it is to him a great and wonderful and overpowering thing. It +forces itself upon his notice, and he explains it as the voice of a +greater man, a God. He lives in the heavens, for His voice comes from +thence. The giant peaks that swathe themselves in clouds, the volcano +and the earthquake, the great river flowing for ever to the sea, with +its strange floods, its eddies, its deadly undertow, in these too must +be gods. These are the first things that force themselves upon his dim +observance. He wonders, and from his wonder is born a god. But as he +grows in mental stature, in power of seeing, in power of feeling, he +observes other forces. How is the heaven held up, the great heavy dome +as he imagines it? It is Atlas who does so. There is a god of the Autumn +and Spring, of the Summer and Winter. So he personifies all forces he +perceives but does not understand. For he has no idea of force except as +emanating from a Person, of life which is not embodied in some form like +his own or that of some animal. Whenever anything is done it must be +Some One who does it, and that Some One is like himself, only greater +and stronger. + +There is not in the savage god any conception differing from that of +man. There is not in any god any realisable conception different from +that of man. The savage god is hungry and thirsty, requires clothes and +houses, has in all things passions and wants like a man. That makes the +god near to the man. With later gods is it different? God can be +realised only by means of the qualities He shares with man. Deduct from +your idea of God all human passions, love and forgiveness, and mercy, +and revenge, and punishment, and what is left? Only words and +abstractions which appeal to no one, and are realisable by no one. +Declare that God requires neither ears to hear nor eyes to see, nor legs +to walk with, nor a body, and what is left? Nothing is left. When +anyone, savage or Christian, realises God he does so by qualities God +shares with man. God is the Big Man who causes things. That is all. To +say that God is a spirit and then to declare that a spirit differs in +essence from a man is playing with words. No realisable conception does +or can differ. + +The conception of force by itself is but a very late idea. As one by +one the phenomena of nature attract man's observation he personifies +them. It will be noticed that unless a force intrudes itself on him he +does not personify it. What people ever personified gravity? And why +not? Surely gravity is evident enough. Every time a savage dropped a +stone on his toes he would recognise gravity. But no. That a stone falls +to the ground because a force draws it is an idea very late to enter +man's brain. It seems to him, as he would say, the nature of a stone to +fall. And then gravity acts always in the same way. It is not +intermittent--like lightning, for instance. Therefore he never conceives +of gravity as a force at all. When men had come to perceive that it was +a force, they had passed the personifying stage. But the savage +personified each force as he perceived it. First the sun and storm, till +at last he came to himself and began to study his own life. He had good +and bad luck; that was Fortune. Evil deeds are done, and good; he is +beginning to classify and generalise; there are gods of Good and Evil. +He has come to Ormuz and Ahriman little by little; as his power of +generalising progresses, he drops the smaller gods. They disappear, they +are but attributes of greater gods. And as he grows in mental grasp and +makes himself the centre of his world, so does the God of Man become the +God of Nature too. The greater absorbs the lesser. + +The God who cared for man, the God of his past, of his present, of his +future, is become the great God. He rules all the gods until he alone is +God. + +So it seemed to the man that God arose, never out of reason, always out +of instinct. There was no difference. It is all the same story. There is +innate in all men a tendency to personify the forces they cannot +understand. Because they want an explanation, and personality is the +only one that offers at first. To attribute effects to persons is +aboriginal science. To attribute them to natural laws is later science. +Each is the answer to the same question. Men personify forces in +different ways according to their mental and emotional stature, to their +capacity for generalising. They express their ideas in different ways +according to their race and their country. The Hindu began with a god in +each force, to represent each idea, and so the lower people still +remain, afraid of many gods. But those of mental stature gradually +generalised, till at last they came to one God, Brahm, and the lesser +gods as emanating from him. This was a hierarchy; and then finally the +greatest thinkers came to one God only, and the idea that the lesser +gods are but representatives of His manifold nature. You can see all the +stages before you now. It is simply a question of brain power, and the +sequence remains the same. First the lesser, then the greater. It is +never the other way on. + +So does Christian mythology personify three ideas of God, as a Trinity, +as three Persons in One, and a Devil. The Hindu would express such a +conception of God by a god with three heads. Christianity, rejecting +such crude symbolism, does so by a mystical creed. The Devil is being +dropped. But the Jew and the Mahommedan have only one God. All force +emanates from Him. He is the Cause of all things. He is One. + +And yet it is not a reasoned answer, but an instinctive one. The savage, +no more than the Christian, does not reason out his God. The feeling, +the understanding of God is innate, abiding--never the result of a +mental process. The idea of God is a thing in itself; it grows with the +brain, but it is not the result of any process of the brain; just as a +forest tree grows the greater in richer soil. + +As the idea of gods increased in majesty, as the numbers decreased and +became merged in three, in two, or in one, so did their power increase. +The gods were at first but local, local to the place, local to the +tribe. So was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who was jealous of +the other gods. And gradually their local god or gods grew into the God +of the whole world. It was only a question of mental development, of the +power of generalisation in conception. Man conceived a ruler of the +world in the Roman Emperor before he conceived an all-powerful God. The +man as he meditated, as he watched, would see the stages before his +eyes. There was the savage, the Kurumba and Moopa with his many gods in +the hills all about; there were the Hindus, the traders whose temples +shewed white in the groves beneath, many steps higher in civilisation +with their supreme Brahm and minor gods emanating from him; there was +the Moslem with his "God is God." He had the stages before his eyes. + +Therefore when he came to consider this question of God he found in +God-worship in Hinduism, Parseeism, Mahommedanism, Judaism, +Christianity, no differing conception. They held all the same idea in +different shapes. There was nothing new. God, one or multiple, made the +world according to His own good pleasure, ruled it according to His +will. The savage knew most of God, because his god was but a man +enlarged and the nearer to him for that. With greater contemplation the +crudities have been removed, the manlike qualities disappear one by one, +until with the few greatest thinkers they are all gone. God has become a +"Spirit," an abstraction, an unthinkable, incomprehensible God that is +of no use to anyone; for He cannot be influenced by prayer, He has no +passions to be roused, He has become lost in the heavens, an inscrutable +force. Such was the evolution of God. + +Only when he came to Buddhism was there a new thing. He found no longer +God or gods, but Law. That was indeed new, that was indeed very +different from the other faiths. The world came into being under Law, it +progressed under Law, it would end, if it ever did end, under Law. And +this Law was unchanged, unchangeable for ever. Let me consider, he said, +these two conceptions, Personality and Law. + +What is this world to the Buddhist? It is a place that has evolved and +is evolving under Law. He does not speak of God creating one thing or +another, but of a sequence of events. The Buddhist was Darwin two +thousand years before Darwin. He saw the rule of Law long before our +scientific men found it in the stars. I do not think it is so easy to +follow the origin of this idea as it is of the idea of God. With the +latter we have the stages before our eyes, but how the Buddhist idea of +law arose we can only conjecture. It is not, I think, an instinct like +the knowledge of God. It is more of a mental process, like the reasoning +of science. It is a negation as opposed to an assertion. It is the +negative pole. It must surely have arisen like modern science from the +observation of facts. I do not say that the idea of law is absent from +other faiths. You see it in the Commandments. Certain sequences were +recognised, but with Judaism they were ascribed to the order of a +Personality. Buddhism, like science, knows of no Personality. The laws +of a Theocracy were always liable to change and correction. The laws of +the Buddhist are inviolable. The Christian thinks laws can be violated, +the Buddhist knows they are inviolable. + +You cannot break a law. It is true that many declare otherwise, that +Charles Kingsley in a famous lecture declared you could break the law of +gravity. "The law is," says he, "that a stone should fall to the earth; +but by stretching out your hand you can prevent the stone falling. Thus +you can break the law." So argued Charles Kingsley, so think mistily +many men because they have never troubled to define the words they use. +There is no law that a stone should fall to the earth. The law of +gravity is that bodies attract each other directly as their mass, and +inversely as the square of the distance. You do not break this law by +holding a stone in your hand. Nay, you can feel it acting all the time +you do so. You cannot break this law. You cannot break any law. Law is +another word for the inevitable. Whom did the Greeks put above all the +gods? It was [Greek: anachkê], Necessity. Did, then, the Greeks see that +behind all their personification of forces Law ruled? It may be so. They +have the two ideas, God and Law. It is perhaps the old battle of free +will and destination. And which is true? To the Greek Necessity was +behind God, to the Theist God is behind Law. The laws are but His +orders. He can break them and change them and modify them. And yet, it +is so hard to see clearly how Theists can avoid the difficulty. If God's +laws are perfect truths they cannot be alterable. Only the imperfect +would be changed. Yet if God's laws are perfect, is not He, too, bound +by them? And if He be bound, is not His free will, His omnipotence +limited? Surely God cannot transgress His own laws of righteousness; is +there not "necessity" to Him too? But if this be so, then where is the +need of any knowledge beyond the knowledge of law? If it be indeed +eternal, as the Buddhists say, what need for more? In the science of +nature we need not go beyond, we cannot. In the science of man, who is +but part of nature, why should we do so? Is it not better, truer, more +beautiful to believe in everlasting laws of righteousness that rule the +world than to believe that a Personality has to be always arranging and +interfering? Would we not in a state prefer perfect laws to a perfect +king, who, however, was imperfect in this that his laws were imperfect +and had to be checked in their working? Which is the more perfect +conception? Surely that of law. If crime and ignorance, if mistake and +waywardness brought always inevitably their due punishment and +correction, where is a ruler needed? It is imperfection that requires +changing. + + + + +CHAPTER IX. + +GOD AND LAW. + + +Think what a difference, what an immense difference, it makes to a man +which he believes, how utterly it alters all his attitude to the +Unknown, to the Infinite, whether he believes in God or in Law. For +among all religions, all faiths, all theories of the unknown there are +only these two ideas, Personality or Law, free will or inevitableness. +And how different they are. + +In the face of eternity there are two attitudes: that of the Theist, +whether Christian or Jew, Hindu or spirit worshipper; and that of the +Buddhist, the believer in Law. To the believer in God or in gods, what +is the world and what is man? They are playthings in the hands of the +Almighty. God is responsible to no one, He knows no right and wrong, no +necessity beyond Himself, all He does must be right. He is All-powerful. +Man must crouch before Him in fear. If man suffer he must not cry out +against God; he must say in due submissiveness, "Thy will be done." A +man must even be thankful that matters are not worse. If in a shipwreck +many are drowned and few, bereft of all but life, are hardly saved, what +must they do? They must render thanks to God that He didn't drown them +too. Not because they are aware of being punished for any sin, that does +not come to man in calamity. You cannot imagine a common sin that +engulphs men and women, children and babes, from all countries, of all +professions, of many religions, in one common disaster. No! God can be +bribed, not with presents perhaps now, but with reverence. It is the +cringe that deprecates uncontrollable Power. It is the same feeling that +makes the savage lay a fruit or a flower before the Spirit of the Hills +lest he too be killed by the falling rocks. + +For what do men imagine God to be? Do you think that each man holds one +wonderful conception of God? Not so. The civilised man's idea of God is +as the savage idea. Each man builds to himself his own God, out of his +ideals, civilised or savage. Truly, if you ask a man to tell you his +idea of God he will answer you vaguely out of his creeds or sacred +books; but if you watch that man's actions towards God, you will soon +discover that his God is but his ideal man glorified. + +To a tender woman her God is but the extreme of the tenderness, the +beauty, the compassion which she feels, and the narrowness which she has +but does not realise. And cannot you see in your mind's eye the German +Emperor's God clanking round the heavenly mansions wearing a German +pickelhaube and swearing German oaths? Man's God is but what he admires +most in himself. He can be propitiated, he can be bribed. The savage +does it with a bowl of milk or a honey cake, the mediĉval man did it +with a chapel or a painted window. You say this idea has ceased. Have +you ever prayed to God and said, "Spare me this time and I will be good +in future. I will do this. I will do that." Or, more beautifully, "Spare +him that I love and let the punishment fall on me. Let me bear his +sins." Is not the very idea of atonement expressed by Christ's life? A +price has to be paid to God. He must be bought off. Man's attitude +before God must be that of the child, submissive with downcast eyes, +full of praise, never daring to blame. "Tell me and I will obey, do not +punish me or I perish." Then there is the attitude of the believer in +eternal law. For him the world holds no caprice, no leaning to one side +or another, no revenge, no mercy. Each act carries with it an inevitable +result: reward if the act be good, punishment if it be bad. You can +break a command of God. He may tell you to do a thing and you may +refuse. You cannot break a law. It is the inevitable, the everlasting. +You cannot rebel against law. The sin is not rebellion, but ignorance. +The attitude is not submission, but inquiry, the thirst for truth. Adam +lost Eden because he sought for the knowledge of good and evil. But the +law-believer says that only in wisdom, only in truth, is there any hope. +He stands before the eternal verities with clear eyes to see them, with +a strong heart to bear what his ignorance may make him suffer. Out of +his pain he will learn the sequences of life. He has gained much. + +What has he lost? Are not mercy and fatherly care, forgiveness and love, +beautiful things? Yet they, too, are of God. If you know not of Him, +only of Law, have you not lost out of your life some of the greatest +thoughts? How will you comfort your heart when it is sore if you have +not God? Is prayer nothing? + +Truly, said the man, these are beautiful things. If I could have them +alone. But I cannot. I fear the other qualities more than I love these. +I would have neither. I would be a man and live under Law. It seems to +me enough. If Law be absolute I see no room for God. + +Over against him were the long ridges of the hills where the rain-clouds +gathered from the south. He saw them come in great masses surging up the +valleys and hiding the contours of the hills. The lightning flashed +across the peaks and the thunder echoed in long-drawn trumpet blasts. +"The savage," he said, "saw there only gods warring with one another. +Now with wiser eyes we see the reign of Law. We do not know all the +laws; we cannot even yet tell how much rain will come, whether it will +be famine or plenty. We cannot see the Law, but we never doubt the Law +is there. With man it is the same. Births and deaths, suicides and +murders, are they too not all under Law? Why should not man's soul be so +too? Where is the need of God?" + +As he came down the mountain side the rain was falling heavily, as it +can only in the tropics. The dry hollows were already streams, the +streams were foaming torrents. "They act under Law," he said. "Their +life is bounded all by Law." And then of a sudden, watching the foaming +water, he saw more clearly. + +"True, the stream runs within its banks, but banks do not make the +stream. Gravity, that drags down these waters, acts in certain sequence, +but that sequence is not gravity. Gravity is a force. When we enumerate +the law we do not define, or know, or understand the force, only the way +it acts. Force is force, and law is law. They are not the same. They do +not explain each other. What a dead thing would law be that had no force +acting within it. Truly, I must see more clearly. Law does not deny +force; nay, but it predicates it--is, in fact, an outcome of it. Law is +a sequence along which force acts; neither can exist without the other. +All force is ruled by law. Yes, but what is force--what are any of the +forces that exist: gravity, and electricity, and heat, and life? Forms +of motion? May be; but whence the motion? + +"Ah me!" said the man, "then am I back again at the beginning. Have I +learnt nothing? I thought law might suffice, but it will not. If law is +inevitable, then are we but helpless atoms following the stream of +necessity. Then is freewill dead. Yet there is freewill. There is force, +there is life, whence come these forces? And if one say that force is +God, what then? + +"Perhaps there is this: there are two truths--there is God and there is +Law. Both are true, as there is destiny and there is freewill. But how +can that be? I see it is so, that it must be so. But how? Is it that +there are facets of some great truth behind which we can never know?" + +The man was weary. "What have I gained? Only that I have a truth, which +I cannot understand, which gives me no help, or but little? Have I +gained anything to help me in life? I have gained this, perhaps, that if +Law be not a full explanation, it is true, as far as it goes; if not a +whole truth, yet it is a truth. Why go further? The scientist cares for +nothing more when he has learned the laws of gravity. He is content to +be ignorant of whence the force comes, because he can go no further. In +the battle of life is not this enough? Can we not, too, be as the +scientist, denying nothing, but searching only for that which we can +know and which will be useful to us? If force be God, yet should His +ways not be mysterious. Let us not shut our eyes and comfort ourselves +in ignorance by saying, 'There is no Law; God is inscrutable, God knows +no Law. He is inexpressible, changeable and uncertain.' But truly there +is Law. Behind the gods, behind God, there _is_ [Greek: anachkê], there +is Necessity, there is an unfailing sequence of events, which is +righteousness. Let us learn then what righteousness is. Let us learn +what is true in order to do what is right." + + * * * * * + +But after all it is all speculation. There is no evidence. It is a +theory built on nothing. What is the value of it? Nothing at all. What +is to be gained by all this? Only barren words, finely spun theories +made of air. Where is the proof of God or of Law? There is none. + + + + +CHAPTER X. + +THE WAY OF LIFE. + + +Perhaps it does not matter. It may be that all this speculation about +the First Cause, about the Ruling Power of the world, is unnecessary. +What matter if God be inscrutable, if He has given us commands for our +lives that are clear, if He has laid down for us His will that we should +follow. Even if Law be not a full explanation, even if a knowledge of +all Law would not mean a knowledge of everything, what would this +signify if we can see enough of the laws that govern our lives so to +order ourselves as to reach the goal? Whether the Theist be right or the +Buddhist, in his theories of the world, the main question with which we +are concerned is ourselves. Has any religion a working code of life that +is true, that is adapted to us as we are, that is not in conflict with +facts and common sense? What matters its name or its supposed origin? Is +there such a thing? So thought the man, turning from abstract ideas to +real necessities. After all, what I and all men want is not abstract +ideas, whether of God or Law, but present help and guidance. Has any God +taught any believer a perfect code of life, has any Buddhist searcher +discovered the natural Law of life? For if so I would know them. Never +mind the whence or how, give me the facts. + +It seemed to him, looking back in the beginning of faiths, that morals, +that rules of life had no part there. When the Northman saw Thor in the +thunder there was no moral code there. The Greek gods were frankly not +so much immoral, which predicates a code of morals, as unmoral. They +knew of no such thing. It is the same with all the early gods, with the +Hindu gods and those of all other early beliefs. The Chin savage on the +Burmese frontier sees gods in the great peaks, but these gods demand +from him no moral observance, they impress upon him no moral standard. +All that the early gods demanded was fear, reverence, worship. Even the +Jehovah of the Jews asked at first only this. It is not till you get to +the third commandment that conduct comes in, and the moral code was +scanty. The early gods of all kinds, of all faiths, had no moral code +either for themselves or man. They demanded only obedience and fear and +worship. The moral code came later. + +It seems unnecessary now to consider whence they came, how they grew, +why they became added to the worship of the gods, which was all that +early religion meant. Some of that will come elsewhere. It is immaterial +here which is only the man's search after a code, any code that would +act. For it remains that all faiths when once they had left the +elementary stage did add a code of conduct as part of their religion, +saying it came from God, or was an immutable law, and tried to induce +men to follow it by declaring that it alone would lead to happiness +hereafter. All the greater faiths have these codes. "And I," said the +man to himself as he searched, "I care nothing whence the code is +supposed to have come, truly or falsely, as long as I find it. I want a +guide to life as it is. Has any faith such a guide? For each declare +that it alone has. Show me these rules to life." + +The books showed him. They showed him codes of all degrees, from the +simplest to the most complex, from the plain cult of courage, the very +first and most necessary of all virtues, to the immensely complicated +code of observances of the Brahmin; and outside religions there were the +philosophies of Greece and Rome, of India and China, of Persia and +Germany, and Scotland. + +Now should man so order his life as to live righteously here, and to be +of good repute before man and his own conscience? How shall a man so +form himself here that if indeed there be a life hereafter he may enter +it without fear? What are these codes? + +It seemed to him that there ran in some ways a great sameness through +the creeds, that up to a certain stage they differed but little. Courage +against the foe, courage to face suffering, truth and honesty, and later +mercy and compassion, charity of act and thought, courtesy and beauty of +mind; these were the additions the faiths made, little by little, to the +ground-work of reverence of the gods. And so they grew, adding bit by +bit, as civilisation increased and necessity dictated. They added many +of them sanitary rules, observances for washing, for cooking, for +choosing food, incorporating with religion whatever practice found +useful, and thereby giving a sanctity which it would otherwise have +lacked. Sometimes rules were added to preserve the race pure, as with +the Jews or the Hindus, evolving in the latter religion into the vast +system of caste that separates the different races, all of whom call +themselves Hindus. With the two faiths as just mentioned the tendency +was to narrowness and restriction, to the exclusion of other races; with +others, such as the Mahommedan and Buddhist, it was to expansion, to the +acceptance of other peoples, until at last some great Prophet arose to +give coherence and form to the whole and include it in the sacred books. +So arose the codes, the man thought. But this hardly matters. What are +the codes? + +It seemed to him that out of all the faiths only two held codes that +rose much above the level of savage conduct. We cannot go back to the +codes of Moses or Mahommed; we cannot accept the narrow racial +limitations of Hinduism; we have outgrown the simple ethics of Zoroaster +and the Egyptians. The teachings of Confucius and Laotze are strange to +us, and the philosophies, if they seem clear, are so singularly +unconvincing. They lack so greatly all that appeals to mankind; they are +so much codes in the head and not for the heart; they are as +mathematical drawings compared to a work of art; they do not ring true. +And so there were quickly left for him only two, the codes of Christ and +of Buddha, the examples of the two greatest prophets the world has +known. + +And between the teachings of the great Teacher who lived two thousand +and five hundred years ago, and that of the man God of the Christians +six hundred years later, what difference is there? They start from +different beginnings, they work towards perhaps different ends; but in +the methods, in the rules of life, what difference is there? That which +was taught by the sea of Galilee is but the echo of the words spoken +long before below the Himalayan Hills. They are the same, read them. The +two greatest faiths the world has known, the two greatest teachers that +ever came to man to help him in his need, have brought him the same +message. Believe not in the world, believe not in wealth, in power, in +greatness, in strength. These are not what man should seek. Nay, but +leave the world behind you because it is all evil, all very evil. +Nothing of this world is of any value. In a man's heart is his greatest +treasure. Make therefore your heart pure from the world. Leave it all +and turn to God, to righteousness. Cultivate your own soul apart from +all the pleasures of life. The other world can be gained only by +abjuring this. Wealth and honour and ambition, all the glories of the +world, are but traps to catch you. Even the loves we love are wrong. The +Buddha left his wife and child. The Christ never married, and denied +even his mother any love beyond that of a disciple. It is all the same. +Their lives, their teachings are the same. + +The man sighed as he read. Surely, he said, these are hard things to +believe, that the world is evil. No, but it is not evil. That a man can +only fit himself for heaven by being unfit for earth. I cannot believe +this. I have not changed since I thought this over as a boy. This is not +a true code, not a true rule, not a true faith, whether Christian or +Buddhist. I did not believe then, a boy; I do not believe now, a man. + +The world is not evil. There is evil there, but so much of good. There +are stains there truly, but so much of beauty. Do you think I can watch +the sun rise, the daily marvel which is beyond words, and hate the +world? Can I see the man I love, the men who have helped me, who have +been with me, the men who are my friends, and say that they are of a +world that is evil? And the women, the girls, the children, are their +lives for us nothing? Are they of a world that we must abjure? It is +never so. Truly, there are in these teachings, whether of the Christ or +of the Buddha, much that is of beauty, much, so much that touches our +hearts, I had at times fain believe. But I find in the world beauty +also, beauty that comes as near, that comes nearer than they do. When a +man is honest and honourable and true, and rises to great position, to +be spoken well of by all men, is that an evil thing? Is the wealth that +comes of the keen brain, the strong will, a calamity? Are our loves, our +hopes, our fears but evil? Yet they are of the world. Beautiful as is +the teaching, there are in the world things far more beautiful. I will +never believe, never, that the world and flesh are partners to the +Devil. I will never believe that. + +"And more," said the man slowly. "No one ever does believe it--none but +a very few. The world has rejected it always; not from wickedness, but +because the teaching is never true. They do not acknowledge their +disbelief. No! The Christians and the Buddhists maintain their faith by +words. But in secret, in their own hearts, before the world, in the +action of their own hands, have they ever acknowledged these beliefs?" + +Neither the Christ nor the Buddha are the models men follow, because men +are sure that, though there be truth in their teachings yet it is not +all the truth, though there be beauty yet are there other beauties as +great, nay greater than these. The world is never evil, and if it were, +to follow these doctrines would not be the way to make it better. + +Then the man turned from his books again to the world beneath him, he +came to reality from dreams. I have learnt nothing? No, but I have +learnt something. I have learned what I have yet to learn. And I have +learned more. I know why I disbelieve, because I love the world as it +is, and because I will never believe that what calls to my heart from +there is wrong. The beauty of things is the truth of things. And in +truth and beauty is the voice of God as surely, nay more surely than in +the voice of any prophet of two thousand years ago. + + + + +CHAPTER XI. + +HEAVEN. + + +"I am not getting on very well," he thought. "I have looked for three +things, and two I am sure I have not found. I have found nowhere any +explanation of the Universe, of the First Cause; I have found nowhere +any true rule of life. Yet these are two of the three 'truths' that the +faiths offer to me as inducements to believe. 'We will give you,' they +say, 'a theory of this world and of its origin which is true, which will +help you in this life because it will show you what you are and the +world is, and whence you came. We will give you through this troublous +life a guide that will never fail you, a staff that will never break. +And finally, if you believe, you shall attain after death the happiness +that is without end.'" + +So they promise, and of their promises I have tried two. Have I found +that they give what they declare? Is there anywhere any belief of the +First Cause that is true, that is the whole truth? There is none. And is +there any guide to life that can be followed in sincerity and truth? +There is none. There remains only heaven. There remains only the bribe, +the promise of happiness, if we will believe as they declare, if we will +do as they say. + +It may be that here is the secret, that I shall come now to the answer; +it may be that this is the key to all. If there is in the heaven they +promise us such a fulfilment of glory, such an appeal to our hearts that +they cannot but answer, what matter the rest? Happiness is our end in +life. For what do we strive all our days but for happiness, for truth, +for joy, for the beauty of life? What matter that in the theory of the +First Cause we can see no truth, that in the rule of life I can find +only a contradiction of beauty, if in the end in heaven these are +attained? The end, if the end be perfect, will reveal the truth and the +beauty in the ways that are now hid. What is this heaven? + +When we think of heaven, when with our eyes shut we try to recall all +they have taught us of the Christian heaven, what are the images that +come up? It seems as if we went back all those years to when we were +little lads beside our mothers, and as the fire flickered across the +unlit room, full of strange shadows, we said our childish prayers and +leant our heads heavy with sleep upon her knee. It is our mothers that +tell us of the heaven, whither they would that we should go, that urge +us with imaginings of beauty to come to be "good." It is a childish +heaven of which we learn, a heaven full of girl angels with white wings +and floating dresses, of golden harps, of pearly gates, of everlasting +song. There are, I think, no men there, only girls; no sheep, but fleecy +lambs. It is a heaven that appeals only to them. And is it very +different when we grow up? Indeed I think not. It is the same heaven +always, the same conception full of childish things. Did you ever hear a +sermon on the heaven, did you ever read a book, did you ever listen to a +discourse that did not take you back again in memory to that far-off +fire-lightened room of childhood? Surely there is nothing in all the +world so babyish as the general idea of the Christian heaven. Can you +imagine a _man_ there, a man with great deep voice and passion-laden +eyes, a man with the storms of life still beating on his soul amid these +baby faces and white wings? "Ah," said the man, "they must make us into +infants that we may enter their heaven. When I revolted against it as a +boy as but a kindergarten, without even the distraction of being put in +the corner, was I wrong?" + +May be, for there are things beyond this. "In my Father's house are many +mansions. I go to prepare a place for you." "Eye hath not seen nor ear +heard, nor hath it entered into the heart of man to conceive." "The +peace of God which passeth all understanding." "Where God shall wipe +away all tears from their eyes." These are not childish things. +Happiness that hath no sorrow, light that knows no shadow, glory that +never ends. + +I read a book long ago; I have forgotten the name of it, I have +forgotten who wrote it, and I remember that at the time I did not +understand it. The book was on the subject of perfect happiness, on +heaven, which is postulated as the ideal peace. And what this book tried +to show--what, indeed, it showed, I think--was that happiness if +_perfect_ was near akin to annihilation. The argument ran something like +this. "You are happy in some particular employment, say in singing a +hymn, in some particular attitude, let us say in kneeling. If your +happiness in this act and attitude is perfect, they will endure for +ever. You will pass eternity kneeling and singing the same hymn. For +consider, Why do you ever change your acts, your attitudes? Because a +particular act or a certain attitude has become wearisome. But if it be +stated that your happiness is _perfect_ you can never feel satiety, +never feel any desire for change. The wish for change is born of the +feeling of wearisomeness. You have had enough of one thing, you want +another. But if you are perfectly happy this cannot be. Life would +become a monotony, a satiety near akin to death. And if indeed peace be +the highest happiness, then would this perfect peace be so near +annihilation that the difference would only lie in that your +consciousness of happiness still remained." Thus did this writer show +that if the Christian heaven be as declared, _perfect_ happiness, so it +must be almost indistinguishable from death. + +I do not think this writer had ever read of the Buddhist Nirvana, I do +not remember that he ever even alluded to it. He was thinking of the +Christian heaven and trying to make out what it was like, and that was +what he found. He, taking the Christian ideal and working it to its +inevitable conclusion, arrived at the same result as Buddhist teachers +starting from such widely different premises have arrived at: the +Christian heaven and the Buddhist peace are the same. + +Readers of my former work, "The Soul of a People," will remember how the +Buddhists arrive at Nirvana. It is the "Great Peace." Life is the +enemy. Life is change, and change is misery. The ideal is to have done +with life, to be steeped in the Great Peace. Thus do the purer ideas of +the Christian heaven and the Buddhist heaven agree. It is the "Peace +that passeth all understanding" for each. + +And yet perfect happiness, sleep without waking, light without shadow, +joy without sorrow, gaiety without eclipse. Can this ever be heaven? Let +us look back on our lives, we who have lived, and let us think. Let us +close our eyes that the past may come before us and we may remember. +What are the most beautiful memories that come before us, that make our +hearts beat again with the greatest music they have known, that bring +again to our eyes the tears that are the water of the well of God? What +have been the greatest emotions of our lives? There has been struggle +and effort, unceasing effort, crowned maybe with success, but maybe not, +effort that we know has brought out all that is best in us, that we +rejoice to remember. There will be no effort in heaven, only rest; there +is no defeat, and therefore no victory, only peace. Therefore also, +because we can have no enemies there we shall have no friends. Our +friends! How we can remember them. We have loved them because we have +hated others. But in heaven there is no hate, only an equality of +indifference. Heaven is nothing but joy. But consider, has joy been the +most beautiful thing in your life, is it joy that sounded the deepest +harmonies? Remember how you have stood upon that faraway hillside and +laid to rest your comrade beneath the forest shadows? Was it not +beautiful what your heart sang to you while you said "Farewell," and +tears came to your eyes? There are no farewells in heaven. + +There are women you have loved, women whose eyes have grown large and +soft as you have spoken to them in the dusk of evenings long ago. You +have loved them because they were women. What will they be in heaven? + +And the children! Think of that childless heaven. Think of the children +who laugh and play, and come to you to laugh with them, who cry and come +to you for comfort. They will require no comfort from you in heaven, and +how much will you lose? The child angels are never naughty. They can +never come to you and hide their heads upon your shoulder and say "I was +wrong. I am very sorry. Please forgive me." None of these notes shall +ever sound in heaven. There are no tears there. But do you not know +that the greater beauties can only be seen through tears, which are +their dew? + +What is it that sounds the deeper notes of our lives? Is it sunshine, +happiness, gaiety? Is it any attribute of the heavens of the religions? +Surely it is never so. It is the troubles of life, the mistakes, the +sorrows, the sin, the shadow mysteries of the world, that sound in our +hearts the greater strings. + +And are these to be mute in your heavens? Are we to fall to lesser notes +of eternal praise, of eternal thanksgiving? Prophets of the faiths, what +are these heavens of yours? Is there in them anything to draw our +hearts? Have you pointed to us what we really would have? Your sacred +books are full of your descriptions, of your enticements; you have +beggared all the languages in words to describe what you would have us +long for. And what have you gained? Is there any one man, one woman, one +child, not steeped in the uttermost incurable disease, in feeble old +age, who would change the chances of his life here for any of your +heavens? There is no one. Or if you were to say to a man, "Choose. You +shall be young again, and strong, or you shall go to heaven." Which +would he choose? Therefore, ye teachers of the faiths, are your promises +vain. I do not believe in nor do I fear your hells, those crude places +of fire and pitch and little black devils. I care not for your heavens; +I would not go there, not to any of them, neither to the happy hunting +ground, nor to heaven, nor to the garden of the Houris nor to Nirvana, +_not if they be as you tell me they are_. Nor do I want to merge my +identity in the Infinite. This life is good enough for me, while I +retain health and strength. I am not tempted. Nor is anyone tempted. +Whom have you persuaded? You know that you have enticed no one. No one +is deceived. Men will die for many things, they will leap to accept +death--but not for your heavens. All men _fear_ death and what is +beyond, the righteous who you say have earned heaven no less than the +unrighteous. All faiths have had their martyrs, but that is different. +They have died to preserve their souls, as soldiers die to preserve +their honour, gladly. Even the godly do not believe. They will have +nothing of your heavens. I cannot understand how either Christian or +Buddhist came to imagine such unattractive, unreasonable heavens. + +And so they have all failed. No religion gives us an intelligible First +Cause, no religion gives us a code of conduct we can follow, no +religion offers us a heaven we would care to attain. + +There are many definitions of religion. I have written some on my first +page. It will be seen that they all hinge on one of these ideas, either +that religion is a theory of causation, or it is a code of conduct, or +that it is concerned with future rewards and punishments. + +But if indeed religion have any or all of these meanings, then is +religion false, then are all religions false. And more, no one who +thinks over the subject, no one who takes it seriously would believe any +one of them, could take any as a satisfactory explanation. No one +accepts any code of religious conduct as absolutely workable, no one is +attracted by their heavens. I am sure of these things. + +Then shall I sit down with Omar Khayyam and say:-- + + "Myself when young did eagerly frequent + Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument + About it and about; but evermore + Came out by the same door where in I went." + +Shall I say all religion is but windy theory and no one cares for it? +Neither do I. + +The man put down his books and laughed. No one believes? But every man +believes, or would like to believe. Every man is at heart more or less +religious. I see that in daily life as I go. Why? Why? What is it he +finds? I will not give up. I will not come out at that same door. I will +try again in a new line. I must be on the wrong road. Let me try back +and consider. What is it in religion that we see and love and feel is +true? Who are the people that we would be like? Is it the scientific +theologian with his word-confusion about homoiousios? Is it the Hindu +sophist making theories of Brahm? Is it the Buddhist word-refiner +speculating on Karma? Surely it is not any of these people. It is the +street preacher crying to the crowd, "Come and be saved"; it is the +peasant with bowed head in the sunset listening to the Angelus; it is +the priest in his livelong lonely exile. These _are_ Christians, and +their thoughts are the religion worth knowing. It is they who are near +God. I care not for the intricate intellectual mazes a Hindu can make +with his brain, but I care for the coolie. I can see him now, putting +his little ghi before the god, giving out of his poverty to the +mendicant. It is he who knows God, even if his God be but the God of the +hill above him. And it is the woman crying at the pagoda foot for +succour; it is the reverent crowds that look upon the pagoda while their +eyes fill with tears; it is the Buddhist monk, far away beneath the +hills, living his life of purity and example that I reverence. They +_have_ religion. I will go to them and ask them what it is. I am sure it +is not what the theologians of all creeds have told me. What do these +poor know of thought and speculation? They do not think, they _know_. +What is it that they know? Not certainly what the professional divines +tell me. + +I do not believe these thinkers or their thoughts. If I believed that +what they say is religion--is, in fact, so--I would have done with it. +That is where most men end. They ask the divines what religion is. The +divines produce their theories and creeds. The enquirer looks and +examines and reflects. For he says, "If the professional men don't know +what their own faith is, who does?" But I will not end so. I _will_ know +wherein the truth of religion lies. I will now go to those who know, +because they _know_, not because they think. My books shall be the +hearts of men. + + + + +PART II. + + + + +CHAPTER XII. + +THEORIES AND FACTS. + + +There is a festival to-day among the coolies. All night, from down in +the valley where their huts are, has come the sound of tom-toms beating. +And this morning there has been no roll-call, no telling off the men to +making pits and the women to weeding. The fields have been empty, and +the village which is usually so abandoned by day, is full of people. +They have roamed lazily to and fro or sat before their doorways in the +sun talking and waiting, for the ceremony is not till noon. + +It begins with a procession. It is a long procession, all of men or +boys, for it seems that among these people women are not concerned in +the acting of the ceremonies. They are all men, mostly the elders and +the headsmen of gangs, and before them dances a man half naked, half +mad, who cries and throws his arms about. He is possessed of the Spirit. +I do not know what the procession means, and I ask. No one can tell me; +only it "is the custom." And so they pass up the main road near my house +with tom-toms beating and flowers about their necks, and the "possessed" +priest dancing ever before them. They go perhaps a mile about and then +return, and by the entrance to the village, where are boys who carry +rice and cocoanuts; and as the priest approaches they throw this rice +before him and break the cocoanuts at his feet. So they enter the +village. In the centre is an open space and they stop, the procession +breaks, for the priest goes to the centre still dancing, and the people +form a great ring about him. He dances more and more wildly as the +tom-toms quicken their beat, his eyes are bloodshot, his hands are +clenched, there is foam upon his lips. "He has the Spirit," the people +murmur with wonder. Then into the centre of this ring come two men +dragging a goat. It is a black goat with a white star on his forehead. +His horns are painted and there are flowers about his neck. When the +priest sees the goat he rushes forward. He grips the goat by the ears, +the men let go and depart, and the priest and goat are left alone. He +is about to sacrifice the goat, I know that, but I do not know how, for +he has no knife. But I quickly understand. He has seized the goat by +both ears in a grip of steel. Then bending down he bares his teeth and +catches the lower lip of the goat between them. He tears and worries, +and the goat struggles ineffectually, for with savage energy the priest +has torn at the lip till it peels off in a long strip down the throat, +so that the veins and arteries are laid bare. And then with a sudden +jerk he lets go the torn skin and buries his teeth deep in the +palpitating throat. You see his jaw work, you see the goat give a great +convulsive struggle, there is a sudden rush of blood from the torn +arteries pouring over the priest in a great red stream. For a minute +there is stillness, and then the goat's tense limbs relax. They droop, +for he is dead; and with a tremor in all his limbs the man stands for a +second and then drops too senseless, his face falling on the goat that +he has slain. For two, three, five minutes, I know not how long, there +is a dead silence. The sun is at its height and pours down upon the +intense crowd, upon the victim lying in its pool of blood, upon the +priest a huddled heap beside it. And then with a great sigh the people +awake. There is a movement and a murmur. Some elders go and carry away +the goat, and the priest is supported to the little temple near by. The +blood is covered up with fresh earth, the ceremony is over, and the +people break up. + + * * * * * + +In the evening my writer Antonio tells me all he knows. What is the god +who entered into the priest? I ask, and he shakes his head. "For sure," +he answers, "I do not know. They only tell me 'Sawmy, Sawmy'; that is, +'God, God.' They say he want sacrifice, he want people to give him +present. I do not know why he want present, except he big God and must +be worship. If he not get sacrifice he angry. If he get sacrifice he +pleased." + +So Antonio explains to me the scene. He argues like my books do. Let me +consider. They would explain it some way like this. They would say that +the "Sawmy" was the Sun God, or some other idealisation; that first of +all the Indians imagined this Sawmy out of ghosts or dreams; that having +done so they gave this God certain attributes and powers; that +subsequently they imagined the God angry and punishing the people, and +so they would proceed to a priest suffering from hysteria, which they +supposed to be the possession of this Sawmy, and finally arrive at the +procession and sacrifice. They would point out how the flesh of the goat +was divided among the coolies, thus bringing them into communion with +their God. And so they would come at last to the concrete fact, as +caused by a long process of imagination, an explanation quite incredible +to me. I read the facts differently, much more simply. As to imagination +the people have hardly any; they are hopelessly incapable of such a +train of thought. The priest himself admits that not one in fifty has +the least glimmering of any meaning in the ceremony. Nevertheless they +like it, they are awed by it, they would by no means allow it to be +omitted. And as to this feast of communion with their divinity, what are +the facts? + +The coolies are poor, they live almost entirely on rice and vegetables. +Meat can very rarely be afforded. Yet they long for it, and a few times +in the year they all subscribe and buy a goat for food as a very special +luxury. + +The goat being bought has to be killed. Now, to people in this stage of +civilisation, to people in _any_ stage of civilisation, the taking of +life is very attractive, it is an awe and wonder-inspiring act. These +people are so poor they can seldom afford such a sight, and therefore +it must be made the most of. You may note exactly the same passion in +bull fights, the execution of martyrs, in public executions of all +countries. What greater treat can you offer a boy than to see a pig +killed? So the death of the goat is compassed with much show and in a +peculiarly impressive way. That done the meat is divided as already +arranged, and everyone is pleased. They have got their food and their +sensation. The priest, too, is pleased, and makes his little scientific +theology to explain and apologise for this peculiar emotion. It has the +further result of making him powerful and revered. For he alone can see +and tell the coolies the inwardness of it all; and he can further claim +the tit-bits as representative of the Deity. + +So arose sacrifice out of some inward hidden emotion of men's hearts. Do +not say this emotion is purely savage. It is allied often to the purest +pity, to awe, to strange searchings of the heart. To some it may be +hardening, but to most it is not so. + +How do I know? I know by two ways, because I have watched the faces of +this and many crowds to see how they felt, and that is what I saw. I +have seen death inflicted so often, on animals and on man, that I know +and have felt what the emotion is. I cannot explain the emotion--who can +explain any emotion?--but I know it is there. And I know that, if not +witnessed too often or in wrong circumstances, the sight of suffering +and death, rightfully inflicted, is not brutalising, but very much the +reverse. + +Who are the most kind-hearted, even soft-hearted, of men? They are +soldiers and doctors. The sights they have seen, the suffering and even +death they may themselves have inflicted of necessity, have never +hardened them. They have but made their sympathies the deeper and +stronger. Look at the contemporary history of any war, of that in Burma +fifteen years ago, of that in the Transvaal to-day. Who are they who +call out for stringent measures, for much shooting, for plenty of +hanging? Never the soldiers. Never those who know what these things are. +It is the civilians and journalists who know not what death is. Who +wrote "The Drums of the Fore and Aft," "La Debâcle," "The Red Badge of +Courage," with their delight in blood? Not men who had seen war. Nor is +it they who read such books with pleasure. Men who have seen death and +watched it could never make the telling an hour's diversion. It is +those who have never seen the reality, who seek in art that stimulus +which they know they require. + +The sight and knowledge and understanding of unavoidable suffering and +death is the greatest of all purifiers to the heart. The weak cannot +bear it. Women may avoid it because they know they are unable to sustain +it, because they know it does brutalise them. But with men it is never +so. + +Suffering and death are facts; they are part of the world, and men must +know them. They are needed to strengthen and deepen the greatest +emotions of men. + +And therefore there is in man this instinct, this attraction to the +sight of suffering and death, an instinct that, rightly followed, has in +it nothing but good. + +So I read the ceremony I had witnessed. Such is, I am sure, the meaning +of all such ceremonies. They never arise from mental theories, always +from inner emotion. The scientific theologian of the tribe has explained +them in his way, and when enquirers have tried to understand these +ceremonies they have gone to the priest instead of the people. Hence the +absolute futility of all that has been written on the origins of +faiths. + +Men have begun at the wrong end: they have argued down instead of up; +they have begun their pyramid at the top. Yet surely if there is any +fact that ought to be impressed on us since Darwin, it is to begin at +the bottom. Reason never produces facts or emotion. It can but theorise +on them. + +And meditating on what I had seen, I came to see at last all my +mistakes. + +Instead of beginning with ideas of God, to find man I ought to have gone +first to man, to see how arise the ideas of the First Cause. Instead of +examining codes of conduct as supernaturally given and impossible, I +ought to have gone to man and tried to discover how he came to frame and +to uphold these codes. And so also with heaven and hell, man has but +imagined them to suit his needs: and if so, what needs? I have tried all +the creeds to find an explanation of man, and there is none. I begin now +with man to find an explanation of the creeds. Man and his necessities +are the eternal truth, and all his religions are but framed by himself +to minister to his needs. This is the theory on which to work and try +for results. + +We have an authority for such a method in science, for she proceeds not +from the unknown to the known, but from the observed to the imagined. +Thus has she imagined the unimaginable ether to explain certain +phenomena and to act as a working theory to proceed on. Scientific men +did not invent ether and the laws of ether first, and so descend to +light and electricity. They felt the light and heat, and gradually +worked inwards and upwards. + +So perhaps has man felt certain needs, certain emotions and certain +impulses, and has imagined his First Cause, his Law, his codes, his +religious theories, one and all, to explain his needs and help himself. + +The whole series of questions becomes altered. + +It is no longer which is true, the Christian Triune God, the Hindu +million of Gods, the Mahommedan one God, the Buddhist Law? but from what +facts did these arise, and why do they persist to-day? + +Out of what necessity, to justify what feeling, does the Christian +require a Triune God, the Hindu many Gods, and the Buddhist no God but +Law? Why does each reject the conception of the other? It is not what +code is the true code of life, the Jewish code, the Christian, the +Buddhist, but why are these Codes at all? + +Why had the Jews their ruthless code? Why have the Christians and +Buddhists adopted codes they cannot act up to? Why have the Hindus in +"caste" the most elaborate codes we know. + +Why did the Jews have no hereafter at all, the Mahommedans a sensual +paradise, the Greeks the Shades, the Brahmins and Buddhists a +transmigration of souls leading to Nirvana? These are very different +ideas. What necessities do they serve? And so with the many facets of +religions. Faiths do not explain man, perhaps man can explain his +faiths. That is my new standpoint from which I shall see. + + + + +CHAPTER XIII. + +CREED AND INSTINCT. + + +I had six years of that life in India. I passed six years living in a +solitary bungalow miles away from any other European, meeting them but +occasionally, six years with practically no intercourse at all with the +natives. For the jungle people who lived in the hills were few, and +savage, and shy; and besides these, there were only a few Hindu or +Mahommedan shop-keepers in the main bazaar, and the great crowd of +coolie-folk who cultivate the estates. It was not a life in which it was +possible to learn much of any people. Solitary planters living unnatural +lives in isolated bungalows do not usually offer much of interest to an +observer. The wild tribes were mere savages. The coolies came in gangs +and worked for a few months and went home. It was a life of almost +complete solitude, a life where for days and weeks perhaps, except for +a few orders in the native tongues to headmen of gangs, or a short +discussion about the work, no word was spoken. It was, may be, a time +for reflection and thought, for reading and meditation, for such a +search as was made. But it was no life for observation, for collection +of facts, for seeing and understanding. Even had one tried to know the +coolies or the jungle people, it had been impossible; for they too have +the inaccessability of the Indian, and are not to be approached too +near. + +But after these six years there came a change. Of the reasons, the +methods of that change there is no necessity to write. It was a great +change. From a country of mountains to a great plain, from forests to +vast open spaces, widely cultivated; from a life of stagnation to a life +full of the excitement of war and danger, from a life of books and +dreams to a life of acts almost without books; from a people sulky and +savage and unapproachable to a nation of the widest hospitality, where +caste was unknown, where the women were free, a people with whom +intimacy was not only easy but very pleasant; and, finally, from the +life of a private person pursuing private ends to the working life of an +official, where responsibility was piled on responsibility, and the +necessity of knowing the language and the people was obvious if they +were to be discharged even decently. Yet still it was a life of +solitude. True, in the cold weather there were columns and expeditions +made with troops, when there was pleasant companionship of my own +people. But there were great stretches of solitude, months and months +together, with no Englishman, and especially no Englishwoman, near. For +four years I saw never an English girl or woman. And there were no +books. What few I had were burnt one night with all my possessions, and +thereafter I had hardly any. They were years of hardship, of scanty +lodging, little better than the natives, ill-cooked, unvaried food, a +life that had in it none of the delights of civilisation. And yet I can +look back to it with pleasure. For there were always the people to talk +to, the people to study, to try and understand, their religion to +observe and try to understand. + +I have written in "The Soul of a People" about that religion, of the +things I learned about it, of what it taught me. I tried to understand +it not from without but from within, to see it as they saw it, not to +criticise but to believe. If I am to credit my reviewers I have done +this, for the thoughts in the book are all considered to be my own also. + +That may not be so, and yet I may have learnt much that I could only +have learnt by adopting the attitude I did. It is possible to understand +if not always to accept, and out of understanding to reach something +needful. A critic can never understand; he destroys but does not create. +So I learnt many things. I learnt among others these. + +That the religion of the Burman is a religion of his heart, never of his +head. It is spontaneous, as much as the forest on the hillside. He has +in his heart many instincts, that have come there who knows how, and out +of these he has made his faith. What that faith is I have told in my +first book. It is not pure Buddhism. But because Buddhism has come +nearest to what his heart tells him is true, because its tenets appeal +to him as do none others, because they explain the facts he feels, +therefore he professes the faith of the Buddha and calls himself a +Buddhist. That is what I learnt to be sure of. And what I heard from +others, what I read in many books I learned absolutely to disbelieve. I +was told, for instance, that a Burman villager far away in the hills +thought he could remember his former lives _because_ the doctrine of +the transmigration of souls had been introduced by Buddhist monks. But +I, looking into his heart, was sure that the villager was a Buddhist +because the Buddhist doctrine of transmigration resembled the instinct +and knowledge of his own soul. It is not the same. The Buddhist faith +recognises no ego. The Burman does. But in some sort or other he could +fit the imported theory to his facts, and he therefore was a Buddhist. + +Communities of Christians and Mahommedans, Jews and Hindus, have lived +among the Burmans for hundreds of years; there have been no converts to +any of these faiths. Burma now is full of Christian missions and there +are converts--a few--but never, I believe, pure Burmans; they have +always some other blood in their veins, usually Mahommedan. And why? +Because Buddhism accords with the instincts of the Burman and no other +faiths do. + +Yet pure Buddhism knows no prayer, and the Burman prays. Why? Ah! again +it is the instinct of the heart. He wants to pray, and pray he will, let +his adopted faith say what it will. + +But on the whole the beliefs of his heart are nearer akin to the +theories of Buddhism than the theories of any other faith, and therefore +he is a Buddhist. That was one thing I learnt, that religious systems +are one thing and a man's religion another. The former proceeds from the +latter and never the reverse, and men profess creeds because the creeds +agree more or less with their religious feelings; they do not have +religious feelings because they have adopted a creed, whatever that +creed may be. + +I had at last come down from creeds, which are theories, to religions, +which are feelings and instincts; I had left books, which are of the +intellect, and come to the hearts of men. + +From these facts was born a large distrust. I had learnt what the +Burman's faith was. I learnt that his beliefs came from his heart, were +innate, that they agreed only partially with his creed. I found that so +much stronger were they that where possible the observance of the faith +had been altered to suit him, that where the rigidity of the creed +forbade, he simply put the creed aside--as with prayer. I found also +that to begin with the theory of Buddhism and reason down landed me +nowhere, but to begin with the Burman and reason up explained everything +that at first I could not understand. + +Clearly the way to arrive at things was to begin with facts. What were +the Burman's instincts, not only as referred to religion; but generally? +What were his peculiarities? + +I found many of them. To take one as instance. The Burman has a very +strong objection to authority. There is nothing he dislikes so much, not +only as submitting to an interfering authority, but to exercising it. +Thus he has never developed any aristocracy, nor any feudal system. His +Government was of the slightest, his villages were almost entirely +self-directed. No other people in the same stage of civilisation can +show so much local freedom. He would never serve another if he could +help it. He liked freedom even if accompanied by poverty. The ideas of +obedience and of reverence for authority did not appeal to him as the +highest emotions. He dislikes interference. He will not give advice +often even if sought. + +Now I said if this be one of his greatest instincts, and if my theory be +true, this instinct will be exhibited in his religion. Either Buddhism +must accept it, or I shall find that the Burman in this case ignores his +creed. So I looked, and I found that Buddhism was the very thing to +assist such a feeling. Buddhism knew no God, no one to be always +directing and interfering, no one to demand obedience and reverence. +There was only Law. Buddhism was the very ideal faith for such a man. +But in other matters it was not so. The instinct of prayer is in the +Burman as in all people, though perhaps less with him than others. The +Buddhist theory allows of no prayer. Then does the Burman not follow his +instinct? My observation told me that here the Burman ignored his creed +and satisfied his instinct despite of all. But his instinct of prayer is +slight, of dislike to authority very great; therefore he remains a +Buddhist. Had it been the other way he would probably have been a Hindu. +And so with many other things. The Burman might fairly be called a +Buddhist, not because he so dubbed himself, but because his religious +instincts were mainly in accordance more or less with the Buddhist +theory. + +Further, I thought if this is true with the Burman, is it not likely to +be true of all people? I know that a creed, a religious theory, is no +guide to the belief of a people. If it were, would not all Christian +nations believe much the same, have the same ideals, the same outcome of +their beliefs? But they do not. They vary in a most extraordinary way. +Each people has its own beliefs, and no one agrees with another on more +than one or two points. And not one at all agrees with the theories they +profess. Now as every European nation has the same holy book, the same +Teacher, the same Example, how is this? Can it be explained by arguing +from the creed down? No. But may be it can by reasoning from the people +up. It may be that I shall find elsewhere what I have found here, that +creeds do not influence people, but people their creeds, and that where +the creed will not give way the people simply ignore it. Each people may +have its own instinctive beliefs from within differing from all others. +And because they require a theory to explain, and as it were codify, +these instincts, they adopt nominally some great creed, but with the +reservation that in practice they will follow that creed only where it +meets or can be made to meet their necessities, and ignore it where it +does not. That may work out. Let me study mankind to find what they +believe. + +This I have tried to do, and what I have found comes in the next +chapters, but no one who has not tried knows how difficult it has been; +for I have found no one to help me, no facts hardly, except what I +myself might gather to go on. Books on religion and on folk-lore there +are in plenty. They have been of little use to me. They all begin at the +wrong end. They all assume as facts what I do not think exist at all. +They talk, for instance, of Christianity as if in practice there is now +or ever has been any such clear or definite thing. There is Roman +Catholicism of different forms, the ideas of the Latin races; there are +the many religions of the Slavs, of the Teutons, of the Anglo-Saxons, of +the Iberians, of the western Celts, all differing enormously, all +calling themselves Christian. There is the religion of the Boers, of the +Quakers, of the Abyssinians, of the Unitarians. There used to be the +Puritans, the Fifth Monarchy men, the Arians, and many another heresy. +They call themselves Christians. What are their real beliefs? Whence do +they come? + +It is the same with Buddhism. There are the Burmese, Ceylon, Chinese, +Japanese, Jain, Thibetan, and many another people that call themselves +Buddhist. What are the real beliefs of these people? I have found the +Burmese beliefs; who has found the others? The answer is, no one has +even looked for them. They have started at the very end and reasoned +down; they have coloured the facts with their theories till they are +worthless. + +And the religions of Greece and Rome, of Egypt, of Chaldea, of many an +ancient people, out of what instincts did these people form their +creeds? + +As in tracing the Burmese religion, so in this further and wide attempt +I have had practically only my own observation of facts to go on. How +narrow one man's observation must be can quickly be judged. Some +knowledge of the Burmese, a very little of Mahommedans and Hindus, a +little of the wild tribes, and in Europe some little knowledge of my own +people and their history, of Anglicanism and Puritanism and Lutheranism, +some observation of the Latin peoples and their beliefs. Yet still, +narrow as the range is, I think my theory works out. I think that even +in my narrow circle, with my own limited knowledge and sympathies, I +have found enough to prove my case. The evidences in the next chapter +are, it is true, few, and the discussion of the subject must be greatly +condensed. Still, wherever I have been able to investigate a point I +have always found that my theory does prove true and the old theory +false. Out of my theory is explained at once the divergences of the +Latins and Teutons, why one Christian people worship the Madonna and +another not, why one has confession and another not. I have never +applied my key but the lock has turned. I have never tried to reason the +other way without coming to a full stop, and I have never met anyone +else or read any book that did not do the same. + +For my belief is that religion is not a creed and does not come from +creeds. There are in men certain religious instincts, existing always, +modified from time to time by circumstances and brain developments. Out +of these instincts grows religion, and when a creed, which is a theory +of religion, comes along and agrees with the main instincts of the +people they adopt the name of the creed, they use it to codify and +organise their instincts, but they keep and develope their instincts +nevertheless, regardless of the creed. It is a fundamental error to talk +of Christianity or Buddhism. We ought to speak of Latinism, Teutonism, +Burmanism, Tartarism, Quakerism. In all essentials the Quaker is +infinitely nearer the Burman than he is to the Puritan. + + + + +CHAPTER XIV. + +RELIGIOUS PEOPLE. + + +It will not be denied, I think, that even in England, where we pride +ourselves so much upon our religiousness, where we have a hundred +religions and only one sauce, the only country except Russia where the +head of the State is also the head of the National Church, that even in +England religion is unevenly divided. Men do not take to it so much as +women, some men are attracted by it more than others, some women more +than the rest of women. We find it in all qualities, in all depths, from +the thin veil above the scepticism of many men of science to the deep +emotional feeling of the enthusiast, and it is nowhere a question of +class, of education, or of occupation. It would be very difficult, I +think, to assert, and quite impossible to prove, that religion affects +any one class more than another; for it must not be forgotten that, +although more perhaps of certain classes go to religious services than +of others, the explanation may not be any comparative excess of +religious feeling. In a class where the women greatly exceed the men in +numbers, there will be apparently comparatively more religion, and the +rank of society also influences the result. For some it is easier and +pleasanter to attend church or chapel than for others, and a class which +is not hardly worked during the week can more easily spare the leisure +for religious exercises than others to whom the need for air, for +exercise, for change, appeals more strongly. There may also be other +factors at work. But indeed it is unnecessary to press the matter +closely, for it will hardly be asserted, I think, that religion is ever +a question of class. _One_ religion may be so, but not religion broadly +speaking, not the religious temperament as it is called. To whom, then, +does religion appeal most, and to what side of their nature does it +appeal? + +Generally speaking, I think, to the more emotional and less +intellectual. + +That this is but a general rule, with many exceptions of which I will +speak later, I admit. But I think it will be admitted that it is a +general rule. Intellect, reason, whether cultivated or not, hard-headed +common sense, whether in the great thinker or the artisan, is seldom +strongly religious. Faith of a kind they may retain, but they usually +restrain it to such a degree that it is not conspicuous. Hard-headed +thinkers are rarely "deeply religious." But as you leave the domain +which is the more dominated by thought, and descend or ascend--I have no +wish to infer inferiority or the reverse,--to the natures more +accessible to sentiment, more governed by the emotions, religiosity +increases. Till finally you arrive at the fanatic, where reason has +disappeared and emotion is the sole guide. + +They are easily recognised, these enthusiasts, by their lined faces, by +their nervous speech, but above all by their eyes. You can see there the +emotional strain, the too highly strung system which has abandoned +itself to the excesses of religion. But there seems to be another rule; +religion varies according to the interests a person has in life. A man, +or a woman, with many interests, with much work, living a full life in +the world, has but little time usually for religion; he can devote but a +small part of his life to it. Its call is to him less imperative, less +alluring; it is but one among many notes. But as the absorption in daily +life decreases, as the demands from without are less, so does the +devotion to religion increase. Until at last among these rural people, +who with strong feelings have but little to gratify them, whose lives +are the dreary monotony of a daily routine into which excitement or +novelty never enters, we find often the greatest, the strongest, and +narrowest faith. So too among those many women of our middle classes +whose lives, from the want of mankind or of children, fall into narrow +ways, whose lives are dull, whose natural affections and desires are too +often thwarted, there lives the purest and strongest, if often, too, the +narrowest religion. It comes to them as a help where there is none +other, it brings to them emotions when the world holds for them none, it +contains in itself beauty and love and interest when the world has +refused them. How much, how very much of the deeper religious feeling is +due to the want of other pleasure in life, to the forced introspection +of solitude, to the desire to feel emotion when there is nothing without +to raise it. + +The old and disappointed turn almost always to religion. Thus it seems +as if the quality of religion in mankind were due to two causes; to +temperament, according to the emotional necessity, the desire for +stimulation and the absence of mental restriction; and to environment, +according as the life led furnishes excitement and interest or is dull, +leading to a search within for that which does not come from without. Of +such are the ultra religious. + + * * * * * + +And the irreligious, those who say openly that they have no religion, +amongst whom are they to be found? They can, I think, be divided into +three classes. + +There are first of all those who are very low down in the scale of +humanity, who are wanting in all the finer instincts of mankind. You +will find them usually in cities, amongst the dregs of the people; for +in the country it is difficult to find any who are quite without the +finer emotions. The air and land and sky, the sunset and the sunrise, +the myriad beauties of the world, do not leave them quite unmoved. And +then solitude, which gives men time to think, not to reason but to +think; which gives their hearts peace to hear the echoes of nature, is a +great refiner. Countrymen are often stupid, they are rarely brutalised. + +Then there are the sensualists of all classes in life. It is a strange +thing to notice that of all the commands of religions, of all laws of +conduct they have given forth, but one only is almost invariably kept. +There is but one crime that the religious rarely commit, and that is +sensuality. It is true the rule is not absolute. There are the +Swedenborgians, if theirs can be called a religion. I doubt myself if it +be so, if this one fact did not oust it from the family of faiths. But +however that may be, sensuality in all history has been almost always +allied to irreligion. Not as a consequence, but because I think both +proceed from the same cause, a nerve weakness and irritability arising +from deficient vitality, a want of the finer emotions, which are +religion. + +Finally, there are the philosophers. In all history, in all countries, +in all faiths there have been the thinkers, the reasoners, the "lovers +of wisdom," and they have rejected the religion of their people. + +Of what sort are these philosophers? Are they, as they claim to be, the +cream of mankind, those who have the pure reason? Are they such as the +world admires? I think not. For pure reason does not appeal to mankind. +It is too cold, too hard, too arid. It is barren and produces nothing. +What has philosophy given the world but unending words? It is the denial +of emotion, and emotion is life. It is the reduction of living to the +formula of mathematics--a grey world. Those who, rejecting religion, +rely on pure reason, are those who have lost the stronger emotions, who +have heads but no hearts, while the enthusiasts have hearts but no +heads. And in between these lie the great mass of men who are religious +but not fanatics, who reason but who do not look to reason to prove +their religion, the men and women who live large lives, and are lost +neither in the tumult of unrestrained emotion, nor bound in the iron +limits of a mental syllogism. + +"Do you infer," it will be asked, "that religion is in inverse ratio to +reason? But it is not so. Many men, most men of the highest intellectual +attainments, have been deeply religious, great soldiers, sailors, +statesmen, discoverers; the great men are on our side, the thinkers have +been with us." I am not sure of that. The great _doers_ have always been +religious, the great thinkers rarely so. No man has ever, I think, sat +down calmly unbiassed to reason out his religion and not ended by +rejecting it. The great men who have also been religious do not +invalidate what I say. Newton was a great thinker, perhaps one of the +greatest thinkers of all time. He could follow natural laws and +occurrences with the keenest eye for flaws, for mistakes, for rash +assumption. He could never accept until he had proved. But did he ever +apply this acumen to religion? Not so; he accepted at once the +chronology of the Old Testament unhesitatingly, blindly, and worked out +a chronology of the Fall much as did Archbishop Usher. + +Indeed, I think it is always so. There is no assumption more fallacious +than that because a man is a keen reasoner on one subject he is also on +another, that because one thing is fair ground for controversy other +things are so also. Men who are really religious, who believe in their +faith whatever that faith may be, consider it above proof, beyond +argument. It is strange at first, it is to later thoughts one of the +most illuminating things, to hear a keen reasoner who is also a +religious man talk, to note the change of mental attitude as the subject +changes. In ordinary matters everything is subject to challenge, to +discussion, to rules of logic. But when it is religion that comes up, +note the dropped voice, the softened face, the gentle light in the eye. +It is emotion now, not reason; feeling, not induction. It is a subject +few religious men care to discuss at all, because they know it is not a +matter of pure reason. True religion, therefore, that beautiful +restrained emotion which all who have it treasure, which those who have +not envy and hate, lives among the men who are between these extremes. +Those who with strong emotions have but narrow outlets for it become +unduly religious, narrow sectarians. + +Those with uncontrolled religious emotions become fanatics, those with +none but brute emotions remain brutes. Those whom the cult of sensual +desires has overcome follow Horace and Omar Khayyam. Those in whom +reason has overpowered and killed the emotions become those most arid of +people, philosophers. True and beautiful faith is to be found only +amongst those who lie between all these extremes. They have many and +keen emotions, but they find many outlets for them all, so that the +stream of feeling is not directed into one narrow channel. And they +employ reason not as a murdering dissecting power, but as an equaliser +and balancer of the living. Reason is not concerned with what religion +is, but only with the relative position religious emotions shall occupy +in life. Too little lets it run wild, too much kills it. + +But religion is never reason. It is a cult of certain of the emotions. +What these emotions are I hope to explain further on. + + + + +CHAPTER XV. + +ENTHUSIASM. + + +Such are the qualities and such the circumstances that increase and +nourish religious feeling, of such are the more religious of all +peoples. What is the result in their lives? Does their religion cause +them to live more worthy lives? Are the more deeply religious those whom +the world at large most deeply respects? What is the effect of their +religion in their lives? + +I am not speaking here of professors of religion, of priests or monks, +of fakirs or yogis, of any whose lives are directly devoted to the +practice of the teaching of religion. They are a class apart, and are +judged by standards other than ordinary men. Their world is another than +that of ordinary folk. I speak now of the religion of those who still +live the lives of ordinary people. What effect has religion upon them, +and how are they ordinarily regarded in the world? + +It is strange that if indeed religion be the truth of truths it should +be regarded with such impatience, with such suspicion, if brought into +ordinary life. For so it is. Every class has its own rules, its own +conventions; every profession, every teacher, every form of society has +its own rules, which are not founded at all upon religion. In every walk +of life it is assumed that, subject to the special etiquette of that +trade or profession and to the observance of what is considered +honourable conduct therein, every man's actions are governed by +self-interest alone. If a man allege any reasons but this he is regarded +with doubt and suspicion. He is avoided. I will give an instance in +point. There was a doctor once whom I knew who practised a certain +"cure" for disease--it is quite immaterial what the system was; it was +especially good for tropical diseases--and as some of us were conversing +with him on the subject, and recalling with gratitude and pleasure the +benefit we had derived, it was suggested to him that he might do well in +India. "If in a hill station," we said, "you were to establish yourself +and practise your treatment, you would have a large clientèle. Many +Englishmen who could not afford the time to come home would come to you, +and there would be natives also. Such treatment as yours would hurt no +one's caste. No doubt you would do well, you would make a name and be +rich." This was his answer: "I would not care about that if I could only +do those poor natives some good." It was sincerely uttered, I doubt not. +There was no conscious cant, but it fell upon his hearers as a chill. +The conversation dropped, it changed, and gradually we went away. The +remark pained. Why? It is always so. Trade is trade and professions are +professions, but religion is apart. It is not to be intruded into daily +life; it is to be kept sedulously away. Not because its introduction +suggests something higher and shames or discountenances the observances +of life. The feeling is the very reverse. We suspect it. It does not +suggest a higher code of morality at all. No man of experience but would +instinctively avoid doing business with anyone who brought his religious +motives into daily intercourse. Let a man be as honourable, as +scrupulous, as high-minded as he can. We honour him for it. But +religious! No. To say that we suspect the speaker of cant is not always +correct. It may in cases be so, but not always, not generally. It is not +the reason of the instinctive withdrawal. To say that religious feeling +is a handicap in the struggle for life is also incorrect. It is not a +handicap at all. Let a man be as religious as he likes provided he +tempers it with common sense and keeps the expression of it for home +consumption. To say that a man is highly religious in his private life +is praise, and creates confidence. To say that a man intrudes religious +principles into his business or profession or daily intercourse is +enough to make men shun him at once. He becomes an impossible person. +This is a strange commentary on the theory of religion, that what is +supposed to elevate life is, when introduced into everyday affairs, +almost always a sign of incompetence or fraud. Yet it may be so. Some +years ago all Britain was alarmed by a terrible bank failure. It was +colossal, the biggest perhaps that has ever occurred. There were no +assets, and there were liabilities of over ten million pounds. The +shares were unlimited, and the shareholders liable for all this great +sum of money made away with by dishonesty and crime. + +It brought ruin, absolutely blank ruin, to many thousands of people. + +The directors of this bank were known in the city as religious men. They +were kirk elders, Sunday school teachers, preachers--I know not what. +They were steeped in religion and iniquity to the lips. They were tried, +and some went to penal servitude. + +There was again some years later another terrible failure. It was a +building society and its allied concerns. And again the chief managers +were known as intensely religious men. They too, were prominent members +of the religious community to which they belonged; they gave freely to +charity; they held, it was stated, prayer meetings before each +consultation of the Board. They were steeped in lying and fraud also. +And again quite recently a solicitor absconded with great sums of trust +money. The same story. It has been the same story over and over and over +again. + +The writer can remember being concerned in the trial of a similar case +in the East. + +It is useless to assert that all these men were hypocrites, that they +shammed religion, that they used it as a bait to catch the unwary. It +may be true in one case or two, but not in the majority. It is useless +to assert that their assumption of religion was false. Who discovered it +to be false until the catastrophe? No one. They lived among religious +men, their lives were to a great extent open. Was there any doubt about +the truth of their religion then? No one has suggested such a thing. +These men were religious from boys, they lived among religious people +all their lives. They were honoured and respected for that religion. No +man could sham such a thing. It is easy to talk of deceit; but a life of +such deceit, such sham is impossible. It is quite absolutely impossible. +That the religion of these men was and is as good and as real as that of +other men it is impossible to doubt. Criminals are often very religious. +What is the explanation of this? + +Well, Christians when presented with these facts have two answers. One +is that these men are all shams--an impossible explanation. The other is +a mournful shake of the head, and the statement that such a connection +ought not to be; religion should always purify a man. "Should" and +"ought!" What answers are these? Who can tell what "should" and what +"ought" to happen? The question is what _does_ happen? And all history +tells us that there is nothing so deplorable, nothing that results in +such certain catastrophe, nothing that ends by so outraging all our +better feelings, as the bringing of religion into affairs. Let us recall +at random the greatest abominations we can remember. The Thirty Years' +War, the Dragonnades, St. Bartholomew, the Witch Trials, the fires of +Smithfield, the persecution of the Catholic priests in Elizabeth's time, +the Irish Penal Laws. All these were done by religious people in the +name of religion. No faith is free from the stain. Can anyone possibly +say that the men responsible for these were shams? Was Cortez a sham, +was Cromwell, were all the Catholics in France shams? Were the +Crusaders, who celebrated the victory that gave back the city of the +Prince of Peace to His believers by an indiscriminate massacre, shams? +Did not the German Emperor in one breath tell his army that their model +was Christ, and then in the next to show no quarter in China? Who were +the most ruthless suppressers of the Mutiny? Did not blood-thirstiness +and religion go together? Is the Boer religion sham? Yet they lie and +rob as well as any other man, or better. Is it not a maxim that a +fanatic in any religion is simply blind, not only to his own code, but +to all morality? Does not the religious press of all countries furnish +examples of the deplorable lengths to which religion, unrestrained by +worldly common sense and worldly decency and honour, will go? I do not +wish to press the point; it is a very unpleasant one. No one who honours +religion can touch it without sorrow; no one who is trying clearly to +see what religions are can overlook it. Religion requires to be tempered +with common sense, with worldly moderation and restraint; taken by +itself it is simply a calamity. But if religion has its failures, has +it not its successes? Have not great and beautiful things been done in +its name? Are not almost all the great heroisms outcomes of religion? +Yes, that is true, too. If religion has much to be ashamed of it has +very much to be proud of. In its name has been done much of which we are +proud. No one will deny that. More than enough to set off the evil? +Well, that is hardly what I am seeking. I am trying to find out what is +the effect of religion--or, rather, of an excess of religion--when +imported into life. Is the influence all for good? I think in face of +history we cannot say that. Has it been all for evil? That answer is +also impossible. Then what effect has it had? And I think the reply is +this. + +When religion (any religion, for it is as true of the East as the West) +is brought out or into daily life and used as a guide or a weapon in the +world it has no effect either for good or evil. Its effect is simply in +strengthening the heart, in blinding the eyes, in deafening the ears. It +is an intensive force, an intoxicant. It doubles or trebles a man's +powers. It is an impulsive force sending him headlong down the path of +emotion, whether that path lead to glory or to infamy. It is a +tremendous stimulant, that is all. It overwhelms the reason in a wave +of feeling; and therefore all men rightly distrust it, and the tendency +grows daily stronger to keep it away from "affairs." For the people who +are most apt to bring religious motives into daily use are not the +clearest and the steadiest; they are the more emotional, the least +self-controlled, those who are fondest of "sensation." And the want of +self-control, the thirst for emotion, when it passes a certain point is, +we know, always allied to immorality, is very frequently a form of +incipient insanity, and not seldom results in crime. + +It is not probable any believer will think the above true of his own +faith, but he will do so of every other. If you are an European, think +of Mahommedanism, of some forms of Hinduism, of the Boxers, who are a +religious sect. You will admit it to be true of them certainly, as they +will of you. And to come nearer, if you are a Catholic, you will see how +true it is of Protestantism; if you are a Protestant, of Catholicism. +And that is enough. Each believer must and will defend his own faith; +that is the exception, the one absolute Truth. So we will suppose this +chapter to refer only to others, the false faiths. Everyone will admit +it to be true of them. + +It must not be forgotten that this chapter is not of the general effect +or the ordinary results of religion. It applies only to the excess when +brought into public or business life. Do not let us have any mistake. Of +the ordinary effect of religion in an ordinary person there is here no +word at all. The general effect of religion on private natural life is +quite another subject, a very different subject indeed. Therefore let us +have no misunderstanding. + + + + +CHAPTER XVI. + +STRENGTH AND WEAKNESS. + + +Has, then, a force, or a teaching that is capable of excess, no use? + +If you look back at the histories of peoples, at the histories of their +great wars, their movements, their enthusiasms, you will find that on +one side or another, usually on both, religion has been invoked to their +aid. For one side or for both the enthusiasm has been declared to be a +religious enthusiasm, the war a religious war, the awakening of thought +a religious awakening. The gods fought for the Greeks before Troy as the +saints did for the Spaniards against the Huns, as the Boers expected the +Almighty to fight in South Africa to-day. The intellectual revolt of the +Teuton against the mental leading-strings of the Latins became a +conflict of religion, as did the political conflict of the Puritans +against the Stuart Kings. It has been religion always, if possible, +that has been called on to lend strength and enthusiasm to the fighters +to attempt forlorn hopes, to carry out far-reaching reforms, to dare +everything for the end. + +There is one great exception. + +In the conflict that broke out in France at the end of the last century, +that storm which swept before it the breakwaters of a world and changed +mediĉval Europe into that of to-day, religion was not the motive power. +Those six hundred men of Marseilles "who knew how to die" were sustained +by no religious belief. Those armies which affronted the world in arms +had no celestial champions in their ranks. Those iconoclasts, who broke +down the barriers that made the good things of the world a forbidden +city to all but a caste, had no religious doctrine to work by. + +Indeed, it may be said that it was quite the reverse, that the war of +the Revolution was against religion; but I doubt if that is quite the +truth. That the war was against the priests is in great measure true, +but it was because of their support to the nobles, because of their +connection with worldly abuses, because of their irreligion, that they +were attacked. Religion, too, suffered, it is true, but only +incidentally and for a time. And anyhow, you cannot get force out of a +negation. But however this may be, the point as far as I am now +concerned is not material; for all I want here to assert is that the +enthusiasm which acted as a breath of life to the half-dead millions of +France was not a religious enthusiasm. It never even assumed at any time +a religious basis. It was not an enthusiasm of God, but of Humanity, and +the war cry was "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity." It was a revolt of the +bond against the gaoler, of the spoiled against the ravishers; it was +the assertion of the absolute equality and liberty of man. + +Looking back at that turmoil now from the security of a hundred years it +is easy to scorn these enthusiasts. We can point to their excesses, to +the horrible crimes that were committed, and ask where was Liberty then; +to their wars, and ask in vain for the Fraternity; to their proscription +of whole classes made in the name of Equality. The excesses are so +black, so prominent, that it is even possible sometimes to forget the +great vitalising and regenerating effect of that enthusiasm. + +It is easy, too, now that all is past, to criticise the very war cry +itself. Liberty, we say! Yes, liberty is good--in moderation and +according to circumstances. All liberty is not good. Children must be +under government, they cannot be quite free. They have to be directed in +the right way. And peoples, too, and classes who have fallen behind in +the race, who are unable to live up to the higher standards of greater +nations, they cannot be free. Then the citizen of a great nation must in +many matters resign his liberty for better things. Liberty is good, in +moderation, and so are Equality and Fraternity, but they are not +absolute truths. To cry them aloud, as did the Revolutionists of France, +to insist upon them in season and out of season, is to fall into an +error almost as great as their opponents'. We have little doubt now that +in every well-ordered state there must be inequality, submission to +masters as well as freedom, and that there are many people it is quite +undesirable to fraternise with. Truth lies in the mean. + +And yet consider, does truth always lie in the mean? There were the +peasants of France ground into the very earth, denied any sort of +equality with the nobles, any sort of liberty at all, hopelessly unable +to fraternise with anyone. To breathe into them the breath of life, to +rouse them from their deadly lethargy to a furious enthusiasm, to fill +their hearts so full that they would go forward and never cease till +they had won, that was the eminent necessity. The difficulties were so +immense, the arms of the people so weak, the chains so rivetted into +their souls that only from a furious and uncontrollable impulse could +any help be obtained. If the philosopher had gone to these dry bones of +men, thrashing the ponds all night to prevent the frogs annoying their +seigneur by croaking, sowing for others to reap, raising up sons to be +slaves, and daughters to be worse than slaves--if he had gone to them +and said, "My friends, you are ground down too much; you want a little +more freedom--not too much, but some; you require more equality--not +complete, for the perfect state requires certain inequalities, but more +than you have; you require also a modicum of fraternity," what would he +have effected? That level-headed philosopher would be saying the truth +doubtless, and Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, as the Revolutionists +understood it, were impossibilities, therefore untruths; but what would +he have effected? Would his "truth" have freed the slaves, have burst +their chains; have restored sunlight to a continent, as the exaggeration +did? Never imagine it. It may be that in the mean lies truth, but in +exaggeration lies motive power. It was in the glorious dreams, the +beautiful imaginings, the surgings of the heart that arose from that war +cry _Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité_, that the strength lay. There is no +strength in the mean. It is the enthusiasts that make the world move. If +they have been guilty of half the misery, they have achieved half the +joy of the world. And therefore consider again, before you brand beliefs +and the teachings and enthusiasms as untruths, because they are +exaggerations, because they are unworkable as they stand. What _is_ +Truth and Untruth? Is not truth also to be judged by its results? May +not what is an untruth now have been a living truth then? Have we +reduced truth to measure? If, therefore, this which is an exaggeration +now was then a necessary revivifying truth may there not be others like +it? Consider the conditions of the world into which the Buddha preached +first the teaching of peace, of purity, of calm, of holiness. It was a +world of unrest, of fierce striving, of savage passions, expressed to +their full. It was a world wherein these were virtues worshipped to +exaggeration. It was a world without balance, and to redress this +balance there came the Buddha with his teaching of the rejection of all +the glories of the world, the teaching of the cult of the soul, the +aspiration after peace, and beauty, and rest. + +As was the world to whom the Buddha preached so was the world to whom +the Christ preached six hundred years later. Their codes of conduct +were the same. Against violence they taught resignation, against the +search for glory they taught renunciation; they opposed pride with +meekness, struggle with calm, success in this world by happiness in the +next. They came to redress the balance of the world; they came to make +men hope. And therefore it is impossible to take their codes by +themselves and consider them, to reject them because they do not express +the exact truth. What is to be considered is not that code alone, but +the purpose it came to fulfil. The codes of Buddha and of Christ are +exaggerations, that is true; they cannot be lived up to in their +entirety, that is also true. Taken alone they are impossible; that is +true. Are they then untrue, useless, valueless guides to conduct? + +Not quite so. For man is so built that he requires an exaggeration. If +you would persuade him to go with you a mile you must urge him to come +two; if you would have him acquire a reasonable freedom you must create +in him an enthusiasm for unreasonable freedom; if you would have him +moderate his passions he must be adjured to wholly suppress them. + +And therefore, it may be, do these codes of Buddha and Christ live. Not +because they are absolutely true, not because they furnish an ideal +mode of life, not in order to be fully accepted, but because they are +exaggerations that balance exaggerations; and out of the mean has come +what is worth having; because they have an effect which the exact truth +would not have in the masses of men. + +They have been truth, because their results were true. + + * * * * * + +But the world is growing older, it is learning many things. Never again +can we hear that cry of _Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité_, the enthusiasms +of a nation for its ideals. These ideals were true then, they were true +because their work was true. But their work is done; men's eyes are open +now, we do not require such exaggerations to move us to our work. They +were in themselves but half truths. It required the violent assertions +of inequality, of slavery, to make up a whole truth. With one has died +the necessity for the other. + +And so it may be with the codes of Buddhism and Christianity. They were +true in their day, because they had their work to do. To have any effect +at all they had to be enormous exaggerations; to earn any respect or +attention they had to be proclaimed as perfect, as divine. But now, with +the dying of the old brutalities, with the growth of civilisation, of +humanity, and culture, the old savage exaggerations are dying out. The +world is more refined, more effeminate, more clear-sighted. It says to +itself, "These codes, if divine and perfect, must be capable of being +implicitly obeyed; but they cannot be obeyed, and therefore they are not +divine." + +And in the increased civilisation we feel less the need of a teaching of +gentleness; our nature is no longer too coarse; it may be it is going +the other way, that the softening process is going too far, and that our +need is a new savagery. And above all we hate exaggeration. To minds +capable of thought, of reason, and of culture, exaggeration on one side +is no excuse for exaggeration on the other. We are changing from the +older men who required enthusiasms to drive them and violent +exaggerations to cause them to move. We like exactitude. + +These codes were made for rougher days than ours. They were true then. +They are not true now--not true, at least, to the more thoughtful. But +that they were true once, that the world owes to them its rescue from +the exaggeration of the passions, we must never forget. They were truths +while opposed. When opposed no longer they become false and fall. An +exaggeration can only be useful as long as it is not perceived to be +so. Set up two beams against each other, they are savagery and the +purist codes. While one stands so does the other, and they make an +equilibrium. But take away one and straightway the other must fall too. +One cannot stand alone. + + + + +CHAPTER XVII. + +MIND AND BODY. + + +"I have been lent your book 'The Soul of a People,'" said a lady to me, +"but I have only had time so far to read the dedication. Do you know +what I exclaimed?" + +"I cannot even guess," I replied. + +"I said, 'How very scientific.' Do you know what I meant?" + +As my dedication is to the Burmese people, and only says I have tried +always to see their virtues and forget their faults, as a friend should, +I was quite unable to see where the science came in, and I said so. + +"It is Christian Science," she told me. + +Then she proceeded to tell me much about this Christian science, that it +was the science of looking at the best side of things, that it cured the +body by mind, despair by hope, darkness by light, solitude by a sense of +the companionship of God (good). She had proof in her own family of +what a change it can bring to the unhappy. It was, she said, all new, +and discovered by Mrs. Eddy. + +This was not, of course, the first I had heard of this strange cult. It +has been in the air for some time past. Mostly it has been jeered at as +an absurdity by those who have looked only at the extraordinary claims +it makes, at the intellectual fog it offers as thought, at the +childishness and inconsequence of whatever conceptions could be picked +out of the maze of words; and up till then it had seemed to me but +another of those misty foolishnesses that amuse people who have nothing +else to do. + +But when a case of real benefit, of benefit I could see and understand, +was offered me in proof of its value, it seemed to me worth while to +consider what there was in this teaching, to see what sense lay in this +apparent senselessness, and to what want this new science appealed. + +I have mentioned elsewhere in this book--it is a fact that comes to one +who has been in the East many years very strongly--the aimless pessimism +that is so prevalent in England and Europe. I am not here concerned with +its cause. Mainly, perhaps, it is due to the rise of a great class of +middle and upper-middle people who have no object in life. They have by +inheritance or acquirement enough money to live upon, and the struggle +for life passes them by. They have no necessity to work, and they are +not endowed with the brain or energy necessary to take to themselves +some object or pursuit. Their minds and sympathies have never been +trained by necessity. They have fallen out of the great world of life +and passion into eddies and backwaters. They have become flabby, both +bodily, mentally, and emotionally, and, conscious of their own +uselessness, they have fallen into the saddest pessimism. They are not +blasé, because they have never tasted the realities of life; they have +few friends, because they have no common interest to bind them to +others. Their lives are monotonies, and their thoughts and speech are a +prolonged whine. They are perpetually searching and never finding, +because they know not what they seek. Most of them are women, but there +are men also. I do not mean that all Christian Scientists are from the +ranks of the unemployed. It is recruited also from those who with larger +needs for emotion find the circumstances of ordinary life too narrow for +them, from the over nervous and weak of all classes. But the majority +are, I think, of those who do nothing. + +They turn to the established religions, vaguely hoping for the emotional +stimulus they need, but they fail to find it. + +I am not quite sure why. One Christian Scientist assured me that Mrs. +Eddy had discovered, all out of her own mind, that God was Love, and +that was why Christian Science was so successful. This was a lady who +had gone to church regularly all her life. Yet she supposed this a new +discovery! A strange but not at all solitary instance of what I have so +often found, that the immense majority who call themselves Christians +have never tried to realize what their religion is. Many others have +told me that they are "Christian Scientists" for other allied reasons. +But no doubt the great attraction of Christian Science is in its +doctrine, that bodily ills can be cured by mental effort, the assertion +that evil exists only in the mind. This is, of course, nothing new. +Faith healing has been common in all stages of the world, has allied +itself to all religions. There is the standing example of Lourdes +to-day, there was the relic worship of the middle ages, the pilgrimages +and washings in sacred pools. It is common all over the world. The good +effects attributed, and often truly, to charms and magic are but another +instance of it. A great deal of the sickness and unhappiness of the +world has always been purely the result of a diseased thought acting +upon the body. The great antidote the world has always offered to this +evil has been work. In daily work, in the necessity for daily effort, in +the forced detachment of mind it brings on, in the interest that a +worker is obliged to take in his work lest he fail, or even starve, lies +the great tonic. And to this has been always added the belief in some +religious rite, or in charms. + +But these resources are closed to the unhappy class that I am writing +of. They need not work. They never have worked at anything, and know not +how to do it. Even from childhood their brains have been relaxed and +their interests narrowed. Yet a great interest is a necessity for all +men and women. But consider the lives of these people, especially of the +women, how terrible it is. There is nothing they care for, nothing. One +day of monotony is added to another for ever. Marriage and children may +dissipate it for a time, may give them the interest they require, but it +does not last long. Love fades into indifference, the children grow up. +They no longer need care and thought, and there is nothing else. Dull, +blank misery descends upon them as a garment never to be lifted. + +And if the love be a disappointment, a tragedy, then what help is there +anywhere? "Let me die," she cries, "and be done with it. Life is not +worth living." The world is horrible, because they see the world through +glasses dimmed with their own misery. + +To them comes Mrs. Eddy and says, "All the evil you feel, the mental +sickness, the bodily sickness, is imaginary. Face your evils in the +certainty that they are but bogies and they will flee before you. You +shall again become well and strong, and life shall be worth living." + +It is, of course, a wild exaggeration. Pain and sickness are real +things, and the empire of the mind over the body is very limited. +Still, there is an empire and it must never be forgotten. The +healthy-minded--those who work, who live their lives, who love and hate, +and fight, and win and lose, to whom the world is a great arena--will +laugh at Mrs. Eddy. They need not this teaching which is half a truth +and half a lie. They see the false half only because they need not the +true half. And the others, the mental invalids, they see the true half +and not the false. It is _all_ true to them, and it _must_ be all true +to be of use, for power lies in the exaggeration, never in the mean. +This is the secret of "Christian Science." We have in our midst a +terrible disease, growing daily worse, the disease of inutility, which +breeds pessimism, and Mrs. Eddy's doctrine of the imaginary nature of +evil is good for this pessimism. The sick seize it with avidity because +they find it helps their symptoms, and in the relief it affords to their +unhappiness they are willing to swallow all the rest of the formless +mist that is offered to them as part of their religion. + +I do not know that "Christian Scientists" differ greatly from believers +in other religions in this point. It is an excellent instance of how one +useful tenet will cause the acceptance of a whole mass of absurdities +and even make them seem real and true. Christian Science has come as the +quack medicine to cure a disease that is a terrible reality, and it is +of use because it contains in all its mélange one ingredient, morphia, +that dulls the pain. But the cure of this disease lies elsewhere than in +Christian Science, than, indeed, in any religion. + +I have given a chapter to this "Science," not because it appears to me +that it is ever likely to become a real force or of real importance, but +because it illustrates, I think, the reason of the success or otherwise +of all religions. It exhibits in exaggerated form what is the nature of +all religions. + +They come to fulfil an emotional want, or wants that are imperative and +that call for relief. And they succeed and persist exactly as they +minister to these emotional wants. The emotion that requires religion +is always a pessimism of some form or other, a weariness, a +hopelessness. And the religion is accepted because it combats that +helplessness and gives a hope. All religions are optimisms to their +believers. + +A great deal of foolishness may be included in a faith without injury to +its success. Doctrine, theory, scientific theology, may be as empty and +meaningless as it is in Christian Science, and still the faith will +live. And the central idea must be exaggerated. It must be so +exaggerated that to outsiders it appears only an immense falsehood. It +is so in all the religions. Truth lies in the mean, power in the +extreme. They are opposed as are freewill and destination, as are God +and Law. + + + + +CHAPTER XVIII. + +PERSONALITY. + + +There is one complaint that all Europeans make of the Burmese. It +matters not what the European's duties may be, what his profession, or +his trade, or his calling--it is always the same, "the Burmans will not +stand discipline." It is, says the European, fatal to him in almost all +walks of life. For instance, the British Government tried at one time in +Burma to raise Burmese regiments officered by Europeans, after the +pattern of the Indian troops. There seemed at first no reason why it +should not succeed. The Burmans are not cowards. Although not endowed +with the fury of the Pathan or the bloodthirsty valour of the Ghurka, +the Burman is brave. He will do many things none but brave men can do; +kill panthers with sharpened sticks, for instance, and navigate the +Irrawaddy in flood in canoes, with barely two inches free board. He is, +in his natural state in the villages, unaccustomed to any strict +discipline. But then, so are most people; and if the levies of the +Burmese kings were but a mob, why, so are most native levies. There +seemed _a priori_ no reason why Burmese troops should not be fairly +useful. And the attempt was made. It failed. + +And so, to a greater or less extent, all attempts to discipline the +Burmans in any walk of life have always failed. Amongst the +police--which must, of course, be composed of natives of the +country--discipline, even the light discipline sought to be enforced, is +always wanting. And good men will not join the force, mostly because +they dislike to be ruled. In the mills in Rangoon labour has been +imported from India. Not that the Burman is not a good workman--he is +physically and mentally miles above the imported Telugu--but he will not +stand discipline. It is the same on the railways and on the roads, and +the private servants of almost all Europeans are Indian. The Burman will +not stand control, daily control, daily order, the feeling of subjection +and the infliction of punishment. Especially the infliction of +punishment. He resents it, even when he knows and admits he deserves it. + +Is, then, the Burman impatient of suffering? He is the most patient, the +most cheerful of mortals. I who have seen districts ruined by famine, +families broken up and dissolved, farms abandoned, cattle dying by the +thousand, I know this. And in the famine camps, where tens of thousands +lived and worked hard for a bare subsistence, was there any inability to +bear up, any despondency, any despair? There was never any. Such an +example of cheerfulness, of courage under great suffering, could not be +surpassed. Yet if you fine your servant a few annas out of his good pay +for a fault he will admit he made, he will bitterly resent it and +probably leave you. It is Authority, Personality, that the Burmans +object to. And the whole social life of the people, the whole of their +religion, shows how deeply this distaste to Personal Authority enters +into their lives. + +There is no aristocracy in Burma. There has never been so. There has, it +is true, always been a King--that was a necessity; and his authority, +nominally absolute, was in fact very limited. But beside him there was +no one. There were no lords of manors, no feudalism, no serfage of any +kind. There was a kind of slavery, the idea of which probably came into +Burma with the code of Manu, as a redemption of debt. At our conquest of +Upper Burma it disappeared without a sign, but it was the lightest of +its kind. The slave was a domestic servant at most, more usually a +member of the family; the authority exercised over him or her was of the +gentlest, for with the dislike to submit to personal authority there was +an equally great dislike to exercising it. The intense desire for power +and authority over others which is so distinguishing a mark of western +people does not obtain among the Burmese. It is one of our difficulties +to make our subordinate Burmese magistrates and officers exercise +sufficient authority in their charges. This dislike, both to exercising +and submitting to authority, is instinctive and very strong. + +In western nations, more especially the Latin nations, who made +Christianity, it is the very reverse. There is in us both the desire and +ability to govern and the power to submit readily to those who are above +us. We rejoice in aristocracies, whether of the Government or of the +Church. We organise all our institutions upon that basis. We have a +rigid Government, such as no Orientals have dreamt of, least of all the +Burmese. We revere rank instinctively. We like to have masters. Personal +submissiveness is in our eyes an excellent quality. We know that to +declare a man to be a faithful servant is a great praise. In our lives +as in our religions, lord and servant express a continued relationship. +And from this quality, this instinct of discipline, this innate power +both of governing and submitting to governance, come the forms of +government and our success in trade and in many other matters. + +It would, however, be quite outside the point of this chapter to discuss +all the results of these differences and their effect for good and bad. +To the European the Burman, with his distaste for authority, appears to +be unfitted for the greater successes of life. To the Burman the +European's desire for authority appears to result in the slavery of the +many to the few, in the loss of individual liberty and the contraction +of happiness. Either or both, or neither, may be true. It is here +immaterial, for all I wish to point out and to emphasise is that whereas +the Burman, who is a Buddhist, dislikes all personal authority +instinctively, the western Christians, more especially the Latin +peoples, on the contrary crave after it. The Burman's ideal is to be +independent of everyone, even if poor, to have no one over him and no +one under him, to live among his equals. But in western countries the +tendency is all to divide the world into two classes, master and man, to +organise--which means, of course, authority and submission--and to make +obedience one of the greatest of virtues. + +Now consider their faiths. The Christian has a personal God. He owes to +that God unquestioning obedience and submission. Man may praise God and +thank Him, but not do the reverse. Man owes to God reverence, one of the +greatest of the virtues. And the Churches are all organised in the same +way. The authority of God becomes the authority of the Pope, the Tsar, +the Bishops, the priests. The amount of submission and reverence due to +the priests of Christianity may vary in different countries, but it is +always there, and the reverence due to God never alters. + +Do you think such a system of religion would be bearable to a Burman? To +him neither reverence nor submission to Personality, whether God or +priest or master, is an instinctive beauty. He acknowledges neither God +nor priest, and he avoids masters as much as possible. His nature does +not lead him to it. He revolts against Personality. Courage under the +inevitable he has to the greatest extent. If he suffer as the result of +a law he has nothing but cheerful acceptance, even if he do not +understand it. If he can see his suffering to be the result of his own +mistakes he will bear it with resignation, and note that in future he +should be more careful. But that he should be _punished_, that rouses in +him resentment, revolt. He would cry to God, Why do you hurt me? You +need not if you do not like; You are all-powerful. Cannot you manage +otherwise than by causing so much pain to me and all the world? There +are other feelings caused by a Personality, many other feelings than +that of submission. There is defiance, bitterness. Did not Ajax defy the +lightning? If a man or a boy looking at the world discovers in it more +misery than happiness, more injustice than justice, of what sort will be +his feelings to the Author of it all? + +I fear that if the Burman accepted a Personal All-powerful God and then +looked at the state of the world, his attitude towards that Personality +would not be all admiration and reverence. Indeed, they have often told +me so. + +But before Law, before Necessity. You cannot revolt against the +inevitable. Passion is useless. The suffering which would be resented +from a Personality is borne with courage as an inevitable result. You +may be of good courage and say, "It is my fault, my ignorance; I will +learn not to put my hands in the fire and so not be burnt." But if you +suppose a God burnt you without telling you why, without giving you a +chance, what then? Is this hard to understand? I do not know, but to me +it is not so. For I can remember a boy, who was much as these Burmans +are, who found authority hard to bear, punishment very difficult to +accept; who remembered always that the punishment might have been +omitted, who thought it was often mistaken and vindictive. For if you +are almost always ill, and find for days and weeks and months that very +little mental exertion is as much as you are capable of, how much do you +accept the justice of being called "idle," "lazy," "indolent," and being +kept in to waste what little mental strength you have left in writing +meaningless impositions? There is more. It is a Christian teaching, a +lesson that is frequently enforced in children, that all their acts are +watched by God. "He sees me now." "God is watching me." How often are +not these written in large words on nursery walls? And do you think that +there are not some natures who revolt from this? To be watched--always +watched. Cannot you imagine the intense oppression, the irritation and +revulsion, such a doctrine may occasion? "Cannot I be left alone?" And +when he learns that there is another belief--that he is not being +watched, that he is not a child in a nursery, but a man acting under +laws he can learn--cannot you imagine the endless relief, the joy as of +emancipation from a prison? That it is so to many people I know, the +feeling that law means freedom, but I also know that to others it is +not. "Law, this rigid law," said the French missionary priest with a +sigh when we were discussing the matter, "it makes me shudder. It seems +to me like an iron chain, like a terrible destiny binding us in. Ah, I +never could believe that. But a God who watches over us, who protects +us, who is our Father, that is to me true and beautiful. Who will help +you if not God? Under Law you must face the world alone. No!" and he +shuddered, "let us not think of it. I cannot abide the idea." And how +many are like him? + +Do you think that such feelings can be changed? Do you think that he who +thinks Law to be freedom will ever be argued or converted into Theism? +It can never be. Such beliefs are innate, they are instincts far beyond +reason or discussion, to be understood only by those who have felt them. + +There is the instinct for God which rules almost all the West and India. +There is the instinct against God and for Law which rules the far East. +You cannot get away from either, you cannot prove either or disprove it. +They are instincts, and they influence not only the religious beliefs +but the whole lives of the peoples. + +It is easy to see how in Europe the instinct for Personality has +influenced all history. In moderation its effects have been all for +good; it binds people into nations, it enables the weaker and more +ignorant to accept willingly the leadership of the better. It has +manifested itself with us even to-day in the respect and reverence and +affection we have all felt for our Queen, who has so lately left us. And +in its excess it has been wholly evil. It has led us to irresponsible +monarchs, to the terrible tyranny of the French aristocracy, that +required the whirlwind of a Revolution to efface. In the blind worship +for Napoleon in his later days it drove the nation to terrible +suffering. This desire for Personality has writ its effects large upon +the history of the West, more especially in Latin nations. + +And in Burma the want of this instinct is also written deeply in the +history. There has been with them no enthusiasm for persons, no +idealisation of individuals. There is no inborn desire for rulers and +masters, for obedience and submission. + +The effect of the instinct is writ largely in their history. They have +no aristocracy, they have no feudality, there are neither masters nor +men. They cannot organise or combine. The central Government was +incredibly weak. There is nothing that strikes the Burman with such +surprise as the unvaried obedience of all officials to a faraway +government. But I am now concerned with effects, only causes. I have +wished to show why a Burman believes in Law and not in God, that it +arises from an instinct against overpowering Personality, an innate +dislike to the idea. It is never to him Truth. It makes him unhappy even +to hear of it. He could never accept it as a truth, for truth is that +which is in accord with our hearts. + +Yet the Burman whose ideal is Law is not quite without the instinct of +Personality. He also prays sometimes, and you cannot pray to nothing. +Far down in his heart there is also the same instinct that rules the +West, but it is weak. It finds its vent now and then despite his faith. +And in the West the idea of Law is rising. It is new, but not less true +for that. It rises steadily hand in hand with science, and it, too, will +find its vent despite the faith. + +When the scientific theologian declares that God is not variable, that +He has no passions, no anger, no vengeance, that He is bound by +immovable righteousness and is not affected by prayer, cannot you see +the idea of Law? No one would have said this a hundred years ago. It is +growing in him; it is there, even if he do not recognise it as such, and +sore havoc it makes with the old theologies. + +The instinct of generalisation made many gods into one God; the instinct +of atonement obliged the sub-division of God; to be explained only by +an incomprehensible formula. And now there is arising a third +instinct--that of Law. It is weak yet, but it is there. When it becomes +stronger either Personality must disappear or else a still more +incomprehensible creed must be formulated to reconcile the three ideas. +But what is truth? Are they all true? + + + + +CHAPTER XIX. + +GOD THE SACRIFICE. + + +It is Sunday to-day in the little Italian town, and they have been +holding a procession. I do not know quite what was the reason of the +procession; it is the feast day of the patron of the Church, and it is +connected in some way with him, but quite how no one could tell me. It +was the custom, and that sufficed. It was not a very grand procession, +for the town is small, but there was the town band playing at the head, +and there were girls in twos singing and priests, also in pairs, +singing, and there were banners and a crucifix. This last was just like +any other crucifix you may see; there was the pale body of Christ upon +the cross, with His wounds red with blood, there was the tinsel crown +over the head, there was upon the face the look of suffering. It was +like any other crucifix in a Catholic country, not a work of art at all. +It was gruesome, and to the unbeliever repulsive and unpleasant. But all +the people uncovered as it passed, and many looked to it with reverence +and worship. + +But indeed Catholic countries are full of such crucifixes. They are upon +the hills, they are beside the roadsides, they are in all the churches, +they are in every Catholic household, there is very often one worn upon +the person. + +Throughout Italy, throughout all Catholic countries, there are only two +representations of Christ--as a babe with the Virgin Mary and crucified +upon the cross. It was in Italy that Western Christianity arose and +grew, it was in Italy that it became a living power, it was in Italy +that it acquired consistency, that it was bound together by dogmas and +crystallised in creeds. And still, after nineteen hundred years, it is +Italy that remains the centre of the Christian world. There is no +Christian church so great, so venerable, so imposing as the Church of +Rome. It lasts unchanged amid the cataclasms of worlds. And this people +whose genius made Christianity, whose genius still rules the greater +part of it, what are their conceptions of Christ? What part of His life +is it that has caught their reverence and adoration, what side is it of +His character that appeals to them, what is the emotion that the name of +Christ awakens in these believers? + +Of the Virgin Mary and the infant Christ I have written in another +chapter. It is of the crucifix I wish to write here. Why is it that of +the life of Christ this end of His is considered the most worthy to be +in continual remembrance? + +I confess that when I climb the hill and see the dead Christs upon their +crosses shining white against the olive gardens, when I see His agony +depicted in the churches, when I see the people gaze upon Him +sacrificed, my memory is taken back to other scenes. + +There is a scene that I can remember in a village far away against the +frontier in our farthest East. It was a little village that was once a +city, but decayed; it was walled with huge walls of brick, but they are +fallen into mounds; it had gateways, but they are now but gaps; and a +few huts are huddled in a corner where once a palace stood. + +It is the custom in this village that every year at a certain season +white cocks are to be sacrificed at the gates. There is as may be some +legend to explain the custom, but it is forgotten. And yet are the cocks +sacrificed each year. + +There is the memory, too, of the goat I saw killed in India years ago as +I have described. And there are other memories--memories of what I have +seen, of what I have read. For this ceremony of sacrifice is the very +oldest of all the beginnings of religion. It is akin to prayer, it is at +the root of all faiths; we can go no further back than sacrifice. Where +it began religion had commenced. Far older than any creed, arising from +the dumb instincts of human kind, it is one of the roots of faiths. + +Therefore, when I see this image of God, the Son sacrificed to God the +Father, I seem to behold the highest development of this long story. +Sacrifice, it has always been sacrifice. It has been small +animals--goats and fowls and pigeons; it has been greater and more +valuable beasts--cattle and horses. It has been man. How often indeed +has it been man: Abraham leading Isaac to the sacrifice, the Aztecs +sacrificing in Mexico, the Druids in Britain, the followers of Odin, the +Greeks, the Egyptians, the early Hindus, can you find a faith that has +not sacrificed? Sometimes it has been single victims, sometimes +hecatombs of slaughtered slaves. It has been sacrifice by priests, it +has been self-sacrifice, as Curtius or as those who threw themselves +before the car of Juggernauth. Everywhere there has been sacrifice; it +is one of the roots of faiths, it arouses the emotion that has helped to +make all religions. And in Christianity it has reached its zenith, for +it is no longer an animal, no longer even a man--it is a God, the Son of +God who is self-sacrificed to God. In what manner this awakens the +emotions of man the following extract will show. It is from "The Gospel +of the Atonement," by the Venerable J. Wilson. + +"The law that suffering is divine, [Greek: to kalon pathein], is +verified in the experience of the soul. Now Christ's death is the +supreme instance of that law. The power of Gethsemane and Calvary, in +the light of such a law, needs no explanation. They open the heart as +nothing else ever did. We know that whatever reservations we make for +ourselves, whatever our own shrinking from utter self-sacrifice, Christ, +living in perfect accordance with the laws of spiritual health and +perfection, could not do other than die. Thus without any thought of +payment or expiation, with no vestige of separation of the Son from the +Father, we see that the death on the Cross demonstrated that the human +and divine know but one and the same law of life and being. Thus it is +that the death of Christ, the shedding of His blood, has been, and ever +will be, regarded by theologians, as well as by the simple believers, as +the way of the atonement. Via crucis via salutis." + +The scientific theologians tell me when I ask that this parade of the +sacrifice of Christ is to recall to men how much they should love +Christ. That He so loved them that He gave Himself a victim for their +salvation. The crucifix, the incessant preaching of the death of Christ, +the sacrament of the Communion, is to cause us to love Him as to do what +He taught us. That it does have some such effect no one can doubt--on +Latin people. But on others? + +To some it seems that if you try to reason at all about it, the emotion +awakened might be, nay should be, otherwise. In those not instinct with +one emotion the first impression awakened is disgust at the parade of +death and blood; the second, horror at the God who could demand such a +sacrifice, who could not be pacified but by the execution in +circumstances of shame of His own Son. They shrink from it. It is no +matter of reason. Do you think one who felt so could be argued out of +his horror or a Christian out of his devotion? They are instinctive +feelings which nothing will change. And yet in a very small way even the +Buddhist has the instinct of sacrifice. For I remember that when the +fowls were killed inside the city gate and their blood ran upon the +ground the people looked just as these Italian people looked. The +emotion was the same in kind, and it was not either love for the fowls +or wonder at the demand of the spirits that moved them. And so when the +slaves were sacrificed beneath the oaks, was it gratitude to the slaves +that was evoked? And in the self-sacrifice at the car of Juggernauth? +It may be sometimes that gratitude may be added, but this is not +the root emotion. The instinct of sacrifice has its roots much +deeper than this, quite apart from this; and, with perhaps only one +exception--Buddhism--all religions have practised it. Christianity +performs no more sacrifices now, but all its churches, in all their +varieties weekly at the great sacrament of the Communion, +commemorate--nay, it is claimed in a measure recreate--this sacrifice of +the Son to the Father. Sacrifice is of the very root of this religion. +It is far older than any creed. The Jews knew of sacrifice two thousand +years before the day of Christ, the Celts sacrificed slaves ages before +that. + +But it may be said these crosses, these crucifixes, are peculiar to +Catholic countries. You do not see them in North Germany, in England, in +America. Teutonic nations do not parade this sacrifice. No, they do not, +for it does not appeal to them so much as to the nations of Southern +Europe. Sacrifice was not unknown to the Teutons and the Northern +people, but it never reached the height it did further South. It has +been the Latin peoples who in this as in other matters went to extremes. +It was the Greeks who sacrificed Iphigenia, who had the festival of the +Thargalia; it was Rome which produced Curtius and others who sacrificed +themselves. It was the Romans who sacrificed thousands in the Coliseum. +It is in the tumuli of Celtic peoples where we find the cloven skulls of +slaves. + +Sacrifice has appealed always more to the Latin then and now; and +therefore you see the crucifix in Latin countries, but not with us. +Still, we are not free from the emotion. We have the sacrament of +Communion; the Atonement appeals to us also. The passions that are +strong in the Latin peoples are weak with us, yet they exist. The +instincts are the same. When executions were public our people thronged +to see them. Death has always a peculiar attraction, quite apart from +any idea connected with it. It is such a wonderful thing the taking of +life, so awe-inspiring, that it has appealed always to men; especially +in the west. + +In the East that has accepted Buddhism, especially in Burma, it is much +less so. They have, it is true, the usual pleasure and curiosity in +seeing blood and death. And occasionally you come across some petty +sacrifice like that of the fowls mentioned above; but the instinct is +comparatively weak. It has never, even before they were Buddhists, been +general, and never extended even to cattle. The sacrifice of a man +(remember, I say sacrifice, not execution), would be absolutely +abhorrent to them, how much more so that of a God? They have not the +instinctive recognition of any beauty in it. Therefore, for this amongst +other reasons, the Burmese reject Christianity. + +But to the Western instinct this sacrifice and this atonement is +wonderful and beautiful. It appeals to us. The old instinct is +satisfied. + + * * * * * + +Therefore, amongst other reasons, Christians cling to the Atonement, and +to make that sacrifice the greatest possible it must be the sacrifice of +God, and as God can only be sacrificed to God the Christian God must be +a multiple one. To postulate as the Mahommedan does, God is God, would +destroy the depth of the Atonement. Hence arises the creed, the attempt +to reconcile two opposed instincts. There is one God--that is an +instinct, arising from our generalising power; there must be at least +two Gods to explain the Atonement, and so we have the Father and the +Son. + +For of the three Godheads only these two are real to most people. There +is God the Ruler, the Maker of the world, and there is Christ. These are +both very real to all Christians. They are prayed to individually, they +are worshipped separately, they are clear conceptions. But is there any +clear conception of the Holy Ghost as a distinct personality? Is He ever +cited separately from the others? Has He any special characteristics? +There are, for instance, many pictures of God, and many more of +Christ--are there any of the Holy Ghost? This Third Person of the +Trinity appeals to no instinct, and is only an abstraction in popular +thought. When the Creed was framed it was necessary to include the Holy +Ghost because He is mentioned in the New Testament. He has remained an +abstraction only. But the other two Godheads are realities, because they +appeal to feelings that are innate. They are the explanation of these +feelings. + + * * * * * + +Thus do creeds arise out of instincts. It is never the reverse. +Postulate God the Father as All-Powerful, All-Merciful, and see if by +any possibility you can work out the Atonement or see any beauty in it. +Can anyone see aught but horror in this Almighty demanding the sacrifice +of His Son? You cannot. But granted that Atonement and sacrifice have +to you an innate beauty of their own, and the dogma of a multiple +Godhead easily follows. There are creeds built on ceremonies, and +ceremonies upon instincts: ceremonies are never deduced from creeds. + + + + +CHAPTER XX. + +GOD THE MOTHER. + + +The only other form in which the Christ is presented to popular +adoration is as a baby in the Madonna's arms. Out of all the life of +Christ, all the varied events of that career which has left such a great +mark upon the Western world, only the beginning and the end are +pictured. Christ the teacher, Christ the preacher, the restorer of the +dead to life, the feeder of the hungry, the newly arisen from the grave, +where is He? The great masters have painted Him, but popular thought +remembers nothing of all that. There is Christ the sacrificed and Christ +the infant with His mother. To the Latin people these two phases +represent all that is worth daily remembrance. There are crucifixes and +Madonnas in every hill side, by every road, at the street corners, in +every house, and of the rest of the story not a sign. + +What is the emotion to which the Madonna appeals? Why do she and her +Child thus live in Latin thought? + +There are historians who tell us that the worship of the Madonna was +introduced from Egypt. She is Astarte, Queen of Heaven, the Phoenician +goddess of married love or maternity, she is the Egyptian Isis with her +son Horus. It is a cult that was introduced through Spain, and took root +among the Latin people and grew. There is no question here of Christ, +they say; it is the goddess and her son. + +It has also absorbed the worship of Venus and Aphrodite. Venus was the +tutelary goddess of Rome, she was the goddess of maternity, of +production. It was not till the Greek idea of beauty in Aphrodite came +to Rome and became confounded with the goddess Venus that her status +changed. She was the goddess of married love, she became later the +emblem of lust. But it was she who purified marriage to the old Roman +faith; she was the purifier, the justifier, the goddess of motherhood, +which is the sanction of love and marriage. + +It may be that all this is true. It may be possible to trace the worship +back through the various changes to Astarte, Ashtoreth, to Isis, to +older gods, maybe, than these. All this may be true, and yet be no +explanation. The old gods are dead. Why does she alone survive? What is +the instinct that requires her, that pictures her on the street corners, +that makes her worship a living worship to-day? + +And why is it that she appeals not at all to the Teutonic people? Where +are her pictures in Protestant Germany, in England, in Scotland, in +America? Do you ever hear of her there? Do the preachers tell of her, +the picture makers paint her, the people pray to her? Such a worship is +impossible. And why? What is the answer that to-day gives to that +question? Is the answer difficult? I think not, for it is written in the +hearts of the people, it is written in the laws they have made, in the +customs they adhere to, in the oaths they take, in their daily lives. + +Consider the Roman laws of two thousand and more years ago, the French +laws of to-day. What is there most striking to us when we study them? It +is, I think, the cult of the family. + +The Roman son was his father's slave. He could not own property apart +from the father, he could not marry without leave, his father could +execute him without any trial. Family life lay outside the law; not +Senate, nor Consul nor Emperor could interfere there. The unit in Rome +was not the man, but the family. + +As it was so it is. The laws are less stringent, but the idea remains. A +man belongs not to himself but to his people, to his father and to his +mother. In France even now he has to ask their leave to marry. The +property is often family property, and his family may restrain a man +from wasting it. + +There is no bond anywhere stronger than the family bond of the Latin +peoples. In mediĉval Rome, even often in Rome of to-day, all the sons +live with their father and mother even if married. It is the custom, +and, like all customs that live, it lives because it is in accord with +the feelings of those who obey it. + +A man belongs to his family, he clings to it; he is not an individual, +but part of an organism. + +And although in law it is the father who is the head, it is the father +who is the lawgiver, the ruler, is it really he who is that centre, that +lode-star, that holds the family together? I think it is not so. It is +the mother who is the centre of that affection which is stronger than +gravity. We laugh when a Frenchman swears by his mother. But he is +swearing by all that he holds most sacred. No Latin would laugh at such +a matter. Because he could understand, and we do not. To everyone of +Latin race there comes next to God his mother, next to Christ the +Madonna, who is the emblem of motherhood. + +The Latins do not emigrate. They hate to leave their country. And if +they do, if necessity drive them forth, are they ever happy, ever at +rest till they can see their way to return? The Americans tell us that +Italians are the worst immigrants because they will not settle; because +they send their pay to their parents in the old country, and are never +happy till they themselves can return. We call it nostalgia, we say it +is a longing for their country. It is that and more. It is a longing for +their family, their blood. They cling together in a way we have no idea +of. + +Does an Englishman ever swear by his mother, does he yearn after her as +the Latins do from a far country? Does the fear of separation keep our +young men at home? It is always the reverse. They want to get away. The +home nest tires them, and they would go; and once gone they care not to +return, they can be happy far away. The ties of relationship are light +and are easily shaken off, they are quickly forgotten. + +Italian labourers and servants give some of their pay always as a matter +of course to their parents. It is a natural duty. And in Latin +countries there are no poorhouses. They could not abide such a theory +any more than could the Indians. It would seem to a Latin an +impossibility that any child would leave his parents in a workhouse. +Poor as they might be they would keep together. The great bond that +holds a family together is the mother, always the mother. We can see +this in England too, even with our weaker instinct. The mother makes the +home and not the father. + +And now are we not finding that sanction we were searching for? If the +Madonna, the type of motherhood, appeals to all the people, men and +women, is there not a reason? It is an instinct. These images and +pictures of the Madonna sound on their heart-strings a chord that is +perhaps the loudest and sweetest; if second to any, second only to that +of God. God as father, God as mother, God as son and sacrifice, here is +the threefold real Godhead of the Latins. + +But with us the family tie is slight, the mother worship is faint. Our +Teutonic Trinity is God the Father, God the Son, and now later God the +Law. These are the realities. + +For with us conduct is more and emotion is less than with the peoples of +the South. + + + + +CHAPTER XXI. + +CONDUCT. + + +Of all aspects of religion none is so difficult to understand as the +relation of religion and conduct. It is ever varying. There seems to be +nothing fixed about it. What does conduct arise from? It takes its +origin in an instinct, and this instinct is so strong, so imperious, so +almost personal, that of all the instincts it alone has a name. It is +conscience. + +By conscience our acts are directed. + +There are scientific men who tell us that our consciences are the result +of experience, partly our own, but principally inherited. That if +conscience warns us against any course of action it is because that has +been experienced to result in misfortune. It is an unconscious memory of +past experiences. Conscience is instinctive, and not affected by +teaching to any great extent; and that conscience is the main guide of +life no one will deny. + +But do the voices of conscience and of God, as stated in the sacred +books, agree? + +When the savage sees a god in the precipice and is afraid of him, there +is no question of right or wrong. Not that the savage has no code of +morals. He has a very elaborate one. But it is usually distinct from his +religion. What virtue did Odin teach? None but courage in war. Yet the +Northmen had codes of conduct fitted to their stage of civilisation. The +Greeks had many gods. They had also codes of morals and an extensive +philosophy, but practically there was no connection. In fact, the gods +were examples not of morality but of immorality. It was the same with +the Latins and with all the Celts. Their religions were emotional +religions, their codes of conduct were apart, although even here you see +now and then an attempt to connect them. And when the Latin people took +Christianity and formed it, they put into their creeds no question of +conduct. You believed, and therefore you were a Christian. The results +of bad conduct would be annulled by confession, and the sinner would +receive absolution. To a Latin Christian a righteous unbeliever who had +never done anything but good would in the end be damned, whereas the +murderer who repented at the last would be saved. "There is more joy in +heaven over one sinner that repenteth, than over ninety and nine just +persons that need no repentance." + +Is the inference that the Latin peoples were wickeder than others? I +doubt it. They initiated all European civilisation, and trade and +commerce, and law and justice. Probably the highest examples of conduct +the world has known have been Latins. They had and have the instinct of +conduct, they had and have consciences as good as other people, but only +they do not so much connect conduct and religion. You can be saved +without conduct. + +The Jews, on the contrary, had no instinct of conduct apart from +religion. In the Ten Commandments conduct, if it have the second place, +has yet the larger share. Righteousness was the keynote of their belief, +and if the only righteousness they knew was little better than a noble +savagery, it was the best they could do. They included every form of +conduct in their religion--sanitary matters, caste observances, and +business rules. The Hindu goes even further in the same line. Everything +in life is included in his religion. + +When in the Reformation the Teutonic people threw off the yoke of Rome, +a yoke which was not only religious but political and social, one of +their principal arguments against Roman Catholicism was the +abominations that had crept in. I think it would be difficult to assert +that the people who revolted were in morals generally any better than +those they seceded from. Good men in the Latin Church saw equally the +necessity for reformation. But bad morals did not seem to them so +destructive to faith as it did to the Teutons. There was this +difference, that whereas the Latin could and did conceive of religion +apart from conduct, the Teuton, like the Jew, could not do so. With the +Latin they were distinct emotions, with the Teuton they were connected. +One of the principal aspects of the Reformation is the restoration of +morality to religion, the abolition of indulgences, of confession and +absolution, the insistence on conduct in religious teachers. + +The morality of Christ? + +The remarkable fact is that it was not the morality of Christ at all. +The Reformation was never in any way a revival of the code of the Sermon +on the Mount or the imitation of Christ. To a certain extent it went +further away from Christ than the Latins. For instance, the Latin +priests imitate Christ in being unmarried, the Protestant pastors +married. When Calvin burnt Servetus he was not returning to the tenets +of the New Testament, and what thought had the Puritans or the French +Huguenots, the most masterful of men, of turning the other cheek? + +Protestantism was a return of conduct to religion, but it was not +Christ's conduct. It was rather the Old Testament code softened by +civilised influence that was revived. It was a revolt against excessive +emotionalism, and was, in fact, a combination of two creeds tempered as +to conduct by the conduct of the day. + +So it continues to-day. The Latin's idea of religious conduct is the +imitation of Christ, and when a Latin cultivates religious conduct that +is what he does. He becomes a priest or monk, poor, celibate, +self-denying and unworldly. But conduct to him is not the great part of +religion that it is to a Teuton. With us conduct is the greatest part; +the mystical and ceremonious part has decreased, in certain sects almost +disappeared. Confession disappeared, and with it absolution from +priests. Conduct is part of religion, and the code of conduct to be +followed is that which conscience bids, and the code of conscience is, +scientific men tell us, the result of experience, personal and +inherited. Practically, what conscience tells us to do is what suits the +circumstances of the day. + +Therefore we may say that the religion of the Latins is mainly +emotional, that of the Teutons half emotional and half conduct; and then +we come to the Buddhist, which is nearly all conduct. + +The Latin would say of an unbeliever, "He cannot be saved; faith is the +absolute necessity, and faith even at the last moment by itself is +sufficient." The Teuton would say, "I do not know. To be a good man, +even if an unbeliever, is very much; it may be that God will accept +him." + +And the Buddhist? He has no doubt at all. Conduct is everything. Believe +what you like as long as you act well. To be a Buddhist is best because +there you have the way of life set clearly before you, and it is easy +for you to follow. But any man can be saved if he act aright. Conduct is +_everything_. In fact, Buddhism in its inception was in one aspect a +revolt against excessive emotionalism, that of the ascetics, and it +maintains that attitude to-day. + +Or, to put it another way: Roman Catholicism is all emotion, +Protestantism is half emotion, Buddhism is the suppression of emotion. +These are the theories. And the facts? What effect does this difference +make on the lives of the peoples? + +It may have some effect. There is sometimes action and reaction. These +different views of the relation of religion and conduct come from the +instincts of the people, and being held and taught they in turn affect +the people. But how much? Personally, I believe very little. + +A man's daily conduct is regulated by quite other factors. If the effect +was great we should find Buddhists the least criminal of peoples, the +Teutons a medium, and the Latins without any idea of conduct at all. But +this is certainly not true. The Burman is greatly given to certain +crimes, the outcome of his stage of civilisation. + +And I have great doubts whether the Protestants generally can show any +superiority over the Latins when the circumstances are considered. Are +the English Roman Catholics less honest than Protestants in the same +class? Are sceptics more criminal than religious people? The inclusion +of conduct in religion is astonishingly varied. Some peoples cannot be +born or come to maturity, or marry, or die without religion; others do +not allow religion to have any part in these matters. But the fact +remains that, though conduct may be included more or less in every +religion, no religion has a code of conduct for daily life. Priests and +monks apart, the codes of conduct are not taken from religion. + +But it must not be forgotten that neither Christianity nor Buddhism +professes to provide a code of conduct for this life. Judaism knew no +future life, and its aim was therefore to ensure success in this. That +is the reward offered to the righteous--success for them and their +children. There is no hint that this life is not good and worth living, +that love and wealth are not good things. On the contrary, they are held +out as the reward of the godly. The Judaic code was a good and workable +one for its age. But Christianity and Buddhism declare that this life is +not good; that it is, in fact, absolutely wicked and unhappy, and that +therefore all worldly pleasures and successes are to be eschewed as +snares. The codes given are ways to reach heaven, they are by no means +codes for ordinary life. Followed to their meaning, every Christian +ought to be a monk or nun and every Buddhist the same. + +But this teaching of the evil of life is one that no one but a few +fanatics accept in its fulness, and heaven or Nirvana are ideas that do +not appeal to most men. In Latin and Buddhist countries a few with their +higher spiritual powers take their faiths very seriously, but the +majority try to make the best of both worlds. In Protestant countries no +one at all accepts the doctrine of the worthlessness of life. With the +immense majority of men of all nations life is held to be a great and +beautiful thing, to be used to its best advantage. The Latins with their +keener logic, seeing that the code of Christ is for the next world, not +for this, and therefore fit only for monks and nuns and not for men of +the world, divorce conduct from religion. Protestants, rejecting the +code of Christ for men of the world equally with the Latins, yet feeling +a need for a code of conduct, adopt the best current code of the day and +call that "Christian conduct." Thus are working religions built up. One +religion is all conduct, another half, another hardly at all--in theory. +But in fact, for ordinary life, is there any difference between the code +of a Latin, a Teuton, or a Buddhist? There is hardly any. Codes of life +vary very little, and that variation is due never to religious +influences, but always to the stage of civilisation and mental +development and the environments. In Scotland and North Germany it is +common for peasant girls to have a baby first and marry afterwards. A +Hindu or a Burman would be horrified at such a thing, just as a better +class Scotchman or German would be. But to the people who do it there +is no immorality. How do you explain this from religion? + +Conduct is an instinct. It evolves according to the civilisation and +idiosyncrasy of the people. It is influenced by many causes. People, for +instance, who are not pleased by acting call theatres wrong, and so on. +Experience is also a factor. And the connection of conduct with religion +varies. Some people make it a great part of their religion just as +sanitary and social measures are included, other peoples make it less +prominent. But conduct does not proceed from religious creeds any more +than prayer or confession does. It may be slowly influenced by religious +teaching, but it has its own existence, and religious teaching is only +one of many influences. + + + + +CHAPTER XXII. + +MEN'S FAITH AND WOMEN'S FAITH. + + +There is a faith--Judaism--which originated so far back that we have +only a legendary account of it. It was the cult of a warrior nation +whose ideal was bravery and whose glory was war, who considered the rest +of the world as Philistines and treated them ruthlessly, who kept +themselves as a nation apart. + +Nineteen hundred years ago there arose among them a prophet, said to be +of the ancient kingly house. He preached a doctrine which prescribed as +the rule of life mildness and self-denial, renunciation of this world; +who denounced war and conquest, and held out as a goal for attainment +heaven, which is the peace of God. + +This Prophet, The Christ, was executed, but He left behind Him disciples +who spread His religion widely. Amongst His own people it never attained +great strength, and in time it died away and disappeared. There are no +Christians among the Jews. All Semitic nations have rejected this +faith. But it spread far to the west, and is now in one form or another +the accepted faith of the half world to the west of Palestine. It never +spread east. + + * * * * * + +There is a faith--Brahminism--which originated so far back that we have +but legendary accounts of it. It was the cult of a warrior nation whose +ideal was courage and whose glory was war, who considered the rest of +the world as outcasts and treated them ruthlessly, who kept themselves +as a nation apart. + +Two thousand five hundred years ago there arose among them a prophet, +the son of the Royal House. He preached a doctrine which prescribed as a +rule of life meekness and self-denial, renunciation of the world. He +denounced war and conquest, and held out as a goal for attainment the +Great Peace. + +This prophet, the Buddha, was rejected by all the higher castes and he +died, having made but little way. But his disciples spread his religion +widely. Amongst his own people it never attained great strength, and in +time it died away and disappeared. There are no Buddhists in Oude, and, +with perhaps a slight exception, there are no Buddhists at all in India. +But it has spread far to the east, and is now in one form or another +the accepted faith of nearly all people east of the Bay of Bengal, and +also of Ceylon. It never spread west. + + * * * * * + +I do not say that Christianity and Buddhism are the same, for although +in some ways, especially in conduct, their teaching is almost identical, +and in others--such as Heaven and Nirvana--though differently expressed, +the idea is almost the same, yet in certain theories they differ very +greatly. Yet, however they may differ, the above parallel cannot but +strike one as extraordinary. Indeed, the parallel might have been very +largely augmented, but it suffices for the purpose of this chapter; and +that is to enquire why each teacher's doctrine was rejected by his own +people and accepted by others. + +It is no answer to say that no one is a prophet in his own country. All +the Jewish prophets, from Moses to Isaiah, _were_ prophets in their own +country. Christ alone was not. Mahommed was a prophet to the Arabs, +Zoroaster to the Persians, Confucius and Laotze to the Chinese. All +teachers of Hinduism have been native born Hindus. In Buddhist countries +it is the same. Luther was a prophet to the Germans, Loyola to the +Spaniards. The rule is otherwise. A prophet is never a prophet to any +_but_ his own people, except the two greatest Prophets in the world, +Christ and Buddha. They alone were rejected by their own and accepted +elsewhere. They almost divide the world between them. Hinduism, from +which Buddhism arose, still exists untouched by either; Judaism, from +which Christianity arose, and its near kin Mahommedanism, exist +untouched by either; but most of the rest of the world is either +Christian or Buddhist. These are very astonishing facts, and must have +some very strong reasons to cause them. The question is, What are the +reasons, and are they the same in each case? Was it a similar cause that +occasioned such similar effects? What quality was it in the Jews and +Hindus that led them to reject their prophets, and what are the +qualities in the converted nations that led them to accept these +prophets? + +It might seem at first as if the clue was contained in the first +sentence of each paragraph, that the reason was because both Jews and +Hindus, especially the higher caste Hindus, were warrior nations. The +rule of life preached by each teacher was absolutely against all that +they had revered so far, hence that each rejected it. The fact, of +course, is true. Each nation had up to the coming of the Teacher learned +a rule of life hopelessly in contrast to the new teaching. The ideals +of Christ and Buddha were absolutely opposed to those a fierce, warlike, +exclusive people could maintain. They could not accept them without +throwing to the winds all their past. This is true, but is it an +explanation? It is certainly not a full one. The Jews were warriors, +bitter, terrible, ruthless fighters, and they rejected Christ. But they +are no longer a nation of warriors, and they still reject Him. + +The world has never seen keener soldiers than those of western Europe, +but these nations accept Him. + +The Hindu warrior caste are warriors to the bitter end. They rejected +Buddha, but so did many peoples of India; the Bengalees, for instance, +who are not fighters. + +Where can you find stronger warrior spirit than has always existed in +Japan? Yet Buddhism is the prevailing religion there. It is evident, I +think, that this explanation will not suffice. It may in addition be +asserted that the men of Latin nations are usually frankly atheistic, +and the Teutonic nations, though theoretically Christian, yet +practically when they want to fight they forget Christ and fall back to +the Jehovah of the Jews. The Puritans and the Boers are cases in point. +They get their fighting faith out of the Old Testament, not the New. But +still they accept Christ, and though they may find it impossible, like +all nations, to follow His teaching, they do not reject it, or deny it. +With Buddhism in the further East the parallel does not last, because +Buddhism in ethical teaching stands alone. The Buddhist who wants to +fight cannot fall back on the original faith. He has simply to go +without a faith at all. He has not the advantage of a double set of +conduct, one of which can always be trusted to fit anything he wants to +do He has to go without a faith when he fights. Still he does so. + +I confess that for a long time I seemed to find no answer, and at length +it came not through studying out this question, but in observing other +phenomena of religion altogether. + +To one coming to Europe after years in the East and visiting the +churches nothing is more striking than the enormous preponderance of +women there. It is immaterial whether the church be in England or in +France, whether it be Anglican or Roman Catholic or Dissenter. The +result is always the same. Women outnumber the men as two to one, as +three to one, sometimes as ten to one. Even of the men that are there, +how many go there from other motives than personal desire to hear the +service? Men go because their wives take them, boys go with their +mothers or sisters, old men with their daughters. Professional men are +there because it would injure them among their women clients to be +absent. Women go because they desire to do so; nine out of ten even of +these few men who do go are taken by their women folk. They admit it +readily. And more, when they are away from these women they do not enter +the churches. It is borne in upon an observer, especially an observer +who has been long enough away from Europe to become depolarised, to what +an enormous extent the observance of religious duty in Europe among +Christian nations is due to women. It is they only who care for, who are +in full sympathy with the teaching of Christ; for men when they are +religious, and in certain cases they are so, take their religion of +conduct much more from the Old Testament than the New. + +In Burma it is not otherwise. The deeper the tenets of Buddhism are +observed, the more the women are concerned in it. Who lights the candles +at the pagoda, who contribute the daily food to the monks, who attend +the Sunday meetings in the rest houses? Nearly all of them are women. +Even in Burma, where the devotional instinct is so strong and so deeply +held, the immense influence of women is manifest. In Christian and +Buddhist countries the women are free to attend the services; they are +free, to a greater or lesser extent, in all matters, and in religion +they are conspicuous--they rule it, they form it to suit themselves. + +But in the races that rejected Christianity, that rejected Buddhism, it +is otherwise. The Hindu women keep themselves in zenanas. They are not +allowed in the temples, or only in special parts. They can take no part +in the public services. They cannot combine to influence religious +matters. At the time the Buddha lived women were very much freer than +they are now, and this accounts for its initial partial success at home. +But as waves of conquest, the incessant rigorous struggle for existence +deepened and circumstances contracted that liberty, so as it contracted +did Buddhism die. Till at length the women remained immured, and +Buddhism fled to countries where women had still some freedom. + +It is the same with Christianity. The Jewish women, if not quite so +secluded as Hindu women, were yet never openly allowed to join in the +synagogues. They, too, as the Mahommedan even, had their "grille" apart. +The Jewish men and the Mahommedan men kept their religion for +themselves, a virile religion, where women had little place. It may be +the fact--I think in another chapter I have shewn that it is a +fact--that women seek after religion far more than men But they must +have a religion to suit them. The tenets of Christ and of Buddha do +appeal to them, do come nearer to them than they do to the generality of +men. And so where women have been free to make their influence felt, to +impress their views upon the faith of a country, the mild beliefs of +non-resistance, of peace, of meekness and submission have obtained. +Whereas in the countries and nations where for one cause or another +women are not free to make their combined influence felt, where they +remain under the greater dominance of man in all matters, the faiths +that retain the stronger and more virile codes of conduct have remained. + +I am not sure that there have not been other influences also at work. I +can, I think, see another strong influence that has worked to the same +end. There may be many reasons. But that would not alter the fact that +the influence of women has been a main force, that they have greatly +been concerned in the change of faith. + + + + +CHAPTER XXIII. + +PRAYER AND CONFESSION. + + +What is the most general, the most conspicuous form in which religion +expresses itself? Is it not in prayer? Where is the religion that is +without prayer? There is none. And perhaps, too, it is the very first +expression of religion, that when the savage fell and prayed the +lightning to spare him, he was inaugurating the greatest religious form +the world has known. + +What a wonderful thing it is, wonderful in every form, beautiful +wherever you see it--from the glorious masses sung in the cathedrals to +the Mussulman spreading his mat upon the sand and bowing towards Mecca. +There is nothing so beautiful, nothing that so touches the heart of man +as prayer. + +I have said that it is common to all religions, and so it is. Religions +live not in creeds, but in the believers. Pure Buddhism knows not +prayer, but does not the Buddhist know it? Go to any pagoda and see the +women there praying to Someone--Someone, they know not whom--and ask if +Buddhists know not prayer? I have written so fully of it in my other +book that I will not repeat it here. + +Prayer is common to all believers; it is the greatest, as perhaps it is +the only expression common to all religions. And whence comes this +custom of prayer? The Jew and the Mussulman and the Christian will +answer and say, "It comes from our belief in God, it is an outcome of +that belief. Our God has bade us pray to Him." + +And the Hindu, how will he answer? He will say, "Our gods have power +over us, they deal with us as they will. They listen to us if we pray. +And therefore it is right for us to beseech them in our trouble. It +comes from our belief in our gods." And the savage will answer, "I fear +the Devil, so I pray to him." But what will the Buddhist answer? + +For Buddhism knows no God. The world is ruled by Law, unchangeable, +everlasting Law. No one can change that Law. If you suffer it is the +meet and proper consequence of your sins. The suffering is purifying you +and teaching you how to live. It would not be well for you to be +relieved of it now if you could be. Therefore suffer and be silent. + +A very beautiful belief. And yet the people pray. Why? When a Buddhist +prays it is not in consequence of his belief, but in spite of it. It +cannot be traced as the result of any theory of causation. + +Therefore one doubts the Theist's explanation and one reflects. Was, +indeed, prayer born of their beliefs? And then the doubt increases. Are +these creeds older than prayer, or maybe is it not that prayer is older +than the creeds? Did these creeds exist in men's minds first or did the +necessity for prayer exist first? Which is nearer to man? + +Let us consider what prayer is. It consists of three things mainly. +Petition to be saved, to be helped from imminent danger; praise at being +so saved; and last, probably last, but surely greatest of all, +confession. + +When men pray they are always doing one or other of these things. When +the savage was caught in the thunderstorm or shaken in the earthquake +and fell on his knees in fear, babbling strange things, do you think he +had reasoned out a God behind the force first? Do you think his +inarticulate cry for help was not involuntary? That if he had not first +reasoned out the God he would not so cry? Have you ever seen people in +deadly fear, how they will babble for help, crying unto the unknown? If +there was ever anything that came forth absolutely spontaneously from +the heart of man, which needed no belief of any kind anterior to its +birth, it was prayer, the prayer that comes from fear, the prayer for +help. It is the unconscious, unreasoned cry of the heart. If there is +Someone to whom to direct the cry, well and good; but if not, the cry +comes just the same. + +When troubles fall upon the man, what is his first impulse? To tell +someone. If the confidant can help, so much the better; but if not, +still to tell. To ease the pent up heart by telling, that is what is +wanted. And with joy, too. Have you not seen how, when good news comes +to a man, he loves to rush forth and tell it? To whom? It does not +matter. Tell it, tell it. Cry it aloud, if but the trees and rocks can +hear. To keep secret a great thing is very hard. Remember the courtier +who discovered that King Midas had asses' ears. He could not keep the +terrible deadly truth to himself. He dared not tell it to man. And so, +going softly to the river, he confessed the dreadful knowledge to the +reeds: "Midas hath asses' ears." Can you trace here any cause and +effect? And there is confession, to tell someone of our sins, to +confess. Is that dependent upon any religious theory? Much has been +written about confession, this necessity of the laden spirit, but never +has anything been written like that study by Dostoieffsky called "Crime +and Punishment." The "Crime" was murder, not an ordinary murder +committed by a ruffian in passion or from sordid motives, but a murder +by a student intended to result in good. The murderer is suspected--nay, +is known by a police officer--and the motive of the first half of the +story is not to gain evidence, not to unravel the story, but it lies in +the efforts of the detective to induce Raskolnikoff to make a voluntary +confession. And why? There was evidence enough, the offender could have +been arrested and convicted at any time. But that would not do. +Punishment alone will not always, will indeed but seldom, benefit the +criminal. Punishment is for the protection of society. It is for the +future, not the past. For the criminal to redeem himself he must +confess. In that lies the only medicine for a diseased soul. It is a +marvellous story, and it holds the truth of truths. Confess. There is no +emotion of the human heart so strong as this, the eminent necessity to +tell someone. No one who has had much to do with crime will doubt this. +There is in all natural men a burning desire, an absolute necessity, to +tell of what has been done. It comes out sometimes in confessions to the +police or to the magistrate. All criminal annals are full of such +stories. A crime is committed and there is no clue, till the man +confesses. I have myself seen a great deal of this. I have received many +confessions. But you will object that was amongst Burmese; and I reply, +Wherein is there any difference? Criminals of all countries frequently +confess. But as civilisation progresses the confession is not often to a +magistrate. The fear, the terrible fear of punishment outweighs the +natural impulse. But still the confession is made. If you read the cases +in the papers you will see how often it is made. To a wife, to a +companion, sometimes to a complete stranger. The men who can hold their +tongues, who can stifle nature, are very few. With all but hardened +criminals the tendency is always to confession, and those whose work has +laid among them know that the denial, the defence, except with hardened +criminals, is seldom theirs. If there were no relations to urge them, no +lawyers to assist them, five out of six first offenders would confess +openly. + +Is it otherwise with our children? What is it we teach them above all +else? Never to do wrong? No! For we know that is impossible. Children, +like men, will err. But, "when you have done wrong confess, for only so +can you lift the weight from your heart." Confess, confess. Everywhere +it is the same. If you have done wrong, only by confession can you +remove the stain. But it must be voluntary. It must not be forced. Such +a confession is of no value. Even our courts reject it. + +It is an instinct of the heart that comes who can tell whence, that +means who can tell what? And from this have grown many things. It has +become part of all the greater religions, and the forms it has taken are +significant not so much of the faiths, but of the people. + +Among the Jews and the Mahommedans we hear little of it. They were a +hard people when their faiths were formed, a strong people, and little +advanced in the gentler feelings. They were warriors who lived greatly +by the sword, and it was necessary for them to stifle all that might +weaken or even polish them. For one man to humble himself to another is +very hard, for a proud man to confess to another is almost impossible. +And so into these Theistic faiths the confession was to God. If a man +sinned it was to God alone he could confess. But with Christianity it +has been different. There is in Christianity what exists in no other +faith in the same way, an intermediary between God and man. + +There are the priests. + +This desire of the soul for confession, the absolute necessity with +strong emotional people to tell someone their sins and their truths, has +been one of the greatest cults of the Church of Rome. Man must confess, +let him confess to the priests. Their tongues are tied, they will never +reveal what they are told; they are the ministers of God. Therefore let +the innate desire for confession be directed towards the priests. It is +universal in Catholic countries. Whatever may be its abuses it is the +great safety valve, the great help of the people, that as they must +confess they should have someone to confess to. + +With the Northern Teutonic nations it has been different. They got their +Christianity from Rome, a Christianity that was built on the needs of +impulsive Celtic natures. It suited not with the harder natures of the +north. They could not confess to men, it galled them to be told to +confess. Their natures were different. Had they no need of confession? +Yes, but they were as the Jews and Mahommedans. They would not humble +themselves to men. And so, for this and other similar reasons, they +revolted from Rome and made their own church, where confession is only +to God. But the necessity of confession still remains; our services are +full of it. It is strange how very often we find the Christianity of +Teutonic people nearer in observed facts to the faiths of Semitic +peoples than to the Christianity of the Celts. All these peoples, all +these Churches, recognise the need of confession. But, it may be said, +all this is a difference of very slight detail. All confession is to +God. The Roman priests are only representatives of God. If you believe +in God you must believe in confession, because God has always directed +it. Confession is in all the Churches because God ordered it. The need +comes from God, who gives absolution. + +Then how about the Buddhists? They have no God, but yet they confess. +The Buddha himself many times pointed out how needful confession was, +and how healing to the heart. There is no God to confess to, there is no +representative of God. But there is the head of the Monastery. Let the +younger monk who sins confess his sins to his superior. There is no +absolution. Man works out his future himself, always by himself. There +is no absolution, no help to be gained by confession. But the Buddha +knew the hearts of man. He knew that confession was good for the soul. +He knew that it needed no absolution from any priest to help the +confesser, no belief in any God to pardon because of the confession. +Confession, if it be made honestly and truly, brings with it always its +own reward. It may be objected, that this is not general, but only +applies to those trying to live the holy life. The Buddha taught that +all men should do so. He meant it to be general. It is true that it is +not, it cannot be general, or the world would cease. Only a few are +monks. Is, then, the help of confession denied to the multitude? Perhaps +by the stringent Buddhist faith it may not be urgently inculcated, and +men and women in outside life cannot confess to monks. Do they then go +without? Not so. Go to any pagoda at any time and you will see there +kneeling many people, some men, but mostly women. They are there +confessing, audibly sometimes, their troubles, their sins, their joys +also. To whom? Ah! then I cannot tell you. "Someone will hear," they +say, "Someone will hear." Religions are for the necessity of man, and if +the narrow creed will not suffice it must be enlarged. + +It is a strange subject this of confession, and its ally, prayer. It is +strange to follow it to its roots in the human heart, and to see that it +is stronger, is older, is more persistent than creeds. Creeds come and +go, they change, and man changes with them; he may have any religion or +have none, but it makes no difference to this. Hindu and Christian, +Mahommedan and Buddhist, Atheist and Jew, the heart of man is ever the +same. Read that wonderful story of Balzac's, "La Messe d'Athèe," and you +will see. + + * * * * * + +If you postulate God or gods, and try from that to deduce prayer and +confession, you find yourself very soon as the boy found himself long +ago. You are at an impasse. If God be indeed as stated, then can prayer +and confession never be necessary. You cannot get round it, you can only +hide yourself in mists of words like the scientific theologian. If God +be as postulated, then can prayer and confession not be necessary, or +even beautiful. + +But you can see from daily life that they are so. Who can doubt it? +There is in life nothing so beautiful, nothing so true, nothing that +acts as balm to the heart like prayer and confession, and they exist +naturally. They are there from the beginning; they need no religious +theory to bring them into life. What, then, is the inference? Not +perhaps exactly what it at first sight would seem to be, that God does +not exist or has those qualities of prejudice, of favour, of partiality +which religious books and religious people give to Him. It is, I think, +this: That the truth, the original truth, is the necessity of confession +and prayer, and that to explain this the theory of the nature of God or +gods have arisen. Prayer did not proceed from God, but God from +prayer--_i.e._, the theories of God. + +No strongly religious man can reason about his own faith. Christians +will say that the idea of the True God is inherent in man also, that if +not earlier than prayer, it is co-existent. So be it. But how about +false gods--the savage praying to a mountain, the Hindu to an image or a +stone, representing who knows what? the Buddhist woman praying by the +pagoda? Their prayer is beautiful. It is as beautiful as yours. Never +doubt it. Go and see them pray. You will learn that prayer is beautiful, +is true in itself. And can such a thing proceed from a false theology? +See men pray and hear them confess and you will be sure of this, that +prayer and confession, no matter by whom, no matter to whom, are always +true, have always their effect upon the heart. Whatever is false, they +are not. It is one absolute truth that all men will admit. + + + + +CHAPTER XXIV. + +SUNDAY AND SABBATH. + + +I am not sure that in such an enquiry as this history is of much avail. +I do not find that those who search into the past to write the history +of it ever discover much that is of use to-day. It seems to me that in +tracing an idea, or a law, or a custom, historians are satisfied with +giving an account of its growth or decay as if it were the life of a +tree. They do not enquire into the why of things. They will tell you +that an idea came, say, from the East and was accepted generally. They +do not say why it was accepted. And to have traced a modern belief back +into the far past is to them sufficient reason for its presence, +forgetful that whatever persists, whether a law or an idea or a belief, +does so because it is of use. Living things require a sanction as well +as a history, and therein lies their interest. And what I am writing now +is of the sanctions of religions. + +Still, there is sometimes an interest, if but a negative one, in the +history of an observance or belief. It is useful sometimes to trace an +observance back, if only to show that the reason generally given for its +retention is not and cannot be the real one. Of such is the history of +the observance of Sunday, or the Sabbath, in England and Scotland. + +We have discovered from the inscriptions at Accad, upon the Euphrates, +that in the time of Sargon, 3,800 years B.C., the days were divided into +weeks of seven days, named after the sun and moon and the five planets, +as they are now in places. And there were, moreover, "Sabbaths" set +apart as days of "rest for the soul," "the completion of work." There +were five of these Sabbaths in Chaldea every lunar month, occurring on +the 7th, the 14th, the 19th, the 21st, and 28th of the month. That is to +say, the new moon, the full moon, and the days half way between were +Sabbaths, with the addition of a fifth Sabbath on the 19th day. On these +days it was not lawful to cook food, to change one's dress, to offer a +sacrifice; the king may not speak in public or ride in a chariot, or +perform any kind of military or civil duty; even to take medicine was +forbidden. It was a day of rest. And this was 3,800 B.C., nearly 2,000 +years before Abraham lived, 2,300 years before Moses and the Ten +Commandments, almost contemporary, according to the Bible records, with +Cain and Abel. The day was already called the Sabbath. It had existed +already for no one knows how long, probably thousands of years; it was a +day of rest, and it was observed much as was subsequently the Jewish +Sabbath. Without doubt the Jews only adopted a custom known to more +civilised nations ages before, and they gave to it the sanction of their +religion, as they and many other people have done to many matters. There +is everywhere a strong tendency, if possible, to give religious sanction +to every observance. The stronger emotions attract to themselves the +lesser. So have the Jews and Mahommedans adopted sanitary precautions, +the Hindus sanitary and marriage laws, and Christianity marriage laws +also in their faiths. So did my friend mentioned in the preface include +all civilisation in his religion. + +The observance of the Sabbath arose not from a religious command +transmitted by Moses, but as the result of observation and custom +thousands of years before, that a day of rest was needed for man. + +When they reached a certain standard of civilisation all peoples seem +to have had such a day set apart. It was a want that arose out of the +keener struggle for existence, a mutual truce to the war of competition. +But the day itself varied. The Greeks divided their lunar month into +decades, having thus three festival days in a month. The Romans, we are +told, divided it into periods of eight days, though I do not know how +they managed their arithmetic or got eight into twenty-nine without some +awkward remainder. And in the farther East it was usual to celebrate the +full moon and the new moon and the days half way between as days of +rest. A lunar month consisting of sometimes twenty-nine and sometimes +thirty days, the period between rest days was sometimes six days as in a +week, and sometimes seven days. Thus among the Burmese, although there +are, as usual, seven days named after the sun, moon, and planets, the +rest day goes by the day of the month, not by that of the week, just as +it did with the Accadians. For in the East a month remains a month; it +is the life of a moon. It begins with the new moon and ends with the +fourth quarter, and is easily reckoned by any villager. With us in the +North the age of the moon has ceased to be of any importance. Our life +after dark is indoors, where we have lights and the moon is of no use +to us. Our houses are lit artificially, and very few Europeans could +tell at a moment's notice how old the moon is. + +But in the East it is not so. With them the night is the time for being +out of doors, and when they go to their houses it is only to sleep. The +nights are cool after the hot day, and on the full moon nights the world +is full of light. The night of the full moon, when the scent of flowers +is on the still air and all about is full of magic, is one of the great +beauties of this world. But of it we know nothing in Europe. + +Therefore in colder climates the month by the moon was abandoned, and +reckoning the year by the sun took its place. And as civilisation +progressed it was inconvenient to be uncertain about which was the day +of rest, so it became the custom to make it every seventh day, +regardless of the moon. This seems to have obtained first in Egypt and +to have spread over the civilised world, the seventh day being the +Sabbath. But it still remained a day of rest, unassociated, except by +the Jews, with religion. + +The early Christians kept no Sabbath. They kept the first day of the +week as a day of rejoicing, to celebrate the rising of Christ. Indeed, +the Jewish Sabbath was considered as abrogated, and the first day of the +week was kept, much as it is now kept on the Continent, as a day of +rest, of rejoicing, of relaxation after work. + +So it was observed till the Reformation. + +The Reformers, whatever they altered, did not alter this. They gave no +command to return from Christian observance of the day to Jewish +observance, and all over the Continent, among those of reformed churches +as among those of the Catholic church, Sunday is the day of rest, of +worship, and of relaxation. + +It was so, too, in England and Scotland. + +The change back to the Jewish Sabbath seems to have come with the +Puritans and to have been introduced by them to Scotland. And this is +but one example of how Puritanism was practically a rejection of +Christianity and a return to the codes of Judaism, which suited those +iron warriors much better than Christian ethics. + +In England the feeling has been tempered, but among the Scotch, who are +in so many ways like the old Jews, it took root, it flourished, and it +is the Jewish Sabbath both in name and observance that we see now +there. + +Why was there this reversion? For what reason has the Jewish Sabbath +appealed more nearly to the Scotch than the Christian Sunday? What +feelings were those that caused this? + +If you turn to the people who have done this and look into their +characters you will note one strong and marked instinct. It is the +dislike to art of all kinds, to painting and music, to dancing and +acting, their strong distrust of beauty and gaiety. They are a sober +people, hard and stubborn and dour, to whom art and amusement appeal, as +a rule, not at all; and when they do appeal it is too strongly. They +would not have organs in their churches and cards were to them the +devil's picture books. They had in them then, they have now, no single +fibre that responds to the lighter and brighter things of this world. +Their very humour is grim. Have they, then, no idea of pleasure? Do they +never enjoy themselves? It would be a mistake of the greatest to suppose +that. They, too, as all other men, have their times for relaxation, for +enjoyment, for mental rest and refreshment. Only that what gives +pleasure to them is different from what gives pleasure to other people. +They take their pleasures sadly; the chords of their hearts are tuned to +other keys than that of gaiety and art. These latter they cannot +understand, they awaken either no echo or far too strong an echo; and, +like all men when they cannot understand a thing, they hate it. There is +no medium in these matters that appeal to the emotions. You must either +like or hate. You may see this always. Either you enjoy Wagner's music +or you abominate it, either you appreciate old masters or they are to +you daubs, either you are in tune to laughter or it seems to you the +veriest folly. + +The Scotch take their amusement and their relaxation on the Sabbath as +other people do on the Sunday. They rest from work, they attend divine +service, and for relaxation they awaken those gloomy and fanatical +thoughts which give them pleasure. For these are to them pleasure, just +as much as gaiety is to other people. + +Do not doubt that it is real pleasure to them. Men's hearts are tuned to +many keys, and there is a minor as well as a major. It is true that it +is difficult for those who rejoice in light and sunshine, in gaiety and +humour, who revolt from grey skies and shaded days, from gloomy thoughts +and dreams of hell, to realise that there are men to whom these are in +harmony. + +Most of us would forget hell if we could, would banish the thought if it +arose, but some love to dwell upon it, to repeat it, to preach of it. +The idea thrills them as blood and massacre do others. Some men would go +miles to avoid seeing an execution, others would go as many miles to see +it. Emotions are of all sorts, and what to some is horrible is to others +attractive. + +"Will the doctrine of eternal punishment be preached there?" asked the +owner of a large room suitable for meetings to one who would have hired +it to preach there. And when the answer was that the subject would not +be touched on the room was refused. "Ay, but I hold to that doctrine," +he repeated to every objection. + +Widely, therefore, as the Continental Sunday and the Scotch Sabbath +differ in appearance, they arise from the same causes, they result in +the same effects. + +They are caused by the desire for bodily rest, for soul nourishment, for +mental relaxation, necessities of mankind, and each people so frames its +conception of the proper way to keep the day as to attain those ends. +For "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath," and men +adapt their religious teaching to suit their necessities. + + + + +CHAPTER XXV. + +MIRACLE. + + +It is some years ago now--about twenty, I think--that we first heard of +the beginning of a new religion, the arrival of a new prophetess who was +to unfold to us the mystery of the world and teach us the truths of +life. And this religion began as other religions have been said to +begin, this prophetess claimed belief as other teachers are said to have +done, by her miraculous powers. She could do things that no one else +could do: she could divide a cigarette paper in halves, and waft half +through the air to great distances; she could piece together broken +teacups in an extraordinary way. And because she could perform these +feats she claimed for herself an authority in speaking of the hearts of +men and of the before and after death, an authority which was accorded +to her by many. + +I have expressly refrained from suggesting either the truth or the +falsehood of these miracles. I am aware that the whole process is said +to have been fully exposed. The question is immaterial, for they were, +true or false, believed by many, and it is this question of belief in +miracle which I wish to discuss, not the possibility of miracle or the +reverse. + +There is another point I wish to make clear. I have said that other +religions are said to have started in the same way, other teachers to +have claimed authority on the same ground. This may or may not be true. +The theory of Buddhism is so essentially anti-miraculous that the +miracles attributed to the Buddha seem almost certainly outside +additions, as they are in direct variance with his known acts and +beliefs. And the words and acts of Christ in His life seem all so at +variance with the miracles attributed to Him that they, too, may be +later additions or contemporary exaggerations. This has already been +obvious to some, and had not the absolute inspiration of the Sacred +Books been insisted on, thus stifling criticism, it would have been +obvious to more. All this is immaterial. True or false, all religions +have an embroidery, more or less deep, of miracle, and on these miracles +their claim to truth was in the early days more or less pressed. If +Madame Blavatsky performed miracles with teacups it was because she saw +that there was an attraction to many people in miracle that nothing else +could supply. Miracle to many is the proof of truth. Had Madame +Blavatsky performed no miracles, had there been no teacups, were there +now no Mahatmas, who would have stopped to listen to her compote of +Brahmanism, Buddhism, and truly western mysticism which she called +Theosophy? + +How can miracle be the proof of supernatural knowledge? + +Suppose there arose to-morrow in England a man who could make one loaf +into five, what should those of us who are without the instinct for +miracle say? Merely that he knew some way of increasing bread which we +did not know. The inference would end there. We should not suppose that +he therefore knew anything more about the next world than we do. Where +is the connection, we would ask? The telephone or the Röntgen rays would +have been a miracle a hundred years ago. Two thousand years ago a +phonograph would have been supposed to hold a devil, and the proprietor +would have been a prophet, no doubt. But we do not now go to Edison or +Maxim for our religions. Still, Madame Blavatsky started with miracles, +and was wise in her generation. Still, all religions retain more or less +of the miraculous, because there are many to whom this appeals before +everything, because they are sure that miracle is the proof of truth. +Again, Theosophy claims to be Esoteric Buddhism. The country _par +excellence_ of practical Buddhism is Burma. Yet the Burmans generally +laugh at Theosophy. How is this? The answer lies, I think, like the +answer to all these questions of religion, in the varying instincts of +the people. It is an idea with us in the West that the East is the land +of enchantment, of mystery, of the unknown, of miracle and all that is +akin to it. We are never tired of talking of the mysterious East; it +seems to us one vast wonderland full of things we cannot understand, +full of marvels of the unknowable, the very home of superstition; while +the West is matter of fact, material and reasonable, and easily +understood. And yet I think the very first thing a man learns when he +goes to the people of the East, certainly to the Burmese people, and +tries to see with their eyes and understand with their hearts, that all +this is the very reverse of the facts. Will anyone who wishes to see how +very far they are from the cult of the mysterious, of dreams, of +miracles, of visions, how very _little_ such things appeal to them, turn +to my chapters on the Buddhist monkhood in "The Soul of a People," and +read them? I do not wish to repeat what I said there, only that a monk +who saw visions or performed miracles would be ejected from his +monastery as unworthy of his faith. + +I do not say that there are no superstitions among the people. Their +stage of civilisation is as yet low, as low perhaps as ours five hundred +years ago. They have their strange fancies here and there; I have heard +many of them. They are amusing sometimes and curious. I very much doubt, +however, if the Burman of to-day is as superstitious as an ordinary +countryman in England. I have heard English soldiers tell tales of old +women changing into hares, _that they themselves had seen_, quite as +seriously as any Burman could. And if you compare the Burman of to-day +with the European peasant of even two hundred years ago, there is no +comparison at all. The West simply reeks with superstition and all that +is allied to it compared to the East. (I exclude the belief in ghosts, +which is, I think, a separate matter.) + +The delusion has, I think, arisen in many ways. To begin with, we are +always looking out in the East for the mysterious. It is the East, and +therefore mysterious. We very seldom try to understand the people, to +see them from their standpoint. We prefer generally to assume that they +have no standpoint and to talk of the incomprehensible Oriental mind, +because it is easier to do so and it sounds superior. And again, we are +apt to make absurd comparisons and reason without remembrance. An +English officer will come across a Burman from the back country of the +hills who has a charm against bullet wounds, and he will sit down and +indite a letter to the paper on the "incredibly foolish superstition of +these people," oblivious of the fact that he will find even now amongst +his own countrymen quite as many people who believe in charms as among +the Burmese, that Dr. Johnson touched various articles as charms, and +that he himself throws salt over his shoulder. Yet he is of the better +class of a people five hundred years older in civilisation than the +Burman. + +I confess that, personally, I have found even to-day infinitely more +superstition and leaning to the miraculous among my own people than +among Burmans. There are classes of English people who are almost free +from it, there are other Englishmen, and especially Englishwomen, who +are steeped in it to a degree that would astound any Oriental. And what +was it a few hundred years ago? Have there ever been witch trials in the +East, have there ever been ordeals, or casting lots "for God to decide"? +Magicians have come to us from the East, truly; they were made for +export, the use for them at home being limited. Theosophy was started in +the East, truly, but not by Orientals. Madame Blavatsky is believed to +have been a Russian; her supporters were English and American. Palmistry +and fortune-telling appeal as serious matters to many people in England +and Europe generally. To the Burman they are matters of amusement. Do +you think "Christian Science" would gain any foothold in the East? or +spiritualism or a hundred forms of superstition that cling to the +civilised people of the West? + +The East is the home of religion, of emotion, of asceticism, of the +victory of the mind over the body. The West is the home of superstition, +of second sight, of miracle, of conjuring tricks of all kinds exalted +into the supernatural. You may search all the records of the East and +find no superstition--like touching for the King's evil, for instance. +Can anyone imagine Joanna Southcote in India or in the further East? I +have tried not to hear, I could never repeat, what the East says of the +miraculous in Christianity. Superstition there is, of course, legend and +miracle; they are the outcomes always of a certain stage of +pre-civilisation. But even in India how scarce and faint they are +compared to the West. For one thing must be carefully remembered. +Ignorance of the power of natural causes must not be put down to +attribution of miraculous causes. The peasant in the East will often +attribute a property to a herb, a mineral, a ceremony that it has not +got. That is their ignorance of natural law, never their attribution of +unnatural power. If a Burman peasant sometimes thinks a certain medicine +can render his body lighter than water, it is simply that he is unaware +of the limited power of drugs, not that he supposes there is anything +miraculous in it. The power of phenacetin on a feverish patient seems to +him far more astonishing. Indeed, from miracle as miracle he shrinks. To +miracle as miracle the average European is greatly attracted. To the one +it spells always charlatanism, to the latter supernatural power. + +And therefore, even in the religions of Hindustan--Hinduism in its +myriad forms, Mahommedanism, Sihkism, Jainism, and Parseeism--miracle +plays a very minor part. I think there is no doubt that this repugnance +to miracle is one reason why the Semites eventually rejected +Christianity. How very few and unaffecting the essence are the miracles +in Mahommedanism. But in Christianity it plays the major part. Christ +was born and lived and died and rose again in miracle. In Latin +countries miracles are of daily occurrence--as at Lourdes, for instance. + +And though in Teutonic Christianity it is less than in Latin countries, +it plays a great part also. The miracles of Christ's life are retained. +Truly they say that now the age of miracle is past. The Church believes +no more in prophecy, in miraculous cures, in risings from the dead. The +bulk of the people reject miracle. But what a large minority is still +left who absolutely crave for it, let the records of Theosophy and many +another miraculous religion show. Miracle satisfies a craving, an +instinct, that nothing else will meet. It is curious to note how the +inclusion of miracle in religion varies inversely with the inclusion of +conduct. With the Latins miracle is most, the Latin Christianity is the +most miraculous of all religions, and therein conduct is least. With the +Teutons miracle and conduct are both accepted, the former +authoritatively of the past, privately also of the present. With the +Burmans miracle and the supernatural are rejected absolutely as part of +the religion of to-day, and conduct is all in all. Thus again do the +instincts of the people find expression in their religion. + +As to the growth of the instinct it is more difficult to reply. +Instincts are very hard to account for. Indeed, in their origin all are +quite beyond the scope of inquiry at all. We can only see that they +exist. But with this instinct for miracle there is one cause that no +doubt contributes to its increase or decrease. It does not explain the +instinct, but it does show why in some cases it is greater than in +others. + +It is greater in the West than in the East because many people in the +West, with greater emotional power, from better food and little work, +live narrower lives than any in the East. It is astonishing to see the +difference. In the East every peasant lives surrounded by his relatives, +very many of them; he is friends with all his village, he has always his +work, his interests in life. He is hardly ever alone among strangers, +with no work to occupy him. But in the West, how many there are who live +alone, their relations elsewhere, with few friends, with no necessity +for work, with no interests in life? It is terrible to see how many +there are living lives empty of all emotion. These are they who seek the +miraculous as a relief from their daily monotony of stupidity. These are +they who run after new things. It is + + "The desire of the moth for the star, + Of the day for the morrow, + The longing for something afar + From the scene of our sorrow." + +It is the result of high emotional power with no food to feed on. There +are other factors, for instance--that people who live in mountains are +more superstitious than people of plains, due again to narrower, more +isolated lives, I think; and as a rule country people are more +superstitious than town people, due to the same reason. Nothing exists +without its use, and this is some of the use of the miraculous instinct +in man. It has played its part in the world, a great part no doubt. +Where it exists still it does so because it fills a necessity. Never +doubt it. Those who live full lives find it so easy to laugh at this +craving for the supernatural. Would you do away with it? Make, then, +their lives such that they do not need it. Give to them the knowledge, +the sympathy, the love, the wider life that makes it unnecessary. + +Nurtured in narrowness on the ground that should grow other instincts, +it disappears in the sunshine of happiness, when the heart is furrowed +and tilled by the experiences of life and planted with the fruit of +happiness. + +If we cannot do that, at least we can recognise that it, as all +instincts, has its uses, and exists in and because of that use, never +because of any abuse. + +And where the instinct exists it is attracted as are nearly all the +instincts into that great bundle of emotions called religion. + +But if those who support Christian missions wonder why they are not more +successful, here is another reason. What satisfies your instinct revolts +theirs. They do not require it. Orientals, even peasants, live such wide +lives compared with many in the West, that they need not the stimulus, +and their hard lives lessen the emotional powers. And if Christians are +often unable to understand the charm of Buddhism to its believers, it is +because western people seek and require the stimulus of miracle which is +here wanting. It is as if you offered them water while they cared only +for wine. But Easterns care not for your strong emotions. They are +simpler and more easily pleased. + + + + +CHAPTER XXVI. + +RELIGION AND ART. + + "This is not the place, nor have I space left here, to explain + all I mean when I say that art is a mode of religion, and can + flourish only under the inspiration of living and practical + religion."--_Frederic Harrison._ + + "No one indeed can successfully uphold the idea that the high + development of art in any shape is of necessity coincident with + a strong growth of religious or moral sentiment. Perugino made + no secret of being an atheist; Leonardo da Vinci was a + scientific sceptic; Raphael was an amiable rake, no better and + no worse than the majority of those gifted pupils to whom he + was at once a model of perfection and an example of free + living; and those who maintain that art is always the + expression of a people's religion have but an imperfect + acquaintance with the age of Praxiteles, Apelles, and Zeuxis. + Yet the idea itself has a foundation, lying in something which + is as hard to define as it is impossible to ignore; for if art + be not a growth out of faith, it is always the result of a + faith that has been."--_Marion Crawford._ + +Quotation on both sides could be multiplied without end, but there seems +no reason to do so. The question is the relation of religion to art, and +it has but the two sides. Indeed, the subject seems difficult, for there +is so much to be said on both sides. + +On one side it may be said:--Art is the result of and the outcome of +religion. Look at the greatest works of art the world has to show. Are +they not all religious? There are the Parthenon, the temples of Karnac, +the cathedral at Milan, St. Peter's at Rome, and others too numerous to +mention; the Mosque of St. Sophia and the Kutub Minar, the temples of +Humpi, the Shwe Dagon pagoda, the temples of China and Japan. What has +secular art to show to compare with these? Are not the Venus de Milo, +the statue of Athena, and all the famous Greek sculptures those of gods? +What is the most famous painting in the world? It is the Sistine Madonna +of Raphael. Even in literature, is there anything secular to compare +with the sacred books of the world? The oratorios and masses are the +finest music. What can be more certain than that only religion gives the +necessary stimulus to art and furnishes the most inspiring subjects? +Great art is born of great faiths, great faiths produce great art. + +To which there is the reply:--Many of the greatest Greek statues were of +gods truly, but was it a religious age that produced them? Were Phidias +and Zeuxis religious or moral men? + +Was the thirteenth century which saw the building of most of the best +cathedrals, a religious age? Is it not the fact that for many cathedrals +the capital was borrowed from the Jews, enemies of Christ, and the +interest paid by the sweat of slaves; and when the interest was too +heavy, religious bigotry was resorted to and the Jews persecuted, +killed, and banished. It is probable that of all ages the thirteenth +century was the worst. Were the painters of great pictures religious or +moral? Raphael painted the most wonderful religious paintings the world +has seen--how much religion had Raphael? Leonardo da Vinci painted "The +Last Supper"; he was a sceptic. Are not artistic people notoriously +irreligious? The pyramids of Egypt and the Taj at Agra are not religious +buildings; they are tombs. The sentiment that raised them was the +emotion of death. In music and literature secular art rivals religion. +And even if great art be allied to religion, deep religious feeling does +not necessarily produce art. Indeed, it is the reverse. The most serious +forms of belief have not done so. Where is the art of the Reformation? +Protestants will be slow to admit that there was no deep religious +feeling there. Yet their great cathedrals were all built by Roman +Catholics. Were not the Puritans religious? They hated all art. Is +there no religious feeling in the North of America? Where is its +religious art? In Europe there is no religious art out of Catholicism. +In that alone has it succeeded. And again, although some religious art +is great, such is the exception. The bulk of religious art all over the +world is bad--very bad--the worst. What art is there in the crucifixes +of the Catholic world, in the sacred pictures in their chapels, in the +eikons of Russia, in the gods of the Hindus, in the Buddhas of Buddhism, +and the popular religious pictures of England? They are one and all as +Art simply deplorable. There is grand religious literature, but what of +the bulk of it? Most of the hymns, the sermons, the tracts, the +religious literature of England and other countries cannot be matched +for badness in any secular work. It is the same everywhere. The +Salvation Army had to borrow secular music to make its hymns attractive. +Striking an average, which is best--secular or religious literature, +art, music, and architecture? Without a doubt secular art is the best +all round. + +Art may often be the representative of religion, it is never the outcome +of religious people or a religious age. The very contrary is the fact. + +These are strong arguments, and there are more. But these will suffice. + +What is the truth? What connection has art with religion? + +I do not think the answer is difficult. The connection depends upon what +you define religion and art respectively to be. With the old definitions +no answer is forthcoming. But when you see religion as it really is, +when you understand its genesis and its growth, the answer is clear. + +Religion, as I have tried to show, arises from instincts. The instincts +of the savage are few, the emotions he is capable of feeling are +limited. As his civilisation progresses his instinctive desires +increase, his emotions are more numerous. And as the greater attracts +the less, the older and more established attract the newer, so religion +attracts to itself and incorporates all it can. Religions have varied in +this matter; but of all, Catholicism has been the most wide-armed, it +has always justified its name. Where a new emotion arose and became +strong the Roman Church always if possible attracted it into the fold. I +have already shown how this was done. There is hardly an emotion of the +human heart that Roman Catholicism has not made its own. + +Now what is Art? + +Art, as Tolstoi explains, is also an expression of the emotions, and +therefore the difference between religion and art lies in the emotions +expressed and the method of expression. + +Different peoples express in their religions different emotions. What +some of these emotions are I explain in Chapter XXX. Different people +are also more or less susceptible to art, and express in their art +different emotions. Where a great religion has absorbed certain +emotions, and a great art subsequently arises and wishes to express in +art some of the same emotions, then the art becomes religious art. The +two domains have overlapped. But there is no distinction between secular +and religious art. Nor is there any necessary connection between Art and +Religion. Neither is dependent on the other. They are quite distinct +domains, each existing to fulfil the necessities and desires of man. + +How they came frequently to overlap is easily enough seen. + +Consider the religion of Rome. It came, as I have said, out of the +necessity for expressing and cultivating certain emotions. It is a very +catholic religion, the product of a highly emotional people who had many +and strong feelings. As much as possible these were accepted into the +religion. + +Therefore, when there came the great outbreak of art in the fourteenth +century, when there were great painters and sculptors desiring to paint +pictures that appealed to the heart, all the ground was occupied. + +Did they want to depict feminine beauty, there was the Madonna accepted +as the ideal. Did they want to awaken the emotion of maternity, there +was the Madonna again; of pity, there were the martyrs; of sacrifice, +there was the Christ. Long before these emotions had been crystallised +by the Church round religious ideals, and a change would not be +understood. + +And with the Architects. There is but one emotion common to a whole +people--catholic, so to speak--namely, religion. A town hall, a palace, +a secular building would be provincial; a church only is catholic. In +palaces only princes live, in municipal buildings only officials, in +markets only the people, but in churches all are gathered together, and +not only occasionally but frequently. Therefore, given a great +architect, what could he design that would give him scope, and freedom, +and fame like a cathedral? His feelings were immaterial, it was a +professional necessity that drove artists then to religious matters. +What was Raphael, the free-liver, thinking of when he drew his Madonnas? +Was it the Jewess of Galilee over a thousand years before or the ripe +warm beauty of the Florentine girls he knew? + +The Roman Catholic Church desired to attract to itself all that appealed +to the emotions, and included art of all kinds in its scope. And all +artists, painters, architects, even writers, found in the Church their +greatest opportunities and greatest fame. Deep and real feelings in art +of all kinds sought the companionship of the other great feelings that +are in religion. Shallower art often shrinks from being put beside the +greater emotions, and so some of the shams of the Renaissance. + +But the deepest religious feeling is always averse to art. No age full +of great religious emotion has produced any art at all in any people. +The early Christians, the monks of the Thebaid, hated art, as did the +Puritans. They felt, I think, a competition. When an emotion is raised +to such a height as theirs was, none other can live beside it. Such +emotion becomes a flame that burns up all round. It cannot bear any +rivalry. It puts aside not only art but love, reverence, fear, every +other emotion. Religion is before everything, religion _is_ everything. +There are Christ's words refusing to recognise his mother and brethren. +It has been common to all forms of exalted religious fervour. No emotion +can live with it. Only when it has somewhat died away does art get a +chance. Then only if an artistic wave arises can it be allied with +religion. But deep religious feeling is not always followed by an +artistic wave. There has been no such sequence in most countries. This +sequence in Italy was an exception. It was perchance. There has never +been an art wave connected with Protestantism, and only very slightly +with Buddhism. I have shown in "The Soul of a People," that art in Burma +is only connected professionally with Buddhism. That is to say that +wood-carving, one of Burma's two arts, is not religious in sentiment, +and is applied to monasteries because they are the only large buildings +needed. There is no other demand. To depict the Buddha in any artistic +way except that handed down by tradition would be considered profane. +Would not the early Christians have considered Raphael's Madonna +profane, considering who he was, and what probably his models were? I +think so. I doubt if the deepest religious emotions would tolerate a +crucifix or any picture of Christ at all. Certainly not of the Almighty. +The heat of belief must have cooled down a great deal before such +things became possible. So, in fact, it is as history tells us. Religion +is a cult of the emotions. Art, as Tolstoi shows, is also a cult of the +emotions. Very deep religious feeling leaves no room for any other +emotion, it brooks no rival in the hearts of men. A deeply religious age +has no art; its religion kills art. What were the feelings of the early +Christians towards Greek art? They were those of abhorrence. What those +of the Puritans towards any art? They were the same. + +But when religious emotions have cooled, and room is left for other +feelings, then art may arise. And if it does so, and is a great art, it +allies itself with religion, if the religion permits of it. Some forms +of faith would never permit it. Which of the emotions of which +Puritanism is composed could be expressed in art? Art is almost always +the cult of emotions that are beautiful, are happy, are joyous. +Puritanism knew nothing of all these. Grand, stern, rigid, black, never +graceful or beautiful. Any art that followed Puritanism could but be +grotesque and terrible. There would be no Madonnas, but there might be +avenging angels; there would be no heaven, but certainly a hell. Indeed, +in the literature of the religion we see that this is so. + +Religion and art are both cults of the emotions. They may be rivals, +they may be allies, in the way that art may depict religious subjects. +But great art, like great faith, brooks no rival. And therefore great +artists are not necessarily religious. They may have scant emotion to +spare outside their art. + +This, I think, is the key to the relation between religion and art. It +is impossible to treat such a great subject adequately in a chapter. +Most of my chapters should, indeed, have been volumes. But the key once +provided the rest follows. + + +[Illustration: CATHOLIC RELIGION: PRAYER, MUSIC, BEAUTY, LOVE, +MOTHERHOOD, SACRIFICE, HEAVEN, GAIETY, COLLECTIVENESS, DEPENDANCE, +LAWLESSNESS, HOPE, CATHOLICITY, MERCY] + +[Illustration: PURITANISM: EFFORT, HELL, JUSTIFICATION, JUSTICE, +NARROWNESS, VENGEANCE, LAW, STRENGTH, RIGHTEOUSNESS, FEAR, INDIVIDUALITY] + +[Illustration: ART: MUSIC, BEAUTY, LOVE, MOTHERHOOD, GAIETY, PASSION, +LICENSE] + + + + +CHAPTER XXVII. + +WHAT IS EVIDENCE? + + +If you go to any believer in any religion--in any of the greater +religions, I mean--and ask him why he believes in his religion, he has +always one answer: "Because it is true." And if you continue and say to +him, "How do you know it is true?" he will reply, "Because there is full +evidence to prove it." He imagines that he is guided by his reason, that +it is his logical faculty that is satisfied, and his religion can be +proved irrefragably. And yet it is strange that if any religion is based +on ascertained fact, if any religion is demonstrably true, no one can be +brought to see this truth, to accept this proof, except believers who do +not require it. The Jew cannot be brought to admit the truth of +Christianity, let the Christian argue ever so wisely; nor will the +Christian accept Mahommedanism or Buddhism as containing any truth at +all, no matter how the adherents of these faiths may argue. + +It is not so with most other matters. If a problem in chemistry or +physics be true at all it is altogether true for every one. Nationality +makes no difference to your acknowledging the law of gravity, the +science of the stars, the dynamics of steam, or the secrets of +metallurgy. If an Englishman makes a discovery a Frenchman is able to +follow the argument. The Japanese are not Christians, but that does not +in any way prevent them assimilating modern knowledge. Twice two are +four all over the world, except in matters of religion. + +This is a somewhat remarkable phenomenon. What is the reason of it? + +I can remember not very long ago walking in a garden with a man and +talking intermittently on religious topics. He was a man of great +education, of wide knowledge of the world, a man of no narrow sympathies +or thoughts. And as we went we came to a bed of roses in full bloom; +there were red and white and deep yellow roses in clusters of great +beauty, filling the air with their perfume. "To see a sight like that," +he said, "proves to me that there is a God." + +Proves! There was the _proof_. + +I did not ask him how such roses would be proof of a God. I did not say +that if beauty was proof of a God, ugliness would be proof of a Devil, +for I know there is no reasoning in matters like that. The sight and +scent awoke in his heart that echo that is called God. Not only God, nor +was it any God, nor any Gods that the echo answered to. It was _his_ +God, it was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, that came to him. He +saw the roses, and their beauty brought to his mind the idea of God. +That was enough for him. He had, as so many have, an absolute +instinctive understanding of God, as clear to him as if he saw Him at +midday--unreasoning because _known_. + +"And for others," he said, "is there not ample evidence? How do you +account for the world unless God made it? Have we not in the Scripture a +full account of how it was made out of chaos? And has not He manifested +Himself in His prophets? The truth is proved over and over again, by the +prophecies and fulfilment, by the birth and death of Christ, by the +miracles of Christ, by endless matters. It is so clear." And so it is to +him and those like him who have in themselves the idea of God. They +_know_. It seems humorous to remember that scientific men have thought +they traced this to a savage's speculations on dreams. The speculation +of a savage, forsooth, and this certainty of feeling. The Theist says: +"How can you answer the questions of who made the world other than by +God?" It is a question that rises spontaneously. Do you remember +Napoleon the Great and the idealogues on the voyage to Egypt? They were +ridiculing the idea of a Creator. And to them the Emperor, pointing to +the stars above him, replied, "It is all very well, gentlemen, but who +made all those?" But the Non-Theist replies that it would never occur to +him to put such a question. To ask "Who made the world?" is to beg the +whole question. That question which is always rising in your mind never +does in ours. We would ask how and from what has the world evolved, and +under what cause? "Your evidence is good only to you." The Hindu has +perhaps the keenest mind in religious matters the world knows; does he +accept it? Do the Buddhists accept it? Do keen thinkers in Europe accept +any of this evidence? It is not so. If you have the instinct of God, +then is evidence unnecessary; and if you have not, of what use is the +evidence brought forward? Was anyone ever converted by reasoning? I am +sure no one ever was. Religions are not proved, they are not matters of +logic; they are either above logic or beneath it. To a man who +_believes_, anything is proof. He will reason about religion in a way he +would never do about other matters. He will offer as evidence, as +absolute proof, what he who does not believe cannot accept as evidence +at all. The religions are always the same. The believers _know_ them to +be true, and they cannot understand why others also do not know it. +Their truths seem to them absolutely clear, capable of the clearest +proof. And as to this evidence, this proof, there is always plenty of +it. Any faith can if pushed bring evidence on some points that not even +unbelievers can disprove, that is clearly not intentionally false, that +if the matter were a mundane concern would probably be accepted. It is +so, I think, in all religions, but here is a case from Buddhism. + +In my book upon the religion of the Burmese I have given a chapter to +the belief of the people in reincarnation, a belief that is to them not +a belief but a knowledge. And I have given there a few of these strange +stories of remembrance of previous lives so common among them. For +almost all children will tell you that they can remember their former +lives. + +There is a story there of a child who remembered nothing until one day +he saw used as a curtain a man's loin-cloth, that of a man who had died +and whose clothes had, as is the custom, been made into screens. And the +sight of that pattern awoke in him suddenly the knowledge that he had +lived before, and that in that former life he had worn that very cloth. +His former life was "proved" to him, and in consequence the fact that +all men had former lives. There was proof. + +When I was writing "The Soul of a People" I went a great deal into this +subject of the former life, and I collected a great deal of evidence +about it. I not only saw a number of people who said they could +recollect these lives, but I came across a quantity of facts difficult +of explanation on any other hypothesis. The evidence was honestly given, +I know. But did I believe this former life, or has any European ever +been convinced by that evidence? I never heard of one. Why? Because we +have not the instinct. The Burman has. + +They have the idea as an instinct, just as my friend held the idea of +God as an instinct, and there were certain matters that awakened these +instincts. They needed no more; the facts were proved to them and to +those of like thought to them. But proof. What is proof? Proof, they +will tell you, is a matter of evidence, it is a matter of cold logic, it +arises from facts. + +If that is so, why does not everyone believe in ghosts? Was there ever a +subject on which there was more evidence than in the existence of +ghosts? We find the belief as far back as we can go--the witch of Endor, +for instance. We find the belief to-day. Not a year passes but numerous +people assert that they have seen ghosts. Their evidence is honestly +given; no one doubts that. The mass of evidence is overwhelming. The +fact that certain people do not see them in no way invalidates the +direct evidence. Yet the belief in ghosts is a joke, and a mark, we say, +of feeble-minded folk. + +I have myself lived in the midst of ghosts. One of my houses in Burma +was full of them. Every Burman who came in saw them. Not even my +servants dared go upstairs after dark without me. My servants are +honest, truth-telling boys, and I would believe them in a matter of +theft or murder without hesitation. I would certainly hang a man if the +evidence of his being a murderer was as clear as the evidence that my +bedroom contained a ghost. No absolutely impartial lawyer, judging the +evidence of former life and of the existence of ghosts as a pure matter +of law, but would admit that they were conclusively proved. The Burmans +firmly believe both, considering them not only proved but beyond proof. +No European believes in the former life, and with regard to ghosts the +belief is relegated to those whom we stigmatise as the weak-minded and +imaginative. + +Is the explanation difficult? It does not seem to me so. For it is +simply this. To believe and accept any matter it is not sufficient that +there be enough evidence, the subject itself must appeal to you, must +ring true, must be good to be believed. But with ghosts to most of us it +is the reverse. That our friends and those we love should after death +behave as ghosts behave, should be silly, unreasonable, drivelling in +their ways, imbecile in their performances, should in fact act as if the +next world was a ghostly lunatic asylum, is not attractive but the +reverse. For a murdered man's spirit to go fooling about scaring +innocent people into fits, and unable to say right out that he wants his +body buried, strikes the ordinary man as sheer idiocy. And therefore men +laugh and jeer. People who see ghosts may believe them; no one else will +do so. Because they are not worthy of belief. If these be indeed ghosts, +and they act as ghost-seers say, it is a deplorable, a most deplorable +thing. And if it is a choice of imbecilities, we would prefer to believe +in the lunacy of ghost-seers rather than in that of the dead, our dead. + +But it is not only in matters relating to religion as the idea of God, +or to the supernatural as in ghosts, that we reject evidence. We can do +so also in matters that have no connection with each. For why do we +refuse to accept the sea serpent? Numbers of absolutely reliable men +declare they have seen it. And yet we laugh, or at best we say, "They +were mistaken, it was a trail of seaweed." + +All men who have lived to a certain age have learnt that there are +certain facts, certain experiences not at all connected with the +supernatural, which they dare not tell of for fear of being put down as +inventors. They are curious coincidences, narrow escapes, shooting +adventures, and so on. They have happened to us all. Who has not heard +the tale of the general at a dinner party who related some such incident +that had occurred to himself, and was surprised to see amusement and +disbelief depicted on the faces of all around him. "You do not believe +me," he said stiffly, "but my friend opposite was with me at the time +and saw it too." But the friend refused with a laugh to bear witness, +and the conversation changed. "General," explained the friend +subsequently to his irate companion, "I know, of course, all you said +was true. But what would you have? If fifty men swore to it no one would +believe them. They would only have put me down as a liar too." + +Just as the old woman was ready to accept her travelled son's yarns of +rivers of milk and islands of cheese; but when he deviated into the +truth she stopped. "Na, Na!" she said, "that the anchor fetched up one +of Pharaoh's chariot wheels out of the Red Sea, I can believe; but that +fish fly! Na, Na! dinna come any o' your lies over yer mither." + +They are old stories, but they illustrate my point. On some matters we +are ready to believe at once, on others no amount of evidence will +change our opinions. + +Indeed, we are too apt to assume that reason is our great guide in life. +To think before you act may be wise--sometimes. But if in matters of +emergency you had to stop and think first, you would not succeed very +well. The great men of action are those who act first and think +afterwards, and sometimes they even do the latter badly. There is the +story of a man who was going abroad to be a Chief Justice, and who was +addressed by the Lord Chancellor in this way: "My friend, be careful +where you are going. Your judgments will be nearly always right, but +beware of giving your reasons, for they will almost invariably be +wrong." There are many such men. + +What, then, is religious proof? If it is not founded on evidence that +all can accept, on what is it founded? Why do men believe their own +religion and accept the evidence of it as irrefragable, while scornfully +rejecting that in favour of other religions? + +The answer, I think, is this. + +If you will take two violins and will tune them together, and if while +someone plays ever so lightly on one you will bend your ear to the +other, you will hear faintly but clearly repeated from its strings the +melody of the first. For they are in harmony. But if they are not, then +there will be no echo, play you never so loudly. + +And so it is in matters of religion. If you are in harmony with any +thought there will come the echo in your heart's strings, and you will +know that it is true. But if you are not in harmony, then no matter how +loudly the evidence be sounded there will be no echo there. All these +ideas on which religions are built are instincts. They are of the heart, +never of the head. Reason affects them not at all. These instincts are +not the same with all. They vary, and so the religions that are based on +them vary. They have nothing to do with reason, and therefore those of +one religion cannot understand another. And they are not fixed; for the +belief in the Unity of God only evolved, after many thousands of years, +quite recently, and the belief in ghosts, universal among earlier people +and now among the half-civilized, lingers with us only as a subject for +amusement. There is no "evidence" in religion; you either believe or you +don't. + + + + +CHAPTER XXVIII. + +THE AFTER DEATH. + + +It is two years and a half ago now that I passed through Westminster +Hall, one of a great multitude. They went in double file, thickly packed +between barriers of rails on either side the hall, and between where +everyone looked there lay--what? A plain oak coffin on a table. + +Within this coffin there lay the body of Mr. Gladstone, he who in his +day had filled the public eye in England more than any other man. His +body lay there in state, and the people came to see. + +Emerging into the street beyond and seeing the ceaseless stream of +people that flowed past, I wondered to myself. These people are +Christians. If you ask them where Mr. Gladstone is now, they will, if +they reply hurriedly, answer, "He is dead and in there"; but if they +pause to reflect they will say, "He is in heaven. His soul is with +God." + +If, then, his soul, if _he_ be with God, what are you come to see? +Shortly there will be a funeral, and what will it be called? The funeral +of Mr. Gladstone. But Mr. Gladstone is in heaven, not here. Surely this +is strange. + + * * * * * + +"If there is anything I can do for you be sure you tell me, for your +husband was my great friend." So wrote the man. And to him came her +reply: "Sometimes when you are near go and see his grave where he sleeps +in that far land, and put a flower upon it for your remembrance and for +mine." + +But if he, too, be in heaven and not there at all? If it be, as the +Burmans say, but the empty shell that lies there? Why should we visit +graves if the soul be indeed separate from the body? If he be far away +in happiness, why go to his grave? To remember but the corruption that +lies beneath? + +Men use words and phrases remembering what they ought to believe. For +very few are sincere and know what really they do believe. You cannot +tell from their professions, only from their unconscious words and their +acts. + +What do these unconscious words, these acts, tell us of the belief +about the soul and body? That they are separable and separate? No, but +that they are inseparable. No one in the West, I am sure--no one +anywhere, I think--has ever been able to conceive of the soul as apart +from the body. We cannot do so. Try, try honestly, and remember your +dead friends. What is it you recall and long for and miss so bitterly? +It was his voice that awoke echoes in you, it was the clasp of his hand +in yours, it was his eyes looking back to you the love you felt for him. +It was his footfall on the stair, his laugh, the knowledge of his +presence. And are not these all of the body? + +Men talk glibly of the soul as apart from the body. What do they mean? +Nothing but words, for the soul without a body is an incomprehensible +thing, certainly to us. + +And it is always the same body, not another. It is the old hand, the +face, that we want. Not the soul, if it could be possible, looking at us +out of other eyes. No; we want him we lost, and not another. It is the +cry of our hearts. + +And therefore, "I believe in the resurrection of the body and the life +everlasting." Have you wondered how that came into the creed? It came +into religion as came all that we believe in, never out of theory but +out of instinct. + +What is your feeling towards the dead? Is it envy that they have reached +everlasting happiness? Is it gladness to reflect that they are no longer +with us? Do we think of them as superior to us? Alas, no. The great and +overpowering sentiment we have for them is pity. The tears come to our +eyes for them, because they are dead. They have left behind them light +and life and gone into the everlasting forgetfulness. "The night hath +come when no man can work." That is our real instinct towards the dead. +"Poor fellow." And you will hear people say, with tardy remembrance of +their creeds, "But for his sake we ought to rejoice, because he is at +peace." + +We ought? But _do_ we? Surely we never do. We are sorry for the dead. +All the compassion that is in us goes out to them, because they are +dead. + +The Catholic Church has prayers for the dead. There was never a Church +yet that knew the hearts of men as that Church of Rome. Prayers for the +dead. Masses for the dead. + +Our Protestant theories forbid such. But tell me, is there a woman who +has lost those she loves to whom such prayers would not come home? How +narrow sometimes are the Reformed Creeds in their refusal to help the +sorrow of their people. + +"In the sure and certain hope of a glorious resurrection." What is to +arise? The disembodied soul? But you say it is already with God. What is +to arise? It is the body. It is more. It is he who is dead--who sleeps; +he whom we have buried there. Whatever our creeds may say, we do not, we +cannot ever understand the soul without the body. Not _a_ body, but +_the_ body. We believe not in the life of a soul previous to the body. +They are born together, and they die together. If they live hereafter it +must be together. For they are one. + +Never be deceived by theories or professions. No one in the West has +ever understood the soul without the body, no one can do so. The +conception is wanting. We play with the theory in words as we do with +the fourth dimension. But who ever realised either? + +But with the Oriental it is different. He believes in the migration of +souls. They pass from body to body. He can realise this--somehow, I know +not--but he can. Those who have read my "Soul of a People" will remember +that they not only believe it but _know_ it. They are sure of it +because it has happened to each one, and he can remember his former +lives. This comes not from Buddhism, because Buddhist theory denies the +existence of soul at all, nor from Brahminism. It is the Oriental's +instinct. He does not, I think, ever realise a soul apart from any body, +but he can and does realise a soul exhibited first in one body then in +another, as a lamp shining through different globes. + +Therefore, when a Christian tells him of the resurrection of the body he +cannot understand. "Which body," he asks, "for I have had so many?" +Neither can he understand a Christian heaven of bodies risen from the +earth. His heaven is immaterial. It is the Great Peace, where life has +passed away. That he can understand. For neither can he conceive a life +of the soul without some body. When perfection is reached and the last +weary body done with, then life, too, is gone--life and all passion, all +love, all happiness, all fear, all the emotions that are life. They are +gone, and there is left only the Great Peace. + +Our heaven grows out of our instincts as his does out of his instincts. +Our dead without their bodies would not be those we love, and hence our +heaven, where we shall recognise each other and love them as we did. I +did not understand heaven when I read books, but out of men have I +learned what I wished to know. Reason alone can tell you nothing, but +sympathy will tell you all things. + +It would be interesting, it is very interesting, to look back into our +past histories and see these instincts grow and wane, to mark how they +have influenced not only our religious theories, but our lives; to trace +in other people like or opposed instincts. The Mahommedans refuse +amputation because they will not appear maimed in the next world. For +they, too, cannot distinguish soul from one body. The Jews had no idea +of soul at all as existing after death, whether with or without a body. +"As a man dies so will he be, all through the ages of eternity." They +learned the idea of immortality from Egypt, but it never took root +because they had no instinctive feeling of soul. Their witches were +foreigners. "You shall not suffer a witch to live." The incantation of +ghosts was utterly forbidden by them as a foreign wickedness. It has so +been forbidden by _all_ religions. Yet there are people who think +religions arise from ideas of ghosts. + +The African negroes have no idea of life after death, as witness the +story of Dr. Livingstone and the negro king about the seed. It is a +very curious history this of the longing for immortality, the belief in +a life beyond the grave. + +But I am not now concerned with the past only with the present. The +history of instincts is never the explanation of them. If we could +unravel clearly all the history of the instincts of all peoples as +regards the after death, we should be no nearer an explanation of why +the instinct exists at all, why it grows or decays, why it takes one +form or another. But we might, as so many do, blind ourselves to the +fact that instincts exist now quite apart from reason, either now or +previously. No reasoning can explain the absolute clinging of the +European peoples to the resurrection of the body. No reasoning can +possibly explain the Burman's remembrance of previous lives. Reasoning +would deny both. Observation and sympathy know that both exist. + +And which is true? No one can tell. + + "Not one returns to tell us of the Road + Which to discover we must travel too." + +For some years now there has been a movement in England to introduce +cremation as a method of disposing of the dead. There can be no doubt of +its sanitary superiority to burial; there can be no doubt that, as far +as reason and argument go, cremation should be preferred to the grave. +There seems to be absolutely no good reason to bring forward in favour +of the latter. And yet cremation makes no way. Men die and they are +buried, and if over their tombs we do not now write "Hic jacet," but "In +memory of," our ideas have suffered no change. + +We cannot bear to burn the bodies of the dead because we cannot +disassociate the body from the soul. The body is to rise, and if we burn +it, what then? What will there be to rise? Man has but one body and one +soul dwelling therein, and if you destroy the body the soul is dead too. + +Only people who believe in the transmigration of souls burn their +dead--the Hindus and, in Burma, the monks of Buddha. They see no +objection to the destruction of the body because the soul is migratory, +and has passed into another. What is left after death is but the "empty +shell." + +Therefore do Hindus and Buddhists cremate, whereas Christians and +Mahommedans bury. Nor does rejection of creed alter this instinct. +Intellectual France boasts of its freedom from religion. But _is_ it +free? Has it outgrown the instincts that are the root of religion? One +certainly it has not yet done, for secularists are buried just as +believers are, usually with the same rites. And even if the funeral be +secular, the body is buried, not burnt. Why do they shrink from +cremation if reason is to be the only guide? The creed is outworn but +the roots of faith are never dead. + + + + +CHAPTER XXIX. + +OPTIMISM AND PESSIMISM. + + +Thus are the heavens of all religions explanations to materialise, as it +were, the vague instincts of men's hearts. The Mahommedan's absolutely +material garden of the houris, the Christian semi-material heaven, the +Buddhist absolutely immaterial Nirvana, are all outcomes of the people's +capability of separating soul from body. These heavens are just as the +dogmas of Godhead, or Law, or Atonement, but the theory to explain the +fact, which is in this case the desire for immortality. And in exactly +the same way as the theories of other matters are unsatisfying, so are +these theories of heaven. The desire for immortality is there, one of +the strongest of all the emotions; but the ideal which the theologian +offers to the believer to fulfil his desire has no attraction. The more +it is defined the less anyone wants it. Heaven we would all go to, but +not _that_ heaven. The instinct is true, but the theory which would +materialise the aim of that desire is false. No heaven that has been +pictured to any believer is desirable. + +It is strange to see in this but another instance of the invincible +pessimism of the human reason. No matter to what it turns itself it is +always the same. + +I have read all the Utopias, from Plato's New Republic to Bellamy's, +from the Anarchist's Paradise to that of the Socialists, and I confess +that I have always risen from them with one strong emotion. And that +was, the relief and delight that never in my time--never, I am sure, in +any time--can any one of them be realised. This world as it exists, as +it has existed, may have its drawbacks. There is crime, and misfortune, +and unhappiness, more than need be. There are tears far more than +enough. But there is sunshine too; and if there be hate there is love, +if there is sorrow there is joy. Here there is life. But in these drab +Utopias of the reason, what is there? That which is the worst of all to +bear--monotony tending towards death. + +No one, I think, can study philosophy, that grey web of the reason, +without being oppressed by its utter pessimism. No matter what the +philosophy be, whether it be professedly a pessimism as Schopenhauer's +or not, there is no difference. It is all dull, weary barrenness, with +none of the light of hope there. Hope and beauty and happiness are +strangers to that twilight country. They could not live there. Like all +that is beautiful and worth having, they require light and shadow, +sunshine and the dark. + +And the lives of philosophers, what do they gain from the reason alone? +Is there anyone who, after reading the life of any philosopher, would +not say, "God help me from such." What did his unaided reason give him? +Pessimism, and pessimism, and again pessimism. No matter who your +philosopher is--Horace or Omar Khayyam, or Carlyle or Nietsche:--where +is the difference? See how Huxley even could not stifle his desire for +immortality that no reason could justify. What has reason to offer me? +Only this, resignation to the worst in the world, and of it knows +nothing. + +To which it would be replied: + +And religion, what has that to offer either here or in the next world? +For in this world they declare--at least Christianity and Buddhism both +declare--that nothing is worth having. It is all vanity and vexation, +fraud and error and wickedness, to be quickly done with. The philosopher +has Utopias of sorts here, but these two religions have no Utopia, no +happiness at all here to offer. All this life is denounced as a +continued misery. + +And you say that neither heaven nor Nirvana appeal to men, that men +shrink from them. If philosophy be pessimism, what then is religion? Do +you consider the Christian theory of the fall of man, the sacrifice of +God to God, the declaration that the vast majority of men are doomed to +everlasting fire, a cheerful theory? + +Do you consider the Buddhist theory that life is itself an evil to be +done with, that no consciousness survives death, but only the effects of +a man's actions, an optimism? + +Philosophies may not be very cheerful, but what are religions? Whatever +charge you may bring against philosophy, it can be ten times repeated of +any religion. Compared with any religious theory, even Schopenhauer's +philosophy is a glaring optimism. + +To which I would answer, No! + +I do not agree, because what you call religion I call only a reasoning +about religion. The dogmas and creeds are not religion. They are +summaries of the reasons that men give to explain those facts of life +which are religion, just as philosophies are summaries of the theories +men make to explain other facts of life. Both creeds and philosophies +come from the reason. They are speculations, not facts. They are +pessimistic twins of the brain. Religion is a different matter. It is a +series of facts. What facts these are I have tried to shew chapter by +chapter, and they are summarised in Chapter XXX., at the end. I will not +anticipate it. What I am concerned with is whether religion is +pessimistic or not. Never mind the dogmas and creeds; come to facts. +When you read books written by men who are really religious, what is +their tone? You may never agree with what is urged in them, but can you +assert that they are pessimistic? It seems to me, on the contrary, that +they are the reverse. + +And when you know people who are religious--not fanatics, but those men +and women of sober minds who take their faith honestly and sincerely as +a part of life, but not the whole--are they pessimistic? I am not +speaking of any religion in particular, but of all religions. Can you +see religious people, and live with them and hear them talk, and watch +their lives, and not recognise that religion is to them a strength, a +comfort, and resource against the evils of life? Never mind what the +creeds say; watch what the believers _do_. Is life to them a sorry march +to be made with downcast eyes of thought, to be trod with weary steps, +to be regarded with contempt? The men who act thus are philosophers, not +religious people. + +To those who are really religious, life is beautiful. It is a triumphal +march made to music that fills their ears, that brightens their eyes, +that lightens their steps, now quicker, now slower, now sad, now joyous, +always beautiful. Who are the happy men and women in this world? Let no +one ever doubt--no one who has observed the world will ever doubt; they +are the people who have religion. No matter what the religion is, no +matter what the theory or dogma or creed, no matter the colour or +climate, there is no difference. If you doubt, go and see. Never sit in +your closet and study creeds and declare "No man can be happy who +believes such," but go and see whether they are happy. Go to all the +peoples of the world, and having put aside your prejudices, having tuned +your heart-strings to theirs, listen and you will know. Watch and you +will see. What is the keynote of the life of him who truly believes? Is +it disgust, weariness, pessimism? Is it not courage and a strange +triumph that marks his way in life? And who are those who go through +life sadly, who find it terrible in its monotony, who have lost all +savour for beauty, whom the sunlight cannot gladden, who neither love +nor hate, neither fear nor rejoice, neither laugh nor cry? I will tell +you who they are. There are two kinds, who think they are different, but +are the same. + +First, there are those who call themselves philosophers, men who have +abandoned all religion and accepted "barren reason." For reason cannot +make you love or hate, or laugh or weep. There is no beauty there, no +light and shadow, no colour, only the greyness of unliving outline. + +And there are those who mistake what religion is. They think it consists +of creeds. They do not know it consists of emotions. And so they take +their creeds to their hearts, and see what they make of them! Or they, +abandoning their creeds, search all through the world to find new +creeds. They speculate on Nirvana, on Brahm, on the doctrine of +Averroes. They are for ever digging out some abstruse problem from the +sacred books of the world to make themselves miserable over. + +They, too, are the victims of a barren reason. + +But religion is not reason; it is fact. It is beyond and before all +reason. Religion is not what you say, but what you feel; not what you +think, but what you know. Religions are the great optimisms. Each is to +its believers "the light of the world." + +I cannot think how this has not been evident long ago to everyone. Have +men no eyes, no ears, no understanding? Yes, perhaps they have all these +things. But what they have not got is sympathy, and without this of what +use are the rest? For what men see and hear in any matter are the +things they are in sympathy with. If your heart is out of tune, there is +never any echo of the melody that is about you. + +To this chapter on optimism and pessimism I would add a small +postscript. I would fain have made it a chapter or many chapters, but I +have not the room. It is the strong connection between religion and +optimism as evinced in a high birth rate, between irreligion and +pessimism as shown in a falling off in the population. For that is the +great complaint in France to-day. It is noticeable especially amongst +the cultured classes, who are absolutely irreligious, and who are +absolutely pessimistic: the birth rate is falling so rapidly that France +ceases to increase. Only in Normandy, where religion yet retains power, +does the birth rate keep up. This is not a solitary instance. All +history repeats it. Do you remember Matthew Arnold's lines: + + "On that hard Pagan world disgust and secret loathing fell, + Deep weariness, and sated lust made human life a hell. + In his cool hall with haggard eyes the Roman noble lay; + He drove abroad in furious guise along the Appian way. + * * * * * * * + No easier nor no quicker passed the impracticable hours." + +The Roman Empire fell because there were no more Romans left. They had +died out and left no children to succeed them. Where is the highest +birth rate to-day in Europe? It is in "priest-ridden" Russia, where the +people are without doubt more deeply imbued with their faith than any +other people of the West now. In Burma, where religion has such a hold +on the people as the world has never known, the birth rate is very high +indeed. The Turks in the heyday of their religious enthusiasm increased +very rapidly, but now and for long they seem to be stationary, and in +the Boers we see again a high birth rate and very strong religious +convictions. Our birth rate, on the contrary, is falling with the +growing irreligion in certain classes. Not that I wish for a moment to +infer that religious feeling causes more children to be born. I have no +belief whatever in the usual theories that the fall in birth rates is +due to preventive measures, which religion disallows, or to debauchery, +which religion controls. The supporters of such a theory admit that they +cannot prove it. And there is very much against such an idea. When +religion in the early ages of Christianity discouraged marriage and did +all in its power to encourage celibacy, it never succeeded in the end. +Men and women might go into convents for certain reasons--not, I think, +mainly religious--the birth of children from those outside did not +alter. And during the priestly rule in Paraguay population disappeared +so rapidly the monks were alarmed, and took stringent and strange +methods to stop the decay, but in vain--the people had lost heart. + +Why are the Maories and many other people disappearing? From disease? +That is not a reason. It is a fact that with a virile people a plague or +famine is followed by an increase in the birth rate. This is proved in +India. The Maories, too, have lost heart. They may have acquired +Christianity, but that is no help. No; the adoption of a religion does +not affect the question. + +But still they go together, and the answer seems to be here: A nation +that is virile, that is full of vitality, finds an outlet for that +vitality in children, an expression of it in religion. A virile people +is optimistic always. Pessimism, whether in nations or individuals, +comes from a deficiency of nerve strength. But why peoples lose their +vitality no one yet knows. There is a tribe on the Shan frontier of +Burma that twenty years ago was a people of active hunters, always gun +or bow in hand, scouring the forests for game, fearing nothing. And now +they have lost their energy. Their nerve is gone. They are listless and +depressed. For a gun they substitute a hoe and do a little feeble +gardening. Their children are few, and shortly the tribe will be dead. + +No one knows why. + +Religion, deep and true, and strong faith is possible only to strong +natures; it is the outcome of strong feeling. It is a companion always +to that virility that is optimism, that does not fear the future; it +knows not what may come, but faces the future with confidence. It takes +each day as it comes. Such are the nations that replenish the earth. The +world is the heritage of the godly. The Old Testament is full of that +truth, and it is no less true now than then. But one does not proceed +from the other. They both come from that fount whence springs the life +of the world. + + + + +CHAPTER XXX. + +WAS IT REASON? + + +Reason and religion have but little in common. They come from different +sources, they pursue different ways. They are never related in this +order as cause and effect. No one was ever reasoned into a religion, no +one was ever reasoned out of his religion. Faith exists or does not +exist in man without any reference to his reason. Reason may follow +faith, does follow faith; never does faith follow reason. + +Is it indeed always so? Then how about the boy told of in the earlier +chapters? He was born into a religion, he was educated in it, and he +rejected it. Why? He himself tells why he did so, because his reason +drove him away from it. His reason, looking at the world as he found it, +could not accept the way of life inculcated by his faith. He found it +impossible, unworkable, and therefore not beautiful. His reason told him +it was impracticable, not in accordance with facts, and therefore he +would have none of it. + +His reason, too, following Darwin, told him that the earlier part of the +Old Testament could not be correct. Man has risen, not fallen; he had +his origin not six thousand years ago, but perhaps sixty thousand, +perhaps much more. In many ways his reason fought with his religion, and +it prevailed. Was no one ever reasoned out of a faith? Surely this boy +was, surely many boys and men equally with him have so been deprived by +reason of their faiths. Reason is the enemy of faith. Is not this so? + +When that boy was fighting his battle long ago I am sure he thought so. +Certainly he said so to himself. Was he insincere or mistaken? Surely he +should know best of what was going on in his mind. He tells how reason +drove him from his faith. Was he not right? + +I think that he had not then learned to look at the roots of things. If +there is one truth which grows upon us in life as we go on, as we watch +men and what they say and do, as we watch ourselves and what we say or +do, it is this, that men do not do things nor feel things because they +think them, but the reverse. Men think things because they want to do +them; their reason follows their instincts. No man seeks to disprove +what he likes and feels to be good, no man seeks to prove what he +instinctively dislikes and rejects. You cannot argue yourself into a +liking or a distaste. If, then, you find a man seeking reasons to +disprove his faith, it is because his faith irks him, because he would +fain shake it off and be done with it. If he were happy in it and it +suited him, reasons disproving any part of it would pass by him +harmlessly. You cannot shake a man's conviction of what he _feels_ to be +useful and beautiful. + +To the man, therefore, looking back it seems that all the boy's +thoughts, his arguments, his reasoning, arise from this, that his +religion did not suit. It galled him somewhere, perhaps in many places; +it was a burden, and instead of being beautiful it was the reverse. So +to rid himself of what he could not abide he sought refuge in his +reason. And his reason going, as reason has always done, to the theories +of faith instead of to the facts, he found that the creeds and beliefs +had no foundation in fact, were but formulĉ thrown upon an ignorant +world, and should be rejected. So he left them. But it was never his +reason that made him do so; reason came in but as the judge, openly +justifying what had happened silently and unnoticed in his heart. + +What was it, then, that drove the boy from his faith? What were his +instincts that remained unfulfilled, roused against his religion till +they drove him to find reasons for leaving it? What was it that galled +him till he revolted? There were, I think, mainly two things--the rise +of an intense revolt to the continual exercise of authority, and the +greater effect of the code of Christ upon him. + +When a boy is frequently ill, when his constitution is delicate and +easily upset, it is necessary that he should be very careful what he +does, how he exposes himself to damp or cold, how he over-exerts himself +at work or play. But for a boy to exercise this care is very difficult. +He feels fairly well, and the other boys are going skating or boating, +why should he not do so? The day is not very cold, and the other boys do +not wear comforters; they laugh at him if he does so. He will not admit +that he cannot do what other boys can do. So he has to be looked after +and guarded, and cared for and watched, and made to do things he +dislikes. If, too, the supervision becomes unnecessarily close, if there +is a tendency to interfere not only where he is wrong and wants +correction, but in many details where it is not required, is it not +natural? If in time it so comes, or the boy thinks it so comes, that he +cannot move hand or foot, cannot go in or out, cannot think or read, or +even rest, without perpetual correction, is it so very unnatural? +Mistake? Who shall say where the mistake lay? Who shall say if there was +any mistake at all, unless great affection be a mistake? Maybe it was +the inevitable result of circumstances. But still there it was. And +though a small boy may accept such rule without question, yet as he +grows up it irks him more and more, until at last it may become a daily +and hourly irritation growing steadily more unbearable, more +exasperating, month by month. + +There is, too, in many people--women, I think, mostly, and with women +chiefly in reverse proportion to their knowledge--a tendency to give +advice. Few are without the desire, maybe a kindly desire in its +inception, to advise others. The world at large does not take to it +kindly, so the advice has to be bottled up, to be expended in its +fulness where it can. This boy got it all. He received advice from +innumerable people, enough to have furnished a universe. Most of it he +felt to be worthless, almost all of it he was sure was impertinence. Yet +he could not resent it, because he was under authority. + +And now perhaps you may see how there grew up slowly in him an utter +loathing of authority, a hatred to being checked and supervised, and +advised and lectured for ever. Sometimes he would revolt and say, "Can't +you leave me alone?" and this was insubordination. He would have given +all he could, everything, for liberty. "I would sooner," he said to +himself, "catch cold and die than be worried daily not to forget my +comforter. I would sooner grow up a fool and earn my living by breaking +stones in the road than be supervised into my lessons like this, that I +may be learned. But when I am grown up it must cease. It SHALL cease. +Then I shall be free to go my own way, and do wrong and suffer for it." + +And now imagine a boy in a state of mind like this told that he would +_never_ be free. A boy's authorities might pass, school and home might +be left behind, but God would remain. Masters can be avoided and +deceived, God cannot be deceived. His eye is always on you. He sees +everything you do. His hand is always guiding and directing and checking +you. It seems to him that the exasperation was never to end, was to last +even into the next life, if this be true. Then you may understand how +his instincts drove his reason to find good and sufficient cause for +rejecting this God and for seeking freedom. "Give me freedom," he cried, +"freedom even to do wrong and suffer for it. I will not complain. Only +let me alone. Do not interfere. I will not have a God who interferes." +His reason helped him and showed him the emptiness of the creeds, and he +went on his way without. + +Then there was the Sermon on the Mount. To most boys this does not +appeal at all. They hear it read. It is to them part of "religion"--that +is, for consumption on Sunday. It is not of any consequence, only words. +They do not think twice of it. But with this boy it was different. The +Sermon on the Mount did appeal to him. He thought it very beautiful as a +little boy. It seemed worth remembering. He did remember it. It seemed +worth acting up to as much as possible. + +But as he grew older and learned life as it is, he became able to see +that it was not applicable at all to life, that life was much rougher +and harder than he supposed, and required very different rules. He +slowly grew disillusioned. And with the disillusion came bitterness. If +you have never believed in any certain thing, never taken it to +yourself, you can go on theoretically admiring it, and, if that becomes +impossible, you can eventually let it go without trouble. But if you +have believed, if you have strongly believed and desired to accept, when +you find that your belief and acceptance have been misplaced, there +comes a revulsion. If it cannot be all, it must be none. Love turns to +hate, never to indifference. Belief changes to absolute rejection, never +to toleration. + +This code of Christ could not be absolutely followed in daily life, +therefore it was absolutely untrue. And being untrue he could not bear +to hear it preached every Sunday as a teaching from on High. He shrank +from it unconsciously as from a theory he had loved and which had +deceived him: the love remained, the confidence was gone. He was +betrayed. But he never reasoned about it till he had rejected it. Then +he sought to justify by reason what he had already accomplished in fact. + +So do men think things, because they have done or wish to do them; never +the reverse. + + * * * * * + +It seems trivial after the above to recall a minor point wherein +instinct has had much to say. + +I can remember as a boy how I disliked to hear the church bells ringing +for service. I hated them. They made me shudder. And I used to think to +myself that I must be naturally wicked and irreligious to be so +affected. "They ring for God's service and you shudder. You must be +indeed the wicked boy they say." So I thought many a time. + +And now I know that I disliked the bells then, as I dislike them now, +because of all sounds that of bells is to me the harshest and noisiest. +I dislike not only church bells, but all bells. I have no prejudice +against dinner, yet I would willingly wait in some houses half an hour, +or even have it half-cold if it could be announced without a bell. And +church bells! Very few are in tune, none are sweet toned, all are rung +far louder and faster than they should be, so that their notes, which +might be bearable, become a wrangling abomination. + +But I love the monastery gongs in Burma because they are delicately +tuned, and they are rung softly and with such proper intervals between +each note that there is no jar, none of that hideous conflict of the +dying vibrations with the new note that is maddening to the brain. + +It is trivial, maybe, but it is real. And out of such trivialities is +life made. Out of such are our recollections built. I shall never +remember the call to Christian prayer without a shudder of dislike, a +putting of my fingers in my ears. I shall never recall the Buddhist +gongs ringing down the evening air across the misty river without there +rising within me some of that beauty, that gentleness and harmony, to +which they seem such a perfect echo. + + + + +CHAPTER XXXI. + +WHAT RELIGION IS. + + +What, then, is religion? Do any of the definitions given at the +beginning explain what it really is? Is it a theory of the universe, is +it morality, is it future rewards and punishments? It may be all or none +of these things. Is it creeds, dogmas, speculations, or theories of any +kind? It is none of these things. + +Religion is the recognition and cultivation of our highest emotions, of +our more beautiful instincts, of all that we know is best in us. + +What these emotions may be varies in each people according to their +natures, their circumstances, their stage of civilisation. In the Latins +some emotions predominate, in the Teutons others, in the Hindus yet +others. Each race of men has its own garden wherein grow flowers that +are not found elsewhere, and of these they make their faiths. + +Some of these emotions I have tried to show in this book. For the Latins +they are the emotions of fatherhood, of prayer, and confession, of +sacrifice and atonement, of motherhood, of art and beauty, of obedience, +of rule, of mercy, of forgiveness, of the resurrection of the body, of +prayer for the dead, of strong self-denial and asceticism, of many +others; but those, I think, are the chief. + +For the Protestant, the more rigid Protestant, it is the cultivation of +the emotions of force, grandeur, prayer, justice, conduct, punishment of +evil, austerity, and also many others. + +With the Burman Buddhist it is the recognition and cultivation of the +beauties of freedom, peace, calm, rigid self-denial, charity in thought +and deed to all the world, pity to animals, the existence of the soul +before and after death, with no reference to any particular body. The +Mahommedan has for one of his principal emotions courage in battle, and +the Hindu cleanliness of body and purity of race. + +These things are religions. Out of his strongest feelings has man built +up his faiths. + +And the creeds are but the theories of the keener intellects of the race +to explain, and codify, and organise the cultivation of these feelings. + +Creeds are not religions, nor are religions proved by miracle or by +prophecy, by evidence, or any reasoning of any kind. The instincts are +innate or do not exist at all. Like all emotions and feelings, they +cannot be created or destroyed by reason. + +Why does a man fall in love? No one knows. And if he fall in love, can +you cure him of it by argument? Would it be any use to say to him? "The +girl you love is not beautiful, is not clever; she would be of no use to +you, she does not return your love at all. You cannot really love her." +He would only laugh and say, "All that may be true, and yet the fact +remains unaltered. She is the woman I love. My reason may prevent my +marrying her, it cannot prevent my love. And you may be right that this +other woman has all the virtues, but I have no love for her." So it is +with all the emotions. You either have them or have not. You do not +reason about them. Reason is of things we doubt, not of things we know. +Therefore are the beliefs of one religion incomprehensible to the +believers in another. Nothing is so difficult to understand as an +emotion you have not felt. What is perfect beauty to one man is stark +ugliness to another. So it is with religion. To understand well the +faith you must have in you all the chords that these faiths draw music +from, and how many have that? + +Religion is of the heart, not of the reason. Theologians of all creeds +warn the believer against reason as a snare of the devil. A freethinker +must be an Atheist. History is one long conflict between religion and +science. But why is this, if they have no concern one with another? Why +fight, why not exist together? + +Because all men, freethinkers as well as theologians, have failed to see +what religion really consists in. They think it is in the theories of +creation, of God, of salvation, of heaven and hell. They look one and +all to the creeds and dogmas as religion. + +And none of these creeds and dogmas will, as a whole, stand criticism. +They fall before the thinker into irretrievable ruin, and therefore the +freethinker imagines he has destroyed religion. But religion lives on, +and he wonders why. He puts it down to the blindness of men. The +theologian rejoices because the continued life of religion seems to him +the vindication of the creeds. Yet are they both wrong. Men are not +fools, nor does religion live by the truth of its creeds. The whole +initial idea has been mistaken. The creeds are but theories to explain +religion. Scientific men have invented the ether and theories connected +with it to explain heat and light and electricity. These theories are +good now, and are universally accepted, but they are not proved. +Supposing a hundred years hence wider perception and new facts should +throw great doubts on whether ether exists at all as supposed, or on the +present theories of heat and electricity? Suppose, too, that the old +school scientists are stubborn and refuse to meet these new thoughts? +What will the sensible man do? Will he say, "This theory of ether waves +is untenable, exploded, foolish, and therefore I will believe it no +longer; and as the theory is wrong, so too the phenomena of the theory +are all imaginations. There are no such things as heat and light, and I +will not warm myself in the sun." Would that be sense? I think reason +would reply, "I am sorry the old theories are gone. They were true while +they lasted. But now they are dead, and we have not found new ones. Yet +if the theory be dead, the facts are still there. The sun still shines, +and we have heat and light. These things are true. No man shall frighten +me and say, 'If you will not believe our science you shall not warm +yourself at our sun. You shall not light your fire or your lamp unless +you admit ether waves.' Perhaps a new theory may arise. But anyhow I +have the sun yet, and my lamp is not broken. They are facts still." + +That is exactly the present position as regards many faiths. The creeds +are theories to explain facts. The theories are very old and we have +grown out of them. The theologians will not surrender them, clinging to +them in the imagination that they really are religion, and that without +them religion will fall, conjuring with words to try and support them. + +What should reason say in the face of this? "I do not believe in your +theories of God and the future state, and the resurrection of the body, +and so on, and therefore I won't have anything to do with any religion." +Would that be reason? Yes, if you believe the creeds are religion; no, +if you believe that religion lies far deeper than creeds. Or to use +another simile: the creeds are the grammar of religion, they are to +religion what grammar is to speech. Words are the expression of our +wants; grammar is the theory formed afterwards. Speech never proceeded +from grammar, but the reverse. As speech progresses and changes from +unknown causes, grammar must follow. But if not? If grammarians are +hide-bound, are we to refuse to talk? In this latter case, if the reason +were mine, I think reason would say, "Bother these theologians, their +dogmas and creeds, their theories and grammars, what do they matter? The +instinct of prayer remains, of confession, of sacrifice. They appeal to +me still. They fill my heart with beauty. Shall I refuse to accept the +glories of life, shall I refuse to cultivate my soul because some people +who claim authority have theories about these things with which I don't +agree? Not all the creeds nor theologians in the world shall prevent my +making the best of myself. The garden of the soul is no close preserve +of theirs. + +"Religion is the satisfaction of some of the wants of the souls of men. +It is a cult of some of the emotions, never of all. For the emotions are +so varied, so contradictory, that all cannot live together. I do not +quite know why one people includes one emotion in religion and another +rejects it out of religion, while still maintaining its beauty and +truth. But no religion includes more than one side of life. There are +others. I, too, will cultivate these emotions which I need. But this I +will not forget, that life has many sides. Life has many emotions, and +all are good, though all may not come into religion. There is ambition, +there is love of gaiety, of humour, of laughter, there is courage and +pride, the glory of success. To live life whole none must be neglected. +They are planted in our hearts for some good purpose. I will not weed +them out. My garden shall grow all the flowers it can, and reason shall +be the gardener to see that none grow rank and choke the others. + +"Whatever things are beautiful, that make the heart to beat and the eye +grow dim, whatever I know to be good, that shall I have. 'For that which +toucheth the heart is beautiful to the eye.'" + + + + +CHAPTER XXXII. + +THE USE OF RELIGION. + + +But granted, people may say, that religion is what you say, a cult of +the emotions, of what use is it? Why should these emotions be cultivated +at all? You say that they are beautiful because they are true, and that +they are true because they are of use. Of what use are they? Some can be +explained perhaps, but not most--not the instinct of God, for instance, +nor of Law, nor the instinct of prayer. It seems to me that unless you +can prove that they are true, essentially true conceptions, they cannot +be beautiful. And this you say you cannot prove. "No one can prove God," +you say, and prayer, surely that is against reason, and demonstrably a +weakness. Certainly not a good emotion to cultivate. "You say it is +beautiful. How can you prove that?" + + * * * * * + +Travelling on the Continent among those places where there are little +colonies of English people who for one reason or another have left their +own country, there crops up occasionally a man of peculiar kind, hardly +ever to be met elsewhere. He is a man who has left England, we will +suppose, for economy's sake, who has settled abroad, perhaps in one +place, perhaps roaming from place to place, who has no work, no interest +in life. He has drifted away from the current of our national life, he +has entered no other, but he exists, he would say, as a student of man +and a philosopher on motives. + +One such, meeting me one day, turned his conversation upon wars and upon +patriotism. The former horrified him, the latter revolted him. +"Patriotism," he said, "can you defend such a feeling? Have you any +reasoning to support it? Patriotism is a narrowness, a blindness. It is +little better than a baseness founded on ignorance. How can it be +defended? You say it is beautiful. Prove to me that it is so. I deny +it." + +To whom, and to men like this, it seems that there is only one answer to +be made. + +"My friend, the love of your own people and your own country, if it ever +existed within you, is long dead or you would never ask such a question. +I cannot reason with you on the subject, because it would be like +reasoning with a blind man on the beauty of being able to see. He who +sees knows; but if a man be blind, how can it be explained to him? +Neither I nor my fellows can talk to you about patriotism, because it is +a feeling we have, but of which you are ignorant. It is not a question +of reason. But if you would know whether patriotism be beautiful or the +ignorant foolishness you suppose, I can show you the road to learn. + +"Go back to that England you have forgotten, and in your forgetfulness +begun to despise. Go back there on the eve of a great victory, or a +great deliverance, such a day as that on which Ladysmith was relieved. +And go not into the streets if the loud rejoicings hurt your philosophic +ear, but go into the homes of the people. Go to the rich, to the middle +class, to the artisan, to the labourer, and mark their glowing faces, +their glad eyes, the look of glory, of thanksgiving that our people have +been rescued, that our flag has escaped a disaster. Look at the faces of +these men and women and children, whose hearts are full at the news. And +then ask them, 'Is patriotism a mean and debasing passion?' They know. +Or do better even than this, go yourself to Africa, to India, to the +thousand league frontiers where men die daily for their flag, for their +own honour, and that of their country. Take rifle yourself and beat +back those who would destroy our peace, take up your pen and give some +of your life to the people whom we rule. You will find it a better life, +perhaps, than at a foreign spa. Give yourself freely for your country +and those your country gives in charge to you. I think you will learn, +maybe, what patriotism means. But argument, reason? I think you +exaggerate the power of reason. It can argue only from facts. It is +necessary to know the facts first. And you are ignorant of your facts, +because you have never felt them. Only those who feel them know. Go and +give your life, and before it be gone you will have learnt what neither +I nor any man who ever lived can _tell_ you. You will have learnt the +_realities_ of life. + +"For you and those like you mistake the power of reason, you have +forgotten its limitations. Reason is but the power of arranging facts, +it cannot provide them. Your eyes will give you the facts they can see, +your ears what they can hear, your sympathies will give you the +realities of men's lives. If you have no emotions, no sympathies, how +can you get on? You are like mariners afloat upon the sea vainly +waggling your rudders and boasting that you are at the mercy of no +erratic winds, while the ships pass you under full sail. Where will +reason alone take you? It cannot take you anywhere. A rudder is only +useful to a ship that has motive power. What motive power have you? So +you float and work your rudders and turn round and round, and are very +bitter. Why are all philosophers so bitter, so hard to bear with, so +useless? Because you are conscious unconsciously of your futility, that +the world passes you by and laughs. + +"The functions of reason are very narrow. You forget them. You exalt +reason into the whole of life, committing the mistake for which you rail +on others. Unbridled emotion is, as you say, terrible. So is unbridled +reason. Where has reason alone ever led anyone save into the dreariest, +driest pessimism? Was a philosopher ever a happy man? Even your Utopias, +from Plato's to Bellamy's, who would desire them? Hell would be a +pleasant relaxation after any of them. The functions of the senses, of +which sympathy is the greatest, are to give you facts, the function of +reason is to arrange them. The emotions drive man forward, reason +directs and controls them. That is all. + +"You say religions are founded on errors, on what are your reasonings +founded? They are founded on _nothings_." + +Of what use is patriotism? Is it beautiful or no? Of what use is +religion? Is it beautiful or no? Prove to me that it is necessary or +beautiful. Show me why it should be so. + +Is it not the same answer in each case? It is so easy to point out the +evils of exaggeration in each. Anyone can do it. But the mean. Prove to +me the use and beauty of the mean. + +The answer is always the same. If you have religion in you, such a +question would never occur to you, for you would feel its use, you would +_know_ its beauty. And if you have not, who shall prove it to you? Who +shall provide you with the facts on which to reason, who shall open your +eyes? But if anyone doubts that religion is useful and is beautiful to +its believers, go and watch them. + +It matters not where you go, East or West, it is always the same. In +England, or France, or Russia, among the Hindus, the Chinese, the +Japanese, the Parsees. It makes no matter if you will but look aright. +For you must know how to look and where. You must learn what to read. It +is never books I would ask you to read, never creeds, never theologies, +never reasons, nor arguments. You will not find what you search in +libraries nor yet in places of worship, in ceremonies, in temples, +great and beautiful as they may be. Not in even their inmost recesses is +the secret hid, the secret of all religions. I would have you listen to +no preachers, to no theologians. They are the last to know. But I would +have you go to the temple of the heart of man and read what is written +there, written not in words, but in the inarticulate emotions of the +heart. I would have you go and kneel beside the Mahommedan as he prays +at the sunset hour, and put your heart to his and wait for the echo that +will surely come. Yes, surely, if you be as a man who would learn, who +can learn. I would have you go to the hillman smearing the stone with +butter that his god may be pleased, to the woman crying to the forest +god for her sick child, to the boy before his monks learning to be good. +No matter where you go, no matter what the faith is called, if you have +the hearing ear, if your heart is in unison with the heart of the world, +you will hear always the same song. Far down below the noises of the +warring creeds, the clash of words and forms, the differences of +peoples, of climes, of civilisations, of ideals, far down below all this +lies that which you would hear. I know not what you would call it. Maybe +it is the Voice of God telling us for ever the secret of the world, but +in unknown tongue. For me it is like the unceasing surge of a shoreless +sea answering to the night, a melody beyond words. + +The creeds and faiths are the words that men have set to that melody; +they are the interpretations of that wordless song. Each is true to him +whom it suits. Every nation has translated it into his own tongue. But +never forget that those are only your own interpretations. Whatever your +faith may be, you have no monopoly of religion. I confess that to me +there is nothing so repellent as the hate of faith for faith. To hear +their professors malign and abuse each other, as if each had the +monopoly of truth, is terrible. It is as a strife in families where +brother is killing brother, and the younger trying to disinherit the +elder. I doubt if in all this warfare they can listen for the voice that +is for ever telling the secret of the world. Whence came all the faiths +but from that inexplicable feeling of the heart, that surge and swell +arising we know not whence? If you would malign another's faith remember +your own. If you cannot understand his belief stop and consider. Can you +understand your own? Do you know whence came these emotions that have +risen and made your faith? + +The faiths are all brothers, all born of the same mystery. There are +older and younger, stronger and weaker, some babble in strange tongues +maybe, different from your finer speech. But what of that? Are they the +less children of the Great Father for that? Surely if there be the +unforgivable offence, the sin against the Holy Ghost, it is this, to +deny the truth that lies in all the faiths. + + * * * * * + +Religion is the music of the infinite echoed from the hearts of men. + + +THE END. + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Hearts of Men, by H. Fielding + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE HEARTS OF MEN *** + +***** This file should be named 36772-8.txt or 36772-8.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/3/6/7/7/36772/ + +Produced by Barbara Tozier, Bill Tozier, Mary Meehan and +the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at +http://www.pgdp.net + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. diff --git a/36772-8.zip b/36772-8.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..4dada22 --- /dev/null +++ b/36772-8.zip diff --git a/36772-h.zip b/36772-h.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..9c2e91c --- /dev/null +++ b/36772-h.zip diff --git a/36772-h/36772-h.htm b/36772-h/36772-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..24bc7bd --- /dev/null +++ b/36772-h/36772-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,7365 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> +<!-- $Id: header.txt 236 2009-12-07 18:57:00Z vlsimpson $ --> + +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> + <head> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1" /> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" /> + <title> + The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Hearts Of Men, by H. Fielding. + </title> + <style type="text/css"> + +body { + margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%; +} + + h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 { + text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ + clear: both; +} + +p { + margin-top: .75em; + text-align: justify; + margin-bottom: .75em; +} + +hr { + width: 33%; + margin-top: 2em; + margin-bottom: 2em; + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; + clear: both; +} + +table { + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; +} + +.pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ + /* visibility: hidden; */ + position: absolute; + left: 92%; + font-size: smaller; + text-align: right; +} /* page numbers */ + +.linenum { + position: absolute; + top: auto; + left: 4%; +} /* poetry number */ + +.blockquot { + margin-left: 5%; + margin-right: 10%; +} + +.sidenote { + width: 20%; + padding-bottom: .5em; + padding-top: .5em; + padding-left: .5em; + padding-right: .5em; + margin-left: 1em; + float: right; + clear: right; + margin-top: 1em; + font-size: smaller; + color: black; + background: #eeeeee; + border: dashed 1px; +} + +.bb {border-bottom: solid 2px;} + +.bl {border-left: solid 2px;} + +.bt {border-top: solid 2px;} + +.br {border-right: solid 2px;} + +.bbox {border: solid 2px;} + +.center {text-align: center;} + +.smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} + +.u {text-decoration: underline;} + +.caption {font-weight: bold;} + +/* Images */ +.figcenter { + margin: auto; + text-align: center; +} + +.figleft { + float: left; + clear: left; + margin-left: 0; + margin-bottom: 1em; + margin-top: 1em; + margin-right: 1em; + padding: 0; + text-align: center; +} + +.figright { + float: right; + clear: right; + margin-left: 1em; + margin-bottom: + 1em; + margin-top: 1em; + margin-right: 0; + padding: 0; + text-align: center; +} + +/* Footnotes */ +.footnotes {border: dashed 1px;} + +.footnote {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;} + +.footnote .label {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;} + +.fnanchor { + vertical-align: super; + font-size: .8em; + text-decoration: + none; +} + +/* Poetry */ +.poem { + margin-left:10%; + margin-right:10%; + text-align: left; +} + +.poem br {display: none;} + +.poem .stanza {margin: 1em 0em 1em 0em;} + +.poem span.i0 { + display: block; + margin-left: 0em; + padding-left: 3em; + text-indent: -3em; +} + +.poem span.i2 { + display: block; + margin-left: 2em; + padding-left: 3em; + text-indent: -3em; +} + +.poem span.i4 { + display: block; + margin-left: 4em; + padding-left: 3em; + text-indent: -3em; +} + + </style> + </head> +<body> + + +<pre> + +The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Hearts of Men, by H. Fielding + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: The Hearts of Men + +Author: H. Fielding + +Release Date: July 17, 2011 [EBook #36772] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE HEARTS OF MEN *** + + + + +Produced by Barbara Tozier, Bill Tozier, Mary Meehan and +the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at +http://www.pgdp.net + + + + + + +</pre> + + + + + + + +<h1><span class="smcap">The Hearts of Men</span></h1> + +<h2>BY H. FIELDING</h2> + +<h3>AUTHOR OF <span class="smcap">"The Soul of a People," Etc.</span></h3> + + +<h3>NEW YORK<br /> +THE MACMILLAN COMPANY<br /> +1901</h3> + +<h3>PRINTED BY KELLY'S DIRECTORIES LIMITED,<br /> +LONDON AND KINGSTON.</h3> + + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>DEDICATION.</h2> + +<h3>To F. W. FOSTER.</h3> + + +<p>As my first book, "The Soul of a People," would probably never have been +completed or published without your encouragement and assistance, so the +latter part of this book would not have been written without your +suggestion. This dedication is a slight acknowledgment of my +indebtedness to you, but I hope that you will accept it, not as any +equivalent for your unvarying kindness, but as a token that I have not +forgotten.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>CONTENTS.</h2> + +<table width="75%"> +<tr><td> </td><td><a href="#RELIGION">DEFINITIONS OF RELIGION </a></td><td align="right">1</td></tr> +<tr><td></td><td><a href="#INTRODUCTION">INTRODUCTION </a></td><td align="right">4</td></tr> +</table> + +<h3>PART I.</h3> + +<table width="75%"> +<tr><td align="right">I. </td><td><a href="#CHAPTER_I">OF WHAT USE IS RELIGION? </a></td><td align="right">13</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">II. </td><td><a href="#CHAPTER_II">EARLY BELIEFS </a></td><td align="right">21</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">III. </td><td><a href="#CHAPTER_III">IDEAL AND PRACTICE </a></td><td align="right">28</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">IV. </td><td><a href="#CHAPTER_IV">SCIENTIFIC THEOLOGY—I </a></td><td align="right">37</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">V. </td><td><a href="#CHAPTER_V">SCIENTIFIC THEOLOGY—II </a></td><td align="right">45</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">VI. </td><td><a href="#CHAPTER_VI">WHENCE FAITHS COME </a></td><td align="right">55</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">VII. </td><td><a href="#CHAPTER_VII">THE WISDOM OF BOOKS </a></td><td align="right">64</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right"> VIII. </td><td><a href="#CHAPTER_VIII">GOD </a></td><td align="right">72</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">IX. </td><td><a href="#CHAPTER_IX">LAW </a></td><td align="right">84</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">X. </td><td><a href="#CHAPTER_X">THE WAY OF LIFE </a></td><td align="right">92</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">XI. </td><td><a href="#CHAPTER_XI">HEAVEN </a></td><td align="right">101</td></tr> +</table> + + +<h3>PART II.</h3> + +<table width="75%"> +<tr><td align="right">XII. </td><td><a href="#CHAPTER_XII">THEORIES AND FACTS </a></td><td align="right">113</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">XIII. </td><td><a href="#CHAPTER_XIII">CREED AND INSTINCT </a></td><td align="right">124</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">XIV. </td><td><a href="#CHAPTER_XIV">RELIGIOUS PEOPLE </a></td><td align="right">136</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">XV. </td><td><a href="#CHAPTER_XV">ENTHUSIASM </a></td><td align="right">145</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">XVI. </td><td><a href="#CHAPTER_XVI">STRENGTH AND WEAKNESS </a></td><td align="right">155</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">XVII. </td><td><a href="#CHAPTER_XVII">MIND AND BODY </a></td><td align="right">165</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">XVIII. </td><td><a href="#CHAPTER_XVIII">PERSONALITY </a></td><td align="right">173</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">XIX. </td><td><a href="#CHAPTER_XIX">GOD THE SACRIFICE </a></td><td align="right">185</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">XX. </td><td><a href="#CHAPTER_XX">GOD THE MOTHER </a></td><td align="right">196</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">XXI. </td><td><a href="#CHAPTER_XXI">CONDUCT </a></td><td align="right">202</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">XXII. </td><td><a href="#CHAPTER_XXII">MEN'S FAITH AND WOMEN'S FAITH </a></td><td align="right">212</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">XXIII. </td><td><a href="#CHAPTER_XXIII">PRAYER AND CONFESSION </a></td><td align="right">221</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">XXIV. </td><td><a href="#CHAPTER_XXIV">SUNDAY AND SABBATH </a></td><td align="right">233</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">XXV. </td><td><a href="#CHAPTER_XXV">MIRACLE </a></td><td align="right">242</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">XXVI. </td><td><a href="#CHAPTER_XXVI">RELIGION AND ART </a></td><td align="right">254</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">XXVII. </td><td><a href="#CHAPTER_XXVII">WHAT IS EVIDENCE? </a></td><td align="right">266</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">XXVIII. </td><td><a href="#CHAPTER_XXVIII">THE AFTER DEATH </a></td><td align="right">277</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">XXIX. </td><td><a href="#CHAPTER_XXIX">OPTIMISM AND PESSIMISM </a></td><td align="right">287</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">XXX. </td><td><a href="#CHAPTER_XXX">WAS IT REASON? </a></td><td align="right">298</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">XXXI. </td><td><a href="#CHAPTER_XXXI">WHAT RELIGION IS </a></td><td align="right">308</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">XXXII. </td><td><a href="#CHAPTER_XXXII">THE USE OF RELIGION</a></td><td align="right">316</td></tr> +</table> + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_1" id="Page_1">[Pg 1]</a></span></p> + +<h2>THE HEARTS OF MEN.</h2> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2><a name="RELIGION" id="RELIGION"></a>RELIGION.</h2> + + +<p>"The difficulty of framing a correct definition of religion is very +great. Such a definition should apply to nothing but religion, and +should differentiate religion from anything else—as, for example, +from imaginative idealisation, art, morality, philosophy. It should +apply to everything which is naturally and commonly called religion: to +religion as a subjective spiritual state, and to all religions, high or +low, true or false, which have obtained objective historical +realisation."—<i>Anon.</i></p> + +<p>"The principle of morality is the root of religion."—<i>Peochal.</i></p> + +<p>"It is the perception of the infinite."—<i>Max Müller.</i></p> + +<p>"A religious creed is definable as a theory of original +causation."—<i>Herbert Spencer.</i><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_2" id="Page_2">[Pg 2]</a></span></p> + +<p>"Virtue, as founded on a reverence for God and expectation of future +rewards and punishment."—<i>Johnson.</i></p> + +<p>"The worship of a Deity."—<i>Bailey.</i></p> + +<p>"It has its origin in fear."—<i>Lucretius and others.</i></p> + +<p>"A desire to secure life and its goods amidst the uncertainty and evils +of earth."—<i>Retsche.</i></p> + +<p>"A feeling of absolute dependence, of pure and entire +passiveness."—<i>Schleiermacher.</i></p> + +<p>"Religious feeling is either a distinct primary feeling or a peculiar +compound feeling."—<i>Neuman Smyth.</i></p> + +<p>"A sanction for duty."—<i>Kant.</i></p> + +<p>"A morality tinged by emotion."—<i>Matthew Arnold.</i></p> + +<p>"By religion I mean that general habit of reverence towards the divine +nature whereby we are enabled to worship and serve God."—<i>Wilkins.</i></p> + +<p>"A propitiation or conciliation of powers superior to man, which are +supposed to control the course of nature and of human life."—<i>J. G. +Frazer.</i></p> + +<p>"The modes of divine worship proper to different tribes."—<i>Anon.</i></p> + +<p>"The performance of duty to God and man."</p> + +<p>It is to be noted that all the above are of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_3" id="Page_3">[Pg 3]</a></span> Europeans acquainted +practically with only Christianity.</p> + +<hr style="width: 45%;" /> + +<p>The following are some that have been given me by Orientals:</p> + +<p>"The worship of Allah."—<i>Mahommedan.</i></p> + +<p>"A knowledge of the laws of life that lead to happiness."—<i>Buddhist.</i></p> + +<p>"Doing right."</p> + +<p>"Other-worldliness."</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">[Pg 4]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="INTRODUCTION" id="INTRODUCTION"></a>INTRODUCTION.</h2> + + +<p>Some time ago I wrote "The Soul of a People." It was an attempt to +understand a people, the Burmese; to understand a religion, that of +Buddha. It was not an attempt to find abstract truth, to discuss what +may be true or not in the tenets of that faith, to discover the secret +of all religions. It was only intended to show what Buddhism in Burma is +to the people who believe in it, and how it comes into their lives.</p> + +<p>Yet it was impossible always to confine the view to one point. It is +natural—nay, it is inevitable—that when a man studies one faith, +comparison with other faiths should intrude themselves. The world, even +the East and West, is so bound together that you cannot treat of part +and quite ignore the rest. And so thoughts arose and questions came +forward that lay outside the scope of that book. I could not write of +them there fully. Whatever question arose I was content then to give +only the Buddhist answer, I had to leave on<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[Pg 5]</a></span> one side all the many +answers different faiths may have propounded. I could not discuss even +where truth was likely to be found. I was bound by my subject. But in +this book I have gone further. This is a book, not of one religion nor +of several religions, but of religion. Mainly, it is true, it treats of +Christianity and Buddhism, because these are the two great +representative faiths, but it is not confined to them. Man asks, and has +always asked, certain questions. Religions have given many answers. Are +these answers true? Which is true? Are any of them true? It is in a way +a continuation of "The Soul of a People," but wider. It is of "The +Hearts of Men."</p> + +<hr style="width: 45%;" /> + +<p>Before beginning this book I have a word to say on the meanings that I +attach to the word "Christianity" and a few other words, so that I may +be more clearly understood.</p> + +<p>There was a man who wrote to me once explaining why he was a Christian, +and wondering how anyone could fail to be so.</p> + +<p>"I look about me," he said, "at Christian nations, and I see that they +are the leaders of the world. Pagan nations are far behind them in +wealth, in happiness, in social order. I look at our Courts and I find +justice administered to all alike, pure and without prejudice. Our +crime<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">[Pg 6]</a></span> decreases, our education increases, and our wealth increases even +faster; the artisan now is where the middle class was a hundred years +ago, the middle class now lives better than the rich did. Our science +advances from marvel to marvel. Our country is a network of railroads, +our ships cover the seas, our prosperity is unbounded, and in a greater +or less degree all Christian nations share it. But when we turn to Pagan +nations, what do we see? Anarchy and injustice, wars and rebellions, +ignorance and poverty. To me no greater proof of the truth of +Christianity can be than this difference. In fact, it is Christianity."</p> + +<p>I am not concerned here to follow the writer into his arguments. He is +probably one of those who thinks that all our civilisation is due to a +peculiar form of Christianity. There are others who hold that all our +advance has been made in spite of Christianity. I am only concerned now +with the meaning of the word. The way I use the word is to denote the +cult of Christ. A Christian to me means a man who follows, or who +professes to follow, the example of Christ and to accept all His +teaching; to be a member of a Church that calls itself Christian. I use +it irrespective of sects to apply to Catholic and Greek Church, Quaker +and Skopek alike. I am aware that in Christianity, as in all religions, +there has been a strong<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[Pg 7]</a></span> tendency of the greater emotions to attract the +lesser, and of the professors of any religion to assume to themselves +all that is good and repudiate all that is evil in the national life. I +have no quarrel here with them on the subject. Nor do I wish to use the +word in any unnecessarily narrow sense. Are there not also St. Paul and +the Apostles, the Early Fathers? So be it. But surely the essence of +Christianity must be the teaching and example of Christ? I do not gather +that any subsequent teacher has had authority to abrogate or modify +either that teaching or example. As to addition, is it maintained +anywhere that the teaching and example are inadequate? I do not think +so. And therefore I have defined my meaning as above. Let us be sure of +our words, that we may know what we are talking about.</p> + +<p>In the word "religion" I have more difficulty. It does not carry any +meaning on its face as Christianity does. It is an almost impossible +word to define, or to discover the meaning of. It is so difficult that +practically all the book is an attempt to discover what "religion" does +mean. I nearly called the book, "What is the Meaning of Religion?"</p> + +<p>In the beginning I have given a few of the numerous meanings that have +been applied to the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[Pg 8]</a></span> word. It will be seen how vague they are. And at +the end I have a definition of my own to give which differs from all. +But as I have frequently to use the word from the beginning of the book, +I will try to define how I use it.</p> + +<p>By "religion," then, generally I mean a scheme of the world with some +theory of how man got into it and the influences, mostly supernatural, +which affect him here. It usually, though not always, includes some code +of morality for use here and some account of what happens after death.</p> + +<p>This is, I think, more or less the accepted meaning.</p> + +<p>And there are the words Spirit and Soul.</p> + +<p>I note that in considering origins of religion the great first +difficulty has been how the savage evolved the idea of "God" or "Spirit" +as opposed to man. Various theories have been proposed, such as that it +evolved from reasoning on dreams. To me the question is whether such an +idea exists at all. It may be possible that men trained in abstract +thought without reference to fact, the successors of many generations of +men equally so trained, do consider themselves to have such a +conception. I have met men who declared they had a clear idea of the +fourth dimension in Mathematics and of unending space. There may<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[Pg 9]</a></span> be +people who can realise a Spirit which has other qualities than man. In +some creeds the idea is assumed as existing. But personally I have never +found it among those who make religion as distinguished from those who +theorise upon it. The gods of the simpler religious people I have met, +whether East or West, have been frankly only enlarged men, with the +appetites and appearances and the powers of men. They differ from men +only in degree, never in kind. They require food and offerings, they +have passions, sometimes they have wives. The early gods are but men. If +they are invisible, so can man be; if they are powerful, so are kings. +It is only a question of degree, never of kind. I do not find that the +God that the Boers appeal to so passionately has any different qualities +in their thoughts from a marvellous man. Truly they will say, "No, God +is a Spirit." Then if you reply, "So be it; tell me how a Spirit differs +from a man, what qualities a Spirit has that are inconceivable in man," +they cannot go on; and the qualities they appeal to in their God are +always very human qualities—partiality, forgiveness, help, and the +like.</p> + +<p>Many men will say they believe things which they do not understand. I +enter into the subject so fully later I do not want to write more now. I +only wish to define that the word God, as I use it,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[Pg 10]</a></span> in no wise means +more than "the Personality who causes things."</p> + +<p>And again about soul. What is soul? The theologian gets up and answers +at once that soul exists independent of the body. So be it. Then who has +the conception? And what is it like when you have got it? Have +Christians it? Then why can they not understand resurrection of the soul +without also the resurrection of the body? They cannot. Look at the +facts. It is such a fact it has actually forced itself into the creeds. +Angels have bodies and also wings. Ghosts have bodies and also clothes. +They are recognisable. I know a ghost who likes pork for supper. They +sometimes have horses and all sorts of additions. The body may be filmy, +but it is a body. Gas is filmy and quite as transparent as a ghost.</p> + +<p>Perhaps the people who have put the transmigration of souls as one of +their religious tenets really have the conception of a soul apart from +any body. I doubt it even here. But this also will come later.</p> + +<p>Meanwhile, when I use the word "soul" or "spirit," I do not infer that +it is separable from the body or inseparable. I mean simply the essence +of that which is man; the identity, the ego existing in man as he <i>is</i>. +I think, indeed, this is the correct meaning. We say that a city has +fifty<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[Pg 11]</a></span> thousand souls. Have they no bodies? When I wrote "The Soul of a +People" I certainly did not omit their bodies or ignore them. On the +contrary. And no one supposed I did. I do not either mean to postulate +the inseparability of body and soul. Soul means essence.</p> + +<p>Finally, there is the word reason. What is that? By reason I mean the +faculty of arranging and grouping facts. It is the power of perspective +which sees facts in their proper relation to other facts. The facts +themselves are supplied as regards the outer world by the senses of +sight and hearing and taste, of touch and sympathy; and as regards the +inner world of sensations, such as hate, and love, and fear by the +ability to feel those sensations.</p> + +<p>Reason itself cannot supply facts. It can but arrange them. By placing a +series of facts in due order the existence of other facts may be +suspected, as the existence of Neptune was deduced from certain known +aberrations. The observation of Neptune by the telescope followed.</p> + +<p>In other words, reason may be called "the science of facts."</p> + +<hr style="width: 45%;" /> + +<p>I offer no apology for this introduction. Most of the confusion of +thought, most of the mistiness of argument, is due to the fact that +people habitually<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[Pg 12]</a></span> use words without any clear idea of their meaning. A +reviewer of "The Soul of a People" declared that Buddhism was a +philosophy, not a religion. I asked him to give me a list of what he +accepted as religions, and then to furnish a definition of religion that +would include all these and exclude Buddhism. I am still waiting. No +doubt he had never tried to really define what he meant by his words. +Instead of using words as counters of a fixed value he threw them about +as blank cheques, meaning anything or nothing.</p> + +<p>When you find confusion of argument in a book, want of clearness of +expression, when you see men arguing and misunderstanding each other, +there is nearly always one reason. Either they are using words in +different senses or they have no clear idea themselves of what they mean +by their words. Ask ten men what they mean when they say, Art, beauty, +civilisation, right, wrong, or any other abstract term, and see if <i>one</i> +can give a satisfactory explanation.</p> + +<p>This is an error I am trying to avoid.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[Pg 13]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_I" id="CHAPTER_I"></a>CHAPTER I.</h2> + +<h3>OF WHAT USE IS RELIGION?</h3> + + +<p>Of what use is religion?</p> + +<p>All nations, almost all men, have a religion. From the savage in the +woods who has his traditions of how the world began, who has his ghosts +and his devils to fear or to worship, to the Christian and the Buddhist +with their religion full of beautiful conceptions and ideas—all people +have a religion.</p> + +<p>And the religion of men is determined for them by their birth. They are +born into it, as they are into their complexions, their habits, their +language. The Continental and Irish Celt is a Roman Catholic, the Teuton +is a follower of Luther, the Slav a member of the Greek Church. The +Anglo-Saxon, who is a compromise of races, has a creed which is a +compromise also, and the Celt of England has his peculiar form of +dissent, more akin perhaps in some ways to Romanism than to Lutheranism. +A Jew is and has been<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[Pg 14]</a></span> a Jew, a Hindu is a Hindu, Arabs and Turks are +Mahommedans.</p> + +<p>It is so with all races of men. A man's religion to-day is that into +which he is born, and those of the higher and older races who change are +few, so very few they but serve strongly to emphasize the rule.</p> + +<p>There have been, it is true, periods when this has not been so. There +have been times of change, of conversions, of rapid religious evolution +when the greater faiths have gathered their harvests of men, when +beliefs have spread as a flood threatening to engulf a world. No one has +ever done so. Each has found its own boundary and stayed there. Their +spring tide once passed they have ceased to spread. They have become, +indeed, many of them, but tideless oceans, dead seas of habit ceasing +even to beat upon their shores. Many of them no longer even try to +proselytise, having found their inability to stretch beyond their +boundaries; others still labour, but their gains are few—how few only +those who have watched can know.</p> + +<p>Some savages are drawn away here or there, but that is all. The greater +faiths and forms of faith, Catholicism, Lutheranism, the Greek Church, +Mahommedanism, Buddhism,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[Pg 15]</a></span> Hinduism, and many others, remain as they +were. Their believers are neither converted nor convert. Men born into +them remain as they were born. They do not change, they are satisfied +with what they have.</p> + +<p>They are more than satisfied; they are often, almost always, +passionately attached to their faith.</p> + +<p>There is nothing men value more than their religion. There is nothing so +unbearable to them as an attack upon it. No one will allow it. Even the +savage clings to his fetish in the mountain top and will not permit of +insult to it. Men will brave all kinds of disaster and death rather than +deny their faith, that which their fathers believed. It is to all their +highest possession. The Catholic, the Chinese ancestor worshipper, the +Hindu, the Calvinist, the Buddhist, the Jew—their names are too +numerous to mention—none yields to any other in this. It is true of all +faiths. No one faith has any monopoly of this enthusiasm. It is common +to all.</p> + +<p>But wherein lies the spell that religion has cast upon the souls of men? +The influence is the same. What is the secret of it?</p> + +<p>Can it be that there is some secret common to all religions, some +belief, some doctrine that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[Pg 16]</a></span> is the cause of this? If so, what is it? If +there is such a common secret, why is it so hidden?</p> + +<p>For hidden it certainly is.</p> + +<p>Nothing can be more certain than that no one religion recognises any +such secret in the others. It is the very reverse. The more a man clings +to his own religion the more he scorns all others. Far from +acknowledging any common truth, he denounces all other faiths as +mistaken, as untrue; nay, more, they are to him false, deliberately +false; the enthusiast believes them wicked, the fanatic in his own faith +calls all others devilish. The more a man loves his religion the more he +abominates all others. A Christian would scorn the idea of the essence +of his faith being common to all others, or any other. If there be any +common truth it is a very secret truth.</p> + +<p>Is there any secret truth? If so, what is it?</p> + +<p>There is a further question.</p> + +<p>There is probably no one thing that we learn with more certainty than +this, that whatever exists, whatever persists, does so because it +fulfils a want, because it's of use. It is immaterial where we look, the +rule is absolute. In the material world Darwin and others have shewn it +to us over and over again. When<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[Pg 17]</a></span> anything is useless it atrophies. So +have the snake and the whale lost their legs, and man his hairy skin and +sense of scent. Males have lost their power of suckling their young; +with females this power has increased. Need developes any thing or any +quality; when it becomes needless it dies. Where we find anything +flourishing and persistent we are sure always that it is so because it +is wanted, because it fills a need.</p> + +<p>Religion in some form or another has always existed, has increased and +developed, has grown and gained strength.</p> + +<p>Therefore religion, all religions that have existed have filled some +need, all religions that now exist do so because they fulfil some +present use. From the way their believers cherish them the need is a +great and urgent one. These religions are of vital use to their +believers.</p> + +<p>What is this great common need and yearning that all men have, and +which, to men in sympathy with it, every religion fulfils?</p> + +<p>Can it be that all men have a like need and that all religions have a +common quality which serves that need?</p> + +<p>Can it be possible that all races, the Englishman, the Negro, the +Italian, the Russian, the Arab, the Chinaman, and the Pathan, have the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[Pg 18]</a></span> +same urgent necessity, and that their urgent necessity is answered by so +many varying religions? If so, what is this necessity which religion +alone can fill, what is this succour that religion alone can give? What +is the use of religion?</p> + +<p>These are some of the questions I ask, other men have asked the +same—not many. The majority of men never ask themselves anything of the +sort. They are born into a religion, they live in it more or less, they +die in it. They may question its accuracy in one point or another, for +each man to some extent makes his own faith; but nearly all men take +their faith much as they find it and make the best of it. It does not +occur to them to say, "Why should I want a religion at all? Why not go +without?" They feel the necessity of it. Even the very few who reject +their own faith almost always try for some other, something they hope +will meet their necessity. They will prefer one faith to another. But +they do not first consider why they want a faith at all. They do not +ask, "Of what use is any religion?"</p> + +<p>Yet this is in the main the subject of this book, these questions are +the ones I ask, the questions to which I seek an answer. I will repeat +them.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[Pg 19]</a></span></p> + +<p>Why are all peoples, all men religious? Is the necessity a common +necessity? If so, what is it?</p> + +<p>Why does one form of religion appeal to one people and another to +another people, while remaining hateful to all the rest?</p> + +<p>Notwithstanding their common hate, have all religions a common secret? +And if so, what is that?</p> + +<p>This book of mine is in part the story of a boy who was born into a +faith and who lost it; it tries to explain why he lost it.</p> + +<p>It is the story of a man who searched for a new faith and who did not +find it, because he knew not what he sought. He knew not what religion +was nor why he wanted it. He knew not his need. He sought in religion +for things no religion possesses. He was ill yet he knew not his +disease, and so he could find no remedy. And finally it is an attempt to +discern what religion really means, what it is, what is the use of it, +what men require of it.</p> + +<p>There may be among my readers some who will read the early chapters and +will then stop. They will feel hurt perhaps, they will think that there +is here an attack upon their religion, upon all they hold as the Truth +of God. So they will close the book and read no<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[Pg 20]</a></span> more. I would beg of my +readers not to judge me thus. I would ask them if they read at all to +read to the end. It may be that then they will understand. Even if it be +not so, that the early chapters still seem to be hard, is it not better +to hear such things from a friend than from an enemy? Be sure there are +very many who say and who feel very much harder things than this boy +did. Is it not as well to know them?</p> + +<p>These early chapters are of a boy's life; they may be, they should be if +truly written, full of the hardness of youth, its revolt from what it +conceives to be untrue, its intense desire to know, its stern rejection +of all that is not clear and cannot be known. Yet they must be written, +for only by knowing the thoughts of the boy can the later thoughts of +the man be understood?</p> + +<p>And I am sure that those who read me to the end, though they may +disagree with what I say, will admit this: that, thinking as I do of +religion, I would not unnecessarily throw a stone at any faith, I would +not thoughtlessly hurt the belief of any believer, no matter what his +religion; because I think I have learnt not only what his faith is to +him, but why it is so, because I have found the use of all religion.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[Pg 21]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_II" id="CHAPTER_II"></a>CHAPTER II.</h2> + +<h3>EARLY BELIEFS.</h3> + + +<p>The boy of whom I am about to write was brought up until he was twelve +entirely by women. He had masters, it is true, who taught him the usual +things that are taught to boys, and he had playfellows, other boys; but +the masters were with him but an hour or two each day for lessons, and +of the boys he was always the eldest.</p> + +<p>Those who have studied how it is that children form their ideas of the +world, of what it is, of what has to be done in it, of how to do it, +will recognise all that this means; for children obtain their ideas of +everything, not from their lessons nor their books nor their teachers, +but from their associates. A teacher may teach, but a boy does not +believe. He believes not what he is told, but what he sees. He forms to +himself rules of conduct modelled on the observed conduct of other +people. Their ideas penetrate his, and he absorbs<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[Pg 22]</a></span> and adapts them to +his own wants. In a school with other boys, or where a boy has as +playfellows boys older than himself, this works out right. The knowledge +and ideas of the great world filter gradually down. Young men gain it +from older men, the young men pass it to the elder boys, and the bigger +to the smaller, each adapting it as he takes. Thus is wisdom made +digestible by the many processes it passes through, and the child can +take it and find it agree with him.</p> + +<p>But with a child brought up with adults and children younger than +himself this is not so. From the latter he can learn nothing; he +therefore adapts himself to the former. He listens to them, he watches +them, unconsciously it is true, but with that terrible penetrative power +children possess. He learns their ideas, and, tough as they may prove to +him, he has to absorb them, and he has not the digestive juice, the +experience that is required to assimilate them. They are unfit for his +tender years, they do not yield the nourishment he requires. He suffers +terribly. A man's ideas and knowledge are not fit for a boy.</p> + +<p>And if a man's, how much less a woman's? A boy will become a man; what +he has learnt of men is knowledge of the right kind, though of the wrong +degree. But what he learns from<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[Pg 23]</a></span> women is almost entirely unsuitable in +kind and in degree. The ideas, the knowledge, the codes of conduct, the +outlook on life that suit a woman are entirely unfitted for a boy. +Consider and you must see how true it is.</p> + +<p>This boy, too, was often ill and unable to play, to go out at all +sometimes for weeks in the winter. He seemed always ailing. Thus he had +to spend much of his time alone, and when he was tired of reading or of +wood carving, or colouring plates in a book, he thought. He had often so +much time to think that he grew sick of thought. He hated it. He would +have given very much to be able to get out and run about and play so as +not to think, to be enabled to forget that he had a brain which would +keep on passing phantoms before his inner eyes. There was nothing he +hated so much, nothing he dreaded so deeply as having nothing to do but +think. In later years he took this terror to his heart and made it into +an exceedingly great pleasure, but to the child it was not so.</p> + +<p>Therefore, when he was twelve and was sent at last to a large school, he +was different to most boys at that age; for his view of the world, his +knowledge of it, his judgment of it, were all obtained from women. He +saw life much as they did, through the same glasses, though with +different sight. His ideas of conduct were a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[Pg 24]</a></span> woman's ideas, his +religion was a woman's religion.</p> + +<p>Are not a woman's ideas of conduct the same as a man's? Is not a woman's +Christianity the same as a man's Christianity, if both be Christianity? +And I reply, No! A thousand times no! There is all the world between +them, all that world that is between woman and a man.</p> + +<p>As to man's religion I will speak of it later. The woman's ideas of +conduct and religion which this child had absorbed were these. He +believed in the New Testament. I do not mean he disbelieved the Old +Testament, but he did not think of it. Religion to him meant the +teaching of Christ, that very simple teaching that is in the Gospel. +Conduct to him meant the imitation of Christ and the observance of the +Sermon on the Mount. He thought this was accepted by all the world—the +Christian world at least—as true, that everyone, men as well as women, +accepted this teaching not as a mere pious aspiration, not as an +altruistic ideal, but as a real working theory. War was bad, all war. +Soldiers apparently were not all bad—he had been told of Christian +soldiers, though he had no idea how such a contradiction could +occur—but at least they were a dreadful necessity. Wealth and the +pursuit of wealth were bad, wicked even, though here again there were<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[Pg 25]</a></span> +exceptions. Learning was apt to be a snare. The world was very wicked, +consciously wicked, which accounted for the present state of affairs, +and most people would certainly go to hell. The ideal life was that of a +very poor curate in the East End of London, hard working and unhappy. +These are some of the ideas he learnt, for this is the religion of all +the religious women of England; of all those who are in their way the +very salt of the nation. Their belief is the teaching of Christ, and +that is what this boy learnt. This is what "conduct" and "religion" +meant to him.</p> + +<p>I must not be misunderstood. I do not intend to suggest that this boy +was any better than other boys, that his life was less marked by the +peccadilloes of childhood. He was probably much as other boys are as far +as badness or goodness is concerned. His acts, I doubt not, did not very +much differ from theirs. After all, neither boys nor men are very much +guided either by any theoretical "Rule of Life," nor by any view of what +is the true Religion. He acted according to his instincts, but having so +acted the difference between him and other boys came in. Other boys' +instincts led them to poach a trout out of a stream, and rejoice in +their success if they were not caught. This boy's instinct also led him +to poach a trout if he could, but he did not rejoice<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[Pg 26]</a></span> over it. Poaching +was stealing, and that was a deadly sin. He was aware of that and was +afraid.</p> + +<p>Other boys' instincts made them fight on occasions and be proud of it, +whether victor or vanquished, to boast of it publicly perhaps; anyhow, +not to keep it a secret or be ashamed of it. This boy's instincts also +led him several times into fights; but whether victor or not—it was +usually not—he could not appear to be proud of it. The Sermon on the +Mount told him he ought not to have fought that boy who struck him, but +should have turned the other cheek, and he knew very well that it would +be regarded as a sin. It must be kept secret and he must be ashamed of +it, and so with many things. It never occurred to him then to doubt that +the Sermon on the Mount did really contain the correct rule of life for +him, and that any breach of it must be a deadly sin. Among other results +this friction between the natural boy and the rule of conduct he was +taught he ought to adopt, gave the boy a continual sensation of being +wrong. He knew he was continually breaking the Sermon on the Mount and +also other rules of the New Testament. He was perfectly sure he did not +live at all like Christ, and he had a strong, but never then +acknowledged certainty, that he didn't want to. All this, with the +continual reproof of those around him, gave him an<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[Pg 27]</a></span> incessant feeling of +being wicked. He could not live up to these rules, and he was a very +wicked little boy bound for hell, so he thought of himself.</p> + +<p>It is difficult to imagine anything worse for a boy than this. Tell a +boy he is bad, lead him to believe he is bad, make much of his little +sins, reprove him, mourn over him as one of wicked tendencies, and you +will make him wicked. Perpetual struggle to attain an impossible and +unnatural ideal is destructive to any moral fibre. For the boy soon +begins to distrust himself, his own efforts, his own good intentions. He +fails and fails, and he loses heart and begins to count on failure as +certain. Then later he abandons effort as useless. What is the good of +trying without any hope of success? It is useless and foolish. To save +appearances he must pretend, and that is all. But at the time he went to +school he had not quite come to that, for the stress of the world had +not yet fallen upon him. He still believed in what he was taught was the +ideal of life, and tried, in a childish, uncertain way, to act up to +it.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[Pg 28]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_III" id="CHAPTER_III"></a>CHAPTER III.</h2> + +<h3>IDEAL AND PRACTICE.</h3> + + +<p>Such was the boy who went to school, and such was the mental and moral +equipment with which he started.</p> + +<p>He found himself in a new world. He had stepped out of a woman's world +into a man's, out of the New Testament into the Old, out of dreams into +reality. For the ideas and beliefs, the knowledge and understanding, the +code of morality and conduct, in a big school, are those of the world. +This filters down from the world of men to the world of little boys, and +the latter is the echo of the former. It is an echo of the great world +sounded by childish hearts, but still a true echo. Then this boy began +to learn new things, a new morality vastly different from the old. And +this is what he learnt: that it is not wrong to fight, but right. +Fighting is not evil but good, all kinds of fighting. The profession of +a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[Pg 29]</a></span> soldier is a great and worthy one, perhaps the highest. To fight men, +to kill them and subdue them, is not bad but good—provided, of course, +it is in a good cause. A war is not a regrettable necessity, but a very +glorious opportunity. Both men and boys rejoice to know of battles +greatly fought, of blood and wounds, of death and victory. It makes the +heart bound to hear of such things. Everyone should wish to be able to +do them—in a good cause. Is not the cause of our country always a good +cause? When this boy arrived at school he learnt suddenly that a war was +going on. It was a small frontier war such as we often have. He had not +heard of it at home. Now he heard of it all day. Masters announced +publicly any victory, holidays were given for them, out of school hours +the boys talked of little else. The illustrated papers were full of +sketches of the war, and the weekly papers of accounts of marches and +battles. Boys who had relations, fathers, or uncles, or elder brothers, +at the front rose into sudden fame. Big boys who were hoping to pass +into Sandhurst or Woolwich were heroes; the school was full of the +enthusiasm of the success of our armies. Parties were formed and +generals were appointed; hillocks in the play green were defended and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[Pg 30]</a></span> +assaulted, and many grievous blows were given in these mimic fights. One +boy nearly lost his eye. To the boy of which I am writing all this was +new, it was new and delightful, and extraordinarily wicked.</p> + +<p>This was not his only awakening, this was not the only subject on which +he learnt new rules. Soldiers must fight, and so must boys, if +necessary, in a good cause. To a soldier all causes are good when his +country bids; to a boy all causes are good when his school code tells +him. Turn the other cheek? Be called a funk and a coward, be derided and +scorned by all the school, be told to be ashamed, and, worse than all, +feel that he ought to be and was ashamed? Not so. Not so. A boy must +fight, too, when his schoolboy honour bids. He even learnt more still +than this. Battle was not always a disagreeable necessity, it was in +itself often a pleasure. "To drink delight of battle with his peers" is +no poet's rhetorical phrase; it is a truth. There is a sheer muscular +physical pleasure in fighting, as all boys know. True blows hurt, but +the blows that hurt most are not on the body, and there is, too, a moral +strength, a moral pleasure, that comes from battles. It is not +disgraceful to fight, it is not even disgraceful to be beaten, but it +would<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[Pg 31]</a></span> often be very disgraceful not to fight, to turn the other cheek. +All wars are not bad things. They are the storms of God stirring up the +stagnant natures to new purity and life. The people that cannot fight +shall die. He learnt this lesson, not as I have written it. He did not +realise it, he did not put it into words as I have done. It sank into +him unconsciously as the previous teaching had done—and sorely they +disagreed with each other. He learnt other lessons, many of them, in the +same way. He learnt that money is not an evil but a good. When he found +his pocket-money short this soon dawned upon him, and the lesson did not +end there. He found that wealth was almost worshipped, that it had very +great power. He found everyone engaged in the race for wealth, everyone. +His spiritual pastors and masters were no more exempt than anyone else. +They encouraged the race. A boy's schooling was looked upon as his +preparation for the battle of life in which he was to struggle for money +and honours. Men who had attained them were held up to his admiration. +Not the pale-faced curates of the East End, but the great statesman and +soldier, the bishops, the lawyers, the writers, the successful merchants +who had once been at the school, were<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[Pg 32]</a></span> emblazoned on the wall. No meek, +struggling curate would find a niche there. The race was to the strong, +not the weak. He was learning the law of the survival of the fittest, +and he was further learning that the Sermon on the Mount is not a guide +to be the fittest, in this world at any rate.</p> + +<p>I must try again and guard against misconception. The school was a good +school, the tone was good, the masters were all men of high character, +of considerable learning. No school could have been better taught; but +this was the teaching of the school, as it is and must be of all schools +that are worth anything: a boy must be brought up on truths, not +imaginings; he must learn laws, not aspirations; he must be prepared for +the world as it is, not as a visionary might see it.</p> + +<p>Therefore this boy learnt at school the great code of conduct which +obtains in the world. Shortly, it is this: not to be quarrelsome, but to +be ready always to fight for a good cause, be the fighting with sword or +fist, with pen or tongue, by word or deed, and when fighting to hit hard +and spare not. He learnt to desire and strive for wealth and honour, +which are good things, not in immoderate excess, which injures other +forms of happiness, but in due<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[Pg 33]</a></span> and proper amount. He learnt that he +should speak the truth in most things, but not in all. There are worse +things than some lies. There are some lies that are not a disgrace, but +an honour. He learnt that learning was not a snare, but a very necessary +and very admirable thing also, and of all learning that knowledge of the +world, the wicked world, the flesh and the devil, was the most +necessary. Such in broad lines were what he learnt from his +schoolfellows, the code filtered down from above, the code of a public +school. A very admirable code, but how different from what he had first +learnt. There were worlds between them, the immensity that lies between +fact and ideal.</p> + +<p>And yet all this time, while this public school code was being driven +into him by precept and example, by coercion and by blows, all this +while, every morning at prayers and every Sunday thrice, he heard the +other code taught in the school chapel. The masters taught it, and the +boys were supposed to accept and believe it—during chapel hours. Once +chapel was over, once Monday morning came, and the other code ruled. No +one remembered the theoretic code of Christ. Boys who brought it forward +in daily life were<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[Pg 34]</a></span> disliked. They were not bullied, no! but they were +left alone. The tone of the school would never have allowed bullying for +such a cause, but there was an instinctive repulsion to those boys who +talked religion. The others inwardly accused them of cant. Boys who +alleged religious reasons for refusing to fight, to poach, to smoke +occasionally, to commit other little breaches of discipline, were +suspected of bringing forth religion as a cloak to hide the fact that +they were afraid to fight and poach and that smoking made them sick. +That they were very often rightly suspected this boy had no doubt. It +was his first introduction to cant, and it surprised him. Was, then, the +attempt to realise the precepts of Christ in daily life either a folly +or an hypocrisy? As far as he could see it was both.</p> + +<p>It must not, of course, be imagined that he thus faced the problem and +gave this answer. He no more faced the problem than any other boy does, +than the great majority of men do. He simply grew up according to his +surroundings, agreeing with them, accepting the rule he found accepted, +developing as his environments made him. But although he did not +mentally face and enumerate his difficulties, he was aware of them just +the same. He was<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[Pg 35]</a></span> clearly conscious of a conflict between fact and +theory, between teaching and example, between reality and dreams. He +became year after year also more clearly aware of a repugnance rising +within him to religion and to religious teaching. He shrank from it +without realising why. He supposed it was just his natural sin. It was, +of course, that he was proving its unreality as a guide to life. He +began to shrink, too, from all religious topics, from religious services +and religious books. They jarred on him. He found himself also losing +his reverence for his religious teachers—for all his teachers, in +fact—for they all professed religion. Their words had grated on him +first, the difference between what they professed to believe and what he +knew they did believe. Unaware of the reason till much later, almost +unconsciously there grew up in him a contempt towards all his teachers +and masters, a sense that they must be and were hypocrites and +impostors. He found himself at eighteen far adrift from all guidance and +counsel, shunning religion because he saw that the teachings of Christ +were quite unadapted for the world he had to live in, scornful of and +contemning his teachers for what seemed to him hypocrisy.</p> + +<p>It was not a satisfactory state for a boy,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[Pg 36]</a></span> and the less so because it +was still almost unconscious. He felt all that I have said, the +avoidance, the dislike, but he had not yet faced it to himself and said, +"Why does Christianity jar upon me and seem unreal, what are its +difficulties?" Nor, "What is it that causes my dislike and contempt of +my teachers? They are better men in all ways than I am. They are good +men. I shall never be as good. I honour them in their lives. I admit +that. What is the difficulty?" He was adrift without compass or pilot, +and he did not know it. Yet he was already far from the safe harbour of +trust and belief. The storms and darkness of the sea of life were before +him, and there was no star by which he could steer. He made no effort, +raised as yet no alarm, for he knew not that his anchor had dragged, +that he had lost hold, perhaps never to regain it.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[Pg 37]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_IV" id="CHAPTER_IV"></a>CHAPTER IV.</h2> + +<h3>SCIENTIFIC THEOLOGY—I.</h3> + + +<p>About this time he read the "Origin of Species" and "The Descent of +Man." This surprised him. It was not only that this was his first +introduction to the science of biology, his first peep behind the +curtain of modern forms into the coulisses of the world that interested +him, but there was here contained a complete refutation, a disastrous +overthrow, of all that system of the Creation which he had been taught.</p> + +<p>If Darwin was right, and he seemed to be right—nay, even his once +adversaries now admitted he was right, if not in his details yet in his +broad outline—if he was right then was Genesis all wrong. There was +never any garden of Eden, never any seven days' creation, never any +making of woman out of a rib; the world was not six thousand years old, +but<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[Pg 38]</a></span> millions. Man himself could count his pedigree back tens of +thousands of years. It was a fable; and not only was it a fable, but +this fable contained as a kernel not a truth—then it would be +understood—but a falsehood. The theory of the whole story was that man +had fallen, that he used to be perfect, that he walked with God, but +that he fell. Such was the idea. And the continuation was that Christ +was required to atone to God for man's disobedience, to lead man slowly +back to the Paradise he had lost.</p> + +<p>And now it was clear that the garden of Eden was all a fable, that man +had never been perfect, that he had evolved slowly out of the beast. He +had risen, not fallen, and stood now higher than ever before. The first +part was false, and if so, must not the sequence be false also? As a +whole the fable held together; destroy the foundation and the +superstructure must come crashing into ruin. Oh! it was all false, the +whole of it, Old and New Testament together, an old woman's tale. And +then suddenly his eyes were opened. He saw many things. His instincts +that he had not understood were now clear. Yes, of course, the +supernatural part was all a fable, a mistake; nay, more, it taught the +reverse of truth, and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[Pg 39]</a></span> the moral part of it was all wrong too. The +morality of the Old Testament was that of a savage, the morality of the +New a remarkable ideal totally unfit for the world as it is now or ever +has been. The man who followed it would commit a terrible error. It was +therefore untrue also; more than merely untrue, it was dangerous, as a +false teacher must be. For long he had instinctively seen that this was +so, now he knew why. At the touch of science the whole fabric of +religion fell into dust. Christianity was a fraud, and there was an end +of it.</p> + +<p>But still the church bells rang and the people went there. Priests +preached this belief and people held to it. Darwin had written more than +ten years before and his book had been accepted, but still religion had +not fallen. Men and women, as far as he could see nearly all men and +women, still professed themselves Christians. How was all this possible? +How could it be that this disproved Jewish fable still held together? It +was wonderful. There must be a reason. What is it?</p> + +<p>Can it be possible, he thought, that there is an explanation, that +religion can justify itself, that it may still have reason? There are +people who call themselves scientific theologians. They<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[Pg 40]</a></span> write books and +they preach, and they can be asked questions. What have they to say? So +this boy collected some of his difficulties and tried to find out what +scientific theology thought of them. Let me name briefly some of them:—</p> + +<p><i>The Fall of Man.</i>—Theology says he fell, science says he rose. What +does Scientific Theology say?</p> + +<p><i>The Character of God.</i>—In the Old Testament God is represented +frequently as bloodthirsty, as partial to the Jews, as unjust, as given +to anger, as changeable. How is this?</p> + +<p>Again, God is represented as the only Almighty, the only All-present, +All-seeing, All-powerful; yet without a doubt the facts detailed show +the Devil to be certainly All-present, and, as far as man here is +concerned, has considerably more power and influence than God. God made +the world, but the Devil possesses it. Why?</p> + +<p><i>Prayer.</i>—How can this be necessary? If God knows best what is good for +us, why pray to Him? Can He be influenced? The Bible says yes. Then is +not this a very extraordinary thing, that if God knows what is best for +us, He should have to be asked to do it—that He won't do it unless +asked?<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[Pg 41]</a></span></p> + +<p>About Christ. He was God, yet He died to atone to Himself for the sin of +man. What is the meaning of all this? Why did God allow man to crucify +Himself in order to atone to Himself for a former sin of man, and what +is the meaning of all this? Has it any?</p> + +<p>Most important of all, as to the example and teaching of Christ +regarding conduct. What did it mean, and why did everyone profess it and +no one believe it?</p> + +<p>These, of course, were not all his difficulties. There were hundreds of +them. There is not a verse in the Old or New Testament, not a dogma, not +a belief of Christianity, that does not furnish ground for question. +These I have mentioned are but some of the most prominent. They will +serve as examples of what he sought to learn.</p> + +<p>And these were the answers he received.</p> + +<p>The History of the Creation is an allegory. It is not in conflict with +science, but in accordance with it. There is no difficulty. The seven +days of creation mean seven periods; we do not know how long these were. +The chronology of Archbishop Usher was, of course, in error. It is a +wonderful testimony to the inspiration of the Bible, the accuracy<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[Pg 42]</a></span> with +which the account of Creation therein fits in with the facts we have +recently learnt.</p> + +<p>The story of Adam and Eve is an allegory of life. A child is born +innocent and pure, and he falls. The knowledge therein referred to, the +fruit, means useless questions into the secrets of God, such questions +as you are now engaged in. Had you accepted Christianity as a child does +you would never have fallen into the slough of infidelity in which you +are now. You, like Eve, have been tempted by the Devil with the fruit of +the knowledge of good and evil, and have fallen. But the help of Christ, +the knowledge that he died for you, can now save you. That is the +answer.</p> + +<p>You ask of the character of God in the Old Testament. You say that He is +represented by His acts as revengeful, as unjust, as hasty, as very +partial. Man cannot criticise the acts of God. He may seem to you so, +but are you sure you can judge rightly? God cannot be all these. His +injustice, His revengefulness, His partiality were merely effects +produced in your mind. They do not exist. He is all-merciful, and +all-seeing, and all-powerful. If the Devil seems to have more power in +the world than God, it is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[Pg 43]</a></span> simply because God allows him. If the Devil +seems all-present it is because he has legions of demons to do his will. +God is all-merciful, all-powerful, all-just; believe this and you will +do well. The answers to your difficulties about prayer are also very +simple. God is not influenced by prayer. He is merciful and will always +do what He knows to be best for you, whether you pray or not; but He has +ordained prayer for you, not because of its effect on Him, but because +of its effect upon yourself. Prayer, humiliation, softens the heart of +the suppliant. His cry to God will not change God, but will change him. +This is the explanation. It is very simple, is it not?</p> + +<p>The doctrine of the Trinity can be best understood from an analogy of +man. Consider how a man can be a father, a husband, and a son all at +once. There is no difficulty here. Where, then, is the difficulty with +God? God as the Father of man, the righteous Judge who punishes man for +his wickedness, He vindicated His law; but God the Son, the pitying +nature of God, had compassion on man, and therefore gave Himself as a +sacrifice for man; God the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of God, entered into +man's heart and sanctified it.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[Pg 44]</a></span> Cannot you thus understand the manifold +nature of God?</p> + +<p>The teaching of Christ? His example? You do not understand that? Was not +His life the perfect life, His teaching the perfect teaching? You say +that this teaching cannot be followed now in its entirety. Is it not the +wickedness of man that prevents it? Did each man act up to this +teaching, to this example, would it not be a perfect world? Let each man +try his best and the world will improve. Such as I have written were the +answers he found to his questions. I do not say that these are always +the answers that are given. It may be there are others. It may be that +in the years that have passed since then new explanations have been +evolved.</p> + +<p>Although I do not think that is so, as only a year ago I saw some of +these very replies written in a well-known Review as the authoritative +answer of scientific theology to these difficulties. However that may +be, these are the answers the boy received, such were the guides given +to lead him out of the darkness of scepticism into the light of faith.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[Pg 45]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_V" id="CHAPTER_V"></a>CHAPTER V.</h2> + +<h3>SCIENTIFIC THEOLOGY—II.</h3> + + +<p>What thought the boy of these explanations? Do you think they helped him +at all? Do you think he was able to accept them as real? Did they throw +any light into the darkness of his doubts?</p> + +<p>The boy took them and considered them. He considered them fairly, I am +sure; he would have accepted them if he could. For what he was looking +for was simply guidance and light. He had no desire for aught but this. +If he revolted now from the faith of his people it was because he found +there neither teaching he could accept nor help. If the scientific +theologian shewed him that the error was in him and not in the faith the +boy would, I think, have been glad. So he took these explanations and +considered them, and this is what he thought.</p> + +<p>They tell me that the seven days of creation<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[Pg 46]</a></span> are seven epochs. I did +not ask that. To my question whether man has fallen, as the Bible says, +or risen, as science declares, no reply has been given.</p> + +<p>There is only a specious likening of a man's life, saying that man falls +from the innocence of his childhood to sin through the knowledge of +evil, and requires redemption. My question is avoided, and a new sophism +given me which is also untrue. A child is not innocent. It is only +ignorant and weak. Its natural impulses are those of a savage. It +requires to learn the knowledge of good and evil to subdue these +instincts. This symbolism of the child is utterly false. A child is to +us a very beautiful thing because its tenderness, its helplessness, its +clinging affection awaken in us feelings of love, of protection, which +we feel are beautiful. All men should, all men I think do, love +children, but the beauty is in the man's emotions that are awakened, not +in those qualities of the children that awaken them.</p> + +<p>To go beyond this and say that a child should be a model to man is to +display ignorance of what children are, to mistake effect for cause, to +exalt childishness into a virtue. Theologians use this argument, which +is merely a play upon our affection for children, to try and induce us +to accept their theology with the same ignorant<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[Pg 47]</a></span> confidence that a child +accepts all it is told by its parents. It would suit theologians for all +men to be babes in this sense, in their senselessness. But if theology +will bear the light of reason, why ask us to accept it blindly? Why? Is +it because it will not bear scrutiny?</p> + +<p>And surely of all the answers, this answer about the character of God is +the most extraordinary. "God is not really unjust or partial, or +revengeful. That is merely the impression His acts make on us." Truly +here is an argument. How can anyone, even God, be judged except in His +acts? If His acts are revengeful, is not He revengeful? "No!" says the +theological scientist, "that is merely your ignorance. Events make a +wrong impression on you."</p> + +<p>How, then, am I to judge which are wrong and which are right +impressions? God acts, as it seems to me, angrily; He is not angry. On +other occasions He acts, as it seems, mercifully. How am I to know that +this impression of mercy is not an error? How, in fact, am I to know +that anything exists at all? If God's anger and partiality and +changeableness are merely impressions of my mind, are not all His +attributes merely impressions also, and do not exist? In fact, is not +God Himself merely an impression and He does not exist? Where are you +going to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[Pg 48]</a></span> stop? The theologian will doubtless say, "When I tell you." +But then he is unfortunately arrogating to himself an authority which +does not exist, an authority to twist and turn the Bible to suit his own +sophisms, an authority to bind your mind which no one has given him. +Impressions forsooth. What impressions can any candid mind have of the +scientific theologian? And when the boy read the explanation of the +difference between the all-presence of God and the all-presence of +Satan, I am afraid he laughed.</p> + +<p>But prayer is a serious matter. No one can feel anything but sorrow to +see the explanation of God and prayer. The theological scientist again +repeats the Bible words and has his own explanation. No, God is not +moved by prayer. This is merely another wrong impression of ours, an +impression taken from the Bible words. The action of prayer is not +objective, but subjective; its effect is not on God, but on you.</p> + +<p>Now mark what he has led himself into. Prayer will purify a man. To ask +God for what he wants won't make the slightest difference in God's acts, +but will in your own feelings. Nevertheless, as of course no one would +or could pray unless he hoped to be answered, man must be told that God +does listen. But this is not true. Therefore, according to theological +science, the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[Pg 49]</a></span> Bible directly tells us a falsehood in order to lead us +into a good action. Is there any escape from this? There is none. The +whole meaning and reason of prayer is that God <i>does</i> listen, that He +<i>does</i> forgive if asked, that He <i>does</i> help us and save us. Unless a +man held this belief firmly he would not pray. Try and you will see. +Imagine to yourself, as the theologian declares, that God is quite +unmoved by prayer, and that the action of prayer is subjective, and see +if you can get up any prayer at all. It is impossible. How much fervency +will there be in a request you know will not be granted or attended to? +How much subjective action will follow that prayer? The subjective +action is absolutely dependent on your belief that God does listen and +is influenced by your prayer. But the scientific theologian says your +premise is false.</p> + +<p>Can you imagine this theologian's prayer? Can you see him kneeling and +uttering supplications to a god whom he knows he cannot affect or +influence, and pausing now and then to see how the subjective effect on +himself was getting on? But it is not even a subject to be bitter over, +only to be sad. Truly, if I wanted to make a man an atheist and a +scoffer, a railer at all religion, at all religious emotions, at all +that is best in our natures, I would take him to a scientific +theologian<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[Pg 50]</a></span> and have him taught the scientific theological theory of +prayer.</p> + +<p>And again, though the boy understood how a man could be the son of his +father, the husband of his wife, the father of his son, three different +relations to three people, it did not help him to understand how he +could be so to one person. A man cannot be his own son and his own +father, and have proceeding from him a third person different and yet +the same. The argument seemed to him childish.</p> + +<p>As to the teaching of Christ, of what use is a teaching that is suitable +only to an ideal state of things? Is it any use to me to tell me that if +everyone agreed at once to follow this teaching the world would be +perfect? Even if this were true, what would be the use? The world never +has accepted it and does not do so now. No one does except a few people +who are called visionaries or fanatics. Even the Quakers only accept a +part, and it is well for them that their fellow citizens do not accept +even that part, or these Quakers would soon be robbed of their wealth. A +nation of Quakers would be a nation of slaves. All this talk of what +would happen if at a given signal all the world became perfect is +useless dream talk. I want realities. This code of Christ is not a +reality. No quicker way of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[Pg 51]</a></span> destroying civilization and all that it +means could be desired than by attempting to follow it. We must be ready +and prepared to fight other nations, we must have armies and navies, and +we must honour them. We must have magistrates, and police, and prisons, +and gallows.</p> + +<p>"I went," thought the boy, "to these theological scientists, for help in +my everyday life, for clear directions and explanations, and what do +they give me? A mass of words meaning nothing, words and words, and +tangled thoughts; evasion and misrepresentation, misty dreams and +cloud-hidden ideals. They cannot explain, and therefore the whole thing +is false. There is no truth anywhere in it. The whole teaching of the +Bible, from the Creation down to the incarnation of Christ and His +second coming, is one huge mistake. Why people keep on believing it I +cannot say. But anyhow I have found out its falseness, and I will not. +Let it all go. It will make no difference and be rather an advantage. +What use have I ever had from this religion that has been dinned into +me? It gave me false ideas of the world and nature which I have had to +unlearn. It gave me an unworkable code of conduct which I never tried to +follow, but I got into trouble for it. To call oneself a Christian is +merely a way of talking. No one is so really,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[Pg 52]</a></span> and the only difference +between me and the others will be that while they are not Christians but +think they are, I am not a Christian and know I am not."</p> + +<p>Was the boy glad or sorry? I do not know. I think perhaps he was both. +He felt like a man who has shaken off a burden, a load that contained +mere weight and no useful thing. He would step more lightly in future.</p> + +<p>But he felt, too, like a man who has skirted a precipice, secure in that +a railing fenced him in from danger, when he suddenly discovers that the +railing is decayed to the core and will vanish at a touch. He felt dizzy +and afraid, and the feeling grew upon him.</p> + +<p>May be, he thought, it is a good thing to have a religion. People of all +faiths, of all nations, seem to cling to theirs very strongly. It is the +one thing they cannot bear to lose. Yet I do not know what they get from +it. At least I do not know what people get from Christianity. What I +look for in a faith are these three things.</p> + +<p>I wish an explanation of my origin, of the origin of man and his +relation to this world, and to what there may be beyond this world. I +want an explanation I can accept, and that is not contradicted by the +knowledge we acquire from other sources than religion.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[Pg 53]</a></span></p> + +<p>And I want a guide to life. I want a guide to life as it is. For I have +to live in the world as it exists, and I would have help and direction +to do so well. I want a teaching and an example I can refer to in my +everyday troubles.</p> + +<p>Finally, I would know something of the Hereafter. I would desire to hear +of the after death. I cannot believe that all non-Christians, including +myself and the majority of Christians, go to hell. That is repulsive. +Nor can I believe in the heavens they tell us of. If all be true that +they tell us, it has no attraction this Christian heaven. To be for ever +singing praises is not life but monotony. Did any man in health, and +strength, and sanity ever yearn to die in order to reach this Heaven +they tell us of? Did not Aucassin say long ago that if he were to +believe the monks Heaven was a place for the poor and maimed, the +foolish, the childish and silly, the stupid, the cowards, the ugly, the +undesirable, the failures of earth, and that he cared not for it? +Whoever was unfit for earth was the more fit for heaven. No! If there is +another world it must be different from the conceptions of Heaven and +Hell as are taught. And I would know. These seem to me the essentials of +religion. They are the three things I want. I have not found them. It +may be that in the other greater<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[Pg 54]</a></span> faiths that hold the world I may find +what I seek. I cannot say. But meanwhile I must do without. It is better +to have no compass than a faulty one. It is better to watch for the +stars, even if the night be thick and it be hard to see.</p> + +<p>Such, I think, was what he thought. Whether he ever found what he +sought, whether any faith can give what he asks, whether indeed these +three things are essentials of religion at all, will be found in the +latter part of the book. This part is but the introduction to explain +why and by whom the search was made, and what was sought.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[Pg 55]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_VI" id="CHAPTER_VI"></a>CHAPTER VI.</h2> + +<h3>WHENCE FAITHS COME.</h3> + + +<p>From the East has come all our light. All world religions have begun +there, have grown there, have mostly spread there.</p> + +<p>Brahminism and Buddhism, Judaism and Christianity, Mahommedanism and +Parseeism, the cult of the Taoists and Confucians, every belief that has +been a great belief, that has led man captive, has come from the East. +Even the Mythologies of Greece and Rome were from Asiatic sources, from +Babylon and Chaldea. In the North we have originated only Thor and Odin, +Balder and the Valkyries.</p> + +<p>I do not think anyone who has lived in the East can doubt why this has +been so. Where is it man's thoughts are deepest and strongest, where is +it that his heart responds to the heart of the world until they beat +throb for throb?</p> + +<p>It is never in the North; for the cold winds and dreary skies, the rain +and cloud and gloom,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[Pg 56]</a></span> do not draw a man out from himself, but drive him +in. Every keen breeze that blows, every shower, every grey day, reminds +him not of his soul but of his body. It must be kept warm, it must be +fed, it must be housed. He cannot forget that the outside world must be +guarded against, is an enemy to be feared.</p> + +<p>And man must live in houses with other people. He cannot be alone, he +cannot ever feel alone with just himself and the world. Yet it is only +in solitude, when alone with Nature, that she will talk to you. For her +voice is very low, and there must be a great silence before she will +tell her secrets.</p> + +<p>But there in the East it is not so. For weeks and months, for half the +year may be, one perfect day is joined to another by more perfect +nights.</p> + +<p>Only there can man be alone. Only there, in the limitless silence of the +desert, in the unending forests, can you live and forget all other men, +and yourself almost, and be alone with Him who is God.</p> + +<p>You want but little, no house to shelter you, no fire, but very little +food and drink and clothes. You do not feel that restless desire to do +something born of cold winds and skies. Your roof by day is the palm or +tamarind, by night you watch the stars wheeling over your head. There<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[Pg 57]</a></span> +is no one to commune with but Nature, and if you love her as she should +be loved; if you woo her as she would be wooed; if you can send out your +soul to lose itself with her in the wonders of the infinite, then shall +you hear the music of the stars.</p> + +<p>Thus has all religion come from the land of the sun: light is the fount +of faith.</p> + +<p>Never till you have been to the East can you know what faith is. Have we +not religion, nay religions, in the North? Yes, but not as they have +there. Do we not believe in the West? Yes, but not as they believe. +Faith lies there in the great distances, in the dawn, the noon, the +sunset, in the holiness of the dark. It has sunk into the heart of man. +Consider, what do you see when you land anywhere in the East, what +strikes you most, what is most prominent, not in the landscape, but in +the people?</p> + +<p>It is their religion.</p> + +<p>You watch the people in the streets and you ask, Why has the merchant in +that shop trident marks on his forehead? Because he is a Hindu and +follows Vishnu. And that clerk who gave me money in the bank, why has he +those other marks? Because he is a Brahmin. And that money-lender seems +to have rubbed his forehead with ashes? He is a Chetty.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[Pg 58]</a></span></p> + +<p>They carry their religion about with them, they are proud of it, they +desire all men to know it. See that man's beard, he is a Mahommedan; and +yonder man with a green turban, he is a Seyid. They would not desire you +to doubt it.</p> + +<p>Did you ever see Englishmen praying in the streets? Perhaps never. +Certainly if ever you have seen it you condemned it as unnatural. "Let +him pray at home," you have thought. "He is parading his piety." But +here in the East it is different.</p> + +<p>Go by the morning train, leave Rangoon Station when the sun is shining +on the great pagoda, and you will see men and women and children lean +out of the carriage windows to salute it, to murmur a prayer. The +Mahommedan spreads his cloth and turns to Mecca, and prays no matter +where he may be. He is not ashamed. It does not seem to him strange. He +does it absolutely naturally, as all these people do all the things that +pertain to their faiths. Neither his fellow-believers nor the adherents +of other faiths wonder.</p> + +<p>The Hindu may hate the Mahommedan for social reasons, and the Buddhist +may hate both, but they do not despise each other for being religious.</p> + +<p>It would never occur to a Hindu to despise or jeer at a Mahommedan for +spreading his cloth at<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[Pg 59]</a></span> the street corner and praying. He thinks the +faith a mistaken faith, <i>he</i> would not have it. But if a man is a +Mahommedan it is right of him to pray, of course.</p> + +<p>I have never heard, no one has ever heard, one Oriental jeer at another +for being religious, for obeying the commands of his faith. But I have +heard Christians and teachers of Christianity do so very often. We will +jeer at a Mahommedan for praying, at a Hindu for observing his caste, at +a Buddhist for raising his hands in honour to his pagoda, at a Chinaman +for protecting the graves of his fathers. For in the West we have never +known what real religion is. We have it not ourselves, and so we cannot +recognise and honour it in others. No brave man will mock at another +brave man, though an enemy; no one who has loved mocks at another lover, +though he love strange things. Only those jeer who do not know, and the +Christians of the West jeer at the faiths of the East, at the simple +natural religion of the people, because they know not what religion of +the heart can be.</p> + +<p>In Europe, what difference does a man's faith make? None. He may live a +lifetime with other men and no one know or care what his faith may be. +Unless he is a poor man and in need of mission, it is considered +impertinence to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[Pg 60]</a></span> ask. But here in the East a man's faith is everything. +You cannot get away from it even for a moment. It is an essential part +of him.</p> + +<p>There is another thing that strikes one very soon. These Oriental +religions have little or no organisation. Here in Europe there is +nothing so organised as religion. Consider the Catholic faith and the +organisation of Rome. It is a marvel of government, of very strict +government indeed. And the other forms of Western Christianity are not +much behind. The Greek Church is organised as a branch of Government. +So, too, to a lesser extent is the Anglican Church, and if the +Dissenting bodies, as we call them, are not connected with the State, +they have nevertheless a strong system of government.</p> + +<p>These organisations are not now, of course, so strong as they were. They +used to drag the men into religion by force, by State aid, they used to +insist on conformity and punish laxity of observance. That is now gone, +but a strong and continuous pressure still exists, exerted by the +Churches in many ways. All Churches in Europe are always having +"missions." Our great cities are full of them, and the country is not +free of them. There has to be a continual shepherding of the flock or +the Church might dwindle sadly. Men have to be preached at and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[Pg 61]</a></span> caught +one way or another. All through Europe immense sums are spent yearly in +Christianising the poor.</p> + +<p>In the East nothing of this exists. There is no head of Hinduism; that +of the Sultan in Mahommedanism is merely nominal; how slight the +organisation is of Buddhism those who have read my former book will +know.</p> + +<p>Hindus are guided by the race of Brahmins, who in turn are guided by no +one. They are a great community themselves, without any organisation or +binding authority. They need no Pope, no Acts of Uniformity. They are +Brahmins because they are so. And so it may be said in general. Faiths +in the East require no strong organisations to hold them together. +Religion is innate in the believers. It seems wonderful. And they have +no missions. If a man feels the need of faith he will seek it and obtain +it. It is there for him if he will come. And all do come. How many +millions in Europe, even in England, have no religious usages? Can you +in the East find one man?</p> + +<p>When you think of Europe and its faiths you seem to be in a garden where +the hedges are carefully clipped and the flowers are trained and pruned, +and where you may not walk on the grass. It is all order, and method, +and restriction,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[Pg 62]</a></span> for the flowers are exotics and would die without the +tending, they would vary if they were not kept true to type. But the +East is Nature's garden, where the flowers grow wild everywhere; no one +tends them or cares for them, but each grows his own way, developes his +own power and strength, from the lowest grasses to the gorgeous orchid +or the poison lily.</p> + +<p>Therefore it may be that in this East, this country whence all religions +have come, where the whole air breathes of faiths and all life is full +of them, the man who has lost his early beliefs may learn new ones. +There is so much to choose from, so many varieties of thought and +emotion.</p> + +<p>In this Empire of ours are all the great religions. It is the home of +Brahminism, of the mystical forms of Hinduism, beyond which it has never +spread. There are more Mahommedans here than under the Sultan of Roum. +There are the Parsees here, fugitives long ago from Persia on account of +their faith, the only sun worshippers who are left. There are Jews who +came here no one can tell how long ago, there are Christians who date +back may be eighteen centuries, there are Armenians and Arabs. Within +this Empire live the only race professing a Buddhism that is pure and +without superstition; and beside these there are a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[Pg 63]</a></span> hundred other cults, +superstitions, or religions, call them what you will.</p> + +<p>From the spirit worship of the Shan plateau to the dignified philosophic +theories of the Brahmo Somaj is a space as wide as the world can show, +yet may it be bridged with religions that differ but by small degrees +till the whole be passed.</p> + +<p>If anyone want a faith here are enough and to spare. "Therefore," +thought the boy, who had now become a man, "I will seek here for what I +want. I know what I want. I have it clearly before me. I have even +written it down. It is not as if I was undertaking a blind search for +something of which I was not sure. These are my three essentials: a +reasonable theory of the universe, a workable and working code of +conduct, a promise in the after life that gives me something to really +desire, to really hope for, to be a haven towards which I may steer. I +will take each subject, each section of a subject, separately and read +it up. I will read up these faiths from books, I will study them as I +can from the people, and I will see what they are. Surely somewhere can +be found what I desire, what I desire so greatly to find."</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[Pg 64]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_VII" id="CHAPTER_VII"></a>CHAPTER VII.</h2> + +<h3>THE WISDOM OF BOOKS.</h3> + + +<p>Therefore the man got books and read them. He read books on Hinduism, +many of them; he read the Vedas and the sacred hymns. He learnt of +Vishnu and Siva, of Krishna and the milkmaids. He found books on caste +and read them, of how these were originally four castes which +subdivided. He read of suttee and the car of Juggernauth. He then turned +to Mahommedanism and the life of Mahommed. He read the Koran. He learned +the early history of the faith, of its rise, of the glory of its result, +of the fall of its great Empire. He saw it had much to do with Judaism, +there were great similarities, there were also differences. He read of +Parseeism, that taught by Zoroaster which they call fire worship; he +read of Jainism, of the cult of the Sikhs, of many another strange +faith; he learned of the spirit worship of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[Pg 65]</a></span> aboriginal tribes among +the mountains, of Phallic worship and its monstrosities.</p> + +<p>He read of Confucius and his teachings, of Laotze and his doctrines, of +ancestor worship among the Chinese, of Shintoism in Japan.</p> + +<p>Most of all he read about Buddhism. There was something here that +attracted him more than in all the rest. In the life of Gaudama the +Buddha he found a beauty that came to him as a charm, in the teachings +of the Great Teacher there seemed to him a light such as he had not +seen. Mystery and miracle and the supernatural had always jarred on him, +they had an unpleasant savour, as of appeals to the lowest elements in +the minds of the credulous and ignorant. Truth he thought should not +need such meretricious attractions. Here was a faith that needed none of +these things. It could exist without them. It contained explanations, +not dogmas. It was reasonableness instead of hysteria, it denounced +mysticism and the cult of the supernatural.</p> + +<p>It took the man several years to read these books, and he lived those +years much alone. His house lay half up a mountain side. Below him lay +tangled masses of hills clothed with dense forest, with here and there a +clearing. Before him was a jagged mountain wall, behind a great bare +dome of rock. It was always<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[Pg 66]</a></span> wonderful to sit and watch, to see the sun +rise in gold and crimson behind the peaks, while all below lay in a +white mist; to watch the sun rays fall and the mist grow thinner, +showing faint outlines of tree clump and hill contour, till all the mist +was gone and the world was full of golden light. Daily he saw the marvel +of the dawn. He learnt to love it as the most beautiful of things, most +beautiful because full of the promise of untold glory. For the most part +his life was very lonely. There were the labourers who worked for him, +the black, half-nude people who came in gangs in May and left in +February of each year. They were not of his world. He directed their +work, he paid them, but he did not know them. He wondered at them, that +was all, and there were scattered here and there throughout the hills +other Europeans, who lived much the same life as he did, and whom he met +occasionally at their houses or his, or at the club ten miles away. He +liked them, some of them were his best friends, a great part of his life +was theirs also.</p> + +<p>But there was, aside from his friends, aside from the merry meetings, +the games, the chaff, the laughter, another life apart. There was a life +he lived to himself, in another world it seemed. His world was of the +mountain and the fell, of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[Pg 67]</a></span> the brooks that laughed down the precipice, +of the giant trees, the tangled creepers, the delicate orchid far above. +His thoughts were with them and with his books, for they should be +brothers. He read and he watched, and he tried to understand; he asked +of nature the meaning of these religions, to tell him the secret that he +would know. What is the truth of things—what do you mean? And I——What +do <i>I</i> mean? What is the secret of it all?</p> + +<p>The mountains and the trees answered him and told him secrets, the +secrets of their hearts, but not the secret he would know. They murmured +to him of many things, of beauty, of love, of peace, of forgetfulness. +They sang the world's slumber song.</p> + +<p>But of whence, of how, of whither they told him nothing, only they +ceased talking when he asked, they ceased their song and there was +silence. They could not tell.</p> + +<p>So he lay upon the rocks and read, and the hills and trees wondered +because they knew not of what he read. "Take care," they whispered; "why +trouble? Life is so short, surely it were wise to make the best of it; +for no one can answer what you ask. We die and fall and new trees grow +again, the hills are newly clad each year. The old return in new forms. +We<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[Pg 68]</a></span> can tell of ourselves, we are not afraid. Our lives are full of +delight. Death has no terror for us. But you? Of you we know nothing. We +have no echo to your words."</p> + +<p>Yet the man read on. He dreamed and read and dreamed again.</p> + +<p>"I have three wants," he said. "I would know whence I came, I would have +some rule to live by, I would know whither I am going. Religions, many +religions profess to tell men these things, surely somewhere there will +be truth. Nearly all men are satisfied with their religion, cannot I +find one that satisfies me? It is so little that I ask, I have here so +many answers. Amongst them I will be able to find what I want." +Therefore he read on. But in the thoughts of many teachers there is not +clearness, but confusion. In a multitude of counsellors there is not +wisdom, only mist, only the strange shadows made by many lights. He +found that he did not gain. "Sometimes," he said, "I agree with one, +sometimes with another. No one seems to be altogether true. There is +Truth, perhaps, but not the whole Truth. This will not do."</p> + +<p>At last he said to himself that he would make a system. He would take +certain ideas from various faiths, he would put them together, he<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[Pg 69]</a></span> would +compare them one by one and see what he learnt.</p> + +<p>There is, he said, the First Cause. What do religions say about this +First Cause? There is Brahma, and Jehovah, and Ahriman, with Ormuz; +there is the Buddhist doctrine of Law, there is the Christian Trinity. +These are some of the chief ideas. What can be made of them? Have they a +common truth? Are the great religions utterly at variance about this +First Cause, or can they agree? I will take this point and consider it +first. What is the First Cause? Then I will pass to another. What does +life mean? Why are we here? Is there any explanation of this? For what +object does man exist? To what end? He did not mean what is the end of +man, but what is the object of man, of life? To whom is it a benefit +that man exists? To God—if there be a God? If not, to whom? It cannot +be that existence is an aimless freak, that it has no object. But what +can this object be? What was to be gained by creating man at all? That +was question number two. There is no answer to this question.</p> + +<p>There were many other questions that he asked. And when he had framed a +question he sat down to his books to find the answer. He worked at them +as problems to be solved. He<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[Pg 70]</a></span> sought in the various faiths described in +his books the answers to these problems. What he found will be shown in +the next few chapters; but let it be understood again how and why he +sought.</p> + +<p>He had been born in a faith and brought up in it, and had abandoned it. +He left it because he sought in it certain helps to thought and to life +that it seemed to him religion ought to give. More, it seemed to him +that these answers were of the very essence of religion. His fathers' +faith gave him answers he could not accept, it gave him a rule of life +he could not follow, that seemed to him untrue. Yet would he not be +satisfied with ignorance, he would search further. He wanted a religion, +a belief, and he would find it.</p> + +<p>For I want it to be understood very clearly that he was no scoffer, no +denier of religion. It was the very reverse. He so much wanted a faith, +it seemed to him such an eminently necessary thing, that he would not be +content till he had one that he could really accept and believe. He +hated doubt and half acceptance. He wanted a truth that appealed to him +as a whole truth, that held no room for doubt.</p> + +<p>"All men," he said, "have religion. They love their faiths, they find in +them help and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[Pg 71]</a></span> consolation and guidance, at least they tell me so. Why +am I to be left out? Men say that religion is a treasure beyond words. +Then I, too, would share in the treasure. But I cannot take what has +been offered me. It does not seem to me to be true. I <i>cannot</i> believe +it. This religion repels me. I cannot say how greatly it repels me. They +say it is beautiful. It must be so to some. It is not so to me. Its +music to me is not music, but harshest discord. It is not surely that I +have no desire for religion, no eye for beauty, no ear for harmony, I +know it is not that. No man loves beauty more than I do. There are +things in this faith I have rejected that appeal to me. I see in other +faiths, too, ideas that are beautiful. But no one seems all true, and +none answers my three questions. Yet will I look till I find.</p> + +<p>"And meanwhile there are the hills and the woods. These are my dreams.</p> + +<p>"But surely in my scheme I shall discover something."</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[Pg 72]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_VIII" id="CHAPTER_VIII"></a>CHAPTER VIII.</h2> + +<h3>GOD.</h3> + + +<p>Sitting on the hillside when the hot season was coming near its end he +saw the thunderstorms come across the hills. From far away they came, +black shadows in the distance, and the thunder like far off surf upon +the shore. Nearer they would grow and nearer, passing from ridge to +ridge, their long white skirts trailing upon the mountain sides, until +they came right overhead and the lightning flashed blindingly, while the +thunder roared in great trumpet tones that shuddered through the gorges. +The man watched them and he saw how gods were born. It was Thor come +back again—Thor with his hammer, Thor with his giant voice. Thus were +born the gods, Thor and Odin, Balder God of the Summer Sun, Apollo and +Vulcan, Ahriman and Ormuz, night and day.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">[Pg 73]</a></span></p> + +<p>So were born all the gods. You can read of it in Indian, in Greek, in +Roman, in Norwegian mythology, in any mythology you like. You can see +the belief living still among the Chins, the Shans, the Moopers; for +them the storm-wind and earthquake, the great rivers and the giant +hills, all these have causes, and they who cause them are gods. From +these have grown all the ideas of God that the peoples hold now. They +were originally local, local to the place, local to the people, and as +the people progressed so did their ideas of God.</p> + +<p>It seemed to the man lying on his hillside easy to follow how it all +arose; for, indeed, was it not going on about him? Did not the forest +people speak of a god in the great bare rock behind him? Were there not +gods in the ravines, gods in the hidden places of the hills? It was so +easy to realise as he watched the storm-cloud bursting before him, as +the lightning flashed and the thunder trumpet sounded in the hills, that +men should personify these. Nay, more, he saw the wild men about him +actually personifying them. He could understand.</p> + +<p>God was the answer to a question; as the question grew so did the +reply.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">[Pg 74]</a></span></p> + +<p>The savage asks but little. He does not ask "Who am I?" "Who made the +world, and why?" Such questioning comes but in later years. He fears the +thunder; it is to him a great and wonderful and overpowering thing. It +forces itself upon his notice, and he explains it as the voice of a +greater man, a God. He lives in the heavens, for His voice comes from +thence. The giant peaks that swathe themselves in clouds, the volcano +and the earthquake, the great river flowing for ever to the sea, with +its strange floods, its eddies, its deadly undertow, in these too must +be gods. These are the first things that force themselves upon his dim +observance. He wonders, and from his wonder is born a god. But as he +grows in mental stature, in power of seeing, in power of feeling, he +observes other forces. How is the heaven held up, the great heavy dome +as he imagines it? It is Atlas who does so. There is a god of the Autumn +and Spring, of the Summer and Winter. So he personifies all forces he +perceives but does not understand. For he has no idea of force except as +emanating from a Person, of life which is not embodied in some form like +his own or that of some animal. Whenever anything is done it must be +Some One who<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[Pg 75]</a></span> does it, and that Some One is like himself, only greater +and stronger.</p> + +<p>There is not in the savage god any conception differing from that of +man. There is not in any god any realisable conception different from +that of man. The savage god is hungry and thirsty, requires clothes and +houses, has in all things passions and wants like a man. That makes the +god near to the man. With later gods is it different? God can be +realised only by means of the qualities He shares with man. Deduct from +your idea of God all human passions, love and forgiveness, and mercy, +and revenge, and punishment, and what is left? Only words and +abstractions which appeal to no one, and are realisable by no one. +Declare that God requires neither ears to hear nor eyes to see, nor legs +to walk with, nor a body, and what is left? Nothing is left. When +anyone, savage or Christian, realises God he does so by qualities God +shares with man. God is the Big Man who causes things. That is all. To +say that God is a spirit and then to declare that a spirit differs in +essence from a man is playing with words. No realisable conception does +or can differ.</p> + +<p>The conception of force by itself is but a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[Pg 76]</a></span> very late idea. As one by +one the phenomena of nature attract man's observation he personifies +them. It will be noticed that unless a force intrudes itself on him he +does not personify it. What people ever personified gravity? And why +not? Surely gravity is evident enough. Every time a savage dropped a +stone on his toes he would recognise gravity. But no. That a stone falls +to the ground because a force draws it is an idea very late to enter +man's brain. It seems to him, as he would say, the nature of a stone to +fall. And then gravity acts always in the same way. It is not +intermittent—like lightning, for instance. Therefore he never conceives +of gravity as a force at all. When men had come to perceive that it was +a force, they had passed the personifying stage. But the savage +personified each force as he perceived it. First the sun and storm, till +at last he came to himself and began to study his own life. He had good +and bad luck; that was Fortune. Evil deeds are done, and good; he is +beginning to classify and generalise; there are gods of Good and Evil. +He has come to Ormuz and Ahriman little by little; as his power of +generalising progresses, he drops the smaller gods. They disappear, they +are but attributes of greater<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[Pg 77]</a></span> gods. And as he grows in mental grasp and +makes himself the centre of his world, so does the God of Man become the +God of Nature too. The greater absorbs the lesser.</p> + +<p>The God who cared for man, the God of his past, of his present, of his +future, is become the great God. He rules all the gods until he alone is +God.</p> + +<p>So it seemed to the man that God arose, never out of reason, always out +of instinct. There was no difference. It is all the same story. There is +innate in all men a tendency to personify the forces they cannot +understand. Because they want an explanation, and personality is the +only one that offers at first. To attribute effects to persons is +aboriginal science. To attribute them to natural laws is later science. +Each is the answer to the same question. Men personify forces in +different ways according to their mental and emotional stature, to their +capacity for generalising. They express their ideas in different ways +according to their race and their country. The Hindu began with a god in +each force, to represent each idea, and so the lower people still +remain, afraid of many gods. But those of mental stature gradually +generalised, till at last they came to one God, Brahm, and the lesser +gods as<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[Pg 78]</a></span> emanating from him. This was a hierarchy; and then finally the +greatest thinkers came to one God only, and the idea that the lesser +gods are but representatives of His manifold nature. You can see all the +stages before you now. It is simply a question of brain power, and the +sequence remains the same. First the lesser, then the greater. It is +never the other way on.</p> + +<p>So does Christian mythology personify three ideas of God, as a Trinity, +as three Persons in One, and a Devil. The Hindu would express such a +conception of God by a god with three heads. Christianity, rejecting +such crude symbolism, does so by a mystical creed. The Devil is being +dropped. But the Jew and the Mahommedan have only one God. All force +emanates from Him. He is the Cause of all things. He is One.</p> + +<p>And yet it is not a reasoned answer, but an instinctive one. The savage, +no more than the Christian, does not reason out his God. The feeling, +the understanding of God is innate, abiding—never the result of a +mental process. The idea of God is a thing in itself; it grows with the +brain, but it is not the result of any process of the brain; just as a +forest tree grows the greater in richer soil.</p> + +<p>As the idea of gods increased in majesty,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">[Pg 79]</a></span> as the numbers decreased and +became merged in three, in two, or in one, so did their power increase. +The gods were at first but local, local to the place, local to the +tribe. So was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who was jealous of +the other gods. And gradually their local god or gods grew into the God +of the whole world. It was only a question of mental development, of the +power of generalisation in conception. Man conceived a ruler of the +world in the Roman Emperor before he conceived an all-powerful God. The +man as he meditated, as he watched, would see the stages before his +eyes. There was the savage, the Kurumba and Moopa with his many gods in +the hills all about; there were the Hindus, the traders whose temples +shewed white in the groves beneath, many steps higher in civilisation +with their supreme Brahm and minor gods emanating from him; there was +the Moslem with his "God is God." He had the stages before his eyes.</p> + +<p>Therefore when he came to consider this question of God he found in +God-worship in Hinduism, Parseeism, Mahommedanism, Judaism, +Christianity, no differing conception. They held all the same idea in +different shapes. There was nothing new. God, one or multiple,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">[Pg 80]</a></span> made the +world according to His own good pleasure, ruled it according to His +will. The savage knew most of God, because his god was but a man +enlarged and the nearer to him for that. With greater contemplation the +crudities have been removed, the manlike qualities disappear one by one, +until with the few greatest thinkers they are all gone. God has become a +"Spirit," an abstraction, an unthinkable, incomprehensible God that is +of no use to anyone; for He cannot be influenced by prayer, He has no +passions to be roused, He has become lost in the heavens, an inscrutable +force. Such was the evolution of God.</p> + +<p>Only when he came to Buddhism was there a new thing. He found no longer +God or gods, but Law. That was indeed new, that was indeed very +different from the other faiths. The world came into being under Law, it +progressed under Law, it would end, if it ever did end, under Law. And +this Law was unchanged, unchangeable for ever. Let me consider, he said, +these two conceptions, Personality and Law.</p> + +<p>What is this world to the Buddhist? It is a place that has evolved and +is evolving under Law. He does not speak of God creating one thing or +another, but of a sequence of events.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">[Pg 81]</a></span> The Buddhist was Darwin two +thousand years before Darwin. He saw the rule of Law long before our +scientific men found it in the stars. I do not think it is so easy to +follow the origin of this idea as it is of the idea of God. With the +latter we have the stages before our eyes, but how the Buddhist idea of +law arose we can only conjecture. It is not, I think, an instinct like +the knowledge of God. It is more of a mental process, like the reasoning +of science. It is a negation as opposed to an assertion. It is the +negative pole. It must surely have arisen like modern science from the +observation of facts. I do not say that the idea of law is absent from +other faiths. You see it in the Commandments. Certain sequences were +recognised, but with Judaism they were ascribed to the order of a +Personality. Buddhism, like science, knows of no Personality. The laws +of a Theocracy were always liable to change and correction. The laws of +the Buddhist are inviolable. The Christian thinks laws can be violated, +the Buddhist knows they are inviolable.</p> + +<p>You cannot break a law. It is true that many declare otherwise, that +Charles Kingsley in a famous lecture declared you could break the law of +gravity. "The law is," says he,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">[Pg 82]</a></span> "that a stone should fall to the earth; +but by stretching out your hand you can prevent the stone falling. Thus +you can break the law." So argued Charles Kingsley, so think mistily +many men because they have never troubled to define the words they use. +There is no law that a stone should fall to the earth. The law of +gravity is that bodies attract each other directly as their mass, and +inversely as the square of the distance. You do not break this law by +holding a stone in your hand. Nay, you can feel it acting all the time +you do so. You cannot break this law. You cannot break any law. Law is +another word for the inevitable. Whom did the Greeks put above all the +gods? It was [Greek: anachkê], Necessity. Did, then, the Greeks see that +behind all their personification of forces Law ruled? It may be so. They +have the two ideas, God and Law. It is perhaps the old battle of free +will and destination. And which is true? To the Greek Necessity was +behind God, to the Theist God is behind Law. The laws are but His +orders. He can break them and change them and modify them. And yet, it +is so hard to see clearly how Theists can avoid the difficulty. If God's +laws are perfect truths they cannot be alterable. Only<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">[Pg 83]</a></span> the imperfect +would be changed. Yet if God's laws are perfect, is not He, too, bound +by them? And if He be bound, is not His free will, His omnipotence +limited? Surely God cannot transgress His own laws of righteousness; is +there not "necessity" to Him too? But if this be so, then where is the +need of any knowledge beyond the knowledge of law? If it be indeed +eternal, as the Buddhists say, what need for more? In the science of +nature we need not go beyond, we cannot. In the science of man, who is +but part of nature, why should we do so? Is it not better, truer, more +beautiful to believe in everlasting laws of righteousness that rule the +world than to believe that a Personality has to be always arranging and +interfering? Would we not in a state prefer perfect laws to a perfect +king, who, however, was imperfect in this that his laws were imperfect +and had to be checked in their working? Which is the more perfect +conception? Surely that of law. If crime and ignorance, if mistake and +waywardness brought always inevitably their due punishment and +correction, where is a ruler needed? It is imperfection that requires +changing.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">[Pg 84]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_IX" id="CHAPTER_IX"></a>CHAPTER IX.</h2> + +<h3>GOD AND LAW.</h3> + + +<p>Think what a difference, what an immense difference, it makes to a man +which he believes, how utterly it alters all his attitude to the +Unknown, to the Infinite, whether he believes in God or in Law. For +among all religions, all faiths, all theories of the unknown there are +only these two ideas, Personality or Law, free will or inevitableness. +And how different they are.</p> + +<p>In the face of eternity there are two attitudes: that of the Theist, +whether Christian or Jew, Hindu or spirit worshipper; and that of the +Buddhist, the believer in Law. To the believer in God or in gods, what +is the world and what is man? They are playthings in the hands of the +Almighty. God is responsible to no one, He knows no right and wrong, no +necessity beyond Himself, all He does must be right. He is All-powerful. +Man must<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">[Pg 85]</a></span> crouch before Him in fear. If man suffer he must not cry out +against God; he must say in due submissiveness, "Thy will be done." A +man must even be thankful that matters are not worse. If in a shipwreck +many are drowned and few, bereft of all but life, are hardly saved, what +must they do? They must render thanks to God that He didn't drown them +too. Not because they are aware of being punished for any sin, that does +not come to man in calamity. You cannot imagine a common sin that +engulphs men and women, children and babes, from all countries, of all +professions, of many religions, in one common disaster. No! God can be +bribed, not with presents perhaps now, but with reverence. It is the +cringe that deprecates uncontrollable Power. It is the same feeling that +makes the savage lay a fruit or a flower before the Spirit of the Hills +lest he too be killed by the falling rocks.</p> + +<p>For what do men imagine God to be? Do you think that each man holds one +wonderful conception of God? Not so. The civilised man's idea of God is +as the savage idea. Each man builds to himself his own God, out of his +ideals, civilised or savage. Truly, if you ask a man to tell you his +idea of God he will answer you vaguely out of his creeds or sacred +books;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">[Pg 86]</a></span> but if you watch that man's actions towards God, you will soon +discover that his God is but his ideal man glorified.</p> + +<p>To a tender woman her God is but the extreme of the tenderness, the +beauty, the compassion which she feels, and the narrowness which she has +but does not realise. And cannot you see in your mind's eye the German +Emperor's God clanking round the heavenly mansions wearing a German +pickelhaube and swearing German oaths? Man's God is but what he admires +most in himself. He can be propitiated, he can be bribed. The savage +does it with a bowl of milk or a honey cake, the mediĉval man did it +with a chapel or a painted window. You say this idea has ceased. Have +you ever prayed to God and said, "Spare me this time and I will be good +in future. I will do this. I will do that." Or, more beautifully, "Spare +him that I love and let the punishment fall on me. Let me bear his +sins." Is not the very idea of atonement expressed by Christ's life? A +price has to be paid to God. He must be bought off. Man's attitude +before God must be that of the child, submissive with downcast eyes, +full of praise, never daring to blame. "Tell me and I will obey, do not +punish me or I perish." Then there is the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">[Pg 87]</a></span> attitude of the believer in +eternal law. For him the world holds no caprice, no leaning to one side +or another, no revenge, no mercy. Each act carries with it an inevitable +result: reward if the act be good, punishment if it be bad. You can +break a command of God. He may tell you to do a thing and you may +refuse. You cannot break a law. It is the inevitable, the everlasting. +You cannot rebel against law. The sin is not rebellion, but ignorance. +The attitude is not submission, but inquiry, the thirst for truth. Adam +lost Eden because he sought for the knowledge of good and evil. But the +law-believer says that only in wisdom, only in truth, is there any hope. +He stands before the eternal verities with clear eyes to see them, with +a strong heart to bear what his ignorance may make him suffer. Out of +his pain he will learn the sequences of life. He has gained much.</p> + +<p>What has he lost? Are not mercy and fatherly care, forgiveness and love, +beautiful things? Yet they, too, are of God. If you know not of Him, +only of Law, have you not lost out of your life some of the greatest +thoughts? How will you comfort your heart when it is sore if you have +not God? Is prayer nothing?<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">[Pg 88]</a></span></p> + +<p>Truly, said the man, these are beautiful things. If I could have them +alone. But I cannot. I fear the other qualities more than I love these. +I would have neither. I would be a man and live under Law. It seems to +me enough. If Law be absolute I see no room for God.</p> + +<p>Over against him were the long ridges of the hills where the rain-clouds +gathered from the south. He saw them come in great masses surging up the +valleys and hiding the contours of the hills. The lightning flashed +across the peaks and the thunder echoed in long-drawn trumpet blasts. +"The savage," he said, "saw there only gods warring with one another. +Now with wiser eyes we see the reign of Law. We do not know all the +laws; we cannot even yet tell how much rain will come, whether it will +be famine or plenty. We cannot see the Law, but we never doubt the Law +is there. With man it is the same. Births and deaths, suicides and +murders, are they too not all under Law? Why should not man's soul be so +too? Where is the need of God?"</p> + +<p>As he came down the mountain side the rain was falling heavily, as it +can only in the tropics. The dry hollows were already streams, the +streams were foaming torrents. "They act under Law," he said. "Their +life is bounded all by<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">[Pg 89]</a></span> Law." And then of a sudden, watching the foaming +water, he saw more clearly.</p> + +<p>"True, the stream runs within its banks, but banks do not make the +stream. Gravity, that drags down these waters, acts in certain sequence, +but that sequence is not gravity. Gravity is a force. When we enumerate +the law we do not define, or know, or understand the force, only the way +it acts. Force is force, and law is law. They are not the same. They do +not explain each other. What a dead thing would law be that had no force +acting within it. Truly, I must see more clearly. Law does not deny +force; nay, but it predicates it—is, in fact, an outcome of it. Law is +a sequence along which force acts; neither can exist without the other. +All force is ruled by law. Yes, but what is force—what are any of the +forces that exist: gravity, and electricity, and heat, and life? Forms +of motion? May be; but whence the motion?</p> + +<p>"Ah me!" said the man, "then am I back again at the beginning. Have I +learnt nothing? I thought law might suffice, but it will not. If law is +inevitable, then are we but helpless atoms following the stream of +necessity. Then is freewill dead. Yet there is freewill. There is force, +there is life, whence come these forces? And if one say that force is +God, what then?<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">[Pg 90]</a></span></p> + +<p>"Perhaps there is this: there are two truths—there is God and there is +Law. Both are true, as there is destiny and there is freewill. But how +can that be? I see it is so, that it must be so. But how? Is it that +there are facets of some great truth behind which we can never know?"</p> + +<p>The man was weary. "What have I gained? Only that I have a truth, which +I cannot understand, which gives me no help, or but little? Have I +gained anything to help me in life? I have gained this, perhaps, that if +Law be not a full explanation, it is true, as far as it goes; if not a +whole truth, yet it is a truth. Why go further? The scientist cares for +nothing more when he has learned the laws of gravity. He is content to +be ignorant of whence the force comes, because he can go no further. In +the battle of life is not this enough? Can we not, too, be as the +scientist, denying nothing, but searching only for that which we can +know and which will be useful to us? If force be God, yet should His +ways not be mysterious. Let us not shut our eyes and comfort ourselves +in ignorance by saying, 'There is no Law; God is inscrutable, God knows +no Law. He is inexpressible, changeable and uncertain.' But truly there +is Law. Behind the gods, behind God, there <i>is</i> [Greek: anachkê], there +is Necessity, there is an unfailing sequence of events,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">[Pg 91]</a></span> which is +righteousness. Let us learn then what righteousness is. Let us learn +what is true in order to do what is right."</p> + +<hr style="width: 45%;" /> + +<p>But after all it is all speculation. There is no evidence. It is a +theory built on nothing. What is the value of it? Nothing at all. What +is to be gained by all this? Only barren words, finely spun theories +made of air. Where is the proof of God or of Law? There is none.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">[Pg 92]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_X" id="CHAPTER_X"></a>CHAPTER X.</h2> + +<h3>THE WAY OF LIFE.</h3> + + +<p>Perhaps it does not matter. It may be that all this speculation about +the First Cause, about the Ruling Power of the world, is unnecessary. +What matter if God be inscrutable, if He has given us commands for our +lives that are clear, if He has laid down for us His will that we should +follow. Even if Law be not a full explanation, even if a knowledge of +all Law would not mean a knowledge of everything, what would this +signify if we can see enough of the laws that govern our lives so to +order ourselves as to reach the goal? Whether the Theist be right or the +Buddhist, in his theories of the world, the main question with which we +are concerned is ourselves. Has any religion a working code of life that +is true, that is adapted to us as we are, that is not in conflict with +facts and common sense? What matters its name or its supposed origin? Is +there such a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">[Pg 93]</a></span> thing? So thought the man, turning from abstract ideas to +real necessities. After all, what I and all men want is not abstract +ideas, whether of God or Law, but present help and guidance. Has any God +taught any believer a perfect code of life, has any Buddhist searcher +discovered the natural Law of life? For if so I would know them. Never +mind the whence or how, give me the facts.</p> + +<p>It seemed to him, looking back in the beginning of faiths, that morals, +that rules of life had no part there. When the Northman saw Thor in the +thunder there was no moral code there. The Greek gods were frankly not +so much immoral, which predicates a code of morals, as unmoral. They +knew of no such thing. It is the same with all the early gods, with the +Hindu gods and those of all other early beliefs. The Chin savage on the +Burmese frontier sees gods in the great peaks, but these gods demand +from him no moral observance, they impress upon him no moral standard. +All that the early gods demanded was fear, reverence, worship. Even the +Jehovah of the Jews asked at first only this. It is not till you get to +the third commandment that conduct comes in, and the moral code was +scanty. The early gods of all kinds, of all faiths, had no moral code +either for themselves or man. They demanded only<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">[Pg 94]</a></span> obedience and fear and +worship. The moral code came later.</p> + +<p>It seems unnecessary now to consider whence they came, how they grew, +why they became added to the worship of the gods, which was all that +early religion meant. Some of that will come elsewhere. It is immaterial +here which is only the man's search after a code, any code that would +act. For it remains that all faiths when once they had left the +elementary stage did add a code of conduct as part of their religion, +saying it came from God, or was an immutable law, and tried to induce +men to follow it by declaring that it alone would lead to happiness +hereafter. All the greater faiths have these codes. "And I," said the +man to himself as he searched, "I care nothing whence the code is +supposed to have come, truly or falsely, as long as I find it. I want a +guide to life as it is. Has any faith such a guide? For each declare +that it alone has. Show me these rules to life."</p> + +<p>The books showed him. They showed him codes of all degrees, from the +simplest to the most complex, from the plain cult of courage, the very +first and most necessary of all virtues, to the immensely complicated +code of observances of the Brahmin; and outside religions there were the +philosophies of Greece and Rome, of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">[Pg 95]</a></span> India and China, of Persia and +Germany, and Scotland.</p> + +<p>Now should man so order his life as to live righteously here, and to be +of good repute before man and his own conscience? How shall a man so +form himself here that if indeed there be a life hereafter he may enter +it without fear? What are these codes?</p> + +<p>It seemed to him that there ran in some ways a great sameness through +the creeds, that up to a certain stage they differed but little. Courage +against the foe, courage to face suffering, truth and honesty, and later +mercy and compassion, charity of act and thought, courtesy and beauty of +mind; these were the additions the faiths made, little by little, to the +ground-work of reverence of the gods. And so they grew, adding bit by +bit, as civilisation increased and necessity dictated. They added many +of them sanitary rules, observances for washing, for cooking, for +choosing food, incorporating with religion whatever practice found +useful, and thereby giving a sanctity which it would otherwise have +lacked. Sometimes rules were added to preserve the race pure, as with +the Jews or the Hindus, evolving in the latter religion into the vast +system of caste that separates the different races, all of whom call +themselves Hindus. With the two faiths as just mentioned<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">[Pg 96]</a></span> the tendency +was to narrowness and restriction, to the exclusion of other races; with +others, such as the Mahommedan and Buddhist, it was to expansion, to the +acceptance of other peoples, until at last some great Prophet arose to +give coherence and form to the whole and include it in the sacred books. +So arose the codes, the man thought. But this hardly matters. What are +the codes?</p> + +<p>It seemed to him that out of all the faiths only two held codes that +rose much above the level of savage conduct. We cannot go back to the +codes of Moses or Mahommed; we cannot accept the narrow racial +limitations of Hinduism; we have outgrown the simple ethics of Zoroaster +and the Egyptians. The teachings of Confucius and Laotze are strange to +us, and the philosophies, if they seem clear, are so singularly +unconvincing. They lack so greatly all that appeals to mankind; they are +so much codes in the head and not for the heart; they are as +mathematical drawings compared to a work of art; they do not ring true. +And so there were quickly left for him only two, the codes of Christ and +of Buddha, the examples of the two greatest prophets the world has +known.</p> + +<p>And between the teachings of the great Teacher who lived two thousand +and five hundred years ago, and that of the man God of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">[Pg 97]</a></span> Christians +six hundred years later, what difference is there? They start from +different beginnings, they work towards perhaps different ends; but in +the methods, in the rules of life, what difference is there? That which +was taught by the sea of Galilee is but the echo of the words spoken +long before below the Himalayan Hills. They are the same, read them. The +two greatest faiths the world has known, the two greatest teachers that +ever came to man to help him in his need, have brought him the same +message. Believe not in the world, believe not in wealth, in power, in +greatness, in strength. These are not what man should seek. Nay, but +leave the world behind you because it is all evil, all very evil. +Nothing of this world is of any value. In a man's heart is his greatest +treasure. Make therefore your heart pure from the world. Leave it all +and turn to God, to righteousness. Cultivate your own soul apart from +all the pleasures of life. The other world can be gained only by +abjuring this. Wealth and honour and ambition, all the glories of the +world, are but traps to catch you. Even the loves we love are wrong. The +Buddha left his wife and child. The Christ never married, and denied +even his mother any love beyond that of a disciple. It is all the same. +Their lives, their teachings are the same.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">[Pg 98]</a></span></p> + +<p>The man sighed as he read. Surely, he said, these are hard things to +believe, that the world is evil. No, but it is not evil. That a man can +only fit himself for heaven by being unfit for earth. I cannot believe +this. I have not changed since I thought this over as a boy. This is not +a true code, not a true rule, not a true faith, whether Christian or +Buddhist. I did not believe then, a boy; I do not believe now, a man.</p> + +<p>The world is not evil. There is evil there, but so much of good. There +are stains there truly, but so much of beauty. Do you think I can watch +the sun rise, the daily marvel which is beyond words, and hate the +world? Can I see the man I love, the men who have helped me, who have +been with me, the men who are my friends, and say that they are of a +world that is evil? And the women, the girls, the children, are their +lives for us nothing? Are they of a world that we must abjure? It is +never so. Truly, there are in these teachings, whether of the Christ or +of the Buddha, much that is of beauty, much, so much that touches our +hearts, I had at times fain believe. But I find in the world beauty +also, beauty that comes as near, that comes nearer than they do. When a +man is honest and honourable and true, and rises to great position, to +be spoken well of by all men, is that an evil thing? Is the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">[Pg 99]</a></span> wealth that +comes of the keen brain, the strong will, a calamity? Are our loves, our +hopes, our fears but evil? Yet they are of the world. Beautiful as is +the teaching, there are in the world things far more beautiful. I will +never believe, never, that the world and flesh are partners to the +Devil. I will never believe that.</p> + +<p>"And more," said the man slowly. "No one ever does believe it—none but +a very few. The world has rejected it always; not from wickedness, but +because the teaching is never true. They do not acknowledge their +disbelief. No! The Christians and the Buddhists maintain their faith by +words. But in secret, in their own hearts, before the world, in the +action of their own hands, have they ever acknowledged these beliefs?"</p> + +<p>Neither the Christ nor the Buddha are the models men follow, because men +are sure that, though there be truth in their teachings yet it is not +all the truth, though there be beauty yet are there other beauties as +great, nay greater than these. The world is never evil, and if it were, +to follow these doctrines would not be the way to make it better.</p> + +<p>Then the man turned from his books again to the world beneath him, he +came to reality from dreams. I have learnt nothing? No, but I have +learnt something. I have learned what I<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">[Pg 100]</a></span> have yet to learn. And I have +learned more. I know why I disbelieve, because I love the world as it +is, and because I will never believe that what calls to my heart from +there is wrong. The beauty of things is the truth of things. And in +truth and beauty is the voice of God as surely, nay more surely than in +the voice of any prophet of two thousand years ago.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">[Pg 101]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XI" id="CHAPTER_XI"></a>CHAPTER XI.</h2> + +<h3>HEAVEN.</h3> + + +<p>"I am not getting on very well," he thought. "I have looked for three +things, and two I am sure I have not found. I have found nowhere any +explanation of the Universe, of the First Cause; I have found nowhere +any true rule of life. Yet these are two of the three 'truths' that the +faiths offer to me as inducements to believe. 'We will give you,' they +say, 'a theory of this world and of its origin which is true, which will +help you in this life because it will show you what you are and the +world is, and whence you came. We will give you through this troublous +life a guide that will never fail you, a staff that will never break. +And finally, if you believe, you shall attain after death the happiness +that is without end.'"</p> + +<p>So they promise, and of their promises I have tried two. Have I found +that they give what they<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">[Pg 102]</a></span> declare? Is there anywhere any belief of the +First Cause that is true, that is the whole truth? There is none. And is +there any guide to life that can be followed in sincerity and truth? +There is none. There remains only heaven. There remains only the bribe, +the promise of happiness, if we will believe as they declare, if we will +do as they say.</p> + +<p>It may be that here is the secret, that I shall come now to the answer; +it may be that this is the key to all. If there is in the heaven they +promise us such a fulfilment of glory, such an appeal to our hearts that +they cannot but answer, what matter the rest? Happiness is our end in +life. For what do we strive all our days but for happiness, for truth, +for joy, for the beauty of life? What matter that in the theory of the +First Cause we can see no truth, that in the rule of life I can find +only a contradiction of beauty, if in the end in heaven these are +attained? The end, if the end be perfect, will reveal the truth and the +beauty in the ways that are now hid. What is this heaven?</p> + +<p>When we think of heaven, when with our eyes shut we try to recall all +they have taught us of the Christian heaven, what are the images that +come up? It seems as if we went back all those years to when we were +little lads beside our<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">[Pg 103]</a></span> mothers, and as the fire flickered across the +unlit room, full of strange shadows, we said our childish prayers and +leant our heads heavy with sleep upon her knee. It is our mothers that +tell us of the heaven, whither they would that we should go, that urge +us with imaginings of beauty to come to be "good." It is a childish +heaven of which we learn, a heaven full of girl angels with white wings +and floating dresses, of golden harps, of pearly gates, of everlasting +song. There are, I think, no men there, only girls; no sheep, but fleecy +lambs. It is a heaven that appeals only to them. And is it very +different when we grow up? Indeed I think not. It is the same heaven +always, the same conception full of childish things. Did you ever hear a +sermon on the heaven, did you ever read a book, did you ever listen to a +discourse that did not take you back again in memory to that far-off +fire-lightened room of childhood? Surely there is nothing in all the +world so babyish as the general idea of the Christian heaven. Can you +imagine a <i>man</i> there, a man with great deep voice and passion-laden +eyes, a man with the storms of life still beating on his soul amid these +baby faces and white wings? "Ah," said the man, "they must make us into +infants that we may enter their heaven. When I revolted against it as a +boy<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">[Pg 104]</a></span> as but a kindergarten, without even the distraction of being put in +the corner, was I wrong?"</p> + +<p>May be, for there are things beyond this. "In my Father's house are many +mansions. I go to prepare a place for you." "Eye hath not seen nor ear +heard, nor hath it entered into the heart of man to conceive." "The +peace of God which passeth all understanding." "Where God shall wipe +away all tears from their eyes." These are not childish things. +Happiness that hath no sorrow, light that knows no shadow, glory that +never ends.</p> + +<p>I read a book long ago; I have forgotten the name of it, I have +forgotten who wrote it, and I remember that at the time I did not +understand it. The book was on the subject of perfect happiness, on +heaven, which is postulated as the ideal peace. And what this book tried +to show—what, indeed, it showed, I think—was that happiness if +<i>perfect</i> was near akin to annihilation. The argument ran something like +this. "You are happy in some particular employment, say in singing a +hymn, in some particular attitude, let us say in kneeling. If your +happiness in this act and attitude is perfect, they will endure for +ever. You will pass eternity kneeling and singing the same hymn. For +consider, Why do you ever change your acts, your attitudes?<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">[Pg 105]</a></span> Because a +particular act or a certain attitude has become wearisome. But if it be +stated that your happiness is <i>perfect</i> you can never feel satiety, +never feel any desire for change. The wish for change is born of the +feeling of wearisomeness. You have had enough of one thing, you want +another. But if you are perfectly happy this cannot be. Life would +become a monotony, a satiety near akin to death. And if indeed peace be +the highest happiness, then would this perfect peace be so near +annihilation that the difference would only lie in that your +consciousness of happiness still remained." Thus did this writer show +that if the Christian heaven be as declared, <i>perfect</i> happiness, so it +must be almost indistinguishable from death.</p> + +<p>I do not think this writer had ever read of the Buddhist Nirvana, I do +not remember that he ever even alluded to it. He was thinking of the +Christian heaven and trying to make out what it was like, and that was +what he found. He, taking the Christian ideal and working it to its +inevitable conclusion, arrived at the same result as Buddhist teachers +starting from such widely different premises have arrived at: the +Christian heaven and the Buddhist peace are the same.</p> + +<p>Readers of my former work, "The Soul of a People," will remember how the +Buddhists<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">[Pg 106]</a></span> arrive at Nirvana. It is the "Great Peace." Life is the +enemy. Life is change, and change is misery. The ideal is to have done +with life, to be steeped in the Great Peace. Thus do the purer ideas of +the Christian heaven and the Buddhist heaven agree. It is the "Peace +that passeth all understanding" for each.</p> + +<p>And yet perfect happiness, sleep without waking, light without shadow, +joy without sorrow, gaiety without eclipse. Can this ever be heaven? Let +us look back on our lives, we who have lived, and let us think. Let us +close our eyes that the past may come before us and we may remember. +What are the most beautiful memories that come before us, that make our +hearts beat again with the greatest music they have known, that bring +again to our eyes the tears that are the water of the well of God? What +have been the greatest emotions of our lives? There has been struggle +and effort, unceasing effort, crowned maybe with success, but maybe not, +effort that we know has brought out all that is best in us, that we +rejoice to remember. There will be no effort in heaven, only rest; there +is no defeat, and therefore no victory, only peace. Therefore also, +because we can have no enemies there we shall have no friends. Our +friends! How we can remember them. We have loved them because we have<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">[Pg 107]</a></span> +hated others. But in heaven there is no hate, only an equality of +indifference. Heaven is nothing but joy. But consider, has joy been the +most beautiful thing in your life, is it joy that sounded the deepest +harmonies? Remember how you have stood upon that faraway hillside and +laid to rest your comrade beneath the forest shadows? Was it not +beautiful what your heart sang to you while you said "Farewell," and +tears came to your eyes? There are no farewells in heaven.</p> + +<p>There are women you have loved, women whose eyes have grown large and +soft as you have spoken to them in the dusk of evenings long ago. You +have loved them because they were women. What will they be in heaven?</p> + +<p>And the children! Think of that childless heaven. Think of the children +who laugh and play, and come to you to laugh with them, who cry and come +to you for comfort. They will require no comfort from you in heaven, and +how much will you lose? The child angels are never naughty. They can +never come to you and hide their heads upon your shoulder and say "I was +wrong. I am very sorry. Please forgive me." None of these notes shall +ever sound in heaven. There are no tears there. But do you not know +that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">[Pg 108]</a></span> the greater beauties can only be seen through tears, which are +their dew?</p> + +<p>What is it that sounds the deeper notes of our lives? Is it sunshine, +happiness, gaiety? Is it any attribute of the heavens of the religions? +Surely it is never so. It is the troubles of life, the mistakes, the +sorrows, the sin, the shadow mysteries of the world, that sound in our +hearts the greater strings.</p> + +<p>And are these to be mute in your heavens? Are we to fall to lesser notes +of eternal praise, of eternal thanksgiving? Prophets of the faiths, what +are these heavens of yours? Is there in them anything to draw our +hearts? Have you pointed to us what we really would have? Your sacred +books are full of your descriptions, of your enticements; you have +beggared all the languages in words to describe what you would have us +long for. And what have you gained? Is there any one man, one woman, one +child, not steeped in the uttermost incurable disease, in feeble old +age, who would change the chances of his life here for any of your +heavens? There is no one. Or if you were to say to a man, "Choose. You +shall be young again, and strong, or you shall go to heaven." Which +would he choose? Therefore, ye teachers of the faiths, are your promises +vain. I do<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">[Pg 109]</a></span> not believe in nor do I fear your hells, those crude places +of fire and pitch and little black devils. I care not for your heavens; +I would not go there, not to any of them, neither to the happy hunting +ground, nor to heaven, nor to the garden of the Houris nor to Nirvana, +<i>not if they be as you tell me they are</i>. Nor do I want to merge my +identity in the Infinite. This life is good enough for me, while I +retain health and strength. I am not tempted. Nor is anyone tempted. +Whom have you persuaded? You know that you have enticed no one. No one +is deceived. Men will die for many things, they will leap to accept +death—but not for your heavens. All men <i>fear</i> death and what is +beyond, the righteous who you say have earned heaven no less than the +unrighteous. All faiths have had their martyrs, but that is different. +They have died to preserve their souls, as soldiers die to preserve +their honour, gladly. Even the godly do not believe. They will have +nothing of your heavens. I cannot understand how either Christian or +Buddhist came to imagine such unattractive, unreasonable heavens.</p> + +<p>And so they have all failed. No religion gives us an intelligible First +Cause, no religion gives us a code of conduct we can follow, no<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">[Pg 110]</a></span> +religion offers us a heaven we would care to attain.</p> + +<p>There are many definitions of religion. I have written some on my first +page. It will be seen that they all hinge on one of these ideas, either +that religion is a theory of causation, or it is a code of conduct, or +that it is concerned with future rewards and punishments.</p> + +<p>But if indeed religion have any or all of these meanings, then is +religion false, then are all religions false. And more, no one who +thinks over the subject, no one who takes it seriously would believe any +one of them, could take any as a satisfactory explanation. No one +accepts any code of religious conduct as absolutely workable, no one is +attracted by their heavens. I am sure of these things.</p> + +<p>Then shall I sit down with Omar Khayyam and say:—</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"Myself when young did eagerly frequent<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument<br /></span> +<span class="i0">About it and about; but evermore<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Came out by the same door where in I went."<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>Shall I say all religion is but windy theory and no one cares for it? +Neither do I.</p> + +<p>The man put down his books and laughed.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">[Pg 111]</a></span> No one believes? But every man +believes, or would like to believe. Every man is at heart more or less +religious. I see that in daily life as I go. Why? Why? What is it he +finds? I will not give up. I will not come out at that same door. I will +try again in a new line. I must be on the wrong road. Let me try back +and consider. What is it in religion that we see and love and feel is +true? Who are the people that we would be like? Is it the scientific +theologian with his word-confusion about homoiousios? Is it the Hindu +sophist making theories of Brahm? Is it the Buddhist word-refiner +speculating on Karma? Surely it is not any of these people. It is the +street preacher crying to the crowd, "Come and be saved"; it is the +peasant with bowed head in the sunset listening to the Angelus; it is +the priest in his livelong lonely exile. These <i>are</i> Christians, and +their thoughts are the religion worth knowing. It is they who are near +God. I care not for the intricate intellectual mazes a Hindu can make +with his brain, but I care for the coolie. I can see him now, putting +his little ghi before the god, giving out of his poverty to the +mendicant. It is he who knows God, even if his God be but the God of the +hill above him. And it<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">[Pg 112]</a></span> is the woman crying at the pagoda foot for +succour; it is the reverent crowds that look upon the pagoda while their +eyes fill with tears; it is the Buddhist monk, far away beneath the +hills, living his life of purity and example that I reverence. They +<i>have</i> religion. I will go to them and ask them what it is. I am sure it +is not what the theologians of all creeds have told me. What do these +poor know of thought and speculation? They do not think, they <i>know</i>. +What is it that they know? Not certainly what the professional divines +tell me.</p> + +<p>I do not believe these thinkers or their thoughts. If I believed that +what they say is religion—is, in fact, so—I would have done with it. +That is where most men end. They ask the divines what religion is. The +divines produce their theories and creeds. The enquirer looks and +examines and reflects. For he says, "If the professional men don't know +what their own faith is, who does?" But I will not end so. I <i>will</i> know +wherein the truth of religion lies. I will now go to those who know, +because they <i>know</i>, not because they think. My books shall be the +hearts of men.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113">[Pg 113]</a></span></p> +<h2>PART II.</h2> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XII" id="CHAPTER_XII"></a>CHAPTER XII.</h2> + +<h3>THEORIES AND FACTS.</h3> + + +<p>There is a festival to-day among the coolies. All night, from down in +the valley where their huts are, has come the sound of tom-toms beating. +And this morning there has been no roll-call, no telling off the men to +making pits and the women to weeding. The fields have been empty, and +the village which is usually so abandoned by day, is full of people. +They have roamed lazily to and fro or sat before their doorways in the +sun talking and waiting, for the ceremony is not till noon.</p> + +<p>It begins with a procession. It is a long procession, all of men or +boys, for it seems that among these people women are not concerned in +the acting of the ceremonies. They are all men, mostly the elders and +the headsmen of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114">[Pg 114]</a></span> gangs, and before them dances a man half naked, half +mad, who cries and throws his arms about. He is possessed of the Spirit. +I do not know what the procession means, and I ask. No one can tell me; +only it "is the custom." And so they pass up the main road near my house +with tom-toms beating and flowers about their necks, and the "possessed" +priest dancing ever before them. They go perhaps a mile about and then +return, and by the entrance to the village, where are boys who carry +rice and cocoanuts; and as the priest approaches they throw this rice +before him and break the cocoanuts at his feet. So they enter the +village. In the centre is an open space and they stop, the procession +breaks, for the priest goes to the centre still dancing, and the people +form a great ring about him. He dances more and more wildly as the +tom-toms quicken their beat, his eyes are bloodshot, his hands are +clenched, there is foam upon his lips. "He has the Spirit," the people +murmur with wonder. Then into the centre of this ring come two men +dragging a goat. It is a black goat with a white star on his forehead. +His horns are painted and there are flowers about his neck. When the +priest sees the goat he rushes forward. He grips the goat by the ears, +the men let go and depart, and the priest and goat are left alone.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">[Pg 115]</a></span> He +is about to sacrifice the goat, I know that, but I do not know how, for +he has no knife. But I quickly understand. He has seized the goat by +both ears in a grip of steel. Then bending down he bares his teeth and +catches the lower lip of the goat between them. He tears and worries, +and the goat struggles ineffectually, for with savage energy the priest +has torn at the lip till it peels off in a long strip down the throat, +so that the veins and arteries are laid bare. And then with a sudden +jerk he lets go the torn skin and buries his teeth deep in the +palpitating throat. You see his jaw work, you see the goat give a great +convulsive struggle, there is a sudden rush of blood from the torn +arteries pouring over the priest in a great red stream. For a minute +there is stillness, and then the goat's tense limbs relax. They droop, +for he is dead; and with a tremor in all his limbs the man stands for a +second and then drops too senseless, his face falling on the goat that +he has slain. For two, three, five minutes, I know not how long, there +is a dead silence. The sun is at its height and pours down upon the +intense crowd, upon the victim lying in its pool of blood, upon the +priest a huddled heap beside it. And then with a great sigh the people +awake. There is a movement and a murmur.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">[Pg 116]</a></span> Some elders go and carry away +the goat, and the priest is supported to the little temple near by. The +blood is covered up with fresh earth, the ceremony is over, and the +people break up.</p> + +<hr style="width: 45%;" /> + +<p>In the evening my writer Antonio tells me all he knows. What is the god +who entered into the priest? I ask, and he shakes his head. "For sure," +he answers, "I do not know. They only tell me 'Sawmy, Sawmy'; that is, +'God, God.' They say he want sacrifice, he want people to give him +present. I do not know why he want present, except he big God and must +be worship. If he not get sacrifice he angry. If he get sacrifice he +pleased."</p> + +<p>So Antonio explains to me the scene. He argues like my books do. Let me +consider. They would explain it some way like this. They would say that +the "Sawmy" was the Sun God, or some other idealisation; that first of +all the Indians imagined this Sawmy out of ghosts or dreams; that having +done so they gave this God certain attributes and powers; that +subsequently they imagined the God angry and punishing the people, and +so they would proceed to a priest suffering from hysteria, which they +supposed to be the possession of this<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">[Pg 117]</a></span> Sawmy, and finally arrive at the +procession and sacrifice. They would point out how the flesh of the goat +was divided among the coolies, thus bringing them into communion with +their God. And so they would come at last to the concrete fact, as +caused by a long process of imagination, an explanation quite incredible +to me. I read the facts differently, much more simply. As to imagination +the people have hardly any; they are hopelessly incapable of such a +train of thought. The priest himself admits that not one in fifty has +the least glimmering of any meaning in the ceremony. Nevertheless they +like it, they are awed by it, they would by no means allow it to be +omitted. And as to this feast of communion with their divinity, what are +the facts?</p> + +<p>The coolies are poor, they live almost entirely on rice and vegetables. +Meat can very rarely be afforded. Yet they long for it, and a few times +in the year they all subscribe and buy a goat for food as a very special +luxury.</p> + +<p>The goat being bought has to be killed. Now, to people in this stage of +civilisation, to people in <i>any</i> stage of civilisation, the taking of +life is very attractive, it is an awe and wonder-inspiring act. These +people are so poor they can seldom afford such a sight, and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">[Pg 118]</a></span> therefore +it must be made the most of. You may note exactly the same passion in +bull fights, the execution of martyrs, in public executions of all +countries. What greater treat can you offer a boy than to see a pig +killed? So the death of the goat is compassed with much show and in a +peculiarly impressive way. That done the meat is divided as already +arranged, and everyone is pleased. They have got their food and their +sensation. The priest, too, is pleased, and makes his little scientific +theology to explain and apologise for this peculiar emotion. It has the +further result of making him powerful and revered. For he alone can see +and tell the coolies the inwardness of it all; and he can further claim +the tit-bits as representative of the Deity.</p> + +<p>So arose sacrifice out of some inward hidden emotion of men's hearts. Do +not say this emotion is purely savage. It is allied often to the purest +pity, to awe, to strange searchings of the heart. To some it may be +hardening, but to most it is not so.</p> + +<p>How do I know? I know by two ways, because I have watched the faces of +this and many crowds to see how they felt, and that is what I saw. I +have seen death inflicted so often, on animals and on man, that I know<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119">[Pg 119]</a></span> +and have felt what the emotion is. I cannot explain the emotion—who can +explain any emotion?—but I know it is there. And I know that, if not +witnessed too often or in wrong circumstances, the sight of suffering +and death, rightfully inflicted, is not brutalising, but very much the +reverse.</p> + +<p>Who are the most kind-hearted, even soft-hearted, of men? They are +soldiers and doctors. The sights they have seen, the suffering and even +death they may themselves have inflicted of necessity, have never +hardened them. They have but made their sympathies the deeper and +stronger. Look at the contemporary history of any war, of that in Burma +fifteen years ago, of that in the Transvaal to-day. Who are they who +call out for stringent measures, for much shooting, for plenty of +hanging? Never the soldiers. Never those who know what these things are. +It is the civilians and journalists who know not what death is. Who +wrote "The Drums of the Fore and Aft," "La Debâcle," "The Red Badge of +Courage," with their delight in blood? Not men who had seen war. Nor is +it they who read such books with pleasure. Men who have seen death and +watched it could never make the telling an hour's diversion.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120">[Pg 120]</a></span> It is +those who have never seen the reality, who seek in art that stimulus +which they know they require.</p> + +<p>The sight and knowledge and understanding of unavoidable suffering and +death is the greatest of all purifiers to the heart. The weak cannot +bear it. Women may avoid it because they know they are unable to sustain +it, because they know it does brutalise them. But with men it is never +so.</p> + +<p>Suffering and death are facts; they are part of the world, and men must +know them. They are needed to strengthen and deepen the greatest +emotions of men.</p> + +<p>And therefore there is in man this instinct, this attraction to the +sight of suffering and death, an instinct that, rightly followed, has in +it nothing but good.</p> + +<p>So I read the ceremony I had witnessed. Such is, I am sure, the meaning +of all such ceremonies. They never arise from mental theories, always +from inner emotion. The scientific theologian of the tribe has explained +them in his way, and when enquirers have tried to understand these +ceremonies they have gone to the priest instead of the people. Hence the +absolute futility of all that has been written on the origins of +faiths.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121">[Pg 121]</a></span></p> + +<p>Men have begun at the wrong end: they have argued down instead of up; +they have begun their pyramid at the top. Yet surely if there is any +fact that ought to be impressed on us since Darwin, it is to begin at +the bottom. Reason never produces facts or emotion. It can but theorise +on them.</p> + +<p>And meditating on what I had seen, I came to see at last all my +mistakes.</p> + +<p>Instead of beginning with ideas of God, to find man I ought to have gone +first to man, to see how arise the ideas of the First Cause. Instead of +examining codes of conduct as supernaturally given and impossible, I +ought to have gone to man and tried to discover how he came to frame and +to uphold these codes. And so also with heaven and hell, man has but +imagined them to suit his needs: and if so, what needs? I have tried all +the creeds to find an explanation of man, and there is none. I begin now +with man to find an explanation of the creeds. Man and his necessities +are the eternal truth, and all his religions are but framed by himself +to minister to his needs. This is the theory on which to work and try +for results.</p> + +<p>We have an authority for such a method in science, for she proceeds not +from the unknown to the known, but from the observed to the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122">[Pg 122]</a></span> imagined. +Thus has she imagined the unimaginable ether to explain certain +phenomena and to act as a working theory to proceed on. Scientific men +did not invent ether and the laws of ether first, and so descend to +light and electricity. They felt the light and heat, and gradually +worked inwards and upwards.</p> + +<p>So perhaps has man felt certain needs, certain emotions and certain +impulses, and has imagined his First Cause, his Law, his codes, his +religious theories, one and all, to explain his needs and help himself.</p> + +<p>The whole series of questions becomes altered.</p> + +<p>It is no longer which is true, the Christian Triune God, the Hindu +million of Gods, the Mahommedan one God, the Buddhist Law? but from what +facts did these arise, and why do they persist to-day?</p> + +<p>Out of what necessity, to justify what feeling, does the Christian +require a Triune God, the Hindu many Gods, and the Buddhist no God but +Law? Why does each reject the conception of the other? It is not what +code is the true code of life, the Jewish code, the Christian, the +Buddhist, but why are these Codes at all?</p> + +<p>Why had the Jews their ruthless code? Why have the Christians and +Buddhists adopted codes they cannot act up to? Why have the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123">[Pg 123]</a></span> Hindus in +"caste" the most elaborate codes we know.</p> + +<p>Why did the Jews have no hereafter at all, the Mahommedans a sensual +paradise, the Greeks the Shades, the Brahmins and Buddhists a +transmigration of souls leading to Nirvana? These are very different +ideas. What necessities do they serve? And so with the many facets of +religions. Faiths do not explain man, perhaps man can explain his +faiths. That is my new standpoint from which I shall see.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">[Pg 124]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XIII" id="CHAPTER_XIII"></a>CHAPTER XIII.</h2> + + +<h3>CREED AND INSTINCT.</h3> + + +<p>I had six years of that life in India. I passed six years living in a +solitary bungalow miles away from any other European, meeting them but +occasionally, six years with practically no intercourse at all with the +natives. For the jungle people who lived in the hills were few, and +savage, and shy; and besides these, there were only a few Hindu or +Mahommedan shop-keepers in the main bazaar, and the great crowd of +coolie-folk who cultivate the estates. It was not a life in which it was +possible to learn much of any people. Solitary planters living unnatural +lives in isolated bungalows do not usually offer much of interest to an +observer. The wild tribes were mere savages. The coolies came in gangs +and worked for a few months and went home. It was a life of almost +complete solitude, a life where for days and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125">[Pg 125]</a></span> weeks perhaps, except for +a few orders in the native tongues to headmen of gangs, or a short +discussion about the work, no word was spoken. It was, may be, a time +for reflection and thought, for reading and meditation, for such a +search as was made. But it was no life for observation, for collection +of facts, for seeing and understanding. Even had one tried to know the +coolies or the jungle people, it had been impossible; for they too have +the inaccessability of the Indian, and are not to be approached too +near.</p> + +<p>But after these six years there came a change. Of the reasons, the +methods of that change there is no necessity to write. It was a great +change. From a country of mountains to a great plain, from forests to +vast open spaces, widely cultivated; from a life of stagnation to a life +full of the excitement of war and danger, from a life of books and +dreams to a life of acts almost without books; from a people sulky and +savage and unapproachable to a nation of the widest hospitality, where +caste was unknown, where the women were free, a people with whom +intimacy was not only easy but very pleasant; and, finally, from the +life of a private person pursuing private ends to the working life of an +official, where<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126">[Pg 126]</a></span> responsibility was piled on responsibility, and the +necessity of knowing the language and the people was obvious if they +were to be discharged even decently. Yet still it was a life of +solitude. True, in the cold weather there were columns and expeditions +made with troops, when there was pleasant companionship of my own +people. But there were great stretches of solitude, months and months +together, with no Englishman, and especially no Englishwoman, near. For +four years I saw never an English girl or woman. And there were no +books. What few I had were burnt one night with all my possessions, and +thereafter I had hardly any. They were years of hardship, of scanty +lodging, little better than the natives, ill-cooked, unvaried food, a +life that had in it none of the delights of civilisation. And yet I can +look back to it with pleasure. For there were always the people to talk +to, the people to study, to try and understand, their religion to +observe and try to understand.</p> + +<p>I have written in "The Soul of a People" about that religion, of the +things I learned about it, of what it taught me. I tried to understand +it not from without but from within, to see it as they saw it, not to +criticise but to believe. If I am to credit my reviewers I have<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127">[Pg 127]</a></span> done +this, for the thoughts in the book are all considered to be my own also.</p> + +<p>That may not be so, and yet I may have learnt much that I could only +have learnt by adopting the attitude I did. It is possible to understand +if not always to accept, and out of understanding to reach something +needful. A critic can never understand; he destroys but does not create. +So I learnt many things. I learnt among others these.</p> + +<p>That the religion of the Burman is a religion of his heart, never of his +head. It is spontaneous, as much as the forest on the hillside. He has +in his heart many instincts, that have come there who knows how, and out +of these he has made his faith. What that faith is I have told in my +first book. It is not pure Buddhism. But because Buddhism has come +nearest to what his heart tells him is true, because its tenets appeal +to him as do none others, because they explain the facts he feels, +therefore he professes the faith of the Buddha and calls himself a +Buddhist. That is what I learnt to be sure of. And what I heard from +others, what I read in many books I learned absolutely to disbelieve. I +was told, for instance, that a Burman villager far away in the hills +thought he could remember his former lives<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_128" id="Page_128">[Pg 128]</a></span> <i>because</i> the doctrine of +the transmigration of souls had been introduced by Buddhist monks. But +I, looking into his heart, was sure that the villager was a Buddhist +because the Buddhist doctrine of transmigration resembled the instinct +and knowledge of his own soul. It is not the same. The Buddhist faith +recognises no ego. The Burman does. But in some sort or other he could +fit the imported theory to his facts, and he therefore was a Buddhist.</p> + +<p>Communities of Christians and Mahommedans, Jews and Hindus, have lived +among the Burmans for hundreds of years; there have been no converts to +any of these faiths. Burma now is full of Christian missions and there +are converts—a few—but never, I believe, pure Burmans; they have +always some other blood in their veins, usually Mahommedan. And why? +Because Buddhism accords with the instincts of the Burman and no other +faiths do.</p> + +<p>Yet pure Buddhism knows no prayer, and the Burman prays. Why? Ah! again +it is the instinct of the heart. He wants to pray, and pray he will, let +his adopted faith say what it will.</p> + +<p>But on the whole the beliefs of his heart are nearer akin to the +theories of Buddhism than the theories of any other faith, and therefore +he is a Buddhist. That was one thing I learnt, that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_129" id="Page_129">[Pg 129]</a></span> religious systems +are one thing and a man's religion another. The former proceeds from the +latter and never the reverse, and men profess creeds because the creeds +agree more or less with their religious feelings; they do not have +religious feelings because they have adopted a creed, whatever that +creed may be.</p> + +<p>I had at last come down from creeds, which are theories, to religions, +which are feelings and instincts; I had left books, which are of the +intellect, and come to the hearts of men.</p> + +<p>From these facts was born a large distrust. I had learnt what the +Burman's faith was. I learnt that his beliefs came from his heart, were +innate, that they agreed only partially with his creed. I found that so +much stronger were they that where possible the observance of the faith +had been altered to suit him, that where the rigidity of the creed +forbade, he simply put the creed aside—as with prayer. I found also +that to begin with the theory of Buddhism and reason down landed me +nowhere, but to begin with the Burman and reason up explained everything +that at first I could not understand.</p> + +<p>Clearly the way to arrive at things was to begin with facts. What were +the Burman's instincts, not only as referred to religion; but generally? +What were his peculiarities?<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_130" id="Page_130">[Pg 130]</a></span></p> + +<p>I found many of them. To take one as instance. The Burman has a very +strong objection to authority. There is nothing he dislikes so much, not +only as submitting to an interfering authority, but to exercising it. +Thus he has never developed any aristocracy, nor any feudal system. His +Government was of the slightest, his villages were almost entirely +self-directed. No other people in the same stage of civilisation can +show so much local freedom. He would never serve another if he could +help it. He liked freedom even if accompanied by poverty. The ideas of +obedience and of reverence for authority did not appeal to him as the +highest emotions. He dislikes interference. He will not give advice +often even if sought.</p> + +<p>Now I said if this be one of his greatest instincts, and if my theory be +true, this instinct will be exhibited in his religion. Either Buddhism +must accept it, or I shall find that the Burman in this case ignores his +creed. So I looked, and I found that Buddhism was the very thing to +assist such a feeling. Buddhism knew no God, no one to be always +directing and interfering, no one to demand obedience and reverence. +There was only Law. Buddhism was the very ideal faith for such a man. +But in other matters it was not so. The instinct of prayer is in the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_131" id="Page_131">[Pg 131]</a></span> +Burman as in all people, though perhaps less with him than others. The +Buddhist theory allows of no prayer. Then does the Burman not follow his +instinct? My observation told me that here the Burman ignored his creed +and satisfied his instinct despite of all. But his instinct of prayer is +slight, of dislike to authority very great; therefore he remains a +Buddhist. Had it been the other way he would probably have been a Hindu. +And so with many other things. The Burman might fairly be called a +Buddhist, not because he so dubbed himself, but because his religious +instincts were mainly in accordance more or less with the Buddhist +theory.</p> + +<p>Further, I thought if this is true with the Burman, is it not likely to +be true of all people? I know that a creed, a religious theory, is no +guide to the belief of a people. If it were, would not all Christian +nations believe much the same, have the same ideals, the same outcome of +their beliefs? But they do not. They vary in a most extraordinary way. +Each people has its own beliefs, and no one agrees with another on more +than one or two points. And not one at all agrees with the theories they +profess. Now as every European nation has the same holy book, the same +Teacher, the same Example, how is this? Can it be explained by arguing +from the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_132" id="Page_132">[Pg 132]</a></span> creed down? No. But may be it can by reasoning from the people +up. It may be that I shall find elsewhere what I have found here, that +creeds do not influence people, but people their creeds, and that where +the creed will not give way the people simply ignore it. Each people may +have its own instinctive beliefs from within differing from all others. +And because they require a theory to explain, and as it were codify, +these instincts, they adopt nominally some great creed, but with the +reservation that in practice they will follow that creed only where it +meets or can be made to meet their necessities, and ignore it where it +does not. That may work out. Let me study mankind to find what they +believe.</p> + +<p>This I have tried to do, and what I have found comes in the next +chapters, but no one who has not tried knows how difficult it has been; +for I have found no one to help me, no facts hardly, except what I +myself might gather to go on. Books on religion and on folk-lore there +are in plenty. They have been of little use to me. They all begin at the +wrong end. They all assume as facts what I do not think exist at all. +They talk, for instance, of Christianity as if in practice there is now +or ever has been any such clear or definite thing. There is Roman +Catholicism of different forms,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_133" id="Page_133">[Pg 133]</a></span> the ideas of the Latin races; there are +the many religions of the Slavs, of the Teutons, of the Anglo-Saxons, of +the Iberians, of the western Celts, all differing enormously, all +calling themselves Christian. There is the religion of the Boers, of the +Quakers, of the Abyssinians, of the Unitarians. There used to be the +Puritans, the Fifth Monarchy men, the Arians, and many another heresy. +They call themselves Christians. What are their real beliefs? Whence do +they come?</p> + +<p>It is the same with Buddhism. There are the Burmese, Ceylon, Chinese, +Japanese, Jain, Thibetan, and many another people that call themselves +Buddhist. What are the real beliefs of these people? I have found the +Burmese beliefs; who has found the others? The answer is, no one has +even looked for them. They have started at the very end and reasoned +down; they have coloured the facts with their theories till they are +worthless.</p> + +<p>And the religions of Greece and Rome, of Egypt, of Chaldea, of many an +ancient people, out of what instincts did these people form their +creeds?</p> + +<p>As in tracing the Burmese religion, so in this further and wide attempt +I have had practically only my own observation of facts to go on.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_134" id="Page_134">[Pg 134]</a></span> How +narrow one man's observation must be can quickly be judged. Some +knowledge of the Burmese, a very little of Mahommedans and Hindus, a +little of the wild tribes, and in Europe some little knowledge of my own +people and their history, of Anglicanism and Puritanism and Lutheranism, +some observation of the Latin peoples and their beliefs. Yet still, +narrow as the range is, I think my theory works out. I think that even +in my narrow circle, with my own limited knowledge and sympathies, I +have found enough to prove my case. The evidences in the next chapter +are, it is true, few, and the discussion of the subject must be greatly +condensed. Still, wherever I have been able to investigate a point I +have always found that my theory does prove true and the old theory +false. Out of my theory is explained at once the divergences of the +Latins and Teutons, why one Christian people worship the Madonna and +another not, why one has confession and another not. I have never +applied my key but the lock has turned. I have never tried to reason the +other way without coming to a full stop, and I have never met anyone +else or read any book that did not do the same.</p> + +<p>For my belief is that religion is not a creed and does not come from +creeds. There are in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_135" id="Page_135">[Pg 135]</a></span> men certain religious instincts, existing always, +modified from time to time by circumstances and brain developments. Out +of these instincts grows religion, and when a creed, which is a theory +of religion, comes along and agrees with the main instincts of the +people they adopt the name of the creed, they use it to codify and +organise their instincts, but they keep and develope their instincts +nevertheless, regardless of the creed. It is a fundamental error to talk +of Christianity or Buddhism. We ought to speak of Latinism, Teutonism, +Burmanism, Tartarism, Quakerism. In all essentials the Quaker is +infinitely nearer the Burman than he is to the Puritan.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_136" id="Page_136">[Pg 136]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XIV" id="CHAPTER_XIV"></a>CHAPTER XIV.</h2> + +<h3>RELIGIOUS PEOPLE.</h3> + + +<p>It will not be denied, I think, that even in England, where we pride +ourselves so much upon our religiousness, where we have a hundred +religions and only one sauce, the only country except Russia where the +head of the State is also the head of the National Church, that even in +England religion is unevenly divided. Men do not take to it so much as +women, some men are attracted by it more than others, some women more +than the rest of women. We find it in all qualities, in all depths, from +the thin veil above the scepticism of many men of science to the deep +emotional feeling of the enthusiast, and it is nowhere a question of +class, of education, or of occupation. It would be very difficult, I +think, to assert, and quite impossible to prove, that religion affects +any one class more than another; for it must not be forgotten that, +although more<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_137" id="Page_137">[Pg 137]</a></span> perhaps of certain classes go to religious services than +of others, the explanation may not be any comparative excess of +religious feeling. In a class where the women greatly exceed the men in +numbers, there will be apparently comparatively more religion, and the +rank of society also influences the result. For some it is easier and +pleasanter to attend church or chapel than for others, and a class which +is not hardly worked during the week can more easily spare the leisure +for religious exercises than others to whom the need for air, for +exercise, for change, appeals more strongly. There may also be other +factors at work. But indeed it is unnecessary to press the matter +closely, for it will hardly be asserted, I think, that religion is ever +a question of class. <i>One</i> religion may be so, but not religion broadly +speaking, not the religious temperament as it is called. To whom, then, +does religion appeal most, and to what side of their nature does it +appeal?</p> + +<p>Generally speaking, I think, to the more emotional and less +intellectual.</p> + +<p>That this is but a general rule, with many exceptions of which I will +speak later, I admit. But I think it will be admitted that it is a +general rule. Intellect, reason, whether cultivated or not, hard-headed +common sense, whether in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_138" id="Page_138">[Pg 138]</a></span> the great thinker or the artisan, is seldom +strongly religious. Faith of a kind they may retain, but they usually +restrain it to such a degree that it is not conspicuous. Hard-headed +thinkers are rarely "deeply religious." But as you leave the domain +which is the more dominated by thought, and descend or ascend—I have no +wish to infer inferiority or the reverse,—to the natures more +accessible to sentiment, more governed by the emotions, religiosity +increases. Till finally you arrive at the fanatic, where reason has +disappeared and emotion is the sole guide.</p> + +<p>They are easily recognised, these enthusiasts, by their lined faces, by +their nervous speech, but above all by their eyes. You can see there the +emotional strain, the too highly strung system which has abandoned +itself to the excesses of religion. But there seems to be another rule; +religion varies according to the interests a person has in life. A man, +or a woman, with many interests, with much work, living a full life in +the world, has but little time usually for religion; he can devote but a +small part of his life to it. Its call is to him less imperative, less +alluring; it is but one among many notes. But as the absorption in daily +life decreases, as the demands from without are less, so does the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_139" id="Page_139">[Pg 139]</a></span> +devotion to religion increase. Until at last among these rural people, +who with strong feelings have but little to gratify them, whose lives +are the dreary monotony of a daily routine into which excitement or +novelty never enters, we find often the greatest, the strongest, and +narrowest faith. So too among those many women of our middle classes +whose lives, from the want of mankind or of children, fall into narrow +ways, whose lives are dull, whose natural affections and desires are too +often thwarted, there lives the purest and strongest, if often, too, the +narrowest religion. It comes to them as a help where there is none +other, it brings to them emotions when the world holds for them none, it +contains in itself beauty and love and interest when the world has +refused them. How much, how very much of the deeper religious feeling is +due to the want of other pleasure in life, to the forced introspection +of solitude, to the desire to feel emotion when there is nothing without +to raise it.</p> + +<p>The old and disappointed turn almost always to religion. Thus it seems +as if the quality of religion in mankind were due to two causes; to +temperament, according to the emotional necessity, the desire for +stimulation and the absence of mental restriction; and to environment, +according as the life led furnishes excitement and interest or is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_140" id="Page_140">[Pg 140]</a></span> dull, +leading to a search within for that which does not come from without. Of +such are the ultra religious.</p> + +<hr style="width: 45%;" /> + +<p>And the irreligious, those who say openly that they have no religion, +amongst whom are they to be found? They can, I think, be divided into +three classes.</p> + +<p>There are first of all those who are very low down in the scale of +humanity, who are wanting in all the finer instincts of mankind. You +will find them usually in cities, amongst the dregs of the people; for +in the country it is difficult to find any who are quite without the +finer emotions. The air and land and sky, the sunset and the sunrise, +the myriad beauties of the world, do not leave them quite unmoved. And +then solitude, which gives men time to think, not to reason but to +think; which gives their hearts peace to hear the echoes of nature, is a +great refiner. Countrymen are often stupid, they are rarely brutalised.</p> + +<p>Then there are the sensualists of all classes in life. It is a strange +thing to notice that of all the commands of religions, of all laws of +conduct they have given forth, but one only is almost invariably kept. +There is but one crime that the religious rarely commit, and that is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_141" id="Page_141">[Pg 141]</a></span> +sensuality. It is true the rule is not absolute. There are the +Swedenborgians, if theirs can be called a religion. I doubt myself if it +be so, if this one fact did not oust it from the family of faiths. But +however that may be, sensuality in all history has been almost always +allied to irreligion. Not as a consequence, but because I think both +proceed from the same cause, a nerve weakness and irritability arising +from deficient vitality, a want of the finer emotions, which are +religion.</p> + +<p>Finally, there are the philosophers. In all history, in all countries, +in all faiths there have been the thinkers, the reasoners, the "lovers +of wisdom," and they have rejected the religion of their people.</p> + +<p>Of what sort are these philosophers? Are they, as they claim to be, the +cream of mankind, those who have the pure reason? Are they such as the +world admires? I think not. For pure reason does not appeal to mankind. +It is too cold, too hard, too arid. It is barren and produces nothing. +What has philosophy given the world but unending words? It is the denial +of emotion, and emotion is life. It is the reduction of living to the +formula of mathematics—a grey world. Those who, rejecting religion, +rely on pure reason, are those who have lost<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_142" id="Page_142">[Pg 142]</a></span> the stronger emotions, who +have heads but no hearts, while the enthusiasts have hearts but no +heads. And in between these lie the great mass of men who are religious +but not fanatics, who reason but who do not look to reason to prove +their religion, the men and women who live large lives, and are lost +neither in the tumult of unrestrained emotion, nor bound in the iron +limits of a mental syllogism.</p> + +<p>"Do you infer," it will be asked, "that religion is in inverse ratio to +reason? But it is not so. Many men, most men of the highest intellectual +attainments, have been deeply religious, great soldiers, sailors, +statesmen, discoverers; the great men are on our side, the thinkers have +been with us." I am not sure of that. The great <i>doers</i> have always been +religious, the great thinkers rarely so. No man has ever, I think, sat +down calmly unbiassed to reason out his religion and not ended by +rejecting it. The great men who have also been religious do not +invalidate what I say. Newton was a great thinker, perhaps one of the +greatest thinkers of all time. He could follow natural laws and +occurrences with the keenest eye for flaws, for mistakes, for rash +assumption. He could never accept until he had proved. But did he ever +apply this acumen to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_143" id="Page_143">[Pg 143]</a></span> religion? Not so; he accepted at once the +chronology of the Old Testament unhesitatingly, blindly, and worked out +a chronology of the Fall much as did Archbishop Usher.</p> + +<p>Indeed, I think it is always so. There is no assumption more fallacious +than that because a man is a keen reasoner on one subject he is also on +another, that because one thing is fair ground for controversy other +things are so also. Men who are really religious, who believe in their +faith whatever that faith may be, consider it above proof, beyond +argument. It is strange at first, it is to later thoughts one of the +most illuminating things, to hear a keen reasoner who is also a +religious man talk, to note the change of mental attitude as the subject +changes. In ordinary matters everything is subject to challenge, to +discussion, to rules of logic. But when it is religion that comes up, +note the dropped voice, the softened face, the gentle light in the eye. +It is emotion now, not reason; feeling, not induction. It is a subject +few religious men care to discuss at all, because they know it is not a +matter of pure reason. True religion, therefore, that beautiful +restrained emotion which all who have it treasure, which those who have +not envy and hate, lives among the men who are between these extremes. +Those<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_144" id="Page_144">[Pg 144]</a></span> who with strong emotions have but narrow outlets for it become +unduly religious, narrow sectarians.</p> + +<p>Those with uncontrolled religious emotions become fanatics, those with +none but brute emotions remain brutes. Those whom the cult of sensual +desires has overcome follow Horace and Omar Khayyam. Those in whom +reason has overpowered and killed the emotions become those most arid of +people, philosophers. True and beautiful faith is to be found only +amongst those who lie between all these extremes. They have many and +keen emotions, but they find many outlets for them all, so that the +stream of feeling is not directed into one narrow channel. And they +employ reason not as a murdering dissecting power, but as an equaliser +and balancer of the living. Reason is not concerned with what religion +is, but only with the relative position religious emotions shall occupy +in life. Too little lets it run wild, too much kills it.</p> + +<p>But religion is never reason. It is a cult of certain of the emotions. +What these emotions are I hope to explain further on.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_145" id="Page_145">[Pg 145]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XV" id="CHAPTER_XV"></a>CHAPTER XV.</h2> + +<h3>ENTHUSIASM.</h3> + + +<p>Such are the qualities and such the circumstances that increase and +nourish religious feeling, of such are the more religious of all +peoples. What is the result in their lives? Does their religion cause +them to live more worthy lives? Are the more deeply religious those whom +the world at large most deeply respects? What is the effect of their +religion in their lives?</p> + +<p>I am not speaking here of professors of religion, of priests or monks, +of fakirs or yogis, of any whose lives are directly devoted to the +practice of the teaching of religion. They are a class apart, and are +judged by standards other than ordinary men. Their world is another than +that of ordinary folk. I speak now of the religion of those who still +live the lives of ordinary people. What effect has religion upon them, +and how are they ordinarily regarded in the world?<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_146" id="Page_146">[Pg 146]</a></span></p> + +<p>It is strange that if indeed religion be the truth of truths it should +be regarded with such impatience, with such suspicion, if brought into +ordinary life. For so it is. Every class has its own rules, its own +conventions; every profession, every teacher, every form of society has +its own rules, which are not founded at all upon religion. In every walk +of life it is assumed that, subject to the special etiquette of that +trade or profession and to the observance of what is considered +honourable conduct therein, every man's actions are governed by +self-interest alone. If a man allege any reasons but this he is regarded +with doubt and suspicion. He is avoided. I will give an instance in +point. There was a doctor once whom I knew who practised a certain +"cure" for disease—it is quite immaterial what the system was; it was +especially good for tropical diseases—and as some of us were conversing +with him on the subject, and recalling with gratitude and pleasure the +benefit we had derived, it was suggested to him that he might do well in +India. "If in a hill station," we said, "you were to establish yourself +and practise your treatment, you would have a large clientèle. Many +Englishmen who could not afford the time to come home would come to you, +and there would be natives also. Such treatment as yours would hurt no<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_147" id="Page_147">[Pg 147]</a></span> +one's caste. No doubt you would do well, you would make a name and be +rich." This was his answer: "I would not care about that if I could only +do those poor natives some good." It was sincerely uttered, I doubt not. +There was no conscious cant, but it fell upon his hearers as a chill. +The conversation dropped, it changed, and gradually we went away. The +remark pained. Why? It is always so. Trade is trade and professions are +professions, but religion is apart. It is not to be intruded into daily +life; it is to be kept sedulously away. Not because its introduction +suggests something higher and shames or discountenances the observances +of life. The feeling is the very reverse. We suspect it. It does not +suggest a higher code of morality at all. No man of experience but would +instinctively avoid doing business with anyone who brought his religious +motives into daily intercourse. Let a man be as honourable, as +scrupulous, as high-minded as he can. We honour him for it. But +religious! No. To say that we suspect the speaker of cant is not always +correct. It may in cases be so, but not always, not generally. It is not +the reason of the instinctive withdrawal. To say that religious feeling +is a handicap in the struggle for life is also incorrect. It is not a +handicap at all. Let a man be as religious<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_148" id="Page_148">[Pg 148]</a></span> as he likes provided he +tempers it with common sense and keeps the expression of it for home +consumption. To say that a man is highly religious in his private life +is praise, and creates confidence. To say that a man intrudes religious +principles into his business or profession or daily intercourse is +enough to make men shun him at once. He becomes an impossible person. +This is a strange commentary on the theory of religion, that what is +supposed to elevate life is, when introduced into everyday affairs, +almost always a sign of incompetence or fraud. Yet it may be so. Some +years ago all Britain was alarmed by a terrible bank failure. It was +colossal, the biggest perhaps that has ever occurred. There were no +assets, and there were liabilities of over ten million pounds. The +shares were unlimited, and the shareholders liable for all this great +sum of money made away with by dishonesty and crime.</p> + +<p>It brought ruin, absolutely blank ruin, to many thousands of people.</p> + +<p>The directors of this bank were known in the city as religious men. They +were kirk elders, Sunday school teachers, preachers—I know not what. +They were steeped in religion and iniquity to the lips. They were tried, +and some went to penal servitude.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_149" id="Page_149">[Pg 149]</a></span></p> + +<p>There was again some years later another terrible failure. It was a +building society and its allied concerns. And again the chief managers +were known as intensely religious men. They too, were prominent members +of the religious community to which they belonged; they gave freely to +charity; they held, it was stated, prayer meetings before each +consultation of the Board. They were steeped in lying and fraud also. +And again quite recently a solicitor absconded with great sums of trust +money. The same story. It has been the same story over and over and over +again.</p> + +<p>The writer can remember being concerned in the trial of a similar case +in the East.</p> + +<p>It is useless to assert that all these men were hypocrites, that they +shammed religion, that they used it as a bait to catch the unwary. It +may be true in one case or two, but not in the majority. It is useless +to assert that their assumption of religion was false. Who discovered it +to be false until the catastrophe? No one. They lived among religious +men, their lives were to a great extent open. Was there any doubt about +the truth of their religion then? No one has suggested such a thing. +These men were religious from boys, they lived among religious people +all their lives. They were honoured and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_150" id="Page_150">[Pg 150]</a></span> respected for that religion. No +man could sham such a thing. It is easy to talk of deceit; but a life of +such deceit, such sham is impossible. It is quite absolutely impossible. +That the religion of these men was and is as good and as real as that of +other men it is impossible to doubt. Criminals are often very religious. +What is the explanation of this?</p> + +<p>Well, Christians when presented with these facts have two answers. One +is that these men are all shams—an impossible explanation. The other is +a mournful shake of the head, and the statement that such a connection +ought not to be; religion should always purify a man. "Should" and +"ought!" What answers are these? Who can tell what "should" and what +"ought" to happen? The question is what <i>does</i> happen? And all history +tells us that there is nothing so deplorable, nothing that results in +such certain catastrophe, nothing that ends by so outraging all our +better feelings, as the bringing of religion into affairs. Let us recall +at random the greatest abominations we can remember. The Thirty Years' +War, the Dragonnades, St. Bartholomew, the Witch Trials, the fires of +Smithfield, the persecution of the Catholic priests in Elizabeth's time, +the Irish Penal Laws. All these were done by religious people in the +name of religion. No<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_151" id="Page_151">[Pg 151]</a></span> faith is free from the stain. Can anyone possibly +say that the men responsible for these were shams? Was Cortez a sham, +was Cromwell, were all the Catholics in France shams? Were the +Crusaders, who celebrated the victory that gave back the city of the +Prince of Peace to His believers by an indiscriminate massacre, shams? +Did not the German Emperor in one breath tell his army that their model +was Christ, and then in the next to show no quarter in China? Who were +the most ruthless suppressers of the Mutiny? Did not blood-thirstiness +and religion go together? Is the Boer religion sham? Yet they lie and +rob as well as any other man, or better. Is it not a maxim that a +fanatic in any religion is simply blind, not only to his own code, but +to all morality? Does not the religious press of all countries furnish +examples of the deplorable lengths to which religion, unrestrained by +worldly common sense and worldly decency and honour, will go? I do not +wish to press the point; it is a very unpleasant one. No one who honours +religion can touch it without sorrow; no one who is trying clearly to +see what religions are can overlook it. Religion requires to be tempered +with common sense, with worldly moderation and restraint; taken by +itself it is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_152" id="Page_152">[Pg 152]</a></span> simply a calamity. But if religion has its failures, has +it not its successes? Have not great and beautiful things been done in +its name? Are not almost all the great heroisms outcomes of religion? +Yes, that is true, too. If religion has much to be ashamed of it has +very much to be proud of. In its name has been done much of which we are +proud. No one will deny that. More than enough to set off the evil? +Well, that is hardly what I am seeking. I am trying to find out what is +the effect of religion—or, rather, of an excess of religion—when +imported into life. Is the influence all for good? I think in face of +history we cannot say that. Has it been all for evil? That answer is +also impossible. Then what effect has it had? And I think the reply is +this.</p> + +<p>When religion (any religion, for it is as true of the East as the West) +is brought out or into daily life and used as a guide or a weapon in the +world it has no effect either for good or evil. Its effect is simply in +strengthening the heart, in blinding the eyes, in deafening the ears. It +is an intensive force, an intoxicant. It doubles or trebles a man's +powers. It is an impulsive force sending him headlong down the path of +emotion, whether that path lead to glory or to infamy. It is a +tremendous stimulant, that is all. It overwhelms the reason<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_153" id="Page_153">[Pg 153]</a></span> in a wave +of feeling; and therefore all men rightly distrust it, and the tendency +grows daily stronger to keep it away from "affairs." For the people who +are most apt to bring religious motives into daily use are not the +clearest and the steadiest; they are the more emotional, the least +self-controlled, those who are fondest of "sensation." And the want of +self-control, the thirst for emotion, when it passes a certain point is, +we know, always allied to immorality, is very frequently a form of +incipient insanity, and not seldom results in crime.</p> + +<p>It is not probable any believer will think the above true of his own +faith, but he will do so of every other. If you are an European, think +of Mahommedanism, of some forms of Hinduism, of the Boxers, who are a +religious sect. You will admit it to be true of them certainly, as they +will of you. And to come nearer, if you are a Catholic, you will see how +true it is of Protestantism; if you are a Protestant, of Catholicism. +And that is enough. Each believer must and will defend his own faith; +that is the exception, the one absolute Truth. So we will suppose this +chapter to refer only to others, the false faiths. Everyone will admit +it to be true of them.</p> + +<p>It must not be forgotten that this chapter is not of the general effect +or the ordinary results of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_154" id="Page_154">[Pg 154]</a></span> religion. It applies only to the excess when +brought into public or business life. Do not let us have any mistake. Of +the ordinary effect of religion in an ordinary person there is here no +word at all. The general effect of religion on private natural life is +quite another subject, a very different subject indeed. Therefore let us +have no misunderstanding.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_155" id="Page_155">[Pg 155]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XVI" id="CHAPTER_XVI"></a>CHAPTER XVI.</h2> + +<h3>STRENGTH AND WEAKNESS.</h3> + + +<p>Has, then, a force, or a teaching that is capable of excess, no use?</p> + +<p>If you look back at the histories of peoples, at the histories of their +great wars, their movements, their enthusiasms, you will find that on +one side or another, usually on both, religion has been invoked to their +aid. For one side or for both the enthusiasm has been declared to be a +religious enthusiasm, the war a religious war, the awakening of thought +a religious awakening. The gods fought for the Greeks before Troy as the +saints did for the Spaniards against the Huns, as the Boers expected the +Almighty to fight in South Africa to-day. The intellectual revolt of the +Teuton against the mental leading-strings of the Latins became a +conflict of religion, as did the political conflict of the Puritans +against<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_156" id="Page_156">[Pg 156]</a></span> the Stuart Kings. It has been religion always, if possible, +that has been called on to lend strength and enthusiasm to the fighters +to attempt forlorn hopes, to carry out far-reaching reforms, to dare +everything for the end.</p> + +<p>There is one great exception.</p> + +<p>In the conflict that broke out in France at the end of the last century, +that storm which swept before it the breakwaters of a world and changed +mediĉval Europe into that of to-day, religion was not the motive power. +Those six hundred men of Marseilles "who knew how to die" were sustained +by no religious belief. Those armies which affronted the world in arms +had no celestial champions in their ranks. Those iconoclasts, who broke +down the barriers that made the good things of the world a forbidden +city to all but a caste, had no religious doctrine to work by.</p> + +<p>Indeed, it may be said that it was quite the reverse, that the war of +the Revolution was against religion; but I doubt if that is quite the +truth. That the war was against the priests is in great measure true, +but it was because of their support to the nobles, because of their +connection with worldly abuses, because of their irreligion, that they +were attacked. Religion, too, suffered, it is true, but only +incidentally and for a time. And<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_157" id="Page_157">[Pg 157]</a></span> anyhow, you cannot get force out of a +negation. But however this may be, the point as far as I am now +concerned is not material; for all I want here to assert is that the +enthusiasm which acted as a breath of life to the half-dead millions of +France was not a religious enthusiasm. It never even assumed at any time +a religious basis. It was not an enthusiasm of God, but of Humanity, and +the war cry was "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity." It was a revolt of the +bond against the gaoler, of the spoiled against the ravishers; it was +the assertion of the absolute equality and liberty of man.</p> + +<p>Looking back at that turmoil now from the security of a hundred years it +is easy to scorn these enthusiasts. We can point to their excesses, to +the horrible crimes that were committed, and ask where was Liberty then; +to their wars, and ask in vain for the Fraternity; to their proscription +of whole classes made in the name of Equality. The excesses are so +black, so prominent, that it is even possible sometimes to forget the +great vitalising and regenerating effect of that enthusiasm.</p> + +<p>It is easy, too, now that all is past, to criticise the very war cry +itself. Liberty, we say! Yes, liberty is good—in moderation and +according to circumstances. All liberty is not good. Children<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_158" id="Page_158">[Pg 158]</a></span> must be +under government, they cannot be quite free. They have to be directed in +the right way. And peoples, too, and classes who have fallen behind in +the race, who are unable to live up to the higher standards of greater +nations, they cannot be free. Then the citizen of a great nation must in +many matters resign his liberty for better things. Liberty is good, in +moderation, and so are Equality and Fraternity, but they are not +absolute truths. To cry them aloud, as did the Revolutionists of France, +to insist upon them in season and out of season, is to fall into an +error almost as great as their opponents'. We have little doubt now that +in every well-ordered state there must be inequality, submission to +masters as well as freedom, and that there are many people it is quite +undesirable to fraternise with. Truth lies in the mean.</p> + +<p>And yet consider, does truth always lie in the mean? There were the +peasants of France ground into the very earth, denied any sort of +equality with the nobles, any sort of liberty at all, hopelessly unable +to fraternise with anyone. To breathe into them the breath of life, to +rouse them from their deadly lethargy to a furious enthusiasm, to fill +their hearts so full that they would go forward and never cease till +they had won, that was the eminent necessity. The difficulties<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_159" id="Page_159">[Pg 159]</a></span> were so +immense, the arms of the people so weak, the chains so rivetted into +their souls that only from a furious and uncontrollable impulse could +any help be obtained. If the philosopher had gone to these dry bones of +men, thrashing the ponds all night to prevent the frogs annoying their +seigneur by croaking, sowing for others to reap, raising up sons to be +slaves, and daughters to be worse than slaves—if he had gone to them +and said, "My friends, you are ground down too much; you want a little +more freedom—not too much, but some; you require more equality—not +complete, for the perfect state requires certain inequalities, but more +than you have; you require also a modicum of fraternity," what would he +have effected? That level-headed philosopher would be saying the truth +doubtless, and Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, as the Revolutionists +understood it, were impossibilities, therefore untruths; but what would +he have effected? Would his "truth" have freed the slaves, have burst +their chains; have restored sunlight to a continent, as the exaggeration +did? Never imagine it. It may be that in the mean lies truth, but in +exaggeration lies motive power. It was in the glorious dreams, the +beautiful imaginings, the surgings of the heart that arose from that war +cry <i>Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité</i>, that the strength<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_160" id="Page_160">[Pg 160]</a></span> lay. There is no +strength in the mean. It is the enthusiasts that make the world move. If +they have been guilty of half the misery, they have achieved half the +joy of the world. And therefore consider again, before you brand beliefs +and the teachings and enthusiasms as untruths, because they are +exaggerations, because they are unworkable as they stand. What <i>is</i> +Truth and Untruth? Is not truth also to be judged by its results? May +not what is an untruth now have been a living truth then? Have we +reduced truth to measure? If, therefore, this which is an exaggeration +now was then a necessary revivifying truth may there not be others like +it? Consider the conditions of the world into which the Buddha preached +first the teaching of peace, of purity, of calm, of holiness. It was a +world of unrest, of fierce striving, of savage passions, expressed to +their full. It was a world wherein these were virtues worshipped to +exaggeration. It was a world without balance, and to redress this +balance there came the Buddha with his teaching of the rejection of all +the glories of the world, the teaching of the cult of the soul, the +aspiration after peace, and beauty, and rest.</p> + +<p>As was the world to whom the Buddha preached so was the world to whom +the Christ<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_161" id="Page_161">[Pg 161]</a></span> preached six hundred years later. Their codes of conduct +were the same. Against violence they taught resignation, against the +search for glory they taught renunciation; they opposed pride with +meekness, struggle with calm, success in this world by happiness in the +next. They came to redress the balance of the world; they came to make +men hope. And therefore it is impossible to take their codes by +themselves and consider them, to reject them because they do not express +the exact truth. What is to be considered is not that code alone, but +the purpose it came to fulfil. The codes of Buddha and of Christ are +exaggerations, that is true; they cannot be lived up to in their +entirety, that is also true. Taken alone they are impossible; that is +true. Are they then untrue, useless, valueless guides to conduct?</p> + +<p>Not quite so. For man is so built that he requires an exaggeration. If +you would persuade him to go with you a mile you must urge him to come +two; if you would have him acquire a reasonable freedom you must create +in him an enthusiasm for unreasonable freedom; if you would have him +moderate his passions he must be adjured to wholly suppress them.</p> + +<p>And therefore, it may be, do these codes of Buddha and Christ live. Not +because they are<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_162" id="Page_162">[Pg 162]</a></span> absolutely true, not because they furnish an ideal +mode of life, not in order to be fully accepted, but because they are +exaggerations that balance exaggerations; and out of the mean has come +what is worth having; because they have an effect which the exact truth +would not have in the masses of men.</p> + +<p>They have been truth, because their results were true.</p> + +<hr style="width: 45%;" /> + +<p>But the world is growing older, it is learning many things. Never again +can we hear that cry of <i>Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité</i>, the enthusiasms +of a nation for its ideals. These ideals were true then, they were true +because their work was true. But their work is done; men's eyes are open +now, we do not require such exaggerations to move us to our work. They +were in themselves but half truths. It required the violent assertions +of inequality, of slavery, to make up a whole truth. With one has died +the necessity for the other.</p> + +<p>And so it may be with the codes of Buddhism and Christianity. They were +true in their day, because they had their work to do. To have any effect +at all they had to be enormous exaggerations; to earn any respect or +attention they had to be proclaimed as perfect, as divine. But now, with +the dying of the old brutalities, with the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_163" id="Page_163">[Pg 163]</a></span> growth of civilisation, of +humanity, and culture, the old savage exaggerations are dying out. The +world is more refined, more effeminate, more clear-sighted. It says to +itself, "These codes, if divine and perfect, must be capable of being +implicitly obeyed; but they cannot be obeyed, and therefore they are not +divine."</p> + +<p>And in the increased civilisation we feel less the need of a teaching of +gentleness; our nature is no longer too coarse; it may be it is going +the other way, that the softening process is going too far, and that our +need is a new savagery. And above all we hate exaggeration. To minds +capable of thought, of reason, and of culture, exaggeration on one side +is no excuse for exaggeration on the other. We are changing from the +older men who required enthusiasms to drive them and violent +exaggerations to cause them to move. We like exactitude.</p> + +<p>These codes were made for rougher days than ours. They were true then. +They are not true now—not true, at least, to the more thoughtful. But +that they were true once, that the world owes to them its rescue from +the exaggeration of the passions, we must never forget. They were truths +while opposed. When opposed no longer they become false and fall. An +exaggeration can only be useful as long as it is not<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_164" id="Page_164">[Pg 164]</a></span> perceived to be +so. Set up two beams against each other, they are savagery and the +purist codes. While one stands so does the other, and they make an +equilibrium. But take away one and straightway the other must fall too. +One cannot stand alone.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_165" id="Page_165">[Pg 165]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XVII" id="CHAPTER_XVII"></a>CHAPTER XVII.</h2> + +<h3>MIND AND BODY.</h3> + + +<p>"I have been lent your book 'The Soul of a People,'" said a lady to me, +"but I have only had time so far to read the dedication. Do you know +what I exclaimed?"</p> + +<p>"I cannot even guess," I replied.</p> + +<p>"I said, 'How very scientific.' Do you know what I meant?"</p> + +<p>As my dedication is to the Burmese people, and only says I have tried +always to see their virtues and forget their faults, as a friend should, +I was quite unable to see where the science came in, and I said so.</p> + +<p>"It is Christian Science," she told me.</p> + +<p>Then she proceeded to tell me much about this Christian science, that it +was the science of looking at the best side of things, that it cured the +body by mind, despair by hope, darkness by light, solitude by a sense of +the companionship of God (good). She had proof in her own family of +what<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_166" id="Page_166">[Pg 166]</a></span> a change it can bring to the unhappy. It was, she said, all new, +and discovered by Mrs. Eddy.</p> + +<p>This was not, of course, the first I had heard of this strange cult. It +has been in the air for some time past. Mostly it has been jeered at as +an absurdity by those who have looked only at the extraordinary claims +it makes, at the intellectual fog it offers as thought, at the +childishness and inconsequence of whatever conceptions could be picked +out of the maze of words; and up till then it had seemed to me but +another of those misty foolishnesses that amuse people who have nothing +else to do.</p> + +<p>But when a case of real benefit, of benefit I could see and understand, +was offered me in proof of its value, it seemed to me worth while to +consider what there was in this teaching, to see what sense lay in this +apparent senselessness, and to what want this new science appealed.</p> + +<p>I have mentioned elsewhere in this book—it is a fact that comes to one +who has been in the East many years very strongly—the aimless pessimism +that is so prevalent in England and Europe. I am not here concerned with +its cause. Mainly, perhaps, it is due to the rise of a great class of +middle and upper-middle people who have no object in life. They have by +inheritance or acquirement enough money to live upon, and the struggle +for<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_167" id="Page_167">[Pg 167]</a></span> life passes them by. They have no necessity to work, and they are +not endowed with the brain or energy necessary to take to themselves +some object or pursuit. Their minds and sympathies have never been +trained by necessity. They have fallen out of the great world of life +and passion into eddies and backwaters. They have become flabby, both +bodily, mentally, and emotionally, and, conscious of their own +uselessness, they have fallen into the saddest pessimism. They are not +blasé, because they have never tasted the realities of life; they have +few friends, because they have no common interest to bind them to +others. Their lives are monotonies, and their thoughts and speech are a +prolonged whine. They are perpetually searching and never finding, +because they know not what they seek. Most of them are women, but there +are men also. I do not mean that all Christian Scientists are from the +ranks of the unemployed. It is recruited also from those who with larger +needs for emotion find the circumstances of ordinary life too narrow for +them, from the over nervous and weak of all classes. But the majority +are, I think, of those who do nothing.</p> + +<p>They turn to the established religions, vaguely hoping for the emotional +stimulus they need, but they fail to find it.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_168" id="Page_168">[Pg 168]</a></span></p> + +<p>I am not quite sure why. One Christian Scientist assured me that Mrs. +Eddy had discovered, all out of her own mind, that God was Love, and +that was why Christian Science was so successful. This was a lady who +had gone to church regularly all her life. Yet she supposed this a new +discovery! A strange but not at all solitary instance of what I have so +often found, that the immense majority who call themselves Christians +have never tried to realize what their religion is. Many others have +told me that they are "Christian Scientists" for other allied reasons. +But no doubt the great attraction of Christian Science is in its +doctrine, that bodily ills can be cured by mental effort, the assertion +that evil exists only in the mind. This is, of course, nothing new. +Faith healing has been common in all stages of the world, has allied +itself to all religions. There is the standing example of Lourdes +to-day, there was the relic worship of the middle ages, the pilgrimages +and washings in sacred pools. It is common all over the world. The good +effects attributed, and often truly, to charms and magic are but another +instance of it. A great deal of the sickness and unhappiness of the +world has always been purely the result of a diseased thought acting +upon the body. The great antidote the world has always offered to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_169" id="Page_169">[Pg 169]</a></span> this +evil has been work. In daily work, in the necessity for daily effort, in +the forced detachment of mind it brings on, in the interest that a +worker is obliged to take in his work lest he fail, or even starve, lies +the great tonic. And to this has been always added the belief in some +religious rite, or in charms.</p> + +<p>But these resources are closed to the unhappy class that I am writing +of. They need not work. They never have worked at anything, and know not +how to do it. Even from childhood their brains have been relaxed and +their interests narrowed. Yet a great interest is a necessity for all +men and women. But consider the lives of these people, especially of the +women, how terrible it is. There is nothing they care for, nothing. One +day of monotony is added to another for ever. Marriage and children may +dissipate it for a time, may give them the interest they require, but it +does not last long. Love fades into indifference, the children grow up. +They no longer need care and thought, and there is nothing else. Dull, +blank misery descends upon them as a garment never to be lifted.</p> + +<p>And if the love be a disappointment, a tragedy, then what help is there +anywhere? "Let me die," she cries, "and be done with it. Life is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_170" id="Page_170">[Pg 170]</a></span> not +worth living." The world is horrible, because they see the world through +glasses dimmed with their own misery.</p> + +<p>To them comes Mrs. Eddy and says, "All the evil you feel, the mental +sickness, the bodily sickness, is imaginary. Face your evils in the +certainty that they are but bogies and they will flee before you. You +shall again become well and strong, and life shall be worth living."</p> + +<p>It is, of course, a wild exaggeration. Pain and sickness are real +things, and the empire of the mind over the body is very limited. +Still, there is an empire and it must never be forgotten. The +healthy-minded—those who work, who live their lives, who love and hate, +and fight, and win and lose, to whom the world is a great arena—will +laugh at Mrs. Eddy. They need not this teaching which is half a truth +and half a lie. They see the false half only because they need not the +true half. And the others, the mental invalids, they see the true half +and not the false. It is <i>all</i> true to them, and it <i>must</i> be all true +to be of use, for power lies in the exaggeration, never in the mean. +This is the secret of "Christian Science." We have in our midst a +terrible disease, growing daily worse, the disease of inutility, which +breeds pessimism, and Mrs. Eddy's doctrine of the imaginary nature of +evil<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_171" id="Page_171">[Pg 171]</a></span> is good for this pessimism. The sick seize it with avidity because +they find it helps their symptoms, and in the relief it affords to their +unhappiness they are willing to swallow all the rest of the formless +mist that is offered to them as part of their religion.</p> + +<p>I do not know that "Christian Scientists" differ greatly from believers +in other religions in this point. It is an excellent instance of how one +useful tenet will cause the acceptance of a whole mass of absurdities +and even make them seem real and true. Christian Science has come as the +quack medicine to cure a disease that is a terrible reality, and it is +of use because it contains in all its mélange one ingredient, morphia, +that dulls the pain. But the cure of this disease lies elsewhere than in +Christian Science, than, indeed, in any religion.</p> + +<p>I have given a chapter to this "Science," not because it appears to me +that it is ever likely to become a real force or of real importance, but +because it illustrates, I think, the reason of the success or otherwise +of all religions. It exhibits in exaggerated form what is the nature of +all religions.</p> + +<p>They come to fulfil an emotional want, or wants that are imperative and +that call for relief. And they succeed and persist exactly as they +minister<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_172" id="Page_172">[Pg 172]</a></span> to these emotional wants. The emotion that requires religion +is always a pessimism of some form or other, a weariness, a +hopelessness. And the religion is accepted because it combats that +helplessness and gives a hope. All religions are optimisms to their +believers.</p> + +<p>A great deal of foolishness may be included in a faith without injury to +its success. Doctrine, theory, scientific theology, may be as empty and +meaningless as it is in Christian Science, and still the faith will +live. And the central idea must be exaggerated. It must be so +exaggerated that to outsiders it appears only an immense falsehood. It +is so in all the religions. Truth lies in the mean, power in the +extreme. They are opposed as are freewill and destination, as are God +and Law.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_173" id="Page_173">[Pg 173]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XVIII" id="CHAPTER_XVIII"></a>CHAPTER XVIII.</h2> + +<h3>PERSONALITY.</h3> + + +<p>There is one complaint that all Europeans make of the Burmese. It +matters not what the European's duties may be, what his profession, or +his trade, or his calling—it is always the same, "the Burmans will not +stand discipline." It is, says the European, fatal to him in almost all +walks of life. For instance, the British Government tried at one time in +Burma to raise Burmese regiments officered by Europeans, after the +pattern of the Indian troops. There seemed at first no reason why it +should not succeed. The Burmans are not cowards. Although not endowed +with the fury of the Pathan or the bloodthirsty valour of the Ghurka, +the Burman is brave. He will do many things none but brave men can do; +kill panthers with sharpened sticks, for instance, and navigate the +Irrawaddy in flood in canoes, with barely two inches free board. He is, +in his natural state in the villages, unaccustomed to any strict<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_174" id="Page_174">[Pg 174]</a></span> +discipline. But then, so are most people; and if the levies of the +Burmese kings were but a mob, why, so are most native levies. There +seemed <i>a priori</i> no reason why Burmese troops should not be fairly +useful. And the attempt was made. It failed.</p> + +<p>And so, to a greater or less extent, all attempts to discipline the +Burmans in any walk of life have always failed. Amongst the +police—which must, of course, be composed of natives of the +country—discipline, even the light discipline sought to be enforced, is +always wanting. And good men will not join the force, mostly because +they dislike to be ruled. In the mills in Rangoon labour has been +imported from India. Not that the Burman is not a good workman—he is +physically and mentally miles above the imported Telugu—but he will not +stand discipline. It is the same on the railways and on the roads, and +the private servants of almost all Europeans are Indian. The Burman will +not stand control, daily control, daily order, the feeling of subjection +and the infliction of punishment. Especially the infliction of +punishment. He resents it, even when he knows and admits he deserves it.</p> + +<p>Is, then, the Burman impatient of suffering? He is the most patient, the +most cheerful of mortals. I who have seen districts ruined by<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_175" id="Page_175">[Pg 175]</a></span> famine, +families broken up and dissolved, farms abandoned, cattle dying by the +thousand, I know this. And in the famine camps, where tens of thousands +lived and worked hard for a bare subsistence, was there any inability to +bear up, any despondency, any despair? There was never any. Such an +example of cheerfulness, of courage under great suffering, could not be +surpassed. Yet if you fine your servant a few annas out of his good pay +for a fault he will admit he made, he will bitterly resent it and +probably leave you. It is Authority, Personality, that the Burmans +object to. And the whole social life of the people, the whole of their +religion, shows how deeply this distaste to Personal Authority enters +into their lives.</p> + +<p>There is no aristocracy in Burma. There has never been so. There has, it +is true, always been a King—that was a necessity; and his authority, +nominally absolute, was in fact very limited. But beside him there was +no one. There were no lords of manors, no feudalism, no serfage of any +kind. There was a kind of slavery, the idea of which probably came into +Burma with the code of Manu, as a redemption of debt. At our conquest of +Upper Burma it disappeared without a sign, but it was the lightest of +its kind. The slave was a domestic servant at most, more usually a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_176" id="Page_176">[Pg 176]</a></span> +member of the family; the authority exercised over him or her was of the +gentlest, for with the dislike to submit to personal authority there was +an equally great dislike to exercising it. The intense desire for power +and authority over others which is so distinguishing a mark of western +people does not obtain among the Burmese. It is one of our difficulties +to make our subordinate Burmese magistrates and officers exercise +sufficient authority in their charges. This dislike, both to exercising +and submitting to authority, is instinctive and very strong.</p> + +<p>In western nations, more especially the Latin nations, who made +Christianity, it is the very reverse. There is in us both the desire and +ability to govern and the power to submit readily to those who are above +us. We rejoice in aristocracies, whether of the Government or of the +Church. We organise all our institutions upon that basis. We have a +rigid Government, such as no Orientals have dreamt of, least of all the +Burmese. We revere rank instinctively. We like to have masters. Personal +submissiveness is in our eyes an excellent quality. We know that to +declare a man to be a faithful servant is a great praise. In our lives +as in our religions, lord and servant express a continued relationship. +And from this quality, this instinct of discipline,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_177" id="Page_177">[Pg 177]</a></span> this innate power +both of governing and submitting to governance, come the forms of +government and our success in trade and in many other matters.</p> + +<p>It would, however, be quite outside the point of this chapter to discuss +all the results of these differences and their effect for good and bad. +To the European the Burman, with his distaste for authority, appears to +be unfitted for the greater successes of life. To the Burman the +European's desire for authority appears to result in the slavery of the +many to the few, in the loss of individual liberty and the contraction +of happiness. Either or both, or neither, may be true. It is here +immaterial, for all I wish to point out and to emphasise is that whereas +the Burman, who is a Buddhist, dislikes all personal authority +instinctively, the western Christians, more especially the Latin +peoples, on the contrary crave after it. The Burman's ideal is to be +independent of everyone, even if poor, to have no one over him and no +one under him, to live among his equals. But in western countries the +tendency is all to divide the world into two classes, master and man, to +organise—which means, of course, authority and submission—and to make +obedience one of the greatest of virtues.</p> + +<p>Now consider their faiths. The Christian has<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_178" id="Page_178">[Pg 178]</a></span> a personal God. He owes to +that God unquestioning obedience and submission. Man may praise God and +thank Him, but not do the reverse. Man owes to God reverence, one of the +greatest of the virtues. And the Churches are all organised in the same +way. The authority of God becomes the authority of the Pope, the Tsar, +the Bishops, the priests. The amount of submission and reverence due to +the priests of Christianity may vary in different countries, but it is +always there, and the reverence due to God never alters.</p> + +<p>Do you think such a system of religion would be bearable to a Burman? To +him neither reverence nor submission to Personality, whether God or +priest or master, is an instinctive beauty. He acknowledges neither God +nor priest, and he avoids masters as much as possible. His nature does +not lead him to it. He revolts against Personality. Courage under the +inevitable he has to the greatest extent. If he suffer as the result of +a law he has nothing but cheerful acceptance, even if he do not +understand it. If he can see his suffering to be the result of his own +mistakes he will bear it with resignation, and note that in future he +should be more careful. But that he should be <i>punished</i>, that rouses in +him resentment, revolt. He would cry to God, Why do you hurt<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_179" id="Page_179">[Pg 179]</a></span> me? You +need not if you do not like; You are all-powerful. Cannot you manage +otherwise than by causing so much pain to me and all the world? There +are other feelings caused by a Personality, many other feelings than +that of submission. There is defiance, bitterness. Did not Ajax defy the +lightning? If a man or a boy looking at the world discovers in it more +misery than happiness, more injustice than justice, of what sort will be +his feelings to the Author of it all?</p> + +<p>I fear that if the Burman accepted a Personal All-powerful God and then +looked at the state of the world, his attitude towards that Personality +would not be all admiration and reverence. Indeed, they have often told +me so.</p> + +<p>But before Law, before Necessity. You cannot revolt against the +inevitable. Passion is useless. The suffering which would be resented +from a Personality is borne with courage as an inevitable result. You +may be of good courage and say, "It is my fault, my ignorance; I will +learn not to put my hands in the fire and so not be burnt." But if you +suppose a God burnt you without telling you why, without giving you a +chance, what then? Is this hard to understand? I do not know, but to me +it is not so. For I can remember a boy, who was much as these Burmans +are, who found authority hard to bear, punishment<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_180" id="Page_180">[Pg 180]</a></span> very difficult to +accept; who remembered always that the punishment might have been +omitted, who thought it was often mistaken and vindictive. For if you +are almost always ill, and find for days and weeks and months that very +little mental exertion is as much as you are capable of, how much do you +accept the justice of being called "idle," "lazy," "indolent," and being +kept in to waste what little mental strength you have left in writing +meaningless impositions? There is more. It is a Christian teaching, a +lesson that is frequently enforced in children, that all their acts are +watched by God. "He sees me now." "God is watching me." How often are +not these written in large words on nursery walls? And do you think that +there are not some natures who revolt from this? To be watched—always +watched. Cannot you imagine the intense oppression, the irritation and +revulsion, such a doctrine may occasion? "Cannot I be left alone?" And +when he learns that there is another belief—that he is not being +watched, that he is not a child in a nursery, but a man acting under +laws he can learn—cannot you imagine the endless relief, the joy as of +emancipation from a prison? That it is so to many people I know, the +feeling that law means freedom, but I also know that to others it is +not. "Law, this rigid law," said the French missionary priest with a +sigh when<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_181" id="Page_181">[Pg 181]</a></span> we were discussing the matter, "it makes me shudder. It seems +to me like an iron chain, like a terrible destiny binding us in. Ah, I +never could believe that. But a God who watches over us, who protects +us, who is our Father, that is to me true and beautiful. Who will help +you if not God? Under Law you must face the world alone. No!" and he +shuddered, "let us not think of it. I cannot abide the idea." And how +many are like him?</p> + +<p>Do you think that such feelings can be changed? Do you think that he who +thinks Law to be freedom will ever be argued or converted into Theism? +It can never be. Such beliefs are innate, they are instincts far beyond +reason or discussion, to be understood only by those who have felt them.</p> + +<p>There is the instinct for God which rules almost all the West and India. +There is the instinct against God and for Law which rules the far East. +You cannot get away from either, you cannot prove either or disprove it. +They are instincts, and they influence not only the religious beliefs +but the whole lives of the peoples.</p> + +<p>It is easy to see how in Europe the instinct for Personality has +influenced all history. In moderation its effects have been all for +good; it binds people into nations, it enables the weaker and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_182" id="Page_182">[Pg 182]</a></span> more +ignorant to accept willingly the leadership of the better. It has +manifested itself with us even to-day in the respect and reverence and +affection we have all felt for our Queen, who has so lately left us. And +in its excess it has been wholly evil. It has led us to irresponsible +monarchs, to the terrible tyranny of the French aristocracy, that +required the whirlwind of a Revolution to efface. In the blind worship +for Napoleon in his later days it drove the nation to terrible +suffering. This desire for Personality has writ its effects large upon +the history of the West, more especially in Latin nations.</p> + +<p>And in Burma the want of this instinct is also written deeply in the +history. There has been with them no enthusiasm for persons, no +idealisation of individuals. There is no inborn desire for rulers and +masters, for obedience and submission.</p> + +<p>The effect of the instinct is writ largely in their history. They have +no aristocracy, they have no feudality, there are neither masters nor +men. They cannot organise or combine. The central Government was +incredibly weak. There is nothing that strikes the Burman with such +surprise as the unvaried obedience of all officials to a faraway +government. But I am now concerned with effects, only causes. I have +wished to show why a Burman believes in Law and not in God, that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_183" id="Page_183">[Pg 183]</a></span> it +arises from an instinct against overpowering Personality, an innate +dislike to the idea. It is never to him Truth. It makes him unhappy even +to hear of it. He could never accept it as a truth, for truth is that +which is in accord with our hearts.</p> + +<p>Yet the Burman whose ideal is Law is not quite without the instinct of +Personality. He also prays sometimes, and you cannot pray to nothing. +Far down in his heart there is also the same instinct that rules the +West, but it is weak. It finds its vent now and then despite his faith. +And in the West the idea of Law is rising. It is new, but not less true +for that. It rises steadily hand in hand with science, and it, too, will +find its vent despite the faith.</p> + +<p>When the scientific theologian declares that God is not variable, that +He has no passions, no anger, no vengeance, that He is bound by +immovable righteousness and is not affected by prayer, cannot you see +the idea of Law? No one would have said this a hundred years ago. It is +growing in him; it is there, even if he do not recognise it as such, and +sore havoc it makes with the old theologies.</p> + +<p>The instinct of generalisation made many gods into one God; the instinct +of atonement obliged the sub-division of God; to be explained only by<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_184" id="Page_184">[Pg 184]</a></span> +an incomprehensible formula. And now there is arising a third +instinct—that of Law. It is weak yet, but it is there. When it becomes +stronger either Personality must disappear or else a still more +incomprehensible creed must be formulated to reconcile the three ideas. +But what is truth? Are they all true?</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_185" id="Page_185">[Pg 185]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XIX" id="CHAPTER_XIX"></a>CHAPTER XIX.</h2> + +<h3>GOD THE SACRIFICE.</h3> + + +<p>It is Sunday to-day in the little Italian town, and they have been +holding a procession. I do not know quite what was the reason of the +procession; it is the feast day of the patron of the Church, and it is +connected in some way with him, but quite how no one could tell me. It +was the custom, and that sufficed. It was not a very grand procession, +for the town is small, but there was the town band playing at the head, +and there were girls in twos singing and priests, also in pairs, +singing, and there were banners and a crucifix. This last was just like +any other crucifix you may see; there was the pale body of Christ upon +the cross, with His wounds red with blood, there was the tinsel crown +over the head, there was upon the face the look of suffering. It was +like any other crucifix in a Catholic country, not a work of art at all. +It was gruesome, and to the unbeliever repulsive and unpleasant. But all +the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_186" id="Page_186">[Pg 186]</a></span> people uncovered as it passed, and many looked to it with reverence +and worship.</p> + +<p>But indeed Catholic countries are full of such crucifixes. They are upon +the hills, they are beside the roadsides, they are in all the churches, +they are in every Catholic household, there is very often one worn upon +the person.</p> + +<p>Throughout Italy, throughout all Catholic countries, there are only two +representations of Christ—as a babe with the Virgin Mary and crucified +upon the cross. It was in Italy that Western Christianity arose and +grew, it was in Italy that it became a living power, it was in Italy +that it acquired consistency, that it was bound together by dogmas and +crystallised in creeds. And still, after nineteen hundred years, it is +Italy that remains the centre of the Christian world. There is no +Christian church so great, so venerable, so imposing as the Church of +Rome. It lasts unchanged amid the cataclasms of worlds. And this people +whose genius made Christianity, whose genius still rules the greater +part of it, what are their conceptions of Christ? What part of His life +is it that has caught their reverence and adoration, what side is it of +His character that appeals to them, what is the emotion that the name of +Christ awakens in these believers?<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_187" id="Page_187">[Pg 187]</a></span></p> + +<p>Of the Virgin Mary and the infant Christ I have written in another +chapter. It is of the crucifix I wish to write here. Why is it that of +the life of Christ this end of His is considered the most worthy to be +in continual remembrance?</p> + +<p>I confess that when I climb the hill and see the dead Christs upon their +crosses shining white against the olive gardens, when I see His agony +depicted in the churches, when I see the people gaze upon Him +sacrificed, my memory is taken back to other scenes.</p> + +<p>There is a scene that I can remember in a village far away against the +frontier in our farthest East. It was a little village that was once a +city, but decayed; it was walled with huge walls of brick, but they are +fallen into mounds; it had gateways, but they are now but gaps; and a +few huts are huddled in a corner where once a palace stood.</p> + +<p>It is the custom in this village that every year at a certain season +white cocks are to be sacrificed at the gates. There is as may be some +legend to explain the custom, but it is forgotten. And yet are the cocks +sacrificed each year.</p> + +<p>There is the memory, too, of the goat I saw killed in India years ago as +I have described.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_188" id="Page_188">[Pg 188]</a></span> And there are other memories—memories of what I have +seen, of what I have read. For this ceremony of sacrifice is the very +oldest of all the beginnings of religion. It is akin to prayer, it is at +the root of all faiths; we can go no further back than sacrifice. Where +it began religion had commenced. Far older than any creed, arising from +the dumb instincts of human kind, it is one of the roots of faiths.</p> + +<p>Therefore, when I see this image of God, the Son sacrificed to God the +Father, I seem to behold the highest development of this long story. +Sacrifice, it has always been sacrifice. It has been small +animals—goats and fowls and pigeons; it has been greater and more +valuable beasts—cattle and horses. It has been man. How often indeed +has it been man: Abraham leading Isaac to the sacrifice, the Aztecs +sacrificing in Mexico, the Druids in Britain, the followers of Odin, the +Greeks, the Egyptians, the early Hindus, can you find a faith that has +not sacrificed? Sometimes it has been single victims, sometimes +hecatombs of slaughtered slaves. It has been sacrifice by priests, it +has been self-sacrifice, as Curtius or as those who threw themselves +before the car of Juggernauth. Everywhere there has been sacrifice; it +is one of the roots of faiths, it arouses the emotion that has helped to +make all<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_189" id="Page_189">[Pg 189]</a></span> religions. And in Christianity it has reached its zenith, for +it is no longer an animal, no longer even a man—it is a God, the Son of +God who is self-sacrificed to God. In what manner this awakens the +emotions of man the following extract will show. It is from "The Gospel +of the Atonement," by the Venerable J. Wilson.</p> + +<p>"The law that suffering is divine, [Greek: to kalon pathein], is +verified in the experience of the soul. Now Christ's death is the +supreme instance of that law. The power of Gethsemane and Calvary, in +the light of such a law, needs no explanation. They open the heart as +nothing else ever did. We know that whatever reservations we make for +ourselves, whatever our own shrinking from utter self-sacrifice, Christ, +living in perfect accordance with the laws of spiritual health and +perfection, could not do other than die. Thus without any thought of +payment or expiation, with no vestige of separation of the Son from the +Father, we see that the death on the Cross demonstrated that the human +and divine know but one and the same law of life and being. Thus it is +that the death of Christ, the shedding of His blood, has been, and ever +will be, regarded by theologians, as well as by the simple believers, as +the way of the atonement. Via crucis via salutis."<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_190" id="Page_190">[Pg 190]</a></span></p> + +<p>The scientific theologians tell me when I ask that this parade of the +sacrifice of Christ is to recall to men how much they should love +Christ. That He so loved them that He gave Himself a victim for their +salvation. The crucifix, the incessant preaching of the death of Christ, +the sacrament of the Communion, is to cause us to love Him as to do what +He taught us. That it does have some such effect no one can doubt—on +Latin people. But on others?</p> + +<p>To some it seems that if you try to reason at all about it, the emotion +awakened might be, nay should be, otherwise. In those not instinct with +one emotion the first impression awakened is disgust at the parade of +death and blood; the second, horror at the God who could demand such a +sacrifice, who could not be pacified but by the execution in +circumstances of shame of His own Son. They shrink from it. It is no +matter of reason. Do you think one who felt so could be argued out of +his horror or a Christian out of his devotion? They are instinctive +feelings which nothing will change. And yet in a very small way even the +Buddhist has the instinct of sacrifice. For I remember that when the +fowls were killed inside the city gate and their blood ran upon the +ground the people looked just as these Italian people looked. The +emotion was the same in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_191" id="Page_191">[Pg 191]</a></span> kind, and it was not either love for the fowls +or wonder at the demand of the spirits that moved them. And so when the +slaves were sacrificed beneath the oaks, was it gratitude to the slaves +that was evoked? And in the self-sacrifice at the car of Juggernauth? +It may be sometimes that gratitude may be added, but this is not +the root emotion. The instinct of sacrifice has its roots much +deeper than this, quite apart from this; and, with perhaps only one +exception—Buddhism—all religions have practised it. Christianity +performs no more sacrifices now, but all its churches, in all their +varieties weekly at the great sacrament of the Communion, +commemorate—nay, it is claimed in a measure recreate—this sacrifice of +the Son to the Father. Sacrifice is of the very root of this religion. +It is far older than any creed. The Jews knew of sacrifice two thousand +years before the day of Christ, the Celts sacrificed slaves ages before +that.</p> + +<p>But it may be said these crosses, these crucifixes, are peculiar to +Catholic countries. You do not see them in North Germany, in England, in +America. Teutonic nations do not parade this sacrifice. No, they do not, +for it does not appeal to them so much as to the nations of Southern +Europe. Sacrifice was not unknown to the Teutons and the Northern +people, but it<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_192" id="Page_192">[Pg 192]</a></span> never reached the height it did further South. It has +been the Latin peoples who in this as in other matters went to extremes. +It was the Greeks who sacrificed Iphigenia, who had the festival of the +Thargalia; it was Rome which produced Curtius and others who sacrificed +themselves. It was the Romans who sacrificed thousands in the Coliseum. +It is in the tumuli of Celtic peoples where we find the cloven skulls of +slaves.</p> + +<p>Sacrifice has appealed always more to the Latin then and now; and +therefore you see the crucifix in Latin countries, but not with us. +Still, we are not free from the emotion. We have the sacrament of +Communion; the Atonement appeals to us also. The passions that are +strong in the Latin peoples are weak with us, yet they exist. The +instincts are the same. When executions were public our people thronged +to see them. Death has always a peculiar attraction, quite apart from +any idea connected with it. It is such a wonderful thing the taking of +life, so awe-inspiring, that it has appealed always to men; especially +in the west.</p> + +<p>In the East that has accepted Buddhism, especially in Burma, it is much +less so. They have, it is true, the usual pleasure and curiosity in +seeing blood and death. And occasionally you come<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_193" id="Page_193">[Pg 193]</a></span> across some petty +sacrifice like that of the fowls mentioned above; but the instinct is +comparatively weak. It has never, even before they were Buddhists, been +general, and never extended even to cattle. The sacrifice of a man +(remember, I say sacrifice, not execution), would be absolutely +abhorrent to them, how much more so that of a God? They have not the +instinctive recognition of any beauty in it. Therefore, for this amongst +other reasons, the Burmese reject Christianity.</p> + +<p>But to the Western instinct this sacrifice and this atonement is +wonderful and beautiful. It appeals to us. The old instinct is +satisfied.</p> + +<hr style="width: 45%;" /> + +<p>Therefore, amongst other reasons, Christians cling to the Atonement, and +to make that sacrifice the greatest possible it must be the sacrifice of +God, and as God can only be sacrificed to God the Christian God must be +a multiple one. To postulate as the Mahommedan does, God is God, would +destroy the depth of the Atonement. Hence arises the creed, the attempt +to reconcile two opposed instincts. There is one God—that is an +instinct, arising from our generalising power; there must be at least +two Gods to explain the Atonement, and so we have the Father and the +Son.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_194" id="Page_194">[Pg 194]</a></span></p> + +<p>For of the three Godheads only these two are real to most people. There +is God the Ruler, the Maker of the world, and there is Christ. These are +both very real to all Christians. They are prayed to individually, they +are worshipped separately, they are clear conceptions. But is there any +clear conception of the Holy Ghost as a distinct personality? Is He ever +cited separately from the others? Has He any special characteristics? +There are, for instance, many pictures of God, and many more of +Christ—are there any of the Holy Ghost? This Third Person of the +Trinity appeals to no instinct, and is only an abstraction in popular +thought. When the Creed was framed it was necessary to include the Holy +Ghost because He is mentioned in the New Testament. He has remained an +abstraction only. But the other two Godheads are realities, because they +appeal to feelings that are innate. They are the explanation of these +feelings.</p> + +<hr style="width: 45%;" /> + +<p>Thus do creeds arise out of instincts. It is never the reverse. +Postulate God the Father as All-Powerful, All-Merciful, and see if by +any possibility you can work out the Atonement or see any beauty in it. +Can anyone see aught but horror in this Almighty demanding the sacrifice +of His Son? You cannot. But granted that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_195" id="Page_195">[Pg 195]</a></span> Atonement and sacrifice have +to you an innate beauty of their own, and the dogma of a multiple +Godhead easily follows. There are creeds built on ceremonies, and +ceremonies upon instincts: ceremonies are never deduced from creeds.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_196" id="Page_196">[Pg 196]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XX" id="CHAPTER_XX"></a>CHAPTER XX.</h2> + +<h3>GOD THE MOTHER.</h3> + + +<p>The only other form in which the Christ is presented to popular +adoration is as a baby in the Madonna's arms. Out of all the life of +Christ, all the varied events of that career which has left such a great +mark upon the Western world, only the beginning and the end are +pictured. Christ the teacher, Christ the preacher, the restorer of the +dead to life, the feeder of the hungry, the newly arisen from the grave, +where is He? The great masters have painted Him, but popular thought +remembers nothing of all that. There is Christ the sacrificed and Christ +the infant with His mother. To the Latin people these two phases +represent all that is worth daily remembrance. There are crucifixes and +Madonnas in every hill side, by every road, at the street corners, in +every house, and of the rest of the story not a sign.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_197" id="Page_197">[Pg 197]</a></span></p> + +<p>What is the emotion to which the Madonna appeals? Why do she and her +Child thus live in Latin thought?</p> + +<p>There are historians who tell us that the worship of the Madonna was +introduced from Egypt. She is Astarte, Queen of Heaven, the Phœnician +goddess of married love or maternity, she is the Egyptian Isis with her +son Horus. It is a cult that was introduced through Spain, and took root +among the Latin people and grew. There is no question here of Christ, +they say; it is the goddess and her son.</p> + +<p>It has also absorbed the worship of Venus and Aphrodite. Venus was the +tutelary goddess of Rome, she was the goddess of maternity, of +production. It was not till the Greek idea of beauty in Aphrodite came +to Rome and became confounded with the goddess Venus that her status +changed. She was the goddess of married love, she became later the +emblem of lust. But it was she who purified marriage to the old Roman +faith; she was the purifier, the justifier, the goddess of motherhood, +which is the sanction of love and marriage.</p> + +<p>It may be that all this is true. It may be possible to trace the worship +back through the various changes to Astarte, Ashtoreth, to Isis, to +older gods, maybe, than these. All this may be<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_198" id="Page_198">[Pg 198]</a></span> true, and yet be no +explanation. The old gods are dead. Why does she alone survive? What is +the instinct that requires her, that pictures her on the street corners, +that makes her worship a living worship to-day?</p> + +<p>And why is it that she appeals not at all to the Teutonic people? Where +are her pictures in Protestant Germany, in England, in Scotland, in +America? Do you ever hear of her there? Do the preachers tell of her, +the picture makers paint her, the people pray to her? Such a worship is +impossible. And why? What is the answer that to-day gives to that +question? Is the answer difficult? I think not, for it is written in the +hearts of the people, it is written in the laws they have made, in the +customs they adhere to, in the oaths they take, in their daily lives.</p> + +<p>Consider the Roman laws of two thousand and more years ago, the French +laws of to-day. What is there most striking to us when we study them? It +is, I think, the cult of the family.</p> + +<p>The Roman son was his father's slave. He could not own property apart +from the father, he could not marry without leave, his father could +execute him without any trial. Family life lay outside the law; not +Senate, nor Consul nor Emperor<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_199" id="Page_199">[Pg 199]</a></span> could interfere there. The unit in Rome +was not the man, but the family.</p> + +<p>As it was so it is. The laws are less stringent, but the idea remains. A +man belongs not to himself but to his people, to his father and to his +mother. In France even now he has to ask their leave to marry. The +property is often family property, and his family may restrain a man +from wasting it.</p> + +<p>There is no bond anywhere stronger than the family bond of the Latin +peoples. In mediĉval Rome, even often in Rome of to-day, all the sons +live with their father and mother even if married. It is the custom, +and, like all customs that live, it lives because it is in accord with +the feelings of those who obey it.</p> + +<p>A man belongs to his family, he clings to it; he is not an individual, +but part of an organism.</p> + +<p>And although in law it is the father who is the head, it is the father +who is the lawgiver, the ruler, is it really he who is that centre, that +lode-star, that holds the family together? I think it is not so. It is +the mother who is the centre of that affection which is stronger than +gravity. We laugh when a Frenchman swears by his mother. But he is +swearing by all that he holds most sacred. No Latin would laugh at such +a matter. Because he could understand, and we<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_200" id="Page_200">[Pg 200]</a></span> do not. To everyone of +Latin race there comes next to God his mother, next to Christ the +Madonna, who is the emblem of motherhood.</p> + +<p>The Latins do not emigrate. They hate to leave their country. And if +they do, if necessity drive them forth, are they ever happy, ever at +rest till they can see their way to return? The Americans tell us that +Italians are the worst immigrants because they will not settle; because +they send their pay to their parents in the old country, and are never +happy till they themselves can return. We call it nostalgia, we say it +is a longing for their country. It is that and more. It is a longing for +their family, their blood. They cling together in a way we have no idea +of.</p> + +<p>Does an Englishman ever swear by his mother, does he yearn after her as +the Latins do from a far country? Does the fear of separation keep our +young men at home? It is always the reverse. They want to get away. The +home nest tires them, and they would go; and once gone they care not to +return, they can be happy far away. The ties of relationship are light +and are easily shaken off, they are quickly forgotten.</p> + +<p>Italian labourers and servants give some of their pay always as a matter +of course to their parents. It is a natural duty. And in Latin<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_201" id="Page_201">[Pg 201]</a></span> +countries there are no poorhouses. They could not abide such a theory +any more than could the Indians. It would seem to a Latin an +impossibility that any child would leave his parents in a workhouse. +Poor as they might be they would keep together. The great bond that +holds a family together is the mother, always the mother. We can see +this in England too, even with our weaker instinct. The mother makes the +home and not the father.</p> + +<p>And now are we not finding that sanction we were searching for? If the +Madonna, the type of motherhood, appeals to all the people, men and +women, is there not a reason? It is an instinct. These images and +pictures of the Madonna sound on their heart-strings a chord that is +perhaps the loudest and sweetest; if second to any, second only to that +of God. God as father, God as mother, God as son and sacrifice, here is +the threefold real Godhead of the Latins.</p> + +<p>But with us the family tie is slight, the mother worship is faint. Our +Teutonic Trinity is God the Father, God the Son, and now later God the +Law. These are the realities.</p> + +<p>For with us conduct is more and emotion is less than with the peoples of +the South.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_202" id="Page_202">[Pg 202]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXI" id="CHAPTER_XXI"></a>CHAPTER XXI.</h2> + +<h3>CONDUCT.</h3> + + +<p>Of all aspects of religion none is so difficult to understand as the +relation of religion and conduct. It is ever varying. There seems to be +nothing fixed about it. What does conduct arise from? It takes its +origin in an instinct, and this instinct is so strong, so imperious, so +almost personal, that of all the instincts it alone has a name. It is +conscience.</p> + +<p>By conscience our acts are directed.</p> + +<p>There are scientific men who tell us that our consciences are the result +of experience, partly our own, but principally inherited. That if +conscience warns us against any course of action it is because that has +been experienced to result in misfortune. It is an unconscious memory of +past experiences. Conscience is instinctive, and not affected by +teaching to any great extent; and that conscience is the main guide of +life no one will deny.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_203" id="Page_203">[Pg 203]</a></span></p> + +<p>But do the voices of conscience and of God, as stated in the sacred +books, agree?</p> + +<p>When the savage sees a god in the precipice and is afraid of him, there +is no question of right or wrong. Not that the savage has no code of +morals. He has a very elaborate one. But it is usually distinct from his +religion. What virtue did Odin teach? None but courage in war. Yet the +Northmen had codes of conduct fitted to their stage of civilisation. The +Greeks had many gods. They had also codes of morals and an extensive +philosophy, but practically there was no connection. In fact, the gods +were examples not of morality but of immorality. It was the same with +the Latins and with all the Celts. Their religions were emotional +religions, their codes of conduct were apart, although even here you see +now and then an attempt to connect them. And when the Latin people took +Christianity and formed it, they put into their creeds no question of +conduct. You believed, and therefore you were a Christian. The results +of bad conduct would be annulled by confession, and the sinner would +receive absolution. To a Latin Christian a righteous unbeliever who had +never done anything but good would in the end be damned, whereas the +murderer who repented at the last would be saved. "There is more joy in +heaven<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_204" id="Page_204">[Pg 204]</a></span> over one sinner that repenteth, than over ninety and nine just +persons that need no repentance."</p> + +<p>Is the inference that the Latin peoples were wickeder than others? I +doubt it. They initiated all European civilisation, and trade and +commerce, and law and justice. Probably the highest examples of conduct +the world has known have been Latins. They had and have the instinct of +conduct, they had and have consciences as good as other people, but only +they do not so much connect conduct and religion. You can be saved +without conduct.</p> + +<p>The Jews, on the contrary, had no instinct of conduct apart from +religion. In the Ten Commandments conduct, if it have the second place, +has yet the larger share. Righteousness was the keynote of their belief, +and if the only righteousness they knew was little better than a noble +savagery, it was the best they could do. They included every form of +conduct in their religion—sanitary matters, caste observances, and +business rules. The Hindu goes even further in the same line. Everything +in life is included in his religion.</p> + +<p>When in the Reformation the Teutonic people threw off the yoke of Rome, +a yoke which was not only religious but political and social, one of +their principal arguments against Roman<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_205" id="Page_205">[Pg 205]</a></span> Catholicism was the +abominations that had crept in. I think it would be difficult to assert +that the people who revolted were in morals generally any better than +those they seceded from. Good men in the Latin Church saw equally the +necessity for reformation. But bad morals did not seem to them so +destructive to faith as it did to the Teutons. There was this +difference, that whereas the Latin could and did conceive of religion +apart from conduct, the Teuton, like the Jew, could not do so. With the +Latin they were distinct emotions, with the Teuton they were connected. +One of the principal aspects of the Reformation is the restoration of +morality to religion, the abolition of indulgences, of confession and +absolution, the insistence on conduct in religious teachers.</p> + +<p>The morality of Christ?</p> + +<p>The remarkable fact is that it was not the morality of Christ at all. +The Reformation was never in any way a revival of the code of the Sermon +on the Mount or the imitation of Christ. To a certain extent it went +further away from Christ than the Latins. For instance, the Latin +priests imitate Christ in being unmarried, the Protestant pastors +married. When Calvin burnt Servetus he was not returning to the tenets +of the New Testament, and what<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_206" id="Page_206">[Pg 206]</a></span> thought had the Puritans or the French +Huguenots, the most masterful of men, of turning the other cheek?</p> + +<p>Protestantism was a return of conduct to religion, but it was not +Christ's conduct. It was rather the Old Testament code softened by +civilised influence that was revived. It was a revolt against excessive +emotionalism, and was, in fact, a combination of two creeds tempered as +to conduct by the conduct of the day.</p> + +<p>So it continues to-day. The Latin's idea of religious conduct is the +imitation of Christ, and when a Latin cultivates religious conduct that +is what he does. He becomes a priest or monk, poor, celibate, +self-denying and unworldly. But conduct to him is not the great part of +religion that it is to a Teuton. With us conduct is the greatest part; +the mystical and ceremonious part has decreased, in certain sects almost +disappeared. Confession disappeared, and with it absolution from +priests. Conduct is part of religion, and the code of conduct to be +followed is that which conscience bids, and the code of conscience is, +scientific men tell us, the result of experience, personal and +inherited. Practically, what conscience tells us to do is what suits the +circumstances of the day.</p> + +<p>Therefore we may say that the religion of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_207" id="Page_207">[Pg 207]</a></span> Latins is mainly +emotional, that of the Teutons half emotional and half conduct; and then +we come to the Buddhist, which is nearly all conduct.</p> + +<p>The Latin would say of an unbeliever, "He cannot be saved; faith is the +absolute necessity, and faith even at the last moment by itself is +sufficient." The Teuton would say, "I do not know. To be a good man, +even if an unbeliever, is very much; it may be that God will accept +him."</p> + +<p>And the Buddhist? He has no doubt at all. Conduct is everything. Believe +what you like as long as you act well. To be a Buddhist is best because +there you have the way of life set clearly before you, and it is easy +for you to follow. But any man can be saved if he act aright. Conduct is +<i>everything</i>. In fact, Buddhism in its inception was in one aspect a +revolt against excessive emotionalism, that of the ascetics, and it +maintains that attitude to-day.</p> + +<p>Or, to put it another way: Roman Catholicism is all emotion, +Protestantism is half emotion, Buddhism is the suppression of emotion. +These are the theories. And the facts? What effect does this difference +make on the lives of the peoples?<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_208" id="Page_208">[Pg 208]</a></span></p> + +<p>It may have some effect. There is sometimes action and reaction. These +different views of the relation of religion and conduct come from the +instincts of the people, and being held and taught they in turn affect +the people. But how much? Personally, I believe very little.</p> + +<p>A man's daily conduct is regulated by quite other factors. If the effect +was great we should find Buddhists the least criminal of peoples, the +Teutons a medium, and the Latins without any idea of conduct at all. But +this is certainly not true. The Burman is greatly given to certain +crimes, the outcome of his stage of civilisation.</p> + +<p>And I have great doubts whether the Protestants generally can show any +superiority over the Latins when the circumstances are considered. Are +the English Roman Catholics less honest than Protestants in the same +class? Are sceptics more criminal than religious people? The inclusion +of conduct in religion is astonishingly varied. Some peoples cannot be +born or come to maturity, or marry, or die without religion; others do +not allow religion to have any part in these matters. But the fact +remains that, though conduct may be included more or less in every +religion, no religion has a code of conduct for daily life. Priests and +monks<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_209" id="Page_209">[Pg 209]</a></span> apart, the codes of conduct are not taken from religion.</p> + +<p>But it must not be forgotten that neither Christianity nor Buddhism +professes to provide a code of conduct for this life. Judaism knew no +future life, and its aim was therefore to ensure success in this. That +is the reward offered to the righteous—success for them and their +children. There is no hint that this life is not good and worth living, +that love and wealth are not good things. On the contrary, they are held +out as the reward of the godly. The Judaic code was a good and workable +one for its age. But Christianity and Buddhism declare that this life is +not good; that it is, in fact, absolutely wicked and unhappy, and that +therefore all worldly pleasures and successes are to be eschewed as +snares. The codes given are ways to reach heaven, they are by no means +codes for ordinary life. Followed to their meaning, every Christian +ought to be a monk or nun and every Buddhist the same.</p> + +<p>But this teaching of the evil of life is one that no one but a few +fanatics accept in its fulness, and heaven or Nirvana are ideas that do +not appeal to most men. In Latin and Buddhist countries a few with their +higher spiritual powers take their faiths very seriously,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_210" id="Page_210">[Pg 210]</a></span> but the +majority try to make the best of both worlds. In Protestant countries no +one at all accepts the doctrine of the worthlessness of life. With the +immense majority of men of all nations life is held to be a great and +beautiful thing, to be used to its best advantage. The Latins with their +keener logic, seeing that the code of Christ is for the next world, not +for this, and therefore fit only for monks and nuns and not for men of +the world, divorce conduct from religion. Protestants, rejecting the +code of Christ for men of the world equally with the Latins, yet feeling +a need for a code of conduct, adopt the best current code of the day and +call that "Christian conduct." Thus are working religions built up. One +religion is all conduct, another half, another hardly at all—in theory. +But in fact, for ordinary life, is there any difference between the code +of a Latin, a Teuton, or a Buddhist? There is hardly any. Codes of life +vary very little, and that variation is due never to religious +influences, but always to the stage of civilisation and mental +development and the environments. In Scotland and North Germany it is +common for peasant girls to have a baby first and marry afterwards. A +Hindu or a Burman would be horrified at such a thing, just as a better +class<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_211" id="Page_211">[Pg 211]</a></span> Scotchman or German would be. But to the people who do it there +is no immorality. How do you explain this from religion?</p> + +<p>Conduct is an instinct. It evolves according to the civilisation and +idiosyncrasy of the people. It is influenced by many causes. People, for +instance, who are not pleased by acting call theatres wrong, and so on. +Experience is also a factor. And the connection of conduct with religion +varies. Some people make it a great part of their religion just as +sanitary and social measures are included, other peoples make it less +prominent. But conduct does not proceed from religious creeds any more +than prayer or confession does. It may be slowly influenced by religious +teaching, but it has its own existence, and religious teaching is only +one of many influences.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_212" id="Page_212">[Pg 212]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXII" id="CHAPTER_XXII"></a>CHAPTER XXII.</h2> + +<h3>MEN'S FAITH AND WOMEN'S FAITH.</h3> + + +<p>There is a faith—Judaism—which originated so far back that we have +only a legendary account of it. It was the cult of a warrior nation +whose ideal was bravery and whose glory was war, who considered the rest +of the world as Philistines and treated them ruthlessly, who kept +themselves as a nation apart.</p> + +<p>Nineteen hundred years ago there arose among them a prophet, said to be +of the ancient kingly house. He preached a doctrine which prescribed as +the rule of life mildness and self-denial, renunciation of this world; +who denounced war and conquest, and held out as a goal for attainment +heaven, which is the peace of God.</p> + +<p>This Prophet, The Christ, was executed, but He left behind Him disciples +who spread His religion widely. Amongst His own people it never attained +great strength, and in time it died away and disappeared. There are no +Christians among<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_213" id="Page_213">[Pg 213]</a></span> the Jews. All Semitic nations have rejected this +faith. But it spread far to the west, and is now in one form or another +the accepted faith of the half world to the west of Palestine. It never +spread east.</p> + +<hr style="width: 45%;" /> + +<p>There is a faith—Brahminism—which originated so far back that we have +but legendary accounts of it. It was the cult of a warrior nation whose +ideal was courage and whose glory was war, who considered the rest of +the world as outcasts and treated them ruthlessly, who kept themselves +as a nation apart.</p> + +<p>Two thousand five hundred years ago there arose among them a prophet, +the son of the Royal House. He preached a doctrine which prescribed as a +rule of life meekness and self-denial, renunciation of the world. He +denounced war and conquest, and held out as a goal for attainment the +Great Peace.</p> + +<p>This prophet, the Buddha, was rejected by all the higher castes and he +died, having made but little way. But his disciples spread his religion +widely. Amongst his own people it never attained great strength, and in +time it died away and disappeared. There are no Buddhists in Oude, and, +with perhaps a slight exception, there are no Buddhists at all in India. +But it has spread<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_214" id="Page_214">[Pg 214]</a></span> far to the east, and is now in one form or another +the accepted faith of nearly all people east of the Bay of Bengal, and +also of Ceylon. It never spread west.</p> + +<hr style="width: 45%;" /> + +<p>I do not say that Christianity and Buddhism are the same, for although +in some ways, especially in conduct, their teaching is almost identical, +and in others—such as Heaven and Nirvana—though differently expressed, +the idea is almost the same, yet in certain theories they differ very +greatly. Yet, however they may differ, the above parallel cannot but +strike one as extraordinary. Indeed, the parallel might have been very +largely augmented, but it suffices for the purpose of this chapter; and +that is to enquire why each teacher's doctrine was rejected by his own +people and accepted by others.</p> + +<p>It is no answer to say that no one is a prophet in his own country. All +the Jewish prophets, from Moses to Isaiah, <i>were</i> prophets in their own +country. Christ alone was not. Mahommed was a prophet to the Arabs, +Zoroaster to the Persians, Confucius and Laotze to the Chinese. All +teachers of Hinduism have been native born Hindus. In Buddhist countries +it is the same. Luther was a prophet to the Germans, Loyola to the +Spaniards. The rule is otherwise. A prophet is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_215" id="Page_215">[Pg 215]</a></span> never a prophet to any +<i>but</i> his own people, except the two greatest Prophets in the world, +Christ and Buddha. They alone were rejected by their own and accepted +elsewhere. They almost divide the world between them. Hinduism, from +which Buddhism arose, still exists untouched by either; Judaism, from +which Christianity arose, and its near kin Mahommedanism, exist +untouched by either; but most of the rest of the world is either +Christian or Buddhist. These are very astonishing facts, and must have +some very strong reasons to cause them. The question is, What are the +reasons, and are they the same in each case? Was it a similar cause that +occasioned such similar effects? What quality was it in the Jews and +Hindus that led them to reject their prophets, and what are the +qualities in the converted nations that led them to accept these +prophets?</p> + +<p>It might seem at first as if the clue was contained in the first +sentence of each paragraph, that the reason was because both Jews and +Hindus, especially the higher caste Hindus, were warrior nations. The +rule of life preached by each teacher was absolutely against all that +they had revered so far, hence that each rejected it. The fact, of +course, is true. Each nation had up to the coming of the Teacher learned +a rule of life hopelessly in contrast to the new teaching. The<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_216" id="Page_216">[Pg 216]</a></span> ideals +of Christ and Buddha were absolutely opposed to those a fierce, warlike, +exclusive people could maintain. They could not accept them without +throwing to the winds all their past. This is true, but is it an +explanation? It is certainly not a full one. The Jews were warriors, +bitter, terrible, ruthless fighters, and they rejected Christ. But they +are no longer a nation of warriors, and they still reject Him.</p> + +<p>The world has never seen keener soldiers than those of western Europe, +but these nations accept Him.</p> + +<p>The Hindu warrior caste are warriors to the bitter end. They rejected +Buddha, but so did many peoples of India; the Bengalees, for instance, +who are not fighters.</p> + +<p>Where can you find stronger warrior spirit than has always existed in +Japan? Yet Buddhism is the prevailing religion there. It is evident, I +think, that this explanation will not suffice. It may in addition be +asserted that the men of Latin nations are usually frankly atheistic, +and the Teutonic nations, though theoretically Christian, yet +practically when they want to fight they forget Christ and fall back to +the Jehovah of the Jews. The Puritans and the Boers are cases in point. +They get their fighting faith out of the Old Testament, not the New. But +still they accept Christ, and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_217" id="Page_217">[Pg 217]</a></span> though they may find it impossible, like +all nations, to follow His teaching, they do not reject it, or deny it. +With Buddhism in the further East the parallel does not last, because +Buddhism in ethical teaching stands alone. The Buddhist who wants to +fight cannot fall back on the original faith. He has simply to go +without a faith at all. He has not the advantage of a double set of +conduct, one of which can always be trusted to fit anything he wants to +do He has to go without a faith when he fights. Still he does so.</p> + +<p>I confess that for a long time I seemed to find no answer, and at length +it came not through studying out this question, but in observing other +phenomena of religion altogether.</p> + +<p>To one coming to Europe after years in the East and visiting the +churches nothing is more striking than the enormous preponderance of +women there. It is immaterial whether the church be in England or in +France, whether it be Anglican or Roman Catholic or Dissenter. The +result is always the same. Women outnumber the men as two to one, as +three to one, sometimes as ten to one. Even of the men that are there, +how many go there from other motives than personal desire to hear the +service? Men go because their wives take them, boys go with their +mothers or sisters, old<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_218" id="Page_218">[Pg 218]</a></span> men with their daughters. Professional men are +there because it would injure them among their women clients to be +absent. Women go because they desire to do so; nine out of ten even of +these few men who do go are taken by their women folk. They admit it +readily. And more, when they are away from these women they do not enter +the churches. It is borne in upon an observer, especially an observer +who has been long enough away from Europe to become depolarised, to what +an enormous extent the observance of religious duty in Europe among +Christian nations is due to women. It is they only who care for, who are +in full sympathy with the teaching of Christ; for men when they are +religious, and in certain cases they are so, take their religion of +conduct much more from the Old Testament than the New.</p> + +<p>In Burma it is not otherwise. The deeper the tenets of Buddhism are +observed, the more the women are concerned in it. Who lights the candles +at the pagoda, who contribute the daily food to the monks, who attend +the Sunday meetings in the rest houses? Nearly all of them are women. +Even in Burma, where the devotional instinct is so strong and so deeply +held, the immense influence of women is manifest. In Christian and +Buddhist countries the women are free to attend the services; they are +free, to a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_219" id="Page_219">[Pg 219]</a></span> greater or lesser extent, in all matters, and in religion +they are conspicuous—they rule it, they form it to suit themselves.</p> + +<p>But in the races that rejected Christianity, that rejected Buddhism, it +is otherwise. The Hindu women keep themselves in zenanas. They are not +allowed in the temples, or only in special parts. They can take no part +in the public services. They cannot combine to influence religious +matters. At the time the Buddha lived women were very much freer than +they are now, and this accounts for its initial partial success at home. +But as waves of conquest, the incessant rigorous struggle for existence +deepened and circumstances contracted that liberty, so as it contracted +did Buddhism die. Till at length the women remained immured, and +Buddhism fled to countries where women had still some freedom.</p> + +<p>It is the same with Christianity. The Jewish women, if not quite so +secluded as Hindu women, were yet never openly allowed to join in the +synagogues. They, too, as the Mahommedan even, had their "grille" apart. +The Jewish men and the Mahommedan men kept their religion for +themselves, a virile religion, where women had little place. It may be +the fact—I think in another chapter I have shewn that it is a +fact—that women seek after religion far more than men<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_220" id="Page_220">[Pg 220]</a></span> But they must +have a religion to suit them. The tenets of Christ and of Buddha do +appeal to them, do come nearer to them than they do to the generality of +men. And so where women have been free to make their influence felt, to +impress their views upon the faith of a country, the mild beliefs of +non-resistance, of peace, of meekness and submission have obtained. +Whereas in the countries and nations where for one cause or another +women are not free to make their combined influence felt, where they +remain under the greater dominance of man in all matters, the faiths +that retain the stronger and more virile codes of conduct have remained.</p> + +<p>I am not sure that there have not been other influences also at work. I +can, I think, see another strong influence that has worked to the same +end. There may be many reasons. But that would not alter the fact that +the influence of women has been a main force, that they have greatly +been concerned in the change of faith.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_221" id="Page_221">[Pg 221]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXIII" id="CHAPTER_XXIII"></a>CHAPTER XXIII.</h2> + +<h3>PRAYER AND CONFESSION.</h3> + + +<p>What is the most general, the most conspicuous form in which religion +expresses itself? Is it not in prayer? Where is the religion that is +without prayer? There is none. And perhaps, too, it is the very first +expression of religion, that when the savage fell and prayed the +lightning to spare him, he was inaugurating the greatest religious form +the world has known.</p> + +<p>What a wonderful thing it is, wonderful in every form, beautiful +wherever you see it—from the glorious masses sung in the cathedrals to +the Mussulman spreading his mat upon the sand and bowing towards Mecca. +There is nothing so beautiful, nothing that so touches the heart of man +as prayer.</p> + +<p>I have said that it is common to all religions, and so it is. Religions +live not in creeds, but in the believers. Pure Buddhism knows not<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_222" id="Page_222">[Pg 222]</a></span> +prayer, but does not the Buddhist know it? Go to any pagoda and see the +women there praying to Someone—Someone, they know not whom—and ask if +Buddhists know not prayer? I have written so fully of it in my other +book that I will not repeat it here.</p> + +<p>Prayer is common to all believers; it is the greatest, as perhaps it is +the only expression common to all religions. And whence comes this +custom of prayer? The Jew and the Mussulman and the Christian will +answer and say, "It comes from our belief in God, it is an outcome of +that belief. Our God has bade us pray to Him."</p> + +<p>And the Hindu, how will he answer? He will say, "Our gods have power +over us, they deal with us as they will. They listen to us if we pray. +And therefore it is right for us to beseech them in our trouble. It +comes from our belief in our gods." And the savage will answer, "I fear +the Devil, so I pray to him." But what will the Buddhist answer?</p> + +<p>For Buddhism knows no God. The world is ruled by Law, unchangeable, +everlasting Law. No one can change that Law. If you suffer it is the +meet and proper consequence of your sins. The suffering is purifying you +and teaching you how to live. It would not be well for you to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_223" id="Page_223">[Pg 223]</a></span> be +relieved of it now if you could be. Therefore suffer and be silent.</p> + +<p>A very beautiful belief. And yet the people pray. Why? When a Buddhist +prays it is not in consequence of his belief, but in spite of it. It +cannot be traced as the result of any theory of causation.</p> + +<p>Therefore one doubts the Theist's explanation and one reflects. Was, +indeed, prayer born of their beliefs? And then the doubt increases. Are +these creeds older than prayer, or maybe is it not that prayer is older +than the creeds? Did these creeds exist in men's minds first or did the +necessity for prayer exist first? Which is nearer to man?</p> + +<p>Let us consider what prayer is. It consists of three things mainly. +Petition to be saved, to be helped from imminent danger; praise at being +so saved; and last, probably last, but surely greatest of all, +confession.</p> + +<p>When men pray they are always doing one or other of these things. When +the savage was caught in the thunderstorm or shaken in the earthquake +and fell on his knees in fear, babbling strange things, do you think he +had reasoned out a God behind the force first? Do you think his +inarticulate cry for help was not involuntary? That if he had not first +reasoned out the God<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_224" id="Page_224">[Pg 224]</a></span> he would not so cry? Have you ever seen people in +deadly fear, how they will babble for help, crying unto the unknown? If +there was ever anything that came forth absolutely spontaneously from +the heart of man, which needed no belief of any kind anterior to its +birth, it was prayer, the prayer that comes from fear, the prayer for +help. It is the unconscious, unreasoned cry of the heart. If there is +Someone to whom to direct the cry, well and good; but if not, the cry +comes just the same.</p> + +<p>When troubles fall upon the man, what is his first impulse? To tell +someone. If the confidant can help, so much the better; but if not, +still to tell. To ease the pent up heart by telling, that is what is +wanted. And with joy, too. Have you not seen how, when good news comes +to a man, he loves to rush forth and tell it? To whom? It does not +matter. Tell it, tell it. Cry it aloud, if but the trees and rocks can +hear. To keep secret a great thing is very hard. Remember the courtier +who discovered that King Midas had asses' ears. He could not keep the +terrible deadly truth to himself. He dared not tell it to man. And so, +going softly to the river, he confessed the dreadful knowledge to the +reeds: "Midas hath asses' ears." Can you trace here any cause and +effect? And there is confession, to tell someone<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_225" id="Page_225">[Pg 225]</a></span> of our sins, to +confess. Is that dependent upon any religious theory? Much has been +written about confession, this necessity of the laden spirit, but never +has anything been written like that study by Dostoieffsky called "Crime +and Punishment." The "Crime" was murder, not an ordinary murder +committed by a ruffian in passion or from sordid motives, but a murder +by a student intended to result in good. The murderer is suspected—nay, +is known by a police officer—and the motive of the first half of the +story is not to gain evidence, not to unravel the story, but it lies in +the efforts of the detective to induce Raskolnikoff to make a voluntary +confession. And why? There was evidence enough, the offender could have +been arrested and convicted at any time. But that would not do. +Punishment alone will not always, will indeed but seldom, benefit the +criminal. Punishment is for the protection of society. It is for the +future, not the past. For the criminal to redeem himself he must +confess. In that lies the only medicine for a diseased soul. It is a +marvellous story, and it holds the truth of truths. Confess. There is no +emotion of the human heart so strong as this, the eminent necessity to +tell someone. No one who has had much to do with crime will doubt this. +There is in all natural<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_226" id="Page_226">[Pg 226]</a></span> men a burning desire, an absolute necessity, to +tell of what has been done. It comes out sometimes in confessions to the +police or to the magistrate. All criminal annals are full of such +stories. A crime is committed and there is no clue, till the man +confesses. I have myself seen a great deal of this. I have received many +confessions. But you will object that was amongst Burmese; and I reply, +Wherein is there any difference? Criminals of all countries frequently +confess. But as civilisation progresses the confession is not often to a +magistrate. The fear, the terrible fear of punishment outweighs the +natural impulse. But still the confession is made. If you read the cases +in the papers you will see how often it is made. To a wife, to a +companion, sometimes to a complete stranger. The men who can hold their +tongues, who can stifle nature, are very few. With all but hardened +criminals the tendency is always to confession, and those whose work has +laid among them know that the denial, the defence, except with hardened +criminals, is seldom theirs. If there were no relations to urge them, no +lawyers to assist them, five out of six first offenders would confess +openly.</p> + +<p>Is it otherwise with our children? What is it we teach them above all +else? Never to do wrong? No! For we know that is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_227" id="Page_227">[Pg 227]</a></span> impossible. Children, +like men, will err. But, "when you have done wrong confess, for only so +can you lift the weight from your heart." Confess, confess. Everywhere +it is the same. If you have done wrong, only by confession can you +remove the stain. But it must be voluntary. It must not be forced. Such +a confession is of no value. Even our courts reject it.</p> + +<p>It is an instinct of the heart that comes who can tell whence, that +means who can tell what? And from this have grown many things. It has +become part of all the greater religions, and the forms it has taken are +significant not so much of the faiths, but of the people.</p> + +<p>Among the Jews and the Mahommedans we hear little of it. They were a +hard people when their faiths were formed, a strong people, and little +advanced in the gentler feelings. They were warriors who lived greatly +by the sword, and it was necessary for them to stifle all that might +weaken or even polish them. For one man to humble himself to another is +very hard, for a proud man to confess to another is almost impossible. +And so into these Theistic faiths the confession was to God. If a man +sinned it was to God alone he could confess. But with Christianity it +has been different. There is in Christianity what exists in no other +faith in the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_228" id="Page_228">[Pg 228]</a></span> same way, an intermediary between God and man.</p> + +<p>There are the priests.</p> + +<p>This desire of the soul for confession, the absolute necessity with +strong emotional people to tell someone their sins and their truths, has +been one of the greatest cults of the Church of Rome. Man must confess, +let him confess to the priests. Their tongues are tied, they will never +reveal what they are told; they are the ministers of God. Therefore let +the innate desire for confession be directed towards the priests. It is +universal in Catholic countries. Whatever may be its abuses it is the +great safety valve, the great help of the people, that as they must +confess they should have someone to confess to.</p> + +<p>With the Northern Teutonic nations it has been different. They got their +Christianity from Rome, a Christianity that was built on the needs of +impulsive Celtic natures. It suited not with the harder natures of the +north. They could not confess to men, it galled them to be told to +confess. Their natures were different. Had they no need of confession? +Yes, but they were as the Jews and Mahommedans. They would not humble +themselves to men. And so, for this and other similar reasons, they +revolted from Rome and made their own church, where<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_229" id="Page_229">[Pg 229]</a></span> confession is only +to God. But the necessity of confession still remains; our services are +full of it. It is strange how very often we find the Christianity of +Teutonic people nearer in observed facts to the faiths of Semitic +peoples than to the Christianity of the Celts. All these peoples, all +these Churches, recognise the need of confession. But, it may be said, +all this is a difference of very slight detail. All confession is to +God. The Roman priests are only representatives of God. If you believe +in God you must believe in confession, because God has always directed +it. Confession is in all the Churches because God ordered it. The need +comes from God, who gives absolution.</p> + +<p>Then how about the Buddhists? They have no God, but yet they confess. +The Buddha himself many times pointed out how needful confession was, +and how healing to the heart. There is no God to confess to, there is no +representative of God. But there is the head of the Monastery. Let the +younger monk who sins confess his sins to his superior. There is no +absolution. Man works out his future himself, always by himself. There +is no absolution, no help to be gained by confession. But the Buddha +knew the hearts of man. He knew that confession was good for the soul. +He knew that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_230" id="Page_230">[Pg 230]</a></span> it needed no absolution from any priest to help the +confesser, no belief in any God to pardon because of the confession. +Confession, if it be made honestly and truly, brings with it always its +own reward. It may be objected, that this is not general, but only +applies to those trying to live the holy life. The Buddha taught that +all men should do so. He meant it to be general. It is true that it is +not, it cannot be general, or the world would cease. Only a few are +monks. Is, then, the help of confession denied to the multitude? Perhaps +by the stringent Buddhist faith it may not be urgently inculcated, and +men and women in outside life cannot confess to monks. Do they then go +without? Not so. Go to any pagoda at any time and you will see there +kneeling many people, some men, but mostly women. They are there +confessing, audibly sometimes, their troubles, their sins, their joys +also. To whom? Ah! then I cannot tell you. "Someone will hear," they +say, "Someone will hear." Religions are for the necessity of man, and if +the narrow creed will not suffice it must be enlarged.</p> + +<p>It is a strange subject this of confession, and its ally, prayer. It is +strange to follow it to its roots in the human heart, and to see that it +is stronger, is older, is more persistent than creeds.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_231" id="Page_231">[Pg 231]</a></span> Creeds come and +go, they change, and man changes with them; he may have any religion or +have none, but it makes no difference to this. Hindu and Christian, +Mahommedan and Buddhist, Atheist and Jew, the heart of man is ever the +same. Read that wonderful story of Balzac's, "La Messe d'Athèe," and you +will see.</p> + +<hr style="width: 45%;" /> + +<p>If you postulate God or gods, and try from that to deduce prayer and +confession, you find yourself very soon as the boy found himself long +ago. You are at an impasse. If God be indeed as stated, then can prayer +and confession never be necessary. You cannot get round it, you can only +hide yourself in mists of words like the scientific theologian. If God +be as postulated, then can prayer and confession not be necessary, or +even beautiful.</p> + +<p>But you can see from daily life that they are so. Who can doubt it? +There is in life nothing so beautiful, nothing so true, nothing that +acts as balm to the heart like prayer and confession, and they exist +naturally. They are there from the beginning; they need no religious +theory to bring them into life. What, then, is the inference? Not +perhaps exactly what it at first sight would seem to be, that God does +not exist or has those qualities of prejudice, of favour, of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_232" id="Page_232">[Pg 232]</a></span> partiality +which religious books and religious people give to Him. It is, I think, +this: That the truth, the original truth, is the necessity of confession +and prayer, and that to explain this the theory of the nature of God or +gods have arisen. Prayer did not proceed from God, but God from +prayer—<i>i.e.</i>, the theories of God.</p> + +<p>No strongly religious man can reason about his own faith. Christians +will say that the idea of the True God is inherent in man also, that if +not earlier than prayer, it is co-existent. So be it. But how about +false gods—the savage praying to a mountain, the Hindu to an image or a +stone, representing who knows what? the Buddhist woman praying by the +pagoda? Their prayer is beautiful. It is as beautiful as yours. Never +doubt it. Go and see them pray. You will learn that prayer is beautiful, +is true in itself. And can such a thing proceed from a false theology? +See men pray and hear them confess and you will be sure of this, that +prayer and confession, no matter by whom, no matter to whom, are always +true, have always their effect upon the heart. Whatever is false, they +are not. It is one absolute truth that all men will admit.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_233" id="Page_233">[Pg 233]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXIV" id="CHAPTER_XXIV"></a>CHAPTER XXIV.</h2> + +<h3>SUNDAY AND SABBATH.</h3> + + +<p>I am not sure that in such an enquiry as this history is of much avail. +I do not find that those who search into the past to write the history +of it ever discover much that is of use to-day. It seems to me that in +tracing an idea, or a law, or a custom, historians are satisfied with +giving an account of its growth or decay as if it were the life of a +tree. They do not enquire into the why of things. They will tell you +that an idea came, say, from the East and was accepted generally. They +do not say why it was accepted. And to have traced a modern belief back +into the far past is to them sufficient reason for its presence, +forgetful that whatever persists, whether a law or an idea or a belief, +does so because it is of use. Living things require a sanction as well +as a history, and therein lies their interest. And what I am writing now +is of the sanctions of religions.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_234" id="Page_234">[Pg 234]</a></span></p> + +<p>Still, there is sometimes an interest, if but a negative one, in the +history of an observance or belief. It is useful sometimes to trace an +observance back, if only to show that the reason generally given for its +retention is not and cannot be the real one. Of such is the history of +the observance of Sunday, or the Sabbath, in England and Scotland.</p> + +<p>We have discovered from the inscriptions at Accad, upon the Euphrates, +that in the time of Sargon, 3,800 years B.C., the days were divided into +weeks of seven days, named after the sun and moon and the five planets, +as they are now in places. And there were, moreover, "Sabbaths" set +apart as days of "rest for the soul," "the completion of work." There +were five of these Sabbaths in Chaldea every lunar month, occurring on +the 7th, the 14th, the 19th, the 21st, and 28th of the month. That is to +say, the new moon, the full moon, and the days half way between were +Sabbaths, with the addition of a fifth Sabbath on the 19th day. On these +days it was not lawful to cook food, to change one's dress, to offer a +sacrifice; the king may not speak in public or ride in a chariot, or +perform any kind of military or civil duty; even to take medicine was +forbidden. It was a day of rest. And this was<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_235" id="Page_235">[Pg 235]</a></span> 3,800 B.C., nearly 2,000 +years before Abraham lived, 2,300 years before Moses and the Ten +Commandments, almost contemporary, according to the Bible records, with +Cain and Abel. The day was already called the Sabbath. It had existed +already for no one knows how long, probably thousands of years; it was a +day of rest, and it was observed much as was subsequently the Jewish +Sabbath. Without doubt the Jews only adopted a custom known to more +civilised nations ages before, and they gave to it the sanction of their +religion, as they and many other people have done to many matters. There +is everywhere a strong tendency, if possible, to give religious sanction +to every observance. The stronger emotions attract to themselves the +lesser. So have the Jews and Mahommedans adopted sanitary precautions, +the Hindus sanitary and marriage laws, and Christianity marriage laws +also in their faiths. So did my friend mentioned in the preface include +all civilisation in his religion.</p> + +<p>The observance of the Sabbath arose not from a religious command +transmitted by Moses, but as the result of observation and custom +thousands of years before, that a day of rest was needed for man.</p> + +<p>When they reached a certain standard of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_236" id="Page_236">[Pg 236]</a></span> civilisation all peoples seem +to have had such a day set apart. It was a want that arose out of the +keener struggle for existence, a mutual truce to the war of competition. +But the day itself varied. The Greeks divided their lunar month into +decades, having thus three festival days in a month. The Romans, we are +told, divided it into periods of eight days, though I do not know how +they managed their arithmetic or got eight into twenty-nine without some +awkward remainder. And in the farther East it was usual to celebrate the +full moon and the new moon and the days half way between as days of +rest. A lunar month consisting of sometimes twenty-nine and sometimes +thirty days, the period between rest days was sometimes six days as in a +week, and sometimes seven days. Thus among the Burmese, although there +are, as usual, seven days named after the sun, moon, and planets, the +rest day goes by the day of the month, not by that of the week, just as +it did with the Accadians. For in the East a month remains a month; it +is the life of a moon. It begins with the new moon and ends with the +fourth quarter, and is easily reckoned by any villager. With us in the +North the age of the moon has ceased to be of any importance. Our life +after dark is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_237" id="Page_237">[Pg 237]</a></span> indoors, where we have lights and the moon is of no use +to us. Our houses are lit artificially, and very few Europeans could +tell at a moment's notice how old the moon is.</p> + +<p>But in the East it is not so. With them the night is the time for being +out of doors, and when they go to their houses it is only to sleep. The +nights are cool after the hot day, and on the full moon nights the world +is full of light. The night of the full moon, when the scent of flowers +is on the still air and all about is full of magic, is one of the great +beauties of this world. But of it we know nothing in Europe.</p> + +<p>Therefore in colder climates the month by the moon was abandoned, and +reckoning the year by the sun took its place. And as civilisation +progressed it was inconvenient to be uncertain about which was the day +of rest, so it became the custom to make it every seventh day, +regardless of the moon. This seems to have obtained first in Egypt and +to have spread over the civilised world, the seventh day being the +Sabbath. But it still remained a day of rest, unassociated, except by +the Jews, with religion.</p> + +<p>The early Christians kept no Sabbath. They kept the first day of the +week as a day of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_238" id="Page_238">[Pg 238]</a></span> rejoicing, to celebrate the rising of Christ. Indeed, +the Jewish Sabbath was considered as abrogated, and the first day of the +week was kept, much as it is now kept on the Continent, as a day of +rest, of rejoicing, of relaxation after work.</p> + +<p>So it was observed till the Reformation.</p> + +<p>The Reformers, whatever they altered, did not alter this. They gave no +command to return from Christian observance of the day to Jewish +observance, and all over the Continent, among those of reformed churches +as among those of the Catholic church, Sunday is the day of rest, of +worship, and of relaxation.</p> + +<p>It was so, too, in England and Scotland.</p> + +<p>The change back to the Jewish Sabbath seems to have come with the +Puritans and to have been introduced by them to Scotland. And this is +but one example of how Puritanism was practically a rejection of +Christianity and a return to the codes of Judaism, which suited those +iron warriors much better than Christian ethics.</p> + +<p>In England the feeling has been tempered, but among the Scotch, who are +in so many ways like the old Jews, it took root, it flourished, and it +is the Jewish Sabbath both in name and observance that we see now +there.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_239" id="Page_239">[Pg 239]</a></span></p> + +<p>Why was there this reversion? For what reason has the Jewish Sabbath +appealed more nearly to the Scotch than the Christian Sunday? What +feelings were those that caused this?</p> + +<p>If you turn to the people who have done this and look into their +characters you will note one strong and marked instinct. It is the +dislike to art of all kinds, to painting and music, to dancing and +acting, their strong distrust of beauty and gaiety. They are a sober +people, hard and stubborn and dour, to whom art and amusement appeal, as +a rule, not at all; and when they do appeal it is too strongly. They +would not have organs in their churches and cards were to them the +devil's picture books. They had in them then, they have now, no single +fibre that responds to the lighter and brighter things of this world. +Their very humour is grim. Have they, then, no idea of pleasure? Do they +never enjoy themselves? It would be a mistake of the greatest to suppose +that. They, too, as all other men, have their times for relaxation, for +enjoyment, for mental rest and refreshment. Only that what gives +pleasure to them is different from what gives pleasure to other people. +They take their pleasures sadly; the chords of their hearts are tuned to +other keys than that of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_240" id="Page_240">[Pg 240]</a></span> gaiety and art. These latter they cannot +understand, they awaken either no echo or far too strong an echo; and, +like all men when they cannot understand a thing, they hate it. There is +no medium in these matters that appeal to the emotions. You must either +like or hate. You may see this always. Either you enjoy Wagner's music +or you abominate it, either you appreciate old masters or they are to +you daubs, either you are in tune to laughter or it seems to you the +veriest folly.</p> + +<p>The Scotch take their amusement and their relaxation on the Sabbath as +other people do on the Sunday. They rest from work, they attend divine +service, and for relaxation they awaken those gloomy and fanatical +thoughts which give them pleasure. For these are to them pleasure, just +as much as gaiety is to other people.</p> + +<p>Do not doubt that it is real pleasure to them. Men's hearts are tuned to +many keys, and there is a minor as well as a major. It is true that it +is difficult for those who rejoice in light and sunshine, in gaiety and +humour, who revolt from grey skies and shaded days, from gloomy thoughts +and dreams of hell, to realise that there are men to whom these are in +harmony.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_241" id="Page_241">[Pg 241]</a></span></p> + +<p>Most of us would forget hell if we could, would banish the thought if it +arose, but some love to dwell upon it, to repeat it, to preach of it. +The idea thrills them as blood and massacre do others. Some men would go +miles to avoid seeing an execution, others would go as many miles to see +it. Emotions are of all sorts, and what to some is horrible is to others +attractive.</p> + +<p>"Will the doctrine of eternal punishment be preached there?" asked the +owner of a large room suitable for meetings to one who would have hired +it to preach there. And when the answer was that the subject would not +be touched on the room was refused. "Ay, but I hold to that doctrine," +he repeated to every objection.</p> + +<p>Widely, therefore, as the Continental Sunday and the Scotch Sabbath +differ in appearance, they arise from the same causes, they result in +the same effects.</p> + +<p>They are caused by the desire for bodily rest, for soul nourishment, for +mental relaxation, necessities of mankind, and each people so frames its +conception of the proper way to keep the day as to attain those ends. +For "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath," and men +adapt their religious teaching to suit their necessities.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_242" id="Page_242">[Pg 242]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXV" id="CHAPTER_XXV"></a>CHAPTER XXV.</h2> + +<h3>MIRACLE.</h3> + + +<p>It is some years ago now—about twenty, I think—that we first heard of +the beginning of a new religion, the arrival of a new prophetess who was +to unfold to us the mystery of the world and teach us the truths of +life. And this religion began as other religions have been said to +begin, this prophetess claimed belief as other teachers are said to have +done, by her miraculous powers. She could do things that no one else +could do: she could divide a cigarette paper in halves, and waft half +through the air to great distances; she could piece together broken +teacups in an extraordinary way. And because she could perform these +feats she claimed for herself an authority in speaking of the hearts of +men and of the before and after death, an authority which was accorded +to her by many.</p> + +<p>I have expressly refrained from suggesting<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_243" id="Page_243">[Pg 243]</a></span> either the truth or the +falsehood of these miracles. I am aware that the whole process is said +to have been fully exposed. The question is immaterial, for they were, +true or false, believed by many, and it is this question of belief in +miracle which I wish to discuss, not the possibility of miracle or the +reverse.</p> + +<p>There is another point I wish to make clear. I have said that other +religions are said to have started in the same way, other teachers to +have claimed authority on the same ground. This may or may not be true. +The theory of Buddhism is so essentially anti-miraculous that the +miracles attributed to the Buddha seem almost certainly outside +additions, as they are in direct variance with his known acts and +beliefs. And the words and acts of Christ in His life seem all so at +variance with the miracles attributed to Him that they, too, may be +later additions or contemporary exaggerations. This has already been +obvious to some, and had not the absolute inspiration of the Sacred +Books been insisted on, thus stifling criticism, it would have been +obvious to more. All this is immaterial. True or false, all religions +have an embroidery, more or less deep, of miracle, and on these miracles +their claim to truth was in the early days more or less pressed. If +Madame Blavatsky performed miracles with teacups it was<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_244" id="Page_244">[Pg 244]</a></span> because she saw +that there was an attraction to many people in miracle that nothing else +could supply. Miracle to many is the proof of truth. Had Madame +Blavatsky performed no miracles, had there been no teacups, were there +now no Mahatmas, who would have stopped to listen to her compote of +Brahmanism, Buddhism, and truly western mysticism which she called +Theosophy?</p> + +<p>How can miracle be the proof of supernatural knowledge?</p> + +<p>Suppose there arose to-morrow in England a man who could make one loaf +into five, what should those of us who are without the instinct for +miracle say? Merely that he knew some way of increasing bread which we +did not know. The inference would end there. We should not suppose that +he therefore knew anything more about the next world than we do. Where +is the connection, we would ask? The telephone or the Röntgen rays would +have been a miracle a hundred years ago. Two thousand years ago a +phonograph would have been supposed to hold a devil, and the proprietor +would have been a prophet, no doubt. But we do not now go to Edison or +Maxim for our religions. Still, Madame Blavatsky started with miracles, +and was wise in her generation. Still, all religions retain more or less +of the miraculous, because there are<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_245" id="Page_245">[Pg 245]</a></span> many to whom this appeals before +everything, because they are sure that miracle is the proof of truth. +Again, Theosophy claims to be Esoteric Buddhism. The country <i>par +excellence</i> of practical Buddhism is Burma. Yet the Burmans generally +laugh at Theosophy. How is this? The answer lies, I think, like the +answer to all these questions of religion, in the varying instincts of +the people. It is an idea with us in the West that the East is the land +of enchantment, of mystery, of the unknown, of miracle and all that is +akin to it. We are never tired of talking of the mysterious East; it +seems to us one vast wonderland full of things we cannot understand, +full of marvels of the unknowable, the very home of superstition; while +the West is matter of fact, material and reasonable, and easily +understood. And yet I think the very first thing a man learns when he +goes to the people of the East, certainly to the Burmese people, and +tries to see with their eyes and understand with their hearts, that all +this is the very reverse of the facts. Will anyone who wishes to see how +very far they are from the cult of the mysterious, of dreams, of +miracles, of visions, how very <i>little</i> such things appeal to them, turn +to my chapters on the Buddhist monkhood in "The Soul of a People," and +read them? I do not wish to repeat what I said there, only that a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_246" id="Page_246">[Pg 246]</a></span> monk +who saw visions or performed miracles would be ejected from his +monastery as unworthy of his faith.</p> + +<p>I do not say that there are no superstitions among the people. Their +stage of civilisation is as yet low, as low perhaps as ours five hundred +years ago. They have their strange fancies here and there; I have heard +many of them. They are amusing sometimes and curious. I very much doubt, +however, if the Burman of to-day is as superstitious as an ordinary +countryman in England. I have heard English soldiers tell tales of old +women changing into hares, <i>that they themselves had seen</i>, quite as +seriously as any Burman could. And if you compare the Burman of to-day +with the European peasant of even two hundred years ago, there is no +comparison at all. The West simply reeks with superstition and all that +is allied to it compared to the East. (I exclude the belief in ghosts, +which is, I think, a separate matter.)</p> + +<p>The delusion has, I think, arisen in many ways. To begin with, we are +always looking out in the East for the mysterious. It is the East, and +therefore mysterious. We very seldom try to understand the people, to +see them from their standpoint. We prefer generally to assume that they +have no standpoint and to talk of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_247" id="Page_247">[Pg 247]</a></span> incomprehensible Oriental mind, +because it is easier to do so and it sounds superior. And again, we are +apt to make absurd comparisons and reason without remembrance. An +English officer will come across a Burman from the back country of the +hills who has a charm against bullet wounds, and he will sit down and +indite a letter to the paper on the "incredibly foolish superstition of +these people," oblivious of the fact that he will find even now amongst +his own countrymen quite as many people who believe in charms as among +the Burmese, that Dr. Johnson touched various articles as charms, and +that he himself throws salt over his shoulder. Yet he is of the better +class of a people five hundred years older in civilisation than the +Burman.</p> + +<p>I confess that, personally, I have found even to-day infinitely more +superstition and leaning to the miraculous among my own people than +among Burmans. There are classes of English people who are almost free +from it, there are other Englishmen, and especially Englishwomen, who +are steeped in it to a degree that would astound any Oriental. And what +was it a few hundred years ago? Have there ever been witch trials in the +East, have there ever been ordeals, or casting lots "for God to decide"? +Magicians have come to us from the East, truly; they were made for<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_248" id="Page_248">[Pg 248]</a></span> +export, the use for them at home being limited. Theosophy was started in +the East, truly, but not by Orientals. Madame Blavatsky is believed to +have been a Russian; her supporters were English and American. Palmistry +and fortune-telling appeal as serious matters to many people in England +and Europe generally. To the Burman they are matters of amusement. Do +you think "Christian Science" would gain any foothold in the East? or +spiritualism or a hundred forms of superstition that cling to the +civilised people of the West?</p> + +<p>The East is the home of religion, of emotion, of asceticism, of the +victory of the mind over the body. The West is the home of superstition, +of second sight, of miracle, of conjuring tricks of all kinds exalted +into the supernatural. You may search all the records of the East and +find no superstition—like touching for the King's evil, for instance. +Can anyone imagine Joanna Southcote in India or in the further East? I +have tried not to hear, I could never repeat, what the East says of the +miraculous in Christianity. Superstition there is, of course, legend and +miracle; they are the outcomes always of a certain stage of +pre-civilisation. But even in India how scarce and faint they are +compared to the West. For one thing must be carefully remembered. +Ignorance<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_249" id="Page_249">[Pg 249]</a></span> of the power of natural causes must not be put down to +attribution of miraculous causes. The peasant in the East will often +attribute a property to a herb, a mineral, a ceremony that it has not +got. That is their ignorance of natural law, never their attribution of +unnatural power. If a Burman peasant sometimes thinks a certain medicine +can render his body lighter than water, it is simply that he is unaware +of the limited power of drugs, not that he supposes there is anything +miraculous in it. The power of phenacetin on a feverish patient seems to +him far more astonishing. Indeed, from miracle as miracle he shrinks. To +miracle as miracle the average European is greatly attracted. To the one +it spells always charlatanism, to the latter supernatural power.</p> + +<p>And therefore, even in the religions of Hindustan—Hinduism in its +myriad forms, Mahommedanism, Sihkism, Jainism, and Parseeism—miracle +plays a very minor part. I think there is no doubt that this repugnance +to miracle is one reason why the Semites eventually rejected +Christianity. How very few and unaffecting the essence are the miracles +in Mahommedanism. But in Christianity it plays the major part. Christ +was born and lived and died and rose again in miracle. In Latin<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_250" id="Page_250">[Pg 250]</a></span> +countries miracles are of daily occurrence—as at Lourdes, for instance.</p> + +<p>And though in Teutonic Christianity it is less than in Latin countries, +it plays a great part also. The miracles of Christ's life are retained. +Truly they say that now the age of miracle is past. The Church believes +no more in prophecy, in miraculous cures, in risings from the dead. The +bulk of the people reject miracle. But what a large minority is still +left who absolutely crave for it, let the records of Theosophy and many +another miraculous religion show. Miracle satisfies a craving, an +instinct, that nothing else will meet. It is curious to note how the +inclusion of miracle in religion varies inversely with the inclusion of +conduct. With the Latins miracle is most, the Latin Christianity is the +most miraculous of all religions, and therein conduct is least. With the +Teutons miracle and conduct are both accepted, the former +authoritatively of the past, privately also of the present. With the +Burmans miracle and the supernatural are rejected absolutely as part of +the religion of to-day, and conduct is all in all. Thus again do the +instincts of the people find expression in their religion.</p> + +<p>As to the growth of the instinct it is more difficult to reply. +Instincts are very hard to account for. Indeed, in their origin all are +quite<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_251" id="Page_251">[Pg 251]</a></span> beyond the scope of inquiry at all. We can only see that they +exist. But with this instinct for miracle there is one cause that no +doubt contributes to its increase or decrease. It does not explain the +instinct, but it does show why in some cases it is greater than in +others.</p> + +<p>It is greater in the West than in the East because many people in the +West, with greater emotional power, from better food and little work, +live narrower lives than any in the East. It is astonishing to see the +difference. In the East every peasant lives surrounded by his relatives, +very many of them; he is friends with all his village, he has always his +work, his interests in life. He is hardly ever alone among strangers, +with no work to occupy him. But in the West, how many there are who live +alone, their relations elsewhere, with few friends, with no necessity +for work, with no interests in life? It is terrible to see how many +there are living lives empty of all emotion. These are they who seek the +miraculous as a relief from their daily monotony of stupidity. These are +they who run after new things. It is</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"The desire of the moth for the star,<br /></span> +<span class="i2">Of the day for the morrow,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">The longing for something afar<br /></span> +<span class="i2">From the scene of our sorrow."<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>It is the result of high emotional power with<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_252" id="Page_252">[Pg 252]</a></span> no food to feed on. There +are other factors, for instance—that people who live in mountains are +more superstitious than people of plains, due again to narrower, more +isolated lives, I think; and as a rule country people are more +superstitious than town people, due to the same reason. Nothing exists +without its use, and this is some of the use of the miraculous instinct +in man. It has played its part in the world, a great part no doubt. +Where it exists still it does so because it fills a necessity. Never +doubt it. Those who live full lives find it so easy to laugh at this +craving for the supernatural. Would you do away with it? Make, then, +their lives such that they do not need it. Give to them the knowledge, +the sympathy, the love, the wider life that makes it unnecessary.</p> + +<p>Nurtured in narrowness on the ground that should grow other instincts, +it disappears in the sunshine of happiness, when the heart is furrowed +and tilled by the experiences of life and planted with the fruit of +happiness.</p> + +<p>If we cannot do that, at least we can recognise that it, as all +instincts, has its uses, and exists in and because of that use, never +because of any abuse.</p> + +<p>And where the instinct exists it is attracted as<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_253" id="Page_253">[Pg 253]</a></span> are nearly all the +instincts into that great bundle of emotions called religion.</p> + +<p>But if those who support Christian missions wonder why they are not more +successful, here is another reason. What satisfies your instinct revolts +theirs. They do not require it. Orientals, even peasants, live such wide +lives compared with many in the West, that they need not the stimulus, +and their hard lives lessen the emotional powers. And if Christians are +often unable to understand the charm of Buddhism to its believers, it is +because western people seek and require the stimulus of miracle which is +here wanting. It is as if you offered them water while they cared only +for wine. But Easterns care not for your strong emotions. They are +simpler and more easily pleased.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_254" id="Page_254">[Pg 254]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXVI" id="CHAPTER_XXVI"></a>CHAPTER XXVI.</h2> + +<h3>RELIGION AND ART.</h3> + +<blockquote><p>"This is not the place, nor have I space left here, to explain +all I mean when I say that art is a mode of religion, and can +flourish only under the inspiration of living and practical +religion."—<i>Frederic Harrison.</i></p> + +<p>"No one indeed can successfully uphold the idea that the high +development of art in any shape is of necessity coincident with +a strong growth of religious or moral sentiment. Perugino made +no secret of being an atheist; Leonardo da Vinci was a +scientific sceptic; Raphael was an amiable rake, no better and +no worse than the majority of those gifted pupils to whom he +was at once a model of perfection and an example of free +living; and those who maintain that art is always the +expression of a people's religion have but an imperfect +acquaintance with the age of Praxiteles, Apelles, and Zeuxis. +Yet the idea itself has a foundation, lying in something which +is as hard to define as it is impossible to ignore; for if art +be not a growth out of faith, it is always the result of a +faith that has been."—<i>Marion Crawford.</i></p></blockquote> + +<p>Quotation on both sides could be multiplied without end, but there seems +no reason to do so. The question is the relation of religion to art, and +it has but the two sides. Indeed, the subject seems difficult, for there +is so much to be said on both sides.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_255" id="Page_255">[Pg 255]</a></span></p> + +<p>On one side it may be said:—Art is the result of and the outcome of +religion. Look at the greatest works of art the world has to show. Are +they not all religious? There are the Parthenon, the temples of Karnac, +the cathedral at Milan, St. Peter's at Rome, and others too numerous to +mention; the Mosque of St. Sophia and the Kutub Minar, the temples of +Humpi, the Shwe Dagon pagoda, the temples of China and Japan. What has +secular art to show to compare with these? Are not the Venus de Milo, +the statue of Athena, and all the famous Greek sculptures those of gods? +What is the most famous painting in the world? It is the Sistine Madonna +of Raphael. Even in literature, is there anything secular to compare +with the sacred books of the world? The oratorios and masses are the +finest music. What can be more certain than that only religion gives the +necessary stimulus to art and furnishes the most inspiring subjects? +Great art is born of great faiths, great faiths produce great art.</p> + +<p>To which there is the reply:—Many of the greatest Greek statues were of +gods truly, but was it a religious age that produced them? Were Phidias +and Zeuxis religious or moral men?</p> + +<p>Was the thirteenth century which saw the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_256" id="Page_256">[Pg 256]</a></span> building of most of the best +cathedrals, a religious age? Is it not the fact that for many cathedrals +the capital was borrowed from the Jews, enemies of Christ, and the +interest paid by the sweat of slaves; and when the interest was too +heavy, religious bigotry was resorted to and the Jews persecuted, +killed, and banished. It is probable that of all ages the thirteenth +century was the worst. Were the painters of great pictures religious or +moral? Raphael painted the most wonderful religious paintings the world +has seen—how much religion had Raphael? Leonardo da Vinci painted "The +Last Supper"; he was a sceptic. Are not artistic people notoriously +irreligious? The pyramids of Egypt and the Taj at Agra are not religious +buildings; they are tombs. The sentiment that raised them was the +emotion of death. In music and literature secular art rivals religion. +And even if great art be allied to religion, deep religious feeling does +not necessarily produce art. Indeed, it is the reverse. The most serious +forms of belief have not done so. Where is the art of the Reformation? +Protestants will be slow to admit that there was no deep religious +feeling there. Yet their great cathedrals were all built by Roman +Catholics. Were not the Puritans religious?<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_257" id="Page_257">[Pg 257]</a></span> They hated all art. Is +there no religious feeling in the North of America? Where is its +religious art? In Europe there is no religious art out of Catholicism. +In that alone has it succeeded. And again, although some religious art +is great, such is the exception. The bulk of religious art all over the +world is bad—very bad—the worst. What art is there in the crucifixes +of the Catholic world, in the sacred pictures in their chapels, in the +eikons of Russia, in the gods of the Hindus, in the Buddhas of Buddhism, +and the popular religious pictures of England? They are one and all as +Art simply deplorable. There is grand religious literature, but what of +the bulk of it? Most of the hymns, the sermons, the tracts, the +religious literature of England and other countries cannot be matched +for badness in any secular work. It is the same everywhere. The +Salvation Army had to borrow secular music to make its hymns attractive. +Striking an average, which is best—secular or religious literature, +art, music, and architecture? Without a doubt secular art is the best +all round.</p> + +<p>Art may often be the representative of religion, it is never the outcome +of religious people or a religious age. The very contrary is the fact.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_258" id="Page_258">[Pg 258]</a></span></p> + +<p>These are strong arguments, and there are more. But these will suffice.</p> + +<p>What is the truth? What connection has art with religion?</p> + +<p>I do not think the answer is difficult. The connection depends upon what +you define religion and art respectively to be. With the old definitions +no answer is forthcoming. But when you see religion as it really is, +when you understand its genesis and its growth, the answer is clear.</p> + +<p>Religion, as I have tried to show, arises from instincts. The instincts +of the savage are few, the emotions he is capable of feeling are +limited. As his civilisation progresses his instinctive desires +increase, his emotions are more numerous. And as the greater attracts +the less, the older and more established attract the newer, so religion +attracts to itself and incorporates all it can. Religions have varied in +this matter; but of all, Catholicism has been the most wide-armed, it +has always justified its name. Where a new emotion arose and became +strong the Roman Church always if possible attracted it into the fold. I +have already shown how this was done. There is hardly an emotion of the +human heart that Roman Catholicism has not made its own.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_259" id="Page_259">[Pg 259]</a></span></p> + +<p>Now what is Art?</p> + +<p>Art, as Tolstoi explains, is also an expression of the emotions, and +therefore the difference between religion and art lies in the emotions +expressed and the method of expression.</p> + +<p>Different peoples express in their religions different emotions. What +some of these emotions are I explain in Chapter XXX. Different people +are also more or less susceptible to art, and express in their art +different emotions. Where a great religion has absorbed certain +emotions, and a great art subsequently arises and wishes to express in +art some of the same emotions, then the art becomes religious art. The +two domains have overlapped. But there is no distinction between secular +and religious art. Nor is there any necessary connection between Art and +Religion. Neither is dependent on the other. They are quite distinct +domains, each existing to fulfil the necessities and desires of man.</p> + +<p>How they came frequently to overlap is easily enough seen.</p> + +<p>Consider the religion of Rome. It came, as I have said, out of the +necessity for expressing and cultivating certain emotions. It is a very +catholic religion, the product of a highly emotional people who had many +and strong<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_260" id="Page_260">[Pg 260]</a></span> feelings. As much as possible these were accepted into the +religion.</p> + +<p>Therefore, when there came the great outbreak of art in the fourteenth +century, when there were great painters and sculptors desiring to paint +pictures that appealed to the heart, all the ground was occupied.</p> + +<p>Did they want to depict feminine beauty, there was the Madonna accepted +as the ideal. Did they want to awaken the emotion of maternity, there +was the Madonna again; of pity, there were the martyrs; of sacrifice, +there was the Christ. Long before these emotions had been crystallised +by the Church round religious ideals, and a change would not be +understood.</p> + +<p>And with the Architects. There is but one emotion common to a whole +people—catholic, so to speak—namely, religion. A town hall, a palace, +a secular building would be provincial; a church only is catholic. In +palaces only princes live, in municipal buildings only officials, in +markets only the people, but in churches all are gathered together, and +not only occasionally but frequently. Therefore, given a great +architect, what could he design that would give him scope, and freedom, +and fame like a cathedral? His feelings were immaterial, it was a +professional necessity that drove artists then to religious<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_261" id="Page_261">[Pg 261]</a></span> matters. +What was Raphael, the free-liver, thinking of when he drew his Madonnas? +Was it the Jewess of Galilee over a thousand years before or the ripe +warm beauty of the Florentine girls he knew?</p> + +<p>The Roman Catholic Church desired to attract to itself all that appealed +to the emotions, and included art of all kinds in its scope. And all +artists, painters, architects, even writers, found in the Church their +greatest opportunities and greatest fame. Deep and real feelings in art +of all kinds sought the companionship of the other great feelings that +are in religion. Shallower art often shrinks from being put beside the +greater emotions, and so some of the shams of the Renaissance.</p> + +<p>But the deepest religious feeling is always averse to art. No age full +of great religious emotion has produced any art at all in any people. +The early Christians, the monks of the Thebaid, hated art, as did the +Puritans. They felt, I think, a competition. When an emotion is raised +to such a height as theirs was, none other can live beside it. Such +emotion becomes a flame that burns up all round. It cannot bear any +rivalry. It puts aside not only art but love, reverence, fear, every +other emotion. Religion is before everything, religion <i>is</i> everything.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_262" id="Page_262">[Pg 262]</a></span> +There are Christ's words refusing to recognise his mother and brethren. +It has been common to all forms of exalted religious fervour. No emotion +can live with it. Only when it has somewhat died away does art get a +chance. Then only if an artistic wave arises can it be allied with +religion. But deep religious feeling is not always followed by an +artistic wave. There has been no such sequence in most countries. This +sequence in Italy was an exception. It was perchance. There has never +been an art wave connected with Protestantism, and only very slightly +with Buddhism. I have shown in "The Soul of a People," that art in Burma +is only connected professionally with Buddhism. That is to say that +wood-carving, one of Burma's two arts, is not religious in sentiment, +and is applied to monasteries because they are the only large buildings +needed. There is no other demand. To depict the Buddha in any artistic +way except that handed down by tradition would be considered profane. +Would not the early Christians have considered Raphael's Madonna +profane, considering who he was, and what probably his models were? I +think so. I doubt if the deepest religious emotions would tolerate a +crucifix or any picture of Christ at all. Certainly not of the Almighty. +The heat of belief must<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_263" id="Page_263">[Pg 263]</a></span> have cooled down a great deal before such +things became possible. So, in fact, it is as history tells us. Religion +is a cult of the emotions. Art, as Tolstoi shows, is also a cult of the +emotions. Very deep religious feeling leaves no room for any other +emotion, it brooks no rival in the hearts of men. A deeply religious age +has no art; its religion kills art. What were the feelings of the early +Christians towards Greek art? They were those of abhorrence. What those +of the Puritans towards any art? They were the same.</p> + +<p>But when religious emotions have cooled, and room is left for other +feelings, then art may arise. And if it does so, and is a great art, it +allies itself with religion, if the religion permits of it. Some forms +of faith would never permit it. Which of the emotions of which +Puritanism is composed could be expressed in art? Art is almost always +the cult of emotions that are beautiful, are happy, are joyous. +Puritanism knew nothing of all these. Grand, stern, rigid, black, never +graceful or beautiful. Any art that followed Puritanism could but be +grotesque and terrible. There would be no Madonnas, but there might be +avenging angels; there would be no heaven, but certainly a hell. Indeed, +in the literature of the religion we see that this is so.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_264" id="Page_264">[Pg 264]</a></span></p> + +<p>Religion and art are both cults of the emotions. They may be rivals, +they may be allies, in the way that art may depict religious subjects. +But great art, like great faith, brooks no rival. And therefore great +artists are not necessarily religious. They may have scant emotion to +spare outside their art.</p> + +<p>This, I think, is the key to the relation between religion and art. It +is impossible to treat such a great subject adequately in a chapter. +Most of my chapters should, indeed, have been volumes. But the key once +provided the rest follows.</p> + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + +<div class="figcenter"> +<img src="images/illus1.jpg" alt=""/> +</div> + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_265" id="Page_265">[Pg 265]</a></span></p> + +<div class="figcenter"> +<img src="images/illus2.jpg" alt=""/> +</div> + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + +<div class="figcenter"> +<img src="images/illus3.jpg" alt=""/> +</div> + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_266" id="Page_266">[Pg 266]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXVII" id="CHAPTER_XXVII"></a>CHAPTER XXVII.</h2> + +<h3>WHAT IS EVIDENCE?</h3> + + +<p>If you go to any believer in any religion—in any of the greater +religions, I mean—and ask him why he believes in his religion, he has +always one answer: "Because it is true." And if you continue and say to +him, "How do you know it is true?" he will reply, "Because there is full +evidence to prove it." He imagines that he is guided by his reason, that +it is his logical faculty that is satisfied, and his religion can be +proved irrefragably. And yet it is strange that if any religion is based +on ascertained fact, if any religion is demonstrably true, no one can be +brought to see this truth, to accept this proof, except believers who do +not require it. The Jew cannot be brought to admit the truth of +Christianity, let the Christian argue ever so wisely; nor will the +Christian accept Mahommedanism or Buddhism as containing any truth at +all, no matter how the adherents of these faiths may argue.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_267" id="Page_267">[Pg 267]</a></span></p> + +<p>It is not so with most other matters. If a problem in chemistry or +physics be true at all it is altogether true for every one. Nationality +makes no difference to your acknowledging the law of gravity, the +science of the stars, the dynamics of steam, or the secrets of +metallurgy. If an Englishman makes a discovery a Frenchman is able to +follow the argument. The Japanese are not Christians, but that does not +in any way prevent them assimilating modern knowledge. Twice two are +four all over the world, except in matters of religion.</p> + +<p>This is a somewhat remarkable phenomenon. What is the reason of it?</p> + +<p>I can remember not very long ago walking in a garden with a man and +talking intermittently on religious topics. He was a man of great +education, of wide knowledge of the world, a man of no narrow sympathies +or thoughts. And as we went we came to a bed of roses in full bloom; +there were red and white and deep yellow roses in clusters of great +beauty, filling the air with their perfume. "To see a sight like that," +he said, "proves to me that there is a God."</p> + +<p>Proves! There was the <i>proof</i>.</p> + +<p>I did not ask him how such roses would be proof of a God. I did not say +that if beauty was proof of a God, ugliness would be proof of a Devil,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_268" id="Page_268">[Pg 268]</a></span> +for I know there is no reasoning in matters like that. The sight and +scent awoke in his heart that echo that is called God. Not only God, nor +was it any God, nor any Gods that the echo answered to. It was <i>his</i> +God, it was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, that came to him. He +saw the roses, and their beauty brought to his mind the idea of God. +That was enough for him. He had, as so many have, an absolute +instinctive understanding of God, as clear to him as if he saw Him at +midday—unreasoning because <i>known</i>.</p> + +<p>"And for others," he said, "is there not ample evidence? How do you +account for the world unless God made it? Have we not in the Scripture a +full account of how it was made out of chaos? And has not He manifested +Himself in His prophets? The truth is proved over and over again, by the +prophecies and fulfilment, by the birth and death of Christ, by the +miracles of Christ, by endless matters. It is so clear." And so it is to +him and those like him who have in themselves the idea of God. They +<i>know</i>. It seems humorous to remember that scientific men have thought +they traced this to a savage's speculations on dreams. The speculation +of a savage, forsooth, and this certainty of feeling. The Theist says: +"How can you answer the questions of who made the world other than by<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_269" id="Page_269">[Pg 269]</a></span> +God?" It is a question that rises spontaneously. Do you remember +Napoleon the Great and the idealogues on the voyage to Egypt? They were +ridiculing the idea of a Creator. And to them the Emperor, pointing to +the stars above him, replied, "It is all very well, gentlemen, but who +made all those?" But the Non-Theist replies that it would never occur to +him to put such a question. To ask "Who made the world?" is to beg the +whole question. That question which is always rising in your mind never +does in ours. We would ask how and from what has the world evolved, and +under what cause? "Your evidence is good only to you." The Hindu has +perhaps the keenest mind in religious matters the world knows; does he +accept it? Do the Buddhists accept it? Do keen thinkers in Europe accept +any of this evidence? It is not so. If you have the instinct of God, +then is evidence unnecessary; and if you have not, of what use is the +evidence brought forward? Was anyone ever converted by reasoning? I am +sure no one ever was. Religions are not proved, they are not matters of +logic; they are either above logic or beneath it. To a man who +<i>believes</i>, anything is proof. He will reason about religion in a way he +would never do about other matters. He will offer as evidence, as +absolute proof, what he who does not believe<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_270" id="Page_270">[Pg 270]</a></span> cannot accept as evidence +at all. The religions are always the same. The believers <i>know</i> them to +be true, and they cannot understand why others also do not know it. +Their truths seem to them absolutely clear, capable of the clearest +proof. And as to this evidence, this proof, there is always plenty of +it. Any faith can if pushed bring evidence on some points that not even +unbelievers can disprove, that is clearly not intentionally false, that +if the matter were a mundane concern would probably be accepted. It is +so, I think, in all religions, but here is a case from Buddhism.</p> + +<p>In my book upon the religion of the Burmese I have given a chapter to +the belief of the people in reincarnation, a belief that is to them not +a belief but a knowledge. And I have given there a few of these strange +stories of remembrance of previous lives so common among them. For +almost all children will tell you that they can remember their former +lives.</p> + +<p>There is a story there of a child who remembered nothing until one day +he saw used as a curtain a man's loin-cloth, that of a man who had died +and whose clothes had, as is the custom, been made into screens. And the +sight of that pattern awoke in him suddenly the knowledge that he had +lived before, and that in that former life he had worn that very cloth. +His former life was "proved" to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_271" id="Page_271">[Pg 271]</a></span> him, and in consequence the fact that +all men had former lives. There was proof.</p> + +<p>When I was writing "The Soul of a People" I went a great deal into this +subject of the former life, and I collected a great deal of evidence +about it. I not only saw a number of people who said they could +recollect these lives, but I came across a quantity of facts difficult +of explanation on any other hypothesis. The evidence was honestly given, +I know. But did I believe this former life, or has any European ever +been convinced by that evidence? I never heard of one. Why? Because we +have not the instinct. The Burman has.</p> + +<p>They have the idea as an instinct, just as my friend held the idea of +God as an instinct, and there were certain matters that awakened these +instincts. They needed no more; the facts were proved to them and to +those of like thought to them. But proof. What is proof? Proof, they +will tell you, is a matter of evidence, it is a matter of cold logic, it +arises from facts.</p> + +<p>If that is so, why does not everyone believe in ghosts? Was there ever a +subject on which there was more evidence than in the existence of +ghosts? We find the belief as far back as we can go—the witch of Endor, +for instance. We find the belief to-day. Not a year passes but<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_272" id="Page_272">[Pg 272]</a></span> numerous +people assert that they have seen ghosts. Their evidence is honestly +given; no one doubts that. The mass of evidence is overwhelming. The +fact that certain people do not see them in no way invalidates the +direct evidence. Yet the belief in ghosts is a joke, and a mark, we say, +of feeble-minded folk.</p> + +<p>I have myself lived in the midst of ghosts. One of my houses in Burma +was full of them. Every Burman who came in saw them. Not even my +servants dared go upstairs after dark without me. My servants are +honest, truth-telling boys, and I would believe them in a matter of +theft or murder without hesitation. I would certainly hang a man if the +evidence of his being a murderer was as clear as the evidence that my +bedroom contained a ghost. No absolutely impartial lawyer, judging the +evidence of former life and of the existence of ghosts as a pure matter +of law, but would admit that they were conclusively proved. The Burmans +firmly believe both, considering them not only proved but beyond proof. +No European believes in the former life, and with regard to ghosts the +belief is relegated to those whom we stigmatise as the weak-minded and +imaginative.</p> + +<p>Is the explanation difficult? It does not seem to me so. For it is +simply this. To believe and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_273" id="Page_273">[Pg 273]</a></span> accept any matter it is not sufficient that +there be enough evidence, the subject itself must appeal to you, must +ring true, must be good to be believed. But with ghosts to most of us it +is the reverse. That our friends and those we love should after death +behave as ghosts behave, should be silly, unreasonable, drivelling in +their ways, imbecile in their performances, should in fact act as if the +next world was a ghostly lunatic asylum, is not attractive but the +reverse. For a murdered man's spirit to go fooling about scaring +innocent people into fits, and unable to say right out that he wants his +body buried, strikes the ordinary man as sheer idiocy. And therefore men +laugh and jeer. People who see ghosts may believe them; no one else will +do so. Because they are not worthy of belief. If these be indeed ghosts, +and they act as ghost-seers say, it is a deplorable, a most deplorable +thing. And if it is a choice of imbecilities, we would prefer to believe +in the lunacy of ghost-seers rather than in that of the dead, our dead.</p> + +<p>But it is not only in matters relating to religion as the idea of God, +or to the supernatural as in ghosts, that we reject evidence. We can do +so also in matters that have no connection with each. For why do we +refuse to accept the sea serpent? Numbers of absolutely reliable men +declare they<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_274" id="Page_274">[Pg 274]</a></span> have seen it. And yet we laugh, or at best we say, "They +were mistaken, it was a trail of seaweed."</p> + +<p>All men who have lived to a certain age have learnt that there are +certain facts, certain experiences not at all connected with the +supernatural, which they dare not tell of for fear of being put down as +inventors. They are curious coincidences, narrow escapes, shooting +adventures, and so on. They have happened to us all. Who has not heard +the tale of the general at a dinner party who related some such incident +that had occurred to himself, and was surprised to see amusement and +disbelief depicted on the faces of all around him. "You do not believe +me," he said stiffly, "but my friend opposite was with me at the time +and saw it too." But the friend refused with a laugh to bear witness, +and the conversation changed. "General," explained the friend +subsequently to his irate companion, "I know, of course, all you said +was true. But what would you have? If fifty men swore to it no one would +believe them. They would only have put me down as a liar too."</p> + +<p>Just as the old woman was ready to accept her travelled son's yarns of +rivers of milk and islands of cheese; but when he deviated into the +truth she stopped. "Na, Na!" she said, "that the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_275" id="Page_275">[Pg 275]</a></span> anchor fetched up one +of Pharaoh's chariot wheels out of the Red Sea, I can believe; but that +fish fly! Na, Na! dinna come any o' your lies over yer mither."</p> + +<p>They are old stories, but they illustrate my point. On some matters we +are ready to believe at once, on others no amount of evidence will +change our opinions.</p> + +<p>Indeed, we are too apt to assume that reason is our great guide in life. +To think before you act may be wise—sometimes. But if in matters of +emergency you had to stop and think first, you would not succeed very +well. The great men of action are those who act first and think +afterwards, and sometimes they even do the latter badly. There is the +story of a man who was going abroad to be a Chief Justice, and who was +addressed by the Lord Chancellor in this way: "My friend, be careful +where you are going. Your judgments will be nearly always right, but +beware of giving your reasons, for they will almost invariably be +wrong." There are many such men.</p> + +<p>What, then, is religious proof? If it is not founded on evidence that +all can accept, on what is it founded? Why do men believe their own +religion and accept the evidence of it as irrefragable, while scornfully +rejecting that in favour of other religions?<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_276" id="Page_276">[Pg 276]</a></span></p> + +<p>The answer, I think, is this.</p> + +<p>If you will take two violins and will tune them together, and if while +someone plays ever so lightly on one you will bend your ear to the +other, you will hear faintly but clearly repeated from its strings the +melody of the first. For they are in harmony. But if they are not, then +there will be no echo, play you never so loudly.</p> + +<p>And so it is in matters of religion. If you are in harmony with any +thought there will come the echo in your heart's strings, and you will +know that it is true. But if you are not in harmony, then no matter how +loudly the evidence be sounded there will be no echo there. All these +ideas on which religions are built are instincts. They are of the heart, +never of the head. Reason affects them not at all. These instincts are +not the same with all. They vary, and so the religions that are based on +them vary. They have nothing to do with reason, and therefore those of +one religion cannot understand another. And they are not fixed; for the +belief in the Unity of God only evolved, after many thousands of years, +quite recently, and the belief in ghosts, universal among earlier people +and now among the half-civilized, lingers with us only as a subject for +amusement. There is no "evidence" in religion; you either believe or you +don't.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_277" id="Page_277">[Pg 277]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXVIII" id="CHAPTER_XXVIII"></a>CHAPTER XXVIII.</h2> + +<h3>THE AFTER DEATH.</h3> + + +<p>It is two years and a half ago now that I passed through Westminster +Hall, one of a great multitude. They went in double file, thickly packed +between barriers of rails on either side the hall, and between where +everyone looked there lay—what? A plain oak coffin on a table.</p> + +<p>Within this coffin there lay the body of Mr. Gladstone, he who in his +day had filled the public eye in England more than any other man. His +body lay there in state, and the people came to see.</p> + +<p>Emerging into the street beyond and seeing the ceaseless stream of +people that flowed past, I wondered to myself. These people are +Christians. If you ask them where Mr. Gladstone is now, they will, if +they reply hurriedly, answer, "He is dead and in there"; but if they +pause<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_278" id="Page_278">[Pg 278]</a></span> to reflect they will say, "He is in heaven. His soul is with +God."</p> + +<p>If, then, his soul, if <i>he</i> be with God, what are you come to see? +Shortly there will be a funeral, and what will it be called? The funeral +of Mr. Gladstone. But Mr. Gladstone is in heaven, not here. Surely this +is strange.</p> + +<hr style="width: 45%;" /> + +<p>"If there is anything I can do for you be sure you tell me, for your +husband was my great friend." So wrote the man. And to him came her +reply: "Sometimes when you are near go and see his grave where he sleeps +in that far land, and put a flower upon it for your remembrance and for +mine."</p> + +<p>But if he, too, be in heaven and not there at all? If it be, as the +Burmans say, but the empty shell that lies there? Why should we visit +graves if the soul be indeed separate from the body? If he be far away +in happiness, why go to his grave? To remember but the corruption that +lies beneath?</p> + +<p>Men use words and phrases remembering what they ought to believe. For +very few are sincere and know what really they do believe. You cannot +tell from their professions, only from their unconscious words and their +acts.</p> + +<p>What do these unconscious words, these acts,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_279" id="Page_279">[Pg 279]</a></span> tell us of the belief +about the soul and body? That they are separable and separate? No, but +that they are inseparable. No one in the West, I am sure—no one +anywhere, I think—has ever been able to conceive of the soul as apart +from the body. We cannot do so. Try, try honestly, and remember your +dead friends. What is it you recall and long for and miss so bitterly? +It was his voice that awoke echoes in you, it was the clasp of his hand +in yours, it was his eyes looking back to you the love you felt for him. +It was his footfall on the stair, his laugh, the knowledge of his +presence. And are not these all of the body?</p> + +<p>Men talk glibly of the soul as apart from the body. What do they mean? +Nothing but words, for the soul without a body is an incomprehensible +thing, certainly to us.</p> + +<p>And it is always the same body, not another. It is the old hand, the +face, that we want. Not the soul, if it could be possible, looking at us +out of other eyes. No; we want him we lost, and not another. It is the +cry of our hearts.</p> + +<p>And therefore, "I believe in the resurrection of the body and the life +everlasting." Have you wondered how that came into the creed? It came +into religion as came all<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_280" id="Page_280">[Pg 280]</a></span> that we believe in, never out of theory but +out of instinct.</p> + +<p>What is your feeling towards the dead? Is it envy that they have reached +everlasting happiness? Is it gladness to reflect that they are no longer +with us? Do we think of them as superior to us? Alas, no. The great and +overpowering sentiment we have for them is pity. The tears come to our +eyes for them, because they are dead. They have left behind them light +and life and gone into the everlasting forgetfulness. "The night hath +come when no man can work." That is our real instinct towards the dead. +"Poor fellow." And you will hear people say, with tardy remembrance of +their creeds, "But for his sake we ought to rejoice, because he is at +peace."</p> + +<p>We ought? But <i>do</i> we? Surely we never do. We are sorry for the dead. +All the compassion that is in us goes out to them, because they are +dead.</p> + +<p>The Catholic Church has prayers for the dead. There was never a Church +yet that knew the hearts of men as that Church of Rome. Prayers for the +dead. Masses for the dead.</p> + +<p>Our Protestant theories forbid such. But tell me, is there a woman who +has lost those she loves to whom such prayers would not come<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_281" id="Page_281">[Pg 281]</a></span> home? How +narrow sometimes are the Reformed Creeds in their refusal to help the +sorrow of their people.</p> + +<p>"In the sure and certain hope of a glorious resurrection." What is to +arise? The disembodied soul? But you say it is already with God. What is +to arise? It is the body. It is more. It is he who is dead—who sleeps; +he whom we have buried there. Whatever our creeds may say, we do not, we +cannot ever understand the soul without the body. Not <i>a</i> body, but +<i>the</i> body. We believe not in the life of a soul previous to the body. +They are born together, and they die together. If they live hereafter it +must be together. For they are one.</p> + +<p>Never be deceived by theories or professions. No one in the West has +ever understood the soul without the body, no one can do so. The +conception is wanting. We play with the theory in words as we do with +the fourth dimension. But who ever realised either?</p> + +<p>But with the Oriental it is different. He believes in the migration of +souls. They pass from body to body. He can realise this—somehow, I know +not—but he can. Those who have read my "Soul of a People" will remember +that they not only believe it but<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_282" id="Page_282">[Pg 282]</a></span> <i>know</i> it. They are sure of it +because it has happened to each one, and he can remember his former +lives. This comes not from Buddhism, because Buddhist theory denies the +existence of soul at all, nor from Brahminism. It is the Oriental's +instinct. He does not, I think, ever realise a soul apart from any body, +but he can and does realise a soul exhibited first in one body then in +another, as a lamp shining through different globes.</p> + +<p>Therefore, when a Christian tells him of the resurrection of the body he +cannot understand. "Which body," he asks, "for I have had so many?" +Neither can he understand a Christian heaven of bodies risen from the +earth. His heaven is immaterial. It is the Great Peace, where life has +passed away. That he can understand. For neither can he conceive a life +of the soul without some body. When perfection is reached and the last +weary body done with, then life, too, is gone—life and all passion, all +love, all happiness, all fear, all the emotions that are life. They are +gone, and there is left only the Great Peace.</p> + +<p>Our heaven grows out of our instincts as his does out of his instincts. +Our dead without their bodies would not be those we love, and hence our +heaven, where we shall recognise each<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_283" id="Page_283">[Pg 283]</a></span> other and love them as we did. I +did not understand heaven when I read books, but out of men have I +learned what I wished to know. Reason alone can tell you nothing, but +sympathy will tell you all things.</p> + +<p>It would be interesting, it is very interesting, to look back into our +past histories and see these instincts grow and wane, to mark how they +have influenced not only our religious theories, but our lives; to trace +in other people like or opposed instincts. The Mahommedans refuse +amputation because they will not appear maimed in the next world. For +they, too, cannot distinguish soul from one body. The Jews had no idea +of soul at all as existing after death, whether with or without a body. +"As a man dies so will he be, all through the ages of eternity." They +learned the idea of immortality from Egypt, but it never took root +because they had no instinctive feeling of soul. Their witches were +foreigners. "You shall not suffer a witch to live." The incantation of +ghosts was utterly forbidden by them as a foreign wickedness. It has so +been forbidden by <i>all</i> religions. Yet there are people who think +religions arise from ideas of ghosts.</p> + +<p>The African negroes have no idea of life after death, as witness the +story of Dr. Livingstone<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_284" id="Page_284">[Pg 284]</a></span> and the negro king about the seed. It is a +very curious history this of the longing for immortality, the belief in +a life beyond the grave.</p> + +<p>But I am not now concerned with the past only with the present. The +history of instincts is never the explanation of them. If we could +unravel clearly all the history of the instincts of all peoples as +regards the after death, we should be no nearer an explanation of why +the instinct exists at all, why it grows or decays, why it takes one +form or another. But we might, as so many do, blind ourselves to the +fact that instincts exist now quite apart from reason, either now or +previously. No reasoning can explain the absolute clinging of the +European peoples to the resurrection of the body. No reasoning can +possibly explain the Burman's remembrance of previous lives. Reasoning +would deny both. Observation and sympathy know that both exist.</p> + +<p>And which is true? No one can tell.</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"Not one returns to tell us of the Road<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Which to discover we must travel too."<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>For some years now there has been a movement in England to introduce +cremation as a method of disposing of the dead. There can be no doubt of +its sanitary superiority to burial;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_285" id="Page_285">[Pg 285]</a></span> there can be no doubt that, as far +as reason and argument go, cremation should be preferred to the grave. +There seems to be absolutely no good reason to bring forward in favour +of the latter. And yet cremation makes no way. Men die and they are +buried, and if over their tombs we do not now write "Hic jacet," but "In +memory of," our ideas have suffered no change.</p> + +<p>We cannot bear to burn the bodies of the dead because we cannot +disassociate the body from the soul. The body is to rise, and if we burn +it, what then? What will there be to rise? Man has but one body and one +soul dwelling therein, and if you destroy the body the soul is dead too.</p> + +<p>Only people who believe in the transmigration of souls burn their +dead—the Hindus and, in Burma, the monks of Buddha. They see no +objection to the destruction of the body because the soul is migratory, +and has passed into another. What is left after death is but the "empty +shell."</p> + +<p>Therefore do Hindus and Buddhists cremate, whereas Christians and +Mahommedans bury. Nor does rejection of creed alter this instinct. +Intellectual France boasts of its freedom from religion. But <i>is</i> it +free? Has it outgrown the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_286" id="Page_286">[Pg 286]</a></span> instincts that are the root of religion? One +certainly it has not yet done, for secularists are buried just as +believers are, usually with the same rites. And even if the funeral be +secular, the body is buried, not burnt. Why do they shrink from +cremation if reason is to be the only guide? The creed is outworn but +the roots of faith are never dead.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_287" id="Page_287">[Pg 287]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXIX" id="CHAPTER_XXIX"></a>CHAPTER XXIX.</h2> + +<h3>OPTIMISM AND PESSIMISM.</h3> + + +<p>Thus are the heavens of all religions explanations to materialise, as it +were, the vague instincts of men's hearts. The Mahommedan's absolutely +material garden of the houris, the Christian semi-material heaven, the +Buddhist absolutely immaterial Nirvana, are all outcomes of the people's +capability of separating soul from body. These heavens are just as the +dogmas of Godhead, or Law, or Atonement, but the theory to explain the +fact, which is in this case the desire for immortality. And in exactly +the same way as the theories of other matters are unsatisfying, so are +these theories of heaven. The desire for immortality is there, one of +the strongest of all the emotions; but the ideal which the theologian +offers to the believer to fulfil his desire has no attraction. The more +it is defined the less anyone wants it. Heaven we would all go to, but +not <i>that</i> heaven. The instinct is true, but the theory which would +materialise the aim of that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_288" id="Page_288">[Pg 288]</a></span> desire is false. No heaven that has been +pictured to any believer is desirable.</p> + +<p>It is strange to see in this but another instance of the invincible +pessimism of the human reason. No matter to what it turns itself it is +always the same.</p> + +<p>I have read all the Utopias, from Plato's New Republic to Bellamy's, +from the Anarchist's Paradise to that of the Socialists, and I confess +that I have always risen from them with one strong emotion. And that +was, the relief and delight that never in my time—never, I am sure, in +any time—can any one of them be realised. This world as it exists, as +it has existed, may have its drawbacks. There is crime, and misfortune, +and unhappiness, more than need be. There are tears far more than +enough. But there is sunshine too; and if there be hate there is love, +if there is sorrow there is joy. Here there is life. But in these drab +Utopias of the reason, what is there? That which is the worst of all to +bear—monotony tending towards death.</p> + +<p>No one, I think, can study philosophy, that grey web of the reason, +without being oppressed by its utter pessimism. No matter what the +philosophy be, whether it be professedly a pessimism as Schopenhauer's +or not, there is no difference. It is all dull, weary barrenness, with +none of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_289" id="Page_289">[Pg 289]</a></span> light of hope there. Hope and beauty and happiness are +strangers to that twilight country. They could not live there. Like all +that is beautiful and worth having, they require light and shadow, +sunshine and the dark.</p> + +<p>And the lives of philosophers, what do they gain from the reason alone? +Is there anyone who, after reading the life of any philosopher, would +not say, "God help me from such." What did his unaided reason give him? +Pessimism, and pessimism, and again pessimism. No matter who your +philosopher is—Horace or Omar Khayyam, or Carlyle or Nietsche:—where +is the difference? See how Huxley even could not stifle his desire for +immortality that no reason could justify. What has reason to offer me? +Only this, resignation to the worst in the world, and of it knows +nothing.</p> + +<p>To which it would be replied:</p> + +<p>And religion, what has that to offer either here or in the next world? +For in this world they declare—at least Christianity and Buddhism both +declare—that nothing is worth having. It is all vanity and vexation, +fraud and error and wickedness, to be quickly done with. The philosopher +has Utopias of sorts here, but these two religions have no Utopia, no +happiness at all here to offer. All this life is denounced as a +continued misery.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_290" id="Page_290">[Pg 290]</a></span></p> + +<p>And you say that neither heaven nor Nirvana appeal to men, that men +shrink from them. If philosophy be pessimism, what then is religion? Do +you consider the Christian theory of the fall of man, the sacrifice of +God to God, the declaration that the vast majority of men are doomed to +everlasting fire, a cheerful theory?</p> + +<p>Do you consider the Buddhist theory that life is itself an evil to be +done with, that no consciousness survives death, but only the effects of +a man's actions, an optimism?</p> + +<p>Philosophies may not be very cheerful, but what are religions? Whatever +charge you may bring against philosophy, it can be ten times repeated of +any religion. Compared with any religious theory, even Schopenhauer's +philosophy is a glaring optimism.</p> + +<p>To which I would answer, No!</p> + +<p>I do not agree, because what you call religion I call only a reasoning +about religion. The dogmas and creeds are not religion. They are +summaries of the reasons that men give to explain those facts of life +which are religion, just as philosophies are summaries of the theories +men make to explain other facts of life. Both creeds and philosophies +come from the reason. They are speculations, not facts. They are +pessimistic twins of the brain. Religion is a different matter.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_291" id="Page_291">[Pg 291]</a></span> It is a +series of facts. What facts these are I have tried to shew chapter by +chapter, and they are summarised in Chapter XXX., at the end. I will not +anticipate it. What I am concerned with is whether religion is +pessimistic or not. Never mind the dogmas and creeds; come to facts. +When you read books written by men who are really religious, what is +their tone? You may never agree with what is urged in them, but can you +assert that they are pessimistic? It seems to me, on the contrary, that +they are the reverse.</p> + +<p>And when you know people who are religious—not fanatics, but those men +and women of sober minds who take their faith honestly and sincerely as +a part of life, but not the whole—are they pessimistic? I am not +speaking of any religion in particular, but of all religions. Can you +see religious people, and live with them and hear them talk, and watch +their lives, and not recognise that religion is to them a strength, a +comfort, and resource against the evils of life? Never mind what the +creeds say; watch what the believers <i>do</i>. Is life to them a sorry march +to be made with downcast eyes of thought, to be trod with weary steps, +to be regarded with contempt? The men who act thus are philosophers, not +religious people.</p> + +<p>To those who are really religious, life is beautiful. It is a triumphal +march made to music<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_292" id="Page_292">[Pg 292]</a></span> that fills their ears, that brightens their eyes, +that lightens their steps, now quicker, now slower, now sad, now joyous, +always beautiful. Who are the happy men and women in this world? Let no +one ever doubt—no one who has observed the world will ever doubt; they +are the people who have religion. No matter what the religion is, no +matter what the theory or dogma or creed, no matter the colour or +climate, there is no difference. If you doubt, go and see. Never sit in +your closet and study creeds and declare "No man can be happy who +believes such," but go and see whether they are happy. Go to all the +peoples of the world, and having put aside your prejudices, having tuned +your heart-strings to theirs, listen and you will know. Watch and you +will see. What is the keynote of the life of him who truly believes? Is +it disgust, weariness, pessimism? Is it not courage and a strange +triumph that marks his way in life? And who are those who go through +life sadly, who find it terrible in its monotony, who have lost all +savour for beauty, whom the sunlight cannot gladden, who neither love +nor hate, neither fear nor rejoice, neither laugh nor cry? I will tell +you who they are. There are two kinds, who think they are different, but +are the same.</p> + +<p>First, there are those who call themselves<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_293" id="Page_293">[Pg 293]</a></span> philosophers, men who have +abandoned all religion and accepted "barren reason." For reason cannot +make you love or hate, or laugh or weep. There is no beauty there, no +light and shadow, no colour, only the greyness of unliving outline.</p> + +<p>And there are those who mistake what religion is. They think it consists +of creeds. They do not know it consists of emotions. And so they take +their creeds to their hearts, and see what they make of them! Or they, +abandoning their creeds, search all through the world to find new +creeds. They speculate on Nirvana, on Brahm, on the doctrine of +Averroes. They are for ever digging out some abstruse problem from the +sacred books of the world to make themselves miserable over.</p> + +<p>They, too, are the victims of a barren reason.</p> + +<p>But religion is not reason; it is fact. It is beyond and before all +reason. Religion is not what you say, but what you feel; not what you +think, but what you know. Religions are the great optimisms. Each is to +its believers "the light of the world."</p> + +<p>I cannot think how this has not been evident long ago to everyone. Have +men no eyes, no ears, no understanding? Yes, perhaps they have all these +things. But what they have not got is sympathy, and without this of what +use are the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_294" id="Page_294">[Pg 294]</a></span> rest? For what men see and hear in any matter are the +things they are in sympathy with. If your heart is out of tune, there is +never any echo of the melody that is about you.</p> + +<p>To this chapter on optimism and pessimism I would add a small +postscript. I would fain have made it a chapter or many chapters, but I +have not the room. It is the strong connection between religion and +optimism as evinced in a high birth rate, between irreligion and +pessimism as shown in a falling off in the population. For that is the +great complaint in France to-day. It is noticeable especially amongst +the cultured classes, who are absolutely irreligious, and who are +absolutely pessimistic: the birth rate is falling so rapidly that France +ceases to increase. Only in Normandy, where religion yet retains power, +does the birth rate keep up. This is not a solitary instance. All +history repeats it. Do you remember Matthew Arnold's lines:</p> + +<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> +<span class="i0">"On that hard Pagan world disgust and secret loathing fell,<br /></span> +<span class="i0">Deep weariness, and sated lust made human life a hell.<br /></span> +<span class="i0">In his cool hall with haggard eyes the Roman noble lay;<br /></span> +<span class="i0">He drove abroad in furious guise along the Appian way.<br /></span> +<span class="i0"> * * * * *<br /></span> +<span class="i0">No easier nor no quicker passed the impracticable hours."<br /></span> +</div></div> + +<p>The Roman Empire fell because there were no<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_295" id="Page_295">[Pg 295]</a></span> more Romans left. They had +died out and left no children to succeed them. Where is the highest +birth rate to-day in Europe? It is in "priest-ridden" Russia, where the +people are without doubt more deeply imbued with their faith than any +other people of the West now. In Burma, where religion has such a hold +on the people as the world has never known, the birth rate is very high +indeed. The Turks in the heyday of their religious enthusiasm increased +very rapidly, but now and for long they seem to be stationary, and in +the Boers we see again a high birth rate and very strong religious +convictions. Our birth rate, on the contrary, is falling with the +growing irreligion in certain classes. Not that I wish for a moment to +infer that religious feeling causes more children to be born. I have no +belief whatever in the usual theories that the fall in birth rates is +due to preventive measures, which religion disallows, or to debauchery, +which religion controls. The supporters of such a theory admit that they +cannot prove it. And there is very much against such an idea. When +religion in the early ages of Christianity discouraged marriage and did +all in its power to encourage celibacy, it never succeeded in the end. +Men and women might go into convents for certain reasons—not, I think, +mainly religious—the birth of children<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_296" id="Page_296">[Pg 296]</a></span> from those outside did not +alter. And during the priestly rule in Paraguay population disappeared +so rapidly the monks were alarmed, and took stringent and strange +methods to stop the decay, but in vain—the people had lost heart.</p> + +<p>Why are the Maories and many other people disappearing? From disease? +That is not a reason. It is a fact that with a virile people a plague or +famine is followed by an increase in the birth rate. This is proved in +India. The Maories, too, have lost heart. They may have acquired +Christianity, but that is no help. No; the adoption of a religion does +not affect the question.</p> + +<p>But still they go together, and the answer seems to be here: A nation +that is virile, that is full of vitality, finds an outlet for that +vitality in children, an expression of it in religion. A virile people +is optimistic always. Pessimism, whether in nations or individuals, +comes from a deficiency of nerve strength. But why peoples lose their +vitality no one yet knows. There is a tribe on the Shan frontier of +Burma that twenty years ago was a people of active hunters, always gun +or bow in hand, scouring the forests for game, fearing nothing. And now +they have lost their energy. Their nerve is gone. They are listless and +depressed. For a gun they substitute a hoe and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_297" id="Page_297">[Pg 297]</a></span> do a little feeble +gardening. Their children are few, and shortly the tribe will be dead.</p> + +<p>No one knows why.</p> + +<p>Religion, deep and true, and strong faith is possible only to strong +natures; it is the outcome of strong feeling. It is a companion always +to that virility that is optimism, that does not fear the future; it +knows not what may come, but faces the future with confidence. It takes +each day as it comes. Such are the nations that replenish the earth. The +world is the heritage of the godly. The Old Testament is full of that +truth, and it is no less true now than then. But one does not proceed +from the other. They both come from that fount whence springs the life +of the world.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_298" id="Page_298">[Pg 298]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXX" id="CHAPTER_XXX"></a>CHAPTER XXX.</h2> + +<h3>WAS IT REASON?</h3> + + +<p>Reason and religion have but little in common. They come from different +sources, they pursue different ways. They are never related in this +order as cause and effect. No one was ever reasoned into a religion, no +one was ever reasoned out of his religion. Faith exists or does not +exist in man without any reference to his reason. Reason may follow +faith, does follow faith; never does faith follow reason.</p> + +<p>Is it indeed always so? Then how about the boy told of in the earlier +chapters? He was born into a religion, he was educated in it, and he +rejected it. Why? He himself tells why he did so, because his reason +drove him away from it. His reason, looking at the world as he found it, +could not accept the way of life inculcated by his faith. He found it +impossible, unworkable, and therefore not beautiful. His reason told him +it was impracticable, not in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_299" id="Page_299">[Pg 299]</a></span> accordance with facts, and therefore he +would have none of it.</p> + +<p>His reason, too, following Darwin, told him that the earlier part of the +Old Testament could not be correct. Man has risen, not fallen; he had +his origin not six thousand years ago, but perhaps sixty thousand, +perhaps much more. In many ways his reason fought with his religion, and +it prevailed. Was no one ever reasoned out of a faith? Surely this boy +was, surely many boys and men equally with him have so been deprived by +reason of their faiths. Reason is the enemy of faith. Is not this so?</p> + +<p>When that boy was fighting his battle long ago I am sure he thought so. +Certainly he said so to himself. Was he insincere or mistaken? Surely he +should know best of what was going on in his mind. He tells how reason +drove him from his faith. Was he not right?</p> + +<p>I think that he had not then learned to look at the roots of things. If +there is one truth which grows upon us in life as we go on, as we watch +men and what they say and do, as we watch ourselves and what we say or +do, it is this, that men do not do things nor feel things because they +think them, but the reverse. Men think things because they want to do +them; their reason follows their instincts. No man seeks to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_300" id="Page_300">[Pg 300]</a></span> disprove +what he likes and feels to be good, no man seeks to prove what he +instinctively dislikes and rejects. You cannot argue yourself into a +liking or a distaste. If, then, you find a man seeking reasons to +disprove his faith, it is because his faith irks him, because he would +fain shake it off and be done with it. If he were happy in it and it +suited him, reasons disproving any part of it would pass by him +harmlessly. You cannot shake a man's conviction of what he <i>feels</i> to be +useful and beautiful.</p> + +<p>To the man, therefore, looking back it seems that all the boy's +thoughts, his arguments, his reasoning, arise from this, that his +religion did not suit. It galled him somewhere, perhaps in many places; +it was a burden, and instead of being beautiful it was the reverse. So +to rid himself of what he could not abide he sought refuge in his +reason. And his reason going, as reason has always done, to the theories +of faith instead of to the facts, he found that the creeds and beliefs +had no foundation in fact, were but formulĉ thrown upon an ignorant +world, and should be rejected. So he left them. But it was never his +reason that made him do so; reason came in but as the judge, openly +justifying what had happened silently and unnoticed in his heart.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_301" id="Page_301">[Pg 301]</a></span></p> + +<p>What was it, then, that drove the boy from his faith? What were his +instincts that remained unfulfilled, roused against his religion till +they drove him to find reasons for leaving it? What was it that galled +him till he revolted? There were, I think, mainly two things—the rise +of an intense revolt to the continual exercise of authority, and the +greater effect of the code of Christ upon him.</p> + +<p>When a boy is frequently ill, when his constitution is delicate and +easily upset, it is necessary that he should be very careful what he +does, how he exposes himself to damp or cold, how he over-exerts himself +at work or play. But for a boy to exercise this care is very difficult. +He feels fairly well, and the other boys are going skating or boating, +why should he not do so? The day is not very cold, and the other boys do +not wear comforters; they laugh at him if he does so. He will not admit +that he cannot do what other boys can do. So he has to be looked after +and guarded, and cared for and watched, and made to do things he +dislikes. If, too, the supervision becomes unnecessarily close, if there +is a tendency to interfere not only where he is wrong and wants +correction, but in many details where it is not required, is it not +natural? If in time it so<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_302" id="Page_302">[Pg 302]</a></span> comes, or the boy thinks it so comes, that he +cannot move hand or foot, cannot go in or out, cannot think or read, or +even rest, without perpetual correction, is it so very unnatural? +Mistake? Who shall say where the mistake lay? Who shall say if there was +any mistake at all, unless great affection be a mistake? Maybe it was +the inevitable result of circumstances. But still there it was. And +though a small boy may accept such rule without question, yet as he +grows up it irks him more and more, until at last it may become a daily +and hourly irritation growing steadily more unbearable, more +exasperating, month by month.</p> + +<p>There is, too, in many people—women, I think, mostly, and with women +chiefly in reverse proportion to their knowledge—a tendency to give +advice. Few are without the desire, maybe a kindly desire in its +inception, to advise others. The world at large does not take to it +kindly, so the advice has to be bottled up, to be expended in its +fulness where it can. This boy got it all. He received advice from +innumerable people, enough to have furnished a universe. Most of it he +felt to be worthless, almost all of it he was sure was impertinence. Yet +he could not resent it, because he was under authority.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_303" id="Page_303">[Pg 303]</a></span></p> + +<p>And now perhaps you may see how there grew up slowly in him an utter +loathing of authority, a hatred to being checked and supervised, and +advised and lectured for ever. Sometimes he would revolt and say, "Can't +you leave me alone?" and this was insubordination. He would have given +all he could, everything, for liberty. "I would sooner," he said to +himself, "catch cold and die than be worried daily not to forget my +comforter. I would sooner grow up a fool and earn my living by breaking +stones in the road than be supervised into my lessons like this, that I +may be learned. But when I am grown up it must cease. It SHALL cease. +Then I shall be free to go my own way, and do wrong and suffer for it."</p> + +<p>And now imagine a boy in a state of mind like this told that he would +<i>never</i> be free. A boy's authorities might pass, school and home might +be left behind, but God would remain. Masters can be avoided and +deceived, God cannot be deceived. His eye is always on you. He sees +everything you do. His hand is always guiding and directing and checking +you. It seems to him that the exasperation was never to end, was to last +even into the next life, if this be true. Then you may understand how +his instincts drove his reason to find<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_304" id="Page_304">[Pg 304]</a></span> good and sufficient cause for +rejecting this God and for seeking freedom. "Give me freedom," he cried, +"freedom even to do wrong and suffer for it. I will not complain. Only +let me alone. Do not interfere. I will not have a God who interferes." +His reason helped him and showed him the emptiness of the creeds, and he +went on his way without.</p> + +<p>Then there was the Sermon on the Mount. To most boys this does not +appeal at all. They hear it read. It is to them part of "religion"—that +is, for consumption on Sunday. It is not of any consequence, only words. +They do not think twice of it. But with this boy it was different. The +Sermon on the Mount did appeal to him. He thought it very beautiful as a +little boy. It seemed worth remembering. He did remember it. It seemed +worth acting up to as much as possible.</p> + +<p>But as he grew older and learned life as it is, he became able to see +that it was not applicable at all to life, that life was much rougher +and harder than he supposed, and required very different rules. He +slowly grew disillusioned. And with the disillusion came bitterness. If +you have never believed in any certain thing, never taken it to +yourself, you can go on theoretically admiring it, and, if that becomes +impossible,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_305" id="Page_305">[Pg 305]</a></span> you can eventually let it go without trouble. But if you +have believed, if you have strongly believed and desired to accept, when +you find that your belief and acceptance have been misplaced, there +comes a revulsion. If it cannot be all, it must be none. Love turns to +hate, never to indifference. Belief changes to absolute rejection, never +to toleration.</p> + +<p>This code of Christ could not be absolutely followed in daily life, +therefore it was absolutely untrue. And being untrue he could not bear +to hear it preached every Sunday as a teaching from on High. He shrank +from it unconsciously as from a theory he had loved and which had +deceived him: the love remained, the confidence was gone. He was +betrayed. But he never reasoned about it till he had rejected it. Then +he sought to justify by reason what he had already accomplished in fact.</p> + +<p>So do men think things, because they have done or wish to do them; never +the reverse.</p> + +<hr style="width: 45%;" /> + +<p>It seems trivial after the above to recall a minor point wherein +instinct has had much to say.</p> + +<p>I can remember as a boy how I disliked to hear the church bells ringing +for service. I hated them. They made me shudder. And<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_306" id="Page_306">[Pg 306]</a></span> I used to think to +myself that I must be naturally wicked and irreligious to be so +affected. "They ring for God's service and you shudder. You must be +indeed the wicked boy they say." So I thought many a time.</p> + +<p>And now I know that I disliked the bells then, as I dislike them now, +because of all sounds that of bells is to me the harshest and noisiest. +I dislike not only church bells, but all bells. I have no prejudice +against dinner, yet I would willingly wait in some houses half an hour, +or even have it half-cold if it could be announced without a bell. And +church bells! Very few are in tune, none are sweet toned, all are rung +far louder and faster than they should be, so that their notes, which +might be bearable, become a wrangling abomination.</p> + +<p>But I love the monastery gongs in Burma because they are delicately +tuned, and they are rung softly and with such proper intervals between +each note that there is no jar, none of that hideous conflict of the +dying vibrations with the new note that is maddening to the brain.</p> + +<p>It is trivial, maybe, but it is real. And out of such trivialities is +life made. Out of such are our recollections built. I shall never +remember the call to Christian prayer without a shudder of dislike, a +putting of my fingers in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_307" id="Page_307">[Pg 307]</a></span> my ears. I shall never recall the Buddhist +gongs ringing down the evening air across the misty river without there +rising within me some of that beauty, that gentleness and harmony, to +which they seem such a perfect echo.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_308" id="Page_308">[Pg 308]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXXI" id="CHAPTER_XXXI"></a>CHAPTER XXXI.</h2> + +<h3>WHAT RELIGION IS.</h3> + + +<p>What, then, is religion? Do any of the definitions given at the +beginning explain what it really is? Is it a theory of the universe, is +it morality, is it future rewards and punishments? It may be all or none +of these things. Is it creeds, dogmas, speculations, or theories of any +kind? It is none of these things.</p> + +<p>Religion is the recognition and cultivation of our highest emotions, of +our more beautiful instincts, of all that we know is best in us.</p> + +<p>What these emotions may be varies in each people according to their +natures, their circumstances, their stage of civilisation. In the Latins +some emotions predominate, in the Teutons others, in the Hindus yet +others. Each race of men has its own garden wherein grow flowers that +are not found elsewhere, and of these they make their faiths.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_309" id="Page_309">[Pg 309]</a></span></p> + +<p>Some of these emotions I have tried to show in this book. For the Latins +they are the emotions of fatherhood, of prayer, and confession, of +sacrifice and atonement, of motherhood, of art and beauty, of obedience, +of rule, of mercy, of forgiveness, of the resurrection of the body, of +prayer for the dead, of strong self-denial and asceticism, of many +others; but those, I think, are the chief.</p> + +<p>For the Protestant, the more rigid Protestant, it is the cultivation of +the emotions of force, grandeur, prayer, justice, conduct, punishment of +evil, austerity, and also many others.</p> + +<p>With the Burman Buddhist it is the recognition and cultivation of the +beauties of freedom, peace, calm, rigid self-denial, charity in thought +and deed to all the world, pity to animals, the existence of the soul +before and after death, with no reference to any particular body. The +Mahommedan has for one of his principal emotions courage in battle, and +the Hindu cleanliness of body and purity of race.</p> + +<p>These things are religions. Out of his strongest feelings has man built +up his faiths.</p> + +<p>And the creeds are but the theories of the keener intellects of the race +to explain, and codify, and organise the cultivation of these feelings.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_310" id="Page_310">[Pg 310]</a></span></p> + +<p>Creeds are not religions, nor are religions proved by miracle or by +prophecy, by evidence, or any reasoning of any kind. The instincts are +innate or do not exist at all. Like all emotions and feelings, they +cannot be created or destroyed by reason.</p> + +<p>Why does a man fall in love? No one knows. And if he fall in love, can +you cure him of it by argument? Would it be any use to say to him? "The +girl you love is not beautiful, is not clever; she would be of no use to +you, she does not return your love at all. You cannot really love her." +He would only laugh and say, "All that may be true, and yet the fact +remains unaltered. She is the woman I love. My reason may prevent my +marrying her, it cannot prevent my love. And you may be right that this +other woman has all the virtues, but I have no love for her." So it is +with all the emotions. You either have them or have not. You do not +reason about them. Reason is of things we doubt, not of things we know. +Therefore are the beliefs of one religion incomprehensible to the +believers in another. Nothing is so difficult to understand as an +emotion you have not felt. What is perfect beauty to one man is stark +ugliness to another. So it is with religion. To understand well the +faith you must<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_311" id="Page_311">[Pg 311]</a></span> have in you all the chords that these faiths draw music +from, and how many have that?</p> + +<p>Religion is of the heart, not of the reason. Theologians of all creeds +warn the believer against reason as a snare of the devil. A freethinker +must be an Atheist. History is one long conflict between religion and +science. But why is this, if they have no concern one with another? Why +fight, why not exist together?</p> + +<p>Because all men, freethinkers as well as theologians, have failed to see +what religion really consists in. They think it is in the theories of +creation, of God, of salvation, of heaven and hell. They look one and +all to the creeds and dogmas as religion.</p> + +<p>And none of these creeds and dogmas will, as a whole, stand criticism. +They fall before the thinker into irretrievable ruin, and therefore the +freethinker imagines he has destroyed religion. But religion lives on, +and he wonders why. He puts it down to the blindness of men. The +theologian rejoices because the continued life of religion seems to him +the vindication of the creeds. Yet are they both wrong. Men are not +fools, nor does religion live by the truth of its creeds. The whole +initial idea has been mistaken. The creeds are but theories to explain +religion. Scientific men have invented the ether<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_312" id="Page_312">[Pg 312]</a></span> and theories connected +with it to explain heat and light and electricity. These theories are +good now, and are universally accepted, but they are not proved. +Supposing a hundred years hence wider perception and new facts should +throw great doubts on whether ether exists at all as supposed, or on the +present theories of heat and electricity? Suppose, too, that the old +school scientists are stubborn and refuse to meet these new thoughts? +What will the sensible man do? Will he say, "This theory of ether waves +is untenable, exploded, foolish, and therefore I will believe it no +longer; and as the theory is wrong, so too the phenomena of the theory +are all imaginations. There are no such things as heat and light, and I +will not warm myself in the sun." Would that be sense? I think reason +would reply, "I am sorry the old theories are gone. They were true while +they lasted. But now they are dead, and we have not found new ones. Yet +if the theory be dead, the facts are still there. The sun still shines, +and we have heat and light. These things are true. No man shall frighten +me and say, 'If you will not believe our science you shall not warm +yourself at our sun. You shall not light your fire or your lamp unless +you admit ether waves.'<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_313" id="Page_313">[Pg 313]</a></span> Perhaps a new theory may arise. But anyhow I +have the sun yet, and my lamp is not broken. They are facts still."</p> + +<p>That is exactly the present position as regards many faiths. The creeds +are theories to explain facts. The theories are very old and we have +grown out of them. The theologians will not surrender them, clinging to +them in the imagination that they really are religion, and that without +them religion will fall, conjuring with words to try and support them.</p> + +<p>What should reason say in the face of this? "I do not believe in your +theories of God and the future state, and the resurrection of the body, +and so on, and therefore I won't have anything to do with any religion." +Would that be reason? Yes, if you believe the creeds are religion; no, +if you believe that religion lies far deeper than creeds. Or to use +another simile: the creeds are the grammar of religion, they are to +religion what grammar is to speech. Words are the expression of our +wants; grammar is the theory formed afterwards. Speech never proceeded +from grammar, but the reverse. As speech progresses and changes from +unknown causes, grammar must follow. But if not? If grammarians are +hide-bound, are we to refuse to talk? In this latter case, if the reason +were<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_314" id="Page_314">[Pg 314]</a></span> mine, I think reason would say, "Bother these theologians, their +dogmas and creeds, their theories and grammars, what do they matter? The +instinct of prayer remains, of confession, of sacrifice. They appeal to +me still. They fill my heart with beauty. Shall I refuse to accept the +glories of life, shall I refuse to cultivate my soul because some people +who claim authority have theories about these things with which I don't +agree? Not all the creeds nor theologians in the world shall prevent my +making the best of myself. The garden of the soul is no close preserve +of theirs.</p> + +<p>"Religion is the satisfaction of some of the wants of the souls of men. +It is a cult of some of the emotions, never of all. For the emotions are +so varied, so contradictory, that all cannot live together. I do not +quite know why one people includes one emotion in religion and another +rejects it out of religion, while still maintaining its beauty and +truth. But no religion includes more than one side of life. There are +others. I, too, will cultivate these emotions which I need. But this I +will not forget, that life has many sides. Life has many emotions, and +all are good, though all may not come into religion. There is ambition, +there is love of gaiety, of humour, of laughter, there is courage<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_315" id="Page_315">[Pg 315]</a></span> and +pride, the glory of success. To live life whole none must be neglected. +They are planted in our hearts for some good purpose. I will not weed +them out. My garden shall grow all the flowers it can, and reason shall +be the gardener to see that none grow rank and choke the others.</p> + +<p>"Whatever things are beautiful, that make the heart to beat and the eye +grow dim, whatever I know to be good, that shall I have. 'For that which +toucheth the heart is beautiful to the eye.'"</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_316" id="Page_316">[Pg 316]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXXII" id="CHAPTER_XXXII"></a>CHAPTER XXXII.</h2> + +<h3>THE USE OF RELIGION.</h3> + + +<p>But granted, people may say, that religion is what you say, a cult of +the emotions, of what use is it? Why should these emotions be cultivated +at all? You say that they are beautiful because they are true, and that +they are true because they are of use. Of what use are they? Some can be +explained perhaps, but not most—not the instinct of God, for instance, +nor of Law, nor the instinct of prayer. It seems to me that unless you +can prove that they are true, essentially true conceptions, they cannot +be beautiful. And this you say you cannot prove. "No one can prove God," +you say, and prayer, surely that is against reason, and demonstrably a +weakness. Certainly not a good emotion to cultivate. "You say it is +beautiful. How can you prove that?"</p> + +<hr style="width: 45%;" /> + +<p>Travelling on the Continent among those places<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_317" id="Page_317">[Pg 317]</a></span> where there are little +colonies of English people who for one reason or another have left their +own country, there crops up occasionally a man of peculiar kind, hardly +ever to be met elsewhere. He is a man who has left England, we will +suppose, for economy's sake, who has settled abroad, perhaps in one +place, perhaps roaming from place to place, who has no work, no interest +in life. He has drifted away from the current of our national life, he +has entered no other, but he exists, he would say, as a student of man +and a philosopher on motives.</p> + +<p>One such, meeting me one day, turned his conversation upon wars and upon +patriotism. The former horrified him, the latter revolted him. +"Patriotism," he said, "can you defend such a feeling? Have you any +reasoning to support it? Patriotism is a narrowness, a blindness. It is +little better than a baseness founded on ignorance. How can it be +defended? You say it is beautiful. Prove to me that it is so. I deny +it."</p> + +<p>To whom, and to men like this, it seems that there is only one answer to +be made.</p> + +<p>"My friend, the love of your own people and your own country, if it ever +existed within you, is long dead or you would never ask such a question. +I cannot reason with you on the subject, because it would be like +reasoning with a blind man on the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_318" id="Page_318">[Pg 318]</a></span> beauty of being able to see. He who +sees knows; but if a man be blind, how can it be explained to him? +Neither I nor my fellows can talk to you about patriotism, because it is +a feeling we have, but of which you are ignorant. It is not a question +of reason. But if you would know whether patriotism be beautiful or the +ignorant foolishness you suppose, I can show you the road to learn.</p> + +<p>"Go back to that England you have forgotten, and in your forgetfulness +begun to despise. Go back there on the eve of a great victory, or a +great deliverance, such a day as that on which Ladysmith was relieved. +And go not into the streets if the loud rejoicings hurt your philosophic +ear, but go into the homes of the people. Go to the rich, to the middle +class, to the artisan, to the labourer, and mark their glowing faces, +their glad eyes, the look of glory, of thanksgiving that our people have +been rescued, that our flag has escaped a disaster. Look at the faces of +these men and women and children, whose hearts are full at the news. And +then ask them, 'Is patriotism a mean and debasing passion?' They know. +Or do better even than this, go yourself to Africa, to India, to the +thousand league frontiers where men die daily for their flag, for their +own honour, and that of their country. Take<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_319" id="Page_319">[Pg 319]</a></span> rifle yourself and beat +back those who would destroy our peace, take up your pen and give some +of your life to the people whom we rule. You will find it a better life, +perhaps, than at a foreign spa. Give yourself freely for your country +and those your country gives in charge to you. I think you will learn, +maybe, what patriotism means. But argument, reason? I think you +exaggerate the power of reason. It can argue only from facts. It is +necessary to know the facts first. And you are ignorant of your facts, +because you have never felt them. Only those who feel them know. Go and +give your life, and before it be gone you will have learnt what neither +I nor any man who ever lived can <i>tell</i> you. You will have learnt the +<i>realities</i> of life.</p> + +<p>"For you and those like you mistake the power of reason, you have +forgotten its limitations. Reason is but the power of arranging facts, +it cannot provide them. Your eyes will give you the facts they can see, +your ears what they can hear, your sympathies will give you the +realities of men's lives. If you have no emotions, no sympathies, how +can you get on? You are like mariners afloat upon the sea vainly +waggling your rudders and boasting that you are at the mercy of no +erratic winds, while the ships pass you under full sail. Where will +reason alone<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_320" id="Page_320">[Pg 320]</a></span> take you? It cannot take you anywhere. A rudder is only +useful to a ship that has motive power. What motive power have you? So +you float and work your rudders and turn round and round, and are very +bitter. Why are all philosophers so bitter, so hard to bear with, so +useless? Because you are conscious unconsciously of your futility, that +the world passes you by and laughs.</p> + +<p>"The functions of reason are very narrow. You forget them. You exalt +reason into the whole of life, committing the mistake for which you rail +on others. Unbridled emotion is, as you say, terrible. So is unbridled +reason. Where has reason alone ever led anyone save into the dreariest, +driest pessimism? Was a philosopher ever a happy man? Even your Utopias, +from Plato's to Bellamy's, who would desire them? Hell would be a +pleasant relaxation after any of them. The functions of the senses, of +which sympathy is the greatest, are to give you facts, the function of +reason is to arrange them. The emotions drive man forward, reason +directs and controls them. That is all.</p> + +<p>"You say religions are founded on errors, on what are your reasonings +founded? They are founded on <i>nothings</i>.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_321" id="Page_321">[Pg 321]</a></span>"</p> + +<p>Of what use is patriotism? Is it beautiful or no? Of what use is +religion? Is it beautiful or no? Prove to me that it is necessary or +beautiful. Show me why it should be so.</p> + +<p>Is it not the same answer in each case? It is so easy to point out the +evils of exaggeration in each. Anyone can do it. But the mean. Prove to +me the use and beauty of the mean.</p> + +<p>The answer is always the same. If you have religion in you, such a +question would never occur to you, for you would feel its use, you would +<i>know</i> its beauty. And if you have not, who shall prove it to you? Who +shall provide you with the facts on which to reason, who shall open your +eyes? But if anyone doubts that religion is useful and is beautiful to +its believers, go and watch them.</p> + +<p>It matters not where you go, East or West, it is always the same. In +England, or France, or Russia, among the Hindus, the Chinese, the +Japanese, the Parsees. It makes no matter if you will but look aright. +For you must know how to look and where. You must learn what to read. It +is never books I would ask you to read, never creeds, never theologies, +never reasons, nor arguments. You will not find what you search in +libraries nor yet in places of worship, in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_322" id="Page_322">[Pg 322]</a></span> ceremonies, in temples, +great and beautiful as they may be. Not in even their inmost recesses is +the secret hid, the secret of all religions. I would have you listen to +no preachers, to no theologians. They are the last to know. But I would +have you go to the temple of the heart of man and read what is written +there, written not in words, but in the inarticulate emotions of the +heart. I would have you go and kneel beside the Mahommedan as he prays +at the sunset hour, and put your heart to his and wait for the echo that +will surely come. Yes, surely, if you be as a man who would learn, who +can learn. I would have you go to the hillman smearing the stone with +butter that his god may be pleased, to the woman crying to the forest +god for her sick child, to the boy before his monks learning to be good. +No matter where you go, no matter what the faith is called, if you have +the hearing ear, if your heart is in unison with the heart of the world, +you will hear always the same song. Far down below the noises of the +warring creeds, the clash of words and forms, the differences of +peoples, of climes, of civilisations, of ideals, far down below all this +lies that which you would hear. I know not what you would call it. Maybe +it is the Voice of God telling us for ever the secret of the world, but +in unknown tongue. For me it is like the unceasing surge of a shoreless<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_323" id="Page_323">[Pg 323]</a></span> +sea answering to the night, a melody beyond words.</p> + +<p>The creeds and faiths are the words that men have set to that melody; +they are the interpretations of that wordless song. Each is true to him +whom it suits. Every nation has translated it into his own tongue. But +never forget that those are only your own interpretations. Whatever your +faith may be, you have no monopoly of religion. I confess that to me +there is nothing so repellent as the hate of faith for faith. To hear +their professors malign and abuse each other, as if each had the +monopoly of truth, is terrible. It is as a strife in families where +brother is killing brother, and the younger trying to disinherit the +elder. I doubt if in all this warfare they can listen for the voice that +is for ever telling the secret of the world. Whence came all the faiths +but from that inexplicable feeling of the heart, that surge and swell +arising we know not whence? If you would malign another's faith remember +your own. If you cannot understand his belief stop and consider. Can you +understand your own? Do you know whence came these emotions that have +risen and made your faith?</p> + +<p>The faiths are all brothers, all born of the same mystery. There are +older and younger, stronger and weaker, some babble in strange tongues<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_324" id="Page_324">[Pg 324]</a></span> +maybe, different from your finer speech. But what of that? Are they the +less children of the Great Father for that? Surely if there be the +unforgivable offence, the sin against the Holy Ghost, it is this, to +deny the truth that lies in all the faiths.</p> + +<hr style="width: 45%;" /> + +<p>Religion is the music of the infinite echoed from the hearts of men.</p> + + +<h3>THE END.</h3> + + + + + + + + +<pre> + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Hearts of Men, by H. Fielding + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE HEARTS OF MEN *** + +***** This file should be named 36772-h.htm or 36772-h.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/3/6/7/7/36772/ + +Produced by Barbara Tozier, Bill Tozier, Mary Meehan and +the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at +http://www.pgdp.net + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + + +</pre> + +</body> +</html> diff --git a/36772-h/images/illus1.jpg b/36772-h/images/illus1.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..cb9b132 --- /dev/null +++ b/36772-h/images/illus1.jpg diff --git a/36772-h/images/illus2.jpg b/36772-h/images/illus2.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..59d2f77 --- /dev/null +++ b/36772-h/images/illus2.jpg diff --git a/36772-h/images/illus3.jpg b/36772-h/images/illus3.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..038476d --- /dev/null +++ b/36772-h/images/illus3.jpg diff --git a/36772.txt b/36772.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f3caa75 --- /dev/null +++ b/36772.txt @@ -0,0 +1,7112 @@ +The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Hearts of Men, by H. Fielding + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: The Hearts of Men + +Author: H. Fielding + +Release Date: July 17, 2011 [EBook #36772] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ASCII + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE HEARTS OF MEN *** + + + + +Produced by Barbara Tozier, Bill Tozier, Mary Meehan and +the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at +http://www.pgdp.net + + + + + + + + + + + + THE HEARTS OF MEN + + BY H. FIELDING + + AUTHOR OF "THE SOUL OF A PEOPLE," ETC. + + + NEW YORK + THE MACMILLAN COMPANY + 1901 + + PRINTED BY KELLY'S DIRECTORIES LIMITED, + LONDON AND KINGSTON. + + + + +DEDICATION. + +To F. W. FOSTER. + + +As my first book, "The Soul of a People," would probably never have been +completed or published without your encouragement and assistance, so the +latter part of this book would not have been written without your +suggestion. This dedication is a slight acknowledgment of my +indebtedness to you, but I hope that you will accept it, not as any +equivalent for your unvarying kindness, but as a token that I have not +forgotten. + + + + +CONTENTS. + + + +DEFINITIONS OF RELIGION 1 + +INTRODUCTION 4 + + +PART I. + +I. OF WHAT USE IS RELIGION? 13 + +II. EARLY BELIEFS 21 + +III. IDEAL AND PRACTICE 28 + +IV. SCIENTIFIC THEOLOGY--I 37 + +V. SCIENTIFIC THEOLOGY--II 45 + +VI. WHENCE FAITHS COME 55 + +VII. THE WISDOM OF BOOKS 64 + +VIII. GOD 72 + +IX. LAW 84 + +X. THE WAY OF LIFE 92 + +XI. HEAVEN 101 + + +PART II. + +XII. THEORIES AND FACTS 113 + +XIII. CREED AND INSTINCT 124 + +XIV. RELIGIOUS PEOPLE 136 + +XV. ENTHUSIASM 145 + +XVI. STRENGTH AND WEAKNESS 155 + +XVII. MIND AND BODY 165 + +XVIII. PERSONALITY 173 + +XIX. GOD THE SACRIFICE 185 + +XX. GOD THE MOTHER 196 + +XXI. CONDUCT 202 + +XXII. MEN'S FAITH AND WOMEN'S FAITH 212 + +XXIII. PRAYER AND CONFESSION 221 + +XXIV. SUNDAY AND SABBATH 233 + +XXV. MIRACLE 242 + +XXVI. RELIGION AND ART 254 + +XXVII. WHAT IS EVIDENCE? 266 + +XXVIII. THE AFTER DEATH 277 + +XXIX. OPTIMISM AND PESSIMISM 287 + +XXX. WAS IT REASON? 298 + +XXXI. WHAT RELIGION IS 308 + +XXXII. THE USE OF RELIGION 316 + + + + +THE HEARTS OF MEN. + + + + +RELIGION. + + +"The difficulty of framing a correct definition of religion is very +great. Such a definition should apply to nothing but religion, and +should differentiate religion from anything else--as, for example, +from imaginative idealisation, art, morality, philosophy. It should +apply to everything which is naturally and commonly called religion: to +religion as a subjective spiritual state, and to all religions, high or +low, true or false, which have obtained objective historical +realisation."--_Anon._ + +"The principle of morality is the root of religion."--_Peochal._ + +"It is the perception of the infinite."--_Max Mueller._ + +"A religious creed is definable as a theory of original +causation."--_Herbert Spencer._ + +"Virtue, as founded on a reverence for God and expectation of future +rewards and punishment."--_Johnson._ + +"The worship of a Deity."--_Bailey._ + +"It has its origin in fear."--_Lucretius and others._ + +"A desire to secure life and its goods amidst the uncertainty and evils +of earth."--_Retsche._ + +"A feeling of absolute dependence, of pure and entire +passiveness."--_Schleiermacher._ + +"Religious feeling is either a distinct primary feeling or a peculiar +compound feeling."--_Neuman Smyth._ + +"A sanction for duty."--_Kant._ + +"A morality tinged by emotion."--_Matthew Arnold._ + +"By religion I mean that general habit of reverence towards the divine +nature whereby we are enabled to worship and serve God."--_Wilkins._ + +"A propitiation or conciliation of powers superior to man, which are +supposed to control the course of nature and of human life."--_J. G. +Frazer._ + +"The modes of divine worship proper to different tribes."--_Anon._ + +"The performance of duty to God and man." + +It is to be noted that all the above are of Europeans acquainted +practically with only Christianity. + + * * * * * + +The following are some that have been given me by Orientals: + +"The worship of Allah."--_Mahommedan._ + +"A knowledge of the laws of life that lead to happiness."--_Buddhist._ + +"Doing right." + +"Other-worldliness." + + + + +INTRODUCTION. + + +Some time ago I wrote "The Soul of a People." It was an attempt to +understand a people, the Burmese; to understand a religion, that of +Buddha. It was not an attempt to find abstract truth, to discuss what +may be true or not in the tenets of that faith, to discover the secret +of all religions. It was only intended to show what Buddhism in Burma is +to the people who believe in it, and how it comes into their lives. + +Yet it was impossible always to confine the view to one point. It is +natural--nay, it is inevitable--that when a man studies one faith, +comparison with other faiths should intrude themselves. The world, even +the East and West, is so bound together that you cannot treat of part +and quite ignore the rest. And so thoughts arose and questions came +forward that lay outside the scope of that book. I could not write of +them there fully. Whatever question arose I was content then to give +only the Buddhist answer, I had to leave on one side all the many +answers different faiths may have propounded. I could not discuss even +where truth was likely to be found. I was bound by my subject. But in +this book I have gone further. This is a book, not of one religion nor +of several religions, but of religion. Mainly, it is true, it treats of +Christianity and Buddhism, because these are the two great +representative faiths, but it is not confined to them. Man asks, and has +always asked, certain questions. Religions have given many answers. Are +these answers true? Which is true? Are any of them true? It is in a way +a continuation of "The Soul of a People," but wider. It is of "The +Hearts of Men." + + * * * * * + +Before beginning this book I have a word to say on the meanings that I +attach to the word "Christianity" and a few other words, so that I may +be more clearly understood. + +There was a man who wrote to me once explaining why he was a Christian, +and wondering how anyone could fail to be so. + +"I look about me," he said, "at Christian nations, and I see that they +are the leaders of the world. Pagan nations are far behind them in +wealth, in happiness, in social order. I look at our Courts and I find +justice administered to all alike, pure and without prejudice. Our +crime decreases, our education increases, and our wealth increases even +faster; the artisan now is where the middle class was a hundred years +ago, the middle class now lives better than the rich did. Our science +advances from marvel to marvel. Our country is a network of railroads, +our ships cover the seas, our prosperity is unbounded, and in a greater +or less degree all Christian nations share it. But when we turn to Pagan +nations, what do we see? Anarchy and injustice, wars and rebellions, +ignorance and poverty. To me no greater proof of the truth of +Christianity can be than this difference. In fact, it is Christianity." + +I am not concerned here to follow the writer into his arguments. He is +probably one of those who thinks that all our civilisation is due to a +peculiar form of Christianity. There are others who hold that all our +advance has been made in spite of Christianity. I am only concerned now +with the meaning of the word. The way I use the word is to denote the +cult of Christ. A Christian to me means a man who follows, or who +professes to follow, the example of Christ and to accept all His +teaching; to be a member of a Church that calls itself Christian. I use +it irrespective of sects to apply to Catholic and Greek Church, Quaker +and Skopek alike. I am aware that in Christianity, as in all religions, +there has been a strong tendency of the greater emotions to attract the +lesser, and of the professors of any religion to assume to themselves +all that is good and repudiate all that is evil in the national life. I +have no quarrel here with them on the subject. Nor do I wish to use the +word in any unnecessarily narrow sense. Are there not also St. Paul and +the Apostles, the Early Fathers? So be it. But surely the essence of +Christianity must be the teaching and example of Christ? I do not gather +that any subsequent teacher has had authority to abrogate or modify +either that teaching or example. As to addition, is it maintained +anywhere that the teaching and example are inadequate? I do not think +so. And therefore I have defined my meaning as above. Let us be sure of +our words, that we may know what we are talking about. + +In the word "religion" I have more difficulty. It does not carry any +meaning on its face as Christianity does. It is an almost impossible +word to define, or to discover the meaning of. It is so difficult that +practically all the book is an attempt to discover what "religion" does +mean. I nearly called the book, "What is the Meaning of Religion?" + +In the beginning I have given a few of the numerous meanings that have +been applied to the word. It will be seen how vague they are. And at +the end I have a definition of my own to give which differs from all. +But as I have frequently to use the word from the beginning of the book, +I will try to define how I use it. + +By "religion," then, generally I mean a scheme of the world with some +theory of how man got into it and the influences, mostly supernatural, +which affect him here. It usually, though not always, includes some code +of morality for use here and some account of what happens after death. + +This is, I think, more or less the accepted meaning. + +And there are the words Spirit and Soul. + +I note that in considering origins of religion the great first +difficulty has been how the savage evolved the idea of "God" or "Spirit" +as opposed to man. Various theories have been proposed, such as that it +evolved from reasoning on dreams. To me the question is whether such an +idea exists at all. It may be possible that men trained in abstract +thought without reference to fact, the successors of many generations of +men equally so trained, do consider themselves to have such a +conception. I have met men who declared they had a clear idea of the +fourth dimension in Mathematics and of unending space. There may be +people who can realise a Spirit which has other qualities than man. In +some creeds the idea is assumed as existing. But personally I have never +found it among those who make religion as distinguished from those who +theorise upon it. The gods of the simpler religious people I have met, +whether East or West, have been frankly only enlarged men, with the +appetites and appearances and the powers of men. They differ from men +only in degree, never in kind. They require food and offerings, they +have passions, sometimes they have wives. The early gods are but men. If +they are invisible, so can man be; if they are powerful, so are kings. +It is only a question of degree, never of kind. I do not find that the +God that the Boers appeal to so passionately has any different qualities +in their thoughts from a marvellous man. Truly they will say, "No, God +is a Spirit." Then if you reply, "So be it; tell me how a Spirit differs +from a man, what qualities a Spirit has that are inconceivable in man," +they cannot go on; and the qualities they appeal to in their God are +always very human qualities--partiality, forgiveness, help, and the +like. + +Many men will say they believe things which they do not understand. I +enter into the subject so fully later I do not want to write more now. I +only wish to define that the word God, as I use it, in no wise means +more than "the Personality who causes things." + +And again about soul. What is soul? The theologian gets up and answers +at once that soul exists independent of the body. So be it. Then who has +the conception? And what is it like when you have got it? Have +Christians it? Then why can they not understand resurrection of the soul +without also the resurrection of the body? They cannot. Look at the +facts. It is such a fact it has actually forced itself into the creeds. +Angels have bodies and also wings. Ghosts have bodies and also clothes. +They are recognisable. I know a ghost who likes pork for supper. They +sometimes have horses and all sorts of additions. The body may be filmy, +but it is a body. Gas is filmy and quite as transparent as a ghost. + +Perhaps the people who have put the transmigration of souls as one of +their religious tenets really have the conception of a soul apart from +any body. I doubt it even here. But this also will come later. + +Meanwhile, when I use the word "soul" or "spirit," I do not infer that +it is separable from the body or inseparable. I mean simply the essence +of that which is man; the identity, the ego existing in man as he _is_. +I think, indeed, this is the correct meaning. We say that a city has +fifty thousand souls. Have they no bodies? When I wrote "The Soul of a +People" I certainly did not omit their bodies or ignore them. On the +contrary. And no one supposed I did. I do not either mean to postulate +the inseparability of body and soul. Soul means essence. + +Finally, there is the word reason. What is that? By reason I mean the +faculty of arranging and grouping facts. It is the power of perspective +which sees facts in their proper relation to other facts. The facts +themselves are supplied as regards the outer world by the senses of +sight and hearing and taste, of touch and sympathy; and as regards the +inner world of sensations, such as hate, and love, and fear by the +ability to feel those sensations. + +Reason itself cannot supply facts. It can but arrange them. By placing a +series of facts in due order the existence of other facts may be +suspected, as the existence of Neptune was deduced from certain known +aberrations. The observation of Neptune by the telescope followed. + +In other words, reason may be called "the science of facts." + + * * * * * + +I offer no apology for this introduction. Most of the confusion of +thought, most of the mistiness of argument, is due to the fact that +people habitually use words without any clear idea of their meaning. A +reviewer of "The Soul of a People" declared that Buddhism was a +philosophy, not a religion. I asked him to give me a list of what he +accepted as religions, and then to furnish a definition of religion that +would include all these and exclude Buddhism. I am still waiting. No +doubt he had never tried to really define what he meant by his words. +Instead of using words as counters of a fixed value he threw them about +as blank cheques, meaning anything or nothing. + +When you find confusion of argument in a book, want of clearness of +expression, when you see men arguing and misunderstanding each other, +there is nearly always one reason. Either they are using words in +different senses or they have no clear idea themselves of what they mean +by their words. Ask ten men what they mean when they say, Art, beauty, +civilisation, right, wrong, or any other abstract term, and see if _one_ +can give a satisfactory explanation. + +This is an error I am trying to avoid. + + + + +CHAPTER I. + +OF WHAT USE IS RELIGION? + + +Of what use is religion? + +All nations, almost all men, have a religion. From the savage in the +woods who has his traditions of how the world began, who has his ghosts +and his devils to fear or to worship, to the Christian and the Buddhist +with their religion full of beautiful conceptions and ideas--all people +have a religion. + +And the religion of men is determined for them by their birth. They are +born into it, as they are into their complexions, their habits, their +language. The Continental and Irish Celt is a Roman Catholic, the Teuton +is a follower of Luther, the Slav a member of the Greek Church. The +Anglo-Saxon, who is a compromise of races, has a creed which is a +compromise also, and the Celt of England has his peculiar form of +dissent, more akin perhaps in some ways to Romanism than to Lutheranism. +A Jew is and has been a Jew, a Hindu is a Hindu, Arabs and Turks are +Mahommedans. + +It is so with all races of men. A man's religion to-day is that into +which he is born, and those of the higher and older races who change are +few, so very few they but serve strongly to emphasize the rule. + +There have been, it is true, periods when this has not been so. There +have been times of change, of conversions, of rapid religious evolution +when the greater faiths have gathered their harvests of men, when +beliefs have spread as a flood threatening to engulf a world. No one has +ever done so. Each has found its own boundary and stayed there. Their +spring tide once passed they have ceased to spread. They have become, +indeed, many of them, but tideless oceans, dead seas of habit ceasing +even to beat upon their shores. Many of them no longer even try to +proselytise, having found their inability to stretch beyond their +boundaries; others still labour, but their gains are few--how few only +those who have watched can know. + +Some savages are drawn away here or there, but that is all. The greater +faiths and forms of faith, Catholicism, Lutheranism, the Greek Church, +Mahommedanism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and many others, remain as they +were. Their believers are neither converted nor convert. Men born into +them remain as they were born. They do not change, they are satisfied +with what they have. + +They are more than satisfied; they are often, almost always, +passionately attached to their faith. + +There is nothing men value more than their religion. There is nothing so +unbearable to them as an attack upon it. No one will allow it. Even the +savage clings to his fetish in the mountain top and will not permit of +insult to it. Men will brave all kinds of disaster and death rather than +deny their faith, that which their fathers believed. It is to all their +highest possession. The Catholic, the Chinese ancestor worshipper, the +Hindu, the Calvinist, the Buddhist, the Jew--their names are too +numerous to mention--none yields to any other in this. It is true of all +faiths. No one faith has any monopoly of this enthusiasm. It is common +to all. + +But wherein lies the spell that religion has cast upon the souls of men? +The influence is the same. What is the secret of it? + +Can it be that there is some secret common to all religions, some +belief, some doctrine that is the cause of this? If so, what is it? If +there is such a common secret, why is it so hidden? + +For hidden it certainly is. + +Nothing can be more certain than that no one religion recognises any +such secret in the others. It is the very reverse. The more a man clings +to his own religion the more he scorns all others. Far from +acknowledging any common truth, he denounces all other faiths as +mistaken, as untrue; nay, more, they are to him false, deliberately +false; the enthusiast believes them wicked, the fanatic in his own faith +calls all others devilish. The more a man loves his religion the more he +abominates all others. A Christian would scorn the idea of the essence +of his faith being common to all others, or any other. If there be any +common truth it is a very secret truth. + +Is there any secret truth? If so, what is it? + +There is a further question. + +There is probably no one thing that we learn with more certainty than +this, that whatever exists, whatever persists, does so because it +fulfils a want, because it's of use. It is immaterial where we look, the +rule is absolute. In the material world Darwin and others have shewn it +to us over and over again. When anything is useless it atrophies. So +have the snake and the whale lost their legs, and man his hairy skin and +sense of scent. Males have lost their power of suckling their young; +with females this power has increased. Need developes any thing or any +quality; when it becomes needless it dies. Where we find anything +flourishing and persistent we are sure always that it is so because it +is wanted, because it fills a need. + +Religion in some form or another has always existed, has increased and +developed, has grown and gained strength. + +Therefore religion, all religions that have existed have filled some +need, all religions that now exist do so because they fulfil some +present use. From the way their believers cherish them the need is a +great and urgent one. These religions are of vital use to their +believers. + +What is this great common need and yearning that all men have, and +which, to men in sympathy with it, every religion fulfils? + +Can it be that all men have a like need and that all religions have a +common quality which serves that need? + +Can it be possible that all races, the Englishman, the Negro, the +Italian, the Russian, the Arab, the Chinaman, and the Pathan, have the +same urgent necessity, and that their urgent necessity is answered by so +many varying religions? If so, what is this necessity which religion +alone can fill, what is this succour that religion alone can give? What +is the use of religion? + +These are some of the questions I ask, other men have asked the +same--not many. The majority of men never ask themselves anything of the +sort. They are born into a religion, they live in it more or less, they +die in it. They may question its accuracy in one point or another, for +each man to some extent makes his own faith; but nearly all men take +their faith much as they find it and make the best of it. It does not +occur to them to say, "Why should I want a religion at all? Why not go +without?" They feel the necessity of it. Even the very few who reject +their own faith almost always try for some other, something they hope +will meet their necessity. They will prefer one faith to another. But +they do not first consider why they want a faith at all. They do not +ask, "Of what use is any religion?" + +Yet this is in the main the subject of this book, these questions are +the ones I ask, the questions to which I seek an answer. I will repeat +them. + +Why are all peoples, all men religious? Is the necessity a common +necessity? If so, what is it? + +Why does one form of religion appeal to one people and another to +another people, while remaining hateful to all the rest? + +Notwithstanding their common hate, have all religions a common secret? +And if so, what is that? + +This book of mine is in part the story of a boy who was born into a +faith and who lost it; it tries to explain why he lost it. + +It is the story of a man who searched for a new faith and who did not +find it, because he knew not what he sought. He knew not what religion +was nor why he wanted it. He knew not his need. He sought in religion +for things no religion possesses. He was ill yet he knew not his +disease, and so he could find no remedy. And finally it is an attempt to +discern what religion really means, what it is, what is the use of it, +what men require of it. + +There may be among my readers some who will read the early chapters and +will then stop. They will feel hurt perhaps, they will think that there +is here an attack upon their religion, upon all they hold as the Truth +of God. So they will close the book and read no more. I would beg of my +readers not to judge me thus. I would ask them if they read at all to +read to the end. It may be that then they will understand. Even if it be +not so, that the early chapters still seem to be hard, is it not better +to hear such things from a friend than from an enemy? Be sure there are +very many who say and who feel very much harder things than this boy +did. Is it not as well to know them? + +These early chapters are of a boy's life; they may be, they should be if +truly written, full of the hardness of youth, its revolt from what it +conceives to be untrue, its intense desire to know, its stern rejection +of all that is not clear and cannot be known. Yet they must be written, +for only by knowing the thoughts of the boy can the later thoughts of +the man be understood? + +And I am sure that those who read me to the end, though they may +disagree with what I say, will admit this: that, thinking as I do of +religion, I would not unnecessarily throw a stone at any faith, I would +not thoughtlessly hurt the belief of any believer, no matter what his +religion; because I think I have learnt not only what his faith is to +him, but why it is so, because I have found the use of all religion. + + + + +CHAPTER II. + +EARLY BELIEFS. + + +The boy of whom I am about to write was brought up until he was twelve +entirely by women. He had masters, it is true, who taught him the usual +things that are taught to boys, and he had playfellows, other boys; but +the masters were with him but an hour or two each day for lessons, and +of the boys he was always the eldest. + +Those who have studied how it is that children form their ideas of the +world, of what it is, of what has to be done in it, of how to do it, +will recognise all that this means; for children obtain their ideas of +everything, not from their lessons nor their books nor their teachers, +but from their associates. A teacher may teach, but a boy does not +believe. He believes not what he is told, but what he sees. He forms to +himself rules of conduct modelled on the observed conduct of other +people. Their ideas penetrate his, and he absorbs and adapts them to +his own wants. In a school with other boys, or where a boy has as +playfellows boys older than himself, this works out right. The knowledge +and ideas of the great world filter gradually down. Young men gain it +from older men, the young men pass it to the elder boys, and the bigger +to the smaller, each adapting it as he takes. Thus is wisdom made +digestible by the many processes it passes through, and the child can +take it and find it agree with him. + +But with a child brought up with adults and children younger than +himself this is not so. From the latter he can learn nothing; he +therefore adapts himself to the former. He listens to them, he watches +them, unconsciously it is true, but with that terrible penetrative power +children possess. He learns their ideas, and, tough as they may prove to +him, he has to absorb them, and he has not the digestive juice, the +experience that is required to assimilate them. They are unfit for his +tender years, they do not yield the nourishment he requires. He suffers +terribly. A man's ideas and knowledge are not fit for a boy. + +And if a man's, how much less a woman's? A boy will become a man; what +he has learnt of men is knowledge of the right kind, though of the wrong +degree. But what he learns from women is almost entirely unsuitable in +kind and in degree. The ideas, the knowledge, the codes of conduct, the +outlook on life that suit a woman are entirely unfitted for a boy. +Consider and you must see how true it is. + +This boy, too, was often ill and unable to play, to go out at all +sometimes for weeks in the winter. He seemed always ailing. Thus he had +to spend much of his time alone, and when he was tired of reading or of +wood carving, or colouring plates in a book, he thought. He had often so +much time to think that he grew sick of thought. He hated it. He would +have given very much to be able to get out and run about and play so as +not to think, to be enabled to forget that he had a brain which would +keep on passing phantoms before his inner eyes. There was nothing he +hated so much, nothing he dreaded so deeply as having nothing to do but +think. In later years he took this terror to his heart and made it into +an exceedingly great pleasure, but to the child it was not so. + +Therefore, when he was twelve and was sent at last to a large school, he +was different to most boys at that age; for his view of the world, his +knowledge of it, his judgment of it, were all obtained from women. He +saw life much as they did, through the same glasses, though with +different sight. His ideas of conduct were a woman's ideas, his +religion was a woman's religion. + +Are not a woman's ideas of conduct the same as a man's? Is not a woman's +Christianity the same as a man's Christianity, if both be Christianity? +And I reply, No! A thousand times no! There is all the world between +them, all that world that is between woman and a man. + +As to man's religion I will speak of it later. The woman's ideas of +conduct and religion which this child had absorbed were these. He +believed in the New Testament. I do not mean he disbelieved the Old +Testament, but he did not think of it. Religion to him meant the +teaching of Christ, that very simple teaching that is in the Gospel. +Conduct to him meant the imitation of Christ and the observance of the +Sermon on the Mount. He thought this was accepted by all the world--the +Christian world at least--as true, that everyone, men as well as women, +accepted this teaching not as a mere pious aspiration, not as an +altruistic ideal, but as a real working theory. War was bad, all war. +Soldiers apparently were not all bad--he had been told of Christian +soldiers, though he had no idea how such a contradiction could +occur--but at least they were a dreadful necessity. Wealth and the +pursuit of wealth were bad, wicked even, though here again there were +exceptions. Learning was apt to be a snare. The world was very wicked, +consciously wicked, which accounted for the present state of affairs, +and most people would certainly go to hell. The ideal life was that of a +very poor curate in the East End of London, hard working and unhappy. +These are some of the ideas he learnt, for this is the religion of all +the religious women of England; of all those who are in their way the +very salt of the nation. Their belief is the teaching of Christ, and +that is what this boy learnt. This is what "conduct" and "religion" +meant to him. + +I must not be misunderstood. I do not intend to suggest that this boy +was any better than other boys, that his life was less marked by the +peccadilloes of childhood. He was probably much as other boys are as far +as badness or goodness is concerned. His acts, I doubt not, did not very +much differ from theirs. After all, neither boys nor men are very much +guided either by any theoretical "Rule of Life," nor by any view of what +is the true Religion. He acted according to his instincts, but having so +acted the difference between him and other boys came in. Other boys' +instincts led them to poach a trout out of a stream, and rejoice in +their success if they were not caught. This boy's instinct also led him +to poach a trout if he could, but he did not rejoice over it. Poaching +was stealing, and that was a deadly sin. He was aware of that and was +afraid. + +Other boys' instincts made them fight on occasions and be proud of it, +whether victor or vanquished, to boast of it publicly perhaps; anyhow, +not to keep it a secret or be ashamed of it. This boy's instincts also +led him several times into fights; but whether victor or not--it was +usually not--he could not appear to be proud of it. The Sermon on the +Mount told him he ought not to have fought that boy who struck him, but +should have turned the other cheek, and he knew very well that it would +be regarded as a sin. It must be kept secret and he must be ashamed of +it, and so with many things. It never occurred to him then to doubt that +the Sermon on the Mount did really contain the correct rule of life for +him, and that any breach of it must be a deadly sin. Among other results +this friction between the natural boy and the rule of conduct he was +taught he ought to adopt, gave the boy a continual sensation of being +wrong. He knew he was continually breaking the Sermon on the Mount and +also other rules of the New Testament. He was perfectly sure he did not +live at all like Christ, and he had a strong, but never then +acknowledged certainty, that he didn't want to. All this, with the +continual reproof of those around him, gave him an incessant feeling of +being wicked. He could not live up to these rules, and he was a very +wicked little boy bound for hell, so he thought of himself. + +It is difficult to imagine anything worse for a boy than this. Tell a +boy he is bad, lead him to believe he is bad, make much of his little +sins, reprove him, mourn over him as one of wicked tendencies, and you +will make him wicked. Perpetual struggle to attain an impossible and +unnatural ideal is destructive to any moral fibre. For the boy soon +begins to distrust himself, his own efforts, his own good intentions. He +fails and fails, and he loses heart and begins to count on failure as +certain. Then later he abandons effort as useless. What is the good of +trying without any hope of success? It is useless and foolish. To save +appearances he must pretend, and that is all. But at the time he went to +school he had not quite come to that, for the stress of the world had +not yet fallen upon him. He still believed in what he was taught was the +ideal of life, and tried, in a childish, uncertain way, to act up to +it. + + + + +CHAPTER III. + +IDEAL AND PRACTICE. + + +Such was the boy who went to school, and such was the mental and moral +equipment with which he started. + +He found himself in a new world. He had stepped out of a woman's world +into a man's, out of the New Testament into the Old, out of dreams into +reality. For the ideas and beliefs, the knowledge and understanding, the +code of morality and conduct, in a big school, are those of the world. +This filters down from the world of men to the world of little boys, and +the latter is the echo of the former. It is an echo of the great world +sounded by childish hearts, but still a true echo. Then this boy began +to learn new things, a new morality vastly different from the old. And +this is what he learnt: that it is not wrong to fight, but right. +Fighting is not evil but good, all kinds of fighting. The profession of +a soldier is a great and worthy one, perhaps the highest. To fight men, +to kill them and subdue them, is not bad but good--provided, of course, +it is in a good cause. A war is not a regrettable necessity, but a very +glorious opportunity. Both men and boys rejoice to know of battles +greatly fought, of blood and wounds, of death and victory. It makes the +heart bound to hear of such things. Everyone should wish to be able to +do them--in a good cause. Is not the cause of our country always a good +cause? When this boy arrived at school he learnt suddenly that a war was +going on. It was a small frontier war such as we often have. He had not +heard of it at home. Now he heard of it all day. Masters announced +publicly any victory, holidays were given for them, out of school hours +the boys talked of little else. The illustrated papers were full of +sketches of the war, and the weekly papers of accounts of marches and +battles. Boys who had relations, fathers, or uncles, or elder brothers, +at the front rose into sudden fame. Big boys who were hoping to pass +into Sandhurst or Woolwich were heroes; the school was full of the +enthusiasm of the success of our armies. Parties were formed and +generals were appointed; hillocks in the play green were defended and +assaulted, and many grievous blows were given in these mimic fights. One +boy nearly lost his eye. To the boy of which I am writing all this was +new, it was new and delightful, and extraordinarily wicked. + +This was not his only awakening, this was not the only subject on which +he learnt new rules. Soldiers must fight, and so must boys, if +necessary, in a good cause. To a soldier all causes are good when his +country bids; to a boy all causes are good when his school code tells +him. Turn the other cheek? Be called a funk and a coward, be derided and +scorned by all the school, be told to be ashamed, and, worse than all, +feel that he ought to be and was ashamed? Not so. Not so. A boy must +fight, too, when his schoolboy honour bids. He even learnt more still +than this. Battle was not always a disagreeable necessity, it was in +itself often a pleasure. "To drink delight of battle with his peers" is +no poet's rhetorical phrase; it is a truth. There is a sheer muscular +physical pleasure in fighting, as all boys know. True blows hurt, but +the blows that hurt most are not on the body, and there is, too, a moral +strength, a moral pleasure, that comes from battles. It is not +disgraceful to fight, it is not even disgraceful to be beaten, but it +would often be very disgraceful not to fight, to turn the other cheek. +All wars are not bad things. They are the storms of God stirring up the +stagnant natures to new purity and life. The people that cannot fight +shall die. He learnt this lesson, not as I have written it. He did not +realise it, he did not put it into words as I have done. It sank into +him unconsciously as the previous teaching had done--and sorely they +disagreed with each other. He learnt other lessons, many of them, in the +same way. He learnt that money is not an evil but a good. When he found +his pocket-money short this soon dawned upon him, and the lesson did not +end there. He found that wealth was almost worshipped, that it had very +great power. He found everyone engaged in the race for wealth, everyone. +His spiritual pastors and masters were no more exempt than anyone else. +They encouraged the race. A boy's schooling was looked upon as his +preparation for the battle of life in which he was to struggle for money +and honours. Men who had attained them were held up to his admiration. +Not the pale-faced curates of the East End, but the great statesman and +soldier, the bishops, the lawyers, the writers, the successful merchants +who had once been at the school, were emblazoned on the wall. No meek, +struggling curate would find a niche there. The race was to the strong, +not the weak. He was learning the law of the survival of the fittest, +and he was further learning that the Sermon on the Mount is not a guide +to be the fittest, in this world at any rate. + +I must try again and guard against misconception. The school was a good +school, the tone was good, the masters were all men of high character, +of considerable learning. No school could have been better taught; but +this was the teaching of the school, as it is and must be of all schools +that are worth anything: a boy must be brought up on truths, not +imaginings; he must learn laws, not aspirations; he must be prepared for +the world as it is, not as a visionary might see it. + +Therefore this boy learnt at school the great code of conduct which +obtains in the world. Shortly, it is this: not to be quarrelsome, but to +be ready always to fight for a good cause, be the fighting with sword or +fist, with pen or tongue, by word or deed, and when fighting to hit hard +and spare not. He learnt to desire and strive for wealth and honour, +which are good things, not in immoderate excess, which injures other +forms of happiness, but in due and proper amount. He learnt that he +should speak the truth in most things, but not in all. There are worse +things than some lies. There are some lies that are not a disgrace, but +an honour. He learnt that learning was not a snare, but a very necessary +and very admirable thing also, and of all learning that knowledge of the +world, the wicked world, the flesh and the devil, was the most +necessary. Such in broad lines were what he learnt from his +schoolfellows, the code filtered down from above, the code of a public +school. A very admirable code, but how different from what he had first +learnt. There were worlds between them, the immensity that lies between +fact and ideal. + +And yet all this time, while this public school code was being driven +into him by precept and example, by coercion and by blows, all this +while, every morning at prayers and every Sunday thrice, he heard the +other code taught in the school chapel. The masters taught it, and the +boys were supposed to accept and believe it--during chapel hours. Once +chapel was over, once Monday morning came, and the other code ruled. No +one remembered the theoretic code of Christ. Boys who brought it forward +in daily life were disliked. They were not bullied, no! but they were +left alone. The tone of the school would never have allowed bullying for +such a cause, but there was an instinctive repulsion to those boys who +talked religion. The others inwardly accused them of cant. Boys who +alleged religious reasons for refusing to fight, to poach, to smoke +occasionally, to commit other little breaches of discipline, were +suspected of bringing forth religion as a cloak to hide the fact that +they were afraid to fight and poach and that smoking made them sick. +That they were very often rightly suspected this boy had no doubt. It +was his first introduction to cant, and it surprised him. Was, then, the +attempt to realise the precepts of Christ in daily life either a folly +or an hypocrisy? As far as he could see it was both. + +It must not, of course, be imagined that he thus faced the problem and +gave this answer. He no more faced the problem than any other boy does, +than the great majority of men do. He simply grew up according to his +surroundings, agreeing with them, accepting the rule he found accepted, +developing as his environments made him. But although he did not +mentally face and enumerate his difficulties, he was aware of them just +the same. He was clearly conscious of a conflict between fact and +theory, between teaching and example, between reality and dreams. He +became year after year also more clearly aware of a repugnance rising +within him to religion and to religious teaching. He shrank from it +without realising why. He supposed it was just his natural sin. It was, +of course, that he was proving its unreality as a guide to life. He +began to shrink, too, from all religious topics, from religious services +and religious books. They jarred on him. He found himself also losing +his reverence for his religious teachers--for all his teachers, in +fact--for they all professed religion. Their words had grated on him +first, the difference between what they professed to believe and what he +knew they did believe. Unaware of the reason till much later, almost +unconsciously there grew up in him a contempt towards all his teachers +and masters, a sense that they must be and were hypocrites and +impostors. He found himself at eighteen far adrift from all guidance and +counsel, shunning religion because he saw that the teachings of Christ +were quite unadapted for the world he had to live in, scornful of and +contemning his teachers for what seemed to him hypocrisy. + +It was not a satisfactory state for a boy, and the less so because it +was still almost unconscious. He felt all that I have said, the +avoidance, the dislike, but he had not yet faced it to himself and said, +"Why does Christianity jar upon me and seem unreal, what are its +difficulties?" Nor, "What is it that causes my dislike and contempt of +my teachers? They are better men in all ways than I am. They are good +men. I shall never be as good. I honour them in their lives. I admit +that. What is the difficulty?" He was adrift without compass or pilot, +and he did not know it. Yet he was already far from the safe harbour of +trust and belief. The storms and darkness of the sea of life were before +him, and there was no star by which he could steer. He made no effort, +raised as yet no alarm, for he knew not that his anchor had dragged, +that he had lost hold, perhaps never to regain it. + + + + +CHAPTER IV. + +SCIENTIFIC THEOLOGY--I. + + +About this time he read the "Origin of Species" and "The Descent of +Man." This surprised him. It was not only that this was his first +introduction to the science of biology, his first peep behind the +curtain of modern forms into the coulisses of the world that interested +him, but there was here contained a complete refutation, a disastrous +overthrow, of all that system of the Creation which he had been taught. + +If Darwin was right, and he seemed to be right--nay, even his once +adversaries now admitted he was right, if not in his details yet in his +broad outline--if he was right then was Genesis all wrong. There was +never any garden of Eden, never any seven days' creation, never any +making of woman out of a rib; the world was not six thousand years old, +but millions. Man himself could count his pedigree back tens of +thousands of years. It was a fable; and not only was it a fable, but +this fable contained as a kernel not a truth--then it would be +understood--but a falsehood. The theory of the whole story was that man +had fallen, that he used to be perfect, that he walked with God, but +that he fell. Such was the idea. And the continuation was that Christ +was required to atone to God for man's disobedience, to lead man slowly +back to the Paradise he had lost. + +And now it was clear that the garden of Eden was all a fable, that man +had never been perfect, that he had evolved slowly out of the beast. He +had risen, not fallen, and stood now higher than ever before. The first +part was false, and if so, must not the sequence be false also? As a +whole the fable held together; destroy the foundation and the +superstructure must come crashing into ruin. Oh! it was all false, the +whole of it, Old and New Testament together, an old woman's tale. And +then suddenly his eyes were opened. He saw many things. His instincts +that he had not understood were now clear. Yes, of course, the +supernatural part was all a fable, a mistake; nay, more, it taught the +reverse of truth, and the moral part of it was all wrong too. The +morality of the Old Testament was that of a savage, the morality of the +New a remarkable ideal totally unfit for the world as it is now or ever +has been. The man who followed it would commit a terrible error. It was +therefore untrue also; more than merely untrue, it was dangerous, as a +false teacher must be. For long he had instinctively seen that this was +so, now he knew why. At the touch of science the whole fabric of +religion fell into dust. Christianity was a fraud, and there was an end +of it. + +But still the church bells rang and the people went there. Priests +preached this belief and people held to it. Darwin had written more than +ten years before and his book had been accepted, but still religion had +not fallen. Men and women, as far as he could see nearly all men and +women, still professed themselves Christians. How was all this possible? +How could it be that this disproved Jewish fable still held together? It +was wonderful. There must be a reason. What is it? + +Can it be possible, he thought, that there is an explanation, that +religion can justify itself, that it may still have reason? There are +people who call themselves scientific theologians. They write books and +they preach, and they can be asked questions. What have they to say? So +this boy collected some of his difficulties and tried to find out what +scientific theology thought of them. Let me name briefly some of them:-- + +_The Fall of Man._--Theology says he fell, science says he rose. What +does Scientific Theology say? + +_The Character of God._--In the Old Testament God is represented +frequently as bloodthirsty, as partial to the Jews, as unjust, as given +to anger, as changeable. How is this? + +Again, God is represented as the only Almighty, the only All-present, +All-seeing, All-powerful; yet without a doubt the facts detailed show +the Devil to be certainly All-present, and, as far as man here is +concerned, has considerably more power and influence than God. God made +the world, but the Devil possesses it. Why? + +_Prayer._--How can this be necessary? If God knows best what is good for +us, why pray to Him? Can He be influenced? The Bible says yes. Then is +not this a very extraordinary thing, that if God knows what is best for +us, He should have to be asked to do it--that He won't do it unless +asked? + +About Christ. He was God, yet He died to atone to Himself for the sin of +man. What is the meaning of all this? Why did God allow man to crucify +Himself in order to atone to Himself for a former sin of man, and what +is the meaning of all this? Has it any? + +Most important of all, as to the example and teaching of Christ +regarding conduct. What did it mean, and why did everyone profess it and +no one believe it? + +These, of course, were not all his difficulties. There were hundreds of +them. There is not a verse in the Old or New Testament, not a dogma, not +a belief of Christianity, that does not furnish ground for question. +These I have mentioned are but some of the most prominent. They will +serve as examples of what he sought to learn. + +And these were the answers he received. + +The History of the Creation is an allegory. It is not in conflict with +science, but in accordance with it. There is no difficulty. The seven +days of creation mean seven periods; we do not know how long these were. +The chronology of Archbishop Usher was, of course, in error. It is a +wonderful testimony to the inspiration of the Bible, the accuracy with +which the account of Creation therein fits in with the facts we have +recently learnt. + +The story of Adam and Eve is an allegory of life. A child is born +innocent and pure, and he falls. The knowledge therein referred to, the +fruit, means useless questions into the secrets of God, such questions +as you are now engaged in. Had you accepted Christianity as a child does +you would never have fallen into the slough of infidelity in which you +are now. You, like Eve, have been tempted by the Devil with the fruit of +the knowledge of good and evil, and have fallen. But the help of Christ, +the knowledge that he died for you, can now save you. That is the +answer. + +You ask of the character of God in the Old Testament. You say that He is +represented by His acts as revengeful, as unjust, as hasty, as very +partial. Man cannot criticise the acts of God. He may seem to you so, +but are you sure you can judge rightly? God cannot be all these. His +injustice, His revengefulness, His partiality were merely effects +produced in your mind. They do not exist. He is all-merciful, and +all-seeing, and all-powerful. If the Devil seems to have more power in +the world than God, it is simply because God allows him. If the Devil +seems all-present it is because he has legions of demons to do his will. +God is all-merciful, all-powerful, all-just; believe this and you will +do well. The answers to your difficulties about prayer are also very +simple. God is not influenced by prayer. He is merciful and will always +do what He knows to be best for you, whether you pray or not; but He has +ordained prayer for you, not because of its effect on Him, but because +of its effect upon yourself. Prayer, humiliation, softens the heart of +the suppliant. His cry to God will not change God, but will change him. +This is the explanation. It is very simple, is it not? + +The doctrine of the Trinity can be best understood from an analogy of +man. Consider how a man can be a father, a husband, and a son all at +once. There is no difficulty here. Where, then, is the difficulty with +God? God as the Father of man, the righteous Judge who punishes man for +his wickedness, He vindicated His law; but God the Son, the pitying +nature of God, had compassion on man, and therefore gave Himself as a +sacrifice for man; God the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of God, entered into +man's heart and sanctified it. Cannot you thus understand the manifold +nature of God? + +The teaching of Christ? His example? You do not understand that? Was not +His life the perfect life, His teaching the perfect teaching? You say +that this teaching cannot be followed now in its entirety. Is it not the +wickedness of man that prevents it? Did each man act up to this +teaching, to this example, would it not be a perfect world? Let each man +try his best and the world will improve. Such as I have written were the +answers he found to his questions. I do not say that these are always +the answers that are given. It may be there are others. It may be that +in the years that have passed since then new explanations have been +evolved. + +Although I do not think that is so, as only a year ago I saw some of +these very replies written in a well-known Review as the authoritative +answer of scientific theology to these difficulties. However that may +be, these are the answers the boy received, such were the guides given +to lead him out of the darkness of scepticism into the light of faith. + + + + +CHAPTER V. + +SCIENTIFIC THEOLOGY--II. + + +What thought the boy of these explanations? Do you think they helped him +at all? Do you think he was able to accept them as real? Did they throw +any light into the darkness of his doubts? + +The boy took them and considered them. He considered them fairly, I am +sure; he would have accepted them if he could. For what he was looking +for was simply guidance and light. He had no desire for aught but this. +If he revolted now from the faith of his people it was because he found +there neither teaching he could accept nor help. If the scientific +theologian shewed him that the error was in him and not in the faith the +boy would, I think, have been glad. So he took these explanations and +considered them, and this is what he thought. + +They tell me that the seven days of creation are seven epochs. I did +not ask that. To my question whether man has fallen, as the Bible says, +or risen, as science declares, no reply has been given. + +There is only a specious likening of a man's life, saying that man falls +from the innocence of his childhood to sin through the knowledge of +evil, and requires redemption. My question is avoided, and a new sophism +given me which is also untrue. A child is not innocent. It is only +ignorant and weak. Its natural impulses are those of a savage. It +requires to learn the knowledge of good and evil to subdue these +instincts. This symbolism of the child is utterly false. A child is to +us a very beautiful thing because its tenderness, its helplessness, its +clinging affection awaken in us feelings of love, of protection, which +we feel are beautiful. All men should, all men I think do, love +children, but the beauty is in the man's emotions that are awakened, not +in those qualities of the children that awaken them. + +To go beyond this and say that a child should be a model to man is to +display ignorance of what children are, to mistake effect for cause, to +exalt childishness into a virtue. Theologians use this argument, which +is merely a play upon our affection for children, to try and induce us +to accept their theology with the same ignorant confidence that a child +accepts all it is told by its parents. It would suit theologians for all +men to be babes in this sense, in their senselessness. But if theology +will bear the light of reason, why ask us to accept it blindly? Why? Is +it because it will not bear scrutiny? + +And surely of all the answers, this answer about the character of God is +the most extraordinary. "God is not really unjust or partial, or +revengeful. That is merely the impression His acts make on us." Truly +here is an argument. How can anyone, even God, be judged except in His +acts? If His acts are revengeful, is not He revengeful? "No!" says the +theological scientist, "that is merely your ignorance. Events make a +wrong impression on you." + +How, then, am I to judge which are wrong and which are right +impressions? God acts, as it seems to me, angrily; He is not angry. On +other occasions He acts, as it seems, mercifully. How am I to know that +this impression of mercy is not an error? How, in fact, am I to know +that anything exists at all? If God's anger and partiality and +changeableness are merely impressions of my mind, are not all His +attributes merely impressions also, and do not exist? In fact, is not +God Himself merely an impression and He does not exist? Where are you +going to stop? The theologian will doubtless say, "When I tell you." +But then he is unfortunately arrogating to himself an authority which +does not exist, an authority to twist and turn the Bible to suit his own +sophisms, an authority to bind your mind which no one has given him. +Impressions forsooth. What impressions can any candid mind have of the +scientific theologian? And when the boy read the explanation of the +difference between the all-presence of God and the all-presence of +Satan, I am afraid he laughed. + +But prayer is a serious matter. No one can feel anything but sorrow to +see the explanation of God and prayer. The theological scientist again +repeats the Bible words and has his own explanation. No, God is not +moved by prayer. This is merely another wrong impression of ours, an +impression taken from the Bible words. The action of prayer is not +objective, but subjective; its effect is not on God, but on you. + +Now mark what he has led himself into. Prayer will purify a man. To ask +God for what he wants won't make the slightest difference in God's acts, +but will in your own feelings. Nevertheless, as of course no one would +or could pray unless he hoped to be answered, man must be told that God +does listen. But this is not true. Therefore, according to theological +science, the Bible directly tells us a falsehood in order to lead us +into a good action. Is there any escape from this? There is none. The +whole meaning and reason of prayer is that God _does_ listen, that He +_does_ forgive if asked, that He _does_ help us and save us. Unless a +man held this belief firmly he would not pray. Try and you will see. +Imagine to yourself, as the theologian declares, that God is quite +unmoved by prayer, and that the action of prayer is subjective, and see +if you can get up any prayer at all. It is impossible. How much fervency +will there be in a request you know will not be granted or attended to? +How much subjective action will follow that prayer? The subjective +action is absolutely dependent on your belief that God does listen and +is influenced by your prayer. But the scientific theologian says your +premise is false. + +Can you imagine this theologian's prayer? Can you see him kneeling and +uttering supplications to a god whom he knows he cannot affect or +influence, and pausing now and then to see how the subjective effect on +himself was getting on? But it is not even a subject to be bitter over, +only to be sad. Truly, if I wanted to make a man an atheist and a +scoffer, a railer at all religion, at all religious emotions, at all +that is best in our natures, I would take him to a scientific +theologian and have him taught the scientific theological theory of +prayer. + +And again, though the boy understood how a man could be the son of his +father, the husband of his wife, the father of his son, three different +relations to three people, it did not help him to understand how he +could be so to one person. A man cannot be his own son and his own +father, and have proceeding from him a third person different and yet +the same. The argument seemed to him childish. + +As to the teaching of Christ, of what use is a teaching that is suitable +only to an ideal state of things? Is it any use to me to tell me that if +everyone agreed at once to follow this teaching the world would be +perfect? Even if this were true, what would be the use? The world never +has accepted it and does not do so now. No one does except a few people +who are called visionaries or fanatics. Even the Quakers only accept a +part, and it is well for them that their fellow citizens do not accept +even that part, or these Quakers would soon be robbed of their wealth. A +nation of Quakers would be a nation of slaves. All this talk of what +would happen if at a given signal all the world became perfect is +useless dream talk. I want realities. This code of Christ is not a +reality. No quicker way of destroying civilization and all that it +means could be desired than by attempting to follow it. We must be ready +and prepared to fight other nations, we must have armies and navies, and +we must honour them. We must have magistrates, and police, and prisons, +and gallows. + +"I went," thought the boy, "to these theological scientists, for help in +my everyday life, for clear directions and explanations, and what do +they give me? A mass of words meaning nothing, words and words, and +tangled thoughts; evasion and misrepresentation, misty dreams and +cloud-hidden ideals. They cannot explain, and therefore the whole thing +is false. There is no truth anywhere in it. The whole teaching of the +Bible, from the Creation down to the incarnation of Christ and His +second coming, is one huge mistake. Why people keep on believing it I +cannot say. But anyhow I have found out its falseness, and I will not. +Let it all go. It will make no difference and be rather an advantage. +What use have I ever had from this religion that has been dinned into +me? It gave me false ideas of the world and nature which I have had to +unlearn. It gave me an unworkable code of conduct which I never tried to +follow, but I got into trouble for it. To call oneself a Christian is +merely a way of talking. No one is so really, and the only difference +between me and the others will be that while they are not Christians but +think they are, I am not a Christian and know I am not." + +Was the boy glad or sorry? I do not know. I think perhaps he was both. +He felt like a man who has shaken off a burden, a load that contained +mere weight and no useful thing. He would step more lightly in future. + +But he felt, too, like a man who has skirted a precipice, secure in that +a railing fenced him in from danger, when he suddenly discovers that the +railing is decayed to the core and will vanish at a touch. He felt dizzy +and afraid, and the feeling grew upon him. + +May be, he thought, it is a good thing to have a religion. People of all +faiths, of all nations, seem to cling to theirs very strongly. It is the +one thing they cannot bear to lose. Yet I do not know what they get from +it. At least I do not know what people get from Christianity. What I +look for in a faith are these three things. + +I wish an explanation of my origin, of the origin of man and his +relation to this world, and to what there may be beyond this world. I +want an explanation I can accept, and that is not contradicted by the +knowledge we acquire from other sources than religion. + +And I want a guide to life. I want a guide to life as it is. For I have +to live in the world as it exists, and I would have help and direction +to do so well. I want a teaching and an example I can refer to in my +everyday troubles. + +Finally, I would know something of the Hereafter. I would desire to hear +of the after death. I cannot believe that all non-Christians, including +myself and the majority of Christians, go to hell. That is repulsive. +Nor can I believe in the heavens they tell us of. If all be true that +they tell us, it has no attraction this Christian heaven. To be for ever +singing praises is not life but monotony. Did any man in health, and +strength, and sanity ever yearn to die in order to reach this Heaven +they tell us of? Did not Aucassin say long ago that if he were to +believe the monks Heaven was a place for the poor and maimed, the +foolish, the childish and silly, the stupid, the cowards, the ugly, the +undesirable, the failures of earth, and that he cared not for it? +Whoever was unfit for earth was the more fit for heaven. No! If there is +another world it must be different from the conceptions of Heaven and +Hell as are taught. And I would know. These seem to me the essentials of +religion. They are the three things I want. I have not found them. It +may be that in the other greater faiths that hold the world I may find +what I seek. I cannot say. But meanwhile I must do without. It is better +to have no compass than a faulty one. It is better to watch for the +stars, even if the night be thick and it be hard to see. + +Such, I think, was what he thought. Whether he ever found what he +sought, whether any faith can give what he asks, whether indeed these +three things are essentials of religion at all, will be found in the +latter part of the book. This part is but the introduction to explain +why and by whom the search was made, and what was sought. + + + + +CHAPTER VI. + +WHENCE FAITHS COME. + + +From the East has come all our light. All world religions have begun +there, have grown there, have mostly spread there. + +Brahminism and Buddhism, Judaism and Christianity, Mahommedanism and +Parseeism, the cult of the Taoists and Confucians, every belief that has +been a great belief, that has led man captive, has come from the East. +Even the Mythologies of Greece and Rome were from Asiatic sources, from +Babylon and Chaldea. In the North we have originated only Thor and Odin, +Balder and the Valkyries. + +I do not think anyone who has lived in the East can doubt why this has +been so. Where is it man's thoughts are deepest and strongest, where is +it that his heart responds to the heart of the world until they beat +throb for throb? + +It is never in the North; for the cold winds and dreary skies, the rain +and cloud and gloom, do not draw a man out from himself, but drive him +in. Every keen breeze that blows, every shower, every grey day, reminds +him not of his soul but of his body. It must be kept warm, it must be +fed, it must be housed. He cannot forget that the outside world must be +guarded against, is an enemy to be feared. + +And man must live in houses with other people. He cannot be alone, he +cannot ever feel alone with just himself and the world. Yet it is only +in solitude, when alone with Nature, that she will talk to you. For her +voice is very low, and there must be a great silence before she will +tell her secrets. + +But there in the East it is not so. For weeks and months, for half the +year may be, one perfect day is joined to another by more perfect +nights. + +Only there can man be alone. Only there, in the limitless silence of the +desert, in the unending forests, can you live and forget all other men, +and yourself almost, and be alone with Him who is God. + +You want but little, no house to shelter you, no fire, but very little +food and drink and clothes. You do not feel that restless desire to do +something born of cold winds and skies. Your roof by day is the palm or +tamarind, by night you watch the stars wheeling over your head. There +is no one to commune with but Nature, and if you love her as she should +be loved; if you woo her as she would be wooed; if you can send out your +soul to lose itself with her in the wonders of the infinite, then shall +you hear the music of the stars. + +Thus has all religion come from the land of the sun: light is the fount +of faith. + +Never till you have been to the East can you know what faith is. Have we +not religion, nay religions, in the North? Yes, but not as they have +there. Do we not believe in the West? Yes, but not as they believe. +Faith lies there in the great distances, in the dawn, the noon, the +sunset, in the holiness of the dark. It has sunk into the heart of man. +Consider, what do you see when you land anywhere in the East, what +strikes you most, what is most prominent, not in the landscape, but in +the people? + +It is their religion. + +You watch the people in the streets and you ask, Why has the merchant in +that shop trident marks on his forehead? Because he is a Hindu and +follows Vishnu. And that clerk who gave me money in the bank, why has he +those other marks? Because he is a Brahmin. And that money-lender seems +to have rubbed his forehead with ashes? He is a Chetty. + +They carry their religion about with them, they are proud of it, they +desire all men to know it. See that man's beard, he is a Mahommedan; and +yonder man with a green turban, he is a Seyid. They would not desire you +to doubt it. + +Did you ever see Englishmen praying in the streets? Perhaps never. +Certainly if ever you have seen it you condemned it as unnatural. "Let +him pray at home," you have thought. "He is parading his piety." But +here in the East it is different. + +Go by the morning train, leave Rangoon Station when the sun is shining +on the great pagoda, and you will see men and women and children lean +out of the carriage windows to salute it, to murmur a prayer. The +Mahommedan spreads his cloth and turns to Mecca, and prays no matter +where he may be. He is not ashamed. It does not seem to him strange. He +does it absolutely naturally, as all these people do all the things that +pertain to their faiths. Neither his fellow-believers nor the adherents +of other faiths wonder. + +The Hindu may hate the Mahommedan for social reasons, and the Buddhist +may hate both, but they do not despise each other for being religious. + +It would never occur to a Hindu to despise or jeer at a Mahommedan for +spreading his cloth at the street corner and praying. He thinks the +faith a mistaken faith, _he_ would not have it. But if a man is a +Mahommedan it is right of him to pray, of course. + +I have never heard, no one has ever heard, one Oriental jeer at another +for being religious, for obeying the commands of his faith. But I have +heard Christians and teachers of Christianity do so very often. We will +jeer at a Mahommedan for praying, at a Hindu for observing his caste, at +a Buddhist for raising his hands in honour to his pagoda, at a Chinaman +for protecting the graves of his fathers. For in the West we have never +known what real religion is. We have it not ourselves, and so we cannot +recognise and honour it in others. No brave man will mock at another +brave man, though an enemy; no one who has loved mocks at another lover, +though he love strange things. Only those jeer who do not know, and the +Christians of the West jeer at the faiths of the East, at the simple +natural religion of the people, because they know not what religion of +the heart can be. + +In Europe, what difference does a man's faith make? None. He may live a +lifetime with other men and no one know or care what his faith may be. +Unless he is a poor man and in need of mission, it is considered +impertinence to ask. But here in the East a man's faith is everything. +You cannot get away from it even for a moment. It is an essential part +of him. + +There is another thing that strikes one very soon. These Oriental +religions have little or no organisation. Here in Europe there is +nothing so organised as religion. Consider the Catholic faith and the +organisation of Rome. It is a marvel of government, of very strict +government indeed. And the other forms of Western Christianity are not +much behind. The Greek Church is organised as a branch of Government. +So, too, to a lesser extent is the Anglican Church, and if the +Dissenting bodies, as we call them, are not connected with the State, +they have nevertheless a strong system of government. + +These organisations are not now, of course, so strong as they were. They +used to drag the men into religion by force, by State aid, they used to +insist on conformity and punish laxity of observance. That is now gone, +but a strong and continuous pressure still exists, exerted by the +Churches in many ways. All Churches in Europe are always having +"missions." Our great cities are full of them, and the country is not +free of them. There has to be a continual shepherding of the flock or +the Church might dwindle sadly. Men have to be preached at and caught +one way or another. All through Europe immense sums are spent yearly in +Christianising the poor. + +In the East nothing of this exists. There is no head of Hinduism; that +of the Sultan in Mahommedanism is merely nominal; how slight the +organisation is of Buddhism those who have read my former book will +know. + +Hindus are guided by the race of Brahmins, who in turn are guided by no +one. They are a great community themselves, without any organisation or +binding authority. They need no Pope, no Acts of Uniformity. They are +Brahmins because they are so. And so it may be said in general. Faiths +in the East require no strong organisations to hold them together. +Religion is innate in the believers. It seems wonderful. And they have +no missions. If a man feels the need of faith he will seek it and obtain +it. It is there for him if he will come. And all do come. How many +millions in Europe, even in England, have no religious usages? Can you +in the East find one man? + +When you think of Europe and its faiths you seem to be in a garden where +the hedges are carefully clipped and the flowers are trained and pruned, +and where you may not walk on the grass. It is all order, and method, +and restriction, for the flowers are exotics and would die without the +tending, they would vary if they were not kept true to type. But the +East is Nature's garden, where the flowers grow wild everywhere; no one +tends them or cares for them, but each grows his own way, developes his +own power and strength, from the lowest grasses to the gorgeous orchid +or the poison lily. + +Therefore it may be that in this East, this country whence all religions +have come, where the whole air breathes of faiths and all life is full +of them, the man who has lost his early beliefs may learn new ones. +There is so much to choose from, so many varieties of thought and +emotion. + +In this Empire of ours are all the great religions. It is the home of +Brahminism, of the mystical forms of Hinduism, beyond which it has never +spread. There are more Mahommedans here than under the Sultan of Roum. +There are the Parsees here, fugitives long ago from Persia on account of +their faith, the only sun worshippers who are left. There are Jews who +came here no one can tell how long ago, there are Christians who date +back may be eighteen centuries, there are Armenians and Arabs. Within +this Empire live the only race professing a Buddhism that is pure and +without superstition; and beside these there are a hundred other cults, +superstitions, or religions, call them what you will. + +From the spirit worship of the Shan plateau to the dignified philosophic +theories of the Brahmo Somaj is a space as wide as the world can show, +yet may it be bridged with religions that differ but by small degrees +till the whole be passed. + +If anyone want a faith here are enough and to spare. "Therefore," +thought the boy, who had now become a man, "I will seek here for what I +want. I know what I want. I have it clearly before me. I have even +written it down. It is not as if I was undertaking a blind search for +something of which I was not sure. These are my three essentials: a +reasonable theory of the universe, a workable and working code of +conduct, a promise in the after life that gives me something to really +desire, to really hope for, to be a haven towards which I may steer. I +will take each subject, each section of a subject, separately and read +it up. I will read up these faiths from books, I will study them as I +can from the people, and I will see what they are. Surely somewhere can +be found what I desire, what I desire so greatly to find." + + + + +CHAPTER VII. + +THE WISDOM OF BOOKS. + + +Therefore the man got books and read them. He read books on Hinduism, +many of them; he read the Vedas and the sacred hymns. He learnt of +Vishnu and Siva, of Krishna and the milkmaids. He found books on caste +and read them, of how these were originally four castes which +subdivided. He read of suttee and the car of Juggernauth. He then turned +to Mahommedanism and the life of Mahommed. He read the Koran. He learned +the early history of the faith, of its rise, of the glory of its result, +of the fall of its great Empire. He saw it had much to do with Judaism, +there were great similarities, there were also differences. He read of +Parseeism, that taught by Zoroaster which they call fire worship; he +read of Jainism, of the cult of the Sikhs, of many another strange +faith; he learned of the spirit worship of the aboriginal tribes among +the mountains, of Phallic worship and its monstrosities. + +He read of Confucius and his teachings, of Laotze and his doctrines, of +ancestor worship among the Chinese, of Shintoism in Japan. + +Most of all he read about Buddhism. There was something here that +attracted him more than in all the rest. In the life of Gaudama the +Buddha he found a beauty that came to him as a charm, in the teachings +of the Great Teacher there seemed to him a light such as he had not +seen. Mystery and miracle and the supernatural had always jarred on him, +they had an unpleasant savour, as of appeals to the lowest elements in +the minds of the credulous and ignorant. Truth he thought should not +need such meretricious attractions. Here was a faith that needed none of +these things. It could exist without them. It contained explanations, +not dogmas. It was reasonableness instead of hysteria, it denounced +mysticism and the cult of the supernatural. + +It took the man several years to read these books, and he lived those +years much alone. His house lay half up a mountain side. Below him lay +tangled masses of hills clothed with dense forest, with here and there a +clearing. Before him was a jagged mountain wall, behind a great bare +dome of rock. It was always wonderful to sit and watch, to see the sun +rise in gold and crimson behind the peaks, while all below lay in a +white mist; to watch the sun rays fall and the mist grow thinner, +showing faint outlines of tree clump and hill contour, till all the mist +was gone and the world was full of golden light. Daily he saw the marvel +of the dawn. He learnt to love it as the most beautiful of things, most +beautiful because full of the promise of untold glory. For the most part +his life was very lonely. There were the labourers who worked for him, +the black, half-nude people who came in gangs in May and left in +February of each year. They were not of his world. He directed their +work, he paid them, but he did not know them. He wondered at them, that +was all, and there were scattered here and there throughout the hills +other Europeans, who lived much the same life as he did, and whom he met +occasionally at their houses or his, or at the club ten miles away. He +liked them, some of them were his best friends, a great part of his life +was theirs also. + +But there was, aside from his friends, aside from the merry meetings, +the games, the chaff, the laughter, another life apart. There was a life +he lived to himself, in another world it seemed. His world was of the +mountain and the fell, of the brooks that laughed down the precipice, +of the giant trees, the tangled creepers, the delicate orchid far above. +His thoughts were with them and with his books, for they should be +brothers. He read and he watched, and he tried to understand; he asked +of nature the meaning of these religions, to tell him the secret that he +would know. What is the truth of things--what do you mean? And I----What +do _I_ mean? What is the secret of it all? + +The mountains and the trees answered him and told him secrets, the +secrets of their hearts, but not the secret he would know. They murmured +to him of many things, of beauty, of love, of peace, of forgetfulness. +They sang the world's slumber song. + +But of whence, of how, of whither they told him nothing, only they +ceased talking when he asked, they ceased their song and there was +silence. They could not tell. + +So he lay upon the rocks and read, and the hills and trees wondered +because they knew not of what he read. "Take care," they whispered; "why +trouble? Life is so short, surely it were wise to make the best of it; +for no one can answer what you ask. We die and fall and new trees grow +again, the hills are newly clad each year. The old return in new forms. +We can tell of ourselves, we are not afraid. Our lives are full of +delight. Death has no terror for us. But you? Of you we know nothing. We +have no echo to your words." + +Yet the man read on. He dreamed and read and dreamed again. + +"I have three wants," he said. "I would know whence I came, I would have +some rule to live by, I would know whither I am going. Religions, many +religions profess to tell men these things, surely somewhere there will +be truth. Nearly all men are satisfied with their religion, cannot I +find one that satisfies me? It is so little that I ask, I have here so +many answers. Amongst them I will be able to find what I want." +Therefore he read on. But in the thoughts of many teachers there is not +clearness, but confusion. In a multitude of counsellors there is not +wisdom, only mist, only the strange shadows made by many lights. He +found that he did not gain. "Sometimes," he said, "I agree with one, +sometimes with another. No one seems to be altogether true. There is +Truth, perhaps, but not the whole Truth. This will not do." + +At last he said to himself that he would make a system. He would take +certain ideas from various faiths, he would put them together, he would +compare them one by one and see what he learnt. + +There is, he said, the First Cause. What do religions say about this +First Cause? There is Brahma, and Jehovah, and Ahriman, with Ormuz; +there is the Buddhist doctrine of Law, there is the Christian Trinity. +These are some of the chief ideas. What can be made of them? Have they a +common truth? Are the great religions utterly at variance about this +First Cause, or can they agree? I will take this point and consider it +first. What is the First Cause? Then I will pass to another. What does +life mean? Why are we here? Is there any explanation of this? For what +object does man exist? To what end? He did not mean what is the end of +man, but what is the object of man, of life? To whom is it a benefit +that man exists? To God--if there be a God? If not, to whom? It cannot +be that existence is an aimless freak, that it has no object. But what +can this object be? What was to be gained by creating man at all? That +was question number two. There is no answer to this question. + +There were many other questions that he asked. And when he had framed a +question he sat down to his books to find the answer. He worked at them +as problems to be solved. He sought in the various faiths described in +his books the answers to these problems. What he found will be shown in +the next few chapters; but let it be understood again how and why he +sought. + +He had been born in a faith and brought up in it, and had abandoned it. +He left it because he sought in it certain helps to thought and to life +that it seemed to him religion ought to give. More, it seemed to him +that these answers were of the very essence of religion. His fathers' +faith gave him answers he could not accept, it gave him a rule of life +he could not follow, that seemed to him untrue. Yet would he not be +satisfied with ignorance, he would search further. He wanted a religion, +a belief, and he would find it. + +For I want it to be understood very clearly that he was no scoffer, no +denier of religion. It was the very reverse. He so much wanted a faith, +it seemed to him such an eminently necessary thing, that he would not be +content till he had one that he could really accept and believe. He +hated doubt and half acceptance. He wanted a truth that appealed to him +as a whole truth, that held no room for doubt. + +"All men," he said, "have religion. They love their faiths, they find in +them help and consolation and guidance, at least they tell me so. Why +am I to be left out? Men say that religion is a treasure beyond words. +Then I, too, would share in the treasure. But I cannot take what has +been offered me. It does not seem to me to be true. I _cannot_ believe +it. This religion repels me. I cannot say how greatly it repels me. They +say it is beautiful. It must be so to some. It is not so to me. Its +music to me is not music, but harshest discord. It is not surely that I +have no desire for religion, no eye for beauty, no ear for harmony, I +know it is not that. No man loves beauty more than I do. There are +things in this faith I have rejected that appeal to me. I see in other +faiths, too, ideas that are beautiful. But no one seems all true, and +none answers my three questions. Yet will I look till I find. + +"And meanwhile there are the hills and the woods. These are my dreams. + +"But surely in my scheme I shall discover something." + + + + +CHAPTER VIII. + +GOD. + + +Sitting on the hillside when the hot season was coming near its end he +saw the thunderstorms come across the hills. From far away they came, +black shadows in the distance, and the thunder like far off surf upon +the shore. Nearer they would grow and nearer, passing from ridge to +ridge, their long white skirts trailing upon the mountain sides, until +they came right overhead and the lightning flashed blindingly, while the +thunder roared in great trumpet tones that shuddered through the gorges. +The man watched them and he saw how gods were born. It was Thor come +back again--Thor with his hammer, Thor with his giant voice. Thus were +born the gods, Thor and Odin, Balder God of the Summer Sun, Apollo and +Vulcan, Ahriman and Ormuz, night and day. + +So were born all the gods. You can read of it in Indian, in Greek, in +Roman, in Norwegian mythology, in any mythology you like. You can see +the belief living still among the Chins, the Shans, the Moopers; for +them the storm-wind and earthquake, the great rivers and the giant +hills, all these have causes, and they who cause them are gods. From +these have grown all the ideas of God that the peoples hold now. They +were originally local, local to the place, local to the people, and as +the people progressed so did their ideas of God. + +It seemed to the man lying on his hillside easy to follow how it all +arose; for, indeed, was it not going on about him? Did not the forest +people speak of a god in the great bare rock behind him? Were there not +gods in the ravines, gods in the hidden places of the hills? It was so +easy to realise as he watched the storm-cloud bursting before him, as +the lightning flashed and the thunder trumpet sounded in the hills, that +men should personify these. Nay, more, he saw the wild men about him +actually personifying them. He could understand. + +God was the answer to a question; as the question grew so did the +reply. + +The savage asks but little. He does not ask "Who am I?" "Who made the +world, and why?" Such questioning comes but in later years. He fears the +thunder; it is to him a great and wonderful and overpowering thing. It +forces itself upon his notice, and he explains it as the voice of a +greater man, a God. He lives in the heavens, for His voice comes from +thence. The giant peaks that swathe themselves in clouds, the volcano +and the earthquake, the great river flowing for ever to the sea, with +its strange floods, its eddies, its deadly undertow, in these too must +be gods. These are the first things that force themselves upon his dim +observance. He wonders, and from his wonder is born a god. But as he +grows in mental stature, in power of seeing, in power of feeling, he +observes other forces. How is the heaven held up, the great heavy dome +as he imagines it? It is Atlas who does so. There is a god of the Autumn +and Spring, of the Summer and Winter. So he personifies all forces he +perceives but does not understand. For he has no idea of force except as +emanating from a Person, of life which is not embodied in some form like +his own or that of some animal. Whenever anything is done it must be +Some One who does it, and that Some One is like himself, only greater +and stronger. + +There is not in the savage god any conception differing from that of +man. There is not in any god any realisable conception different from +that of man. The savage god is hungry and thirsty, requires clothes and +houses, has in all things passions and wants like a man. That makes the +god near to the man. With later gods is it different? God can be +realised only by means of the qualities He shares with man. Deduct from +your idea of God all human passions, love and forgiveness, and mercy, +and revenge, and punishment, and what is left? Only words and +abstractions which appeal to no one, and are realisable by no one. +Declare that God requires neither ears to hear nor eyes to see, nor legs +to walk with, nor a body, and what is left? Nothing is left. When +anyone, savage or Christian, realises God he does so by qualities God +shares with man. God is the Big Man who causes things. That is all. To +say that God is a spirit and then to declare that a spirit differs in +essence from a man is playing with words. No realisable conception does +or can differ. + +The conception of force by itself is but a very late idea. As one by +one the phenomena of nature attract man's observation he personifies +them. It will be noticed that unless a force intrudes itself on him he +does not personify it. What people ever personified gravity? And why +not? Surely gravity is evident enough. Every time a savage dropped a +stone on his toes he would recognise gravity. But no. That a stone falls +to the ground because a force draws it is an idea very late to enter +man's brain. It seems to him, as he would say, the nature of a stone to +fall. And then gravity acts always in the same way. It is not +intermittent--like lightning, for instance. Therefore he never conceives +of gravity as a force at all. When men had come to perceive that it was +a force, they had passed the personifying stage. But the savage +personified each force as he perceived it. First the sun and storm, till +at last he came to himself and began to study his own life. He had good +and bad luck; that was Fortune. Evil deeds are done, and good; he is +beginning to classify and generalise; there are gods of Good and Evil. +He has come to Ormuz and Ahriman little by little; as his power of +generalising progresses, he drops the smaller gods. They disappear, they +are but attributes of greater gods. And as he grows in mental grasp and +makes himself the centre of his world, so does the God of Man become the +God of Nature too. The greater absorbs the lesser. + +The God who cared for man, the God of his past, of his present, of his +future, is become the great God. He rules all the gods until he alone is +God. + +So it seemed to the man that God arose, never out of reason, always out +of instinct. There was no difference. It is all the same story. There is +innate in all men a tendency to personify the forces they cannot +understand. Because they want an explanation, and personality is the +only one that offers at first. To attribute effects to persons is +aboriginal science. To attribute them to natural laws is later science. +Each is the answer to the same question. Men personify forces in +different ways according to their mental and emotional stature, to their +capacity for generalising. They express their ideas in different ways +according to their race and their country. The Hindu began with a god in +each force, to represent each idea, and so the lower people still +remain, afraid of many gods. But those of mental stature gradually +generalised, till at last they came to one God, Brahm, and the lesser +gods as emanating from him. This was a hierarchy; and then finally the +greatest thinkers came to one God only, and the idea that the lesser +gods are but representatives of His manifold nature. You can see all the +stages before you now. It is simply a question of brain power, and the +sequence remains the same. First the lesser, then the greater. It is +never the other way on. + +So does Christian mythology personify three ideas of God, as a Trinity, +as three Persons in One, and a Devil. The Hindu would express such a +conception of God by a god with three heads. Christianity, rejecting +such crude symbolism, does so by a mystical creed. The Devil is being +dropped. But the Jew and the Mahommedan have only one God. All force +emanates from Him. He is the Cause of all things. He is One. + +And yet it is not a reasoned answer, but an instinctive one. The savage, +no more than the Christian, does not reason out his God. The feeling, +the understanding of God is innate, abiding--never the result of a +mental process. The idea of God is a thing in itself; it grows with the +brain, but it is not the result of any process of the brain; just as a +forest tree grows the greater in richer soil. + +As the idea of gods increased in majesty, as the numbers decreased and +became merged in three, in two, or in one, so did their power increase. +The gods were at first but local, local to the place, local to the +tribe. So was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who was jealous of +the other gods. And gradually their local god or gods grew into the God +of the whole world. It was only a question of mental development, of the +power of generalisation in conception. Man conceived a ruler of the +world in the Roman Emperor before he conceived an all-powerful God. The +man as he meditated, as he watched, would see the stages before his +eyes. There was the savage, the Kurumba and Moopa with his many gods in +the hills all about; there were the Hindus, the traders whose temples +shewed white in the groves beneath, many steps higher in civilisation +with their supreme Brahm and minor gods emanating from him; there was +the Moslem with his "God is God." He had the stages before his eyes. + +Therefore when he came to consider this question of God he found in +God-worship in Hinduism, Parseeism, Mahommedanism, Judaism, +Christianity, no differing conception. They held all the same idea in +different shapes. There was nothing new. God, one or multiple, made the +world according to His own good pleasure, ruled it according to His +will. The savage knew most of God, because his god was but a man +enlarged and the nearer to him for that. With greater contemplation the +crudities have been removed, the manlike qualities disappear one by one, +until with the few greatest thinkers they are all gone. God has become a +"Spirit," an abstraction, an unthinkable, incomprehensible God that is +of no use to anyone; for He cannot be influenced by prayer, He has no +passions to be roused, He has become lost in the heavens, an inscrutable +force. Such was the evolution of God. + +Only when he came to Buddhism was there a new thing. He found no longer +God or gods, but Law. That was indeed new, that was indeed very +different from the other faiths. The world came into being under Law, it +progressed under Law, it would end, if it ever did end, under Law. And +this Law was unchanged, unchangeable for ever. Let me consider, he said, +these two conceptions, Personality and Law. + +What is this world to the Buddhist? It is a place that has evolved and +is evolving under Law. He does not speak of God creating one thing or +another, but of a sequence of events. The Buddhist was Darwin two +thousand years before Darwin. He saw the rule of Law long before our +scientific men found it in the stars. I do not think it is so easy to +follow the origin of this idea as it is of the idea of God. With the +latter we have the stages before our eyes, but how the Buddhist idea of +law arose we can only conjecture. It is not, I think, an instinct like +the knowledge of God. It is more of a mental process, like the reasoning +of science. It is a negation as opposed to an assertion. It is the +negative pole. It must surely have arisen like modern science from the +observation of facts. I do not say that the idea of law is absent from +other faiths. You see it in the Commandments. Certain sequences were +recognised, but with Judaism they were ascribed to the order of a +Personality. Buddhism, like science, knows of no Personality. The laws +of a Theocracy were always liable to change and correction. The laws of +the Buddhist are inviolable. The Christian thinks laws can be violated, +the Buddhist knows they are inviolable. + +You cannot break a law. It is true that many declare otherwise, that +Charles Kingsley in a famous lecture declared you could break the law of +gravity. "The law is," says he, "that a stone should fall to the earth; +but by stretching out your hand you can prevent the stone falling. Thus +you can break the law." So argued Charles Kingsley, so think mistily +many men because they have never troubled to define the words they use. +There is no law that a stone should fall to the earth. The law of +gravity is that bodies attract each other directly as their mass, and +inversely as the square of the distance. You do not break this law by +holding a stone in your hand. Nay, you can feel it acting all the time +you do so. You cannot break this law. You cannot break any law. Law is +another word for the inevitable. Whom did the Greeks put above all the +gods? It was [Greek: anachke], Necessity. Did, then, the Greeks see that +behind all their personification of forces Law ruled? It may be so. They +have the two ideas, God and Law. It is perhaps the old battle of free +will and destination. And which is true? To the Greek Necessity was +behind God, to the Theist God is behind Law. The laws are but His +orders. He can break them and change them and modify them. And yet, it +is so hard to see clearly how Theists can avoid the difficulty. If God's +laws are perfect truths they cannot be alterable. Only the imperfect +would be changed. Yet if God's laws are perfect, is not He, too, bound +by them? And if He be bound, is not His free will, His omnipotence +limited? Surely God cannot transgress His own laws of righteousness; is +there not "necessity" to Him too? But if this be so, then where is the +need of any knowledge beyond the knowledge of law? If it be indeed +eternal, as the Buddhists say, what need for more? In the science of +nature we need not go beyond, we cannot. In the science of man, who is +but part of nature, why should we do so? Is it not better, truer, more +beautiful to believe in everlasting laws of righteousness that rule the +world than to believe that a Personality has to be always arranging and +interfering? Would we not in a state prefer perfect laws to a perfect +king, who, however, was imperfect in this that his laws were imperfect +and had to be checked in their working? Which is the more perfect +conception? Surely that of law. If crime and ignorance, if mistake and +waywardness brought always inevitably their due punishment and +correction, where is a ruler needed? It is imperfection that requires +changing. + + + + +CHAPTER IX. + +GOD AND LAW. + + +Think what a difference, what an immense difference, it makes to a man +which he believes, how utterly it alters all his attitude to the +Unknown, to the Infinite, whether he believes in God or in Law. For +among all religions, all faiths, all theories of the unknown there are +only these two ideas, Personality or Law, free will or inevitableness. +And how different they are. + +In the face of eternity there are two attitudes: that of the Theist, +whether Christian or Jew, Hindu or spirit worshipper; and that of the +Buddhist, the believer in Law. To the believer in God or in gods, what +is the world and what is man? They are playthings in the hands of the +Almighty. God is responsible to no one, He knows no right and wrong, no +necessity beyond Himself, all He does must be right. He is All-powerful. +Man must crouch before Him in fear. If man suffer he must not cry out +against God; he must say in due submissiveness, "Thy will be done." A +man must even be thankful that matters are not worse. If in a shipwreck +many are drowned and few, bereft of all but life, are hardly saved, what +must they do? They must render thanks to God that He didn't drown them +too. Not because they are aware of being punished for any sin, that does +not come to man in calamity. You cannot imagine a common sin that +engulphs men and women, children and babes, from all countries, of all +professions, of many religions, in one common disaster. No! God can be +bribed, not with presents perhaps now, but with reverence. It is the +cringe that deprecates uncontrollable Power. It is the same feeling that +makes the savage lay a fruit or a flower before the Spirit of the Hills +lest he too be killed by the falling rocks. + +For what do men imagine God to be? Do you think that each man holds one +wonderful conception of God? Not so. The civilised man's idea of God is +as the savage idea. Each man builds to himself his own God, out of his +ideals, civilised or savage. Truly, if you ask a man to tell you his +idea of God he will answer you vaguely out of his creeds or sacred +books; but if you watch that man's actions towards God, you will soon +discover that his God is but his ideal man glorified. + +To a tender woman her God is but the extreme of the tenderness, the +beauty, the compassion which she feels, and the narrowness which she has +but does not realise. And cannot you see in your mind's eye the German +Emperor's God clanking round the heavenly mansions wearing a German +pickelhaube and swearing German oaths? Man's God is but what he admires +most in himself. He can be propitiated, he can be bribed. The savage +does it with a bowl of milk or a honey cake, the mediaeval man did it +with a chapel or a painted window. You say this idea has ceased. Have +you ever prayed to God and said, "Spare me this time and I will be good +in future. I will do this. I will do that." Or, more beautifully, "Spare +him that I love and let the punishment fall on me. Let me bear his +sins." Is not the very idea of atonement expressed by Christ's life? A +price has to be paid to God. He must be bought off. Man's attitude +before God must be that of the child, submissive with downcast eyes, +full of praise, never daring to blame. "Tell me and I will obey, do not +punish me or I perish." Then there is the attitude of the believer in +eternal law. For him the world holds no caprice, no leaning to one side +or another, no revenge, no mercy. Each act carries with it an inevitable +result: reward if the act be good, punishment if it be bad. You can +break a command of God. He may tell you to do a thing and you may +refuse. You cannot break a law. It is the inevitable, the everlasting. +You cannot rebel against law. The sin is not rebellion, but ignorance. +The attitude is not submission, but inquiry, the thirst for truth. Adam +lost Eden because he sought for the knowledge of good and evil. But the +law-believer says that only in wisdom, only in truth, is there any hope. +He stands before the eternal verities with clear eyes to see them, with +a strong heart to bear what his ignorance may make him suffer. Out of +his pain he will learn the sequences of life. He has gained much. + +What has he lost? Are not mercy and fatherly care, forgiveness and love, +beautiful things? Yet they, too, are of God. If you know not of Him, +only of Law, have you not lost out of your life some of the greatest +thoughts? How will you comfort your heart when it is sore if you have +not God? Is prayer nothing? + +Truly, said the man, these are beautiful things. If I could have them +alone. But I cannot. I fear the other qualities more than I love these. +I would have neither. I would be a man and live under Law. It seems to +me enough. If Law be absolute I see no room for God. + +Over against him were the long ridges of the hills where the rain-clouds +gathered from the south. He saw them come in great masses surging up the +valleys and hiding the contours of the hills. The lightning flashed +across the peaks and the thunder echoed in long-drawn trumpet blasts. +"The savage," he said, "saw there only gods warring with one another. +Now with wiser eyes we see the reign of Law. We do not know all the +laws; we cannot even yet tell how much rain will come, whether it will +be famine or plenty. We cannot see the Law, but we never doubt the Law +is there. With man it is the same. Births and deaths, suicides and +murders, are they too not all under Law? Why should not man's soul be so +too? Where is the need of God?" + +As he came down the mountain side the rain was falling heavily, as it +can only in the tropics. The dry hollows were already streams, the +streams were foaming torrents. "They act under Law," he said. "Their +life is bounded all by Law." And then of a sudden, watching the foaming +water, he saw more clearly. + +"True, the stream runs within its banks, but banks do not make the +stream. Gravity, that drags down these waters, acts in certain sequence, +but that sequence is not gravity. Gravity is a force. When we enumerate +the law we do not define, or know, or understand the force, only the way +it acts. Force is force, and law is law. They are not the same. They do +not explain each other. What a dead thing would law be that had no force +acting within it. Truly, I must see more clearly. Law does not deny +force; nay, but it predicates it--is, in fact, an outcome of it. Law is +a sequence along which force acts; neither can exist without the other. +All force is ruled by law. Yes, but what is force--what are any of the +forces that exist: gravity, and electricity, and heat, and life? Forms +of motion? May be; but whence the motion? + +"Ah me!" said the man, "then am I back again at the beginning. Have I +learnt nothing? I thought law might suffice, but it will not. If law is +inevitable, then are we but helpless atoms following the stream of +necessity. Then is freewill dead. Yet there is freewill. There is force, +there is life, whence come these forces? And if one say that force is +God, what then? + +"Perhaps there is this: there are two truths--there is God and there is +Law. Both are true, as there is destiny and there is freewill. But how +can that be? I see it is so, that it must be so. But how? Is it that +there are facets of some great truth behind which we can never know?" + +The man was weary. "What have I gained? Only that I have a truth, which +I cannot understand, which gives me no help, or but little? Have I +gained anything to help me in life? I have gained this, perhaps, that if +Law be not a full explanation, it is true, as far as it goes; if not a +whole truth, yet it is a truth. Why go further? The scientist cares for +nothing more when he has learned the laws of gravity. He is content to +be ignorant of whence the force comes, because he can go no further. In +the battle of life is not this enough? Can we not, too, be as the +scientist, denying nothing, but searching only for that which we can +know and which will be useful to us? If force be God, yet should His +ways not be mysterious. Let us not shut our eyes and comfort ourselves +in ignorance by saying, 'There is no Law; God is inscrutable, God knows +no Law. He is inexpressible, changeable and uncertain.' But truly there +is Law. Behind the gods, behind God, there _is_ [Greek: anachke], there +is Necessity, there is an unfailing sequence of events, which is +righteousness. Let us learn then what righteousness is. Let us learn +what is true in order to do what is right." + + * * * * * + +But after all it is all speculation. There is no evidence. It is a +theory built on nothing. What is the value of it? Nothing at all. What +is to be gained by all this? Only barren words, finely spun theories +made of air. Where is the proof of God or of Law? There is none. + + + + +CHAPTER X. + +THE WAY OF LIFE. + + +Perhaps it does not matter. It may be that all this speculation about +the First Cause, about the Ruling Power of the world, is unnecessary. +What matter if God be inscrutable, if He has given us commands for our +lives that are clear, if He has laid down for us His will that we should +follow. Even if Law be not a full explanation, even if a knowledge of +all Law would not mean a knowledge of everything, what would this +signify if we can see enough of the laws that govern our lives so to +order ourselves as to reach the goal? Whether the Theist be right or the +Buddhist, in his theories of the world, the main question with which we +are concerned is ourselves. Has any religion a working code of life that +is true, that is adapted to us as we are, that is not in conflict with +facts and common sense? What matters its name or its supposed origin? Is +there such a thing? So thought the man, turning from abstract ideas to +real necessities. After all, what I and all men want is not abstract +ideas, whether of God or Law, but present help and guidance. Has any God +taught any believer a perfect code of life, has any Buddhist searcher +discovered the natural Law of life? For if so I would know them. Never +mind the whence or how, give me the facts. + +It seemed to him, looking back in the beginning of faiths, that morals, +that rules of life had no part there. When the Northman saw Thor in the +thunder there was no moral code there. The Greek gods were frankly not +so much immoral, which predicates a code of morals, as unmoral. They +knew of no such thing. It is the same with all the early gods, with the +Hindu gods and those of all other early beliefs. The Chin savage on the +Burmese frontier sees gods in the great peaks, but these gods demand +from him no moral observance, they impress upon him no moral standard. +All that the early gods demanded was fear, reverence, worship. Even the +Jehovah of the Jews asked at first only this. It is not till you get to +the third commandment that conduct comes in, and the moral code was +scanty. The early gods of all kinds, of all faiths, had no moral code +either for themselves or man. They demanded only obedience and fear and +worship. The moral code came later. + +It seems unnecessary now to consider whence they came, how they grew, +why they became added to the worship of the gods, which was all that +early religion meant. Some of that will come elsewhere. It is immaterial +here which is only the man's search after a code, any code that would +act. For it remains that all faiths when once they had left the +elementary stage did add a code of conduct as part of their religion, +saying it came from God, or was an immutable law, and tried to induce +men to follow it by declaring that it alone would lead to happiness +hereafter. All the greater faiths have these codes. "And I," said the +man to himself as he searched, "I care nothing whence the code is +supposed to have come, truly or falsely, as long as I find it. I want a +guide to life as it is. Has any faith such a guide? For each declare +that it alone has. Show me these rules to life." + +The books showed him. They showed him codes of all degrees, from the +simplest to the most complex, from the plain cult of courage, the very +first and most necessary of all virtues, to the immensely complicated +code of observances of the Brahmin; and outside religions there were the +philosophies of Greece and Rome, of India and China, of Persia and +Germany, and Scotland. + +Now should man so order his life as to live righteously here, and to be +of good repute before man and his own conscience? How shall a man so +form himself here that if indeed there be a life hereafter he may enter +it without fear? What are these codes? + +It seemed to him that there ran in some ways a great sameness through +the creeds, that up to a certain stage they differed but little. Courage +against the foe, courage to face suffering, truth and honesty, and later +mercy and compassion, charity of act and thought, courtesy and beauty of +mind; these were the additions the faiths made, little by little, to the +ground-work of reverence of the gods. And so they grew, adding bit by +bit, as civilisation increased and necessity dictated. They added many +of them sanitary rules, observances for washing, for cooking, for +choosing food, incorporating with religion whatever practice found +useful, and thereby giving a sanctity which it would otherwise have +lacked. Sometimes rules were added to preserve the race pure, as with +the Jews or the Hindus, evolving in the latter religion into the vast +system of caste that separates the different races, all of whom call +themselves Hindus. With the two faiths as just mentioned the tendency +was to narrowness and restriction, to the exclusion of other races; with +others, such as the Mahommedan and Buddhist, it was to expansion, to the +acceptance of other peoples, until at last some great Prophet arose to +give coherence and form to the whole and include it in the sacred books. +So arose the codes, the man thought. But this hardly matters. What are +the codes? + +It seemed to him that out of all the faiths only two held codes that +rose much above the level of savage conduct. We cannot go back to the +codes of Moses or Mahommed; we cannot accept the narrow racial +limitations of Hinduism; we have outgrown the simple ethics of Zoroaster +and the Egyptians. The teachings of Confucius and Laotze are strange to +us, and the philosophies, if they seem clear, are so singularly +unconvincing. They lack so greatly all that appeals to mankind; they are +so much codes in the head and not for the heart; they are as +mathematical drawings compared to a work of art; they do not ring true. +And so there were quickly left for him only two, the codes of Christ and +of Buddha, the examples of the two greatest prophets the world has +known. + +And between the teachings of the great Teacher who lived two thousand +and five hundred years ago, and that of the man God of the Christians +six hundred years later, what difference is there? They start from +different beginnings, they work towards perhaps different ends; but in +the methods, in the rules of life, what difference is there? That which +was taught by the sea of Galilee is but the echo of the words spoken +long before below the Himalayan Hills. They are the same, read them. The +two greatest faiths the world has known, the two greatest teachers that +ever came to man to help him in his need, have brought him the same +message. Believe not in the world, believe not in wealth, in power, in +greatness, in strength. These are not what man should seek. Nay, but +leave the world behind you because it is all evil, all very evil. +Nothing of this world is of any value. In a man's heart is his greatest +treasure. Make therefore your heart pure from the world. Leave it all +and turn to God, to righteousness. Cultivate your own soul apart from +all the pleasures of life. The other world can be gained only by +abjuring this. Wealth and honour and ambition, all the glories of the +world, are but traps to catch you. Even the loves we love are wrong. The +Buddha left his wife and child. The Christ never married, and denied +even his mother any love beyond that of a disciple. It is all the same. +Their lives, their teachings are the same. + +The man sighed as he read. Surely, he said, these are hard things to +believe, that the world is evil. No, but it is not evil. That a man can +only fit himself for heaven by being unfit for earth. I cannot believe +this. I have not changed since I thought this over as a boy. This is not +a true code, not a true rule, not a true faith, whether Christian or +Buddhist. I did not believe then, a boy; I do not believe now, a man. + +The world is not evil. There is evil there, but so much of good. There +are stains there truly, but so much of beauty. Do you think I can watch +the sun rise, the daily marvel which is beyond words, and hate the +world? Can I see the man I love, the men who have helped me, who have +been with me, the men who are my friends, and say that they are of a +world that is evil? And the women, the girls, the children, are their +lives for us nothing? Are they of a world that we must abjure? It is +never so. Truly, there are in these teachings, whether of the Christ or +of the Buddha, much that is of beauty, much, so much that touches our +hearts, I had at times fain believe. But I find in the world beauty +also, beauty that comes as near, that comes nearer than they do. When a +man is honest and honourable and true, and rises to great position, to +be spoken well of by all men, is that an evil thing? Is the wealth that +comes of the keen brain, the strong will, a calamity? Are our loves, our +hopes, our fears but evil? Yet they are of the world. Beautiful as is +the teaching, there are in the world things far more beautiful. I will +never believe, never, that the world and flesh are partners to the +Devil. I will never believe that. + +"And more," said the man slowly. "No one ever does believe it--none but +a very few. The world has rejected it always; not from wickedness, but +because the teaching is never true. They do not acknowledge their +disbelief. No! The Christians and the Buddhists maintain their faith by +words. But in secret, in their own hearts, before the world, in the +action of their own hands, have they ever acknowledged these beliefs?" + +Neither the Christ nor the Buddha are the models men follow, because men +are sure that, though there be truth in their teachings yet it is not +all the truth, though there be beauty yet are there other beauties as +great, nay greater than these. The world is never evil, and if it were, +to follow these doctrines would not be the way to make it better. + +Then the man turned from his books again to the world beneath him, he +came to reality from dreams. I have learnt nothing? No, but I have +learnt something. I have learned what I have yet to learn. And I have +learned more. I know why I disbelieve, because I love the world as it +is, and because I will never believe that what calls to my heart from +there is wrong. The beauty of things is the truth of things. And in +truth and beauty is the voice of God as surely, nay more surely than in +the voice of any prophet of two thousand years ago. + + + + +CHAPTER XI. + +HEAVEN. + + +"I am not getting on very well," he thought. "I have looked for three +things, and two I am sure I have not found. I have found nowhere any +explanation of the Universe, of the First Cause; I have found nowhere +any true rule of life. Yet these are two of the three 'truths' that the +faiths offer to me as inducements to believe. 'We will give you,' they +say, 'a theory of this world and of its origin which is true, which will +help you in this life because it will show you what you are and the +world is, and whence you came. We will give you through this troublous +life a guide that will never fail you, a staff that will never break. +And finally, if you believe, you shall attain after death the happiness +that is without end.'" + +So they promise, and of their promises I have tried two. Have I found +that they give what they declare? Is there anywhere any belief of the +First Cause that is true, that is the whole truth? There is none. And is +there any guide to life that can be followed in sincerity and truth? +There is none. There remains only heaven. There remains only the bribe, +the promise of happiness, if we will believe as they declare, if we will +do as they say. + +It may be that here is the secret, that I shall come now to the answer; +it may be that this is the key to all. If there is in the heaven they +promise us such a fulfilment of glory, such an appeal to our hearts that +they cannot but answer, what matter the rest? Happiness is our end in +life. For what do we strive all our days but for happiness, for truth, +for joy, for the beauty of life? What matter that in the theory of the +First Cause we can see no truth, that in the rule of life I can find +only a contradiction of beauty, if in the end in heaven these are +attained? The end, if the end be perfect, will reveal the truth and the +beauty in the ways that are now hid. What is this heaven? + +When we think of heaven, when with our eyes shut we try to recall all +they have taught us of the Christian heaven, what are the images that +come up? It seems as if we went back all those years to when we were +little lads beside our mothers, and as the fire flickered across the +unlit room, full of strange shadows, we said our childish prayers and +leant our heads heavy with sleep upon her knee. It is our mothers that +tell us of the heaven, whither they would that we should go, that urge +us with imaginings of beauty to come to be "good." It is a childish +heaven of which we learn, a heaven full of girl angels with white wings +and floating dresses, of golden harps, of pearly gates, of everlasting +song. There are, I think, no men there, only girls; no sheep, but fleecy +lambs. It is a heaven that appeals only to them. And is it very +different when we grow up? Indeed I think not. It is the same heaven +always, the same conception full of childish things. Did you ever hear a +sermon on the heaven, did you ever read a book, did you ever listen to a +discourse that did not take you back again in memory to that far-off +fire-lightened room of childhood? Surely there is nothing in all the +world so babyish as the general idea of the Christian heaven. Can you +imagine a _man_ there, a man with great deep voice and passion-laden +eyes, a man with the storms of life still beating on his soul amid these +baby faces and white wings? "Ah," said the man, "they must make us into +infants that we may enter their heaven. When I revolted against it as a +boy as but a kindergarten, without even the distraction of being put in +the corner, was I wrong?" + +May be, for there are things beyond this. "In my Father's house are many +mansions. I go to prepare a place for you." "Eye hath not seen nor ear +heard, nor hath it entered into the heart of man to conceive." "The +peace of God which passeth all understanding." "Where God shall wipe +away all tears from their eyes." These are not childish things. +Happiness that hath no sorrow, light that knows no shadow, glory that +never ends. + +I read a book long ago; I have forgotten the name of it, I have +forgotten who wrote it, and I remember that at the time I did not +understand it. The book was on the subject of perfect happiness, on +heaven, which is postulated as the ideal peace. And what this book tried +to show--what, indeed, it showed, I think--was that happiness if +_perfect_ was near akin to annihilation. The argument ran something like +this. "You are happy in some particular employment, say in singing a +hymn, in some particular attitude, let us say in kneeling. If your +happiness in this act and attitude is perfect, they will endure for +ever. You will pass eternity kneeling and singing the same hymn. For +consider, Why do you ever change your acts, your attitudes? Because a +particular act or a certain attitude has become wearisome. But if it be +stated that your happiness is _perfect_ you can never feel satiety, +never feel any desire for change. The wish for change is born of the +feeling of wearisomeness. You have had enough of one thing, you want +another. But if you are perfectly happy this cannot be. Life would +become a monotony, a satiety near akin to death. And if indeed peace be +the highest happiness, then would this perfect peace be so near +annihilation that the difference would only lie in that your +consciousness of happiness still remained." Thus did this writer show +that if the Christian heaven be as declared, _perfect_ happiness, so it +must be almost indistinguishable from death. + +I do not think this writer had ever read of the Buddhist Nirvana, I do +not remember that he ever even alluded to it. He was thinking of the +Christian heaven and trying to make out what it was like, and that was +what he found. He, taking the Christian ideal and working it to its +inevitable conclusion, arrived at the same result as Buddhist teachers +starting from such widely different premises have arrived at: the +Christian heaven and the Buddhist peace are the same. + +Readers of my former work, "The Soul of a People," will remember how the +Buddhists arrive at Nirvana. It is the "Great Peace." Life is the +enemy. Life is change, and change is misery. The ideal is to have done +with life, to be steeped in the Great Peace. Thus do the purer ideas of +the Christian heaven and the Buddhist heaven agree. It is the "Peace +that passeth all understanding" for each. + +And yet perfect happiness, sleep without waking, light without shadow, +joy without sorrow, gaiety without eclipse. Can this ever be heaven? Let +us look back on our lives, we who have lived, and let us think. Let us +close our eyes that the past may come before us and we may remember. +What are the most beautiful memories that come before us, that make our +hearts beat again with the greatest music they have known, that bring +again to our eyes the tears that are the water of the well of God? What +have been the greatest emotions of our lives? There has been struggle +and effort, unceasing effort, crowned maybe with success, but maybe not, +effort that we know has brought out all that is best in us, that we +rejoice to remember. There will be no effort in heaven, only rest; there +is no defeat, and therefore no victory, only peace. Therefore also, +because we can have no enemies there we shall have no friends. Our +friends! How we can remember them. We have loved them because we have +hated others. But in heaven there is no hate, only an equality of +indifference. Heaven is nothing but joy. But consider, has joy been the +most beautiful thing in your life, is it joy that sounded the deepest +harmonies? Remember how you have stood upon that faraway hillside and +laid to rest your comrade beneath the forest shadows? Was it not +beautiful what your heart sang to you while you said "Farewell," and +tears came to your eyes? There are no farewells in heaven. + +There are women you have loved, women whose eyes have grown large and +soft as you have spoken to them in the dusk of evenings long ago. You +have loved them because they were women. What will they be in heaven? + +And the children! Think of that childless heaven. Think of the children +who laugh and play, and come to you to laugh with them, who cry and come +to you for comfort. They will require no comfort from you in heaven, and +how much will you lose? The child angels are never naughty. They can +never come to you and hide their heads upon your shoulder and say "I was +wrong. I am very sorry. Please forgive me." None of these notes shall +ever sound in heaven. There are no tears there. But do you not know +that the greater beauties can only be seen through tears, which are +their dew? + +What is it that sounds the deeper notes of our lives? Is it sunshine, +happiness, gaiety? Is it any attribute of the heavens of the religions? +Surely it is never so. It is the troubles of life, the mistakes, the +sorrows, the sin, the shadow mysteries of the world, that sound in our +hearts the greater strings. + +And are these to be mute in your heavens? Are we to fall to lesser notes +of eternal praise, of eternal thanksgiving? Prophets of the faiths, what +are these heavens of yours? Is there in them anything to draw our +hearts? Have you pointed to us what we really would have? Your sacred +books are full of your descriptions, of your enticements; you have +beggared all the languages in words to describe what you would have us +long for. And what have you gained? Is there any one man, one woman, one +child, not steeped in the uttermost incurable disease, in feeble old +age, who would change the chances of his life here for any of your +heavens? There is no one. Or if you were to say to a man, "Choose. You +shall be young again, and strong, or you shall go to heaven." Which +would he choose? Therefore, ye teachers of the faiths, are your promises +vain. I do not believe in nor do I fear your hells, those crude places +of fire and pitch and little black devils. I care not for your heavens; +I would not go there, not to any of them, neither to the happy hunting +ground, nor to heaven, nor to the garden of the Houris nor to Nirvana, +_not if they be as you tell me they are_. Nor do I want to merge my +identity in the Infinite. This life is good enough for me, while I +retain health and strength. I am not tempted. Nor is anyone tempted. +Whom have you persuaded? You know that you have enticed no one. No one +is deceived. Men will die for many things, they will leap to accept +death--but not for your heavens. All men _fear_ death and what is +beyond, the righteous who you say have earned heaven no less than the +unrighteous. All faiths have had their martyrs, but that is different. +They have died to preserve their souls, as soldiers die to preserve +their honour, gladly. Even the godly do not believe. They will have +nothing of your heavens. I cannot understand how either Christian or +Buddhist came to imagine such unattractive, unreasonable heavens. + +And so they have all failed. No religion gives us an intelligible First +Cause, no religion gives us a code of conduct we can follow, no +religion offers us a heaven we would care to attain. + +There are many definitions of religion. I have written some on my first +page. It will be seen that they all hinge on one of these ideas, either +that religion is a theory of causation, or it is a code of conduct, or +that it is concerned with future rewards and punishments. + +But if indeed religion have any or all of these meanings, then is +religion false, then are all religions false. And more, no one who +thinks over the subject, no one who takes it seriously would believe any +one of them, could take any as a satisfactory explanation. No one +accepts any code of religious conduct as absolutely workable, no one is +attracted by their heavens. I am sure of these things. + +Then shall I sit down with Omar Khayyam and say:-- + + "Myself when young did eagerly frequent + Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument + About it and about; but evermore + Came out by the same door where in I went." + +Shall I say all religion is but windy theory and no one cares for it? +Neither do I. + +The man put down his books and laughed. No one believes? But every man +believes, or would like to believe. Every man is at heart more or less +religious. I see that in daily life as I go. Why? Why? What is it he +finds? I will not give up. I will not come out at that same door. I will +try again in a new line. I must be on the wrong road. Let me try back +and consider. What is it in religion that we see and love and feel is +true? Who are the people that we would be like? Is it the scientific +theologian with his word-confusion about homoiousios? Is it the Hindu +sophist making theories of Brahm? Is it the Buddhist word-refiner +speculating on Karma? Surely it is not any of these people. It is the +street preacher crying to the crowd, "Come and be saved"; it is the +peasant with bowed head in the sunset listening to the Angelus; it is +the priest in his livelong lonely exile. These _are_ Christians, and +their thoughts are the religion worth knowing. It is they who are near +God. I care not for the intricate intellectual mazes a Hindu can make +with his brain, but I care for the coolie. I can see him now, putting +his little ghi before the god, giving out of his poverty to the +mendicant. It is he who knows God, even if his God be but the God of the +hill above him. And it is the woman crying at the pagoda foot for +succour; it is the reverent crowds that look upon the pagoda while their +eyes fill with tears; it is the Buddhist monk, far away beneath the +hills, living his life of purity and example that I reverence. They +_have_ religion. I will go to them and ask them what it is. I am sure it +is not what the theologians of all creeds have told me. What do these +poor know of thought and speculation? They do not think, they _know_. +What is it that they know? Not certainly what the professional divines +tell me. + +I do not believe these thinkers or their thoughts. If I believed that +what they say is religion--is, in fact, so--I would have done with it. +That is where most men end. They ask the divines what religion is. The +divines produce their theories and creeds. The enquirer looks and +examines and reflects. For he says, "If the professional men don't know +what their own faith is, who does?" But I will not end so. I _will_ know +wherein the truth of religion lies. I will now go to those who know, +because they _know_, not because they think. My books shall be the +hearts of men. + + + + +PART II. + + + + +CHAPTER XII. + +THEORIES AND FACTS. + + +There is a festival to-day among the coolies. All night, from down in +the valley where their huts are, has come the sound of tom-toms beating. +And this morning there has been no roll-call, no telling off the men to +making pits and the women to weeding. The fields have been empty, and +the village which is usually so abandoned by day, is full of people. +They have roamed lazily to and fro or sat before their doorways in the +sun talking and waiting, for the ceremony is not till noon. + +It begins with a procession. It is a long procession, all of men or +boys, for it seems that among these people women are not concerned in +the acting of the ceremonies. They are all men, mostly the elders and +the headsmen of gangs, and before them dances a man half naked, half +mad, who cries and throws his arms about. He is possessed of the Spirit. +I do not know what the procession means, and I ask. No one can tell me; +only it "is the custom." And so they pass up the main road near my house +with tom-toms beating and flowers about their necks, and the "possessed" +priest dancing ever before them. They go perhaps a mile about and then +return, and by the entrance to the village, where are boys who carry +rice and cocoanuts; and as the priest approaches they throw this rice +before him and break the cocoanuts at his feet. So they enter the +village. In the centre is an open space and they stop, the procession +breaks, for the priest goes to the centre still dancing, and the people +form a great ring about him. He dances more and more wildly as the +tom-toms quicken their beat, his eyes are bloodshot, his hands are +clenched, there is foam upon his lips. "He has the Spirit," the people +murmur with wonder. Then into the centre of this ring come two men +dragging a goat. It is a black goat with a white star on his forehead. +His horns are painted and there are flowers about his neck. When the +priest sees the goat he rushes forward. He grips the goat by the ears, +the men let go and depart, and the priest and goat are left alone. He +is about to sacrifice the goat, I know that, but I do not know how, for +he has no knife. But I quickly understand. He has seized the goat by +both ears in a grip of steel. Then bending down he bares his teeth and +catches the lower lip of the goat between them. He tears and worries, +and the goat struggles ineffectually, for with savage energy the priest +has torn at the lip till it peels off in a long strip down the throat, +so that the veins and arteries are laid bare. And then with a sudden +jerk he lets go the torn skin and buries his teeth deep in the +palpitating throat. You see his jaw work, you see the goat give a great +convulsive struggle, there is a sudden rush of blood from the torn +arteries pouring over the priest in a great red stream. For a minute +there is stillness, and then the goat's tense limbs relax. They droop, +for he is dead; and with a tremor in all his limbs the man stands for a +second and then drops too senseless, his face falling on the goat that +he has slain. For two, three, five minutes, I know not how long, there +is a dead silence. The sun is at its height and pours down upon the +intense crowd, upon the victim lying in its pool of blood, upon the +priest a huddled heap beside it. And then with a great sigh the people +awake. There is a movement and a murmur. Some elders go and carry away +the goat, and the priest is supported to the little temple near by. The +blood is covered up with fresh earth, the ceremony is over, and the +people break up. + + * * * * * + +In the evening my writer Antonio tells me all he knows. What is the god +who entered into the priest? I ask, and he shakes his head. "For sure," +he answers, "I do not know. They only tell me 'Sawmy, Sawmy'; that is, +'God, God.' They say he want sacrifice, he want people to give him +present. I do not know why he want present, except he big God and must +be worship. If he not get sacrifice he angry. If he get sacrifice he +pleased." + +So Antonio explains to me the scene. He argues like my books do. Let me +consider. They would explain it some way like this. They would say that +the "Sawmy" was the Sun God, or some other idealisation; that first of +all the Indians imagined this Sawmy out of ghosts or dreams; that having +done so they gave this God certain attributes and powers; that +subsequently they imagined the God angry and punishing the people, and +so they would proceed to a priest suffering from hysteria, which they +supposed to be the possession of this Sawmy, and finally arrive at the +procession and sacrifice. They would point out how the flesh of the goat +was divided among the coolies, thus bringing them into communion with +their God. And so they would come at last to the concrete fact, as +caused by a long process of imagination, an explanation quite incredible +to me. I read the facts differently, much more simply. As to imagination +the people have hardly any; they are hopelessly incapable of such a +train of thought. The priest himself admits that not one in fifty has +the least glimmering of any meaning in the ceremony. Nevertheless they +like it, they are awed by it, they would by no means allow it to be +omitted. And as to this feast of communion with their divinity, what are +the facts? + +The coolies are poor, they live almost entirely on rice and vegetables. +Meat can very rarely be afforded. Yet they long for it, and a few times +in the year they all subscribe and buy a goat for food as a very special +luxury. + +The goat being bought has to be killed. Now, to people in this stage of +civilisation, to people in _any_ stage of civilisation, the taking of +life is very attractive, it is an awe and wonder-inspiring act. These +people are so poor they can seldom afford such a sight, and therefore +it must be made the most of. You may note exactly the same passion in +bull fights, the execution of martyrs, in public executions of all +countries. What greater treat can you offer a boy than to see a pig +killed? So the death of the goat is compassed with much show and in a +peculiarly impressive way. That done the meat is divided as already +arranged, and everyone is pleased. They have got their food and their +sensation. The priest, too, is pleased, and makes his little scientific +theology to explain and apologise for this peculiar emotion. It has the +further result of making him powerful and revered. For he alone can see +and tell the coolies the inwardness of it all; and he can further claim +the tit-bits as representative of the Deity. + +So arose sacrifice out of some inward hidden emotion of men's hearts. Do +not say this emotion is purely savage. It is allied often to the purest +pity, to awe, to strange searchings of the heart. To some it may be +hardening, but to most it is not so. + +How do I know? I know by two ways, because I have watched the faces of +this and many crowds to see how they felt, and that is what I saw. I +have seen death inflicted so often, on animals and on man, that I know +and have felt what the emotion is. I cannot explain the emotion--who can +explain any emotion?--but I know it is there. And I know that, if not +witnessed too often or in wrong circumstances, the sight of suffering +and death, rightfully inflicted, is not brutalising, but very much the +reverse. + +Who are the most kind-hearted, even soft-hearted, of men? They are +soldiers and doctors. The sights they have seen, the suffering and even +death they may themselves have inflicted of necessity, have never +hardened them. They have but made their sympathies the deeper and +stronger. Look at the contemporary history of any war, of that in Burma +fifteen years ago, of that in the Transvaal to-day. Who are they who +call out for stringent measures, for much shooting, for plenty of +hanging? Never the soldiers. Never those who know what these things are. +It is the civilians and journalists who know not what death is. Who +wrote "The Drums of the Fore and Aft," "La Debacle," "The Red Badge of +Courage," with their delight in blood? Not men who had seen war. Nor is +it they who read such books with pleasure. Men who have seen death and +watched it could never make the telling an hour's diversion. It is +those who have never seen the reality, who seek in art that stimulus +which they know they require. + +The sight and knowledge and understanding of unavoidable suffering and +death is the greatest of all purifiers to the heart. The weak cannot +bear it. Women may avoid it because they know they are unable to sustain +it, because they know it does brutalise them. But with men it is never +so. + +Suffering and death are facts; they are part of the world, and men must +know them. They are needed to strengthen and deepen the greatest +emotions of men. + +And therefore there is in man this instinct, this attraction to the +sight of suffering and death, an instinct that, rightly followed, has in +it nothing but good. + +So I read the ceremony I had witnessed. Such is, I am sure, the meaning +of all such ceremonies. They never arise from mental theories, always +from inner emotion. The scientific theologian of the tribe has explained +them in his way, and when enquirers have tried to understand these +ceremonies they have gone to the priest instead of the people. Hence the +absolute futility of all that has been written on the origins of +faiths. + +Men have begun at the wrong end: they have argued down instead of up; +they have begun their pyramid at the top. Yet surely if there is any +fact that ought to be impressed on us since Darwin, it is to begin at +the bottom. Reason never produces facts or emotion. It can but theorise +on them. + +And meditating on what I had seen, I came to see at last all my +mistakes. + +Instead of beginning with ideas of God, to find man I ought to have gone +first to man, to see how arise the ideas of the First Cause. Instead of +examining codes of conduct as supernaturally given and impossible, I +ought to have gone to man and tried to discover how he came to frame and +to uphold these codes. And so also with heaven and hell, man has but +imagined them to suit his needs: and if so, what needs? I have tried all +the creeds to find an explanation of man, and there is none. I begin now +with man to find an explanation of the creeds. Man and his necessities +are the eternal truth, and all his religions are but framed by himself +to minister to his needs. This is the theory on which to work and try +for results. + +We have an authority for such a method in science, for she proceeds not +from the unknown to the known, but from the observed to the imagined. +Thus has she imagined the unimaginable ether to explain certain +phenomena and to act as a working theory to proceed on. Scientific men +did not invent ether and the laws of ether first, and so descend to +light and electricity. They felt the light and heat, and gradually +worked inwards and upwards. + +So perhaps has man felt certain needs, certain emotions and certain +impulses, and has imagined his First Cause, his Law, his codes, his +religious theories, one and all, to explain his needs and help himself. + +The whole series of questions becomes altered. + +It is no longer which is true, the Christian Triune God, the Hindu +million of Gods, the Mahommedan one God, the Buddhist Law? but from what +facts did these arise, and why do they persist to-day? + +Out of what necessity, to justify what feeling, does the Christian +require a Triune God, the Hindu many Gods, and the Buddhist no God but +Law? Why does each reject the conception of the other? It is not what +code is the true code of life, the Jewish code, the Christian, the +Buddhist, but why are these Codes at all? + +Why had the Jews their ruthless code? Why have the Christians and +Buddhists adopted codes they cannot act up to? Why have the Hindus in +"caste" the most elaborate codes we know. + +Why did the Jews have no hereafter at all, the Mahommedans a sensual +paradise, the Greeks the Shades, the Brahmins and Buddhists a +transmigration of souls leading to Nirvana? These are very different +ideas. What necessities do they serve? And so with the many facets of +religions. Faiths do not explain man, perhaps man can explain his +faiths. That is my new standpoint from which I shall see. + + + + +CHAPTER XIII. + +CREED AND INSTINCT. + + +I had six years of that life in India. I passed six years living in a +solitary bungalow miles away from any other European, meeting them but +occasionally, six years with practically no intercourse at all with the +natives. For the jungle people who lived in the hills were few, and +savage, and shy; and besides these, there were only a few Hindu or +Mahommedan shop-keepers in the main bazaar, and the great crowd of +coolie-folk who cultivate the estates. It was not a life in which it was +possible to learn much of any people. Solitary planters living unnatural +lives in isolated bungalows do not usually offer much of interest to an +observer. The wild tribes were mere savages. The coolies came in gangs +and worked for a few months and went home. It was a life of almost +complete solitude, a life where for days and weeks perhaps, except for +a few orders in the native tongues to headmen of gangs, or a short +discussion about the work, no word was spoken. It was, may be, a time +for reflection and thought, for reading and meditation, for such a +search as was made. But it was no life for observation, for collection +of facts, for seeing and understanding. Even had one tried to know the +coolies or the jungle people, it had been impossible; for they too have +the inaccessability of the Indian, and are not to be approached too +near. + +But after these six years there came a change. Of the reasons, the +methods of that change there is no necessity to write. It was a great +change. From a country of mountains to a great plain, from forests to +vast open spaces, widely cultivated; from a life of stagnation to a life +full of the excitement of war and danger, from a life of books and +dreams to a life of acts almost without books; from a people sulky and +savage and unapproachable to a nation of the widest hospitality, where +caste was unknown, where the women were free, a people with whom +intimacy was not only easy but very pleasant; and, finally, from the +life of a private person pursuing private ends to the working life of an +official, where responsibility was piled on responsibility, and the +necessity of knowing the language and the people was obvious if they +were to be discharged even decently. Yet still it was a life of +solitude. True, in the cold weather there were columns and expeditions +made with troops, when there was pleasant companionship of my own +people. But there were great stretches of solitude, months and months +together, with no Englishman, and especially no Englishwoman, near. For +four years I saw never an English girl or woman. And there were no +books. What few I had were burnt one night with all my possessions, and +thereafter I had hardly any. They were years of hardship, of scanty +lodging, little better than the natives, ill-cooked, unvaried food, a +life that had in it none of the delights of civilisation. And yet I can +look back to it with pleasure. For there were always the people to talk +to, the people to study, to try and understand, their religion to +observe and try to understand. + +I have written in "The Soul of a People" about that religion, of the +things I learned about it, of what it taught me. I tried to understand +it not from without but from within, to see it as they saw it, not to +criticise but to believe. If I am to credit my reviewers I have done +this, for the thoughts in the book are all considered to be my own also. + +That may not be so, and yet I may have learnt much that I could only +have learnt by adopting the attitude I did. It is possible to understand +if not always to accept, and out of understanding to reach something +needful. A critic can never understand; he destroys but does not create. +So I learnt many things. I learnt among others these. + +That the religion of the Burman is a religion of his heart, never of his +head. It is spontaneous, as much as the forest on the hillside. He has +in his heart many instincts, that have come there who knows how, and out +of these he has made his faith. What that faith is I have told in my +first book. It is not pure Buddhism. But because Buddhism has come +nearest to what his heart tells him is true, because its tenets appeal +to him as do none others, because they explain the facts he feels, +therefore he professes the faith of the Buddha and calls himself a +Buddhist. That is what I learnt to be sure of. And what I heard from +others, what I read in many books I learned absolutely to disbelieve. I +was told, for instance, that a Burman villager far away in the hills +thought he could remember his former lives _because_ the doctrine of +the transmigration of souls had been introduced by Buddhist monks. But +I, looking into his heart, was sure that the villager was a Buddhist +because the Buddhist doctrine of transmigration resembled the instinct +and knowledge of his own soul. It is not the same. The Buddhist faith +recognises no ego. The Burman does. But in some sort or other he could +fit the imported theory to his facts, and he therefore was a Buddhist. + +Communities of Christians and Mahommedans, Jews and Hindus, have lived +among the Burmans for hundreds of years; there have been no converts to +any of these faiths. Burma now is full of Christian missions and there +are converts--a few--but never, I believe, pure Burmans; they have +always some other blood in their veins, usually Mahommedan. And why? +Because Buddhism accords with the instincts of the Burman and no other +faiths do. + +Yet pure Buddhism knows no prayer, and the Burman prays. Why? Ah! again +it is the instinct of the heart. He wants to pray, and pray he will, let +his adopted faith say what it will. + +But on the whole the beliefs of his heart are nearer akin to the +theories of Buddhism than the theories of any other faith, and therefore +he is a Buddhist. That was one thing I learnt, that religious systems +are one thing and a man's religion another. The former proceeds from the +latter and never the reverse, and men profess creeds because the creeds +agree more or less with their religious feelings; they do not have +religious feelings because they have adopted a creed, whatever that +creed may be. + +I had at last come down from creeds, which are theories, to religions, +which are feelings and instincts; I had left books, which are of the +intellect, and come to the hearts of men. + +From these facts was born a large distrust. I had learnt what the +Burman's faith was. I learnt that his beliefs came from his heart, were +innate, that they agreed only partially with his creed. I found that so +much stronger were they that where possible the observance of the faith +had been altered to suit him, that where the rigidity of the creed +forbade, he simply put the creed aside--as with prayer. I found also +that to begin with the theory of Buddhism and reason down landed me +nowhere, but to begin with the Burman and reason up explained everything +that at first I could not understand. + +Clearly the way to arrive at things was to begin with facts. What were +the Burman's instincts, not only as referred to religion; but generally? +What were his peculiarities? + +I found many of them. To take one as instance. The Burman has a very +strong objection to authority. There is nothing he dislikes so much, not +only as submitting to an interfering authority, but to exercising it. +Thus he has never developed any aristocracy, nor any feudal system. His +Government was of the slightest, his villages were almost entirely +self-directed. No other people in the same stage of civilisation can +show so much local freedom. He would never serve another if he could +help it. He liked freedom even if accompanied by poverty. The ideas of +obedience and of reverence for authority did not appeal to him as the +highest emotions. He dislikes interference. He will not give advice +often even if sought. + +Now I said if this be one of his greatest instincts, and if my theory be +true, this instinct will be exhibited in his religion. Either Buddhism +must accept it, or I shall find that the Burman in this case ignores his +creed. So I looked, and I found that Buddhism was the very thing to +assist such a feeling. Buddhism knew no God, no one to be always +directing and interfering, no one to demand obedience and reverence. +There was only Law. Buddhism was the very ideal faith for such a man. +But in other matters it was not so. The instinct of prayer is in the +Burman as in all people, though perhaps less with him than others. The +Buddhist theory allows of no prayer. Then does the Burman not follow his +instinct? My observation told me that here the Burman ignored his creed +and satisfied his instinct despite of all. But his instinct of prayer is +slight, of dislike to authority very great; therefore he remains a +Buddhist. Had it been the other way he would probably have been a Hindu. +And so with many other things. The Burman might fairly be called a +Buddhist, not because he so dubbed himself, but because his religious +instincts were mainly in accordance more or less with the Buddhist +theory. + +Further, I thought if this is true with the Burman, is it not likely to +be true of all people? I know that a creed, a religious theory, is no +guide to the belief of a people. If it were, would not all Christian +nations believe much the same, have the same ideals, the same outcome of +their beliefs? But they do not. They vary in a most extraordinary way. +Each people has its own beliefs, and no one agrees with another on more +than one or two points. And not one at all agrees with the theories they +profess. Now as every European nation has the same holy book, the same +Teacher, the same Example, how is this? Can it be explained by arguing +from the creed down? No. But may be it can by reasoning from the people +up. It may be that I shall find elsewhere what I have found here, that +creeds do not influence people, but people their creeds, and that where +the creed will not give way the people simply ignore it. Each people may +have its own instinctive beliefs from within differing from all others. +And because they require a theory to explain, and as it were codify, +these instincts, they adopt nominally some great creed, but with the +reservation that in practice they will follow that creed only where it +meets or can be made to meet their necessities, and ignore it where it +does not. That may work out. Let me study mankind to find what they +believe. + +This I have tried to do, and what I have found comes in the next +chapters, but no one who has not tried knows how difficult it has been; +for I have found no one to help me, no facts hardly, except what I +myself might gather to go on. Books on religion and on folk-lore there +are in plenty. They have been of little use to me. They all begin at the +wrong end. They all assume as facts what I do not think exist at all. +They talk, for instance, of Christianity as if in practice there is now +or ever has been any such clear or definite thing. There is Roman +Catholicism of different forms, the ideas of the Latin races; there are +the many religions of the Slavs, of the Teutons, of the Anglo-Saxons, of +the Iberians, of the western Celts, all differing enormously, all +calling themselves Christian. There is the religion of the Boers, of the +Quakers, of the Abyssinians, of the Unitarians. There used to be the +Puritans, the Fifth Monarchy men, the Arians, and many another heresy. +They call themselves Christians. What are their real beliefs? Whence do +they come? + +It is the same with Buddhism. There are the Burmese, Ceylon, Chinese, +Japanese, Jain, Thibetan, and many another people that call themselves +Buddhist. What are the real beliefs of these people? I have found the +Burmese beliefs; who has found the others? The answer is, no one has +even looked for them. They have started at the very end and reasoned +down; they have coloured the facts with their theories till they are +worthless. + +And the religions of Greece and Rome, of Egypt, of Chaldea, of many an +ancient people, out of what instincts did these people form their +creeds? + +As in tracing the Burmese religion, so in this further and wide attempt +I have had practically only my own observation of facts to go on. How +narrow one man's observation must be can quickly be judged. Some +knowledge of the Burmese, a very little of Mahommedans and Hindus, a +little of the wild tribes, and in Europe some little knowledge of my own +people and their history, of Anglicanism and Puritanism and Lutheranism, +some observation of the Latin peoples and their beliefs. Yet still, +narrow as the range is, I think my theory works out. I think that even +in my narrow circle, with my own limited knowledge and sympathies, I +have found enough to prove my case. The evidences in the next chapter +are, it is true, few, and the discussion of the subject must be greatly +condensed. Still, wherever I have been able to investigate a point I +have always found that my theory does prove true and the old theory +false. Out of my theory is explained at once the divergences of the +Latins and Teutons, why one Christian people worship the Madonna and +another not, why one has confession and another not. I have never +applied my key but the lock has turned. I have never tried to reason the +other way without coming to a full stop, and I have never met anyone +else or read any book that did not do the same. + +For my belief is that religion is not a creed and does not come from +creeds. There are in men certain religious instincts, existing always, +modified from time to time by circumstances and brain developments. Out +of these instincts grows religion, and when a creed, which is a theory +of religion, comes along and agrees with the main instincts of the +people they adopt the name of the creed, they use it to codify and +organise their instincts, but they keep and develope their instincts +nevertheless, regardless of the creed. It is a fundamental error to talk +of Christianity or Buddhism. We ought to speak of Latinism, Teutonism, +Burmanism, Tartarism, Quakerism. In all essentials the Quaker is +infinitely nearer the Burman than he is to the Puritan. + + + + +CHAPTER XIV. + +RELIGIOUS PEOPLE. + + +It will not be denied, I think, that even in England, where we pride +ourselves so much upon our religiousness, where we have a hundred +religions and only one sauce, the only country except Russia where the +head of the State is also the head of the National Church, that even in +England religion is unevenly divided. Men do not take to it so much as +women, some men are attracted by it more than others, some women more +than the rest of women. We find it in all qualities, in all depths, from +the thin veil above the scepticism of many men of science to the deep +emotional feeling of the enthusiast, and it is nowhere a question of +class, of education, or of occupation. It would be very difficult, I +think, to assert, and quite impossible to prove, that religion affects +any one class more than another; for it must not be forgotten that, +although more perhaps of certain classes go to religious services than +of others, the explanation may not be any comparative excess of +religious feeling. In a class where the women greatly exceed the men in +numbers, there will be apparently comparatively more religion, and the +rank of society also influences the result. For some it is easier and +pleasanter to attend church or chapel than for others, and a class which +is not hardly worked during the week can more easily spare the leisure +for religious exercises than others to whom the need for air, for +exercise, for change, appeals more strongly. There may also be other +factors at work. But indeed it is unnecessary to press the matter +closely, for it will hardly be asserted, I think, that religion is ever +a question of class. _One_ religion may be so, but not religion broadly +speaking, not the religious temperament as it is called. To whom, then, +does religion appeal most, and to what side of their nature does it +appeal? + +Generally speaking, I think, to the more emotional and less +intellectual. + +That this is but a general rule, with many exceptions of which I will +speak later, I admit. But I think it will be admitted that it is a +general rule. Intellect, reason, whether cultivated or not, hard-headed +common sense, whether in the great thinker or the artisan, is seldom +strongly religious. Faith of a kind they may retain, but they usually +restrain it to such a degree that it is not conspicuous. Hard-headed +thinkers are rarely "deeply religious." But as you leave the domain +which is the more dominated by thought, and descend or ascend--I have no +wish to infer inferiority or the reverse,--to the natures more +accessible to sentiment, more governed by the emotions, religiosity +increases. Till finally you arrive at the fanatic, where reason has +disappeared and emotion is the sole guide. + +They are easily recognised, these enthusiasts, by their lined faces, by +their nervous speech, but above all by their eyes. You can see there the +emotional strain, the too highly strung system which has abandoned +itself to the excesses of religion. But there seems to be another rule; +religion varies according to the interests a person has in life. A man, +or a woman, with many interests, with much work, living a full life in +the world, has but little time usually for religion; he can devote but a +small part of his life to it. Its call is to him less imperative, less +alluring; it is but one among many notes. But as the absorption in daily +life decreases, as the demands from without are less, so does the +devotion to religion increase. Until at last among these rural people, +who with strong feelings have but little to gratify them, whose lives +are the dreary monotony of a daily routine into which excitement or +novelty never enters, we find often the greatest, the strongest, and +narrowest faith. So too among those many women of our middle classes +whose lives, from the want of mankind or of children, fall into narrow +ways, whose lives are dull, whose natural affections and desires are too +often thwarted, there lives the purest and strongest, if often, too, the +narrowest religion. It comes to them as a help where there is none +other, it brings to them emotions when the world holds for them none, it +contains in itself beauty and love and interest when the world has +refused them. How much, how very much of the deeper religious feeling is +due to the want of other pleasure in life, to the forced introspection +of solitude, to the desire to feel emotion when there is nothing without +to raise it. + +The old and disappointed turn almost always to religion. Thus it seems +as if the quality of religion in mankind were due to two causes; to +temperament, according to the emotional necessity, the desire for +stimulation and the absence of mental restriction; and to environment, +according as the life led furnishes excitement and interest or is dull, +leading to a search within for that which does not come from without. Of +such are the ultra religious. + + * * * * * + +And the irreligious, those who say openly that they have no religion, +amongst whom are they to be found? They can, I think, be divided into +three classes. + +There are first of all those who are very low down in the scale of +humanity, who are wanting in all the finer instincts of mankind. You +will find them usually in cities, amongst the dregs of the people; for +in the country it is difficult to find any who are quite without the +finer emotions. The air and land and sky, the sunset and the sunrise, +the myriad beauties of the world, do not leave them quite unmoved. And +then solitude, which gives men time to think, not to reason but to +think; which gives their hearts peace to hear the echoes of nature, is a +great refiner. Countrymen are often stupid, they are rarely brutalised. + +Then there are the sensualists of all classes in life. It is a strange +thing to notice that of all the commands of religions, of all laws of +conduct they have given forth, but one only is almost invariably kept. +There is but one crime that the religious rarely commit, and that is +sensuality. It is true the rule is not absolute. There are the +Swedenborgians, if theirs can be called a religion. I doubt myself if it +be so, if this one fact did not oust it from the family of faiths. But +however that may be, sensuality in all history has been almost always +allied to irreligion. Not as a consequence, but because I think both +proceed from the same cause, a nerve weakness and irritability arising +from deficient vitality, a want of the finer emotions, which are +religion. + +Finally, there are the philosophers. In all history, in all countries, +in all faiths there have been the thinkers, the reasoners, the "lovers +of wisdom," and they have rejected the religion of their people. + +Of what sort are these philosophers? Are they, as they claim to be, the +cream of mankind, those who have the pure reason? Are they such as the +world admires? I think not. For pure reason does not appeal to mankind. +It is too cold, too hard, too arid. It is barren and produces nothing. +What has philosophy given the world but unending words? It is the denial +of emotion, and emotion is life. It is the reduction of living to the +formula of mathematics--a grey world. Those who, rejecting religion, +rely on pure reason, are those who have lost the stronger emotions, who +have heads but no hearts, while the enthusiasts have hearts but no +heads. And in between these lie the great mass of men who are religious +but not fanatics, who reason but who do not look to reason to prove +their religion, the men and women who live large lives, and are lost +neither in the tumult of unrestrained emotion, nor bound in the iron +limits of a mental syllogism. + +"Do you infer," it will be asked, "that religion is in inverse ratio to +reason? But it is not so. Many men, most men of the highest intellectual +attainments, have been deeply religious, great soldiers, sailors, +statesmen, discoverers; the great men are on our side, the thinkers have +been with us." I am not sure of that. The great _doers_ have always been +religious, the great thinkers rarely so. No man has ever, I think, sat +down calmly unbiassed to reason out his religion and not ended by +rejecting it. The great men who have also been religious do not +invalidate what I say. Newton was a great thinker, perhaps one of the +greatest thinkers of all time. He could follow natural laws and +occurrences with the keenest eye for flaws, for mistakes, for rash +assumption. He could never accept until he had proved. But did he ever +apply this acumen to religion? Not so; he accepted at once the +chronology of the Old Testament unhesitatingly, blindly, and worked out +a chronology of the Fall much as did Archbishop Usher. + +Indeed, I think it is always so. There is no assumption more fallacious +than that because a man is a keen reasoner on one subject he is also on +another, that because one thing is fair ground for controversy other +things are so also. Men who are really religious, who believe in their +faith whatever that faith may be, consider it above proof, beyond +argument. It is strange at first, it is to later thoughts one of the +most illuminating things, to hear a keen reasoner who is also a +religious man talk, to note the change of mental attitude as the subject +changes. In ordinary matters everything is subject to challenge, to +discussion, to rules of logic. But when it is religion that comes up, +note the dropped voice, the softened face, the gentle light in the eye. +It is emotion now, not reason; feeling, not induction. It is a subject +few religious men care to discuss at all, because they know it is not a +matter of pure reason. True religion, therefore, that beautiful +restrained emotion which all who have it treasure, which those who have +not envy and hate, lives among the men who are between these extremes. +Those who with strong emotions have but narrow outlets for it become +unduly religious, narrow sectarians. + +Those with uncontrolled religious emotions become fanatics, those with +none but brute emotions remain brutes. Those whom the cult of sensual +desires has overcome follow Horace and Omar Khayyam. Those in whom +reason has overpowered and killed the emotions become those most arid of +people, philosophers. True and beautiful faith is to be found only +amongst those who lie between all these extremes. They have many and +keen emotions, but they find many outlets for them all, so that the +stream of feeling is not directed into one narrow channel. And they +employ reason not as a murdering dissecting power, but as an equaliser +and balancer of the living. Reason is not concerned with what religion +is, but only with the relative position religious emotions shall occupy +in life. Too little lets it run wild, too much kills it. + +But religion is never reason. It is a cult of certain of the emotions. +What these emotions are I hope to explain further on. + + + + +CHAPTER XV. + +ENTHUSIASM. + + +Such are the qualities and such the circumstances that increase and +nourish religious feeling, of such are the more religious of all +peoples. What is the result in their lives? Does their religion cause +them to live more worthy lives? Are the more deeply religious those whom +the world at large most deeply respects? What is the effect of their +religion in their lives? + +I am not speaking here of professors of religion, of priests or monks, +of fakirs or yogis, of any whose lives are directly devoted to the +practice of the teaching of religion. They are a class apart, and are +judged by standards other than ordinary men. Their world is another than +that of ordinary folk. I speak now of the religion of those who still +live the lives of ordinary people. What effect has religion upon them, +and how are they ordinarily regarded in the world? + +It is strange that if indeed religion be the truth of truths it should +be regarded with such impatience, with such suspicion, if brought into +ordinary life. For so it is. Every class has its own rules, its own +conventions; every profession, every teacher, every form of society has +its own rules, which are not founded at all upon religion. In every walk +of life it is assumed that, subject to the special etiquette of that +trade or profession and to the observance of what is considered +honourable conduct therein, every man's actions are governed by +self-interest alone. If a man allege any reasons but this he is regarded +with doubt and suspicion. He is avoided. I will give an instance in +point. There was a doctor once whom I knew who practised a certain +"cure" for disease--it is quite immaterial what the system was; it was +especially good for tropical diseases--and as some of us were conversing +with him on the subject, and recalling with gratitude and pleasure the +benefit we had derived, it was suggested to him that he might do well in +India. "If in a hill station," we said, "you were to establish yourself +and practise your treatment, you would have a large clientele. Many +Englishmen who could not afford the time to come home would come to you, +and there would be natives also. Such treatment as yours would hurt no +one's caste. No doubt you would do well, you would make a name and be +rich." This was his answer: "I would not care about that if I could only +do those poor natives some good." It was sincerely uttered, I doubt not. +There was no conscious cant, but it fell upon his hearers as a chill. +The conversation dropped, it changed, and gradually we went away. The +remark pained. Why? It is always so. Trade is trade and professions are +professions, but religion is apart. It is not to be intruded into daily +life; it is to be kept sedulously away. Not because its introduction +suggests something higher and shames or discountenances the observances +of life. The feeling is the very reverse. We suspect it. It does not +suggest a higher code of morality at all. No man of experience but would +instinctively avoid doing business with anyone who brought his religious +motives into daily intercourse. Let a man be as honourable, as +scrupulous, as high-minded as he can. We honour him for it. But +religious! No. To say that we suspect the speaker of cant is not always +correct. It may in cases be so, but not always, not generally. It is not +the reason of the instinctive withdrawal. To say that religious feeling +is a handicap in the struggle for life is also incorrect. It is not a +handicap at all. Let a man be as religious as he likes provided he +tempers it with common sense and keeps the expression of it for home +consumption. To say that a man is highly religious in his private life +is praise, and creates confidence. To say that a man intrudes religious +principles into his business or profession or daily intercourse is +enough to make men shun him at once. He becomes an impossible person. +This is a strange commentary on the theory of religion, that what is +supposed to elevate life is, when introduced into everyday affairs, +almost always a sign of incompetence or fraud. Yet it may be so. Some +years ago all Britain was alarmed by a terrible bank failure. It was +colossal, the biggest perhaps that has ever occurred. There were no +assets, and there were liabilities of over ten million pounds. The +shares were unlimited, and the shareholders liable for all this great +sum of money made away with by dishonesty and crime. + +It brought ruin, absolutely blank ruin, to many thousands of people. + +The directors of this bank were known in the city as religious men. They +were kirk elders, Sunday school teachers, preachers--I know not what. +They were steeped in religion and iniquity to the lips. They were tried, +and some went to penal servitude. + +There was again some years later another terrible failure. It was a +building society and its allied concerns. And again the chief managers +were known as intensely religious men. They too, were prominent members +of the religious community to which they belonged; they gave freely to +charity; they held, it was stated, prayer meetings before each +consultation of the Board. They were steeped in lying and fraud also. +And again quite recently a solicitor absconded with great sums of trust +money. The same story. It has been the same story over and over and over +again. + +The writer can remember being concerned in the trial of a similar case +in the East. + +It is useless to assert that all these men were hypocrites, that they +shammed religion, that they used it as a bait to catch the unwary. It +may be true in one case or two, but not in the majority. It is useless +to assert that their assumption of religion was false. Who discovered it +to be false until the catastrophe? No one. They lived among religious +men, their lives were to a great extent open. Was there any doubt about +the truth of their religion then? No one has suggested such a thing. +These men were religious from boys, they lived among religious people +all their lives. They were honoured and respected for that religion. No +man could sham such a thing. It is easy to talk of deceit; but a life of +such deceit, such sham is impossible. It is quite absolutely impossible. +That the religion of these men was and is as good and as real as that of +other men it is impossible to doubt. Criminals are often very religious. +What is the explanation of this? + +Well, Christians when presented with these facts have two answers. One +is that these men are all shams--an impossible explanation. The other is +a mournful shake of the head, and the statement that such a connection +ought not to be; religion should always purify a man. "Should" and +"ought!" What answers are these? Who can tell what "should" and what +"ought" to happen? The question is what _does_ happen? And all history +tells us that there is nothing so deplorable, nothing that results in +such certain catastrophe, nothing that ends by so outraging all our +better feelings, as the bringing of religion into affairs. Let us recall +at random the greatest abominations we can remember. The Thirty Years' +War, the Dragonnades, St. Bartholomew, the Witch Trials, the fires of +Smithfield, the persecution of the Catholic priests in Elizabeth's time, +the Irish Penal Laws. All these were done by religious people in the +name of religion. No faith is free from the stain. Can anyone possibly +say that the men responsible for these were shams? Was Cortez a sham, +was Cromwell, were all the Catholics in France shams? Were the +Crusaders, who celebrated the victory that gave back the city of the +Prince of Peace to His believers by an indiscriminate massacre, shams? +Did not the German Emperor in one breath tell his army that their model +was Christ, and then in the next to show no quarter in China? Who were +the most ruthless suppressers of the Mutiny? Did not blood-thirstiness +and religion go together? Is the Boer religion sham? Yet they lie and +rob as well as any other man, or better. Is it not a maxim that a +fanatic in any religion is simply blind, not only to his own code, but +to all morality? Does not the religious press of all countries furnish +examples of the deplorable lengths to which religion, unrestrained by +worldly common sense and worldly decency and honour, will go? I do not +wish to press the point; it is a very unpleasant one. No one who honours +religion can touch it without sorrow; no one who is trying clearly to +see what religions are can overlook it. Religion requires to be tempered +with common sense, with worldly moderation and restraint; taken by +itself it is simply a calamity. But if religion has its failures, has +it not its successes? Have not great and beautiful things been done in +its name? Are not almost all the great heroisms outcomes of religion? +Yes, that is true, too. If religion has much to be ashamed of it has +very much to be proud of. In its name has been done much of which we are +proud. No one will deny that. More than enough to set off the evil? +Well, that is hardly what I am seeking. I am trying to find out what is +the effect of religion--or, rather, of an excess of religion--when +imported into life. Is the influence all for good? I think in face of +history we cannot say that. Has it been all for evil? That answer is +also impossible. Then what effect has it had? And I think the reply is +this. + +When religion (any religion, for it is as true of the East as the West) +is brought out or into daily life and used as a guide or a weapon in the +world it has no effect either for good or evil. Its effect is simply in +strengthening the heart, in blinding the eyes, in deafening the ears. It +is an intensive force, an intoxicant. It doubles or trebles a man's +powers. It is an impulsive force sending him headlong down the path of +emotion, whether that path lead to glory or to infamy. It is a +tremendous stimulant, that is all. It overwhelms the reason in a wave +of feeling; and therefore all men rightly distrust it, and the tendency +grows daily stronger to keep it away from "affairs." For the people who +are most apt to bring religious motives into daily use are not the +clearest and the steadiest; they are the more emotional, the least +self-controlled, those who are fondest of "sensation." And the want of +self-control, the thirst for emotion, when it passes a certain point is, +we know, always allied to immorality, is very frequently a form of +incipient insanity, and not seldom results in crime. + +It is not probable any believer will think the above true of his own +faith, but he will do so of every other. If you are an European, think +of Mahommedanism, of some forms of Hinduism, of the Boxers, who are a +religious sect. You will admit it to be true of them certainly, as they +will of you. And to come nearer, if you are a Catholic, you will see how +true it is of Protestantism; if you are a Protestant, of Catholicism. +And that is enough. Each believer must and will defend his own faith; +that is the exception, the one absolute Truth. So we will suppose this +chapter to refer only to others, the false faiths. Everyone will admit +it to be true of them. + +It must not be forgotten that this chapter is not of the general effect +or the ordinary results of religion. It applies only to the excess when +brought into public or business life. Do not let us have any mistake. Of +the ordinary effect of religion in an ordinary person there is here no +word at all. The general effect of religion on private natural life is +quite another subject, a very different subject indeed. Therefore let us +have no misunderstanding. + + + + +CHAPTER XVI. + +STRENGTH AND WEAKNESS. + + +Has, then, a force, or a teaching that is capable of excess, no use? + +If you look back at the histories of peoples, at the histories of their +great wars, their movements, their enthusiasms, you will find that on +one side or another, usually on both, religion has been invoked to their +aid. For one side or for both the enthusiasm has been declared to be a +religious enthusiasm, the war a religious war, the awakening of thought +a religious awakening. The gods fought for the Greeks before Troy as the +saints did for the Spaniards against the Huns, as the Boers expected the +Almighty to fight in South Africa to-day. The intellectual revolt of the +Teuton against the mental leading-strings of the Latins became a +conflict of religion, as did the political conflict of the Puritans +against the Stuart Kings. It has been religion always, if possible, +that has been called on to lend strength and enthusiasm to the fighters +to attempt forlorn hopes, to carry out far-reaching reforms, to dare +everything for the end. + +There is one great exception. + +In the conflict that broke out in France at the end of the last century, +that storm which swept before it the breakwaters of a world and changed +mediaeval Europe into that of to-day, religion was not the motive power. +Those six hundred men of Marseilles "who knew how to die" were sustained +by no religious belief. Those armies which affronted the world in arms +had no celestial champions in their ranks. Those iconoclasts, who broke +down the barriers that made the good things of the world a forbidden +city to all but a caste, had no religious doctrine to work by. + +Indeed, it may be said that it was quite the reverse, that the war of +the Revolution was against religion; but I doubt if that is quite the +truth. That the war was against the priests is in great measure true, +but it was because of their support to the nobles, because of their +connection with worldly abuses, because of their irreligion, that they +were attacked. Religion, too, suffered, it is true, but only +incidentally and for a time. And anyhow, you cannot get force out of a +negation. But however this may be, the point as far as I am now +concerned is not material; for all I want here to assert is that the +enthusiasm which acted as a breath of life to the half-dead millions of +France was not a religious enthusiasm. It never even assumed at any time +a religious basis. It was not an enthusiasm of God, but of Humanity, and +the war cry was "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity." It was a revolt of the +bond against the gaoler, of the spoiled against the ravishers; it was +the assertion of the absolute equality and liberty of man. + +Looking back at that turmoil now from the security of a hundred years it +is easy to scorn these enthusiasts. We can point to their excesses, to +the horrible crimes that were committed, and ask where was Liberty then; +to their wars, and ask in vain for the Fraternity; to their proscription +of whole classes made in the name of Equality. The excesses are so +black, so prominent, that it is even possible sometimes to forget the +great vitalising and regenerating effect of that enthusiasm. + +It is easy, too, now that all is past, to criticise the very war cry +itself. Liberty, we say! Yes, liberty is good--in moderation and +according to circumstances. All liberty is not good. Children must be +under government, they cannot be quite free. They have to be directed in +the right way. And peoples, too, and classes who have fallen behind in +the race, who are unable to live up to the higher standards of greater +nations, they cannot be free. Then the citizen of a great nation must in +many matters resign his liberty for better things. Liberty is good, in +moderation, and so are Equality and Fraternity, but they are not +absolute truths. To cry them aloud, as did the Revolutionists of France, +to insist upon them in season and out of season, is to fall into an +error almost as great as their opponents'. We have little doubt now that +in every well-ordered state there must be inequality, submission to +masters as well as freedom, and that there are many people it is quite +undesirable to fraternise with. Truth lies in the mean. + +And yet consider, does truth always lie in the mean? There were the +peasants of France ground into the very earth, denied any sort of +equality with the nobles, any sort of liberty at all, hopelessly unable +to fraternise with anyone. To breathe into them the breath of life, to +rouse them from their deadly lethargy to a furious enthusiasm, to fill +their hearts so full that they would go forward and never cease till +they had won, that was the eminent necessity. The difficulties were so +immense, the arms of the people so weak, the chains so rivetted into +their souls that only from a furious and uncontrollable impulse could +any help be obtained. If the philosopher had gone to these dry bones of +men, thrashing the ponds all night to prevent the frogs annoying their +seigneur by croaking, sowing for others to reap, raising up sons to be +slaves, and daughters to be worse than slaves--if he had gone to them +and said, "My friends, you are ground down too much; you want a little +more freedom--not too much, but some; you require more equality--not +complete, for the perfect state requires certain inequalities, but more +than you have; you require also a modicum of fraternity," what would he +have effected? That level-headed philosopher would be saying the truth +doubtless, and Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, as the Revolutionists +understood it, were impossibilities, therefore untruths; but what would +he have effected? Would his "truth" have freed the slaves, have burst +their chains; have restored sunlight to a continent, as the exaggeration +did? Never imagine it. It may be that in the mean lies truth, but in +exaggeration lies motive power. It was in the glorious dreams, the +beautiful imaginings, the surgings of the heart that arose from that war +cry _Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite_, that the strength lay. There is no +strength in the mean. It is the enthusiasts that make the world move. If +they have been guilty of half the misery, they have achieved half the +joy of the world. And therefore consider again, before you brand beliefs +and the teachings and enthusiasms as untruths, because they are +exaggerations, because they are unworkable as they stand. What _is_ +Truth and Untruth? Is not truth also to be judged by its results? May +not what is an untruth now have been a living truth then? Have we +reduced truth to measure? If, therefore, this which is an exaggeration +now was then a necessary revivifying truth may there not be others like +it? Consider the conditions of the world into which the Buddha preached +first the teaching of peace, of purity, of calm, of holiness. It was a +world of unrest, of fierce striving, of savage passions, expressed to +their full. It was a world wherein these were virtues worshipped to +exaggeration. It was a world without balance, and to redress this +balance there came the Buddha with his teaching of the rejection of all +the glories of the world, the teaching of the cult of the soul, the +aspiration after peace, and beauty, and rest. + +As was the world to whom the Buddha preached so was the world to whom +the Christ preached six hundred years later. Their codes of conduct +were the same. Against violence they taught resignation, against the +search for glory they taught renunciation; they opposed pride with +meekness, struggle with calm, success in this world by happiness in the +next. They came to redress the balance of the world; they came to make +men hope. And therefore it is impossible to take their codes by +themselves and consider them, to reject them because they do not express +the exact truth. What is to be considered is not that code alone, but +the purpose it came to fulfil. The codes of Buddha and of Christ are +exaggerations, that is true; they cannot be lived up to in their +entirety, that is also true. Taken alone they are impossible; that is +true. Are they then untrue, useless, valueless guides to conduct? + +Not quite so. For man is so built that he requires an exaggeration. If +you would persuade him to go with you a mile you must urge him to come +two; if you would have him acquire a reasonable freedom you must create +in him an enthusiasm for unreasonable freedom; if you would have him +moderate his passions he must be adjured to wholly suppress them. + +And therefore, it may be, do these codes of Buddha and Christ live. Not +because they are absolutely true, not because they furnish an ideal +mode of life, not in order to be fully accepted, but because they are +exaggerations that balance exaggerations; and out of the mean has come +what is worth having; because they have an effect which the exact truth +would not have in the masses of men. + +They have been truth, because their results were true. + + * * * * * + +But the world is growing older, it is learning many things. Never again +can we hear that cry of _Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite_, the enthusiasms +of a nation for its ideals. These ideals were true then, they were true +because their work was true. But their work is done; men's eyes are open +now, we do not require such exaggerations to move us to our work. They +were in themselves but half truths. It required the violent assertions +of inequality, of slavery, to make up a whole truth. With one has died +the necessity for the other. + +And so it may be with the codes of Buddhism and Christianity. They were +true in their day, because they had their work to do. To have any effect +at all they had to be enormous exaggerations; to earn any respect or +attention they had to be proclaimed as perfect, as divine. But now, with +the dying of the old brutalities, with the growth of civilisation, of +humanity, and culture, the old savage exaggerations are dying out. The +world is more refined, more effeminate, more clear-sighted. It says to +itself, "These codes, if divine and perfect, must be capable of being +implicitly obeyed; but they cannot be obeyed, and therefore they are not +divine." + +And in the increased civilisation we feel less the need of a teaching of +gentleness; our nature is no longer too coarse; it may be it is going +the other way, that the softening process is going too far, and that our +need is a new savagery. And above all we hate exaggeration. To minds +capable of thought, of reason, and of culture, exaggeration on one side +is no excuse for exaggeration on the other. We are changing from the +older men who required enthusiasms to drive them and violent +exaggerations to cause them to move. We like exactitude. + +These codes were made for rougher days than ours. They were true then. +They are not true now--not true, at least, to the more thoughtful. But +that they were true once, that the world owes to them its rescue from +the exaggeration of the passions, we must never forget. They were truths +while opposed. When opposed no longer they become false and fall. An +exaggeration can only be useful as long as it is not perceived to be +so. Set up two beams against each other, they are savagery and the +purist codes. While one stands so does the other, and they make an +equilibrium. But take away one and straightway the other must fall too. +One cannot stand alone. + + + + +CHAPTER XVII. + +MIND AND BODY. + + +"I have been lent your book 'The Soul of a People,'" said a lady to me, +"but I have only had time so far to read the dedication. Do you know +what I exclaimed?" + +"I cannot even guess," I replied. + +"I said, 'How very scientific.' Do you know what I meant?" + +As my dedication is to the Burmese people, and only says I have tried +always to see their virtues and forget their faults, as a friend should, +I was quite unable to see where the science came in, and I said so. + +"It is Christian Science," she told me. + +Then she proceeded to tell me much about this Christian science, that it +was the science of looking at the best side of things, that it cured the +body by mind, despair by hope, darkness by light, solitude by a sense of +the companionship of God (good). She had proof in her own family of +what a change it can bring to the unhappy. It was, she said, all new, +and discovered by Mrs. Eddy. + +This was not, of course, the first I had heard of this strange cult. It +has been in the air for some time past. Mostly it has been jeered at as +an absurdity by those who have looked only at the extraordinary claims +it makes, at the intellectual fog it offers as thought, at the +childishness and inconsequence of whatever conceptions could be picked +out of the maze of words; and up till then it had seemed to me but +another of those misty foolishnesses that amuse people who have nothing +else to do. + +But when a case of real benefit, of benefit I could see and understand, +was offered me in proof of its value, it seemed to me worth while to +consider what there was in this teaching, to see what sense lay in this +apparent senselessness, and to what want this new science appealed. + +I have mentioned elsewhere in this book--it is a fact that comes to one +who has been in the East many years very strongly--the aimless pessimism +that is so prevalent in England and Europe. I am not here concerned with +its cause. Mainly, perhaps, it is due to the rise of a great class of +middle and upper-middle people who have no object in life. They have by +inheritance or acquirement enough money to live upon, and the struggle +for life passes them by. They have no necessity to work, and they are +not endowed with the brain or energy necessary to take to themselves +some object or pursuit. Their minds and sympathies have never been +trained by necessity. They have fallen out of the great world of life +and passion into eddies and backwaters. They have become flabby, both +bodily, mentally, and emotionally, and, conscious of their own +uselessness, they have fallen into the saddest pessimism. They are not +blase, because they have never tasted the realities of life; they have +few friends, because they have no common interest to bind them to +others. Their lives are monotonies, and their thoughts and speech are a +prolonged whine. They are perpetually searching and never finding, +because they know not what they seek. Most of them are women, but there +are men also. I do not mean that all Christian Scientists are from the +ranks of the unemployed. It is recruited also from those who with larger +needs for emotion find the circumstances of ordinary life too narrow for +them, from the over nervous and weak of all classes. But the majority +are, I think, of those who do nothing. + +They turn to the established religions, vaguely hoping for the emotional +stimulus they need, but they fail to find it. + +I am not quite sure why. One Christian Scientist assured me that Mrs. +Eddy had discovered, all out of her own mind, that God was Love, and +that was why Christian Science was so successful. This was a lady who +had gone to church regularly all her life. Yet she supposed this a new +discovery! A strange but not at all solitary instance of what I have so +often found, that the immense majority who call themselves Christians +have never tried to realize what their religion is. Many others have +told me that they are "Christian Scientists" for other allied reasons. +But no doubt the great attraction of Christian Science is in its +doctrine, that bodily ills can be cured by mental effort, the assertion +that evil exists only in the mind. This is, of course, nothing new. +Faith healing has been common in all stages of the world, has allied +itself to all religions. There is the standing example of Lourdes +to-day, there was the relic worship of the middle ages, the pilgrimages +and washings in sacred pools. It is common all over the world. The good +effects attributed, and often truly, to charms and magic are but another +instance of it. A great deal of the sickness and unhappiness of the +world has always been purely the result of a diseased thought acting +upon the body. The great antidote the world has always offered to this +evil has been work. In daily work, in the necessity for daily effort, in +the forced detachment of mind it brings on, in the interest that a +worker is obliged to take in his work lest he fail, or even starve, lies +the great tonic. And to this has been always added the belief in some +religious rite, or in charms. + +But these resources are closed to the unhappy class that I am writing +of. They need not work. They never have worked at anything, and know not +how to do it. Even from childhood their brains have been relaxed and +their interests narrowed. Yet a great interest is a necessity for all +men and women. But consider the lives of these people, especially of the +women, how terrible it is. There is nothing they care for, nothing. One +day of monotony is added to another for ever. Marriage and children may +dissipate it for a time, may give them the interest they require, but it +does not last long. Love fades into indifference, the children grow up. +They no longer need care and thought, and there is nothing else. Dull, +blank misery descends upon them as a garment never to be lifted. + +And if the love be a disappointment, a tragedy, then what help is there +anywhere? "Let me die," she cries, "and be done with it. Life is not +worth living." The world is horrible, because they see the world through +glasses dimmed with their own misery. + +To them comes Mrs. Eddy and says, "All the evil you feel, the mental +sickness, the bodily sickness, is imaginary. Face your evils in the +certainty that they are but bogies and they will flee before you. You +shall again become well and strong, and life shall be worth living." + +It is, of course, a wild exaggeration. Pain and sickness are real +things, and the empire of the mind over the body is very limited. +Still, there is an empire and it must never be forgotten. The +healthy-minded--those who work, who live their lives, who love and hate, +and fight, and win and lose, to whom the world is a great arena--will +laugh at Mrs. Eddy. They need not this teaching which is half a truth +and half a lie. They see the false half only because they need not the +true half. And the others, the mental invalids, they see the true half +and not the false. It is _all_ true to them, and it _must_ be all true +to be of use, for power lies in the exaggeration, never in the mean. +This is the secret of "Christian Science." We have in our midst a +terrible disease, growing daily worse, the disease of inutility, which +breeds pessimism, and Mrs. Eddy's doctrine of the imaginary nature of +evil is good for this pessimism. The sick seize it with avidity because +they find it helps their symptoms, and in the relief it affords to their +unhappiness they are willing to swallow all the rest of the formless +mist that is offered to them as part of their religion. + +I do not know that "Christian Scientists" differ greatly from believers +in other religions in this point. It is an excellent instance of how one +useful tenet will cause the acceptance of a whole mass of absurdities +and even make them seem real and true. Christian Science has come as the +quack medicine to cure a disease that is a terrible reality, and it is +of use because it contains in all its melange one ingredient, morphia, +that dulls the pain. But the cure of this disease lies elsewhere than in +Christian Science, than, indeed, in any religion. + +I have given a chapter to this "Science," not because it appears to me +that it is ever likely to become a real force or of real importance, but +because it illustrates, I think, the reason of the success or otherwise +of all religions. It exhibits in exaggerated form what is the nature of +all religions. + +They come to fulfil an emotional want, or wants that are imperative and +that call for relief. And they succeed and persist exactly as they +minister to these emotional wants. The emotion that requires religion +is always a pessimism of some form or other, a weariness, a +hopelessness. And the religion is accepted because it combats that +helplessness and gives a hope. All religions are optimisms to their +believers. + +A great deal of foolishness may be included in a faith without injury to +its success. Doctrine, theory, scientific theology, may be as empty and +meaningless as it is in Christian Science, and still the faith will +live. And the central idea must be exaggerated. It must be so +exaggerated that to outsiders it appears only an immense falsehood. It +is so in all the religions. Truth lies in the mean, power in the +extreme. They are opposed as are freewill and destination, as are God +and Law. + + + + +CHAPTER XVIII. + +PERSONALITY. + + +There is one complaint that all Europeans make of the Burmese. It +matters not what the European's duties may be, what his profession, or +his trade, or his calling--it is always the same, "the Burmans will not +stand discipline." It is, says the European, fatal to him in almost all +walks of life. For instance, the British Government tried at one time in +Burma to raise Burmese regiments officered by Europeans, after the +pattern of the Indian troops. There seemed at first no reason why it +should not succeed. The Burmans are not cowards. Although not endowed +with the fury of the Pathan or the bloodthirsty valour of the Ghurka, +the Burman is brave. He will do many things none but brave men can do; +kill panthers with sharpened sticks, for instance, and navigate the +Irrawaddy in flood in canoes, with barely two inches free board. He is, +in his natural state in the villages, unaccustomed to any strict +discipline. But then, so are most people; and if the levies of the +Burmese kings were but a mob, why, so are most native levies. There +seemed _a priori_ no reason why Burmese troops should not be fairly +useful. And the attempt was made. It failed. + +And so, to a greater or less extent, all attempts to discipline the +Burmans in any walk of life have always failed. Amongst the +police--which must, of course, be composed of natives of the +country--discipline, even the light discipline sought to be enforced, is +always wanting. And good men will not join the force, mostly because +they dislike to be ruled. In the mills in Rangoon labour has been +imported from India. Not that the Burman is not a good workman--he is +physically and mentally miles above the imported Telugu--but he will not +stand discipline. It is the same on the railways and on the roads, and +the private servants of almost all Europeans are Indian. The Burman will +not stand control, daily control, daily order, the feeling of subjection +and the infliction of punishment. Especially the infliction of +punishment. He resents it, even when he knows and admits he deserves it. + +Is, then, the Burman impatient of suffering? He is the most patient, the +most cheerful of mortals. I who have seen districts ruined by famine, +families broken up and dissolved, farms abandoned, cattle dying by the +thousand, I know this. And in the famine camps, where tens of thousands +lived and worked hard for a bare subsistence, was there any inability to +bear up, any despondency, any despair? There was never any. Such an +example of cheerfulness, of courage under great suffering, could not be +surpassed. Yet if you fine your servant a few annas out of his good pay +for a fault he will admit he made, he will bitterly resent it and +probably leave you. It is Authority, Personality, that the Burmans +object to. And the whole social life of the people, the whole of their +religion, shows how deeply this distaste to Personal Authority enters +into their lives. + +There is no aristocracy in Burma. There has never been so. There has, it +is true, always been a King--that was a necessity; and his authority, +nominally absolute, was in fact very limited. But beside him there was +no one. There were no lords of manors, no feudalism, no serfage of any +kind. There was a kind of slavery, the idea of which probably came into +Burma with the code of Manu, as a redemption of debt. At our conquest of +Upper Burma it disappeared without a sign, but it was the lightest of +its kind. The slave was a domestic servant at most, more usually a +member of the family; the authority exercised over him or her was of the +gentlest, for with the dislike to submit to personal authority there was +an equally great dislike to exercising it. The intense desire for power +and authority over others which is so distinguishing a mark of western +people does not obtain among the Burmese. It is one of our difficulties +to make our subordinate Burmese magistrates and officers exercise +sufficient authority in their charges. This dislike, both to exercising +and submitting to authority, is instinctive and very strong. + +In western nations, more especially the Latin nations, who made +Christianity, it is the very reverse. There is in us both the desire and +ability to govern and the power to submit readily to those who are above +us. We rejoice in aristocracies, whether of the Government or of the +Church. We organise all our institutions upon that basis. We have a +rigid Government, such as no Orientals have dreamt of, least of all the +Burmese. We revere rank instinctively. We like to have masters. Personal +submissiveness is in our eyes an excellent quality. We know that to +declare a man to be a faithful servant is a great praise. In our lives +as in our religions, lord and servant express a continued relationship. +And from this quality, this instinct of discipline, this innate power +both of governing and submitting to governance, come the forms of +government and our success in trade and in many other matters. + +It would, however, be quite outside the point of this chapter to discuss +all the results of these differences and their effect for good and bad. +To the European the Burman, with his distaste for authority, appears to +be unfitted for the greater successes of life. To the Burman the +European's desire for authority appears to result in the slavery of the +many to the few, in the loss of individual liberty and the contraction +of happiness. Either or both, or neither, may be true. It is here +immaterial, for all I wish to point out and to emphasise is that whereas +the Burman, who is a Buddhist, dislikes all personal authority +instinctively, the western Christians, more especially the Latin +peoples, on the contrary crave after it. The Burman's ideal is to be +independent of everyone, even if poor, to have no one over him and no +one under him, to live among his equals. But in western countries the +tendency is all to divide the world into two classes, master and man, to +organise--which means, of course, authority and submission--and to make +obedience one of the greatest of virtues. + +Now consider their faiths. The Christian has a personal God. He owes to +that God unquestioning obedience and submission. Man may praise God and +thank Him, but not do the reverse. Man owes to God reverence, one of the +greatest of the virtues. And the Churches are all organised in the same +way. The authority of God becomes the authority of the Pope, the Tsar, +the Bishops, the priests. The amount of submission and reverence due to +the priests of Christianity may vary in different countries, but it is +always there, and the reverence due to God never alters. + +Do you think such a system of religion would be bearable to a Burman? To +him neither reverence nor submission to Personality, whether God or +priest or master, is an instinctive beauty. He acknowledges neither God +nor priest, and he avoids masters as much as possible. His nature does +not lead him to it. He revolts against Personality. Courage under the +inevitable he has to the greatest extent. If he suffer as the result of +a law he has nothing but cheerful acceptance, even if he do not +understand it. If he can see his suffering to be the result of his own +mistakes he will bear it with resignation, and note that in future he +should be more careful. But that he should be _punished_, that rouses in +him resentment, revolt. He would cry to God, Why do you hurt me? You +need not if you do not like; You are all-powerful. Cannot you manage +otherwise than by causing so much pain to me and all the world? There +are other feelings caused by a Personality, many other feelings than +that of submission. There is defiance, bitterness. Did not Ajax defy the +lightning? If a man or a boy looking at the world discovers in it more +misery than happiness, more injustice than justice, of what sort will be +his feelings to the Author of it all? + +I fear that if the Burman accepted a Personal All-powerful God and then +looked at the state of the world, his attitude towards that Personality +would not be all admiration and reverence. Indeed, they have often told +me so. + +But before Law, before Necessity. You cannot revolt against the +inevitable. Passion is useless. The suffering which would be resented +from a Personality is borne with courage as an inevitable result. You +may be of good courage and say, "It is my fault, my ignorance; I will +learn not to put my hands in the fire and so not be burnt." But if you +suppose a God burnt you without telling you why, without giving you a +chance, what then? Is this hard to understand? I do not know, but to me +it is not so. For I can remember a boy, who was much as these Burmans +are, who found authority hard to bear, punishment very difficult to +accept; who remembered always that the punishment might have been +omitted, who thought it was often mistaken and vindictive. For if you +are almost always ill, and find for days and weeks and months that very +little mental exertion is as much as you are capable of, how much do you +accept the justice of being called "idle," "lazy," "indolent," and being +kept in to waste what little mental strength you have left in writing +meaningless impositions? There is more. It is a Christian teaching, a +lesson that is frequently enforced in children, that all their acts are +watched by God. "He sees me now." "God is watching me." How often are +not these written in large words on nursery walls? And do you think that +there are not some natures who revolt from this? To be watched--always +watched. Cannot you imagine the intense oppression, the irritation and +revulsion, such a doctrine may occasion? "Cannot I be left alone?" And +when he learns that there is another belief--that he is not being +watched, that he is not a child in a nursery, but a man acting under +laws he can learn--cannot you imagine the endless relief, the joy as of +emancipation from a prison? That it is so to many people I know, the +feeling that law means freedom, but I also know that to others it is +not. "Law, this rigid law," said the French missionary priest with a +sigh when we were discussing the matter, "it makes me shudder. It seems +to me like an iron chain, like a terrible destiny binding us in. Ah, I +never could believe that. But a God who watches over us, who protects +us, who is our Father, that is to me true and beautiful. Who will help +you if not God? Under Law you must face the world alone. No!" and he +shuddered, "let us not think of it. I cannot abide the idea." And how +many are like him? + +Do you think that such feelings can be changed? Do you think that he who +thinks Law to be freedom will ever be argued or converted into Theism? +It can never be. Such beliefs are innate, they are instincts far beyond +reason or discussion, to be understood only by those who have felt them. + +There is the instinct for God which rules almost all the West and India. +There is the instinct against God and for Law which rules the far East. +You cannot get away from either, you cannot prove either or disprove it. +They are instincts, and they influence not only the religious beliefs +but the whole lives of the peoples. + +It is easy to see how in Europe the instinct for Personality has +influenced all history. In moderation its effects have been all for +good; it binds people into nations, it enables the weaker and more +ignorant to accept willingly the leadership of the better. It has +manifested itself with us even to-day in the respect and reverence and +affection we have all felt for our Queen, who has so lately left us. And +in its excess it has been wholly evil. It has led us to irresponsible +monarchs, to the terrible tyranny of the French aristocracy, that +required the whirlwind of a Revolution to efface. In the blind worship +for Napoleon in his later days it drove the nation to terrible +suffering. This desire for Personality has writ its effects large upon +the history of the West, more especially in Latin nations. + +And in Burma the want of this instinct is also written deeply in the +history. There has been with them no enthusiasm for persons, no +idealisation of individuals. There is no inborn desire for rulers and +masters, for obedience and submission. + +The effect of the instinct is writ largely in their history. They have +no aristocracy, they have no feudality, there are neither masters nor +men. They cannot organise or combine. The central Government was +incredibly weak. There is nothing that strikes the Burman with such +surprise as the unvaried obedience of all officials to a faraway +government. But I am now concerned with effects, only causes. I have +wished to show why a Burman believes in Law and not in God, that it +arises from an instinct against overpowering Personality, an innate +dislike to the idea. It is never to him Truth. It makes him unhappy even +to hear of it. He could never accept it as a truth, for truth is that +which is in accord with our hearts. + +Yet the Burman whose ideal is Law is not quite without the instinct of +Personality. He also prays sometimes, and you cannot pray to nothing. +Far down in his heart there is also the same instinct that rules the +West, but it is weak. It finds its vent now and then despite his faith. +And in the West the idea of Law is rising. It is new, but not less true +for that. It rises steadily hand in hand with science, and it, too, will +find its vent despite the faith. + +When the scientific theologian declares that God is not variable, that +He has no passions, no anger, no vengeance, that He is bound by +immovable righteousness and is not affected by prayer, cannot you see +the idea of Law? No one would have said this a hundred years ago. It is +growing in him; it is there, even if he do not recognise it as such, and +sore havoc it makes with the old theologies. + +The instinct of generalisation made many gods into one God; the instinct +of atonement obliged the sub-division of God; to be explained only by +an incomprehensible formula. And now there is arising a third +instinct--that of Law. It is weak yet, but it is there. When it becomes +stronger either Personality must disappear or else a still more +incomprehensible creed must be formulated to reconcile the three ideas. +But what is truth? Are they all true? + + + + +CHAPTER XIX. + +GOD THE SACRIFICE. + + +It is Sunday to-day in the little Italian town, and they have been +holding a procession. I do not know quite what was the reason of the +procession; it is the feast day of the patron of the Church, and it is +connected in some way with him, but quite how no one could tell me. It +was the custom, and that sufficed. It was not a very grand procession, +for the town is small, but there was the town band playing at the head, +and there were girls in twos singing and priests, also in pairs, +singing, and there were banners and a crucifix. This last was just like +any other crucifix you may see; there was the pale body of Christ upon +the cross, with His wounds red with blood, there was the tinsel crown +over the head, there was upon the face the look of suffering. It was +like any other crucifix in a Catholic country, not a work of art at all. +It was gruesome, and to the unbeliever repulsive and unpleasant. But all +the people uncovered as it passed, and many looked to it with reverence +and worship. + +But indeed Catholic countries are full of such crucifixes. They are upon +the hills, they are beside the roadsides, they are in all the churches, +they are in every Catholic household, there is very often one worn upon +the person. + +Throughout Italy, throughout all Catholic countries, there are only two +representations of Christ--as a babe with the Virgin Mary and crucified +upon the cross. It was in Italy that Western Christianity arose and +grew, it was in Italy that it became a living power, it was in Italy +that it acquired consistency, that it was bound together by dogmas and +crystallised in creeds. And still, after nineteen hundred years, it is +Italy that remains the centre of the Christian world. There is no +Christian church so great, so venerable, so imposing as the Church of +Rome. It lasts unchanged amid the cataclasms of worlds. And this people +whose genius made Christianity, whose genius still rules the greater +part of it, what are their conceptions of Christ? What part of His life +is it that has caught their reverence and adoration, what side is it of +His character that appeals to them, what is the emotion that the name of +Christ awakens in these believers? + +Of the Virgin Mary and the infant Christ I have written in another +chapter. It is of the crucifix I wish to write here. Why is it that of +the life of Christ this end of His is considered the most worthy to be +in continual remembrance? + +I confess that when I climb the hill and see the dead Christs upon their +crosses shining white against the olive gardens, when I see His agony +depicted in the churches, when I see the people gaze upon Him +sacrificed, my memory is taken back to other scenes. + +There is a scene that I can remember in a village far away against the +frontier in our farthest East. It was a little village that was once a +city, but decayed; it was walled with huge walls of brick, but they are +fallen into mounds; it had gateways, but they are now but gaps; and a +few huts are huddled in a corner where once a palace stood. + +It is the custom in this village that every year at a certain season +white cocks are to be sacrificed at the gates. There is as may be some +legend to explain the custom, but it is forgotten. And yet are the cocks +sacrificed each year. + +There is the memory, too, of the goat I saw killed in India years ago as +I have described. And there are other memories--memories of what I have +seen, of what I have read. For this ceremony of sacrifice is the very +oldest of all the beginnings of religion. It is akin to prayer, it is at +the root of all faiths; we can go no further back than sacrifice. Where +it began religion had commenced. Far older than any creed, arising from +the dumb instincts of human kind, it is one of the roots of faiths. + +Therefore, when I see this image of God, the Son sacrificed to God the +Father, I seem to behold the highest development of this long story. +Sacrifice, it has always been sacrifice. It has been small +animals--goats and fowls and pigeons; it has been greater and more +valuable beasts--cattle and horses. It has been man. How often indeed +has it been man: Abraham leading Isaac to the sacrifice, the Aztecs +sacrificing in Mexico, the Druids in Britain, the followers of Odin, the +Greeks, the Egyptians, the early Hindus, can you find a faith that has +not sacrificed? Sometimes it has been single victims, sometimes +hecatombs of slaughtered slaves. It has been sacrifice by priests, it +has been self-sacrifice, as Curtius or as those who threw themselves +before the car of Juggernauth. Everywhere there has been sacrifice; it +is one of the roots of faiths, it arouses the emotion that has helped to +make all religions. And in Christianity it has reached its zenith, for +it is no longer an animal, no longer even a man--it is a God, the Son of +God who is self-sacrificed to God. In what manner this awakens the +emotions of man the following extract will show. It is from "The Gospel +of the Atonement," by the Venerable J. Wilson. + +"The law that suffering is divine, [Greek: to kalon pathein], is +verified in the experience of the soul. Now Christ's death is the +supreme instance of that law. The power of Gethsemane and Calvary, in +the light of such a law, needs no explanation. They open the heart as +nothing else ever did. We know that whatever reservations we make for +ourselves, whatever our own shrinking from utter self-sacrifice, Christ, +living in perfect accordance with the laws of spiritual health and +perfection, could not do other than die. Thus without any thought of +payment or expiation, with no vestige of separation of the Son from the +Father, we see that the death on the Cross demonstrated that the human +and divine know but one and the same law of life and being. Thus it is +that the death of Christ, the shedding of His blood, has been, and ever +will be, regarded by theologians, as well as by the simple believers, as +the way of the atonement. Via crucis via salutis." + +The scientific theologians tell me when I ask that this parade of the +sacrifice of Christ is to recall to men how much they should love +Christ. That He so loved them that He gave Himself a victim for their +salvation. The crucifix, the incessant preaching of the death of Christ, +the sacrament of the Communion, is to cause us to love Him as to do what +He taught us. That it does have some such effect no one can doubt--on +Latin people. But on others? + +To some it seems that if you try to reason at all about it, the emotion +awakened might be, nay should be, otherwise. In those not instinct with +one emotion the first impression awakened is disgust at the parade of +death and blood; the second, horror at the God who could demand such a +sacrifice, who could not be pacified but by the execution in +circumstances of shame of His own Son. They shrink from it. It is no +matter of reason. Do you think one who felt so could be argued out of +his horror or a Christian out of his devotion? They are instinctive +feelings which nothing will change. And yet in a very small way even the +Buddhist has the instinct of sacrifice. For I remember that when the +fowls were killed inside the city gate and their blood ran upon the +ground the people looked just as these Italian people looked. The +emotion was the same in kind, and it was not either love for the fowls +or wonder at the demand of the spirits that moved them. And so when the +slaves were sacrificed beneath the oaks, was it gratitude to the slaves +that was evoked? And in the self-sacrifice at the car of Juggernauth? +It may be sometimes that gratitude may be added, but this is not +the root emotion. The instinct of sacrifice has its roots much +deeper than this, quite apart from this; and, with perhaps only one +exception--Buddhism--all religions have practised it. Christianity +performs no more sacrifices now, but all its churches, in all their +varieties weekly at the great sacrament of the Communion, +commemorate--nay, it is claimed in a measure recreate--this sacrifice of +the Son to the Father. Sacrifice is of the very root of this religion. +It is far older than any creed. The Jews knew of sacrifice two thousand +years before the day of Christ, the Celts sacrificed slaves ages before +that. + +But it may be said these crosses, these crucifixes, are peculiar to +Catholic countries. You do not see them in North Germany, in England, in +America. Teutonic nations do not parade this sacrifice. No, they do not, +for it does not appeal to them so much as to the nations of Southern +Europe. Sacrifice was not unknown to the Teutons and the Northern +people, but it never reached the height it did further South. It has +been the Latin peoples who in this as in other matters went to extremes. +It was the Greeks who sacrificed Iphigenia, who had the festival of the +Thargalia; it was Rome which produced Curtius and others who sacrificed +themselves. It was the Romans who sacrificed thousands in the Coliseum. +It is in the tumuli of Celtic peoples where we find the cloven skulls of +slaves. + +Sacrifice has appealed always more to the Latin then and now; and +therefore you see the crucifix in Latin countries, but not with us. +Still, we are not free from the emotion. We have the sacrament of +Communion; the Atonement appeals to us also. The passions that are +strong in the Latin peoples are weak with us, yet they exist. The +instincts are the same. When executions were public our people thronged +to see them. Death has always a peculiar attraction, quite apart from +any idea connected with it. It is such a wonderful thing the taking of +life, so awe-inspiring, that it has appealed always to men; especially +in the west. + +In the East that has accepted Buddhism, especially in Burma, it is much +less so. They have, it is true, the usual pleasure and curiosity in +seeing blood and death. And occasionally you come across some petty +sacrifice like that of the fowls mentioned above; but the instinct is +comparatively weak. It has never, even before they were Buddhists, been +general, and never extended even to cattle. The sacrifice of a man +(remember, I say sacrifice, not execution), would be absolutely +abhorrent to them, how much more so that of a God? They have not the +instinctive recognition of any beauty in it. Therefore, for this amongst +other reasons, the Burmese reject Christianity. + +But to the Western instinct this sacrifice and this atonement is +wonderful and beautiful. It appeals to us. The old instinct is +satisfied. + + * * * * * + +Therefore, amongst other reasons, Christians cling to the Atonement, and +to make that sacrifice the greatest possible it must be the sacrifice of +God, and as God can only be sacrificed to God the Christian God must be +a multiple one. To postulate as the Mahommedan does, God is God, would +destroy the depth of the Atonement. Hence arises the creed, the attempt +to reconcile two opposed instincts. There is one God--that is an +instinct, arising from our generalising power; there must be at least +two Gods to explain the Atonement, and so we have the Father and the +Son. + +For of the three Godheads only these two are real to most people. There +is God the Ruler, the Maker of the world, and there is Christ. These are +both very real to all Christians. They are prayed to individually, they +are worshipped separately, they are clear conceptions. But is there any +clear conception of the Holy Ghost as a distinct personality? Is He ever +cited separately from the others? Has He any special characteristics? +There are, for instance, many pictures of God, and many more of +Christ--are there any of the Holy Ghost? This Third Person of the +Trinity appeals to no instinct, and is only an abstraction in popular +thought. When the Creed was framed it was necessary to include the Holy +Ghost because He is mentioned in the New Testament. He has remained an +abstraction only. But the other two Godheads are realities, because they +appeal to feelings that are innate. They are the explanation of these +feelings. + + * * * * * + +Thus do creeds arise out of instincts. It is never the reverse. +Postulate God the Father as All-Powerful, All-Merciful, and see if by +any possibility you can work out the Atonement or see any beauty in it. +Can anyone see aught but horror in this Almighty demanding the sacrifice +of His Son? You cannot. But granted that Atonement and sacrifice have +to you an innate beauty of their own, and the dogma of a multiple +Godhead easily follows. There are creeds built on ceremonies, and +ceremonies upon instincts: ceremonies are never deduced from creeds. + + + + +CHAPTER XX. + +GOD THE MOTHER. + + +The only other form in which the Christ is presented to popular +adoration is as a baby in the Madonna's arms. Out of all the life of +Christ, all the varied events of that career which has left such a great +mark upon the Western world, only the beginning and the end are +pictured. Christ the teacher, Christ the preacher, the restorer of the +dead to life, the feeder of the hungry, the newly arisen from the grave, +where is He? The great masters have painted Him, but popular thought +remembers nothing of all that. There is Christ the sacrificed and Christ +the infant with His mother. To the Latin people these two phases +represent all that is worth daily remembrance. There are crucifixes and +Madonnas in every hill side, by every road, at the street corners, in +every house, and of the rest of the story not a sign. + +What is the emotion to which the Madonna appeals? Why do she and her +Child thus live in Latin thought? + +There are historians who tell us that the worship of the Madonna was +introduced from Egypt. She is Astarte, Queen of Heaven, the Phoenician +goddess of married love or maternity, she is the Egyptian Isis with her +son Horus. It is a cult that was introduced through Spain, and took root +among the Latin people and grew. There is no question here of Christ, +they say; it is the goddess and her son. + +It has also absorbed the worship of Venus and Aphrodite. Venus was the +tutelary goddess of Rome, she was the goddess of maternity, of +production. It was not till the Greek idea of beauty in Aphrodite came +to Rome and became confounded with the goddess Venus that her status +changed. She was the goddess of married love, she became later the +emblem of lust. But it was she who purified marriage to the old Roman +faith; she was the purifier, the justifier, the goddess of motherhood, +which is the sanction of love and marriage. + +It may be that all this is true. It may be possible to trace the worship +back through the various changes to Astarte, Ashtoreth, to Isis, to +older gods, maybe, than these. All this may be true, and yet be no +explanation. The old gods are dead. Why does she alone survive? What is +the instinct that requires her, that pictures her on the street corners, +that makes her worship a living worship to-day? + +And why is it that she appeals not at all to the Teutonic people? Where +are her pictures in Protestant Germany, in England, in Scotland, in +America? Do you ever hear of her there? Do the preachers tell of her, +the picture makers paint her, the people pray to her? Such a worship is +impossible. And why? What is the answer that to-day gives to that +question? Is the answer difficult? I think not, for it is written in the +hearts of the people, it is written in the laws they have made, in the +customs they adhere to, in the oaths they take, in their daily lives. + +Consider the Roman laws of two thousand and more years ago, the French +laws of to-day. What is there most striking to us when we study them? It +is, I think, the cult of the family. + +The Roman son was his father's slave. He could not own property apart +from the father, he could not marry without leave, his father could +execute him without any trial. Family life lay outside the law; not +Senate, nor Consul nor Emperor could interfere there. The unit in Rome +was not the man, but the family. + +As it was so it is. The laws are less stringent, but the idea remains. A +man belongs not to himself but to his people, to his father and to his +mother. In France even now he has to ask their leave to marry. The +property is often family property, and his family may restrain a man +from wasting it. + +There is no bond anywhere stronger than the family bond of the Latin +peoples. In mediaeval Rome, even often in Rome of to-day, all the sons +live with their father and mother even if married. It is the custom, +and, like all customs that live, it lives because it is in accord with +the feelings of those who obey it. + +A man belongs to his family, he clings to it; he is not an individual, +but part of an organism. + +And although in law it is the father who is the head, it is the father +who is the lawgiver, the ruler, is it really he who is that centre, that +lode-star, that holds the family together? I think it is not so. It is +the mother who is the centre of that affection which is stronger than +gravity. We laugh when a Frenchman swears by his mother. But he is +swearing by all that he holds most sacred. No Latin would laugh at such +a matter. Because he could understand, and we do not. To everyone of +Latin race there comes next to God his mother, next to Christ the +Madonna, who is the emblem of motherhood. + +The Latins do not emigrate. They hate to leave their country. And if +they do, if necessity drive them forth, are they ever happy, ever at +rest till they can see their way to return? The Americans tell us that +Italians are the worst immigrants because they will not settle; because +they send their pay to their parents in the old country, and are never +happy till they themselves can return. We call it nostalgia, we say it +is a longing for their country. It is that and more. It is a longing for +their family, their blood. They cling together in a way we have no idea +of. + +Does an Englishman ever swear by his mother, does he yearn after her as +the Latins do from a far country? Does the fear of separation keep our +young men at home? It is always the reverse. They want to get away. The +home nest tires them, and they would go; and once gone they care not to +return, they can be happy far away. The ties of relationship are light +and are easily shaken off, they are quickly forgotten. + +Italian labourers and servants give some of their pay always as a matter +of course to their parents. It is a natural duty. And in Latin +countries there are no poorhouses. They could not abide such a theory +any more than could the Indians. It would seem to a Latin an +impossibility that any child would leave his parents in a workhouse. +Poor as they might be they would keep together. The great bond that +holds a family together is the mother, always the mother. We can see +this in England too, even with our weaker instinct. The mother makes the +home and not the father. + +And now are we not finding that sanction we were searching for? If the +Madonna, the type of motherhood, appeals to all the people, men and +women, is there not a reason? It is an instinct. These images and +pictures of the Madonna sound on their heart-strings a chord that is +perhaps the loudest and sweetest; if second to any, second only to that +of God. God as father, God as mother, God as son and sacrifice, here is +the threefold real Godhead of the Latins. + +But with us the family tie is slight, the mother worship is faint. Our +Teutonic Trinity is God the Father, God the Son, and now later God the +Law. These are the realities. + +For with us conduct is more and emotion is less than with the peoples of +the South. + + + + +CHAPTER XXI. + +CONDUCT. + + +Of all aspects of religion none is so difficult to understand as the +relation of religion and conduct. It is ever varying. There seems to be +nothing fixed about it. What does conduct arise from? It takes its +origin in an instinct, and this instinct is so strong, so imperious, so +almost personal, that of all the instincts it alone has a name. It is +conscience. + +By conscience our acts are directed. + +There are scientific men who tell us that our consciences are the result +of experience, partly our own, but principally inherited. That if +conscience warns us against any course of action it is because that has +been experienced to result in misfortune. It is an unconscious memory of +past experiences. Conscience is instinctive, and not affected by +teaching to any great extent; and that conscience is the main guide of +life no one will deny. + +But do the voices of conscience and of God, as stated in the sacred +books, agree? + +When the savage sees a god in the precipice and is afraid of him, there +is no question of right or wrong. Not that the savage has no code of +morals. He has a very elaborate one. But it is usually distinct from his +religion. What virtue did Odin teach? None but courage in war. Yet the +Northmen had codes of conduct fitted to their stage of civilisation. The +Greeks had many gods. They had also codes of morals and an extensive +philosophy, but practically there was no connection. In fact, the gods +were examples not of morality but of immorality. It was the same with +the Latins and with all the Celts. Their religions were emotional +religions, their codes of conduct were apart, although even here you see +now and then an attempt to connect them. And when the Latin people took +Christianity and formed it, they put into their creeds no question of +conduct. You believed, and therefore you were a Christian. The results +of bad conduct would be annulled by confession, and the sinner would +receive absolution. To a Latin Christian a righteous unbeliever who had +never done anything but good would in the end be damned, whereas the +murderer who repented at the last would be saved. "There is more joy in +heaven over one sinner that repenteth, than over ninety and nine just +persons that need no repentance." + +Is the inference that the Latin peoples were wickeder than others? I +doubt it. They initiated all European civilisation, and trade and +commerce, and law and justice. Probably the highest examples of conduct +the world has known have been Latins. They had and have the instinct of +conduct, they had and have consciences as good as other people, but only +they do not so much connect conduct and religion. You can be saved +without conduct. + +The Jews, on the contrary, had no instinct of conduct apart from +religion. In the Ten Commandments conduct, if it have the second place, +has yet the larger share. Righteousness was the keynote of their belief, +and if the only righteousness they knew was little better than a noble +savagery, it was the best they could do. They included every form of +conduct in their religion--sanitary matters, caste observances, and +business rules. The Hindu goes even further in the same line. Everything +in life is included in his religion. + +When in the Reformation the Teutonic people threw off the yoke of Rome, +a yoke which was not only religious but political and social, one of +their principal arguments against Roman Catholicism was the +abominations that had crept in. I think it would be difficult to assert +that the people who revolted were in morals generally any better than +those they seceded from. Good men in the Latin Church saw equally the +necessity for reformation. But bad morals did not seem to them so +destructive to faith as it did to the Teutons. There was this +difference, that whereas the Latin could and did conceive of religion +apart from conduct, the Teuton, like the Jew, could not do so. With the +Latin they were distinct emotions, with the Teuton they were connected. +One of the principal aspects of the Reformation is the restoration of +morality to religion, the abolition of indulgences, of confession and +absolution, the insistence on conduct in religious teachers. + +The morality of Christ? + +The remarkable fact is that it was not the morality of Christ at all. +The Reformation was never in any way a revival of the code of the Sermon +on the Mount or the imitation of Christ. To a certain extent it went +further away from Christ than the Latins. For instance, the Latin +priests imitate Christ in being unmarried, the Protestant pastors +married. When Calvin burnt Servetus he was not returning to the tenets +of the New Testament, and what thought had the Puritans or the French +Huguenots, the most masterful of men, of turning the other cheek? + +Protestantism was a return of conduct to religion, but it was not +Christ's conduct. It was rather the Old Testament code softened by +civilised influence that was revived. It was a revolt against excessive +emotionalism, and was, in fact, a combination of two creeds tempered as +to conduct by the conduct of the day. + +So it continues to-day. The Latin's idea of religious conduct is the +imitation of Christ, and when a Latin cultivates religious conduct that +is what he does. He becomes a priest or monk, poor, celibate, +self-denying and unworldly. But conduct to him is not the great part of +religion that it is to a Teuton. With us conduct is the greatest part; +the mystical and ceremonious part has decreased, in certain sects almost +disappeared. Confession disappeared, and with it absolution from +priests. Conduct is part of religion, and the code of conduct to be +followed is that which conscience bids, and the code of conscience is, +scientific men tell us, the result of experience, personal and +inherited. Practically, what conscience tells us to do is what suits the +circumstances of the day. + +Therefore we may say that the religion of the Latins is mainly +emotional, that of the Teutons half emotional and half conduct; and then +we come to the Buddhist, which is nearly all conduct. + +The Latin would say of an unbeliever, "He cannot be saved; faith is the +absolute necessity, and faith even at the last moment by itself is +sufficient." The Teuton would say, "I do not know. To be a good man, +even if an unbeliever, is very much; it may be that God will accept +him." + +And the Buddhist? He has no doubt at all. Conduct is everything. Believe +what you like as long as you act well. To be a Buddhist is best because +there you have the way of life set clearly before you, and it is easy +for you to follow. But any man can be saved if he act aright. Conduct is +_everything_. In fact, Buddhism in its inception was in one aspect a +revolt against excessive emotionalism, that of the ascetics, and it +maintains that attitude to-day. + +Or, to put it another way: Roman Catholicism is all emotion, +Protestantism is half emotion, Buddhism is the suppression of emotion. +These are the theories. And the facts? What effect does this difference +make on the lives of the peoples? + +It may have some effect. There is sometimes action and reaction. These +different views of the relation of religion and conduct come from the +instincts of the people, and being held and taught they in turn affect +the people. But how much? Personally, I believe very little. + +A man's daily conduct is regulated by quite other factors. If the effect +was great we should find Buddhists the least criminal of peoples, the +Teutons a medium, and the Latins without any idea of conduct at all. But +this is certainly not true. The Burman is greatly given to certain +crimes, the outcome of his stage of civilisation. + +And I have great doubts whether the Protestants generally can show any +superiority over the Latins when the circumstances are considered. Are +the English Roman Catholics less honest than Protestants in the same +class? Are sceptics more criminal than religious people? The inclusion +of conduct in religion is astonishingly varied. Some peoples cannot be +born or come to maturity, or marry, or die without religion; others do +not allow religion to have any part in these matters. But the fact +remains that, though conduct may be included more or less in every +religion, no religion has a code of conduct for daily life. Priests and +monks apart, the codes of conduct are not taken from religion. + +But it must not be forgotten that neither Christianity nor Buddhism +professes to provide a code of conduct for this life. Judaism knew no +future life, and its aim was therefore to ensure success in this. That +is the reward offered to the righteous--success for them and their +children. There is no hint that this life is not good and worth living, +that love and wealth are not good things. On the contrary, they are held +out as the reward of the godly. The Judaic code was a good and workable +one for its age. But Christianity and Buddhism declare that this life is +not good; that it is, in fact, absolutely wicked and unhappy, and that +therefore all worldly pleasures and successes are to be eschewed as +snares. The codes given are ways to reach heaven, they are by no means +codes for ordinary life. Followed to their meaning, every Christian +ought to be a monk or nun and every Buddhist the same. + +But this teaching of the evil of life is one that no one but a few +fanatics accept in its fulness, and heaven or Nirvana are ideas that do +not appeal to most men. In Latin and Buddhist countries a few with their +higher spiritual powers take their faiths very seriously, but the +majority try to make the best of both worlds. In Protestant countries no +one at all accepts the doctrine of the worthlessness of life. With the +immense majority of men of all nations life is held to be a great and +beautiful thing, to be used to its best advantage. The Latins with their +keener logic, seeing that the code of Christ is for the next world, not +for this, and therefore fit only for monks and nuns and not for men of +the world, divorce conduct from religion. Protestants, rejecting the +code of Christ for men of the world equally with the Latins, yet feeling +a need for a code of conduct, adopt the best current code of the day and +call that "Christian conduct." Thus are working religions built up. One +religion is all conduct, another half, another hardly at all--in theory. +But in fact, for ordinary life, is there any difference between the code +of a Latin, a Teuton, or a Buddhist? There is hardly any. Codes of life +vary very little, and that variation is due never to religious +influences, but always to the stage of civilisation and mental +development and the environments. In Scotland and North Germany it is +common for peasant girls to have a baby first and marry afterwards. A +Hindu or a Burman would be horrified at such a thing, just as a better +class Scotchman or German would be. But to the people who do it there +is no immorality. How do you explain this from religion? + +Conduct is an instinct. It evolves according to the civilisation and +idiosyncrasy of the people. It is influenced by many causes. People, for +instance, who are not pleased by acting call theatres wrong, and so on. +Experience is also a factor. And the connection of conduct with religion +varies. Some people make it a great part of their religion just as +sanitary and social measures are included, other peoples make it less +prominent. But conduct does not proceed from religious creeds any more +than prayer or confession does. It may be slowly influenced by religious +teaching, but it has its own existence, and religious teaching is only +one of many influences. + + + + +CHAPTER XXII. + +MEN'S FAITH AND WOMEN'S FAITH. + + +There is a faith--Judaism--which originated so far back that we have +only a legendary account of it. It was the cult of a warrior nation +whose ideal was bravery and whose glory was war, who considered the rest +of the world as Philistines and treated them ruthlessly, who kept +themselves as a nation apart. + +Nineteen hundred years ago there arose among them a prophet, said to be +of the ancient kingly house. He preached a doctrine which prescribed as +the rule of life mildness and self-denial, renunciation of this world; +who denounced war and conquest, and held out as a goal for attainment +heaven, which is the peace of God. + +This Prophet, The Christ, was executed, but He left behind Him disciples +who spread His religion widely. Amongst His own people it never attained +great strength, and in time it died away and disappeared. There are no +Christians among the Jews. All Semitic nations have rejected this +faith. But it spread far to the west, and is now in one form or another +the accepted faith of the half world to the west of Palestine. It never +spread east. + + * * * * * + +There is a faith--Brahminism--which originated so far back that we have +but legendary accounts of it. It was the cult of a warrior nation whose +ideal was courage and whose glory was war, who considered the rest of +the world as outcasts and treated them ruthlessly, who kept themselves +as a nation apart. + +Two thousand five hundred years ago there arose among them a prophet, +the son of the Royal House. He preached a doctrine which prescribed as a +rule of life meekness and self-denial, renunciation of the world. He +denounced war and conquest, and held out as a goal for attainment the +Great Peace. + +This prophet, the Buddha, was rejected by all the higher castes and he +died, having made but little way. But his disciples spread his religion +widely. Amongst his own people it never attained great strength, and in +time it died away and disappeared. There are no Buddhists in Oude, and, +with perhaps a slight exception, there are no Buddhists at all in India. +But it has spread far to the east, and is now in one form or another +the accepted faith of nearly all people east of the Bay of Bengal, and +also of Ceylon. It never spread west. + + * * * * * + +I do not say that Christianity and Buddhism are the same, for although +in some ways, especially in conduct, their teaching is almost identical, +and in others--such as Heaven and Nirvana--though differently expressed, +the idea is almost the same, yet in certain theories they differ very +greatly. Yet, however they may differ, the above parallel cannot but +strike one as extraordinary. Indeed, the parallel might have been very +largely augmented, but it suffices for the purpose of this chapter; and +that is to enquire why each teacher's doctrine was rejected by his own +people and accepted by others. + +It is no answer to say that no one is a prophet in his own country. All +the Jewish prophets, from Moses to Isaiah, _were_ prophets in their own +country. Christ alone was not. Mahommed was a prophet to the Arabs, +Zoroaster to the Persians, Confucius and Laotze to the Chinese. All +teachers of Hinduism have been native born Hindus. In Buddhist countries +it is the same. Luther was a prophet to the Germans, Loyola to the +Spaniards. The rule is otherwise. A prophet is never a prophet to any +_but_ his own people, except the two greatest Prophets in the world, +Christ and Buddha. They alone were rejected by their own and accepted +elsewhere. They almost divide the world between them. Hinduism, from +which Buddhism arose, still exists untouched by either; Judaism, from +which Christianity arose, and its near kin Mahommedanism, exist +untouched by either; but most of the rest of the world is either +Christian or Buddhist. These are very astonishing facts, and must have +some very strong reasons to cause them. The question is, What are the +reasons, and are they the same in each case? Was it a similar cause that +occasioned such similar effects? What quality was it in the Jews and +Hindus that led them to reject their prophets, and what are the +qualities in the converted nations that led them to accept these +prophets? + +It might seem at first as if the clue was contained in the first +sentence of each paragraph, that the reason was because both Jews and +Hindus, especially the higher caste Hindus, were warrior nations. The +rule of life preached by each teacher was absolutely against all that +they had revered so far, hence that each rejected it. The fact, of +course, is true. Each nation had up to the coming of the Teacher learned +a rule of life hopelessly in contrast to the new teaching. The ideals +of Christ and Buddha were absolutely opposed to those a fierce, warlike, +exclusive people could maintain. They could not accept them without +throwing to the winds all their past. This is true, but is it an +explanation? It is certainly not a full one. The Jews were warriors, +bitter, terrible, ruthless fighters, and they rejected Christ. But they +are no longer a nation of warriors, and they still reject Him. + +The world has never seen keener soldiers than those of western Europe, +but these nations accept Him. + +The Hindu warrior caste are warriors to the bitter end. They rejected +Buddha, but so did many peoples of India; the Bengalees, for instance, +who are not fighters. + +Where can you find stronger warrior spirit than has always existed in +Japan? Yet Buddhism is the prevailing religion there. It is evident, I +think, that this explanation will not suffice. It may in addition be +asserted that the men of Latin nations are usually frankly atheistic, +and the Teutonic nations, though theoretically Christian, yet +practically when they want to fight they forget Christ and fall back to +the Jehovah of the Jews. The Puritans and the Boers are cases in point. +They get their fighting faith out of the Old Testament, not the New. But +still they accept Christ, and though they may find it impossible, like +all nations, to follow His teaching, they do not reject it, or deny it. +With Buddhism in the further East the parallel does not last, because +Buddhism in ethical teaching stands alone. The Buddhist who wants to +fight cannot fall back on the original faith. He has simply to go +without a faith at all. He has not the advantage of a double set of +conduct, one of which can always be trusted to fit anything he wants to +do He has to go without a faith when he fights. Still he does so. + +I confess that for a long time I seemed to find no answer, and at length +it came not through studying out this question, but in observing other +phenomena of religion altogether. + +To one coming to Europe after years in the East and visiting the +churches nothing is more striking than the enormous preponderance of +women there. It is immaterial whether the church be in England or in +France, whether it be Anglican or Roman Catholic or Dissenter. The +result is always the same. Women outnumber the men as two to one, as +three to one, sometimes as ten to one. Even of the men that are there, +how many go there from other motives than personal desire to hear the +service? Men go because their wives take them, boys go with their +mothers or sisters, old men with their daughters. Professional men are +there because it would injure them among their women clients to be +absent. Women go because they desire to do so; nine out of ten even of +these few men who do go are taken by their women folk. They admit it +readily. And more, when they are away from these women they do not enter +the churches. It is borne in upon an observer, especially an observer +who has been long enough away from Europe to become depolarised, to what +an enormous extent the observance of religious duty in Europe among +Christian nations is due to women. It is they only who care for, who are +in full sympathy with the teaching of Christ; for men when they are +religious, and in certain cases they are so, take their religion of +conduct much more from the Old Testament than the New. + +In Burma it is not otherwise. The deeper the tenets of Buddhism are +observed, the more the women are concerned in it. Who lights the candles +at the pagoda, who contribute the daily food to the monks, who attend +the Sunday meetings in the rest houses? Nearly all of them are women. +Even in Burma, where the devotional instinct is so strong and so deeply +held, the immense influence of women is manifest. In Christian and +Buddhist countries the women are free to attend the services; they are +free, to a greater or lesser extent, in all matters, and in religion +they are conspicuous--they rule it, they form it to suit themselves. + +But in the races that rejected Christianity, that rejected Buddhism, it +is otherwise. The Hindu women keep themselves in zenanas. They are not +allowed in the temples, or only in special parts. They can take no part +in the public services. They cannot combine to influence religious +matters. At the time the Buddha lived women were very much freer than +they are now, and this accounts for its initial partial success at home. +But as waves of conquest, the incessant rigorous struggle for existence +deepened and circumstances contracted that liberty, so as it contracted +did Buddhism die. Till at length the women remained immured, and +Buddhism fled to countries where women had still some freedom. + +It is the same with Christianity. The Jewish women, if not quite so +secluded as Hindu women, were yet never openly allowed to join in the +synagogues. They, too, as the Mahommedan even, had their "grille" apart. +The Jewish men and the Mahommedan men kept their religion for +themselves, a virile religion, where women had little place. It may be +the fact--I think in another chapter I have shewn that it is a +fact--that women seek after religion far more than men But they must +have a religion to suit them. The tenets of Christ and of Buddha do +appeal to them, do come nearer to them than they do to the generality of +men. And so where women have been free to make their influence felt, to +impress their views upon the faith of a country, the mild beliefs of +non-resistance, of peace, of meekness and submission have obtained. +Whereas in the countries and nations where for one cause or another +women are not free to make their combined influence felt, where they +remain under the greater dominance of man in all matters, the faiths +that retain the stronger and more virile codes of conduct have remained. + +I am not sure that there have not been other influences also at work. I +can, I think, see another strong influence that has worked to the same +end. There may be many reasons. But that would not alter the fact that +the influence of women has been a main force, that they have greatly +been concerned in the change of faith. + + + + +CHAPTER XXIII. + +PRAYER AND CONFESSION. + + +What is the most general, the most conspicuous form in which religion +expresses itself? Is it not in prayer? Where is the religion that is +without prayer? There is none. And perhaps, too, it is the very first +expression of religion, that when the savage fell and prayed the +lightning to spare him, he was inaugurating the greatest religious form +the world has known. + +What a wonderful thing it is, wonderful in every form, beautiful +wherever you see it--from the glorious masses sung in the cathedrals to +the Mussulman spreading his mat upon the sand and bowing towards Mecca. +There is nothing so beautiful, nothing that so touches the heart of man +as prayer. + +I have said that it is common to all religions, and so it is. Religions +live not in creeds, but in the believers. Pure Buddhism knows not +prayer, but does not the Buddhist know it? Go to any pagoda and see the +women there praying to Someone--Someone, they know not whom--and ask if +Buddhists know not prayer? I have written so fully of it in my other +book that I will not repeat it here. + +Prayer is common to all believers; it is the greatest, as perhaps it is +the only expression common to all religions. And whence comes this +custom of prayer? The Jew and the Mussulman and the Christian will +answer and say, "It comes from our belief in God, it is an outcome of +that belief. Our God has bade us pray to Him." + +And the Hindu, how will he answer? He will say, "Our gods have power +over us, they deal with us as they will. They listen to us if we pray. +And therefore it is right for us to beseech them in our trouble. It +comes from our belief in our gods." And the savage will answer, "I fear +the Devil, so I pray to him." But what will the Buddhist answer? + +For Buddhism knows no God. The world is ruled by Law, unchangeable, +everlasting Law. No one can change that Law. If you suffer it is the +meet and proper consequence of your sins. The suffering is purifying you +and teaching you how to live. It would not be well for you to be +relieved of it now if you could be. Therefore suffer and be silent. + +A very beautiful belief. And yet the people pray. Why? When a Buddhist +prays it is not in consequence of his belief, but in spite of it. It +cannot be traced as the result of any theory of causation. + +Therefore one doubts the Theist's explanation and one reflects. Was, +indeed, prayer born of their beliefs? And then the doubt increases. Are +these creeds older than prayer, or maybe is it not that prayer is older +than the creeds? Did these creeds exist in men's minds first or did the +necessity for prayer exist first? Which is nearer to man? + +Let us consider what prayer is. It consists of three things mainly. +Petition to be saved, to be helped from imminent danger; praise at being +so saved; and last, probably last, but surely greatest of all, +confession. + +When men pray they are always doing one or other of these things. When +the savage was caught in the thunderstorm or shaken in the earthquake +and fell on his knees in fear, babbling strange things, do you think he +had reasoned out a God behind the force first? Do you think his +inarticulate cry for help was not involuntary? That if he had not first +reasoned out the God he would not so cry? Have you ever seen people in +deadly fear, how they will babble for help, crying unto the unknown? If +there was ever anything that came forth absolutely spontaneously from +the heart of man, which needed no belief of any kind anterior to its +birth, it was prayer, the prayer that comes from fear, the prayer for +help. It is the unconscious, unreasoned cry of the heart. If there is +Someone to whom to direct the cry, well and good; but if not, the cry +comes just the same. + +When troubles fall upon the man, what is his first impulse? To tell +someone. If the confidant can help, so much the better; but if not, +still to tell. To ease the pent up heart by telling, that is what is +wanted. And with joy, too. Have you not seen how, when good news comes +to a man, he loves to rush forth and tell it? To whom? It does not +matter. Tell it, tell it. Cry it aloud, if but the trees and rocks can +hear. To keep secret a great thing is very hard. Remember the courtier +who discovered that King Midas had asses' ears. He could not keep the +terrible deadly truth to himself. He dared not tell it to man. And so, +going softly to the river, he confessed the dreadful knowledge to the +reeds: "Midas hath asses' ears." Can you trace here any cause and +effect? And there is confession, to tell someone of our sins, to +confess. Is that dependent upon any religious theory? Much has been +written about confession, this necessity of the laden spirit, but never +has anything been written like that study by Dostoieffsky called "Crime +and Punishment." The "Crime" was murder, not an ordinary murder +committed by a ruffian in passion or from sordid motives, but a murder +by a student intended to result in good. The murderer is suspected--nay, +is known by a police officer--and the motive of the first half of the +story is not to gain evidence, not to unravel the story, but it lies in +the efforts of the detective to induce Raskolnikoff to make a voluntary +confession. And why? There was evidence enough, the offender could have +been arrested and convicted at any time. But that would not do. +Punishment alone will not always, will indeed but seldom, benefit the +criminal. Punishment is for the protection of society. It is for the +future, not the past. For the criminal to redeem himself he must +confess. In that lies the only medicine for a diseased soul. It is a +marvellous story, and it holds the truth of truths. Confess. There is no +emotion of the human heart so strong as this, the eminent necessity to +tell someone. No one who has had much to do with crime will doubt this. +There is in all natural men a burning desire, an absolute necessity, to +tell of what has been done. It comes out sometimes in confessions to the +police or to the magistrate. All criminal annals are full of such +stories. A crime is committed and there is no clue, till the man +confesses. I have myself seen a great deal of this. I have received many +confessions. But you will object that was amongst Burmese; and I reply, +Wherein is there any difference? Criminals of all countries frequently +confess. But as civilisation progresses the confession is not often to a +magistrate. The fear, the terrible fear of punishment outweighs the +natural impulse. But still the confession is made. If you read the cases +in the papers you will see how often it is made. To a wife, to a +companion, sometimes to a complete stranger. The men who can hold their +tongues, who can stifle nature, are very few. With all but hardened +criminals the tendency is always to confession, and those whose work has +laid among them know that the denial, the defence, except with hardened +criminals, is seldom theirs. If there were no relations to urge them, no +lawyers to assist them, five out of six first offenders would confess +openly. + +Is it otherwise with our children? What is it we teach them above all +else? Never to do wrong? No! For we know that is impossible. Children, +like men, will err. But, "when you have done wrong confess, for only so +can you lift the weight from your heart." Confess, confess. Everywhere +it is the same. If you have done wrong, only by confession can you +remove the stain. But it must be voluntary. It must not be forced. Such +a confession is of no value. Even our courts reject it. + +It is an instinct of the heart that comes who can tell whence, that +means who can tell what? And from this have grown many things. It has +become part of all the greater religions, and the forms it has taken are +significant not so much of the faiths, but of the people. + +Among the Jews and the Mahommedans we hear little of it. They were a +hard people when their faiths were formed, a strong people, and little +advanced in the gentler feelings. They were warriors who lived greatly +by the sword, and it was necessary for them to stifle all that might +weaken or even polish them. For one man to humble himself to another is +very hard, for a proud man to confess to another is almost impossible. +And so into these Theistic faiths the confession was to God. If a man +sinned it was to God alone he could confess. But with Christianity it +has been different. There is in Christianity what exists in no other +faith in the same way, an intermediary between God and man. + +There are the priests. + +This desire of the soul for confession, the absolute necessity with +strong emotional people to tell someone their sins and their truths, has +been one of the greatest cults of the Church of Rome. Man must confess, +let him confess to the priests. Their tongues are tied, they will never +reveal what they are told; they are the ministers of God. Therefore let +the innate desire for confession be directed towards the priests. It is +universal in Catholic countries. Whatever may be its abuses it is the +great safety valve, the great help of the people, that as they must +confess they should have someone to confess to. + +With the Northern Teutonic nations it has been different. They got their +Christianity from Rome, a Christianity that was built on the needs of +impulsive Celtic natures. It suited not with the harder natures of the +north. They could not confess to men, it galled them to be told to +confess. Their natures were different. Had they no need of confession? +Yes, but they were as the Jews and Mahommedans. They would not humble +themselves to men. And so, for this and other similar reasons, they +revolted from Rome and made their own church, where confession is only +to God. But the necessity of confession still remains; our services are +full of it. It is strange how very often we find the Christianity of +Teutonic people nearer in observed facts to the faiths of Semitic +peoples than to the Christianity of the Celts. All these peoples, all +these Churches, recognise the need of confession. But, it may be said, +all this is a difference of very slight detail. All confession is to +God. The Roman priests are only representatives of God. If you believe +in God you must believe in confession, because God has always directed +it. Confession is in all the Churches because God ordered it. The need +comes from God, who gives absolution. + +Then how about the Buddhists? They have no God, but yet they confess. +The Buddha himself many times pointed out how needful confession was, +and how healing to the heart. There is no God to confess to, there is no +representative of God. But there is the head of the Monastery. Let the +younger monk who sins confess his sins to his superior. There is no +absolution. Man works out his future himself, always by himself. There +is no absolution, no help to be gained by confession. But the Buddha +knew the hearts of man. He knew that confession was good for the soul. +He knew that it needed no absolution from any priest to help the +confesser, no belief in any God to pardon because of the confession. +Confession, if it be made honestly and truly, brings with it always its +own reward. It may be objected, that this is not general, but only +applies to those trying to live the holy life. The Buddha taught that +all men should do so. He meant it to be general. It is true that it is +not, it cannot be general, or the world would cease. Only a few are +monks. Is, then, the help of confession denied to the multitude? Perhaps +by the stringent Buddhist faith it may not be urgently inculcated, and +men and women in outside life cannot confess to monks. Do they then go +without? Not so. Go to any pagoda at any time and you will see there +kneeling many people, some men, but mostly women. They are there +confessing, audibly sometimes, their troubles, their sins, their joys +also. To whom? Ah! then I cannot tell you. "Someone will hear," they +say, "Someone will hear." Religions are for the necessity of man, and if +the narrow creed will not suffice it must be enlarged. + +It is a strange subject this of confession, and its ally, prayer. It is +strange to follow it to its roots in the human heart, and to see that it +is stronger, is older, is more persistent than creeds. Creeds come and +go, they change, and man changes with them; he may have any religion or +have none, but it makes no difference to this. Hindu and Christian, +Mahommedan and Buddhist, Atheist and Jew, the heart of man is ever the +same. Read that wonderful story of Balzac's, "La Messe d'Athee," and you +will see. + + * * * * * + +If you postulate God or gods, and try from that to deduce prayer and +confession, you find yourself very soon as the boy found himself long +ago. You are at an impasse. If God be indeed as stated, then can prayer +and confession never be necessary. You cannot get round it, you can only +hide yourself in mists of words like the scientific theologian. If God +be as postulated, then can prayer and confession not be necessary, or +even beautiful. + +But you can see from daily life that they are so. Who can doubt it? +There is in life nothing so beautiful, nothing so true, nothing that +acts as balm to the heart like prayer and confession, and they exist +naturally. They are there from the beginning; they need no religious +theory to bring them into life. What, then, is the inference? Not +perhaps exactly what it at first sight would seem to be, that God does +not exist or has those qualities of prejudice, of favour, of partiality +which religious books and religious people give to Him. It is, I think, +this: That the truth, the original truth, is the necessity of confession +and prayer, and that to explain this the theory of the nature of God or +gods have arisen. Prayer did not proceed from God, but God from +prayer--_i.e._, the theories of God. + +No strongly religious man can reason about his own faith. Christians +will say that the idea of the True God is inherent in man also, that if +not earlier than prayer, it is co-existent. So be it. But how about +false gods--the savage praying to a mountain, the Hindu to an image or a +stone, representing who knows what? the Buddhist woman praying by the +pagoda? Their prayer is beautiful. It is as beautiful as yours. Never +doubt it. Go and see them pray. You will learn that prayer is beautiful, +is true in itself. And can such a thing proceed from a false theology? +See men pray and hear them confess and you will be sure of this, that +prayer and confession, no matter by whom, no matter to whom, are always +true, have always their effect upon the heart. Whatever is false, they +are not. It is one absolute truth that all men will admit. + + + + +CHAPTER XXIV. + +SUNDAY AND SABBATH. + + +I am not sure that in such an enquiry as this history is of much avail. +I do not find that those who search into the past to write the history +of it ever discover much that is of use to-day. It seems to me that in +tracing an idea, or a law, or a custom, historians are satisfied with +giving an account of its growth or decay as if it were the life of a +tree. They do not enquire into the why of things. They will tell you +that an idea came, say, from the East and was accepted generally. They +do not say why it was accepted. And to have traced a modern belief back +into the far past is to them sufficient reason for its presence, +forgetful that whatever persists, whether a law or an idea or a belief, +does so because it is of use. Living things require a sanction as well +as a history, and therein lies their interest. And what I am writing now +is of the sanctions of religions. + +Still, there is sometimes an interest, if but a negative one, in the +history of an observance or belief. It is useful sometimes to trace an +observance back, if only to show that the reason generally given for its +retention is not and cannot be the real one. Of such is the history of +the observance of Sunday, or the Sabbath, in England and Scotland. + +We have discovered from the inscriptions at Accad, upon the Euphrates, +that in the time of Sargon, 3,800 years B.C., the days were divided into +weeks of seven days, named after the sun and moon and the five planets, +as they are now in places. And there were, moreover, "Sabbaths" set +apart as days of "rest for the soul," "the completion of work." There +were five of these Sabbaths in Chaldea every lunar month, occurring on +the 7th, the 14th, the 19th, the 21st, and 28th of the month. That is to +say, the new moon, the full moon, and the days half way between were +Sabbaths, with the addition of a fifth Sabbath on the 19th day. On these +days it was not lawful to cook food, to change one's dress, to offer a +sacrifice; the king may not speak in public or ride in a chariot, or +perform any kind of military or civil duty; even to take medicine was +forbidden. It was a day of rest. And this was 3,800 B.C., nearly 2,000 +years before Abraham lived, 2,300 years before Moses and the Ten +Commandments, almost contemporary, according to the Bible records, with +Cain and Abel. The day was already called the Sabbath. It had existed +already for no one knows how long, probably thousands of years; it was a +day of rest, and it was observed much as was subsequently the Jewish +Sabbath. Without doubt the Jews only adopted a custom known to more +civilised nations ages before, and they gave to it the sanction of their +religion, as they and many other people have done to many matters. There +is everywhere a strong tendency, if possible, to give religious sanction +to every observance. The stronger emotions attract to themselves the +lesser. So have the Jews and Mahommedans adopted sanitary precautions, +the Hindus sanitary and marriage laws, and Christianity marriage laws +also in their faiths. So did my friend mentioned in the preface include +all civilisation in his religion. + +The observance of the Sabbath arose not from a religious command +transmitted by Moses, but as the result of observation and custom +thousands of years before, that a day of rest was needed for man. + +When they reached a certain standard of civilisation all peoples seem +to have had such a day set apart. It was a want that arose out of the +keener struggle for existence, a mutual truce to the war of competition. +But the day itself varied. The Greeks divided their lunar month into +decades, having thus three festival days in a month. The Romans, we are +told, divided it into periods of eight days, though I do not know how +they managed their arithmetic or got eight into twenty-nine without some +awkward remainder. And in the farther East it was usual to celebrate the +full moon and the new moon and the days half way between as days of +rest. A lunar month consisting of sometimes twenty-nine and sometimes +thirty days, the period between rest days was sometimes six days as in a +week, and sometimes seven days. Thus among the Burmese, although there +are, as usual, seven days named after the sun, moon, and planets, the +rest day goes by the day of the month, not by that of the week, just as +it did with the Accadians. For in the East a month remains a month; it +is the life of a moon. It begins with the new moon and ends with the +fourth quarter, and is easily reckoned by any villager. With us in the +North the age of the moon has ceased to be of any importance. Our life +after dark is indoors, where we have lights and the moon is of no use +to us. Our houses are lit artificially, and very few Europeans could +tell at a moment's notice how old the moon is. + +But in the East it is not so. With them the night is the time for being +out of doors, and when they go to their houses it is only to sleep. The +nights are cool after the hot day, and on the full moon nights the world +is full of light. The night of the full moon, when the scent of flowers +is on the still air and all about is full of magic, is one of the great +beauties of this world. But of it we know nothing in Europe. + +Therefore in colder climates the month by the moon was abandoned, and +reckoning the year by the sun took its place. And as civilisation +progressed it was inconvenient to be uncertain about which was the day +of rest, so it became the custom to make it every seventh day, +regardless of the moon. This seems to have obtained first in Egypt and +to have spread over the civilised world, the seventh day being the +Sabbath. But it still remained a day of rest, unassociated, except by +the Jews, with religion. + +The early Christians kept no Sabbath. They kept the first day of the +week as a day of rejoicing, to celebrate the rising of Christ. Indeed, +the Jewish Sabbath was considered as abrogated, and the first day of the +week was kept, much as it is now kept on the Continent, as a day of +rest, of rejoicing, of relaxation after work. + +So it was observed till the Reformation. + +The Reformers, whatever they altered, did not alter this. They gave no +command to return from Christian observance of the day to Jewish +observance, and all over the Continent, among those of reformed churches +as among those of the Catholic church, Sunday is the day of rest, of +worship, and of relaxation. + +It was so, too, in England and Scotland. + +The change back to the Jewish Sabbath seems to have come with the +Puritans and to have been introduced by them to Scotland. And this is +but one example of how Puritanism was practically a rejection of +Christianity and a return to the codes of Judaism, which suited those +iron warriors much better than Christian ethics. + +In England the feeling has been tempered, but among the Scotch, who are +in so many ways like the old Jews, it took root, it flourished, and it +is the Jewish Sabbath both in name and observance that we see now +there. + +Why was there this reversion? For what reason has the Jewish Sabbath +appealed more nearly to the Scotch than the Christian Sunday? What +feelings were those that caused this? + +If you turn to the people who have done this and look into their +characters you will note one strong and marked instinct. It is the +dislike to art of all kinds, to painting and music, to dancing and +acting, their strong distrust of beauty and gaiety. They are a sober +people, hard and stubborn and dour, to whom art and amusement appeal, as +a rule, not at all; and when they do appeal it is too strongly. They +would not have organs in their churches and cards were to them the +devil's picture books. They had in them then, they have now, no single +fibre that responds to the lighter and brighter things of this world. +Their very humour is grim. Have they, then, no idea of pleasure? Do they +never enjoy themselves? It would be a mistake of the greatest to suppose +that. They, too, as all other men, have their times for relaxation, for +enjoyment, for mental rest and refreshment. Only that what gives +pleasure to them is different from what gives pleasure to other people. +They take their pleasures sadly; the chords of their hearts are tuned to +other keys than that of gaiety and art. These latter they cannot +understand, they awaken either no echo or far too strong an echo; and, +like all men when they cannot understand a thing, they hate it. There is +no medium in these matters that appeal to the emotions. You must either +like or hate. You may see this always. Either you enjoy Wagner's music +or you abominate it, either you appreciate old masters or they are to +you daubs, either you are in tune to laughter or it seems to you the +veriest folly. + +The Scotch take their amusement and their relaxation on the Sabbath as +other people do on the Sunday. They rest from work, they attend divine +service, and for relaxation they awaken those gloomy and fanatical +thoughts which give them pleasure. For these are to them pleasure, just +as much as gaiety is to other people. + +Do not doubt that it is real pleasure to them. Men's hearts are tuned to +many keys, and there is a minor as well as a major. It is true that it +is difficult for those who rejoice in light and sunshine, in gaiety and +humour, who revolt from grey skies and shaded days, from gloomy thoughts +and dreams of hell, to realise that there are men to whom these are in +harmony. + +Most of us would forget hell if we could, would banish the thought if it +arose, but some love to dwell upon it, to repeat it, to preach of it. +The idea thrills them as blood and massacre do others. Some men would go +miles to avoid seeing an execution, others would go as many miles to see +it. Emotions are of all sorts, and what to some is horrible is to others +attractive. + +"Will the doctrine of eternal punishment be preached there?" asked the +owner of a large room suitable for meetings to one who would have hired +it to preach there. And when the answer was that the subject would not +be touched on the room was refused. "Ay, but I hold to that doctrine," +he repeated to every objection. + +Widely, therefore, as the Continental Sunday and the Scotch Sabbath +differ in appearance, they arise from the same causes, they result in +the same effects. + +They are caused by the desire for bodily rest, for soul nourishment, for +mental relaxation, necessities of mankind, and each people so frames its +conception of the proper way to keep the day as to attain those ends. +For "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath," and men +adapt their religious teaching to suit their necessities. + + + + +CHAPTER XXV. + +MIRACLE. + + +It is some years ago now--about twenty, I think--that we first heard of +the beginning of a new religion, the arrival of a new prophetess who was +to unfold to us the mystery of the world and teach us the truths of +life. And this religion began as other religions have been said to +begin, this prophetess claimed belief as other teachers are said to have +done, by her miraculous powers. She could do things that no one else +could do: she could divide a cigarette paper in halves, and waft half +through the air to great distances; she could piece together broken +teacups in an extraordinary way. And because she could perform these +feats she claimed for herself an authority in speaking of the hearts of +men and of the before and after death, an authority which was accorded +to her by many. + +I have expressly refrained from suggesting either the truth or the +falsehood of these miracles. I am aware that the whole process is said +to have been fully exposed. The question is immaterial, for they were, +true or false, believed by many, and it is this question of belief in +miracle which I wish to discuss, not the possibility of miracle or the +reverse. + +There is another point I wish to make clear. I have said that other +religions are said to have started in the same way, other teachers to +have claimed authority on the same ground. This may or may not be true. +The theory of Buddhism is so essentially anti-miraculous that the +miracles attributed to the Buddha seem almost certainly outside +additions, as they are in direct variance with his known acts and +beliefs. And the words and acts of Christ in His life seem all so at +variance with the miracles attributed to Him that they, too, may be +later additions or contemporary exaggerations. This has already been +obvious to some, and had not the absolute inspiration of the Sacred +Books been insisted on, thus stifling criticism, it would have been +obvious to more. All this is immaterial. True or false, all religions +have an embroidery, more or less deep, of miracle, and on these miracles +their claim to truth was in the early days more or less pressed. If +Madame Blavatsky performed miracles with teacups it was because she saw +that there was an attraction to many people in miracle that nothing else +could supply. Miracle to many is the proof of truth. Had Madame +Blavatsky performed no miracles, had there been no teacups, were there +now no Mahatmas, who would have stopped to listen to her compote of +Brahmanism, Buddhism, and truly western mysticism which she called +Theosophy? + +How can miracle be the proof of supernatural knowledge? + +Suppose there arose to-morrow in England a man who could make one loaf +into five, what should those of us who are without the instinct for +miracle say? Merely that he knew some way of increasing bread which we +did not know. The inference would end there. We should not suppose that +he therefore knew anything more about the next world than we do. Where +is the connection, we would ask? The telephone or the Roentgen rays would +have been a miracle a hundred years ago. Two thousand years ago a +phonograph would have been supposed to hold a devil, and the proprietor +would have been a prophet, no doubt. But we do not now go to Edison or +Maxim for our religions. Still, Madame Blavatsky started with miracles, +and was wise in her generation. Still, all religions retain more or less +of the miraculous, because there are many to whom this appeals before +everything, because they are sure that miracle is the proof of truth. +Again, Theosophy claims to be Esoteric Buddhism. The country _par +excellence_ of practical Buddhism is Burma. Yet the Burmans generally +laugh at Theosophy. How is this? The answer lies, I think, like the +answer to all these questions of religion, in the varying instincts of +the people. It is an idea with us in the West that the East is the land +of enchantment, of mystery, of the unknown, of miracle and all that is +akin to it. We are never tired of talking of the mysterious East; it +seems to us one vast wonderland full of things we cannot understand, +full of marvels of the unknowable, the very home of superstition; while +the West is matter of fact, material and reasonable, and easily +understood. And yet I think the very first thing a man learns when he +goes to the people of the East, certainly to the Burmese people, and +tries to see with their eyes and understand with their hearts, that all +this is the very reverse of the facts. Will anyone who wishes to see how +very far they are from the cult of the mysterious, of dreams, of +miracles, of visions, how very _little_ such things appeal to them, turn +to my chapters on the Buddhist monkhood in "The Soul of a People," and +read them? I do not wish to repeat what I said there, only that a monk +who saw visions or performed miracles would be ejected from his +monastery as unworthy of his faith. + +I do not say that there are no superstitions among the people. Their +stage of civilisation is as yet low, as low perhaps as ours five hundred +years ago. They have their strange fancies here and there; I have heard +many of them. They are amusing sometimes and curious. I very much doubt, +however, if the Burman of to-day is as superstitious as an ordinary +countryman in England. I have heard English soldiers tell tales of old +women changing into hares, _that they themselves had seen_, quite as +seriously as any Burman could. And if you compare the Burman of to-day +with the European peasant of even two hundred years ago, there is no +comparison at all. The West simply reeks with superstition and all that +is allied to it compared to the East. (I exclude the belief in ghosts, +which is, I think, a separate matter.) + +The delusion has, I think, arisen in many ways. To begin with, we are +always looking out in the East for the mysterious. It is the East, and +therefore mysterious. We very seldom try to understand the people, to +see them from their standpoint. We prefer generally to assume that they +have no standpoint and to talk of the incomprehensible Oriental mind, +because it is easier to do so and it sounds superior. And again, we are +apt to make absurd comparisons and reason without remembrance. An +English officer will come across a Burman from the back country of the +hills who has a charm against bullet wounds, and he will sit down and +indite a letter to the paper on the "incredibly foolish superstition of +these people," oblivious of the fact that he will find even now amongst +his own countrymen quite as many people who believe in charms as among +the Burmese, that Dr. Johnson touched various articles as charms, and +that he himself throws salt over his shoulder. Yet he is of the better +class of a people five hundred years older in civilisation than the +Burman. + +I confess that, personally, I have found even to-day infinitely more +superstition and leaning to the miraculous among my own people than +among Burmans. There are classes of English people who are almost free +from it, there are other Englishmen, and especially Englishwomen, who +are steeped in it to a degree that would astound any Oriental. And what +was it a few hundred years ago? Have there ever been witch trials in the +East, have there ever been ordeals, or casting lots "for God to decide"? +Magicians have come to us from the East, truly; they were made for +export, the use for them at home being limited. Theosophy was started in +the East, truly, but not by Orientals. Madame Blavatsky is believed to +have been a Russian; her supporters were English and American. Palmistry +and fortune-telling appeal as serious matters to many people in England +and Europe generally. To the Burman they are matters of amusement. Do +you think "Christian Science" would gain any foothold in the East? or +spiritualism or a hundred forms of superstition that cling to the +civilised people of the West? + +The East is the home of religion, of emotion, of asceticism, of the +victory of the mind over the body. The West is the home of superstition, +of second sight, of miracle, of conjuring tricks of all kinds exalted +into the supernatural. You may search all the records of the East and +find no superstition--like touching for the King's evil, for instance. +Can anyone imagine Joanna Southcote in India or in the further East? I +have tried not to hear, I could never repeat, what the East says of the +miraculous in Christianity. Superstition there is, of course, legend and +miracle; they are the outcomes always of a certain stage of +pre-civilisation. But even in India how scarce and faint they are +compared to the West. For one thing must be carefully remembered. +Ignorance of the power of natural causes must not be put down to +attribution of miraculous causes. The peasant in the East will often +attribute a property to a herb, a mineral, a ceremony that it has not +got. That is their ignorance of natural law, never their attribution of +unnatural power. If a Burman peasant sometimes thinks a certain medicine +can render his body lighter than water, it is simply that he is unaware +of the limited power of drugs, not that he supposes there is anything +miraculous in it. The power of phenacetin on a feverish patient seems to +him far more astonishing. Indeed, from miracle as miracle he shrinks. To +miracle as miracle the average European is greatly attracted. To the one +it spells always charlatanism, to the latter supernatural power. + +And therefore, even in the religions of Hindustan--Hinduism in its +myriad forms, Mahommedanism, Sihkism, Jainism, and Parseeism--miracle +plays a very minor part. I think there is no doubt that this repugnance +to miracle is one reason why the Semites eventually rejected +Christianity. How very few and unaffecting the essence are the miracles +in Mahommedanism. But in Christianity it plays the major part. Christ +was born and lived and died and rose again in miracle. In Latin +countries miracles are of daily occurrence--as at Lourdes, for instance. + +And though in Teutonic Christianity it is less than in Latin countries, +it plays a great part also. The miracles of Christ's life are retained. +Truly they say that now the age of miracle is past. The Church believes +no more in prophecy, in miraculous cures, in risings from the dead. The +bulk of the people reject miracle. But what a large minority is still +left who absolutely crave for it, let the records of Theosophy and many +another miraculous religion show. Miracle satisfies a craving, an +instinct, that nothing else will meet. It is curious to note how the +inclusion of miracle in religion varies inversely with the inclusion of +conduct. With the Latins miracle is most, the Latin Christianity is the +most miraculous of all religions, and therein conduct is least. With the +Teutons miracle and conduct are both accepted, the former +authoritatively of the past, privately also of the present. With the +Burmans miracle and the supernatural are rejected absolutely as part of +the religion of to-day, and conduct is all in all. Thus again do the +instincts of the people find expression in their religion. + +As to the growth of the instinct it is more difficult to reply. +Instincts are very hard to account for. Indeed, in their origin all are +quite beyond the scope of inquiry at all. We can only see that they +exist. But with this instinct for miracle there is one cause that no +doubt contributes to its increase or decrease. It does not explain the +instinct, but it does show why in some cases it is greater than in +others. + +It is greater in the West than in the East because many people in the +West, with greater emotional power, from better food and little work, +live narrower lives than any in the East. It is astonishing to see the +difference. In the East every peasant lives surrounded by his relatives, +very many of them; he is friends with all his village, he has always his +work, his interests in life. He is hardly ever alone among strangers, +with no work to occupy him. But in the West, how many there are who live +alone, their relations elsewhere, with few friends, with no necessity +for work, with no interests in life? It is terrible to see how many +there are living lives empty of all emotion. These are they who seek the +miraculous as a relief from their daily monotony of stupidity. These are +they who run after new things. It is + + "The desire of the moth for the star, + Of the day for the morrow, + The longing for something afar + From the scene of our sorrow." + +It is the result of high emotional power with no food to feed on. There +are other factors, for instance--that people who live in mountains are +more superstitious than people of plains, due again to narrower, more +isolated lives, I think; and as a rule country people are more +superstitious than town people, due to the same reason. Nothing exists +without its use, and this is some of the use of the miraculous instinct +in man. It has played its part in the world, a great part no doubt. +Where it exists still it does so because it fills a necessity. Never +doubt it. Those who live full lives find it so easy to laugh at this +craving for the supernatural. Would you do away with it? Make, then, +their lives such that they do not need it. Give to them the knowledge, +the sympathy, the love, the wider life that makes it unnecessary. + +Nurtured in narrowness on the ground that should grow other instincts, +it disappears in the sunshine of happiness, when the heart is furrowed +and tilled by the experiences of life and planted with the fruit of +happiness. + +If we cannot do that, at least we can recognise that it, as all +instincts, has its uses, and exists in and because of that use, never +because of any abuse. + +And where the instinct exists it is attracted as are nearly all the +instincts into that great bundle of emotions called religion. + +But if those who support Christian missions wonder why they are not more +successful, here is another reason. What satisfies your instinct revolts +theirs. They do not require it. Orientals, even peasants, live such wide +lives compared with many in the West, that they need not the stimulus, +and their hard lives lessen the emotional powers. And if Christians are +often unable to understand the charm of Buddhism to its believers, it is +because western people seek and require the stimulus of miracle which is +here wanting. It is as if you offered them water while they cared only +for wine. But Easterns care not for your strong emotions. They are +simpler and more easily pleased. + + + + +CHAPTER XXVI. + +RELIGION AND ART. + + "This is not the place, nor have I space left here, to explain + all I mean when I say that art is a mode of religion, and can + flourish only under the inspiration of living and practical + religion."--_Frederic Harrison._ + + "No one indeed can successfully uphold the idea that the high + development of art in any shape is of necessity coincident with + a strong growth of religious or moral sentiment. Perugino made + no secret of being an atheist; Leonardo da Vinci was a + scientific sceptic; Raphael was an amiable rake, no better and + no worse than the majority of those gifted pupils to whom he + was at once a model of perfection and an example of free + living; and those who maintain that art is always the + expression of a people's religion have but an imperfect + acquaintance with the age of Praxiteles, Apelles, and Zeuxis. + Yet the idea itself has a foundation, lying in something which + is as hard to define as it is impossible to ignore; for if art + be not a growth out of faith, it is always the result of a + faith that has been."--_Marion Crawford._ + +Quotation on both sides could be multiplied without end, but there seems +no reason to do so. The question is the relation of religion to art, and +it has but the two sides. Indeed, the subject seems difficult, for there +is so much to be said on both sides. + +On one side it may be said:--Art is the result of and the outcome of +religion. Look at the greatest works of art the world has to show. Are +they not all religious? There are the Parthenon, the temples of Karnac, +the cathedral at Milan, St. Peter's at Rome, and others too numerous to +mention; the Mosque of St. Sophia and the Kutub Minar, the temples of +Humpi, the Shwe Dagon pagoda, the temples of China and Japan. What has +secular art to show to compare with these? Are not the Venus de Milo, +the statue of Athena, and all the famous Greek sculptures those of gods? +What is the most famous painting in the world? It is the Sistine Madonna +of Raphael. Even in literature, is there anything secular to compare +with the sacred books of the world? The oratorios and masses are the +finest music. What can be more certain than that only religion gives the +necessary stimulus to art and furnishes the most inspiring subjects? +Great art is born of great faiths, great faiths produce great art. + +To which there is the reply:--Many of the greatest Greek statues were of +gods truly, but was it a religious age that produced them? Were Phidias +and Zeuxis religious or moral men? + +Was the thirteenth century which saw the building of most of the best +cathedrals, a religious age? Is it not the fact that for many cathedrals +the capital was borrowed from the Jews, enemies of Christ, and the +interest paid by the sweat of slaves; and when the interest was too +heavy, religious bigotry was resorted to and the Jews persecuted, +killed, and banished. It is probable that of all ages the thirteenth +century was the worst. Were the painters of great pictures religious or +moral? Raphael painted the most wonderful religious paintings the world +has seen--how much religion had Raphael? Leonardo da Vinci painted "The +Last Supper"; he was a sceptic. Are not artistic people notoriously +irreligious? The pyramids of Egypt and the Taj at Agra are not religious +buildings; they are tombs. The sentiment that raised them was the +emotion of death. In music and literature secular art rivals religion. +And even if great art be allied to religion, deep religious feeling does +not necessarily produce art. Indeed, it is the reverse. The most serious +forms of belief have not done so. Where is the art of the Reformation? +Protestants will be slow to admit that there was no deep religious +feeling there. Yet their great cathedrals were all built by Roman +Catholics. Were not the Puritans religious? They hated all art. Is +there no religious feeling in the North of America? Where is its +religious art? In Europe there is no religious art out of Catholicism. +In that alone has it succeeded. And again, although some religious art +is great, such is the exception. The bulk of religious art all over the +world is bad--very bad--the worst. What art is there in the crucifixes +of the Catholic world, in the sacred pictures in their chapels, in the +eikons of Russia, in the gods of the Hindus, in the Buddhas of Buddhism, +and the popular religious pictures of England? They are one and all as +Art simply deplorable. There is grand religious literature, but what of +the bulk of it? Most of the hymns, the sermons, the tracts, the +religious literature of England and other countries cannot be matched +for badness in any secular work. It is the same everywhere. The +Salvation Army had to borrow secular music to make its hymns attractive. +Striking an average, which is best--secular or religious literature, +art, music, and architecture? Without a doubt secular art is the best +all round. + +Art may often be the representative of religion, it is never the outcome +of religious people or a religious age. The very contrary is the fact. + +These are strong arguments, and there are more. But these will suffice. + +What is the truth? What connection has art with religion? + +I do not think the answer is difficult. The connection depends upon what +you define religion and art respectively to be. With the old definitions +no answer is forthcoming. But when you see religion as it really is, +when you understand its genesis and its growth, the answer is clear. + +Religion, as I have tried to show, arises from instincts. The instincts +of the savage are few, the emotions he is capable of feeling are +limited. As his civilisation progresses his instinctive desires +increase, his emotions are more numerous. And as the greater attracts +the less, the older and more established attract the newer, so religion +attracts to itself and incorporates all it can. Religions have varied in +this matter; but of all, Catholicism has been the most wide-armed, it +has always justified its name. Where a new emotion arose and became +strong the Roman Church always if possible attracted it into the fold. I +have already shown how this was done. There is hardly an emotion of the +human heart that Roman Catholicism has not made its own. + +Now what is Art? + +Art, as Tolstoi explains, is also an expression of the emotions, and +therefore the difference between religion and art lies in the emotions +expressed and the method of expression. + +Different peoples express in their religions different emotions. What +some of these emotions are I explain in Chapter XXX. Different people +are also more or less susceptible to art, and express in their art +different emotions. Where a great religion has absorbed certain +emotions, and a great art subsequently arises and wishes to express in +art some of the same emotions, then the art becomes religious art. The +two domains have overlapped. But there is no distinction between secular +and religious art. Nor is there any necessary connection between Art and +Religion. Neither is dependent on the other. They are quite distinct +domains, each existing to fulfil the necessities and desires of man. + +How they came frequently to overlap is easily enough seen. + +Consider the religion of Rome. It came, as I have said, out of the +necessity for expressing and cultivating certain emotions. It is a very +catholic religion, the product of a highly emotional people who had many +and strong feelings. As much as possible these were accepted into the +religion. + +Therefore, when there came the great outbreak of art in the fourteenth +century, when there were great painters and sculptors desiring to paint +pictures that appealed to the heart, all the ground was occupied. + +Did they want to depict feminine beauty, there was the Madonna accepted +as the ideal. Did they want to awaken the emotion of maternity, there +was the Madonna again; of pity, there were the martyrs; of sacrifice, +there was the Christ. Long before these emotions had been crystallised +by the Church round religious ideals, and a change would not be +understood. + +And with the Architects. There is but one emotion common to a whole +people--catholic, so to speak--namely, religion. A town hall, a palace, +a secular building would be provincial; a church only is catholic. In +palaces only princes live, in municipal buildings only officials, in +markets only the people, but in churches all are gathered together, and +not only occasionally but frequently. Therefore, given a great +architect, what could he design that would give him scope, and freedom, +and fame like a cathedral? His feelings were immaterial, it was a +professional necessity that drove artists then to religious matters. +What was Raphael, the free-liver, thinking of when he drew his Madonnas? +Was it the Jewess of Galilee over a thousand years before or the ripe +warm beauty of the Florentine girls he knew? + +The Roman Catholic Church desired to attract to itself all that appealed +to the emotions, and included art of all kinds in its scope. And all +artists, painters, architects, even writers, found in the Church their +greatest opportunities and greatest fame. Deep and real feelings in art +of all kinds sought the companionship of the other great feelings that +are in religion. Shallower art often shrinks from being put beside the +greater emotions, and so some of the shams of the Renaissance. + +But the deepest religious feeling is always averse to art. No age full +of great religious emotion has produced any art at all in any people. +The early Christians, the monks of the Thebaid, hated art, as did the +Puritans. They felt, I think, a competition. When an emotion is raised +to such a height as theirs was, none other can live beside it. Such +emotion becomes a flame that burns up all round. It cannot bear any +rivalry. It puts aside not only art but love, reverence, fear, every +other emotion. Religion is before everything, religion _is_ everything. +There are Christ's words refusing to recognise his mother and brethren. +It has been common to all forms of exalted religious fervour. No emotion +can live with it. Only when it has somewhat died away does art get a +chance. Then only if an artistic wave arises can it be allied with +religion. But deep religious feeling is not always followed by an +artistic wave. There has been no such sequence in most countries. This +sequence in Italy was an exception. It was perchance. There has never +been an art wave connected with Protestantism, and only very slightly +with Buddhism. I have shown in "The Soul of a People," that art in Burma +is only connected professionally with Buddhism. That is to say that +wood-carving, one of Burma's two arts, is not religious in sentiment, +and is applied to monasteries because they are the only large buildings +needed. There is no other demand. To depict the Buddha in any artistic +way except that handed down by tradition would be considered profane. +Would not the early Christians have considered Raphael's Madonna +profane, considering who he was, and what probably his models were? I +think so. I doubt if the deepest religious emotions would tolerate a +crucifix or any picture of Christ at all. Certainly not of the Almighty. +The heat of belief must have cooled down a great deal before such +things became possible. So, in fact, it is as history tells us. Religion +is a cult of the emotions. Art, as Tolstoi shows, is also a cult of the +emotions. Very deep religious feeling leaves no room for any other +emotion, it brooks no rival in the hearts of men. A deeply religious age +has no art; its religion kills art. What were the feelings of the early +Christians towards Greek art? They were those of abhorrence. What those +of the Puritans towards any art? They were the same. + +But when religious emotions have cooled, and room is left for other +feelings, then art may arise. And if it does so, and is a great art, it +allies itself with religion, if the religion permits of it. Some forms +of faith would never permit it. Which of the emotions of which +Puritanism is composed could be expressed in art? Art is almost always +the cult of emotions that are beautiful, are happy, are joyous. +Puritanism knew nothing of all these. Grand, stern, rigid, black, never +graceful or beautiful. Any art that followed Puritanism could but be +grotesque and terrible. There would be no Madonnas, but there might be +avenging angels; there would be no heaven, but certainly a hell. Indeed, +in the literature of the religion we see that this is so. + +Religion and art are both cults of the emotions. They may be rivals, +they may be allies, in the way that art may depict religious subjects. +But great art, like great faith, brooks no rival. And therefore great +artists are not necessarily religious. They may have scant emotion to +spare outside their art. + +This, I think, is the key to the relation between religion and art. It +is impossible to treat such a great subject adequately in a chapter. +Most of my chapters should, indeed, have been volumes. But the key once +provided the rest follows. + + +[Illustration: CATHOLIC RELIGION: PRAYER, MUSIC, BEAUTY, LOVE, +MOTHERHOOD, SACRIFICE, HEAVEN, GAIETY, COLLECTIVENESS, DEPENDANCE, +LAWLESSNESS, HOPE, CATHOLICITY, MERCY] + +[Illustration: PURITANISM: EFFORT, HELL, JUSTIFICATION, JUSTICE, +NARROWNESS, VENGEANCE, LAW, STRENGTH, RIGHTEOUSNESS, FEAR, INDIVIDUALITY] + +[Illustration: ART: MUSIC, BEAUTY, LOVE, MOTHERHOOD, GAIETY, PASSION, +LICENSE] + + + + +CHAPTER XXVII. + +WHAT IS EVIDENCE? + + +If you go to any believer in any religion--in any of the greater +religions, I mean--and ask him why he believes in his religion, he has +always one answer: "Because it is true." And if you continue and say to +him, "How do you know it is true?" he will reply, "Because there is full +evidence to prove it." He imagines that he is guided by his reason, that +it is his logical faculty that is satisfied, and his religion can be +proved irrefragably. And yet it is strange that if any religion is based +on ascertained fact, if any religion is demonstrably true, no one can be +brought to see this truth, to accept this proof, except believers who do +not require it. The Jew cannot be brought to admit the truth of +Christianity, let the Christian argue ever so wisely; nor will the +Christian accept Mahommedanism or Buddhism as containing any truth at +all, no matter how the adherents of these faiths may argue. + +It is not so with most other matters. If a problem in chemistry or +physics be true at all it is altogether true for every one. Nationality +makes no difference to your acknowledging the law of gravity, the +science of the stars, the dynamics of steam, or the secrets of +metallurgy. If an Englishman makes a discovery a Frenchman is able to +follow the argument. The Japanese are not Christians, but that does not +in any way prevent them assimilating modern knowledge. Twice two are +four all over the world, except in matters of religion. + +This is a somewhat remarkable phenomenon. What is the reason of it? + +I can remember not very long ago walking in a garden with a man and +talking intermittently on religious topics. He was a man of great +education, of wide knowledge of the world, a man of no narrow sympathies +or thoughts. And as we went we came to a bed of roses in full bloom; +there were red and white and deep yellow roses in clusters of great +beauty, filling the air with their perfume. "To see a sight like that," +he said, "proves to me that there is a God." + +Proves! There was the _proof_. + +I did not ask him how such roses would be proof of a God. I did not say +that if beauty was proof of a God, ugliness would be proof of a Devil, +for I know there is no reasoning in matters like that. The sight and +scent awoke in his heart that echo that is called God. Not only God, nor +was it any God, nor any Gods that the echo answered to. It was _his_ +God, it was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, that came to him. He +saw the roses, and their beauty brought to his mind the idea of God. +That was enough for him. He had, as so many have, an absolute +instinctive understanding of God, as clear to him as if he saw Him at +midday--unreasoning because _known_. + +"And for others," he said, "is there not ample evidence? How do you +account for the world unless God made it? Have we not in the Scripture a +full account of how it was made out of chaos? And has not He manifested +Himself in His prophets? The truth is proved over and over again, by the +prophecies and fulfilment, by the birth and death of Christ, by the +miracles of Christ, by endless matters. It is so clear." And so it is to +him and those like him who have in themselves the idea of God. They +_know_. It seems humorous to remember that scientific men have thought +they traced this to a savage's speculations on dreams. The speculation +of a savage, forsooth, and this certainty of feeling. The Theist says: +"How can you answer the questions of who made the world other than by +God?" It is a question that rises spontaneously. Do you remember +Napoleon the Great and the idealogues on the voyage to Egypt? They were +ridiculing the idea of a Creator. And to them the Emperor, pointing to +the stars above him, replied, "It is all very well, gentlemen, but who +made all those?" But the Non-Theist replies that it would never occur to +him to put such a question. To ask "Who made the world?" is to beg the +whole question. That question which is always rising in your mind never +does in ours. We would ask how and from what has the world evolved, and +under what cause? "Your evidence is good only to you." The Hindu has +perhaps the keenest mind in religious matters the world knows; does he +accept it? Do the Buddhists accept it? Do keen thinkers in Europe accept +any of this evidence? It is not so. If you have the instinct of God, +then is evidence unnecessary; and if you have not, of what use is the +evidence brought forward? Was anyone ever converted by reasoning? I am +sure no one ever was. Religions are not proved, they are not matters of +logic; they are either above logic or beneath it. To a man who +_believes_, anything is proof. He will reason about religion in a way he +would never do about other matters. He will offer as evidence, as +absolute proof, what he who does not believe cannot accept as evidence +at all. The religions are always the same. The believers _know_ them to +be true, and they cannot understand why others also do not know it. +Their truths seem to them absolutely clear, capable of the clearest +proof. And as to this evidence, this proof, there is always plenty of +it. Any faith can if pushed bring evidence on some points that not even +unbelievers can disprove, that is clearly not intentionally false, that +if the matter were a mundane concern would probably be accepted. It is +so, I think, in all religions, but here is a case from Buddhism. + +In my book upon the religion of the Burmese I have given a chapter to +the belief of the people in reincarnation, a belief that is to them not +a belief but a knowledge. And I have given there a few of these strange +stories of remembrance of previous lives so common among them. For +almost all children will tell you that they can remember their former +lives. + +There is a story there of a child who remembered nothing until one day +he saw used as a curtain a man's loin-cloth, that of a man who had died +and whose clothes had, as is the custom, been made into screens. And the +sight of that pattern awoke in him suddenly the knowledge that he had +lived before, and that in that former life he had worn that very cloth. +His former life was "proved" to him, and in consequence the fact that +all men had former lives. There was proof. + +When I was writing "The Soul of a People" I went a great deal into this +subject of the former life, and I collected a great deal of evidence +about it. I not only saw a number of people who said they could +recollect these lives, but I came across a quantity of facts difficult +of explanation on any other hypothesis. The evidence was honestly given, +I know. But did I believe this former life, or has any European ever +been convinced by that evidence? I never heard of one. Why? Because we +have not the instinct. The Burman has. + +They have the idea as an instinct, just as my friend held the idea of +God as an instinct, and there were certain matters that awakened these +instincts. They needed no more; the facts were proved to them and to +those of like thought to them. But proof. What is proof? Proof, they +will tell you, is a matter of evidence, it is a matter of cold logic, it +arises from facts. + +If that is so, why does not everyone believe in ghosts? Was there ever a +subject on which there was more evidence than in the existence of +ghosts? We find the belief as far back as we can go--the witch of Endor, +for instance. We find the belief to-day. Not a year passes but numerous +people assert that they have seen ghosts. Their evidence is honestly +given; no one doubts that. The mass of evidence is overwhelming. The +fact that certain people do not see them in no way invalidates the +direct evidence. Yet the belief in ghosts is a joke, and a mark, we say, +of feeble-minded folk. + +I have myself lived in the midst of ghosts. One of my houses in Burma +was full of them. Every Burman who came in saw them. Not even my +servants dared go upstairs after dark without me. My servants are +honest, truth-telling boys, and I would believe them in a matter of +theft or murder without hesitation. I would certainly hang a man if the +evidence of his being a murderer was as clear as the evidence that my +bedroom contained a ghost. No absolutely impartial lawyer, judging the +evidence of former life and of the existence of ghosts as a pure matter +of law, but would admit that they were conclusively proved. The Burmans +firmly believe both, considering them not only proved but beyond proof. +No European believes in the former life, and with regard to ghosts the +belief is relegated to those whom we stigmatise as the weak-minded and +imaginative. + +Is the explanation difficult? It does not seem to me so. For it is +simply this. To believe and accept any matter it is not sufficient that +there be enough evidence, the subject itself must appeal to you, must +ring true, must be good to be believed. But with ghosts to most of us it +is the reverse. That our friends and those we love should after death +behave as ghosts behave, should be silly, unreasonable, drivelling in +their ways, imbecile in their performances, should in fact act as if the +next world was a ghostly lunatic asylum, is not attractive but the +reverse. For a murdered man's spirit to go fooling about scaring +innocent people into fits, and unable to say right out that he wants his +body buried, strikes the ordinary man as sheer idiocy. And therefore men +laugh and jeer. People who see ghosts may believe them; no one else will +do so. Because they are not worthy of belief. If these be indeed ghosts, +and they act as ghost-seers say, it is a deplorable, a most deplorable +thing. And if it is a choice of imbecilities, we would prefer to believe +in the lunacy of ghost-seers rather than in that of the dead, our dead. + +But it is not only in matters relating to religion as the idea of God, +or to the supernatural as in ghosts, that we reject evidence. We can do +so also in matters that have no connection with each. For why do we +refuse to accept the sea serpent? Numbers of absolutely reliable men +declare they have seen it. And yet we laugh, or at best we say, "They +were mistaken, it was a trail of seaweed." + +All men who have lived to a certain age have learnt that there are +certain facts, certain experiences not at all connected with the +supernatural, which they dare not tell of for fear of being put down as +inventors. They are curious coincidences, narrow escapes, shooting +adventures, and so on. They have happened to us all. Who has not heard +the tale of the general at a dinner party who related some such incident +that had occurred to himself, and was surprised to see amusement and +disbelief depicted on the faces of all around him. "You do not believe +me," he said stiffly, "but my friend opposite was with me at the time +and saw it too." But the friend refused with a laugh to bear witness, +and the conversation changed. "General," explained the friend +subsequently to his irate companion, "I know, of course, all you said +was true. But what would you have? If fifty men swore to it no one would +believe them. They would only have put me down as a liar too." + +Just as the old woman was ready to accept her travelled son's yarns of +rivers of milk and islands of cheese; but when he deviated into the +truth she stopped. "Na, Na!" she said, "that the anchor fetched up one +of Pharaoh's chariot wheels out of the Red Sea, I can believe; but that +fish fly! Na, Na! dinna come any o' your lies over yer mither." + +They are old stories, but they illustrate my point. On some matters we +are ready to believe at once, on others no amount of evidence will +change our opinions. + +Indeed, we are too apt to assume that reason is our great guide in life. +To think before you act may be wise--sometimes. But if in matters of +emergency you had to stop and think first, you would not succeed very +well. The great men of action are those who act first and think +afterwards, and sometimes they even do the latter badly. There is the +story of a man who was going abroad to be a Chief Justice, and who was +addressed by the Lord Chancellor in this way: "My friend, be careful +where you are going. Your judgments will be nearly always right, but +beware of giving your reasons, for they will almost invariably be +wrong." There are many such men. + +What, then, is religious proof? If it is not founded on evidence that +all can accept, on what is it founded? Why do men believe their own +religion and accept the evidence of it as irrefragable, while scornfully +rejecting that in favour of other religions? + +The answer, I think, is this. + +If you will take two violins and will tune them together, and if while +someone plays ever so lightly on one you will bend your ear to the +other, you will hear faintly but clearly repeated from its strings the +melody of the first. For they are in harmony. But if they are not, then +there will be no echo, play you never so loudly. + +And so it is in matters of religion. If you are in harmony with any +thought there will come the echo in your heart's strings, and you will +know that it is true. But if you are not in harmony, then no matter how +loudly the evidence be sounded there will be no echo there. All these +ideas on which religions are built are instincts. They are of the heart, +never of the head. Reason affects them not at all. These instincts are +not the same with all. They vary, and so the religions that are based on +them vary. They have nothing to do with reason, and therefore those of +one religion cannot understand another. And they are not fixed; for the +belief in the Unity of God only evolved, after many thousands of years, +quite recently, and the belief in ghosts, universal among earlier people +and now among the half-civilized, lingers with us only as a subject for +amusement. There is no "evidence" in religion; you either believe or you +don't. + + + + +CHAPTER XXVIII. + +THE AFTER DEATH. + + +It is two years and a half ago now that I passed through Westminster +Hall, one of a great multitude. They went in double file, thickly packed +between barriers of rails on either side the hall, and between where +everyone looked there lay--what? A plain oak coffin on a table. + +Within this coffin there lay the body of Mr. Gladstone, he who in his +day had filled the public eye in England more than any other man. His +body lay there in state, and the people came to see. + +Emerging into the street beyond and seeing the ceaseless stream of +people that flowed past, I wondered to myself. These people are +Christians. If you ask them where Mr. Gladstone is now, they will, if +they reply hurriedly, answer, "He is dead and in there"; but if they +pause to reflect they will say, "He is in heaven. His soul is with +God." + +If, then, his soul, if _he_ be with God, what are you come to see? +Shortly there will be a funeral, and what will it be called? The funeral +of Mr. Gladstone. But Mr. Gladstone is in heaven, not here. Surely this +is strange. + + * * * * * + +"If there is anything I can do for you be sure you tell me, for your +husband was my great friend." So wrote the man. And to him came her +reply: "Sometimes when you are near go and see his grave where he sleeps +in that far land, and put a flower upon it for your remembrance and for +mine." + +But if he, too, be in heaven and not there at all? If it be, as the +Burmans say, but the empty shell that lies there? Why should we visit +graves if the soul be indeed separate from the body? If he be far away +in happiness, why go to his grave? To remember but the corruption that +lies beneath? + +Men use words and phrases remembering what they ought to believe. For +very few are sincere and know what really they do believe. You cannot +tell from their professions, only from their unconscious words and their +acts. + +What do these unconscious words, these acts, tell us of the belief +about the soul and body? That they are separable and separate? No, but +that they are inseparable. No one in the West, I am sure--no one +anywhere, I think--has ever been able to conceive of the soul as apart +from the body. We cannot do so. Try, try honestly, and remember your +dead friends. What is it you recall and long for and miss so bitterly? +It was his voice that awoke echoes in you, it was the clasp of his hand +in yours, it was his eyes looking back to you the love you felt for him. +It was his footfall on the stair, his laugh, the knowledge of his +presence. And are not these all of the body? + +Men talk glibly of the soul as apart from the body. What do they mean? +Nothing but words, for the soul without a body is an incomprehensible +thing, certainly to us. + +And it is always the same body, not another. It is the old hand, the +face, that we want. Not the soul, if it could be possible, looking at us +out of other eyes. No; we want him we lost, and not another. It is the +cry of our hearts. + +And therefore, "I believe in the resurrection of the body and the life +everlasting." Have you wondered how that came into the creed? It came +into religion as came all that we believe in, never out of theory but +out of instinct. + +What is your feeling towards the dead? Is it envy that they have reached +everlasting happiness? Is it gladness to reflect that they are no longer +with us? Do we think of them as superior to us? Alas, no. The great and +overpowering sentiment we have for them is pity. The tears come to our +eyes for them, because they are dead. They have left behind them light +and life and gone into the everlasting forgetfulness. "The night hath +come when no man can work." That is our real instinct towards the dead. +"Poor fellow." And you will hear people say, with tardy remembrance of +their creeds, "But for his sake we ought to rejoice, because he is at +peace." + +We ought? But _do_ we? Surely we never do. We are sorry for the dead. +All the compassion that is in us goes out to them, because they are +dead. + +The Catholic Church has prayers for the dead. There was never a Church +yet that knew the hearts of men as that Church of Rome. Prayers for the +dead. Masses for the dead. + +Our Protestant theories forbid such. But tell me, is there a woman who +has lost those she loves to whom such prayers would not come home? How +narrow sometimes are the Reformed Creeds in their refusal to help the +sorrow of their people. + +"In the sure and certain hope of a glorious resurrection." What is to +arise? The disembodied soul? But you say it is already with God. What is +to arise? It is the body. It is more. It is he who is dead--who sleeps; +he whom we have buried there. Whatever our creeds may say, we do not, we +cannot ever understand the soul without the body. Not _a_ body, but +_the_ body. We believe not in the life of a soul previous to the body. +They are born together, and they die together. If they live hereafter it +must be together. For they are one. + +Never be deceived by theories or professions. No one in the West has +ever understood the soul without the body, no one can do so. The +conception is wanting. We play with the theory in words as we do with +the fourth dimension. But who ever realised either? + +But with the Oriental it is different. He believes in the migration of +souls. They pass from body to body. He can realise this--somehow, I know +not--but he can. Those who have read my "Soul of a People" will remember +that they not only believe it but _know_ it. They are sure of it +because it has happened to each one, and he can remember his former +lives. This comes not from Buddhism, because Buddhist theory denies the +existence of soul at all, nor from Brahminism. It is the Oriental's +instinct. He does not, I think, ever realise a soul apart from any body, +but he can and does realise a soul exhibited first in one body then in +another, as a lamp shining through different globes. + +Therefore, when a Christian tells him of the resurrection of the body he +cannot understand. "Which body," he asks, "for I have had so many?" +Neither can he understand a Christian heaven of bodies risen from the +earth. His heaven is immaterial. It is the Great Peace, where life has +passed away. That he can understand. For neither can he conceive a life +of the soul without some body. When perfection is reached and the last +weary body done with, then life, too, is gone--life and all passion, all +love, all happiness, all fear, all the emotions that are life. They are +gone, and there is left only the Great Peace. + +Our heaven grows out of our instincts as his does out of his instincts. +Our dead without their bodies would not be those we love, and hence our +heaven, where we shall recognise each other and love them as we did. I +did not understand heaven when I read books, but out of men have I +learned what I wished to know. Reason alone can tell you nothing, but +sympathy will tell you all things. + +It would be interesting, it is very interesting, to look back into our +past histories and see these instincts grow and wane, to mark how they +have influenced not only our religious theories, but our lives; to trace +in other people like or opposed instincts. The Mahommedans refuse +amputation because they will not appear maimed in the next world. For +they, too, cannot distinguish soul from one body. The Jews had no idea +of soul at all as existing after death, whether with or without a body. +"As a man dies so will he be, all through the ages of eternity." They +learned the idea of immortality from Egypt, but it never took root +because they had no instinctive feeling of soul. Their witches were +foreigners. "You shall not suffer a witch to live." The incantation of +ghosts was utterly forbidden by them as a foreign wickedness. It has so +been forbidden by _all_ religions. Yet there are people who think +religions arise from ideas of ghosts. + +The African negroes have no idea of life after death, as witness the +story of Dr. Livingstone and the negro king about the seed. It is a +very curious history this of the longing for immortality, the belief in +a life beyond the grave. + +But I am not now concerned with the past only with the present. The +history of instincts is never the explanation of them. If we could +unravel clearly all the history of the instincts of all peoples as +regards the after death, we should be no nearer an explanation of why +the instinct exists at all, why it grows or decays, why it takes one +form or another. But we might, as so many do, blind ourselves to the +fact that instincts exist now quite apart from reason, either now or +previously. No reasoning can explain the absolute clinging of the +European peoples to the resurrection of the body. No reasoning can +possibly explain the Burman's remembrance of previous lives. Reasoning +would deny both. Observation and sympathy know that both exist. + +And which is true? No one can tell. + + "Not one returns to tell us of the Road + Which to discover we must travel too." + +For some years now there has been a movement in England to introduce +cremation as a method of disposing of the dead. There can be no doubt of +its sanitary superiority to burial; there can be no doubt that, as far +as reason and argument go, cremation should be preferred to the grave. +There seems to be absolutely no good reason to bring forward in favour +of the latter. And yet cremation makes no way. Men die and they are +buried, and if over their tombs we do not now write "Hic jacet," but "In +memory of," our ideas have suffered no change. + +We cannot bear to burn the bodies of the dead because we cannot +disassociate the body from the soul. The body is to rise, and if we burn +it, what then? What will there be to rise? Man has but one body and one +soul dwelling therein, and if you destroy the body the soul is dead too. + +Only people who believe in the transmigration of souls burn their +dead--the Hindus and, in Burma, the monks of Buddha. They see no +objection to the destruction of the body because the soul is migratory, +and has passed into another. What is left after death is but the "empty +shell." + +Therefore do Hindus and Buddhists cremate, whereas Christians and +Mahommedans bury. Nor does rejection of creed alter this instinct. +Intellectual France boasts of its freedom from religion. But _is_ it +free? Has it outgrown the instincts that are the root of religion? One +certainly it has not yet done, for secularists are buried just as +believers are, usually with the same rites. And even if the funeral be +secular, the body is buried, not burnt. Why do they shrink from +cremation if reason is to be the only guide? The creed is outworn but +the roots of faith are never dead. + + + + +CHAPTER XXIX. + +OPTIMISM AND PESSIMISM. + + +Thus are the heavens of all religions explanations to materialise, as it +were, the vague instincts of men's hearts. The Mahommedan's absolutely +material garden of the houris, the Christian semi-material heaven, the +Buddhist absolutely immaterial Nirvana, are all outcomes of the people's +capability of separating soul from body. These heavens are just as the +dogmas of Godhead, or Law, or Atonement, but the theory to explain the +fact, which is in this case the desire for immortality. And in exactly +the same way as the theories of other matters are unsatisfying, so are +these theories of heaven. The desire for immortality is there, one of +the strongest of all the emotions; but the ideal which the theologian +offers to the believer to fulfil his desire has no attraction. The more +it is defined the less anyone wants it. Heaven we would all go to, but +not _that_ heaven. The instinct is true, but the theory which would +materialise the aim of that desire is false. No heaven that has been +pictured to any believer is desirable. + +It is strange to see in this but another instance of the invincible +pessimism of the human reason. No matter to what it turns itself it is +always the same. + +I have read all the Utopias, from Plato's New Republic to Bellamy's, +from the Anarchist's Paradise to that of the Socialists, and I confess +that I have always risen from them with one strong emotion. And that +was, the relief and delight that never in my time--never, I am sure, in +any time--can any one of them be realised. This world as it exists, as +it has existed, may have its drawbacks. There is crime, and misfortune, +and unhappiness, more than need be. There are tears far more than +enough. But there is sunshine too; and if there be hate there is love, +if there is sorrow there is joy. Here there is life. But in these drab +Utopias of the reason, what is there? That which is the worst of all to +bear--monotony tending towards death. + +No one, I think, can study philosophy, that grey web of the reason, +without being oppressed by its utter pessimism. No matter what the +philosophy be, whether it be professedly a pessimism as Schopenhauer's +or not, there is no difference. It is all dull, weary barrenness, with +none of the light of hope there. Hope and beauty and happiness are +strangers to that twilight country. They could not live there. Like all +that is beautiful and worth having, they require light and shadow, +sunshine and the dark. + +And the lives of philosophers, what do they gain from the reason alone? +Is there anyone who, after reading the life of any philosopher, would +not say, "God help me from such." What did his unaided reason give him? +Pessimism, and pessimism, and again pessimism. No matter who your +philosopher is--Horace or Omar Khayyam, or Carlyle or Nietsche:--where +is the difference? See how Huxley even could not stifle his desire for +immortality that no reason could justify. What has reason to offer me? +Only this, resignation to the worst in the world, and of it knows +nothing. + +To which it would be replied: + +And religion, what has that to offer either here or in the next world? +For in this world they declare--at least Christianity and Buddhism both +declare--that nothing is worth having. It is all vanity and vexation, +fraud and error and wickedness, to be quickly done with. The philosopher +has Utopias of sorts here, but these two religions have no Utopia, no +happiness at all here to offer. All this life is denounced as a +continued misery. + +And you say that neither heaven nor Nirvana appeal to men, that men +shrink from them. If philosophy be pessimism, what then is religion? Do +you consider the Christian theory of the fall of man, the sacrifice of +God to God, the declaration that the vast majority of men are doomed to +everlasting fire, a cheerful theory? + +Do you consider the Buddhist theory that life is itself an evil to be +done with, that no consciousness survives death, but only the effects of +a man's actions, an optimism? + +Philosophies may not be very cheerful, but what are religions? Whatever +charge you may bring against philosophy, it can be ten times repeated of +any religion. Compared with any religious theory, even Schopenhauer's +philosophy is a glaring optimism. + +To which I would answer, No! + +I do not agree, because what you call religion I call only a reasoning +about religion. The dogmas and creeds are not religion. They are +summaries of the reasons that men give to explain those facts of life +which are religion, just as philosophies are summaries of the theories +men make to explain other facts of life. Both creeds and philosophies +come from the reason. They are speculations, not facts. They are +pessimistic twins of the brain. Religion is a different matter. It is a +series of facts. What facts these are I have tried to shew chapter by +chapter, and they are summarised in Chapter XXX., at the end. I will not +anticipate it. What I am concerned with is whether religion is +pessimistic or not. Never mind the dogmas and creeds; come to facts. +When you read books written by men who are really religious, what is +their tone? You may never agree with what is urged in them, but can you +assert that they are pessimistic? It seems to me, on the contrary, that +they are the reverse. + +And when you know people who are religious--not fanatics, but those men +and women of sober minds who take their faith honestly and sincerely as +a part of life, but not the whole--are they pessimistic? I am not +speaking of any religion in particular, but of all religions. Can you +see religious people, and live with them and hear them talk, and watch +their lives, and not recognise that religion is to them a strength, a +comfort, and resource against the evils of life? Never mind what the +creeds say; watch what the believers _do_. Is life to them a sorry march +to be made with downcast eyes of thought, to be trod with weary steps, +to be regarded with contempt? The men who act thus are philosophers, not +religious people. + +To those who are really religious, life is beautiful. It is a triumphal +march made to music that fills their ears, that brightens their eyes, +that lightens their steps, now quicker, now slower, now sad, now joyous, +always beautiful. Who are the happy men and women in this world? Let no +one ever doubt--no one who has observed the world will ever doubt; they +are the people who have religion. No matter what the religion is, no +matter what the theory or dogma or creed, no matter the colour or +climate, there is no difference. If you doubt, go and see. Never sit in +your closet and study creeds and declare "No man can be happy who +believes such," but go and see whether they are happy. Go to all the +peoples of the world, and having put aside your prejudices, having tuned +your heart-strings to theirs, listen and you will know. Watch and you +will see. What is the keynote of the life of him who truly believes? Is +it disgust, weariness, pessimism? Is it not courage and a strange +triumph that marks his way in life? And who are those who go through +life sadly, who find it terrible in its monotony, who have lost all +savour for beauty, whom the sunlight cannot gladden, who neither love +nor hate, neither fear nor rejoice, neither laugh nor cry? I will tell +you who they are. There are two kinds, who think they are different, but +are the same. + +First, there are those who call themselves philosophers, men who have +abandoned all religion and accepted "barren reason." For reason cannot +make you love or hate, or laugh or weep. There is no beauty there, no +light and shadow, no colour, only the greyness of unliving outline. + +And there are those who mistake what religion is. They think it consists +of creeds. They do not know it consists of emotions. And so they take +their creeds to their hearts, and see what they make of them! Or they, +abandoning their creeds, search all through the world to find new +creeds. They speculate on Nirvana, on Brahm, on the doctrine of +Averroes. They are for ever digging out some abstruse problem from the +sacred books of the world to make themselves miserable over. + +They, too, are the victims of a barren reason. + +But religion is not reason; it is fact. It is beyond and before all +reason. Religion is not what you say, but what you feel; not what you +think, but what you know. Religions are the great optimisms. Each is to +its believers "the light of the world." + +I cannot think how this has not been evident long ago to everyone. Have +men no eyes, no ears, no understanding? Yes, perhaps they have all these +things. But what they have not got is sympathy, and without this of what +use are the rest? For what men see and hear in any matter are the +things they are in sympathy with. If your heart is out of tune, there is +never any echo of the melody that is about you. + +To this chapter on optimism and pessimism I would add a small +postscript. I would fain have made it a chapter or many chapters, but I +have not the room. It is the strong connection between religion and +optimism as evinced in a high birth rate, between irreligion and +pessimism as shown in a falling off in the population. For that is the +great complaint in France to-day. It is noticeable especially amongst +the cultured classes, who are absolutely irreligious, and who are +absolutely pessimistic: the birth rate is falling so rapidly that France +ceases to increase. Only in Normandy, where religion yet retains power, +does the birth rate keep up. This is not a solitary instance. All +history repeats it. Do you remember Matthew Arnold's lines: + + "On that hard Pagan world disgust and secret loathing fell, + Deep weariness, and sated lust made human life a hell. + In his cool hall with haggard eyes the Roman noble lay; + He drove abroad in furious guise along the Appian way. + * * * * * * * + No easier nor no quicker passed the impracticable hours." + +The Roman Empire fell because there were no more Romans left. They had +died out and left no children to succeed them. Where is the highest +birth rate to-day in Europe? It is in "priest-ridden" Russia, where the +people are without doubt more deeply imbued with their faith than any +other people of the West now. In Burma, where religion has such a hold +on the people as the world has never known, the birth rate is very high +indeed. The Turks in the heyday of their religious enthusiasm increased +very rapidly, but now and for long they seem to be stationary, and in +the Boers we see again a high birth rate and very strong religious +convictions. Our birth rate, on the contrary, is falling with the +growing irreligion in certain classes. Not that I wish for a moment to +infer that religious feeling causes more children to be born. I have no +belief whatever in the usual theories that the fall in birth rates is +due to preventive measures, which religion disallows, or to debauchery, +which religion controls. The supporters of such a theory admit that they +cannot prove it. And there is very much against such an idea. When +religion in the early ages of Christianity discouraged marriage and did +all in its power to encourage celibacy, it never succeeded in the end. +Men and women might go into convents for certain reasons--not, I think, +mainly religious--the birth of children from those outside did not +alter. And during the priestly rule in Paraguay population disappeared +so rapidly the monks were alarmed, and took stringent and strange +methods to stop the decay, but in vain--the people had lost heart. + +Why are the Maories and many other people disappearing? From disease? +That is not a reason. It is a fact that with a virile people a plague or +famine is followed by an increase in the birth rate. This is proved in +India. The Maories, too, have lost heart. They may have acquired +Christianity, but that is no help. No; the adoption of a religion does +not affect the question. + +But still they go together, and the answer seems to be here: A nation +that is virile, that is full of vitality, finds an outlet for that +vitality in children, an expression of it in religion. A virile people +is optimistic always. Pessimism, whether in nations or individuals, +comes from a deficiency of nerve strength. But why peoples lose their +vitality no one yet knows. There is a tribe on the Shan frontier of +Burma that twenty years ago was a people of active hunters, always gun +or bow in hand, scouring the forests for game, fearing nothing. And now +they have lost their energy. Their nerve is gone. They are listless and +depressed. For a gun they substitute a hoe and do a little feeble +gardening. Their children are few, and shortly the tribe will be dead. + +No one knows why. + +Religion, deep and true, and strong faith is possible only to strong +natures; it is the outcome of strong feeling. It is a companion always +to that virility that is optimism, that does not fear the future; it +knows not what may come, but faces the future with confidence. It takes +each day as it comes. Such are the nations that replenish the earth. The +world is the heritage of the godly. The Old Testament is full of that +truth, and it is no less true now than then. But one does not proceed +from the other. They both come from that fount whence springs the life +of the world. + + + + +CHAPTER XXX. + +WAS IT REASON? + + +Reason and religion have but little in common. They come from different +sources, they pursue different ways. They are never related in this +order as cause and effect. No one was ever reasoned into a religion, no +one was ever reasoned out of his religion. Faith exists or does not +exist in man without any reference to his reason. Reason may follow +faith, does follow faith; never does faith follow reason. + +Is it indeed always so? Then how about the boy told of in the earlier +chapters? He was born into a religion, he was educated in it, and he +rejected it. Why? He himself tells why he did so, because his reason +drove him away from it. His reason, looking at the world as he found it, +could not accept the way of life inculcated by his faith. He found it +impossible, unworkable, and therefore not beautiful. His reason told him +it was impracticable, not in accordance with facts, and therefore he +would have none of it. + +His reason, too, following Darwin, told him that the earlier part of the +Old Testament could not be correct. Man has risen, not fallen; he had +his origin not six thousand years ago, but perhaps sixty thousand, +perhaps much more. In many ways his reason fought with his religion, and +it prevailed. Was no one ever reasoned out of a faith? Surely this boy +was, surely many boys and men equally with him have so been deprived by +reason of their faiths. Reason is the enemy of faith. Is not this so? + +When that boy was fighting his battle long ago I am sure he thought so. +Certainly he said so to himself. Was he insincere or mistaken? Surely he +should know best of what was going on in his mind. He tells how reason +drove him from his faith. Was he not right? + +I think that he had not then learned to look at the roots of things. If +there is one truth which grows upon us in life as we go on, as we watch +men and what they say and do, as we watch ourselves and what we say or +do, it is this, that men do not do things nor feel things because they +think them, but the reverse. Men think things because they want to do +them; their reason follows their instincts. No man seeks to disprove +what he likes and feels to be good, no man seeks to prove what he +instinctively dislikes and rejects. You cannot argue yourself into a +liking or a distaste. If, then, you find a man seeking reasons to +disprove his faith, it is because his faith irks him, because he would +fain shake it off and be done with it. If he were happy in it and it +suited him, reasons disproving any part of it would pass by him +harmlessly. You cannot shake a man's conviction of what he _feels_ to be +useful and beautiful. + +To the man, therefore, looking back it seems that all the boy's +thoughts, his arguments, his reasoning, arise from this, that his +religion did not suit. It galled him somewhere, perhaps in many places; +it was a burden, and instead of being beautiful it was the reverse. So +to rid himself of what he could not abide he sought refuge in his +reason. And his reason going, as reason has always done, to the theories +of faith instead of to the facts, he found that the creeds and beliefs +had no foundation in fact, were but formulae thrown upon an ignorant +world, and should be rejected. So he left them. But it was never his +reason that made him do so; reason came in but as the judge, openly +justifying what had happened silently and unnoticed in his heart. + +What was it, then, that drove the boy from his faith? What were his +instincts that remained unfulfilled, roused against his religion till +they drove him to find reasons for leaving it? What was it that galled +him till he revolted? There were, I think, mainly two things--the rise +of an intense revolt to the continual exercise of authority, and the +greater effect of the code of Christ upon him. + +When a boy is frequently ill, when his constitution is delicate and +easily upset, it is necessary that he should be very careful what he +does, how he exposes himself to damp or cold, how he over-exerts himself +at work or play. But for a boy to exercise this care is very difficult. +He feels fairly well, and the other boys are going skating or boating, +why should he not do so? The day is not very cold, and the other boys do +not wear comforters; they laugh at him if he does so. He will not admit +that he cannot do what other boys can do. So he has to be looked after +and guarded, and cared for and watched, and made to do things he +dislikes. If, too, the supervision becomes unnecessarily close, if there +is a tendency to interfere not only where he is wrong and wants +correction, but in many details where it is not required, is it not +natural? If in time it so comes, or the boy thinks it so comes, that he +cannot move hand or foot, cannot go in or out, cannot think or read, or +even rest, without perpetual correction, is it so very unnatural? +Mistake? Who shall say where the mistake lay? Who shall say if there was +any mistake at all, unless great affection be a mistake? Maybe it was +the inevitable result of circumstances. But still there it was. And +though a small boy may accept such rule without question, yet as he +grows up it irks him more and more, until at last it may become a daily +and hourly irritation growing steadily more unbearable, more +exasperating, month by month. + +There is, too, in many people--women, I think, mostly, and with women +chiefly in reverse proportion to their knowledge--a tendency to give +advice. Few are without the desire, maybe a kindly desire in its +inception, to advise others. The world at large does not take to it +kindly, so the advice has to be bottled up, to be expended in its +fulness where it can. This boy got it all. He received advice from +innumerable people, enough to have furnished a universe. Most of it he +felt to be worthless, almost all of it he was sure was impertinence. Yet +he could not resent it, because he was under authority. + +And now perhaps you may see how there grew up slowly in him an utter +loathing of authority, a hatred to being checked and supervised, and +advised and lectured for ever. Sometimes he would revolt and say, "Can't +you leave me alone?" and this was insubordination. He would have given +all he could, everything, for liberty. "I would sooner," he said to +himself, "catch cold and die than be worried daily not to forget my +comforter. I would sooner grow up a fool and earn my living by breaking +stones in the road than be supervised into my lessons like this, that I +may be learned. But when I am grown up it must cease. It SHALL cease. +Then I shall be free to go my own way, and do wrong and suffer for it." + +And now imagine a boy in a state of mind like this told that he would +_never_ be free. A boy's authorities might pass, school and home might +be left behind, but God would remain. Masters can be avoided and +deceived, God cannot be deceived. His eye is always on you. He sees +everything you do. His hand is always guiding and directing and checking +you. It seems to him that the exasperation was never to end, was to last +even into the next life, if this be true. Then you may understand how +his instincts drove his reason to find good and sufficient cause for +rejecting this God and for seeking freedom. "Give me freedom," he cried, +"freedom even to do wrong and suffer for it. I will not complain. Only +let me alone. Do not interfere. I will not have a God who interferes." +His reason helped him and showed him the emptiness of the creeds, and he +went on his way without. + +Then there was the Sermon on the Mount. To most boys this does not +appeal at all. They hear it read. It is to them part of "religion"--that +is, for consumption on Sunday. It is not of any consequence, only words. +They do not think twice of it. But with this boy it was different. The +Sermon on the Mount did appeal to him. He thought it very beautiful as a +little boy. It seemed worth remembering. He did remember it. It seemed +worth acting up to as much as possible. + +But as he grew older and learned life as it is, he became able to see +that it was not applicable at all to life, that life was much rougher +and harder than he supposed, and required very different rules. He +slowly grew disillusioned. And with the disillusion came bitterness. If +you have never believed in any certain thing, never taken it to +yourself, you can go on theoretically admiring it, and, if that becomes +impossible, you can eventually let it go without trouble. But if you +have believed, if you have strongly believed and desired to accept, when +you find that your belief and acceptance have been misplaced, there +comes a revulsion. If it cannot be all, it must be none. Love turns to +hate, never to indifference. Belief changes to absolute rejection, never +to toleration. + +This code of Christ could not be absolutely followed in daily life, +therefore it was absolutely untrue. And being untrue he could not bear +to hear it preached every Sunday as a teaching from on High. He shrank +from it unconsciously as from a theory he had loved and which had +deceived him: the love remained, the confidence was gone. He was +betrayed. But he never reasoned about it till he had rejected it. Then +he sought to justify by reason what he had already accomplished in fact. + +So do men think things, because they have done or wish to do them; never +the reverse. + + * * * * * + +It seems trivial after the above to recall a minor point wherein +instinct has had much to say. + +I can remember as a boy how I disliked to hear the church bells ringing +for service. I hated them. They made me shudder. And I used to think to +myself that I must be naturally wicked and irreligious to be so +affected. "They ring for God's service and you shudder. You must be +indeed the wicked boy they say." So I thought many a time. + +And now I know that I disliked the bells then, as I dislike them now, +because of all sounds that of bells is to me the harshest and noisiest. +I dislike not only church bells, but all bells. I have no prejudice +against dinner, yet I would willingly wait in some houses half an hour, +or even have it half-cold if it could be announced without a bell. And +church bells! Very few are in tune, none are sweet toned, all are rung +far louder and faster than they should be, so that their notes, which +might be bearable, become a wrangling abomination. + +But I love the monastery gongs in Burma because they are delicately +tuned, and they are rung softly and with such proper intervals between +each note that there is no jar, none of that hideous conflict of the +dying vibrations with the new note that is maddening to the brain. + +It is trivial, maybe, but it is real. And out of such trivialities is +life made. Out of such are our recollections built. I shall never +remember the call to Christian prayer without a shudder of dislike, a +putting of my fingers in my ears. I shall never recall the Buddhist +gongs ringing down the evening air across the misty river without there +rising within me some of that beauty, that gentleness and harmony, to +which they seem such a perfect echo. + + + + +CHAPTER XXXI. + +WHAT RELIGION IS. + + +What, then, is religion? Do any of the definitions given at the +beginning explain what it really is? Is it a theory of the universe, is +it morality, is it future rewards and punishments? It may be all or none +of these things. Is it creeds, dogmas, speculations, or theories of any +kind? It is none of these things. + +Religion is the recognition and cultivation of our highest emotions, of +our more beautiful instincts, of all that we know is best in us. + +What these emotions may be varies in each people according to their +natures, their circumstances, their stage of civilisation. In the Latins +some emotions predominate, in the Teutons others, in the Hindus yet +others. Each race of men has its own garden wherein grow flowers that +are not found elsewhere, and of these they make their faiths. + +Some of these emotions I have tried to show in this book. For the Latins +they are the emotions of fatherhood, of prayer, and confession, of +sacrifice and atonement, of motherhood, of art and beauty, of obedience, +of rule, of mercy, of forgiveness, of the resurrection of the body, of +prayer for the dead, of strong self-denial and asceticism, of many +others; but those, I think, are the chief. + +For the Protestant, the more rigid Protestant, it is the cultivation of +the emotions of force, grandeur, prayer, justice, conduct, punishment of +evil, austerity, and also many others. + +With the Burman Buddhist it is the recognition and cultivation of the +beauties of freedom, peace, calm, rigid self-denial, charity in thought +and deed to all the world, pity to animals, the existence of the soul +before and after death, with no reference to any particular body. The +Mahommedan has for one of his principal emotions courage in battle, and +the Hindu cleanliness of body and purity of race. + +These things are religions. Out of his strongest feelings has man built +up his faiths. + +And the creeds are but the theories of the keener intellects of the race +to explain, and codify, and organise the cultivation of these feelings. + +Creeds are not religions, nor are religions proved by miracle or by +prophecy, by evidence, or any reasoning of any kind. The instincts are +innate or do not exist at all. Like all emotions and feelings, they +cannot be created or destroyed by reason. + +Why does a man fall in love? No one knows. And if he fall in love, can +you cure him of it by argument? Would it be any use to say to him? "The +girl you love is not beautiful, is not clever; she would be of no use to +you, she does not return your love at all. You cannot really love her." +He would only laugh and say, "All that may be true, and yet the fact +remains unaltered. She is the woman I love. My reason may prevent my +marrying her, it cannot prevent my love. And you may be right that this +other woman has all the virtues, but I have no love for her." So it is +with all the emotions. You either have them or have not. You do not +reason about them. Reason is of things we doubt, not of things we know. +Therefore are the beliefs of one religion incomprehensible to the +believers in another. Nothing is so difficult to understand as an +emotion you have not felt. What is perfect beauty to one man is stark +ugliness to another. So it is with religion. To understand well the +faith you must have in you all the chords that these faiths draw music +from, and how many have that? + +Religion is of the heart, not of the reason. Theologians of all creeds +warn the believer against reason as a snare of the devil. A freethinker +must be an Atheist. History is one long conflict between religion and +science. But why is this, if they have no concern one with another? Why +fight, why not exist together? + +Because all men, freethinkers as well as theologians, have failed to see +what religion really consists in. They think it is in the theories of +creation, of God, of salvation, of heaven and hell. They look one and +all to the creeds and dogmas as religion. + +And none of these creeds and dogmas will, as a whole, stand criticism. +They fall before the thinker into irretrievable ruin, and therefore the +freethinker imagines he has destroyed religion. But religion lives on, +and he wonders why. He puts it down to the blindness of men. The +theologian rejoices because the continued life of religion seems to him +the vindication of the creeds. Yet are they both wrong. Men are not +fools, nor does religion live by the truth of its creeds. The whole +initial idea has been mistaken. The creeds are but theories to explain +religion. Scientific men have invented the ether and theories connected +with it to explain heat and light and electricity. These theories are +good now, and are universally accepted, but they are not proved. +Supposing a hundred years hence wider perception and new facts should +throw great doubts on whether ether exists at all as supposed, or on the +present theories of heat and electricity? Suppose, too, that the old +school scientists are stubborn and refuse to meet these new thoughts? +What will the sensible man do? Will he say, "This theory of ether waves +is untenable, exploded, foolish, and therefore I will believe it no +longer; and as the theory is wrong, so too the phenomena of the theory +are all imaginations. There are no such things as heat and light, and I +will not warm myself in the sun." Would that be sense? I think reason +would reply, "I am sorry the old theories are gone. They were true while +they lasted. But now they are dead, and we have not found new ones. Yet +if the theory be dead, the facts are still there. The sun still shines, +and we have heat and light. These things are true. No man shall frighten +me and say, 'If you will not believe our science you shall not warm +yourself at our sun. You shall not light your fire or your lamp unless +you admit ether waves.' Perhaps a new theory may arise. But anyhow I +have the sun yet, and my lamp is not broken. They are facts still." + +That is exactly the present position as regards many faiths. The creeds +are theories to explain facts. The theories are very old and we have +grown out of them. The theologians will not surrender them, clinging to +them in the imagination that they really are religion, and that without +them religion will fall, conjuring with words to try and support them. + +What should reason say in the face of this? "I do not believe in your +theories of God and the future state, and the resurrection of the body, +and so on, and therefore I won't have anything to do with any religion." +Would that be reason? Yes, if you believe the creeds are religion; no, +if you believe that religion lies far deeper than creeds. Or to use +another simile: the creeds are the grammar of religion, they are to +religion what grammar is to speech. Words are the expression of our +wants; grammar is the theory formed afterwards. Speech never proceeded +from grammar, but the reverse. As speech progresses and changes from +unknown causes, grammar must follow. But if not? If grammarians are +hide-bound, are we to refuse to talk? In this latter case, if the reason +were mine, I think reason would say, "Bother these theologians, their +dogmas and creeds, their theories and grammars, what do they matter? The +instinct of prayer remains, of confession, of sacrifice. They appeal to +me still. They fill my heart with beauty. Shall I refuse to accept the +glories of life, shall I refuse to cultivate my soul because some people +who claim authority have theories about these things with which I don't +agree? Not all the creeds nor theologians in the world shall prevent my +making the best of myself. The garden of the soul is no close preserve +of theirs. + +"Religion is the satisfaction of some of the wants of the souls of men. +It is a cult of some of the emotions, never of all. For the emotions are +so varied, so contradictory, that all cannot live together. I do not +quite know why one people includes one emotion in religion and another +rejects it out of religion, while still maintaining its beauty and +truth. But no religion includes more than one side of life. There are +others. I, too, will cultivate these emotions which I need. But this I +will not forget, that life has many sides. Life has many emotions, and +all are good, though all may not come into religion. There is ambition, +there is love of gaiety, of humour, of laughter, there is courage and +pride, the glory of success. To live life whole none must be neglected. +They are planted in our hearts for some good purpose. I will not weed +them out. My garden shall grow all the flowers it can, and reason shall +be the gardener to see that none grow rank and choke the others. + +"Whatever things are beautiful, that make the heart to beat and the eye +grow dim, whatever I know to be good, that shall I have. 'For that which +toucheth the heart is beautiful to the eye.'" + + + + +CHAPTER XXXII. + +THE USE OF RELIGION. + + +But granted, people may say, that religion is what you say, a cult of +the emotions, of what use is it? Why should these emotions be cultivated +at all? You say that they are beautiful because they are true, and that +they are true because they are of use. Of what use are they? Some can be +explained perhaps, but not most--not the instinct of God, for instance, +nor of Law, nor the instinct of prayer. It seems to me that unless you +can prove that they are true, essentially true conceptions, they cannot +be beautiful. And this you say you cannot prove. "No one can prove God," +you say, and prayer, surely that is against reason, and demonstrably a +weakness. Certainly not a good emotion to cultivate. "You say it is +beautiful. How can you prove that?" + + * * * * * + +Travelling on the Continent among those places where there are little +colonies of English people who for one reason or another have left their +own country, there crops up occasionally a man of peculiar kind, hardly +ever to be met elsewhere. He is a man who has left England, we will +suppose, for economy's sake, who has settled abroad, perhaps in one +place, perhaps roaming from place to place, who has no work, no interest +in life. He has drifted away from the current of our national life, he +has entered no other, but he exists, he would say, as a student of man +and a philosopher on motives. + +One such, meeting me one day, turned his conversation upon wars and upon +patriotism. The former horrified him, the latter revolted him. +"Patriotism," he said, "can you defend such a feeling? Have you any +reasoning to support it? Patriotism is a narrowness, a blindness. It is +little better than a baseness founded on ignorance. How can it be +defended? You say it is beautiful. Prove to me that it is so. I deny +it." + +To whom, and to men like this, it seems that there is only one answer to +be made. + +"My friend, the love of your own people and your own country, if it ever +existed within you, is long dead or you would never ask such a question. +I cannot reason with you on the subject, because it would be like +reasoning with a blind man on the beauty of being able to see. He who +sees knows; but if a man be blind, how can it be explained to him? +Neither I nor my fellows can talk to you about patriotism, because it is +a feeling we have, but of which you are ignorant. It is not a question +of reason. But if you would know whether patriotism be beautiful or the +ignorant foolishness you suppose, I can show you the road to learn. + +"Go back to that England you have forgotten, and in your forgetfulness +begun to despise. Go back there on the eve of a great victory, or a +great deliverance, such a day as that on which Ladysmith was relieved. +And go not into the streets if the loud rejoicings hurt your philosophic +ear, but go into the homes of the people. Go to the rich, to the middle +class, to the artisan, to the labourer, and mark their glowing faces, +their glad eyes, the look of glory, of thanksgiving that our people have +been rescued, that our flag has escaped a disaster. Look at the faces of +these men and women and children, whose hearts are full at the news. And +then ask them, 'Is patriotism a mean and debasing passion?' They know. +Or do better even than this, go yourself to Africa, to India, to the +thousand league frontiers where men die daily for their flag, for their +own honour, and that of their country. Take rifle yourself and beat +back those who would destroy our peace, take up your pen and give some +of your life to the people whom we rule. You will find it a better life, +perhaps, than at a foreign spa. Give yourself freely for your country +and those your country gives in charge to you. I think you will learn, +maybe, what patriotism means. But argument, reason? I think you +exaggerate the power of reason. It can argue only from facts. It is +necessary to know the facts first. And you are ignorant of your facts, +because you have never felt them. Only those who feel them know. Go and +give your life, and before it be gone you will have learnt what neither +I nor any man who ever lived can _tell_ you. You will have learnt the +_realities_ of life. + +"For you and those like you mistake the power of reason, you have +forgotten its limitations. Reason is but the power of arranging facts, +it cannot provide them. Your eyes will give you the facts they can see, +your ears what they can hear, your sympathies will give you the +realities of men's lives. If you have no emotions, no sympathies, how +can you get on? You are like mariners afloat upon the sea vainly +waggling your rudders and boasting that you are at the mercy of no +erratic winds, while the ships pass you under full sail. Where will +reason alone take you? It cannot take you anywhere. A rudder is only +useful to a ship that has motive power. What motive power have you? So +you float and work your rudders and turn round and round, and are very +bitter. Why are all philosophers so bitter, so hard to bear with, so +useless? Because you are conscious unconsciously of your futility, that +the world passes you by and laughs. + +"The functions of reason are very narrow. You forget them. You exalt +reason into the whole of life, committing the mistake for which you rail +on others. Unbridled emotion is, as you say, terrible. So is unbridled +reason. Where has reason alone ever led anyone save into the dreariest, +driest pessimism? Was a philosopher ever a happy man? Even your Utopias, +from Plato's to Bellamy's, who would desire them? Hell would be a +pleasant relaxation after any of them. The functions of the senses, of +which sympathy is the greatest, are to give you facts, the function of +reason is to arrange them. The emotions drive man forward, reason +directs and controls them. That is all. + +"You say religions are founded on errors, on what are your reasonings +founded? They are founded on _nothings_." + +Of what use is patriotism? Is it beautiful or no? Of what use is +religion? Is it beautiful or no? Prove to me that it is necessary or +beautiful. Show me why it should be so. + +Is it not the same answer in each case? It is so easy to point out the +evils of exaggeration in each. Anyone can do it. But the mean. Prove to +me the use and beauty of the mean. + +The answer is always the same. If you have religion in you, such a +question would never occur to you, for you would feel its use, you would +_know_ its beauty. And if you have not, who shall prove it to you? Who +shall provide you with the facts on which to reason, who shall open your +eyes? But if anyone doubts that religion is useful and is beautiful to +its believers, go and watch them. + +It matters not where you go, East or West, it is always the same. In +England, or France, or Russia, among the Hindus, the Chinese, the +Japanese, the Parsees. It makes no matter if you will but look aright. +For you must know how to look and where. You must learn what to read. It +is never books I would ask you to read, never creeds, never theologies, +never reasons, nor arguments. You will not find what you search in +libraries nor yet in places of worship, in ceremonies, in temples, +great and beautiful as they may be. Not in even their inmost recesses is +the secret hid, the secret of all religions. I would have you listen to +no preachers, to no theologians. They are the last to know. But I would +have you go to the temple of the heart of man and read what is written +there, written not in words, but in the inarticulate emotions of the +heart. I would have you go and kneel beside the Mahommedan as he prays +at the sunset hour, and put your heart to his and wait for the echo that +will surely come. Yes, surely, if you be as a man who would learn, who +can learn. I would have you go to the hillman smearing the stone with +butter that his god may be pleased, to the woman crying to the forest +god for her sick child, to the boy before his monks learning to be good. +No matter where you go, no matter what the faith is called, if you have +the hearing ear, if your heart is in unison with the heart of the world, +you will hear always the same song. Far down below the noises of the +warring creeds, the clash of words and forms, the differences of +peoples, of climes, of civilisations, of ideals, far down below all this +lies that which you would hear. I know not what you would call it. Maybe +it is the Voice of God telling us for ever the secret of the world, but +in unknown tongue. For me it is like the unceasing surge of a shoreless +sea answering to the night, a melody beyond words. + +The creeds and faiths are the words that men have set to that melody; +they are the interpretations of that wordless song. Each is true to him +whom it suits. Every nation has translated it into his own tongue. But +never forget that those are only your own interpretations. Whatever your +faith may be, you have no monopoly of religion. I confess that to me +there is nothing so repellent as the hate of faith for faith. To hear +their professors malign and abuse each other, as if each had the +monopoly of truth, is terrible. It is as a strife in families where +brother is killing brother, and the younger trying to disinherit the +elder. I doubt if in all this warfare they can listen for the voice that +is for ever telling the secret of the world. Whence came all the faiths +but from that inexplicable feeling of the heart, that surge and swell +arising we know not whence? If you would malign another's faith remember +your own. If you cannot understand his belief stop and consider. Can you +understand your own? Do you know whence came these emotions that have +risen and made your faith? + +The faiths are all brothers, all born of the same mystery. There are +older and younger, stronger and weaker, some babble in strange tongues +maybe, different from your finer speech. But what of that? Are they the +less children of the Great Father for that? Surely if there be the +unforgivable offence, the sin against the Holy Ghost, it is this, to +deny the truth that lies in all the faiths. + + * * * * * + +Religion is the music of the infinite echoed from the hearts of men. + + +THE END. + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Hearts of Men, by H. Fielding + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE HEARTS OF MEN *** + +***** This file should be named 36772.txt or 36772.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/3/6/7/7/36772/ + +Produced by Barbara Tozier, Bill Tozier, Mary Meehan and +the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at +http://www.pgdp.net + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. diff --git a/36772.zip b/36772.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..85e1f1c --- /dev/null +++ b/36772.zip diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..59429c0 --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #36772 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/36772) |
