New-York tribune., 1873-03-04

minds have been exercised by difficulties that they were
unable to overcome. He handles the argument WIN
equal vgor and charity. With no appeal TO popular
preudce he TO the light OF reason ana he iorce
of religious sentiment for the support OF the views
which he sets forth with grave and impressive eio-
quence.
The continuation of Mr.. Herbert Spencer's
Study OF Sociology" in Younanss Popular science
Monthly for March, is paper OF remarkable interest
the comparative functions OF the social ana
selfsh principles in the human constitution with more
iustness of discrimination and cearness OF statement
than are often met with the discussion OF the subject
by English ethical writer's Mr. Spencer maintains tnat
the Christian world. at the present day. mas Id iac TWO
distinct religions. Primitive humanity has but one the
humanity of the remote future will have but one while
we who live midway the OF civilization have TO
believe in both These two religions are adapted to two
conflicting sets OF social requirements The one set Is
supreme the begnning the other set VIII be supreme
at the end and compromise has to be maintained DO
tween them during the progress from the beginning 10
the end On the hand there the necessity OF social
sefpreservation in face OF external enemies on the
other thero is the necessity Of mutual cooperation,
which can exist only as there ia mutual trust
and fair dealing In the adjustment Of these
two antagonisc necessities, two antagonlsuc codes
OF duty grow up, and hence arse the TWO
coGxisting religions, the religion Of anlty ana
the religion OF enmiy Men do not pay the same noml-
nal homage 10 the religion OF enmty that they do TO the
religion Of amity. The latter occupies the place OF
honor But the real homage Is paid in large measure
10 the religion OF enmty The religion Of enmy nearly
all men actually believe The religion tof amity most OF
them merely believe they believe. In order to maintain
these antagonist religions which in our transitional state
are both requisite we have adopted two different cults
from two different races. From the Jewish New Testa-
ment we take religion OF amity The Greek and
Latin eplcs serve the gospels for our religion OF
enmty. In the education Of youth We devote small
portion OF time the and large portion OF time 10
the other. As though TO make the compromise more
complete the two cults carried on in the same places
by the same teachers At the public schools, the same
men are priests Of both religions The nobility OF self
sacrifice is made conspicuous every seventh day In
Scripture lessons and sermons While during the other
six days the nobility OF sacrificing others Is set forth
with glowing rhetoric. The antagonism between these
different social tendencies between antagonist physi
cal forces produces not medium state, but certain
rhythm between opposite states The one tendency is not
continuously counerbaanced by the other but now the
one greatly predomnates, and then again by reaction
comes a predomnance OF the other The religion OF un
qualified altrulsm correcting by an opposite excess the
religion OF unqualified egoism exhibits this general law
on large scale. II sets the doctrine OF entire self
sacrifice against the doctrine OF entire sehshness In
place OF the primitive creed not requiring you 10 love
your fellow man ALL but insisting only that certain
OF Your fellOwmen you shall hate even unto the DEATH
there creed directing that you shall no case do
anything prompted by hate OF your felow-inan'
but shall love him as yourself. Nineteen centuries
have since wrought some compromise between
these opposite creeds. But this compromise IL
empirical, not rational mainly indeed unconscious
1t not yet distinctly recognized that each OF these
truths stands for important reality. Instead OF
scientific coordination Of the two, there is only partial
rectfying OF way By excesses the other
way Oneclass OF persons lead purely egoistic lives
cla
produce III health and premature death Even In the
acts Of the individual we do not ma an haDtual
balance between the two tendencies There Is now an
effort to inhct great evil certain offender and then
an excessive sacrifice behalf Of one often quite I'M
worthy oft That atrusm is right but that egoism is
also right, and that there is required continual
compromise between them is conclusion that few
have formulated into artlcuate principle But the
untenabeuess Of the doctrine OF selfsachee in its ex-
teme form is conspicuous. IL is virtually admitted by
all men in their prevailing thoughts and daily actions
Work. enterprise, invention, improvement proceed from
the fact that every to satisfy his own
wants satisfy the wants Of others In TRUTH no.
body ever dreams of acting out the atruisc theory in
all the relations OF life. Tue who puts literal con-
structOn the preceps OF the Gospel carries on his
business egoisc principles just as much as his neigh
bos. Though he nOminay holds that he Is TO take no
thought for the morrow, his thought for the morrow be-
trays as distinct an egosm as that Of men
in general. lie is conscious that TO take as
much thought for the OF others he does for
his own would be run0us 10 himself and eventually mis-
chieyous to ALL Still while believes that an
trely alruisc life possible the tact assertion Is con
tnued that conduct ought 10 DO entirely arustic. 1t
does not seem be suspected that pure atruism is
tuaIy wrong Men think they believe what in their
innermost consciousness they know that they do be-
Ieye They profess 10 hold that entire selfsacrhce
must be right though dimy conscious that II would be
fatal But the religion Of enmity In its unqualified form
is less ndefensibe than the religion OF amity in
it's unqualified form. Each OF them proves itself TO be
one those extremes out of which there
sane mean by union with its opposite. The two re-
gons respectively for the claims Of self and the
claims of Others The religion holds IL glorious TO
resist aggression, and while rskng death In doing this,
to nic death upon others The other religion teaches
that the glory In not resisting aggression and IN yield
TO others willie asserting the claims OF self But
truly civilized humanity will render the glory just
impossible of achievement as the other. diminishing
egosfn and an Increasing arusm would make each
these opposite kinds Of honor unattainable. The
two extremes must cancel each other leaving
moral code and standard OF honor free
from irrational excesses Along with latent self
assertion Will 20 readiness TO yield to others,
kept in constant check by the refusal Of others TO
cept more than their due "Quite enough has said
TO show that there must be compromise between the
opposite standards OF conduct which the religions OF
amty aud enmity respectively insist before there
be scientific conceptions OF social phenomena. Even
passing Affairs, such the proceedings OF phanthropc
bodies tho dealings OF nation with nation, there
cannot be rational judgments without balance be-
tween the selfasserting emotions and the emotions
which put "a limit TO seasserton with an
adjustment the corresponding beliefs. still less
can there be rational judgments OF past social evo
luton OF social evolution the future II the oppos-
ing actions which these opposing creeds sanction are not
both continuously recognized essential No mere I'M
and OF the purely altruistc one, Will suffice. The