himself as solemnly appealed to, as seems to be the case in France, where the formula is simply je le jure, and also among the Quakers, whose solemn yea or nay is regarded as a substitute for the oath; or whether it be that a man really believes he is pronouncing something which may affect his eternal happiness,—­a belief which is presumably only the investiture of the former feeling.  At any rate, religious considerations are a means of awakening and calling out a man’s moral nature.  How often it happens that a man agrees to take a false oath, and then, when it comes to the point, suddenly refuses, and truth and right win the day.

Philalethes.  Oftener still false oaths are really taken, and truth and right trampled under foot, though all witnesses of the oath know it well!  Still you are quite right to quote the oath as an undeniable example of the practical efficacy of religion.  But, in spite of all you’ve said, I doubt whether the efficacy of religion goes much beyond this.  Just think; if a public proclamation were suddenly made announcing the repeal of all the criminal laws; I fancy neither you nor I would have the courage to go home from here under the protection of religious motives.  If, in the same way, all religions were declared untrue, we could, under the protection of the laws alone, go on living as before, without any special addition to our apprehensions or our measures of precaution.  I will go beyond this, and say that religions have very frequently exercised a decidedly demoralizing influence.  One may say generally that duties towards God and duties towards humanity are in inverse ratio.

It is easy to let adulation of the Deity make amends for lack of proper behavior towards man.  And so we see that in all times and in all countries the great majority of mankind find it much easier to beg their way to heaven by prayers than to deserve to go there by their actions.  In every religion it soon comes to be the case that faith, ceremonies, rites and the like, are proclaimed to be more agreeable to the Divine will than moral actions; the former, especially if they are bound up with the emoluments of the clergy, gradually come to be looked upon as a substitute for the latter.  Sacrifices in temples, the saying of masses, the founding of chapels, the planting of crosses by the roadside, soon come to be the most meritorious works, so that even great crimes are expiated by them, as also by penance, subjection to priestly authority, confessions, pilgrimages, donations to the temples and the clergy, the building of monasteries and the like.  The consequence of all this is that the priests finally appear as middlemen in the corruption of the gods.  And if matters don’t go quite so far as that, where is the religion whose adherents don’t consider prayers, praise and manifold acts of devotion, a substitute, at least in part, for moral conduct?  Look at England, where by an audacious piece of priestcraft, the Christian