There is one more important point.  In the Bora, or Australian mysteries, at which knowledge of ‘The Maker’ and of his commandments is imparted, the front teeth of the initiated are still knocked out.  Now, Dampier observed ’the two fore-teeth of their upper jaw are wanting in all of them, men and women, old and young.’  If this is to be taken quite literally, the Bora rite, in 1688, must have included the women, at least locally.  Dampier was on the north-west coast in latitude 16 degrees, longitude 122-1/4 degrees east (Dampier Land, West Australia).  The natives had neither boats, canoes, nor bark logs; but it seems that they had their religious mysteries and their unselfishness, two hundred years ago.[6]

The Australians have been very carefully studied by many observers, and the results entirely overthrow Mr. Huxley’s bold statement that ’in its simplest condition, such as may be met with among the Australian savages, theology is a mere belief in the existence, powers, and dispositions (usually malignant) of ghost-like entities who may be propitiated or scared away; but no cult can properly be said to exist.  And in this stage theology is wholly independent of ethics.’

Remarks more crudely in defiance of known facts could not be made.  The Australians, assuredly, believe in ‘spirits,’ often malicious, and probably in most cases regarded as ghosts of men.  These aid the wizard, and occasionally inspire him.  That these ghosts are worshipped does not appear, and is denied by Waitz.  Again, in the matter of cult, ’there is none’ in the way of sacrifice to higher gods, as there should be if these gods were hungry ghosts.  The cult among the Australians is the keeping of certain ‘laws,’ expressed in moral teaching, supposed to be in conformity with the institutes of their God.  Worship takes the form, as at Eleusis, of tribal mysteries, originally instituted, as at Eleusis, by the God.  The young men are initiated with many ceremonies, some of which are cruel and farcical, but the initiation includes ethical instruction, in conformity with the supposed commands of a God who watches over conduct.  As among ourselves, the ethical ideal, with its theological sanction, is probably rather above the moral standard of ordinary practice.  What conclusion we should draw from these facts is uncertain, but the facts, at least, cannot be disputed, and precisely contradict the statement of Mr. Huxley.  He was wholly in the wrong when he said:  ’The moral code, such as is implied by public opinion, derives no sanction from theological dogmas,’[7] It reposes, for its origin and sanction, on such dogmas.

The evidence as to Australian religion is abundant, and is being added to yearly.  I shall here content myself with Mr. Howitt’s accounts.[8]

As regards the possible evolution of the Australian God from ancestor-worship, it must be noted that Mr. Howitt credits the groups with possessing ‘headmen,’ a kind of chiefs, whereas some inquirers, in Brough Smyth’s collection, disbelieve in regular chiefs.  Mr. Howitt writes:—­