Mr. Huxley now enforces his theory by a parallel between the religion of Tonga and the religion of Israel under the Judges.  He quotes Mariner,[18] whose statement avers that there is a supreme Tongan being:  ’of his origin they had no idea, rather supposing him to be eternal.  His name is Ta-li-y-Tooboo = “Wait-there-Tooboo."’ ’He is a great chief from the top of the sky down to the bottom of the earth.’  He, and other ’original gods’ of his making, are carefully and absolutely discriminated from the atua, which are ‘the human soul after its separation from the body.’  All Tongan gods are atua (Elohim), but all atua are not ‘original gods,’ unserved by priests, and unpropitiated by food or libation, like the highest God, Ta-li-y-Tooboo, the Eternal of Tonga.  ’He occasionally inspires the How’ (elective King), but often a How is not inspired at all by Ta-li-y-Tooboo, any more than Saul, at last, was inspired by Jehovah.

Surely there is a difference in kind between an eternal, immortal God, and a ghost, though both are atua, or both are Elohim—­the unknown X.

Many people call a ghost ‘supernatural;’ they also call God ‘supernatural,’ but the difference between a phantasm of a dead man and the Deity they would admit, I conceive, to be a difference of kind.  We have shown, or tried to show, that the conceptions of ‘ghost’ and ’Supreme Being’ are different, not only in kind, but in origin.  The ghost comes from, and depends on, the animistic theory; the Supreme Being, as originally thought of, does not.  All Gods are Elohim, kalou, wakan; all Elohim, kalou, wakan are not Gods.

A ghost-god should receive food or libation.  Mr. Huxley says that Ta-li-y-Tooboo did so.  ’If the god, like Ta-li-y-Tooboo, had no priest, then the chief place was left vacant, and was supposed to be occupied by the god himself. When the first cup of Kava was filled, the mataboole who acted as master of the ceremonies said, “Give it to your god,” and it was offered, though only as a matter of form.’[19]

This is incorrect.  In the case of Ta-li-y-Tooboo ’there is no cup filled for the god.’[20] ’Before any cup is filled the man by the side of the bowl says:  “The Kava is in the cup"’ (which it is not), ’and the mataboole answers, “Give it to your god;"’ but the Kava is not in the cup, and the Tongan Eternal receives no oblation.

The sacrifice, says Mr. Huxley, meant ’that the god was either a deified ghost, or, at any rate, a being of like nature to these.’[21] But as Ta-li-y-Tooboo had no sacrifice, contrary to Mr. Huxley’s averment, he was not ‘a deified ghost, or a being of like nature to these.’  To the lower, non-ghostly Tongan gods the animistic habit of sacrifice had been extended, but not yet to the Supreme Being.

Ah, if Mr. Gladstone, or the Duke of Argyll, or some bishop had made a misstatement of this kind, how Mr. Huxley would have crushed him!  But it is a mere error of careless reading, such as we all make daily.