Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 12.djvu/645

Rh changes, but it distances it also in the simplification of its resources. The same bit of dead metal serves equally for both ear and tongue; the offices of the diaphragm are interchangeable, and the machine works backward and forward with exactly the same facility.

The lesson here taught is, that we are to elevate our conceptions of the powers of matter. Science is making constantly fresh revelations of its potencies and capacities, and we are probably still only upon the threshold of this world of wonders.

discussion has recently been carried on by the pulpit and the press as to whether there is a future state of eternal torment. Two or three eminent orthodox clergymen spoke out in rather strong denunciation of the idea, and this was followed by an epidemic of controversy. Certain people seem to have been perplexed as to what is meant by so free a handling of a solemn old subject. We think it simply means that people have been thinking about it until expression is a relief, and that many have reached conclusions that they are glad to have a chance of ventilating. There has been, thanks to the influence of science, a pretty rapid liberalizing of theological opinion during the past generation; and this discussion about hell is an instructive indication of the advance that has been made.

The question of the existence of a veritable hell is, of course, a theological one, which we cheerfully leave to those interested, but the topic has also a scientific side. The rise and course of the idea, or what may be called the natural history of the belief in hell, is a subject quite within the sphere of scientific inquiry. It is legitimate to ask as to how the notion originated, as to its antiquity, the extent to which it has been entertained, the forms it has assumed, and the changes it has undergone, and from this point of view it of course involves the principle of evolution. We cannot go into so large a discussion here, but as this is an aspect of the subject not much dwelt upon, a few suggestions regarding it may not be inappropriate.

In the first place, it is necessary to rise above that narrowness of view which regards the doctrine of hell as especially a Christian doctrine, or as the monopoly of any particular religion. On the contrary, it is as ancient and universal as the systems of religious faith that have overspread the world. The oldest religions of which we have any knowledge—Hindoo, Egyptian, and the various Oriental systems of worship—all affirm the doctrine of a future life, with accompanying hells for the torture of condemned souls. We certainly cannot assume that all these systems are true, and of divine origin; but if not, then the question forces itself upon us, how they came by this belief. The old, historic religious systems involved advanced and complicated creeds and rituals, and if they were not real divine revelations in this elaborated shape, we are compelled to regard them as having had a natural development out of lower and cruder forms of superstition. To explain these religions—as to explain the earliest political institutions—we must go behind them. There is a prehistoric, rudimentary theology of the primitive man, the quality of which has to be deduced from his low, infantine condition of mind, interpreted by what we observe among the inferior types of mankind at the present time.

It is certain that early men, in profound ignorance of the surrounding world and of their own natures, must have grossly misinterpreted outward appearances and their internal experiences, and analysis of the conditions has abundantly shown how these primitive misunderstandings led inevitably to manifold superstitions. Herbert