The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1875.

Evening Star, Issue 3710, 13 January 1875, Page 2

The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1875.

It is now nearly two months since a public appeal for assistance by the Female Refuge Committee furnished an occasion for us dealing, gently, it is true, but still dealing with a foul spot in our social life. We did not expect our one effort to be of much success. Evil habits grow, and the doctrine of evolution is one that is applicable to reforms. One way we then pointed out of aiding in the extirpation of the evil. It was by the infliction of pain : by the deprivation of what is termed society’s favors : by the punishment of social ostrocism being inflicted on all that live impure lives. Alas! who does not know that a possible punishment never yet was a strong enough motive to deter from evil ? If this threat of a possible, nay, if we could add certain punishment, were enough to effect growth in goodness, how comes it that in Christian nations, where certain future endless punishment is held out us the consequence of wrong-doing, that so much wrong is done, so many crimes, so many sins committed ? Nay, how is it when even the alternative—the certain endless bliss of the regions beyond—has also not had the effect of making men good, or honest, or God-fearing? Though both these futurities are, no doubt, immense motive powers to those who really believe them, still it is useless cloaking over the existence of the denial of these futurities. Clergymen in many churches have abandoned the doctrine of endless punishment, and even those who assert the dogma in all its naked terror, admit that it alone does not produce that purity of life, that “growth in grace,” which all desire to see who look for the uprising of humanity. We would, therefore, leave this dogma to be preached by the clergy, hoping that ic may also bear fruit in season, and strike terror into the hearts of those “ impure ” in their lives. We are secularists : that is, w® only strive to use the arm of the flesh, leaving the sword of the spirit to those skilled in that armour. Now one aspect of this question we would like to get our young men to think about, for to them we especially address ourselves. First we come to them, we hope, in a way that will dissipate any prejudice .they may have against a special class. We ask them to join no pew Church or any Church. We ask them, as we will show, to practise no self-denial for our gratification. Let us, then, to use an expressive Americanism,start “square,” W.e ask no favor from them but one, and that is to read this article and to think on its contents. Did ever preacher, prophet, or article-writer ask less 1 We hope, therefore, the mists of prejudice will be dispelled, .The aspect we wish them to think of is this : Let each ask himself this question, What is his object in life ? Suppose it is answered, “ to get the most pleasure we can in the present sphere of existence.” Nothing can be more material than this. And supposing, in order to develop our position, w.e admit that this is man’s highest aim—even ; then we trust we shall show that purity of life is a necessity to realise this ideal. The accumulation of wealth, acquiring a position in society, even the learning of the rudiments of knowledge are, it will bp &d*nitted ; steps to

this goal. One necessity of pleasure is health of body. A man may obtain wealth, have what is termed a good position, may be acquainted with classics, and an expert in mathematics; but if he is sick and diseased, what avails these things ? Who that has been sick does not long for health 1 ? Who that has groaned under some disease does not envy the man of robust constitution? This, then, it will be admitted must be the basis of pleasure and happiness. Health of body—everything that weakens that health and brings on disease, cannot surely be a means of obtaining pleasure. This follows as a logical conclusion from the foregoing premise. Does, then, an impure life lead to ill - health, to disease ? Who can deny it ? Everyone at all acquainted with physiology admits it. Impurity of life is the cause of more disease than any thing else. All kinds of miseries are in its train. Some articles that appeared in the ‘ Westminster Review ’ showed to what extent disease was the result of impurity, and how, alas! the punishment of the sin extended to the third and fourth generation. There is, however, something more than the physical evil. It may be said that the yielding to temptation does not always bring physical punishment, This may be so j but the other punishments to which we intend to allude cannot be escaped. Coming back to our question and answer, that it is the object of life to realise the utmost pleasure, then we say on physical grounds we have shown that pleasure cannot be got from indulgence. We now approach the subject from another standpoint, so to speak. There are two ways in which pleasure may be received—in quantity and quality. How long will a pleasure last, and what is the highest pleasure ? Now, a pleasure must be lasting pleasure to fulfil the ideal with which we suppose the man lias started in life. We' have already shown that good health must be the basis of all pleasure, else it will not last. But, furthermore, it must be a pleasure capable of being lasting. Now, no one can say that impurity of life is a thing that is lasting. What pleasure is got from it is—not to speak of its quality—fleeting. There is no permanence, and no increase of joy. But there are joys, and a pleasure which is perennial and increasing. It is that of culture—of literature. This alone, in old age, gives rest—gives peace. From the busiest avocation in life a s man can turn’to books, and feel pleasure. But this is not all. There is not only intellectual pleasure and its joys, but there is a pleasure in living the higher life. In the former article we showed that the person wh« indulged in the vice to which we have referred could have none of those ' fine rfeelings that differentiate a man : from a brute. If a man wishes to be a •“man,” he must live the higher life. This we' ail tacitly acknowledge. Who are the men the most truly revered? They are those who have lived the higher life, Not to mention the name of Him who spake as never man spake, and who is worshipped not for his contributions to science or literature but for his life, it is those who, like Him, have lived the life of the true and the good that are reverenced by men; and it is these who have the highest enjoyment. Nay, it is this feeling of pleasure that has given to many of them their highest motive power. We do not wish to write too plainly : the subject is one so painful that we hesitate to do so. But \ve put it to our young men to compare the fleeting pleasure—if they can apply such a term to it—that they can reap from giving way to lust, to passion, with what the joys of intellect and of culture can give them. As a man’s pleasure is higher than a brute’s, so is the man of culture’s pleasure higher .than that of one who is yet, as it were, blind to the beauties of nature or art. This we need not amplify. No sane man would compare the joys of 3, Socrates or a Carlyle with those of a Cataline or of a mere sensualist. But it may be said, how is this “ culture ” to be obtained ? What is its basis ? The latter question is a debated one ; the former, however, cun admit of a reply. Dr Chalmers’s phrase, the expulsive u power of a new affection,” is useful here. We reply, “By study, and by carefully reading the best thoughts of the best men.” And here we fancy some one may say “ And after all is this your remedy V ( Well, we reply to many, “ Religion will be the motive power, but to those whom religion cannot reach —and they are not a few.—reading the best thoughts of the best men, and hard study, will be an expeller of impurity,” and this study—this culture commenced, who can adequately chant the praises of its pleasures? A training to self-denial, a straining after the higher life, an ackhow ledgmeut that man ought tg live for his fellows, and that his action ought to be so shaped as to benefit humanity, what nobler ? Would that our young men would act as some young men hays acted before, and present to this century such enthusiasm, such a striving after the good, the beautiful, and the true, that all would at last exclaim, “ Behold a reformation such as neither politicians nor philosophers have dreamed of