rasted
tend to become respectively conformist and nonconformist, not only in
politics and religion, but in other things? Submission, whether to a
government, to the dogmas of ecclesiastics, or to that code of behaviour
which society at large has set up, is essentially of the same nature;
and the sentiment which induces resistance to the despotism of rulers,
civil or spiritual, likewise induces resistance to the despotism of the
world's opinion. Look at them fundamentally, and all enactments, alike
of the legislature, the consistory, and the saloon--all regulations,
formal or virtual, have a common character: they are all limitations of
men's freedom. "Do this--Refrain from that," are the blank formulas into
which they may all be written: and in each case the understanding is
that obedience will bring approbation here and paradise hereafter; while
disobedience will entail imprisonment, or sending to Coventry, or
eternal torments, as the case may be. And if restraints, however named,
and through whatever apparatus of means exercised, are one in their
action upon men, it must happen that those who are patient under one
kind of restraint, are likely to be patient under another; and
conversely, that those impatient of restraint in general, will, on the
average, tend to show their impatience in all directions.

That Law, Religion, and Manners are thus related--that their respective
kinds of operation come under one generalisation--that they have in
certain contrasted characteristics of men a common support and a common
danger--will, however, be most clearly seen on discovering that they
have a common origin. Little as from present appearances we should
suppose it, we shall yet find that at first, the control of religion,
the control of laws and the control of manners, were all one control.
However incredible it may now seem, we believe it to be demonstrable
that the rules of etiquette, the provisions of the statute-book, and the
commands of the decalogue, have grown from the same root. If we go far
enough back into the ages of primeval Fetishism, it becomes manifest
that originally Deity, Chief, and Master of the ceremonies were
identical. To make good these positions, and to show their bearing on
what is to follow, it will be necessary here to traverse ground that is
in part somewhat beaten, and at first sight irrelevant to our topic. We
will pass over it as quickly as consists with the exigencies of the
argument.