“But it has ever been so in the history of man. History but repeated herself in the case of Æschylus, in the case of H. P. B. and many another. Those who would help humanity know of a surety what to expect, yet they falter not, nay, they even gain new courage and endurance under the persecution, for is there not in their hearts the Light of Truth and the love of all true comrades of the Ages to cheer their path? The devotion of one faithful heart outweighs in the balance a multitude of persecutors.”
[In future accounts of the Sokratic Club some of the characters will appear under other names, but some of our readers who are interested will doubtless be able to tell the identity.—Solon.]
In the December number of UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD the question is asked: “Whence arises the sense of duty? In what does it originate?” The answers given are good; and V. F. touches the key-note in the words “he owes it to _himself_,” etc.
The question and the discussions recalled to my mind the answer given to the same question by Dr. Hickok of Union College in his treatise on Moral Science, which was published in 1853, and used as a text-book in the University of Vermont a few years later.
It is too often taken for granted that a Christian must find a new basis of ethics and a new rule of right in order to justify his acceptance of the Theosophical teachings. This is far from the case, even assuming for the sake of the argument what is not true in fact, that theosophy rejects the Bible; for the great majority of Christian writers on this subject have not founded their systems on the Bible, or upon any religious system whatever, but have, so far as they discuss religious duties, treated them as a part of some greater ethical whole. Such is the case in the manual of Dr. Hickok. He only needs to bring out more clearly the unity of finite spirits in Absolute Spirit, and to note the proper distinction between personality and individuality and between individuality and the One Life—a distinction that is logical rather than metaphysical—and to enlarge his view so as to include the tenet of reincarnation with its correlative doctrines, to make his system very good Theosophy. His foundation is impregnable; but by overlooking the unity of the finite in the infinite, and by clinging to the notion of a personal God distinct from the Higher Self, he brings that God into judgment before the finite spirit of man. This makes the Second Part of his treatise, on Divine Government, weak and halting in comparison with the First Part, on Pure Morality. His work would have been simplified and strengthened beyond measure could he have seen that the self before whom man stands in the inner sanctuary of his being is the Higher Self of our teachings, and is one with the highest Deity. I quote Dr. Hickok’s statement of the basis of ethics and of the source of our sense of duty.