may however hesitate to follow him when he goes on to say, 'by duty all
things were made, and without it nothing was made'. We may hesitate and
the Positivist may hesitate, because, primitive though the feeling of
fear may be, the feeling of love is equally original: on it and in it
the family and society have their base and their origin; and to it they
owe not only their origin but their continuance. Love however is not a
matter of duty and obedience; it is not subject to commandment or
prohibition; nor does it strive by commands or authority to enforce
itself. In the process by which duty--legal and moral
obligation--evolves out of the primitive feeling of taboo, love is not
implicated: love springs from its own source, the human heart, and runs
its own course. Taboo may have existed from the beginning; but to the
end, whatever its form--duty, obligation, obedience to authority--it
remains in character what it was at first, prohibitive, negative. Love
alone is creative: without it 'was not anything made that was made'.

There seems, therefore, no necessity to regard the 'pre-formation'
theory of evolution, rather than the 'dispersive theory, as essential to
Positivism.

Common to all the views about the evolution of religion that have been
mentioned in this paper is the belief that, the more religion changes,
the more it remains the same thing. If identified with duty, then duty
it was in the beginning, and duty it will remain to the end. For those
who conceive it to be merely magic, magic it was and magic it remains.
Those who define it as belief in a god and communion with him find that
belief in the earliest as well as the latest stages. All would agree in
rejecting Bergson's view of evolution--that in evolution there is
change, but nothing which changes. All would agree that in the evolution
of religion there is something which, change though it may, remains the