{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_13620/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_13620","id":"gutenberg_13620","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/13620","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Harvard Classics","Philosophy","Religion"],"text":"THE WORLD'S GREATEST BOOKS\n\nJOINT EDITORS\n\nARTHUR MEE\n\nJ.A. HAMMERTON\n\n\n\nVOL. XIII RELIGION PHILOSOPHY\n\n\nCopyright, MCMX MCKINLAY, STOKE & MACKEKZU\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n\n    RELIGION\n\n    APOCRYPHA\n\n    AUGUSTINE, ST.\n      City of God\n\n    BAXTER, RICHARD\n      Saints' Everlasting Rest\n\n    BOOK OF THE DEAD\n\n    BRAHMANISM, BOOKS OF\n\n    BROWNE, SIR THOMAS\n      Religio Medici\n\n    CALVIN, JOHN\n      Institution of the Christian Religion\n\n    COLERIDGE, S.T.\n      Aids to Reflection\n\n    CONFUCIANISM\n\n    F\u00c9NELON\n      Existence of God\n\n    GALILEO GALILEI\n      Authority of Scripture\n\n    HEGEL, G.W.F.\n      Philosophy of Religion\n\n    HINDUISM, BOOKS OF\n\n    KEMPIS, THOMAS \u00c0\n      Imitation of Christ\n\n    KORAN\n\n    NEWMAN, CARDINAL\n      Apologia pro Vit\u00e2 Sua\n\n    PAINE, THOMAS\n      Age of Reason\n\n    PASCAL, BLAISE\n      Letters to a Provincial\n\n    PENN, WILLIAM\n      Some Fruits of Solitude\n\n    RENAN, ERNEST\n      Life of Jesus\n\n    SWEDENBORG, EMANUEL\n      Heaven and Hell\n\n    TALMUD\n\n    ZOROASTRIANISM\n\n\n    PHILOSOPHY\n\n\n    ARISTOTLE\n      Ethics\n\n    AURELIUS, MARCUS\n      Discourses with Himself\n\n    BACON, FRANCIS\n      Advancement of Learning\n\n    BERKELEY, GEORGE\n      Principles of Human Knowledge\n\n    DESCARTES\n      Discourse on Method\n\n    EMERSON, RALPH WALDO\n      Nature\n\n    EPICTETUS\n      Discourses and Encheiridion\n\n\nA COMPLETE INDEX OF THE WORLD'S GREATEST BOOKS WILL BE FOUND AT THE END\nOF VOLUME XX.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\nRELIGION\n\n\nTHE APOCRYPHA\n\n\n     Apocrypha is a Greek word, signifying \"secret\" or \"hidden,\"\n     but in the sixteenth century it came to be applied to a list\n     of books contained in the Septuagint, or Greek translation of\n     the Old Testament, but not in the Palestinian, or Hebrew\n     Canon. Hence, by theological or bibliographic purists, these\n     books were not regarded as genuine Scripture. That view was\n     adopted by the early Greek Church, though the Western Church\n     was divided in opinion. They appeared as a separate section in\n     Coverdale's English Bible in 1538, and in Luther's German\n     Bible in 1537. The Council of Trent in 1546 admitted them as\n     canonical, except the First and Second Esdras and the Prayer\n     of Manasses--a view rejected after the Reformation by\n     Protestants, who recognised only the Palestinian Record as\n     canonical. The Westminster Confession declared that they were\n     only to be made use of as \"human writings,\" and the Sixth\n     Article of the Church of England states that they are \"to be\n     read for example of life and instruction of manners, but not\n     to establish doctrine.\" As the result of a violent controversy\n     in Scotland and America between 1825 and 1827, the Apocrypha\n     was deleted from the copies of the Holy Scriptures issued by\n     the British and Foreign Bible Society. The controversy was\n     revived in 1862 when a quotation was engraved on the Prince\n     Consort's Memorial in Kensington Gardens from the Wisdom of\n     Solomon: \"He, being made perfect in a short time, fulfilled a\n     long time. For his soul pleased the Lord: Therefore hasted He\n     to take him away from among the wicked.\" All the books bear\n     evidence of having been written long after the date to which\n     they are ascribed.\n\n\nFIRST ESDRAS\n\n\nAnd Josias held the feast of the Passover in Jerusalem unto his Lord,\nthe 14th day of the first month of the 18th year of his reign, and\nordered the Levites, the holy ministers of Israel, to hallow themselves\nunto the Lord, and set the Holy Ark of the Lord in the house that King\nSolomon had built. And there were offered in sacrifices to the Lord on\nthe altar 37,600 lambs and kids, and 4,300 calves. And they roasted the\nPassover with fire: as for the sacrifices, they sod them in brass pots\nand pans with a good savour, and set them before all the people. And\nsuch a Passover was not kept in Israel since the time of the Prophet\nSamuel. And the works of Josias were upright before his Lord with an\nheart full of godliness.\n\nNow, after all these acts of Josias, it came to pass that Pharaoh, the\nKing of Egypt, came to raise war at Carchamis upon Euphrates; and\nJosias, not regarding the words of the Prophet Jeremy, spoken by the\nmouth of the Lord, went out against him and joined battle with him in\nthe plain of Magiddo. Then said the king unto his servants: Carry me\naway out of the battle; for I am very weak. And being brought back to\nJerusalem he died and was buried in his father's sepulchre. And in all\nJewry the chief men, with the women, yea Jeremy the prophet, made\nlamentation for him unto this day.\n\nAnd the people took Joachaz, the son of Josias, and made him king; but\nthe King of Egypt deposed him, and made Joacim, his brother, King of\nJudea and Jerusalem, who did evil before the Lord. Wherefore, against\nhim, Nabuchodonosor, King of Babylon, came up and bound him with a chain\nof brass, and carried him into Babylon. Nabuchodonosor also took of the\nholy vessels of the Lord and carried them away, and set them in his own\ntemple at Babylon, and made Zedechias king. Zedechias reigned eleven\nyears, but did evil also in the sight of the Lord.\n\nThe governors of the people and of the priests did likewise many things\nagainst the Lord, and defiled the Temple of the Lord, who, being wrath\nwith his people for their great ungodliness, commanded the Kings of the\nChaldees to come up against them. This they did, and slew and spared\nneither young man nor maid, old man nor child, among them. And they took\nall the holy vessels of the Lord, both great and small, with the vessels\nof the Ark of God and the king's treasures, and carried them away into\nBabylon. As for the House of the Lord, they burnt it, and broke down the\nwalls of Jerusalem and set fire upon her towers. And the people that\nwere not slain with the sword were carried unto Babylon, who became\nservants to Nabuchodonosor, till the Persians reigned, to fulfil the\nword of the Lord spoken by the mouth of Jeremy.\n\nIn the first year of Cyrus, King of the Persians, the Lord raised up his\nspirit, and he made proclamation through all his kingdom, saying: The\nLord of Israel, the most high Lord, hath made me king of the whole\nworld, and commanded me to build him an house at Jerusalem in Jewry. If\nthere be any of you that are of his people, let the Lord, even his Lord,\nbe with him; let him go up to Jerusalem and build the house of the Lord\nof Israel.\n\nThen the chief of the families of Judea and of the tribe of Benjamin,\nthe priests also, and the Levites moved up to Jerusalem to build an\nhouse for the Lord there. And they were helped in all things with silver\nand gold, with horses and cattle, and with very many free gifts. King\nCyrus also brought forth the holy vessels which Nabuchodonosor had\ncarried away from Jerusalem and had set up in his temple of idols. The\nvessels of gold and of silver which were brought back by Sanabassar,\ntogether with them of the captivity from Babylon to Jerusalem, were, in\nnumber, five thousand four hundred three score and nine.\n\nBut in the time of Artaxerxes, the building of the Temple ceased. Now,\nwhen Darius reigned, he made a great feast unto all the governors and\ncaptains that were under him from India unto Ethiopia, of an hundred and\ntwenty-seven provinces. And when they had eaten and drunken, three young\nmen that were of the guard that kept the king's body strove to excel\neach other in wise speeches. Every one wrote his sentence and referred\nthe writings to the judgment of the king. The first declareth the\nstrength of wine; the second declareth the power of a king; the third\nthe force of women and of truth. The third, who was Zorobabel, was\njudged to be wisest; and all the people then shouted: Great is Truth,\nand mighty above all things.\n\nThen said the king unto him: Ask what thou wilt, and we will give it to\nthee, because thou art found wisest. Then Zorobabel said unto the king:\nRemember thy vow which thou hast vowed to build Jerusalem in the day\nwhen thou camest into thy kingdom, and to build up the Temple, which the\nEdomites burned when Judea was made desolate by the Chaldees.\n\nThen Darius the king stood up and kissed him, and wrote letters for him\nunto all the treasurers and governors that they should safely convey on\ntheir way both him and all those that went with him to build Jerusalem.\nHe also wrote letters unto the lieutenants in Celosyria, Phenice, and\nLibanus, that they should bring cedar wood from Libanus to Jerusalem;\nand that they should build the city. Then the families and tribes with\ntheir men-servants and maid-servants and singing men and women, escorted\nby a thousand horsemen which Darius sent with them, were brought back to\nJerusalem.\n\nOn the first day of the second month, in the second year after they were\ncome back to Jerusalem, the foundation of the House of God was laid; and\nthe Temple was finished in the three and twentieth day of the month of\nAdar, in the sixth year of Darius, and dedicated with a great feast and\nsacrifices.\n\nAfter these things, when Artaxerxes, the King of the Persians, reigned,\ncame Esdras of the family of Aaron, the chief priest, from Babylon, and\nwith him certain priests, Levites, holy singers and ministers of the\nTemple unto Jerusalem. He brought commission from the king to look into\nthe affairs of Judea and Jerusalem, agreeably to that which is in the\nLaw of the Lord, and gifts of vessels of gold and silver for the use of\nthe Temple of the Lord.\n\nThen Esdras made proclamation in all Jewry and Jerusalem to all them who\nwere of the captivity, that they should be gathered together at\nJerusalem. Three days after all the multitude gathered in the broad\ncourt of the Temple, and they gave their hands to put away their heathen\nwives and children, and to offer rams to make reconcilement for the\nerrors they had committed. And Esdras stood up upon a pulpit of wood,\nwhich was made for that purpose, and opened the Law of Moses to the\npeople.\n\nSo Esdras blessed the Lord God, most High, the God of Hosts, Almighty.\nAnd all the people answered: Amen; and, lifting up their hands, they\nfell to the ground and worshipped the Lord, saying: This day is holy\nunto the Lord; for they all wept when they heard the Law. So the Levites\npublished all things to the people, saying: This day is holy to the\nLord; be not sorrowful. Then went they their way every one to eat and\ndrink, and make merry and to give to them that have nothing, and to make\ngreat cheer.\n\n\nSECOND ESDRAS\n\n\nThe word of the Lord came unto the prophet Esdras, saying: Go thy way,\nand show my people their sinful deeds which they have done against me,\nfor they have forgotten me, and have offered unto strange gods. I\ngathered you together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings:\nBut now I will cast you out from my face. Then Esdras willed to comfort\nIsrael, but they refused, and despised the commandments of the Lord;\ntherefore he announced that the heathen were called to the heavenly\nkingdom. After that, Esdras saw upon the Mount Sion a great people who\npraised the Lord with songs; and the angel said unto him: These be they\nthat have put off the mortal clothing, and put on the immortal, and have\nconfessed the name of God. Now are they crowned, and receive palms in\ntheir hands from the Son of God in their midst.\n\nIn the thirtieth year after the ruin of the city, Esdras was in Babylon\nand troubled because of the desolation of Sion. He acknowledged to God\nthe sins of the people, yet complained that the heathen who were lords\nover them were more wicked than they. Uriel, the angel, then said that\nwhen Adam transgressed God's statutes the way was made narrow, and the\ndays few and evil; but, behold, the time shall come when my son Jesus\nshall be revealed and shall die, and all men that have life. And after\nseven days of silence, the earth shall restore those that are asleep,\nand the most High shall appear upon the seat of judgment; and misery\nshall pass away but judgment shall remain; truth shall stand; and faith\nwax strong.\n\nThen Esdras said: I know the most High is called merciful, and he\npardoneth; for if he did not so that they which have committed\niniquities might be eased of them, the ten thousandth part of men should\nnot remain living; there should be very few left, peradventure, in an\ninnumerable multitude. And the angel answered: There be many created,\nbut few shall be saved. Every one that shall be saved shall be able to\nescape by his works and by faith, and then they shall be shown great\nwonders. And it came to pass that a voice out of a bush called Esdras,\nwhich prophesied that God would take vengeance upon Egypt, Syria,\nBabylon, and Asia; that the servants of the Lord must look for troubles,\nand not hide their sins but depart from evil, and they would be\ndelivered because God is their guide.\n\n\nTOBIT\n\n\nThis is the Book of Tobit, of the tribe of Nephthali, who in the time of\nEnemessar, King of the Assyrians, was led captive to Nineve. Tobit in\ncaptivity still remembered God with all his heart, and was deprived of\nhis goods under King Sennacherib for privily burying fellow-captives who\nhad been killed. Then Tobit, who became blind, remembered that he had in\nthe days of his prosperity committed to Gabael in Rages of Media the sum\nof ten talents; and he called his son Tobias to go forth and seek\nGabael, giving him handwriting. Tobias sought a guide and found Raphael,\nwho was an angel though Tobias knew it not, and who said he knew and had\nlodged with Gabael. So they went forth both.\n\nWhen Tobias and Raphael came to the River Tigris, a fish leaped out of\nthe water and would have devoured him, but the young man laid hold of\nit, and drew it to land. The Angel bade Tobias open the fish, and take\nthe heart and the liver and the gall, and put them up safely. The young\nman said to the Angel: To what use are these? And the Angel said:\nTouching the heart and the liver, if an evil spirit trouble any, we must\nmake a smoke thereof, and the party shall be no more vexed. As for the\ngall: it is good to anoint a man that a whiteness in his eyes shall be\nhealed.\n\nWhen they came near to Rages, the Angel said: To-day we shall lodge with\nRaguel, who is thy cousin and hath an only daughter named Sara. The maid\nis fair and wise, and I will speak that she may be given thee as a wife.\nThen the young man answered the Angel, that he had heard that this maid\nhad been given to seven men who all died in the marriage chamber, and he\nfeared lest he should also die. But the Angel said: Fear not, for she is\nappointed unto thee from the beginning.\n\nNow they came to the house of Raguel, and Sara met them and brought them\ntherein. Raguel and Edna his wife recognised Tobias as a kinsman, and\nkissed and blessed him. Tobias and Raphael were entertained cheerfully;\nand after Raphael had communicated with Raguel, Edna, his wife, was\ncalled and an instrument of covenants of marriage between Sara and\nTobias were written and sealed. And a chamber was prepared for them by\nEdna, who blessed Sara and asked the Lord of Heaven and Earth to give\nher joy. And when they had all supped, Tobias was brought in unto Sara.\nAnd, as he went he remembered the words of Raphael, and put the heart\nand liver of the fish upon the ashes of the perfume, and made a smoke\ntherewith. When the evil spirit had smelled the smoke he fled into the\nutmost parts of Egypt, where an angel bound him. Then Tobias and Sara\narose and prayed that God would have pity upon them, and bless them, and\nmercifully ordain that they might become aged together. So they slept\nboth that night.\n\nRaguel praised God because the Lord had had mercy upon two that were the\nonly begotten children of their fathers, and prayed that they might\nfinish their life in health and joy. Raphael then went to Rages to\nGabael for the money, and the two returned to Raguel's house with the\nbags sealed up.\n\nNow Tobit and his wife longed for their son, and Tobias said to Raguel:\nLet me go, for my father and mother look no more to see me. Then Raguel\ngave him Sara, his wife, and half his goods, servants, cattle and money.\nAnd he and Edna blessed them and sent them away.\n\nAfter a prosperous journey, they drew near unto Nineve. Then Raphael\ntold Tobias to make haste before his wife to prepare the house, and to\ntake in his hand the gall of the fish. Now Anna sat looking about toward\nthe way for her son, and when she espied him coming, she said to his\nfather: Behold, thy son cometh and the man that went with him. And Anna\nran forth, and fell upon the neck of her son and said: From henceforth I\nam content to die. Tobias met his father at the door, and strake of the\ngall on his father's eyes, saying: Be of good hope, my father. And Tobit\nrecovered his sight. When he saw his son, he fell upon his neck and\nwept, and blessed God. Then Tobit went out to meet his daughter-in-law\nat the gate of Nineve, and welcomed and blessed her; and there was joy\namong all his brethren which were at Nineve.\n\nTobit offered to Raphael half of all that had been brought from Rages;\nbut Raphael called him and Tobias apart and exhorted them to praise and\nmagnify the Lord for all the things which he had done unto them; and\ntold them that he, Raphael, was one of the seven holy angels which\npresent the prayers of the saints, and which go in and out before the\nglory of the Holy One. Then they were both troubled and fell upon their\nfaces; but he said: Fear not, for it shall go well with you. I go up to\nhim that sent me; but write all the things which were done in a book.\nAnd when they arose they saw him no more.\n\nTobit wrote a prayer of rejoicing, saying: In the land of my captivity\ndo I praise thee, O Lord, and declare thy might and majesty to a sinful\nnation. For Jerusalem shall be built up, her walls and towers and\nbattlements restored. And all her streets shall say: Alleluia.\n\nAnd when he was very aged, Tobit called his son and the six sons of his\nson, and bade them go into Media, for he was ready to depart out of this\nlife, and he surely believed that which Jonas the prophet spake of\nNineve, that it should be overthrown. When he had said these things he\ngave up the ghost. Tobias departed with his wife to Media, and died\nthere; but before he died he heard of the destruction of Nineve, which\nwas taken by Nabuchodonosor.\n\n\nJUDITH\n\n\nIn the days of Arphaxad, which reigned over the Medes in Ecbatane, he\nfortified Ecbatane with great stone walls, and towers and gates, for the\ngoing forth of his mighty armies. Nabuchodonosor, who reigned in Nineve,\nmade war with King Arphaxad, and sent ambassadors to Cilicia, Damascus\nand Syria, and the land of Moab and Ammon and Judea and all Egypt asking\naid; but the inhabitants thereof made light of the commandment, and sent\naway his ambassadors with disgrace. Therefore, Nabuchodonosor was very\nangry, and sware by his throne that he would be avenged upon all the\ninhabitants of these countries, and would slay them with the sword.\nNabuchodonosor, in the seventeenth year of his reign, marched in battle\narray against Arphaxad and overthrew his power and, all his horsemen and\nchariots, and took his cities even unto Ecbatane, and spoiled the\nstreets thereof, and turned the beauty of the city into shame. He also\ntook Arphaxad in the mountains of Ragau and smote him. So he returned to\nNineve with all his company of sundry nations and feasted. In the\neighteenth year, Nabuchodonosor called the chief captain of his army,\nHolofernes, and commanded him to take one hundred and twenty thousand\nfootmen and twelve thousand horsemen and go against all the west country\nbecause they had disobeyed his commandment. He charged also Holofernes\nto spare none that would not yield, and put them to the slaughter, and\nspoil them. And the army went forth with a great number of allies like\nlocusts into Cilicia, and destroyed Phud and Lud, and all the children\nof Rasses and Ishmael. Then the army went over Euphrates and went\nthrough Mesopotamia, and destroyed all the high cities on the river\nArbonai to the sea, and then to Japheth over against Arabia, and Media\nand Damascus, and burned up their tabernacles, destroyed their flocks\nand herds, utterly wasted their countries, and smote all their young men\nwith the edge of the sword. Then fear fell upon the inhabitants of Tyrus\nand Sidon, on the sea coasts, who sent ambassadors unto Holofernes, and\nmade submission. He received them, yet he cast down their frontiers, cut\ndown their groves, destroyed all the gods of the land, and decreed that\nall the nations should worship Nabuchodonosor only, and call upon him as\nGod.\n\nNow, the children of Israel that dwelt in Judea, who were newly returned\nfrom captivity, were exceedingly afraid for Jerusalem and for the Temple\nof the Lord their God. Therefore, they possessed themselves of all tops\nof the high mountains, and fortified the villages, and laid up victuals\nfor the provision of war. And Joacim and all the priests ministered unto\nthe Lord in the Temple, and offered sacrifices and prayed that he would\nnot give the children of Israel for a prey, their wives for a spoil, the\ncities of their inheritance to destruction, and the sanctuary to\nprofanation.\n\nHolofernes was very angry when he heard this. And Achior, captain of the\nsons of Ammon, told Holofernes what the Jews were, their history, and\nwhat their God had done for them; and advised Holofernes not to meddle\nwith them. There was then tumult in the council of the Assyrian host,\nand Holofernes despised the God of the people of Israel, and sent Achior\nto the children of Israel that were in Bethulia, in the hill country.\nThen Holofernes with all his army besieged Bethulia, and took possession\nof the fountains of water, so that the inhabitants fainted for thirst,\nand there was no longer any strength in them. They murmured against the\ngovernors, and called upon them to deliver the city to Holofernes and\nhis army. Ozias, the chief of the city, said: Brethren, be of good\ncourage; let us yet endure five days, in which space the Lord our God\nmay turn his mercy towards us; for he will not forsake us utterly.\n\nNow Judith heard thereof. She was a widow and was of a goodly\ncountenance and very beautiful to behold, and she feared God greatly.\nJudith sent for the ancients of the city, and blamed them for provoking\nthe Lord to anger by their lack of trust, and she promised that she\nwould do a thing within the days before the city was to be delivered to\ntheir enemies which should go throughout all generations to the children\nof the nation. Then Judith went to the House of the Lord and fell upon\nher face and called upon the Lord who breakest the battles to bless her\npurpose. She went thereafter to her house, put off the garments of\nwidowhood and of sackcloth, and bathed, and anointed herself with\nprecious ointment, and put on the garments of gladness, with bracelets\nand chains and rings and ornaments to lure the eyes of all the men that\nshould see her. Then she went forth with her maid out of the city of\nBethulia into the camp of the Assyrians, and was taken by the guard to\nthe tent of Holofernes, who marvelled at her beauty. Holofernes asked\nJudith the cause of her coming, and she declared that if he would follow\nher words, he and his army would be led by her through the midst of\nJudea unto Jerusalem wherein he would set op his throne.\n\nHolofernes and all his servants were pleased, and said there was not\nsuch a woman in all the earth for beauty of face and wisdom of words.\nJudith would not eat of the meats and wine which Holofernes offered her,\nbut partook only of the provisions which her maid had brought with her\nin a bag. Then she was brought into a tent and abode in the camp three\ndays, going out every night into the valley of Bethulia to pray. In the\nfourth day Holofernes made a feast, and said to Bagoas, the eunuch, to\ngo and persuade the Hebrew woman to come and eat and drink with him and\nhis officers. Judith arose and decked herself, and went in and sat on\nthe ground on soft skins over against Holofernes, whose heart was\nravished with her, and his mind moved, and he desired greatly her\ncompany.\n\nNow Judith took and ate and drank what her maid had prepared, and\nHolofernes was greatly delighted with her, and drank much more wine than\nhe had drunk at any time in one day since he was born. Judith, when the\nevening was come, was left alone with Holofernes, and the servants were\ndismissed. Then she came to the pillar of the bed, which was at\nHolofernes's head, took down his fauchion, seized hold of the hair of\nhis head, and said: Strengthen me, O Lord God of Israel, this day. And\nshe smote twice upon his neck with all her might, and took away his head\nfrom him.\n\nShe put the head in her bag of meat and gave it to her maid, and the\ntwain went forth together, according to their custom, as unto prayer,\nand passed the camp. Then came they to Bethulia, and were admitted into\nthe city; and the people were astonished wonderfully and worshipped God,\nand said: Blessed be thou, O our God, which hast this day brought to\nnought the enemies of thy people. The head of Holofernes was hanged up\non the highest place of the city walls, and the men of Israel went forth\nby bands into the passes of the mountain. When the Assyrians saw this,\nthey sent to Holofernes's tent, and said that the slaves of Israelites\nhad come forth against them in battle. Then Bagoas went into the tent\nand found the body of Holofernes cast upon the ground and his head taken\naway. When also he found not Judith, he leaped out to the people and\ntold them; and great fear and trembling fell upon them, and they fled,\nbeing chased until past Damascus and the borders thereof by the children\nof Israel, who gat many spoils. Then Judith sang a song of thanksgiving\nin all Israel, and the people sang after her. She dedicated the spoil of\nHolofernes, which the people had given her, for a gift unto the Lord;\nand when she died in Bethulia, a widow of great honour, all Israel did\nlament.\n\n\nTHE BOOK OF ESTHER\n\n\n     These are the chapters of the Book of Esther, which are found\n     neither in the Hebrew nor in the Chaldee.\n\n\nIn the second year of the reign of Artaxerxes the Great, Mardocheus, who\nwas a Jew and dwelt in the city of Susa, had a dream. And the same night\nhe overheard two eunuchs plotting to lay hands on Artaxerxes, and he,\nbeing a servitor in the king's court, told the king; and the eunuchs,\nafter examination, were strangled. Aman, because of this, induced\nArtaxerxes to write to all the princes and governors from India unto\nEthiopia to destroy all the Jews, with their wives and children, without\npity, on the fourteenth day of the twelfth month of Adar. Mardocheus and\nQueen Esther, being in the fear of death, resorted unto the Lord, and\nprayed for deliverance, and for the preservation of the children of\nIsrael. On the third day, Queen Esther cometh unto the king's presence;\nand she was ruddy through the perfection of her beauty, but her heart\nwas in anguish for fear. The king looketh angrily at her as she stood\nbefore his royal throne, and she fainteth. Then God changed the spirit\nof the king, who leaped from his throne, took her in his arms, saying:\nBe of good cheer, thou shalt not die, though our commandment be general.\nAs he was speaking, she fell a second time for faintness, and the king\nwas troubled and all his servants comforted her.\n\nArtaxerxes then wrote a letter to all the princes wherein he taxed Aman,\nthe Macedonian, with having by manifold and cunning deceits sought the\ndestruction of Mardocheus, who had saved the king's life, and also of\nthe blameless Esther, partaker of his kingdom, with their whole nation.\nThe king revoked the decree procured by Aman, who, with all his family,\nwas hanged at the gates of Susa. And the king commanded the day of their\ndeliverance to be kept holy.\n\n\nTHE WISDOM OF SOLOMON\n\n\nLove righteousness, ye that be judges of the earth, for into a malicious\nsoul wisdom shall not enter. The spirit of the Lord filleth the world:\ntherefore he that speaketh unrighteous things cannot be hid. Seek not\ndeath in the error of your life: for God made not death, and\nrighteousness is immortal. The ungodly reason, but not aright: life is\nshort and tedious, which, being extinguished, our bodies shall be turned\ninto ashes, and our spirit vanish as the soft air. Come, therefore, let\nus enjoy the good things that are present. Their own wickedness hath\nblinded them, for God created man to be immortal.\n\nNevertheless, through envy of the devil came death into the world. The\nsouls of the righteous are in the hands of God, and there shall no\ntorments touch them. Having been a little chastised they shall be\ngreatly rewarded. Better to have no children and to have virtue; for\nchildren begotten of unlawful beds are witnesses against their parents.\nHonourable age is not measured by number of years. He, being made\nperfect in a short time, fulfilled a long time. For his soul pleased the\nLord: Therefore, hasted he to take him away from among the wicked. This\nthe people saw and understood it not, neither laid they up this in their\nminds. That his grace and mercy are with his saints, and that he hath\nrespect unto his chosen. The wicked wonder at the godly, and say: What\nhath pride profited us? And what good hath riches, with our vaunting,\nbrought us? All those things are passed away like a shadow. The hope of\nthe ungodly is like dust that is blown away: but the righteous live for\nevermore: their reward is a beautiful crown from the Lord's hand. Wisdom\nis easily found of such as seek her, therefore princes must desire her;\nfor a wise prince is the stay of his people. He that hath Wisdom hath\nevery good thing. Moreover, by her means man shall obtain immortality,\nand leave behind him an everlasting memorial.\n\n\nTHE WISDOM OF JESUS THE SON OF SIRACH; OR ECCLESIASTICUS.\n\n\n     There are two prologues to this book. The first is by an\n     uncertain author, stating that the book is the compilation of\n     three hands and is in imitation of the Book of Solomon. The\n     second prologue is by Jesus, the son of Sirach and grandchild\n     to Jesus of the same name, who had read the law and the\n     prophets and other books of the fathers, and had been drawn\n     himself to write something pertaining to wisdom and learning.\n     Coming into Egypt when Euergetes was king, Jesus, son of\n     Sirach, found a book of no small learning and bestowed\n     diligence and travail to interpret it, and to bring it to an\n     end. The following are among the precepts given:\n\n\nAll wisdom cometh from the Lord: she is with all flesh according to his\ngift. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and driveth away\nsins. My son, if thou come to serve the Lord, prepare thy soul for\ntemptation. Set thy heart aright, and constantly endure. Woe be to\nfearful hearts; but they that fear the Lord shall be filled with the\nlaw. Whoso honoureth his father maketh an atonement for his sins. He\nthat honoureth his mother layeth up treasure. Seek not out the things\nthat are too hard for thee: profess not the knowledge that thou hast\nnot. Defraud not the poor of his living: and be not fainthearted when\nthou sittest in judgment. Set not thy heart upon thy goods, for the Lord\nwill surely revenge thy pride. Winnow not with every wind, and let thy\nlife be sincere. Do not extol thy own conceit: if thou wouldst get a\nfriend, prove him first. A faithful friend is a strong defence. Seek not\nof the Lord preeminence: humble thy soul greatly. Fear the Lord, and\nreverence his priests. Stretch thine hand unto the poor, and mourn with\nthem that mourn. Strive not with a mighty man: kindle not the coals of a\nsinner. Lend not unto him that is mightier than thyself: be not surety\nabove thy power. Go not to law with a judge: consult not with a fool.\nJudge none blessed before his death. He that toucheth pitch shall be\ndenied therewith: like will to like. Say not thou: it is through the\nLord that I fell away: He has caused me to err. The Lord made man from\nthe beginning and left him in the hand of his counsel. He has commanded\nno man to do wickedly, neither has he given any man licence to sin. The\nknowledge of wickedness is not wisdom: neither at any time the counsel\nof sinners prudence. Whoso discovereth secrets loseth his credit and\nshall never find friend to his mind. Health and good estate of body are\nabove all gold. There is no joy above the joy of the heart. Give not\nover thy mind to heaviness: the joyfulness of a man prolongeth his days.\nEnvy and wrath shorten life: carefulness bringeth age before the time.\n\n[Then follow praises of a good householder, a good physician, a wise\ninterpreter of the law, and injunctions as to how a man should bear the\nmiseries of life, and face the approach of death. And the book concludes\nwith praises of the Patriarchs and the Prophets.]\n\n\nBARUCH\n\n\nBaruch, the son of Nerias, wrote a book in Babylon what time the\nChaldeans took Jerusalem and burnt it with fire. Baruch read the words\nof his book in the hearing of Jechonias, the son of the King of Juda,\nand in the ears of all the people. The Jews wept at the reading of it,\nby the river Sud, and made a collection of money to send to Jerusalem,\nunto the High Priest Joachim, to buy burnt offerings and sin offerings\nand incense, and to prepare manna to be offered upon the altar of the\nLord. The people at Jerusalem are asked also to pray for the life of\nNabuchodonosor, King of Babylon, and his son Balthasar, and for those\nwho sent the gifts and the book. The book begins with a prayer and\nconfession which the Jews at Babylon make, acknowledging that they are\nyet this day in captivity for a reproach and a curse, and to be subject\nto payments according to all the iniquities of their fathers which\ndeparted from the Lord our God. Then beginneth the book:\n\nHear, Israel, the commandments of life: give ear to understand wisdom.\nLet them that dwell about Sion come, and remember the captivity of my\nsons and daughters, which the Everlasting hath brought upon them. Be of\ngood cheer, O my children, crying unto the Lord, and He shall deliver\nyou from the power and hand of the enemies. I sent you out with mourning\nand weeping: but God will give you to me again with joy and gladness for\never. Put off, O Jerusalem, the garment of thy mourning and affliction,\nand put on the comeliness of the glory that cometh from God for ever;\nfor behold, thy children gathereth from the west and from the east and\nreturn out of captivity with glory.\n\n[With this book of Baruch there is an Epistle of Jeremy, which he sent\nunto them that were to be led captive into Babylon because of their\nsins. The prophet describes the idols and the conduct of the priests and\nthose who attend the heathen temples and warns the captives not to\nworship the false gods in Babylon.]\n\n\nSONG OF THE THREE HOLY CHILDREN\n\n\n[This Song is not in the Hebrew of the Book of Daniel.]\n\nThey walked in the midst of the fire praising God and blessing the Lord.\nAzarias opened his mouth in the midst of the flame and made confession\nof sins, and prayer for deliverance to the confusion of their enemies.\nWhereupon, the king's servants that put them in ceased not to make the\noven hot with rosin, pitch, tow, and small wood, so that the flame\npassed through and burned those Chaldeans it found about the furnace.\nBut the Angel of the Lord came down into the oven and made the midst of\nthe furnace as it had been a moist whistling wind, so that the fire\ntouched Azarias and his fellows not at all, neither hurt nor troubled\nthem. Then the three, as out of one mouth, praised, glorified, and\nblessed God in the furnace, saying: The Lord hath delivered us from\nhell, and saved us from the hand of death: for his mercy endureth for\never.\n\n\nTHE HISTORY OF SUSANNA\n\n\nThere dwelt a man in Babylon called Joacim. And he took a wife whose\nname was Susanna, a very fair woman, and one that feared the Lord. The\nsame year were appointed two of the ancients of the people to be judges;\nand they saw Susanna walking in her husband's garden, and their lust was\ninflamed towards her. Now, Susanna went into the garden to bathe, for it\nwas hot, and dismissed her maids. The two elders, who had hidden in the\ngarden, rose up and said: Consent and lie with us. If thou wilt not, we\nwill bear witness against thee that a young man was with thee, and\ntherefore thou didst send thy maids away. Then Susanna cried with a loud\nvoice, and the two elders cried out against her, and declared their\nmatter. The servants rushed in at the privy door and were greatly\nashamed, for there was never such a report made of Susanna. It came to\npass the next day when the people were assembled to her husband Joacim,\nwith the two elders full of mischievous imagination against Susanna,\nthese wicked men commanded Susanna to uncover her face that they might\nbe filled with her beauty, and her friends and all that saw her wept.\nThen the elders made their charge which they had agreed upon against\nSusanna, and the assembled people believed them: so they condemned her\nto death. Then Susanna cried to the Everlasting God, saying: Thou\nknowest that they have borne false witness against me, and that I never\ndid such things as these men have maliciously invented against me. And\nthe Lord heard her voice.\n\nWhen she was led to be put to death, the Lord raised up the holy spirit\nof a youth named Daniel, who said: Are ye such fools, ye sons of Israel,\nthat without examination or knowledge of the truth ye have condemned a\ndaughter of Israel? Then Daniel put the two elders aside, one far from\nthe other, to examine them. To the first he said: If thou hast seen her,\nunder what tree sawest thou them companying together? He answered: Under\na mastic tree. Daniel said: Very well; and he put him aside and\ncommanded the other to be brought. Tell me, he said, under what tree\ndidst thou take them companying together? He answered: Under an holm\ntree. Then Daniel said: These men have lied against their own heads, for\neven now the Angel of God waiteth with the sword that he may destroy\nthem. Then all the assembly arose against the two elders, for Daniel had\nconvicted them of false witness by their own mouth; and they put them to\ndeath. Thus the innocent blood was saved the same day; and from that\ntime forth was Daniel had in great reputation in the sight of the\npeople.\n\n\nTHE HISTORY OF THE DESTRUCTION OF BEL AND THE DRAGON\n\n\nWhen Cyrus of Persia received his kingdom, Daniel conversed with him,\nand was honoured above all his friends. Now, the Babylonians had an idol\ncalled Bel, which the king worshipped, but Daniel worshipped his own\nGod. The king said unto him: Why dost thou not worship Bel? Daniel\nanswered: Because I may not worship idols made with hands, but the\nliving God. Then the king said: Thinkest thou not that Bel is a living\ngod? Seest thou not how much he eateth and drinketh every day? Then\nDaniel smiled and said: O king, be not deceived; for this is but clay\nwithin and brass without, and it never eateth or drinketh anything. Then\ntrial was made by order of the king, and meat and wine were set in the\ntemple, the door made fast, and sealed with the king's signet. The\npriests of Bel were three score and ten, besides their wives and\nchildren, and they little regarded the trial, for under the table they\nhad made a privy entrance, whereby they entered the temple continually\nand consumed the meat and the wine. But Daniel had commanded his\nservants to strew the temple floor with ashes, before the door was shut\nand sealed. Now, in the night came the priests with their wives and\nchildren, as they were wont, and did eat and drink up all.\n\nIn the morning betimes the king arose, and Daniel with him. As soon as\nthe door was opened, the king looked upon the table, and cried with a\nloud voice: Great art thou, O Bel, and with thee is no deceit at all.\nThen laughed Daniel, and said: Behold the pavement, and mark well whose\nfootsteps are these. And the king saw the footsteps of men, women, and\nchildren, and was angry when he was shown the privy doors where they\ncame in and consumed such things as were upon the table. Therefore the\nking slew them, and delivered Bel into Daniel's power, who destroyed the\nidol and the temple.\n\nIn the same place there was a great dragon, which they of Babylon\nworshipped. The king said to Daniel: Lo! this dragon liveth, eateth,\ndrinketh; thou canst not say that he is no living god; therefore worship\nhim. Then said Daniel: I will worship the Lord, for he is the living\nGod. But give me leave, O king, and I shall slay this dragon without\nsword or staff.\n\nThe king gave him leave, and Daniel took pitch, and fat, and hair, and\ndid seethe them together, and made lumps thereof. These he put in the\ndragon's mouth, and the dragon burst in sunder. Then Daniel said: Lo,\nthese are the gods ye worship!\n\nWhen they of Babylon heard that, they conspired against the king,\nsaying: The king is become a Jew. So they came to the king, and said:\nDeliver us Daniel, or else we will destroy thee and thine house. Being\nsore constrained, the king delivered Daniel unto them, and they cast him\ninto the lions' den, where he was six days, during which the seven lions\nwere given no carcases, to the intent that they might devour Daniel.\n\nNow, there was in Jewry a prophet called Habakkuk who made pottage and\nbroken bread to take to the reapers in the field. An Angel of the Lord\nsaid unto Habakkuk: Go, carry the dinner that thou hast into Babylon\nunto Daniel, who is in the lions' den. And Habakkuk said: Lord, I never\nsaw Babylon; neither do I know where the den is. Then the Angel of the\nLord took Habakkuk by the crown, and bare him by the hair of his head,\nand through the vehemency of his spirit set him in Babylon over the den.\nAnd Habakkuk cried: O Daniel, take the dinner which God has sent thee.\nAnd Daniel said: Thou hast remembered me, O God: neither hast thou\nforsaken them that seek thee and love thee. So Daniel arose, and did\neat: And the Angel of the Lord set Habakkuk in his own place\nimmediately. Upon the seventh day the king went to bewail Daniel; and\nwhen he came to the den, behold, Daniel was sitting. Then cried the king\nwith a loud voice, saying: Great art thou, O Lord God of Daniel, and\nthere is none other besides thee. And he drew Daniel out, and cast those\nthat were the cause of his suffering into the den; and they were\ndevoured by the lions in a moment before his face.\n\n\nTHE PRAYER OF MANASSES\n\n\nThe Prayer of Manasses, King of Juda, when he was holden captive in\nBabylon, is an enumeration of the attributes of the Almighty God of\nAbraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and of their righteous seed; a general\nconfession of sins; and an entreaty that God would show him great mercy\nand goodness, forgive him, and condemn him not into the lower parts of\nthe earth. Therefore, he would praise the Lord for ever, all the days of\nhis life.\n\n\nTHE FIRST BOOK OF THE MACCABEES\n\n\nAntiochus, surnamed Epiphanes, reigned in the hundred and thirty-seventh\nyear of the kingdom of the Greeks. In those days certain wicked men of\nIsrael went to the king, who gave them licence to do after the\nordinances of the heathen. Whereupon, they built a place of exercise at\nJerusalem according to the custom of the heathen. Now, Antiochus made\nwar against Egypt, and when he had smitten the strong cities, and taken\nthe spoils thereof, he returned in the hundred forty and third year and\nwent up against Israel and Jerusalem, and captured the city with great\nmassacre and spoiled the Temple, and took away the vessels of gold and\nsilver and hidden treasures which he found therein. Therefore, there was\ngreat mourning in Israel. Two years after, the king sent his chief\ncollector of tribute unto the cities of Juda, and he fell suddenly upon\nJerusalem, set fire to it, and pulled down the houses and walls thereof.\nAnd the women and children he took away captive, and defiled the\nsanctuary.\n\nBut the enemy builded the city of David, with a great and strong wall\nand mighty towers, and stored it with armour and victuals and the spoils\nof Jerusalem, so that it became a sore snare against the sanctuary and\nan evil adversary to Israel. Moreover, King Antiochus wrote to his whole\nkingdom that all should be one people, and sent letters unto Jerusalem\nand the cities of Juda commanding that the Israelites should abandon\ntheir own worship, cease to circumcise their children, and adore his\nidols. Then was the abomination of desolation set up in the Temple, and\nidol altars were builded throughout the cities of Juda, and the books of\nthe law were burned. Howbeit many in Israel chose rather to die that\nthey might not be defiled with meats and profane the Holy Covenant. In\nthose days arose Mattathias, a priest of the sons of Joarib. He dwelt in\nModin, and had five sons--Joannan, Simon, Judas who was called\nMaccabeus, Eleazar, and Jonathan. The king's officers came to Modin and\nasked Mattathias to fulfil the king's commandment; but Mattathias said:\nThough all the nations consent, yet will I and my sons walk in the\ncovenant of our fathers. And he slew a Jew that did sacrifice to idols\nin his presence, and the king's messenger also. So he and his sons fled\ninto the mountains, and, being joined by a company of mighty men of\nIsrael, went round about, and pulled down idol altars and circumcised\nthe children valiantly. And the work prospered in their hands, and they\nrecovered the law out of the hands of the Gentiles. When Mattathias came\nto die he appointed Simon as a man of counsel, and Judas Maccabeus, who\nhad been mighty and strong in battle even from his youth up, to be their\ncaptain to avenge the wrongs of their people. So he died in his hundred\nforty and sixth year, and was buried in the sepulchre of his fathers at\nModin, and all Israel made great lamentation for him.\n\nNow, Judas Maccabeus fought the battles of his people with great\nvaliance, captured the cities of Juda, drove Apollonius and a great host\nout of Samaria, slew Apollonius, took their spoils, and Apollonius's\nsword also, and therewith he fought all his life long. Judas also\noverthrew Seron and the great army of Syria. Then Judas was renowned\nunto the utmost parts of the earth, and an exceeding great dread fell\nupon the nations round about. Now, when King Antiochus heard these\nthings he was full of indignation; wherefore he sent and gathered\ntogether all the forces of his realm. And the king sent Lysias, one of\nthe blood royal, with a great army to go into the land of Juda and\ndestroy it. Judas and his brethren, when he heard this, assembled the\nIsraelites at Maspha, over against Jerusalem, where they fasted; and\nJudas organised and armed them to battle, and camped at Emmaus. Gorgias,\nthe lieutenant of Lysias, attempted to surprise Judas, but Judas joined\nhim in battle and discomfited him, putting his host to flight and\ngaining great spoil. Next year Lysias gathered another army, that he\nmight subdue the Israelites, and came into Idumea, and pitched tents at\nBethsura. But Judas joined him in battle, and put Lysias and his army to\nflight. After this, Judas and his brethren came to Jerusalem, pulled\ndown the altar which the heathen had profaned, and set up a new altar.\nHe also builded up Mount Sion with strong towers and high walls. After\nthat Judas smote the children of Esau, Bean, and Ammon, and sent Simon\ninto Galilee, while he, with his brother Jonathan, went over Jordan, and\ncaptured the cities of Galaad. About that time Antiochus was in Persia,\nand heard of the doings of Judas. He was astonished and sore moved, and\nfell sick of grief and died. Lysias set up Antiochus, his son, as king,\nand called him Eupator, and brought a great army into Juda. The number\nof his army was an hundred thousand footmen, twenty thousand horsemen,\nand two and thirty elephants. Judas went out from Jerusalem and pitched\nin Bathzacharias over against the king's camp. Then a great battle was\nfought, when Judas was defeated. There being a famine in the city, he\nmade peace with Eupator, who, however, ordered the wall round about Sion\nto be pulled down.\n\nDemetrius came from Rome and attacked Eupator in Antioch, captured the\ncity, and slew Eupator and Lysias. Alsimus, who wished to be high\npriest, complained to Demetrius of Judas, and the king sent Nicanor, a\nman that bare deadly hate unto Israel, to destroy the people; but he was\ndefeated by Judas at Capharsalama with great slaughter, and in a second\nbattle Nicanor's host was discomfited and he himself was slain, and his\nhead and right hand were hanged up on the tower at Jerusalem. This was a\nday of great gladness to Israel, and the victory was kept holy every\nyear after.\n\nNow, Judas, being informed of the power and policy of the Romans, made a\nleague with them of mutual help. Notwithstanding, Demetrius sent\nBacchides and Alcimus a second time into Judea with a great host, and\ncamped at Berea. Now, Judas had pitched his tent at Eleasa, where,\nseeing the multitude of the other army to be so great, his men began to\ndesert him, whereupon Judas said: God forbid that I should flee away\nfrom the enemy; if our time be come, let us die manfully for our\nbrethren, and let us not stain our honour.\n\nThe armies came to battle, and the earth shook at the noise thereof, and\nthe fight continued from morning to night. Judas discomfited the right\nwing of the enemy under Bacchides and pursued them to Mount Azotus, but\nthe left wing followed upon Judas and a sore battle took place, insomuch\nthat many were slain on both sides. Judas was killed also, and the rest\nof his army fled. The body of Judas was taken to the sepulchre of his\nfathers at Modin by Jonathan and Simon, his brothers, and all Israel\nmade lamentation for him, and mourned many days, saying: How is the\nvaliant man fallen that delivered Israel!\n\nJonathan took command of the Israelites in the room of Judas, and made\npeace with Bacchides. Thereafter, Demetrius made large offers to have\npeace with Jonathan, including freedom of worship and release of\ntribute, together with the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem and the\ntowers thereof, and the repairs of the sanctuary; but Jonathan and the\npeople gave no credit to these words because they remembered the great\nevil Demetrius had done in Israel. Jonathan made peace with Alexander,\nand joined him in battle against Demetrius, whose host fled, and he\nhimself was slain.\n\nAfter that Demetrius the younger came out of Crete, and sent a great\nhost to Azotus. Here Jonathan attacked him, and with the help of Simon,\nhis brother, defeated the enemy and set fire to Azotus, and the temple\nof Dagon therein. There were burned and slain with the sword eight\nthousand men. Now, King Alexander honoured Jonathan and sent him a\nbuckle of gold such as is given to those of the king's blood. After\nthese days, Jonathan did many wonderful exploits in Galilee and\nDamascus, and then returned to Jerusalem. Now, when Jonathan saw that\nthe time served him, he renewed his league with the Romans and\nLacedemonians, and pursued the Arabians unto Damascus. He strengthened\nthe cities of Juda, but he was captured by fraud by Tryphon at\nPtolemais. Simon was made captain in his brother Jonathan's room, and\nprepared to attack Tryphon and, rescue his brother, but Tryphon slew\nJonathan, and returned into his own country.\n\nThe land of Juda was quiet all the days of Simon, and every man sat\nunder his own vine and fig-tree. When Simon was visiting the cities that\nwere in the country, Ptolemeus, son of Abubus, the captain of Jerico,\ninvited Simon and his two sons into his castle, called Docus. There a\ngreat banquet was given, at which Simon and his sons drank largely, and\nPtolemeus and his men came into the banqueting place and slew them.\n\n\nTHE SECOND BOOK OF THE MACCABEES\n\n\nThe brethren, the Jews that were at Jerusalem and in the land of Judea,\nwrote a letter to the Jews that were throughout Egypt to thank God for\nthe death of Antiochus. In his letter are recounted all the sayings of\nJeremy, and the great deeds of Judas Maccabeus and his brother Simon, as\nrecorded in the books of Jason, until Nicanor the blasphemer was killed,\nand his head hanged upon the tower at Jerusalem, from which time forth\nthe Hebrews had the city in their power.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\nST. AUGUSTINE\n\n\nTHE CITY OF GOD\n\n\n     A French critic has said of Augustine's \"City of God\" that it\n     is the earliest serious attempt to write a philosophy of\n     history, and another has spoken of it as the encyclopaedia of\n     the fifth century. These two remarks together characterise the\n     work excellently. It is a huge treatise in twenty-two books,\n     begun in the year 413, and finished in 426, and was given to\n     the public in sections as these were completed. Augustine (see\n     LIVES AND LETTERS) himself explains the origin of the work.\n     The fall of Rome by Alaric's invasion in 410 had been ascribed\n     to the desertion of the old gods of Rome and to the wide\n     extension of Christianity, or the City of God, throughout the\n     empire. It was to refute this calumny that the learned African\n     bishop elaborated his great defense of Christ's kingdom, the\n     \"Catholic Church, which should include all nations and speak\n     in all tongues.\" In Books 1-5 St. Augustine shows that the\n     catastrophe of Rome was not due to the neglect of the old\n     mythological superstitions; and in Books 6-10 that the heathen\n     cult was helpless for the life after death. Books 11-14 deal\n     with the origin of the two cities, namely, of God and the\n     World; Books 15-18 with their respective histories, and Books\n     19-22 with their respective ultimate destinies.\n\n\n_I.--THE ORIGIN OF THE TWO CITIES_\n\n\nI write, dear Marcellinus, of that most glorious City of God, both in\nher present pilgrimage and life by faith, and in that fixed and\neverlasting seat which she awaits in patience. I write to defend her\nagainst those who place their gods above her Founder--a great and\narduous work, but God is my aid. I well know what power a writer needs\nwho would show the proud how great is the virtue of humility. For the\nlaw of our King and Founder is this: \"God is against the proud but gives\ngrace to the humble\"; but the swollen and insolent soul loves herein to\nusurp the divine Majesty, and itself \"to spare the subject and subdue\nthe proud.\" Wherefore I may not pass over in silence that earthly city\nalso, enslaved by its lust of empire.\n\nFor it is from this City of the World that those enemies have arisen,\nagainst whom we have to defend the City of God; Romans, spared by the\nbarbarians on Christ's account, are haters of the name of Christ. The\nshrines of the martyrs and the basilicas of the apostles received, in\nthe devastation of the city, not their own people only, but every\nfugitive; and the fury and greed of the invaders were quenched at these\nholy thresholds. Yet with thankless arrogance and impious frenzy these\nmen, who took refuge under that Name in order that they might enjoy the\nlight of fugitive years, perversely oppose it now, that they may\nlanguish in sempiternal gloom.\n\nNever has it been known, in so many wars as are recorded from before the\nfoundation of Rome to the present day, that an enemy, having reduced any\ncity, should have spared those who had fled to the temples of their\ngods; not even the Romans themselves, whose moderation in victory has so\noften been justly praised, have respected the sanctuary of vanquished\ndeities. The devastation and massacre and pillage and conflagrations of\nthe sack of Rome were nothing new. But this one thing was new and\nunheard of--these savages became suddenly so mild as to set apart\nspacious basilicas and to fill them with people on whom they had mercy;\nno one might be killed therein nor any dragged from thence. Who does not\nsee that this is due to the name of Christ and to a Christian age? Who\ncan deny that these sanguinary hordes were bridled by Him Who had said:\n\"I will visit their sins with the rod, but will not take my mercy from\nthem\"?\n\nAll natures, because they exist and therefore have their manner and\nspecies and a certain peace with themselves, are good; and when they are\nin the places belonging to the order of nature, they preserve the being\nwhich they have received.\n\nThe truest cause of the felicity of the good angels is to be found in\nthis, that they adhere to Him Who supremely is; and the cause of the\nmisery of bad angels lies in this, that they have turned away from Him\nWho supremely is, to themselves, who have not supreme being. This vice\nhas no other name but pride, which is the beginning of every sin. They\nrefused to preserve their strength for Him, and so threw away that in\nwhich all their greatness consisted. It is vain to seek for an efficient\ncause for the bad will; we have to do, not with anything efficient, but\nwith a deficiency. The mere defection from that which supremely is to\nthings which are on a lower grade of being is to begin to have a bad\nwill.\n\nNow God founded mankind, not as the angels, so that even did they sin\nthey should not die; but in such a way that did they obey, they should\nenter, without death, on a blessed eternity; but, did they disobey, they\nshould suffer the most just penalty, both of body and of soul. For\nthough the human soul is truly said to be immortal, yet is there a sense\nin which it dies when God forsakes it.\n\nOnly because they had begun inwardly to be evil did the first of mankind\nfall into overt disobedience. A bad will had preceded the bad action,\nand of that bad will the beginning was pride, or the appetite for an\ninordinate rank. To lift oneself up is in itself to be cast down and to\nfall. Wherefore humility is most highly of all things commended in and\nto the City of God, and in Christ her King; but the contrary vice of\narrogance especially rules her adversary, the devil, and this is\nunquestionably the great difference by which the two cities are divided,\nand the society of the pious from the society of the impious. Thus two\nloves have founded two cities, the love of Self extending to contempt of\nGod has made the City of the World; the love of God extending to\ncontempt of Self has made the Heavenly City.\n\n\n_II.--THE GROWTH OF THE CITIES_\n\n\nThis whole universal time or age, in which the dying give way and the\nnewborn succeed them, is the scene and history of those two cities which\nare our theme. The City of the World, which lasts not for ever, has its\ngood here below, and rejoices in it with such joy as is possible. The\nobjects of its desire are not otherwise than good, and itself is the\nbest of the good things of earth. It desires an earthly peace for lower\nends, makes wars to gain this peace, wins glorious victories, and when\nvictory crowns a just cause, who shall not acclaim the wished-for peace?\nThese things are good indeed, and unquestionably are the gifts of God.\nBut if, neglecting the better things, which belong to the supernal city,\nthey covet these lower ends as if there were none higher, misery must\ninevitably follow.\n\nAll men, indeed, desire peace; but while the society which does not live\nby faith seeks its peace in the temporal advantages of the present life,\nthat which lives by faith awaits the promised blessings, and makes use\nof earthly and temporal things only as pilgrims do. The earthly city\nseeks its peace in a harmony of the wills of men with respect to the\nthings of this life. And the heavenly city also, or, rather, that part\nof it which travels in this mortality, must use that earthly peace while\nmortality remains. Living a captive life in the midst of the earthly\ncity, it does not hesitate to respect its laws. Since this mortality is\ncommon to both cities, there is a concord between them in the things\nthat belong to it. Only, the heavenly city cannot have common laws of\nreligion with the earthly city, but has been forced to dissent, and to\nsuffer hatred and the storms of persecution.\n\nTherefore, this heavenly city, a pilgrim upon earth, calls out citizens\nfrom all peoples and collects a pilgrim society of all tongues, careless\nwhat differences there may be in manners, laws and institutions by which\nearthly peace is achieved and maintained, destroying none of these, but\nrather serving and fulfilling them. Even the celestial city, therefore,\nuses the earthly peace, and uses it as a means to the heavenly peace;\nfor that alone can be called the peace of a rational creature which\nconsists in a harmonious society devoted to the enjoyment of God and one\nanother in God.\n\nAs for that uncertainty with regard to everything, which characterises\nthe New Academy, the City of God detests all such doubting as a form of\nmadness, since she has the most certain knowledge of those things which\nshe understands by mind and reason, however that knowledge may be\nlimited by our corruptible body. She believes also the evidence of the\nsenses, which the mind uses through the body, for he is miserably\ndeceived who regards them as untrustworthy. She believes also the holy\nScriptures, which we call canonical.\n\nIt is no matter to the City of God what dress the citizen wears, or what\nmanner of life he follows, so long as it is not contrary to the Divine\ncommands; so that she does not compel the philosophers, who become\nChristians, to change their habit or their means of life, which are no\nhindrance to religion, but only their false opinions. As for these three\nkinds of life, the contemplative, the active, and that which partakes of\nboth qualities, although a man living in faith may adopt any of them,\nand therein reach eternal reward, yet the love of truth and the duties\nof charity alike must have their place. One may not so give himself to\ncontemplation as to neglect the good of his neighbour, nor be so deeply\nimmersed in action as to neglect the contemplation of God. In leisure we\nought to delight, not in an empty inertia, but in the inquisition or\ndiscovery of truth, in such a way that each may make progress without\nenvying the attainments of another. In action we ought to seek neither\nthe honours of this life nor power, since all that is under the sun is\nvanity; but only the work itself, which our situation enables us to do,\nand to do it rightly and serviceably.\n\nAccording to the definitions which Scipio used in Cicero's \"Republic,\"\nthere never really existed a Roman republic. For he briefly defines a\nrepublic as the estate of the people--\"res publica\" as \"res populi,\" and\ndefines the people as a multitudinous assemblage, united by consent to\nlaw and by community of advantage. So, then, where justice is not, there\ncan be no people; and if no people, then no estate of the people, but\nonly of a confused multitude unworthy of the name of a people. Where no\njustice is, there is no commonwealth. Now, justice is a virtue\ndistributing unto everyone his due. Where, then, is the justice of the\nman who deserts the true God and gives himself over to unclean demons?\nIs this giving everyone his due?\n\nBut if we define a people in another way, and consider it as an\nassemblage of rational beings united by unanimity as to the objects of\ntheir love, then, in order to ascertain the character of a people, we\nmust ascertain what things they love. Whatever it loves, so long as it\nis an assemblage of rational creatures and not a herd of cattle, and is\nagreed as to the objects of its love, it is truly a people, though so\nmuch the better as its concord lies in better things, and so much the\nworse as its concord lies in inferior things. According to this\ndefinition, then, the Roman people is indeed a people, and its estate is\na commonwealth. But what things that people has loved in its earlier and\nlater times, and how it fell into bloody seditions and into social and\ncivil wars, breaking and corrupting that concord which is the health of\na people--of these things history is witness. Yet I would not on that\naccount deny it the name of a people, nor its estate the name of a\nrepublic, so long as there remains some assemblage of rational persons\nassociated by unanimity with regard to the objects of love. But in\ngeneral, whatever be the nation in question, whether Athens, Egypt,\nBabylon, or Rome, the city of the ungodly--refusing obedience to the\ncommandment of God that no sacrifice should be offered but to Him\nalone--is without true justice.\n\nFor though there may be an apparent mastery of the soul over the body,\nand of reason over vices, yet if soul and reason do not serve God as He\nhas commanded, they can have no true dominion over the body and its\npassions. How can the mind which is ignorant of the true God, and\ninstead of obeying Him is prostituted to impure demons, be true mistress\nof the body and the vices? Nay, the very virtues which it appears to\nitself to possess, by which it rules the body and the vices in order\nthat it may obtain and guard the objects which it desires, being\nundirected to God, are rather vices than virtues. For as that which\nmakes flesh to live is not flesh but above it, so that which enables man\nto live in blessedness is not of man, but above him.\n\n\n_III.--THE DESTINY OF THE JUST_\n\n\nWho is able to tell of the creation, with its beauty and utility, which\nGod has set before the eyes of man, though here condemned to labour and\nsorrow? The innumerable loveliness of sky, earth and sea, the abundance\nand wonder of light, the sun, moon and stars, the shade of trees, the\ncolours and fragrance of flowers, the multitude of birds of varied hue\nand song, the many forms of animals, of which the smallest are more\nwonderful than the greatest, the works of bees more amazing than the\nvast bodies of whales--who shall describe them?\n\nWhat shall those rewards, then, be? What will God give them whom He has\npredestined to life, having given such great things to those whom He has\npredestined to death? What in that blessed life will He lavish upon\nthose for whom He gave His Son to death? What will the state of man's\nspirit be when it has become wholly free from vice; yielding to none,\nenslaved by none, warring against none, but perfectly and wholly at\npeace with itself?\n\nWho can say, or even imagine, what degrees of glory shall there be given\nto the degrees of merit? Yet we cannot doubt that there will be degrees;\nand that in that blessed city no one in lower place shall envy his\nsuperior; for no one will wish to be that which he has not received,\nthough bound in closest concord with him who has received. Together with\nhis reward, each shall have the gift of contentment, so as to desire no\nmore than he has. There we shall rest and see, we shall see and love, we\nshall love and praise. For what other end have we, but to reach the\nkingdom of which there is no end?\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\nRICHARD BAXTER\n\n\nTHE SAINTS' EVERLASTING REST\n\n\n     Richard Baxter, the Puritan author of one hundred and\n     sixty-eight volumes, of which \"The Saints Everlasting Rest\"\n     was, and is, the most popular, was born in 1615 during the\n     reign of James I., and died in 1691, soon after the accession\n     of William III. His lifetime, therefore, was coincident with\n     the troubles of the Stuart House. For fifty years Baxter was\n     one of the best known divines in England. Throughout, his was\n     a moderating influence in politics, the Church, and theology.\n     His best known pastorate, one of extraordinary success, was at\n     Kidderminster, between his twenty-sixth and forty-fifth years,\n     and there, in an interlude of ill-health of more than\n     customary severity--for all his life he was ailing--he wrote,\n     anticipatory of death, \"The Saints Everlasting Rest.\" The\n     book, which was dedicated to his \"dearly beloved friends the\n     inhabitants of the Borrough and Forreign of Kederminster,\" was\n     published in 1650 and had an immediate and almost\n     unparallelled success. Twenty thousand copies were sold in the\n     year after publication, and various editions are now in\n     circulation. The saintliness of this broad-minded divine's\n     character emerges unsullied from an age of contentious\n     bigotry.\n\n\n_I.--THE NATURE OF REST_\n\n    \"There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.\"\n      --Heb. iv, 9.\n\n\nIt was not only our interest in God and actual fruition of Him which was\nlost in Adam's covenant-breaking fall, but all spiritual knowledge of\nHim, and true disposition towards such a felicity. Man hath now a heart\ntoo suitable to his low estate--a low state, and a low spirit. And when\nthe Son of God comes with tenders of a spiritual and eternal happiness\nand glory, He finds not faith in man to believe it; but, as the poor man\nwould not believe that any one man had such a sum as a hundred\npounds--it was so far above what he possessed--so no man will hardly now\nbelieve that there is such a happiness as once he had, much less as\nChrist hath now procured.\n\nThe Apostle bestows most of his epistle against this distemper, and\nclearly and largely proves that the rest of Sabbaths and Canaan should\nteach men to look for further rest, which indeed is their happiness.\nWhat more welcome to men under personal afflictions, tiring duty,\nsuccessions of sufferings, than rest? What more welcome news to men\nunder public calamities, unpleasing employment, plundering losses, sad\ntidings, than this of rest?\n\nNow let us see what this rest is. Though the sense of the text includes\nin the word \"rest\" all that ease and safety which a soul hath with\nChrist in _this life_--the rest of grace--yet because it chiefly intends\nthe rest of eternal glory I shall confine my discourse to this last.\n\nRest is the end and perfection of motion. The saints' rest, here in\nquestion, is _the most happy estate of a Christian having obtained the\nend of his course_.\n\nMay we show what this rest containeth. Alas! how little know I of that\nwhereof I am about to speak. Shall I speak before I know? If I stay till\nI clearly know I shall not come again to speak. Therefore will I speak\nthat little which I do know of it rather than be wholly silent.\n\nThere is contained in this rest a cessation from motion or action. When\nwe have obtained the haven we have done with sailing; when we are at our\njourney's end we have done with the way. There shall be no more prayer\nbecause no more necessity, but the full enjoyment of what we prayed for.\nNeither shall we need to fast and weep and watch any more, being out of\nthe reach of sin and temptations. Nor will there be use for instructions\nand exhortations; preaching is done; the ministry of man ceaseth;\nsacraments useless; the labourer called in because the harvest is\ngathered, the tares burned, the work done.\n\nThis rest containeth a perfect freedom from all the evils that accompany\nus through our course, and which necessarily follow our absence from the\nchief good. Doubtless there is not such a thing as grief and sorrow\nknown there; nor is there such a thing as a pale face, a languid body,\nfeeble joints, unable infancy, decrepit age, peccant humours, dolorous\nsickness, griping fears, consuming care, nor whatsoever deserveth the\nname of evil. Indeed, a gale of groans and sighs, a stream of tears\naccompanied us to the very gates, and there bid us farewell for ever.\n\nThis rest containeth the highest degree of the saints' personal\nperfection, both of soul and body. This necessarily qualifies them to\nenjoy the glory and thoroughly to partake the sweetness of it. This is\none thing that makes the saints' joy there so great. Here eye hath not\nseen, nor ear heard, nor heart conceived what God hath laid up for them\nthat wait for Him; but there the eye and ear and heart are made capable,\nelse how do they enjoy it? The more perfect the appetite the sweeter the\nfood; the more musical the ear the more pleasant the melody; the more\nperfect the soul the more joyous those joys, and the more glorious to us\nis that glory.\n\nThis rest containeth, as the principal part, our nearest fruition of\nGod, the chiefest good. And here, wonder not if I be at a loss. When I\nknow so little of God, I cannot know how much it is to enjoy Him. When\nit is so little I know of mine own soul--either its quiddity or quality,\nwhile it is here in this tabernacle--how little must I needs know of the\ninfinite majesty, or the state of this soul when it is advanced to that\nenjoyment. Nay, if I never saw that creature which contains not\nsomething unsearchable, nor the worm so small which afforded not matter\nfor questions to puzzle the greatest philosopher that ever I met with,\nno wonder if mine eye fail when I look at God, my tongue fail me in\nspeaking of Him, and my heart in conceiving. What strange conceivings\nhath a man born blind of the sun of its light; or a man born deaf of the\nnature of music; so do we want that sense by which God must be clearly\nknown. But this we know, the chief good is for us to be near to God.\n\n\n_II.--HOW THE SAINTS WILL BE EMPLOYED_\n\n\nThis rest containeth a sweet and constant action of all the powers of\nthe soul and body in this fruition of God. It is not the rest of a stone\nwhich ceaseth from motion when it attains the centre. Whether the\nexternal senses, such as now we have, shall be continued and employed in\nthis work is a great doubt. For some of them, it is usually\nacknowledged, they shall cease, because their being importeth their use,\nand their use implieth our state of imperfection--as there is no use for\neating and drinking, so neither for taste. But do not all senses imply\nour imperfection? As the ore is cast into the fire a stone, but comes\nforth so pure a metal that it deserves another name, so far greater will\nthe change of our body and senses be--even so great as now we cannot\nconceive. And, doubtless, as God advanceth our sense and enlargeth our\ncapacity, so will He advance the happiness of those senses, and fill up\nwith Himself all that capacity.\n\nAnd if the body shall be thus employed, oh, how shall the soul be taken\nup! As the bodily senses have their proper aptitude and action, so doth\nthe soul in its own action enjoy its own object--by knowing, by\nthinking, by remembering, by loving. This is the soul's enjoying.\n\nKnowledge of itself is very desirable, even the knowledge of some evil,\nthough not the evil itself. As far as a rational soul exceeds the\nsensitive, so far the delights of a philosopher in discovering the\nsecrets of Nature, and knowing the mysteries of science, exceed the\ndelights of the glutton, the drunkard, the unclean, and of all\nvoluptuous sensualists whatsoever--so excellent is all truth. What,\nthen, is their delight who know the God of truth! What would I not give\nso that all the uncertain, questionable principles in logic, natural\nphilosophy, metaphysics, and medicine were but certain in themselves and\nto me, that my dull, obscure notions of them were but quick and clear.\nOh, what then should I not either perform or part with to enjoy a clear\nand true apprehension of the most true God!\n\nHow noble a faculty of the soul is this understanding! It can compass\nthe earth; it can measure the sun, moon, stars, and heaven; it can\nforeknow each eclipse to a minute many years before; yea, but the top of\nall its excellency is that it can know God, who is infinite, who made\nall these--a little here, and more, much more, hereafter. Oh, the wisdom\nand goodness of our blessed Lord! He hath created the understanding with\na natural bias and inclination to truth as its object, and to the prime\ntruth as its prime object; and lest we should turn aside to any\ncreature, He hath kept this as His own divine prerogative, not\ncommunicable to any creature, namely, to _be_ the prime truth.\n\nAnd, doubtless, memory will not be idle or useless in this blessed work,\nif it be but by looking back to help the soul to value its enjoyment.\nOur knowledge will be enlarged, not diminished; therefore the knowledge\nof things past shall not be taken away. And what is that knowledge but a\nremembrance? Doubtless, from that height the saint can look behind him\nand before him; and to compare past with present things must needs raise\nin the blessed soul an unconceivable esteem and sense of its condition.\nTo stand on that mount whence we can see the wilderness and Canaan both\nat once; to stand in heaven and look back on earth, and weigh them\ntogether in the balance of a comparing sense and judgment, how must it\nneeds transport the soul and make it cry out: Have the gales of grace\nblown me into such a harbour! O, blessed way, and thrice blessed end!\n\nAnd now if there be such a thing as indignation left how will it here\nlet fly: O vile nature that resisted so much and so long such a\nblessing! Unworthy soul, is this the place thou camest so unwillingly\ntowards? Was duty wearisome? Was the world too good to lose? Didst thou\nstick at leaving all, denying all, and suffering anything for this? Wast\nthou loth to die to come to this? O false heart, that had almost\nbetrayed me and lost me this glory!\n\nBut oh, the full, the near, the sweet enjoyment is that of the\naffections--love and joy! It is near, for love is of the essence of the\nsoul; love is the essence of God, for God is love. Oh, the high delights\nof this love! The content that the heart findeth in it! Surely love is\nboth work and wages.\n\nBut, alas! my fearful heart scarce dares proceed. Methinks I hear the\nAlmighty's voice saying to me, as to Job, \"Who is this that darkeneth\ncounsel by words without knowledge?\" But pardon, O Lord, Thy servant's\nsin. I have not pried into unrevealed things, nor with audacious wits\ncuriously searched into Thy counsels; but, indeed, I have dishonoured\nThy Holiness, wronged Thine Excellency, disgraced Thy saints' glory by\nmy own exceeding disproportionate pourtraying. I bewail that my\nconceivings fall so short, my apprehensions are so dull, my thoughts so\nmean, my affections so stupid, expressions so low, and unbeseeming such\na glory. But I have only heard by the hearing of the ear. Oh, let Thy\nservant see Thee and possess these joys, and then I shall have more\nsuitable conceivings, and shall give Thee fuller glory!\n\n\n_III.--HOW THE ETERNAL REST IS REACHED_\n\n\nHaving thus opened to you a window towards the temple, and showed you a\nsmall glimpse of the back parts of that resemblance of the saints' rest\nwhich I had seen in the Gospel-glass, it follows that we proceed to view\na little the adjuncts and blessed properties of this rest, and first\nconsider the eminent antecedents, the great preparations, the notable\nintroduction to this rest; for the porch of this temple is exceeding\nglorious, and the gate of it is called beautiful. And here offer\nthemselves to our observation as the four corners of this porch the most\nglorious coming and appearing of the Son of God; His wonderful raising\nof our bodies from the dust, and uniting them again with the soul; His\npublic and solemn proceedings in their judgment; His solemn celebration\nof their coronation, and His enthronising of them in their glory.\n\nWell may the coming of Christ be reckoned into His people's glory and\nenumerated with those ingredients that compound this precious antidote\nof rest, for to this end it is intended, and to this end it is of\napparent necessity. Alas, fellow Christians, what should we do if our\nLord should not return? What a case are we here left in! It cannot be;\nnever fear it, it cannot be. And O, fellow-Christians, what a day will\nthat be when we, who have been kept prisoners by sin and the grave,\nshall be fetched out by the Lord Himself! It will not be such a coming\nas His first was--in meanness and poverty and contempt. He will not\ncome, O careless world, to be slighted and neglected by you any more. To\nthink and speak of that day with horror doth well beseem the impenitent\nsinner, but ill the believing saint. How full of joy was that blessed\nmartyr Mr. Glover, with the discovery of Christ to his soul, after long\ndoubting and waiting in sorrow, so that he cries out: \"He is come! He is\ncome!\" If thou have but a dear friend returned, that hath been far and\nlong absent, how do all run out to meet him with joy! \"Oh,\" said the\nchild, \"My father is come!\" Saith the wife, \"My husband is come!\" And\nshall not we, when we behold our Lord in His majesty returning, cry out:\n\"He is come! He is come!\"\n\nThe second stream that leadeth to Paradise is that great work of Jesus\nChrist in raising our bodies from the dust and uniting them again unto\nthe soul. A wonderful effect of infinite power and love. \"Yea, wonderful\nindeed,\" saith unbelief, \"if it be true.\" \"What,\" saith the Atheist and\nSadducee, \"shall all these scattered bones and dust become a man? A man\ndrowned in the sea is eaten by fishes, and they by men again, and these\nmen by worms. What is to become of the body of that first man? Shall it\nrise again?\" Thou fool--for so Paul calls thee--dost thou dispute\nagainst the power of the Almighty? Wilt thou pose him with thy\nsophistry? Dost thou object difficulties to infinite strength? Thou\nblind mole, thou silly worm; thou little piece of creeping, breathing\nclay; thou dust, thou nothing, knowest thou who it is whose power thou\ndost question? If thou shouldst see Him, thou wouldst presently die. If\nHe should come and dispute His cause with thee, couldst thou bear it? If\nthou shouldst hear His voice, couldst thou endure?\n\nCome then, fellow-Christians, let us contentedly commit these carcasses\nto the dust, knowing that prison shall not long contain them. Let us lie\ndown in peace and take our rest; it will not be an everlasting night or\nendless sleep. As sure as we awake in the morning when we have slept out\nthe night, so sure shall we then awake. What if our carcasses become as\nvile as those of the beasts that perish, what if our bones are digged up\nand scattered about the pit brink, and worms consume our flesh, yet we\nknow that our Redeemer liveth, and shall stand at the last on earth, and\nwe shall see Him with these eyes.\n\nThe third part of this prologue to the saints' rest is the public and\nsolemn process at their judgment. O terrible, O joyful day! Then shall\nthe world behold the goodness and the severity of the Lord--on them who\nperish, severity; but to His chosen, goodness. Then, fellow-Christians,\nlet the terror of that day be never so great, surely our Lord can mean\nno ill to us.\n\nThe fourth antecedent and highest step to the saints' advancement is\ntheir solemn coronation, enthronising and receiving into the kingdom.\nThey that have been faithful unto death shall receive the crown of life,\nand according to the improvement of their talents here so shall their\nrule and dignity be enlarged.\n\n\n_IV.--EXCELLENCES OF THE ETERNAL REST_\n\n\nA comfortable adjunct of this rest is the fellowship of the blessed\nsaints and angels of God. Oh, when I look in the faces of the precious\npeople of God, and believing, think of this day, what a refreshing\nthought is it! Shall we not there remember, think you, the pikes which\nwe passed through here; our fellowship in duty and in sufferings; how\noft our groans made as it were one sound, our conjunct tears but one\nstream, and our conjunct desires but one prayer. And now all our praises\nshall make up one melody, and all our churches one church; and all\nourselves but one body; for we shall be one in Christ, even as He and\nthe Father are one.\n\nIt is a question with some whether we shall know each other in heaven or\nno. Surely there shall no knowledge cease which we now have, but only\nthat which implieth imperfection! And what imperfection can this imply?\nNay, our present knowledge shall be increased beyond belief. It shall be\ndone away, but as the light of candles and stars is done away by the\nrising of the sun, which is more properly a doing away of our ignorance\nthan of our knowledge. Indeed, we shall not know each other after the\nflesh; nor by stature, voice, colour, complexion, visage, or outward\nshape, but by the image of Christ and spiritual relation, and former\nfaithfulness in improving our talents we shall know and be known.\n\nAgain, a further excellence is this--it will be unto us a _seasonable_\nrest. When we have passed a long and tedious journey, and that through\nno small dangers, is not home then seasonable? When we have had a long\nand perilous war, and have lived in the midst of furious enemies, and\nhave been forced to stand on a perpetual watch, and received from them\nmany a wound, would not a peace with victory be now seasonable? Some are\ncomplaining under the pressure of the times--weary of their taxes, weary\nof their quarterings, weary of plunderings, weary of their fears and\ndangers, weary of their poverty and wants, and is not rest yet\nseasonable? Some of us languish under continual weakness, and groan\nunder most grievous pains, weary of going, weary of sitting, weary of\nstanding, weary of lying, weary of eating, weary of speaking, weary of\nwaking, weary of our very friends, weary of ourselves. Oh, how oft hath\nthis been mine own case--and is not rest yet seasonable?\n\nA further excellence is that this is a _suitable_ rest. Gold and earthly\nglory, temporal crowns and kingdoms could not make rest for saints. Such\nas their nature and desire such will be their rest.\n\nIt will, too, be absolutely _perfect and complete_--as there is no\nmixture of our corruption with our graces, so there will be no mixture\nof our sufferings with our solace. We shall know which was the right\nside and which the wrong. Then shall our understandings receive their\nlight from the face of God, as the full moon from the open sun when\nthere is no earth to interpose betwixt them. It is a perfect rest from\nperplexing doubts and fear, from all sense of God's displeasure, from\nall the temptations of Satan, the world, and the flesh. And it is an\n_eternal_ rest. This is the crown of our crown. Mortality is the\ndisgrace of all sublunary delights. But, O blessed eternity, where our\nlives are perplexed by no such thoughts, nor our joys interrupted by any\nsuch fears! Our first paradise in Eden had a way out, but none in again;\nbut this eternal paradise hath a way in, but no way out again. The Lord\nheal our carnal hearts lest we enter not into His eternal rest because\nof our unbelief.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\nBOOK OF THE DEAD\n\n\n     This is probably the oldest religious book in the world.\n     Properly speaking, indeed, it is no book at all, but rather a\n     collection of hymns and litanies which have no more connection\n     with each other than the Psalms. Like the Psalter, too, this\n     so-called book has grown by degrees to the magnitude which it\n     now usually assumes in European and other libraries--175\n     chapters of varying sizes. Its Egyptian name is \"The Book of\n     the Coming Forth by Day\" (Renouf), or \"The Coming Out of the\n     Day\" (Naville); the latter being probably more correct, \"day\"\n     in this connection denoting man's life with its morning and\n     evening. The hymns in this collection are supposed to be\n     recited by the deceased person with whose body they were\n     commonly buried, and by the recital of these and other sacred\n     texts the departed was believed to be protected against injury\n     in his journey to the underworld, and also to have secured for\n     him a safe return in the form of a resurrection. It was\n     Lepsius, the great German Egyptologist, who gave this\n     compilation the name \"Book of the Dead.\" Even this name,\n     however, though more correct than any other, gives by no means\n     an adequate account of that for which it stands. This, and\n     other summaries of the sacred books of the East appearing in\n     THE WORLD'S GREATEST BOOKS present in quite original ways the\n     systems and philosophies of the great non-Christian religions.\n\n\n\n_INTRODUCTORY_\n\n\nThe Book of the Dead may be described as the soul's _vade mecum_ in the\njourney from this world. It prescribes the forms the soul must have at\ncommand in order to ward off the dangers on the way to the underworld,\nduring residence in the world, and on the journey back.\n\nThe ancient Egyptians considered this book as inspired by the gods, who\ncaused their scribe, Thoth, to write it down. Every chapter is supposed\nto exist for the sake of persons who have died. Sometimes chapters had\nto be recited before the body was put down out of sight. Often a\nchapter, or more than one, was inscribed on the coffin, or sarcophagus,\nor mummy wrappings, this being thought a sure protection against foes of\nevery kind.\n\nThis collection has been chiefly found written on papyrus in\nhieroglyphic or hieratic characters on coffins, mummies, sepulchral\nwrappings, statues, and on the walls of tombs. Complete copies have been\nfound written on tombs of the time of the 26th Dynasty (about 800 B.C.).\n\nThere are many recensions, or editions, in the various libraries of\nEurope and also in the East, and no two of them are identical in the\ntext. Lepsius translated from the Turin papyrus; Budge bases his\ntranslations on what is called the Theban recension. But in all the text\nis exceedingly corrupt, and translation is often no more than a guess.\nOwing to the number of proper names and technical terms which we have no\nmeans of understanding, it is often quite impossible to know the drift\nof large paragraphs, and even of whole chapters. Since many of the\nchapters were treated merely as having a magical efficacy either when\nrecited or when inscribed on something buried with the body, it was of\nsmall consequence whether or not the words were understood. The bare\nrecital or writing of names of gods, etc., had a magical efficacy\naccording to the people who counted the Book of the Dead their sacred\nscriptures.\n\nAs regards date, the greater number of the hymns and prayers were\nrecited by the people of Egypt on behalf of their deceased friends\nbefore the first dynasty had begun to reign. Birch says before 3000 B.C.\nThe hymns and prayers were first of all preserved in the memory only,\nand their number was at an early time but small. They were written down\nwhen the priests had doubts with regard to the meaning of certain terms,\nand wished to hand them on unimpaired to posterity, being influenced by\nthe belief that the words of this sacred book were, as such, magically\npotent. The oldest extant papyrus containing the Book of the Dead\nbelongs to the 18th Dynasty, _i.e._, about 1500 B.C.; but we do not come\nacross a complete copy, with the chapters collected and set in order\nmuch as they are to-day, until the 26th Dynasty (about the 7th century\nB.C.). Previous to this the chapters seem to have been put together with\nno regard to order; probably they existed on different papyri, which\nwere used as occasion required. Commonly they would be sold, and for\nthat purpose stored up.\n\nThe translations which can be recommended to students are those by\nRenouf, with text and notes; Budge, with text and notes; and that by\nC.H.S. Davis, U.S.A. (based on Pi\u00e8rre). All these editions include the\nvignettes, which are very helpful in understanding the text.\n\n\n_I.--THE SCRIBE ANI PLEADS WITH OSIRIS THROUGH THOTH FOR ADMISSION TO\nTHE UNDERWORLD AND FOR A SAFE EVIT (RESURRECTION)_\n\n\n(Osiris)[1] Ani the Scribe says: Praise be to thee, Osiris Bull [so he\nwas often represented]. O Amentet [the lower world] the eternal king is\nhere to put words into my mouth. I am Thoth, the great god in the sacred\nbook, who fought for thee. I am one of the great gods that fought on\nbehalf of Osiris. Ra, the sun-God, commanded me--Thoth--to do battle on\nthe earth for the wronged Osiris, and I obeyed. I am among them moreover\nwho wait over Osiris, now king of the underworld.\n\nI am with Horus, son of Osiris, on the day when the great feast of\nOsiris is kept. I am the priest pouring forth libations at Tattu, I am\nthe prophet in Abydos. I am here, O ye that bring perfected souls into\nthe abode of Osiris, bring ye the perfected soul of (Osiris) the Scribe\nAni, into the blissful home of Osiris. Let him see, hear, stand, and sit\nas ye do in the home of Osiris.\n\nO ye who give cakes and ale to perfected souls, give ye at morn and at\neve cakes and ale to the soul of Ani the Scribe.\n\nO ye who open the way and prepare the paths to the abode of Osiris, open\nthe way and prepare the path that the soul of (Osiris) Ani the Scribe\nmay enter in confidence and come forth [on the resurrection]\nvictoriously. May he not be turned back, may he enter and come forth;\nfor he has been weighed in the scale and is \"not lacking.\"[2]\n\n\n_II.--THE PRAYER OF ANI THE SCRIBE_\n\n\n_The chapter about coming forth by day and living after death._\n\nSays (Osiris) Ani: O thou, only shining one of the moon; let me,\ndeparting from the crowd on earth, find entrance into the abode of\nshades. Open then for me the door to the underworld, and at length let\nme come back to earth and perform my part among men.\n\n_A chapter whereby the funeral statuettes (Shabti) may be made to work\nfor a man in the underworld._[3]\n\nO thou statuette there! If in the underworld I shall be called upon to\nperform any tasks, be thou my representative and act for me--planting\nand sowing fields, watering the soil and carrying the sands of East and\nWest.\n\n_A chapter concerning the piercing of the back of Apepi._[4]\n\nTur, the overseer of the houses, says through his god Tmu: O thou wax\none[5] who takest thy victims captive and destroyest them, who preyest\nupon the weak and helpless, may I never be thy victim; may I never\nsuffer collapse before thee. May the venom never enter my limbs, which\nare as those of the god Tmu. O let not the pains of death, which have\nreached thee; come upon me. I am the god Tmu, living in the foremost\npart of Tur [the sky]. I am the only one in the primordial water. I have\nmany mysterious names, and provide myself a dwelling to endure millions\nof years. I was born of Tmu, and I am safe and sound.\n\n_About contending against fever with the shield of truth and good\nconduct._\n\nSays (Osiris) Ani: I go forth against my foes endowed with the defence\nof truth and good conduct. I cross the heavens, and traverse the earth.\nThough a denizen of the underworld, I tread the earth like one alive,\nfollowing in the footsteps of the blessed spirits. I have the gift of\nliving a million years. I eat with my mouth and chew with my jaw,\nbecause I worship him who is master of the lower world.\n\n\n_III.--NU PRAISES RA (THE SUN-GOD) FOR HIS ABILITY TO GO DOWN INTO THE\nGRAVE AND RETURN TO EARTH THROUGH THE MAGIC USE OF THE SACRED TEXTS_\n\n\n_About entering the underworld and coming forth therefrom._\n\nNu says: I cry aloud to thee, O Ra, thou guardian of the secret portals\nof Seb [the grave], which leads to where Ra in the underworld holds the\nbalance which weighs every man's righteousness every day. I have burst\nthe earth [returned to earth]; grant that I may remain on to a good old\nage.\n\n\n_IV.--THE SPIRIT OF THE SCRIBE MESEMNETER PRAYS THAT SOME OFFENDED GOD\nMAY BE CONCILIATED_\n\n\n_About removing the anger of the god towards the departed one._\n\nThe scribe Mesemneter, chief deputy of Amon, says: Praise be to thee, O\nGod, who makest the moments to glide by, who guardest the secrets of the\nlife beyond that of the earth, and guidest me when I utter words. The\ngod is angered against me. But let my faults be wasted away, and let the\ngod of Right and Truth bear them upon me. Remove them wholly from me, O\ngod of Right and Truth. Let the offended one be at peace with me. Remove\nthe wall of separation from before us.\n\n_A hymn to Ra at his rising and setting_.\n\n(Osiris) the scribe says: Praise to thee, O Ra, when thou risest. Shine\nthou upon my face. Let me arise with thee into the heavens, and travel\nwith thee in the boat wherein thou sailest on the clouds.\n\nThou passest in peace across the heavens, and art victorious over all\nthy foes.\n\nPraise to thee who art Ra when thou risest, and Tmu when in beauty thou\nsettest. The dwellers in the land of night come forth to see thee ascend\nthe sky. I, too, would join the throng; O let me not be held back.\n\n_Hymn of praise to Osiris._\n\nPraise be unto thee, Osiris, lord of eternity, who appearest in many\nguises, and whose attributes are glorious.\n\nThou lookest towards the underworld and causest the earth to shine as\nwith gold.\n\nThe dead rise up to gaze on thy face; their hearts are at peace if they\nbut look on thee.\n\n\n_V.--LITANY TO OSIRIS_\n\n\n_Prayer_. Praise to thee, O lord of the starry gods of Annu, more\nglorious than the gods hidden in Annu.\n\n_Answer (repeated after each prayer)._ Grant thou me a peaceful life,\nfor I am truthful and just. I have uttered no falsehoods nor acted\ndeceitfully.\n\n_Prayer_. Praise to thee, O Ani; with thy long strides movest thou\nacross the heavens.\n\n_Prayer_. Praise to thee, O thou who art mighty in thy hour, great and\nmighty prince, lord and creator of eternity.\n\n_Prayer_. Praise to those whose throne is Right and Truth, who hatest\nfraud and deceit.\n\n_Prayer_. Praise to thee who bringest Hapi [the Nile]; in thy boat from\nhis source.\n\n_Prayer_. Praise to thee, O creator of the gods, thou king of the North\nand the South. O Osiris, the all-conquering one, ruler of the world,\nlord of the heavens.\n\n\n_VI.--HYMN OF PRAISE TO THE SETTING SUN_\n\n\n_About the mystery of the underworld and about travelling through the\nunderworld._\n\nWhen he sets on the underworld the gods adore him. The great god Ra\nrises with two eyes [sun and moon]; all the seven gods (Kuas) welcome\nhim in the evening into the underworld. They sing his praises, calling\nhim Tmu. The deceased one says, \"Praise be to thee, O Ra, praise be to\nthee, O Tmu. Thou hast risen and put on strength, and thou settest in\nglorious splendour into the underworld. Thou sailest in thy boat across\nthe heavens, and thou establisheth the earth. East and West adore thee,\nbowing and doing homage to thee day and night.\"\n\n\n_VII.--ABOUT THE RESURRECTION, OR THE COMING BACK TO LIFE (DAY), OF\nDEPARTED SHADES._\n\n\n[This is one of the oldest (cir. B.C. 2700) and most remarkable\nchapters, though also one of the hardest to follow in its details. The\nvignettes reproduced in the editions of Davis, Renouf, and Budge help\nconsiderably in following the line of thought. An exact copy of this\nchapter has been found on the tomb of Horhotep.\n\nThe soul of the deceased encounters all manner of obstacles and\nopponents in the attempt to pass to the upper air, and he seeks\nconstantly the help of Ra, etc., that he may be victorious].\n\n_Of the praises of entering the lower world and of coming out_.\n\n(Osiris) the scribe Ani says it is a good and profitable thing on earth\nfor a man to recite this text, since all the words written herein shall\ncome to pass.\n\nI am Ra, who at my rising rule all things. I am the great self-made god.\n\nI am yesterday and to-morrow. I gave the command, and a scene of strife\namong the gods arose [_i.e.,_ the sun awakened all the forces of Nature\ninto action]. What is this? It is Amentet, the underworld.\n\nWhat is this? The horizon of my father Tmu [the setting sun]. All of my\nfailings are now supplied, my sins cleansed as I pass through the two\nlakes which purify the offences which men offer the gods.\n\nI advance on the path, descending to the realm of Osiris, passing\nthrough the gate Teser. O all ye who have passed this way in safety, let\nme grasp your hands and be brought to your abode.\n\nO ye divine powers of Maert, the sworn foes of falsehood, may I come to\nyou.\n\nI am the great Cat [_i.e.,_ Ra] himself, and therefore in his name which\nI bear, I can tread on all my enemies. O great Ra, who climbest the\nheavenly vaults and who sailest in thy boat across the firmament with\nundisputed authority, do thou save me from that austere god whose\neyebrows are as menacing as the balance that weighs the deeds of men.\nSave me, I pray thee, from these guardians of the passages who will, if\nthey-may, impede my progress. O Tmu, who livest in the august abode, god\nof gods, who thrivest upon damned souls, thou dog-faced, human-skinned\none, devourer of shades, digester of human hearts, O fearful one, save\nme from the great soul-foe who gnaws and destroys shades of men.\n\nO Chepera in thy bark, save me from the testing guardians into whose\ncharge the glorious inviolate god has committed his foes; deliver thou\nme. May these never undo me, may I never fall helpless into the chambers\nof torture. O ye gods, in the presence of Osiris, reach, forth your\narms, for I am one of the gods in your midst.\n\nThe (Osiris) Ani flies away like a hawk, he clucks like a goose, he is\nsafe from destruction as the serpent Nehebkau. Avaunt, ye lions that\nobstruct my path. O Ra, thou ascending one, let me rise with thee, and\nhave a triumphant arrival to my old earthly abode.\n\n\n_VIII.--A LITANY ADDRESSED TO THOTH_\n\n\n_The speech of Ammautef, the priest_:\n\nI have come to you, ye gods of heaven, earth, and the underworld,\nbringing with me Ani, the scribe, who has done no wrong against any\ngods, so that ye may protect him and give him good-speed to the\nunderworld.\n\n_The speech of Ani himself_:\n\nPraise be to thee, O thou ruler of Amenta, Unneferu, who presides in\nAbydos. I have come to thee with a pure heart, free from sin. I have\ntold no falsehoods nor acted deceitfully. Give thou me in the tomb the\nfood I need for the journey, so let me have a safe entrance to the\nunderworld and a sure exit.\n\n_The speech of the priest Samerif:_\n\nI come to the gods residing at Restau. I have brought you (Osiris) Ani;\ngrant him bread, water, and air, and also an abode in the Sechithotepu\n[Field of Peace].\n\n_The speech of Ani himself:_\n\nPraise be to Osiris, everlasting lord, and to the gods of Restau. I come\nto thee knowing thy goodwill and having learned those rites which thou\nrequirest for entrance into the lower world. May I have a safe arrival,\nand find food in thy presence.\n\n_Litany to Thoth:_\n\nO thou who makest Osiris triumphant over his foes, make thou this scribe\nNebenseri victorious over his foes.\n\nO Thoth, make Ani triumphant over his enemies, etc., etc.\n\n[If this chapter is recited over the deceased he shall come forth into\nthe day and pass through the transformations which the departed one\ndesires.]\n\n\n_IX.--A MAGICAL CHAPTER_\n\n\n_Chapter of the Crown of Triumph_.\n\nThy father Tmu has made thee this beautiful crown as a magical charm so\nthat thou mayest live for ever. Thy father Seb gives thee his\ninheritance. Osiris, the prince of Amenta, makes thee victorious over\nthy foes. Go thou as Horus, son of Isis and Osiris, and triumph ever on\nthy way to the underworld.\n\nYea (Osiris) Aufankh shall, through this recited text, live and triumph\nfor ever and ever. Horus repeated these words four times, and his\nenemies fell headlong. And (Osiris) Aufankh has repeated these words\nfour times, so let him be victorious.\n\nThis chapter is to be recited over a consecrated crown placed over the\nface of the deceased, and thou shalt cast incense into the flame on\nbehalf of (Osiris) Aufankh, so securing triumph over all his foes. And\nfood and drink shall in the underworld be reached him in the presence of\nOsiris its king.\n\n_Chapter about making the deceased remember his name in the underworld_.\n\nNu triumphant, son of Amen-hotep, says: Let me remember my name in the\ngreat House below on the night when years are counted and months are\nreckoned up. If any god come to me, let me at once be able to utter his\nname[6] and thus disarm him.\n\n_A chapter about not letting the heart of the deceased act against him\nin the underworld_.\n\nMy heart, received from my mother, my heart, without which life on earth\nwas not possible, rise then not up against me in the presence of the\ngods in the great day of judgment when human thoughts, words, and acts\nshall all be weighed in a balance.\n\nThese words are to be inscribed on a hard green, gold-coated scarab,\nwhich is to be inserted through the mouth into the bosom of the\ndeceased.\n\n_Chapter about repelling the ass-eater_[7].\n\nAvaunt! serpent Hai, impure one, hater of Osiris. Get thee back, for\nThoth has cut off thy head. Let alone the ass, that I may have clear\nskies when I cross to the underworld in the Neshmet boat. I am guiltless\nbefore the gods, and have wronged none. So avaunt! thou sun-beclouding\none, and let me have a prosperous voyage.\n\n_Chapter about reserving for the deceased his seat in the underworld_.\n\nNu says: My seat, my throne, come ye to me, surround me, divine ones. I\nam a mummy-shaped person. O grant that I may become like the great god,\nsuccessful, having seat and throne.\n\n_A chapter about coming forth by day from the underworld_ (i.e., _the\nresurrection_).\n\n[One of the very oldest chapters in the Book of the Dead, as old at\nleast as the first dynasty, say 4500 B.C. No chapter was regarded with\ngreater reverence, or recited or copied with more confidence in its\nefficacy, probably because it is a summing up of the important chapters\non the coming forth by day from the underworld. He who knows this\nchapter by heart is safe against danger in this world and in all other\nabodes.]\n\nNebseni, lord of reverence, says: I am yesterday and know to-morrow. I\nam able to be born again. Here is the invisible force which creates gods\nand gives food to denizens of the underworld. I go as a messenger to\nOsiris.\n\nO goddess Aucherit, grant that I may come forth from the underworld to\nsee Ra's blazing orb. O thou conductor of shades, let me have a fair\npath to the underworld and a sure arrival. May I be defended against all\nopposing powers. May the cycle of gods listen to me and grant my request\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nBOOKS OF BRAHMANISM\n\n\n_INTRODUCTORY_\n\n\n     The religion of the ancient Persians and of the ancient Aryan\n     Indians was at one time the same, and it is easy now to see\n     the common basis of the beliefs and practices embodied in the\n     Hindu Vedas and the Zend Avesta (see ZOROASTRIANISM), and\n     their general resemblance. The religion of the ancient Aryan\n     Indians has passed through three outstanding phases,\n     designated by modern scholars: Vedism, or that taught by the\n     Vedas; Brahmanism, based on the Brahmans, or ritual additions\n     to the Vedas; and Hinduism (_q.v._), the form which revived\n     Brahmanism took after the expulsion of Buddhism. Though the\n     latter is strictly an Indian religion, judged by its origin\n     and characteristic features, it has for centuries almost\n     ceased to exist in India proper. It will be found generally\n     true that in Brahmanism there is, as compared with Vedism, an\n     increase of the ritual, and a corresponding decrease of the\n     moral element. The gods become more material, and the means of\n     conciliating them ceremonial and magical. So also there is a\n     growth in the power of the priesthood. One may compare this\n     with the course of development among the Hebrews--the ritual\n     and ceremonial bulking more and more, and the ethical\n     receding, according to most modern scholars. It has to be\n     remembered carefully, however, that the distinction between\n     Vedism, Brahmanism, and Hinduism is more logical than actual.\n     The seeds of Hinduism, even the doctrine of caste, may be\n     traced in the Rig Veda, and a modern orthodox. Hindu will tell\n     you that his principal scriptures are the Vedas, and that his\n     creed and practice have their source in these scriptures.\n     Brahmanism may be represented as a system of law and custom in\n     the Laws of Manu; as a philosophy in the Upanishads; and as a\n     mythology in the Ramayana and Mahabharata.\n\n\nMAHABHARATA\n\n\nThe word \"Mahabharata\" means \"The Great Bharata,\" the name of a\nwell-known people in ancient India. The epic so called is a very long\none, containing at least 220,000 lengthy lines. It is really an\nencyclopaedia of Hindu history, legend, mythology, and philosophy.\nFour-fifths of the poem consist of episodes, some of them very\nbeautiful, as the tale of Nala and his wife Damayanti. These have no\nprimary connection with the original, though they are worked in so\ndeftly as to make the whole appear a splendid unity. For pathos,\nsublimity, and matchless language, no poem in the world exceeds this\none.\n\nIt is arranged in eighteen books, all of which claim to have been\ncomposed by Vyasa--another name for the god Krishna--who is said also in\nthe course of the epic to have composed the Vedas and the Puranas. This\nis, of course, mythology, and not literary history.\n\nThe historical nucleus underlying this poem is the conflict which raged\nin ancient India between two neighbouring tribes, the Kurus (or\nKauravas) and the Pandavas. But this is worked up into another long tale\ninto which and around which Brahman teachers and philosophers have woven\na very network of religious, theosophic, and philosophic speculation.\nThe tale is, in fact, made a vehicle for teaching Brahman ism as it\nexisted in India in the first five centuries of our era, though much of\nthe Mahabharata goes back to a thousand years or so B.C.\n\n\n_OUTLINE OF THE EPIC_\n\n\nThe descendants of Bharata, the king of Hastinapura, about sixty miles\nnorth of Delhi, were divided into two branches, the Kauravas and the\nPandavas, each of which occupied the territory which had come down to it\nby inheritance. They lived together in peace and prosperity, worshipping\nthe gods, studying the Vedas, and spending much time in meditation about\nhigher things. But there came a change for the worse. The Kauravas, not\ncontent with their own territory, looked with jealous eyes upon that of\ntheir kinsmen, the Pandavas. Soon their covetousness realised itself in\naction, for gathering their armed men together, they sprang suddenly\nupon the land of their neighbours, whom they disarmed previously by\nprofessions of friendship and goodwill The Pandavas were conquered and\ndriven into a far country, where they wandered homelessly and yet filled\nwith undying love for the old home of their fathers and with a resolve\nto regain at the first opportunity their ancestral territory.\n\nWith the help of as many princes and generals as they could win to their\nside they marched towards the land which they had lost, taking back by\nforce what had been wrested from them by force. The two armies met face\nto face on the field of Kurukshetra (land of the Kurus), and the battle,\nwhich lasted eighteen days, was about to begin. The father and king of\nthe Kauravas, called Dhritarashtra, aged and blind, felt that he could\nnot stand to witness the bloody affray. He accordingly accepted the\noffer of Vyasa (Krishna), a relative of both the contending parties, to\nhave the entire course of events described to him when all was over, one\nSangara, being deputed to perform the task. The battle began and\nproceeded for ten long days when Bhrisma, the chief general of the\nKauravas, fell.\n\nAt this point Sangara advanced to the old King Dhritarashtra to acquaint\nhim with the course things had taken, and among the rest to recite to\nhim a conversation which had taken place between Krishna and Arguna, the\nPandavan prince and general. It is this dialogue which constitutes the\nHoly Song, known as the Bhagavad-Gita, or Krishna Song, the Krishna of\nthis philosophic poem being, of course, the eighth avatara; or\nincarnation, of Vishnu.\n\nThe remaining books of the Mahabharata recount the subsequent incidents\nof the war, which, in all, lasted for eighteen days. The Kauravas were\ndestroyed, the only survivors being the Pandavas and Krishna with his\ncharioteer. The many dead that were left on the field were buried with\nthe rites of religion, and amid many signs of touching affection and\ngrief.\n\nBhrisma, leader of the Kauravas, instructs Yudhishthira on the duties of\nkings and other topics. The poem then ends.\n\n\nTHE BHAGAVAD-GITA, OR HOLY SONG OF BRAHMANISM\n\n\nThis poem forms one of the finest episodes in the great Iliad of India,\nand, in fact, is hardly surpassed for profound thought, deep feeling,\nand exquisite phrasing, in the whole literature of India. Telang holds\nthat the song is at least as old as the 4th century, and is inclined to\nregard it as an original part of the epic. According to most scholars,\nhowever, the \"Divine Song\" was added at a later period, and, in fact, in\nits present form it is scarcely older than 500 A.D. It is so thoroughly\nBrahmanic in its teaching that there can be little doubt but that this\nsong was introduced in order to convey the teaching of Brahmanism\nprevalent at the time. The German scholar, Dr. Lorinser, has tried to\nprove that the author of this song had a knowledge of the New Testament\nand used it. The following passages are pointed out by him as dependent\non New Testament passages.\n\n\nBHAGAVAD-GITA\n\n    I am exceedingly dear to the\n    wise man; he also is dear\n    to me.\n\n    I am the way, supporter,\n    lord, witness, abode, refuge,\n    friend.\n\n    I never depart from him (the\n    true Yogis); he never departs\n    from me.\n\n    They who worship me with\n    true devotion, are in me\n    and I in them.\n\n    Be assured that he who worships\n    me perishes not.\n\n    I am the beginning and the\n    middle and the end of existent\n    things.\n\n    I will deliver thee from all\n    sin; do not grieve.\n\n    He who knows me as unborn\n    and without beginning, the\n    mighty Lord of the World,\n    he among mortals is undeluded,\n    he is delivered from\n    all sins.\n\n    What sacrifice, almsgiving, or\n    austerity is done without\n    faith is evil.\n\n    That man obtains the perfect\n    state who honours by his\n    proper work him from\n    whom all things have issued,\n    and by whom this All\n    was spread out.\n\n\nNEW TESTAMENT\n\n    He that loveth Me shall be\n    loved of My Father, and I\n    will love him (John xiv.\n    21).\n\n    I am the way, the truth, and\n    the life (John xiv. 6) I am\n    the first and the last (Rev.\n    i. 17).\n\n    He that dwelleth in Me and I\n    in Him (John vi. 56).\n\n    I in them and thou in Me,\n    that they may be made perfect\n    in one (John xvii. 23).\n\n    Whosoever believeth in Him\n    shall not perish, but have\n    everlasting life (John iii.\n    16).\n\n    I am Alpha and Omega, the\n    beginning and ending (Rev.\n    i. 8).\n\n    Son, be of good cheer; thy\n    sins be forgiven thee (Matt.\n    ix. 2).\n\n    This is life eternal, that they\n    might know Thee, the only\n    true God, and Jesus Christ,\n    Whom Thou hast sent (John\n    xvii, 3).\n\n    Whatsover is not of faith is\n    sin (Rom. xiv. 23).\n\n    Whether therefore ye eat or\n    drink, or whatsoever ye do,\n    do all to the glory of God\n    (1 Cor. x. 31).\n\n\n_OUTLINE OF THE BHAGAVAD-GITA_\n\n\nThe blind old father of the Kauravas asked Sangara to tell him how the\nbattle had gone. He replied that, just as the fighting began, Krishna,\nthe Heaven-Born One, stationed his glorious chariot between the armies\nand entered into a long conversation, with Arguna, the prince-general of\nthe Pandavas. Said Arguna, \"My grief at seeing these kindred peoples at\nwar is beyond bearing, and the omens are unfavourable. I long not for\nvictory, but for peace and for the prosperity of all. Behold, in battle\narray grandfathers, fathers, sons, friends, and allies. We have resolved\nto commit a great sin, to slay our kindred and associates, and all for\nlust of wealth and power.\"\n\nThe Holy One (Krishna) said in reply, \"Thou grievest for those who need\nno grief of thine; yet are thy words words of wisdom. The wise have no\ngrief for dead or living; know thou, O Arguna, that the man who has\nknowledge of the Eternal and Absolute One will never more be born, nor\nwill he know death. As one puts away an old used garment, putting on a\nnew one, so the self in a man puts away the old body and assumes one\nthat is new. He, the Everlasting One, is unchanging and inconceivable.\nBe not thou grieved and have no fear. If slain in the battle, thou shalt\nreach endless bliss in heaven. If victorious, thou shalt have happiness\non the earth; get thee, therefore, honoured one, to the fight and have\nno care for pleasure or pain.\n\n\"Some obtain comfort from what the Vedas promise with reference to\neternal bliss. But these very Vedas teach that a man should strive at\nself-mortification and advancement in virtue with no regard to any\nreward. The final good after which men are chiefly to aim is a state of\nsupreme indifference and contempt.\"\n\n\"But,\" asked Arguna, \"what, pray, is that state of equipoise of spirit\nwhich thou urgest?\"\n\nSaid the Holy One, \"There is a twofold law: that of Sankhyas, or\nintellectual devotion, and that of Yogis, or practical devotion. Men\nmust strive after the highest knowledge, that of Brahma, and also seek\nafter right conduct.\" \"What,\" asked Arguna, \"is the cause of sin?\" To\nwhich the Holy One replied, \"Love and hatred, for hatred is begotten of\nlove, and ignorance of moral distinctions and of anger; from all this\ncomes unreasonableness and resulting ruin. A man's knowledge carries\nalways with it desire, as the fire smoke. The senses are great, the mind\nis greater, and the intellect still greater, but the greatest of all is\nthe Eternal Essence, Brahma.\n\n\"Many,\" said the Holy One, \"are my births, and I know them; many too,\nare thine, but thou knowest them not. I am born from age to age for the\ndefence of the virtuous and the undoing of the wicked. He who believes\nin my divine birth and work has no second birth, but enters me and\nabides with me for ever. Know me as the creator of the cates, know me\nalso as the Eternal one that creates nothing. Faith brings with it\nknowledge, and knowledge contentment. Without knowledge and faith the\nsoul is lost.\"\n\nArguna asked, \"How fares it with the man who is not able to suppress his\nlower instincts and to undergo the discipline of Yogis? Is he for this,\nto be undone for ever?\"\n\n\"No,\" replied the Holy One, \"neither in this world nor in the next is he\nlost. The virtuous man does not enter an evil state. He reaches that\nheaven provided for all the good, and is born thereafter with higher\nmoral capacities, with which, and by means of the knowledge gained in\nhis previous existence, he rises to greater perfection; so that after\nmany births he reaches absolute perfection and is united for ever with\nBrahma. But learn thou my higher nature; what thou seest is my lower,\nfor I am divine and human. All the world came forth from me, and I will\nat the last destroy it. Higher than I does not exist. I am taste, light,\nmoon, sun; I am the mystic OM; I am the mystic seed from which all\nthings grow. He that offers sacrifice to inferior gods goes after death\nto those gods, but they that worship me come to me.\"\n\n\"What,\" asked Arguna, \"is Brahma, the supreme spirit, the supreme\nsacrifice?\"\n\nThe Holy One answered, \"He is the Supreme, the Indestructible One; I am\nthe Supreme Sacrifice in my present body.\n\n\"Hear now, Son of Pritha,\" said the Holy One. \"If thy heart be fixed on\nme, and thou seekest refuge in me, thou shalt know me fully, and I shall\nreveal to thee the perfect knowledge of God and man. There are countless\nmyriads of men in this world, but few there are who seek after\nperfection, and fewer still there are who obtain it.\"\n\n\n_OTHER PARTS OF THE MAHABHARATA_\n\n\nThough the husband die unhappy on account of his wife's ill-treatment\nand disobedience, yet if she consign herself to the flames after his\ndeath she is deserving of great praise. How much more should a woman be\nvenerated who flings herself of her own accord into the flames after the\ndeath of a husband whom she has treated with affection and submission!\n\nLet gifts be avoided; for receiving them is a sin. The silkworm dies of\nits riches.\n\nIt is not proper to rebuke or even blame wrong acts of gods or priests\nor seers; though no one is justified in following them in these acts.\n\nVirtue is better than everlasting life; kingdom, sons, renown, and\nwealth all put together do not make up one-sixteenth part of the value\nof virtue.\n\nThe greatest sin that a king can commit is atoned for by sacrifices\naccompanied with large gifts [cows, etc.] to the priests.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\nSIR THOMAS BROWNE\n\n\nRELIGIO MEDICI\n\n\n     Sir Thomas Browne, English essayist, came of a Cheshire\n     family, but was born in London on October 19, 1605. Educated\n     at Oxford, where he graduated in 1626, he next studied\n     medicine at the great universities of Montpelier, Padua, and\n     Leyden, and in 1637 went to live at Norwich, where he remained\n     until his death on October 19, 1682. He was happily married in\n     1641, and was knighted by Charles II. in 1671. Sir Thomas\n     Browne is one of the greatest figures in English literary\n     history. He had extraordinary learning, a magnificent style, a\n     certain dry humour, and, above all, great power and nobility\n     of mind. In his two most valued works, \"Religio Medici,\" or\n     \"Religion of a Physician,\" published in 1643, and \"Urn\n     Burial,\" in 1658, he deals with the greatest of all themes,\n     the mysteries of faith and of human destiny. The \"Religio\n     Medici,\" written about 1635, was not at first intended for\n     publication; but the manuscript had been handed about and\n     copied, and the appearance, in 1642, of private editions,\n     forced the author to issue it himself.\n\n\n_I.--THE BROAD-MINDED CHRISTIAN_\n\n\nFor my religion I dare, without usurpation, assume the honourable style\nof a Christian. Not that I merely owe this title to the font, my\neducation, or the clime wherein I was born; but that having, in my riper\nyears and confirmed judgment, seen and examined all, I find myself\nobliged, by the principles of grace and the law of mine own reason, to\nembrace no other name but this.\n\nBut, because the name of a Christian is become too general to express\nour faith--there being a geography of religion as well as lands--I am of\nthat reformed new-cast religion, wherein I dislike nothing but the name:\nof the same belief our Saviour taught, the apostles disseminated, the\nfathers authorised, and the martyrs confirmed; but, by the sinister ends\nof princes, the ambition and avarice of prelates, and the fatal\ncorruption of the times, so decayed, impaired, and fallen from its\nnative beauty, that it required the careful and charitable hands of\nthese times to restore it to its primitive integrity.\n\nYet do I not stand at sword's point with those who had rather\npromiscuously retain all than abridge any, and obstinately be what they\nare than what they have been. We have reformed from them, not against\nthem, for there is between us one common name and appellation, one faith\nand necessary body of principles common to us both; and therefore I am\nnot scrupulous to converse and live with them, to enter their churches\nin defect of ours, and either pray with them or for them.\n\nI am naturally inclined to that which misguided zeal terms superstition;\nat my devotion I love to use the civility of my knee, my hat, my hand,\nwith all those outward and sensible motions which may express or promote\nmy invisible devotion. At the sight of a crucifix I can dispense with my\nhat, but scarce with the thought or memory of my Saviour. I could never\nhear the Ave-Mary bell without an oraison, or think it a sufficient\nwarrant, because they erred in one circumstance, for me to err in\nall--that is, in silence and dumb contempt.\n\nI could never divide myself from any man upon the difference of an\nopinion; I have no genius to disputes in religion. A man may be in as\njust possession of truth as of a city, and yet be forced to surrender;\n'tis therefore far better to enjoy her with peace than to hazard her\nupon a battle. If, therefore, there rise any doubts in my way, I do\nforget them, or at least defer them, till my better settled judgment be\nable to resolve them. In philosophy, where truth seems double-faced,\nthere is no man more paradoxical than myself; but in divinity I love to\nkeep the road, and, though not in an implicit, yet an humble, faith\nfollow the great wheel of the Church.\n\nHeads that are disposed unto schism, and complexionally propense to\ninnovation, are naturally indisposed for a community, nor will be ever\nconfined unto the order or economy of one body; and, therefore, when\nthey separate from others, they knit but loosely among themselves; nor\ncontented with a general breach or dichotomy with their church, do\nsubdivide and mince themselves almost into atoms.\n\nAs for those wingy mysteries in divinity and airy subtleties in religion\nwhich have unhinged the brains of better heads, they have never\nstretched the membranes of mine. Methinks there be not impossibilities\nenough in religion for an active faith; I love to lose myself in a\nmystery, to pursue my reason to an _O altitudo!_ I can answer all the\nobjections of Satan and my rebellious reason with that odd resolution of\nTertullian: \"It is certain because it is impossible.\"\n\n\n_II.--THE DIVINE WISDOM_\n\n\nIn my solitary and retired imagination I remember I am not alone; and\ntherefore forget not to contemplate Him and His attributes who is ever\nwith me, especially those two mighty ones, His wisdom and eternity. With\nthe one I recreate, with the other I confound, my understanding; for who\ncan speak of eternity without a solecism, or think thereof without an\necstasy?\n\nIn this mass of Nature there is a set of things that carry in their\nfront, though not in capital letters, yet in stenography and short\ncharacters, something of divinity; which, to wiser reasons, serve as\nluminaries in the abyss of knowledge, and to judicious beliefs as scales\nto mount the pinnacles of divinity.\n\nThat other attribute wherewith I recreate my devotion is His wisdom, in\nwhich I am happy; and for the contemplation of this only, do not repent\nme that I was bred in the way of study. The advantage I have of the\nvulgar, with the content and happiness I conceive therein, is an ample\nrecompense for all my endeavours in what part of knowledge soever.\nWisdom is His most beauteous attribute; no man can attain unto it; yet\nSolomon pleased God when he desired it. He is wise because He knows all\nthings; and He knows all things because He made them all; but His\ngreatest knowledge is in comprehending that He made not--that is,\nHimself. The wisdom of God receives small honour from those heads that\nrudely stare about, and with a gross rusticity admire His works. Those\nhighly magnify Him whose judicious inquiry into His acts, and a\ndeliberate research into His creatures, return the duty of a devout and\nlearned admiration. Every essence, created or uncreated, hath its final\ncause and some positive end both of its essence and operation. This is\nthe cause I grope after in the works of Nature; on this hangs the\nprovidence of God.\n\nThat Nature does nothing in vain is the only indisputable axiom in\nphilosophy. There are no grotesques in Nature, nor anything framed to\nfill up unnecessary spaces. I could never content my contemplation with\nthose general pieces of wonder, the flux and reflux of the sea, the\nincrease of the Nile, the conversion of the needle to the north; but\nhave studied to match and parallel those in the more obvious and\nneglected pieces of Nature which, without further travel, I find in the\ncosmography of myself. We carry with us the wonders we seek without us;\nthere is all Africa and her prodigies in us.\n\nThus there are two books from whence I collect my divinity: besides that\nwritten one of God, another of His servant, Nature, that universal and\npublic manuscript, that lies expansed unto the eyes of all. Surely the\nheathens knew better how to join and read these mystical letters than we\nChristians, who cast a more careless eye on these common hieroglyphics,\nand disdain to suck divinity from the flowers of Nature. Now, Nature is\nnot at variance with art, nor art with Nature, they being both the\nservants of His providence. Art is the perfection of Nature. Nature hath\nmade one world, and art another. In brief, all things are artificial,\nfor Nature is the art of God.\n\nThis is the ordinary and open way of His providence, which art and\nindustry have in good part discovered, whose effects we may foretell\nwithout an oracle. But there is another way, full of meanders and\nlabyrinths, and that is a more particular and obscure method of His\nprovidence, directing the operations of individual and single essences.\nThis we call fortune, that serpentine and crooked line whereby He draws\nthose actions His wisdom intends in a more unknown and secret way.\n\nThis cryptic and involved method of His providence have I ever admired;\nnor can I relate the history of my life, the occurrences of my days, the\nescapes, or dangers, and hits of chance, with a bare grammercy to my\ngood stars. Surely there are in every man's life certain rubs,\ndoublings, and wrenches, which pass a while under the effects of chance;\nbut at the last, well examined, prove the mere hand of God. 'Twas not\ndumb chance that, to discover the fougade, or powder plot, contrived a\nmiscarriage in the letter. I like the victory of '88 the better for that\none occurrence which our enemies imputed to our dishonour and the\npartiality of fortune: to wit, the tempests and contrariety of winds.\n\nThere is no liberty for causes to operate in a loose and straggling way,\nnor any effect whatever but hath its warrant from some universal or\nsuperior cause. 'Tis not a ridiculous devotion to say a prayer before a\ngame at tables; for even in sortileges and matters of greatest\nuncertainty there is a settled and pre-ordered course of effects. It is\nwe that are blind, not fortune. Because our eye is too dim to discover\nthe mystery of her effects, we foolishly paint her blind, and hoodwink\nthe providence of the Almighty.\n\n'Tis, I confess, the common fate of men of singular gifts of mind to be\ndestitute of those of fortune; which doth not any way deject the spirit\nof wiser judgments, who thoroughly understand the justice of this\nproceeding; and, being enriched with higher donatives, cast a more\ncareless eye on these vulgar parts of felicity. It is a most unjust\nambition to desire to engross the mercies of the Almighty.\n\nI have heard some with deep sighs lament the lost lines of Cicero;\nothers with as many groans deplore the combustion of the library of\nAlexandria; for my own part, I think there be too many in the world, and\ncould with patience behold the urn and ashes of the Vatican, could I,\nwith a few others, recover the perished leaves of Solomon. Some men have\nwritten more than others have spoken. Of those three great inventions in\nGermany, there are two which are not without their incommodities. Tis\nnot a melancholy wish of my own, but the desires of better heads, that\nthere were a general synod--not to unite the incompatible difference of\nreligion, but for the benefit of learning, to reduce it, as it lay at\nfirst, in a few and solid authors; and to condemn to the fire those\nswarms and millions of rhapsodies, begotten only to distract and abuse\nthe weaker judgments of scholars and to maintain the trade and mystery\nof typographers.\n\nAs all that die in the war are not termed soldiers, so neither can I\nproperly term all those that suffer in matters of religion, martyrs.\nThere are many, questionless, canonised on earth that shall never be\nsaints in heaven, and have their names in histories and martyrologies\nwho, in the eyes of God, are not so perfect martyrs as was that wise\nheathen Socrates, that suffered on a fundamental point of religion--the\nunity of God. The leaven and ferment of all, not only civil but\nreligious actions, is wisdom; without which to commit ourselves to the\nflames is homicide, and, I fear, but to pass through one fire into\nanother.\n\n\n_III.--THE HOPE OF IMMORTALITY_\n\n\nI thank God I have not those strait ligaments or narrow obligations to\nthe world as to dote on life or tremble at the name of death. Not that I\nam insensible of the horror thereof, or, by raking into the bowels of\nthe deceased and continual sight of anatomies, I have forgot the\napprehension of mortality; but that, marshalling all the horrors, I find\nnot anything therein able to daunt the courage of a man, much less a\nwell-resolved Christian. Were there not another life that I hope for,\nall the vanities of this world should not entreat a moment's breath from\nme. Those strange and mystical transmigrations that I have observed in\nsilkworms turned my philosophy into divinity. There is in these works of\nNature which seem to puzzle reason, something divine, that hath more in\nit than the eye of a common spectator doth discover.\n\nSome, upon the courage of a fruitful issue, wherein, as in the truest\nchronicle, they seem to outlive themselves, can with greater patience\naway with death. This seems to me a mere fallacy, unworthy the desires\nof a man that can but conceive a thought of the next world; who, in a\nnobler ambition, should desire to live in his substance in heaven rather\nthan his name and shadow in the earth. Were there any hopes to outlive\nvice, or a point to be superannuated from sin, it were worthy our knees\nto implore the days of Methuselah. But age doth not rectify but brings\non incurable vices, and the number of our days doth but make our sins\ninnumerable. There is but one comfort left, that though it be in the\npower of the weakest arm to take away life, it is not in the strongest\nto deprive us of death.\n\nThere is no happiness within this circle of flesh, nor is it in the\noptics of these eyes to behold felicity. But besides this literal and\npositive kind of death, there are others whereof divines make mention,\nas mortification, dying unto sin and the world. In these moral\nacceptations, the way to be immortal is to die daily; and I have\nenlarged that common \"Remember death\" into a more Christian\nmemorandum--\"Remember the four last things\"--death, judgment, heaven,\nand hell. I believe that the world grows near its end; but that general\nopinion, that the world grows near its end, hath possessed all ages past\nas nearly as ours.\n\nThere is no road or ready way to virtue; it is not an easy point of art\nto disentangle ourselves from this riddle or web of sin. To perfect\nvirtue, as to religion, there is required a panoplia, or complete\narmour; that whilst we lie at close ward against one vice, we lie not\nopen to the assault of another. There go so many circumstances to piece\nup one good action that it is a lesson to be good, and we are forced to\nbe virtuous by the book.\n\nInsolent zeals that do decry good works, and rely only upon faith, take\nnot away merit; for, depending upon the efficacy of their faith, they\nenforce the condition of God, and in a more sophistical way do seem to\nchallenge heaven. I do not deny but that true faith is not only a mark\nor token, but also a means, of our salvation; but, where to find this is\nas obscure to me as my last end. If a faith to the quantity of a grain\nof mustard seed is able to remove mountains, surely that which we boast\nof is not anything, or, at the most, but a remove from nothing.\n\nFor that other virtue of charity, without which faith is a mere notion\nand of no existence, I have ever endeavoured to nourish the merciful\ndisposition and humane inclination I borrowed from my parents, and\nregulate it to the written and prescribed laws of charity. I give no\nalms to satisfy the hunger of my brother, but to fulfil the command of\nmy God; I draw not my purse for his sake that demands it, but His that\nenjoined it. Again, it is no greater charity to clothe his body than to\napparel the nakedness of his soul; and to this, as calling myself a\nscholar, I am obliged by the duty of my condition.\n\nBless me in this life with but the peace of my conscience; command of my\naffections the love of Thyself and my dearest friends; and I shall be\nhappy enough to pity Caesar! These are, O Lord, the humble desires of my\nmost reasonable ambition, and all I dare call happiness on earth:\nwherein I set no limit to Thy hand or providence; dispose of me\naccording to the wisdom of Thy pleasure. Thy will be done, though in my\nown undoing.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\nJOHN CALVIN\n\n\nINSTITUTION OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION\n\n\n     John Calvin was born on July 10, 1509, at Noyon, in Picardy,\n     Northern France. Although the Calvins, his ancestors, had been\n     bargemen on the Oise, his father was notary apostolic,\n     procurator-fiscal of the county, clerk of the church court,\n     and diocesan secretary. Young Jean Calvin was eight years old\n     when Luther nailed his theses to the door of the castle church\n     in Wittenburg. The new religion gaining very quickly a footing\n     in France, the youth became influenced by it when studying in\n     Paris at the College de la Marche. He held meetings with\n     Protestants in a cave at Poitiers. His precocity was\n     remarkable. At the age of twenty-three he wrote his first\n     book, a commentary on Seneca's \"Treatise on Clemency.\" At\n     twenty-five he revised a translation of the French Bible. At\n     twenty-seven he published the first edition of his mighty\n     work, \"The Institution of the Christian Religion,\" a treatise\n     which has been styled \"one of the landmarks of the history of\n     Christian doctrine.\" At twenty-eight Calvin was the foremost\n     man in Geneva, and was already one of the most remarkable\n     reformers in the world. His career has rarely been paralleled.\n     Calvin died on May 27, 1564.\n\n\n_I.--THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD THE CREATOR_\n\n\nOur wisdom consists almost exclusively of two parts: the knowledge of\nGod, and of ourselves. But, as these are connected together by many\nties, it is not easy to determine which of the two precedes, and which\ngives birth to the others. Our weakness, ignorance, and depravity remind\nus that in the Lord, and in none but Him only, dwell the two lights of\nwisdom, of virtue, and of piety. It is evident that man never attains to\na true self-knowledge until after he has contemplated the face of God,\nand come down after such contemplation to look into himself.\n\nIt is beyond dispute that there exists in the human mind, and indeed by\nnatural instinct, some sense of deity. As Cicero, though a pagan, tells\nus, there is no nation so brutish as not to be imbued with the\nconviction that there is a God. Even idolatry is an evidence of this\nfact. But, though experience teaches that a seed of religion is divinely\nsown in all, few cherish it in the heart. Some lose themselves in\nsuperstitious observances; others, of set purpose, wickedly revolt from\nGod; and many think of God against their will, never approaching Him\nwithout being dragged into His presence.\n\nBut since the perfection of blessedness consists in the knowledge of\nGod, He has been pleased not only to deposit in our minds the seed of\nreligion, of which we have already spoken, but so to manifest His\nperfections in the whole structure of the universe, and daily place\nHimself in our view, that we cannot open our eyes without being\ncompelled to behold Him. His essence is, indeed, transcendent and\nincomparable, but on each of His works His glory is engraven in\ncharacters so bright that none, however dull and illiterate, can plead\nignorance as an excuse.\n\nHerein appears the shameful ingratitude of men, that, though they have\nin their own persons a factory where countless operations of God are\ncarried on, instead of praising Him, they are the more inflated with\npride. How few are there among us who, in lifting our eyes to the\nheavens, or looking abroad on the earth, ever think of the Creator! In\nvain, because of our dulness, does creation exhibit so many bright lamps\nlit up to show forth the glory of its Author. Therefore, another and\nbetter help must be given to guide us properly to God as our Creator,\nand He has added the light of His Word in order to make known His\nsalvation.\n\nHere it seems proper to make some observations on the authority of\nScripture. Nothing can be more absurd than the fiction that the power of\njudging Scripture is in the Church. When the Church gives it the stamp\nof her authority, she does not thus make it authentic, but shows her\nreverence for it as the truth of God by her unhesitating assent.\nScripture bears, on the face of it, as clear evidence of its truth as\nblack and white do of their colour, sweet and bitter of their taste. It\nis preposterous to attempt, by discussion, to rear up a full faith in\nScripture. Those who are inwardly taught by the Holy Spirit acquiesce in\nit implicitly, for it carries with it its own testimony.\n\nIt is foolish to attempt to prove to infidels that the Scripture is the\nWord of God. For it cannot be known to be, except by faith. Justly does\nAugustine remind us that every man who would have any understanding in\nsuch high matters must previously possess piety and mental peace. In\norder to direct us to the true God, the Scripture excludes all the gods\nof the heathen. This exclusiveness annihilates every deity which men\nframe for themselves, of their own accord. Whence had idols their\norigin, but from the will of man?\n\nThere was thus ground for the sarcasm of the heathen poet (Horace,\nSatires, I.8). \"I was once the trunk of a fig-tree, a useless log, when\nthe tradesman, uncertain whether he should make me a stool, etc., chose\nrather that I should be a god.\" In regard to the origin of idols, the\nstatement of the Book of Wisdom has been received with almost universal\nconsent, that they originated with those who bestowed this honour on the\ndead, from a superstitious regard to their memory.\n\n\n_II.--THE GRACE OF CHRIST THE REDEEMER_\n\n\nThrough the fall of Adam arose the need of a Redeemer, the whole human\nrace having by that event been made accursed and degenerate. Man thereby\nbecame deprived of freedom of will and miserably enslaved. The dominion\nof sin, ever since the first man was brought under it, not only extends\nto the whole race, but has complete possession of every soul. Free will\ndoes not enable any man to perform good works unless he is assisted by\ngrace. Yet, since man is by nature a social being, he is disposed, from\nnatural instinct, to cherish and preserve society; and, accordingly, we\nsee that the minds of all men have impressions of order and civil\nhonesty. So that, in regard to the constitution of the present life, no\nman is devoid of the light of reason. And this gift ought justly to be\nascribed to the divine indulgence. Had God not so spared us, our revolt\nwould have carried with it the entire destruction of nature. But to the\ngreat truth, what God is in Himself, and what He is in relation to us,\nhuman reason makes not the least approach. The natural man has no\ncapacity for such sublime wisdom as to apprehend God, unless illumined\nby His Spirit, and none can enter the kingdom of God save those whose\nminds have been renewed by the power of the spirit.\n\nIt is certain that after the fall of our first parent, no knowledge of\nGod without a Mediator was effectual to salvation. Hence it is that God\nnever showed Himself propitious to His ancient people, nor gave them any\nhope of grace without a Mediator. The prosperous and happy state of the\nChurch was always founded in the person of Christ. The primary adoption\nof the chosen people depended on the grace of the Mediator, and Christ\nwas always held forth to the holy fathers under the law as the object of\ntheir faith.\n\nIt deeply concerns us that He who was to become our Mediator should be\nvery God and very man. The work to be by Him performed was of no common\ndescription, being to restore us to the divine favour so as to make us\nsons of God and heirs of the heavenly kingdom. In Him the divinity was\nso conjoined with the humanity that the entire properties of each nature\nremained entire, and yet the two natures constitute only one Christ.\nEverything needful for us exists in Christ.\n\nWhen we see that the whole sum of our salvation, and every single part\nof it, are comprehended in Christ, we must beware of deriving even the\nminutest part of it from any other quarter. If we seek salvation, we are\ntaught by the very name of Jesus that He possesses it; if we seek any\nother gifts of the Spirit, we shall find them in His unction; strength\nin His permanent government; purity in His conception; indulgence in His\nnativity, in which He was made like us in all respects, in order that He\nmight learn to sympathise with us; if we seek redemption we shall find\nit in His passion; acquittal in His condemnation; remission of the curse\nin His cross; satisfaction in His sacrifice; purification in His blood;\nreconciliation in His descent into hell; mortification of the flesh in\nHis sepulchre; newness of life in His resurrection; immortality also in\nHis resurrection; the inheritance of a celestial kingdom in His entrance\ninto heaven; protection, security, and the abundant supply of all\nblessings, in His kingdom; secure anticipation of judgment in the power\nof judging committed to Him. In fine, since in Him blessings are\ntreasured up, let us draw a full supply from Him, and none from another\nquarter.\n\n\n_III.--THE MERIT OF CHRIST AS OUR SAVIOUR_\n\n\nIt may be proved both from reason and from Scripture that the grace of\nGod and the merit of Christ (the Prince and Author of our salvation) are\nperfectly compatible. Christ is not only the minister, but also the\ncause of our salvation, and divine grace is not obscured by this\nexpression. Christ, by His obedience, truly merited this divine grace\nfor us, which was obtained by the shedding of His blood, and His\nobedience even unto death, whereby He paid our ransom.\n\nIt is by the secret operation of the Holy Spirit that we enjoy Christ\nand all His benefits. In Christ the Mediator the gifts of the Holy\nSpirit are to be seen in all their fulness. As salvation is perfected in\nthe person of Christ, so, in order to make us partakers of it, He\n\"baptizes us with the Holy Spirit and with fire,\" enlightening us into\nthe faith of His Gospel, and so regenerating us to be new creatures.\nThus cleansed from all pollution, He dedicates us as holy temples to the\nLord.\n\nBut here it is proper to consider the nature of faith. The true\nknowledge of Christ consists in receiving Him as He is offered by the\nFather, namely, as invested with His Gospel. There is an inseparable\nrelation between faith and the Word, and these can no more be\ndisconnected from each other than rays of light from the sun. John\npoints to this fountain of faith thus: \"To-day, if ye will hear His\nvoice,\" to \"hear\" being uniformly taken for to \"believe.\" Take away the\nWord and no faith will remain. Hence Paul designates faith as the\nobedience which is given to the Gospel.\n\nThe mere assent of the intellect to the Word is, according to some, the\nfaith insisted on in Scripture, but this is a mere fiction. Such as thus\ndefine faith do not duly ponder the saying of Paul, \"With the heart man\nbelieveth unto righteousness.\" Assent itself is more a matter of the\nheart than the head, of the affection than the intellect.\n\n\n_IV.--OF REPENTANCE_\n\n\nRepentance follows faith and is produced by it. In the conversion of the\nlife to God we require a transformation not only in external works, but\nin the soul itself, which is able only after it has put off its old\nhabits to bring forth fruits conformable to its renovation. Repentance\nproceeds from a sincere fear of God, and it consists of two parts, the\nmortification of the flesh and the quickening of the spirit. Both of\nthese we obtain by union with Christ. If we are partakers in His\nresurrection we are raised up by means of it to newness of life, which\nconforms us to the righteousness of God. In one word, then, by\nrepentance I understand regeneration, the only aim of which is to form\nus anew in the image of God, which was sullied and all but effaced by\nthe transgression of Adam.\n\nThe apostle, in his description of repentance (2 Corinthians vii. 2),\nenumerates seven causes, effects, or parts belonging to it. These are\ncarefulness, excuse, indignation, fear, desire, zeal, revenge. I stop\nnot to consider whether these are causes or effects; both views may be\nmaintained. The penitent will be careful not in future to offend God; in\nhis excuses he will trust, not to his own apologies, but to Christ's\nintercession; his indignation will be directed against his own\niniquities; his fear will be lest he cause God displeasure; his desire\nis equivalent to alacrity in duty; zeal will follow; and revenge will be\npractised in the censure passed on his own sins.\n\n\n_V.--OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH_\n\n\nA man is said to be justified in the sight of God when, in the judgment\nof God, he is deemed righteous, and is accepted on account of his\nrighteousness. So we interpret justification as the acceptance with\nwhich God receives us into His favour as if we were righteous; and we\nsay that this justification consists in the forgiveness of sins and the\nimputation of the righteousness to Christ. Since many imagine a\nrighteousness compounded of faith and works, let it be noted that there\nis so wide a difference between justification by faith and by works that\none necessarily overthrows the other. If we destroy the righteousness by\nfaith by establishing our own righteousness, then, in order to obtain\nHis righteousness, our own must be entirely abandoned. The Gospel\ndiffers from the law in this, that it entirely places justification in\nthe mercy of God and does not confine it to works. It is entirely by the\nintervention of Christ's righteousness that we obtain justification\nbefore God.\n\nThe doctrine of Christian liberty is founded on this justification by\nfaith. This liberty consists of three parts. First, believers renouncing\nthe righteousness of the law look only to Christ. Secondly, the\nconscience, freed from the yoke of the law, voluntarily obeys the will\nof God. This cannot be done under the dominion of the law. Thirdly,\nunder the Gospel we are free to use things indifferent. The consciences\nof believers, while seeking the assurance of their justification before\nGod, must rise above the law, and think no more of obtaining\njustification by it. Our consciences being free from the yoke of the law\nitself, voluntarily obey the will of God.\n\n\n_VI.--ON THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION_\n\n\nIgnorance of the doctrine of election and predestination impairs the\nglory of God and fosters pride. The covenant of life is not preached\nequally to all, and among those to whom it is preached does not always\nmeet with the same reception. The reason of this discrimination belongs\nto the secret thing of God. This doctrine is cavilled at; yet when we\nsee one nation preferred to another, shall we plead against God for\nhaving chosen to give such a manifestation of His mercy? God has\ndisplayed His grace in special forms. Thus of the family of Abraham He\nrejected some, and kept others within His Church, showing that He\nretained them among His sons.\n\nAlthough the election of God is secret, it is made manifest by effectual\ncalling. Both election and effectual calling are founded on the free\nmercy of God Calling is proved to be according to the free grace of God\nby the declarations of Scripture, by the mode in which it is dispensed,\nby the instance of Abraham's vocation, by the testimony of John, and by\nthe example of all those who have been called. There are two species of\ncalling. There is a universal call by which God, through the preaching\nof His Word, invites all men alike. Besides this, there is a special\ncall, which, for the most part, God bestows on believers only, when by\nthe internal illumination of His Spirit he causes the Gospel to take\ndeep root in their hearts.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\nSAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE\n\n\nAIDS TO REFLECTION\n\n\n     This famous book, of which the full title is \"Aids to\n     Reflection in the Formation of a Manly Character on the\n     several Grounds of Prudence, Morality, and Religion,\" was\n     published in 1825, nine years before the author's death. Its\n     influence on thoughtful minds was very great, and many of the\n     first divines of that period owed to it their profoundest\n     religious ideas. It has been said that the fame of Coleridge\n     (see LIVES AND LETTERS) as a philosophic thinker is not so\n     great as it was during the twenty years immediately after his\n     death; but one imagines that this statement merely means that\n     not so many people now read Coleridge as did fifty years ago.\n     The book, at any rate, has not yet been written which exposes\n     a fallacy in his argument or demolishes his system. It should\n     be remembered that this poet and searching thinker, to whom\n     men like Wordsworth and Haslitt listened with reverence, was\n     for some time in his life a Unitarian, and won to faith in the\n     divinity of Christ by the use of his reason.\n\n\n_I.--INTRODUCTORY APHORISMS_\n\n\nIt is the most useful prerogative of genius to rescue truths from the\nneglect caused by the very circumstance of their universal admission.\nTruths, of all others the most awful and interesting, are too often\nconsidered as so true that they lose the power of truth, and lie\nbedridden in the dormitory of the soul.\n\nThere is one sure way of giving freshness and importance to the most\ncommonplace maxims--that of _reflecting_ on them in direct reference to\nour own state and conduct, to our own past and future being. A\nreflecting mind, says an ancient writer, is the spring and source of\nevery good thing. As a man without forethought scarce deserves the name\nof man, so forethought without reflection is but a metaphorical phrase\nfor the instinct of a beast.\n\nIn order to learn, we must attend; in order to profit by what we have\nlearnt, we must think; he only thinks who reflects.\n\nTo assign a feeling and a determination of their will as a satisfactory\nreason for embracing or rejecting an opinion is the habit of many\neducated people; to me, this seems little less irrational than to apply\nthe nose to a picture, and to decide on its genuineness by the sense of\nsmell.\n\nIn attention we keep the mind passive; in thought we rouse it into\nactivity.\n\nAn hour of solitude passed in sincere and earnest prayer, or the\nconflict with and conquest over a single passion or \"subtle bosom sin,\"\nwill teach us more of thought, will more effectually awaken the faculty,\nand form the habit of reflection, than will a year's study in the\nschools without them.\n\nNever yet did there exist a full faith in the Divine Word which did not\nexpand the intellect, while it purified the heart; which did not\nmultiply the aims and objects of the understanding, while it fixed and\nsimplified those of the desires and passions. \"Give me understanding,\"\nsays David, \"and I shall observe Thy laws with my whole heart.\"\n\nIt is worthy of especial observation that the Scriptures are\ndistinguished from all other writings pretending to inspiration, by the\nstrong and frequent recommendations of knowledge and a spirit of\ninquiry. The word \"rational\" has been strongly abused of late times.\nThis must not, however, disincline us to the weighty consideration that\nthoughtfulness and a desire to rest all our convictions on grounds of\nright reasoning, are inseparable from the character of a Christian. He\nwho begins by loving Christianity better than truth will proceed by\nloving his own sect and church better than Christianity, and end in\nloving himself best of all.\n\n\n_II.--REFLECTIONS RESPECTING MORALITY_\n\n\nSensibility, that is a constitutional quickness, of sympathy with pain\nand pleasure, is not to be confounded with the moral principle.\nSensibility is not even a sure pledge of a good heart. How many are\nprompted to remove those evils alone, which by hideous spectacle or\nclamorous outcry are present to their senses and disturb their selfish\nenjoyments? Provided the dunghill is not before their parlour window,\nthey are well contented to know that it exists, and perhaps is the\nhotbed on which their own luxuries are reared. Sensibility is not\nnecessarily benevolence.\n\nAll the evil of the materialists is inconsiderable besides the mischief\neffected and occasioned by the sentimental philosophy of Sterne and his\nnumerous imitators. The vilest appetites and the most remorseless\ninconstancy towards their objects, acquired the titles of the \"heart,\"\n\"the irresistible feelings,\" \"the too-tender sensibility\"; and if the\nfrosts of prudence, the icy chain of human law, thawed and vanished at\nthe genial warmth of human nature, who could help it? It was an amiable\nweakness! At this time the profanation of the word \"love\" rose to its\nheight; the muse of science condescended to seek admission at the\nsaloons of fashion and frivolity, rouged like a harlot and with the\nharlot's wanton leer. I know not how the annals of guilt could be better\nforced into the service of virtue than by such a comment on the present\nparagraph as would be afforded by sentimental correspondence produced in\ncourts of justice, fairly translated into the true meaning of the words,\nand the actual object and purpose of the infamous writers.\n\nDo you in good earnest aim at dignity of character? I conjure you, turn\naway from those who live in the twilight between vice and virtue. Are\nnot reason, discrimination, law, and deliberate choice the\ndistinguishing characters of humanity? Can anything manly proceed from\nthose who for law and light would substitute shapeless feelings,\nsentiments, impulses, which, as far as they differ from the vital\nworkings in the brute animals, owe the difference to their former\nconnection with the proper virtues of humanity? Remember that love\nitself, in its highest earthly bearing, as the ground of the marriage\nunion, becomes love by an inward fiat of the will, by a completing and\nsealing act of moral election, and lays claim to permanence only under\nthe form of duty.\n\nAll things strive to ascend, and ascend in the striving. While you\nlabour for anything below your proper humanity, you seek a happy life in\nthe region of death.\n\n    Unless above himself he can\n    Erect himself, how mean a thing is man!\n\n\n_III.--PRUDENTIAL APHORISMS_\n\n\nWith respect to any final aim or end, the greater part of mankind live\nat hazard. They have no certain harbour in view, nor direct their course\nby any fixed star. But to him that knoweth not the port to which he is\nbound, no wind can be favourable; neither can he who has not yet\ndetermined at what mark he is to shoot, direct his arrow aright.\n\nIt is not, however, the less true that there is a proper object to aim\nat; and if this object be meant by the term happiness, the perfection of\nwhich consists in the exclusion of all hap [_i.e.,_ chance], I assert\nthat there is such a thing as _summum bonum_, or ultimate good. What\nthis is, the Bible alone shows certainly, and points out the way. \"In\nCicero and Plato,\" says Augustine, \"I meet with many things acutely\nsaid, and things that excite a certain warmth of emotion, but in none of\nthem do I find these words, 'Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are\nheavy laden, and I will give you rest!'\"\n\nIn the works of Christian and pagan moralists, it is declared that\nvirtue is the only happiness of this life. You cannot become better, but\nyou will become happier; you cannot become worse without an increase of\nmisery. Few men are so reprobate as not to have some lucid moments, and\nin such moments few can stand up unshaken against the appeal of their\nown experience. What have been the wages of sin? What has the devil done\nfor you?\n\nThough prudence in itself is neither virtue nor holiness, yet without\nprudence neither virtue nor holiness can exist.\n\nArt thou under the tyranny of sin, a slave to vicious habits, at enmity\nwith God, a fugitive from thy own conscience? Oh, how idle the disputes\nwhether the listening to the dictates of prudence from self-interested\nmotives be virtue, when the _not_ listening is guilt, misery, madness,\nand despair! The most Christian-like pity thou canst show is to take\npity on thy own soul. The best service thou canst render is to show\nmercy to thyself.\n\n\n_IV.--APHORISMS ON SPIRITUAL RELIGION_\n\n\nIf there be aught spiritual in man, the will must be such. If there be a\nwill, there must be spirituality in man.\n\nThere is more in man than can be rationally referred to the life of\nNature and the mechanism of organisation. He has a will not included in\nhis mechanism; the will is, in an especial sense, the spiritual part of\nour humanity.\n\nI assume a something, the proof of which no man can _give_ to another,\nyet every man may find for himself. If any man say that he cannot find\nit, I am bound to disbelieve him. I cannot do otherwise without\nunsettling the foundations of my own moral nature. If he will not find\nit, he excommunicates himself, forfeits his personal rights, and becomes\na thing--_i.e.,_ one who may be used against his will and without regard\nto his interest. If the materialist use the words \"right\" and\n\"obligation,\" he does it deceptively, and means only compulsion and\npower. To overthrow faith in aught higher than nature and physical\nnecessity is the very purpose of his argument. But he cannot be ignorant\nthat the best and greatest of men have devoted their lives to enforce\nthe contrary; and there is not a language in which he could argue for\nten minutes in support of his scheme without sliding into phrases that\nimply the contrary.\n\nThe Christian grounds his philosophy on assertions which have nothing in\nthem of theory or hypothesis; they are in immediate reference to three\nultimate facts--namely, the reality of the law of conscience; the\nexistence of a responsible will as the subject of the law; and lastly,\nthe existence of evil--of evil essentially such, not by accident of\ncircumstances, not derived from physical consequences, nor from any\ncause out of itself. The first is a fact of consciousness, the second a\nfact of reason necessarily concluded from the first, and the third a\nfact of history interpreted by both.\n\nI maintain that a will conceived separately from intelligence is a\nnon-entity, and that a will the state of which does in no sense\noriginate in its own act is a contradiction. It might be an instinct, an\nimpulse, and, if accompanied with consciousness, a desire; but a will it\ncould not be. And this every human being knows with equal clearness,\nthough different minds may reflect on it with different degrees of\ndistinctness; for who would not smile at the notion of a rose willing to\nput forth its buds and expand them into flowers?\n\nI deem it impious and absurd to hold that the Creator would have given\nus the faculty of reason, or that the Redeemer would in so many varied\nforms of argument and persuasion have appealed to it, if it had been\nuseless or impotent. I believe that the imperfect human understanding\ncan be effectually exerted only in subordination to, and in a dependent\nalliance with, the means and aidances supplied by the supreme reason.\n\nChristianity is not a theory, or a speculation, but a life. Not a\nphilosophy of life, but life, and a living process. It has been eighteen\nhundred years in existence.\n\nThe practical inquirer has his foot on the rock when he knows that\nwhoever needs not a Redeemer is more than human. Remove from him the\ndifficulties that perplex his belief in a crucified Saviour, convince\nhim of the reality of sin, and then satisfy him as to the fact\nhistorically, and as to the truth spiritually, of a redemption therefrom\nby Christ. Do this for him, and there is little fear that he will let\neither logical quirks or metaphysical puzzles contravene the plain\ndictate of his commonsense, that the Sinless One that redeemed mankind\nfrom sin must have been more than man, and that He who brought light and\nimmortality into the world could not in His own nature have been an\ninheritor of death and darkness.\n\nA moral evil is an evil that has its origin in a will. An evil common to\nall must have a ground common to all. Now, this evil ground cannot\noriginate in the Divine will; it must, therefore, be referred to the\nwill of man. And this evil ground we call original sin. It is a\nmystery--that is, a fact which we see, but cannot explain; and the\ndoctrine a truth which we apprehend, but can neither comprehend nor\ncommunicate.\n\nThe article on original sin is binding on the Christian only as showing\nthe antecedent ground and occasion of Christianity, which is the edifice\nraised on this ground. The two great moments of the Christian religion\nare, original sin and redemption; _that_ the ground, _this_ the\nsuperstructure of our faith. Christianity and redemption are equivalent\nterms.\n\nThe agent and personal cause of the redemption of mankind is--the\nco-eternal word and only begotten Son of the living God. The causation\nact is--a spiritual and transcendent mystery, \"that passeth all\nunderstanding.\" The effect caused is--the being born anew, as before in\nthe flesh to the world, so now born in the spirit to Christ.\n\nNow, albeit the causative act is a transcendent mystery, the fact, or\nactual truth, of it having been assured to us by revelation, it is not\nimpossible, by steadfast meditation on the idea and supernatural\ncharacter of a personal will, for a mind spiritually disciplined to\nsatisfy itself that the redemptive act supposes an agent who can at once\nact on the will as an exciting cause, and in the will, as the condition\nof its potential, and the ground of its actual, being.\n\nThe frequent, not to say ordinary, disproportion between moral worth and\nworldly prosperity has at all times led the observant and reflecting few\nto a nicer consideration of the current belief, whether instinctive or\ntraditional. By forcing the soul in upon herself, this enigma of saint\nand sage, from Job, David, and Solomon to Claudian and Bo\u00ebtius, this\nperplexing disparity of success and desert, has been the occasion of a\nsteadier and more distinct consciousness of a something in man,\ndifferent in kind, which distinguishes and contra-distinguishes him from\nanimals--at the same time that it has brought into closer view an enigma\nof yet harder solution--the fact, I mean, of a contradiction in the\nhuman being, of which no traces are observable elsewhere, in animated or\ninanimate nature.\n\nA struggle of jarring impulses; a mysterious division between the\ninjunctions of the mind and the elections of the will; and the utter\nincommensurateness and the unsatisfying qualities of the things around\nus, that yet are the only objects which our senses discover or our\nappetites require us to pursue; these facts suggest that the riddle of\nfortune and circumstance is but a form of the riddle of man, and that\nthe solution of both problems lies in the acknowledgement that the soul\nof man, as the subject of mind and will, possesses a principle of\npermanence and is destined to endure.\n\nEvidences of Christianity! I am weary of the word. Make a man feel the\nwant of it; rouse him, if you can, to the self-knowledge of his need of\nit; and you may safely trust it to its own evidence--remembering only\nthe express declaration of Christ himself, \"No man cometh to Me, unless\nthe Father leadeth him.\"\n\nChrist's awful recalling of the drowsed soul from the dreams and phantom\nworld of sensuality to actual reality--how has it been evaded! His word,\nthat was spirit! His mysteries, which even the apostles must wait for\nthe parable in order to comprehend! These spiritual things, which can\nonly be spiritually discerned, were--say some--mere metaphors! Figures\nof speech! Oriental hyperboles! \"All this means only morality!\" Ah! how\nfar nearer the truth to say that morality means all this!\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\nCONFUCIANISM\n\n\nTHE LUN YU, OR SAYINGS OF CONFUCIUS\n\n\n     The so-called \"Four Books\" of Chinese literature are held in\n     less esteem than the \"Five Kings,\" or \"Primary Classics,\" but\n     they are still studied first by every Chinaman as a\n     preparation for what is regarded as the higher and more\n     important literature. It should be borne in mind that the four\n     \"Shus,\" as these books are called, tell us much more about the\n     actual teaching and history of Confucius. The four books are:\n     (i) The \"Lun Yu,\" or the \"Analects of Confucius,\" which\n     contain chiefly the sayings and conversations of Confucius,\n     and give, ostensibly in his own words, his teaching, and, in a\n     subordinate degree, that of his principal disciples; (2) the\n     \"Ta-Hsio,\" or \"Teaching for Adults,\" rendered also the \"Great\n     Learning,\" a treatise dealing with ethical and especially with\n     political matters, forming Book 39 of the \"Li-Ki,\" or \"Book of\n     Rites,\" the \"Fourth Classic,\" (3) the \"Chung Yung,\" or\n     \"Doctrine of the Mean,\" more correctly the State of\n     Equilibrium or harmony, forming Book 28 of the \"Li-Ki\"; and\n     (4) \"Meng-tse,\" Latinised \"Mencius,\" that is, the\n     conversations and opinions of Mencius. The first, the \"Lun\n     Yu,\" or \"Analects,\" is the most important of these, the next\n     in importance being the teaching of Mencius. The book to which\n     we are most indebted in the preparation of the following\n     epitomes is \"The Chinese Classics,\" edited by Dr. J. Legge.\n     Other books are \"The Sayings of Confucius,\" translated by S.A.\n     Lyall; \"Chinese Literature,\" by H.A. Giles; and \"The Wisdom of\n     Confucius,\" by G. Dimsdale Stacker.\n\n\n_INTRODUCTORY_\n\n\nThe original of the Chinese title of the \"Lun Yu\" is literally\n\"Discourses and Dialogues.\" By Legge and most British Chinese scholars\nthis work is called \"The Confucian Analects,\" the word \"analect\"\ndenoting things chosen, in the present case from the utterances of the\nmaster.\n\nThe \"Lun Yu\" is arranged in twenty chapters or books, and gives,\nostensibly in his own words, the teaching of Confucius and that of his\nleading disciples. It is here that we learn nearly all that we know\nabout Confucius. Since the work was composed, as we have it, within a\ncentury of the master's death, there seems good reason for believing\nthat we have here a _bona-fide_ record of what he thought and said. We\nmay compare with the \"Lun Yu\" the Christian Gospels which profess to\ngive the doctrines and sayings of Jesus, and also the traditional\nutterances of Mohammed edited by Al-Bokhari, who died in 870 A.D. The\nutterances which follow are by the master (Confucius) himself, unless it\nis otherwise stated. Other speakers are generally disciples of\nConfucius.\n\n\n_GENERAL MAXIMS_\n\n\nI care little who makes a nation's laws if I have the making of its\nballads.\n\nThe young child ought to be obedient at home, modest from home,\nattentive, faithful, full of benevolence, spending spare time mostly\nupon poetry, music, and deportment.\n\nA son ought to study his father's wishes as long as the father lives;\nand after the father is dead he should study his life, and respect his\nmemory.\n\nA man who is fond of learning is not a glutton, nor is he indolent; he\nis earnest and sincere in what he says and does, seeks the company of\nthe good, and profits by it.\n\nAt fifteen my whole mind was on study. At thirty I was able to stand\nalone. At forty my speculative doubts came to an end. At fifty I\nunderstood Heaven's laws. At sixty my passions responded to higher\ninstincts. At seventy my better nature ruled me altogether.\n\nMere study without thought is useless, but thought without study is\ndangerous.\n\nFine words and attractive appearances are seldom associated with true\ngoodness.\n\nIf a man keeps cultivating his old knowledge and be ever adding to it\nnew, that man is fit to be a teacher of others.\n\nThe superior man is broad-minded, and no partisan. The mean man is\nbiased and narrow.\n\nTze-chang studied with a view to official promotion. The master said,\n\"This is wrong,\" adding, \"Thou shouldest listen much, keep silent when\nthere is doubt, and guard thy tongue. See much, beware of dangers, and\nwalk warily. Then shalt thou have little cause for repentance.\"\n\nI do not know how a man can get on without truth. It is easier for a\nwaggon to go without a cross-pole, or a carriage to be drawn without\nharness.\n\nNeither courtesy nor music avail a man if he has not virtue and love.\n\nWorship the dead as though they stood alive before you. Sacrifice to the\nspirits as if they were in your immediate presence.\n\nIf I am not personally present when the sacrifice is being made, then I\ndo not sacrifice. There can be no proxy in this matter.\n\nTze-kung wanted to do away with the offering of a sheep at the new moon.\nThe master said, \"Thou lovest the sheep, but I love the ceremony.\"\n\nThese things are not to be tolerated: Rank without generosity, ritual\nwithout reverence, and mourning without genuine sorrow.\n\nIt is better to have virtue with want and ignominy, than wealth and\nhonour without virtue.\n\nIf a man in the morning learns the right way of life he may die at night\nwithout regret.\n\nA scholar's mind should be set on the search for truth, and he should\nnot be ashamed of poor clothes or of plain or even of insufficient food.\n\nThe superior man loves the good and pursues it; besides this, he has no\nlikes or dislikes.\n\nThe good man considers what is right; the bad man what will pay.\n\nAs long as thy parents live thou must not go far from them. But if\nthrough necessity thou leavest them, let them know where thou art, and\nbe ready to come to them when needed.\n\nThe man who governs himself, restraining his passions, seldom goes\nwrong.\n\nThe good man desires to be slow of speech, but active in conduct.\n\nVirtue stands never alone. It will always make neighbours.\n\nIn my first dealings with men I listened to their words, and gave them\ncredit for good conduct. Experience has taught me not to listen to their\nwords but to watch their conduct. It was from Yu that I learned this\nlesson.\n\nI have met no man of strong and unbending will; even Chang is\npassionate.\n\nOn being asked why Kung-wan was said to be cultured, the master replied,\n\"Because he was quick to learn, fond of learning, and especially because\nhe was not ashamed to ask questions of those below him.\" Of Tze-chang\nthe master said that he had four characteristics of the gentleman: he\nwas humble in his own life, respectful towards seniors, generous in\nsupplying the needs of the people, and just in all his demands of them.\n\nYen Yuan and Chi Lu were once sitting by the master, who turned to them\nand said, \"Come, I want each of you to tell me his wishes.\" Chi Lu said,\n\"I should like to have carriages and horses and light fur robes to share\nwith my friends that they, and I, may carelessly wear them out.\" Yen\nYuan said, \"My wish is to make no boast of moral or intellectual\nexcellence.\" The master said, \"My wish is this: to make the aged happy,\nto show sincerity towards friends, and to treat young people with\ntenderness and sympathy.\"\n\nNature preponderating over art begets coarseness; art preponderating\nover nature begets pedantry; art and nature united make a proper\ngentleman.\n\nTo men whose talents are above mediocrity we speak of superior things.\nTo men whose talents are below the common we must speak things suited to\ntheir culture.\n\nOn being asked, \"What is wisdom,\" the master replied, \"To promote right\nthoughts and feelings among men; to honour the spirits of the dead.\" In\nreply to the question, \"What is love?\" the master answered, \"Making most\nof self-sacrificing efforts but of success only in a subordinate\ndegree.\"\n\nPerfect virtue consists in keeping to the Golden Mean. He who has\noffended against Heaven has no one to whom he can pray.\n\nMen should not murmur against Heaven, for all that Heaven does is good.\n\nThe master paid great attention to three things--piety, peace, and\nhealth.\n\nIf I have coarse rice to eat and pure water to drink, and my bent arm\nfor a pillow, I am content and happy. But ill-gotten riches and honour\nare to me as a floating cloud.\n\nIf my life could be lengthened out by a few years, I would devote at\nleast fifty years to the study of the \"Yi King\" [Book of Changes], then\nmight I be purified from my sin.\n\n\n_ON POETRY, HISTORY, AND PROPRIETY_\n\n\nThe master constantly talked about poetry, history, and the rules of\npropriety.\n\nTze-lu, on being asked about Confucius, gave no answer. The master asked\nabout being present, said, \"Why didst thou not say to him, 'Confucius is\na man so eager in the pursuit of knowledge that he forgets his food, so\njubilant in its attainment that he forgets his grief and grows old\nwithout knowing it'?\"\n\nI was not born in the possession of knowledge, but I am fond of the past\nand study it closely, and hence knowledge is coming to me.\n\nMy pupils, do not think that I hide anything from you. Whatever I think\nand do I tell you frankly and truly. I keep no secrets from my\ndisciples.\n\nThe master used to teach four things: culture, morals, and manners,\npiety, and faithfulness.\n\nIn knowledge and in culture I am perhaps the equal of other men. I have\nnot yet attained to perfection, nor are my knowledge and living\nconsistent.\n\nThe master once being very ill, Tze-lu asked permission to pray for him.\nThe master asked, \"Is that customary?\" \"It is,\" replied the disciple,\n\"for the memorials have it, 'Pray to the spirits in heaven above and on\nearth below.'\" The master replied, \"I have for long prayed for myself,\nand that is best.\"\n\nThe master was dignified, yet gentle. He was majestic, but inspired no\nfear. He was gentlemanly, but always at ease.\n\nPoetry rouses the mind, the rules of propriety establish the character,\nmusic crowns a man's education.\n\nIt would be hard to meet a man who has studied for three years without\nlearning something good.\n\nLearn as though you felt you could never learn enough, and as though you\nfeared you could not learn in your short life what is needful for\nconduct.\n\nA man from a certain village once said, \"Confucius is, no doubt, a very\nlearned man, but he has not made himself a name in any special thing.\"\nWhen the master heard this, he said to his disciples, \"What shall I\nundertake: charioteering, archery, or what? I think I shall become a\ncharioteer, and thus get me a name.\"\n\nA high officer asked Tze-kung, \"May we not say that the master is a sage\nbecause he can do so many things?\" To which Tze-kung replied, \"Heaven\nhas indeed highly endowed him, and he is almost a sage; and he is very\nmany-sided.\"\n\nOn hearing this the master said, \"Does the officer know me? Being of\nlowly birth when I was young, I learnt many a trade, but there was\nnothing great in that. The superior man may excel in one thing only, and\nnot in many things.\"\n\nWishing to go and live among the nine wild tribes of the East, one of\nhis friends remonstrated with the master and said, \"They are low. How\ncan you go and live among them?\" To which he gave for answer, \"Nothing\nthat is low can survive where the virtuous and the good-mannered man\nis.\"\n\nAfter I returned from Wei to Lu I found the music had been reformed, and\nthat each song was given its proper place.\n\nThe master said, \"To serve ministers and nobles when abroad, fathers and\nelder brothers when at home, to avoid neglect in offerings of the dead,\nand to be no slave to wine: to which of these have I attained?\"\n\n\n_CONFUCIUS AT HOME AND AT COURT_\n\n\nIn his own village Confucius looked homely and sincere, as if he had no\nword to say; but in the ancestral temple and in the court he was full of\nwords, though careful in using them.\n\nWhen waiting at court he talked with the lower officers frankly, but to\nthe higher officers more blandly and precisely. When the sovereign was\npresent he used to be respectful but easy, solemn yet self-possessed.\nWhen the sovereign bade him receive visitors his countenance changed,\nand his legs appeared to bend. Bowing to those beside him, he\nstraightened his robes in front and behind, hastening forward with his\nelbows extended like a bird's wings. When the guest had retired he used\nto report to the prince, saying, \"The guest does not any more look\nback.\" When he entered the palace gate he seemed to stoop as though it\nwere not high enough for him. Ascending the dais, lifting up his robes\nwith both hands, he held his breath as if he would cease breathing. As\nhe came down his face relaxed after the first step, and looked more at\nease. At the bottom of the steps he would hurry on, spreading out his\nelbows like wings, and on gaining his seat he would sit intent as\npreviously.\n\nHe was never arrayed in deep purple or in puce-coloured garments. Even\nat home he wore nothing of a red or reddish colour. In hot weather he\nused to wear a single garment of fine texture, but always over an inner\ngarment. Over lambs' fur he wore a garment of black, over fawns' fur one\nof white, and over foxes' fur one of yellow. His sleeping-dress was half\nas long again as his body. On the first day of the month he always went\nto court in court robes. On fast days he wore pale-hued garments,\nchanged his food, and made a change in his apartment.\n\nHe liked to have his rice carefully cleaned and his minced meat chopped\nsmall. He did not eat rice that had been injured by heat or damp or that\nhad turned sour, nor could he eat fish or meat which had gone. He did\nnot eat anything that was discoloured or that had a bad flavour, or that\nwas not in season. He would not eat meat badly cut, or that was served\nwith the wrong sauce. No choice of meats could induce him to eat more\nthan he thought right.\n\nAfter sacrificing at the ancestral temple he would never keep the meat\nthere overnight, nor would he keep it more than three days at home. If\nby any mishap it were kept longer, it was not eaten.\n\nHe never talked at meals, nor would he speak a word in bed. Though there\nwere on the table nothing but coarse rice and vegetable soup, he would\nalways reverently offer some of it to his ancestors. If his mat was not\nstraight he would not sit on it.\n\n\n_ON LEARNING AND VIRTUE_\n\n\nChung-kung asked about virtue. The master said: \"It consists in these\nthings: To treat those outside thine own home as if thou wert welcoming\na great guest; to treat the people as if thou wert assisting at a high\nsacrifice; not to do to others what thou wouldest not have them do to\nthee; to encourage no wrongs in the state nor any in the home.\"\n\nThe master being once asked \"Who is the virtuous man?\" answered, \"One\nthat has neither anxiety nor fear, for he finds no evil in his heart.\nWhat, then, is there to cause anxiety or fear?\"\n\nThe master, on being once asked by one of his disciples \"On what does\nthe art of government depend?\" answered, \"Sufficient food, troops, and a\nloyal people.\" \"If, however,\" the same disciple asked, \"one of them had\nto be dispensed with, which of the three could we best spare?\" \"Troops,\"\nsaid the master. \"And which,\" the disciple then asked, \"of the other two\ncould be better spared?\" \"Food,\" said the master.\n\nTze-chang asked the master, \"When may a scholar or an officer be called\neminent?\" The master asked, \"What dost thou mean by being eminent?\" To\nwhich the other answered, \"To be famous throughout the state and\nthroughout his clan.\" \"But that,\" said the master, \"is fame, not\neminence. The truly eminent man is genuine and straightforward; he loves\nrighteousness, weighs people's words, and looks at their countenances.\nHe humbles himself to others, and is sincerely desirous of helping all.\nThat is the, eminent man, though he may not be a famous one.\"\n\nIf a ruler can govern himself, he is likely to be able to govern his\npeople. But how can a man who has not control of himself keep his people\nin subjection?\n\nTze-kung asked, \"Is it proper that a man should be liked by all his\nneighbours?\" \"Certainly not,\" said the master. \"Is it then proper,\"\nasked the same, \"that a man should be hated by all his neighbours?\"\n\"Decidedly not,\" said the master. \"The good man is loved by his good\nneighbours, and hated by his bad ones.\"\n\nThe virtuous man is hard to satisfy, but easy to serve. Nothing that\nthou doest to please him satisfies him unless it is strictly according\nto right. But in all his demands upon his servants he expects according\nto capacity, and is satisfied if the servant does his best, though it be\nlittle. The bad man is easy to satisfy, but hard to serve. He is\nsatisfied with whatever pleases him, though it be not right; and he\ndemands of his servants whatever he requires, making no allowance for\ncapacity.\n\nA scholar whose mind is set upon comfort is not worthy of the name.\n\n\"Where there's a will,\" said the master, \"there's a way.\"\n\nTo refrain from speaking to a man who is disposed to hear is to wrong\nthe man; to speak to a man not disposed to listen is to waste words.\n\n\"How can one in brief express man's whole duty?\"\n\n\"Is not reciprocity such a word?\" said the master; \"that is, what thou\ndost not want others to do to thee, do thou not to others.\"\n\nThere are three things which the virtuous man has to guard against. In\nyouth, lust; in full manhood, strife; and in old age, covetousness.\n\nThe highest class of men are those who are born wise; the next those who\nbecome wise by study; next and third, those who learn much, without\nhaving much natural ability. The lowest class of people are those who\nhave neither natural ability nor perseverance. Men are very similar at\nbirth; it is afterwards the great differences arise.\n\nIt is only the wisest and the silliest of men who never alter their\nopinions.\n\n\"My children,\" said the master once to his disciples, \"Why do you not\nstudy the Book of Poetry [the Shih King]? It would stimulate your mind,\nencourage introspection, teach you to love your fellows, and to forbear\nwith all. It would show you your duty to your fathers and your king; and\nyou would also learn from it the names of many birds and beasts and\nplants and trees.\"\n\n\nTA-HSIO, OR TEACHING FOR ADULTS\n\n\n_INTRODUCTORY_\n\n\nThe \"Ta-Hsio,\" or \"Teaching for Adults,\" rendered also \"The Great\nLearning,\" is really a treatise dealing with ethical, and especially\nwith political, matters, the duties of rulers, ministers, etc. It is\nusually ascribed in part to \"the master\" himself, and in part to Tseng\nTsan, one of the most illustrious of his disciples. This forms Book 39\nof the \"Li Ki,\" or \"Book of Rites,\" and it is admitted by the best\nscholars to be a genuine specimen of the teaching of Confucius, though\nno one believes that \"the master\" is the author of the book as it now\nstands. The likeliest suggestion as to authorship is that which ascribes\nthe present treatise, and also the \"Chung Yung\" (No. 28 of the \"Li Ki\")\nto Khung Chi, the grandson of Confucius.\n\nThe great Chinese philosopher Chang said of this book: \"'The teaching\nfor Adults' is a book belonging to the Confucian school, forming the\ngate through which youthful students enter the great temple of virtue.\nWe should not have been able to ascertain the methods of learning\npursued by the ancients if this book and the works of Mencius had not\nbeen preserved. Beginners ought to start their studies with this book,\nand then pass on to the harder books, after which the Five Classics\nshould be read and pondered over.\"\n\nThe object of the \"Ta-Hsio\" is to illustrate outstanding virtue, to\npromote love of the people and their improvement in morals and manners.\nIn order that these results may be obtained, this treatise must be\npatiently calmly, and thoughtfully studied.\n\n\n_HOW THE EMPIRE IS TO BE IMPROVED_\n\n\nThe ancients, wishing to make their empire perfect, first endeavoured to\nmake their states perfect. For this last purpose they exerted themselves\nto improve their famines, and to this end they took great pains to\nimprove their personal character. In order to improve their personal\ncharacter, they endeavoured to purify their hearts and to make their\nthoughts sincere.\n\nFrom the Son of Heaven [the Emperor] to the masses of the people, the\ncultivation of personal character was regarded as the root of all\namelioration. To know this has been called knowing the \"root,\" which is\nthe perfection of knowledge.\n\nOn Thang's bathing-tub these words were inscribed:\n\n\"Renovate thyself day by day, yea, every day renovate thyself.\" At the\nopening of his reign, Thang was exhorted to renovate his people.\n\nIn the Book of Poetry it is said that although Kau was an ancient state,\nyet it regarded Heaven's commands as ever new. In the same book we read\nthat the thoughts of the Emperor Wan were deep, and his conduct firm. In\nall his relationships he was reverent and true. As a sovereign he was\nbenevolent; as a minister respectful; as a son he exhibited filial\npiety; as a father he was kind and considerate; towards his subjects he\nwas steadfastly faithful. This virtuous and accomplished sovereign, Wan,\ntook great pains to sharpen his intellect and to make his heart more\nsensitive to all obligations. How majestic, how glorious was he; he\nshall ever be remembered by his grateful people at the ancestral shrine.\n\n\"The cultivation of personal character depends upon the regulation of\nthe mind.\" What does this mean? If a man's passions are not kept under\ncontrol, he will form wrong judgments about actions and never have a\nwell-balanced mind. Therefore must man regulate his mind in order to\ncultivate himself. \"The government of the family depends upon the\ncultivation of personal character.\" What does this mean? Where there is\naffection, judgment is distorted. We see the good qualities of those we\nlove, but are blind to the bad ones. We see the bad qualities of those\nwe hate, but are blind to the good ones. In order to be able to govern a\nfamily rightly, we must train our minds to judge fairly and impartially\nof those nearest to us--_i.e.,_ it requires careful self-training to be\nable to train a family.\n\n\"We must be able to govern the family before we can rule a state.\" What\nmeans this? If a man fails to teach the members of his own family to be\nobedient and loyal to their head, how can he train a nation to be\nunited, obedient, and loyal?\n\nYas and Shun ruled with love, and the people became loving. Kieh and Kau\nruled with violence, and the people became violent. The sovereign must\nhave and exhibit the same qualities that he wishes his subjects to\ncultivate. Nor has he the right to expect his people to be free from bad\nqualities which are in himself. The ruler must himself be what he wants\nhis people to be. Thus it is that the government of the state rests upon\nthe proper government of the family.\n\n\"That the empire should have peace and prosperity depends upon the\ngovernment of the constituting states.\" What does this mean?\n\nWhen ruler and ministers treat their aged ones as they ought to, the\ninhabitants in general become filial. Similarly, the inhabitants learn\nto show respect towards their seniors and sympathy towards the young\nwhen their superiors set them the right example in these matters. No man\nshould treat his inferiors as he would not like his superiors to treat\nhim. What he disapproves of in his inferiors, let him not exhibit in his\ndealings towards his superiors.\n\nIn the Book of Poetry it is written, \"The parents of the people are much\nto be congratulated. A sovereign whose loves and hates correspond with\nthose of his people is his people's father.\" To gain the people is to\ngain the state; therefore a ruler's primary concern should be his own\nintegrity, for thereby he wins his people's loyalty, and through that\nloyalty he obtains the state, and therewith the wealth of the whole\ncountry.\n\nVirtue is the root, wealth but the branches. See first, therefore, to\nthe root.\n\nIn the Records of Khu one reads, \"The State of Khu values men, not gems\nnor robes.\"\n\nA country is wealthy if it consumes less than it produces, and that man\nis rich whose income exceeds his expenditure.\n\nThe virtuous ruler gathers wealth on account of the reputation it can\nbring him. The wicked ruler seeks wealth for its own sake, sacrificing\neven virtue to obtain it.\n\nA benevolent sovereign makes a just people. When the people are just the\naffairs of the sovereign prosper. The state's prosperity consists in\nrighteousness, not in riches.\n\n\nCHUNG YUNG, OR DOCTRINE OF THE MEAN\n\n\n_INTRODUCTORY_\n\n\nThe \"Chung Yung\" is more correctly rendered \"The state of equilibrium\nand harmony\" (Legge, etc.) than by \"The Doctrine of the Mean,\" its usual\nappellation. Other titles suggested have been \"The Just Mean,\" \"The True\nMean,\" \"The Golden Mean,\" and \"The Constant Mean.\" The word \"chung\"\nmeans \"middle,\" \"yung\" denoting \"course\" or \"way.\" Hence, \"Chung Yung\"\nmeans literally, \"The middle way.\" Compare Aristotle's doctrine of The\nMean (\"Ethics\" Book II.).\n\nThis treatise occurs as Book 28 of the \"Li-Ki\" and by Chinese scholars\nhas been declared to be the most valuable part of the Book of Rites. We\nhave here the fullest account existing of the philosophy and ethics of\nthe master. Apart from its value as such, the \"Chung Yung\" is\nexceedingly interesting as a monument of the teaching of the ancient\nChinese. In its existing form the \"Chung Yung\" is arranged in five\ndivisions, containing, in all, thirty-three chapters. No attempt is made\nin the epitomes that follow to retain these divisions and chapters. For\nthe authorship and date of this third book see what is said in the\nintroduction to the \"Ta-Hsio.\"\n\n\n_THE GOOD MAN'S PATH_\n\n\nThe sense of obligation has been implanted in man by Heaven. The path of\nduty is a life in accordance with this heaven-implanted intuition. Every\nman ought always to tread this path; the true doctrine teaches how this\nis to be accomplished. The good man will ever be on his guard lest he\ndepart a hair's breadth from the right way.\n\nThe mental state of equilibrium is reached when a man is free from the\ndistracting influences of anger and goodwill, joy and sorrow. When these\nemotions exist in due proportion and extent the state of harmony is\nattained. From the first proceed all great human enterprises. The state\nof harmony is the path along which all good men will go. When the states\nof equilibrium and harmony exist in their fulness gods and men receive\ntheir dues, and there is prosperity and happiness.\n\nKung-ni[8] said, \"The virtuous man embodies in himself the states of\nequilibrium and harmony, but the low man knows neither of these states.\"\nThis perfect condition of human character in which there is complete\nequilibrium and harmony is reached but by few. Why is this so? It is\nbecause those who are wise consider these ideal states too commonplace,\nand they aim at things which the world values more highly. The low man,\non the other hand, grovels in the dust and never rises to higher\nthoughts or nobler aims. Men could, if they would, distinguish the\nworthy from the unworthy, just as with a healthy palate they can tell\ngood food from bad. But men's moral discernment has been blunted by a\nlife of sensuality and sin, just as the physical palate loses its power\nof tasting when in a diseased condition.\n\nIn order to find out the Mean, our Father Shun, of blessed memory, used\nto question the people[9] and study their answers, even the shallow\nones. He used to encourage them to speak out by seeming to value the\npoorest answers. He would take the extremest sayings he heard, and from\nthem deduce the Mean.\n\nIt is hard to keep in the middle way: men rule kingdoms and accept\nhonours and emoluments who have yet signally failed to govern themselves\nby the rules of the Mean.\n\nThe good man's ambition is not to perform feats which startle the world\nand give him fame, but rather to live the life of the moderate and\nharmonious one; yet how often for lack of true discernment he fails!\nThis middle path is not, however, hidden from the sincere and pure; even\ncommon men and women may know it, though in its highest reaches it\nbaffles the wisest. The greatest and the wisest and the best find lodged\nwithin them unrealised ideals. Whoever strenuously aims at realising\nthese ideals, though he fails, is near the right path.\n\n\"The good man has four difficulties,\" said the master, \"and I have not\nmyself been able to overcome them. (1) To serve my father as I should\nlike my son to serve me. (2) To serve my ruler as I should like him to\nserve me were I his ruler. (3) To serve an elder brother as I should\nlike him to serve me were he my younger brother. (4) To act towards a\nfriend as I should like him to act towards me were our relations\nreversed.\"[10]\n\nThe good man suits his conduct to his station in life. If he has wealth\nand high office he acts becomingly, never treating his inferiors with\nharshness or contempt. If he be poor and unrecognised, he never murmurs\nagainst heaven, or pines over his lot, or cringes before superiors, or\ndoes anything immoral for applause or gain. The virtuous man accepts\nheaven's allotments thankfully and uncomplainingly.\n\nIn order to attain to the middle path we must carefully perform the\nduties which lie nearest to us, not waiting to do great things. In the\nBook of Poetry we read of the love of wife, of children, and brothers.\nCultivate this love on the home hearth, and thy charity will expand and\ntake in mankind. [Note how charity, though beginning at home, travels\nfar afield.]\n\nShun displayed his filial piety on a huge scale, and brought great\nhonour to his parents and to himself. No wonder that such filial piety\nas his was rewarded with dominion, wealth, and fame. It is well said in\nthe Book of Poetry, \"The good man receives Heaven's benediction.\"\n\nThe Emperor Wan was the only man with no cause for grief, his father\nbeing the admirable Ki, and his son the equally admirable Wu. The father\nlaid the foundation of all this excellence, the son transmitting it to\nhis own son. The Emperor Wu retained the honour and distinction of his\nforebears Thai, Kai, and Wan. He had the dignity of the true Son of\nHeaven, and owned all within the Four Seas.[11] He sacrificed regularly\nin the ancestral temple, and after death his successors sacrificed to\nhim. The Duke of Kau continued the glorious traditions handed on by Wu.\nBoth these great rulers realised the aspirations and wishes of their\nforefathers, restoring and improving the ancestral temple, renovating\nthe sacred vessels and offering sacrifices suited to each year. In other\nways also they perpetuated the good deeds of their ancestors, observed\ntheir religious rites, encouraged the study of music and poetry,\nhonoured the honourable, and loved the lovable. They showed due respect\nto their departed ones, and thus discharged their duty to the living and\nthe dead.\n\n\nTHE WORKS OF MENCIUS\n\n_INTRODUCTORY_\n\n\nMencius is the Latinised form of \"Mengtse,\" which means \"the philosopher\nMeng,\" Meng (or Meng-sun) being the name of one of the three great\nHouses of Lu, whose usurpations gave so much offence to Confucius. His\npersonal name was Ko, though this does not occur in his own works. He\nwas born in B.C. 372, and died in B.C. 289 at the age of 83, in the\ntwenty-sixth year of the Emperor Nan, with whom ended the long\nsovereignty of Kau (Chow) dynasty. He was thus a contemporary of Plato\n(whose last twenty-three years synchronised with his first\ntwenty-three), Aristotle, Zeno, Epicurus, and Demosthenes, and he is\nwell worthy of being ranked with these illustrious men.\n\nMencius was reared by his widowed mother, whose virtue and wisdom are\nstill proverbial in China. The first forty years of his life are\nvirtually a blank to us, so that we know very little of his early\neducation. He is said, however, to have studied under Khung Chi, the\ngrandson of Confucius.\n\nIn the hundred and six years between the death of Confucius (B.C. 478)\nand the birth of Mencius (B.C. 372), the political and moral state of\nChina had altered greatly for the worse. The smaller feudal states had\nbeen swallowed up by larger ones, the princes were constantly at war\nwith one another, and there was but little loyalty to the occupant of\nthe imperial throne; moreover, the moral standard of things had lowered\nvery much. At about the age of forty-five Mencius became Minister under\nPrince Hsuan, of the Chi state. But as his master refused to carry out\nthe reforms he urged, he resigned his post and travelled through many\nlands, advising rulers and ministers with whom he came in contact. In\nthe year B.C. 319 he resumed his former position in the state of Chi,\nresigning once more eight years later. He now gave himself up to a life\nof study and teaching, preparing the works presently to be noticed. His\nmain purpose was to expound and enforce the teaching of Confucius. But\nhis own doctrine stands on a lower level than that of the master, for he\nviews man's well-being rather from the point of view of political\neconomy. He was justly named by Chao Chi \"The Second Holy One or\nProphet\"--the name by which China still knows him.\n\nThe treatise called \"The Works of Mencius\" is a compilation of the\nconversation and opinions of Mencius, having a similar relation to that\ngreat philosopher that the Analects (or \"Lun Yu\") have to Confucius. It\nis arranged in seven books. According to tradition the work, in its\nexisting form, is as it came from the philosopher himself.\n\n\n_VIRTUE, NOT PROFIT, TO BE THE CHIEF QUEST_\n\n\nWhen Mencius visited King Hui, of Liang, the latter asked him what\ncounsel he could give to profit his kingdom. The philosopher replied,\n\"Why does your majesty use the word profit? The only things which I have\nto counsel are righteousness and goodwill. If the king seeks mainly the\n_profit_ of his kingdom, the great officers will seek the profit of\ntheir families and the common people that of theirs. The chief things to\nbe aimed at by king and people are virtue and benevolence. All else is\nas nothing. No benevolent man has neglected his parents, nor has any\nvirtuous man slighted his sovereign.\"\n\n\"How comes it,\" asked the king, \"that my state Tsin has deteriorated\nsince I became its ruler, and that calamities many and great have fallen\non it?\" Mencius answered, \"With so great an extent of territory as thine\nprosperity ought to be within easy reach; but in order to procure it\nyour majesty must govern thy subjects justly and kindly, moderating\npenalties, lightening taxes, promoting thus and otherwise their\nindustries, increasing their comforts as well as lessening their\nburdens, deepening the faithfulness of the people to one another and to\nthe throne. Then will thy people be loyal to thee and formidable towards\nthy foes. Thou shalt make thy subjects loyal friends, for the benevolent\none has no enemy.\"\n\n\n_A PROSPEROUS RULER THE FRIEND AND FATHER OF HIS PEOPLE_\n\n\nOn one occasion the Emperor Hsuan of Chi visited Mencius in the Snow\nPalace, and asked him, \"Do the people find enjoyment in music and in the\nchase?\" \"Certainly,\" answered Mencius; \"it is when ruler and people\nshare each other's joys and sorrows that the sovereign attains to his\nhighest dignity. Moreover, a ruler, when moving amongst his people ought\nto copy the ancient sovereigns. In the good old days, when the ruler\nmade a tour of inspection among his people he was received with great\nacclamation everywhere, for joy and gladness came in his train. In the\nspring he inspected the ploughing and supplied all that was lacking in\nthe way of seed. In the autumn he examined the reaping and made up for\nany deficiency in the yield. It was a common saying during the Hsia\ndynasty, 'If the Emperor visiteth not, what will become of us?' But now,\nmay your majesty permit me to say, matters are very different, for, when\nin these days a ruler visits his people he is accompanied by a huge\narmy, who with himself and suite have to be maintained by the people\nvisited. And so it comes to be that the hungry are robbed of their food,\nand the toilers are wearied with the extra tasks imposed upon them. If a\nruler wishes to have the hearts of his people, and to' be regarded as\ntheir father, he must consider their needs and endeavour to supply\nthem.\"\n\n\n_MENCIUS USES STRATAGEM TO BRING HOME TO THE EMPEROR HIS GUILT_\n\n\nMencius said on one occasion to Hsuan, King of Chi, \"Suppose one of thy\nministers were to entrust his family during his absence to a\nsubordinate, and that the latter neglected his duty so that the wife and\nchildren were exposed to great suffering and danger. What should that\nminister do?\"\n\n\"Dismiss him at once,\" was the royal reply.\n\n\"But,\" continued the philosopher, \"suppose that the government of your\nown kingdom were bad, the people suffering and disunited and disloyal on\naccount of their king's bad rule. What then should be done?\" The king,\nlooking this way and that, turned the conversation to other themes.\n\n\n_IT MAY BE RIGHT TO KILL A SOVEREIGN_\n\n\nKing Hsuan asked Mencius, \"Is it true that Thang banished his own\nsovereign, Kieh [the last king of the Hsia dynasty], and that Wu\nattacked the tyrant Emperor Kau-hsin and slew him?\" \"It is true,\" said\nMencius, \"for it is so written in the 'Shu King.' But if a sovereign\nacts as Kieh did he is no longer a sovereign but a robber, and to be\ndealt with as such. And if a ruler is, like Kau-hsin, the enemy of his\npeople, he is no longer their ruler, and therefore to be put out of the\nway, and how better than by death?\"\n\n\n_THE GIFTS THAT MAY AND THOSE THAT MAY NOT BE ACCEPTED_\n\n\nChan Tsin spoke to Mencius as follows:\n\n\"The King of Chi once offered thee a present and thou declinedst it, but\ndidst accept gifts offered at Sung and at Hsieh. Why this inconsistency?\nIf it were right to refuse in the first case it was equally right to\nrefuse in the other two. If it were right to accept in the latter two\ncases, it was equally right to accept in the first case.\" The\nphilosopher answered, \"I acted rightly and consistently. The gifts at\nSung were to provide me with what was needed for a long journey which I\nwas about to undertake. Why should I refuse such gifts when needed? At\nHsieh I was in some personal danger and needed help to procure the means\nof self-defence. The gifts were to enable me to procure arms. Why should\nI have refused such needed help? But at Chi I needed no money, and\ntherefore refused it when offered, for to accept money when it is not\nneeded is to accept a bribe. Why should I take such money?\"\n\n\n_WRONG CONDUCT SHOULD BE ENDED AT ONCE_\n\n\nA distinguished officer of Sung, called Tai Ying-chib, called upon\nMencius and said, \"I am unable as yet to dispense with the tax on goods\nand the duties charged at the frontier passes and in the markets, though\nthis is a right and proper thing to do. But it is my intention, until\nthe next year, to lighten the tax and the duties, and then next year I\nshall remove them altogether.\" The philosopher replied, \"Here is a man\nwho daily steals a score of his neighbour's fowls. Someone remonstrates,\nand, feeling that he is guilty of acting dishonestly, he says, 'I know\nthat this stealing is wrong, but in the future I shall be content with\nstealing one fowl a month. But next year I will stop stealing fowls\naltogether.' If,\" continued Mencius, \"this task and these duties are, as\nyou admit, wrong, end them at once. Why should you wait a year?\"\n\n\n_THE INHERENT GOODNESS OF HUMAN NATURE_\n\n\nKao Tzu said to Mencius, \"Human nature resembles running water, which\nflows east or west according as it can find an outlet. So human nature\nis inclined equally to what is good and to what is bad.\" \"It is true,\"\nanswered Mencius, \"that water will flow indifferently to the east or to\nthe west. But it will not flow indifferently up or down; it can only\nflow down. The tendency of human nature is towards what is good, as that\nof water is to flow downwards. One may, indeed, by splashing water, make\nit spurt upwards, but that is forcing it against its true character.\nEven so, when a man becomes prone to what is evil it is because his\nHeaven-implanted nature has been diverted from its true bent.\"\n\n\n_PEOPLE FIRST, KINGS LAST_\n\n\n\"The people,\" said Mencius, \"are first in importance; next come the\ngods. The kings are last and least.\"\n\n\n_EVERY MAN SHOULD ACCEPT HIS LOT_\n\n\nMencius said, \"Every man's lot is fixed for him, and it is a proof of\nwisdom to accept it uncomplainingly. He who does this faces misfortune\nand even death unmoved.\"\n\n\n_WHAT THE GOOD KING DELIGHTS IN MOST_\n\n\n\"The virtuous king,\" said Mencius, \"is glad to have a large extent of\nterritory and a numerous people to rule over; but his heart is not on\nthese things. To be at the head of a great kingdom and to see his people\nloyal, united, and flourishing, gives the good king joy; but his heart\nis not on these things. It is on benevolence, justice, propriety, and\nknowledge that the good king's heart is set.\"\n\n\n_THE INFLUENCE OF EXAMPLE_\n\n\nMencius said, \"In the good days of old, men of virtue and talent\nabounded in the land, and their influence for good was great upon their\nfellows. But now, alas, the masses of the people are ignorant, and\ndepraved, and their dominant influence is bad.\"\n\n\n_COUNSELLORS SHOULD LOVE RIGHTEOUSNESS RATHER THAN RICHES_\n\n\nMencius said, \"Those who counsel men in high places should feel contempt\nfor their pomp and display. I have no wish for huge and gorgeous halls,\nfor luxurious food with hundreds of attendants, or for sparkling wine or\nbewitching women. These things I esteem not; what I esteem are the rules\nof propriety handed down by the ancients.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\nF\u00c9NELON\n\n\nTHE EXISTENCE OF GOD\n\n\n     Fran\u00e7ois de Salignac de la Mothe F\u00e9nelon was born at the\n     ch\u00e2teau of F\u00e9nelon, in the ancient territorial division of\n     P\u00e9rigord, France, August 6, 1651. At twenty-four he became a\n     priest. He was for many years a friend of his celebrated\n     contemporary Bossuet, but later Bossuet attacked a spiritual\n     and unworldly work of F\u00e9nelon, who was condemned by the Pope.\n     He died on January 17, 1715, leaving behind him many books, of\n     which the \"Treatise on the Existence of God,\" first published\n     in 1713, is the masterpiece. This noble and profound work,\n     though it accepts the \"argument from design,\" which the\n     discovery of universal evolution necessarily modifies, does so\n     with such rare philosophical insight as to stand for ever far\n     above any other works of the kind. F\u00e9nelon can scarcely be\n     called a mystic, for his reason was of the finest, and never\n     surrendered its claims; but, though a strictly rational\n     thinker, he had the insight of the mystic or the idealist who\n     sees in external nature, and in the mind of man alike, what\n     Goethe called \"the living garment of God.\"\n\n\n_I.--THE HAND THAT MAKES EVERYTHING_\n\n\nI cannot open my eyes without admiring the art that shines throughout\nall nature; the least cast suffices to make me perceive the Hand that\nmakes everything.\n\nMen the least exercised in reasoning, and the most tenacious of the\nprejudices of the senses, may yet with one look discover Him who has\ndrawn Himself in all His works. The wisdom and power He has stamped upon\neverything He has made are seen, as it were, in a glass by those that\ncannot contemplate Him in His own idea. This is a sensible and popular\nphilosophy, of which any man free from passion and prejudice is capable.\n\nIf a great number of men of subtle and penetrating wit have not\ndiscovered God with one cast of the eye upon nature, it is not matter of\nwonder, for either the passions they have been tossed by have still\nrendered them incapable of any fixed reflection, or the false prejudices\nthat result from passions have, like a thick cloud, interposed between\ntheir eyes and that noble spectacle.\n\nA man deeply concerned in an affair of great importance, that should\ntake up all the attention of his mind, might pass several days in a room\ntreating about his concerns without taking notice of the proportions of\nthe chamber, the ornaments of the chimney, and the pictures about him,\nall of which objects would continually be before his eyes, and yet none\nof them make any impression upon him. In this manner it is that men\nspend their lives. Everything offers God to their sight, and yet they\nsee Him nowhere.\n\nThey pass away their lives without perceiving that sensible\nrepresentation of the Deity. Such is the fascination of worldly trifles\nthat obscure their eyes. Nay, oftentimes they will not so much as open\nthem, but rather affect to keep them shut, lest they should find Him\nthey do not look for. In short, what ought to help most to open their\neyes serves only to close them faster. I mean the constant duration and\nregularity of the motions which the Supreme Wisdom has put in the\nuniverse.\n\nBut, after all, whole nature shows the infinite art of its Maker. When I\nspeak of an art, I mean a collection of proper means chosen on purpose\nto arrive at a certain end; or, if you please, it is an order, a method,\nan industry, or a set design. Chance, on the contrary, is a blind and\nnecessary cause, which neither sets in order nor chooses anything, and\nhas neither will nor understanding. Now, I maintain that the universe\nbears the character and stamp of a cause infinitely powerful and\nindustrious; and, at the same time, that chance--that is, the fortuitous\nconcourse of causes void of reason--cannot have formed this universe.\n\nWho will believe that so perfect a poem as Homer's \"Iliad\" was not the\nproduct of the genius of a great poet, but that the letters of the\nalphabet, being confusedly jumbled and mixed, were by chance, as it were\nby the cast of a pair of dice, brought together in such an order as is\nnecessary to describe, in verses full of harmony and variety, so many\ngreat events; to place and connect them so well together; to paint every\nobject with all its most graceful, most noble, and most affecting\nattendants; in short, to make every person speak according to his\ncharacter in so natural and so forcible a manner? Let people subtilise\nupon the matter as much as they please, yet they never will persuade a\nman of sense that the \"Iliad\" was the mere result of chance. How, then,\ncan a man of sense be induced to believe, with respect to the universe,\nwhat his reason will never suffer him to believe in relation to the\n\"Iliad\"?\n\n\n_II.--EARTH, THE MOTHER OF ALL LIVING_\n\n\nAfter these comparisons, about which I only desire the reader to consult\nhimself, without any argumentation, I think it is high time to enter\ninto a detail of nature. I do not pretend to penetrate through the\nwhole. Who is able to do it? Neither do I pretend to enter into any\nphysical discussion. Such way of reasoning requires a certain deep\nknowledge, which abundance of men of wit and sense never acquire; and\ntherefore I will offer nothing to them but the simple prospect of the\nface of nature. I will entertain them with nothing but what everybody\nknows, which requires only a little calm and serious attention.\n\nLet us, in the first place, stop at the great object that first strikes\nour sight--I mean the general structure of the universe. Let us cast our\neyes on this earth that bears us.\n\nWho is it that hung and poised this motionless globe of the earth? Who\nlaid its foundation? Nothing seems more vile and contemptible, for the\nmeanest wretches tread it under foot; but yet it is in order to possess\nit that we part with the greatest treasures. If it were harder than it\nis, men could not open its bosom to cultivate it; and if it were less\nhard it could not bear them, and they would sink everywhere as they do\nin sand, or in a bog. It is from the inexhaustible bosom of the earth we\ndraw what is most precious. That shapeless, vile, and rude mass assumes\nthe most various forms, and yields alone, by turns, all the goods we can\ndesire. That dirty soil transforms itself into a thousand fine objects\nthat charm the eye. In the compass of one year it turns into branches,\ntwigs, buds, leaves, blossoms, fruits, and seeds, in order, by those\nvarious shapes, to multiply its liberalities to mankind.\n\nNothing exhausts the earth; the more we tear her bowels the more she is\nliberal. After so many ages, during which she has produced everything,\nshe is not yet worn out. She feels no decay from old age, and her\nentrails still contain the same treasures. A thousand generations have\npassed away, and returned into her bosom.\n\nEverything grows old, she alone excepted; for she grows young again\nevery year in the spring. She is never wanting to men; but foolish men\nare wanting to themselves in neglecting to cultivate her. It is through\ntheir laziness and extravagance they suffer brambles and briars to grow\ninstead of grapes and corn. They contend for a good they let perish. The\nconquerors leave uncultivated the ground for the possession of which\nthey have sacrificed the lives of so many thousand men, and have spent\ntheir own in hurry and trouble. Men have before them vast tracts of land\nuninhabited and uncultivated, and they turn mankind topsy-turvy for one\nnook of that neglected ground in dispute. The earth, if well cultivated,\nwould feed a hundred times more men than she does now. Even the\nunevenness of ground, which at first seems to be a defect, turns either\ninto ornament or profit. The mountains arose and the valleys descended\nto the place the Lord had appointed for them. Those different grounds\nhave their particular advantages, according to the divers aspects of the\nsun. In those deep valleys grow fresh and tender grass to feed cattle.\nNext to them opens a vast champaign covered with a rich harvest. Here,\nhills rise like an amphitheatre, and are crowned with vineyards and\nfruit-trees. There, high mountains carry aloft their frozen brows to the\nvery clouds, and the torrents that run down from them become the springs\nof rivers. The rocks that show their craggy tops bear up the earth of\nmountains just as the bones bear up the flesh in human bodies.\n\nThere is scarce any spot of ground absolutely barren if a man do not\ngrow weary of digging, and turning it to the enlivening sun, and if he\nrequire no more from it than it is proper to bear. Amidst stone and\nrocks there is sometimes excellent pasture, and their cavities have\nveins which, being penetrated by the piercing rays of the sun, furnish\nplants with most savoury juices for the feeding of herds and flocks.\nEven sea-coasts that seem to be the most sterile and wild yield\nsometimes either delicious fruits or most wholesome medicines that are\nwanting in the most fertile countries. Besides, it is the effect of a\nwise over-ruling Providence that no land yields all that is useful to\nhuman life. For want invites men to commerce, in order to supply one\nanother's necessities. It is therefore that want which is the natural\ntie of society between nations; otherwise, all the people of the earth\nwould be reduced to one sort of food and clothing, and nothing would\ninvite them to know and visit one another.\n\nAll that the earth produces, being corrupted, returns into her bosom,\nand becomes the source of a new production. Thus she resumes all she has\ngiven in order to give again. Thus the corruption of plants, and of the\nanimals she feeds, feed her, and improve her fertility. Thus, the more\nshe gives the more she resumes; and she is never exhausted, provided\nthey who cultivate her restore to her what she has given. Everything\ncomes from her bosom, everything returns to it, and nothing is lost in\nit. Nay, all seeds multiply there.\n\nAdmire the plants that spring from the earth; they yield food for the\nhealthy, and remedies for the sick. Their species and virtues are\ninnumerable. They deck the earth, yield verdure, fragrant flowers, and\ndelicious fruits. Do you see those vast forests that seem as old as the\nworld? Those trees sink into the earth by their roots, as deep as their\nbranches shoot up to the sky. Their roots defend them against the winds,\nand fetch up, as it were by subterranean pipes, all the juices destined\nto feed the trunk. The trunk itself is covered with a tough bark that\nshelters the tender wood from the injuries of the air. The branches\ndistribute, by several pipes, the sap which the roots had gathered up in\nthe trunk. In summer the boughs protect us with their shadow against the\nscorching rays of the sun.\n\nThe farther we seek through the universe the more sure is her teaching.\nThat which we learnt from the earth and from plants is taught us again\nby water, by the air, and by fire. It is the lesson of the skies, and of\nthe sun and the stars. The whole animal world teaches us the same. If we\nturn from things that are large, we shall find wonders no less in the\ninfinitely little; if we turn from the bodies of animals to the study of\ntheir instincts, their sleep, their food, the persistence of their races\nfrom age to age--though all individuals are mortal--again we find\nevidence of the skill and power of the Author of all things.\n\nStill more wonderful is the body of man, his skin and veins, his bones\nand joints, his senses, tongue and teeth, the proportions of his body,\nand, above all things, his soul, which alone among all creatures thinks\nand knows and is sovereign master over the body.\n\nIt is this reason that is in man which, above all, demonstrates the\nresidence of God in us.\n\n\n_III.--GOD IN THE MIND OF MAN_\n\n\nIt cannot be said that man gives himself the thoughts he had not before;\nmuch less can it be said that he receives them from other men, since it\nis certain he neither does nor can admit anything from without, unless\nhe finds it in his own foundation, by consulting within him the\nprinciples of reason, in order to examine whether what he is told is\nagreeable or repugnant to them. Therefore, there is an inward school\nwherein man receives what he neither can give himself, nor expect from\nother men who live upon trust as well as himself.\n\nHere, then, are two reasons I find within me, one of which is myself,\nthe other is above me. That which is myself is very imperfect,\nprejudiced, liable to error, changeable, headstrong, ignorant, and\nlimited; in short, it possesses nothing but what is borrowed. The other\nis common to all men, and superior to them. It is perfect, eternal,\nimmutable, ever ready to communicate itself in all places, and to\nrectify all minds that err and mistake; in short, incapable of ever\nbeing either exhausted or divided, although it communicates itself to\nall who desire it.\n\nWhere is that perfect reason which is so near me, and yet so different\nfrom me? Surely it must be something real, for nothing cannot either be\nperfect or make perfect imperfect natures. Where is that supreme reason?\nIs it not the very God I look for?\n\nWe have seen the prints of the Deity, or, to speak more properly, the\nseal and stamp of God Himself, in all that is called the works of\nnature. When a man does not enter into philosophical subtleties, he\nobserves with the first cast of the eye a hand, that was the first\nmover, in all the parts of the universe, and set all the wheels of the\ngreat machine agoing. Everything shows and proclaims an order, an exact\nmeasure, an art, a wisdom, a mind superior to us, which is, as it were,\nthe soul of the whole world, and which leads and directs everything to\nHis ends, with a gentle and insensible, though ever an omnipotent force.\n\nWe have seen, as it were, the architecture and frame of the universe;\nthe just proportion of all its parts; and the bare cast of the eye has\nsufficed us to find and discover even in an ant, more than in the sun, a\nwisdom and power that delights to exert itself in polishing and adorning\nits vilest works.\n\nThis is obvious, without any speculative discussion, to the most\nignorant of men; but what a world of other wonders should we discover\nshould we penetrate into the secrets of physics, and dissect the inward\nparts of animals, which are framed according to the most perfect\nmechanics.\n\nLet a man study the world as much as he pleases; let him descend into\nthe minutest details; dissect the vilest of animals; narrowly consider\nthe least grain of corn sown in the ground, and the manner in which it\ngerminates and multiplies; attentively observe with what precautions a\nrose-bud blows and opens in the sun, and closes again at night; and he\nwill find in all these more design, conduct, and industry than in all\nthe works of art. Nay, what is called the art of men is but a faint\nimitation of the great art called the laws of nature, which the impious\ndid not blush to call blind chance. Is it, therefore, a wonder that\npoets animated the whole universe, bestowed wings upon the winds, and\narrows on the sun, and described great rivers impetuously running to\nprecipitate themselves into the sea and trees shooting up to heaven to\nrepel the rays of the sun by their thick shades? These images and\nfigures have also been received in the language of the vulgar, so\nnatural it is for men to be sensible of the wonderful art that fills all\nnature.\n\nPoetry did only ascribe to inanimate creatures the art and design of the\nCreator, who does everything in them. From the figurative language of\nthe poets those notions passed into the theology of the heathens, whose\ndivines were the poets. They supposed an art, a power, or a wisdom,\nwhich they called _numen_ [divinity], in creatures the most destitute of\nunderstanding. With them great rivers were gods, and spring naiads.\nWoods and mountains had their particular deities; flowers had their\nFlora; and fruits, Pomona. After all, the more a man contemplates\nnature, the more he discovers in it an inexhaustible stock of wisdom,\nwhich is, as it were, the soul of the universe.\n\nWhat must we infer from thence? The consequence flows of itself. \"If so\nmuch wisdom and penetration,\" says Minutius Felix, \"are required to\nobserve the wonderful order and design of the structure of the world,\nhow much more were necessary to form it!\"\n\nIf men so much admire philosophers because they discover a small part of\nthe wisdom that made all things, they must be stark blind not to admire\nthat wisdom itself.\n\n\n_IV.--A PRAYER TO GOD_\n\n\nO my God, if so many men do not discover Thee in this great spectacle\nThou givest them of all nature, it is not because Thou art far from any\nof us. Every one of us feels Thee, as it were, with his hand; but the\nsenses, and the passions they raise, take up all the attention of our\nminds. Thus, O Lord, Thy light shines in darkness; but darkness is so\nthick and gloomy that it does not admit the beams of Thy light.\n\nThou appearest everywhere; and everywhere inattentive mortals neglect to\nperceive Thee. All nature speaks of Thee, and resounds with Thy holy\nname; but she speaks to deaf men, whose deafness proceeds from the noise\nand clatter they make to stun themselves. Thou art near and within them;\nbut they are fugitive, and wandering, as it were, out of themselves.\nThey would find Thee, O Sweet Light, O Eternal Beauty, ever old and ever\nyoung, O Fountain of Chaste Delights, O Pure and Happy Life of all who\nlive truly, should they look for Thee within themselves. But the impious\nlose Thee only by losing themselves. Alas! Thy very gifts, which should\nshow them the hand from whence they flow, amuse them to such a degree as\nto hinder them from perceiving it. They live by Thee, and yet they live\nwithout thinking on Thee or, rather, they die by the Fountain of Life\nfor want of quenching their drought in that vivifying stream; for what\ngreater death can there be than not to know Thee, O Lord? They fall\nasleep in Thy soft and paternal bosom, and, full of the deceitful dreams\nby which they are tossed in their sleep, they are insensible of the\npowerful hand that supports them.\n\nIf Thou wert a barren, impotent, and inanimate body, like a flower that\nfades away, a river that runs, a house that decays and falls to ruin, a\npicture that is but a collection of colours to strike the imagination,\nor a useless metal that glistens, they would perceive Thee, and fondly\nascribe to Thee the power of giving them some pleasure, although in\nreality pleasure cannot proceed from inanimate beings, which are\nthemselves void and incapable of it, but from Thee alone, the true\nspring of all joy. If, therefore, Thou wert but a lumpish, frail, and\ninanimate being, a mass without any virtue or power, a shadow of a\nbeing, Thy vain fantastic nature would busy their vanity, and be a\nproper object to entertain their mean and brutish thoughts. But because\nThou art too intimately within them, and they never at home, Thou art to\nthem an unknown God; for while they rise and wander abroad, the intimate\npart of themselves is most remote from their sight. The order and beauty\nThou scatterest over the face of Thy creatures are like a glaring light\nthat hides Thee from them and dazzles their sore eyes. In fine, because\nThou art too elevated and too pure a truth to affect gross senses, men\nwho are become like beasts cannot conceive Thee, though man has daily\nconvincing instances of wisdom and virtue without the testimony of any\nof his senses; for those virtues have not sound, colour, odour, taste,\nfigure, nor any sensible quality.\n\nWhy, then, O my God, do men call Thy existence, wisdom, and power more\nin question than they do those other things most real and manifest, the\ntruth of which they suppose as certain, in all the serious affairs of\nlife, and which, nevertheless, as well as Thou, escape our feeble\nsenses? O misery! O dismal night that surrounds the children of Adam! O\nmonstrous stupidity! O confusion of the whole man! Man has eyes only to\nsee shadows, and truth appears a phantom to him. What is nothing is all;\nand what is all is nothing to him. What do I behold in all nature? God.\nGod everywhere, and still God alone.\n\nWhen I think, O Lord, that all being is in Thee, Thou exhaustest and\nswallowest up, O Abyss of Truth, all my thoughts. I know not what\nbecomes of me. Whatever is not Thou disappears; and scarce so much of\nmyself remains wherewithal to find myself again. Who sees Thee not never\nsaw anything; and who is not sensible of Thee, never was sensible of\nanything. He is as if he were not. His whole life is but a dream. Arise,\nO Lord, arise, Let Thy enemies melt like wax and vanish like smoke\nbefore Thy face. How unhappy is the impious soul who, far from Thee, is\nwithout God, without hope, without eternal comfort! How happy he who\nsearches, sighs, and thirsts after Thee. But fully happy he on whom are\nreflected the beams of Thy countenance, whose tears Thy hand has wiped\noff, and whose desires Thy love has already completed.\n\nWhen will that time be, O Lord? O fair day, without either cloud or end,\nof which Thyself shalt be the sun, and wherein Thou shalt run through my\nsoul like a torrent of delight! Upon this pleasing hope I cry out: \"Who\nis like Thee, O Lord? My heart melts and my flesh faints, O God of my\nsoul, and my eternal wealth.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\nGALILEO\n\n\nTHE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE\n\n\n     Galileo's treatise on \"The Authority of Scripture in\n     Philosophical Controversies\" was written at a time when the\n     Copernican theory of the constitution of the universe was\n     engaging the attention of the world. A Benedictine monk,\n     Benedetto Castelli, called upon to defend the theory at the\n     grand-ducal table of Tuscany, asked Galileo's assistance in\n     reconciling it with orthodoxy. His answer was an exposition of\n     a formal theory as to the relations of physical science to\n     Holy Writ. This answer was further amplified in the \"Authority\n     of the Scripture,\" addressed in 1614 to Christina of Lorraine,\n     Dowager Grand-Duchess of Tuscany, an able and acute defence of\n     his position. A year later another monk laid Galileo's letter\n     to Castelli before the Inquisition, whereupon the philosopher\n     was summoned by Pope Paul V. to the palace of Cardinal\n     Bellarmine, and there warned against henceforth holding,\n     teaching, or defending the condemned doctrine. Nevertheless,\n     in a few years Galileo (see SCIENCE, vol. XV) had to suffer\n     trial and condemnation by the Inquisition for publishing his\n     \"Dialogues on the System of the World,\" which gave the\n     Ptolemaic theory its death-blow.\n\n\n_I.--THE DEFENDERS OF FALLACY_\n\n\nSome years ago I discovered many astronomical facts till then unknown.\nTheir novelty and their antagonism to some physical propositions\ncommonly received by the schools did stir up against me many who\nprofessed the vulgar philosophy, as if, forsooth, I had with my own hand\nplaced these things in the heavens to obscure and disturb nature and\nscience. These opponents, more affectionate to their own opinion than to\ntruth, tried to deny and disprove my discoveries, which they might have\ndiscerned with their own eyes; and they published vain discourses,\ninterwoven with irrelevant passages, not rightly understood, of the\nsacred Scriptures. From this folly they might have been saved had they\nremembered the advice of St. Augustine, who, dealing with celestial\nbodies, writes: \"We ought to believe nothing unadvisedly in a doubtful\npoint, lest in favour of our error we conceive a prejudice against that\nwhich truth hereafter may discover to be nowise contrary to the sacred\nbooks.\"\n\nTime has proved every one of my statements, and proving them has also\nproved that my opponents were of two kinds. Those who had doubted simply\nbecause the discoveries were new and strange have been gradually\nconverted, while those whose incredulity was based on personal ill-will\nto me have shut their eyes to the facts and have endeavoured to asperse\nmy moral character and to ruin me.\n\nKnowing that I have confuted the Ptolemaic and Aristotelian arguments,\nand distrusting their defence in the field of philosophy, they have\ntried to shield their fallacies under the mantle of a feigned religion\nand of scriptural authority, and have endeavoured to spread the opinion\nthat my propositions are contrary to the Scriptures, and therefore\nheretical. To this end they have found accomplices in the pulpits, and\nhave scattered rumours that my theory of the world-system would ere long\nbe condemned by supreme authority.\n\nFurther, they have endeavoured to make the theory peculiar to myself,\nignoring the fact that the author, or rather restorer, of the doctrine\nwas Nicholas Copernicus, a Catholic, and a much-esteemed priest, who was\nsummoned to Rome to correct the ecclesiastic calendar, and in the course\nof his inquiries reached this view of the universe.\n\nThe calendar has since been regulated by his doctrine, and on his\nprinciples the motions of the planets have been calculated. Having\nreduced his doctrine to six books, he published them under the title of\n\"De Revolutionibus Coelestibus,\" at the instance of the Cardinal of\nCapua, and of the Bishop of Culma; and, since he undertook the task at\nthe order of Pope Leo X., he dedicated the work to his successor Paul\nIII., and it was received by the Holy Church and studied by all the\nworld.\n\nIn the end of his dedicatory epistle Copernicus writes: \"If there should\nchance to be any mateologists who, ignorant in mathematics yet\npretending to skill in that science, should dare, upon the authority of\nsome passage of Scripture wrested to their purpose, to condemn and\ncensure my hypothesis, I value them not, and scorn their inconsiderate\njudgment. For it is not unknown that Lactantius (a famous author though\npoor mathematician) writes very childishly concerning the form of the\nearth when he scoffs at those who affirm the earth to be in form of a\nglobe. So that it ought not to seem strange to the intelligent if any\nsuch should likewise now deride us. The mathematics are written for\nmathematicians, to whom (if I deceive not myself) these labours of mine\nshall seem to add something, as also to the commonweal of the Church\nwhose government is now in the hands of Your Holiness.\"\n\nIt is such as Lactantius who would now condemn Copernicus unread, and\nproduce authorities of the Scripture, of divines, and of councils in\nsupport of their condemnation. I hold these authorities in reverence,\nbut I hold that in this instance they are used for personal ends in a\nmanner very different from the most sacred intention of the Holy Church.\nI am ready to renounce any religious errors into which I may run in this\ndiscourse, and if my book be not beneficial to the Holy Church may it be\ntorn and burnt; but I hold that I have a right to defend myself against\nthe attacks of ignorant opponents.\n\nThe doctrine of the movement of the earth and the fixity of the sun is\ncondemned on the ground that the Scriptures speak in many places of the\nsun moving and the earth standing still. The Scriptures not being\ncapable of lying or erring, it followeth that the position of those is\nerroneous and heretical who maintain that the sun is fixed and the earth\nin motion.\n\nIt is piously spoken that the Scriptures cannot lie. But none will deny\nthat they are frequently abstruse and their true meaning difficult to\ndiscover, and more than the bare words signify. One taking the sense too\nliterally might pervert the truth and conceive blasphemies, and give God\nfeet, and hands, and eyes, and human affections, such as anger,\nrepentance, forgetfulness, ignorance, whereas these expressions are\nemployed merely to accommodate the truth to the mental capacity of the\nunlearned.\n\nThis being granted, I think that in the discussion of natural problems\nwe ought to begin not with the Scriptures, but with experiments and\ndemonstrations. Nor does God less admirably discover Himself to us in\nnature than in Scripture, and having found the truth in nature we may\nuse it as an aid to the true exposition of the Scriptures. The\nScriptures were intended to teach men those things which cannot be\nlearned otherwise than by the mouth of the Holy Spirit; but we are meant\nto use our senses and reason in discovering for ourselves things within\ntheir scope and capacity, and hence certain sciences are neglected in\nthe Holy Writ.\n\nAstronomy, for instance, is hardly mentioned, and only the sun, and the\nmoon, and Lucifer are named. Surely, if the holy writers had intended us\nto derive our astronomical knowledge from the Sacred Books, they would\nnot have left us so uninformed. That they intentionally forbore to speak\nof the movements and constitution of the stars is the opinion of the\nmost holy and most learned fathers. And if the Holy Spirit has omitted\nto teach us those matters as not pertinent to our salvation, how can it\nbe said that one view is _de Fide_ and the other heretical? I might here\ninsert the opinion of an ecclesiastic raised to the degree of\nEminentissimo: That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how\nwe shall go to Heaven, and not how the heavens go.\n\n\n_II.--SCRIPTURAL AND EXPERIMENTAL TRUTH_\n\n\nSince the Holy Writ is true, and all truth agrees with truth, the truth\nof Holy Writ cannot be contrary to the truth obtained by reason and\nexperiment. This being true, it is the business of the judicious\nexpositor to find the true meaning of scriptural passages which must\naccord with the conclusions of observation and experiment, and care must\nbe taken that the work of exposition do not fall into foolish and\nignorant hands. It must be remembered that there are very few men\ncapable of understanding both the sacred Scriptures and science, and\nthat there are many with a superficial knowledge of the Scriptures and\nwith no knowledge of science who would fain arrogate to themselves the\npower of decreeing upon all questions of nature. As St. Jerome writes:\n\"The talking old woman, the dotard, the garrulous sophist, all venture\nupon, lacerate, teach, before they have learnt. Others, induced by\npride, dive into hard words, and philosophate among women touching the\nHoly Scriptures. Others (oh, shameful!) learn of women what they teach\nto men.\"\n\nI will not rank among these same secular writers any theologists whom I\nrepute to be men of profound learning and sober manners, and therefore\nhold in great esteem and veneration; yet it vexes me when they would\nconstrain science by the authority of the Scriptures, and yet do not\nconsider themselves bound to answer reason and experiment. It is true\nthat theology is the queen of all the sciences, but queen only in the\nsense that she deals with high matters revealed in noble ways, and if\nshe condescends not to study the more humble matters of the inferior\nsciences she ought not to arrogate to herself the right to judge them;\nfor this would be as if an autocratic prince, being neither physician\nnor architect, should undertake to administer medicines and erect\nbuildings to the danger of the lives of his subjects.\n\nAgain, to command the professors of astronomy to confute their own\nobservations is to enjoin an impossibility, for it is to command them\nnot to see what they do see, and not to understand what they do\nunderstand, and to find what they do not discover. I would entreat the\nwise and prudent fathers to consider the difference between matters of\nopinion and matters of demonstration, for demonstrated conclusions\ntouching the things of nature and of the heavens cannot be changed with\nthe same facility as opinions touching what is lawful in a contract,\nbargain, or bill of exchange. Your highness knows what happened to the\nlate professor of mathematics in the University of Pisa--how, believing\nthat the Copernican doctrine was false, he started to confute it, but in\nhis study became convinced of its truth.\n\nIn order to suppress the Copernican doctrine, it would be necessary not\nonly to prohibit the book of Copernicus and the writings of authors who\nagree with him, but to interdict the whole science of astronomy, and\neven to forbid men to look at the sky lest they might see Mars and Venus\nat very varying distances from the earth, and discover Venus at one time\ncrescent, at another time round, or make other observations\nirreconcilable with the Ptolemaic system.\n\nIt is surely harmful to souls to make it a heresy to believe what is\nproved. The prohibition of astronomy would be an open contempt of a\nhundred texts of the Holy Scriptures, which teach us that the glory and\nthe greatness of Almighty God are admirably discerned in all His works,\nand divinely read in the open book of the heavens.\n\n\n_III.--FACT AND FAITH_\n\n\nIt may be said that the doctrine of the movement of the sun and the\nfixity of the earth must _de Fide_ be held for true since the Scriptures\naffirm it, and all the fathers unanimously accept the scriptural words\nin their naked and literal sense. But it was necessary to assign motion\nto the sun and rest to the earth lest the shallow minds of the vulgar\nshould be confounded, amused, and rendered obstinate and contumacious\nwith regard to doctrines of faith. St. Jerome writes: \"It is the custom\nfor the pen-men of Scripture to deliver their judgments in many things\naccording to the common received opinion that their times had of them.\"\nEven Copernicus himself, knowing the power of custom, and unwilling to\ncreate confusion in our comprehension, continues to talk of the rising\nand setting of the sun and stars and of variations in the obliquity of\nthe zodiac. Whence it is to be noted how necessary it is to accommodate\nour discourse to our accustomed manner of understanding.\n\nIn the next place, the common consent of the fathers to a natural\nproposition should authorise it only if it have been discussed and\ndebated with all possible diligence, and this question was in those\ntimes totally buried.\n\nBesides, it is not enough to say that the fathers accept the Ptolemaic\ndoctrine; it is necessary to prove that they condemned the Copernican.\nWas the Copernican doctrine ever formally condemned as contrary to the\nScriptures? And Didacus, discoursing on the Copernican hypothesis,\nconcludes that the motion of the earth is not contrary to the\nScriptures.\n\nLet my opponents, therefore, apply themselves to examine the arguments\nof Copernicus and others; and let them not hope to find such rash and\nimpetuous decisions in the wary and holy fathers, or in the absolute\nwisdom of him that cannot err, as those into which they have suffered\nthemselves to be hurried by prejudice or personal feeling. His holiness\nhas certainly an absolute power of admitting or condemning propositions\nnot directly _de Fide_, but it is not in the power of any creature to\nmake them true or false otherwise than of their own nature and _de\nfacto_ they are.\n\nIn my judgment it would be well first to examine the truth of the fact\n(over which none hath power) before invoking supreme authority; for if\nit be not possible that a conclusion should be declared heretical while\nwe are not certain but that it may be true, their pains are vain who\npretend to condemn the doctrine of the mobility of the earth and the\nfixity of the sun, unless they have first demonstrated the doctrine to\nbe impossible and false.\n\nLet us now consider how we may interpret the command of Joshua that the\nsun should stand still.\n\nAccording to the Ptolemaic system, the sun moves from east to west\nthrough the ecliptic, and therefore the standing still of the sun would\nshorten and not lengthen the day. Indeed, in order to lengthen the day\non this system it would be necessary not to hold the sun, but to\naccelerate its pace about three hundred and sixty times. Possibly Joshua\nused the words to suit the comprehension of the ignorant people;\npossibly--as St. Augustine says--he commanded the whole system of the\ncelestial spheres to stand still, and his command to the moon rather\nconfirms this conjecture.\n\nOn the Copernican system interpretation is simplified; for if we\nconsider the mobility of the sun and how it is in a certain sense the\nsoul and heart of the universe, it is not illogical to say that it gives\nnot only light, but also motion to the bodies round it. In this manner,\nby the standing still of the sun at Joshua's command, the day might be\nlengthened without disturbing the order of the universe or the mutual\npositions of the stars. This interpretation also explains the statement\nthat the sun stood still _in medio coeli_. Had the sun been in the\nmiddle of the heavens in the sense of rising and setting, it had hardly\nbeen necessary to check its course; but _in medio coeli_ probably\nsignifies in the middle or centre of the universe where it resides.\n\nI have no doubt that other passages of the Scriptures could be likewise\ninterpreted in accordance with the Copernican system by divines with\nknowledge of astronomy. They might say that the word \"firmament\" very\nwell agrees, _ad literam_, with the starry sphere. _Ad literam_, if they\nadmit the rotation of the earth, they might understand its poles, when\nit is said _Nec dum terram fecerat, et flumina, et cardines orbis\nterrae_. [Nor yet had He created the earth, or the rivers, or the hinges\nfor the globe of the earth.] Surely _cardines_, or \"hinges,\" are\nascribed to the earth in vain if it be not to turn upon them.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\nGEORG WILHELM FRIEDRICH HEGEL\n\n\nTHE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION\n\n\n     Hegel's \"Philosophy of Religion\" was published the year\n     following the philosopher's death, at Berlin, in 1832; and the\n     rugged shape and uneven construction of some of it may fairly\n     be attributed to the fact that, as it stands, it is largely an\n     editorial compilation. Such faults, however, as Dr. Edward\n     Caird has remarked, \"if they take from the lectures as\n     expressions of their author's mind, and from their value as\n     scientific treatises, have some compensating advantages if we\n     regard them as a means of education in philosophy; for in this\n     point of view their very artlessness gives them something of\n     the same stimulating, suggestive power which is attained by\n     the consummate art of the Platonic dialogues.\" The importance\n     of the work is evidenced by the influence it has exercised\n     over the mind of a later generation; and many readers, to whom\n     Hegel (see Vol. XIV) is little more than a name, will\n     certainly find here the sources of much that has become\n     familiar as an essential part of the religious atmosphere of a\n     later day, and of the apologies of modern speculative\n     theology.\n\n\n_I. THE RELATION OF PHILOSOPHY TO RELIGION_\n\n\nThe object of religion is the same as that of philosophy; it is the\nexternal verity itself in its objective existence; it is God--nothing\nbut God and the unfolding of God. Philosophy is not the wisdom of the\nworld, but the knowledge of things which are not of this world. It is\nnot the knowledge of external mass, of empirical life and existence, but\nof the eternal, of the nature of God, and of all which flows from His\nnature. For this nature ought to manifest and develop itself.\nConsequently, philosophy in unfolding religion merely unfolds itself,\nand in unfolding itself it unfolds religion. In so far as philosophy is\noccupied with the eternal truth, the truth which is in and for itself;\nin so far as it is occupied with this as thinking spirit, rather than in\nan arbitrary fashion and in view of a particular interest, philosophy\nhas the same sphere of activity as has religion. And if the religious\nconsciousness aspires to abolish all that is peculiar to itself and to\nbe absorbed in its object, the philosophic spirit likewise plunges with\nthe same energy into its object and renounces all particularity.\n\nReligion and philosophy are thus at one in having one and the same\nobject. Philosophy, in fact, also is the adoration of God, it is\nreligion; for, seeing that God is its object, it involves the same\nrenunciation of every opinion and every thought that is arbitrary and\nsubjective. Philosophy is, in consequence, identical with religion. Only\nit is religion in a peculiar manner, and this it is which distinguishes\nit from religion commonly so called. So philosophy and religion are both\nreligion, and that which distinguishes one from the other is no more\nthan the characteristic mode in which respectively they consider their\nobject, God.\n\nHere is the difficulty of understanding how philosophy can make but one\nwith religion, a difficulty which has even been mistaken for\nimpossibility. Thence also arise the fears which philosophy inspires in\ntheology and the hostile attitudes which they assume towards each other.\nWhat brings about this attitude is, on the side of theology, that for\nher philosophy does nothing but corrupt, pull down, and profane the\ncontent of religion, and that she understands God in a totally different\nmanner from that after which religion understands Him. It is the same\nopposition which long ago among the Greeks caused a free and democratic\npeople like the Athenians to burn books and to condemn Socrates. In our\nown day, however, this opposition is considered a thing which it is\nnatural to admit--more natural indeed than the other opinion concerning\nthe unity of religion and philosophy.\n\nDiverse religions offer us, it is true, only too often the most bizarre\nand monstrous representations of the divine essence. But we must not\nconfine ourselves to a superficial consideration and consequent\nrejection of these representations and the religious practices which\nfollow upon them as being engendered by superstition, by error, or by\nimposture, or even by a simple piety, and so neglect their essential\nvalue. There is need to discover in these representations and in these\npractices their relation with truth.\n\n\n_II.--GOD THE UNIVERSAL_\n\n\nFor us, who have religion, God is a familiar being, a substantial truth\nexisting in our subjective consciousness. But, scientifically\nconsidered, God is a general and abstract term. The philosophy of\nreligion it is which develops and grasps the divine nature and which\nteaches us what God is. God is a familiar idea, but an idea which has\nstill to be scientifically developed.\n\nThe result of philosophic examination is that God is the absolute truth,\nthe universal in and for itself, embracing all things and in which all\nthings subsist. And in regard to this assertion, we may appeal in the\nfirst place to the religious consciousness, and to its conviction that\nGod is the absolute truth whence all things proceed, whither they all\nreturn, upon which all things depend, and in respect of which nothing\ncan possess a true and absolute independence.\n\nThe heart may very well be full of this representation of God, but\nscience is not built up of what is in the heart. The object of science\nis that which has arisen to the level of consciousness, and of thinking\nconsciousness that is, in other words, that which has attained to the\nform of thought.\n\nIn so much as He is the universal, God is, for us, in relation to\ndevelopment, Being enclosed in itself, Being at unity with itself. When\nwe say God is Being enclosed in itself, we enunciate a proposition which\nis bound to a development which we await. But this envelopment of God in\nHimself which we have called His universality we must not conceive,\nrelatively to God Himself and His content, as an abstract universality,\noutside of which, and as opposed to which, the particular has an\nindependent existence.\n\nSo we must consider this universal as an absolutely concrete universal.\nThis sense of fulness is the sense in which God is one, and there is but\none God--that is to say, God is not one merely by contrast with other\ngods, but because it is He that is the One, that is, God.\n\nThe things which are, the developments of the worlds of nature and of\nmind, show a multiplicity of forms and an infinite variety of\nexistences. But whatever may be their difference of degree, of force, of\ncontent, these things have no true independence; their being is\nconsequent, and, so to speak, contingent. When we predicate being of\nparticular things, it is not of Being which is absolute that we\nspeak--Being of and from itself; that is, God--but a borrowed being, a\nsemblance of being.\n\nGod in His universality--that is, this universal Being which has no\nlimit, no bounds, no particularity--is a Being which subsists\nabsolutely, and which subsists alone; all else which subsists has its\nroot in this unity, and by this alone subsists. In thus representing to\nourselves this first content we may say that God is absolute substance,\nthe only veritable reality. For not everything which has a reality has a\nreality of its own, or subsists by itself. God is the only absolute\nreality, and thereby the absolute substance.\n\nIf we stop at this abstract thought we have Spinozism, for in Spinozism\nsubjectivity is not yet differentiated from substantiality, from\nsubstance as such. But in the presupposition just made there is also\nthis thought--God is spirit, absolute and eternal; spirit which comes\nnot forth from itself in differentiation. This ideality, this\nsubjectivity of spirit, which is transparency, ideality excluding all\nparticular determination, is precisely the universal, pure relation to\nself, Being which remains absolutely within itself.\n\nIf we halt at substance, we fail to grasp this universal under its\nconcrete form. In its concrete determination spirit always preserves its\nunity, this unity of its reality which we call substance. But one should\nadd that this substantiality, the unity of the absolute reality with\nitself, is but the foundation, but a moment in the determination of God\nas spirit. Hence, principally, arises the reproach which is directed\nagainst philosophy--to wit, that philosophy, to be consistent with\nitself, is necessarily Spinozism, and consequently atheism and fatalism.\nBut at the beginning we have not yet determinations distinguished one\nfrom another as aye and nay. We have the one but not the other.\n\nConsequently, what we have here is, to start with, content under the\nform of substance. Even when we say, \"God,\" \"spirit,\" we have only\nwords, indeterminate representations. The essential point is to know\nwhat has been produced in the consciousness. And that is, first, the\nsimple, the abstract. Here, in this first simple determination, we have\nGod only under the form of universality. Only we do not halt at this\nmoment.\n\nNevertheless, this content remains the foundation of all further\ndevelopments, for in these developments God comes not forth from His\nunity. When God creates the world--to use the expression of every\nday--there comes not into existence an evil, a contrary, existing in\nitself independently of God.\n\n\n_III.--GOD EXISTS FOR THOUGHT_\n\n\nThis Beginning is an object for us or a content in us. We possess this\nobject. Immediately the question arises, Who are we? We, I, spirit--here\nalso is a complex being, a multiplied being. I have perceptions; I see,\nI hear, etc. Seeing, hearing; all this is I. Consequently, the precise\nsense of this question is, Which among these determinations is it in\naccordance with which this content exists for our minds? Idea, will,\nimagination, feeling--which is the seat, the proper domain of this\ncontent, of this object?\n\nIf we accept the common answers to this question, God will abide in us\nas the object of faith, of feeling, of representation, of knowledge.\n\nWe shall have to examine more closely later on in a special fashion with\nrespect to this point, these forms, faculties, aspects of ourselves. In\nthis place we shall not seek a reply to this question; nor shall we say,\nbasing our answer on experience and observation, that God is in our\nfeeling, etc. But, to begin with, we will confine ourselves to what we\nhave actually before us, to this One, to this universal, to this\nconcrete Being.\n\nIf we take this One, and ask for what power, for what activity of our\nmind does this One, this absolutely universal Being, exist, we cannot\nbut name the one activity of mind which corresponds to it as\nconstituting its proper natural domain. This activity, which corresponds\nto the universal, is thought.\n\nThought is the field in which this content moves; it is the energising\nof the universal, or the universal in the reality of its activity. Or,\nif we say that thought embraces the universal, that for which the\nuniversal is will still be thought.\n\nThis universal which can be produced by thought, and which is for\nthought, may be a quite abstract universal. In this sense it is the\nunlimited, the infinite, the being without bounds, without particular\ndetermination. This universal, negative to begin with, has its seat not\nelsewhere than in thought.\n\nTo think of God is to rise above the things of sense, exterior and\nindividual, above simple feeling into the region of pure being; being at\nunity with itself--that is to say, into the pure region of the\nuniversal. And this region is thought.\n\nSuch is the substratum for this content considered on the subjective\nside. Here the content is that Being in which is no difference, no\nschism; Being which abides in itself, the universal; and thought is the\nform for which this universal is.\n\nThus we have a difference between thought and the universal which we\nhave called God. It is a difference which in the first place belongs\nonly to our reflection, and is by no means to be found in the content on\nits own account. There is the result to which philosophy comes--a result\nalready comprised in religion as under the form of faith--to wit, that\nGod is the sole veritable reality, the Being without which no other\nreality would exist.\n\nIn the unity of this reality, in this cloudless shining, the reality and\nthe distinction which we call thinking-being have as yet no place.\n\nWhat we have before us is this absolute unity. This content, this\ndetermination we cannot yet call religion because to religion belongs\nsubjective spirit consciousness. Thought is the seat of this universal,\nbut this seat is, to begin with, absorbed in this being which is one,\neternal, in and for itself.\n\nThis universal constitutes the beginning and the point of departure, but\nonly as unity which so abides. It is not a mere substratum whence\ndifferences are born; rather, all differences are included in this\nuniversal. No more is it an abstract and inert universal, but the\nabsolute principle of all activity, the matrix, the infinite source\nwhence all things proceed, whither all things return, and in which they\nare eternally preserved.\n\nThus the universal is never separated from this ethereal element, from\nthis Unity with itself, this concentration within itself.\n\n\n_IV.--WHAT IS EVIL?_\n\n\nAs the universal, God could not find Himself faced by a contrary whereof\nthe reality should pretend to rise above the phantasmal level. For this\npure unity and this perfect transparency matter is nothing impenetrable,\nand spirit, the ego, is not so independent as to possess a true,\nindividual, substantiality of its own.\n\nThere has been a tendency to label this idea pantheism. It would be more\nexact to call it the conception of substantiality. God is first\ndetermined as substance only. The absolute subject spirit is also\nsubstance; but it is determined rather as subject. This is the\ndifference generally ignored by those who assert that speculative\nphilosophy is pantheism. As usual, they miss the essential point and\ndisparage philosophy by falsifying it.\n\nPantheism is commonly taken to mean that God is all things--the whole,\nthe universe, the collection of all existences, of things infinite and\ninfinitely diverse. From which notion the charge is brought against\nphilosophy that it teaches that all things are God; that is to say, that\nGod is, not the universal which is in and for itself, but the infinite\nmultiplicity of individual things in their empirical and immediate\nexistence.\n\nIf you say God is all that is here, this paper, etc., you have indeed\ncommitted yourself to the pantheism with which philosophy is reproached;\nthat is, the whole is understood as equivalent to all individual things.\nBut there is also the genus, which is equally the universal, yet is\nwholly different from this totality in which the universal is but the\ncollection of individual things, and the basis, the content, is\nconstituted by these things themselves. To say that there has ever been\na religion which has taught this pantheism is to say what is absolutely\nuntrue. It has never entered any man's mind that everything is God; that\nis to say, that God is things in their individual and contingent\nexistence. Far less has philosophy ever taught this doctrine.\n\nSpinozism itself, as such, as well as Oriental pantheism, contains this\ndoctrine: that the divine in all things is no more than that which is\nuniversal in their content, their essence; and in such sense that this\nessence is conceived of as a determinate essence.\n\nWhen Brahma says, \"In the metal I am the brightness of its shining;\namong the rivers I am the Ganges; I am the life of all that lives,\" he\nthereby suppresses the individual. He says not, \"I am the metal, the\nrivers, the individual things of various kinds as such, nor in the\nfashion of their immediate existence.\"\n\nHere, at this stage, what is expressed is no longer pantheism; but\nrather that of the essence in individual things.\n\nIn the living being are time and space. But in this individual being it\nis only the changeless element that is made to stand out. \"The life of\nbeing that lives\" is in this latter sphere of life the unlimited, the\nuniversal. But if it be said \"God is all things,\" here we understand\nindividuality with all its limitations, its finity, its passing\nexistence. This notion of pantheism arises out of the conception of\nunity, not as spiritual unity but abstract unity; and then, when the\nidea takes its religious form, where only the substance, the One, is\npossessed of true reality, there is a tendency to forget that it is\nprecisely in presence of this unity that individual and finite things\nare effaced, and to continue to place these in a material fashion side\nby side with this unity. They will not admit the teaching of the\nEleatics, who, when they say \"There is only One,\" add expressly that\nnon-entity is not. All that is finite would be limitation, a negation of\nthe One, but non-entity, the boundary, term, limit, and that which is\nlimited, exist not at all.\n\nSpinozism has been accused of atheism. But Spinozism does not teach that\nGod is the world, that He is _all things_. Things have indeed a\nphenomenal existence--that is, an existence as appearances. We speak of\nour existence, and our life is indeed comprised in this existence, but\nto speak philosophically the world has no reality, it has no existence.\nIndividual things are finite things to which no reality can be\nattributed; it may be said of them that they have no existence.\n\nSpinozism--this is the accusation directed against it--involves by way\nof consequence that, if all things make but one, good and evil make but\none; there is no difference between them; and thereby all religion is\ndestroyed. In themselves, it is said there is no difference between good\nand evil; consequently it is a matter of indifference whether one be\nrighteous or wicked. It may be granted that in themselves--that is, in\nGod, who is the sole veritable reality--the difference between good and\nevil disappears. In God there is no evil. But the difference between\ngood and evil can exist only on condition that God is the evil. But it\ncannot be allowed that evil is an affirmative thing, and that this\naffirmation is in God. God is good, and nothing else than good; the\ndistinction between good and evil is not present in this unity, in this\nsubstance, and comes into existence only with differentiation.\n\nGod is unity abiding absolutely in itself. In the substance there is no\ndifferentiation. The distinction of good and evil begins with the\ndistinction of God from the world, and particularly from man. It is the\nfundamental principle of Spinozism with regard to this distinction of\nGod and the world that man must have no other end than God. The love of\nGod, therefore, it is that Spinozism marks out for man as the law to be\nfollowed in order to bring about the healing of this breach.\n\nAnd it is the loftiest morality that teaches that evil has no existence\nand that man is not bound to permit the substantial existence of this\ndistinction, this negation. Yet it is possible for him to desire to\nmaintain the difference and even to push it to the point of sheer\nopposition to God, who is the universal, self-contained and\nself-sufficing. In this case man is evil. But, alternatively, he may\nannul this distinction and place his true existence in God alone and in\nhis aspiration towards Him; and in this case he is good.\n\nIn Spinozism there is indeed the difference between good and evil,\nopposition between God and man; but side by side with it we have also\nthe principle that evil is to be deemed a non-entity. In God as God, in\nGod as substance, there is no distinction. It is for man that the\ndistinction exists, as also for him exists the distinction of good and\nevil.\n\n\n_V.--THE DETERMINATION OF UNITY_\n\n\nThe superficial method of appraising philosophy is exemplified also in\nthose who assert that it is a \"system of identity.\" It is perfectly true\nthat substance is this unity at one with itself, but spirit no less is\nthis self-identity. Ultimately, all is identity, unity with itself. But\nwhen they speak of the philosophy of identity they have in view abstract\nidentity or unity in general; and they neglect the essential point, to\nwit, the determination of this unity in itself; in other words, they\nomit to consider whether this unity is determined as substance or as\nspirit. Philosophy from beginning to end is nothing else than the study\nof determinations of unity.\n\nIn the sphere of the Notion many unities are comprised. The combination\nof water and earth is a unity, but this unity is mixture. If we bring\ntogether a base and an acid, we have as the result a crystal; also\nwater; but water which cannot be discerned and which gives no trace of\nhumidity. Here the unity of the water and of this matter is a unity\ndifferent from the mixture of water and earth. The essential point is\nthe difference of these determinations. The unity of God is always\nunity, but what is of primary importance is to know the modes and forms\nof the determination of this unity.\n\nManifestation, development, determination do not go on to infinity, nor\nyet do they stop accidentally. But in the course of its true development\nthe Notion completes its course by a return upon itself, whereby it has\nattained the reality adequate to it. So it is that the manifestation is\ninfinite in nature, that the content is adequate to the Notion of\nspirit, and that the phenomenal world exists, like spirit, in and for\nitself. In religion, the Notion of religion has become its own object.\nSpirit which is in and for itself has now no longer in its development\nindividual forms and determinations, it knows itself no longer as spirit\nin such determinability or such a limited moment; but it has triumphed\nover these limitations and this finiteness, and is for itself that which\nalso it is in itself. This cognisance in which spirit is for itself what\nit is in itself constitutes the in-and-for of spirit which is in\npossession of knowledge, the perfect and absolute religion, in which is\nrevealed what spirit is, what God is. That is the Christian religion.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\nTHE BOOKS OF HINDUISM\n\n\nTHE VEDANTA SUTRAS\n\n\n     Hinduism, though usually understood to include Brahmanism\n     (q.v.), is, in fact, a later development of it. Its central\n     doctrine is the trinity, or Trimurti, which embraces the\n     three-fold manifestation of the god-head as Brahma, the one\n     supreme being, the Creator; Vishnu the Preserver; and Siva the\n     Destroyer. The three principal books of Hinduism are the\n     \"Vedanta Sutras,\" the \"Puranas,\" and the \"Tantras,\" of which\n     only the first is epitomised here. The \"Sutras\" are the\n     earliest. The \"Vedanta\" (literally \"goal\" or \"issue of the\n     Veda\") is a purely pantheistic and monastic philosophical\n     system, and by far the most prevalent in Modern India. It is\n     ascribed to Badarayana, sometimes called Vyasa, though this\n     last is really a generic name denoting \"a collector.\" The word\n     \"sutra\" denotes literally \"threads,\" and is used by Brahmanic\n     writers for short, dry sentences, brief expositions. \"Vedanta\n     Sutras\" means literally \"compendious expressions of the\n     Vedantic (not Vedic) doctrine.\" The second great division of\n     Hindu sacred literature is the \"Puranas,\" the last and most\n     modern of the books of Hinduism. The word \"Purana\" means\n     \"old,\" and in ancient Sanscrit writings it has the same\n     meaning as our \"cosmology.\" The \"Puranas,\" however, are\n     ill-arranged collections of theological and philosophical\n     reflections, myths and legends, ritual, and ascetic rules.\n     They depend very much on the two great epics, especially the\n     Mahabharata. The Sanscrit writings called \"Tantras\" are really\n     manuals of religion, of magic, and of counter-charms, with\n     songs in praise of Sakti, the female side of Siva.\n\n\n_INTRODUCTORY_\n\n\nThe Vedanta is sometimes called the Mimamsa (= philosophical\nreflections). The aphorisms of which the Vedanta Sutras consist are in\nthemselves almost as unintelligible as the Confucian \"Book of Changes,\"\nthe compiler having been only too successful in aiding the memory of the\nHindu student by a system of _multum in parvo_.\n\nIt is usual to accept the interpretation put on the Sutras by the\nSanscrit commentator Sankara, commonly called Sankara Karya, who\nflourished about A.D. 700. There are, however, many other commentaries,\nnotably that of Ramanuga. George Thibaut, in the \"Sacred Books of the\nEast\" (vols. 34, 38, and 48), gives the interpretation of Sankara, and\nalso that of Ramanuga when it differs essentially. On the whole it may\nbe said that Sankara is a thorough-going Vedantist and pantheist.\nRamanuga, on the other hand, has leanings towards the dualism of the\nSankhya philosophy, and endeavours to make the Vedanta Sutras support\nhis opinions.\n\nThe Vedanta Sutras embrace five hundred and fifty-five aphorisms, or\nSutras, arranged in four books (_Adhyay_), each having four-chapters\n(_Pada_), the chapters being severally divided into sections\n(_Adhikarana_). These Sutras are of the utmost importance, as nearly all\nHindu sects base their belief and practices on them. It should be\nremembered that these Sutras form a collection, and that they are the\nwork of many hands, and belong to different periods.\n\n\n_BOOK I.--BRAHMAN, THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF EVERYTHING_\n\n\nThe ego and the non-ego differ in themselves and in their attributes. It\nwill be found, however, that the non-ego depends on the ego, and is its\nproduct. Individual souls, on the other hand, representing so many egos,\nare themselves but manifestations of the supreme universal\nsoul--Brahman; that is, Brahman and the Atman [the individual soul] are\nidentical, the latter being the product of the self-revealing of the\nformer. [With this one may compare the \"ontological ideas\" of Plato, the\n\"absolute substance\" of Spinoza, and the \"absolute idea\" of Hegel; all\nof them standing for the One only existing Being which manifests itself\nto thought and to sense in various forms.]\n\n\"What, then,\" asks the Vedantist, \"is Brahman\"?\n\nThe word comes from _brih_, \"to be great.\" Hence Brahman is something,\nor someone, transcendently great. The word may be defined as connoting\nthat whence all things proceed. This implies absolute, unoriginated\norigin, absolute subsistence, and also reabsorption, for as all things\ngo forth from Brahman, so shall all things return to that whence they\nstarted forth.\n\nThe Scriptures [Vedas] lay most stress on Brahman as the source and\norigin of all things. What qualities there are in the world inhere in\nBrahman, or they could not be in the world which has sprung from him.\nThere could be no intelligent souls without a previously existing\nintelligent Brahman. That Brahman, the Supreme Being, is all-knowing is\nproved from the fact that the Veda itself, the source and centre of what\nis knowable, proceeds from Him as its one, only author.\n\nThis Brahman, as set forth in the Vedanta texts as the cause of the\nworld, is therefore intelligent, and by no means to be identified with\nthe non-intelligent Pradh\u00e2na (_Prakriti_) which the Sankhya [atheistic]\nphilosophy makes to be the world's cause. What looks like a separate,\nconscious, individual soul or mind is really but the outworking of\nBrahman, the highest and first of beings.\n\nThe difference is apparent, but not real. So teaches Sankara; but his\nrival commentator, Ramanuga, endeavours to show that Brahman, the\nsupreme self of the universe, is absolutely free from the effects of\nconduct. But the individual selves, which we call souls, are not, for it\nis the effect of conduct in a previous state of existence [Karma] that\ndecides the character and form of the new life to be lived, or whether\nthere is to be a new life lived at all, since conduct sufficiently good\nentitles to absorption in the one all--Brahman.\n\nIt may be objected that Brahman cannot be the creator of this actual\nworld, for there is in it suffering, injustice, and cruelty. He could\nnot be the author of these. To which the commentator Sankara answers:\n\"Brahman is himself, with all his greatness, subject to the operation of\nthe great moral laws according to which virtue is rewarded and vice\npunished. All men are free, and it is their self-chosen conduct that\ndetermines their destiny. This is a law that pervades all existence,\nconditions existence, and without which there could be no existence.\"\n\nIt may be again asked: \"How can a being with perfect life produce a\nworld that is lifeless?\" In other words, \"How can the effect differ from\nits cause?\" The same commentator replies: \"Just as lifeless hair can\ngrow out of a living man.\"\n\nAgain, it is said, \"In the universe Brahman is at once he who enjoys and\nhe who is enjoyed. How can he be both one and the other--agent and\nobject?\" To which Sankara replies: \"It is as possible for these two to\ngo together as for the ocean to be itself and to be at the same time\nfoam, waves, billows, and bubbles. The same earth produces diamonds,\nrock crystal, and vermilion. Do they differ from the earth?\n\n\"The same sun causes plants of various kinds to grow, and the very same\nnourishment taken into the body is changed to flesh, hair, nails, etc.\nThe spider spins its web from its own substance, and spirits assume many\nforms when they appear on the earth. All these are but images of the\neternal world-process by which Brahman reveals Himself in souls and in\nmaterial objects.\"\n\n    THE HIGHEST KNOWLEDGE INACCESSIBLE TO LOW\n      CASTE MEN\n\nNo Sudra [or lowest caste man] is capable of such knowledge as leads to\nBrahmanhood [the state of being absorbed in Brahman]. Only the\ntwice-born[12] are allowed to study the Vedic Scriptures, a knowledge of\nwhich is essential to salvation. The twice-born are likewise alone\npermitted to offer sacrifice, for how can a man sacrifice aright who is\nignorant of the sacred scriptures, which are alone adequate for a man's\nguidance? If the Sudras, or fourth-caste men, are excluded from the\n_summum bonum_ of humanity--absorption in the one great all--how much\nmore are Pariahs, or non-caste men, deprived of this great boon! Brahman\nis the material, as well as the efficient, cause of the world, which\nsprings from him by way of modification, but is his manifested self and\nnothing more.\n\n\n_BOOK II.--OBJECTIONS TO VEDANTIC DOCTRINES STATED AND REFUTED_\n\n\nThe Vedanta texts, the Vedas and the Upanishads, teach that Brahman is\nthe one only source of whatever exists outside himself; that his nature\nis not only mighty, but also intelligent. The evidence for this supplied\nin Book I. is, for the most part, the authority of the above texts; that\nwhich they say must be accepted as \"gospel,\" whatever human reason may\nsee or say to the contrary.\n\nBook II. begins by stating and answering speculative objections on the\npart of Sankhyaists. Though himself intelligence (not merely\nintelligent) Brahman may give birth to a non-intelligent world, seeing\nthat like does not always spring from like [see above].\n\nAtomists hold that there is apparent difference and separateness in\nthings. \"Where, then,\" they ask, \"is the oneness, the monism, for which\nthe Vedantists argue?\" It is replied that it is only superficial thought\nthat fixes itself upon the manifoldness of things, losing sight of their\noneness. Deeper thought sees underneath the many a oneness which binds\nthem, and of which they are only the outward expressions. The great\nocean is one, but its waves and ripples are many. All at bottom is but\none: the Universal Being.\n\nA non-intelligent first cause (_Prakriti_), such as the Sankhyaists\npostulate, could never call into being an orderly world, for how could\nunreason produce reason? Nor could atoms set in motion produce a planned\nor intelligent universe, as the Atomists falsely say. There must be an\nintelligent power controlling the atoms and contemplating the result to\nbe attained.\n\nThe view put forth by the Sankhya philosophers, that an external and\ninternal world exists in mutual independence, is contrary to thought and\nexperience--is, in fact, unthinkable. We know no external world: we have\nnever had any experience outside the region of our own consciousness;\nyet what is regarded as external to the individual consciousness is not\n_Maya_, as is taught in some of the Upanishads, and maintained by later\nphilosophers. This external world as a fact of consciousness is as real\nas that consciousness and as the individual mind which makes mental\nexperience possible, and is the great All, of which the individual mind\nis the working and manifestation.\n\n    THE RELATION OF BRAHMAN TO ELEMENTS AND THE\n      SOUL\n\nAre the elementary substances (ether, air, etc) co-eternal, with\nBrahman, or do they issue from him? It can be shown, and is shown, that\none elementary substance proceeds from another (_e.g._, air from ether),\nand that in the last resort all such substances have come forth from\nBrahman, who has not only produced them, but also guided and effected\ntheir evolution.\n\nThe individual soul is, according to the scriptures [Vedas and\nUpanishads], eternal and permanent, and has not been produced by\nBrahman; who is, however, as noted, the producer of the elementary\nsubstances. Like Brahman himself, the individual soul is uncreated and\neternal. What is in time and belongs to time is the connection of the\nsoul with the conditions of space and time. This is the interpretation\ngiven by Sankara. Ramanuga, however, holds that the soul is a creature\nof Brahman, though an eternal one, it having existed ever as a mode of\nthe great All [compare the doctrine of the eternal procession of the\nSon].\n\n    WHAT IS SOUL?\n\nWhat is soul? It is _gna_, or knowledge. [The etymology of both these\nlatter words is identical--compare Greek _gnosco_, etc.] This means,\naccording to Sankara, that knowledge is of the very essence of soul, and\nnot a mere attribute of it. The soul is not merely a knower (_gnatri_),\nbut it is knowledge. Ramanuga, on the other hand, explains that the\nknowledge spoken of in this Sutra means \"the knower\"; that the soul is\nnot knowledge, but that which can and does know.\n\nIs the soul limited in size, and capable, therefore, of occupying but a\nrestricted space? Or is it, on the contrary, omnipresent?\n\nSankara maintains that the Sutra in question teaches the latter; the\nsoul is everywhere. Ramanuga makes the same Sutra teach the very\ncontrary. As a matter of fact, the Sutra in question seems to teach both\nthese contradictory doctrines, perhaps because it registers different\ntraditions. Sankara, however, explains further on that as long as the\nsoul is passing through the changes involved in Samsara [=\ntransmigration] it is limited and local, but on reaching Brahmanhood it\nbecomes omnipresent. In this way the great commentator seeks to\nreconcile teaching apparently contradictory in this Sutra.\n\nIs this soul an agent? Some of the Sutras say it is, others say it is\nnot. How are the conflicting statements to be reconciled? Sankara does\nthis in the following way. As long as the soul is tied down to material\nconditions--that is, is passing through the processes of Samsara--it is\nan agent. But as soon as it has escaped from this bondage of\ntransmigration it dwells in a state of perfect repose, inactive and\nrestful. In all its activities the soul is prompted by Brahman, without\nwhose inspiration and guidance the soul could perform nothing, and could\nnever, therefore, reach the true goal of all souls, absorption in the\none All, which can be obtained in no other way than by the performance\nof good deeds, which means action.\n\n\n_BOOK III.--OF THE SOUL AND ITS SUMMUM BONUM_\n\n\nWhen at death the soul passes from the body its subtle material elements\nstill cling to it. Good souls pass on to the moon, whence they\nafterwards descend in a form and state determined by their former\nactions [Karma]. If the previous life has been a moral failure, the new\nlife now entered upon will belong to a lower level of being, _i.e._, the\nman may become an animal, the higher, animal may become a lower one. On\nthe other hand, there may be an ascent in the scale of being.\n\nWhen the soul is a-dreaming, what it thinks it sees and hears, etc., is\nall illusion, for it does not see or hear, etc., what it thinks it does.\nIn a state of profound dreaminess the soul leaves the body and lives in\nclose fellowship with Brahman.\n\nHow is the soul to obtain final release from the thraldom of material\nconditions? By meditating on Brahman as he is set forth in the sacred\nscriptures. Brahman must be thought about and meditated on in all his\nattributes, and this produces identity with the one great self of\nexistence.\n\nThough Sankara makes this to be the teaching of the Sutras, in another\nplace he insists that Brahman is without attributes. He is not,\ntherefore, consistent. The meditation on Brahman which leads to\nsoul-freedom must have regard also to Brahman's negative qualities,\n_i.e._, his not being gross, nor subtle, wise nor foolish, etc.\n\n    THE RELATION OF KNOWLEDGE AND CONDUCT\n\nThe knowledge of Brahman is independent of action, and not subordinate\nto it. It is _vidya_ [compare _vision_, which has the same etymology],\nor knowledge, that is alone prescribed in the holy writings, not\nconduct. Where, however, there is right knowledge, there will be\nrightness of life. But mere rightness of life is nothing; it is that\nwhich leads to it and is the cause that is alone commanded and commended\n[compare the controversy among Christian theologians about faith and\nworks]. The knowledge which saves and enfranchises may be reached by a\nman in this present life, and will be, if the appropriate means are\nemployed.\n\n    OF BRAHMANHOOD\n\nMeditation is a duty to be observed to the very close of life, and the\namount and intensity of it are the measure of a man's virtue and piety.\nWhen he has reached the full knowledge of Brahman, a man is freed from\nthe consequences [karma] of all his evil deeds, past, present, and\nfuture. [One would think that the state of Brahmanhood excluded the\npossibility of sin, but this Sutra seems to imply the contrary. The\nSutras, however, make a distinction between a lower state of Brahmanhood\nand a higher. See below.]\n\nWhat happens to the knowing one (_vidvan_) at death? The soul of him who\nhas at death the lower Brahman knowledge merges into the subtler\nelements. But when the highest knowledge is attained there is complete\nabsorption in Brahman. Whoever dies in possession of this highest\nknowledge is at once merged in Brahman, and rests eternally and\nperfectly in him.\n\nThe Upanishads describe the stations on the way which leads up to\nBrahman. These stations are to be understood not merely as terminuses of\nthe various stages of the journey, but they denote also the divine\nbeings who direct the soul in its progress and enable it to move forward\nand upward. According to some Sutras in this book the guardians of the\npath conducting to the gods lead the departed soul, not to the highest\nBrahman, but to the effected (_karya_), or qualified (_saguna_),\nBrahman. But in other Sutras in this book the opposite view is stated\nand defended, according to which the _vidvan_, or knower, goes direct to\nthe highest Brahman without halting anywhere short of that god.\n\nThe Sutras teach, on the whole, the doctrine that the enfranchised soul,\nbeing identical with Brahman, is inseparable from him just as a mode of\nsubstance is incapable of existing apart from the substance of which it\nis a mode. Ramanuga points out, however, that some of the Sutras in this\nbook give it clearly to be understood that the freed soul can exist in\nisolation and in separation from the great All.\n\nThe released soul can enter several bodies at the same time, since it is\nnot subject to space relations as other souls are.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\nTHOMAS \u00c0 KEMPIS\n\n\nTHE IMITATION OF CHRIST\n\n\n     Thomas \u00e0 Kempis, whose family name was Haemmerlein, received\n     the name of Kempis from Kempen, in Holland, the place of his\n     birth. Either Thomas Haemmerlein or Thomas Kempensis would be\n     a more correct name than the form \"\u00e0 Kempis,\" by which he is\n     generally known; and \"Musica Ecclesiastica\" is the more\n     correct title of the \"Imitatio Christi.\" It is not even\n     certain that Thomas was the author of it, for the names of\n     other authors have been put forward with more or less\n     probability; but he was certainly its copyist, and the balance\n     of evidence is in favour of his authorship. Thomas was born in\n     1379, the son of a shoemaker; entered in 1400 a monastery at\n     Agnetenberg, near Zwolle, and died in the monastery on August\n     8, 1471, with a great reputation for learning and for\n     sanctity. The \"Imitation\" was completed about 1420. Editions\n     and translations in all principal languages are innumerable;\n     but the definitive edition is the Latin text by Dr. Carl\n     Hirsche, of Hamburg (1874), from which the following epitome\n     has been made. The \"Imitation\" consists of four books of\n     meditations, which are among the most priceless treasures of\n     Christian literature.\n\n\n_I.--ADMONITIONS USEFUL TO THE SPIRITUAL LIFE_\n\n\n\"Whoever follows Me does not walk in darkness,\" says the Lord. These are\nthe words of Christ by which we are admonished how far we should imitate\nHis life and manners if we wish to be truly illumined and liberated from\nall blindness of heart. Let it, therefore, be our supreme study to\nmeditate on the life of Jesus Christ.\n\nVanity of vanities, all things are vanity, except to love God and to\nserve Him only. The highest wisdom is to strive towards celestial\nkingdoms, through contempt of the world. It is, therefore, vanity to\nseek the riches that are about to perish, and to hope in them. It is\nvanity also to solicit honours, and to exalt oneself to high place. It\nis vanity to follow after the desires of the flesh, and to seek that for\nwhich we must soon be heavily punished. It is vanity to wish a long\nlife, and to care little about a good life. It is vanity to attend only\nto the present life, and not to provide for things which are to come. It\nis vanity to love that which passes away so speedily, and not to hasten\nthither where eternal joy remains.\n\nRemember often that proverb--\"The eye is not satisfied with seeing nor\nthe ear with hearing.\" Study, therefore, to withdraw your heart from the\nlove of visible things, and turn yourself to the invisible. For those\nwho follow their sensuality stain their conscience, and lose the grace\nof God.\n\nEvery man naturally desires to know, but what does knowledge signify\nwithout the fear of God? The humble peasant who serves God is far better\nthan the proud philosopher who neglects himself and considers the\ncourses of the stars. Whoever knows himself well contemns himself, and\ntakes no delight in human praise. If I should know all things in the\nworld, and yet not be in charity, what would it advantage me in the\npresence of God, Who is about to judge me for my deeds?\n\nDesist from too much desire of knowing, because great distraction and\ndeception are found in it. Those who know, desire to seem and to be\ncalled wise. There are many things of which the knowledge is of little\nor no value to the soul, and the man is very foolish who turns to other\nthings than those which subserve his health. Many words do not satisfy\nthe soul; but a good life cools down the mind, and a good conscience\naffords great confidence towards God.\n\nWe might have great peace if we did not occupy ourselves with the words\nand deeds which are no concern of ours. How can he remain long in peace\nwho meddles with cares which are foreign to him, who seeks opportunities\nwithout, and recollects himself little or rarely? Blessed are the\nsimple, for they shall have much peace.\n\nWithout charity, an outward work is of value; but whatever is done from\ncharity, however small and trivial it may be, becomes wholly fruitful.\nFor God weighs more the source from which an action comes than the work\nwhich it does. He does much who loves much. He does much who does the\ndeed well. He does well who serves the community rather than his own\nwill.\n\nThat often seems to be charity which is rather carnality; for natural\ninclination, one's own will, the hope of reward, and the liking for\ncomfort are rarely absent. But whoever has true and perfect charity\nseeks himself in nothing, but desires only the glory of God. He envies\nno one, because he loves no joy of his own, nor cares to rejoice in\nhimself; but wishes, above all good things, to find felicity in God.\nWhoever has a spark of true charity feels at once that all earthly\nthings are full Of vanity.\n\n\n_II.--ADMONITIONS LEADING TO INWARD LIFE_\n\n\n\"The kingdom of God is within you,\" says the Lord. Turn yourself with\nyour whole heart to the Lord, and leave this miserable world, and your\nsoul shall find rest. Learn to despise outward things, and to give\nyourself to inward things, and you shall see the kingdom of God rise\nwithin you. For the kingdom of God is peace and joy in the Holy Spirit,\nand is not given to the impious. Christ shall come to you showing you\nHis consolation, if you prepare within you a home fit for Him. All His\nglory and beauty are from within, and it is there that He delights\nHimself. He often visits the man of inward mind, with sweet colloquy,\npleasant consolation, great peace, and most astounding familiarity.\n\nIf you know not how to contemplate high and celestial things, rest in\nthe passion of Christ, and willingly dwell in His holy wounds. For if\nyou devoutly have recourse to the wounds of Jesus you will feel great\ncomfort in trouble, care little for human contempt, and easily bear\ndetracting words. For Christ, in the world, was despised by men, and in\nHis greatest need was deserted, among insults, by His friends. Christ\nwilled to suffer and to be despised, and shall you dare to complain of\nanything? Christ had enemies and detractors, and do you wish to have all\nfriends and benefactors? Whence shall your patience be crowned if you\nhave suffered no adversity? If you desire to suffer nothing contrary to\nyou, how shall you be the friend of Christ?\n\nHe to whom all things taste as they really are, and not as they are\nspoken of or esteemed, is the truly wise man, taught by God rather than\nby men. Whoever knows how to walk from within, and to put little value\non things without, needs not to find a place nor wait a time for his\ndevout prayers. The man of inward mind quickly recollects himself,\nbecause he never spends himself wholly upon outward things.\n\nFirst hold yourself in peace, and then you will be able to pacify\nothers. The pacific man is of more service than the learned. But the\npassionate man turns even good to evil, easily believing evil. The\npeaceful man is good, and turns all things to good. The man who is well\nat peace is suspicious of nothing, but the discontented and turbulent is\nagitated by divers suspicions. He can neither himself be quiet, nor\nleave others in quiet. He often says what he ought not to say, and\nleaves undone what he ought to do. He thinks about what others ought to\ndo, and neglects his own duty.\n\nMan is raised from earthly matters by two wings--namely, simplicity and\npurity. Simplicity should be in his intention, and purity in his\naffection. Simplicity tends towards God, purity takes hold of Him.\n\nAlways to do well, and to hold oneself in small esteem, is the mark of a\nhumble soul. To desire no consolation from any created thing is the sign\nof great purity and inward confidence. The man who seeks no witness for\nhimself from without has plainly committed himself altogether to God.\nFor \"not he who commends himself is approved,\" says blessed Paul, \"but\nhe whom God commends.\" To walk with God within, and to be held by no\naffection without, is the state of the inwardly-minded man.\n\nJesus has now many lovers of His celestial kingdom, but few bearers of\nHis Cross. He has many who desire consolation, but few who desire\ntribulation. He finds many companions of His table, but few of His\nabstinence. All wish to rejoice with Him; few are willing to bear\nanything for Him.\n\nIn the Cross is safety; in the Cross is life; in the Cross is protection\nfrom enemies; in the Cross is the sweetness of heaven; in the Cross is\nstrength of mind; in the Cross is the perfection of sanctity. There is\nno health for the soul nor hope of eternal life except in the Cross.\nTake up your cross, therefore, and follow Jesus.\n\nIf anything were better and more useful for the welfare of men than to\nsuffer, Christ would have shown it both in His words and in His example.\nFor He calls to the disciples who follow Him, and to all who desire to\nfollow Him, and says: \"If any will come after Me, let him deny himself,\nand lift up his cross and follow Me.\" When all has been read and\nstudied, let this be our conclusion--\"That through many tribulations we\nmust enter into the kingdom of God.\"\n\n\n_III.--OF INWARD CONSOLATION_\n\n\nI will hear what the Lord God may say in me. It is a blessed soul which\nhears the Lord speaking in it, and receives the word of consolation from\nHis lips. Speak, Lord, for your servant hears.\n\n\"I have taught the prophets from the beginning,\" says the Lord, \"and\nuntil now I have not ceased to speak at all; but many are deaf and hard\nto My voice. Many listen more willingly to the world than to God, and\nmore easily follow the appetite of the flesh than God's good pleasure.\nThe world promises small and temporary things, and is served with great\neagerness; I promise supreme and eternal things, but the hearts of\nmortals are torpid. Who serves and obeys Me in everything with so great\ncare as the world and its lords are served? Men run a long way for a\ntrifling reward, but for eternal life many scarcely lift a foot once\nfrom earth.\"\n\nLord God, you are all my good. And who am I that I should dare to speak\nto you? I am the poorest and least of your servants, a wretched little\nworm, far more miserable and contemptible than I know or dare to say,\nYet remember me, Lord, because I am nothing, I have nothing, and am\nworth nothing. Do not turn your face from me; do not defer your coming;\ndo not withdraw your consolation, lest my soul become like a waterless\nland before you. Lord, teach me to do your will; teach me to walk\nworthily and humbly in your presence; because you are my wisdom, who\ntruly know me, and knew me before the world was made and before I was\nborn in the world.\n\n\"Son, walk in My presence in truth, and seek Me always in the simplicity\nof your heart. Whoever walks in My presence in truth will be kept safe\nfrom the assaults of evil, and truth will liberate him from those who\nlead astray and from the detractions of unjust men. If truth shall have\nliberated you, then you will be truly free, and you will not care for\nthe vain words of men.\"\n\nIt is true, Lord, I pray that it may be done with me as you say. Let\nyour truth teach me and guard me, and keep me to a salutary end. Let it\nliberate me from every evil affection and inordinate love, and I shall\nwalk with you in great liberty of heart.\n\n\"I will teach you,\" says Truth, \"what things are right and pleasing in\nmy Bight. Think on your sins with great displeasure and sorrow, and\nnever imagine yourself to be anything because of your good works. You\nare really a sinner, liable to many passions and entangled in them. Of\nyourself, you are always tending to nothingness; you quickly slip, you\nare quickly overcome, you are quickly disturbed, you quickly pass away.\nYou have nothing in which you can glory, but much for which you ought to\nhold yourself cheap; you are far more infirm than you are able to\nunderstand.\n\n\"Some do not sincerely walk before me, but, led by a certain curiosity\nand arrogance, wish to know my secrets, and to understand the high\nthings of God, neglecting themselves and their welfare. These often fall\ninto great temptations and sins, when I resist them on account of their\npride and curiosity. Fear the judgments of God; be exceedingly afraid of\nthe anger of the Omnipotent. Do not discuss the works of the Highest,\nbut scrutinise your iniquities, and see how gravely you have offended\nand how many good deeds you have neglected.\n\n\"There are others, enlightened in their minds and purged in their\naffections, who are always panting after eternal things and listen\nunwillingly to earthly things; these perceive what the spirit of truth\nsays within them.\n\n\"Love is a great thing, altogether a great good, which alone makes light\neverything that is heavy, and carries evenly all that is uneven. For it\nbears the burden without being burdened, and makes sweet and tasteful\neverything that is bitter. The noble love of Jesus drives on to great\ndeeds, and always excites to the desire of more perfect things. Love\nwills to rise upwards, and not to be held back by the lowest things.\nNothing is sweeter than love, nothing is stronger, nothing higher or\nbroader; nothing is more delightful or fuller in heaven or in earth; for\nlove is born of God, and cannot rest except in God, above all created\nthings.\"\n\n\n_IV.--DEVOUT EXHORTATION TO HOLY COMMUNION_\n\n\nThe voice of Christ, \"Come to Me all who labour and are burdened, and I\nwill refresh you,\" says the Lord. \"The bread which I will give you is My\nflesh for the life of the world. Receive and consume it; this is My body\nwhich will be delivered for you; do this in commemoration of Me. Whoever\neats My flesh and drinks My blood remains in Me, and I in him. The words\nwhich I have spoken to you are spirit and life.\"\n\nThese are your words, Christ, Eternal Truth, although not given at one\ntime nor written in one place. Because they are yours, and true, they\nare all to be received gratefully by me. They are yours, and you\npronounced them; and they are mine also because you uttered them for my\nwelfare. I gladly accept them from your lips, that they may be more\nclosely buried in my heart. Words of such kindness, full of sweetness\nand love, arouse me. But my own sins frighten me, and my impure\nconscience repels me from taking hold of such great mysteries.\n\nYou bid me come to you trustfully if I would have part with you; and to\nreceive the food of immortality if I wish to obtain eternal life and\nglory. \"Come to Me,\" you say, \"all who labour and are burdened, and I\nwill refresh you.\" O sweet and friendly word in the ear of a sinner,\nthat you, my Lord God, invite the destitute and poor to the communion of\nyour most holy Body.\n\nLord, all things in heaven and in earth are yours. I desire to offer\nmyself as a willing oblation, and to remain yours in perpetuity. Lord,\nin the simplicity of my heart I offer myself to you to-day to be for\never your servant--offer myself for obedience and for a sacrifice of\neternal praise. Receive me with this holy offering of your precious\nBody, which I offer to you to-day in the presence of angels, assisting\nthough unseen, that it may be for my welfare and for the welfare of all\nyour people.\n\nThe voice of the beloved: \"God does not deceive you; he is deceived who\ntrusts too much to himself. God walks with the simple, reveals Himself\nto the humble, gives understanding to the feeble, opens His meaning to\npure minds, and hides His grace from the inquisitive and proud. Human\nreason is weak and may be deceived, but true faith cannot be deceived.\n\n\"All reason and natural investigation ought to follow faith, and not\nprecede it nor impair it. For faith and love excel here most of all, and\nwork in hidden ways in, this most holy and transcendent sacrament. The\neternal and immeasurable God of infinite power does great and\ninscrutable things in heaven and in earth, and there is no finding out\nof His wonderful works. If the works of God were such that they could\neasily be seized by human reason, they would not deserve to be called\nwonderful or ineffable.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\nTHE KORAN\n\n\n     The Koran, the sacred book of Islam, and of more than a\n     hundred millions of men, is the least original of all existing\n     sacred books. Muslims agree in believing that it is from\n     beginning to end, and word for word, inspired; and that it\n     existed before the Creation on what is called the \"Preserved\n     Tablet.\" This tablet was brought by the Archangel Gabriel from\n     the highest to the lowest heaven, whence it was dictated sura\n     [chapter] by sura, verse by verse, and word by word, to the\n     Prophet Muhammad. Its matter is, however, taken for the most\n     part from the Old Testament, especially the narrative portions\n     of the Pentateuch; from the New Testament; from the traditions\n     of the ancient Arabs; and also from Zoroastrian and other\n     scriptures or traditions. It is not likely that Muhammad used\n     literary sources, except in a small measure. But there were\n     Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, and others in and around\n     Arabia, and he must have learned from their lips the principal\n     doctrines of their respective religions. Nevertheless,\n     planless and fragmentary compilation though it be, the Koran,\n     particularly in the earlier suras written at Mekka, has much\n     of the grandeur and poetry of style and the passionate\n     exaltation of a true prophet, the sincerity of whose zeal is\n     unquestioned.\n\n\n_INTRODUCTORY_\n\n\nThe word \"Koran,\" or \"Quran,\"[13] from a root _qara_ = to read, means\nliterally \"what is to be read,\" _i.e._, the written authority on all\nmatters, religions, etc. It is the exact equivalent of the Rabbinical\nHebrew word \"Miqra\" (from the Hebrew _qara_ = to read). The idea\ninvolved in both the Arabic and Hebrew words is that what is so\ndesignated is the ultimate authority deciding all questions. The Rabbis\nof post-Biblical times (compare the Jewish Qabbalah) regarded the Old\nTestament as an encyclopaedia of universal knowledge. In the best-known\nMuslim universities of modern times philosophy, science, and everything\nelse are taught from the Koran, which is made in some way to contain\nimplicitly the latest words of modern thought, invention, and discovery.\n\nThe Koran did not exist as a whole until after the Prophet\nMuhammad's[14] death. It was then compiled by the order of Abu Bekr, the\nfirst Sunnite Caliph. Its contents were found written on palm leaves\nwhite stones, and other articles capable of being written on. The\ncompilers depended, to a large extent, upon the memory of the prophet's\nfirst followers, but the Koran, as we now have it, existed without any\nappreciable divergence by the end of the first year, after Muhammad's\ndeath (A.D. 632).\n\nThis Muslim Bible has no scheme or plan because it is an almost\nhaphazard compilation of unconnected discourses, uttered on various\nunexplained occasions, and dealing with many incidents and themes. There\nis practically no editing, and no attempt is made to explain when, or\nhow, or why the various speeches were delivered.\n\nThe earliest native writers and commentators on the Koran arranged its\nsuras in two main classes: (1) Those uttered at Mekka before the flight\nin A.D. 622; (2) those written at Medinah during the next ten years.\n\nMost recent scholars follow the chronological arrangement proposed by\nthe great Orientalist N\u00f6ldeke in 1860. Friedrich Schwally in his newly\nrevised edition of N\u00f6ldeke's great work on the Koran follows his master\nin almost every detail. Rodwell's translation of the Koran, recently\nissued in \"Everyman's Library,\" arranges the suras chronologically\naccording to N\u00f6ldeke's scheme. In the summaries that follow, it is this\nchronological order that is adopted. In the Arabic editions followed by\nthe well-known and valuable translations of Sale, E.H. Palmer (Clarendon\nPress, \"Sacred Books of the East,\" vols. 6 and 9), and others, the\nprinciple adopted is to put the longest suras first and the shortest\nlast.\n\nThe Mekkan suras are much more original than the Medinah ones,\nespecially those of the first period--_i.e._, those belonging to the\nfirst four years of Muhammad's prophetic mission, _e.g._, suras 96, 74,\netc. In these suras the style is grander, more passionate, and fuller of\npoetry. The prophet appears in a state of great mental exaltation, full\nof a zeal which no words can adequately express, and of a sincerity\nwhich few scholars have questioned.\n\nThe suras of the second period, the following two years of the prophet's\nmission (_e.g._, suras 54, 37, etc.), have the same general character,\nbut are less vehement. Still less vehement and more restrained are the\nsuras of the third Mekkan period--_i.e._, from the seventh year of the\nprophet's mission to his flight in A.D. 622 (_e.g._, suras 32, 41,\netc.). The style of the Medinah suras resembles that of the Mekkan\nrevelations of the third period, only they are still more matter of fact\nand restrained, and are largely made up of appeals to Jews, Christians,\nand others to abandon their \"unbelief,\" and to accept the prophet who\nhad come to them with the true religion, a religion as old as Abraham,\nthough forgotten for many ages.\n\nThe Koran differs from the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments,\nincluding the Apocrypha, in that these latter are much-more varied, as\nemanating from many minds, and belonging to very different occasions.\nThe Koran is, from beginning to end, the effusions (often very wild) of\none man.\n\nThe present editor has kept before him the Arabic text of Maracci,\nFluegel, and Redslob, and also several Oriental editions (Cairo,\nConstantinople, Calcutta, etc.). But, of course, the best known\ntranslations, and also the native commentaries (Baidhawi, etc.), have\nbeen consulted.\n\nIn the summaries which follow, numerals following the paragraphs\nindicate the number of the sura or suras in the Arabic text as well as\nin Sale's translation.\n\n\nMEKKAN SURAS\n\nI.--FIRST PERIOD (A.D. 613-617)\n\n\n_MUHAMMAD'S FIRST CALL TO READ THE KORAN_\n\n\nIn the name of the gracious and compassionate God.[15]\n\nRecite in the name of thy Lord, who created man and taught men to write,\nrecite what God has revealed to thee His Prophet, and be not afraid.\nConsider not the opposition of Abu Gahl, who has threatened to put his\nfoot on thy neck if thou dost worship Allah. (96.)\n\n\n_DENUNCIATION OF ABU LAHAB_[16]\n\n\nAbu Lahab's two hands shall perish, and he himself shall perish. His\nwealth shall not avail him, nor all that he has gained. He shall be\nburnt in the fiery flames[17] of Hell, his wife carrying wood for fuel,\nwith a cord of palm-tree fibres twisted round her neck. (III.)\n\n\n_MUHAMMAD COMMANDED TO OFFER SACRIFICES_\n\n\nWe have given to thee, O Prophet, great wealth and abounding riches.\nPray thou to Allah, and offer Him suitable sacrifices out of what He has\nbestowed upon thee. (108.)\n\n[Compare with this paragraph the following, from sura 22 of the Medinah\ngroup:\n\nWe have ordained that ye offer sacrifices unto Allah, and that ye\nreceive much benefit therefrom. When, therefore, ye slay your camels let\nthe name of Allah be pronounced over them. Then eat of them and give to\nthose who ask humbly, giving also to the poor and needy who ask not.\nFlesh and blood can never reach unto Allah (God), but your obedience and\npiety will reach unto Him.]\n\n\n_BELIEVERS AND UNBELIEVERS_\n\n\nWe will make the path to happiness easy and safe to all such as fear\nAllah, and give alms, and believe the truth proclaimed by Allah's\nmessenger. But we will make easy the path to distress and misery for all\nsuch as are niggardly, are bent on making riches, and deny the truth\nwhen it is proclaimed to them. When these last fall headlong into Hell,\ntheir wealth will avail them nothing. In the burning furnace they shall\nburn and broil. (92.)\n\n\n_THE DUTY OF EXERCISING CHARITY_\n\n\nVerily, We (God) have created some men in such poverty and distress as\nto need the help of others. What does that braggart man mean when he\nsays, \"None shall prevail over me; I have and have scattered riches\nboundless\"? Does he not know that there is a Divine eye that sees him?\nHave not We created him with a capacity of distinguishing between the\ntwo highways, that which descends towards evil, and that which ascends\ntowards the good? This niggardly man, however, makes no attempt to scale\nthe heights. What is it to ascend the upward road? It is to free the\nprisoner, to feed the hungry, to defend the orphan who is akin, and the\ndown-trodden poor. Besides this, it is enjoined that men believe in\nAllah and His Prophet; that they encourage each other to be steadfast in\nthe faith, exercising mutual consideration and sympathy. All such as do\nthese things shall be the people of the right hand. But all those who\ndisbelieve Our signs shall be the companions of the left hand, over whom\nshall be a vault of fire. (90.)\n\n\n_MUHAMMAD COMMANDED TO ARISE AND PREACH_\n\n\nO thou mantle-wrapped one, arise and warn the people, and magnify the\nLord. The Day of Judgment will be a sad day for unbelievers. Leave thou\nthine enemy in Mine hands, and let Me visit upon him his well deserved\npunishment. For he has ridiculed the Koran; he has said: \"This is\nnothing else than magic, they are the words of a man.\" I [God] will cast\nhim into Hell, where he shall burn in torment. The fires of this Hell\nleave nothing unconsumed. It scorches men's flesh. We have appointed\nnineteen angels as guardians over Hell fire. But why nineteen? That\nbelievers may be sure of the veracity of this Book, and that unbelievers\nmay have occasion for denying the divinity of the Koran, saying: \"What\nmeans this number?\" (74.)\n\n\n_THE KORAN GIVEN TO MUHAMMAD_\n\n\nVerily, We have brought down to Muhammad the Koran on the Night of\nPower.[18] This one Night of Power is better than a thousand months. On\nthat night did Gabriel and the angels descend and reveal to Our Prophet\nall the words of the Koran. (97.)\n\n\n_MUHAMMAD NOT MAD NOR AN IMPOSTOR_\n\n\nBelieve thou not, O Messenger of Mine, when they say, \"Thou art bereft\nof thy senses,\" when they charge thee with imposture. Thy Lord knoweth\nwho are bereft of their senses, and who are the impostors. Warn thou\nthose maligners of the awful judgment which awaits them. (68.)\n\n\n_GOD'S PROMISE TO HELP MUHAMMAD TO RECITE THE KORAN_\n\n\nWe [Allah] shall enable thee to remember all the parts of the Koran, so\nthat thou mayest recite them for the encouragement of those who believe\nand as a warning to all unbelievers. Nor shalt thou forget aught of this\nRevelation except what We please.[19] All those who fear God will\nreceive the prophet's warning, but all those who disbelieve shall be\ncast into terrible fire where they will neither live nor die. This\ndoctrine which We command thee to preach is that taught in the ancient\nBooks, the Books of Abraham and of Moses, who were faithful Muslims.\n(87.)\n\n\n_THE KORAN INSPIRED_\n\n\nBy the falling star, your comrade Muhammad does not err, nor does he\nspeak his own mind. What he utters has been revealed to him. The Koran\nis from God through Gabriel; it is not the work of man. Why worship ye\ngoddesses like Allat and Al'Uzza and Manah? There are no goddesses.[20]\n(53.)\n\n\n_THE TREATMENT OF WOMEN BELIEVERS_\n\n\nWhen believing women come to you as fugitives, leaving behind them\nunbelieving husbands, send them not back to the infidels, but test their\nfaith, and if they are found true Muslims, pay back to their husbands\nthe dowries which they have expended. Then may ye marry them, provided\nye give them the accustomed dowries. (60.)\n\n\n_GOD'S UNITY_[21]\n\n\nSay \"He is but one God, the everlasting God who begets not,[22] nor is\nbegotten, and there is none like unto Him.\" (10.)\n\n\n_FORMUL\u00e6 OF EXORCISM_\n\n\nI flee for refuge to the Lord, that He may protect me against the evil\nthings which He has created. Against night goblins when the night comes\non, and from witches who bind by their magic knots, and from such as\ninjure by the evil eye; I seek refuge with the Lord from charmers, from\njinns [demons], and from evil men. (113.)\n\n\n_THE HEAVEN OF THE MUSLIMS_\n\n\nAll who believe in Allah and His Prophet shall be admitted hereafter\ninto delightful gardens [Paradise]. They shall repose for ever on\ncouches decked with gold and precious stones, being supplied with\nabundance of luscious wine, fruits of the choicest variety, and the\nflesh of birds. They shall be accompanied by damsels of unsurpassed\nbeauty, with large black, pearl-like eyes. (56.)\n\n\nII.--SECOND PERIOD (A.D. 617-619)\n\n\n_WINDS AND DEMONS SUBJECT TO SOLOMON_\n\n\nAnd We made a strong wind subject to Solomon, so that it conveyed him\nwhither he would. We also gave him the power of commanding demons, so\nthat they dived into the sea to bring him pearls, and did everything\nelse that he wished.[23] (21.)\n\n\n_THE MIRACULOUS BIRTH OF JESUS_\n\n\nRemember Mary, who preserved her virginity, and into whom We breathed\nOur own spirit, so that when her son Isa [Jesus] was born, mother and\nson became a sign unto all mankind. (21.)\n\n\n_THE VIRGIN MARY_\n\n\nAfter Mary, the Virgin, had begotten her son Isa [Jesus] she was found\none day carrying the child in her arms when some pious men met her and\nrebuked her, saying: \"O Mary, thou sister of Aaron,[24] what is this\nstrange thing thou hast done? Thy father Amram was an upright man, and\nthy mother was no harlot, as thou seemest to be.\" In answer to all this\nthe infant child, not having previously lisped a syllable, said,\n\"Verily, I am the servant of Allah, who has given me the Book of the\nGospel, and appointed me to be His Prophet. He has made me blessed, and\nto be a blessing. Happy the day wherein I was born, and the day wherein\nI shall die, and the day whereon I shall be raised again.\" (19.)\n\n\n_DEVILS SENT BY GOD TO MAKE MEN SIN_\n\n\nDe ye not know that We [God] send devils against the unbelievers to move\nthem, by their suggestions, to the sin of which these unbelievers become\nguilty? (19.)\n\n\n_SOLOMON'S ARMY OF MEN, BIRDS, AND JINNS (DEMONS)_\n\n\nSolomon was able to understand the speech of birds and to make them\nunderstand his speech.[25] There gathered to him on a certain day his\nentire army of men, birds, and jinns in the Valley of Ants. The crowd\nwas so great that one of the ants said to his fellows, \"Get you at once\ninto your ant-homes, or you will be trampled to death by one of these\nmyriad feet.\"\n\n\n_THE QUEEN OF SHEBA'S VISIT TO SOLOMON_\n\n\nSolomon, one day reviewing his varied troops, missed among the birds the\nhoopoe, and asked whither this bird had gone, threatening all manner of\npunishments for his absence. Soon the missing bird came flying to the\nking, uttering the words, \"I have just come from Sheba, where I have\nlooked upon the most wonderful queen, sitting upon the most magnificent\nthrone that I have ever set eyes on. But this queen and her subjects,\nunfortunately, worshipped not Allah, the true God, but the sun.\"\n\n\"I will test the truth of thy words!\" replied the angry monarch. \"Take\nthou this note of mine to the queen thou laudest so highly, bidding her\ncome to my kingdom to acknowledge my authority.\"\n\nAlmost in a twinkling the hoopoe was back with the queen's answer\nconsenting to visit Solomon and his dominions. Solomon, having received\nthis answer, asked the nobles of his kingdom, \"Which of you will bring\nme at once the Queen of Sheba's throne, to be here before she arrives?\"\n\n\"I will!\" said one of the wickedest of the jinns.\n\n\"And so will I, in a whiff!\" answered a jinn that was well acquainted\nwith the Scriptures.\n\nIn a very short time the throne was in Solomon's palace. \"Alter ye it,\"\nsaid the king, \"as much as ye may, to see whether she has any\nsupernatural knowledge to identify it.\"\n\nWhen the queen arrived, she was asked, \"What throne is this?\"\n\nShe replied, \"It is mine--strangely mine.\" After she had witnessed the\nglory and wisdom of Solomon, she gave up her idols, and became the\nworshipper of Allah, the true God. (27.)\n\n\nIII.--THIRD PERIOD (A.D. 619-622)\n\n\n_PUNISHMENT FOR VIOLATING THE SABBATH_\n\n\nYe know how We tested and proved those wicked people who dwelt in Elath\non the Red Sea. On the Sabbath day We made the fish come right up to\nthem, as if asking to be caught; but not so on other days. Those who\nyielded to the temptation, and thus violated the sanctity of the sacred\nday, We turned into apes as a punishment for their wrong-doing. (7.)\n\n\n_MOUNT SINAI SHAKEN ABOVE THE ISRAELITES_\n\n\nWhen the Israelites doubted the authority of the Law which We had given\nthem through Moses, Our servant, We caused Mount Sinai to rear itself\nabove them as a covering, so that the people feared it was going to fall\nupon them. And We said to them, \"Receive ye with reverence that Law\nwhich We have given you, and remember what is contained therein, taking\nheed thereto.\"[26] (7.)\n\n\nMEDINAH SURAS\n\n_SALVATION FOR OTHERS THAN MUSLIMS_\n\n\nAll such as believe in Allah and in the last day, and who do that which\nis right, whether they are Jews, Christians, Sabeans, or Muslims, shall\nhave their reward from Allah, who will take away from them all fear and\ngrief. (3.)\n\n\n_Muslims Only to be Saved_\n\n\nNo one that follows any other religion than Islam will be accepted by\nGod or saved from perishing in the life that is to come. (2.)\n\n\n_ABRAHAM, ISHMAEL, ISAAC, JACOB, AND THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL ALL MUSLIMS_\n\n\nDo ye Jews say that Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the tribes of\nIsrael were Jews, or do ye Christians say that they were Christians? But\nGod knows better, and has revealed to you the truth that all these were\nMuslims, followers of the religion of Islam. But God is cognisant of\nyour unbelief, and will bring you to account. (2.)\n\n\n_THE QIBLAH CHANGED FROM JERUSALEM TO MEKKA_\n\n\nFoolish men will say, \"Why have they changed the Qiblah[27] from\nJerusalem to the Kaabah[28] in Mekka?\" Say to them, \"God's is the east\nand the west, and He has commanded us to turn our face, when we pray, to\nthe sacred mosque at Mekka.\" (2.)\n\n\n_AGAINST JEWS AND CHRISTIANS, WHO CAPRICIOUSLY CHOOSE AND REJECT WHAT\nDIVINE REVELATIONS THEY PLEASE_\n\n\nWhy, then, do ye believe part only of the Book, and deny that part which\nauthenticates the mission of the Prophet of Allah? All those who are\nguilty of this sin shall have shame in this life, and on the\nResurrection Day shall be driven into the most excrutiating torments.\n(2.)\n\n\n_THE MEKKA TEMPLE FOUNDED BY ABRAHAM_\n\n\nIt was Abraham, our father, who first entered the Kaabah sanctuary at\nMekka, and it is our bounden duty, if at all able, to visit this sacred\nhouse. (3.)\n\n\n_JESUS PREDICTS THE COMING OF MUHAMMAD_\n\n\nJesus, Mary's Son, said, \"O Israelites, I am Allah's Apostle, sent to\nconfirm the Law of the Old Testament, and to bring you good tidings of a\ngreat Apostle to come after me, whose name is Ahmad.\"[29] (61.)\n\n\n_MUHAMMAD THE LAST AND GREATEST OF GOD'S MESSENGERS_\n\n\nIn the former times We sent Our apostles with convincing arguments and\nall decisive miracles, and We gave them the Scriptures. We sent to men\nNoah, Abraham, and the prophets, but many believed not. Then We sent Our\napostles, after whom came Jesus, Son of Mary. Then, last of all, came\nOur great apostle, Muhammad. O all ye believers, fear God and obey the\nwords of Allah's messenger. (57.)\n\n\n_THE KORAN CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT_\n\n\nWhy do they not carefully and impartially consider the Koran? If it had\nnot been wholly of God, unbelievers would have been able to find out\ncontradictions. (4.)\n\n\n_MUHAMMAD CONTRADICTS THE FACT OF THE CRUCIFIXION OF CHRIST_\n\n\nChristians say that Christ Jesus, Son of Mary, was slain. But He was not\nslain, nor crucified, but another was taken for Him. The true Isa\n[Jesus] was taken up by God unto Himself, not seeing death. (4.)\n\n\n_MUHAMMAD ADMITS THE FACT OF THE CRUCIFIXION OF CHRIST_\n\n\nAnd God said, \"O Isa [Jesus], I will cause Thee to die, but I will take\nThee up to Myself and deliver Thee from unbelievers!\" (4.)\n\n\n_ONE GOD, NOT THREE GODS, ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURE_\n\n\nO ye who have received the Scriptures, do not believe more than these\nsacred writings teach! Jesus, Son of Mary, was God's Apostle, His Word,\na spirit proceeding from God. Do not say there are three gods--Allah,\nIsa, and Mary.[30] There is but one God, and He can have no son. (4.)\n\n\n_FORBIDDEN FOOD_\n\n\nYe are forbidden to eat that which dies of itself, blood, swine's flesh,\nand that on which the name of any other god than Allah has been\ninvoked;[31] that which has been strangled, or killed by a blow, or by a\nfall, or what has been gored to death, and whatever has been sacrificed\nto idols. (5.)\n\n\n_DIVINATION BY ARROWS CONDEMNED_\n\n\nIt is not allowed you to make division by casting lots with arrows.\n\n\n_DENIAL OF THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST AND THE TRINITY_\n\n\nThose are unbelievers who say that God is the Christ [lit., Messiah],\nSon of Mary. Nay, this Christ Himself said, \"O Israelites, worship God,\nMy Lord and yours!\" He who associates with God any companion His equal\nshall be excluded from Paradise, and have his place in Hell fire. (5.)\n\n\n_Jesus Denies that He and His Mother were Gods_\n\n\nAt the last day God will say unto Isa, \"O Isa, Son of Mary, didst Thou\nsay unto men, 'Take Me and My Mother for two Gods in addition to\nAllah'?\" And He shall answer, \"Praise be unto Thee. Thou knowest all\nthings, and Thou knowest that I commanded men to worship Allah alone.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\nCARDINAL NEWMAN\n\n\nAPOLOGIA PRO VIT\u00e2 SUA\n\n\n     That most remarkable ecclesiastic of the nineteenth century,\n     John Henry Newman, born in London on February 21, 1801, was of\n     Dutch extraction, but the name itself, at one time spelt\n     \"Newmann,\" suggests Hebrew origin. His mother came of a\n     Huguenot family, long established in England as engravers and\n     paper manufacturers. His early education he obtained at a\n     school at Ealing, where he distinguished himself by diligence\n     and good conduct, as also by a certain aloofness and shyness.\n     The only important incident Newman connects with this period\n     is his \"conversion,\" an incident more certain to him \"than\n     that he had hands and feet.\" In 1820 he graduated at Trinity\n     College, Oxford. The various phases of his religious career\n     are amply set forth in his famous \"Apologia pro Vit\u00e2 Sua\"\n     (\"Apology for His Life\"), afterwards called \"A History of my\n     Religious Opinions.\" The work was called out by an attack, in\n     January, 1864, by Charles Kingsley, in a review of Froude's\n     \"History of England.\" Kingsley wrote: \"Truth, for its own\n     sake, had never been a virtue with the Roman clergy. Father\n     Newman informs us that it need not, and, on the whole, ought\n     not to be.\" Challenged to withdraw or substantiate this\n     charge, Kingsley did neither, whereupon Newman, after much\n     correspondence, wrote his \"Apologia,\" which was published in\n     bi-monthly parts. Newman died on August 11, 1890.\n\n\n_I.--HISTORY OF MY RELIGIOUS OPINIONS TO 1833_\n\n\nI was brought up to delight in the Bible, but I had no formed religious\nconvictions till I was fifteen. Of course, \u00cf had a perfect knowledge of\nmy Catechism. But when I was fifteen I fell under the influence of a\ndefinite creed, and believed that the inward conversion of which I was\nconscious, and of which I am still more certain than that I have hands\nand feet, would last into the next life, and that I was elected to\neternal glory. This belief faded away at the age of twenty-one; but it\nhad had some influence on my opinions, in isolating me from the objects\nwhich surrounded me, in confirming my mistrust of the reality of\nmaterial phenomena, and in making me rest in the thought of two, and two\nonly, absolute and luminously self-evident beings, myself and my\nCreator. At the age of fifteen also I was deeply impressed by the works\nof Thomas Scott, by Law's \"Serious Call,\" by Joseph Milner's \"Church\nHistory,\" and by Newton, \"On the Prophecies.\" Newton's book stained my\nimagination, till 1843, with the doctrine that the Pope was Antichrist.\nAt this same time, the autumn of 1816, I realised that it would be the\nwill of God that I should lead a single life, and this anticipation\nstrengthened my feeling of separation from the visible world.\n\nIn 1822, at Oxford, I came under new influences. Dr. Hawkins, then vicar\nof St. Mary's, a man of most exact mind, led me to the doctrine of\ntradition, and taught me to anticipate that before many years there\nwould be an attack made upon the books and the canon of Scripture. He\ngave me Summer's \"Treatise on Apostolic Preaching,\" by which I was led\nto give up my remaining Calvinism, and to receive the doctrine of\nbaptismal regeneration. I now read Butler's \"Analogy,\" from which I\nlearned two principles which underlie much of my teaching: first, that\nthe idea of an analogy between the separate works of God leads to the\nconclusion that the less important system is sacramentally connected\nwith the more momentous system; and secondly, Butler's doctrine that\nprobability is the guide of life led me to the question of the logical\ncogency of faith.\n\nI owe much to Dr. Whately, who taught me the existence of the Church as\na substantive corporation, and fixed in me those anti-Erastian views of\nChurch polity which characterized the Tractarian movement. That\nmovement, unknown to ourselves, was taking form. Its true author, John\nKeble, had left Oxford for a country parish, but his \"Christian Year\"\nhad waked a new music in the hearts of thousands. His creative mind\nrepeated, in a new form, Butler's two principles: that material\nphenomena are the types and instruments of real things unseen; and that,\nin religious certitude, faith and love give to probability a force which\nit has not in itself.\n\nHurrell Froude, one of his pupils and a man of high genius, taught me to\nvenerate the Church of Rome and to dislike the Reformation. About 1830 I\nset to work on \"The Arians of the Fourth Century,\" and the broad\nphilosophy of Clement and Origen, based on the mystical or sacramental\nprinciple, came like music to my inward ear.\n\nGreat events were now happening at home and abroad. There had been a\nrevolution in France, and the reform agitation was going on around me as\nI wrote. The vital question was, how were we to keep the Church from\nbeing liberalised? I saw that reformation principles were powerless to\nrescue her. I ever kept before me that there was something greater than\nthe Establishd Church, and that was the Church Catholic and Apostolic,\nof which she was but the local presence and the organ. She was nothing,\nunless she was this. I was now disengaged from college duties; my health\nhad suffered from work; and in December, 1832, I joined Hurrell Froude\nand his father, who were going to the south of Europe. I went to various\ncoasts of the Mediterranean. I saw nothing but what was external; of the\nhidden life of Catholics I knew nothing. England was in my thoughts\nsolely, and the success of the liberal cause fretted me. The thought\ncame upon me that deliverance is wrought not by the many but by the few,\nnot by bodies but by persons.\n\nI began to think that I had a mission. I reached England on July 9, and\non July 14 Mr. Keble preached in the university pulpit on \"National\nApostasy.\" This day was the start of the religious movement of 1833.\n\n\n_II.--WITH THE TRACTARIANS_\n\n\nA movement had begun in opposition to the danger of liberalism which was\nthreatening the religion of the nation. Mr. Keble, Hurrell Froude, Mr.\nWilliam Palmer, Mr. Arthur Purceval, Mr. Hugh Rose, and other zealous,\nand able men had united their counsels. I had the exultation of health\nrestored, a joyous energy which I never had before or since. And I had a\nsupreme confidence in our cause; we were upholding that primitive\nChristianity which was delivered for all time by the early teachers of\nthe Church. Owing to this supreme confidence, my behaviour had a mixture\nin it both of fierceness, and of sport, and on this account it gave\noffence to many.\n\nThe three propositions about which I was so confident were as follow:\nFirst was the principle of dogma; my battle was with liberalism--and by\nliberalism I mean the anti-dogmatic principle and its developments. I\nhave changed in many things, but not in this; religion, as a mere\nsentiment, has been to me from childhood a dream and a mockery.\nSecondly, I was confident that there was a visible Church, with\nsacraments and rites which are the channels of invisible grace. Here,\nagain, I have not changed. But, thirdly, I held a view of the Church of\nRome which I have utterly renounced since.\n\nThe attack of liberalism upon the university and upon the old orthodoxy\nof England began in 1834. Thus, in a pamphlet by Dr. Hampden it was\nmaintained that religion is distinct from theological opinion, that it\nis but a common prejudice to identify theological propositions with the\nsimple religion of Christ; and so on. The tracts were widely read and\ndiscussed, but the counter-attack against liberalism was not a power\nuntil Dr. Pusey joined us. His great learning, his immense diligence,\nhis simple devotion to the cause of religion, no less than his great\ninfluence in the university, at once gave us a position and a name. He\ntaught us that there ought to be more sense of responsibility in the\ntracts and in the whole movement. Under his influence I wrote a work\ndefining our relation to the Church of Rome, namely, \"The Prophetical\nOffice of the Church viewed relatively to Romanism and to Popular\nProtestantism.\" The subject of this volume, published in 1837, is the\n\"Via Media.\" This was followed by my \"Essay on Justification,\" and other\nworks; and so I went on for years up to 1841. It was, in a human point\nof view, the happiest time of my life. We prospered and spread.\n\nBut the movement was to come into collision with the nation, and with\nthe Church of the nation. In 1838 my bishop made some light\nanimadversions on the tracts. But my tract on the Thirty-nine Articles,\ndesigned to show that the Articles do not oppose Catholic teaching, and\nbut partially oppose Roman dogma, while they do oppose the dominant\nerrors of Rome, brought down, in 1839, a storm of indignation throughout\nthe country. I saw that my place in the movement was lost.\n\n\n_III.--A THEOLOGICAL DEATH-BED_\n\n\nIn the long vacation of 1839 I began to study the history of the\nMonophysites, and was-absorbed in the doctrinal question. It was during\nthis course of reading that for the first time a doubt came upon me of\nthe tenableness of Anglicism, and by the end of August I was seriously\nalarmed. My stronghold was antiquity; yet here, in the fifth century, I\nfound Christendom of the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries reflected.\n\nThe drama of religion and the combat of truth and error were ever one\nand the same; the principles of the Roman Church now were those of the\nChurch then; the principles of heretics then were those of Protestants\nnow; there was an awful similitude. Be my soul with the saints! In the\nsame month the words of St. Augustine were pointed out to me, _\"Securus\njudicat orbis terrarum\";_ they struck me with a power which I had never\nfelt from any words before; the theory of the \"Via Media\" was absolutely\npulverised.\n\nIn the summer of 1841, in retirement at Littlemore, I received three\nblows which broke me. First, in the history of the Arians I found the\nsame phenomena which I had found in the Monophysites: the pure Arians\nwere the Protestants, the semi-Arians were the Anglicans, and Rome now\nwas what it was then. Secondly, the bishops, one after another, began to\ncharge against me in a formal, determinate movement. Third, it was\nproposed by Anglican authorities to establish an Anglican bishopric in\nJerusalem--a step which amounted to a formal denial that the Anglican\nChurch was a branch of the Catholic Church, and to a formal assertion\nthat the Anglican was a Protestant Church. The Jerusalem bishopric\nbrought me to the beginning of the end.\n\nFrom the end of 1841 I was on my death-bed, as regards my membership of\nthe Anglican Church, though at the time I became aware of it only by\ndegrees. A death-bed has scarcely a history; it is a tedious decline,\nwith seasons of rallying and seasons of falling back. My position at\nfirst was this: I had given up my place in the movement in the spring of\n1841, but I could not give up my duties towards the many and various\nminds who had been brought into it by me; I expected gradually to fall\nback into lay communion; I never contemplated leaving the Church of\nEngland; I could not hold office in its service if I were not allowed to\nhold the Catholic sense of the Articles; I could not go to Rome while\nshe suffered honours to be paid to the Blessed Virgin and the saints\nwhich I thought in my conscience to be incompatible with the supreme\nglory of the One, Infinite and Eternal; I desired a union with Rome\nunder conditions, Church with Church; I called Littlemore my Torres\nVedras, and thought that some day we might advance again within the\nAnglican Church; I kept back all persons who were disposed to go to Rome\nwith all my might.\n\nThe \"Via Media\" was now an impossible idea; I abandoned that old ground,\nand took another. I said, \"Much as Roman Catholics may denounce us at\npresent as schismatical, they could not resist us if the Anglican\ncommunion had but that one note of the Church upon it--sanctity.\" I was\npleased with my new view, but my friends were naturally offended at a\nnovel line of argument which substituted a sort of methodistic\nself-contemplation for the plain and honest tokens of a divine mission\nin the Anglican Church.\n\nIn spite of my ingrained fears of Rome, in spite of my affection for\nOxford and Oriel, yet I had a secret longing love of Rome, the Mother of\nEnglish Christianity. It was the consciousness of this bias in myself\nwhich made me preach so earnestly against the danger of being swayed in\nreligious inquiry by our sympathy rather than by our reason. I was in\ngreat perplexity, and hardly knew where I stood; I incurred the charge\nof weakness from some men, and of mysteriousness and underhand dealing\nfrom the majority. But I have never had any suspicion of my own honesty.\n\nIn July, 1844, I wrote to a friend: \"I am far more certain, according to\nthe fathers, that we _are_ in a state of culpable separation than that\ndevelopments do _not_ exist under the Gospel, and that the Roman\ndevelopments are not the true ones.\" I then saw that the principle of\ndevelopment was discernible from the first years of the Catholic\nteaching up to the present day. I came to the conclusion that there was\nno medium, in true philosophy, between atheism and Catholicity, and that\na perfectly consistent mind must embrace either the one or the other. I\nsaw that no valid reasons could be assigned for continuing in the\nAnglican Church, and that no Valid objections could be taken to joining\nthe Roman.\n\nIn February, 1843, I had made a formal retraction of all the hard things\nwhich I had said against the Church of Rome, and in September I had\nresigned the living of St. Mary's, Littlemore included. I began my\n\"Essay on the Development of Doctrine\" in the beginning of 1845, and was\nhard at it till October. Before I got to the end, I resolved to be\nreceived into the Catholic Church. Father Dominic came to Littlemore on\nOctober 8, and did for me this charitable service. I left Oxford for\ngood on February 23, 1846.\n\n\n_IV.--THE FAITH OF A CATHOLIC_\n\n\nFrom the time that I became a Catholic of course I have no further\nhistory of my religious opinions to narrate. I do not mean that I have\ngiven up thinking on theological subjects, but that I have had no\nvariations to record, and have had no anxiety of heart whatever. I have\nbeen in perfect peace; I never have had one doubt.\n\nNor had I any trouble about receiving those additional articles which\nare not found in the Anglican creed. I am far from denying that every\narticle of the Christian creed is beset with difficulties, and it is\nsimple fact that I cannot answer those difficulties. But ten thousand\ndifficulties do not make one doubt. Of all points of faith, the being of\na God is encompassed with most difficulty, and yet borne in upon our\nminds with most power.\n\nStarting, then, with the being of a God, which is as certain to me as my\nown existence, I look out of myself into the world of men, and there I\nsee a sight which fills me with unspeakable distress. The world seems\nsimply to give the lie to that great truth, of which my whole being is\nso full; I look into this living, busy world, and see no reflection of\nits Creator. To consider the world in its length and breadth, its\nvarious history; the progress of things, as if from unreasoning\nelements, not towards final causes; the greatness and littleness of man,\nhis far-reaching aims, his short duration, the curtain hung over his\nfuturity, the defeat of good, the prevalence and intensity of sin, the\ndreary, hopeless irreligion--all this is a vision to dizzy and appal,\nand inflicts upon the mind the sense of a profound mystery which is\nabsolutely beyond human solution. What shall be said to this\nheart-piercing, reason-bewildering fact? I can only answer, that either\nthere is no Creator, or this living society of men is in a true sense\ndiscarded from His presence.\n\nAnd now, supposing it were the blessed will of the Creator to interfere\nin this anarchical condition of things, what would be the methods which\nmight be necessarily or naturally involved in His purpose of mercy? What\nmust be the face-to-face antagonist, by which to withstand and baffle\nthe fierce energy and passion and the all-corroding, all-dissolving\nscepticism of the intellect in religious inquiries? There is nothing to\nsurprise the mind, if He should think fit to introduce a power into the\nworld, invested with the prerogative of infallibility in religious\nmatters. Such a provision would be a direct, immediate, active, and\nprompt means of withstanding the difficulty; and when I find that this\nis the very claim of the Catholic Church, not only do I feel no\ndifficulty in admitting the idea, but there is a fitness in it which\nrecommends it to my mind.\n\nI am defending myself from the charge that I, as a Catholic, not only\nmake profession to hold doctrines which I cannot possibly believe in my\nheart, but that I also believe in a power on earth, which at its own\nwill imposes upon men any new set of _credenda_, when it pleases, by a\nclaim to infallibility; and that the necessary effect of such a\ncondition of mind must be a degrading bondage, or a bitter inward\nrebellion relieving itself in secret infidelity, or the necessity of\nignoring the whole subject of religion in a sort of disgust, and of\nmechanically saying everything that the Church says. But this is far\nfrom the result; it is far from borne out by the history of the conflict\nbetween infallibility and reason in the past, and the prospect in the\nfuture.\n\nThe energy of the human intellect thrives and is joyous, with a tough,\nelastic strength, under the terrible blows of the divinely fashioned\nweapon. Protestant writers consider that they have all the private\njudgment to themselves, and that we have the superincumbent oppression\nof authority. But this is not so; it is the vast Catholic body itself,\nand it only, which affords an arena for both combatants in that awful,\nnever-dying duel. St. Paul says that his apostolical power is given him\nto edification, and not to destruction. There can be no better account\nof the infallibility of the Church. Its object is, and its effect also,\nnot to enfeeble the freedom or vigour of human thought in religious\nspeculation, but resist and control its extravagance.\n\nI will go on in fairness to say what I think _is_ the great trial to the\nreason when confronted with that august prerogative of the Catholic\nChurch. The Church claims, not only to judge infallibly on religious\nquestions, but to animadvert on opinions in secular matters which bear\nupon religion, on matters of philosophy, of science, of literature, of\nhistory, and it demands our submission to her claim. In this province,\ntaken as a whole, it does not so much speak doctrinally, as enforce\nmeasures of discipline.\n\nI will go on to say further, that, in spite of all the most hostile\ncritics may urge about these verities of high ecclesiastics in time\npast, in the use of their power, I think that the event has shown, after\nall, that they were mainly in the right, and that those whom they were\nhard upon were mainly in the wrong. There is a time for everything, and\nmany a man desires a reformation of an abuse, or the fuller development\nof a doctrine, or the adoption of a particular policy, but forgets to\nask himself whether the right time for it is come.\n\nThere is only one other subject which I think it necessary to introduce\nhere, as bearing upon the vague suspicions which are attached in this\ncountry to the Catholic priesthood. It is one of which my accusers have\nbefore now said much--the charge of reserve and economy. I come to the\ndirect question of truth, and of the truthfulness of Catholic priests\ngenerally in their dealings with the world, as bearing on the general\nquestion of their honesty, and of their internal belief in their\nreligious professions. First, I will say that when I became a Catholic,\nnothing struck me more at once than the English outspoken manner of the\npriests. There was nothing of that smoothness or mannerism which is\ncommonly imputed to them. Next, I was struck, when I had more\nopportunity of judging of the priests, by the simple faith in the\nCatholic creed and system, of which they always give evidence, and which\nthey never seemed to feel in any sense at all to be a burden.\n\nVague charges against us are drawn from our books of moral theology. St.\nAlfonso Liguori, for instance, lays down that an equivocation is\nallowable in an extraordinary case. I avow at once that in this\ndepartment of morality, I like the English rule of conduct better. Yet,\ngreat English authors, Jeremy Taylor, Milton, Paley, Johnson, distinctly\nsay that under extraordinary circumstances it is allowable to tell a\nlie. Would anyone give ever so little weight to these statements, in\nforming an estimate of the veracity of the writers? And, in fact, it is\nnotorious from St. Alfonso's life that he had one of the most scrupulous\nand anxious of consciences; and, further, he was originally in the law,\nand was betrayed on one occasion by accident into what seemed like a\ndeceit, and this was the very occasion of his leaving the profession.\n\nIf Protestants wish to know what our real teaching is, let them look at\nthe Catechism of the Council of Trent. Let me appeal also to the life of\nSt. Philip Neri, founder of the Oratory: \"As for liars, he could not\nendure them, and he was continually reminding his spiritual children to\navoid them as they would a pestilence.\"\n\nThese are the principles on which I have acted before I was a Catholic,\nthese are the principles which, I trust, will be my stay and guidance to\nthe end.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\nTHOMAS PAINE\n\n\nTHE AGE OF REASON\n\n\n     In 1774, Thomas Paine, thirty-seven years of age, landed\n     unknown and penniless in the American colonies. Born at\n     Thetford, Norfolk, England, Jan. 29, 1737, of poor Quaker\n     parents, he had tried many occupations, and had succeeded in\n     none. Within two years he had become an intellectual leader of\n     the American Revolution. Beginning his literary career with an\n     attack on slavery, he continued it in 1776 by publishing his\n     pamphlet \"Common Sense,\" which gave an electric inspiration to\n     the cause of separation and republicanism among the colonists.\n     After serving the new commonwealth in office and with his pen,\n     he went to France on an official mission in 1781; then\n     returned to his native England, intent on furthering his\n     views. In 1793 Paine wrote the first part of \"The Age of\n     Reason,\" which aroused a storm of indignation, but undaunted,\n     he added a second and a third part to the work, consisting\n     mostly of amplifications of some of the contentions advanced\n     in the first part, in the writing of which Paine had no Bible\n     to consult. The book, the first part of which was published in\n     1794, the second part in 1795, and the third in 1801, is an\n     exposition of Deism on a purely scientific basis; the visible\n     creation was everything to Paine in his reasonings, the\n     religious hopes, fears and aspirations of men were nothing at\n     all--this universal human phenomenon was curtly dismissed by\n     him as a universal human delusion. Many of his comments on the\n     Bible were rather crude anticipations of the modern Higher\n     Criticism. But in dealing with the Bible, Paine showed the\n     animus of a prosecuting counsel rather than the impartiality\n     of a judge. His stormy life ended on July 8, 1809. (See also\n     ECONOMICS, Vol. XIV.)\n\n\n_I.--REVEALED RELIGION_\n\n\nIt has been my intention, for several years past, to publish my thoughts\nupon religion. As several of my colleagues, and others of my fellow\ncitizens of France, have given me the example of making their voluntary\nand individual profession of faith, I also will make mine; and I do this\nwith all that sincerity and frankness with which the mind of man\ncommunicates with itself.\n\nI believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this\nlife.\n\nI believe in the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties\nconsist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavouring to make our\nfellow-creatures happy.\n\nI do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the\nRoman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the\nProtestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my\nown church.\n\nAll national institutions of churches appear to me no other than human\ninventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolise power\nand profit.\n\nEach of those churches show certain books which they call \"revelation,\"\nor the word of God. The Jews say that the word of God was given by God\nto Moses face to face; the Christians say that their word of God came by\ndivine inspiration; and the Turks say their word of God (the Koran) was\nbrought by an angel from heaven. Each of these churches accuses the\nother of unbelief; and, for my own part, I disbelieve them all.\n\nAs it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I\nproceed further into the subject, offer some observations on the word\nrevelation. Revelation, when applied to religion, means something\ncommunicated immediately from God to man.\n\nNo one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a\ncommunication if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that\nsomething has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any\nother person, it is revelation to that person only.\n\nWhen he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a\nfourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It\nis a revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other;\nconsequently they are not obliged to believe it, for they have only the\nword of the first person that it was made to him.\n\nThe world has been amused with the terms \"revealed religion,\" and the\ngenerality of priests apply this term to the books called the Old and\nNew Testament. There is no man that believes in revealed religion\nstronger than I do; but it is not the reveries of the Old and New\nTestament that I dignify with that sacred title. That which is a\nrevelation to me exists in something which no human mind can invent, no\nhuman hand can counterfeit or alter.\n\nThe word of God is the Creation we behold; and this word of God\nrevealeth to man all that is necessary for him to know of his Creator.\n\nDo we want to contemplate his power? We see it in the immensity of his\ncreation.\n\nDo we want to contemplate his wisdom? We see it in the unchangeable\norder by which the incomprehensible whole is governed.\n\nDo we want to contemplate his munificence? We see it in the abundance\nwith which he fills the earth.\n\nDo we want to contemplate his mercy? We see it in his not withholding\nthat abundance even from the unthankful.\n\nDo we want to contemplate his will, so far as it respects man? The\ngoodness he shows to all is a lesson for our conduct to each other.\n\nIn fine, do we want to know what God is? Search not the book called the\nScripture, which any human hand might make, but the Scripture called the\nCreation.\n\n\n_II.--THEOLOGY AND RELIGION_\n\n\nAs to the Christian system of faith, it appears to me as a compound made\nup chiefly of manism with but little Deism, and is near to Atheism as\ntwilight is to darkness.\n\nThat which is now called natural philosophy, embracing the whole circle\nof science, of which astronomy occupies the chief place, is the study of\nthe works of God, and of the power and wisdom of God in his works, and\nis the true theology.\n\nAs to the theology that is now studied in its place, it is the study of\nhuman opinions and of human fancies concerning God. It is not the study\nof God Himself in the works that He has made, but in the works or\nwritings that man has made; and it is not among the least of the\nmischiefs that the Christian system has done to the world that it has\nabandoned the original and beautiful system of theology, like a\nbeautiful innocent, to distress and reproach, to make room for the bag\nof superstition.\n\nIt is an inconsistency, scarcely possible to be credited, that anything\nshould exist under the name of a religion that held it to be irreligious\nto study and contemplate the structure of the universe that God had\nmade. But the fact is too well established to be denied. The event that\nserved more than any other to break the first link in the long chain of\ndespotic ignorance is that known by the name of the Reformation by\nLuther. From that time, though it does not appear to have made part of\nthe intention of Luther, or of these who are called Reformers, the\nsciences began to revive, and liberality, their natural associate, began\nto appear. This was the only public good the Reformation did; for with\nrespect to religious good it might as well not have taken place. The\nmythology still continued the same; and the multiplicity of national\npopes grew out of the downfall of the Pope of Christendom.\n\nThe prejudice of unfounded belief often degenerates into the prejudice\nof custom, and becomes at last rank hypocrisy. When men from custom or\nfashion, or any worldly motive profess or pretend to believe what they\ndo not believe, nor can give any reason for believing, they unship the\nhelm of their morality, and, being no longer honest in their own minds,\nthey feel no moral difficulty in being unjust to others. It is from the\ninfluence of this vice, hypocrisy, that we see so many church and\nmeeting-going professors and pretenders to religion so full of tricks\nand deceit in their dealings, and so loose in the performance of their\nengagements that they are not to be trusted further than the laws of the\ncountry will bind them. Morality has no hold on their minds, no\nrestraint on their actions.\n\nOne set of preachers make salvation to consist in believing. They tell\ntheir congregations that if they believe in Christ their sins shall be\nforgiven. This, in the first place, is an encouragement to sin; in the\nnext place, the doctrine these men preach cannot be true.\n\nAnother set of preachers tell their congregations that God predestined\nand selected from all eternity a certain number to be saved, and a\ncertain number to be damned eternally. If this were true, the day of\njudgment is past; their preaching is in vain, and they had better work\nat some useful calling for their livelihood.\n\nNothing that is here said can apply, even with the most distant\ndisrespect, to the real character of Jesus Christ. He was a virtuous and\nan amiable man. The morality that he preached and practised was of the\nmost benevolent kind, and, though similar systems of morality had been\npreached by Confucius and by some of the Greek philosophers many years\nbefore, by the Quakers since, and by many good men in all ages, it has\nnot been exceeded by any.\n\n\n_III.--THE BIBLE_\n\n\nIf we permit ourselves to conceive right ideas of things, we must\nnecessarily affix the idea, not only of unchangeableness, but of the\nutter impossibility of any change taking place, by any means or accident\nwhatever, in that which we would honour with the name of God; and\ntherefore the word of God cannot exist in any written or human language.\n\nThe continually progressive change to which the meaning of words is\nsubject, the want of an universal language which renders translation\nnecessary, the errors to which translations are again subject, the\nmistakes of copyists and printers, together with the possibility of\nwilful alteration, are of themselves evidences that human language,\nwhether in speech or in print, cannot be the vehicle of the word of God.\nThe word of God exists in something else.\n\nIt has been the practice of all Christian commentators on the Bible, and\nof all Christian priests and preachers, to impose the Bible on the world\nas a mass of truth, and as the word of God; they have disputed and\nwrangled, and have anathematised each other about the supposable meaning\nof particular parts and passages therein; one has said and insisted that\nsuch a passage meant such a thing; another, that it meant directly the\ncontrary; and a third, that it meant neither the one nor the other, but\nsomething different from both; and this they have called understanding\nthe Bible.\n\nNow, instead of wasting their time, and heating themselves in fractious\ndisputations about doctrinal points drawn from the Bible, these men\nought to know, and if they do not it is civility to inform them, that\nthe first thing to be understood is, whether there is sufficient\nauthority for believing the Bible to be the word of God, or whether\nthere is not.\n\nI therefore pass on to an examination of the Books called the Old and\nthe New Testament. The case historically appears to be as follows:\n\nWhen the Church mythologists established their system, they collected\nall the writings they could find and managed them as they pleased. It is\na matter altogether of uncertainty to us whether such of the writings as\nnow appear under the name of the Old and the New Testament are in the\nsame state in which these collectors say they found them; or whether\nthey added, altered, abridged, or dressed them up.\n\nBe this as it may, they decided by _vote_ which of the books out of the\ncollection they had made should be the word of God, and which should\nnot. They rejected several; they voted others to be doubtful, such as\nthe books called the Apocrypha; and those books which had a majority of\nvotes they voted to be the word of God. Had they voted otherwise, all\nthe people since calling themselves Christians, had believed otherwise;\nfor the belief of the one comes from the vote of the other. Who the\npeople were that did all this we know nothing of; they call themselves\nby the general name of the Church; and this is all we know of the\nmatter.\n\nThere are matters in the Bible, said to be done by the express command\nof God, that are as shocking to humanity and to every idea we have of\nmoral justice as anything done by Robespierre, by Carrier, by Joseph le\nBen, in France; by the English Government in the East Indies; or by any\nother assassin in modern times. Are we sure that the Creator of man\ncommissioned these things to be done? Are we sure that the books that\ntell us so were written by His authority? To read the Bible without\nhorror, we must undo everything that is tender, sympathising, and\nbenevolent in the heart of man. Speaking for myself, if I had no other\nevidence that the Bible is fabulous than the sacrifice I must make to\nbelieve it to be true, that alone would be sufficient to determine my\nchoice.\n\nBut it can be shown by internal evidence that the Bible is not entitled\nto credit as the word of God. It can readily be proved that the first\nfive books of the Bible, attributed to Moses, were not written by him\nnor in his time, but several hundred years afterwards. Moses could not\nhave described his own death, nor mentioned that he was buried in a\nvalley in the land of Moab. Similarly, the book of Joshua was not\nwritten by Joshua; it is manifest that Joshua could not write that\nIsrael served the Lord not only in his days, but in the days of the\nelders that over-lived him. The book of Judges is anonymous on the face\nof it. The books of Samuel were not written by Samuel, for they relate\nmany things that did not happen till after his death.\n\nThe history in the two books of Kings, which is little more than a\nhistory of assassinations, treachery, and war, sometimes contradicts\nitself; and several of the most extraordinary matters related in Kings\nare not mentioned in the companion books of Chronicles. The book of Job\nhas no internal evidence of being a Hebrew book; it appears to have been\ntranslated from another language into Hebrew; and it is the only book in\nthe Bible that can be read without indignation or disgust. It is an\nerror to call the Psalms the Psalms of David because historical evidence\nshows that some of them were not written until long after the time of\nDavid. The books of the prophets are wild, disorderly, and obscure\ncompositions, the so-called prophecies in which do not refer to Jesus\nChrist, but to circumstances the Jewish nation was in at the time they\nwere written or spoken.\n\nI now go on to the book called the New Testament. Had it been the object\nof Jesus Christ to establish a new religion, he would undoubtedly have\nwritten the system himself, or procured it to be written in His\nlifetime. But there is no publication extant authenticated with his\nname. All the books called the New Testament were written after his\ndeath. He was a Jew by birth and profession, and he was the Son of God\nin like manner that every other person is; for the Creator is the Father\nof All.\n\nThe first four books--Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John--are altogether\nanecdotal. They relate events after they had taken place. They tell what\nJesus Christ did and said, and what others did and said to him; and in\nseveral instances they relate the same event differently. Revelation,\ntherefore, is out of the question with respect to these books. The\npresumption, moreover, is that they are written by other persons than\nthese whose name they bear.\n\nThe book of Acts of the Apostles belongs also to the anecdotal part. All\nthe rest of the New Testament, except the book of enigmas called the\nRevelation, are a collection of letters under the name of epistles, and\nthe forgery of letters under the name of epistles. One thing, however,\nis certain, which is that out of the matters contained in these books,\ntogether with the assistance of some old stories, the Church has set up\na system of religion very contradictory to the character of the person\nwhose name it bears. It has set up a religion of pomp and reverence in\npretended imitation of a person whose life was humility and poverty.\n\n\n_IV.--MYSTERY, MIRACLE, AND PROPHECY_\n\n\nI proceed to speak of the three principal means that have been employed\nin all ages and perhaps in all countries to impose upon mankind.\n\nThese three means are mystery, miracle, and prophecy. The two first are\nincompatible with true religion, and the third ought always to be\nsuspected. With respect to mystery, everything we behold is, in one\nsense, a mystery to us. Our own existence is a mystery, the whole\nvegetable world is a mystery. We know not how it is that the seed we sow\nunfolds and multiplies itself.\n\nThe fact, however, as distinct from the operating cause, is not a\nmystery, because we see it; and we know also the means we are to use,\nwhich is no other than putting the seed in the ground. We know,\ntherefore, as much as is necessary for us to know; and that part of the\noperation that we do not know, and which if we did we could not perform,\nthe Creator takes upon Himself and performs it for us.\n\nBut though every created thing is in this sense a mystery, the word\nmystery cannot be applied to moral truth, any more than obscurity can be\napplied to light. The God in whom we believe is a God of moral truth,\nand not of mystery. Mystery is the antagonist of truth. It is a fog of\nhuman invention that obscures truth, and represents it in distortion.\n\nReligion, therefore, being the belief of a God, and the practice of\nmoral truth, cannot have connection with mystery. The belief of a God,\nso far from having anything of mystery in it, is of all beliefs the most\neasy, becauses it arises to us out of necessity. And the practice of\nmoral truth, or, in other words, a practical imitation of the goodness\nof God, is no other than our acting towards each other as he acts\nbenignly towards all.\n\nWhen men, whether from policy or pious fraud, set up systems of religion\nincompatible with the word or works of God in the creation, they were\nunder the necessity of inventing or adopting a word that should serve as\na bar to all inquiries and speculations. The word \"mystery\" answered\nthis purpose, and thus it has happened that religion, which in itself is\nwithout mystery, has been corrupted into a fog of mysteries.\n\nAs mystery answered all general purposes, \"miracle\" followed as an\noccasional auxiliary. Of all the modes of evidence that ever were\ninvented to obtain belief to any system or opinion to which the name of\nreligion has been given, that of miracle is the most inconsistent. For,\nin the first place, whenever recourse is had to show, for the purpose of\nprocuring that belief, it implies a lameness or weakness in the doctrine\nthat is preached. And, in the second place, it is degrading the Almighty\ninto the character of a showman, playing tricks to amuse and make the\npeople stare and wonder. It is also the most equivocal sort of evidence\nthat can be set up; for the belief is not to depend upon the thing\ncalled a miracle, but upon the credit of the reporter who says that he\nsaw it; and therefore the thing, were it true, would have no better\nchance of being believed than if it were a lie.\n\nAs mystery and miracle took charge of the past and the present, prophecy\ntook charge of the future, and rounded the tenses of faith. The original\nmeaning of the words \"prophet\" and \"prophesying\" has been changed, the\nOld Testament prophets were simply poets and musicians. It is owing to\nthis change in the meaning of the words that the flights and metaphors\nof the Jewish poets, and phrases and expressions now rendered obscure by\nour not being acquainted with the local circumstances to which they\napplied at the time they were used, have been erected into prophecies,\nand made to bend explanations at the will and whimsical conceits of\nsectaries, expounders, and commentators. Everything unintelligible was\nprophetical.\n\n\n_V.--DEISM_\n\n\nFom the time I was capable of conceiving an idea, and acting upon it by\nreflection, I either doubted the truth of the Christian system or\nthought it to be a strange affair. It seems as if parents of the\nChristian profession were ashamed to tell their children anything about\nthe principles of their religion. They sometimes instruct them in\nmorals, and talk to them of the goodness of what they call Providence.\nBut the Christian story of what they call God the Father putting his son\nto death, or employing people to do it--for that is the plain language\nof the story--cannot be told by a parent to a child; and to tell him it\nwas done to make mankind happier and better is making the story still\nworse; and to tell him that all this is a mystery is only making an\nexcuse for the incredibility of it.\n\nHow different is this from the pure and simple profession of deism! The\ntrue deist has but one Deity, and his religion consists in contemplating\nthe power, wisdom, and benignity of the Deity in his works, and in\nendeavouring to imitate him in everything moral, scientific, and\nmechanical.\n\nThe religion that approaches the nearest of all others to true deism, in\nthe moral and benign part thereof, is that professed by the Quakers; but\nthey have contracted themselves too much by leaving the works of God out\nof their system. Though I reverence their philanthropy, I cannot help\nsmiling at the conceit, that if the taste of the Quaker could have been\nconsulted at the creation what a silent and drab-coloured creation it\nwould have been! Not a flower would have blossomed its gaieties, not a\nbird been permitted to sing.\n\nQuitting these reflections, I proceed to other matters. Our ideas, not\nonly of the almightiness of the Creator, but of His wisdom and His\nbeneficence, become enlarged as we contemplate the extent and structure\nof the universe. The solitary idea of a solitary world rolling or at\nrest in the immense ocean of space gives place to the cheerful idea of a\nsociety of worlds, so happily contrived as to administer, even by their\nmotion, instruction to man. We see our own earth filled with abundance,\nbut we forget to consider how much of that abundance is owing to the\nscientific knowledge the vast machinery of the universe has unfolded.\n\nBut what are we to think of the Christian system of faith that forms\nitself upon the idea of only one world? Alas! what is this to the mighty\nocean of space and the almighty power of the Creator? From whence, then,\ncould arise the solitary and strange conceit that the Almighty, who had\nmillions of worlds equally dependent on His protection, should quit the\ncare of all the rest and come to die in our world, because they say one\nman and one woman had eaten an apple?\n\nIt has been by rejecting the evidence that the word or works of God in\nthe creation affords to our senses, and the action of our reason upon\nthat evidence, that so many wild and whimsical systems of faith, and of\nreligion, have been fabricated and set up. There may be many systems of\nreligion that so far from being morally bad are in many respects morally\ngood; but there can be but one that is true, and that one necessarily\nmust, as it ever will, be in all things consistent with the\never-existing word of God that we behold in His works.\n\nI shall close by giving a summary of the deistic belief:\n\nFirst, that the creation we behold is the real word of God, in which we\ncannot be deceived. It proclaims His power, it demonstrates His wisdom,\nit manifests His goodness and beneficence.\n\nSecondly, that the moral duty of man consists in imitating the moral\ngoodness and beneficence of God manifested in the creation towards all\nHis creatures. That seeing, as we daily do, the goodness of God to all\nmen, it is an example calling upon all men to practise the same towards\neach other, and consequently that everything of persecution and revenge\nbetween man and man, and everything of cruelty to animals, is a\nviolation of moral duty.\n\nIt is certain that, in one point, all nations of the earth and all\nreligions agree. All believe in a God. The things in which they disagree\nare the redundancies annexed to that belief; and, therefore, if ever an\nuniversal religion should prevail, it will not be in believing anything\nnew, but in getting rid of redundancies, and believing as man believed\nat first. But in the meantime let every man follow, as he has a right to\ndo, the religion and the worship he prefers.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\nBLAISE PASCAL\n\n\nLETTERS TO A PROVINCIAL\n\n\n     Blaise Pascal, mathematician, theologian, and one of the\n     greatest writers of French prose, was born on June 19, 1623,\n     at Clermont-Ferrand, and died on August 19, 1662. His mother\n     died in his fourth year, and the father, an eminent lawyer,\n     took the boy with his two sisters to Paris. Pascal showed the\n     most astonishing mathematical genius; he produced at the age\n     of seventeen a profound work on conic sections, and devoted\n     the following years to physical researches and to\n     investigations in the higher mathematics. In 1654, Pascal,\n     having experienced a remarkable vision, which he recorded on a\n     parchment known as his \"amulet,\" renounced the world and\n     entered on the ascetic life, in close relations with the\n     Jansenist community. Hence, in the interests of Arnauld, the\n     Jansenist leader, Pascal issued the famous \"Letters Written to\n     a Provincial\" (\"Lettres \u00c9crites par Louis de Montalte \u00e0 un\n     Provincial de ses Amis\"), a series of eighteen tracts directed\n     with the keenest and bitterest irony against the casuistry of\n     the Jesuits. The \"Letters\" appeared during a period of\n     fourteen months, the first being dated January 23, 1656, and\n     the last March 24, 1657. They took the form of little\n     pamphlets, each of eight or twelve quarto pages; they had a\n     very large circulation, and created an immense impression\n     throughout Catholic countries. They are open letters, intended\n     really for the public and not for any individual.\n\n\n_I.--LAX CASUISTS_\n\n\nSIR,--I send you, as I promised, the chief outlines of the moral\nteaching of these good Jesuit fathers, these \"men so eminent in doctrine\nand in wisdom, who are led by that divine wisdom which is more\ntrustworthy than all philosophy.\" Possibly you think that I speak in\njest. I speak seriously, or, rather, it is they who have spoken thus of\nthemselves. I only copy their words where they write, \"It is a society\nof men, or, rather, of angels, foretold by the prophet Isaiah.\" They\nclaim to have changed the face of Christianity. We must believe it,\nsince they have told us so; and, indeed, you will see how far they have\ndone so, when you have mastered their maxims.\n\nI took care to be instructed by themselves and trusted to nothing which\nmy friend had told me. I had been told such strange things that I could\nhardly believe them, until I was shown them in their own books; and then\nI could say nothing in their defence, except that these must be the\nprinciples of certain isolated Jesuits, and not those of the whole\nsociety. Indeed, I was able to say that I knew Jesuits who were as\nsevere as these were lax.\n\nIt was on that occasion that the spirit of the society was explained to\nme, for it is not by any means known to every one. I was told as\nfollows:\n\n\"You imagine that you are speaking in their favour when you say that\nthere are among them fathers who are as obedient to the principles of\nthe Gospel as others are distant from those principles, and you conclude\ntherefore that these loose opinions do not characterise the whole\nsociety. That is true. But since the society admits of so licentious a\ndoctrine within it, you must conclude that its spirit is not one of\nChristian severity.\"\n\n\"But what then,\" said I, \"is the purpose of the whole institution? Is it\nthat everyone should be free to say whatever he may happen to think?\"\n\n\"That is not so,\" was the reply. \"So great a society could not exist\nwithout discipline, and without one spirit governing and ruling all its\nmovements.\"\n\nThe objects of the Jesuits is not to corrupt morals, but, on the other\nhand, they have not in view as their single object the reformation of\nmorals, because they would find this a political disadvantage. Their\nprinciple is this: they have so high an opinion of themselves as to\nbelieve that it is advantageous, and even necessary, to the good of\nreligion that their credit should extend everywhere and that they should\ngovern all consciences. And as the severe maxims of the Gospel are\nsuitable for governing certain temperaments, they make use of these\nwhenever they serve their purpose. But since these same maxims do not at\nall suit the wishes of the generality of mankind, they usually put them\naside so as to be able to please everyone.\n\nTherefore, having to do with people of all sorts and conditions, and of\ndiverse nationalities, they need casuists suited to all this diversity.\nFrom this principle you will easily see that if they had none but lax\ncasuists they would defeat their chief purpose, which is to include the\nwhole world. Truly pious people seek a more severe direction, but as\nthere are not many who are truly pious the Jesuits do not need many\nstrict directors to guide them. They have a few for the few who need\nthem. On the other hand, the vast number of their lax casuists are at\nthe service of the innumerable multitude who seek the broad and easy\nway.\n\nIt is by this obliging and accommodating conduct that they open their\narms to all the world. Thus, if someone comes to them already determined\nto make restitution of goods which he has wrongly acquired, you need not\nfear that they will dissuade him. On the contrary, they will praise and\nconfirm his holy resolution. But if another should come wishing to have\nabsolution without making restitution, their position would be a\ndifficult one, if they had not the means of giving him his desire. It is\nthus that they keep all their friends and defend themselves against\ntheir enemies. And if anyone accuses them of extreme laxity, they\nimmediately bring forward their most austere directors, and certain\nbooks which they have written on the severity of the Christian law; and\nsimple and uninquiring people are contented with these proofs.\n\nThey have proofs for all sorts of people, and make such ingenious\nreplies to every question that when they find themselves in countries\nwhere a crucified God seems like madness, they suppress the scandal of\nthe Cross and preach only Christ in glory. This they have done in India\nand China, where they even condone idolatry by a subtle device; they\nallow their people to carry with them hidden images of Christ, to which\nthey should address the public worship ostensibly paid to their idols.\nThis conduct led to their being forbidden under pain of excommunication\nto permit the adoration of idols, under any pretext, or to hide the\nmystery of the Cross from those whom they instruct in religion, and they\nhave been forbidden to receive anyone in baptism until he has this\nknowledge, and are enjoined to erect in their churches the image of the\ncrucifix.\n\nThus they have spread over the whole earth in the strength of their\ndoctrine of \"probable opinions,\" which is the fount and origin of all\nthese irregularities. You may learn of this from themselves, for they\ntake no pains to hide it, except that they cover their human and\npolitical prudence with the pretence of a divine and Christian prudence.\nThey act as if the faith and the tradition which maintains it were not\nfor ever invariable at all times and in all places, and as if nothing\nmore were required, in order to remove the stains of guilt, than to\ncorrupt the law of the Lord, instead of regarding that stainless and\nholy law as itself the instrument of conversion, and conforming human\nsouls to its salutary precepts.\n\n\n_II.--THE DOCTRINE OF INTENTION_\n\n\nSir,--I must now let you know what the good Jesuit father told me about\nthe maxims of their casuists, with regard to the \"point of honour\" among\ngentlemen. \"You know,\" said he, \"that this point of honour is the\ndominating passion of men in that rank of life, and is constantly\nleading them into acts of violence which appear quite contrary to\nChristian piety. Indeed, we should have to exclude all of them from our\nconfessionals, if our fathers had not in some degree relaxed the\nseverity of religion and accommodated it to the weakness of men. But\nsince they wished to remain attached to the Gospel by their duty towards\nGod, and to men of the world by their charity towards their neighbour,\nthey had to seek expedients by which they might make it possible for a\nman to maintain his honour in the ordinary way of the world without\nwounding his conscience. They had to preserve, at the same time, two\nthings which are apparently so opposed to one another as piety and\nhonour. But, however valuable their purpose might be, its execution was\nexceedingly difficult.\"\n\n\"I am surprised,\" I said, \"that you find it difficult.\"\n\n\"Are you?\" he replied. \"Do you not know that on the one hand the law of\nthe Gospel commands us never to render evil for evil, and to leave\nvengeance to God; and that on the other hand the laws of the world\nforbid that we should suffer injury without executing justice, even by\nthe death of our enemies? Is it possible that two precepts should be\nmore contrary to one another?\"\n\n\"What I meant to say was, that after what I have seen of your fathers, I\nknow that they can easily do things which are impossible to other men. I\nam quite ready to believe that they have discovered some means of\nreconciling these two precepts, and I beg of you to inform me what it\nis.\"\n\n\"You must know, then,\" he replied, \"that this wonderful principle is our\ngrand method of _directing the intention,_ a principle of great\nimportance in our moral system. You have already seen certain examples\nof it. Thus, when I explained to you how servants could carry with a\nclear conscience certain harmful messages, you must have seen that it\nwas by diverting their intention from the evil of which they are the\nbearers and by turning it to the gain which they receive for their\nservice. This is what we call 'directing the intention.' In the same way\nyou have seen that those who give money in return for benefices would be\nguilty of simony unless they diverted their intention from the\ntransaction. But I am going to show you this grand method in all its\nbeauty in relation to homicide, which it justifies under a thousand\ncircumstances.\"\n\n\"I am ready to believe,\" I said, \"that your principle will permit\neverything, and that nothing will escape it.\"\n\n\"Not at all,\" he replied; \"you are always running from one extreme to\nthe other. We by no means permit everything. For instance, we never\npermit the formal intention of sin, for the mere sake of sinning, and we\nwill have nothing to do with anyone who persists in seeking evil as an\nend in itself, for that is a devilish intention, in whatever age, sex,\nor rank it may be found. But so long as there is no such unhappy\ndisposition as that, we try to put in practice our method of directing\nintention, which consists in proposing a lawful object as the end of\none's actions. In so far as it is in our power, we turn away from\nforbidden things; but when we are unable to prevent the action, we at\nleast try to purify the intention, and so correct the vice of the means\nby the purity of the end.\n\n\"That is how our fathers have been able to permit the acts of violence\nwhich are committed in the defence of honour. It is only necessary to\nturn away one's intention from the desire of vengeance, which is\ncriminal, and to restrict it to the desire of defending one's honour,\nwhich is a lawful desire. It is thus that our fathers are able to fulfil\ntheir duties towards God and towards men alike. They please the world by\npermitting the actions, and they satisfy the Gospel by purifying the\nintentions. It is a method which was unknown to the ancients, and is\nentirely due to our fathers. Do you understand it now?\"\n\n\"I understand it very well,\" I said. \"You allow to men the external and\nmaterial effect of the action, and you give to God the internal and\nspiritual movement of intention, and thus reconcile the human with the\ndivine law. But though I understand your principle well enough, I should\nlike to know what are its consequences.--I should like to know, for\ninstance, all the cases in which your method permits one to kill. You\nhave told me that whoever receives a blow may repay it with a\nsword-thrust without the guilt of vengeance, but you have not yet told\nme how far one may go.\"\n\n\"You can hardly make a mistake,\" said the father. \"You may go as far as\nto kill the man. One of our authorities speaks: 'It is permitted to kill\na man who has given a blow, even though he runs away, on the condition\nthat it is not done through hatred or through vengeance, and that one's\nactions do not lead to murders which are excessive and harmful to the\nstate.' The reason is, that one may thus run after one's honour as if\nafter a stolen object. For though your honour is not exactly in the\nhands of your enemy as if it were something which he had picked up, you\ncan yet recover it in the same way by giving a proof of greatness and of\nauthority, and by thus acquiring human esteem. Indeed, he continues: 'Is\nit not true that he who has received a blow is considered disgraced\nuntil he has slain his enemy?'\"\n\nThis appeared to me so horrible that I had difficulty in restraining\nmyself. I felt that I had heard enough.\n\n\n_III.--THE CHARGE OF RAILLERY_\n\n\nReverend Fathers,--I have read the letters which you have published in\nanswer to some of mine on the subject of your moral principles; and I\nfind that one of the principal points in your defence is that I have not\nspoken seriously enough of your maxims. You repeat this charge in all\nyour writings, and you go so far as to say that I have turned holy\nthings into ridicule.\n\nThis is a surprising and very unjust reproach; for where is a passage to\nbe found in which I have treated holy things with raillery? It is true\nthat I have spoken with little respect of the teachings of certain among\nyou, but do you suppose that the imaginations of your authors are to be\ntaken as the verities of the faith? Is it impossible to laugh at\npassages of Escobar, and at the very fantastic and unchristian\nconclusions of others of your authors without being accused of\nridiculing religion? Are you not afraid lest your reproaches should give\nme a new subject for ridicule, or lest it should be seen that when I\nmake sport of your moral principles I am as far from laughing at holy\nthings as the doctrine of your casuists is far from the holy teaching of\nthe Evangel!\n\nTruly, fathers, there is a great difference between laughing at\nreligion, and laughing at those whose extravagant opinions are its\nprofanation. It would be impious to be wanting in respect for the truths\nwhich the Spirit of God has revealed, but it would hardly be less\nimpious that we should not show our contempt for the falsities which the\nhuman spirit has opposed to them.\n\nI pray you to consider that just as Christian truth is worthy of love\nand of respect, the errors that are contrary to it deserve our contempt\nand hatred. For there are two qualities in the truths of our religion, a\ndivine beauty which compels our love, and a holy majesty that demands\nour veneration; and there are two qualities in error, the impiety which\nmakes it horrible, and the impertinence which renders it absurd.\n\nDo not hope, therefore, to persuade the world that it is unworthy of\nChristians to deal with errors as absurdities, since this method has\nbeen common to the early fathers of the church, and is authorised by\nHoly Scriptures, by the example of the greatest saints, and even by that\nof God himself. For do we not see that God at the same time hates and\ndespises sinners in such a degree that at the hour of their death, when\ntheir condition is at its saddest and most deplorable, the divine wisdom\nis said to unite mockery and laughter with the vengeance and fury which\ncondemns them to perpetual torments.\n\nNay, it is worthy of our notice that in the first words which God spake\nto man after the fall the fathers of the church have discovered a tone\nof mockery, a stinging irony. After Adam had disobeyed, in the hope that\nthe devil had given that he would then be made like a God, it appears\nfrom Scripture that God's punishment made him subject to death, and that\nafter having reduced Adam to the miserable condition which his sin had\ndeserved, God mocked him with words of piercing irony, saying: \"There is\nthe man who has become as one of us.\"\n\nYou see, therefore, that mockery is sometimes designed to turn men from\ntheir follies, and is then an act of righteousness. Thus Jeremiah says\nthat the deeds of the foolish are worthy of laughter because of their\nvanity. And, again, St. Augustine says that the wise laugh at the\nfoolish because they are wise, but in virtue not of their own wisdom,\nbut of the divine wisdom which will mock at the death of the wicked.\n\nWhat? Must we call in Scripture and tradition to prove that cutting down\none's enemy from behind, and in an ambush is a treacherous murder? Or\nthat giving a present of money to secure an ecclesiastical benefice is\nto purchase it? Of course, there are teachings which deserve our\ncontempt, and can only be dealt with by mockery. Are you, fathers, to be\npermitted to teach that it is lawful to slay in order to avoid a blow\nand an affront, yet are we to be forbidden to refute publicly so grave\nan error? Are you to be at liberty to say that a judge may\nconscientiously retain a bribe given him to purchase injustice, yet may\nwe never contradict you? Are you formally to pronounce that a man may be\nsaved without ever having loved God, and yet close the mouths of those\nwho would defend the truth of the faith, on the ground that their\ndefence must wound fraternal charity by attacking you, and must grieve\nChristian modesty by laughing at your maxims?\n\n\n_IV.--THE SIN OF SIMONY_\n\n\nReverend Fathers,--I was about to write to you concerning the\naccusations which you have so long brought against me, wherein you call\nme impious, buffoon, rogue, impostor, calumniator, swindler, heretic,\ndisguised Calvinist, one possessed of a legion of devils. I wish the\nworld to know why you speak thus, for I should be sorry that anyone\nshould think thus of me; and I had already made up my mind to complain\npublicly of your calumnies and impostures when I saw your replies,\nwherein you bring the same charges against me. You have thus forced me\nto change my purpose. Yet I shall still carry it out in some degree,\ninasmuch as I hope that my defence will convict you of more real\nimpostures which you have imputed to me. Truly, fathers, your position\nis more open to suspicion than mine, for it is very unlikely that I,\nbeing alone as I am, and without strength or human support against so\npowerful a society as yours, and being sustained only by truth and\nsincerity, should have exposed myself to the risk of losing all, by\nexposing myself to a conviction of imposture. But your position,\nfathers, is different; you can say of me what you please, and I can find\nno one to whom I may complain. Well, you have chosen your ground, and\nthe war shall be made in your country and at your expense. Do not fear\nthat I shall be tedious; there is something so diverting about your\nmaxims that they never fail to rejoice the world.\n\nLet me closely explain, for instance, your doctrine with regard to\nsimony. Finding yourself in a dilemma between the canons of the church,\nwhich forbid with the severest penalties any trade in ecclesiastical\nbenefices, and the avarice of so many people who promote this infamous\ntraffic, you have followed your ordinary method, which is to give to men\nwhat they desire, and to offer to God nothing but words and appearances.\nFor what do simonfacal persons demand, if not that they shall receive\nmoney in return for their benefices?\n\nBut that is precisely the transaction which you have cleared from the\nguilt of simony. Yet, since you cannot do away with the name of simony,\nand there must be some matter to which the name attaches, you have\ndevised for that purpose an imaginary idea, which never enters the minds\nof simoniacs at all, and indeed would be quite useless to them. This is,\nthat simony consists in valuing the money, considered in itself, as\nhighly as the spiritual privilege, considered in itself. Who would ever\ndream of comparing things which are so disproportionate and of such\ndifferent kinds? Yet, according to your authors, so long as a man does\nnot entertain this metaphysical comparison, he may give his benefice to\nanother, and may receive money in return, without incurring the guilt of\nsimony. It is thus that you make game of religion in order to pander to\nhuman passions.\n\nThe abusive language which you utter against me will never clear up our\ndifferences, nor shall any of your threats restrain me from defending\nmyself. You trust in your strength and impunity, but I believe that I\npossess truth and innocence. The war by which violence attempts to\noppress the truth is a strange and a long one, for all the efforts of\nviolence are unable to weaken truth, and serve only to make it more\nevident. On the other hand, all the light of truth can do nothing to\narrest violence, but rather inflames it. When force combats force, the\nstronger destroys the weaker; when argument is opposed to argument, true\nand convincing reasoning confounds that which is based on vanity and\nlies; but violence and truth have, no power one over the other. That is\nnot to say that these two things are equal. There is this extreme\ndifference between them: the career of violence is limited by the divine\norder, which determines its effects to the glory of the truth which it\nattacks; but truth, on the other hand, exists externally, and triumphs\nat last over its enemies, because it is eternal and powerful as God\nHimself.\n\n\n_V.--HOMICIDE_\n\n\nLet us now see, fathers, how you value that life of man, which is so\njealously safeguarded by human justice. It appears from your novel laws\nthat there is only one judge in a case of affront or injury, and that\nthis judge is to be he who has received the offence. He is to be at the\nsame time judge, plaintiff, and executioner. He demands the death of the\noffender, sentences him to death, and immediately executes the sentence;\nand so, without respect either for the body or for the soul of his\nbrother, slays and imperils the salvation of him for whom Christ died.\nAnd all this is to be done to avoid a blow, a slander, an insulting\nword, or some other offence for which neither the law nor any authorised\njudge could assign the penalty of death.\n\nNot only so, but even a priest is held to have contracted neither sin\nnor irregularity in this infliction of death without authority and\nagainst law. Can these be religious men and priests who speak in this\nway? Are they Christians or Turks--men or demons? Spread over the whole\nearth, according to St. Augustine, there are two peoples and two\nworlds--the world of the children of God, who form one body, of which\nJesus Christ is king, and the world of the enemies of God, of whom the\ndevil is king.\n\nNow, Christ has founded honour on suffering; the devil has founded it on\nthe refusal to suffer. Christ has taught those who receive a blow to\noffer the other cheek; but the devil has taught those who are in danger\nof a blow to kill the enemy who threatens them.\n\nConsider, therefore, fathers, to which of these two kingdoms you belong.\nYou have heard the language of the city of peace, which is called the\nmystical Jerusalem, and you have heard the language of the city of\nturmoil, which is called in the Scriptures the spiritual Sodom. Which of\nthese two languages do you understand? According to St. Paul, those who\nbelong to Christ act and speak on his principles; and, according to the\nwords of Christ, those who are the children of the devil, who has been a\nmurderer from the beginning of the world, follow his maxims. We listen,\ntherefore, to the language of your teachers, and ask of them whether\nwhen a blow is threatened, we ought to suffer it rather than slay the\noffender, or whether we may kill him in order to escape the affront?\n\nLessius, Molina, Escobar, and other Jesuits say that it is lawful to\nkill the man who threatens a blow. Is that the language of Jesus Christ?\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\nWILLIAM PENN\n\n\nSOME FRUITS OF SOLITUDE\n\n\n     William Penn was born in London on October 14, 1644. In early\n     life he joined the Quakers, and while still a young man\n     underwent imprisonment for the expression of his religious\n     views. For \"A Sandy Foundation Shaken,\" an attack on the\n     Athanasian Creed, he was in 1668 sent to the Tower, where he\n     wrote, \"No Cross, No Crown.\" Under James II., however, he was\n     high in the favour of the court, and received a grant of the\n     region afterwards known as Pennsylvania, whither he went with\n     a number of his co-religionists in 1682. After his return to\n     England, he suffered by the fall of James II., but under\n     William III. was acquitted of treason, and spent his later\n     years in retirement. He died at Ruscombe, in Berkshire, on\n     July 30, 1718. \"Some Fruits of Solitude, or the Maxims of\n     William Penn,\" evidently the result of one of his sojourns in\n     prison, was licensed in 1693. It was followed by \"More Fruits\n     of Solitude.\" The whole forms a collection of maxims which are\n     shrewd, wise, and charitable, informed with a good courage for\n     life, and a contempt for mean ends, if in their variety they\n     do not always escape the touch of the commonplace. The book\n     has become known as a favourite of R.L. Stevenson, who said of\n     it that \"there is not the man living--no, nor recently\n     dead--that could put, with so lovely a spirit, so much honest,\n     kind wisdom into words.\"\n\n\n_TO THE READER_\n\n\nReader, this Enchiridion I present thee which is the fruit of solitude;\na school few care to learn in, though none instructs us better. Some\nparts of it are the result of serious reflection; others the flashings\nof lucid intervals. Writ for private satisfaction, and now published for\nan help to human conduct.\n\nThe author blesseth God for his retirement, and kisses that Gentle Hand\nwhich led him into it; for though it should prove barren to the world,\nit can never do so to him.\n\nHe has now had some time he could call his own; a property he was never\nso much master of before; in which he has taken a view of himself and\nthe world; and observed wherein he hath hit and mist the mark; what\nmight have been done, what mended, and what avoided in his human\nconduct; together with the omissions and excesses of others, as well\nsocieties and governments, as private families and persons. And he\nverily thinks, were he to live over his life again, he could not only,\nwith God's grace, serve Him, but his neighbour and himself, better than\nhe hath done, and have seven years of his time to spare. And yet perhaps\nhe hath not been the worst or the idlest man in the world, nor is he the\noldest. And this is the rather said, that it might quicken thee, reader,\nto lose none of the time that is yet thine.\n\nThere is nothing of which we are apt to be so lavish as of time, and\nabout which we ought to be more solicitous; since without it we can do\nnothing in this world. Time is what we want most, but what, alas! we use\nworst; and for which God will certainly most strictly reckon with us,\nwhen time shall be no more.\n\nThe author does not pretend to deliver thee an exact piece; his business\nnot being ostentation, but charity. 'Tis miscellaneous in the matter of\nit, and by no means artificial in the composure. But it contains hints\nthat may serve thee for texts to preach to thyself upon, and which\ncomprehend much of the course of human life. Since whatever be thy\ninclination or aversion, practice or duty, thou wilt find something not\nunsuitably said for thy direction and advantage. Accept and improve what\ndeserves thy notice; the rest excuse, and place to account of good will\nto thee and the whole creation of God.\n\n\n_IGNORANCE_\n\n\nIt is admirable to consider how many millions of people come into and go\nout of the world ignorant of themselves and of the world they have lived\nin. If one went to see Windsor Castle or Hampton Court it would be\nstrange not to observe and remember the situation, the building, the\ngardens, fountains, etc., that make up the beauty and pleasure of such a\nseat. And yet few people know themselves; no, not their own bodies, the\nhouses of their minds, the most curious structure of the world, a living\nwalking tabernacle: nor the world of which it was made, and out of which\nit is fed; which would be so much our benefit as well as our pleasure to\nknow. We cannot doubt of this when we are told the Invisible things of\nGod are brought to light by the things that are seen; and consequently\nwe read our duty in them as often as we look upon them, to Him that is\nthe Great and Wise Author of them, if we look as we should do.\n\nThe world is certainly a great and stately volume of natural things; and\nmay not be improperly styled the hieroglyphics of a better. But, alas!\nhow very few leaves of it do we really turn over! This ought to be the\nsubject of the education of our youth, who at twenty, when they should\nbe fit for business, know little or nothing of it.\n\n\n_EDUCATION_\n\n\nWe are in pain to make them scholars, but not men; to talk rather than\nto know, which is true canting. The first thing obvious to children is\nwhat is sensible; and that we make no part of their rudiments.\n\nWe press their memory too soon, and puzzle, strain, and load them with\nwords and rules; to know grammar and rhetoric, and a strange tongue or\ntwo, that it is ten to one may never be useful to them; leaving their\nnatural genius to mechanical and physical, or natural knowledge\nuncultivated and neglected; which would be of exceeding use and pleasure\nto them through the whole course of their life.\n\nTo be sure, languages are not to be despised or neglected; but things\nare still to be preferred.\n\nChildren had rather be making of tools and instruments of play; shaping,\ndrawing, framing, and building, etc., than getting some rules of\npropriety of speech by heart; and those also would follow with more\njudgment and less trouble and time.\n\nIt were happy if we studied nature more in natural things, and acted\naccording to nature; whose rules are few, plain, and most reasonable.\n\nLet us begin where she begins, go her pace, and close always where she\nends, and we cannot miss of being good naturalists.\n\nThe creation would not be longer a riddle to us: the heavens, earth, and\nwaters, with their respective, various, and numerous inhabitants: their\nproductions, natures, seasons, sympathies, and antipathies; their use,\nbenefit, and pleasure would be better understood by us: and an eternal\nwisdom, power, majesty, and goodness very conspicuous to us through\nthose sensible and passing forms: the world wearing the mark of its\nMaker, whose stamp is everywhere visible, and the characters very\nlegible to the children of wisdom.\n\nAnd it would go a great way to caution and direct people in their use of\nthe world that they were better studied and known in the creation of it.\n\nFor how could man find the confidence to abuse it, while they should\nfind the Great Creator stare them in the face, in all and every part\nthereof?\n\nTheir ignorance makes them insensible and that insensibility hardy in\nmisusing this noble creation, that has the stamp and voice of a Deity\neverywhere, and in everything to the observing.\n\nIt is pity, therefore, that books have not been composed for youth, by\nsome curious and careful naturalists, and also mechanics, in the Latin\ntongue, to be used in schools, that they might learn things with words:\nthings obvious and familiar to them, and which would make the tongue\neasier to be obtained by them.\n\nMany able gardeners and husbandmen are yet ignorant of the reason of\ntheir calling; as most artificers are of the reason of their own rules\nthat govern their excellent workmanship. But a naturalist and mechanick\nof this sort is master of the reason of both, and might be of the\npractice, too, if his industry kept pace with his speculation; which\nwere very commendable, and without which he cannot be said to be a\ncomplete naturalist or mechanic.\n\nFinally, if man be the index or epitome of the world, as philosophers\ntell us, we have only to read ourselves well to be learned in it. But\nbecause there is nothing we less regard than the characters of the Power\nthat made us, which are so clearly written upon us and the world He has\ngiven us, and can best tell us what we are and should be, we are even\nstrangers to our own genius; the glass in which we should see that true\ninstructing and agreeable variety, which is to be observed in nature, to\nthe admiration of that wisdom and adoration of that Power which made us\nall.\n\n\n_FRUGALITY OR BOUNTY_\n\n\nFrugality is good, if liberality be joined with it. The first is leaving\noff superfluous expenses; the last bestowing them to the benefit of\nothers that need. The first without the last begins covetousness; the\nlast without the first begins prodigality. Both together make an\nexcellent temper. Happy the place wherever that is found.\n\nWere it universal, we should be cured of two extremes, want and excess:\nand the one would supply the other, and so bring both nearer to a mean;\nthe just degree of earthly happiness.\n\nIt is a reproach to religion and government to suffer so much poverty\nand excess.\n\nWere the superfluities of a nation valued, and made a perpetual tax on\nbenevolence, there were be more alms-houses than poor, schools than\nscholars; and enough to spare for government besides.\n\n\n_INDUSTRY_\n\n\nLove labour; for if thou dost not want it for food thou mayest for\nphysick. It is wholesome for thy body, and good for thy mind. It\nprevents the fruits of idleness, which many times come of having nothing\nto do, and lead too many to do what is worse than nothing.\n\nA garden, an elaboratory, a work-house, improvements and breeding, are\npleasant and profitable diversions to the idle and ingenious; for here\nthey miss ill company, and converse with nature and art; whose variety\nare equally grateful and instructing; and preserve a good constitution\nof body and mind.\n\n\n_KNOWLEDGE_\n\n\nKnowledge is the treature, but judgment the treasurer of a wise man.\n\nHe that has more knowledge than judgment is made for another man's use\nmore than his own.\n\nIt cannot be a good constitution, where the appetite is great and the\ndigestion is weak.\n\nThere are some men like dictionaries; to be looked into upon occasions,\nbut have no connection, and are little entertaining.\n\nLess knowledge than judgment will always have the advantage over the\ninjudicious knowing man.\n\nA wise man makes what he learns his own, t'other shows he's but a copy,\nor a collection at most.\n\n\n_ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THOUGHTS_\n\n\nMan being made a reasonable, and so a thinking creature, there is\nnothing more worthy of his being than the right direction and employment\nof his thoughts; since upon this depends both his usefulness to the\npublick and his own present and future benefit in all respects.\n\nThe consideration of this has often obliged me to lament the unhappiness\nof mankind, that through too great a mixture and confusion of thoughts\nhave been hardly able to make a right or mature judgment of things.\n\nClear, therefore, thy head, and rally, and manage thy thoughts rightly,\nand thou wilt save time, and see and do thy business well; for thy\njudgment will be distinct, thy mind free, and the faculties strong and\nregular.\n\nAlways remember to bound thy thoughts to the present occasion.\n\nMake not more business necessary than is so; and rather lessen than\naugment work for thyself.\n\nUpon the whole matter employ thy thoughts as thy business requires, and\nlet that have place according to merit and urgency, giving everything a\nreview and due digestion, and thou wilt prevent many errors and\nvexations, as well as save much time to thyself in the course of thy\nlife.\n\n\n_FRIENDSHIP_\n\n\nFriendship is an union of spirits, a marriage of hearts, and the bond\nthereof virtue.\n\nThere can be no friendship where there is no freedom. Friendship loves a\nfree air, and will not be penned up in strait and narrow enclosures. It\nwill speak freely, and act so too; and take nothing ill where no ill is\nmeant; nay, where it is 'twill easily forgive, and forget, too, upon\nsmall acknowledgements.\n\nFriends are true twins in soul; they sympathise in everything, and have\nthe same love and aversion.\n\nOne is not happy without the other, nor can either be miserable alone.\nAs if they could change bodies, they take their turns in pain as well as\nin pleasure; relieving one another in their most adverse conditions.\n\nWhat one enjoys the other cannot want. Like the primitive Christians,\nthey have all things in common, and no property but in one another.\n\nThey that love beyond the world cannot be separated by it.\n\nDeath cannot kill what never dies.\n\nNor can spirits ever be divided that love and live in the same divine\nprinciple, the root and record of their friendship.\n\nIf absence be not death, neither is theirs.\n\nDeath is but crossing the world, as friends do the seas; they live in\none another still.\n\nFor they must needs be present that love and live in that which is\nomnipresent. In this divine glass they see face to face; and their\nconverse is free, as well as pure.\n\nThis is the comfort of friends, that though they may be said to die yet\ntheir friendship and society are in the best sense ever present, because\nimmortal.\n\n\n_OF CHARITY_\n\n\nCharity has various senses, but is excellent in all of them.\n\nIt imports, first, the commiseration of the poor and unhappy of mankind,\nand extends an helping hand to mend their condition.\n\nNext, charity makes the best construction of things and persons; it\nmakes the best of everything, forgives everybody, serves all, and hopes\nto the end.\n\nIt is an universal remedy against discord, an holy cement for mankind.\n\nAnd, lastly, 'tis love to God and the brethren which raises the soul\nabove all earthly considerations; and as it gives a taste of heaven upon\nearth, so 'tis heaven in the fulness of it hereafter to the truly\ncharitable here.\n\nThis is the noblest sense charity has, after which all should press as\nbeing the more excellent way.\n\nWould God this divine virtue were more implanted and diffused among\nmankind, the pretenders to Christianity especially; and then we should\ncertainly mind piety more than controversy, and exercise love and\ncompassion instead of censuring and persecuting one another in any\nmanner whatsoever.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nERNEST RENAN\n\n\nLIFE OF JESUS\n\n\n     Ernest Renan, the most widely read writer of religious history\n     in his day, was forty years old when the \"Vie de J\u00e9sus,\" his\n     most popular book, appeared as the first volume of a \"History\n     of the Origins of Christianity.\" He was born at Tr\u00e9guier in\n     Brittany, France, Feb. 27, 1823, a Breton through his father\n     and a Gascon through his mother. Educated for the Church,\n     under priestly tutelage, he specialised in the study of\n     Oriental languages, with the result that he found it\n     impossible to accept the traditional view of Christian and\n     Jewish history. After holding an appointment in the Department\n     of Manuscripts in the Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale, he became\n     Professor of Hebrew in the Coll\u00e8ge de France. At the age of 55\n     he was elected a member of the French Academy. His works\n     include \"A History of Semitic Languages,\" a \"History of the\n     Origins of Christianity,\" and a \"History of the People of\n     Israel,\" besides many volumes of essays and criticism, and\n     several autobiographical books of great charm. Everybody read\n     Renan, and disagreed with him. The orthodox rejected his\n     opinions, and the unorthodox his sentiment. But his books\n     marked an epoch in religious criticism. \"The Life of Jesus\"\n     was the outcome of a visit to Palestine in pursuance of\n     research studies of Phoenician civilisation. A feature is the\n     importance given to scenic surroundings which he could so\n     happily describe. Renan died on October 2, 1892, widely\n     admired, honoured, and also condemned, and was buried in the\n     Pantheon.\n\n\n_THE HOUR AND THE MAN_\n\n\nThe principal event in the history of the world is the revolution by\nwhich the noblest portions of humanity have forsaken the ancient\nreligions of Paganism for a religion founded on the Divine Unity, the\nTrinity, and the Incarnation of the Son of God. Nearly a thousand years\nwere required to achieve this conversion. The new religion itself took\nat least three hundred years in its formation. But the origin of the\nrevolution is a historical event which happened in the reigns of\nAugustus and Tiberius. At that time there lived a man of supreme\npersonality, who, by his bold originality, and by the love which he was\nable to inspire, became the object, and settled the direction, of the\nfuture faith of mankind.\n\nThe great empires which succeeded each other in Western Asia annihilated\nall the hopes of the Jewish race for a terrestial kingdom, and cast it\nback on religious dreams, which it cherished with a kind of sombre\npassion. The establishment of the Roman empire exalted men's\nimaginations, and the great era of peace on which the world was entering\ngave birth to illimitable hopes. This confused medley of dreams found at\nlength an interpretation in the peerless man to whom the universal\nconscience has decreed the title of the Son of God, and that with\njustice, since he gave religion an impetus greater than that which any\nother man has been capable of giving--an impetus with which, in all\nprobability, no further advance will be comparable.\n\n\n_YOUTH AND EDUCATION_\n\n\nJesus was born at Nazareth, a small town in Galilee, which before his\ntime was not known to fame. The precise date of his birth is unknown. It\ntook place in the reign of Augustus, probably some years before the year\none of the era which all civilised peoples date from the day of his\nbirth. Jesus came from the ranks of the common folk. His father, Joseph,\nand his mother, Mary, were people in humble circumstances, artisans\nliving by their handiwork in the state, so usual in the East, which is\nneither ease nor poverty. The family was somewhat large. Jesus had\nbrothers and sisters who seem to have been younger than he. They all\nremained obscure. The four men who were called his brothers, and among\nwhom one at least, James, became of great importance in the early years\nof the development of Christianity, were his cousins-german. The sisters\nof Jesus were married at Nazareth, and there he spent the early years of\nhis youth.\n\nThe town must have presented the poverty-stricken aspect still\ncharacteristic of villages in the East. We see to-day the streets where\nJesus played as a child in the stony paths or little lanes which\nseparate the dwellings from each other. No doubt the house of Joseph\nmuch resembled these poor domiciles, lighted only by the doorway,\nserving at once as workshop, kitchen, and bedroom, and having for\nfurniture a mat, some cushions on the ground, one or two clay pots, and\na painted chest. But the surroundings are charming, and no place in the\nworld could be so well adapted for dreams of perfect happiness. If we\nascend to the plateau, swept by a perpetual breeze, above the highest\nhouses, the landscape is magnificent. An enchanted circle, cradle of the\nKingdom of God, was for years the horizon of Jesus, and indeed during\nhis whole life he went but little beyond these, the familiar bounds of\nhis childhood.\n\nNo doubt he learnt to read and write according to the Eastern method;\nbut it is doubtful if he understood the Hebrew writings in their\noriginal tongue. His biographers make him cite translations in the\nAramean language. Nevertheless, it would be a great error to imagine\nthat Jesus was what we should call an ignorant man. Refinement of\nmanners and acuteness of intellect have, in the East, nothing in common\nwith what we call education. In all probability Jesus did not know\nGreek. His mother tongue was the Syrian dialect, mingled with Hebrew. No\nelement of secular teaching reached him. He was ignorant of all beyond\nJudaism; his mind kept that free innocence which an extended and varied\nculture always weakens. Happily, he was also ignorant of the grotesque\nscholasticism which was taught at Jerusalem, and which was soon to\nconstitute the Talmud. The reading of the books of the Old Testament\nmade a deep impression on him, especially the book of Daniel, and the\nreligious poetry of the Psalms was in marvellous accordance with his\nlyrical soul, and all his life was his sustenance and support. That he\nhad no knowledge of the general state of the world is evident from every\nfeature of his most authentic discourses, and he never conceived of\naristocratic society, save as a young villager who sees the world\nthrough the prism of his simplicity. Although born at a time when the\nprinciples of positive science had already been proclaimed, he lived in\nentirely supernatural ideas. To him the marvellous was not the\nexceptional but the normal statf of things, since to him the whole\ncourse of things was the result of the free-will of the Deity. This led\nto a profound conception of the close relations of man with God.\n\n\n_IDYLLIC SURROUNDINGS_\n\n\nA mighty dream haunted the Jewish people for centuries, constantly\nrenewing its youth. Judaea believed that she possessed divine promises\nof a boundless future. In combination with the belief in the Messiah and\nthe doctrine of an approaching renewal of all things, the dogma of the\nresurrection had emerged and produced a great fermentation from one end\nof the Jewish world to the other. Jesus, as soon as he had any thought\nof his own, entered into the burning atmosphere created in Palestine by\nthese ideas, and his soul was soon filled with them. A beautiful natural\nenvironment imprinted a charming and idyllic character on all the dreams\nof Galilee. During the months of March and April that green, shady,\nsmiling land is a carpet of flowers of an incomparable variety of\ncolours. The animals are small and extremely gentle--delicate and\nplayful turtle-doves, blackbirds so light that they rest on a blade of\ngrass without bending it, tufted larks which almost venture under the\nfeet of the traveller, little river-tortoises with mild bright eyes,\nstorks of gravely modest mien, which, casting aside all timidity, allow\nmen to come quite near them, and indeed seem to invite his approach. In\nno country in the world do the mountains extend with more harmonious\noutlines, or inspire higher thought. Jesus seems to have had an especial\nlove for them. The most important events of his divine career took place\nupon the mountains. This beautiful country in his time was filled with\nprosperity and gaiety. There Jesus lived and grew up. True, every year\nhe knew the sweet solemnity of the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and it is\nbelieved that early in life the wilderness had some influence on his\ndevelopment, but it was when he returned into his beloved Galilee that\nhe once more found his Heavenly Father in the midst of green hills and\nclear fountains, and women and children who with joyous soul awaited the\nsalvation of Israel.\n\n\n_A CHARACTER TO LOVE_\n\n\nJesus followed the trade of his father, which was that of a carpenter.\nIn this there was nothing irksome or humiliating. The Jewish custom\nrequired that a man devoted to intellectual work should learn a\nhandicraft. Jesus never married. His whole capacity for love was\nconcentrated upon that which he felt was his heavenly vocation. He was\nno doubt more beloved than loving. Thus, as often happens in very lofty\nnatures, tenderness of heart was in him transformed into an infinite\nsweetness, a vague poetry, a universal charm.\n\nThrough what stages did the ideas of Jesus progress during this obscure\nearly period of his life? A high conception of the Divinity, the\ncreation of his own great mind, was the guiding principle to which his\npower was due. God did not speak to him as to one outside of himself;\nGod was in him; he felt himself with God, and from his own heart drew\nall he said of his Father. The highest consciousness of God which ever\nexisted in the heart of man was that of Jesus; but he never once gave\nutterance to the sacrilegious idea that he was God. From the first he\nlooked upon his relationship with God as that of a son with his father.\nHerein was his great originality; in this he had nothing in common with\nhis race. Neither Jew nor Musselman has understood this sweet theology\nof love. The God of Jesus is our Father. He is the God of humanity. The\nJesus who founded the true Kingdom of God, the kingdom of the humble and\nmeek, was the Jesus of early life--of those chaste and simple days when\nthe voice of his Father re-echoed within him in clearer tones. It was\nthen, for some months, perhaps a year, that God truly dwelt on earth.\n\n\n_A STIMULATING ACQUAINTANCE_\n\n\nAn extraordinary man, whose position remains to some extent enigmatical,\nappeared about this time and unquestionably had some intercourse with\nJesus. About the year 28 of our era there spread through the whole of\nPalestine the reputation of a certain John, a young ascetic, full of\nfervour and passion. The fundamental practice which characterised his\nsect was baptism; but baptism with John was only a sign to impress the\nminds of the people and to prepare them for some great movement. There\ncan be no doubt he was possessed in the highest degree with hope for the\ncoming of the Messiah. He was of the same age as Jesus, and the two\nyoung enthusiasts, full of the same hopes and the same hatreds, were\nable to lend each other mutual support, Jesus recognizing John as his\nsuperior, and timidly developing his own individual genius. John was\nsoon cut short in his prophetic career, and cast into prison, from\nwhich, however, he still exercised a wide influence.\n\nJesus returned from the neighbourhood of the Dead Sea and the Jordan to\nGalilee, his true home, ripened by intercourse with a great man of very\ndifferent nature, and having acquired full consciousness of his own\noriginality. From that time he preached with greater power and made the\nmultitude feel his authority. The persuasion that he was to make God\nreign upon earth took absolute possession of his spirit. He looked upon\nhimself as the universal reformer. He aimed at founding the Kingdom of\nGod, or, in other words, the Kingdom of the Soul. Jesus was, in some\nrespects, an anarchist, for he had no idea of civil government. He never\nshowed any desire to put himself in the place of the rich and mighty.\nThe idea of being all-powerful by suffering and resignation, and of\ntriumphing over force by purity of heart was his peculiar idea. The\nfounders of the Kingdom of God are the simple--not the rich, not the\nlearned, not the priests; but women, common folk, the humble, and the\nyoung. He now boldly announced \"the good tidings of the Kingdom of God,\"\nand himself as that \"Son of Man,\" whom Daniel in his vision had beheld\nas the divine herald of the last and supreme revelation.\n\n\n_EARLY SUCCESSES_\n\n\nThe success of the new prophet's teaching was decisive. A group of men\nand women, all characterised by the same spirit of childish frankness\nand simple innocence, adhered to him, and said, \"Thou art the Messiah.\"\nThe centre of his operations was the little town of Capernaum, on the\nshore of the Lake of Genesareth. Jesus was much attached to the town and\nmade it a second home. He had attempted to begin the work at Nazareth,\nbut without success. The fact that his family, which was of humble rank,\nwas known in the district lessened his authority too much; and it is\nmoreover remarkable that his family were strongly opposed to him, and\nflatly declined to believe in his mission. In Capernaum he was much more\nfavourably received, and it became \"his own city.\" These good Galileans\nhad never heard preaching so well adapted to their cheerful\nimaginations. They admired him, they encouraged him, they found that he\nspoke well, and that his reasons were convincing. The almost poetical\nharmony of his discourses won their affections. The authority of the\nyoung master increased day by day, and naturally the more that people\nbelieved in him the more he believed in himself. Four or five large\nvillages, lying at half an hour's journey from one another, formed the\nlittle world of Jesus at this time. Sometimes, however, he wandered\nbeyond his favourite region, once in the direction of Tyre and Sidon, a\ncountry which must have been marvellously prosperous at that time. But\nhe returned always to his well-beloved shore of Genesareth. The\nmotherland of his thoughts was there; there he found faith and love.\n\nIn this earthly paradise lived a population in perfect harmony with the\nland itself, active, honest, joyous, and tender of heart, and here Jesus\nbecame the centre of a little circle which adored him. In this friendly\ngroup he evidently had his favourites. Peter, for whom his affection was\nvery deep, James, son of Zebedee, and John, his brother, formed a sort\nof privy council. Jesus owed his conquests to the infinite charm of his\npersonality and speech. Everyone thought that he lived in a sphere\nhigher than that of humanity. The aristocracy of the group was\nrepresented by a customs-officer, and by the wife of one of Herod's\nstewards. The rest were fishermen and common folk. Jesus lived with his\ndisciples almost always in the open air, the faithful band leading a\njoyous wandering life, and gathering the inspirations of the Master in\ntheir first bloom. His preaching was soft and gentle, inspired with a\nfeeling for nature and the perfume of the fields. It was above all in\nparable that the Master excelled. There was nothing in Judaism to give\nhim a model for this delightful feature. He created it. In freeing man\nfrom what he called \"the cares of this world\" Jesus might go to excess\nand injure the essential conditions of human society; but he founded\nthat spiritual exaltation which for centuries has filled souls with joy\nin the midst of this vale of tears. In our busy civilisation the memory\nof the free life of Galilee has been like perfume from another world,\nlike the \"dew of Hermon,\" which has kept drought and grossness from\nentirely invading the fields of God.\n\n\n_A GOSPEL FOR THE POOR_\n\n\nJesus very soon understood that the official world of his time would by\nno means lend its support to his kingdom. He took his resolution with\nextreme daring. Leaving the world, with its hard heart and narrow\nprejudices, on one side, he turned towards the simple. A vast\nrearrangement of classes was to take place. The Kingdom of God was made\nfor children, and those like them; for the world's outcasts, victims of\nthat social arrogance which repulses the good but humble man; for\nheretics and schismatics, publicans, Samaritans, and the pagans of Tyre\nand Sidon. That the reign of the poor is at hand was the doctrine of\nJesus. This exaggerated taste for poverty could not last very long, but\nalthough it quickly passed, poverty remained an ideal from which true\ndescendants of Jesus were never afterwards separated.\n\nLike all great men, Jesus was fond of common folk, and felt at his ease\nwith them. He particularly esteemed all those whom orthodox Judaism\ndisdained. Love of the people, pity for their powerlessness, the feeling\nof the democratic leader who has the spirit of the multitude quick\nwithin him, reveal themselves at every instant in his acts and sayings.\nHe had no external affection, and made no display of austerity. He did\nnot shun pleasure; but went willingly to marriage feasts. His gentle\ngaiety found constant expression in amiable pleasantries. Thus he\njourneyed through Galilee in the midst of continual festivities. When he\nentered a house, it was considered a joy and a blessing. Children and\nwomen adored him. The children, indeed, were like a young guard about\nhim, for the inauguration of his innocent kingship, and gave him little\novations. It was childhood, in fact, in its divine spontaneity, in its\nsimple bewilderment of joy, that took possession of the earth.\n\nHow long did this intoxication last? We cannot tell. But whether it\nfilled years or months, the dream was so beautiful that humanity has\nlived upon it ever since. Happy he to whom it has been granted to behold\nwith his own eyes this divine blossoming, and to share, if but for a\nday, the incomparable illusion! But yet more happy, Jesus would tell us,\nshall he be who, by the uprightness of his will, and the poetry of his\nsoul, shall be able to create anew in his own heart the true Kingdom of\nGod!\n\n\n_THE PRIEST IN THE PATH_\n\n\nNearly every year Jesus went to Jerusalem for the feast of the Passover.\nIt was, it appears, in the year 31 that the most important of these\nvisits took place. Jesus felt that to play a leading part he must leave\nGalilee and attack Judaism in its stronghold, Jerusalem. There the\nlittle Galilean community was far from feeling at home. Jerusalem was a\ncity of pedantry, acrimony, disputation, hatreds, and pettiness of mind.\nIts fanaticism was extreme. All the religious discussions of the Jewish\nschools, all the canonical instruction, even the legal business and\ncivil actions--in a word, all form of national activity, were\nconcentrated in the temple. The Romans refrained from entering the\nsactuary; the surveillance of the Temple was in the hands of the Jews.\nIt was in the Temple that Jesus spent his days during his sojourn at\nJerusalem, and all that he saw aroused his aversion. These old Jewish\ninstitutions displeased him, and the necessity of conforming to them\ngave him pain. He who gave forgiveness to all men, provided they loved\nhim, could find nothing congenial in vain disputations and obsolete\nsacrifices, and apparently he brought from Jerusalem one idea\nthenceforth rooted in his mind--that there was no understanding possible\nbetween him and the ancient Jewish religion. He no longer took his stand\nas a Jewish reformer, but as a destroyer of Judaism. In other words,\nJesus is no longer a Jew. He is, in the highest degree, a revolutionary;\nhe calls all men to a worship founded solely on the ground of their\nbeing children of God. Love of God, charity, and mutual forgiveness--in\nthese consisted his whole law. Nothing could be less sacerdotal. It was\non his return from Jerusalem, as he passed near Shechem, and when\ntalking with a Samaritan woman, that Jesus gave utterance to the saying\nupon which will rest the edifice of eternal religion--Believe me, the\nhour cometh when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem shall ye\nworship the Father ... but the hour cometh, and now is, when the true\nworshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth. On the day\nwhen he said these words he was truly Son of God.\n\nJesus returned to Galilee full of revolutionary ardour. His innocent\naphorisms and beautiful moral precepts now culminated in a decided\npolicy. The law is to be abolished, and it is he that will abolish it.\nThe Messiah is come, and it is he that is the Messiah. The Kingdom of\nGod is about to be revealed, and it is he that will reveal it. He knew\nwell that he would be the victim of his own audacity, but it was by\ncries and the rending of hearts that the kingdom had to be established.\n\nThe proposition \"Jesus is the Messiah\" was followed by the proposition\n\"Jesus is the Son of David,\" and, by an entirely spontaneous conspiracy,\nfictitious genealogies arose in the imaginations of his partisans, while\nhe was still alive, to prove his royal descent. We cannot tell whether\nhe knew anything of these legends. He never designated himself Son of\nDavid. That he ever dreamed of making himself pass for an incarnation of\nGod is a matter about which no doubt can exist. Such an idea was\nentirely foreign to the Jewish mind. He believed himself to be more than\nan ordinary man, but separated by an infinite distance from God. He was\nthe Son of God, but all men are, or may become so in divers degrees.\nJesus apparently remained a stranger to the theological subtleties which\nwere soon to fill the world with sterile disputations.\n\n\n_TIME-WORM PROOFS_\n\n\nTwo means of proof--miracles and the accomplishment of prophecies--could\nalone establish a supernatural mission in the opinion of the\ncontemporaries of Jesus. He himself, but more especially his disciples,\nemployed these two methods of demonstration in perfect good faith. For a\nlong time Jesus had recognised himself in the sacred oracles of the\nprophets. As to miracles, they were considered at this epoch the\nindispensable mark of the divine, and the sign of the prophetic\nvocation. Jesus, therefore, was compelled either to renounce his mission\nor become a thaumaturgist. It must be remembered that not only did he\nbelieve in miracles, but he had not the least idea of an order of nature\nunder the reign of law. On that point, his knowledge was in no way\nsuperior to that of his contemporaries. Indeed, one of his most\ndeeply-rooted opinions was that by faith and prayer man had entire power\nover nature. Almost all the miracles Jesus believed he performed seem to\nhave been miracles of healing. The kind of healing which he most often\npractised was exorcism, or the expulsion of demons. There can be no\ndoubt that he had in his lifetime the reputation of possessing the\ngreatest secrets of the art. There were many lunatics in Judaea\nwandering at large, and no doubt Jesus had great influence over these\nunhappy beings. Circumstances seem to indicate that he became a\nthaumaturgist late in life and against his own inclinations. He accepted\nmiracles exacted by public opinion rather than performed them.\n\n\n_THE NEW KINGDOM OF GOD_\n\n\nDuring the eighteen months between the return from the Passover of the\nyear 31 and his journey to the feast of tabernacles in the year 32, all\nthat was within Jesus developed with an ever-increasing degree of power\nand audacity. The fundamental idea of Jesus from his earliest days was\nthe establishment of the Kingdom of God. This kingdom he appears to have\nunderstood in divers senses. At times it is the literal consummation of\napocalyptic visions relating to the Messiah. At other times it is the\nspiritual kingdom, and the deliverance at hand is the deliverance of the\nsoul. The revolution desired by Jesus in this last sense is the one\nwhich has really taken place. That the coming of the end of the world\nand the appearance of the Messiah in judgment was taken literally by the\ndisciples, and at certain moments by the Master himself, appears\nabsolutely clear. These formal declarations absorbed the minds of the\nChristian family for nearly seventy years. The world has not ended, as\nJesus announced, and as his disciples believed it would end. But it has\nbeen renewed and in one sense renewed as Jesus desired. By the side of\nthe false, cold, impossible idea of an ostentatious advent, he conceived\nthe real City of God, the raising up of the weak, the love of the\npeople, esteem for the poor, and the restoration of all that is humble\nand true and simple. This restoration he has depicted, as an\nincomparable artist, in touches which will last for eternity. His\nKingdom of God was doubtless the apocalypse which was soon to be\nunfolded in the heavens. But besides this, and probably above all, was\nthe soul's kingdom, founded on freedom, and on the feeling of sonship\nwhich the good man knows in his rest on the bosom of his Father. This is\nwhat was destined to live. This is what has lived.\n\n\n_THE CLASH OF OLD AND NEW_\n\n\nThroughout the first epoch of his career, it seems as though Jesus met\nwith no serious opposition; but when he entered upon a path brilliant\nwith public successes the first mutterings of the storm began to make\nthemselves heard. He recognised only the religion of the heart, while\nthe religion of the Pharisees almost exclusively consisted of\nobservances. As his mission proceeded, his conflicts with official\nhypocrisy became incessant. His goal was in the future, not in the past.\nHe was more than the reformer of an obsolete religion; he was the\ncreator of the eternal religion of humanity. A hatred which death alone\ncould satisfy was the consequence of these controversies. The war was to\nthe death. Judaea drew him as by a charm; he wished to attempt one last\neffort to win the rebellious city, and seemed anxious to fulfil the\nproverb that a prophet ought not to die outside Jerusalem.\n\nAt the feast of tabernacles in the year 32, his relatives, always\nmalevolent and sceptical, pressed him to go there. He set out on the\njourney unknown to every one and almost alone, and never again saw his\nbeloved northern land.\n\nIn Jerusalem, Jesus was a stranger. There he felt a wall of resistance\nhe could not penetrate. At every step he met with obstinate scepticism.\nThe arrogance of the priests made the courts of the Temple disagreeable\nto him, and his criticisms naturally exasperated the sacerdotal caste.\nImagine a reformer going, in our own time, to preach the overthrow of\nIslamism round the Mosque of Omar! His teaching in this new world was\ngreatly modified; he had to become controversialist, jurist, theologian,\nthough when alone with his disciples his gentle and irresistible genius\ninspired him with accents full of tenderness.\n\n\n_APPROACHING THE CRISIS_\n\n\nJesus spent the autumn and part of the winter in Jerusalem. In the new\nyear he undertook a journey to the banks of the Jordan, the district he\nhad visited when he followed the school of John. After this pilgrimage\nhe returned to Bethany, a place he especially loved, and where he knew a\nfamily whose friendship had a great charm for him. In impure and\ndepressing Jerusalem, Jesus was no longer himself. His mission weighed\nhim down, and he let himself be carried away by the torrent. The\ncontrast between his ever-increasing exaltation and the indifference of\nthe Jews became wider day by day. At the same time the public\nauthorities began to be bitter against him. In February, or early in\nMarch, the council of the chief priests asked clearly the question \"Can\nJesus and Judaism exist together?\" The High Priest was Joseph Kaiapha,\nbut beside and behind him we always see another man, Hanan, his\nfather-in-law. He had been High Priest, and in reality kept all the\nauthority of the office. During fifty years the pontificate remained in\nhis family almost without interruption. The family spirit was haughty,\nbold, and cruel. It was Hanan, his family, and the party he represented,\nwho really put Jesus to death. After the death of Jesus was decided, he\nescaped for a short time by withdrawing to an obscure town, Ephron, and\nletting the storm pass over; but when the feast of the Passover drew\nnigh, he set out to see for the last time the unbelieving city. His\nfollowers all believed that the Kingdom of God was about to be realised\nthere. As to Jesus, he grew confirmed in the conviction that he was\nabout to die, but that his death would save the world.\n\nDuring these last days a deep sadness appears to have filled the soul of\nJesus, which was generally so joyous and serene. The enormous weight of\nthe mission he had accepted bore cruelly upon him. All these inward\ntroubles were evidently a sealed chapter to his disciples. His divine\nnature, however, soon gained the supremacy, and henceforth we behold him\nentirely himself and with his character unclouded. Each moment of this\nperiod is solemn, and counts more than whole ages in the history of\nhumanity. A lofty feeling of love, of concord, of charity, and of mutual\ndeference, animated the memories cherished of these last hours.\n\n\n_VICTORY THROUGH DEFEAT_\n\n\nIt was in the garden of Gethsemane that the guards of the Temple,\nsupported by a detachment of Roman soldiers, executed the warrant of\narrest. The course which the priests had determined to take against\nJesus was in perfect conformity with the established law. The warrant of\narrest probably came from Hanan, and before this powerful man Jesus was\nfirst brought for examination as to his doctrine. Jesus, with just\npride, declined to enter into long explanations--he asked the ex-high\npriest to question those who had listened to him. Hanan then sent him to\nhis son-in-law, Kaiapha, at whose house the Sanhedrim was assembled. It\nis probable that here, too, he kept silence. The sentence was already\ndecided, and they only sought for pretexts. With one voice the assembly\ndeclared him guilty of a capital crime. The point now was to get Pilate\nto ratify the sentence. On being informed of the accusation, Pilate\nshowed his annoyance at being mixed up in the matter, and called upon to\nplay a cruel part for the sake of a law he detested. Perhaps the\ndignified and calm attitude of the accused made an impression upon him.\nTo excite the suspicion of the Roman authorities, the charges now made\nwere those of sedition and treason against the government. Nothing could\nbe more unjust, for Jesus had always recognised the Roman government as\nthe established power. Asked by Pilate if he really were the king of the\nJews, Jesus, according to the fourth gospel, avowed his kingship, but\nuttered at the same time the profound saying, \"My kingdom is not of this\nworld.\" Of this lofty idealism Pilate understood nothing. No doubt Jesus\nimpressed him as being a harmless dreamer. When, however, the people\nbegan to denounce Pilate's lack of zeal, in protecting an enemy of\nCaesar, he surrendered, throwing on the Jews the responsibility for what\nwas about to take place. It was not Pilate who condemned Jesus. It was\nthe old Jewish party; it was the Mosaic law. Intolerance is a Jewish\ncharacteristic. The Pentateuch has been the first code of religious\nterrorism in the world. It was, however, the chimerical \"King of the\nJews,\" not the heteradox dogmatist, who was punished, and the execution\ntook the Roman form of crucifixion, carried out by Roman soldiers.\n\nThe horrors of that ignominious death were suffered by Jesus in all\ntheir atrocity. For a moment, according to certain narratives, his heart\nfailed him; a cloud hid from him the face of his Father; he endured an\nagony of despair more acute a thousand times than all his torments. But\nhis divine instinct again sustained him. In measure as the life of the\nbody flickered out, his soul grew serene, and by degrees returned to its\nheavenly source. He regained the idea of his mission, in his death he\nsaw the salvation of the world; the hideous spectacle spread at his feet\nmelted from his sight, and profoundly united to his Father, he began\nupon the gibbet the divine life which he was to live in the heart of\nhumanity through infinite years.\n\nRest now in thy glory, noble pioneer! Thy work is achieved, thy divinity\nestablished. At the price of a few hours of suffering, which have not\neven touched thy mighty soul, thou hast purchased the fullest\nimmortality. For thousands of years the world will depend upon thee! A\nthousand times more alive, a thousand times more loved since thy death\nthan during the days of thy pilgrimage here below, thou shalt become so\ntruly the cornerstone of humanity that to tear thy name from this world\nwere to shake it to its foundations.\n\nWhatever the unexpected phenomena of the future, Jesus will never be\nsurpassed. His worship will constantly renew its youth; the legend of\nhis life will bring ceaseless tears; his sufferings will soften the best\nhearts; all the ages will proclaim that amongst the sons of men none has\nbeen born who is greater than Jesus.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\nEMANUEL SWEDENBORG\n\n\nHEAVEN AND HELL\n\n\n     Emanuel Swedenborg, author of a strange system of mystical\n     theology, was of Swedish nationality and was born at Stockholm\n     on January 29, 1688. He was educated at Upsala, and after\n     travelling for several years in Western Europe was appointed\n     to a post in the Swedish College of Mines. Thenceforth, until\n     he was 55 years of age, Swedenborg pursued, with equal\n     industry and ingenuity, the career of a man of science, doing\n     valuable work in mathematics, astronomy, navigation,\n     engineering, chemistry, and especially in mining and\n     metallurgy. These inquiries were followed by studies in\n     philosophy and anatomy and physiology. But about the year 1744\n     certain visions and other mystical experiences began to take\n     hold of his mind, and three years later Swedenborg had come to\n     regard himself as the medium of a new revelation of divine\n     truth. His message, or theory, or vision, was first\n     promulgated in the eight quarto volumes of the \"Heavenly\n     Arcana,\" published in London from 1749 to 1756, and this was\n     followed by \"Heaven and Hell,\" 1758, the work now before us,\n     the full title of which is \"Heaven and Its Wonders, the World\n     of Spirits, and Hell: described by one who had heard and seen\n     what he relates,\" and several other apocalyptic books, all of\n     which were written in Latin. The main features of Swedenborg's\n     theology were a strong emphasis on the divinity of Christ, the\n     proclamation of the immediate advent of the \"New Jerusalem,\"\n     foretold by the seer of Patmos, and the conception of\n     correspondences between the natural, spiritual, and mental\n     worlds. His followers, known as Swedenborgians, or more\n     properly as \"The New Church signified by the New Jerusalem in\n     the Revelation,\" are widely spread but not very numerous, in\n     England and in the United States. Swedenborg died in London on\n     March 29, 1772.\n\n\n_I.--OF HEAVEN_\n\n\nThe first thing necessary to be known is, who is the God of heaven; for\neverything else depends on this. In the universal heaven, no other is\nacknowledged for its God, but the Lord Alone; they say there, as He\nHimself taught, that He is One with the Father; that the Father is in\nHim, and He in the Father; that whosoever seeth Him, seeth the Father;\nand that everything holy proceeds from Him. I have often conversed with\nthe angels on this subject, and they constantly declared that they are\nunable to divide the Divine Being into three, because they know and\nperceive that the Divine Being is one, and that He is One in the Lord.\n\nThe angels, taken collectively, are called heaven, because they compose\nit: but still it is the Divine Sphere proceeding from the Lord, which\nenters the angels by influx, and is by them received, which essentially\nconstitutes it, both in general and in particular. The Divine Sphere\nproceeding from the Lord is the good of love and the truth of faith: in\nproportion, therefore, as the angels receive good and truth from the\nLord, so far they are angels, and so far they are heaven.\n\nAs in heaven there are infinite varieties, and no society is exactly\nlike another, nor indeed any angel, therefore heaven is divided in a\ngeneral, in a specific, and in a particular manner. It is divided, in\ngeneral, into two kingdoms, specifically, into three heavens, and in\nparticular, into innumerable societies.\n\nThere are angels who receive the Divine Sphere proceeding from the Lord\nmore and less interiorly. They who receive it more interiorly are called\ncelestial angels; but they who receive it less interiorly are called\nspiritual angels. Hence, heaven is divided into two kingdoms, one of\nwhich is called the Celestial Kingdom, and the other, the Spiritual\nKingdom.\n\nThe angels of each heaven do not dwell all together in one place, but\nare divided into larger and smaller societies, according to the\ndifference of the good of love and faith in which they are grounded;\nthose who are grounded in similar good forming one society. There is an\ninfinite variety of kinds of good in the heavens; and every angel is\nsuch in quality as is the good belonging to him.\n\nThat heaven, viewed collectively, is in form as one man, is a mystery\nwhich is not yet known to the world: but it is well known in the\nheavens; for the knowledge of this mystery, with the particular and most\nparticular circumstances relating to it, is the chief article of the\nintelligence of the angels; since many other things depend upon it,\nwhich, without a knowledge of this as their common centre, could not\npossibly enter distinctly and clearly into their ideas. As they know\nthat all the heavens together with their societies are in form as one\nman, they also call heaven THE GRAND AND DIVINE MAN; divine, because the\nDivine Sphere of the Lord constitutes heaven.\n\nFrom my experience, which I have enjoyed for many years, I can affirm\nthat angels are in every respect men; that they have faces, eyes, ears,\na body, arms, hands, and that they see, hear, and converse with each\nother; in short they are deficient in nothing that belongs to a man\nexcept that they are not super-invested with a material body.\n\nTheir habitations are exactly like our houses on earth, but more\nbeautiful. They contain chambers, with-drawing-rooms, and bed-chambers,\nin great numbers, and are encompassed with gardens and flower-beds.\nWhere the angels live together in societies the habitations are\ncontiguous, and arranged in the form of a city, with streets, squares,\nand churches. It has also been granted to me to walk through them, and\nto look about on all sides, and occasionally to enter the houses. This\noccurred to me when wide awake, my interior sight being open at the\ntime.\n\nThat it is by derelation from the Lord's Divine Humanity that heaven,\nboth in whole and in parts, is in form as a man, follows as a conclusion\nfrom all that has been advanced.\n\nThere is a correspondence between all things belonging to heaven and all\nthings belonging to man. It is unknown at this day what correspondence\nis. This ignorance is owing to various causes; the chief of which is,\nthat man has removed himself from heaven, through cherishing the love of\nself and of the world. For he that supremely loves himself and the world\ncares only for worldly things, because they soothe the external senses\nand are agreeable to his natural disposition; but has no concern about\nspiritual things, because these only soothe the internal senses and are\nagreeable to the internal or rational mind. These, therefore, they cast\naside, saying that they are too high for man's comprehension. Not so did\nthe ancients. With them the science of correspondences was the chief of\nall sciences: by means of its discoveries, also, they imbibed\nintelligence and wisdom, and such of them as belonged to the church had\nby it communication with heaven; for the science of correspondences is\nthe science of angels.\n\nIt shall first be stated what correspondence is. The whole natural world\ncorresponds to the spiritual world; and not only the natural world\ncollectively, but also in its individual parts: wherefore every object\nin the natural world, existing from something in the spiritual world, is\ncalled its correspondent. The natural world exists and subsists from the\nspiritual world, just as the effect exists from the efficient cause.\n\nSince man is both a heaven and a world in miniature, he has belonging to\nhim both a spiritual world and a natural world. The interiors, which\nbelong to his mind, and have relation to his understanding and will,\nconstitute his spiritual world; but his exteriors, which belong to his\nbody, and have reference to its senses and actions, constitute his\nnatural world.\n\nThe nature of correspondence may be seen from the face of man. In a\ncountenance which has not been taught to dissemble, all the affections\nof the mind display themselves vividly, in a natural form, as in their\ntype; whence the face is called the index of the mind. Thus man's\nspiritual world shows itself in its natural world. All things,\ntherefore, which take effect in the body, whether in the countenance,\nthe speech, or the gestures, are called correspondences.\n\nThe angels rejoice that it has pleased the Lord to reveal many\nparticulars to mankind. They desire me to state from their lips, that\nthere does not exist, in the universal heaven, a single angel who was\ncreated such from the first, nor any devil in hell who was created an\nangel of light and afterwards cast down thither; but that all the\ninhabitants, both of heaven and of hell, are derived from the human\nrace; the inhabitants of heaven being those who had lived in heavenly\nlove and faith, and those of hell who had lived in infernal love and\nfaith.\n\n\n_II--OF THE WORLD OF SPIRITS_\n\n\nThe world of spirits is not heaven nor yet hell, but is a place or state\nintermediate between the two. Thither man goes after death; and having\ncompleted the period of his stay there, according to his life in the\nworld he is either elevated into heaven or cast into hell.\n\nThe world of spirits contains a great number of inhabitants, because it\nis the region in which all first assemble, and where all are examined\nand are prepared for their final abode. Their stay there is not limited\nto any fixed period: some do but just enter it, and are presently either\ntaken up to heaven or cast down to hell: some remain there only a few\nweeks; and some for several years, but never more than thirty. The\nvarieties in the length of their stay depend upon the correspondence, or\nnoncorrespondence between their interiors and their exteriors.\n\nAs men enter the world of spirits, they are distinguished by the Lord\ninto classes. The wicked are immediately connected by invisible bonds\nwith the society of hell, and the good, in a similar way, with the\nsociety of heaven, but notwithstanding these bonds, they meet and\nconverse together. I saw a father conversing with his six sons, all of\nwhom he recognised; but as they were different in disposition, resulting\nfrom their course of life in the world, after a short time they were\nparted.\n\nThe spirit of a man, when first he enters the world of spirits, is\nsimilar in countenance and in the tone of his voice to what he was in\nthe world. The reason is, because he is then in the state of his\nexteriors and his interiors are not yet laid open. This is the first\nstate of man after death. But afterwards his countenance is changed;\nbeing rendered similar to his governing affection or love, which is that\nin which the interiors belonging to his mind had been grounded while in\nthe world, and which had reigned in his spirit while this was in the\nbody. For the face of a man's spirit differs exceedingly from that of\nhis body; the face of his body being derived from his parents, but that\nof his spirit from his affection, of which it is the image.\n\nThat his own life remains with everyone after death is known to every\nChristian from the Word. Everyone, also, who thinks under the influence\nof good and of real truth, has no other idea than that he who has lived\nwell will go to heaven, and he who has lived ill will go to hell.\n\nBut by deeds and works are not merely meant deeds and works as they\nappear in their external form, but as they appear internally. Everyone\nknows, that every deed or work proceeds from the will and thought of the\ndoer; for otherwise they would be mere motions, such as are performed by\nautomatons and images. The deed or work, then, viewed in itself, is\nnothing but an effect, which derives its soul and life from the will and\nthought from which it is performed; and so completely is this the case\nthat the deed or work is the will and thought in their effect, and is,\nconsequently, the will and thought in their external form. It hence\nfollows, that such as are, in quality, the will and thought which\nproduce the deed or work, such, also, is the deed or work itself; and\nthat if the thought and will are good the deeds or works are good; and\nif the thought and will are evil the deeds and works are evil,\nnotwithstanding in their external form they appear like the former.\n\nTo sum up the truths concerning man's state after death, I will say,\nfirst: that man, after death, is his own love, or his own will;\nsecondly: that, in quality, man remains to eternity, such as he is with\nrespect to his will or governing love; thirdly: that the man whose love\nis celestial and spiritual goes to heaven, but that the man whose love\nis corporeal and worldly, destitute of such as is celestial and\nspiritual, goes to hell; fourthly: that faith does not remain with man,\nif not grounded in heavenly love; fifthly: that what remains with man is\nlove in act, consequently his life.\n\n\n_III.--OF HELL_\n\n\nWhen treating above respecting heaven, it has everywhere been shown,\nthat the Lord is the God of heaven, and thus that the whole government\nof the heavens is that of the Lord. Now as the relation which heaven\nbears to hell, and that which hell bears to heaven, is such as exists\nbetween two opposites, which mutually act against each other, and the\nresult of whose action and reaction is a state of equilibrium, in which\nall things may subsist, therefore, in order that all and everything\nshould be maintained in equilibrium, it is necessary that he who governs\nthe one should also govern the other. For unless the same ruler were to\nrestrain the assaults made by the hells, and to keep down the insanities\nwhich rage in them, the equilibrium would be destroyed, and with it the\nwhole universe.\n\nIt is this spiritual equilibrium that causes man to enjoy freedom in\nthinking and willing. For whatever a man thinks and wills has reference\neither to evil and the falsity proceeding from it, or to good and the\ntruth which comes from that source: consequently, when he is placed in\nthat equilibrium he enjoys the liberty of either, admitting and\nreceiving evil and its falsity from hell, or good in its truth from\nheaven. Every man is maintained in this equilibrium by the Lord, because\nhe governs both--heaven as well as hell.\n\nHell, like heaven, is divided into societies; and every society in\nheaven has a society opposite to it in hell; which is provided for the\npreservation of the equilibrium.\n\nIt is by influence from hell that man does evil, and by influence from\nthe Lord that he does good. But as man believes that whatever he does,\nhe does from himself, the consequence is that the evil which he does\nadheres to him as his own. It hence follows that the cause of his own\nevil lies with man, and not at all with the Lord. Evil as existing with\nman is hell, as existing with him: for whether you say evil or hell,\namounts to the same thing. Now since the cause of his own evil lies with\nman himself, it follows that it is he who casts himself into hell, and\nnot the Lord; and so far is the Lord from leading man into hell, that he\ndelivers from hell, so far as the man does not will and loves to abide\nin his own evil. But the whole of man's will and love remains with him\nafter death: whoever wills and loves evil in the world, wills and loves\nthe same evil in the other life; and he then no longer suffers himself\nto be withdrawn from it. It hence results, that the man who is immersed\nin evil is connected by invisible bonds with hell: he is also actually\nthere as to his spirit; and, after death, he desires nothing more\nearnestly than to be where his evil is.\n\nFrom an inspection of the monstrous forms belonging to the spirits in\nthe hells, it was made evident to me that they all, in general, are\nforms of self-love and the love of the world, and that the evils, of\nwhich in particular they are the forms, derive their origin from those\ntwo loves. It has also been told me from heaven, and proved to me by\nmuch experimental evidence, that those two loves--self-love and the love\nof the world--reign in the hells and also constitute them; whereas love\nto the Lord and love towards the neighbour reign in the heavens and also\nconstitute them: and that the two former loves, which are the loves of\nhell, and the two latter, which are the loves of heaven, are\ndiametrically opposite to each other.\n\nAs by the fire of hell is to be understood all the lust of doing evil\nflowing from self-love, by the same is also meant torment, such as\nexists in the hells. For the lust flowing from that love is, in those\nwho are inflamed by it, the lust of doing injury to all who do not\nhonour, respect, and pay court to them; and in proportion to the anger\nwhich they thence conceive against such individuals, and to the hatred\nand revenge inspired by such anger, is their lust of committing outrages\nagainst them. Now when such a lust rages in everyone in a society, and\nthey have no external bond to keep them under restraint, such as the\nfear of the law, and of the loss of character, of honour, of gain, and\nof the like, everyone under the influence of his own evil attracts\nanother and, so far as he is strong enough, subjugates him, subjects the\nrest to his own authority, and exercises ferocious outrages with delight\nupon all who do not submit to him. All the hells are societies of this\ndescription: on which account, every spirit, and every society,\ncherishes hatred in his heart against every other, and, under the\ninfluence of such hatred, breaks out into savage outrages against him,\nas far as he is able to inflict them. These outrages, and the torments\nso occasioned, are also meant by hell fire; for they are the effects of\nthe lusts which there prevail.\n\nIn order that man may be in a state of liberty, as necessary to his\nbeing reformed, he is connected, as to his spirit, with heaven and with\nhell: for spirits from hell, and angels from heaven, are attendant on\nevery man. By the spirits from hell, man is held in his evil; but by the\nAngels from heaven, he is held in good by the Lord.\n\nThus he is preserved in spiritual equilibrium, that is, in freedom or\nliberty.\n\nThe particulars which have been delivered in this work respecting\nheaven, the world of spirits, and hell, will appear obscure to those who\ntake no pleasure in acquiring a knowledge of spiritual truths; but they\nwill appear clear to those who take pleasure in that acquirement; and\nespecially those who cherish an affection of truth for its own\nsake,--that is, who love truth because it is truth. For everything that\nis loved enters with light into the ideas of the mind: and this is\neminently the case, when that which is loved is truth: for all truth\ndwells in light.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\nTHE TALMUD\n\n\n     The word \"Talmud,\" from the Hebrew verb _lamad_, equalling \"to\n     learn,\" denotes literally \"what-is-learning.\" Then it comes to\n     mean \"instruction,\" \"teaching,\" \"doctrine.\" What is usually\n     called the Talmud consists of two parts: 1. The Mishnah\n     (literally, \"tradition\" and then \"traditional doctrine\") a\n     code of Jewish laws, civil, criminal, religious, and so forth;\n     based ostensibly on the Pentateuch, expounding, applying, and\n     developing the laws contained in the so-called five books of\n     Moses. 2. The Gemara, a word which means literally\n     \"completion,\" or \"supplement,\" _i.e._, in reference to the\n     Mishnah. Some, however, explain the word as meaning\n     \"teaching.\" The word is used technically to denote the\n     expansion, exposition, and illustration of the Mishnah which\n     is found in the Talmud. Strictly speaking, the word \"Talmud\"\n     denotes the Gemara only, but in its ordinary sense the word\n     denotes the Mishnah together with its completion in the\n     Gemara. In the Talmud itself, as usually printed, the section\n     of the Mishnah to be commented on and illustrated is followed\n     by the Gemara in which the opinions of the great Rabbi are\n     stated and discussed.\n\n     As in the case of the Mishnah, so, also, the Talmud has six\n     principal divisions: these will be followed in the subsequent\n     epitomes and need not, therefore, be given here. There are two\n     versions or forms of the Talmud: 1. The Babylonian, or that\n     due to the studies and discussions of the Jewish doctors in\n     the various Hebrew colleges of Babylon (Sura, Pumbaditha, and\n     so forth): in this the Gemara is some ten times as large as\n     the Mishnah. When we speak of the Talmud it is that of Babylon\n     which is always meant. Its language is Eastern Aramaic. 2. The\n     Palestinian Talmud, compiled and edited by the heads of the\n     Hebrew schools in Palestine, Tiberius, Sepphoris, and so\n     forth. Its language is Western Aramaic, and its final editor\n     is said to be Rabbi Ashe, who died A.D. 427. This is often\n     erroneously called the Jerusalem Talmud. In its present form\n     it is only about one-fourth as large as the Babylonian Talmud.\n     The latter discusses nearly every section of the Mishnah,\n     whereas the Palestine Talmud passes by a large proportion of\n     the Mishnah without note or comment. That is, however, because\n     much of this latter Talmud has been lost, for, in the time of\n     Maimonides (died at Cairo A.D. 1204) the Gemara of the\n     Jerusalem Talmud discussed nearly every part of the Mishnah.\n     The Mishnah is usually said to have been completed by Rabbi\n     Jehudah Hannasi, or the Prince (Hannasi), called simply\n     \"Rabbi\" by way of preeminence, who died in A.D. 210 in his\n     sixtieth year. But there are parts of the Mishnah which are\n     older, and parts also at least a century later than the death\n     of that great scholar. There is no absolute proof that the\n     Mishnah was committed to writing until some time after the\n     completion of the Palestinian (about A.D. 400) or even of the\n     Babylonian (about A.D. 500) Talmud, for, in neither Gemara is\n     there any reference to a written Mishnah, nor is a written\n     form of the Mishnah implied anywhere. The preservation of this\n     wonderful code of Jewish laws was due to memory alone, men\n     being appointed in the various synagogues to learn the\n     Mishnaic sections and to recite them whenever it was\n     necessary. Extracts will be given below from the Mishnah and\n     also from the Gemara, the letters M and G preceding paragraphs\n     indicating which of the two is summarised.\n\n\n_DIVISION I.--CALLED SEEDS_\n\n\n[This part deals first of all with prayer, and then most of all with the\nvarious tithes and donations which are due to the priests, Levites, and\nthe poor, from the products of the land.]\n\nSECTION I. TREATISE ON BLESSINGS _(Berakot)_. The time for reading or\nreciting the Shemang.[32]\n\n_M_. At what time in the evening may shemang be read? From the time when\nthe priests, having cleansed themselves, enter the sanctuary to partake\nof the offering (2) (_i.e._, when the stars come out) until the end of\nthe first watch (about 10 p.m.). So says Rabbi Eliezar, but otherwise\nmen extend the time until midnight. Rabbi Gameliel makes the time reach\neven to the dawn of the following day. It happened once that his sons\nreturned home at midnight without having read the shemang. On asking\ntheir father if it was too late he replied that the obligation to\nperform the duties of each day is valid until the first light of morning\nshows itself.\n\n\nThe morning Shemang.\n\n_M_. From what time may the morning shemang be read? From the moment\nwhen there is light enough to distinguish between purple-blue and white.\nRabbi Eliezar says \"between purple-blue and leek-green\" (which are\nharder to distinguish) (3). Up to when may the morning shemang be read?\nUntil the sun has risen. Rabbi Jose says \"until the end of the third\nhour after sunrise, for it is the custom of kings' sons to rise in the\nthird hour of the day. Yet a good act, such as shemang is, never loses\nits virtue whenever it is performed.\"\n\n\nThe attitude in which the shemang should be read.\n\n_M_. The (strict) School of Shammai say men ought to bow in reading the\nevening shemang, but to stand upright when saying shemang in the\nmorning, their scripture warrant being Deut. vi, 7, \"when thou liest\ndown and when thou risest up.\" But according to (the more liberal)\nSchool of Hillel, people must be allowed to read the shemang in whatever\nattitude they choose, referring to the words in the same passage: \"When\nthou sittest in thy house and when thou walkest in the way.\" Why then\nthe words \"when thou liest down and when thou risest up?\" Because these\nare the acts that men perform when the shemang would be usually read.\nRabbi Tarphon said that once when journeying of an evening, he stooped\nin order to read the shemang, with the result that his goods were almost\ntaken from him by unsuspected robbers. He was told that he would have\ndeserved it, had he been actually robbed, for not having followed the\ndecision of the Hillel School. The Gemara on the above Mishnahs gives\nthe opinions of a large number of Rabbis, reporting also discussions in\nwhich they took part.\n\n\nThe benedictions before and after the Shemang.\n\n_M_. Two benedictions (4) are to be said before the morning shemang, and\none after it.\n\n\nWhen the Shemang is rightly read.\n\n_M_. He who reads the shemang without hearing his own voice has yet\ndischarged his duty if only his heart has gone with the reading.\n\n\nPersons not to read the Shemang:\n\nWomen, slaves, and minors are not commanded to read the Shemang, or to\nwear phylacteries. They are, however, expected to recite the eighteen\nbenedictions, the grace after meat, and also to see that the Mezuza is\nattached to the doorpost.[33].\n\n\n_G_. Where are we taught that the Shechinah rests upon _one_ who studies\nthe law? In Exodus xx, 24, where it is written: \"In all places where I\nrecord my name I will come unto _thee_, and I will bless _thee_.\" The\nPalestine Talmud paraphrases thus: \"In every place in which ye shall\nmemorialise My holy name, My word shall be revealed unto _you_, and\nshall bless _you_.\" Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God, even Jehovah is\none. Deut. vi, 4. Whoever prolongs the utterance of the word _one_ (Heb.\n_ekhad_), his days and years shall be prolonged.\n\nOnce, the Rabbis say, the Roman government decreed that no Israelite\nshould be allowed to study the Law. Immediately after, Rabbi Agiba was\nfound teaching the Law to crowds of people who had gathered around him.\nSome one passing by asked him \"Fearest thou not the Roman government?\"\nTo which he said, \"I will answer by a parable: A fox was once walking by\na river side when he saw the fish rushing distractedly hither and\nthither. On asking them the cause of all their perturbation, they\nreplied: 'We are afraid of the nets which wicked men are ever setting to\ncatch us.' 'Why, then,' said the fox, 'do you not leave that dangerous\nelement and try the dry land with me?' 'Surely,' replied the fish, 'thou\nart in this most foolish and unfoxlike, for if it is dangerous for us to\ndwell in this, our native element, how much more would it be if we left\nit for the dry land?' So,\" continued Agiba, \"all those who study the Law\nhave the Divine Promise,\" Deut. xxx, 20: \"He is thy life and the length\nof thy days.\"\n\n\n_DIVISION II--FEASTS_ (MONG\u00ebD)\n\n\n[contains directions for observing the festivals, including the Sabbath.\nThe aim in all is professedly to make explicit what is implicit in the\nPentateuch. But many late ideas and customs are brought into this\ndivision, of which the Pentateuch knows nothing. Even the feast of Purim\nmentioned here it quite unmencioned in the Pentateuch.]\n\n\n1. TREATISE ON THE SABBATH. Law regarding transfer of goods on the\nSabbath.\n\n_M_. It is commanded in Exodus xvi, 29, that no man go out of his place\non the Sabbath day. This implies that no one is to take goods from his\nown premises to those of another.(6). What, however, constitutes one's\nown premises? _(Reshut)._ There are many cases to be considered. Suppose\na beggar stand outside and the master of the house inside. If the first\nreaches his hand through a window or door to the second, or takes\nsomething out of the hand of the latter, the beggar is guilty, but the\nmaster is absolved. If, on the other hand, the master puts his hand\noutside the house, and places something in the beggar's hands, he is\nguilty, but the beggar is absolved.\n\n[There are in all four cases treating of the man inside and four of the\nman outside.]\n\n_G_. Rabbi Mathra said to Abazi, \"There are eight or even ten cases of\ntransfer.\" Rab questioned Rabbi, \"Suppose one from the outside were\nladen in the house with food, fruit, etc. How stands the law? Is the\nremoval of his body tantamount to the removal of a thing from its\nplace?\" \"Yes,\" said Rabbi; \"this is not like the case of removing the\nhand, because the latter was not at rest, while in the former, the body,\nbefore and after removal, was entirely at rest.\" \"Suppose,\" said one\nRabbi to another, \"that a person has put bread into an oven and it is\nnot done by the time the Sabbath begins. May he take it out before it is\nspoiled?\" \"He may lawfully do so if he put it there, believing it would\nbe fully baked before the Sabbath arrived.\"\n\n\nActs forbidden on Sabbath eve.\n\n_M_. Just before the time of Sabbath evening prayer (7), a man is not\nallowed to sit to a barber, to enter a bath, a tanyard, to sit to a\nmeal, or to begin to act as judge in a Law Court. He must first of all\nperform his devotions. But supposing that one has commenced any one of\nthese acts, then let them be finished.\n\n_G_. A man begins the act of haircutting when the barber's cloth is\nspread over him. Bathing has begun if the outer coat has been pulled\noff. A man has commenced to tan if his working apron has been tied\naround him. A meal begins when the hands are washed or (as some say)\nwhen the girdle has been removed. The process of judging has begun when\nthe judges have donned their professional robes, or (as some have it)\ndirectly the litigants begin pleading.\n\n\nThe Jew and a non-Jew.\n\n_M_. The school of Shammai forbids a Jew to sell anything to a non-Jew\non the Sabbath eve, or to help him with a load unless the Jew can reach\nsome neighbouring village before the Sabbath fully sets in. The School\nof Hillel, however, allows it.\n\n\nMiscellaneous prohibitions.\n\n_M_. A tailor must not go out on the Sabbath eve with his needle, lest\nhe forget it and carry it during the Sabbath. Nor must the professional\nwriter (scribe) go out with his writing reed on the Sabbath eve.\nAccording to the School of Shammai it is unlawful on the Sabbath eve to\ndeliver skins to a heathen tanner, or clothes to be washed to a\nnon-Jewish laundress, unless there be time enough for them to be got\nquite ready before the Sabbath begins. But the School of Hillel allowed\nperfect freedom in the matter. Rabbi Simeon ben Gemaliel says, \"it was\nthe custom in my parental home to hand over to the non-Jewish laundress\nthings to be washed, three days before the Sabbath.\" It is forbidden to\nfry meat, onions, or eggs, on the Sabbath eve, unless they can be\ncompletely cooked before the Sabbath begins. Bread must not be put into\nthe oven, nor cakes on the coal, unless there is time before the Sabbath\ncomes in for the surface to become encrusted.\n\n\nConcerning the Sabbath lamp.[34].\n\n_M_. Wherewith may one light the Sabbath lamp? Not with wicks made with\ncedar moss, or raw flax, or silk fibre, or weeds growing in water, or\nship moss. Nor shall pitch, wax, cottonseed oil, or oil of rejected\nofferings, or oil from sheeptail fat, be used for these lamps.\n\n_G_. The Rabbis allowed the aforementioned ingredients to be used for\nthe Sabbath fires, though not for the Sabbath lamps. Why are wicks made\nof the above materials prohibited? Because they give but a flickering\nlight. The oily substances mentioned are forbidden because they do not\nadhere to the wick.\n\n\nAbout extinguishing the Sabbath lamp.\n\n_M_. He who extinguishes the Sabbath lamp for fear of non-Jews or\nrobbers or of evil spirits, or in order that the sick may sleep, is free\nfrom guilt. But if the object is merely to save expense the lamp\nextinguisher stands condemned.\n\n\nThree things to say on the Sabbath eve.\n\n_M_. I. Have ye tithed the food to be eaten on the\n\nSabbath? 2. Have ye made the _erub?_ 3. Light ye the Sabbath lamp.\n\n\nMan's two Sabbath angels.\n\n_G_. As he returns home from the Synagogue on the Sabbath eve, every man\nis accompanied by two angels, one good, the other evil. If, on coming\nhome, the man finds the lamp lit, the tables spread, and everything in\norder, the good angel says, \"May the coming Sabbath be as this present\none.\" To which the evil angel is compelled reluctantly to respond\n\"Amen.\" But if everything be in disorder the bad angel says, \"May the\ncoming Sabbath be as the present one.\" To which the good angel is\nobliged reluctantly to respond, \"Amen.\"\n\n\nThe overturning of Mount Sinai. (9).\n\n_G_. When the Israelites refused to believe the words of Moses after he\nhad returned from the mountain, the Holy One, blessed be He, inverted\nthe mountain above them like a top, and said unto them, \"If ye receive\nthe Law, well, but if not, your graves shall be here.\"\n\n\nLucky and unlucky birthdays.\n\n_G_. Rabbi Simon ben Levi said that whoever is born on the first day of\nthe week (Sunday) will be either thoroughly good or thoroughly bad,\nbecause on that day light and darkness were created. If on the second\nday of the week, he will be stingy, because the waters were divided on\nthat day. If on the third day, he will be rich and prosperous, because\non that day abundant vegetation was created. If on the fourth day, he\nwill be wise and happy, because on that day the luminaries were fixed.\nIf on the fifth day, he will be good-natured, because fishes and fowls\nwere then created, and these are fed by God alone. If on the sixth day,\nhe will be likely to give himself to good works, because that is the\nSabbath preparation day. If, however, he be born on the Sabbath, he will\nalso die on the Sabbath, as a punishment for his desecration of that\nsacred day by his birth.\n\n\n2. TREATISE ON THE PASSOVER (_Pesakhin_). No. 3 in order.\n\n_M._ On the eve of the fourteenth Nisan, search must be made for leaven\nby the light of a lamp (10).\n\n_G._ What means the Hebrew word _or_? (Translated above \"on the eve\nof\"). Rabbi Huna says it means, \"when the day begins to dawn\": but\naccording to Rabbi Jehuda it means \"at night,\" but in Genesis xliv, 3,\nand 2nd Sam. xxiii, 4, the verb means \"to get day, to dawn,\" so that\nRabbi Huna is right. Abazi said that no student should enter upon his\nstudies just before the dawn of the fourteenth Nizan, lest he forget to\nsearch for leaven.\n\n_G._ To Amorain (11) propose the following question: \"Suppose a man let\na house to another, telling him that he had removed all leaven but\nsubsequently it was found that some leaven had been left. Is the\nagreement to take the house binding?\" Abazi said, \"Yes, it is, for it is\nbetter that each householder sees for himself that all leaven has been\nremoved. Before beginning the search for leaven a blessing must be said,\nas, indeed, before any religious act is performed.\"\n\n\nBy the light of the lamp.\n\n_G._ The light of the sun or of the moon or of a flame of fire may not\nbe used in searching for leaven, as the Rabbis say is taught in\nZephaniah i, 12 (I will search Jerusalem with lights), and Prov. xx, 27\n(Man's soul is Jehovah's lamp searching the inner chambers of the body.)\n\n\n3. TREATISE ON NEW YEAR'S DAY (_Rosh Hashshanah_). No. 8 in order.\n\n_G._ The generation before the flood was punished with boiling water.\n(12).\n\n\n4. TREATISE ON THE ROLL (13) _(Megillah)._ No. 10 in order.\n\n_M_. The Megillah _(i.e._, Esther) is sometimes read on the 11th, 12th,\n13th, 14th, or 15th of the month Adar, not earlier nor later (for\ndetails see the Mishnah and Gemara).\n\n_G_. Rabbi Jehuda says on the authority of Samuel, that the book of\nEsther does not defile the hands (14), _i.e._, that this book was not\ngiven by the inspiration of God. Samuel, however, explained that Esther\nwas dictated by the Spirit of God, but only to be orally repeated, and\nnot to be written.\n\n_G_. When a scroll of the Law has become through age unfit for use it is\nto be buried in an earthen vessel, as is said in Jeremiah xxii, 14, \"And\nput them in an earthen vessel, that they may continue many days.\" A\nscroll of the Law ought never to be sold unless the object be to enable\nthe seller to study the Law better, or to take himself a wife. Rabbi\nSimon ben Gemaliel said \"whoever sells a scroll of the Law, or a\ndaughter, though he does it because he has nothing to eat, will have no\ngood from the purchase money.\"\n\n\n5. TREATISE DEALING WITH THE LAWS ABOUT FESTIVAL OFFERINGS. _(Khagiga)._\nNo. 12 in order.\n\nThose under an obligation to offer the burnt offerings during the three\n_great_ annual Feasts.\n\n_M_. Everyone is under an obligation to offer the burnt offering except\nthe following: A deaf man, a fool, a child, one of doubtful sex, one of\ndouble sex, a woman, a slave, a lame man, a blind man, a sick man.\n\nWhat is meant by a child? One not able to ride upon his father's\nshoulders in order to go up from Jerusalem to the Temple. So say the\nSchool of Shammai, but the Hillel School define child, \"One unable to\ntake hold of his father's hand to go from Jerusalem to the Temple.\"\n\n_G_. What does the expression \"everyone\" include?\n\nHim who is half a slave and half free and also him who is lame on the\nfirst day and well on the second day, as well as the man who is blind in\none eye, except the deaf man, a fool, and \u00e0 child, and so forth. A deaf\nman is like a fool and a child, for he is not responsible for his\nactions any more than they are.\n\n\nTHE WORD TOHU RIGHTLY TRANSLATED \"VOID\" IN GENESIS i. 2.\n\n_G_. Tohu is a green line (Heb. Qav or Qaw) which surrounds the entire\nworld, and from which darkness proceeds. (15).\n\n\nTHE SEVEN HEAVENS (16).\n\n_G_. Resh Lagish used to say, \"There are seven heavens, named as\nfollows: 1. Vilon (equals Velum, a curtain). 2. Ragiang. 3. Sheklagim.\n4. Zebul. 5. Mangon. 6. Makon. 7. Ngarabot.\"\n\n\nSATAN AND HIS COMPANIONS ENDEAVOURING TO STEAL A HEARING OF GOD'S WORDS.\n\n_G_. Satan and his fellow-fallen angels are in the habit of listening\nfrom behind a curtain to the words which God speaks to the angels in\nheaven (17).\n\n\n_III.--WOMEN (NASHIM)_\n\n\n[This division deals with betrothals, marriage, divorce, and the like.\nOne treatise discusses vows.]\n\n\n1. TREATISE ON WIDOWS UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO UNDERGO THE LEVIRITE\nMARRIAGE _(Yebamot)._ No. I in order (18).\n\n_M_. A childless widow is under an obligation to marry the eldest\nunmarried brother of her deceased husband. If that brother-in-law\nrefuses to marry her, she is allowed in the presence of the nation's\nleaders to loose his shoe from his foot, to spit in his face, and to say\nto him, \"Thus shall be done to the man who will not build up his\nbrother's house.\" (see Deut. xxii, 9).\n\nThe following classes of women are released from the necessity of\nmarrying any brother-in-law: 1. The illegitimate daughter of the\nbrother. 2. Her daughter. 3. The daughter of his illegitimate son. 4.\nHis wife's daughter. 5. Her son's daughter. 6. Her daughter's daughter.\n7. His mother-in-law. 8. The mother of his mother-in-law. 9. The mother\nof his father-in-law, and so forth.\n\n\n2. TREATISE ON VOWS (_Nedarim_). No. 3 in order.\n\nThe Scriptures Given as a Punishment for Men's Sin.\n\n_G._ If the Israelites had not been guilty of sin they would never have\nrequired more Scripture than the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua. The\nlast is indispensable as it records the way in which the land was\ndivided among the Israelites. The other Scriptures (the Prophets and the\nWriting) because in much wisdom there is grief. (Eccles. i, 18).\n\n\n3. TREATISE ON BETROTHALS (_Qidushin_). No. 7 in order.\n\nThe Families Who went up from Babylon to Jerusalem.\n\n_M._ Ten kinds of families left Babylon for Palestine after the edict of\nCyrus went forth in B.C. 538 permitting the nation to return. These were\nas follows: 1. Priests. 2. Levites. 3. Israelites. 4. Degraded Priests\n(lit. profaned ones). 5. Proselytes (19). 6. Freedmen. 7. Bastards. 8.\nNetinim. 9. Those of unknown lineage. 10. Foundlings. The three first\nare allowed to intermarry: the last six may also intermarry. All those\nwhose mother is known but not their father are said to be of unknown\nlineage. A foundling is one picked up in the streets whose parents are\nboth unknown.\n\n\nThe Evil of Idolatry.\n\n_G_. The worship of idols is so grave a sin that he who renounces or\ndisavows it does as much as if he confessed his belief in the whole law.\n\n\nSons More Desirable than Daughters.\n\n_G_. The world cannot exist without males and females, yet blessed is he\nwhose children are boys, and unlucky he whose children are girls. Cf.\nBaba Bathra, p. 113, col. I:--\"Whoever does not leave a son to be heir,\nGod will heap wrath upon him.\"\n\n\n_IV.--CONCERNING PENALTIES_ (NEZIKIN)\n\n\n[In this division the principal part of the civil and criminal court of\nthe Hebrews is included. See especially the treatise \"Sanhedrin.\"]\n\n\n1. TREATISE CALLED LIT. Chap. I, or THE FIRST GATE. (20)(Heb. _Baba\nQama_.)\n\nDamages to be made good by those responsible for them.\n\n_M_. There are four principal causes of damage to life and property. I.\nThe Ox. 2. The Uncovered Pit. 3. The Man who sets fire to anything. 4.\nThe Fire which starts of its own accord through neglect.\n\nWhenever damage is done in any of these four ways the one that is\nresponsible for it must make the loss good.\n\n_G_. The Rabbis teach that there are many specific forms of the above\nfour kinds of injuries, _i.e._, the ox can do an injury with his horns,\nhis teeth, or his feet.\n\n\nAccident through falling over a jug or barrel.\n\n_M_. If anyone places a jug on a public road and another person stumbles\nover it and breaks it, the latter is not liable for the breakage. But if\nhe is injured by the fall, the owner of the barrel is liable for the\ndamage.\n\n_G_. The Mishnah uses \"jug\" in the first clause and \"barrel\" in the\nsecond. Rabbi Papa said that the same thing is meant in both cases.\n\n\nOn breaking a jug full of water on a public road.\n\n_M_. If a jug full of water breaks on a public road and its contents\ncause a person to slip, or if in any way one is injured by the pieces,\nhe who carries the jug is liable for any injury. Rabbi Jehuda, however,\nsays he is only liable if he breaks it intentionally.\n\n\n2. TREATISE CALLED THE MIDDLE CHAPTER (Heb. _Baba Metsia_). 2nd in\norder.\n\n_G_. It was Elijah's custom to frequent the Rabbi's council chamber. On\none occasion, being later than usual, Rabbi asked him to explain his\ndelay. Elijah answered as follows: \"It is my business to wake up\nAbraham, Isaac, and Jacob one after the other, to wash each one's hand,\nand to wait until each one has said his prayers and returned to rest.\"\n\"But,\" said Rabbi, \"why don't they all rise at the same time?\"\n\"Because,\" was Elijah's reply, \"if they all three prayed at once, their\nunited prayers would precipitate the advent of the Messiah before its\nappointed time.\" \"Then,\" said Rabbi, \"have we amongst us such praying\npeople?\" Elijah said there were, mentioning Rabbi Khizah and his sons.\nRabbi then proclaimed a fast, which Rabbi Khizah and his sons came to\nobserve. When repeating the 18 benedictions (21) they were about to say\n\"Thou restorest life to the dead\" when the world was convulsed and it\nwas asked in Heaven who revealed to them the secret. Elijah was then\nbeaten sixty times with a rod of fire. He afterwards came down like a\nfiery bear and scattered the congregation.\n\n\n3. TREATISE CALLED THE LAST CHAPTER _(Baba Bathra_). No. 3 in order.\n\n_G_. The members of the Great Synagogue who wrote the Book of Ezekiel,\nthe Books of the twelve minor prophets, the Book of Daniel, and the Book\nof Ezra (22).\n\n\n4. TREATISE CALLED SANHEDRIN. NO. 4 in order. [It treats at length of\nthe institution of the municipal and provincial courts called Sanhedrin\nfrom a Greek word, and also of the great Sanhedrin, or _Bethdin_, at\nJerusalem.]\n\n\nJewish Courts and their Constitution.\n\n_G_. [The Sanhedrin was composed of 71 members. If an Israelite had a\npoint of law to decide, he first proposed it to the Court which met in\nhis own city. If they failed to decide the matter, it was submitted to\nthe judgment of the Court of the next city. If the Justices of the\nimmediate district failed to come to a decision, the case was laid\nbefore the Court which met at the entrance of the Temple area. In the\nevent of their failing to decide, they appealed to the Court which met\nat the entrance to the ante-court. Failure in this Court was followed by\nan appeal to the Supreme Court of 71, where the matter was finally\ndisposed of by a majority of votes.\n\nThe Sanhedrin sat in a semicircle in order that the members might be\nable to see one another. There were two notaries, one on the right and\nthe other on the left, to count the \"Ayes\" and \"Noes\" in all cases of\nvoting.]\n\n\nThe authorship of the BOOK OF EZRA.\n\n_G_. [The Book of Ezra was written by Nehemiah. He does not attach his\nname to it because he gave too much attention to his own merits, as it\nis written (Neh. v, 19) \"Think upon me, my God, for good, according to\nall that I have done for my people.\"\n\n\n5. TREATISE ON IDOLATRY _(Aboda Zara_). No. 8 in order.\n\n_M_. It is forbidden to have any dealings with non-Jews for three days\nbefore they hold their unholy festivals (23). One must not lend them any\nmoney, for that could be useful to them in preparing for the festival.\nNor must one borrow from them, for they would gain thereby and be more\nable, out of the interest, to meet the expenses of their coming feasts.\nSimilarly, one must not pay them any money, even though due, nor in\nreturn must payment be received.\n\nRabbi Jehuda, however, maintains that payment should be allowed because\nthat is a displeasure and a disadvantage to those who pay.\n\n_M_. When there is an idol in the city one may go to that city,\nproviding that the road does not lead to the idol alone. Jews are not\nallowed to sell to non-Jews any of the following things, because they\ncan be used for purposes of heathen worship:--Fir cones, white figs, or\ntheir stems, frankincense, and a white cock. A white cock may, however,\nbe sold if one of its claws has been cut off, since non-Jews do not\nsacrifice an animal when an organ is lacking.\n\n\nTHE BOOK OF YASHAR (see 2nd Sam. i, 18).\n\n_G_. What is meant by the Book of Yashar? Rabbi Khyiah bar Abba on the\nauthority of Rabbi Jokhanan says \"It is the book of Abraham, Isaac and\nJacob, they being called righteous _(yesharim),_ and concerning whom it\nis written, Numb, xxiii, 10, 'Let me die the death of the righteous'\"\n_(yesharim)._\n\n\n6. TREATISE CALLED \"SENTENCES OF THE FATHERS\" (Heb. _Pirga Abot_). No. 9\nin order.\n\n[This treatise, on which no Gemara has been handed down, contains moral\nprecepts, aphorisms, and so forth, of the elder Tannain. It has been\noften translated, an excellent rendering by the late Dr. Charles Taylor\nhaving been published by the Cambridge Press.]\n\n\nThe Two Tables of the Law.\n\n_M_. The two Tables of the Law, handed to Moses on Mount Sinai, were\ncreated, along with nine other things, at the time when the world was\nmade, and at sunset, before the first Sabbath began.\n\n\n_V.--SACRED THINGS, SACRIFICES, MEASUREMENTS OF THE TEMPLE, ETC._\n\n\n1. TREATISE ON THE MEASUREMENTS OF THE TEMPLE _(Middot)._ 10th in order.\n\nExtent of the Temple Area.\n\n_M_. The Temple Mount was 500 cubits square. The space was largest on\nthe south, next largest on the east, the third largest being on the\nnorth, and the least, westward. All who entered this area did so on the\nsouth side, going round and passing on to the left.\n\n\n_VI.--LEGAL PURIFICATIONS, LAWS OF CLEAN AND UNCLEAN, ETC._ (TEHAROT)\n\n\n1. TREATISE ON PRESERVING THE HANDS FROM CEREMONIAL UNCLEANNESS.\n_(Jadaim)._\n\nThe Aramaic passages in Ezra and Daniel make the hands unclean (25). But\nAramaic written in Hebrew characters and Hebrew written in Aramaic\n(Syriac) characters, or in the primitive Hebrew characters (much like\nthe Phoenician) do not make the hands unclean. Scriptures, though the\nmatter is the same, never make the hands unclean unless the characters\nor letters, in which they are written, are the square Assyrian letters\nintroduced by Ezra, the second Moses.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\nZOROASTRIANISM\n\n\nZEND AVESTA\n\n\n     Zoroastrianism, or, more correctly, Zarathustraism, is derived\n     from Zoroaster, or, more strictly, Zarathustra, the founder of\n     the religion. Modern scholarship inclines to the belief that\n     this great religious leader was born in West Media about B.C.\n     600, and carried on his great work in Bactria. The religion\n     with which his name is connected is really a reformed and\n     spiritualised kind of that Magism which prevailed in Media and\n     contiguous countries. The priests, who are called \"Atharvans,\"\n     fire-priests, in the Avesta (compare the same name in\n     Hinduism, the Atharvan Veda, etc.) are identical with the\n     Magi, priests of the religion which Zarathustra (Zoroaster)\n     found in his original and adopted home. According to some, the\n     founder of Zarathustrianism lived at a very much earlier time,\n     and there are great scholars (Tiele, Darmesteter, Edouard\n     Meyer) who wholly deny the historicity of such a character. No\n     doubt, in later years, there gathered around Zarathustra an\n     immense number of fictitious and silly legends, as was the\n     case with Buddha, Jesus, and even Muhammad; but that each one\n     of these religious teachers lived and wrought is beyond the\n     reach of reasonable doubt.\n\n\n_INTRODUCTORY_\n\n\nThis is the Bible of the Zarathustrians and of their modern\nrepresentatives, the Parsees, who flourish for the most part in Bombay.\nThe title \"Zend Avesta\" is an anomaly, for \"Zend\" is not the name of a\nlanguage at all, but means \"commentary,\" the word \"Avesta\" connoting the\noriginal text on which the commentary is written. The original title\ndenotes Avesta and Zend, which is a correct description, for what is now\nknown as the Zend Avesta is really a combination of text (Avesta) and\ncommentary (Zend), just as the Jewish Talmud is a combination of Mishnah\n(text) and Gemara (commentary, or, literally, completion). The word\n\"Avesta\" denotes (perhaps literally) knowledge, being cognate with the\nSanscrit word \"Veda.\" But A.V.W. Jackson derives it from a form\n_Upasta_, denoting \"the original text.\" Darmesteter makes the word Old\nPersian, denoting \"law.\"\n\nThe existing Avesta is more like a prayer book than a Bible, for it is\nas a liturgical work that it took on its present form, and as such that\nit is now generally used, though the part called \"Vendidad\" includes a\nlarge number of laws for religious ceremonies and the like.\n\nWhat is known to modern scholars as the Avesta is, however, only a\nportion of the original work, the latter having been largely lost\nthrough the conquests over Persia of Alexander the Great, and especially\nowing to the more thorough subjugation of the Sassanid Persians by the\nMuslims in A.D. 632. The latter were much more bigoted and\nuncompromising in their treatment of other religions and their\nliteratures than were Alexander the Great and his successors. The\noriginal Avesta, as described in Pahlavi text which have come down to\nus, contain twenty-one Nasks or books. These existed, in a more or less\nincomplete state, down to the ninth century of our era, to which century\nthe Pahlavi work \"Dindard\" belongs.\n\nThe Avesta which exists to-day may be divided thus:--\n\nI. The strictly canonical parts, including the following, which will be\nmore fully described in connection with the summaries.\n\n\n    1. Yasnas, including the Gathas.\n    2. Vispereds.\n    3. Vendidads.\n\nII. The Apocryphal Avesta usually called the Khorda Avesta, or the short\nAvesta. This is much less esteemed than the Avesta proper. It comprises,\n\n    1. Yashts (invocation).\n    2. Minor Prayers.\n\nThe language of the Avesta can be correctly described only as Avestan,\nfor no other literature in the same language exists. It resembles the\nPahlavi, or Ancient Persian, but it is identical with no language. The\nZend, or commentary, is written in the Pahlavi language.\n\nThe present writer wishes to express his obligation to the translation\nof the Avesta by Spiegel (in German); Hang in his \"Essays on Sacred\nLanguage, Writing, and Religion of the Parsees \"; and also to those by\nDarmesteter and L.H. Mills in the \"Sacred Books of the East,\" volumes\niv, xxiii, xxxiii. On the question whether or not the Achaemenian kings\nof Persia, Cyrus I., and so forth, were Zarathustrians, see \"Century\nBible,\"--Ezra--Nehemiah--Esther.\n\n\n_I.--YASNAS, OR SACRIFICIAL PRAYERS AND SONGS_\n\n\n[This section of the Avesta constitutes the principal liturgical\ntext-book of the great Yasna ceremony, which is made up chiefly of the\npreparation and offering of the Parahoma (the juice of the homa or soma\nplant mixed with milk and aromatic ingredients). There are seventy-two\nchapters in the Yasnas, though they contain a good number of\nrepetitions. It is in this main part of the Avesta that the five\nmetrical Gathas are to be found, these being the oldest and by far the\nmost important of the Avesta.]\n\nCHAPTER I. THE PROCLAMATION OF SALVATION. I (Zarathustra) make known to\nAhura-Mazda the Great God, that I am about to offer him my prayers and\nsacrifices. (Yasnas.) He is the greatest and best, the most powerful and\nwise. I pay homage, also, to the bountiful immortals (the\nAmensha-Spentas), the guardians of the world. And to the body of the\nsacred cow and its soul; (i) to Ahura (Jupiter), Mithra the sun, to the\nstar Sirius; and to the Fravashis (guardian angels of the saints). If I\nhave offended thee, oh thou greatest one, Ahura-Mazda, or if I have\ndiminished ought of the sacrifices (Yasnas) due to thee, forgive me, O\nforgive me, thou unerring one. I declare myself to be a Mazdaist, a\nZarathustrian, a sworn foe to the Daevas (2) and a worshipper of\nAhura-Mazda.\n\nCHAPTER 4. We present as offerings, pure thoughts, kind words,\nbeneficent works, the Homa (Soma) flesh-offerings, zaothras (3), the\nholy veresma (4), suitable prayers, Gatha hymns, and mathra (the Vedic\nmantra) sacred songs--these all we present as sacrifices to Ahura-Mazda,\nthe holy Srosh (5), to the bountiful immortals, to the Fravashis, and\nsouls of the pure, and also to the sacred fire of Ahura-Mazda.\n\nCHAPTER 8. I offer to thee, O Ahura-Mazda, sacrifices of all kinds.\nMayest thou, O all-powerful, all-wise one, rule over thy creatures, over\nall waters and trees, all empires and dominions, causing fertility,\nhappiness, and universal justice to abound in the world. In all\nconflicts between light and darkness, between the good and the bad, let\nthe right prevail, O thou king of righteousness. I, Zarathustra, urge\nheads of families, chiefs of clans, and rulers of states, to follow the\ntrue religion, that revealed by Ahura-Mazda and proclaimed by his\nprophet Zarathustra.\n\nCHAPTERS 9 AND 10. [In some manuscripts these chapters are designated\nHoma-Yashts, because they celebrate the praises of Homa and have the\nform of Yashts. In these chapters Homa is personified, as, also, in the\nVedas, is the Sanscrit Soma. In the period before the separation of the\nIranians and Indians the worship of the Homa plant (the god of\ninspiration, etc.) bulked largely. It died out, however, among the\nIranians at an early period, perhaps owing to its prevalence among their\nIndian rivals, who traced to it that very courage with which they\ncontended against the Iranians. The present chapters belong to the\nperiod of the revival of the Homa cult among the Mazdaists or\nZarathustrians. This comparatively late date is confirmed by the\nvocabulary and style of the chapters.]\n\nWhen Zarathustra was engaged in singing the Dathas and attending the\nsacred fire, Homa appeared before him in resplendently supernatural\nguise and explained \"I am Homa, whom thou shouldst worship as the sages\nand prophets of old have done.\" \"Tell me,\" replied Zarathustra, \"who was\nit that first worshipped thee by extracting thy juice from the plant?\"\n\"The first,\" said Homa, \"was Vivan-Ghvant whose reward was the birth of\nhis august and renowned son, Yima, (6) the king, in whose reign there\nwas neither death, nor scorching heat, nor benumbing cold, but when\nfulness of life, perfection of happiness, and unfailing justice\nprevailed. The second to worship me,\" said Homa, \"was Athwya, the\nblessed one, and to him as a reward was born Thraetaona, who slew the\nthree-mouthed, three-tailed, six-eyed, thousand-scaled dragon that\nwrought such dire havoc in the world. The third to worship me was\nThrita, to whom, in recompense, were born two sons of illustrious name,\none great as ruler of men, and the other a brave warrior who slew the\nman-and-horse-swallowing dragon. The fourth was thine own distinguished\nfather, Pourushasha, and the reward that he received was to have thee, O\ngreat prophet of men, for his son.\" On hearing which Zarathustra\nimmediately set about walking around the sacred fire singing lustily the\npraises of the god Homa, whom his father had worshipped. \"It is Homa,\"\nsang the prophet, \"that gives men knowledge of things new and old. Even\nmen buried under a weight of book-lore receive from him inspiration and\nperception of truth that no books can impart. It is Homa that gives kind\nand wealthy husbands to unwed maidens; that fills the sky with clouds\nand refreshes the ground with life-giving showers, causing the plants to\ngrow on the lofty mountains on whose brow thine own sacred plant\n(asclepias) flourishes.\"\n\nCHAPTER 12. [Profession of faith on the part of the new convert, uttered\nby the ancient Iranians on their giving up the worship of Daevas and the\nnomad life, and on their being received into the religious community\nestablished by Zarathustra.]\n\nNow cease I to be a Daeva worshipper and make profession of the religion\nof Ahura-Mazda, proclaimed by Zarathustra. I ascribe all good things\neverywhere to Ahura-Mazda, the true, shining and holy one. I will never\nmore molest Mazdaists. I will forsake the Daevas, the false and wicked\noriginators of all the mischief in the universe. I forsake also all\nDaeva like beings, witches, wizards, and the like. I belong to the\nMazdaist religion, and will support it to my dying day. There is no joy\nof virtue but has come from Ahura-Mazda.\n\nCHAPTER 19. The importance and value of the Ahuna-Vairya prayer, said\nZarathustra to Ahura-Mazda \"O holiest and best of beings, what words\ntaughtest thou me before the world was, or human life began its\nhistory?\" \"It was,\" responded the supreme being, \"the Ahuna-Vairya\nprayer. Whoever, O Zarathustra, recites this prayer or intones it, or\neven whispers it under his breath, I will carry him safely across the\nbridge which leads to paradise. But whoever cuts this prayer short by a\nhalf, a third, a fourth, or by any quantity, his soul shall I keep out\nof paradise and it shall wander in sorrow for ever.\"\n\nCHAPTER 22. ADORATION OF THE FRAVASHIS (GUARDIAN ANGELS OF THE SAINTS).\nI will praise the Fravashis, who have existed from time immemorial.\nThose of the houses, villages, and provinces, who preserve order in the\nheavens above, on the earth, and in the waters. I praise the Fravashis\nof Ahura-Mazda, the Fravashis of the bountiful immortals, and those of\nZarathustra and of the Holy Counsellors. All good Yazads (7) deserve\nhomage and sacrifice.\n\nCHAPTER 35. AHURA-MAZDA AND THE IMMORTALS ADORED AND SUPPLICATED. We\nadore thee, O thou great God, Ahura-Mazda, and also the bountiful\nimmortals. We laud all good thoughts and words and deeds that have been,\nare, or will be. It is our duty to live the good life, for that is best\nfor both worlds. Thine, O lofty spirit, is the kingdom, thine the power,\nand thine the glory. Thy righteous rule surpasses every other rule; thy\npraise all other praise; thy hymns are the loftiest and best.\n\nCHAPTER 57. IN HONOUR OF SROSH. We pay homage to thee, Srosh, the\nobedient and blessed one, the first of creatures to worship Ahura-Mazda,\nthe Creator. Thou didst also worship the bountiful immortals, and wast\nthe first to brandish the veresma and to sing the Gathas. Thou didst\nslay the all-destroying demon, and thou protectest the world and its\ndenizens. Thou sleepest not, nor slumberest day or night. Thou teachest\nmen the true religion--that of Ahura-Mazda.\n\n\nTHE FIVE GATHAS\n\n\n[_Gatha_ means \"song,\" and is the same word as the Sanscrit _Gita_ (Cf.\np. 61 Bhagavad-Gita). These five gathas include yasnas 28-34, 43-46,\n47-50, and 51-53. In metre, vocabulary, and matter, the gathas prove\nthemselves to be the oldest part of the Avesta. The doctrines taught are\nlikewise purer and more rational. Note the following:--I. There is one\nsupreme good deity, Ahura-Mazda, the conception of whom is so lofty\nthat, in order to save his character, a spirit of evil (Ahriman) has\nbeen invented. To the supreme good spirit are ascribed six attributes\nwhich are often personified. In the later parts of the Avesta these\nattributes are made independent persons (the bountiful immortals, or the\nAmesha Spentas). But in the Gathas they form with Ahura-Mazda a unity\nmuch resembling the Sabellian trinity. 2. The doctrine of reward and\npunishment that is taught in the Gathas is subjective, _i.e._, it makes\na man's reward and punishment consist in change of character,\ndisposition, etc.\n\nIt is a strange coincidence that the highest form of Indian and Iranian\nbelief is to be found in the earliest literature of these religions,\n_i.e._, the Vedas and the Gathas. This does not agree with the opinion\nthat most prevails, that in religions there is ever progress from lower\nto higher forms.\n\nIn these Gathas there is a unity of thought and feeling suggesting\nstrongly unity of authorship. There is general agreement that the one\nauthor to whom at least the great bulk of the Gathas is due is\nZarathustra himself. Roth, L.H. Mills, and other scholars date the\nGathas as they would the Vedas, somewhere between B.C. 1200 and 1500,\nand they therefore fix upon the same date for the work of Zarathustra\nhimself. Other Avestan scholars (A.V.W. Jackson, etc.) fix the date of\nZarathustra's life, and therefore of the Gathas, some time near B.C.\n600. If the latter opinion is held, it is probable that the substance of\nthe Gathas is much older than the form which they take in the Avesta.]\n\nGATHA I, Yasnas 28-34, 29, which is earlier than 28.\n\nTHE CALL OF ZARATHUSTRA. The afflicted people cry out aloud to thee, O\nAhura-Mazda, and also to the Asha, the author of the divine order. Why\nwere we made to be exposed to the attacks of suffering and of sin? The\ndivine one asked Asha \"Hast thou appointed a guardian over this people\nto defend them from evil?\" Said Asha: \"There is no man in this world\nthat has to bear his lot of suffering and to resist moral adversaries,\nbut the great Creator knows all about his life, and demands from him all\nthat he is capable of. No man can choose anyone who is able to secure\njustice and happiness in the world.\" \"But I,\" said Ahura-Mazda, \"have\nchosen one for this great task, it is Zarathustra, the prophet and\npriest.\" On hearing of his divine appointment, Zarathustra prayed to his\ngod, saying, \"Do thou, O all-wise one, aid me, directing my thoughts,\nchoosing for me my words, and guiding my steps, for without thee I can\ndo nothing.\"\n\n28. ZARATHUSTRA'S PRAYER FOR HELP. Teach me, O loftiest one, thy ways,\nand encourage me by thy promises to observe thy ceremonies. When shall I\nbecome acquainted with thine own pure mind, and know what is truly good?\nWhen shall I realise thee in my own soul, and have fellowship with thee\nwithout the mediation of man or angels? I do not ask for riches, or\nbooty, or worldly prosperity, but for righteousness.\n\nGRATITUDE FOR BLESSINGS ALREADY RECEIVED. Thou hast granted my requests,\nand given me the boon which I asked for. May I never offend thee, nor be\nungrateful! Supply my lot with what thou knowest to be best, and not\nwith what I desire. Make thou clear to me the laws which govern thy\nkingdom, that I may be a safe guide to others.\n\n30. THE CREED WHICH ZARATHUSTRA IS TO PREACH. I announce to all who\ndesire to know, the true doctrine about the Creation. Let all that\nlisten give heed and shape their ways according to this teaching:--There\nwere at the beginning two spirits and nothing more--a better principle\nand a worse. This pair existed independently each of the other. The good\nspirit (Ahura-Mazda) made all that he created perfect and just, like\nhimself, but the evil spirit (Ahriman) created things that were evil.\nWhy have the Daevas-worshippers perverted the truth and gone astray from\nthe right path? Because the creator of evil has taken possession of\nthem. All such as make their thoughts, words, and deeds conform to the\nwill of the good spirit have an eternal reward, and their salvation has\nalready begun. But such as yield to the evil impulses prompted by\nAhriman shall abide eternally in woe and misery.\n\n31. THE TWO PARTIES. Many there are who hiss at this teaching of mine,\nand will have none of it, but the people of Ahura give heed thereto. O\nsupreme spirit of good, grant me by the sacred fire and the holy ritual\nsome sign that will convince and convert men, so that all may be brought\nto thee and be made to abandon their Daevas. O ye bountiful immortals,\nwill ye give me prophetic knowledge that I may lead men aside from the\nerror of their ways; what punishment shall be his who strives to set up\nin our midst a king belonging to the Daeva party?\n\n\nGATHA 2. 43-46.\n\n[This part of the Avesta gives a fuller and correcter view of the work\nand teaching of Zarathustra than any other.]\n\n43. The Theophany of Ahura-Mazda to Zarathustra. I saw Ahura-Mazda on\nhigh and he made known to me his truth, that I may tell it to men.\n\n44. A PRAYER FOR KNOWLEDGE. Speak thou truly to me, O Ahura-Mazda, and\nnot falsely as the Daevas do to their worshippers. How came this present\nworld to be, and to be supported, if not through thee? Who made the sun\nand moon and stars, and the waters and the winds and the trees, who, if\nnot thou? Reveal thou to me, O great one, the inner truth of things.\n\nO ye crowds of men, when will ye call evil, evil, and good, good,\ninstead of the contrary? Have the Daevas ever supplied good rulers?\n\n\n_II.--VISPEREDS_\n\n\n[The word Vispered means \"all the lords,\" and this section is so called\nbecause it contains invocations to all the lords or gods. It consists\nalmost entirely of extracts from other parts of the Avesta, especially\nfrom the Yasnas. What is not found elsewhere has no special value and\nneed not be summarised.]\n\n\n_III.--VENDIDADS_ (LIT. \"LAWS AGAINST DEMONS\")\n\n\n[This is not strictly a liturgical work, but a priestly code describing\nthe various purifications, penalties and expiations by which faults of\nvarious kinds are atoned for, or their consequences annulled. The\nexisting Vendidads agree almost exactly with Nask (19) of the original\nAvesta, the only part of the Avesta in which one of the Nasks has been\ncompletely preserved. The Vendidads are divided into twenty-two Fargads,\nor sections.]\n\nFARGAD 3. THE SANCTITY OF AGRICULTURE. The earth should be cultivated,\n1. that it may bring forth food for man and beast, 2. because it\npromotes human piety. \"How is it, O great creator,\" asks Zarathustra,\n\"that religion is to be spread?\" \"By cultivating barley,\" was the\nanswer, \"for he who cultivates barley, cultivates purity. When barley is\nthreshed or ground, and when flour is produced, devils whistle, whine,\nand waste away, knowing full well that man's idleness is their only\nopportunity.\" (Cf. compare Dr. Watts' line \"Satan finds some mischief\nstill, for idle hands to do.\")\n\nFARGAD 4. CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LAW. Whoever refuses to restore property to\none to whom he knows it belongs by right, is a thief. Every day and\nnight that he keeps this property he is guilty of theft. \"How many kinds\nof property are there?\" asked Zarathustra. \"These six,\" was the answer.\n\"1. That made by mere words. 2. That made by striking hands. 3. That\nmade by depositing a sheep as security. 4, 5, 6. Those cases in which\nthe security is respectively an ox, a man's value, and the value of a\nfull field.\" Then there follow details of penalties for violating these\nseveral contracts:--_e.g._, for breaking the first--300 stripes of the\nrod, and so forth.\n\nFARGADS 5-18, give the laws for the treatment of dead bodies. The two\ndetermining principles are--1. That a dead body is impure. 2. The\nelements earth, fire, and water, are absolutely pure and sacred. Bodies\nare not, therefore, to be buried, or they would pollute the earth; nor\nare they to be burnt, or they would pollute fire, nor thrown into water\nof any kind. They must be carried up to a lofty mountain, placed on\nstones, or iron plates, and exposed to dogs and vultures. Impurity from\ncontact with a dead body, etc., is removed by pure water (Cf. the water\nof baptism). Then there follow laws prescribing the counter-charms to be\nused against evil spirits; the methods by which the sacred fire must be\nmade and used, and so forth.\n\nFARGAD 19, treats of the fate of the soul after death.\n\n\nThe Aprocryphal or Khorda Avesta\n\n[The Yashts resemble closely the prayers of the Yasnas and the\nVispereds, differing only in this, that each one of the twenty-four\nextant is devoted to the traits of a single deity, or at least of one\nclass of divine beings (the bountiful immortals, and so forth). The\nusual word in the Yashts for the superhuman beings at rest is Yazads.]\n\nYASHT I. The names of Ahura-Mazda and their efficacy.\n\nAsked Zarathustra, \"What, O Most High, are the most effective\ncounter-charms (mantras) against evil spirits?\" He received for answer\nthat the pronunciation of the twenty different names of Ahura-Mazda are\nthe best and strongest spells. These are the following:--1. The\nRevealer. 2. The Herd-giver, etc., etc. The twentieth and last is Mazda,\nthe All-knowing One.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\n_PHILOSOPHY_\n\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\n ARISTOTLE\n\n\nTHE ETHICS OF ARISTOTLE\n\n\n     Aristotle was born at Stagira, a Greek colony on the\n     Macedonian frontier, in 384 B.C., when Plato was forty-three,\n     fifteen years after the death of Socrates. Going to Athens, he\n     became one of Plato's pupils in philosophy at the age of\n     twenty. In 342 he became tutor to the future Alexander the\n     Great, and some years later opened, again at Athens, his own\n     school, whose disciples were called the Peripatetics. He died\n     in 322 B.C. His works laid the systematic foundations of every\n     science known in his time. His various treatises on logic were\n     comprised in the \"Organon\"; he dealt with psychology and\n     metaphysics; with rhetoric and the principles of literary\n     criticism. He also systematised the natural sciences; and the\n     two works here given, \"the Ethics\" and \"Politics,\" have\n     profoundly influenced ethical and political thought from his\n     own day to ours. In particular, his classification of the\n     virtues, and his doctrine that virtue lies in a \"mean,\" have\n     dominated a vast amount of moral speculation. The treatises as\n     we know them are so crabbed and condensed in style as to give\n     the impression that they are to a large extent not the\n     finished works, but notes and summaries.\n\n\n_I.--THE END OF LIFE AND THE MEANING OF VIRTUE_\n\n\nEvery art and science, every action, has for its end some good, whether\nthis be a form of activity or an actual product. The ends of minor arts\nare only means to the ends of superior arts. If there is one supreme\nend, this is The Good, inquiry into which belongs to the supreme Social\nScience [for which the Greek term is Politics]. The name given to this\nsupreme good, the attainment of which is the object of Politics, is\nHappiness, good living, or welfare.\n\nBut Happiness itself is variously defined; some identify it with\nPleasure, others with Honour--the first a degrading, and the second an\ninadequate view. Platonists find it in an abstract Idea of Good, a\nUniversal which precludes particulars. There is a great deal to be said\nagainst this doctrine, even as a question of logic or metaphysic; but\napart from that, the theory is out of court, for the all sufficient\nreason that its practical value is _nil_--knowledge of the great\nUniversal Good in the abstract is of no practical use whatever in\neveryday life, which is a fundamental point for us.\n\nIf, then, there is a supreme dominating Good to be aimed at, what are\nthe essential characteristics it must display? The Good of all Goods,\nthe Best, must be complete in itself, a consummation. Whatsoever is a\nmeans to some end beyond fails so far of completeness; when we say that\nour end must be \"complete,\" it follows that it must always be an end,\nnever a means. It is not merely one amongst others of which it is the\nbest, but the one in which all the others are summed up. It is of itself\nquite sufficient for the individual, and that not merely in isolation,\nbut as a member of society--which it is his nature to be.\n\nLet us then define Happiness as Man's _Work_--the performance of his\nfunction as man. Everything has some specific function, the performance\nof which is its Good, and man, too, must have a specific function. Now,\nthis cannot be the kind of life which he shares with the vegetable or\nwith the brute creation, therefore it must be the active life of his\ndistinctive--_i.q.,_ his rational--part, exercised in accordance with\nthe virtue or virtues which perfect it, and in his life as a whole, not\nmerely at moments.\n\nTesting our conclusions by the judgments of common experience, we gather\nsupport from them. Goods external, and goods of the body, are reckoned\ninferior to goods of the soul, which is recognised as the seat of\nactivities. The identification of happiness with virtue, however,\nnecessitates the distinction between active virtue and virtuousness. As\nconducing to active virtue, the other kinds of goods are elements in\nhappiness. We must assume it to be not something granted to us, outside\nour own control, but attainable by effort and education.\n\nVirtues are of two kinds: of the intellect, acquired by study; and\nmoral, acquired by practice. The moral virtues are not implanted by\nnature, but we have the capacity for them by nature, and achieve them by\npractice, as by practice we acquire excellence in the arts, or control\nover our passions. Education, then, is of the utmost importance, since\nthe state or habit of virtue is the outcome of virtue in act.\n\nThe manner, the \"how\" of action, must be in accord with Right Reason,\nwhereof we shall speak elsewhere. Here we must recognise that we are not\nlaying down universal propositions, but general rules which are modified\nby circumstances. Our activities must lie in a mean between the two\nextremes of excess and defect, and this applies both to the process of\ngenerating virtue, and to its manifestation. The virtues are concerned\nwith pleasure and pain, because these act as inducements or opposing\ninfluences; Beauty, Advantage, and Pleasure being the three standing\ninducements, and Pleasure entering into both the others; so that in one\naspect Virtue is the Best action in respect to pleasure.\n\nBut it does not lie in the mere act; the act must be born of knowledge\nand of choice done for its own sake, and persistently--the first,\nknowledge, being the least important; to make it the most important is a\nspeculative error.\n\nNow, there are three modes of mind: feeling or passion, faculty, and\nhabit. We do not praise or blame passion in itself, or the faculty;\ntherefore virtue can lie in neither, but must be found in habit or\ncondition. The virtuous habit or condition is what enables that whereof\nit is the virtue to perform its function, which, in the case of man, is\nthe activity of the soul, preserving always a middle course between\nexcess and deficiency, by choice.\n\nIn another sense, however, we must remember that there are qualities in\nthemselves wrong, and that virtue may be presented as not something\nintermediate, but a consummation. But when we name each of these\nvirtues--Courage, Temperance, Liberality, etc.; the social virtues, or\ngood manners; the virtues concerned with the passions--we can name the\ncorresponding excess or deficiency. Justice and the intellectual virtues\ndemand a separate analysis.\n\nEach virtue stands in opposition to each of the extremes, and each of\nthese to the other extreme, though in some cases the virtue may be more\nantagonistic to one extreme than to the other, as courage to cowardice\nmore than to rashness. In individual cases, it is difficult to avoid\nbeing deflected towards one or other of the extremes.\n\nBefore proceeding with this analysis, we must examine the question of\nchoice. To be praiseworthy, an act must be voluntary. An act is not\nvoluntary if it is the outcome of external compulsion. Where there is a\nmargin of choice, an act must still, on the whole, be regarded as\nvoluntary, though done \"against our will.\" Of properly involuntary acts,\nwe must distinguish between the unintentional and the unwilling, meaning\nby the latter, in effect, what the agent would not have done if he had\nknown.\n\nChoice is not the same thing as a voluntary act; nor is it desire, or\nemotion, or exactly \"wish,\" since we may wish for, but cannot make\nchoice of, the unattainable. Nor is it Deliberation--rather, it is the\nact of decision following deliberation. If man has the power to say yes,\nhe has equally the power to say no, and is master of his own action. If\nwe make a wrong choice through ignorance for which we are ourselves\nresponsible, the ignorance itself is culpable, and cannot excuse the\nwrong choice; and so, when the choice is the outcome of a judgment\ndisordered by bad habits, men cannot escape by saying they were made\nso--they made themselves so. To say they \"could not help\" doing wrong\nthings is only an evasion.\n\n\n_II.--THE MORAL VIRTUES EXAMINED_\n\n\nVirtues, then, are habits, issuing in acts corresponding to those by\nwhich the habit was established, directed by Right Reason, every such\nact being voluntary, and the whole process a voluntary process.\n\nWe may now turn to the analysis of the several virtues.\n\nCourage has to do with fear. Not all kinds; for there are some things we\nought to fear, such as dishonour and pauperism, the fear of which is\ncompatible with dauntless courage, while the coward may not fear them.\nFearlessness of what is in our control, and endurance of what is not,\nfor the sake of true honour, constitute the courageous habit. Its excess\nis rashness or foolhardiness, the deficiency cowardice. Akin to it, but\nstill spurious, is the courage of which the motive is not Honour but\nhonours or reputation. Spurious also is the courage which arises from\nthe knowledge that the danger is infinitesimal; so is that which is born\nof blind anger, or of elated self-confidence, or of mere unconsciousness\nof danger. True Courage lies in resisting a temptation to pleasure or to\nescaping pain, and, above all, death, for Honour's sake. The exercise of\na virtue may be very far from pleasant, except, of course, in so far as\nthe end for which it was exercised is achieved.\n\nTemperance is concerned with pleasures of the senses; mainly of touch,\nin a much less degree of taste; but not of sight, hearing, or smell,\nexcept indirectly. Of carnal pleasures, some are common to all, some\nhave an individual application. Temperance lies in being content to do\nwithout them, and desiring them only so far as they conduce to health\nand comfort. The characteristic of intemperance is that it has to do\nwith pleasures only, not with pains. Hence, it is more purely voluntary\nthan cowardice, as being less influenced by perturbing outward\ncircumstances as concerns the particular case, though not the habit.\n\nLiberality is concerned with money matters, and lies between\nextravagance and meanness. Really it means the right treatment of money,\nboth in spending and receiving it--the former rather than the latter. A\nman is not really liberal who lavishes money for baser purposes, or\ntakes it whence he should not, or fails to take due care of his\nproperty. The liberal man tends to err in the direction of lavishness.\nExtravagance is curable, but is frequently accompanied by carelessness\nas to the objects on which the money is spent and the sources from which\nit is obtained. The habit of meanness is apt to be ineradicable, and is\ndisplayed both in the acquisition and in the hoarding of money.\n\nMunificence is a virtue concerned only with expenditure on a large\nscale, and it implies liberality. It lies between vulgar ostentation and\nniggardliness. It is possible only for the wealthy, and is concerned\nmainly with public works, but also with private occasions of ceremony.\nThe error of vulgar ostentation is misdirection of expenditure, not\nexcess. Niggardliness abstains from a proper expenditure.\n\nMagnanimity is the virtue of the aristocrat; its excess is\nself-glorification, its deficiency self-depreciation. The magnanimous\nman will bate nothing of his claim to honour, power and wealth, not as\ncaring greatly for them, but as demanding what he knows to be his due.\nThis character involves the possession of the virtues; the man must act\nin the grand manner and on the grand scale. He knows his own\nsuperiority, does not conceal it, and acts up to it. Self-glorification\noverrates its own capacities; self-depreciation underrates them and\nshuns its responsibilities, being the more reprehensible of the two.\n\nThere is a nameless virtue which stands to magnanimity in the same\nrelation as that of liberality to munificence; these being concerned\nwith honours, as those with money. The excess is ambition, the\ndeficiency is the lack of it; but here terminology fails us.\n\nGood temper is a mean between ill-temper--whether of the irascible, the\nsulky, or the cantankerous kind--and something for which we have no name\n(poor-spiritedness). Friendliness comes between the excessive desire to\nplease and boorishness. It is a social virtue which might be defined as\ngoodwill _plus_ tact. Sincerity [there is no English term quite\ncorresponding to the Greek] is the quality opposed on the one side to\nboastfulness, and on the other to mock-modesty; it is displayed by the\nman who acknowledges, but who never exaggerates his own merits. In the\nsocial display of wit and humour, there is a marked mean between the\nbuffoon and the dullard or prig. Shame is a term implying a feeling\nrather than a habit; like fear, it has a physical effect, producing\nblushes, and seems, in fact, to be fear of disrepute. To the young, it\nis a safeguard against vice; the virtuous man need never feel it; to be\nunable to feel it implies the habit of vice. Continence is not properly\nin the category of moral virtues.\n\n\n_III.--JUSTICE_\n\n\nWe come now to Justice. A specific habit differs from a specific faculty\nor science, as each of the latter covers opposites, _e.g._, the science\nof health is also the science of sickness; whereas the habit of Justice\ndoes not cover but is opposed to the habit of Injustice. Justice itself\nis a term used in various senses; and the senses in which injustice is\nused vary correspondingly. Confusion is apt to arise from these varying\nsenses not being distinguished. Injustice includes law-breaking,\ngrasping and unfairness. Grasping is taking too much of what is good\nonly; unfairness is concerned with both what is good and what is\ninjurious. But in the legal sense, whatever law lays down is assumed to\nbe just. Law, however, covers the whole field of virtuous action as it\naffects our neighbours, so that in this general sense justice is an\ninclusive term equivalent to righteousness. We, however, must confine\nourselves to the specific sense of the terms.\n\nGrasping is, in fact, included in unfairness, which is the real opposite\nof specific justice; it includes law-breaking only so far as the law is\nbroken for the sake of gain. The justice with which we are concerned has\ntwo branches: Distributive, of honours and the like among citizens by\nthe State, and of private property by contract and agreement; and\nCorrective, the remedying of unfair distribution. There are always two\nparties, and justice is the mean between the unfairness which favours A\nand the unfairness which favours B. Distributive justice takes into\nconsideration the merits of the parties; corrective justice is concerned\nonly with restoring a balance which has been disturbed. The distribution\nis a question not of equality, but of right proportion; and this applies\nto retribution, which is recognised as one of its aspects, _e.g._, the\nretribution for an officer striking a private and for a private striking\nan officer. Proportional requital is the economic basis of society,\narrived at by the existence of a comparatively unfluctuating currency\nwhich provides a criterion.\n\nIn the State, as such, justice is obtained from the law and its\nadministrators; justice is the virtue of the magistrate. Since he has\nnothing to gain or lose himself, it has been supposed that justice is\n\"another's good,\" not our own. In the family, justice does not come in,\nthe whole household being, in a sense, parts of the _pater familias_;\nand as you cannot be unjust to yourself, you cannot be unjust to your\nhousehold. In the State, what is just is fixed partly by the nature of\nthings, partly by law or convention.\n\nAs to individual acts, injury may arise from a miscalculation, or from\nan incalculable accident; it becomes a wrong when it was intentional but\nnot premeditated, an injustice when premeditated. An act _prima facie_\nunjust is not so if done with the free consent of the person injured. It\nis the agent of distribution, not the recipient, who is unjust (when\nthey are different persons); and similarly, the agent, not the\ninstrument. And even the agent of unjust distribution is not really\nunjust unless he was really actuated by motives of personal gain.\n\nThe performance of a particular act is easy. To perform it rightly as\nthe outcome of a right habit, is not; nor is it easy to be confident as\nto what is right in the particular case. The man who is just, having the\nhabit, does not find it easy to act unjustly.\n\nWhat we must call equity may be opposed to justice, but only in the\nlegal sense of that term. It is justice freed from the errors incidental\nto the particular case, for which the law cannot provide. Injustice,\nagain, is found in self-injury or suicide; which the law penalises, not\nbecause the individual thereby treats himself unjustly, but because he\ndoes an injustice to the community. It is only by metaphor that a man\nmay be called unjust to himself, an expression which means that the\nrelation between one part of him and another part of him is analogous to\nthe unjust relation between persons.\n\n\n_IV.--WISDOM, PRUDENCE AND CONTINENCE_\n\n\nThe ensuing discussion of intellectual virtue requires some remarks on\nthe soul. We distinguish in the rational part, that which knows,\nconcerned, with the unchanging; and that which reasons, concerned with\nthe changing. Our intellects and our propensions--not our\nsense-perceptions, which are shared with animals--guide our actions and\nour apprehension of truth. Attraction and repulsion, in correspondence\nwith affirmation and denial, combine to form right choice; the\npractical--as opposed to the pure--reason having an external object, and\nbeing a motive power.\n\nThere are five modes of attaining truth: (1) Concerning things\nunalterable, defined as demonstrative science; (2) concerning the making\nof things changeable, art; (3) concerning the doing--not making--of\nthings changeable, prudence; (4) intuitive reason, the basis of\ndemonstrative science; (5) wisdom, the union of intuitive reason and\nscience.\n\nWisdom and prudence are the two virtues of the intellect. Wisdom implies\nintuitive reason, which grasps undemonstrable first principles; it is\nconcerned with the interests not of the moment, the individual, or the\nlocality. Whereas prudence is concerned precisely with these; it is\nessentially practical. Wisdom cannot be identified with statesmanship;\nwhich, again, is not the same as prudence--which applies to the self,\nand to the family, as well as to the State; it differs from wisdom as\nrequiring experience.\n\nWisdom, knowledge of the ultimate bases, is equally without practical\nbearing for those who have acquired a right habit and for those who have\nnot; just as a knowledge of medical theory is of no use to the average\nman. But being an activity of the soul, _ipso facto_, it conduces to\nhappiness. The general conclusion is that what we have called \"prudence\"\nshows the means to the end which the moral virtues aim at. It is not a\nmoral virtue, but the moral virtues accord with it. Both are necessary\nto the achievement of goodness.\n\nWe come now to a second group of qualities, concerned with conduct. We\nhave dealt with the virtues and their opposing vices. We pass by the\ninfra-human and the supra-human bestiality and holiness; but have still\nto deal with Continence and its contrasted qualities, which are\nconcerned with the passions.\n\nIn the popular view, continence, self-control, is adherence to our\nformed judgment. Incontinence is yielding to passion where we know it to\nbe wrong, and may be indulged in the pursuit of vengeance, honour, or\ngain. A number of _prima facie_ contradictions are started out of the\npopular views. We find that a man does not act against complete\nknowledge or knowledge of which he is fully conscious. The knowledge\nmay, so to speak, be there, but is in abeyance, a condition which is\npalpably exemplified in a drunken man. Now, incontinence is concerned\nwith pleasures, which are necessary--as for sustenance of life--and\nunnecessary but, _per se_, desirable, as honour. Incontinence is a term\napplied only by analogy in the case of the latter; its proper\nconcern--as with the moral vice, which we call intemperance--is with the\nformer. It implies, however, violent desire, which intemperance does\nnot. We have examples of such desires in a morbid or diseased form,\nspecies of mania; but here again the term incontinence is only applied\nby analogy. Its legitimate application, in short, is restricted to the\nnormal.\n\nIncontinence in respect of anger is not so bad as in respect of desire.\nIt is often constitutional, it is in itself painful, and it is not\nwanton, being in all three points unlike the other. What we spoke of as\nbestiality is more horrible than vice or incontinence, as being inhuman;\nbut it does less harm. Incontinence means transgressing the ordinary\nstandards in respect of pleasure and pain. Such transgression, when of\nset purpose, and not followed by repentance--consequently, incurable--is\nthe moral vice of intemperance; which, being characterised by the\nabsence of violent desire, is worse than incontinence. The latter is\nopen, and is curable. The confusion between the two is due to their\nissuing in like acts; the passionate impulse is temporary; it is not a\nformed habit of wrong choice.\n\nContinence is acting on conviction in resistance to passion; not merely\nsticking to any and every opinion, which is really rather more like\nincontinence. The other extreme, of actual apathy, is rare. Continence\ndiffers from temperance, as implying resistance to strong desires;\nwhereas temperance implies that such desires are not active.\nPrudence--but not the acuteness which is sometimes confused with\nprudence--is incompatible with incontinence, which is least curable when\nthe outcome of weakness.\n\nHere it becomes necessary to make some inquiry as to Pleasure and Pain.\nSome maintain that pleasure is never good, some that it is partly good\nand partly not; some that it is good, but not the best But it cannot be\nbad _per se_, since it may be defined as the unimpeded activity of a\nformed faculty. Pleasure, as such, is not a hindrance to any activity,\nbut its fulfilment; _e.g.,_ the pleasure of speculative inquiry does not\nhinder it. As a matter of fact, everyone does pursue pleasure; the\ndenial that it is good results from thinking of it as meaning only\nbodily pleasures. And even they are not evil, but only the excessive\npursuit of them. As to pleasure being fleeting, that is only because\ncircumstances vary. The pleasure of the unchanging would be permanent.\n\n\n_V.--FRIENDSHIP_\n\n\nA quality rendered as \"Friendship\"--though the Greek and English terms\nare not identical in content--now comes under examination. It is a\nrelation to some other person or persons without which life is hardly\nworth living. Some account for it on the principle of \"like to like,\"\nothers on the opposite theory. Now, lovableness comes of goodness, or\npleasantness, or usefulness. Love is not bestowed on the inanimate, and\nit must be mutual; it is to be distinguished from goodwill or devotion,\nwhich need not be reciprocated.\n\nGenuine friendship must be based on goodness; what rests on pleasantness\n(as with the young), or on utility (as with the old), is only to be\nrecognised conventionally as friendship. In perfection it cannot subsist\nwithout perfect mutual knowledge, and only between the good; hence it is\nnot possible for anyone to have many real friends. Of the conventional\nforms, that which is born of intellectual sympathy is more enduring than\nwhat springs from sexual attraction; while what comes of utility is\nquite accidental. The former may develop into genuine friendship if\nthere be virtue in both parties. Companionship is a necessary condition,\nin any case.\n\nVariants of friendship, however, may subsist between unequals, as\nbetween parents and children, princes and subjects, men and women, where\nthere is a difference in the character of the affection of the two\nparties. A certain degree of inequality--though we cannot lay down the\nlimitation--makes \"friendship\" a misnomer. One would not desire the\nactual apotheosis of a friend, because that would take him out of reach;\nit would end friendship. Friendship lies rather in the active loving\nthan in being loved, though most people are more anxious to be loved\nthan to love.\n\nEvery form of social community--typified in the State--involves\nrelationships into which friendship enters. The relationships in the\nfamily correspond to those in states; monarch to subjects as father to\nchildren, tyrant to subjects as master to slaves; autocratic rule to\nthat of the husband, oligarchic rule to that of the wife; what we call\nTimocracy to the fraternal relation, and Democracy to the entirely\nunregulated household. In some kinds of association, friendship takes\nthe form of _esprit de corps_. It may be seen that quarrels arise most\nreadily in those friendships between equals which are based upon\ninterest, and in friendships between unequals.\n\nFriendship is a kind of exchange--equal between equals, and proportional\nbetween unequals; a repayment. This suggests various questions as to\npriority of claim--_e.g.,_ between paying your father's ransom and\nrepaying a loan, both being in a sort the repayment of a debt. No fixed\nlaw can be laid down--_i.e.,_ it cannot be said that one obligation at\nall times and in all circumstances overrides all others.\n\nThe dissolution of friendship is warranted when one party has become\ndepraved, since he has changed from being the person who was the object\nof friendship. But he should not be given up while there is hope of\nrestoring his character. Again, if one develops a great superiority,\nfriendship proper cannot persist--at least, in its first form. Our\nrelations with a friend are much like those with our own selves; the\ntrue friend is a sort of _alter ego_. Friendship is not to be identified\nwith goodwill, though the latter is a condition precedent; we may feel\ngoodwill, but not friendship, towards a person we have never seen or\nspoken to. Unanimity of feeling--not as to facts, but as to ends and\nmeans--is a sort of equivalent to friendship in the body politic. The\nreason why conferring a benefit creates more affection than receiving it\nseems to be that the benefactor feels himself the maker of the other; we\nall incline to love what we produced--as parents their children, or the\nartist his own creations.\n\nSelf-love is wrong in a sense--the usual sense in which the term is\nused, of giving priority to oneself in the acquisition of material\npleasures. But the seeking of the noblest things for oneself is really\nself-love, and may involve giving others, especially friends, the\npriority in respect of desirable things--even to resigning to another\nthe opportunity of doing a noble deed. In this higher sense, self-love\nis praiseworthy.\n\nThe good man is self-sufficing, but friends are desirable, if not\nactually necessary to him, as giving scope for the exercise of\nbeneficent activities, not as conferring benefits upon him. Besides,\nman's highest activities must be exercised not in isolation, but as a\nmember of society, and such life lacks completeness if without friends.\nFinally, friendship attains its completest realisation where comradeship\nis complete; that is to say, in a common life.\n\n\n_VI.--CONCLUSION_\n\n\nWe must revert once more to the question of Pleasure and Pain. To say\nthat pleasure is not good is absurd; he who does so stultifies himself\nby his own acts. Eudoxus thought it was _the_ good, his opinion being\nthe weightier because of his temperateness.\n\nIt is desired for its own sake; its opposite is admittedly undesirable.\nBut since it may be added to other good things, it cannot be _the_ good:\nthough to say that what every one desires is not good at all is folly.\nThat it is not \"a quality,\" or that it is \"indeterminate,\" are\nirrelevant arguments, both statements applying to what are admittedly\namong \"goods.\" The doctrine that it is a process, again, will not hold\nwater. Pleasure is a thing complete; whereas a process is complete at no\nmoment unless it be that of its termination. It is the completion of its\nappropriate activity; not in the sense that a habit makes the activity\ncomplete, but as its accompaniment and complement. Continuous it is not,\njust as the activity is not. It is not the complete life, but is\ninseparable from it. Pleasures, however, differ specifically and in\nvalue, as do the qualities with whose activities they are associated.\nThe pleasures proper to men are those associated with the activities\nproper to man as man, those shared with other animals being so only in a\nless degree.\n\nIt remains to recapitulate the sum of our conclusions regarding Happiness.\nIt is not a habit, but lies in the habitual activities--desirable in\nand for themselves not as means--exercised deliberately, excluding mere\namusement. Man's highest faculty being intelligence, its activity is his\nhighest happiness--contemplation--constant, sufficient, and sought not\nas a means, but as an end.\n\nThis kind of happiness belongs to the gods also. Exclusively human, but\nbelow the other, is the fulfilment of the moral life, conditioned by\nhuman society, and more affected by environments and material wants. For\ncontemplative activity, the barest material needs suffice. But this does\nnot of itself induce the moral life, being apart from conduct. To induce\nmorality, not only knowledge, but the right habit of action--which does\nnot follow from knowledge and may be implanted without it--is absolutely\nnecessary. Compulsion may successfully establish the habit where\nargument might fail. Compulsion, therefore, is the proper course for the\nState to take.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\nMARCUS AURELIUS\n\n\nHIS DISCOURSES WITH HIMSELF\n\n\n     Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, Roman emperor and Stoic\n     philosopher, was born on April 20, 121 A.D. Having been\n     adopted by Antoninus Pius, whose daughter Faustina he married,\n     he succeeded him as emperor in 161, but freely shared the\n     imperial throne with Lucius Verus, who also had been adopted\n     by Pius. Marcus Aurelius reigned until his death, on March 17,\n     180, in almost uninterrupted conflict with rebellious\n     provinces, and often heavily burdened with the internal\n     troubles of Rome. But the serenity of this august mind, and\n     his constancy to wisdom, virtue and religion, were never\n     shaken. For magnanimity, fidelity, resignation, fortitude and\n     mercy, he stands unrivalled by any other figure of the pagan\n     world. Nor did that world produce any other book which, like\n     his, remains as an unfailing companion to every generation of\n     the modern age. The charm of these fragmentary meditations\n     depends greatly on their convincing candour; there is not a\n     trace of the cant and exaggeration that so taint the\n     moralisings of lesser men. It depends also on their iron\n     stoicism; there are here no doubtful comforts, no rosy\n     illusions. But it depends chiefly on the admirable and lovable\n     human character which is revealed in them. They were written\n     in Greek, and were probably jotted down at odd moments under\n     the most various circumstances. Tradition says that they were\n     intended for the guidance of his son.\n\n\n_BOOK I_\n\n\nThe example of my grandfather Verus taught me to be candid and to\ncontrol my temper. By the memory of my father's character I learned to\nbe modest and manly. My mother taught me regard for religion, to be\ngenerous and open-handed, and neither to do an ill turn to anyone nor\neven to think of it. She bred me also to a plain and inexpensive way of\nliving. I owe it to my grandfather that I had not a public education,\nbut had good masters at home. From my tutor I learned not to identify\nmyself with popular sporting interests, but to work hard, endure\nfatigue, and not to meddle with other people's affairs. Diognetus taught\nme to bear freedom and plain dealing in others, and gave me a taste for\nphilosophy. Rusticus first set me to improve my character, and prevented\nme from running after the vanity of the Sophists, and from concerning\nmyself with rhetorical and poetic conceits, or with the affectations of\na dandy. He taught me to read an author carefully, and gave me a copy of\nEpictetus. Apollonius showed me how to give my mind its due freedom, to\ndisregard everything that was not true and reasonable, and to maintain\nan equable temper under the most trying circumstances. Sextus taught me\ngood humour, to be obliging, and to bear with the ignorant and\nthoughtless. From Maximus I learned to command myself, and to put\nthrough business efficiently, without drudging or complaint. From my\nadoptive father I learned a smooth and inoffensive temper, and a\ngreatness proof against vanity and the impressions of pomp and power; I\nlearned that it was the part of a prince to check flattery, to have his\nexchequer well furnished, to be frugal in his expenses, not to worship\nthe gods to superstition, but to be reserved, vigilant and well poised.\n\nI thank the gods that my grandfathers, parents, sister, preceptors,\nrelatives, friends and domestics were almost all persons of probity, and\nthat I never happened to disoblige any of them. By the goodness of the\ngods I was not provoked to expose my infirmities. I owe it to them also\nthat my wife is so deferential, affectionate and frugal; and that when I\nhad a mind to look into philosophy I did not spend too much time in\nreading or logic-chopping. All these points could never have been\nguarded without a protection from above.\n\n\n_BOOK II_\n\n\nPut yourself in mind, every morning, that before night you will meet\nwith some meddlesome, ungrateful and abusive fellow, with some envious\nor unsociable churl. Remember that their perversity proceeds from\nignorance of good and evil; and that since it has fallen to my share to\nunderstand the natural beauty of a good action and the deformity of an\nill one; since I am satisfied that the disobliging person is of kin to\nme, our minds being both extracted from the Deity; since no man can do\nme a real injury because no man can force me to misbehave myself; I\ncannot therefore hate or be angry with one of my own nature and family.\nFor we are all made for mutual assistance, no less than the parts of the\nbody are for the service of the whole; whence it follows that clashing\nand opposition are utterly unnatural. This being of mine consists of\nbody, breath, and that part which governs. Put away your books and face\nthe matter itself. As for your body, value it no more than if you were\njust expiring; it is nothing but a little blood and bones. Your breath\nis but a little air pumped in and out. But the third part is your mind.\nHere make a stand. Consider that you are an old man, and do not let this\nnoble part of you languish in slavery any longer. Let it not be\noverborne with selfish passions; let it not quarrel with fate, or be\nuneasy at the present, or afraid of the future. Providence shines\nclearly through the work of the gods. Let these reflections satisfy you,\nand make them your rule to live by. As for books, cease to be eager for\nthem, that you may die in good humour, heartily thanking the gods for\nwhat you have had.\n\nRemember that you are a man and a Roman, and let your actions be done\nwith dignity, gravity, humanity, freedom and justice; let every action\nbe done as though it were your last. Have neither insincerity nor\nself-love. Man has to gain but few points in order to live a happy and\ngodlike life. And what, after all, is there to be afraid of in death? If\nthe gods exist, you can suffer no harm; and if they do not exist, or\ntake no care of us mortals, a world without gods or Providence is not\nworth a man's while to live in. But the being of the gods, and their\nconcern in human affairs, is beyond dispute; and they have put it in\nevery man's power not to fall into any calamity properly so called.\nLiving and dying, honour and infamy, pleasure and pain, riches and\npoverty--all these are common to the virtuous and the depraved, and are\ntherefore intrinsically neither good nor evil. We live but for a moment;\nour being is in a perpetual flux, our faculties are dim, our bodies tend\never to corruption; the soul is an eddy, fortune is not to be guessed\nat, and posthumous fame is oblivion. To what, then, may we trust? Why,\nto nothing but philosophy. This is, to keep the interior divinity from\ninjury and disgrace, and superior to pleasure and pain, and to acquiesce\nin one's appointed lot.\n\n\n_BOOK III_\n\n\nObserve that the least things and effects in Nature are not without\ncharm and beauty, as the little cracks in the crust of a loaf, though\nnot intended by the baker, are agreeable and invite the appetite. Thus\nfigs, when they are ripest, open and gape; and olives, when they are\nnear decaying, are peculiarly attractive. The bending of an ear of corn,\nthe frown of a lion, the foam of a boar, and many other like things, if\nyou take them singly, are far from beautiful; but seen in their natural\nrelations are characteristic and effective. So if a man have but\ninclination and thought to examine the product of the universe, he will\nfind that the most unpromising appearances have their own appropriate\ncharm.\n\nDo not spend your thoughts upon other people, nor pry into the talk,\nfancies and projects of another, nor guess at what he is about, or why\nhe is doing it. Think upon nothing but what you could willingly tell\nabout, so that if your soul were laid open there would appear nothing\nbut what was sincere, good-natured, and public-spirited. A man thus\nqualified is a sort of priest and minister of the gods, and makes a\nright use of the divinity within him. Be cheerful; depend not at all on\nforeign supports, nor beg your happiness of another; don't throw away\nyour legs to stand upon crutches.\n\nIf, in the whole compass of human life, you find anything preferable to\njustice and truth, temperance and fortitude, or to a mind self-satisfied\nwith its own rational conduct and entirely resigned to fate, then turn\nto it as to your supreme happiness. But if there be nothing more\nvaluable than the divinity within you, if all things are trifles in\ncomparison with this, then don't divide your allegiance. Let your choice\nrun all one way, and be resolute for that which is best. As for other\nspeculations, throw them once for all out of your hand.\n\n\n_BOOK IV_\n\n\nIt is the custom of people to go to unfrequented places and to the\nseashore and to the hills for retirement; and you yourself have often\nwished this solitude. But, after all, this is only a vulgar fancy, for\nit is in your power to withdraw into yourself whenever you have a mind\nto it. One's own heart is a place the most free from crowd and noise in\nthe world if only one's thoughts are serene and the mind well ordered.\nMake, therefore, frequent use of this retirement, therein to refresh\nyour virtue. And to this end be always provided with a few short,\nuncontested notions, to keep your understanding true. Do not forget to\nretire to this solitude of yours; let there be no straining or\nstruggling in the matter, but move at ease.\n\nIf understanding be common to us all, then reason, its cause, must be\ncommon, too. And so also must the reason which governs conduct by\ncommands and prohibitions be common to us all. Mankind is therefore\nunder one common law, and so are fellow-citizens; and the whole world is\nbut one commonwealth, for there is no other society in which mankind can\nbe incorporated.\n\nDo not suppose that you are hurt, and your complaint will cease.\n\nIf a man affronts you, do not defer to his opinion, or think just as he\nwould have you do. No; look upon things as reality presents them. When\nincense is thrown upon the altar, one grain usually falls before\nanother; but it matters not.\n\nAdhere to the principles of wisdom, and those who now take you for a\nmonkey or a beast will make a god of you in a week.\n\nA thing is neither better nor worse for being praised. Do virtues stand\nin need of a good word, or are they the worse for a bad one? An emerald\nwill shine none the less though its worth be not spoken of.\n\nWhatever is agreeable to You, O Universe, is so to me, too. Your\noperations are never mistimed. Whatever Your seasons bring is fruit for\nme, O Nature. From You all things proceed, subsist in You, and return to\nYou. The poet said, \"Dear City of Cecrops\"; shall we not say, \"Dear City\nof God\"?\n\nThe greater part of what we say and do is unnecessary; and if this were\nonly retrenched we should have more leisure and less disturbance. This\napplies to our thoughts also, for impertinence of thought leads to\nunnecessary action.\n\nMankind are poor, transitory things: one day in life, and the next\nturned to mummy or ashes. Therefore manage this minute wisely, and part\nwith it cheerfully; and like a ripe fruit, when you drop, make your\nacknowledgments to the tree that bore you.\n\n\n_BOOK V_\n\n\nWhen you feel unwilling to rise early in the morning, make this short\nspeech to yourself: \"I am getting up now to do the business of a man;\nand am I out of humour for going about that I was made for, and for the\nsake of which I was sent into the world? Was I then designed for nothing\nbut to doze beneath the counterpane?\" Surely action is the end of your\nbeing. Look upon the plants and birds, the ants, spiders and bees, and\nyou will see that they are all exerting their nature, and busy in their\nstation. Shall not a man act like a man?\n\nBe not ashamed of any action which is in accordance with Nature, and\nnever be misled by the fear of censure or reproach. Where honesty\nprompts you to say or do anything, let not the opinion of others hold\nyou back. Go forward by the straight path, pursuing your own and the\ncommon interest.\n\nSome men, when they do you a kindness, ask for the payment of gratitude;\nothers, more modest, remember the favour and look upon you as their\ndebtor. But there are yet other benefactors who forget their good deeds;\nand these are like the vine, which is satisfied by being fruitful in its\nkind, and bears a bunch of grapes without expecting any thanks for it. A\ntruly kind man never talks of a good turn that he has done, but does\nanother as soon as he can, just like a vine that bears again the next\nseason.\n\nWe commonly say that Aesculapius has prescribed riding for one patient,\nwalking for another, a cold bath for a third. In the same way we may say\nthat the nature of the Universe has ordered this or that person a\ndisease, loss of limbs or estate, or some such other calamity. For as,\nin the first case, the word \"prescribed\" means a direction for the\nhealth of the patient, so, in the latter, it means an application\nsuitable for his constitution and destiny.\n\nBe not uneasy, discouraged or out of humour, because practice falls\nshort of precept in some particulars. If you happen to be vanquished,\ncome on again, and be glad if most of what you do is worthy of a man.\n\nWe ought to live with the gods. This is done by being contented with the\nappointments of Providence, and by obeying the orders of that divinity\nwhich is God's deputy; and this divine authority is no more nor less\nthan that soul and reason which every man carries within him.\n\n\n_BOOK VI_\n\n\nThe best way of revenge is not to imitate the injury. Be always doing\nsomething serviceable to mankind; and let this constant generosity be\nyour only pleasure, not forgetting a due regard to God.\n\nThe world is either an aggregation of atoms, or it is a unity ruled by\nLaw and Providence. If the first, what should I stay for, where Nature\nis a chaos and things are blindly jumbled together? But if there is a\nProvidence, then I adore the great Governor of the world, and am at ease\nand cheerful in the prospect of protection.\n\nSuppose you had a stepmother and a mother at the same time; though you\nwould pay regard to the first, your converse would be principally with\nthe latter. Let the court and philosophy represent these two relations\nto me.\n\nIf an antagonist in the circus tears our flesh with his nails, or tilts\nagainst us with his head, we do not cry out foul play, nor are we\noffended, nor do we suspect him afterwards as a dangerous person. Let us\nact thus in the other instances of life. When we receive a blow, let us\nthink that we are but at a trial of skill, and depart without malice or\nill-will.\n\nIt is enough to do my duty; as for other things, I will not be disturbed\nabout them.\n\nThe vast continents of Europe and of Asia are but corners of the\ncreation; the ocean is but a drop, and Mount Athos but a grain in\nrespect of the universe; and the present instant of time is but a point\nto the extent of eternity.\n\nWhen you have a mind to divert your fancy, try to consider the good\nqualities of your acquaintance--such as the enterprising vigour of this\nman, the modesty of another, the liberality of a third, and so on. Let\nthis practice be always at hand.\n\n\n_BOOK VII_\n\n\nWhat is wickedness? It is nothing new. When you are in danger of being\nshocked, consider that the sight is nothing but what you have frequently\nseen already. All ages and histories, towns and families, are full of\nthe same stories; there is nothing new to be met with, but all things\nare common and quickly over.\n\nNature works up the matter of the universe like wax; now it is a horse;\nsoon afterwards you will find it melted down and run into the figure of\na tree; then it is a man; and so on. Only for a brief time is it fixed\nin any species.\n\nAntisthenes said: \"It is the fate of princes to be ill spoken of for\ntheir good deeds.\"\n\nConsider the course of the stars as if you were driving through the sky\nand kept them company. Such contemplations as these scour off the rust\ncontracted by conversing here below.\n\nRational creatures are designed for the advantage of each other. A\nsociable temper is that for which human nature was principally intended.\n\nIt is a saying of Plato's that no one misses the truth by his own\ngoodwill. The same may be said of honesty, sobriety, good nature, and\nthe like. Remember this, for it will help to sweeten your temper.\n\nThough the gods are immortal, and have had their patience tried through\nso many ages, yet they not only bear with a wicked world, but even\nprovide liberally for it. And are you tired with evil men already,\nthough you are one of those unhappy mortals yourself?\n\n\n_BOOK VIII_\n\n\nEvery man has three relations to acquit himself in: his body is one, God\nis another, and his neighbours are the third. Have you seen a hand or a\nfoot cut off and removed from the body? Just such a thing is the man who\nis discontented with destiny or cuts himself off by selfishness from the\ninterest of mankind. But here is the fortunate aspect of the case--it\nlies in his power to set the limb on again. Consider the peculiar bounty\nof God to man in this privilege: He has set him above the necessity of\nbreaking off from Nature and Providence at all; but supposing this\nmisfortune to have occurred, it is in man's power to rejoin the body,\nand grow together again, and recover the advantage of being the same\nmember that he was at first.\n\nDo not take your whole life into your head at a time, nor burden\nyourself with the weight of the future, nor form an image of all\nprobable misfortunes. Neither what is past nor what is to come need\nafflict you, for you have only to deal with the present; and this is\nstrangely lessened if you take it singly and by itself. Chide your\nfancy, therefore, if it offers to grow faint under so slender a trial.\n\nThrow me into what climate or state you please, for all that I will keep\nmy soul content. Is any misadventure big enough to ruffle my peace, or\nto make my mind mean, craving and servile? What is there that can\njustify such disorders?\n\nBe not heavy in business, nor disturbed in conversation, nor rambling in\nthought. Do not burden yourself with too much employment. Do men curse\nyou? This cannot prevent you from keeping a wise, temperate, and upright\nmind. If a man standing by a lovely spring should rail at it, the water\nis none the worse for his foul language; and if he throw in dirt it will\nquickly disappear, and the fountain will be as wholesome as ever. How\nare you to keep your springs always running, and never stagnate into a\npool? You must persevere in the virtues of freedom, sincerity,\nmoderation, and good nature.\n\n\n_BOOK IX_\n\n\nDo not drudge like a galley-slave, nor do business in a laborious\nmanner, as if you wish to be pitied or wondered at.\n\nAs virtue and vice consist in action, and not in the impressions of the\nsenses, so it is not what they feel, but what they do, which makes\nmankind either happy or miserable.\n\nThis man prays that he may gain such a woman; but do you rather pray\nthat you may have no such inclination. Another invokes the gods to set\nhim free from some troublesome circumstance; but let it be your petition\nthat your mind may not be set upon such a wish. A third is devout in\norder to prevent the loss of his son; but I would have you pray rather\nagainst the fear of losing him. Let this be the rule for your devotions,\nand watch the event.\n\n\n_BOOK X_\n\n\nO my soul, are you ever to be rightly good, sincere, and uniform, and\nmade more visible to yourself than the body that hangs about you? Are\nyou ever likely to relish good nature and general kindness as you ought?\nWill you ever be fully satisfied, rise above wanting and wishing, and\nnever desire to obtain your pleasure out of anything foreign, either\nliving or inanimate? Are you ever likely to be so happily qualified as\nto converse with the gods and men in such a manner as neither to\ncomplain of them nor to be condemned by them?\n\nPut it out of the power of all men to give you a bad name, and if anyone\nreports you not to be an honest or a good man let your practice give him\nthe lie. This is quite feasible; for who can hinder you from being just\nand sincere?\n\nThere is no one so happy in his family and friends but that some of\nthem, when they see him going, will rejoice at a good riddance. Let him\nbe a person of never so much probity and prudence, yet someone will say\nat his grave: \"Well, our man of order and gravity is gone; we shall be\nno more troubled with his discipline.\" This is the best treatment a good\nman must expect.\n\n\n_BOOK XI_\n\n\nWhat a brave soul it is that is always ready to depart from the body,\nand is unconcerned as to whether she will be extinguished, scattered, or\nremoved! But she must be prepared upon reasonable grounds, and not out\nof mere obstinacy like the Christians; her fortitude must have nothing\nof noise or of tragic ostentation, but must be grave and seemly.\n\nHow fulsome and hollow does that man seem who cries: \"I'm resolved to\ndeal sincerely with you!\" Hark you, friend, what need of all this\nflourish? Let your actions speak. Your face ought to vouch for you. I\nwould have virtue look out of the eye no less apparently than love does.\nA man of integrity and good nature can never be concealed, for his\ncharacter is wrought into his countenance.\n\nGentleness and good humour are invincible, provided they are of the\nright stamp and without hypocrisy. This is the way to disarm the most\noutrageous person--to continue kind and unmoved under ill usage, and to\nstrike in at the right opportunity with advice. But let all be done out\nof mere love and kindness.\n\n\n_BOOK XII_\n\n\nI have often wondered how it is that everyone should love himself best,\nand yet value his neighbour's opinion of him more than his own. If any\nman should be ordered to turn his inside outwards, and publish every\nthought and fancy as fast as they come into his head, he would not\nsubmit to so much as a day of this discipline. Thus it is that we dread\nour neighbour's judgment more than our own.\n\nWhat a mighty privilege man is born to, since it is in his power not to\ndo anything but what God Almighty approves, and to be satisfied with all\nthe distributions of Providence!\n\nReflect upon those who have made the most glorious figure or have met\nwith the greatest misfortunes. Where are they all now? They are vanished\nlike a little smoke. The prize is insignificant, and the play not worth\nthe candle. It is much more becoming to a philosopher to stand clear of\naffectation, to be honest and moderate upon all occasions, and to follow\ncheerfully wherever the gods lead on, remembering that nothing is more\nscandalous than a man who is proud of his humility.\n\nListen, friend! You have been a burgher of this great city. What matter\nthough you have lived in it fewer years or more? If you have kept the\nlaws of the corporation, the length or shortness of the time makes no\ndifference. Where is the hardship, then, if Nature, that planted you\nhere, orders your removal? You cannot say you are sent off by an unjust\ntyrant No! You quit the stage as fairly as a player does who has his\ndischarge from the master of the revels. \"But I have only gone through\nthree acts, and not held out to the end of the fifth!\" True; but in life\nthree acts may complete the play. He is the only judge of completeness\nwho first ordered your entrance and now your exit; you are accountable\nfor neither the one nor the other. Retire therefore, in serenity, as He\nwho dismisses you is serene.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\nFRANCIS BACON\n\n\nTHE ADVANCEMENT OF LEARNING\n\n\n     Francis Bacon, English philosopher and Chancellor, was born on\n     January 22, 1561, the son of Lord Keeper Bacon, was sent to\n     Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1573, and entered Gray's Inn in\n     1576. He had already become profoundly dissatisfied at\n     Cambridge with the Aristotelian philosophy, and the conception\n     of a humble and methodical study of Nature had early become\n     the dominant passion of his life. Bacon became a member of\n     parliament in 1584, and nine years later distinguished himself\n     by coming forward as the champion of the privileges of the\n     House of Commons against the Lords. The \"Essays\" were\n     published in 1597. Bacon was knighted in 1603, on the\n     accession of James I. In October, 1605, he published the\n     \"Advancement of Learning,\" a work designed to interest the\n     king in the new philosophy, of which book we here give a\n     summary. This review of the existing state of knowledge was\n     intended to be made, later, into the first part of the\n     \"Instauratio Magna\" under the title of \"Partitiones\n     Scientiarum.\" For this purpose Bacon was constantly revising\n     it, and eventually he had it translated into Latin, and it was\n     so published, greatly enlarged, in 1623, under the title of\n     \"De Dignitate et Augmentis Scientiarum.\" The summit of his\n     career was reached in 1621, when he became Viscount St.\n     Albans. His fall, on a charge of corruptions in the Court of\n     Chancery, took place in the following March, and from this\n     period until his death, on April 9, 1626, he devoted himself\n     to his philosophical and literary works.\n\n\n_First Book_\n\n\nLet us weigh the dignity of knowledge in the balance with other things.\nIn its archetype it is the Divine wisdom, or sapience, manifested in the\ncreation. In the celestial hierarchy the supposed Dionysius of Athens\nplaces the angels of knowledge and illumination before those of office\nand domination. Then, the first material form that was created was\nlight, which corresponds in corporal things to knowledge in incorporai.\nThe day wherein God contemplated His own works was blessed above the\ndays wherein He accomplished them. Man's first employment in Paradise\nconsisted of the two chief parts of knowledge, the view of creatures,\nand the imposition of names. In the age before the Flood, Scripture\nhonours the names of the inventors of music and of works in metal. Moses\nwas accomplished in all the learning of the Egyptians. The book of Job\nis pregnant with natural philosophy. In Solomon, the gift of wisdom and\nlearning is preferred before all other earthly and temporal felicity.\n\nOur Saviour first showed His power to subdue ignorance by His conference\nwith the doctors, before He showed His power to subdue Nature by\nmiracles; and the coming of the Holy Spirit was chiefly figured in the\ngift of tongues, which are the vehicles of knowledge. St. Paul, most\nlearned of the apostles, had his pen most used in the New Testament.\nMany of the ancient fathers of the Church were excellently read in all\nthe learning of the heathen; and that heathen learning was preserved,\namid Scythian and Saracen invasions, in the sacred bosom of the Church.\nAnd in our own day, when God has called the Roman Church to account for\ndegenerate manners and obnoxious doctrines. He has also ordained a\nrenovation of all other knowledges; and, on the other side, the Jesuits,\nby quickening the state of learning, have done notable service to the\nRoman See. Wherefore two principal services are performed to religion by\nhuman learning: first, the contemplation of God's works is an effectual\ninducement to the exaltation of His glory; and, secondly, true learning\nis a singular preservative against unbelief and error.\n\nTo pass now to human proofs of the dignity of learning, we find that\namong the heathen the inventors of new arts, such as Ceres, Bacchus, and\nApollo, were consecrated among the gods themselves by apotheosis. The\nfable of Orpheus, wherein quarrelsome beasts stood sociably listening to\nthe harp, aptly described the nature of men among whom peace is\nmaintained so long as they give ear to precepts, laws, and religion. It\nhas been said that people would then be happy, when kings were\nphilosophers, or philosophers kings; and history shows that the best\ntimes have ever been under learned princes.\n\nAs for the services of knowledge to private virtue, it takes away all\nlevity, temerity, and insolence by copious suggestion of all doubts and\ndifficulties, and acquainting the mind to balance reasons on both sides.\nIt takes away vain admiration of anything, which is the root of all\nweakness. No man can marvel at the play of puppets that goes behind the\ncurtain. And certainly, if a man meditate much upon the universal frame\nof Nature, the earth with men upon it (the divineness of souls except)\nwill not seem much other than an ant-hill, where some ants carry corn,\nand some carry their young, and some go empty, and all to and fro a\nlittle heap of dust. But especially learning disposes the mind to be\ncapable of growth and reformation. For the unlearned man knows not what\nit is to descend into himself or to call himself to account, nor the\npleasure of feeling himself each day a better man than he was the day\nbefore; he is like an ill mower, that mows on still and never whets his\nscythe. Knowledge crowns man's nature with power. It even gives fortune\nto particular persons; and it is hard to say whether arms or learning\nhave advanced greater numbers. As for the pleasure and delight thereof,\nin knowledge there is no satiety. \"It is a pleasure incomparable,\" says\nLucretius, \"for the mind of man to be settled, landed, and fortified in\nthe certainty of truth; and from thence to descry the errors and\nperturbations of other men.\"\n\nLastly, by learning man excels man in that wherein man excels beasts.\nThe great dignity of knowledge lies in immortality or continuance, and\nthe monuments of learning are more durable than the monuments of power.\nHave not the verses of Homer continued twenty-five hundred years or\nmore, without the loss of a syllable or letter, during which time\ninfinite palaces, temples, castles, cities, have been decayed and\ndemolished?\n\nIf the invention of the ship was thought so noble, which carries riches\nand commodities from place to place, and consociates the most remote\nregions in participation of their fruits, how much more are letters to\nbe magnified? Popular and mistaken judgments will continue as they have\never been, but so will that also continue whereupon learning has ever\nrelied, and which fails not.\n\n\"Wisdom is justified of her children.\"\n\n\n_SECOND BOOK_\n\n\nThe parts of human learning have reference to the three parts of man's\nunderstanding--history to his memory, poetry to his imagination, and\nphilosophy to his reason. Divine learning receives the same\ndistribution, so that theology consisteth of history of the Church; of\nparables, which are divine poetry; and of holy doctrine or precept. For\nprophecy is but divine history, in which the narrative is before the\nfact.\n\nHistory is \"natural,\" \"civil,\" \"ecclesiastical,\" and \"literary \";\nwhereof the first three are extant, but the fourth is deficient. A true\nhistory of learning throughout the ages is wanting. History of Nature is\nof three sorts--of Nature in course, of Nature erring or varying, and of\nNature altered or worked; that is, history of creatures, history of\nmarvels, and history of arts. The first of these is extant in good\nperfection; the two others are handled so weakly that I note them as\ndeficient. The history of arts is of great use towards natural\nphilosophy such as shall be operative to the benefit of man's life.\nCivil history is of three kinds: \"memorials,\" \"perfect histories,\" and\n\"antiquities,\" comparable to unfinished, perfect and defaced pictures.\nJust or perfect history represents a time, a person, or an action. The\nfirst we call \"chronicles\"; the second, \"lives\"; and the third,\n\"narrations,\" or \"relations.\"\n\nOf modern histories the greater part are beneath mediocrity. Annals and\njournals are a kind of history not to be forgotten; and there is also\nruminated history, wherein political discourse and observations are\nmingled with the history of the events themselves. The history of\ncosmography is compounded of natural history, civil history, and\nmathematics. Ecclesiastical history receives the same divisions with\ncivil history, but may further be divided into history of the Church,\nhistory of prophecy, and history of Providence. The first of these is\nnot deficient, only I would that the sincerity of it were proportionate\nto its mass and quantity. The history of prophecy, sorting every\nprophecy with the event fulfilling the same, is deficient; but the\nhistory of Providence, and the notable examples of God's judgments and\ndeliverances have passed through the labour of many. Orations, letters,\nand brief sayings, or apophthegms, are appendices to history. Thus much\nconcerning history, which answers to memory.\n\nPoetry refers to the imagination. In respect of its words it is but a\ncharacter of style, but in respect of its matter it is nothing else but\nfeigned history, which may as well be in prose as in verse. The use of\nthis feigned history is to give some shadow of satisfaction to the mind\nof man in those points wherein the nature of things denies it; poetry\nserves magnanimity, morality, and delectation. It is divided into\nnarrative, representative, and allusive or parabolical poetry. In poetry\nI can report no deficience; it has sprung up and spread abroad more than\nany other kind of learning.\n\nIn philosophy, the contemplations of man either penetrate unto God, or\nare circumferred to Nature, or are reflected upon himself; whence arise\nthree knowledges--divine philosophy, natural philosophy, and human\nphilosophy or humanity. But it is good to erect one universal science,\n_Philosophia Prima,_ \"primitive\" or \"summary philosophy,\" before we come\nwhere the ways part and divide; and this universal philosophy is a\nreceptacle for all such profitable observations and axioms as do not\nfall within the compass of any of the special parts of philosophy or\nsciences, but are common and of a higher stage. Divine philosophy, or\nnatural theology, is that knowledge concerning God which may be obtained\nby the contemplation of His creatures; and in this I note an excess\nrather than a deficience, because of the extreme prejudice which both\nreligion and philosophy have received by being mixed together, making an\nheretical religion and a fabulous philosophy.\n\nOf natural philosophy there are two parts, the inquisition of causes and\nthe production of effects; speculative and operative; natural science\nand natural prudence. Natural science is divided into physic and\nmetaphysic. But since I have already defined a summary philosophy, and,\nagain, a natural theology, both of which are commonly confounded with\nmetaphysic, what is there remaining for metaphysic? This, that physic\ninquires concerning the material and efficient causes, but metaphysic\nhandles the formal and final causes. So physic is in a middle term\nbetween natural history and metaphysic; for natural history describes\nthe variety of things, physic the variable or respective causes, and\nmetaphysic the fixed and constant causes. Of metaphysic I find that it\nis partly omitted and partly misplaced. In mathematics, which I place as\na part of metaphysic, I can report no deficience. But natural prudence,\nor the operative part of natural philosophy, is very deficient. It were\ndesirable that there should be a calendar or inventory made of all the\ninventions whereof man is possessed, with a note of useful things not\nyet invented. A calendar, also, of doubts, and another of popular\nerrors, are to be desired.\n\nWe come now to the knowledge of ourselves--that is, to human philosophy\nor humanity. First, a general study of human nature will have regard to\nthe sympathies and concordances between mind and body. Then, since the\ngood of man's body is of four kinds--health, beauty, strength, and\npleasure--the knowledge of the body is also of four kinds--medicine,\ndecoration or cosmetic, athletic, and the art voluptuary. Medicine has\nbeen more professed than laboured, and more laboured than advanced, the\nlabour having been rather in circle than in progression.\n\nAs for human knowledge concerning the mind, it has two parts, one\ninquiring of the substance or nature of the soul, and the other of its\nfaculties or functions. I believe that the first of these may be more\nsoundly inquired than it has been, yet I hold that in the end it must be\nbounded by religion. It has two appendices, concerning divination and\nfascination; these have rather vapoured forth fables than kindled truth.\nThe knowledge respecting the faculties of the mind is of two kinds, the\none respecting understanding and reason, and the other respecting will,\nappetite, and affection, the imagination being active in both provinces.\nThe intellectual arts are four--inquiry or invention, examination or\njudgment, custody or memory, and elocution or tradition; and these are\nseverally divided into various sciences and arts. The knowledge of the\nappetite and will, or moral philosophy, leading to the culture and\nregiment of the mind, is very deficient.\n\nCivil knowledge has three parts--conversation, negotiation, and\ngovernment--since man seeks in society comfort, use, and protection. The\nfirst of these is well laboured, the second and third are deficient.\nThus we conclude human philosophy, and turn to the sacred and inspired\ndivinity, the port of all men's labours and peregrinations.\n\nSacred theology, or divinity, is grounded only upon the word and oracle\nof God, and not upon the light of Nature. Herein there has not been\nsufficiently inquired the true limits and use of reason in spiritual\nthings. Exposition of Scriptures, on the other hand, is not deficient.\nDivinity has four main branches--faith, manners, liturgy, and\ngovernment--in which I can find no ground vacant and unsown, so diligent\nhave men been, either in sowing of seed or tares.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\nGEORGE BERKELEY\n\n\nPRINCIPLES OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE\n\n\n     George Berkeley, the metaphysician, was born on March 12,\n     1685, near Thomastown, Kilkenny, the son of a collector of\n     revenue. He entered Trinity College, Dublin, at the age of\n     fifteen, and was admitted Fellow in 1707. In that year he\n     published two mathematical essays; two years later, his\n     \"Theory of Vision,\" and in 1710 his \"Principles of Human\n     Knowledge.\" In 1713, in London, where he had published further\n     philosophical papers, he formed the acquaintance of Steele,\n     Swift, and Pope. After travels in Europe he became chaplain to\n     the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland in 1721, and a few years after\n     emigrated to Newport, Rhode Island, with a view to the\n     establishment of a college in Bermuda for the education of\n     Indians. This scheme fell through, because of the failure of\n     the promised government support. Berkeley returned to London,\n     and in 1734, by desire of Queen Caroline, was consecrated\n     Bishop of Cloyne, in Ireland. Here he lived until 1752, but\n     spent his last months in retirement at Oxford, where he died\n     on January 14, 1753. Berkeley's \"Principles of Human\n     Knowledge\" is one of the most eminent of that sequence of\n     metaphysical systems which, beginning with Descartes,\n     constitutes what is known as modern philosophy.\n\n\n_I.--THE ANALYSIS OF PERCEPTION_\n\n\nIt is evident to anyone who takes a survey of the objects of human\nknowledge that they are either ideas actually imprinted on the senses,\nor else such as are perceived by attending to the passions and\noperations of the mind; or, lastly, ideas formed by help of memory and\nimagination, either compounding, dividing, or representing those\noriginally perceived in the aforesaid ways. By sight, touch, and other\nsenses, I receive various sensations; and any group of sensations,\nfrequently accompanying one another, come to be known as one thing. Thus\na certain colour, taste, smell, figure, and consistence, having been\nobserved to go together, are accounted one distinct thing--for instance,\nan apple.\n\nBut, besides this endless variety of objects of knowledge, there is also\nthe \"mind,\" \"spirit,\" \"soul,\" or \"myself,\" which perceives them. Neither\nour thoughts or imaginations, nor even the sensations which compose the\nobjects of perception, can exist otherwise than in a mind perceiving\nthem. It is impossible that objects should have any existence out of the\nminds for which they exist; to conceive them as existing unperceived is\na mere abstraction. Whence it follows that there is no other substance\nbut spirit, or that which perceives.\n\nSome, indeed, distinguish between \"primary\" and \"secondary\" qualities,\nand hold that the former, such as extension, figure, motion, and\nsolidity, have some existence outside of the mind in an unthinking\nsubstance which they call \"matter.\" But extension, figure, and motion\nare only ideas existing in the mind, and neither these ideas nor their\narchetypes can exist in an unperceiving substance. The very notion of\nwhat is called \"matter\" involves a contradiction within it. Not only\nprimary and secondary qualities alike, but also \"great\" and \"small,\"\n\"swift\" and \"slow,\" \"extension,\" \"number,\" and even \"unity\" itself,\nbeing all of them purely relative, exist only in the mind. The\nconception of \"material substance\" has no meaning but that of \"being\" in\ngeneral.\n\nEven if we were to give to the materialists their \"external bodies,\"\nthey are by their own confession no nearer to knowledge how our ideas\nare produced, since they own themselves unable to comprehend in what\nmanner body can act upon spirit, or how it is possible that it should\nimprint any idea on the mind.\n\nIt is evident that the production of ideas in our minds can be no reason\nwhy we should suppose corporeal substances to exist, since the rise of\nthose ideas is acknowledged to remain equally inexplicable with or\nwithout the supposition of material existences. In short, if there were\nexternal bodies, it is impossible that we should ever come to know it;\nand if there were not, we should have the same reasons to think there\nwere, that we have now. We perceive a continual succession of ideas;\nsome are anew excited, others are changed or totally disappear. There\nis, therefore, some cause of these ideas, whereon they depend, which\nproduces and changes them. This cause must be a substance; but it has\nbeen shown that there is no corporeal or material substance. It remains,\ntherefore, that the cause of ideas is an incorporeal active substance or\nspirit.\n\nA spirit is one simple, undivided, active being; as it perceives ideas\nit is called the \"understanding,\" and as it produces or otherwise\noperates about them, it is called the \"will.\" Such is the nature of\nspirit that it cannot be of itself perceived, but only by the effects\nwhich it produceth.\n\nThe ideas of sense are more strong, lively, and distinct than those of\nthe imagination; they have likewise a steadiness, order, and coherence,\nand are excited in a regular series, the admirable connection whereof\nsufficiently testifies the wisdom and benevolence of its Author. The set\nrules or established methods, wherein the mind that we depend on excites\nin us the ideas of sense, are called the \"laws of Nature.\"\n\nThese we learn by experience, and so obtain a sort of foresight which\nenables us to regulate our actions for the benefit of life. In general,\nto obtain such or such ends such or such means are conducive; and all\nthis we know, not by discovering any necessary connection between our\nideas, but only by the observation of the laws of Nature.\n\nAnd yet this constant uniform working, which so evidently displays the\ngoodness and wisdom of that governing spirit whose will constitutes the\nlaws of Nature, is so far from leading our thoughts to Him that it\nrather sends them wandering after second causes. For when we perceive\ncertain ideas of sense constantly followed by other ideas, and we know\nthat it is not of our own doing, we forthwith attribute power and agency\nto the ideas themselves, and make one the cause of another, than which\nnothing can be more absurd.\n\n\n_II.--THE ROOTS OF SCEPTICISM_\n\n\nSeveral difficult and obscure questions, on which abundance of\nspeculation hath been thrown away, are by our own principles entirely\nbanished from philosophy. \"Whether corporeal substance can think,\"\n\"whether matter be infinitely divisible,\" \"how matter operates on\nspirit\"--these and the like inquiries have given infinfte amusement to\nphilosophers in all ages. But since they depend on the existence of\nmatter, they have no longer any place in our principles. It follows,\nalso, that human knowledge may be reduced to two heads--knowledge of\nideas, and knowledge of spirits. Our knowledge of the former hath been\nmuch obscured and confounded, and we have been led into very dangerous\nerrors, by supposing a twofold existence of the objects of sense, the\none \"intelligible,\" or in the mind, the other \"real,\" and without the\nmind; whereby unthinking things are thought to have a natural\nsubsistence of their own, distinct from being perceived by spirits.\n\nThis is the very root of scepticism; for so long as men thought that\nreal things subsisted without the mind, and that their knowledge was\nonly so far \"real\" as it was conformable to \"real things,\" they could\nnot be certain that they had any real knowledge at all.\n\nSo long as we attribute a real existence to unthinking things, distinct\nfrom their being perceived, it is not only impossible for us to know the\nnature of any real unthinking being, but it is impossible for us even to\nknow that it exists. Hence it is that we see philosophers distrust their\nsenses, and doubt of the existence of heaven and earth, of everything\nthey see or feel. But all this doubtfulness, which so bewilders and\nconfounds the mind, vanishes if we annex a meaning to our words and do\nnot amuse ourselves with the terms \"absolute,\" \"external,\" \"exist,\" and\nsuch like, signifying we know not what. I can as well doubt of my own\nbeing as of the being of those things which I perceive by sense; the\nvery existence of unthinking beings consists in their being perceived.\n\nIt were a mistake to think that what is here said derogates in the least\nfrom the reality of things. The unthinking beings perceived by sense\nexist in those unextended, indivisible substances, or spirits, which\nact, think, and perceive them; whereas philosophers vulgarly hold that\nthe sensible qualities exist in an inert, extended, unperceiving\nsubstance, which they call \"matter,\" to which they attribute a natural\nsubsistence distinct from being perceived by any mind whatsoever, even\nthe eternal mind of the Creator.\n\nAs we have shown the doctrine of matter to have been the main support of\nscepticism, so likewise upon the same foundation have been raised all\nthe impious schemes of atheism and irreligion. All these monstrous\nsystems have so visible and necessary a dependence on this supposed\nmaterial substance that, when this cornerstone is once removed, the\nwhole fabric cannot choose but fall to the ground.\n\nOn the same principle does not only fatalism but also idolatry depend in\nall its varying forms. Did men but consider that the sun, moon, and\nstars, and every other object of the senses, are only so many sensations\nin their minds, which have no other existence but barely being\nperceived, they would never fall down and worship their own ideas, but\nrather address their homage to that Eternal Invisible Mind which\nproduces and sustains all things.\n\nAs in reading books, a wise man will choose to fix his thoughts on the\nsense rather than lay them out on grammatical remarks; so, in perusing\nthe volume of Nature, it seems beneath the dignity of the mind to affect\nan exactness in reducing each particular phenomenon to general rules, or\nshowing how it follows from them. We should propose to ourselves nobler\nviews, such as to recreate and exalt the mind, with a prospect of the\nbeauty, order, extent, and variety, of natural things; hence, by proper\ninferences, to enlarge our notions of the grandeur, wisdom, and\nbeneficence of the Creator.\n\nThe reason that is assigned for our being thought ignorant of the nature\nof spirits is our not having an idea of them. But it is manifestly\nimpossible that there should be any such idea. A spirit is the only\nsubstance or support wherein the unthinking beings or ideas can exist;\nbut that this substance which supports or perceives ideas should itself\nbe an idea is absurd.\n\nFrom the opinion that spirits are to be known after the manner of an\nidea or sensation have arisen many heterodox tenets and much scepticism\nabout the nature of the soul. It is even probable that this opinion may\nhave produced a doubt in some whether they had any soul at all distinct\nfrom their body, since they could not find that they had an idea of it.\nBut the spirit is a real thing, which is neither an idea nor like an\nidea. What I am myself, that which I denote by the term \"I,\" is what we\nmean by soul or spiritual substance; and we know other spirits by means\nof our own soul, which in that sense is an image or idea of them.\n\nBy the natural immortality of the soul we mean that it is not liable to\nbe either broken or dissolved by the ordinary laws of Nature or motion.\nThe soul itself is indivisible, incorporeal, unextended, and is\nconsequently incorruptible.\n\n\n_III.--OUR KNOWLEDGE OF GOD_\n\n\nThough there be some things which convince us that human agents are\nconcerned in producing them, yet it is evident to everyone that those\nthings which are called the works of Nature--that is, the far greater\npart of the ideas or sensations perceived by us--are not produced by,\nnor dependent on, the wills of men. There is, therefore, some other\nspirit that causes them, since they cannot subsist themselves.\n\nIf we attentively consider the constant regularity, order, and\nconcatenation of natural things, the surprising magnificence, beauty,\nand perfection of the larger, and the exquisite contrivance of the\nsmaller parts together with the exact harmony and correspondence of the\nwhole--I say, if we consider all these things, and at the same time\nattend to the import of the attributes, one eternal, infinitely wise,\ngood, and perfect, we shall clearly perceive that they belong to the\naforesaid Spirit, who works all in all, and by whom all things consist.\n\nHence it is evident that God is known as certainly and immediately as\nany other mind or spirit whatsoever, distinct from ourselves. We may\neven assert that the existence of God is far more evidently perceived\nthan the existence of men, because the effects of Nature are infinitely\nmore numerous and considerable than those ascribed to human agents.\nThere is not any one mark that denotes a man, or effect produced by him,\nwhich does not more strongly evince the being of that Spirit who is the\nAuthor of Nature.\n\nIt seems to be a general pretence of the unthinking herd that they\ncannot see God. Could we but see Him, say they, as we see a man, we\nshould believe that He is, and, believing, obey His commands. But we\nneed only open our eyes to see the sovereign Lord of all things with a\nmore full and clear view than we do any one of our fellow-creatures. We\ndo not see a man, if by \"man\" is meant that which lives, moves,\nperceives, and thinks as we do; but only such a collection of ideas as\ndirects us to think there is a distinct principle of thought and motion\nlike to ourselves, accompanying and represented by it. And after the\nsame manner we see God.\n\nMen are surrounded with such clear manifestations of Deity, yet are so\nlittle affected by them that they seem, as it were, blinded with excess\nof light.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\nDESCARTES\n\n\nDISCOURSE ON METHOD\n\n\n     Ren\u00e9 Descartes was born March 31, 1596, at La Haye, in the\n     ancient province of Touraine, France, of a noble family of\n     Touraine; and was educated at the College of La Fl\u00eache by the\n     Jesuits. The decisive crisis of his life arrived in 1619,\n     while he was serving as a volunteer with Prince Maurice of\n     Nassau, and the next nine years may be regarded as the period\n     of his formation. The most fruitful years of his life were\n     spent in Holland, whence he made occasional excursions into\n     France, and perhaps paid a visit to England. In 1633 he\n     finished his treatise on \"The World; or on Light,\" an epitome\n     of his \"Physics,\" which, however, he deemed it wise, in view\n     of Galileo's fate, to withhold from publication during his\n     lifetime. Besides the \"Discourse on Method\" (1637), with the\n     treatises on dioptrics, meteors, and geometry, his principal\n     works were his \"Meditations\" addressed to the Deans of the\n     Faculty of Theology in the University of Paris; the \"Principia\n     Philosophiae,\" and the \"Trait\u00e9 des Passions de L'Ame,\" in\n     which, he handled morals. Descartes died at Stockholm, whither\n     he had been summoned by Queen Christina, on February 11, 1649.\n     His work stands a landmark in the modern history of\n     philosophic thought.\n\n\n_I.--THE AIM OF THIS DISCOURSE_\n\n\nGood sense or reason must be better distributed than anything else in\nthe world, for no man desires more of it than he already has. This shows\nthat reason is by nature equal in all men. If there is diversity of\nopinion, this arises from the fact that we conduct our thought by\ndifferent ways, and consider not the same things. It does not suffice\nthat the understanding be good--it must be well applied.\n\nMy mind is no better than another's, but I have been lucky enough to\nchance on certain ways, which have led me to a certain method by means\nof which it seems to me that I may by degrees augment my knowledge to\nthe modest measure of my intellect and my length of days. I shall be\nvery glad to make plain in this discourse the paths I have followed, and\nto picture my life so that all may judge of it, and by the setting forth\nof their opinions may furnish me with yet other means of improvement.\n\nIt is my design not to teach the method which each man ought to follow\nfor the right guidance of his reason, but only to show in what manner I\nhave tried to conduct my own.\n\nI had been nourished on letters from my infancy, but as soon as I had\nfinished the customary course of study, I found myself hampered by so\nmany doubts and errors that I seemed to have reaped no benefits, except\nthat I had observed more and more of my ignorance: Yet I was at one of\nthe most celebrated schools in Europe, and I was not held inferior to my\nfellow-students, some of whom were destined to take the place of our\nmasters; nor did our age seem less fruitful of good wits than any which\nhad gone before. Though I did not cease to esteem the studies of the\nschools, I began to think that I had given enough time to languages,\nenough also to ancient books, their stories and their fables; for when a\nman spends too much time in travelling abroad he becomes a stranger in\nhis own country; and so, when he is too curious concerning what went on\nin past ages, he is apt to remain ignorant of what is taking place in\nhis own day. I set a high price on eloquence, and I was in love with\npoetry; above all, I rejoiced in mathematics, but I knew nothing of its\ntrue use.\n\nI revered our theology, but, since the way to heaven lies open to the\nignorant no less than to the learned, and the revealed truths which lead\nthither are beyond our intelligence, I did not dare to submit them to my\nfeeble reasonings.\n\nIn philosophy there is no truth which is not disputed, and which,\nconsequently, is not doubtful; and, as to the other sciences, they all\nborrow their principles from philosophy.\n\nTherefore, I entirely gave up the study of letters, and employed the\nrest of my youth in travelling, being resolved to seek no other science\nthan that which I might find within myself, or in the Great Book of the\nWorld.\n\nHere the best lesson that I learned was not to believe too firmly\nanything of which I had learnt merely by example and custom; and thus\nlittle by little was delivered from many errors which are liable to\nobscure the light of nature, and to diminish our capacity of hearing\nreason. Finally, I resolved one day to study myself in the same way, and\nin this it seems to me I succeeded much better than if I had never\ndeparted from either my country or my books.\n\n\n_II.--THE INTELLECTUAL CRISIS_\n\n\nBeing in Germany, on my way to rejoin the army after the coronation of\nthe Emperor [Ferdinand II.], I was lying at an inn where, in default of\nother conversation, I was at liberty to entertain my own thoughts. Of\nthese, one of the first was that often there is less perfection in works\nwhich are composite than in those which issue from a single hand. Such\nwas the case with buildings, cities, states; for a people which has made\nits laws from time to time to meet particular occasions will enjoy a\nless perfect polity than a people which from the beginning has observed\nthe constitution of a far-sighted legislator. This is very certain, that\nthe estate of true religion, which God alone has ordained, must be\nincomparably better guided than any other. And again, I considered that\nas, during our childhood, we had been governed by our appetites and our\ntutors, which are often at variance, which neither of them perhaps\nalways gave us the best counsel, it is almost impossible that our\njudgments should be so pure and so solid as they would have been if we\nhad had the perfect use of our reason from the time of our birth, and\nhad never been guided by anything else.\n\nHence, as regarded the opinions that I had received into my belief, I\nthought that, as a private person may pull down his own house to build a\nfiner, so I could not do better than remove them therefrom in order to\nreplace them by sounder, or, after I should have adjusted them to the\nlevel of reason, to establish the same once more.\n\nWhen I was younger I had studied logic, analytical geometry, and\nalgebra. Of these, I found that logic served rather for explaining\nthings we already know; while of geometry and algebra, the former is so\ntied to the consideration of figures that it cannot exercise the\nunderstanding without wearying the imagination, and the latter is so\nbound down to certain rules and ciphers that it has been made a confused\nand obscure art which hampers the mind instead of a science which\ncultivates it. And as a state is better governed which has but few laws,\nand those laws strictly observed, I believed that I should find\nsufficient four precepts which follow.\n\nThe first was never to accept anything as true when I did not recognise\nit clearly to be so--that is to say, carefully to avoid precipitation\nand prejudice, but to include in my opinions nothing beyond that which\nshould present itself so clearly and distinctly to my mind that I might\nhave no occasion to doubt it.\n\nThe second was to divide up the difficulties which I should examine into\nas many parts as possible, and as should be required for their better\nsolution.\n\nThe third was to conduct my thoughts in order, by beginning with the\nsimplest objects and those most easy to know, so as to mount little by\nlittle, by stages, to the most complex knowledge, even supposing an\norder among things which did not naturally stand in an order of\nantecedent and consequent.\n\nAnd the last was to make everywhere enumerations so complete, and\nsurveys so wide, that I should be sure of omitting nothing.\n\nExact observation of these precepts gave me such facility in unravelling\nthe questions comprehended in geometrical analysis and in algebra, that\nin two or three months not only did I find my way through many which I\nhad formerly accounted too hard for me, but, towards the end, I seemed\nto be able to determine, in those which were new to me, by what means\nand to what extent it was possible to resolve them. And so I promised\nmyself that I would apply my system with equal success to the\ndifficulties of other sciences; but since their principles must all be\nborrowed from philosophy, in which I found no certain principles of its\nown, I thought that before all else I must try to establish some\ntherein. By way of preparation (for I was then but twenty-three years\nold) I must root up from my mind my previous bad opinion of it, and must\npractise my method in order that I might be confirmed in it more and\nmore.\n\n\n_III.--A RULE OF LIFE_\n\n\nMeanwhile I must have a rule of life as a shelter while my new house was\nin building, and this consisted of three or four maxims.\n\nThe first was to conform myself to the laws and customs of my country,\nand to hold to the religion in which, by God's grace, I had been brought\nup; guiding myself, for the rest, by the least extreme opinions of the\nmost intelligent. Among extremes I counted all promises by which a man\ncurtails anything of his liberty; for I should have deemed it a grave\nfault against good sense if, because I approved something in a given\nmoment, I had bound myself to accept it as good for ever after.\n\nMy second maxim was to follow resolutely even doubtful opinions when\nsure opinions were not available, just as the traveller, lost in some\nforest, had better walk straight forward, though in a chance direction;\nfor thus he will arrive, if not precisely at the place where he desires\nto be, at least probably at a better place than the middle of a forest.\n\nMy third maxim was to endeavour always to conquer myself rather than\nfortune, and to change my desires rather than the order of the world,\nand in general to bring myself to believe that there is nothing wholly\nin our power except our thoughts. And I believe that herein lay the\nsecret of those philosophers who, in the days of old, could withdraw\nfrom the domination of fortune, and, despite pain and poverty, challenge\nthe felicity of their gods.\n\nFinally, after looking out upon the divers occupations of men, I\npondered that I could do no better than persevere in that which I had\nchosen--so deep was my content in discovering every day by its means\ntruths which seemed to me important, yet were unknown to the world.\n\nHaving thus made myself sure of these maxims, and having set them apart\ntogether with the verities of faith, I judged that for the rest of my\nopinions I might set freely to work to divest myself of them. For nine\nyears, therefore, I went up and down the world a spectator rather than\nan actor. These nine years slipped away before I had begun to seek for\nthe foundations of any philosophy more certain, nor perhaps should I\nhave dared to undertake the quest had it not been put about that I had\nalready succeeded.\n\n\n_IV.--\"I THINK, THEREFORE I AM\"_\n\n\nI had long since remarked that in matters of conduct it is necessary\nsometimes to follow opinions known to be uncertain, as if they were not\nsubject to doubt; but, because now I was desirous to devote myself to\nthe search after truth, I considered that I must do just the contrary,\nand reject as absolutely false everything concerning which I could\nimagine the least doubt to exist.\n\nThus, because our senses sometimes deceive us I would suppose that\nnothing is such as they make us to imagine it; and because I was as\nlikely to err as another in reasoning, I rejected as false all the\nreasons which I had formerly accepted as demonstrative; and finally,\nconsidering that all the thoughts we have when awake can come to us also\nwhen we sleep without any of them being true, I resolved to feign that\neverything which had ever entered into my mind was no more truth than\nthe illusion of my dreams.\n\nBut I observed that, while I was thus resolved to feign that everything\nwas false, I who thought must of necessity be somewhat; and remarking\nthis truth--\"_I think, therefore I am_\"--was so firm and so assured that\nall the most extravagant suppositions of the sceptics were unable to\nshake it, I judged that I could unhesitatingly accept it as the first\nprinciple of the philosophy I was seeking. I could feign that there was\nno world, I could not feign that I did not exist. And I judged that I\nmight take it as a general rule that the things which we conceive very\nclearly and very distinctly are all true, and that the only difficulty\nlies in the way of discerning which those things are that we conceive\ndistinctly.\n\nAfter this, reflecting upon the fact that I doubted, and that\nconsequently my being was not quite perfected (for I saw that to _know_\nis a greater perfection than to _doubt_), I bethought me to inquire\nwhence I had learned to think of something more perfect than myself; and\nit was clear to me that this must come from some nature which was in\nfact more perfect. For other things I could regard as dependencies of my\nnature if they were real, and if they were not real they might proceed\nfrom nothing--that is to say, they might exist in me by way of defect.\nBut it could not be the same with the idea of a being more perfect than\nmy own; for to derive it from nothing was manifestly impossible; and,\nbecause it is no less repugnant that the more perfect should follow and\ndepend upon the less perfect than that something should come forth out\nof nothing, I could not derive it from myself.\n\nIt remained, then, to conclude that it was put into me by a nature truly\nmore perfect than was I, and possessing in itself all the perfections of\nwhat I could form an idea--in a word, by God. To which I added that,\nsince I knew some perfections which I did not possess, I was not the\nonly being who existed, but that there must of necessity be some other\nbeing, more perfect, on whom I depended, and from whom I had acquired\nall that I possessed; for if I had existed alone and independent of all\nother, so that I had of myself all this little whereby I participated in\nthe Perfect Being, I should have been able to have in myself all those\nother qualities which I knew myself to lack, and so to be infinite,\neternal, immutable, omniscient, almighty--in fine, to possess all the\nperfections which I could observe in God.\n\nProposing to myself the geometer's subject matter, and then turning\nagain to examine my idea of a Perfect Being, I found that existence was\ncomprehended in that idea just as, in the idea of a triangle is\ncomprehended the notion that the sum of its angles is equal to two right\nangles; and that consequently it is as certain that God, this Perfect\nBeing, is or exists, as any geometrical demonstration could be.\n\nThat there are many who persuade themselves that there is a difficulty\nin knowing Him is due to the scholastic maxim that there is nothing in\nthe understanding which has not first been in the senses; where the\nideas of God and the soul have never been.\n\nThan the existence of God all other things, even those which it seems to\na man extravagant to doubt, such as his having a body, are less certain.\nNor is there any reason sufficient to remove such doubt but such as\npresupposes the existence of God. From His existence it follows that our\nideas or notions, being real things, and coming from God, cannot but be\ntrue in so far as they are clear and distinct. In so far as they contain\nfalsity, they are confused and obscure, there is in them an element of\nmere negation (_elles participent du n\u00e9ant_); that is to say, they are\nthus confused in us because we ourselves are not all perfect. And it is\nevident that falsity or imperfection can no more come forth from God\nthan can perfection proceed from nothingness. But, did we not know that\nall which is in us of the real and the true comes from a perfect and\ninfinite being, however clear and distinct our ideas might be, we should\nhave no reason for assurance that they possessed the final\nperfection--truth.\n\nReason instructs us that all our ideas must have some foundation of\ntruth, for it could not be that the All-Perfect and the All-True should\notherwise have put them into us; and because our reasonings are never so\nevident or so complete when we sleep as when we wake, although sometimes\nduring sleep our imagination may be more vivid and positive, it also\ninstructs us that such truth as our thoughts have will assuredly be in\nour waking thoughts rather than in our dreams.\n\n\n_V.--WHY I DO NOT PUBLISH \"THE WORLD\"_\n\n\nI have always remained firm in my resolve to assume no other principle\nthan that which I have used to demonstrate the existence of God and of\nthe soul, and to receive nothing which did not seem to me clearer and\nmore certain than the demonstrations of the philosophers had seemed\nbefore; yet not only have I found means of satisfying myself with regard\nto the principal difficulties which are usually treated of in\nphilosophy, but also I have remarked certain laws which God has so\nestablished in nature, and of which He has implanted such notions in our\nsouls, that we cannot doubt that they are observed in all which happens\nin the world.\n\nThe principal truths which flow from these I have tried to unfold in a\ntreatise (\"On the World, or on Light\"), which certain considerations\nprevent me from publishing. This I concluded three years ago, and had\nbegun to revise it for the printer when I learned that certain persons\nto whom I defer had disapproved an opinion on physics published a short\ntime before by a certain person [Galileo, condemned by the Roman\nInquisition in 1633], in which opinion I had noticed nothing prejudicial\nto religion; and this made me fear that there might be some among my\nopinions in which I was mistaken.\n\nI now believe that I ought to continue to write all the things which I\njudge of importance, but ought in no wise to consent to their\npublication during my life. For my experience of the objections which\nmight be made forbids me to hope for any profit from them. I have tried\nboth friends and enemies, yet it has seldom happened that they have\noffered any objection which I had not in some measure foreseen; so that\nI have never, I may say, found a critic who did not seem to be either\nless rigorous or less fair-minded than myself.\n\nWhereupon I gladly take this opportunity to beg those who shall come\nafter us never to believe that the things which they are told come from\nme unless I have divulged them myself; and I am in nowise astonished at\nthe extravagances attributed to those old philosophers whose writings\nhave not come down to us. They were the greatest minds of their time,\nbut have been ill-reported. Why, I am sure that the most devoted of\nthose who now follow Aristotle would esteem themselves happy if they had\nas much knowledge of nature as he had, even on the condition that they\nshould never have more! They are like ivy, which never mounts higher\nthan the trees which support it, and which even comes down again after\nit has attained their summit. So at least, it seems to me, do they who,\nnot content with knowing all that is explained by their author, would\nfind in him the solution also of many difficulties of which he says\nnothing, and of which, perhaps, he never thought.\n\nYet their method of philosophising is very convenient for those who have\nbut middling minds, for the obscurity of the distinctions and principles\nwhich they employ enables them to speak of all things as boldly as if\nthey had knowledge of them, and sustain all they have to say against the\nmost subtle and skilful without there being any means of convincing\nthem; wherein they seem to me like a blind man who, in order to fight on\nequal terms with a man who has his sight, invites him into the depths of\na cavern. And I may say that it is to their interest that I should\nabstain from publishing the principles of the philosophy which I employ,\nfor so simple and so evident are they that to publish them would be like\nopening windows into their caverns and letting in the day. But if they\nprefer acquaintance with a little truth, and desire to follow a plan\nlike mine, there is no need for me to say to them any more in this\ndiscourse than I have already said.\n\nFor if they are capable of passing beyond what I have done, much rather\nwill they be able to discover for themselves whatever I believe myself\nto have found out; besides which, the practice which they will acquire\nin seeking out easy things and thence passing to others which are more\ndifficult, will stead them better than all my instructions.\n\nBut if some of the matters spoken about at the beginning of the\n\"Dioptrics\" and the \"Meteors\" [published with the \"Discourse on Method\"]\nshould at first give offence because I have called them \"suppositions,\"\nand have shown no desire to prove them, let the reader have patience to\nread the whole attentively, and I have hope that he will be satisfied.\n\nThe time remaining to me I have resolved to employ in trying to acquire\nsome knowledge of nature, such that we may be able to draw from it more\ncertain rules for medicine than those which up to the present we\npossess. And I hereby declare that I shall always hold myself more\nobliged to those by whose favour I enjoy my leisure undisturbed than I\nshould be to any who should offer me the most esteemed employments in\nthe world.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\nRALPH WALDO EMERSON\n\n\nNATURE\n\n\n     Ralph Waldo Emerson, the American writer and moralist, was\n     born at Boston on May 25, 1803, of English stock and a family\n     of preachers. He was educated at Harvard for the Unitarian\n     ministry, and became a settled pastor in Boston before he was\n     twenty-six. Three years later he resigned his charge owing to\n     theological disagreements. In 1833 he visited Europe and\n     England as a hero worshipper, his desire being to meet Landor,\n     Coleridge, Wordsworth, and Carlyle. He saw them all, and\n     formed a lifelong friendship with Carlyle. Returning to\n     America, he settled at Concord, where he lived till his death,\n     on April. 27, 1882. His public work took the form of lectures,\n     of which his books are reproductions. In 1836 he published his\n     first book, \"Nature,\" anonymously. \"Nature\" was the germ essay\n     from which all Emerson's later work sprang, a first expression\n     of thoughts that were expanded and developed later. It was\n     published in 1836, when its writer was thirty-three years of\n     age, and known only as a preacher who had become a lecturer.\n     Already Emerson had adopted the methods of a seer rather than\n     those of the consecutive thinker. \"Nature\" was one of the\n     first-written books of great writers that made a deep\n     impression on the understanding few, but had only a few\n     readers. It presaged the greatness to be; and indeed its\n     poetical quality carries a charm, which Emerson sometimes\n     failed to reproduce and never afterwards surpassed.\n\n\n_I.--TO WHAT END IS NATURE?_\n\n\nOur age is retrospective. It builds the sepulchres of the fathers. It\nwrites biographies, histories, and criticisms. The foregoing generations\nbeheld God face to face; we through their eyes. Why should not we also\nhave an original relation to the universe? Why should we grope among the\ndry bones of the past, or put the living generation into masquerade out\nof its faded wardrobe? Let us interrogate the great apparition that\nshines so peacefully around us. Let us inquire to what end is Nature.\n\nPhilosophically considered, the universe is composed of Nature and Soul.\nStrictly speaking, therefore, all that is separate from us, all which\nphilosophy distinguishes as _not me_, that is both Nature and Art, all\nother men and my own body, must be ranked under this name, Nature.\nNature, in the common sense, refers to essences unchanged by man: space,\nthe air, the river, the leaf. Art is applied to the mixture of his will\nwith the same things, as in a house, a canal, a statue, a picture. But\nhis operations, taken together, are so insignificant, a little chipping,\nbaking, patching, and washing, that in an impression so grand as that of\nthe world on the human mind they do not vary the result.\n\nTo go into solitude, a man needs to retire as much from his chamber as\nfrom society. But if a man would be alone let him look at the stars. The\nrays that come from those heavenly bodies will separate between him and\nwhat he touches. One might think the atmosphere was made transparent\nwith this design, to give man in the heavenly bodies the perpetual\npresence of the sublime. Seen in the streets of cities, how great they\nare! If the stars should appear one night in a thousand years, how men\nwould believe and adore, and preserve for many generations the\nremembrance of the city of God which had been shown! But every night\ncome out these envoys of beauty, and light the universe with their\nadmonishing smile.\n\nNature never wears a mean appearance. Neither does the wisest man extort\nher secret, and lose his curiosity by finding out all her perfection.\nWhen we speak of Nature in this manner we have a distinct but most\npoetical sense in the mind. We mean the integrity of impression made by\nmanifold natural objects. The charming landscape which I saw this\nmorning is indubitably made up of some twenty or thirty farms. Miller\nowns this field, Locke that, and Manning the woodland beyond. But none\nowns the landscape. There is a property in the horizon which no man has\nbut he whose eye can integrate all the parts--that is, the poet. This is\nthe best part of these men's farms, yet to this their warranty-deeds\ngive no title.\n\n\n_II.--HER DELIGHT_\n\n\nIn the presence of Nature a wild delight runs through the man in spite\nof real sorrow. Not the sun or the summer alone, but every hour and\nseason yields its tribute of delight; for every hour and change\ncorresponds to and authorises a different state of mind, from breathless\nnoon to grimmest midnight. Crossing a bare common, in snow puddles, at\ntwilight, under a clouded sky, without having in my thoughts any\noccurrence of special good fortune, I have enjoyed a perfect\nexhilaration. I am glad to the brink of fear. In the woods, too, a man\ncasts off his years as the snake his slough, and at what period soever\nof life is always a child. Within these plantations of God a decorum and\nsanctity reign, a perennial festival is dressed, and the guest sees not\nhow he should tire of them in a thousand years. Standing on the bare\nground, my head bathed in the blithe air, and uplifted into infinite\nspace, all mean egotism vanishes. I become a transparent eyeball; I am\nnothing; I see all; the currents of universal being circulate through\nme; I am a part or particle of God. I am the lover of uncontained and\nimmortal beauty.\n\nYet it is certain that the power to produce this delight does not reside\nin Nature, but in man, or in a harmony of both. It is necessary to use\nthese pleasures with great temperance. For Nature is not always tricked\nin holiday attire, but the same scene which yesterday breathed perfume\nand glittered as for the frolic of nymphs is overspread with melancholy\nto-day. Nature always wears the colours of the spirit.\n\nThe misery of man appears like childish petulance when we explore the\nsteady and prodigal provision that has been made for his support and\ndelight on this green ball which floats him through the heavens. All the\nparts incessantly work into each other's hands for the profit of man.\nThe wind sows the seed; the sun evaporates the sea; the wind blows the\nvapour to the field; the ice on the other side of the planet condenses\nthe rain on this; the plant feeds the animal; and thus the endless\ncirculations of the divine charity nourish man.\n\nThe useful arts are reproductions or new combinations by the wit of man\nof the same natural benefactors. The private poor man hath cities,\nships, canals, bridges, built for him. He goes to the post-office, and\nthe human race run on his errands; to the book-shop, and the human race\nread and write all that happens for him; to the court-house, and nations\nrepair his wrongs.\n\n\n_III.--HER LOVELINESS_\n\n\nA nobler want of man is served by Nature, namely, the love of beauty.\nSuch is the constitution of all things, or such the plastic power of the\nhuman eye, that the primary forms, as the sky, the mountain, the tree,\nthe animal, give us a delight in and for themselves, a pleasure arising\nfrom art, line, colour, motion, and grouping. This seems partly owing to\nthe eye itself. The eye is the best of artists, as light is the first of\npainters.\n\nTo the body and mind which have been cramped by noxious work or company\nNature is medicinal, and restores their tone. But in other hours Nature\nsatisfies by her loveliness and without any mixture of corporeal\nbenefit. I see the spectacle of morning from the hilltop over against my\nhouse from daybreak to sunrise with emotion which an angel might share.\nHow does Nature deify us with a few and cheap elements. Give me health\nand a day, and I will make the pomp of emperors ridiculous. The dawn is\nmy Assyria; the sunset and moonrise my Paphos, and unimaginable realms\nof faerie; broad noon shall be my England of the senses and the\nunderstanding; the night shall be my Germany of mystic philosophy and\ndreams.\n\nThe inhabitants of cities suppose that the country landscape is pleasant\nonly half the year. To the attentive eye each moment of the year has its\nown beauty, and in the same fields it beholds every hour a picture which\nwas never seen before, and which shall never be seen again.\n\nEvery rational creature has all Nature for his dowry and estate. He may\ndivest himself of it, he may creep into a corner and abdicate his\nkingdom, as most men do, but he is entitled to the world by his\nconstitution. In proportion to the energy of his thought and will he\ntakes up the world into himself.\n\n\n_IV.--HER GIFT OF LANGUAGE_\n\n\nLanguage is another use which Nature subserves to man. Words are signs\nof natural facts. The use of natural history is to give us aid in\nsupernatural history. Every word which is used to express a moral or\nintellectual fact, if traced to its root, is found to be borrowed from\nsome material appearance. Right means straight; wrong means twisted;\ntransgression the crossing of a line. Most of the process by which this\ntransformation is made is hidden from us in the remote time when\nlanguage was framed; but the same tendency may be daily observed in\nchildren.\n\nIt is not words only that are emblematic, it is things. Every appearance\nin Nature corresponds to some state of mind, and that state of mind can\nonly be described by presenting that natural appearance as its picture.\nAn enraged man is a lion, a cunning man is a fox, a firm man is a rock,\na learned man is a torch. Visible distance behind and before us is\nrespectively an image of memory and hope.\n\nMan is conscious of a universal soul within or behind his individual\nlife, wherein, as in a firmament, the natures of justice, truth, love,\nfreedom, arise and shine. This universal soul he calls reason: it is not\nmine, or thine, or his, but we are its; we are its property and men. And\nthe blue sky in which the private earth is buried, the sky with its\neternal calm and full of everlasting orbs is the type of reason. That\nwhich, intellectually considered, we call reason, considered in relation\nto Nature we call spirit. Spirit is the creator. Spirit hath life in\nitself, and man in all ages and countries embodies it in his language as\nthe Father.\n\nAs we go back in history language becomes more picturesque until its\ninfancy, when it is all poetry. When simplicity of character and the\nsovereignty of ideas are broken up, new imagery ceases to be created and\nold words are perverted to stand for things which are not; a paper\ncurrency is employed when there is no bullion in the vaults.\n\n\n_V.--HER MORAL DISCIPLINE_\n\n\nIn view of the significance of Nature we arrive at the fact that Nature\nis a discipline. What tedious training, day after day, year after year,\nnever ending, to form the common sense; what continual reproduction of\nannoyances, inconveniences, dilemmas; what rejoicing over us of little\nmen, what disputing of prices, what reckoning of interest--and all to\nform the hand of the mind!\n\nThe exercise of will or the lesson of power is taught in every event.\nNature is thoroughly mediate. It is made to serve. It receives the\ndominion of man as meekly as the ass on which the Saviour rode. It\noffers all its kingdoms to man as the raw material which he may mould\ninto what is useful. And he is never weary of working it up. He forges\nthe subtle and delicate air into wise and melodious words, and gives\nthem wings as angels of persuasion and command. One after another his\nvictorious thought comes up with and reduces all things, until the world\nbecomes at last a realised will.\n\nEvery natural process is a version of a moral sentence. The moral law\nlies at the centre of Nature and radiates to the circumference. What is\na farm but a mute gospel? The chaff and the wheat, weeds and plants,\nblight, rain, insects, sun--it is a sacred emblem from the first furrow\nof spring to the last stack which the snow of winter overtakes in the\nfields. Who can guess how much firmness the sea-beaten rock has taught\nthe fisherman? How much tranquillity has been reflected to man from the\nazure sky? How much industry and providence and affection we have caught\nfrom the pantomime of brutes?\n\nThe unity of Nature meets us everywhere. Resemblances exist in things\nwherein there is great superficial unlikeness. Thus architecture is\ncalled \"frozen music\" by Goethe. \"A Gothic church,\" said Coleridge, \"is\npetrified religion.\" The law of harmonic sounds reappears in the\nharmonic colours. The granite is different in its laws only by the more\nor less of heat from the river that wears it away. The river, as it\nflows, resembles the air that flows over it; the air resembles the light\nthat traverses it with more subtle currents.\n\nEach creature is only a modification of the other, the likeness in them\nis more than the difference, and their radical law is one and the same.\nThis unity pervades thought also.\n\n\n_VI.--IS NATURE REAL?_\n\n\nA noble doubt suggests itself whether discipline be not the final cause\nof the universe, and whether Nature outwardly exists. The frivolous make\nthemselves merry with the ideal theory as if its consequences were\nburlesque, as if it affected the stability of Nature. It surely does\nnot. The wheels and springs of man are all set to the hypothesis of the\npermanence of Nature.\n\nBut while we acquiesce entirely in the permanence of natural laws, the\nquestion of the absolute existence of Nature still remains open. It is\nthe uniform effect of culture on the human mind to lead us to regard\nNature as a phenomenon, not a substance; to attribute necessary\nexistence to spirit.\n\nIntellectual science fastens the attention upon immortal necessary\nuncreated natures, that is, upon ideas; and in their presence we feel\nthat the outward circumstance is a dream and a shade. Whilst we wait in\nthis Olympus of the gods we think of Nature as an appendix to the soul.\nFinally, religion and ethics, which may be fitly called the practice of\nideas, have an analogous effect. The first and last lesson of religion\nis: \"The things that are seen are temporal; the things that are unseen\nare eternal.\"\n\n\n_VII.--THE SPIRIT BEHIND NATURE_\n\n\nThe aspect of Nature is devout. Like the figure of Jesus, she stands\nwith bended head and hands folded on the breast. The happiest man is he\nwho learns from Nature the lesson of worship. Of that ineffable essence\nwe call spirit, he that thinks most will say least. We can foresee God\nin the coarse, as it were, distant phenomena of matter; but when we try\nto define and describe Himself, both language and thought desert us, and\nwe are as helpless as fools and savages. The noblest ministry of Nature\nis to stand as the apparition of God. It is the organ through which the\nuniversal spirit speaks to the individual, and strives to bring back the\nindividual to it.\n\nI conclude this essay with some traditions of man and Nature which a\ncertain poet sang to me.\n\nThe foundations of man are not in matter, but in spirit. And the element\nof spirit is eternity. To it, therefore, the longest series of events,\nthe oldest chronologies are young and recent. A man is a god in ruins.\nWhen men are innocent, life shall be longer and shall pass into the\nimmortal as gently as we awake from dreams. Infancy is the perpetual\nMessiah which comes into the arms of fallen men, and pleads with them to\nreturn to paradise. The problem of restoring to the world the original\nand eternal beauty is solved by the redemption of the soul. The ruin\nthat we see when we look at Nature is in our own eye. Man cannot be a\nnaturalist until he satisfies all the demands of the spirit. Love is as\nmuch its demand as perception. When a faithful thinker shall kindle\nscience with the fire of the holiest affection, then will God go forth\nanew into the creation.\n\nNature is not fixed, but fluid. Spirit alters, moulds, makes it. The\nimmobility, or bruteness, of Nature is the absence of spirit. Every\nspirit builds itself a house, and beyond its house a world, and beyond\nits world a heaven. What we are, that only can we see. All that Adam\nhad, all that Caesar could, you have and can do. Adam called his house\nheaven and earth; Caesar called his house Rome; you, perhaps, call yours\na cobbler's trade, a hundred acres of ploughed land, or a scholar's\ngarret. Yet, line for line, and point for point, your dominion is as\ngreat as theirs, though without fine names. Build, therefore, your own\nworld. As fast as you conform your life to the pure idea in your mind,\nthat will unfold its great proportions.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\nEPICTETUS\n\n\nDISCOURSES AND ENCHEIRIDION\n\n\n     The Stoic philosopher Epictetus was born about 50 A.D., at\n     Hierapolis, in Phrygia, at that time a Roman province of Asia\n     Minor, and was at first a slave in Rome. On being freed he\n     devoted himself to philosophy, and thereafter lived and taught\n     at Nicopolis, in Epirus (then a portion of Macedonia,\n     corresponding to Albania to-day), from about 90 A.D. to 138\n     A.D. He left no works, but his utterances have been collected\n     in four books of \"Discourses\" or \"Dissertations\" by his pupil\n     and friend Arrian. In the \"Encheiridion Epictete\"--a \"Handbook\n     to Epictetus\" compiled and condensed from the chaos of the\n     almost verbatim \"Discourses\"--Arrian gives the most authentic\n     account of the philosophy of the Greek and Roman Stoics, the\n     sect founded by Zeno about 300 years before the Christian era,\n     which flourished until the decline of Rome. Arrian himself was\n     born about 90 A.D. at Nicomedia. He wrote in the style of\n     Xenophon the \"Anabasis of Alexander,\" a book on \"Tactics,\" and\n     several histories which have been lost. He is chiefly of note,\n     however, as the Boswell of Epictetus. He died about 180 A.D.\n\n\n_I.--OF THE WILL, AND OF GOD_\n\n\nThe reasoning faculty alone considers both itself and all other powers,\nand judges of the appearance of things. And, as was fit, this most\nexcellent and superior faculty, the faculty of a right use of the\nappearances of things, is that alone which the gods have placed in our\nown power, while all the other matters they have placed not in our\npower. Was it because they would not? I rather think that if they could,\nthey had granted us these, too; but they certainly could not. For,\nplaced upon earth, and confined to such a body and such companions, how\nwas it possible that we should not be hindered by things without us?\n\nBut what says Jupiter? \"O Epictetus, if it were possible, I had made\nthis little body and possession of thine free, and not liable to\nhindrance. But now do not mistake; it is not thine own, but only a finer\nmixture of clay. Since, then, I could not give thee this, I have given\nthee a certain portion of myself--this faculty of exerting the powers of\npursuit and avoidance, of desire and aversion, and, in a word, the use\nof the appearances of things. Taking care of this point, and making what\nis thy own to consist in this, thou wilt never be restrained, never be\nhindered; thou wilt not groan, wilt not complain, wilt not flatter\nanyone. How then! Do all these advantages seem small to thee? Heaven\nforbid! Let them suffice thee, then, and thank the gods.\"\n\nBut now, when it is in our power to take care of one thing, and apply\nourselves to it, we choose rather to encumber ourselves with many--body,\nproperty, brother, friend, child, slave--and thus we are burdened and\nweighed down. When the weather happens not to be fair for sailing, we\nsit screwing ourselves and perpetually looking out for the way of the\nwind.\n\nWhat then is to be done?\n\nTo make the best of what is in our power, and take the rest as it\nnaturally happens.\n\nAnd how is that?\n\nAs it pleases God.\n\nTo a reasonable creature, that alone is unsupportable which is\nunreasonable; everything reasonable may be supported. When Vespasian had\nsent to forbid Priscus Helvidius going to the senate, he answered, \"It\nis in your power to prevent my continuing a senator, but while I am one\nI must go.\"\n\n\"Well, then, at least be silent there.\"\n\n\"Do not ask my opinion, and I will be silent.\"\n\n\"But I must ask it.\"\n\n\"And I must speak what appears to me to be right.\"\n\n\"But if you do I will put you to death.\"\n\n\"Did I ever tell you that I was immortal? You will do your part, and I\nmine; it is yours to kill, and mine to die intrepid; yours to banish me,\nmine to depart untroubled.\"\n\nWhat good, then, did Priscus do, who was but a single person? Why, what\ngood does the purple do to the garment? What but the being a shining\ncharacter in himself, and setting a good example to others? Another,\nperhaps, if in such circumstances Caesar had forbidden his going to the\nsenate, would have said, \"I am obliged to you for excusing me.\" But such\na one Caesar would not have forbidden, well knowing that he would either\nsit like a statue, or, if he spoke, he would say what he knew to be\nagreeable to Caesar.\n\nOnly consider at what price you sell your own will and choice, man--if\nfor nothing else, that you may not sell it for a trifle.\n\nIf a person could be persuaded, as he ought of this principle, that we\nare all originally descended from God, and that He is the Father of gods\nand men, I conceive he never would think meanly or degenerately\nconcerning himself. Suppose Caesar were to adopt you, there would be no\nbearing your haughty looks. Will you not be elated on knowing yourself\nto be the son of Jupiter, of God Himself? Yet, in fact, we are not\nelated; but having two things in our composition, intimately united, a\nbody in common with the brutes, and reason and sentiment in common with\nthe gods, many of us incline to this unhappy and mortal kindred, and\nonly some few to the divine and happy one.\n\nBy means of this animal kindred some of us, deviating towards it, become\nlike wolves, faithless and insidious and mischievous; others like lions,\nwild and savage and untamed; but most of us like foxes, wretches even\namong brutes. For what else is a slanderous and ill-natured man than a\nfox, or something still more wretched and mean?\n\nTo Triptolemus all men have raised temples and altars, because he gave\nus a milder kind of food; but to Him who has discovered and communicated\nto all the truth, the means not of living but of living well, who ever\nraised an altar or built a statue?\n\nIf what philosophers say of the kindred between God and man be true,\nwhat has anyone to do but, like Socrates, when he is asked what\ncountryman he is, never to say that he is a citizen of Athens, or of\nCorinth, but of the world? Why may not he who has learned that from God\nthe seeds of being are descended, not only to my father or grandfather,\nbut to all things that are produced and born on the earth--and\nespecially to rational natures, as they alone are qualified to partake\nof a communication with the Deity, being connected with Him by\nreason--why may not such a one call himself a citizen of the world? Why\nnot a son of God? And why shall he fear anything that happens among men?\nShall kindred to Caesar, or any other of the great at Rome, enable a man\nto live secure, above contempt, and void of fear; and shall not the\nhaving God for our Maker and Father and Guardian free us from griefs and\nterrors?\n\n\n_II.--THE CITIZEN OF THE WORLD AND HIS HIGH CALLING_\n\n\nYou are a distinct portion of the essence of God, and contain a certain\npart of Him in yourself. Why do not you consider whence you came? You\ncarry a god about with you, wretch, and know nothing of it. Do you\nsuppose I mean some god without you, of gold or silver? It is within\nyourself you carry Him, and profane Him, without being sensible of it,\nby impure thoughts and unclean actions. If even the image of God were\npresent, you would not dare to act as you do; when God Himself is within\nyou, and hears and sees all, are not you ashamed to think and act thus,\ninsensible of your own nature and hateful to God?\n\nYou are a citizen of the world, and a part of it; not a subservient, but\na principal part. You are capable of comprehending the divine economy\nand of considering the connection of things. What, then, does the\ncharacter of a citizen promise? To hold no private interest, to\ndeliberate of nothing as a separate individual, but like the hand or the\nfoot, which, if they had reason, and comprehended the constitution of\nnature, would never pursue, or desire, but with a reference to the\nwhole.\n\n\"Ah, when shall I see Athens and the citadel again?\" Wretch, are not you\ncontented with what you see every day? Can you see anything better than\nthe sun, the moon, the stars, the whole earth, the sea? If, besides, you\ncomprehend Him who administers the whole, and carry Him about in\nyourself, do you still long after pebbles and a fine rock?\n\nBoldly make a desperate push, man, for prosperity, for freedom, for\nmagnanimity. Lift up your head at last as free from slavery. Dare to\nlook up to God, and say, \"Make use of me for the future as Thou wilt. I\nam of the same mind; I am equal with Thee. I refuse nothing which seems\ngood to Thee. Lead me whither Thou wilt. Clothe me in whatever dress\nThou wilt. Is it Thy will that I should be in a public or a private\ncondition, dwell here or be banished, be poor or rich? Under all these\ncircumstances I will make Thy defence to men. I will show what the\nnature of everything is.\" No, rather sit alone in a warm place, and wait\ntill your nurse comes to feed you. If Hercules had sat loitering at\nhome, what would he have been? You are not Hercules, to extirpate the\nevils of others. Extirpate your own, then. Expel grief, fear, desire,\nenvy, malevolence, avarice, effeminacy, intemperance, from your mind.\n\nBut these can be no otherwise expelled than by looking up to God alone\nas your pattern; by attaching yourself to Him alone and being\nconsecrated to His commands. If you wish for anything else, you will,\nwith sighs and groans, follow what is stronger than you, always seeking\nprosperity without, and never finding it. For you seek it where it is\nnot, and neglect to seek it where it is.\n\n\n_III.--\"HIS WILL IS MY WILL\"_\n\n\nHave I ever been restrained from what I willed? Or compelled against my\nwill? How is this possible? I have ranged my pursuits under the\ndirection of God. Is it His will that I should have a fever? It is my\nwill too. Is it His will that I should pursue anything? It is my will\ntoo. Is it His will that I should desire? It is my will too. Is it His\nwill that I should obtain anything? It is mine too. Is it not His will?\nIt is not mine. Is it His will that I should be tortured? Then it is my\nwill to be tortured. Is it His will that I should die? Then it is my\nwill to die.\n\nHe has given me whatever depends upon choice. The things in my power He\nhas made incapable of hindrance or restraint. But how could He make a\nbody of clay incapable of hindrance? Therefore He hath subjected my\nbody, possessions, furniture, house, children, wife, to the revolution\nof the universe. He who gave takes away. For whence had I these things\nwhen I came into the world?\n\n\"But I would enjoy the feast still longer.\" So perhaps would the\nspectators at Olympia see more combatants. But the solemnity is over. Go\naway. Depart like a grateful and modest person; make room for others.\n\nDo not you know that sickness and death must overtake us? At what\nemployment? The husbandman at his plough; the sailor on his voyage. At\nwhat employment would you be taken? Indeed, at what employment ought you\nto be taken? For if there is any better employment at which you can be\ntaken, follow that.\n\nFor my own part, I would be engaged in nothing but the care of my own\nfaculty of choice, how to render it undisturbed, unrestrained,\nuncompelled, free. I would be found studying this, that I may be able to\nsay to God, \"Have I transgressed Thy commands? Have I perverted the\npowers, the senses, the preconceptions which Thou hast given me? Have I\never accused Thee or censured Thy dispensations? I have been sick,\nbecause it was Thy pleasure. I have been poor, with joy. I have not been\nin power, because it was not Thy will, and power I have never desired.\nHave I not always approached Thee cheerfully, prepared to execute Thy\ncommands? Is it Thy pleasure that I depart from this assembly? I depart.\nI give Thee thanks that Thou hast thought me worthy to have a share in\nit with Thee; to behold Thy works, and to join with Thee in\ncomprehending Thy administration.\" Let death overtake me while I am\nthinking, writing, reading such things as these. Of things, some are in\nour power, others not. In our power are opinion, pursuit, desire,\naccession; in a word, whatever are our own actions. Not in our power are\nbody, property, reputation, command; in a word, whatever are not our own\nactions.\n\nNow, the things in our power are free, unrestrained, unhindered, while\nthose not in our power are weak, slavish, restrained, belonging to\nothers. Remember, then, that if you suppose these latter things free,\nand what belongs to others your own, you will be hindered; you will\nlament; you will be disturbed; you will find fault with both gods and\nmen. But if you regard that only as your own which is your own, and what\nis others, as theirs, no one will ever compel you; no one will restrain\nyou; you will find fault with no one; you will accuse no one; you will\ndo nothing against your will; you will have no enemy and will suffer no\nharm.\n\nAiming, therefore, at great things, remember that you must not allow\nyourself to be carried out of your course, however slightly.\n\nStudy to be able to say to every hostile appearance, \"You are but an\nappearance, and not the thing you appear to be.\" Then examine it by your\nrules, and first and chiefly by this: whether it concerns the things in\nyour own power or those which are not. And if it concerns anything not\nin your own power, be prepared to say it is nothing to you.\n\nWith regard to whatever objects either delight the mind, or contribute\nto use, or are loved with fondness, remember to tell yourself of what\nnature they are, beginning from the most trifling things. If you are\nfond of an earthen cup, remind yourself it is an earthen cup of which\nyou are fond; thus, if it be broken, you will not be disturbed. If you\nkiss your child, or your wife, remember you kiss a being subject to the\naccidents of humanity; thus you will not be disturbed if either die.\n\nMen are disturbed, not by things, but by their own notions regarding\nthem.\n\nBe not elated over excellences not your own. If a horse should be elated\nand say, \"I am handsome,\" it would be supportable. But when you are\nelated and say, \"I have a handsome horse,\" know that you are elated on\nwhat is, in fact, only the good of the horse.\n\nRequire not things to happen as you wish, but wish them to happen as\nthey do happen. Then all will go well.\n\nIn every happening, inquire of your mind how to turn it to proper\naccount.\n\nNever say of anything \"I have lost it,\" but \"I have restored it.\" Is\nyour child dead? It is restored. Is your wife dead? She is restored. Is\nyour estate taken away from you? Well, and is not that likewise\nrestored? \"But he who took it away is a bad man.\" What is it to you by\nwhose hands He who gave it hath demanded it again? While He gives you to\npossess it, take care of it, but as of something not your own, like a\npassenger in an inn.\n\n\n_IV.--OF TRANQUILLITY AND THE MEANS THERETO_\n\n\nIf you would improve, lay aside such reasonings as prevent tranquillity.\nIt is better to die with hunger, exempt from grief and fear, than to\nlive in affluence with perturbation. It is better your servant should be\nbad than you unhappy. Is a little oil spilt? A little wine stolen? Say\nto yourself, \"This is the purchase paid for peace, for tranquillity, and\nnothing is to be had for nothing.\" When you call your servant, consider\nit possible he may not come at your call; or if he doth, that he may not\ndo what you would have him do. He is by no means of such importance that\nit should be in his power to give you disturbance.\n\nBe content to be thought foolish and stupid with regard to externals and\nunessentials. Do not wish to be thought to know. And though you appear\nto others to be somebody, distrust yourself. For be assured it is not\neasy at once to preserve your faculty of choice in a state conformable\nto nature, and to secure externals, since while you are careful of the\none you will neglect the other.\n\nBehave in life as at an entertainment. Is anything brought round to you?\nPut out your hand and take your share, with moderation. Doth it pass by\nyou? Do not stop it. Is it not yet come? Do not stretch forth your\ndesire towards it, but wait till it reaches you. Thus do with regard to\nchildren, to a wife, to public posts, to riches, and you will be, some\ntime or other, a worthy partner of the feasts of the gods. And if you do\nnot so much as take the things set before you, but are able even to\ndespise them, then you will not only be a partner of the gods' feasts,\nbut of their empire.\n\nRemember that you are an actor in a drama, of such a kind as the Author\npleases to make it. If short, of a short one; if long, of a long one. If\nit be His pleasure you should act a poor man, a cripple, a governor, or\na private person, see that you act it naturally. For this is your\nbusiness, to act well the character assigned you; to choose it is\nanother's.\n\nTo me all the portents are lucky, if I will. For, whatever happens, it\nis in my power to derive advantage from it.\n\nRemember that not he who gives ill language or a blow affronts, but the\nprinciple which represents these things as affronting. When, therefore,\nanyone provokes you, be assured that it is your own opinion which\nprovokes you. Try in the first place not to be hurried away with the\nappearance. For if you once gain time and respite you will more easily\ncommand yourself.\n\nBe assured that the essential property of piety towards the gods is to\nform right opinions concerning them as existing and as governing the\nuniverse with goodness and justice. And fix yourself in the resolution\nto obey them, and yield to them, and willingly follow them in all\nevents, as produced by the most perfect understanding. For thus you will\nnever find fault with the gods, nor accuse them of neglecting you. And\nit is not possible for this to be effected any other way than by\nwithdrawing yourself from things not in your own power and placing good\nor evil in those only which are. For if you suppose any of the things\nnot in your own power to be either good or evil, when you are\ndisappointed at what you wish, or incur what you would avoid, you must\nnecessarily find fault with and blame the authors.\n\nBe for the most part silent, or speak merely what is necessary, and in\nfew words. We may sparingly enter into discourse when occasion calls for\nit, but not on the vulgar topics of gladiators, horse-races, feasts, and\nso on; above all, not of men, so as either to blame, praise, or make\ncomparisons.\n\nIf anyone tells you such a person speaks ill of you, make no excuses,\nbut answer, \"He does not know my other faults, or he would not have\nmentioned only these.\"\n\nWhen you do anything from a clear judgment that it ought to be done,\nnever shun the being seen to do it, even though the world should make a\nwrong supposition about it. For if you do not act right, shun the action\nitself; and if you do, why be afraid of mistaken censure?\n\nWhen any person does ill by you, or speaks ill of you, remember that he\nacts or speaks from a supposition of its being his duty. Now, it is not\npossible that he should follow what appears right to you, but what\nappears so to himself. Therefore, if he misjudges, he is the person\nhurt, for he is the one deceived. Meekly bear, then, a person who\nreviles you, for you will say upon every occasion, \"It seemed so to\nhim.\"\n\nThe condition and characteristic of a vulgar person is that he never\nexpects either benefit or hurt from himself, but from externals. The\ncondition and characteristic of a philosopher is that he expects all\nhurt and benefit from himself. The marks of a proficient are that he\ncensures no one, praises no one, blames no one, accuses no one, says\nnothing concerning himself as being anybody or knowing anything; when he\nis hindered or restrained, he accuses himself; when praised, he secretly\nlaughs; if censured, he makes no defence. He suppresses all desire;\ntransfers his aversion to things only which thwart the proper use of his\nown will; is gentle in all exercise of his powers; and does not care if\nhe appears stupid and ignorant, but watches himself as an enemy, like\none in ambush.\n\nWhatever rules of life you have deliberately proposed to yourself, abide\nby them as laws, and as if it were impious to transgress them; and do\nnot regard what anyone says of you; for this, after all, is no concern\nof yours. Let whatever appears to you to be the best be to you an\ninviolable law. Socrates became perfect, improving himself in everything\nby attending to reason only. And though you be not yet a Socrates, live\nas one who would become a Socrates.\n\nUpon all occasions we ought to have ready at hand these three maxims:\n\n    Conduct me, God, and thou, O Destiny,\n    Wherever your decrees have fixed my station.\n    I follow cheerfully. And did I not,\n    Wicked and wretched, I must follow still.\n\n    Whoe'er yields properly to Fate is deemed\n    Wise among men and knows the laws of heaven.\n\n\"O Crito, if it thus pleases the gods, thus let it be. Anytus and\nMelitus may kill me indeed, but hurt my soul they cannot.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n\nFootnote 1: The deceased speaks constantly as if he were Osiris or some\nother god. This is supposed to give him the privileges and power of the\ngod whose name he bears.\n\nFootnote 2: The Egyptians thought that in the lower world the heart or\nconscience was weighed, _i.e.,_ judged.\n\nFootnote 3: This chapter and the like are found on stone, wood,\nporcelain, etc., figures, and attached to the mummy. It was supposed to\nact magically in transferring the tasks of the underworld from the\nperson.\n\nFootnote 4: The storm-god, the arch-fiend of Ra, the sun-god\n\nFootnote 5: The suppliant has made a wax figure of Apepi, and, by\nsympathetic magic, imagines that by burning it he is destroying the\npower of the original. Such wax figures of the gods made for magical\npurposes were generally illegal.\n\nFootnote 6: There are many examples in the Book of the Dead of the\nmagical potency attached to names. To invoke a god by his name was to\ncontrol him.\n\nFootnote 7: The ass stands for Ra, the sun-god, and the eater of the ass\nis darkness or some eclipse, represented as one of the foes of Ra, in\nthe vignette figured as a serpent on the back of an ass. Compare the\nBabylonian myth of Marduk and Tiamat.\n\nFootnote 8: The married name of Confucius.\n\nFootnote 9: Compare the method of Socrates in the investigation of\ntruth.\n\nFootnote 10: In the above four \"difficulties,\" note the reappearance of\nthe law of reciprocity, the negative form of the Golden Rule.\n\nFootnote 11: A technical name for China, which was supposed to be\nenclosed by the four great oceans of the world. China is also called\n\"The Middle Kingdom.\"\n\nFootnote 12: That is, those who have been invested with the sacred\nthread, which is a sign of having been initiated into the paternal\ncaste. This ceremony takes place at the age of seven or nine years, but\nis only observed by the three higher castes. It is to be compared with\nthe Christian rites of baptism and confirmation. Hindu boys, when\ninvested with the sacred thread or cord, are said to be born again.\n\nFootnote 13: This spelling of the word (\"Quran\") represents the native\nArabic pronunciation if it be remembered that \"q\" stands for a \"k\" sound\nproceeding from the lower part of the throat. The initial sound is\ntherefore to be distinguished from that of the Arabic and Hebrew letters\nproperly transliterated \"k.\"\n\nFootnote 14: The pronunciation heard by the present writer among the\nMuslim Arabs of Egypt, Syria, etc. The word means literally \"The Praised\nOne\" or \"The One to be Praised.\" The \"h,\" however, in the word is not\nthe ordinary one, but that pronounced at the lower part of the throat,\nas the Arabic equivalent of \"q\" is. Hence this \"h\" is transliterated as\n\"h\" with a dot underneath it.\n\nFootnote 15: All the suras, except the ninth, begin with this formula,\nas, indeed, do most Arabic books, often even books of an immoral nature.\n\nFootnote 16: Muhammad's uncle, who, with his wife, rejected the\nprophet'\u00bb claims.\n\nFootnote 17: A word-play, Lahab meaning \"flame.\"\n\nFootnote 18: Said by Muslim commentators to be one of the last ten\nnights of Ramadhan, the seventh of those nights reckoning backwards.\n\nFootnote 19: The earliest mention of the doctrine of abrogation of\nprevious revelations. When Muhammad was convinced that what he had\npreviously taught was erroneous he always professed to have received a\nnew revelation annulling the earlier one bearing on the matter.\n\nFootnote 20: There is perhaps here an indirect reference to the alleged\ndeification of the Virgin Mary by the Christians with whom Muhammad came\nin contact.\n\nFootnote 21: This is from one of the oldest suras. A most important\nMuslim tradition says that Muhammad declares this sura to be equal to a\nthird of the rest of the Koran. Some say it represents the prophet's\ncreed when he entered upon his mission.\n\nFootnote 22: This is directed against both the Mekkan belief that angels\nwere daughters of God and also against the Christian doctrine that Jesus\nwas the Son of God. Reference is also made, perhaps, to the Jewish\ndescription of Ezra as God's son.\n\nFootnote 23: Muhammad here adopts the Jewish and Arab myth that Solomon\nhad a seal with the divine name (Yahwe) inscribed on it giving him\ncontrol over winds and jinns, or demons.\n\nFootnote 24: In Arabic, Mary and Miriam are spelt exactly alike\n(\"Miriam\"). This evidently misled Muhammad. In sura 56 he describes the\nVirgin as a daughter of Amram, the father of Aaron, Moses, and Miriam.\n(See Numbers xxvi. 59, and Exodus xv. 20.)\n\nFootnote 25: This is a well-known Arab fable, based on a\nmisunderstanding of I Kings iv. 33, influenced by the second Targum on\nEsther. See an English translation of this last in a commentary on\nEsther by Paul Cassel (T. & T. Clark), p. 263. This Targum is certainly\nolder than the Koran, and it embodies Jewish legends of a still greater\nantiquity.\n\nFootnote 26: This legend about Mount Sinai is contained twice in the\nJewish Talmud (Abodah Zarah Mishnah II, 2, and Shabbath Gemarah\nlxxxviii. 1). It is no doubt this Jewish tradition that suggested the\nabove passage.\n\nFootnote 27: The point to which men turn in prayer, Zoroastrians pray\ntowards the east--the direction of the rising sun; Jews towards\nJerusalem, where the Temple was; and Muslims, from the utterance of this\nsura, towards Mekka. At first Muhammad adopted no Qiblah. On reaching\nMedinah, in order to conciliate the Jews he adopted Jerusalem as the\nQiblah. But a year after reaching Medinah, he broke with the Jews and\ncommanded his people to make the Kaabah their Qiblah.\n\nFootnote 28: The cube-like building in the centre of the mosque at\nMekka, which contains the sacred black stone.\n\nFootnote 29: Ahmad and Muhammad have both the same meaning, _i.e._, \"the\nPraiseworthy One.\" Muslim commentators hold that the Paraclete\n(Comforter) promised in John xvi. 7 means Muhammad. In order to make\nthis clear, however, they say we ought to read \"Periklutos,\" _i.e._,\nvirtually Ahmad and Muhammad, instead of \"Paracletos.\"\n\nFootnote 30: According to the Koran, Mary was worshipped as God by the\nChristians of Arabia.\n\nFootnote 31: According to sura 2, verse 174, the _Bismillah_ (lit. \"In\nthe name of Allah,\" etc.) must be uttered before animals to be eaten are\nkilled.","title":"The World's Greatest Books \u2014 Volume 13 \u2014 Religion and Philosophy","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":115129}