{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_14674/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_14674","id":"gutenberg_14674","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14674","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Other","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christianity and other religions","Islam","Religions"],"text":"[Illustration: Frontispiece]\n\n\n\n\nTen Great Religions\n\nAn Essay in Comparative Theology\n\nby\n\nJames Freeman Clarke\n\n\n   Prophets who have been since the world began.--Luke i. 70.\n\n   Gentiles ... who show the work (or influence) of the (that) law which\n   is written in their hearts.--Romans ii. 15.\n\n   God ... hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all\n   the face of the earth ... that they should seek the Lord, if haply they\n   may feel after him and find him.--Acts, xviii. 24-27.\n\n\n\n\nEntered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1871, by James Freeman\nClarke, in the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.\n\n\nCopyright, 1899,\nBy Eliot C. Clarke.\n\n\n\n\nTo\nWilliam Heney Channing,\nMy Friend and Fellow-Student\nDuring Many Years,\nThis Work\nIs Affectionately Inscribed.\n\n\n\n\nPreface.\n\n\n\nThe first six chapters of the present volume are composed from six\narticles prepared for the Atlantic Monthly, and published in that magazine\nin 1868. They attracted quite as much attention as the writer anticipated,\nand this has induced him to enlarge them, and add other chapters. His aim\nis to enable the reader to become acquainted with the doctrines and\ncustoms of the principal religions of the world, without having to consult\nnumerous volumes. He has not come to the task without some preparation,\nfor it is more than twenty-five years since he first made of this study a\nspeciality. In this volume it is attempted to give the latest results of\nmodern investigations, so far as any definite and trustworthy facts have\nbeen attained. But the writer is well aware of the difficulty of being\nalways accurate in a task which involves such interminable study and such\nan amount of details. He can only say, in the words of a Hebrew writer:\n\"If I have done well, and as is fitting the story, it is that which I\ndesired; but if slenderly and meanly, it is that which I could attain\nunto.\"\n\n\n\n\nContents.\n\n\nChapter I.\n\nIntroduction.--Ethnic and Catholic Religions.\n\n  \u00a7 1. Object of the present Work\n  \u00a7 2. Comparative Theology; its Nature, Value, and present Position\n  \u00a7 3. Ethnic Religions. Injustice often done to them by Christian\n         Apologists\n  \u00a7 4. How Ethnic Religions were regarded by Christ and his Apostles\n  \u00a7 5. Comparative Theology will furnish a new Class of Evidences in\n         Support of Christianity\n  \u00a7 6. It will show that, while most of the Religions of the World are\n         Ethnic, or the Religions of Races, Christianity is Catholic, or\n         adapted to become the Religion of all Races\n  \u00a7 7. It will show that Ethnic Religions are partial, Christianity\n         universal\n  \u00a7 8. It will show that Ethnic Religions are arrested, but that\n         Christianity is steadily progressive\n\n\nChapter II.\n\nConfucius and the Chinese, or the Prose of Asia.\n\n  \u00a7 1. Peculiarities of Chinese Civilization\n  \u00a7 2. Chinese Government based on Education. Civil-Service Examinations\n  \u00a7 3. Life and Character of Confucius\n  \u00a7 4. Philosophy and subsequent Development of Confucianism\n  \u00a7 5. Lao-tse and Tao-ism\n  \u00a7 6. Religious Character of the \"Kings.\"\n  \u00a7 7. Confucius and Christianity. Character of the Chinese\n  \u00a7 8. The Tae-ping Insurrection\n  Note. The Nestorian Inscription in China\n\n\nChapter III.\n\nBrahmanism.\n\n  \u00a7 1. Our Knowledge of Brahmanism. Sir William Jones\n  \u00a7 2. Difficulty of this Study. The Complexity of the System. The\n         Hindoos have no History. Their Ultra-Spiritualism\n  \u00a7 3. Helps from Comparative Philology. The Aryans in Central Asia\n  \u00a7 4. The Aryans in India. The Native Races. The Vedic Age. Theology\n         of the Vedas\n  \u00a7 5. Second Period. Laws of Manu. The Brahmanic Age\n  \u00a7 6. The Three Hindoo Systems of Philosophy,--The Sankhya, Vedanta,\n         and Nyasa\n  \u00a7 7. Origin of the Hindoo Triad\n  \u00a7 8. The Epics, the Puranas, and Modern Hindoo Worship\n  \u00a7 9. Relation of Brahmanism to Christianity\n\n\nChapter IV.\n\nBuddhism, or the Protestantism of the East.\n\n  \u00a7 1. Buddhism, in its Forms, resembles Romanism; in its Spirit,\n         Protestantism\n  \u00a7 2. Extent of Buddhism. Its Scriptures\n  \u00a7 3. Sakya-muni, the Founder of Buddhism\n  \u00a7 4. Leading Doctrines of Buddhism\n  \u00a7 5. The Spirit of Buddhism Rational and Humane\n  \u00a7 6. Buddhism as a Religion\n  \u00a7 7. Karma and Nirvana\n  \u00a7 8. Good and Evil of Buddhism\n  \u00a7 9. Relation of Buddhism to Christianity\n\n\nChapter V.\n\nZoroaster and the Zend Avesta.\n\n  \u00a7 1. Ruins of the Palace of Xerxes at Persepolis\n  \u00a7 2. Greek Accounts of Zoroaster. Plutarch's Description of his Religion\n  \u00a7 3. Anquetil du Perron and his Discovery of the Zend Avesta\n  \u00a7 4. Epoch of Zoroaster. What do we know of him?\n  \u00a7 5. Spirit of Zoroaster and of his Religion\n  \u00a7 6. Character of the Zend Avesta\n  \u00a7 7. Later Development of the System in the Bundehesch\n  \u00a7 8. Relation of the Religion of the Zend Avesta to that of the Vedas\n  \u00a7 9. Is Monotheism or pure Dualism the Doctrine of the Zend Avesta\n  \u00a7 10. Relation of this System to Christianity. The Kingdom of Heaven\n\n\nChapter VI.\n\nThe Gods of Egypt.\n\n  \u00a7 1. Antiquity and Extent of Egyptian Civilization\n  \u00a7 2. Religious Character of the Egyptians. Their Ritual\n  \u00a7 3. Theology of Egypt. Sources of our Knowledge concerning it\n  \u00a7 4. Central Idea of Egyptian Theology and Religion. Animal Worship\n  \u00a7 5. Sources of Egyptian Theology. Age of the Empire and Affinities of\n         the Race\n  \u00a7 6. The Three Orders of Gods\n  \u00a7 7. Influence upon Judaism and Christianity\n\n\nChapter VII.\n\nThe Gods Of Greece.\n\n  \u00a7 1. The Land and the Race\n  \u00a7 2. Idea and general Character of Greek Religion\n  \u00a7 3. The Gods of Greece before Homer\n  \u00a7 4. The Gods of the Poets\n  \u00a7 5. The Gods of the Artists\n  \u00a7 6. The Gods of the Philosophers\n  \u00a7 7. Worship of Greece\n  \u00a7 8. The Mysteries. Orphism\n  \u00a7 9. Relation of Greek Religion to Christianity\n\n\nChapter VIII.\n\nThe Religion of Rome.\n\n  \u00a7 1. Origin and essential Character of the Religion of Rome\n  \u00a7 2. The Gods of Rome\n  \u00a7 3. Worship and Ritual\n  \u00a7 4. The Decay of the Roman Religion\n  \u00a7 5. Relation of the Roman Religion to Christianity\n\n\nChapter IX.\n\nThe Teutonic and Scandinavian Religion.\n\n  \u00a7 1. The Land and the Race\n  \u00a7 2. Idea of the Scandinavian Religion\n  \u00a7 3. The Eddas and their Contents\n  \u00a7 4. The Gods of Scandinavia\n  \u00a7 5. Resemblance of the Scandinavian Mythology to that of Zoroaster\n  \u00a7 6. Scandinavian Worship\n  \u00a7 7. Social Character, Maritime Discoveries, and Political Institutions\n         of the Scandinavians\n  \u00a7 8. Relation of this System to Christianity\n\n\nChapter X.\n\nThe Jewish Religion.\n\n  \u00a7 1. Palestine, and the Semitic Races\n  \u00a7 2. Abraham; or, Judaism as the Family Worship of a Supreme Being\n  \u00a7 3. Moses; or, Judaism as the national Worship of a just and holy King\n  \u00a7 4. David; or, Judaism as the personal Worship of a Father and Friend\n  \u00a7 5. Solomon; or, the Religious Relapse\n  \u00a7 6. The Prophets; or, Judaism as a Hope of a spiritual and universal\n         Kingdom of God\n  \u00a7 7. Judaism as a Preparation for Christianity\n\n\nChapter XI.\n\nMohammed and Islam.\n\n  \u00a7 1. Recent Works on the Life of Mohammed\n  \u00a7 2. The Arabs and Arabia\n  \u00a7 3. Early Life of Mohammed, to the Hegira\n  \u00a7 4. Change in the Character of Mohammed after the Hegira\n  \u00a7 5. Religious Doctrines and Practices among the Mohammedans\n  \u00a7 6. The Criticism of Mr. Palgrave on Mohammedan Theology\n  \u00a7 7. Mohammedanism a Relapse; the worst Form of Monotheism, and a\n         retarding Element in Civilization\n  Note\n\n\nChapter XII.\n\nThe Ten Religions and Christianity.\n\n  \u00a7 1. General Results of this Survey\n  \u00a7 2. Christianity a Pleroma, or Fulness of Life\n  \u00a7 3. Christianity, as a Pleroma, compared with Brahmanism,\n         Confucianism, and Buddhism\n  \u00a7 4. Christianity compared with the Avesta and the Eddas. The Duad in\n         all Religions\n  \u00a7 5. Christianity and the Religions of Egypt, Greece, and Rome\n  \u00a7 6. Christianity in Relation to Judaism and Mohammedanism. The\n         Monad in all Religions\n  \u00a7 7. The Fulness of Christianity is derived from the Life of Jesus\n  \u00a7 8. Christianity as a Religion of Progress and of universal Unity\n\n\n\n\nTen Great Religions.\n\n\n\n\nChapter I.\n\nIntroduction.--Ethnic and Catholic Religions.\n\n\n  \u00a7 1. Object of the present Work.\n  \u00a7 2. Comparative Theology; its Nature, Value, and present Position.\n  \u00a7 3. Ethnic Religions. Injustice often done to them by Christian\n         Apologists.\n  \u00a7 4. How Ethnic Religions were regarded by Christ and his Apostles.\n  \u00a7 5. Comparative Theology will furnish a new Class of Evidences in\n         Support of Christianity.\n  \u00a7 6. It will show that, while most of the Religions of the World are\n         Ethnic, or the Religions of Races, Christianity is Catholic, or\n         adapted to become the Religion of all Races.\n  \u00a7 7. It will show that Ethnic Religions are Partial, Christianity\n         Universal.\n  \u00a7 8. It will show that Ethnic Religions are arrested, but that\n         Christianity is steadily progressive.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 1. Object of the present Work.\n\n\nThe present work is what the Germans call a _Versuch_, and the English an\nEssay, or attempt. It is an attempt to compare the great religions of the\nworld with each other. When completed, this comparison ought to show what\neach is, what it contains, wherein it resembles the others, wherein it\ndiffers from the others; its origin and development, its place in\nuniversal history; its positive and negative qualities, its truths and\nerrors, and its influence, past, present, or future, on the welfare of\nmankind. For everything becomes more clear by comparison We can never\nunderstand the nature of a phenomenon when we contemplate it by itself, as\nwell as when we look at it in its relations to other phenomena of the same\nkind. The qualities of each become more clear in contrast with those of\nthe others. By comparing together, therefore, the religions of mankind,\nto see wherein they agree and wherein they differ, we are able to perceive\nwith greater accuracy what each is. The first problem in Comparative\nTheology is therefore analytical, being to distinguish each religion from\nthe rest. We compare them to see wherein they agree and wherein they\ndiffer. But the next problem in Comparative Theology is synthetical, and\nconsiders the adaptation of each system to every other, to determine its\nplace, use, and value, in reference to universal or absolute religion. It\nmust, therefore, examine the different religions to find wherein each is\ncomplete or defective, true or false; how each may supply the defects of\nthe other or prepare the way for a better; how each religion acts on the\nrace which receives it, is adapted to that race, and to the region of the\nearth which it inhabits. In this department, therefore, it connects itself\nwith Comparative Geography, with universal history, and with ethics.\nFinally, this department of Comparative Theology shows the relation of\neach partial religion to human civilization, and observes how each\nreligion of the world is a step in the progress of humanity. It shows that\nboth the positive and negative side of a religion make it a preparation\nfor a higher religion, and that the universal religion must root itself in\nthe decaying soil of partial religions. And in this sense Comparative\nTheology becomes the science of missions.\n\nSuch a work as this is evidently too great for a single mind. Many\nstudents must co-operate, and that through many years, before it can be\ncompleted. This volume is intended as a contribution toward that end. It\nwill contain an account of each of the principal religions, and its\ndevelopment. It will be, therefore, devoted to the natural history of\nethnic and catholic religions, and its method will be that of analysis.\nThe second part, which may be published hereafter, will compare these\ndifferent systems to show what each teaches concerning the great subjects\nof religious thought,--God, Duty, and Immortality. Finally, it will\ncompare them with Christianity, and will inquire whether or not that is\ncapable of becoming the religion of the human race.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. Comparative Theology; its Nature, Value, and present Position.\n\n\nThe work of Comparative Theology is to do equal justice to all the\nreligious tendencies of mankind. Its position is that of a judge, not that\nof an advocate. Assuming, with the Apostle Paul, that each religion has\ncome providentially, as a method by which different races \"should seek the\nLord, if haply they might feel after him and find him,\" it attempts to\nshow how each may be a step in the religious progress of the races, and \"a\nschoolmaster to bring men to Christ.\" It is bound, however, to abstain\nfrom such inferences until it has accurately ascertained all the facts.\nIts first problem is to learn what each system contains; it may then go\non, and endeavor to generalize from its facts.\n\nComparative Theology is, therefore, as yet in its infancy. The same\ntendency in this century, which has produced the sciences of Comparative\nAnatomy, Comparative Geography, and Comparative Philology, is now creating\nthis new science of Comparative Theology.[1] It will be to any special\ntheology as Comparative Anatomy is to any special anatomy, Comparative\nGeography to any special geography, or Comparative Philology to the study\nof any particular language. It may be called a science, since it consists\nin the study of the facts of human history, and their relation to each\nother. It does not dogmatize: it observes. It deals only with\nphenomena,--single phenomena, or facts; grouped phenomena, or laws.\n\nSeveral valuable works, bearing more or less directly on Comparative\nTheology, have recently appeared in Germany, France, and England. Among\nthese may be mentioned those of Max M\u00fcller, Bunsen, Burnouf, D\u00f6llinger,\nHardwicke, St. Hilaire, D\u00fcncker, F. C. Baur, R\u00e9nan, Creuzer, Maurice, G.\nW. Cox, and others.\n\nIn America, except Mr. Alger's admirable monograph on the \"Doctrine of the\nFuture Life,\" we have scarcely anything worthy of notice. Mrs. Lydia Maria\nChild's work on the \"Progress of Religious Ideas\" deserves the greatest\ncredit, when we consider the time when it was written and the few sources\nof information then accessible.[2] Twenty-five years ago it was hardly\npossible to procure any adequate information concerning Brahmanism,\nBuddhism, or the religions of Confucius, Zoroaster, and Mohammed. Hardly\nany part of the Vedas had been translated into a European language. The\nworks of Anquetil du Perron and Kleuker were still the highest authority\nupon the Zendavesta. About the Buddhists scarcely anything was known. But\nnow, though many important _lacun\u00e6_ remain to be filled, we have ample\nmeans of ascertaining the essential facts concerning most of these\nmovements of the human soul. The time seems to have come to accomplish\nsomething which may have a lasting value.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. Ethnic Religions. Injustice often done to them by Christian\nApologists.\n\n\nComparative Theology, pursuing its impartial course as a positive science,\nwill avoid the error into which most of the Christian apologists of the\nlast century fell, in speaking of ethnic or heathen religions. In order to\nshow the need of Christianity, they thought it necessary to disparage all\nother religions. Accordingly they have insisted that, while the Jewish and\nChristian religions were revealed, all other religions were invented;\nthat, while these were from God, those were the work of man; that, while\nin the true religions there was nothing false, in the false religions\nthere was nothing true. If any trace of truth was to be found in\nPolytheism, it was so mixed with error as to be practically only evil. As\nthe doctrines of heathen religions were corrupt, so their worship was only\na debasing superstition. Their influence was to make men worse, not\nbetter; their tendency was to produce sensuality, cruelty, and universal\ndegradation. They did not proceed, in any sense, from God; they were not\neven the work of good men, but rather of deliberate imposition and\npriestcraft. A supernatural religion had become necessary in order to\ncounteract the fatal consequences of these debased and debasing\nsuperstitions. This is the view of the great natural religions of the\nworld which was taken by such writers as Leland, Whitby, and Warburton in\nthe last century. Even liberal thinkers, like James Foster[3] and John\nLocke,[4] declare that, at the coming of Christ, mankind had fallen into\nutter darkness, and that vice and superstition filled the world. Infidel\nno less than Christian writers took the same disparaging view of natural\nreligions. They considered them, in their source, the work of fraud; in\ntheir essence, corrupt superstitions; in their doctrines, wholly false; in\ntheir moral tendency, absolutely injurious; and in their result,\ndegenerating more and more into greater evil.\n\nA few writers, like Cudworth and the Platonists, endeavored to put in a\ngood word for the Greek philosophers, but the religions of the world were\nabandoned to unmitigated reprobation. The account which so candid a writer\nas Mosheim gives of them is worth noticing, on account of its sweeping\ncharacter. \"All the nations of the world,\" he says, \"except the Jews, were\nplunged in the grossest superstition. Some nations, indeed, went beyond\nothers in impiety and absurdity, but all stood charged with irrationality\nand gross stupidity in matters of religion.\" \"The greater part of the gods\nof all nations were ancient heroes, famous for their achievements and\ntheir worthy deeds, such as kings, generals, and founders of cities.\" \"To\nthese some added the more splendid and useful objects in the natural\nworld, as the sun, moon, and stars; and some were not ashamed to pay\ndivine honors to mountains, rivers, trees, etc.\" \"The worship of these\ndeities consisted in ceremonies, sacrifices, and prayers. The ceremonies\nwere, for the most part, absurd and ridiculous, and throughout debasing,\nobscene, and cruel. The prayers were truly insipid and void of piety, both\nin their form and matter.\" \"The priests who presided over this worship\nbasely abused their authority to impose on the people.\" \"The whole pagan\nsystem had not the least efficacy to produce and cherish virtuous emotions\nin the soul; because the gods and goddesses were patterns of vice, the\npriests bad men, and the doctrines false.\"[5]\n\nThis view of heathen religions is probably much exaggerated. They must\ncontain more truth than error, and must have been, on the whole, useful to\nmankind. We do not believe that they originated in human fraud, that their\nessence is superstition, that there is more falsehood than truth in their\ndoctrines, that their moral tendency is mainly injurious, or that they\ncontinually degenerate into greater evil. No doubt it may be justly\npredicated of all these systems that they contain much which is false and\ninjurious to human virtue. But the following considerations may tend to\nshow that all the religions of the earth are providential, and that all\ntend to benefit mankind.\n\nTo ascribe the vast phenomena of religion, in their variety and\ncomplexity, to man as their author, and to suppose the whole a mere work\nof human fraud, is not a satisfactory solution of the facts before us.\nThat priests, working on human ignorance or fear, should be able to build\nup such a great mass of belief, sentiment, and action, is like the Hindoo\ncosmogony, which supposes the globe to rest on an elephant, the elephant\non a turtle, and the turtle on nothing at all.\n\nIf the people were so ignorant, how happened the priests to be so wise? If\nthe people were so credulous, why were not the priests credulous too?\n\"Like people, like priests,\" is a proverb approved by experience. Among\nso many nations and through so many centuries, why has not some one priest\nbetrayed the secret of the famous imposition? Apply a similar theory to\nany other human institution, and how patent is its absurdity! Let a\nrepublican contend that all other forms of government--the patriarchal\nsystem, government by castes, the feudal system, absolute and limited\nmonarchies, oligarchies, and aristocracies--are wholly useless and evil,\nand were the result of statecraft alone, with no root in human nature or\nthe needs of man. Let one maintain that every system of _law_ (except our\nown) was an invention of lawyers for private ends. Let one argue in the\nsame way about medicine, and say that this is a pure system of quackery,\ndevised by physicians, in order to get a support out of the people for\ndoing nothing. We should at once reply that, though error and ignorance\nmay play a part in all these institutions, they cannot be based on error\nand ignorance only. Nothing which has not in it some elements of use can\nhold its position in the world during so long a time and over so wide a\nrange. It is only reasonable to say the same of heathen or ethnic\nreligions. They contain, no doubt, error and evil. No doubt priestcraft\nhas been carried very far in them, though not further perhaps than it has\nsometimes been carried in Christianity. But unless they contained more of\ngood than evil, they could not have kept their place. They partially\nsatisfied a great hunger of the human heart. They exercised some restraint\non human wilfulness and passion. They have directed, however imperfectly,\nthe human conscience toward the right. To assume that they are wholly evil\nis disrespectful to human nature. It supposes man to be the easy and\nuniversal dupe of fraud. But these religions do not rest on such a sandy\nfoundation, but on the feeling of dependence, the sense of accountability,\nthe recognition of spiritual realities very near to this world of matter,\nand the need of looking up and worshipping some unseen power higher and\nbetter than ourselves. A decent respect for the opinions of mankind\nforbids us to ascribe pagan religions to priestcraft as their chief\nsource.\n\nAnd a reverence for Divine Providence brings us to the same conclusion.\nCan it be that God has left himself without a witness in the world, except\namong the Hebrews in ancient times and the Christians in modern times?\nThis narrow creed excludes God from any communion with the great majority\nof human beings. The Father of the human race is represented as selecting\na few of his children to keep near himself, and as leaving all the rest to\nperish in their ignorance and error. And this is not because they are\nprodigal children who have gone astray into a far country of their own\naccord; for they are just where they were placed by their Creator. HE \"has\ndetermined the times before appointed and the bounds of their habitation.\"\nHE has caused some to be born in India, where they can only hear of him\nthrough Brahmanism; and some in China, where they can know him only\nthrough Buddha and Confucius. The doctrine which we are opposing is; that,\nbeing put there by God, they are born into hopeless error, and are then\npunished for their error by everlasting destruction. The doctrine for\nwhich we contend is that of the Apostle Paul, that God has \"determined\nbeforehand the bounds of their habitation, that they should seek the Lord,\nIF HAPLY THEY MAY FEEL AFTER HIM AND FIND HIM.\" Paul teaches that \"all\nnations dwelling on all the face of the earth\" may not only seek and feel\nafter God, but also FIND him. But as all living in heathen lands are\nheathen, if they find God at all, they must find him through heathenism.\nThe pagan religions are the effort of man to feel after God. Otherwise we\nmust conclude that the Being without whom not a sparrow falls to the\nground, the Being who never puts an insect into the air or a polyp into\nthe water without providing it with some appropriate food, so that it may\nlive and grow, has left the vast majority of his human children, made with\nreligious appetences of conscience, reverence, hope, without a\ncorresponding nutriment of truth. This view tends to atheism; for if the\npresence of adaptation everywhere is the legitimate proof of creative\ndesign, the absence of adaptation in so important a sphere tends, so far,\nto set aside that proof.\n\nThe view which we are opposing contradicts that law of progress which\nalone gives meaning and unity to history. Instead of progress, it teaches\ndegeneracy and failure. But elsewhere we see progress, not recession.\nGeology shows us higher forms of life succeeding to the lower. Botany\nexhibits the lichens and mosses preparing a soil for more complex forms of\nvegetation. Civil history shows the savage state giving way to the\nsemi-civilized, and that to the civilized. If heathen religions are a\nstep, a preparation for Christianity, then this law of degrees appears\nalso in religion; then we see an order in the progress of the human\nsoul,--\"first the blade, then the ear, afterward the full corn in the\near.\" Then we can understand why Christ's coming was delayed till the\nfulness of the time had come. But otherwise all, in this most important\nsphere of human life, is in disorder, without unity, progress, meaning, or\nprovidence.\n\nThese views, we trust, will be amply confirmed when we come to examine\neach great religion separately and carefully. We shall find them always\nfeeling after God, often finding him. We shall see that in their origin\nthey are not the work of priestcraft, but of human nature; in their\nessence not superstitions, but religions; in their doctrines true more\nfrequently than false; in their moral tendency good rather than evil. And\ninstead of degenerating toward something worse, they come to prepare the\nway for something better.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4. How Ethnic Religions were regarded by Christ and his Apostles.\n\n\nAccording to Christ and the Apostles, Christianity was to grow out of\nJudaism, and be developed into a universal religion. Accordingly, the\nmethod of Jesus was to go first to the Jews; and when he left the limits\nof Palestine on a single occasion, he declared himself as only going into\nPhoenicia to seek after the lost sheep of the house of Israel. But he\nstated that he had other sheep, not of this fold, whom he must bring,\nrecognizing that there were, among the heathen, good and honest hearts\nprepared for Christianity, and already belonging to him; sheep who knew\nhis voice and were ready to follow him. He also declared that the Roman\ncenturion and the Phoenician woman already possessed great faith, the\ncenturion more than he had yet found in Israel. But the most striking\ndeclaration of Jesus, and one singularly overlooked, concerning the\ncharacter of the heathen, is to be found in his description of the day of\njudgment, in Matthew (chap. XXV.). It is very curious that men should\nspeculate as to the fate of the heathen, when Jesus has here distinctly\ntaught that all good men among them are his sheep, though they never heard\nof him. The account begins, \"Before him shall be gathered all the\nGentiles\" (or heathen). It is not a description of the judgment of the\nChristian world, but of the heathen world. The word here used (\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03b7)\noccurs about one hundred and sixty-four times in the New Testament. It is\ntranslated \"gentiles\" oftener than by any other word, that is, about\nninety-three times; by \"heathen\" four or five times; and in the remaining\npassages it is mostly translated \"nations.\" That it means the Gentiles or\nheathen here appears from the fact that they are represented as ignorant\nof Christ, and are judged, not by the standard of Christian faith, but by\ntheir humanity and charity toward those in suffering. Jesus recognizes,\ntherefore, among these ethnic or heathen people, some as belonging to\nhimself,--the \"other sheep,\" not of the Jewish fold.\n\nThe Apostle Paul, who was especially commissioned to the Gentiles, must be\nconsidered as the best authority upon this question. Did he regard their\nreligions as wholly false? On the contrary, he tells the Athenians that\nthey are already worshipping the true God, though ignorantly. \"Whom ye\nignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you.\" When he said this he was\nstanding face to face with all that was most imposing in the religion of\nGreece. He saw the city filled with idols, majestic forms, the perfection\nof artistic grace and beauty. Was his spirit then moved _only_ with\nindignation against this worship, and had he no sympathy with the\nspiritual needs which it expressed? It does not seem so. He recognized\npiety in their souls. \"I see that ye are, in all ways, exceedingly\npious.\" He recognized their worship as passing beyond the idols, to the\ntrue God. He did not profess that he came to revolutionize their religion,\nbut to reform it. He does not proceed like the backwoodsman, who fells the\nforest and takes out the stumps in order to plant a wholly different crop;\nbut like the nurseryman, who grafts a native stock with a better fruit.\nThey were already ignorantly worshipping the true God. What the apostle\nproposed to do was to enlighten that ignorance by showing them who that\ntrue God was, and what was his character. In his subsequent remarks,\ntherefore, he does not teach them that there is one Supreme Being, but he\n_assumes_ it, as something already believed. He assumes him to be the\ncreator of all things; to be _omnipotent_,--\"the Lord of heaven and\nearth\"; _spiritual_,--\"dwelleth not in temples made with hands\";\n_absolute_,--\"not needing anything,\" but the source of all things. He says\nthis, as not expecting any opposition or contradiction; he reserves his\ncriticisms on their idolatry for the end of his discourse. He then states,\nquite clearly, that the different nations of the world have a common\norigin, belong to one family, and have been providentially placed in space\nand time, that each might seek the Lord in its own way. He recognized in\nthem a power of seeking and finding God, the God close at hand, and in\nwhom we live; and he quotes one of their own poets, accepting his\nstatement of God's fatherly character. Now, it is quite common for those\nwho deny that there is any truth in heathenism, to admire this speech of\nPaul as a masterpiece of ingenuity and eloquence. But he would hardly have\nmade it, unless he thought it to be true. Those who praise his eloquence\nat the expense of his veracity pay him a poor compliment. Did Paul tell\nthe Athenians that they were worshipping the true God _when they were\nnot_, and that for the sake of rhetorical effect? If we believe this\nconcerning him, and yet admire him, let us cease henceforth to find fault\nwith the Jesuits.\n\nNo! Paul believed what he said, that the Athenians were worshipping the\ntrue God, though ignorantly. The sentiment of reverence, of worship, was\nlifting them to its true object. All they needed was to have their\nunderstanding enlightened. Truth he placed in the heart rather than the\nunderstanding, but he also connected Christianity with Polytheism where\nthe two religions touched, that is, on their pantheistic side. While\nplacing God _above_ the world as its ruler, \"seeing he is Lord of heaven\nand earth,\" he placed him _in_ the world as an immanent presence,--\"in him\nwe live, and move, and have our being.\" And afterward, in writing to the\nRomans, he takes the same ground. He teaches that the Gentiles had a\nknowledge of the eternal attributes of God (Rom. i. 19) and saw him in his\nworks (v. 20), and that they also had in their nature a law of duty,\nenabling them to do the things contained in the law. This he calls \"the\nlaw written in the heart\" (Rom. ii. 14,15). He blames them, not for\nignorance, but for disobedience. The Apostle Paul, therefore, agrees with\nus in finding in heathen religions essential truth in connection with\ntheir errors.\n\nThe early Christian apologists often took the same view. Thus Clement of\nAlexandria believed that God had one great plan for educating the world,\nof which Christianity was the final step. He refused to consider the\nJewish religion as the only divine preparation for Christianity, but\nregarded the Greek philosophy as also a preparation for Christ. Neander\ngives his views at length, and says that Clement was the founder of the\ntrue view of history.[6] Tertullian declared the soul to be naturally\nChristian. The Sibylline books were quoted as good prophetic works along\nwith the Jewish prophets. Socrates was called by the Fathers a Christian\nbefore Christ.\n\nWithin the last few years the extravagant condemnation of the heathen\nreligions has produced a reaction in their favor. It has been felt to be\ndisparaging to human nature to suppose that almost the whole human race\nshould consent to be fed on error. Such a belief has been seen to be a\ndenial of God's providence, as regards nine tenths of mankind. Accordingly\nit has become more usual of late to rehabilitate heathenism, and to place\nit on the same level with Christianity, if not above it. The _Vedas_ are\ntalked about as though they were somewhat superior to the Old Testament,\nand Confucius is quoted as an authority quite equal to Paul or John. An\nignorant admiration of the sacred books of the Buddhists and Brahmins has\nsucceeded to the former ignorant and sweeping condemnation of them. What\nis now needed is a fair and candid examination and comparison of these\nsystems from reliable sources.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5. Comparative Theology will furnish a new Class of Evidences in Support\nof Christianity.\n\n\nSuch an examination, doing full justice to all other religions,\nacknowledging their partial truth and use, will not depreciate, but exalt\nthe value of Christianity. It will furnish a new kind of evidence in its\nfavor. But the usual form of argument may perhaps be changed.\n\nIs Christianity a supernatural or a natural religion? Is it a religion\nattested to be from God by miracles? This has been the great question in\nevidences for the last century. The truth and divine origin of\nChristianity have been made to depend on its supernatural character, and\nto stand or fall with a certain view of miracles. And then, in order to\nmaintain the reality of miracles, it became necessary to prove the\ninfallibility of the record; and so we were taught that, to believe in\nJesus Christ, we must first believe in the genuineness and authenticity of\nthe whole New Testament. \"All the theology of England,\" says Mr.\nPattison,[7] \"was devoted to proving the Christian religion credible, in\nthis manner.\" \"The apostles,\" said Dr. Johnson, \"were being tried one a\nweek for the capital crime of forgery.\" This was the work of the school of\nLardner, Paley, and Whately.\n\nBut the real question between Christians and unbelievers in Christianity\nis, not whether our religion is or is not supernatural; not whether\nChrist's miracles were or not violations of law; nor whether the New\nTestament, as it stands, is the work of inspired men. The main question,\nback of all these, is different, and not dependent on the views we may\nhappen to take of the universality of law. It is this: Is Christianity, as\ntaught by Jesus, intended by God to be the religion of the human race? Is\nit only one among natural religions? is it to be superseded in its turn by\nothers, or is it the one religion which is to unite all mankind? \"Art thou\nhe that should come, or look we for another?\" This is the question which\nwe ask of Jesus of Nazareth, and the answer to which makes the real\nproblem of apologetic theology.\n\nNow the defenders of Christianity have been so occupied with their special\ndisputes about miracles, about naturalism and supernaturalism, and about\nthe inspiration and infallibility of the apostles, that they have left\nuncultivated the wide field of inquiry belonging to Comparative Theology.\nBut it belongs to this science to establish the truth of Christianity by\nshowing that it possesses all the aptitudes which fit it to be the\nreligion of the human race.\n\nThis method of establishing Christianity differs from the traditional\nargument in this: that, while the last undertakes to _prove_ Christianity\nto be true, this _shows_ it to be true. For if we can make it appear, by a\nfair survey of the principal religions of the world, that, while they are\nethnic or local, Christianity is catholic or universal; that, while they\nare defective, possessing some truths and wanting others, Christianity\npossesses all; and that, while they are stationary, Christianity is\nprogressive; it will not then be necessary to discuss in what sense it is\na supernatural religion. Such a survey will show that it is adapted to the\nnature of man. When we see adaptation we naturally infer design. If\nChristianity appears, after a full comparison with other religions, to be\nthe one and only religion which is perfectly adapted to man, it will be\nimpossible to doubt that it was designed by God to be the religion of our\nrace; that it is the providential religion sent by God to man, its truth\nGod's truth its way the way to God and to heaven.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6. It will show that, while most of the Religions of the World are\nEthnic, or the Religions of Races, Christianity is Catholic, or adapted to\nbecome the Religion of all Races.\n\n\nBy ethnic religions we mean those religions, each of which has always been\nconfined within the boundaries of a particular race or family of mankind,\nand has never made proselytes or converts, except accidentally, outside of\nit. By catholic religions we mean those which have shown the desire and\npower of passing over these limits, and becoming the religion of a\nconsiderable number of persons belonging to different races.\n\nNow we are met at once with the striking and obvious fact, that most of\nthe religions of the world are evidently religions limited in some way to\nparticular races or nations. They are, as we have said, _ethnic_. We use\nthis Greek word rather than its Latin equivalent, _gentile_, because\n_gentile_, though meaning literally \"of, or belonging to, a race,\" has\nacquired a special sense from its New Testament use as meaning all who are\nnot Jews. The word \"ethnic\" remains pure from any such secondary or\nacquired meaning, and signifies simply _that which belongs to a race_.\n\nThe science of ethnology is a modern one, and is still in the process of\nformation. Some of its conclusions, however, may be considered as\nestablished. It has forever set aside Blumenbach's old classification of\nmankind into the Caucasian and four other varieties, and has given us,\ninstead, a division of the largest part of mankind into Indo-European,\nSemitic, and Turanian families, leaving a considerable penumbra outside as\nyet unclassified.\n\nThat mankind is so divided into races of men it would seem hardly possible\nto deny. It is proved by physiology, by psychology, by glossology, and by\ncivil history. Physiology shows us anatomical differences between races.\nThere are as marked and real differences between the skull of a Hindoo and\nthat of a Chinaman as between the skulls of an Englishman and a negro.\nThere is not as great a difference, perhaps, but it is as real and as\nconstant. Then the characters of races remain distinct, the same traits\nreappearing after many centuries exactly as at first. We find the same\ndifference of character between the Jews and Arabs, who are merely\ndifferent families of the same Semitic race, as existed between their\nancestors, Jacob and Esau, as described in the Book of Genesis. Jacob and\nthe Jews are prudent, loving trade, money-making, tenacious of their\nideas, living in cities; Esau and the Arabs, careless, wild, hating\ncities, loving the desert.\n\nA similar example of the maintaining of a moral type is found in the\ncharacteristic differences between the German and Kelts, two families of\nthe same Indo-European race. Take an Irishman and a German, working side\nby side on the Mississippi, and they present the same characteristic\ndifferences as the Germans and Kelts described by Tacitus and C\u00e6sar. The\nGerman loves liberty, the Kelt equality; the one hates the tyrant, the\nother the aristocrat; the one is a serious thinker, the other a quick and\nvivid thinker; the one is a Protestant in religion, the other a Catholic.\nAmmianus Marcellinus, living in Gaul in the fourth century, describes the\nKelts thus (see whether it does not apply to the race now).\n\n\"The Gauls,\" says he, \"are mostly tall of stature,[8] fair and red-haired,\nand horrible from the fierceness of their eyes, fond of strife, and\nhaughtily insolent. A whole band of strangers would not endure one of\nthem, aided in his brawl by his powerful and blue-eyed wife, especially\nwhen with swollen neck and gnashing teeth, poising her huge white arms,\nshe begins, joining kicks to blows, to put forth her fists like stones\nfrom a catapult. Most of their voices are terrific and threatening, as\nwell when they are quiet as when they are angry. All ages are thought fit\nfor war. They are a nation very fond of wine, and invent many drinks\nresembling it, and some of the poorer sort wander about with their senses\nquite blunted by continual intoxication.\"\n\nNow we find that each race, beside its special moral qualities, seems also\nto have special religious qualities, which cause it to tend toward some\none kind of religion more than to another kind. These religions are the\nflower of the race; they come forth from it as its best aroma. Thus we see\nthat Brahmanism is confined to that section or race of the great Aryan\nfamily which has occupied India for more than thirty centuries. It belongs\nto the Hindoos, to the people taking its name from the Indus, by the\ntributaries of which stream it entered India from the northwest. It has\nnever attempted to extend itself beyond that particular variety of\nmankind. Perhaps one hundred and fifty millions of men accept it as their\nfaith. It has been held by this race as their religion during a period\nimmense in the history of mankind. Its sacred books are certainly more\nthan three thousand years old. But during all this time it has never\ncommunicated itself to any race of men outside of the peninsula of India.\nIt is thus seen to be a strictly ethnic religion, showing neither the\ntendency nor the desire to become the religion of mankind.\n\nThe same thing may be said of the religion of Confucius. It belongs to\nChina and the Chinese. It suits their taste and genius. They have had it\nas their state religion for some twenty-three hundred years, and it rules\nthe opinions of the rulers of opinion among three hundred millions of men.\nBut out of China Confucius is only a name.\n\nSo, too, of the system of Zoroaster. It was for a long period the religion\nof an Aryan tribe who became the ruling people among mankind. The Persians\nextended themselves through Western Asia, and conquered many nations, but\nthey never communicated their religion. It was strictly a national or\nethnic religion, belonging only to the Iranians and their descendants, the\nParsees.\n\nIn like manner it may be said that the religion of Egypt, of Greece, of\nScandinavia, of the Jews, of Islam, and of Buddhism are ethnic religions.\nThose of Egypt and Scandinavia are strictly so. It is said, to be sure,\nthat the Greeks borrowed the names of their gods from Egypt, but the gods\nthemselves were entirely different ones. It is also true that some of the\ngods of the Romans were borrowed from the Greeks, but their life was left\nbehind. They merely repeated by rote the Greek mythology, having no power\nto invent one for themselves. But the Greek religion they never received.\nFor instead of its fair humanities, the Roman gods were only servants of\nthe state,--a higher kind of consuls, tribunes, and lictors. The real\nOlympus of Rome was the Senate Chamber on the Capitoline Hill. Judaism\nalso was in reality an ethnic religion, though it aimed at catholicity and\nexpected it, and made proselytes. But it could not tolerate unessentials,\nand so failed of becoming catholic. The Jewish religion, until it had\nChristianity to help it, was never able to do more than make proselytes\nhere and there. Christianity, while preaching the doctrines of Jesus and\nthe New Testament, has been able to carry also the weight of the Old\nTestament, and to give a certain catholicity to Judaism. The religion of\nMohammed has been catholic, in that it has become the religion of very\ndifferent races,--the Arabs, Turks, and Persians, belonging to the three\ngreat varieties of the human family. But then Mohammedanism has never\nsought to make _converts_, but only _subjects;_ it has not asked for\nbelief, but merely for submission. Consequently Mr. Palgrave, Mr. Lane,\nand Mr. Vambery tell us, that, in Arabia, Egypt, and Turkistan, there are\nmultitudes who are outwardly Mohammedan, but who in their private belief\nreject Mohammed, and are really Pagans. But, no doubt, there is a catholic\ntendency both in Judaism and Mohammedanism; and this comes from the great\ndoctrine which they hold in common with Christianity,--the _unity of God_.\nFaith in that is the basis of all expectation of a universal religion, and\nthe wish and the power to convert others come from that doctrine of the\nDivine unity.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBut Christianity teaches the unity of God not merely as a supremacy of\npower and will, but as a supremacy of love and wisdom; it teaches God as\nFather, and not merely as King; so it seeks not merely to make proselytes\nand subjects, but to make converts. Hence Christianity, beginning as a\nSemitic religion, among the Jews, went across the Greek Archipelago and\nconverted the Hellenic and the Latin races; afterward the Goths,\nLombards, Franks, Vandals; later still, the Saxons, Danes, and Normans.\nMeantime, its Nestorian missionaries, pushing east, made converts in\nArmenia, Persia, India, and China. In later days it has converted negroes,\nIndians, and the people of the Pacific Islands. Something, indeed, stopped\nits progress after its first triumphant successes during seven or eight\ncenturies. At the tenth century it reached its term. Modern missions,\nwhether those of Jesuits or Protestants, have not converted whole nations\nand races, but only individuals here and there. The reason of this check,\nprobably, is, that Christians have repeated the mistakes of the Jews and\nMohammedans. They have sought to make proselytes to an outward system of\nworship and ritual, or to make subjects to a _dogma_; but not to make\nconverts to an idea and a life. When the Christian missionaries shall go\nand say to the Hindoos or the Buddhists: \"You are already on your way\ntoward God,--your religion came from him, and was inspired by his Spirit;\nnow he sends you something more and higher by his Son, who does not come\nto destroy but to fulfil, not to take away any good thing you have, but to\nadd to it something better,\" then we shall see the process of conversion,\nchecked in the ninth and tenth, centuries, reinaugurated.\n\nJudaism, Islam, and Christianity, all teaching the strict unity of God,\nhave all aimed at becoming universal. Judaism failed because it sought\nproselytes instead of making converts. Islam, the religion of Mohammed (in\nreality a Judaizing Christian sect) failed because it sought to make\nsubjects rather than converts. Its conquests over a variety of races were\nextensive, but not deep. To-day it holds in its embrace at least four very\ndistinct races,--the Arabs, a Semitic race, the Persians, an Indo-European\nrace, the Negroes, and the Turks or Turanians. But, correctly viewed,\nIslam is only a heretical Christian sect, and so all this must be credited\nto the interest of Christianity. Islam is a John the Baptist crying in the\nwilderness, \"Prepare the way of the Lord\"; Mohammed is a schoolmaster to\nbring men to Christ. It does for the nations just what Judaism did, that\nis, it teaches the Divine unity. Esau has taken the place of Jacob in the\neconomy of Providence. When the Jews rejected Christ they ceased from\ntheir providential work, and their cousins, the Arabs, took their place.\nThe conquests of Islam, therefore, ought to be regarded as the preliminary\nconquests of Christianity.\n\nThere is still another system which has shown some tendencies toward\ncatholicity. This is Buddhism, which has extended itself over the whole of\nthe eastern half of Asia. But though it includes a variety of\nnationalities, it is doubtful if it includes any variety of races. All the\nBuddhists appear to belong to the great Mongol family. And although this\nsystem originated among the Aryan race in India, it has let go its hold of\nthat family and transferred itself wholly to the Mongols.\n\nBut Christianity, from the first, showed itself capable of taking\npossession of the convictions of the most different races of mankind. Now,\nas on the day of Pentecost, many races hear the apostles speak in their\nown tongues, in which they were born,--Parthians, Medes, Elamites,\ndwellers in Mesopotamia, Jud\u00e6a, and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia\nand Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Lybia about Cyrene, strangers of\nRome, Cretes and Arabians. The miracle of tongues was a type of the effect\nof the truth in penetrating the mind and heart of different nationalities.\nThe Jewish Christians, indeed, tried to repeat in Christianity their old\nmistake which had prevented Judaism from becoming universal. They wished\nto insist that no one should become a Christian unless he became a Jew at\nthe same time. If they had succeeded in this, they would have effectually\nkept the Gospel of Christ from becoming a catholic religion. But the\nApostle Paul was raised up for the emergency, and he prevented this\nsuicidal course. Consequently Christianity passed at once into Europe, and\nbecame the religion of Greeks and Romans as well as Jews. Paul struck off\nfrom it its Jewish shell, told them that as Christians they had nothing to\ndo with the Jewish law, or with Jewish Passovers, Sabbaths, or ceremonies.\nAs Christians they were only to know Christ, and they were not to know\nhim according to the flesh, that is, not as a Jew. So Christianity became\nat once a catholic religion, consisting in the diffusion of great truths\nand a divine life. It overflowed the nationalities of Greece and Rome, of\nNorth Africa, of Persia and Western Asia, at the very beginning. It\nconquered the Gothic and German conquerors of the Roman Empire. Under\nArian missionaries, it converted Goths, Vandals, Lombards. Under Nestorian\nmissionaries, it penetrated as far east as China, and made converts there.\nIn like manner the Gospel spread over the whole of North Africa, whence it\nwas afterwards expelled by the power of Islam. It has shown itself,\ntherefore, capable of adapting itself to every variety of the human race.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 7. Comparative Theology will probably show that the Ethnic Religions are\none-sided, each containing a Truth of its own, but being defective,\nwanting some corresponding Truth. Christianity, or the Catholic Religion,\nis complete on every Side.\n\n\nBrahmanism, for example, is complete on the side of spirit, defective on\nthe side of matter; full as regards the infinite, empty of the finite;\nrecognizing eternity but not time, God but not nature. It is a vast system\nof spiritual pantheism, in which there is no reality but God, all else\nbeing Maya, or illusion. The Hindoo mind is singularly pious, but also\nsingularly immoral. It has no history, for history belongs to time. No one\nknows when its sacred books were written, when its civilization began,\nwhat caused its progress, what its decline. Gentle, devout, abstract, it\nis capable at once of the loftiest thoughts and the basest actions. It\ncombines the most ascetic self-denials and abstraction from life with the\nmost voluptuous self-indulgence. The key to the whole system of Hindoo\nthought and life is in this original tendency to see God, not man;\neternity, not time; the infinite, not the finite.\n\nBuddhism, which was a revolt from Brahmanism, has exactly the opposite\ntruths and the opposite defects. Where Brahmanism is strong, it is weak;\nwhere Brahmanism is weak, it is strong. It recognizes man, not God; the\nsoul, not the all; the finite, not the infinite; morality, not piety. Its\nonly God, Buddha, is a man who has passed on through innumerable\ntransmigrations, till, by means of exemplary virtues, he has reached the\nlordship of the universe. Its heaven, Nirvana, is indeed the world of\ninfinite bliss; but, incapable of cognizing the infinite, it calls it\nnothing. Heaven, being the inconceivable infinite, is equivalent to pure\nnegation. Nature, to the Buddhist, instead of being the delusive shadow of\nGod, as the Brahman views it, is envisaged as a nexus of laws, which\nreward and punish impartially both obedience and disobedience.\n\nThe system of Confucius has many merits, especially in its influence on\nsociety. The most conservative of all systems, and also the most prosaic,\nits essential virtue is reverence for all that is. It is not perplexed by\nany fear or hope of change; the thing which has been is that which shall\nbe; and the very idea of progress is eliminated from the thought of China.\nSafety, repose, peace, these are its blessings. Probably merely physical\ncomfort, earthly _bien-\u00eatre_, was never carried further than in the\nCelestial Empire. That virtue so much exploded in Western civilization, of\nrespect for parents, remains in full force in China. The emperor is\nhonored as the father of his people; ancestors are worshipped in every\nfamily; and the best reward offered for a good action is a patent of\nnobility, which does not reach forward to one's children, but backward to\none's parents. This is the bright side of Chinese life; the dark side is\nthe fearful ennui, the moral death, which falls on a people among whom\nthere are no such things as hope, expectation, or the sense of progress.\nHence the habit of suicide among this people, indicating their small hold\non life. In every Chinese drama there are two or three suicides. A soldier\nwill commit suicide rather than go into battle. If you displease a\nChinaman, he will resent the offence by killing himself on your doorstep,\nhoping thus to give you some inconvenience. Such are the merits and such\nthe defects of the system of Confucius.\n\nThe doctrine of Zoroaster and of the Zend Avesta is far nobler. Its\ncentral thought is that each man is a soldier, bound to battle for good\nagainst evil. The world, at the present time, is the scene of a great\nwarfare between the hosts of light and those of darkness. Every man who\nthinks purely, speaks purely, and acts purely is a servant of Ormazd, the\nking of light, and thereby helps on his cause. The result of this doctrine\nwas that wonderful Persian empire, which astonished the world for\ncenturies by its brilliant successes; and the virtue and intelligence of\nthe Parsees of the present time, the only representatives in the world of\nthat venerable religion. The one thing lacking to the system is unity. It\nlives in perpetual conflict. Its virtues are all the virtues of a soldier.\nIts defects and merits are, both, the polar opposites of those of China.\nIf the everlasting peace of China tends to moral stagnation and death, the\nperpetual struggle and conflict of Persia tends to exhaustion. The Persian\nempire rushed through a short career of flame to its tomb; the Chinese\nempire vegetates, unchanged, through a myriad of years.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIf Brahmanism and Buddhism occupy the opposite poles of the same axis of\nthought,--if the system of Confucius stands opposed, on another axis, to\nthat of Zoroaster,--we find a third development of like polar antagonisms\nin the systems of ancient Egypt and Greece. Egypt stands for Nature;\nGreece for Man. Inscrutable as is the mystery of that Sphinx of the Nile,\nthe old religion of Egypt, we can yet trace some phases of its secret. Its\nreverence for organization appears in the practice of embalming. The\nbodies of men and of animals seemed to it to be divine. Even vegetable\norganization had something sacred in it: \"O holy nation,\" said the Roman\nsatirist, \"whose gods grow in gardens!\" That plastic force of nature which\nappears in organic life and growth made up, in various forms, as we shall\nsee in the proper place, the Egyptian Pantheon. The life-force of nature\nbecame divided into the three groups of gods, the highest of which\nrepresented its largest generalizations. Kneph, Neith, Sevech, Pascht, are\nsymbols, according to Lepsius, of the World-Spirit, the World-Matter,\nSpace and Time. Each circle of the gods shows us some working of the\nmysterious powers of nature, and of its occult laws. But when we come to\nGreece, these personified laws turn into men. Everything in the Greek\nPantheon is human. All human tendencies appear transfigured into glowing\nforms of light on Mount Olympus. The gods of Egypt are powers and laws;\nthose of Greece are persons.\n\nThe opposite tendencies of these antagonist forms of piety appear in the\ndevelopment of Egyptian and Hellenic life. The gods of Egypt were\nmysteries too far removed from the popular apprehension to be objects of\nworship; and so religion in Egypt became priestcraft. In Greece, on the\nother hand, the gods were too familiar, too near to the people, to be\nworshipped with any real reverence. Partaking in all human faults and\nvices, it must sooner or later come to pass that familiarity would breed\ncontempt. And as the religion of Egypt perished from being kept away from\nthe people, as an esoteric system in the hands of priests, that of Greece,\nin which there was no priesthood as an order, came to an end because the\ngods ceased to be objects of respect at all.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWe see, from these examples, how each of the great ethnic religions tends\nto a disproportionate and excessive, because one-sided, statement of some\ndivine truth or law. The question then emerges at this point: \"Is\nChristianity also one-sided, or does it contain in itself _all_ these\ntruths?\" Is it _teres atque rotundus_, so as to be able to meet every\nnatural religion with a kindred truth, and thus to supply the defects of\neach from its own fulness? If it can be shown to possess this amplitude,\nit at once is placed by itself in an order of its own. It is not to be\nclassified with the other religions, since it does not share their one\nfamily fault. In every other instance we can touch with our finger the\nweak place, the empty side. Is there any such weak side in Christianity?\nIt is the office of Comparative Theology to answer.\n\nThe positive side of Brahmanism we saw to be its sense of spiritual\nrealities. That is also fully present in Christianity. Not merely does\nthis appear in such New Testament texts as these: \"God is spirit,\" \"The\nletter killeth, the spirit giveth life\": not only does the New Testament\njust graze and escape Pantheism in such passages as \"From whom, and\nthrough whom, and to whom are all things,\" \"Who is above all, and through\nall, and in us all,\" \"In him we live and move and have our being,\" but the\nwhole history of Christianity is the record of a spiritualism almost too\nexcessive. It has appeared in the worship of the Church, the hymns of the\nChurch, the tendencies to asceticism, the depreciation of earth and man.\nChristianity, therefore, fully meets Brahmanism on its positive side,\nwhile it fulfils its negations, as we shall see hereafter, by adding as\nfull a recognition of man and nature.\n\nThe positive side of Buddhism is its cognition of the human soul and the\nnatural laws of the universe. Now, if we look into the New Testament and\ninto the history of the Church, we find this element also fully expressed.\nIt appears in all the parables and teachings of Jesus, in which man is\nrepresented as a responsible agent, rewarded or punished according to the\nexact measure of his works; receiving the government of ten or five cities\naccording to his stewardship. And when we look into the practical working\nof Christianity we find almost an exaggerated stress laid on the duty of\nsaving one's soul. This excessive estimate is chiefly seen in the monastic\nsystem of the Roman Church, and in the Calvinistic sects of Protestantism.\nIt also comes to light again, curiously enough, in such books as Combe's\n\"Constitution of Man,\" the theory of which is exactly the same as that of\nthe Buddhists; namely, that the aim of life is a prudential virtue,\nconsisting in wise obedience to the natural laws of the universe. Both\nsystems substitute prudence for Providence as the arbiter of human\ndestiny. But, apart from these special tendencies in Christianity, it\ncannot be doubted that all Christian experience recognizes the positive\ntruth of Buddhism in regarding the human soul as a substantial, finite,\nbut progressive monad, not to be absorbed, as in Brahmanism, in the abyss\nof absolute being.\n\nThe positive side of the system of Confucius is the organization of the\nstate on the basis of the family. The government of the emperor is\npaternal government, the obedience of the subject is filial obedience.\nNow, though Jesus did not for the first time call God \"the Father,\" he\nfirst brought men into a truly filial relation to God. The Roman Church is\norganized on the family idea. The word \"Pope\" means the \"Father\"; he is\nthe father of the whole Church. Every bishop and every priest is also the\nfather of a smaller family, and all those born into the Church are its\nchildren, as all born into a family are born sons and daughters of the\nfamily. In Protestantism, also, society is composed of families as the\nbody is made up of cells. Only in China, and in Christendom, is family\nlife thus sacred and worshipful. In some patriarchal systems, polygamy\nannuls the wife and the mother; in others the father is a despot, and the\nchildren slaves; in other systems, the crushing authority of the state\ndestroys the independence of the household. Christianity alone accepts\nwith China the religion of family life with all its conservative elements,\nwhile it fulfils it with the larger hope of the kingdom of heaven and\nbrotherhood of mankind.\n\nThis idea of the kingdom of heaven, so central in Christianity, is also\nthe essential motive in the religion of Zoroaster. As, in the Zend Avesta,\nevery man is a soldier, fighting for light or for darkness, and neutrality\nis impossible; so, in the Gospel, light and good stand opposed to darkness\nand evil as perpetual foes. A certain current of dualism runs through the\nChristian Scriptures and the teaching of the Church. God and Satan, heaven\nand hell, are the only alternatives. Every one must choose between them.\nIn the current theology, this dualism has been so emphasized as even to\nexceed that of the Zend Avesta. The doctrine of everlasting punishment and\nan everlasting hell has always been the orthodox doctrine in Christianity,\nwhile the Zend Avesta probably, and the religion in its subsequent\ndevelopment certainly, teaches universal restoration, and the ultimate\ntriumph of good over evil. Nevertheless, practically, in consequence of\nthe greater richness and fulness of Christianity, this tendency to dualism\nhas been neutralized by its monotheism, and evil kept subordinate; while,\nin the Zend religion, the evil principle assumed such proportions as to\nmake it the formidable rival of good in the mind of the worshipper. Here,\nas before, we may say that Christianity is able to do justice to all the\ntruth involved in the doctrine of evil, avoiding any superficial optimism,\nand recognizing the fact that all true life must partake of the nature of\na battle.\n\nThe positive side of Egyptian religion we saw to be a recognition of the\ndivine element in nature, of that plastic, mysterious life which embodies\nitself in all organisms. Of this view we find little stated explicitly in\nthe New Testament. But that the principles of Christianity contain it,\nimplicitly, in an undeveloped form, appears, (1.) Because Christian\nmonotheism differs from Jewish and Mohammedan monotheism, in recognizing\nGod \"_in all things_\" as well as God \"_above all things_.\" (2.) Because\nChristian art and literature differ from classic art and literature in the\n_romantic_ element, which is exactly the sense of this mysterious life in\nnature. The classic artist is a \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2, a maker; the romantic artist is a\ntroubadour, a finder. The one does his work in giving form to a dead\nmaterial; the other, by seeking for its hidden life. (3.) Because modern\nscience is _invention_, i.e. finding. It recognizes mysteries in nature\nwhich are to be searched into, and this search becomes a serious religious\ninterest with all truly scientific men. It appears to such men a profanity\nto doubt or question the revelations of nature, and they believe in its\ninfallible inspiration quite as much as the dogmatist believes in the\ninfallible inspiration of Scripture, or the churchman in the infallible\ninspiration of the Church. We may, therefore, say, that the essential\ntruth in the Egyptian system has been taken up into our modern Christian\nlife.\n\nAnd how is it, lastly, with that opposite pole of religious thought which\nblossomed out in \"the fair humanities of old religion\" in the wonderful\nHellenic mind? The gods of Greece were men. They were not abstract ideas,\nconcealing natural powers and laws. They were open as sunshine, bright as\nnoon, a fair company of men and women idealized and gracious, just a\nlittle way off, a little way up. It was humanity projected upon the skies,\ndivine creatures of more than mortal beauty, but thrilling with human life\nand human sympathies. Has Christianity anything to offer in the place of\nthis charming system of human gods and goddesses?\n\nWe answer that the fundamental doctrine of Christianity is the\nincarnation, the word made flesh. It is God revealed in man. Under some\ndoctrinal type this has always been believed. The common Trinitarian\ndoctrine states it in a somewhat crude and illogical form. Yet somehow the\nman Christ Jesus has always been seen to be the best revelation of God.\nBut unless there were some human element in the Deity, he could not reveal\nhimself so in a human life. The doctrine of the incarnation, therefore,\nrepeats the Mosaic statement that \"man was made in the image of God.\"\nJewish and Mohammedan monotheism separate God entirely from the world.\nPhilosophic monotheism, in our day, separates God from man, by teaching\nthat there is nothing in common between the two by which God can be\nmediated, and so makes him wholly incomprehensible. Christianity gives us\nEmmanuel, God with us, equally removed from the stern despotic omnipotence\nof the Semitic monotheism and the finite and imperfect humanities of\nOlympus. We see God in Christ, as full of sympathy with man, God \"in us\nall\"; and yet we see him in nature, providence, history, as \"above all\"\nand \"through all.\" The Roman Catholic Church has, perhaps, humanized\nreligion too far. For every god and goddess of Greece she has given us, on\nsome immortal canvas, an archangel or a saint to be adored and loved.\nInstead of Apollo and the Python we have Guido's St. Michael and the\nDragon; in place of the light, airy Mercury she provides a St. Sebastian;\ninstead of the \"untouched\" Diana, some heavenly Agnes or Cecilia. The\nCatholic heaven is peopled, all the way up, with beautiful human forms;\nand on the upper throne we have holiness and tenderness incarnate in the\nqueen of heaven and her divine Son. All the Greek humanities are thus\nfulfilled in the ample faith of Christendom.\n\nBy such a critical survey as we have thus sketched in mere outline it will\nbe seen that each of the great ethnic religions is full on one side, but\nempty on the other, while Christianity is full all round. Christianity is\nadapted to take their place, not because they are false, but because they\nare true as far as they go. They \"know in part and prophesy in part; but\nwhen that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be\ndone away.\"\n\n\n\n\u00a7 8. Comparative Theology will probably show that Ethnic Religions are\narrested, or degenerate, and will come to an End, while the Catholic\nReligion is capable of a progressive Development.\n\n\nThe religions of Persia, Egypt, Greece, Rome, have come to an end; having\nshared the fate of the national civilization of which each was a part. The\nreligions of China, Islam, Buddha, and Jud\u00e6a have all been arrested, and\nremain unchanged and seemingly unchangeable. Like great vessels anchored\nin a stream, the current of time flows past them, and each year they are\nfurther behind the spirit of the age, and less in harmony with its\ndemands. Christianity alone, of all human religions, seems to possess the\npower of keeping abreast with the advancing civilization of the world. As\nthe child's soul grows with his body, so that when he becomes a man it is\na man's soul and not a child's, so the Gospel of Jesus continues the soul\nof all human culture. It continually drops its old forms and takes new\nones. It passed out of its Jewish body under the guidance of Paul. In a\nspeculative age it unfolded into creeds and systems. In a worshipping age\nit developed ceremonies and a ritual. When the fall of Rome left Europe\nwithout unity or centre, it gave it an organization and order through the\nPapacy. When the Papacy became a tyranny, and the Renaissance called for\nfree thought, it suddenly put forth Protestantism, as the tree by the\nwater-side sends forth its shoots in due season. Protestantism, free as\nair, opens out into the various sects, each taking hold of some human\nneed; Lutheranism, Calvinism, Methodism, Swedenborgianism, or Rationalism.\nChristianity blossoms out into modern science, literature, art,--children\nwho indeed often forget their mother, and are ignorant of their source,\nbut which are still fed from her breasts and partake of her life.\nChristianity, the spirit of faith, hope, and love, is the deep fountain of\nmodern civilization. Its inventions are for the many, not for the few. Its\nscience is not hoarded, but diffused. It elevates the masses, who\neverywhere else have been trampled down. The friend of the people, it\ntends to free schools, a free press, a free government, the abolition of\nslavery, war, vice, and the melioration of society. We cannot, indeed,\nhere _prove_ that Christianity is the cause of these features peculiar to\nmodern life; but we find it everywhere associated with them, and so we can\nsay that it only, of all the religions of mankind, has been capable of\naccompanying man in his progress from evil to good, from good to better.\n\nWe have merely suggested some of the results to which the study of\nComparative Theology may lead us. They will appear more fully as we\nproceed in our examination of the religions, and subsequently in their\ncomparison. This introductory chapter has been designed as a sketch of the\ncourse which the work will take. When we have completed our survey, the\nresults to which we hope to arrive will be these, if we succeed in what we\nhave undertaken:--\n\n1. All the great religions of the world, except Christianity and\nMohammedanism, are ethnic religions, or religions limited to a single\nnation or race. Christianity alone (including Mohammedanism and Judaism,\nwhich are its temporary and local forms) is the religion of all races.\n\n2. Every ethnic religion has its positive and negative side. Its positive\nside is that which holds some vital truth; its negative side is the\nabsence of some other essential truth. Every such religion is true and\nprovidential, but each limited and imperfect.\n\n3. Christianity alone is a \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1, or a fulness of truth, not coming to\ndestroy but to fulfil the previous religions; but being capable of\nreplacing them by teaching all the truth they have taught, and supplying\nthat which they have omitted.\n\n4. Christianity, being not a system but a life, not a creed or a form, but\na spirit, is able to meet all the changing wants of an advancing\ncivilization by new developments and adaptations, constantly feeding the\nlife of man at its roots by fresh supplies of faith in God and faith in\nman.\n\n\n\n\nChapter II.\n\nConfucius and the Chinese, or the Prose of Asia.\n\n\n  \u00a7 1. Peculiarities of Chinese Civilization.\n  \u00a7 2. Chinese Government based on Education. Civil-Service Examinations.\n  \u00a7 3. Life and Character of Confucius.\n  \u00a7 4. Philosophy and subsequent Development of Confucianism.\n  \u00a7 5. Lao-tse and Tao-ism.\n  \u00a7 6. Religious Character of the \"Kings.\"\n  \u00a7 7. Confucius and Christianity. Character of the Chinese.\n  \u00a7 8. The Tae-ping Insurrection. NOTE. The Nestorian Inscription in China\n         of the Eighth Century.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 1. Peculiarities of Chinese Civilization.\n\n\nIn qualifying the Chinese mind as prosaic, and in calling the writings of\nConfucius and his successors _prose_, we intend no disrespect to either.\nProse is as good as poetry. But we mean to indicate the point of view from\nwhich the study of the Chinese teachers should be approached. Accustomed\nto regard the East as the land of imagination; reading in our childhood\nthe wild romances of Arabia; passing, in the poetry of Persia, into an\natmosphere of tender and entrancing song; then, as we go farther East into\nIndia, encountering the vast epics of the Mah\u00e1-Bh\u00e1rata and the\nR\u00e1m\u00e1yana;--we might naturally expect to find in far Cathay a still wilder\nflight of the Asiatic Muse. Not at all. We drop at once from unbridled\nromance into the most colorless prose. Another race comes to us, which\nseems to have no affinity with Asia, as we have been accustomed to think\nof Asia. No more aspiration, no flights of fancy, but the worship of\norder, decency, propriety, and peaceful commonplaces. As the people, so\nthe priests. The works of Confucius and his commentators are as level as\nthe valley of their great river, the Yang-tse-kiang, which the tide\nascends for four hundred miles. All in these writings is calm, serious,\nand moral They assume that all men desire to be made better, and will\ntake the trouble to find out how they can be made so. It is not thought\nnecessary to entice them into goodness by the attractions of eloquence,\nthe charm of imagery, or the fascinations of a brilliant wit. These\nphilosophers have a Quaker style, a dress of plain drab, used only for\nclothing the thought, not at all for its ornament.\n\nAnd surely we ought not to ask for any other attraction than the subject\nitself, in order to find interest in China and its teachers. The Chinese\nEmpire, which contains more than five millions of square miles, or twice\nthe area of the United States, has a population of five hundred millions,\nor half the number of the human beings inhabiting the globe. China proper,\ninhabited by the Chinese, is half as large as Europe, and contains about\nthree hundred and sixty millions of inhabitants. There are eighteen\nprovinces in China, many of which contain, singly, more inhabitants than\nsome of the great states of Europe. But on many other accounts this nation\nis deeply interesting.\n\nChina is the type of permanence in the world. To say that it is older than\nany other _existing_ nation is saying very little. Herodotus, who has been\ncalled the Father of History, travelled in Egypt about 450 B.C. He studied\nits monuments, bearing the names of kings who were as distant from his\ntime as he is from ours,--monuments which even then belonged to a gray\nantiquity. But the kings who erected those monuments were possibly\nposterior to the founders of the Chinese Empire. Porcelain vessels, with\nChinese mottoes on them, have been found in those ancient tombs, in shape,\nmaterial, and appearance precisely like those which are made in China\nto-day; and Rosellini believes them to have been imported from China by\nkings contemporary with Moses, or before him. This nation and its\ninstitutions have outlasted everything. The ancient Bactrian and Assyrian\nkingdoms, the Persian monarchy, Greece and Rome, have all risen,\nflourished, and fallen,--and China continues still the same. The dynasty\nhas been occasionally changed; but the laws, customs, institutions, all\nthat makes national life, have continued. The authentic history of China\ncommences some two thousand years before Christ, and a thousand years in\nthis history is like a century in that of any other people. The oral\nlanguage of China has continued the same that it is now for thirty\ncenturies. The great wall bounding the empire on the north, which is\ntwelve hundred and forty miles long and twenty feet high, with towers\nevery few hundred yards,--which crosses mountain ridges, descends into\nvalleys, and is carried over rivers on arches,--was built two hundred\nyears before Christ, probably to repel those fierce tribes who, after\nineffectual attempts to conquer China, travelled westward till they\nappeared on the borders of Europe five hundred years later, and, under the\nname of Huns, assisted in the downfall of the Roman Empire. All China was\nintersected with canals at a period when none existed in Europe. The great\ncanal, like the great wall, is unrivalled by any similar existing work. It\nis twice the length of the Erie Canal, is from two hundred to a thousand\nfeet wide, and has enormous banks built of solid granite along a great\npart of its course. One of the important mechanical inventions of modern\nEurope is the Artesian well. That sunk at Grenelle, in France, was long\nsupposed to be the deepest in the world, going down eighteen hundred feet.\nOne at St. Louis, in the United States, has since been drilled to a depth,\nas has recently been stated, of about four thousand.[9] But in China these\nwells are found by tens of thousands, sunk at very remote periods to\nobtain salt water. The method used by the Chinese from immemorial time has\nrecently been adopted instead of our own as being the most simple and\neconomical. The Chinese have been long acquainted with the circulation of\nthe blood; they inoculated for the small-pox in the ninth century; and\nabout the same time they invented printing. Their bronze money was made as\nearly as 1100 B.C., and its form has not been changed since the beginning\nof the Christian era. The mariner's compass, gunpowder, and the art of\nprinting were made known to Europe through stories told by missionaries\nreturning from Asia. These missionaries, coasting the shores of the\nCelestial Empire in Chinese junks, saw a little box containing a\nmagnetized needle, called Ting-nan-Tchen, or \"needle which points to the\nsouth.\" They also noticed terrible machines used by the armies in China\ncalled Ho-pao or fire-guns, into which was put an inflammable powder,\nwhich produced a noise like thunder and projected stones and pieces of\niron with irresistible force.\n\nFather Hue, in his \"Christianity in China,\" says that \"the Europeans who\npenetrated into China were no less struck with the libraries of the\nChinese than with their artillery. They were astonished at the sight of\nthe elegant books printed rapidly upon a pliant, silky paper by means of\nwooden blocks. The first edition of the classical works printed in China\nappeared in 958, five hundred years before the invention of Gutenberg. The\nmissionaries had, doubtless, often been busied in their convents with the\nlaborious work of copying manuscript books, and the simple Chinese method\nof printing must have particularly attracted their attention. Many other\nmarvellous productions were noticed, such as silk, porcelain,\nplaying-cards, spectacles, and other products of art and industry unknown\nin Europe. They brought back these new ideas to Europe; 'and from that\ntime,' says Abel Remusat, 'the West began to hold in due esteem the most\nbeautiful, the most populous, and the most anciently civilized of all the\nfour quarters of the world. The arts, the religious faith, and the\nlanguages of its people were studied, and it was even proposed to\nestablish a professorship for the Tartar language in the University of\nParis. The world seemed to open towards the East; geography made immense\nstrides, and ardor for discovery opened a new vent for the adventurous\nspirit of the Europeans. As our own hemisphere became better known, the\nidea of another ceased to appear a wholly improbable paradox; and in\nseeking the Zipangon of Marco Polo, Christopher Columbus discovered the\nNew World.'\"\n\nThe first aspect of China produces that impression on the mind which we\ncall the grotesque. This is merely because the customs of this singular\nnation are so opposite to our own. They seem morally, no less than\nphysically, our antipodes. Their habits are as opposite to ours as the\ndirection of their bodies. We stand feet to feet in everything. In boxing\nthe compass they say \"westnorth\" instead of northwest, \"eastsouth\" instead\nof southeast, and their compass-needle points south instead of north.\nTheir soldiers wear quilted petticoats, satin boots, and bead necklaces,\ncarry umbrellas and fans, and go to a night attack with lanterns in their\nhands, being more afraid of the dark than of exposing themselves to the\nenemy. The people are very fond of fireworks, but prefer to have them in\nthe daytime. Ladies' ride in wheelbarrows, and cows are driven in\ncarriages. While in Europe the feet are put in the stocks, in China the\nstocks are hung round the neck. In China the family name comes first, and\nthe personal name afterward. Instead of saying Benjamin Franklin or Walter\nScott they would say Franklin Benjamin, Scott Walter. Thus the Chinese\nname of Confucius, Kung-fu-tsee, means the Holy Master Kung;--Kung is the\nfamily name. In the recent wars with the English the mandarins or soldiers\nwould sometimes run away, and then commit suicide to avoid punishment. In\ngetting on a horse, the Chinese mount on the right side. Their old men fly\nkites, while the little boys look on. The left hand is the seat of honor,\nand to keep on your hat is a sign of respect. Visiting cards are painted\nred, and are four feet long. In the opinion of the Chinese, the seat of\nthe understanding is the stomach. They have villages which contain a\nmillion of inhabitants. Their boats are drawn by men, but their carriages\nare moved by sails. A married woman while young and pretty is a slave, but\nwhen she becomes old and withered is the most powerful, respected, and\nbeloved person in the family. The emperor is regarded with the most\nprofound reverence, but the empress mother is a greater person than he.\nWhen a man furnishes his house, instead of laying stress, as we do, on\nrosewood pianos and carved mahogany, his first ambition is for a handsome\ncamphor-wood coffin, which he keeps in the best place in his room. The\ninterest of money is thirty-six per cent, which, to be sure, we also give\nin hard times to stave off a stoppage, while with them it is the legal\nrate. We once heard a bad dinner described thus: \"The meat was cold, the\nwine was hot, and everything was sour but the vinegar.\" This would not so\nmuch displease the Chinese, who carefully warm their wine, while we ice\nours. They understand good living, however, very well, are great epicures,\nand somewhat gourmands, for, after dining on thirty dishes, they will\nsometimes eat a duck by way of a finish. They toss their meat into their\nmouths to a tune, every man keeping time with his chop-sticks, while we,\non the contrary, make anything but harmony with the clatter of our knives\nand forks. A Chinaman will not drink a drop of milk, but he will devour\nbirds'-nests, snails, and the fins of sharks with a great relish. Our\nmourning color is black and theirs is white; they mourn for their parents\nthree years, we a much shorter time. The principal room in their houses is\ncalled \"the hall of ancestors,\" the pictures or tablets of whom, set up\nagainst the wall, are worshipped by them; we, on the other hand, are only\ntoo apt to send our grandfather's portrait to the garret.[10]\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. Chinese Government based on Education. Civil-Service Examinations.\n\n\nSuch are a few of the external differences between the Chinese customs and\nours. But the most essential peculiarity of this nation is the high value\nwhich they attribute to knowledge, and the distinctions and rewards which\nthey bestow on scholarship. All the civil offices in the Empire are given\nas rewards of literary merit. The government, indeed, is called a complete\ndespotism, and the emperor is said to have absolute authority. He is not\nbound by any written constitution, indeed; but the public opinion of the\nland holds him, nevertheless, to a strict responsibility. He, no less than\nhis people, is bound by a law higher than that of any private will,--the\nauthority of custom. For, in China, more than anywhere else, \"what is gray\nwith age becomes religion.\" The authority of the emperor is simply\nauthority to govern according to the ancient usages of the country, and\nwhenever these are persistently violated, a revolution takes place and the\ndynasty is changed. But a revolution in China changes nothing but the\nperson of the monarch; the unwritten constitution of old usages remains in\nfull force. \"A principle as old as the monarchy,\" says Du Halde, \"is this,\nthat the state is a large family, and the emperor is in the place of both\nfather and mother. He must govern his people with affection and goodness;\nhe must attend to the smallest matters which concern their happiness. When\nhe is not supposed to have this sentiment, he soon loses his hold on the\nreverence of the people, and his throne becomes insecure.\" The emperor,\ntherefore, is always studying how to preserve this reputation. When a\nprovince is afflicted by famine, inundation, or any other calamity, he\nshuts himself in his palace, fasts, and publishes decrees to relieve it of\ntaxes and afford it aid.\n\nThe true power of the government is in the literary class. The government,\nthough nominally a monarchy, is really an aristocracy. But it is not an\naristocracy of birth, like that of England, for the humblest man's son can\nobtain a place in it; neither is it an aristocracy of wealth, like ours\nin the United States, nor a military aristocracy, like that of Russia, nor\nan aristocracy of priests, like that of ancient Egypt, and of some modern\ncountries,--as, for instance, that of Paraguay under the Jesuits, or that\nof the Sandwich Islands under the Protestant missionaries; but it is a\nliterary aristocracy.\n\nThe civil officers in China are called mandarins. They are chosen from the\nthree degrees of learned men, who may be called the bachelors,\nlicentiates, and doctors. All persons may be candidates for the first\ndegree, except three excluded classes,--boatmen, barbers, and actors. The\ncandidates are examined by the governors of their own towns. Of those\napproved, a few are selected after another examination. These again are\nexamined by an officer who makes a circuit once in three years for that\npurpose. They are placed alone in little rooms or closets, with pencils,\nink, and paper, and a subject is given them to write upon. Out of some\nfour hundred candidates fifteen may be selected, who receive the lowest\ndegree. There is another triennial examination for the second degree, at\nwhich a small number of the bachelors are promoted. The examination for\nthe highest degree, that of doctor, is held at Pekin only, when some three\nhundred are taken out of five thousand. These are capable of receiving the\nhighest offices. Whenever a vacancy occurs, one of those who have received\na degree is taken by lot from the few senior names. But a few years since,\nthere were five thousand of the highest rank, and twenty-seven thousand of\nthe second rank, who had not received employment.\n\nThe subjects upon which the candidates are examined, and the methods of\nthese examinations, are thus described in the Shanghae Almanac (1852).[11]\n\nThe examinations for the degree of Keujin (or licentiate) takes place at\nthe principal city of each province once in three years. The average\nnumber of bachelors in the large province of Keang-Nan (which contains\nseventy millions of inhabitants) is twenty thousand, out of whom only\nabout two hundred succeed. Sixty-five mandarins are deputed for this\nexamination, besides subordinate officials. The two chief examiners are\nsent from Pekin. When the candidates enter the examination hall they are\nsearched for books or manuscripts, which might assist them in writing\ntheir essays. This precaution is not superfluous, for many plans have been\ninvented to enable mediocre people to pass. Sometimes a thin book, printed\non very small type from copperplates, is slipped into a hole in the sole\nof the shoe. But persons detected in such practices are ruined for life.\nIn a list of one hundred and forty-four successful candidates, in 1851,\nthirteen were over forty years of age, and one under fourteen years; seven\nwere under twenty; and all, to succeed, must have known by heart the whole\nof the Sacred Books, besides being well read in history.\n\nThree sets of themes are given, each occupying two days and a night, and\nuntil that time is expired no one is allowed to leave his apartment, which\nis scarcely large enough to sleep in. The essays must not contain more\nthan seven hundred characters, and no erasure or correction is allowed. On\nthe first days the themes are taken from the Four Books; on the next, from\nthe older classics; on the last, miscellaneous questions are given. The\nthemes are such as these: \"Choo-tsze, in commenting on the Shoo-King, made\nuse of four authors, who sometimes say too much, at other times too\nlittle; sometimes their explanations are forced, at other times too\nornamental. What have you to observe on them?\" \"Chinshow had great\nabilities for historic writing. In his Three Kingdoms he has depreciated\nChoo-ko-leang, and made very light of E and E, two other celebrated\ncharacters. What is it that he says of them?\"\n\nThese public-service examinations are conducted with the greatest\nimpartiality. They were established about a thousand years ago, and have\nbeen gradually improved during the intervening time. They form the basis\nof the whole system of Chinese government. They make a good education\nuniversally desirable, as the poorest man may see his son thus advanced to\nthe highest position. All of the hundreds of thousands who prepare to\ncompete are obliged to know the whole system of Confucius, to commit to\nmemory all his moral doctrines, and to become familiar with all the\ntraditional wisdom of the land. Thus a public opinion in favor of existing\ninstitutions and the fundamental ideas of Chinese government is\ncontinually created anew.\n\nWhat an immense advantage it would be to our own country if we should\nadopt this institution of China! Instead of making offices the prize of\nimpudence, political management, and party services, let them be competed\nfor by all who consider themselves qualified. Let all offices now given by\nappointment be hereafter bestowed on those who show themselves best\nqualified to perform the duties. Each class of offices would of course\nrequire a different kind of examination. For some, physical culture as\nwell as mental might be required. Persons who wished diplomatic situations\nshould be prepared in a knowledge of foreign languages as well as of\ninternational law. All should be examined on the Constitution and history\nof the United States. Candidates for the Post-Office Department should be\ngood copyists, quick at arithmetic, and acquainted with book-keeping. It\nis true that we cannot by an examination obtain a certain knowledge of\nmoral qualities; but industry, accuracy, fidelity in work would certainly\nshow themselves. A change from the present corrupt and corrupting system\nof appointments to that of competitive examinations would do more just now\nfor our country than any other measure of reconstruction which can be\nproposed. The permanence of Chinese institutions is believed, by those who\nknow best, to result from the influence of the literary class. Literature\nis naturally conservative; the tone of the literature studied is eminently\nconservative; and the most intelligent men in the empire are personally\ninterested in the continuance of the institutions under which they hope to\nattain position and fortune.\n\nThe highest civil offices are seats at the great tribunals or boards, and\nthe positions of viceroys, or governors, of the eighteen provinces.\n\nThe boards are:--\n\n  Ly Pou, Board of Appointment of Mandarins.\n  Hou Pou, Board of Finance.\n  Lee Pou, Board of Ceremonies.\n  Ping Pou, Board of War.\n  Hing Pou, Board of Criminal Justice.\n  Kong Pou, Board of Works,--canals, bridges, &c.\n\nThe members of these boards, with their councillors and subordinates,\namount to twelve hundred officers. Then there is the Board of Doctors of\nthe Han Lin College, who have charge of the archives, history of the\nempire, &c.; and the Board of Censors, who are the highest mandarins, and\nhave a peculiar office. Their duty is to stand between the people and the\nmandarins, and between the people and the emperor, and even rebuke the\nlatter if they find him doing wrong. This is rather a perilous duty, but\nit is often faithfully performed. A censor, who went to tell the emperor\nof some faults, took his coffin with him, and left it at the door of the\npalace. Two censors remonstrated with a late emperor on the expenses of\nhis palace, specifying the sums uselessly lavished for perfumes and\nflowers for his concubines, and stating that a million of taels of silver\nmight be saved for the poor by reducing these expenses. Sung, the\ncommissioner who attended Lord Macartney, remonstrated with the Emperor\nKiaking on his attachment to play-actors and strong drink, which degraded\nhim in the eyes of the people. The emperor, highly irritated, asked him\nwhat punishment he deserved for his insolence. \"Quartering,\" said Sung.\n\"Choose another,\" said the emperor. \"Let me be beheaded.\" \"Choose again,\"\nsaid the emperor; and Sung asked to be strangled. The next day the emperor\nappointed him governor of a distant province,--afraid to punish him for\nthe faithful discharge of his duty, but glad to have him at a distance.\nMany such anecdotes are related, showing that there is some moral courage\nin China.\n\nThe governor of a province, or viceroy, has great power. He also is chosen\nfrom among the mandarins in the way described. The only limitations of his\npower are these: he is bound to make a full report every three years of\nthe affairs of the province, _and give in it an account of his own\nfaults,_ and if he omits any, and they are discovered in other ways, he is\npunished by degradation, bambooing, or death. It is the right of any\nsubject, however humble, to complain to the emperor himself against any\nofficer, however high; and for this purpose a large drum is placed at one\nof the palace gates. Whoever strikes it has his case examined under the\nemperor's eye, and if he has been wronged, his wrongs are redressed, but\nif he has complained unnecessarily, he is severely punished. Imperial\nvisitors, sent by the Board of Censors, may suddenly arrive at any time to\nexamine the concerns of a province; and a governor or other public officer\nwho is caught tripping is immediately reported and punished.\n\nThus the political institutions of China are built on literature.\nKnowledge is the road to power and wealth. All the talent and knowledge of\nthe nation are interested in the support of institutions which give to\nthem either power or the hope of it. And these institutions work well. The\nmachinery is simple, but it produces a vast amount of happiness and\ndomestic virtue. While in most parts of Asia the people are oppressed by\npetty tyrants, and ground down by taxes,--while they have no motive to\nimprove their condition, since every advance will only expose them to\ngreater extortion,--the people of China are industrious and happy. In no\npart of the world has agriculture been carried to such perfection. Every\npiece of ground in the cultivated parts of the empire, except those\nportions devoted to ancestral monuments, is made to yield two or three\ncrops annually, by the careful tillage bestowed on it. The ceremony of\nopening the soil at the beginning of the year, at which the emperor\nofficiates, originated two thousand years ago. Farms are small,--of one or\ntwo acres,--and each family raises on its farm all that it consumes. Silk\nand cotton are cultivated and manufactured in families, each man spinning,\nweaving, and dyeing his own web. In the manufacture of porcelain, on the\ncontrary, the division of labor is carried very far. The best is made at\nthe village of Kiangsee, which contains a million of inhabitants. Seventy\nhands are sometimes employed on a single cup. The Chinese are very\nskilful in working horn and ivory. Large lanterns are made of horn,\ntransparent and without a flaw. At Birmingham men have tried with machines\nto cut ivory in the same manner as the Chinese, and have failed.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. Life and Character of Confucius.\n\n\nOf this nation the great teacher for twenty-three centuries has been\nConfucius. He was born 551 B.C., and was contemporary with the Tarquins,\nPythagoras, and Cyrus. About his time occurred the return of the Jews from\nBabylon and the invasion of Greece by Xerxes. His descendants have always\nenjoyed high privileges, and there are now some forty thousand of them in\nChina, seventy generations and more removed from their great ancestor. His\nis the oldest family in the world, unless we consider the Jews as a single\nfamily descended from Abraham. His influence, through his writings, on the\nminds of so many millions of human beings is greater than that of any man\nwho ever lived, excepting the writers of the Bible; and in saying this we\ndo not forget the names of Mohammed, Aristotle, St. Augustine, and Luther.\nSo far as we can see, it is the influence of Confucius which has\nmaintained, though probably not originated, in China, that profound\nreverence for parents, that strong family affection, that love of order,\nthat regard for knowledge and deference for literary men, which are\nfundamental principles underlying all the Chinese institutions. His minute\nand practical system of morals, studied as it is by all the learned, and\nconstituting the sum of knowledge and the principle of government in\nChina, has exerted and exerts an influence on that innumerable people\nwhich it is impossible to estimate, but which makes us admire the power\nwhich can emanate from a single soul.\n\nTo exert such an influence requires greatness. If the tree is to be known\nby its fruits, Confucius must have been one of the master minds of our\nrace. The supposition that a man of low morals or small intellect, an\nimpostor or an enthusiast, could influence the world, is a theory which\nis an insult to human nature. The time for such theories has happily gone\nby. We now know that nothing can come of nothing,--that a fire of straw\nmay make a bright blaze, but must necessarily soon go out. A light which\nilluminates centuries must be more than an ignis fatuus. Accordingly we\nshould approach Confucius with respect, and expect to find something good\nand wise in his writings. It is only a loving spirit which will enable us\nto penetrate the difficulties which surround the study, and to apprehend\nsomething of the true genius of the man and his teachings. As there is no\nimmediate danger of becoming his followers, we can see no objections to\nsuch a course, which also appears to be a species of mental hospitality,\neminently in accordance with the spirit of our own Master.\n\nConfucius belongs to that small company of select ones whose lives have\nbeen devoted to the moral elevation of their fellow-men. Among them he\nstands high, for he sought to implant the purest principles of religion\nand morals in the character of the whole people, and succeeded in doing\nit. To show that this was his purpose it will be necessary to give a brief\nsketch of his life.\n\nHis ancestors were eminent statesmen and soldiers in the small country of\nLoo, then an independent kingdom, now a Chinese province. The year of his\nbirth was that in which Cyrus became king of Persia. His father, one of\nthe highest officers of the kingdom, and a brave soldier, died when\nConfucius was three years old. He was a studious boy, and when fifteen\nyears old had studied the five sacred books called Kings. He was married\nat the age of nineteen, and had only one son by his only wife. This son\ndied before Confucius, leaving as his posterity a single grandchild, from\nwhom the great multitudes of his descendants now in China were derived.\nThis grandson was second only to Confucius in wisdom, and was the teacher\nof the illustrious Mencius.\n\nThe first part of the life of Confucius was spent in attempting to reform\nthe abuses of society by means of the official stations which he held, by\nhis influence with princes, and by travelling and intercourse with men.\nThe second period was that in which he was recalled from his travels to\nbecome a minister in his native country, the kingdom of Loo. Here he\napplied his theories of government, and tested their practicability. He\nwas then fifty years old. His success was soon apparent in the growing\nprosperity of the whole people. Instead of the tyranny which before\nprevailed, they were now ruled according to his idea of good\ngovernment,--that of the father of a family. Confidence was restored to\nthe public mind, and all good influences followed. But the tree was not\nyet deeply enough rooted to resist accidents, and all his wise\narrangements were suddenly overthrown by the caprice of the monarch, who,\ntired of the austere virtue of Confucius, suddenly plunged into a career\nof dissipation. Confucius resigned his office, and again became a\nwanderer, but now with a new motive. He had before travelled to learn, now\nhe travelled to teach. He collected disciples around him, and, no longer\nseeking to gain the ear of princes, he diffused his ideas among the common\npeople by means of his disciples, whom he sent out everywhere to\ncommunicate his doctrines. So, amid many vicissitudes of outward fortune,\nhe lived till he was seventy-three years old. In the last years of his\nlife he occupied himself in publishing his works, and in editing the\nSacred Books. His disciples had become very numerous, historians\nestimating them at three thousand, of whom five hundred had attained to\nofficial station, seventy-two had penetrated deeply into his system, and\nten, of the highest class of mind and character, were continually near his\nperson. Of these Hwuy was especially valued by him, as having early\nattained superior virtue. He frequently referred to him in his\nconversations. \"I saw him continually advance,\" said he, \"but I never saw\nhim stop in the path of knowledge.\" Again he says: \"The wisest of my\ndisciples, having one idea, understands two. Hwuy, having one understands\nten.\" One of the select ten disciples, Tszee-loo, was rash and impetuous\nlike the Apostle Peter. Another, Tszee-Kung, was loving and tender like\nthe Apostle John; he built a house near the grave of Confucius, wherein to\nmourn for him after his death.\n\nThe last years of the life of Confucius were devoted to editing the\nSacred Books, or Kings. As we now have them they come from him. Authentic\nrecords of Chinese history extend back to 2357 B.C., while the Chinese\nphilosophy originated with Fuh-he, who lived about 3327 B.C. He it was who\nsubstituted writing for the knotted strings which before formed the only\nmeans of record. He was also the author of the Eight Diagrams,--each\nconsisting of three lines, half of which are whole and half broken in\ntwo,--which by their various combinations are supposed to represent the\nactive and passive principles of the universe in all their essential\nforms. Confucius edited the Yih-King, the Shoo-King, the She-King, and the\nLe-Ke, which constitute the whole of the ancient literature of China which\nhas come down to posterity.[1] The Four Books, which contain the doctrines\nof Confucius, and of his school, were not written by himself, but composed\nby others after his death.\n\nOne of these is called the \"Immutable Mean,\" and its object is to show\nthat virtue consists in avoiding extremes. Another--the Lun-Yu, or\nAnalects--contains the conversation or table-talk of Confucius, and\nsomewhat resembles the Memorabilia of Xenophon and Boswell's Life of\nJohnson.[12]\n\nThe life of Confucius was thus devoted to communicating to the Chinese\nnation a few great moral and religious principles, which he believed would\ninsure the happiness of the people. His devotion to this aim appears in\nhis writings. Thus he says:--\n\n\"At fifteen years I longed for wisdom. At thirty my mind was fixed in the\npursuit of it. At forty I saw clearly certain principles. At fifty I\nunderstood the rule given by heaven. At sixty everything I heard I easily\nunderstood. At seventy the desires of my heart no longer transgressed the\nlaw.\"\n\n\"If in the morning I hear about the right way, and in the evening I die, I\ncan be happy.\"\n\nHe says of himself: \"He is a man who through his earnestness in seeking\nknowledge forgets his food, and in his joy for having found it loses all\nsense of his toil, and thus occupied is unconscious that he has almost\nreached old age.\"\n\nAgain: \"Coarse rice for food, water to drink, the bended arm for a\npillow,--happiness may be enjoyed even with these; but without virtue both\nriches and honor seem to me like the passing cloud.\"\n\n\"Grieve not that men know not you; grieve that you know not men.\"\n\n\"To rule with equity is like the North Star, which is fixed, and all the\nrest go round it.\"\n\n\"The essence of knowledge is, having it, to apply it; not having it, to\nconfess your ignorance.\"\n\n\"Worship as though the Deity were present.\"\n\n\"If my mind is not engaged in my worship, it is as though I worshipped\nnot.\"\n\n\"Formerly, in hearing men, I heard their words, and gave them credit for\ntheir conduct; now I hear their words, and observe their conduct.\"\n\n\"A man's life depends on virtue; if a bad man lives, it is only by good\nfortune.\"\n\n\"Some proceed blindly to action, without knowledge; I hear much, and\nselect the best course.\"\n\nHe was once found fault with, when in office, for not opposing the\nmarriage of a ruler with a distant relation, which was an offence against\nChinese propriety. He said: \"I am a happy man; if I have a fault, men\nobserve it.\"\n\nConfucius was humble. He said: \"I cannot bear to hear myself called equal\nto the sages and the good. All that can be said of me is, that I study\nwith delight the conduct of the sages, and instruct men without weariness\ntherein.\"\n\n\"The good man is serene,\" said he, \"the bad always in fear.\"\n\n\"A good man regards the ROOT; he fixes the root, and all else flows out of\nit. The root is filial piety; the fruit brotherly love.\"\n\n\"There may be fair words and an humble countenance when there is little\nreal virtue.\"\n\n\"I daily examine myself in a threefold manner: in my transactions with\nmen, if I am upright; in my intercourse with friends, if I am faithful;\nand whether I illustrate the teachings of my master in my conduct.\"\n\n\"Faithfulness and sincerity are the highest things.\"\n\n\"When you transgress, do not fear to return.\"\n\n\"Learn the past and you will know the future.\"\n\nThe great principles which he taught were chiefly based on family\naffection and duty. He taught kings that they were to treat their\nsubjects as children, subjects to respect the kings as parents; and these\nideas so penetrated the national mind, that emperors are obliged to seem\nto govern thus, even if they do not desire it. Confucius was a teacher of\nreverence,--reverence for God, respect for parents, respect and reverence\nfor the past and its legacies, for the great men and great ideas of former\ntimes. He taught men also to regard each other as brethren, and even the\ngolden rule, in its negative if not its positive form, is to be found in\nhis writings.\n\nCuriously enough, this teacher of reverence was distinguished by a\nremarkable lump on the top of his head, where the phrenologists have\nplaced the organ of veneration.[13] Rooted in his organization, and\nstrengthened by all his convictions, this element of adoration seemed to\nhim the crown of the whole moral nature of man. But, while full of\nveneration, he seems to have been deficient in the sense of spiritual\nthings. A personal God was unknown to him; so that his worship was\ndirected, not to God, but to antiquity, to ancestors, to propriety and\nusage, to the state as father and mother of its subjects, to the ruler as\nin the place of authority. Perfectly sincere, deeply and absolutely\nassured of all that he knew, he said nothing he did not believe. His power\ncame not only from the depth and clearness of his convictions, but from\nthe absolute honesty of his soul.\n\nLao-tse, for twenty-eight years his contemporary, founder of one of the\nthree existing religions of China,--Tao-ism,--was a man of perhaps equal\nintelligence. But he was chiefly a thinker; he made no attempt to elevate\nthe people; his purpose was to repress the passions, and to preserve the\nsoul in a perfect equanimity. He was the Zeno of the East, founder of a\nChinese stoicism. With him virtue is sure of its reward; everything is\narranged by a fixed law. His disciples afterwards added to his system a\nthaumaturgic element and an invocation of departed spirits, so that now it\nresembles our modern Spiritism; but the original doctrine of Lao-tse was\nrationalism in philosophy and stoicism in morals. Confucius is said, in a\nChinese work, to have visited him, and to have frankly confessed his\ninability to understand him. \"I know how birds fly, how fishes swim, how\nanimals run. The bird may be shot, the fish hooked, and the beast snared.\nBut there is the dragon. I cannot tell how he mounts in the air, and soars\nto heaven. To-day I have seen the dragon.\"\n\nBut the modest man, who lived for others, has far surpassed in his\ninfluence this dragon of intelligence. It certainly increases our hope for\nman, when we see how these qualities of perfect honesty, good sense,\ngenerous devotion to the public good, and fidelity to the last in\nadherence to his work, have made Confucius during twenty-three centuries\nthe daily teacher and guide of a third of the human race.\n\nConfucius was eminently distinguished by energy and persistency. He did\nnot stop working till he died. His life was of one piece, beautiful,\nnoble. \"The general of a large army,\" said he, \"may be defeated, but you\ncannot defeat the determined mind of a peasant.\" He acted conformably to\nthis thought, and to another of his sayings. \"If I am building a mountain,\nand stop before the last basketful of earth is placed on the summit, I\nhave failed of my work. But if I have placed but one basketful on the\nplain, and go on, I am really building a mountain.\"\n\nMany beautiful and noble things are related concerning the character of\nConfucius,--of his courage in the midst of danger, of his humility in the\nhighest position of honor. His writings and life have given the law to\nChinese thought. He is the patron saint of that great empire. His doctrine\nis the state religion of the nation, sustained by the whole power of the\nemperor and the literary body. His books are published every year by\nsocieties formed for that purpose, who distribute them gratuitously. His\ndescendants enjoy the highest consideration. The number of temples erected\nto his memory is sixteen hundred and sixty. One of them occupies ten acres\nof land. On the two festivals in the year sacred to his memory there are\nsacrificed some seventy thousand animals of different kinds, and\ntwenty-seven thousand pieces of silk are burned on his altars. Yet his is\na religion without priests, liturgy, or public worship, except on these\ntwo occasions.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4. Philosophy and subsequent Development of Confucianism.\n\n\nAccording to Mr. Meadows, the philosophy of China, in its origin and\npresent aspect, may be thus briefly described.[14] Setting aside the\nBuddhist system and that of Tao-ism, which supply to the Chinese the\nelement of religious worship and the doctrine of a supernatural world,\nwanting in the system of Confucius, we find the latter as the established\nreligion of the state, merely tolerating the others as suited to persons\nof weak minds. The Confucian system, constantly taught by the competitive\nexaminations, rules the thought of China. Its first development was from\nthe birth of Confucius to the death of Mencias (or from 551 B.C. to 313\nB.C.). Its second period was from the time of Chow-tsze (A.D. 1034) to\nthat of Choo-tsze (A.D. 1200). The last of these is the real fashioner of\nChinese philosophy, and one of the truly great men of the human race. His\nworks are chiefly Commentaries on the Kings and the Four Books. They are\ncommitted to memory by millions of Chinese who aspire to pass the\npublic-service examinations. The Chinese philosophy, thus established by\nChoo-tsze, is as follows.[15]\n\nThere is one highest, ultimate principle of all existence,--the Tae-keih,\nor Grand Extreme. This is absolutely immaterial, and the basis of the\norder of the universe. From this ultimate principle, operating from all\neternity, come all animate and inanimate nature. It operates in a twofold\nway, by expansion and contraction, or by ceaseless active and passive\npulsations. The active expansive pulsation is called Yang, the passive\nintensive pulsation is Yin, and the two may be called the Positive and\nNegative Essences of all things. When the active expansive phase of the\nprocess has reached its extreme limit, the operation becomes passive and\nintensive; and from these vibrations originate all material and mortal\nexistences. Creation is therefore a perpetual process,--matter and spirit\nare opposite results of the same force. The one tends to variety, the\nother to unity; and variety in unity is a permanent and universal law of\nbeing. Man results from the utmost development of this pulsatory action\nand passion; and man's nature, as the highest result, is perfectly good,\nconsisting of five elements, namely, charity, righteousness, propriety,\nwisdom, and sincerity. These constitute the inmost, essential nature of\nman; but as man comes in contact with the outward world evil arises by the\nconflict. When man follows the dictates of his nature his actions are\ngood, and harmony results. When he is unduly influenced by the outward\nworld his actions are evil, and discord intervenes. The holy man is one\nwho has an instinctive, inward sight of the ultimate principle in its\ntwofold operation (or what we should call the sight of God, the beatific\nvision), and who therefore spontaneously and easily obeys his nature.\nHence all his thoughts are perfectly wise, his actions perfectly good, and\nhis words perfectly true. Confucius was the last of these holy men. The\ninfallible authority of the Sacred Books results from the fact that their\nwriters, being holy men, had an instinctive perception of the working of\nthe ultimate principle.\n\nAll Confucian philosophy is pervaded by these principles: first, that\nexample is omnipotent; secondly, that to secure the safety of the empire,\nyou must secure the happiness of the people; thirdly, that by solitary\npersistent thought one may penetrate at last to a knowledge of the essence\nof things; fourthly, that the object of all government is to make the\npeople virtuous and contented.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5. Lao-tse and Tao-ism.\n\n\nOne of the three religious systems of China is that of the Tao, the other\ntwo being that of Confucius, and that of Buddhism in its Chinese form. The\ndifficulty in understanding Tao-ism comes from its appearing under three\nentirely distinct forms: (1) as a philosophy of the absolute or\nunconditioned, in the great work of the Tse-Lao, or old teacher;[16] (2)\nas a system of morality of the utilitarian school,[17] which resolves duty\ninto prudence; and (3) as a system of magic, connected with the belief in\nspirits. In the Tao-te-king we have the ideas of Lao himself, which we\nwill endeavor to state; premising that they are considered very obscure\nand difficult even by the Chinese commentators.\n\nThe TAO (\u00a7 1) is the unnamable, and is the origin of heaven and earth. As\nthat which can be named, it is the mother of all things. These two are\nessentially one. Being and not-being are born from each other (\u00a7 2). The\nTao is empty but inexhaustible (\u00a7 4), is pure, is profound, and was before\nthe Gods. It is invisible, not the object of perception, it returns into\nnot-being (\u00a7\u00a7 14, 40). It is vague, confused, and obscure (\u00a7 25, 21). It\nis little and strong, universally present, and all beings return into it\n(\u00a7 32). It is without desires, great (\u00a7 34). All things are born of being,\nbeing is born of not-being (\u00a7 40).\n\nFrom these and similar statements it would appear that the philosophy of\nthe Tao-te-king is that of absolute being, or the identity of being and\nnot-being. In this point it anticipated Hegel by twenty-three\ncenturies.[18] It teaches that the absolute is the source of being and of\nnot-being. Being is essence, not-being is existence. The first is the\nnoumenal, the last the phenomenal.'\n\nAs being is the source of not-being (\u00a7 40), by identifying one's self with\nbeing one attains to all that is not-being, i.e. to all that exists.\nInstead, therefore, of aiming at acquiring knowledge, the wise man avoids\nit: instead of acting, he refuses to act. He \"feeds his mind with a wise\npassiveness.\" (\u00a7 16.) \"_Not to act_ is the source of all power,\" is a\nthesis continually present to the mind of Lao (\u00a7\u00a7 3, 23, 38,43,48, 63).\nThe wise man is like water (\u00a7\u00a7 8, 78), which seems weak and is strong;\nwhich yields, seeks the lowest place, which seems the softest thing and\nbreaks the hardest thing. To be wise one must renounce wisdom, to be good\none must renounce justice and humanity, to be learned one must renounce\nknowledge (\u00a7\u00a7 19, 20, 45), and must have no desires (\u00a7\u00a7 8, 22), must\ndetach one's self from all things (\u00a7 20) and be like a new-born babe. From\neverything proceeds its opposite, the easy from the difficult, the\ndifficult from the easy, the long from the short, the high from the low,\nignorance from knowledge, knowledge from ignorance, the first from the\nlast, the last from the first. These antagonisms are mutually related by\nthe hidden principle of the Tao (\u00a7\u00a7 2, 27). Nothing is independent or\ncapable of existing save through its opposite. The good man and bad man\nare equally necessary to each other (\u00a7 27). To desire aright is not to\ndesire (\u00a7 64). The saint can do great things because he does not attempt\nto do them (\u00a7 63). The unwarlike man conquers.[19] He who submits to\nothers controls them. By this negation of all things we come into\npossession of all things (\u00a7 68). _Not to act_ is, therefore, the secret of\nall power (\u00a7\u00a7 3, 23, 38, 43, 48, 63).\n\nWe find here the same doctrine of opposites which appears in the Ph\u00e6do,\nand which has come up again and again in philosophy. We shall find\nsomething like it in the S\u00e1nkhya-karika of the Hindoos. The Duad, with the\nMonad brooding behind it, is the fundamental principle of the Avesta.\n\nThe result, thus far, is to an active passivity. Lao teaches that not to\nact involves the highest energy of being, and leads to the greatest\nresults. By not acting one identifies himself with the Tao, and receives\nall its power. And here we cannot doubt that the Chinese philosopher was\npursuing the same course with Sakya-Muni. The Tao of the one is the\nNirvana of the other. The different motive in each mind constitutes the\ndifference of their career. Sakya-Muni sought Nirvana, or the absolute,\nthe pure knowledge, in order to escape from evil and to conquer it. Lao\nsought it, as his book shows, to attain power. At this point the two\nsystems diverge. Buddhism is generous, benevolent, humane; it seeks to\nhelp others. Tao-ism seeks its own. Hence the selfish morality which\npervades the Book of Rewards and Punishments. Every good action has its\nreward attached to it. Hence also the degradation of the system into pure\nmagic and spiritism. Buddhism, though its course runs so nearly parallel,\nalways retains in its scheme of merits a touch of generosity.\n\nWe find thus, in the Tao-te-king, the element afterwards expanded into the\nsystem of utilitarian and eud\u00e6monic ethics in the Book of Rewards and\nPunishments. We also can trace in it the source of the magical tendency in\nTao-ism. The principle, that by putting one's self into an entirely\npassive condition one can enter into communion with the unnamed Tao, and\nso acquire power over nature, naturally tends to magic. Precisely the same\ncourse of thought led to similar results in the case of Neo-Platonism. The\necstatic union with the divine element in all nature, which Plotinus\nattained four times in his life, resulted from an immediate sight of God.\nIn this sight is all truth given to the soul. The unity, says Plotinus,\nwhich produces all things, is an essence behind both substance and form.\nThrough this essential being all souls commune and interact, and magic is\nthis interaction of soul upon soul through the soul of souls, with which\none becomes identified in the ecstatic union. A man therefore can act on\ndemons and control spirits by theurgic rites. Julian, that ardent\nNeo-Platonician, was surrounded by diviners, hierophants, and\naruspices.[20]\n\nIn the Tao-te-king (\u00a7\u00a7 50, 55, 56, etc.) it is said that he who knows the\nTao need not fear the bite of serpents nor the jaws of wild beasts, nor\nthe claws of birds of prey. He is inaccessible to good and to evil. He\nneed fear neither rhinoceros nor tiger. In battle he needs neither cuirass\nnor sword. The tiger cannot tear him, the soldier cannot wound him. He is\ninvulnerable and safe from death.[21]\n\nIf Neo-Platonism had not had for its antagonist the vital force of\nChristianity, it might have established itself as a permanent form of\nreligion in the Roman Empire, as Tao-ism has in China. I have tried to\nshow how the later form of this Chinese system has come naturally from its\nprinciples, and how a philosophy of the absolute may have degenerated into\na system of necromancy.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6. Religious Character of the \"Kings.\"\n\n\nWe have seen that, in the philosophy of the Confucians, the ultimate\nprinciple is not necessarily identical with a living, intelligent, and\npersonal God. Nor did Confucius, when he speaks of Teen, or Heaven,\nexpress any faith in such a being. He neither asserted nor denied a\nSupreme God. His worship and prayer did not necessarily imply such a\nfaith. It was the prayer of reverence addressed to some sacred,\nmysterious, unknown power, above and behind all visible things. What that\npower was, he, with his supreme candor, did not venture to intimate. But\nin the She-King a personal God is addressed. The oldest books recognize a\nDivine person. They teach that there is one Supreme Being, who is\nomnipresent, who sees all things, and has an intelligence which nothing\ncan escape,--that he wishes men to live together in peace and brotherhood.\nHe commands not only right actions, but pure desires and thoughts, that we\nshould watch all our behavior, and maintain a grave and majestic demeanor,\n\"which is like a palace in which virtue resides\"; but especially that we\nshould guard the tongue. \"For a blemish may be taken out of a diamond by\ncarefully polishing it; but, if your words have the least blemish, there\nis no way to efface that.\" \"Humility is the solid foundation of all the\nvirtues.\" \"To acknowledge one's incapacity is the way to be soon prepared\nto teach others; for from the moment that a man is no longer full of\nhimself, nor puffed up with empty pride, whatever good he learns in the\nmorning he practices before night.\" \"Heaven penetrates to the bottom of\nour hearts, like light into a dark chamber. We must conform ourselves to\nit, till we are like two instruments of music tamed to the same pitch. We\nmust join ourselves with it, like two tablets which appear but one. We\nmust receive its gifts the very moment its hand is open to bestow. Our\nirregular passions shut up the door of our souls against God.\"\n\nSuch are the teachings of these Kings, which are unquestionably among the\noldest existing productions of the human mind. In the days of Confucius\nthey seem to have been nearly forgotten, and their precepts wholly\nneglected. Confucius revised them, added his own explanations and\ncomments, and, as one of the last acts of his life, called his disciples\naround him and made a solemn dedication of these books to Heaven. He\nerected an altar on which he placed them, adored God, and returned thanks\nupon his knees in a humble manner for having had life and health granted\nhim to finish this undertaking.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 7. Confucius and Christianity. Character of the Chinese.\n\n\nIt were easy to find defects in the doctrine of Confucius. It has little\nto teach of God or immortality. But if the law of Moses, which taught\nnothing of a future life, was a preparation for Christianity; if, as the\nearly Christian Fathers asserted, Greek philosophy was also schoolmaster\nto bring men to Christ; who can doubt that the truth and purity in the\nteachings of Confucius were providentially intended to lead this great\nnation in the right direction? Confucius is a Star in the East, to lead\nhis people to Christ. One of the most authentic of his sayings is this,\nthat \"in the West the true Saint must be looked for and found.\" He has a\nperception, such as truly great men have often had, of some one higher\nthan himself, who was to come after him. We cannot doubt, therefore, that\nGod, who forgets none of his children, has given this teacher to the\nswarming millions of China to lead them on till they are ready for a\nhigher light. And certainly the temporal prosperity and external virtues\nof this nation, and their long-continued stability amid the universal\nchanges of the world, are owing in no small decree to the lessons of\nreverence for the past, of respect for knowledge, of peace and order, and\nespecially of filial piety, which he inculcated. In their case, if in no\nother, has been fulfilled the promise of the divine commandment, \"Honor\nthy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long in the land which the\nLord thy God giveth thee.\"\n\nIn comparing the system of Confucius with Christianity, it appears at once\nthat Christianity differs from this system, as from most others, in its\ngreater completeness. Jesus says to the Chinese philosopher, as he said to\nthe Jewish law, \"I have not come to destroy, but to fulfil.\" He fulfils\nthe Confucian reverence for the past by adding hope for the future; he\nfulfils its stability by progress, its faith in man with faith in God, its\ninterest in this world with the expectation of another, its sense of time\nwith that of eternity. Confucius aims at peace, order, outward prosperity,\nvirtue, and good morals. All this belongs also to Christianity, but\nChristianity adds a moral enthusiasm, a faith in the spiritual world, a\nhope of immortal life, a sense of the Fatherly presence of God. So that\nhere, as before, we find that Christianity does not exclude other\nreligions, but includes them, and is distinguished by being deeper,\nhigher, broader, and more far-reaching than they.\n\nA people with such institutions and such a social life as we have\ndescribed cannot be despised, and to call them uncivilized is as absurd in\nus as it is in them to call Europeans barbarians. They are a good,\nintelligent, and happy people. Lieutenant Forbes, who spent five years in\nChina,--from 1842 to 1847,--says: \"I found myself in the midst of as\namiable, kind, and hospitable a population as any on the face of the\nearth, as far ahead of us in some things as behind us in others.\" As to\nthe charge of dishonesty brought against them by those who judge the whole\nnation by the degraded population of the suburbs of Canton, Forbes says,\n\"My own property suffered more in landing in England and passing the\nBritish frontier than in my whole sojourn in China.\"\n\n\"There is no nation,\" says the Jesuit Du Halde, \"more laborious and\ntemperate than this. They are inured to hardships from their infancy,\nwhich greatly contributes to preserve the innocence of their manners....\nThey are of a mild, tractable, and humane disposition.\" He thinks them\nexceedingly modest, and regards the love of gain as their chief vice.\n\"Interest,\" says he, \"is the spring of all their actions; for, when the\nleast profit offers, they despise all difficulties and undertake the most\npainful journeys to procure it\" This may be true; but if a Chinese\ntraveller in America should give the same account of us, would it not be\nquite as true? One of the latest writers--the author of \"The Middle\nKingdom\"--accuses the Chinese of gross sensuality, mendacity, and\ndishonesty. No doubt these are besetting sins with them, as with all\nnations who are educated under a system which makes submission to\nauthority the chief virtue. But then this writer lived only at Canton and\nMacao, and saw personally only the refuse of the people. He admits that\n\"they have attained, by the observance of peace and good order, to a high\nsecurity of life and property; that the various classes are linked\ntogether in a remarkably homogeneous manner by the diffusion of education;\nand that property and industry receive their just reward of food, raiment,\nand shelter.\" He also reminds us that the religion of China differs from\nall Pagan religions in this, that it encourages neither cruelty nor\nsensuality. No human victims have ever been offered on its altars, and\nthose licentious rites which have appeared in so many religions have never\ndisgraced its pure worship.\n\nThe Chinese citizen enjoys a degree of order, peace, and comfort unknown\nelsewhere in Asia. \"He can hold and sell landed property with a facility,\ncertainty, and security which is absolute perfection compared with the\nnature of English dealings of the same kind.\"[22] He can traverse the\ncountry for two thousand miles unquestioned by any official. He can\nfollow what occupation he pleases. He can quit his country and re-enter it\nwithout a passport. The law of primogeniture does not exist. The emperor\nappoints his heir, but a younger son quite as often as an elder one. The\nprinciple that no man is entitled by birth to rule over them is better\nknown to the three hundred and sixty millions of China than to the\ntwenty-seven millions of Great Britain that they have a right to a trial\nby their peers.[23] The principle of Chinese government is to persuade\nrather than to compel, to use moral means rather than physical. This rests\non the fundamental belief in human goodness. For, as Mr. Meadows justly\nobserves: \"The theory that man's nature is radically vicious is the true\npsychical basis of despotic or physical-force government; while the theory\nthat man's nature is radically good is the basis of free or moral-force\ngovernment.\" The Chinese government endeavors to be paternal. It has\nrefused to lay a tax on opium, because that would countenance the sale of\nit, though it might derive a large income from such a tax. The sacred\nliterature of the Chinese is perfectly free from everything impure or\noffensive. There is not a line but might be read aloud in any family\ncircle in England. All immoral ceremonies in idol worship are forbidden.\nM. Hue says that the birth of a daughter is counted a disaster in China;\nbut well-informed travellers tell us that fathers go about with little\ndaughters on their arms, as proud and pleased as a European father could\nbe. Slavery and concubinage exist in China, and the husband has absolute\npower over his wife, even of life and death. These customs tend to\ndemoralize the Chinese, and are a source of great evil. Woman is the slave\nof man. The exception to this is in the case of a mother. She is absolute\nin her household, and mothers, in China, command universal reverence. If\nan officer asks leave of absence to visit his mother it must be granted\nhim. A mother may order an official to take her son to prison, and she\nmust be obeyed. As a wife without children woman is a slave, but as a\nmother with grownup sons she is a monarch.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 8. The Tae-ping Insurrection.\n\n\nTwo extraordinary events have occurred in our day in China, the results of\nwhich may be of the utmost importance to the nation and to mankind. The\none is the Tae-ping insurrection, the other the diplomatic mission of Mr.\nBurlingame to the Western world. Whatever may be the immediate issue of\nthe great insurrection of our day against the Tartar dynasty, it will\nremain a phenomenon of the utmost significance. There is no doubt,\nnotwithstanding the general opinion to the contrary, that it has been a\nreligious movement, proceeding from a single mind deeply moved by the\nreading of the Bible. The hostility of the Chinese to the present Mantchoo\nTartar monarchs no doubt aided it; but there has been in it an element of\npower from the beginning, derived, like that of the Puritans, from its\nreligious enthusiasm. Its leader, the Heavenly Prince, Hung-sew-tseuen,\nson of a poor peasant living thirty miles northeast of Canton, received a\ntract, containing extracts from the Chinese Bible of Dr. Morison, from a\nChinese tract distributor in the streets of Canton. This was in 1833, when\nhe was about twenty years of age. He took the book home, looked over it\ncarelessly, and threw it aside. Disappointed of his degree at two\ncompetitive examinations, he fell sick, and saw a vision of an old man,\nsaying: \"I am the Creator of all things. Go and do my work.\" After this\nvision six years passed by, when the English war broke out, and the\nEnglish fleet took the Chinese forts in the river of Canton. Such a great\nnational calamity indicated, according to Chinese ideas, something rotten\nin the government; and such success on the part of the English showed\nthat, in some way, they were fulfilling the will of Heaven. This led\nHung-sew-tseuen to peruse again his Christian books; and alone, with no\nguide, he became a sincere believer in Christ, after a fashion of his own.\nGod was the Creator of all things, and the Supreme Father. Jesus was the\nElder Brother and heavenly Teacher of mankind. Idolatry was to be\noverthrown, virtue to be practised. Hung-sew-tseuen believed that the\nBible confirmed his former visions. He accepted his mission and began to\nmake converts All his converts renounced idolatry, and gave up the worship\nof Confucius. They travelled to and fro teaching, and formed a society of\n\"God-worshippers.\" The first convert, Fung-yun-san, became its most ardent\nmissionary and its disinterested preacher. Hung-sew-tseuen returned home,\nwent to Canton, and there met Mr. Roberts, an American missionary, who was\ninduced by false charges to refuse him Christian baptism. But he, without\nbeing offended with Mr. Roberts, went home and taught his converts how to\nbaptize themselves. The society of \"God-worshippers\" increased in number.\nSome of them were arrested for destroying idols, and among them\nFung-yun-san, who, however, on his way to prison, converted the policemen\nby his side. These new converts set him at liberty and went away with him\nas his disciples. Various striking phenomena occurred in this society. Men\nfell into a state of ecstasy and delivered exhortations. Sick persons were\ncured by the power of prayer. The teachings of these ecstatics were tested\nby Scripture; if found to agree therewith, they were accepted; if not,\nrejected.\n\nIt was in October, 1850, that this religious movement assumed a political\nform. A large body of persons, in a state of chronic rebellion against the\nChinese authorities, had fled into the district, and joined the\n\"God-worshippers.\" Pursued by the imperial soldiers, they were protected\nagainst them. Hence war began. The leaders of the religious movement found\nthemselves compelled to choose between submission and resistance. They\nresisted, and the great insurrection began. But in China an insurrection\nagainst the dynasty is in the natural order of things. Indeed, it may be\nsaid to be a part of the constitution. By the Sacred Books, taught in all\nthe schools and made a part of the examination papers, it is the duty of\nthe people to overthrow any bad government. The Chinese have no power to\nlegislate, do not tax themselves, and the government is a pure autocracy.\nBut it is not a despotism; for old usages make a constitution, which the\ngovernment must respect or be overthrown. \"The right to rebel,\" says Mr.\nMeadows, \"is in China a chief element of national stability.\" The\nTae-ping (or Universal-Peace) Insurrection has shown its religious\ncharacter throughout. It has not been cruel, except in retaliation. At the\ntaking of Nan-king orders were given to put all the women together and\nprotect them, and any one doing them an injury was punished with death.\nBefore the attack on Nan-king a large body of the insurgents knelt down\nand prayed, and then rose and fought, like the soldiers of Cromwell. The\naid of a large body of rebels was refused, because they did not renounce\nidolatry, and continued to allow the use of opium. Hymns of praise to the\nHeavenly Father and Elder Brother were chanted in the camp. And the head\nof the insurrection distinctly announced that, in case it succeeded, the\nBible would be substituted in all public examinations for office in the\nplace of Confucius. This would cause the Bible to be at once studied by\nall candidates for office among three hundred and sixty millions of\npeople. It would constitute the greatest event in the history of\nChristianity since the days of Constantino, or at least since the\nconversion of the Teutonic races. The rebellion has probably failed; but\ngreat results must follow this immense interest in Christianity in the\nheart of China,--an interest awakened by no Christian mission, whether\nCatholic or Protestant, but coming down into this great nation like the\nrain from heaven.\n\nIn the \"History of the Ti-Ping Revolution\" (published in London in 1866),\nwritten by an Englishman who held a command among the Ti-Piugs, there is\ngiven a full, interesting, and apparently candid account of the religious\nand moral character of this great movement, from which I take the\nfollowing particulars:--\n\n\"I have probably,\" says this writer,[24] \"had a much greater experience\nof the Ti-Ping religious practices than any other European, and as a\nProtestant Christian I have never yet found occasion to condemn their form\nof worship. The most important part of their faith is the Holy Bible,--Old\nand New Testaments, entire. These have been printed and circulated\ngratuitously by the government through the whole population of the Ti-Ping\njurisdiction.\" Abstracts of the Bible, put into verse, were circulated and\ncommitted to memory. Their form of worship was assimilated to\nProtestantism. The Sabbath was kept religiously on the seventh day. Three\ncups of tea were put on the altar on that day as an offering to the\nTrinity. They celebrated the communion once a month by partaking of a cup\nof grape wine. Every one admitted to their fellowship was baptized, after\nan examination and confession of sins. The following was the form\nprescribed in the \"Book of Religious Precepts of the Ti-Ping\nDynasty\":--[25]\n\n_Forms to be observed when Men wish to forsake their Sins_--\"They must\nkneel down in God's presence, and ask him to forgive their sins. They may\nthen take either a basin of water and wash themselves, or go to the river\nand bathe themselves; after which they must continue daily to supplicate\nDivine favor, and the Holy Spirit's assistance to renew their hearts,\nsaying grace at every meal, keeping holy the Sabbath day, and obeying all\nGod's commandments, especially avoiding idolatry. They may then be\naccounted the children of God, and their souls will go to Heaven when they\ndie.\"\n\nThe prayer offered by the recipient of Baptism was as follows:--\n\n\"I (A. B.), kneeling down with a true heart, repent of my sins, and pray\nthe Heavenly Father, the great God, of his abundant mercy, to forgive my\nformer sins of ignorance in repeatedly breaking the Divine commands,\nearnestly beseeching him also to grant me repentance and newness of life,\nthat my soul may go to Heaven, while I henceforth truly forsake my former\nways, abandoning idolatry and all corrupt practices, in obedience to\nGod's commands. I also pray that God would give me his Holy Spirit to\nchange my wicked heart, deliver me from all temptation, and grant me his\nfavor and protection, bestowing on me food and raiment, and exemption from\ncalamity, peace in this world and glory in the next, through the mercies\nof our Saviour and Elder Brother, Jesus, who redeemed us from sin.\"\n\nIn every household throughout the Ti-Ping territory the following\ntranslation of the Lord's Prayer was hung up for the use of the children,\nprinted in large black characters on a white board:--\n\n\"Supreme Lord, our Heavenly Father, forgive all our sins that we have\ncommitted in ignorance, rebelling against thee. Bless us, brethren and\nsisters, thy little children. Give us our daily food and raiment; keep\nfrom us all calamities and afflictions; that in this world we may have\npeace and finally ascend to heaven to enjoy everlasting happiness. We pray\nthee to bless our brethren and sisters of all nations. We ask these things\nfor the redeeming merits of our Lord and Saviour, our heavenly brother,\nJesus. We also pray, Heavenly Father, that thy will may be done on earth\nas in heaven: for thine are all the kingdoms, glory, and power. Amen.\"\n\nThe writer says he has frequently watched the Ti-Ping women teaching the\nchildren this prayer; \"and often, on entering a house, the children ran up\nto me, and pulling me toward the board, began to read the prayer.\"\n\nThe seventh day was kept very strictly. As soon as midnight sounded on\nFriday, all the people throughout; Ti-Pingdom were summoned to worship.\nTwo other services were held during the day. Each opened with a doxology\nto God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Then was sung this hymn:--\n\n    \"The true doctrine is different from the doctrine of this world;\n    It saves men's souls and gives eternal bliss.\n    The wise receive it instantly with joy;\n    The foolish, wakened by it, find the way to Heaven.\n    Our Heavenly Father, of his great mercy,\n    Did not spare his own Son, but sent him down\n    To give his life to redeem sinners.\n    When men know this, and repent, they may go to Heaven.\"\n\nThe rest of the services consisted in a chapter of the Bible read by the\nminister; a creed, repeated by the congregation standing; a prayer, read\nby the minister and repeated by the whole congregation kneeling. Then the\nprayer was burned, the minister read a sermon, an anthem was chanted to\nthe long life of the king; then followed the Ten Commandments, music, and\nthe burning of incense and fire-crackers. No business was allowed on the\nSabbath, and the shops were closed. There was a clergy, chosen by\ncompetitive examination, subject to the approval of the Tien-Wong, or\nsupreme religious head of the movement. There was a minister placed over\nevery twenty-five families, and a church, or Heavenly Hall, assigned to\nhim in some public building. Over every twenty, five parishes there was a\nsuperior, who visited them in turn every Sabbath. Once every month the\nwhole people were addressed by the chief Wong.\n\nThe writer of this work describes his attendance on morning prayers at\nNan-king, in the Heavenly Hall of the Chung-Wang's household. This took\nplace at sunrise every morning, the men and women sitting on opposite\nsides of the hall. \"Oftentimes,\" says he, \"while kneeling in the midst of\nan apparently devout congregation, and gazing on the upturned countenances\nlightened by the early morning sun, have I wondered why no British\nmissionary occupied my place, and why Europeans generally preferred\nslaughtering the Ti-Pings to accepting them as brothers in Christ. When I\nlook back,\" he adds, \"on the unchangeable and universal kindness I always\nmet with among the Ti-Pings, even when their dearest relatives were being\nslaughtered by my countrymen, or delivered over to the Manchoos to be\ntortured to death, their magnanimous forbearance seems like a dream. Their\nkind and friendly feelings were often annoying. To those who have\nexperienced the ordinary dislike of foreigners by the Chinese, the\nsurprising friendliness of the Ti-Pings was most remarkable.\" They\nwelcomed Europeans as \"brethren from across the sea,\" and claimed them as\nfellow-worshippers of \"Yesu.\"\n\nThough the Ti-Pings did not at once lay aside all heathen customs, and\ncould not be expected to do so, they took some remarkable steps in the\nright direction. Their women were in a much higher position than among the\nother Chinese; they abolished the custom of cramping their feet; a married\nwoman had rights, and could not be divorced at will, or sold, as under the\nManchoos. Large institutions were established for unmarried women. Slavery\nwas totally abolished, and to sell a human being was made a capital\noffence. They utterly prohibited the use of opium; and this was probably\ntheir chief offence in the eyes of the English. Prostitution was punished\nby death, and was unknown in their cities. Idolatry was also utterly\nabolished. Their treatment of the people under them was merciful; they\nprotected their prisoners, whom the Imperialists always massacred. The\nBritish troops, instead of preserving neutrality, aided the Imperialists\nin putting down the insurrection in such ways as this. The British\ncruisers _assumed_ that the Ti-Ping junks were pirates, because they\ncaptured Chinese vessels. The British ship Bittern and another steamer\nsank every vessel but two in a rebel fleet, and gave up the crew of one\nwhich they captured to be put to death. This is the description of another\ntransaction of the same kind, in the harbor of Shi-poo: \"The junks were\ndestroyed, and their crews shot, drowned, and hunted down, until about a\nthousand were killed; the Bittern's men aiding the Chinese on shore to\ncomplete the wholesale massacre.\"[26]\n\nIt is the deliberate opinion of this well-informed English writer that the\nTi-Ping insurrection would have succeeded but for British intervention;\nthat the Tartar dynasty would have been expelled, the Chinese regained\ntheir autonomy, and Christianity have been established throughout the\nEmpire. At the end of his book he gives a table of _forty-three_ battles\nand massacres in which the British soldiers and navy took part, in which\nabout four hundred thousand of the Ti-Pings were killed, and he estimates\nthat more than two millions more died of starvation in 1863 and 1864, in\nthe famine occasioned by the operations of the allied English, French, and\nChinese troop's, when the Ti-Pings were driven from their territories. In\nview of such facts, well may an English writer say: \"It is not once or\ntwice that the policy of the British government has been ruinous to the\nbest interests of the world. Disregard of international law and of treaty\nlaw in Europe, deeds of piracy and spoliation in Asia, one vast system of\nwrong and violence, have everywhere for years marked the dealings of the\nBritish government with the weaker races of the globe.\"[27]\n\nOther Englishmen, beside \"Lin-Le\" and Mr. Meadows, give the same testimony\nto the Christian character of this great movement in China. Captain\nFishbourne, describing his visit in H.M.S. Hermes to Nan-king, says: \"It\nwas obvious to the commonest observer that they were practically a\ndifferent race.\" They had the Scriptures, many seemed to him to be\npractical Christians, serious and religious, believing in a special\nProvidence, thinking that their trials were sent to purify them. \"They\naccuse us of magic,\" said one. \"The only magic we employ is prayer to\nGod.\" The man who said this, says Captain Fishbourne, \"was a little\nshrivelled-up person, but he uttered words of courageous confidence in\nGod, and could utter the words of a hero. He and others like him have\nimpressed the minds of their followers with their own courage and\nmorality.\"\n\nThe English Bishop of Victoria has constantly given the same testimony. Of\none of the Ti-Ping books Dr. Medhurst says: \"There is not a word in it\nwhich a Christian missionary might not adopt and circulate as a tract for\nthe benefit of the Chinese.\"\n\nDr. Medhurst also describes a scene which took place in Shanghae, where he\nwas preaching in the chapel of the London Missionary Society, on the folly\nof idolatry and the duty of worshipping the one true God. A man arose in\nthe middle of the congregation and said: \"That is true! that is true! the\nidols must perish. I am a Ti-Ping; we all worship one God and believe in\nJesus, and we everywhere destroy the idols. Two years ago when we began we\nwere only three thousand; now we have marched across the Empire, because\nGod was on our side.\" He then exhorted the people to abandon idolatry and\nto believe in Jesus, and said: \"We are happy in our religion, and look on\nthe day of our death as the happiest moment of life. When any of our\nnumber dies, we do not weep, but congratulate each other because he has\ngone to the joy of the heavenly world.\"\n\nThe mission of Mr. Burlingame indicated a sincere desire on the part of\nthe sagacious men who then governed China, especially of Prince Kung, to\nenter into relations with modern civilization and modern thought. From the\nofficial papers of this mission,[28] it appears that Mr. Burlingame was\nauthorized \"to transact all business with the Treaty Powers in which those\ncountries and China had a common interest,\" (communication of Prince Kung,\nDecember 31, 1867). The Chinese government expressly states that this step\nis intended as adopting the customs of diplomatic intercourse peculiar to\nthe West, and that in so doing the Chinese Empire means to conform to the\nlaw of nations, as understood among the European states. It therefore\nadopted \"Wheaton's International Law\" as the text-book and authority to be\nused in its Foreign Office, and had it carefully translated into Chinese\nfor the use of its mandarins. This movement was the result, says Mr.\nBurlingame, of the \"co-operative policy\" adopted by the representatives in\nChina of the Treaty Powers, in which they agreed to act together on all\nimportant questions, to take no cession of territory, and never to menace\nthe autonomy of the Empire. They agreed \"to leave her perfectly free to\ndevelop herself according to her own form of civilization, not to\ninterfere with her interior affairs, to make her waters neutral, and her\nland safe\" (Burlingame's speech at San Francisco). There is no doubt that\nif the states known as the \"Treaty Powers,\" namely, the United States,\nBelgium, Denmark, France, Great Britain, Holland, Italy, North Germany,\nRussia, Spain, and Sweden, will loyally abstain from aggression and\ninterference in China and respect her independence, that this great\nEmpire will step forth from her seclusion of fifty centuries, and enter\nthe commonwealth of nations.\n\nThe treaty between the United States and China of July 28, 1868, includes\nprovisions for the neutrality of the Chinese waters; for freedom of\nworship for United States citizens in China, and for the Chinese in the\nUnited States; for allowing voluntary emigration, and prohibiting the\ncompulsory coolie trade; for freedom to travel in China and the United\nStates by the citizens of either country; and for freedom to establish and\nattend schools in both countries.\n\nWe add to this chapter a Note, containing an interesting account, from\nHue's \"Christianity in China,\" of an inscribed stone, proving that\nChristian churches existed in China in the seventh century. These churches\nwere the result of the efforts of Nestorian missionaries, who were the\nProtestant Christians of their age. Their success in China is another\nproof that the Christianity which is to be welcomed there must be\npresented in an intelligible and rational form.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNOTE.\n\n\n   The Nestorian Inscription in China.[29]\n\n\n   In 1625 some Chinese workmen, engaged in digging a foundation for a\n   house, outside the walls of the city of Si-ngau-Fou, the capital of the\n   province of Chen-si, found buried in the earth a large monumental stone\n   resembling those which the Chinese are in the habit of raising to\n   preserve to posterity the remembrance of remarkable events and\n   illustrious men. It was a dark-colored marble tablet, ten feet high and\n   five broad, and bearing on one side an inscription in ancient Chinese,\n   and also some other characters quite unknown in China.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n   Several exact tracings from the stone were sent to Europe by the\n   Jesuits who saw it. The library of their house at Rome had one of the\n   first, and it attracted numerous visitors; subsequently, another\n   authentic copy of the dimensions of the tablet was sent to Paris, and\n   deposited at the library in the Rue Richelieu, where it may still be\n   seen in the gallery of manuscripts.\n\n   This monument, discovered by chance amidst rubbish in the environs of\n   an ancient capital of the Chinese Empire, excited a great sensation;\n   for on examining the stone, and endeavoring to interpret the\n   inscription, it was with surprise discovered that the Christian\n   religion had had numerous apostles in China at the beginning of the\n   seventh century, and that it had for a long time flourished there. The\n   strange characters proved to be those called _estrang\u00e9lhos_, which were\n   in use among the ancient inhabitants of Syria, and will be found in\n   some Syriac manuscripts of earlier date than the eighth century.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n   _Monument of the great Propagation of the Luminous Doctrine in the\n   Central Empire, composed by Khing-Tsing, a devout Man of the Temple of\n   Ta-Thsin._\n\n\n   1. There has always been only one true Cause, essentially the first,\n   and without beginning, supremely intelligent and immaterial;\n   essentially the last, and uniting all perfections. He placed the poles\n   of the heavens and created all beings; marvellously holy, he is the\n   source of all perfection. This admirable being, is he not the _Triune_,\n   the true Lord without beginning, _Oloho_?\n\n   He divided the world by a cross into four parts. After having\n   decomposed the primordial air, he gave birth to the two elements.\n\n   Chaos was transformed, and then the sun and the moon appeared. He made\n   the sun and the moon move to produce day and night. He elaborated and\n   perfected the ten thousand things; but in creating the first man, he\n   endowed him with perfect interior harmony. He enjoined him to watch\n   over the sea of his desires. His nature was without vice and without\n   error; his heart, pure and simple, was originally without disorderly\n   appetites.\n\n   2. But Sa-Thang propagated lies, and stained by his malice that which\n   had been pure and holy. He proclaimed, as a truth, the equality of\n   greatness, and upset all ideas. This is why three hundred and\n   sixty-five sects, lending each other a mutual support, formed a long\n   chain, and wove, so to speak, a net of law. Some put the creature in\n   the place of the Eternal, others denied the existence of beings, and\n   destroyed the two principles. Others instituted prayers and sacrifices\n   to obtain good fortune; others proclaimed their own sanctity to deceive\n   mankind. The minds of men labored, and were filled with anxiety;\n   aspirations after the supreme good were trampled down; thus perpetually\n   floating about they attained to nothing, and all went from bad to\n   worse. The darkness thickened, men lost their sight, and for a long\n   time they wandered without being able to find it again.\n\n   3. Then our Triune God communicated his substance to the very venerable\n   Mi-chi-ho (Messiah), who, veiling his true majesty, appeared in the\n   world in the likeness of a man. The celestial spirits manifested their\n   joy, and a virgin brought forth the saint in Ta-Thsin. The most\n   splendid constellations announced this happy event; the Persians saw\n   the splendor, and ran to pay tribute. He fulfilled what was said of old\n   by the twenty-four saints; he organized, by his precepts, both families\n   and kingdoms; he instituted the new religion according to the true\n   notion of the Trinity in Unity; he regulated conscience by the true\n   faith; he signified to the world the eight commandments, and purged\n   humanity from its pollutions by opening the door to the three virtues.\n   He diffused life and extinguished death; he suspended the luminous sun\n   to destroy the dwelling of darkness, and then the lies of demons passed\n   away. He directed the bark of mercy towards the palace of light, and\n   all creatures endowed with intelligence have been succored. After\n   having consummated this act of power, he rose at midday towards the\n   Truth. Twenty-seven books have been left. He has enlarged the springs\n   of mercy, that men might be converted. The baptism by water and by the\n   Spirit is a law that purifies the soul and beautifies the exterior. The\n   sign of the cross unites the four quarters of the world, and restores\n   the harmony that had been destroyed. By striking upon a piece of wood,\n   we make the voice of charity and mercy resound; by sacrificing towards\n   the east we indicate the way of life and glory.\n\n   Our ministers allow their beards to grow, to show that they are devoted\n   to their neighbors. The tonsure that they wear at the top of their\n   heads indicates that they have renounced worldly desires. In giving\n   liberty to slaves we become a link between the powerful and weak. We do\n   not accumulate riches, and we share with the poor that which we\n   possess. Fasting strengthens the intellectual powers, abstinence and\n   moderation preserve health. We worship seven times a day, and by our\n   prayers we aid the living and the dead. On the seventh day we offer\n   sacrifice, after having purified our hearts and received absolution for\n   our sins. This religion, so perfect and so excellent, is difficult to\n   name, but it enlightens darkness by its brilliant precepts. It is\n   called the Luminous Religion.\n\n   5. Learning alone without sanctity has no grandeur, sanctity without\n   learning makes no progress. When learning and sanctity proceed\n   harmoniously, the universe is adorned and resplendent.\n\n   The Emperor Tai-Tsoung illustrated the Empire. He opened the\n   revolution, and governed men in holiness. In his time there was a man\n   of high virtue named Olopen, who came from the kingdom of Ta-Thsin.\n   Directed by the blue clouds, he bore the Scriptures of the true\n   doctrine; he observed the rules of the winds, and traversed difficult\n   and perilous countries\n\n   In the ninth year of Tching-Kouan (636) he arrived at Tehang-ngan. The\n   Emperor ordered Fang-hi-wen-Ling, first minister of the Empire, to go\n   with a great train of attendants to the western suburb, to meet the\n   stranger and bring him to the palace. He had the Holy Scriptures\n   translated in the Imperial library. The court listened to the doctrine,\n   meditated on it profoundly, and understood the great unity of truth. A\n   special edict was promulgated for its publication and diffusion.\n\n   In the twelfth year of Tching-Kouan, in the seventh moon, during the\n   autumn, the new edict was promulgated in these terms:--\n\n   The doctrine has no fixed name, the holy has no determinate substance;\n   it institutes religions suitable to various countries, and carries men\n   in crowds in its tracks. Olopen, a man of Ta-Thsin, and of a lofty\n   virtue, bearing Scriptures and images, has come to offer them in the\n   Supreme Court. After a minute examination of the spirit of this\n   religion, it has been found to be excellent, mysterious, and pacific.\n   The contemplation of its radical principle gives birth to perfection\n   and fixes the will. It is exempt from verbosity; it considers only good\n   results. It is useful to men, and consequently ought to be published\n   under the whole extent of the heavens. I, therefore, command the\n   magistrates to have a Ta-Thsin temple constructed in the quarter named\n   T-ning of the Imperial city, and twenty-one religious men shall be\n   installed therein.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n   10. Sou-Tsoung, the illustrious and brilliant emperor, erected at\n   Ling-on and other towns, five in all, _luminous_ temples. The primitive\n   good was thus strengthened, and felicity flourished. Joyous solemnities\n   were inaugurated, and the Empire entered on a wide course of\n   prosperity.\n\n   11. Tai-Tsoung (764), a lettered and a warlike emperor, propagated the\n   holy revolution. He sought for peace and tranquillity. Every year, at\n   the hour of the Nativity (Christmas), he burnt celestial perfumes in\n   remembrance of the divine benefit; he prepared imperial feasts, to\n   honor the _luminous_ (Christian) multitude.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n   21. This stone was raised in the second year of Kien-Tchoung of the\n   great dynasty of Thang (A.D. 781), on the seventh day of the moon of\n   the great increase. At this time the devout Ning-Chou, lord of the\n   doctrine, governed the luminous multitude in the Eastern country.\n\n   Such is the translation of the famous inscription found at Si-ngau-Fou,\n   in 1625. On the left of the monument are to be read the following words\n   in the Syriac language: \"In the days of the Father of Fathers,\n   Anan-Yeschouah, Patriarch _Catholicos_.\" To the right can be traced,\n   \"Adam, Priest, and Chor-Episcopus\"; and at the base of the inscription:\n   \"In the year of the Greeks one thousand nine hundred and two (A.D.\n   781), Mar Yezd-bouzid, Priest and Chor-Episcopus of the Imperial city\n   of Komdam, son of Millesins, priest of happy memory, of Balkh, a town\n   of Tokharistan (Turkistan), raised this tablet of stone, on which are\n   described the benefits of our Saviour, and the preaching of our fathers\n   in the kingdom of the Chinese. Adam, Deacon, son of Yezd-bouzid,\n   Chor-Episcopus; Sabar-Jesu, Priest; Gabriel, Priest, Archdeacon, and\n   Ecclesiarch of Komdam and Sarage.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n   The abridgment of Christian doctrine given in the Syro-Chinese\n   inscription of Si-ngau-Fou shows us, also, that the propagators of the\n   faith in Upper Asia in the seventh century professed the Nestorian\n   errors.\n\n   Through the vague and obscure verbiage which characterizes the Chinese\n   style, we recognize the mode in which that heresiarch admitted the\n   union of the Word with man, by indwelling plenitude of grace superior\n   to that of all the saints. One of the persons of the Trinity\n   communicated himself to the very illustrious and venerable Messiah,\n   \"veiling his majesty.\" That is certainly the doctrine of Nestorius;\n   upon that point the authority of the critics is unanimous.\n\n   History, as we have elsewhere remarked, records the rapid progress of\n   the Nestorian sects in the interior of Asia, and their being able to\n   hold their ground, even under the sway of the Mussulmans, by means of\n   compromises and concessions of every kind.\n\n   Setting out from the banks of the Tigris or the Euphrates, these ardent\n   and courageous propagators of the Gospel probably proceeded to\n   Khorassan, and then crossing the Oxus, directed their course toward the\n   Lake of Lop, and entered the Chinese Empire by the province of Chen-si.\n   Olopen, and his successors in the Christian mission, whether Syrians or\n   Persians by birth, certainly belonged to the Nestorian church.\n\n   Voltaire, who did not like to trouble himself with scientific\n   arguments, and who was much stronger in sarcasm than in erudition,\n   roundly accuses the missionaries of having fabricated the inscription\n   on the monument of Si-ngau-Fou, from motives of \"pious fraud.\" \"As if,\"\n   says Remusat, \"such a fabrication could have been practicable in the\n   midst of a distrustful and suspicious nation, in a country in which\n   magistrates and private people are equally ill-disposed towards\n   foreigners, and especially missionaries, where all eyes are open to\n   their most trivial proceedings, and where the authorities watch with\n   the most jealous care over everything relating to the historical\n   traditions and monuments of antiquity. It would be very difficult to\n   explain how the missionaries could have been bold enough to have\n   printed and published in China, and in Chinese, an inscription that had\n   never existed, and how they could have imitated the Chinese style,\n   counterfeited the manner of the writers of the dynasty of Thang,\n   alluded to customs little known, to local circumstances, to dates\n   calculated from the mysterious figures of Chinese astrology, and the\n   whole without betraying themselves for a moment; and with such\n   perfection as to impose on the most skilful men of letters, induced, of\n   course, by the singularity of the discovery to dispute its\n   authenticity. It could only have been done by one of the most erudite\n   of Chinese scholars, joining with the missionaries to impose on his own\n   countrymen.\"\n\n   \"Even that would not be all, for the borders of the inscription are\n   covered with Syrian names in fine _estrangh\u00e9lo_ characters. The forgers\n   must, then, have been not only acquainted with these characters, but\n   have been able to get engraved with perfect exactness ninety lines of\n   them, and in the ancient writing, known at present to very few.\"\n\n   \"This argument of Remusat's,\" says another learned Orientalist, M.\n   Felix Neve, \"is of irresistible force, and we have formerly heard a\n   similar one maintained with the greatest confidence by M. Quatrem\u00e8re,\n   of the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles-Lettres, and we allow\n   ourselves to quote the opinion of so highly qualified a judge upon this\n   point. Before the last century it would have been absolutely impossible\n   to forge in Europe a series of names and titles belonging to a\n   Christian nation of Western Asia; it is only since the fruits of\n   Assemam's labors have been made public by his family at Rome, that\n   there existed a sufficient knowledge of the Syriac for such a purpose;\n   and it is only by the publication of the manuscripts of the Vatican,\n   that the extent to which Nestorianism spread in the centre of Asia, and\n   the influence of its hierarchy in the Persian provinces could have been\n   estimated. There is no reason to suppose that missionaries who left\n   Europe in the very beginning of the seventeenth century could have\n   acquired a knowledge which could only be obtained from reading the\n   originals and not vague accounts of them.\"\n\n   The sagacity of M. Saint Martin, who was for a long time the colleague\n   of M. Quatrem\u00e8re, has pointed out in a note worthy of his erudition,\n   another special proof, which is by no means to be neglected.\n\n   \"Amongst the various arguments,\" he says, \"that might be urged in favor\n   of the legitimacy of the monument, but of which, as yet, no use has\n   been made, must not be forgotten the name of the priest by whom it is\n   said to have been erected. The name _Yezd-bouzid_ is Persian, and at\n   the epoch when the monument was discovered it would have been\n   impossible to invent it, as there existed no work where it could have\n   been found. Indeed, I do not think that, even since then, there has\n   ever been any one published in which it could have been met with.\n\n   \"It is a very celebrated name among the Armenians, and comes to them\n   from a martyr, a Persian by birth, and of the royal race, who perished\n   towards the middle of the seventh century, and rendered his name\n   illustrious amongst the Christian nations of the East.\" Saint Martin\n   adds in the same place, that the famous monument of Si-ngau-Fou, whose\n   authenticity has for a long time been called in question from the\n   hatred entertained against the Jesuit missionaries who discovered it,\n   rather than from a candid examination of its contents, is now regarded\n   as above all suspicion.\n\n\n\n\nChapter III.\n\nBrahmanism.\n\n\n\n  \u00a7 1. Our Knowledge of Brahmanism. Sir William Jones.\n  \u00a7 2. Difficulty of this Study. The Complexity of the System. The Hindoos\n         have no History. Their Ultra-Spiritualism.\n  \u00a7 3. Helps from Comparative Philology. The Aryans in Central Asia.\n  \u00a7 4. The Aryans in India. The Native Races. The Vedic Age. Theology of\n         the Vedas.\n  \u00a7 5. Second Period. Laws of Manu. The Brahmanic Age.\n  \u00a7 6. The Three Hindoo Systems of Philosophy,--the S\u00e1nkhya, Vedanta, and\n         Nyasa.\n  \u00a7 7. Origin of the Hindoo Triad.\n  \u00a7 8. The Epics, the Puranas, and Modern Hindoo Worship.\n  \u00a7 9. Relation of Brahmanism to Christianity.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 1. Our Knowledge of Brahmanism. Sir William Jones.\n\n\nIt is more than forty years since the writer, then a boy, was one day\nsearching among the heavy works of a learned library in the country to\nfind some entertaining reading for a summer afternoon. It was a library\nrich in theology, in Greek and Latin classics, in French and Spanish\nliterature, but contained little to amuse a child. Led by some happy\nfortune, in turning over a pile of the \"Monthly Anthology\" his eye was\nattracted by the title of a play, \"S\u00e1contala,[30] or the Fatal Ring; an\nIndian Drama, translated from the original Sanskrit and Pracrit. Calcutta,\n1789,\" and reprinted in the Anthology in successive numbers. Gathering\nthem together, the boy took them into a great chestnut-tree, amid the\nlimbs of which he had constructed a study, and there, in the warm,\nfragrant shade, read hour after hour this bewitching story. The tale was\nsuited to the day and the scene,--filled with images of tender girls and\nreligious sages, who lived amid a tropical abundance of flowers and\nfruits; so blending the beauty of nature with the charm of love. Nature\nbecomes in it alive, and is interpenetrated with human sentiments.\nS\u00e1kuntal\u00e1 loves the flowers as sisters; the K\u00e9sara-tree beckons to her\nwith its waving blossoms, and clings to her in affection as she bends over\nit. The jasmine, the wife of the mango-tree, embraces her lord, who leans\ndown to protect his blooming bride, \"the moonlight of the grove.\" The holy\nhermits defend the timid fawn from the hunters, and the birds, grown tame\nin their peaceful solitudes, look tranquilly on the intruder. The demons\noccasionally disturb the sacrificial rites, but, like well-educated\ndemons, retire at once, as soon as the protecting Raja enters the sacred\ngrove. All breathes of love, gentle and generous sentiment, and quiet joys\nin the bosom of a luxuriant and beautiful summer land. Thus, in this poem,\nwritten a hundred years before Christ, we find that romantic view of\nnature, unknown to the Greeks and Romans, and first appearing in our own\ntime in such writers as Rousseau, Goethe, and Byron.\n\nHe who translated this poem into a European language, and communicated it\nto modern readers, was Sir William Jones, one of the few first-class\nscholars whom the world has produced. In him was joined a marvellous gift\nof language with a love for truth and beauty, which detected by an\ninfallible instinct what was worth knowing, in the mighty maze of Oriental\nliterature. He had also the rare good fortune of being the first to\ndiscover this domain of literature in Asia, unknown to the West till he\ncame to reveal it. The vast realm of Hindoo, Chinese, and Persian genius\nwas as much a new continent to Europe, when discovered by Sir William\nJones, as America was when made known by Columbus. Its riches had been\naccumulating during thousands of years, waiting till the fortunate man\nshould arrive, destined to reveal to our age the barbaric pearl and gold\nof the gorgeous East,--the true wealth of Ormus and of Ind.\n\nSir William Jones came well equipped for his task. Some men are born\nphilologians, loving _words_ for their own sake,--men to whom the devious\npaths of language are open highways; who, as Lord Bacon says, \"have come\nforth from the second general curse, which was the confusion of tongues,\nby the art of grammar.\" Sir William Jones was one of these, perhaps the\ngreatest of them. A paper in his own handwriting tells us that he knew\ncritically eight languages,--English, Latin, French, Italian, Greek,\nArabic, Persian, and Sanskrit; less perfectly eight others,--Spanish,\nPortuguese, German, Runic, Hebrew, Bengali, Hindi, Turkish; and was\nmoderately familiar with twelve more,--Tibetian, P\u00e2li, Phalavi, Deri,\nRussian, Syriac, Ethiopic, Coptic, Welsh, Swedish, Dutch, and Chinese.\nThere have been, perhaps, other scholars who have known as many tongues as\nthis. But usually they are crushed by their own accumulations, and we\nnever hear of their accomplishing anything. Sir William Jones was not one\nof these, \"deep versed in books, and shallow in himself.\" Language was his\ninstrument, but knowledge his aim. So, when he had mastered Sanskrit and\nother Oriental languages, he rendered into English not only S\u00e1kuntal\u00e1, but\na far more important work, \"The Laws of Manu\"; \"almost the only work in\nSanskrit,\" says Max M\u00fcller, \"the early date of which, assigned to it by\nSir William Jones from the first, has not been assailed.\" He also\ntranslated from the Sanskrit the fables of Hitopadesa, extracts from the\nVedas, and shorter pieces. He formed a society in Calcutta for the study\nof Oriental literature, was its first president, and contributed numerous\nessays, all valuable, to its periodical, the \"Asiatic Researches.\" He\nwrote a grammar of the Persian language, and translated from Persian into\nFrench the history of Nadir Shah. From the Arabic he also translated many\npieces, and among them the Seven Poems suspended in the temple at Mecca,\nwhich, in their subjects and style, seem an Arabic anticipation of Walt\nWhitman. He wrote in Latin a Book of Commentaries on Asiatic Poetry, in\nEnglish several works on the Mohammedan and Civil Law, with a translation\nof the Greek Orations of Is\u00e6us. As a lawyer, a judge, a student of natural\nhistory, his ardor of study was equally apparent. He presented to the\nRoyal Society in London a large collection of valuable Oriental\nmanuscripts, and left a long list of studies in Sanskrit to be pursued by\nthose who should come after him. His generous nature showed itself in his\nopposition to slavery and the slave-trade, and his open sympathy with the\nAmerican Revolution. His correspondence was large, including such names as\nthose of Benjamin Franklin, Sir Joseph Banks, Lord Monboddo, Gibbon,\nWarren Hastings, Dr. Price, Edmund Burke, and Dr. Parr. Such a man ought\nto be remembered, especially by all who take an interest in the studies to\nwhich he has opened the way, for he was one who had a right to speak of\nhimself, as he has spoken in these lines:--\n\n    \"Before thy mystic altar, heavenly truth,\n    I kneel in manhood, as I knelt in youth.\n    Thus let me kneel, till this dull form decay,\n    And life's last shade be brightened by thy ray,\n    Then shall my soul, now lost in clouds below,\n    Soar without bound, without consuming glow.\"\n\nSince the days of Sir William Jones immense progress has been made in the\nstudy of Sanskrit literature, especially within the last thirty or forty\nyears, from the time when the Schlegels led the way in this department.\nNow, professors of Sanskrit are to be found in all the great European\nuniversities, and in this country we have at least one Sanskrit scholar of\nthe very highest order, Professor William D. Whitney, of Yale. The system\nof Brahmanism, which a short time since could only be known to Western\nreaders by means of the writings of Colebrooke, Wilkins, Wilson, and a few\nothers, has now been made accessible by the works of Lassen, Max M\u00fcller,\nBurnouf, Muir, Pictet, Bopp, Weber, Windischmann, Vivien de Saint-Martin,\nand a multitude of eminent writers in France, England, and Germany.[31]\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. Difficulty of this Study. The Complexity of the System. The Hindoos\nhave no History. Their Ultra-Spiritualism.\n\n\nBut, notwithstanding these many helps, Brahmanism remains a difficult\nstudy. Its source is not in a man, but in a caste. It is not the religion\nof a Confucius, a Zoroaster, a Mohammed, but the religion of the Brahmans.\nWe call it Brahmanism, and it can be traced to no individual as its\nfounder or restorer. There is no personality about it.[32] It is a vast\nworld of ideas, but wanting the unity which is given by the life of a man,\nits embodiment and representative.\n\nBut what a system? How large, how difficult to understand! So vast, so\ncomplicated, so full of contradictions, so various and changeable, that\nits very immensity is our refuge! We say, It is impossible to do justice\nto such a system; therefore do not demand it of us.\n\nIndia has been a land of mystery from the earliest times. From the most\nancient days we hear of India as the most populous nation of the world,\nfull of barbaric wealth and a strange wisdom. It has attracted conquerors,\nand has been overrun by the armies of Semiramis, Darius, Alexander; by\nMahmud, and Tamerlane, and Nadir Shah; by Lord Clive and the Duke of\nWellington. These conquerors, from the Assyrian Queen to the British\nMercantile Company, have overrun and plundered India, but have left it the\nsame unintelligible, unchangeable, and marvellous country as before. It is\nthe same land now which the soldiers of Alexander described,--the land of\ngrotto temples dug out of solid porphyry; of one of the most ancient Pagan\nreligions of the world; of social distinctions fixed and permanent as the\nearth itself; of the sacred Ganges; of the idols of Juggernaut, with its\nbloody worship; the land of elephants and tigers; of fields of rice and\ngroves of palm; of treasuries filled with chests of gold, heaps of pearls,\ndiamonds, and incense. But, above all, it is the land of unintelligible\nsystems of belief, of puzzling incongruities, and irreconcilable\ncontradictions.\n\nThe Hindoos have sacred books of great antiquity, and a rich literature\nextending back twenty or thirty centuries; yet no history, no chronology,\nno annals. They have a philosophy as acute, profound and, spiritual as any\nin the world, which is yet harmoniously associated with the coarsest\nsuperstitions. With a belief so abstract that it almost escapes the grasp\nof the most speculative intellect, is joined the notion that sin can be\natoned for by bathing in the Ganges or repeating a text of the Veda. With\nan ideal pantheism resembling that of Hegel, is united the opinion that\nBrahma and Siva can be driven from the throne of the universe by any one\nwho will sacrifice a sufficient number of wild horses. To abstract one's\nself from matter, to renounce all the gratification of the senses, to\nmacerate the body, is thought the true road to felicity; and nowhere in\nthe world are luxury, licentiousness and the gratification of the\nappetites carried so far. Every civil right and privilege of ruler and\nsubject is fixed in a code of laws, and a body of jurisprudence older far\nthan the Christian era, and the object of universal reverence; but the\napplication of these laws rests (says Rhode) on the arbitrary decisions of\nthe priests, and their execution on the will of the sovereign. The\nconstitution of India is therefore like a house without a foundation and\nwithout a roof. It is a principle of Hindoo religion not to kill a worm,\nnot even to tread on a blade of grass, for fear of injuring life; but the\ntorments, cruelties, and bloodshed inflicted by Indian tyrants would shock\na Nero or a Borgia. Half the best informed writers on India will tell you\nthat the Brahmanical religion is pure monotheism; the other half as\nconfidently assert that they worship a million gods. Some teach us that\nthe Hindoos are spiritualists and pantheists; others that their idolatry\nis more gross than that of any living people.\n\nIs there any way of reconciling these inconsistencies? If we cannot find\nsuch an explanation, there is at least one central point where we may\nplace ourselves; one elevated position, from which this mighty maze will\nnot seem wholly without a plan. In India the whole tendency of thought is\nideal, the whole religion a pure spiritualism. An ultra, one-sided\nidealism is the central tendency of the Hindoo mind. The God of Brahmanism\nis an intelligence, absorbed in the rest of profound contemplation. The\ngood man of this religion is he who withdraws from an evil world into\nabstract thought.\n\nNothing else explains the Hindoo character as this does. An eminently\nreligious people, it is their one-sided spiritualism, their extreme\nidealism, which gives rise to all their incongruities. They have no\nhistory and no authentic chronology, for history belongs to this world,\nand chronology belongs to time. But this world and time are to them wholly\nuninteresting; God and eternity are all in all. They torture themselves\nwith self-inflicted torments; for the body is the great enemy of the\nsoul's salvation, and they must beat it down by ascetic mortifications.\nBut asceticism, here as everywhere else, tends to self-indulgence, since\none extreme produces another. In one part of India, therefore, devotees\nare swinging on hooks in honor of Siva, hanging themselves by the feet,\nhead downwards, over a fire, rolling on a bed of prickly thorns, jumping\non a couch filled with sharp knives, boring holes in their tongues, and\nsticking their bodies full of pins and needles, or perhaps holding the\narms over the head till they stiffen in that position. Meantime in other\nplaces whole regions are given over to sensual indulgences, and companies\nof abandoned women are connected with different temples and consecrate\ntheir gains to the support of their worship.\n\nAs one-sided spiritualism will manifest itself in morals in the two forms\nof austerity and sensuality, so in religion it shows itself in the\nopposite direction of an ideal pantheism and a gross idolatry.\nSpiritualism first fills the world full of God, and this is a true and\nChristian view of things. But it takes another step, which is to deny all\nreal existence to the world, and so runs into a false pantheism. It first\nsays, truly, \"There is nothing _without_ God.\" It next says, falsely,\n\"There is nothing _but_ God.\" This second step was taken in India by means\nof the doctrine of _Maya_, or _Illusion. Maya_ means the delusive shows\nwhich spirit assumes. For there is nothing but spirit; which neither\ncreates nor is created, neither acts nor suffers, which cannot change, and\ninto which all souls are absorbed when they free themselves by meditation\nfrom the belief that they suffer or are happy, that they can experience\neither pleasure or pain. The next step is to polytheism. For if God\nneither creates nor destroys, but only seems to create and destroy, these\n_appearances_ are not united together as being the acts of one Being, but\nare separate, independent phenomena. When you remove personality from the\nconception of God, as you do in removing will, you remove unity. Now if\ncreation be an illusion, and there be no creation, still the _appearance_\nof creation is a fact. But as there is no substance but spirit, this\n_appearance_ must have its cause in spirit, that is, is a _divine_\nappearance, is God. So destruction, in the same way, is an appearance of\nGod, and reproduction is an appearance of God, and every other appearance\nin nature is a manifestation of God. But the unity of will and person\nbeing taken away, we have not one God, but a multitude of gods,--or\npolytheism.\n\nHaving begun this career of thought, no course was possible for the human\nmind to pursue but this. An ultra spiritualism must become pantheism, and\npantheism must go on to polytheism. In India this is not a theory, but a\nhistory. We find, side by side, a spiritualism which denies the existence\nof anything but motionless spirit or Brahm, and a polytheism which\nbelieves and worships Brahma the Creator, Siva the Destroyer, Vischnu the\nPreserver, Indra the God of the Heavens, the Sactis or energies of the\ngods, Krishna the Hindoo Apollo, Doorga, and a host of others, innumerable\nas the changes and appearances of things.\n\nBut such a system as this must necessarily lead also to idolatry. There is\nin the human mind a tendency to worship, and men must worship something.\nBut they believe in one Being, the absolute Spirit, the supreme and only\nGod,--Para Brahm; _him_ they cannot worship, for he is literally an\nunknown God. He has no qualities; no attributes, no activity. He is\nneither the object of hope, fear, love, nor aversion. Since there is\nnothing in the universe but spirit and illusive appearances, and they\ncannot worship spirit because it is absolutely unknown, they must worship\nthese appearances, which are at any rate _divine_ appearances, and which\ndo possess some traits, qualities, character; _are_ objects of hope and\nfear. But they cannot worship them as appearances, they must worship them\nas persons. But if they have an inward personality or soul, they become\nreal beings, and also beings independent of Brahm, whose appearances they\nare. They must therefore have an outward personality; in other words, a\nbody, a shape, emblematical and characteristic; that is to say, they\nbecome idols.\n\nAccordingly idol-worship is universal in India. The most horrible and\ngrotesque images are carved in the stone of the grottos, stand in rude,\nblock-like statues in the temple, or are coarsely painted on the walls.\nFigures of men with heads of elephants or of other animals, or with six or\nseven human heads,--sometimes growing in a pyramid, one out of the other,\nsometimes with six hands coming from one shoulder,--grisly and uncouth\nmonsters, like nothing in nature, yet too grotesque for symbols,--such are\nthe objects of the Hindoo worship.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. Helps from Comparative Philology. The Aryans in Central Asia.\n\n\nWe have seen how hopeless the task has appeared of getting any definite\nlight on Hindoo chronology or history. To the ancient Egyptians events\nwere so important that the most trivial incidents of daily life were\nwritten on stone and the imperishable records of the land, covering the\ntombs and obelisks, have patiently waited during long centuries, till\ntheir decipherer should come to read them. To the Hindoos, on the other\nhand, all events were equally unimportant. The most unhistoric people on\nearth, they cared more for the minuti\u00e6 of grammar, or the subtilties of\nmetaphysics, than for the whole of their past. The only date which has\nemerged from this vague antiquity is that of Chandragupta, a contemporary\nof Alexander, and called by the Greek historians Sandracottus. He became\nking B.C. 315, and as, at his accession, Buddha had been dead (by Hindoo\nstatement) one hundred and sixty-two years, Buddha may have died B.C. 477.\nWe can thus import a single date from Greek history into that of India.\nThis is the whole.\n\nBut all at once light dawns on us from an unexpected quarter. While we can\nlearn nothing concerning the history of India from its literature, and\nnothing from its inscriptions or carved temples, _language_, comes to our\naid. The fugitive and airy sounds, which seem so fleeting and so\nchangeable, prove to be more durable monuments than brass or granite. The\nstudy of the Sanskrit language has told us a long story concerning the\norigin of the Hindoos. It has rectified the ethnology of Blumenbach, has\ntaught us who were the ancestors of the nations of Europe, and has given\nus the information that one great family, the Indo-European, has done most\nof the work of the world. It shows us that this family consists of seven\nraces,--the Hindoos, the Persians, the^ Greeks, the Romans, who all\nemigrated to the south from the original ancestral home; and the Kelts,\nthe Teutons, and Slavi, who entered Europe on the northern side of the\nCaucasus and the Caspian Sea. This has been accomplished by the new\nscience of Comparative Philology. A comparison of languages has made it\ntoo plain to be questioned, that these seven races were originally one;\nthat they must have emigrated from a region of Central Asia, at the east\nof the Caspian, and northwest of India; that they were originally a\npastoral race, and gradually changed their habits as they descended from\nthose great plains into the valleys of the Indus and the Euphrates. In\nthese seven linguistic families the roots of the most common names are the\nsame; the grammatical constructions are also the same; so that no scholar,\nwho has attended to the subject, can doubt that the seven languages are\nall daughters of one common mother-tongue.\n\nPursuing the subject still further, it has been found possible to\nconjecture with no little confidence what was the condition of family life\nin this great race of Central Asia, before its dispersion. The original\nstock has received the name Aryan. This designation occurs in Manu (II.\n22), who says: \"As far as the eastern and western oceans, between the two\nmountains, lies the land which the wise have named Ar-ya-vesta, or\n_inhabited by honorable men_.\" The people of Iran receive this same\nappellation in the Zend Avesta, with the same meaning of _honorable_.\nHerodotus testifies that the Medes were formerly called \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 (Herod. VII.\n61). Strabo mentions that, in the time of Alexander, the whole region\nabout the Indus was called _Ariana_. In modern times, the word _Iran_ for\nPersia and _Erin_ for Ireland are possible reminiscences of the original\nfamily appellation.\n\nThe Ayrans, long before the age of the Vedas or the Zend Avesta, were\nliving as a pastoral people on the great plains east of the Caspian Sea.\nWhat their condition was at that epoch is deduced by the following method:\nIf it is found that the name of any fact is the same in two or more of the\nseven tribal languages of this stock, it is evident that the name was\ngiven to it before they separated. For there is no reason to suppose that\ntwo nations living wide apart would have independently selected the same\nword for the same object. For example, since we find that _house_ is in\nSanskrit _Damn_ and _Dam_; in Zend, _Demana_; in Greek, \u0394\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2; in Latin,\n_Domus_; in Irish, _Dahm_; in Slavonic, _Domu_,--from which root comes\nalso our English word _Domestic_,--we may be pretty sure that the original\nAryans lived in houses. When we learn that _boat_ was in Sanskrit _Nau_ or\n_nauka_; in Persian, _Naw, nawah;_ in Greek, \u039d\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c2; in Latin, _Navis_; in\nold Irish, _Noi_ or _nai_; in old German, _Nawa_ or _nawi_; and in Polish\n_Nawa_, we cannot doubt that they knew something of what we call in\nEnglish _Nau_tical affairs, or Navigation. But as the words designating\nmasts, sails, yards, &c. differ wholly from each other in all these\nlinguistic families, it is reasonable to infer that the Aryans, before\ntheir dispersion, went only in boats, with oars, on the rivers of their\nland, the Oxus and Jaxartes, and did not sail anywhere on the sea.\n\nPursuing this method, we see that we can ask almost any question\nconcerning the condition of the Aryans, and obtain an answer by means of\nComparative Philology.\n\nWere they a pastoral people? The very word _pastoral_ gives us the answer.\nFor _Pa_ in Sanskrit means to watch, to guard, as men guard cattle,--from\nwhich a whole company of words has come in all the Aryan languages.\n\nThe results of this method of inquiry, so far as given by Pictet, are\nthese. Some 3000 years B.C.,[33] the Aryans, as yet undivided into\nHindoos, Persians, Kelts, Latins, Greeks, Teutons, and Slavi, were living\nin Central Asia, in a region of which Bactriana was the centre. Here they\nmust have remained long enough to have developed their admirable language,\nthe mother-tongue of those which we know. They were essentially a\npastoral, but not a nomad people, having fixed homes. They had oxen,\nhorses, sheep, goats, hogs, and domestic fowls. Herds of cows fed in\npastures, each the property of a community, and each with a cluster of\nstables in the centre. The daughters[34] of the house were the\ndairy-maids; the food was chiefly the products of the dairy and the flesh\nof the cattle. The cow was, however, the most important animal, and gave\nits name to many plants, and even to the clouds and stars, in which men\nsaw heavenly herds passing over the firmament above them.\n\nBut the Aryans were not an exclusively pastoral people; they certainly had\nbarley, and perhaps other cereals, before their dispersion. They possessed\nthe plough, the mill for grinding grain; they had hatchet,[35] hammer,\nauger. The Aryans were acquainted with several metals, among which were\ngold, silver, copper, tin. They knew how to spin and weave to some extent;\nthey were acquainted with pottery. How their houses were built we do not\nknow, but they contained doors, windows, and fireplaces. They had cloaks\nor mantles, they boiled and roasted meat, and certainly used soup. They\nhad lances, swords, the bow and arrow, shields, but not armor. They had\nfamily life, some simple laws, games, the dance, and wind instruments.\nThey had the decimal numeration, and their year was of three hundred and\nsixty days. They worshipped the heaven, earth, sun, fire, water, wind; but\nthere are also plain traces of an earlier monotheism, from which this\nnature-worship proceeded.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4. The Aryans in India. The Native Races. The Vedic Age. Theology of the\nVedas.\n\n\nSo far Comparative Philology takes us, and the next step forward brings us\nto the Vedas, the oldest works in the Hindoo literature, but at least one\nthousand or fifteen hundred years more recent than the times we have been\ndescribing. The Aryans have separated, and the Hindoos are now in India.\nIt is eleven centuries before the time of Alexander. They occupy the\nregion between the Punjaub and the Ganges, and here was accomplished the\ntransition of the Aryans from warlike shepherds into agriculturists and\nbuilders of cities.[36]\n\nThe last hymns of the Vedas were written (says St. Martin) when they\narrived from the Indus at the Ganges, and were building their oldest city,\nat the confluence of that river with the Jumna. Their complexion was then\nwhite, and they call the race whom they conquered, and who afterward were\nmade _Soudras_, or lowest caste, blacks.[37] The chief gods of the Vedic\nage were Indra, Varuna, Agni, Savitri, Soma. The first was the god of the\natmosphere; the second, of the Ocean of light, or Heaven; the third, of\nFire;[38] the fourth, of the Sun; and the fifth, of the Moon. Yama was the\ngod of death. All the powers of nature were personified in turn,--as\nearth, food, wine, months, seasons, day, night, and dawn. Among all these\ndivinities, Indra and Agni were the chief.[39] But behind this incipient\npolytheism lurks the original monotheism,--for each of these gods, in\nturn, becomes the Supreme Being. The universal Deity seems to become\napparent, first in one form of nature and then in another. Such is the\nopinion of Colebrooke, who says that \"the ancient Hindoo religion\nrecognizes but one God, not yet sufficiently discriminating the creature\nfrom the Creator.\" And Max M\u00fcller says: \"The hymns celebrate Varuna,\nIndra, Agni, &c., and each in turn is called supreme. The whole mythology\nis fluent. The powers of nature become moral beings.\"\n\nMax M\u00fcller adds: \"It would be easy to find, in the numerous hymns of the\nVeda, passages in which almost every single god is represented as supreme\nand absolute. Agni is called 'Ruler of the Universe'; Indra is celebrated\nas the Strongest god, and in one hymn it is said, 'Indra is stronger than\nall.' It is said of Soma that 'he conquers every one.'\"\n\nBut clearer traces of monotheism are to be found in the Vedas. In one hymn\nof the Rig-Veda it is said: \"They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni;\nthen he is the well-winged heavenly Garutmat; that which is One, the wise\ncall it many ways; they call it Agni, Yama, Matarisvan.\"\n\nNothing, however, will give us so good an idea of the character of these\nVedic hymns as the hymns themselves. I therefore select a few of the most\nstriking of those which have been translated by Colebrooke, Wilson, M.\nM\u00fcller, E. Bumont, and others.\n\nIn the following, from one of the oldest Vedas, the unity of God seems\nvery clearly expressed.\n\n\n   RIG-VEDA, X. 121.\n\n   \"In the beginning there arose the Source of golden light. He was the\n   only born Lord of all that is. He established the earth, and this sky.\n   Who is the God to whom we shall offer our sacrifice?\n\n   \"He who gives life. He who gives strength; whose blessing all the\n   bright gods desire; whose shadow is immortality, whose shadow is death.\n   Who is the God to whom we shall offer our sacrifice?\n\n   \"He who through his power is the only king of the breathing and\n   awakening world. He who governs all, man and beast. Who is the god to\n   whom we shall offer our sacrifice?\n\n   \"He whose power these snowy mountains, whose power the sea proclaims,\n   with the distant river. He whose these regions are, as it were his two\n   arms. Who is the god to whom we shall offer our sacrifice?\n\n   \"He through whom the sky is bright and the earth firm. He through whom\n   heaven was stablished; nay, the highest heaven. He who measured out the\n   light in the air. Who is the god to whom we shall offer our sacrifice?\n\n   \"He to whom heaven and earth, standing firm by his will, look up,\n   trembling inwardly. He over whom the rising sun shines forth. Who is\n   the god to whom we shall offer our sacrifice?\n\n   \"Wherever the mighty water-clouds went, where they placed the seed and\n   lit the fire, thence arose he who is the only life of the bright gods.\n   Who is the god to whom we shall offer our sacrifice?\n\n   \"He who by his might looked even over the water-clouds, the clouds\n   which gave strength and lit the sacrifice; _he who is God above all\n   gods_. Who is the god to whom we shall offer our sacrifice?\n\n   \"May he not destroy us,--he the creator of the earth,--or he, the\n   righteous, who created heaven; he who also created the bright and\n   mighty waters. Who is the god to whom we shall offer our\n   sacrifices?\"[40]\n\nThe oldest and most striking account of creation is in the eleventh\nchapter of the tenth Book of the Rig-Veda. Colebrooke, Max M\u00fcller, Muir,\nand Goldstucker, all give a translation of this remarkable hymn and speak\nof it with admiration. We take that of Colehrooke, modified by that of\nMuir:--\n\n\n   \"Then there was no entity nor non-entity; no world, no sky, nor aught\n   above it; nothing anywhere, involving or involved; nor water deep and\n   dangerous. Death was not, and therefore no immortality, nor distinction\n   of day or night. But THAT ONE breathed calmly[41] alone with Nature,\n   her who is sustained within him. Other than Him, nothing existed\n   [which] since [has been]. Darkness there was; [for] this universe was\n   enveloped with darkness, and was indistinguishable waters; but that\n   mass, which was covered by the husk, was [at length] produced by the\n   power of contemplation. First desire[42] was formed in his mind; and\n   that became the original productive seed; which the wise, recognizing\n   it by the intellect in their hearts, distinguish as the bond of\n   non-entity with entity.\n\n   \"Did the luminous ray of these [creative acts] expand in the middle, or\n   above, or below? That productive energy became providence [or sentient\n   souls], and matter [or the elements]; Nature, who is sustained within,\n   was inferior; and he who sustains was above.\n\n   \"Who knows exactly, and who shall in this world declare, whence and why\n   this creation took place? The gods are subsequent to the production of\n   this world: then who can know whence it proceeded, or whence this\n   varied world arose, or whether it upholds [itself] or not? He who in\n   the highest heaven is the ruler of this universe,--he knows, or does\n   not know.\"\n\nIf the following hymn, says M\u00fcller, were addressed only to the Almighty,\nomitting the word \"Varuna,\" it would not disturb us in a Christian\nLiturgy:--\n\n\n   1. \"Let me not yet, O Varuna, enter into the house of clay; have mercy,\n   almighty, have mercy.\n\n   2. \"If I go along trembling, like a cloud driven by the wind, have\n   mercy, almighty, have mercy!\n\n   3. \"Through want of strength, thou strong and bright god, have I gone\n   to the wrong shore; have mercy, almighty, have mercy!\n\n   4. \"Thirst came upon the worshipper, though he stood in the midst of\n   the waters; have mercy, almighty, have mercy!\n\n   5. \"Whenever we men, O Varuna, commit an offence before the heavenly\n   host; whenever we break thy law through thoughtlessness; have mercy,\n   almighty, have mercy!\"\n\nOut of a large number of hymns addressed to Indra, M\u00fcller selects one that\nis ascribed to Vasishtha.\n\n\n   1. \"Let no one, not even those who worship thee, delay thee far from\n   us! Even from afar come to our feast! Or, if thou art here, listen to\n   us!\n\n   2. \"For these who here make prayers for thee, sit together near the\n   libation, like flies round the honey. The worshippers, anxious for\n   wealth, have placed their desire upon Indra, as we put our foot upon a\n   chariot.\n\n   3. \"Desirous of riches, I call him who holds the thunderbolt with his\n   arm, and who is a good giver, like as a son calls his father.\n\n   4. \"These libations of Soma, mixed with milk, have been prepared for\n   Indra: thou, armed with the thunderbolt, come with the steeds to drink\n   of them for thy delight; come to the house!\n\n   5. \"May he hear us, for he has ears to hear. He is asked for riches;\n   will he despise our prayers? He could soon give hundreds and\n   thousands;--no one could check him if he wishes to give.\"\n\n   13. \"Make for the sacred gods a hymn that is not small, that is well\n   set and beautiful! Many snares pass by him who abides with Indra\n   through his sacrifice.\n\n   14. \"What mortal dares to attack him who is rich in thee? Through faith\n   in thee, O mighty, the strong acquires spod in the day of battle.\"\n\n   17. \"Thou art well known as the benefactor of every one, whatever\n   battles there be. Every one of these kings of the earth implores thy\n   name, when wishing for help.\n\n   18. \"If I were lord of as much as thou, I should support the sacred\n   bard, thou scatterer of wealth, I should not abandon him to misery.\n\n   19. \"I should award wealth day by day to him who magnifies; I should\n   award it to whosoever it be. We have no other friend but thee, no other\n   happiness, no other father, O mighty!\"\n\n   22. \"We call for thee, O hero, like cows that have not been milked; we\n   praise thee as ruler of all that moves, O Indra, as ruler of all that\n   is immovable.\n\n   23. \"There is no one like thee in heaven and earth; he is not born, and\n   will not be born. O mighty Indra, we call upon thee as we go fighting\n   for cows and horses.\"\n\n\"In this hymn,\" says M\u00fcller, \"Indra is clearly conceived as the Supreme\nGod, and we can hardly understand how a people who had formed so exalted a\nnotion of the Deity and embodied it in the person of Indra, could, at the\nsame sacrifice, invoke other gods with equal praise. When Agni, the lord\nof fire, is addressed by the poet, he is spoken of as the first god, not\ninferior even to Indra. While Agni is invoked Indra is forgotten; there is\nno competition between the two, nor any rivalry between them and other\ngods. This is a most important feature in the religion of the Veda, and\nhas never been taken into consideration by those who have written on the\nhistory of ancient polytheism.\"[43]\n\n\"It is curious,\" says M\u00fcller, \"to watch the almost imperceptible\ntransition by which the phenomena of nature, if reflected in the mind of\nthe poet, assume the character of divine beings. The dawn is frequently\ndescribed in the Veda as it might be described by a modern poet. She is\nthe friend of men, she smiles like a young wife, she is the daughter of\nthe sky.\" \"But the transition from _dev\u00ee_, the bright, to _dev\u00ee_, the\ngoddess, is so easy; the daughter of the sky assumes so readily the same\npersonality which is given to the sky, Dyaus, her father, that we can only\nguess whether in every passage the poet is speaking of a bright\napparition, or of a bright goddess; of a natural vision, or of a visible\ndeity. The following hymn of Vashishtha will serve as an instance:--\n\n   \"She shines upon us, like a young wife, rousing every living being to\n   go to his work. The fire had to be kindled by men; she brought light by\n   striking down darkness.\n\n   \"She rose up, spreading far and wide, and moving towards every one. She\n   grew in brightness, wearing her brilliant garment. The mother of the\n   cows (of the morning clouds), the leader of the days, she shone\n   gold-colored, lovely to behold.\n\n   \"She, the fortunate, who brings the eye of the god, who leads the white\n   and lovely steed (of the sun), the Dawn was seen, revealed by her rays;\n   with brilliant treasures she follows every one.\n\n   \"Thou, who art a blessing where thou art near, drive far away the\n   unfriendly; make the pastures wide, give us safety! Remove the haters,\n   bring treasures! Raise wealth to the worshipper, thou mighty Dawn.\n\n   \"Shine for us with thy best rays, thou bright Dawn, thou who\n   lengthenest our life, thou the love of all, who givest us food, who\n   givest us wealth in cows, horses, and chariots.\n\n   \"Thou, daughter of the sky, thou high-born Dawn, whom the Vasishthas\n   magnify with songs, give us riches high and wide: all ye gods, protect\n   us always with your blessings!\"\n\n\"This hymn, addressed to the Dawn, is a fair specimen of the original\nsimple poetry of the Veda. It has no reference to any special sacrifice,\nit contains no technical expressions, it can hardly be called a hymn, in\nour sense of the word. It is simply a poem expressing, without any effort,\nwithout any display of far-fetched thought or brilliant imagery, the\nfeelings of a man who has watched the approach of the Dawn with mingled\ndelight and awe, and who was moved to give utterance to what he felt in\nmeasured language.\"[44]\n\n\"But there is a charm in these primitive strains discoverable in no other\nclass of poetry. Every word retains something of its radical meaning,\nevery epithet tells, every thought, in spite of the most intricate and\nabrupt expressions, is, if we once disentangle it, true, correct, and\ncomplete.\"[45]\n\nThe Vedic literature is divided by M\u00fcller into four periods, namely, those\nof the Chhandas, Mantra, Br\u00e2hmana, and S\u00fbtras. The Chhandas period\ncontains the oldest hymns of the oldest, or Rig-Veda. To that of the\nMantras belong the later hymns of the same Veda. But the most modern of\nthese are older than the Br\u00e2hmanas. The Br\u00e2hmanas contain theology; the\nolder Mantras are liturgic. M\u00fcller says that the Br\u00e2hmanas, though so very\nancient, are full of pedantry, shallow and insipid grandiloquence and\npriestly conceit. Next to these, in the order of time, are the Upanishads.\nThese are philosophical, and almost the only part of the Vedas which are\nread at the present time. They are believed to contain the highest\nauthority for the different philosophical systems, of which we shall speak\nhereafter. Their authors are unknown. More modern than these are the\nS\u00fbtras. The word \"S\u00fbtra\" means _string_, and they consist of a string of\nshort sentences. Conciseness is the aim in this style, and every doctrine\nis reduced to a skeleton. The numerous S\u00fbtras now extant contain the\ndistilled essence of all the knowledge which the Br\u00e2hmans have collected\nduring centuries of meditation. They belong to the non-revealed\nliterature, as distinguished from the revealed literature,--a distinction\nmade by the Br\u00e2hmans before the time of Buddha. At the time of the\nBuddhist controversy the S\u00fbtras were admitted to be of human origin and\nwere consequently recent works. The distinction between the S\u00fbtras and\nBr\u00e2hmanas is very marked, the second being revealed. The Br\u00e2hmanas were\ncomposed by and for Brahmans and are in three collections. The Ved\u00e2ngas\nare intermediate between the Vedic and non-Vedic literature. P\u00e2nini, the\ngrammarian of India, was said to be contemporary with King Nanda, who was\nthe successor of Chandragupta, the contemporary of Alexander, and\ntherefore in the second half of the fourth century before Christ. Dates\nare so precarious in Indian literature, says Max M\u00fcller, that a\nconfirmation within a century or two is not to be despised. Now the\ngrammarian K\u00e2ty\u00e2yana completed and corrected the grammar of P\u00e2nini, and\nPatanjeli wrote an immense commentary on the two which became so famous as\nto be imported by royal authority into Cashmere, in the first half of the\nfirst century of our era. M\u00fcller considers the limits of the S\u00fbtra period\nto extend from 600 B.C. to 200 B.C. Buddhism before Asoka was but modified\nBrahmanism. The basis of Indian chronology is the date of Chandragupta.\nAll dates before his time are merely hypothetical. Several classical\nwriters speak of him as founding an empire on the Ganges soon after the\ninvasion of Alexander. He was grandfather of Asoka. Indian traditions\nrefer to this king.\n\nReturning to the Br\u00e2hmana period, we notice that between the S\u00fbtras and\nB\u00e2rahmanas come the Aranyakas, which are books written for the recluse. Of\nthese the Upanishads, before mentioned, form part. They presuppose the\nexistence of the Br\u00e2hmanas.\n\nRammohun Roy was surprised that Dr. Rosen should have thought it worth\nwhile to publish the hymns of the Veda, and considered the Upanishads the\nonly Vedic books worth reading. They speak of the divine SELF, of the\nEternal Word in the heavens from which the hymns came. The divine SELF\nthey say is not to be grasped by tradition, reason, or revelation, but\nonly by him whom he himself grasps. In the beginning was Self alone. Atman\nis the SELF in all our selves,--the Divine Self concealed by his own\nqualities. This Self they sometimes call the Undeveloped and sometimes the\nNot-Being. There are ten of the old Upanishads, all of which have been\npublished. Anquetil Du Perron translated fifty into Latin out of Persian.\n\nThe Br\u00e2hmanas are very numerous. M\u00fcller gives stories from them and\nlegends. They relate to sacrifices, to the story of the deluge, and other\nlegends. They substituted these legends for the simple poetry of the\nancient Vedas. They must have extended over at least two hundred years,\nand contained long lists of teachers.\n\nM\u00fcller supposes that writing was unknown when the Rig-Veda was composed.\nThe thousand and ten hymns of the Vedas contain no mention of writing or\nbooks, any more than the Homeric poems. There is no allusion to writing\nduring the whole of the Br\u00e2hmana period, nor even through the S\u00fbtra\nperiod. This seems incredible to us, says M\u00fcller, only because our memory\nhas been systematically debilitated by newspapers and the like during\nmany generations. It was the business of every Brahman to learn by heart\nthe Vedas during the twelve years of his student life. The Guru, or\nteacher, pronounces a group of words, and the pupils repeat after him.\nAfter writing was introduced, the Brahmans were strictly forbidden to read\nthe Vedas, or to write them. C\u00e6sar says the same of the Druids. Even\nP\u00e2nini never alludes to written words or letters. None of the ordinary\nmodern words for book, paper, ink, or writing have been found in any\nancient Sanskrit work. No such words as _volumen_, volume; _liber_, or\ninner bark of a tree; _byblos_, inner bark of papyrus; or book, that is\nbeech wood. But Buddha had learnt to write, as we find by a book\ntranslated into Chinese A.D. 76. In this book Buddha instructs his\nteacher; as in the \"Gospel of the Infancy\" Jesus explains to his teacher\nthe meaning of the Hebrew alphabet. So Buddha tells his teacher the names\nof sixty-four alphabets. The first authentic inscription in India is of\nBuddhist origin, belonging to the third century before Christ.\n\nIn the most ancient Vedic period the language had become complete. There\nis no growing language in the Vedas.\n\nIn regard to the age of these Vedic writings, we will quote the words of\nMax M\u00fcller, at the conclusion of his admirable work on the \"History of\nAncient Sanskrit Literature,\" from which most of this section has been\ntaken:--\n\n\n   \"Oriental scholars are frequently suspected of a desire to make the\n   literature of the Eastern nations appear more ancient than it is. As to\n   myself, I can truly say that nothing would be to me a more welcome\n   discovery, nothing would remove so many doubts and difficulties, as\n   some suggestions as to the manner in which certain of the Vedic hymns\n   could have been added to the original collection during the Br\u00e2hmana or\n   S\u00fbtra periods, or, if possible, by the writers of our MSS., of which\n   most are not older than the fifteenth century. But these MSS., though\n   so modern, are checked by the Anukramanis. Every hymn which stands in\n   our MSS. is counted in the Index of Saunaka, who is anterior to the\n   invasion of Alexander. The S\u00fbtras, belonging to the same period as\n   Saunaka, prove the previous existence of every chapter of the\n   Br\u00e2hmanas; and I doubt whether there is a single hymn in the Sanhit\u00e2\n   of the Rig-Veda which could not be checked by some passage of the\n   Br\u00e2hmanas and S\u00fbtras. The chronological limits assigned to the S\u00fbtra\n   and Br\u00e2hmana periods will seem to most Sanskrit scholars too narrow\n   rather than too wide, and if we assign but two hundred years to the\n   Mantra period, from 800 to 1000 B.C., and an equal number to the\n   Chhandas period, from 1000 to 1200 B.C., we can do so only under the\n   supposition that during the early periods of history the growth of the\n   human mind was more luxuriant than in later times, and that the layers\n   of thought were formed less slowly in the primary than in the tertiary\n   ages of the world.\"\n\nThe Vedic age, according to M\u00fcller, will then be as follows:--\n\n    S\u00fbtra period,    from B.C. 200 to B.C. 600.\n    Br\u00e2hmana period,  \"    \"   600     \"   800.\n    Mantra period,    \"    \"   800     \"  1000.\n    Chhandas period,  \"    \"  1000     \"  1200.\n\nDr. Haug, a high authority, considers the Vedic period to extend from B.C.\n1200 to B.C. 2000, and the very oldest hymns to have been composed B.C.\n2400.\n\nThe principal deity in the oldest Vedas is Indra, God of the air. In Greek\nhe becomes Zeus; in Latin, Jupiter. The hymns to Indra are not unlike some\nof the Psalms of the Old Testament. Indra is called upon as the most\nancient god whom the Fathers worshipped. Next to India comes Agni, fire,\nderived from the root Ag, which means \"to move.\"[46] Fire is worshipped as\nthe principle of motion on earth, as Indra was the moving power above. Not\nonly fire, but the forms of flame, are worshipped and all that belongs to\nit. Entire nature is called Aditi, whose children are named Adityas. M.\nMaury quotes these words from Gotama: \"Aditi is heaven; Aditi is air;\nAditi is mother, father, and son; Aditi is all the gods and the five\nraces; Aditi is whatever is born and will be born; in short, the heavens\nand the earth, the heavens being the father and the earth the mother of\nall things.\" This reminds one of the Greek Zeus-pateer and Gee-m\u00eateer.\nVaruna is the vault of heaven. Mitra is often associated with Varuna in\nthe Vedic hymns. Mitra is the sun, illuminating the day, while Varuna was\nthe sun with an obscure face going back in the darkness from west to east\nto take his luminous disk again. From Mitra seems to be derived the\nPersian Mithra. There are no invocations to the stars in the Veda. But the\nAurora, or Dawn, is the object of great admiration; also, the Aswins, or\ntwin gods, who in Greece become the Dioscuri. The god of storms is Rudra,\nsupposed by some writers to be the same as Siva. The two hostile worships\nof Vishnu and Siva do not appear, however, till long after this time.\nVishnu appears frequently in the Veda, and his three steps are often\nspoken of. These steps measure the heavens. But his real worship came much\nlater.\n\nThe religion of the Vedas was of odes and hymns, a religion of worship by\nsimple adoration. Sometimes there were prayers for temporal blessings,\nsometimes simple sacrifices and libations. Human sacrifices have scarcely\nleft any trace of themselves if they ever existed, unless it be in a\ntypical ceremony reported in one of the Vedas.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5. Second Period. Laws of Manu. The Brahmanic Age.\n\n\nLong after the age of the elder Vedas Brahmanism begins. Its text-book is\nthe Laws of Manu.[47] As yet Vishnu and Siva are not known. The former is\nnamed once, the latter not at all. The writer only knows three Vedas. The\nAtharva-Veda is later. But as Siva is mentioned in the oldest Buddhist\nwritings, it follows that the laws of Manu are older than these. In the\ntime of Manu the Aryans are still living in the valley of the Ganges. The\ncaste system is now in full operation, and the authority of the Brahman is\nraised to its highest point. The Indus and Punjaub are not mentioned; all\nthis is forgotten. This work could not be later than B.C. 700, or earlier\nthan B.C. 1200. It was probably written about B.C. 900 or B.C. 1000. In\nthis view agree Wilson, Lassen, Max M\u00fcller, and Saint-Martin. The Supreme\nDeity is now Brahma, and sacrifice is still the act by which one comes\ninto relation with heaven. Widow-burning is not mentioned in Manu; but it\nappears in the Mahabharata, one of the great epics, which is therefore\nlater.\n\nIn the region of the Sarasvati, a holy river, which formerly emptied into\nthe Indus, but is now lost in a desert, the Aryan race of India was\ntransformed from nomads into a stable community.[48] There they received\ntheir laws, and there their first cities were erected. There were founded\nthe Solar and Lunar monarchies.\n\nThe Manu of the Vedas and he of the Brahmans are very different persons.\nThe first is called in the Vedas the father of mankind. He also escapes\nfrom a deluge by building a ship, which he is advised to do by a fish. He\npreserves the fish, which grows to a great size, and when the flood comes\nacts as a tow-boat to drag the ship of Manu to a mountain.[49] This\naccount is contained in a Brahmana.\n\nThe name of Manu seems afterward to have been given by the Brahmans to the\nauthor of their code. Some extracts from this very interesting volume we\nwill now give, slightly abridged, from Sir William Jones's\ntranslation.[50] From the first book, on Creation:--\n\n   \"The universe existed in darkness, imperceptible, undefinable,\n   undiscoverable, and undiscovered; as if immersed in sleep.\"\n\n   \"Then the self-existing power, undiscovered himself, but making the\n   world discernible, with the five elements and other principles,\n   appeared in undiminished glory, dispelling the gloom.\"\n\n   \"He, whom the mind alone can perceive, whose essence eludes the\n   external organs, who has no visible parts, who exists from eternity,\n   even he, the soul of all beings, shone forth in person.\n\n   \"He having willed to produce various beings from his own divine\n   substance, first with a thought created the waters, and placed in them\n   a productive seed.\"\n\n   \"The seed became an egg bright as gold, blazing like the luminary with\n   a thousand beams, and in that egg he was born himself, in the form of\n   Brahma, the great forefather of all spirits.\n\n   \"The waters are called N\u00e1r\u00e1, because they were the production of Nara,\n   or the spirit of God; and hence they were his first ayana, or place of\n   motion; he hence is named Nara yana, or moving on the waters.\n\n   \"In that egg the great power sat inactive a whole year of the creator,\n   at the close of which, by his thought alone, he caused the egg to\n   divide itself.\n\n   \"And from its two divisions he framed the heaven above and the earth\n   beneath; in the midst he placed the subtile ether, the eight regions,\n   and the permanent receptacle of waters.\n\n   \"From the supreme soul he drew forth mind, existing substantially\n   though unperceived by sense, immaterial; and before mind, or the\n   reasoning power, he produced consciousness, the internal monitor, the\n   ruler.\n\n   \"And before them both he produced the great principle of the soul, or\n   first expansion of the divine idea; and all vital forms endued with the\n   three qualities of goodness, passion, and darkness, and the five\n   perceptions of sense, and the five organs of sensation.\n\n   \"Thus, having at once pervaded with emanations from the Supreme Spirit\n   the minutest portions of fixed principles immensely operative,\n   consciousness and the five perceptions, he framed all creatures.\n\n   \"Thence proceed the great elements, endued with peculiar powers, and\n   mind with operations infinitely subtile, the unperishable cause of all\n   apparent forms.\n\n   \"This universe, therefore, is compacted from the minute portions of\n   those seven divine and active principles, the great soul, or first\n   emanation, consciousness, and five perceptions; a mutable universe from\n   immutable ideas.\n\n   \"Of created things, the most excellent are those which are animated; of\n   the animated, those which subsist by intelligence; of the intelligent,\n   mankind; and of men, the sacerdotal class.\n\n   \"Of priests, those eminent in learning; of the learned, those who know\n   their duty; of those who know it, such as perform it virtuously; and of\n   the virtuous, those who seek beatitude from a perfect acquaintance with\n   scriptural doctrine.\n\n   \"The very birth of Brahmans is a constant incarnation of Dharma, God of\n   justice; for the Brahman is born to promote justice, and to procure\n   ultimate happiness.\n\n   \"When a Brahman springs to light, he is born above the world, the chief\n   of all creatures, assigned to guard the treasury of duties, religious\n   and civil.\n\n   \"The Brahman who studies this book, having performed sacred rites, is\n   perpetually free from offence in thought, in word and in deed.\n\n   \"He confers purity on his living family, on his ancestors, and on his\n   descendants as far as the seventh person, and he alone deserves to\n   possess this whole earth.\"\n\nThe following passages are from Book II., \"On Education and the\nPriesthood\":--\n\n   \"Self-love is no laudable motive, yet an exemption from self-love is\n   not to be found in this world: on self-love is grounded the study of\n   Scripture, and the practice of actions recommended in it.\n\n   \"Eager desire to act has its root in expectation of some advantage; and\n   with such expectation are sacrifices performed; the rules of religious\n   austerity and abstinence from sins are all known to arise from hope of\n   remuneration.\n\n   \"Not a single act here below appears ever to be done by a man free from\n   self-love; whatever he perform, it is wrought from his desire of a\n   reward.\n\n   \"He, indeed, who should persist in discharging these duties without any\n   view to their fruit, would attain hereafter the state of the immortals,\n   and even in this life would enjoy all the virtuous gratifications that\n   his fancy could suggest.\n\n   \"The most excellent of the three classes, being girt with the\n   sacrificial thread, must ask food with the respectful word Dhavati at\n   the beginning of the phrase; those of the second class with that word\n   in the middle; and those of the third with that word at the end.\n\n   \"Let him first beg food of his mother, or of his sister, or of his\n   mother's whole sister; then of some other female who will not disgrace\n   him.\n\n   \"Having collected as much of the desired food as he has occasion for,\n   and having presented it without guile to his preceptor, let him eat\n   some of it, being duly purified, with his face to the east.\n\n   \"If he seek long life, he should eat with his face to the east; if\n   prosperity, to the west; if truth and its reward, to the north.\n\n   \"When the student is going to read the Veda he must perform an\n   ablution, as the law ordains, with his face to the north; and having\n   paid scriptural homage, he must receive instruction, wearing a clean\n   vest, his members being duly composed.\n\n   \"A Brahman beginning and ending a lecture on the Veda must always\n   pronounce to himself the syllable \u00f3m; for unless the syllable \u00f3m\n   precede, his learning will slip away from him; and unless it follow,\n   nothing will be long retained.\n\n   \"A priest who shall know the Veda, and shall pronounce to himself, both\n   morning and evening, that syllable, and that holy text preceded by the\n   three words, shall attain the sanctity which the Veda confers.\n\n   \"And a twice-born man, who shall a thousand times repeat those three\n   (or \u00f3m, the vy\u00e1hr\u012dtis, and the g\u00e1yatri) apart from the multitude, shall\n   be released in a month even from a great offence, as a snake from his\n   slough.\n\n   \"The three great immutable words, preceded by the triliteral syllable,\n   and followed by the g\u00e1yatri, which consists of three measures, must be\n   considered as the mouth, or principal part of the Veda.\n\n   \"The triliteral monosyllable is an emblem of the Supreme; the\n   suppressions of breath, with a mind fixed on God, are the highest\n   devotion; but nothing is more exalted than the g\u00e1yatri; a declaration\n   of truth is more excellent than silence.\n\n   \"All rites ordained in the Veda, oblations to fire, and solemn\n   sacrifices pass away; but that which passes not away is declared to be\n   the syllable \u00f3m, thence called acshara; since it is a symbol of God,\n   the Lord of created beings.\n\n   \"The act of repeating his Holy Name is ten times better than the\n   appointed sacrifice; an hundred times better when it is heard by no\n   man; and a thousand times better when it is purely mental.\n\n   \"To a man contaminated by sensuality, neither the Vedas, nor\n   liberality, nor sacrifices, nor strict observances, nor pious\n   austerities, ever procure felicity.\n\n   \"As he who digs deep with a spade comes to a spring of water, so the\n   student, who humbly serves his teacher, attains the knowledge which\n   lies deep in his teacher's mind.\n\n   \"If the sun should rise and set, while he sleeps through sensual\n   indulgence, and knows it not, he must fast a whole day repeating the\n   g\u00e1yatri.\n\n   \"Let him adore God both at sunrise and at sunset, as the law ordains,\n   having made his ablution, and keeping his organs controlled; and with\n   fixed attention let him repeat the text, which he ought to repeat in a\n   place free from impurity.\n\n   \"The twice-born man who shall thus without intermission have passed the\n   time of his studentship shall ascend after death to the most exalted of\n   regions, and no more again spring to birth in this lower world.\"\n\nThe following passages are from Book IV., \"On Private Morals\":--\n\n   \"Let a Brahman, having dwelt with a preceptor during the first quarter\n   of a man's life, pass the second quarter of human life in his own\n   house, when he has contracted a legal marriage.\n\n   \"He must live with no injury, or with the least possible injury, to\n   animated beings, by pursuing those means of gaining subsistence, which\n   are strictly prescribed by law, except in times of distress.\n\n   \"Let him say what is true, but let him say what is pleasing; let him\n   speak no disagreeable truth, nor let him speak agreeable falsehood;\n   this is a primeval rule.\n\n   \"Let him say 'well and good,' or let him say 'well' only; but let him\n   not maintain fruitless enmity and altercation with any man.\n\n   \"All that depends on another gives pain; and all that depends on\n   himself gives pleasure; let him know this to be in few words the\n   definition of pleasure and pain.\n\n   \"And for whatever purpose a man bestows a gift, for a similar purpose\n   he shall receive, with due honor, a similar reward.\n\n   \"Both he who respectfully bestows a present, and he who respectfully\n   accepts it, shall go to a seat of bliss; but, if they act otherwise, to\n   a region of horror.\n\n   \"Let not a man be proud of his rigorous devotion; let him not, having\n   sacrificed, utter a falsehood; let him not, though injured, insult a\n   priest; having made a donation, let him never proclaim it.\n\n   \"By falsehood the sacrifice becomes vain; by pride the merit of\n   devotion is lost; by insulting priests life is diminished; and by\n   proclaiming a largess its fruit is destroyed.\n\n   \"For in his passage to the next world, neither his father, nor his\n   mother, nor his wife, nor his son, nor his kinsmen will remain his\n   company; his virtue alone will adhere to him.\n\n   \"Single is each man born; single he dies; single he receives the reward\n   of his good, and single the punishment of his evil deeds.\"\n\nFrom Book V., \"On Diet\":--\n\n   \"The twice-born man who has intentionally eaten a mushroom, the flesh\n   of a tame hog, or a town cock, a leek, or an onion, or garlic, is\n   degraded immediately.\n\n   \"But having undesignedly tasted either of those six things, he must\n   perform the penance s\u00e1ntapana, or the ch\u00e1ndr\u00e1yana, which anchorites\n   practise; for other things he must fast a whole day.\n\n   \"One of those harsh penances called pr\u00e1j\u00e1patya the twice-born man must\n   perform annually, to purify him from the unknown taint of illicit food;\n   but he must do particular penance for such food intentionally eaten.\n\n   \"He who injures no animated creature shall attain without hardship\n   whatever he thinks of, whatever he strives for, whatever he fixes his\n   mind on.\n\n   \"Flesh meat cannot be procured without injury to animals, and the\n   slaughter of animals obstructs the path to beatitude; from flesh meat,\n   therefore, let man abstain.\n\n   \"Attentively considering the formation of bodies, and the death or\n   confinement of embodied spirits, let him abstain from eating flesh meat\n   of any kind.\n\n   \"Not a mortal exists more sinful than he who, without an oblation to\n   the manes or the gods, desires to enlarge his own flesh with the flesh\n   of another creature.\n\n   \"By subsisting on pure fruit and on roots, and by eating such grains as\n   are eaten by hermits, a man reaps not so high a reward as by carefully\n   abstaining from animal food.\n\n   \"In lawfully tasting meat, in drinking fermented liquor, in caressing\n   women, there is no turpitude; for to such enjoyments men are naturally\n   prone, but a virtuous abstinence from them produces a signal\n   compensation.\n\n   \"Sacred learning, austere devotion, fire, holy aliment, earth, the\n   mind, water, smearing with cow-dung, air, prescribed acts of religion,\n   the sun, and time are purifiers of embodied spirits.\n\n   \"But of all pure things purity in acquiring wealth is pronounced the\n   most excellent; since he who gains wealth with clean hands is truly\n   pure; not he who is purified merely with earth and water.\n\n   \"By forgiveness of injuries, the learned are purified; by liberality,\n   those who have neglected their duty; by pious meditation, those who\n   have secret faults; by devout austerity, those who best know the Veda.\n\n   \"Bodies are cleansed by water; the mind is purified by truth; the vital\n   spirit, by theology and devotion; the understanding, by clear\n   knowledge.\n\n   \"No sacrifice is allowed to women apart from their husbands, no\n   religious rite, no fasting; as far only as a wife honors her lord, so\n   far she is exalted in heaven.\n\n   \"A faithful wife, who wishes to attain in heaven the mansion of her\n   husband, must do nothing unkind to him, be he living or dead.\n\n   \"Let her emaciate her body by living voluntarily on pure flowers,\n   roots, and fruit; but let her not, when her lord is deceased, even\n   pronounce the name of another man.\n\n   \"Let her continue till death forgiving all injuries, performing harsh\n   duties, avoiding every sensual pleasure, and cheerfully practising the\n   incomparable rules of virtue, which have been followed by such women as\n   were devoted to one only husband.\"\n\nThe Sixth Book of the Laws of Manu relates to devotion. It seems that the\nBrahmans were in the habit of becoming ascetics, or, as the Roman\nCatholics would say, entering Religion. A Brahman, or twice-born man, who\nwishes to become an ascetic, must abandon his home and family, and go to\nlive in the forest. His food must be roots and fruit, his clothing a bark\ngarment or a skin, he must bathe morning and evening, and suffer his hair\nto grow. He must spend his time in reading the Veda, with a mind intent on\nthe Supreme Being, \"a perpetual giver but no receiver of gifts; with\ntender affection for all animated bodies.\" He is to perform various\nsacrifices with offerings of fruits and flowers, practise austerities by\nexposing himself to heat and cold, and \"for the purpose of uniting his\nsoul with the Divine Spirit he must study the Upanishads.\"\n\n   \"A Brahman, having shuffled off his body by these modes, which great\n   sages practise, and becoming void of sorrow and fear, it exalted into\n   the divine essence.\"\n\n   \"Let him not wish for death. Let him not wish for life. Let him expect\n   his appointed time, as the hired servant expects his wages.\"\n\n   \"Meditating on the Supreme Spirit, without any earthly desire, with no\n   companion but his own soul, let him live in this world seeking the\n   bliss of the next.\"\n\nThe anchorite is to beg food, but only once a day; if it is not given to\nhim, he must not be sorrowful, and if he receives it he must not be glad;\nhe is to meditate on the \"subtle indivisible essence of the Supreme\nBeing,\" he is to be careful not to destroy the life of the smallest\ninsect, and he must make atonement for the death of those which he has\nignorantly destroyed by making six suppressions of his breath, repeating\nat the same time the triliteral syllable A U M. He will thus at last\nbecome united with the Eternal Spirit, and his good deeds will be\ninherited by those who love him, and his evil deeds by those who hate him.\n\nThe Seventh Book relates to the duties of rulers. One of these is to\nreward the good and punish the wicked. The genius of punishment is a son\nof Brahma, and has a body of pure light. Punishment is an active ruler,\ngoverns all mankind, dispenses laws, preserves the race, and is the\nperfection of justice. Without it all classes would become corrupt, all\nbarriers would fall, and there would be total confusion. Kings are to\nrespect the Brahmans, must shun vices, must select good counsellors and\nbrave soldiers. A King must be a father to his people. When he goes to war\nhe must observe the rules of honorable warfare, must not use poisoned\narrows, strike a fallen enemy, nor one who sues for life, nor one without\narms, nor one who surrenders. He is not to take too little revenue, and so\n\"cut up his own root\"; nor too much, and so \"cut up the root of others\";\nhe is to be severe when it is necessary, and mild when it is necessary.\n\nThe Eighth Book relates to civil and criminal law. The Raja is to hold his\ncourt every day, assisted by his Brahmans, and decide causes concerning\ndebts and loans, sales, wages, contracts, boundaries, slander, assaults,\nlarceny, robbery, and other crimes. The Raja, \"understanding what is\nexpedient or inexpedient, but considering only what is law or not law,\"\nshould examine all disputes. He must protect unprotected women, restore\nproperty to its rightful owner, not encourage litigation, and decide\naccording to the rules of law. These rules correspond very nearly to our\nlaw of evidence. Witnesses are warned to speak the truth in all cases by\nthe consideration that, though they may think that none see them, the gods\ndistinctly see them and also the spirit in their own breasts.\n\n   \"The soul itself is its own witness, the soul itself is its own refuge;\n   offend not thy conscious soul, the supreme internal witness of men.\"\n\n   \"The fruit of every virtuous act which thou hast done, O good man,\n   since thy birth, shall depart from thee to the dogs, if thou deviate\n   from the truth.\"\n\n   \"O friend to virtue, the Supreme Spirit, which is the same with\n   thyself, resides in thy bosom perpetually, and is an all-knowing\n   inspector of thy goodness or wickedness.\"\n\nThe law then proceeds to describe the punishments which the gods would\ninflict upon false witnesses; but, curiously enough, allows false witness\nto be given, from a benevolent motive, in order to save an innocent man\nfrom a tyrant. This is called \"the venial sin of benevolent falsehood.\"\nThe book then proceeds to describe weights and measures, and the rate of\nusury, which is put down as five percent. It forbids compound interest.\nThe law of deposits occupies a large space, as in all Eastern countries,\nwhere investments are difficult. A good deal is said about the wages of\nservants, especially of those hired to keep cattle, and their\nresponsibilities. The law of slander is carefully laid down. Crimes of\nviolence are also minutely described, and here the _Lex Talionis_ comes\nin. If a man strikes a human being or an animal so as to inflict much\npain, he shall be struck himself in the same way. A man is allowed to\ncorrect with a small stick his wife, son, or servant, but not on the head\nor any noble part of the body. The Brahmans, however, are protected by\nspecial laws.\n\n   \"Never shall the king flay a Brahman, though convicted of all possible\n   crimes: let him banish the offender from his realm, but with all his\n   property secure and his body unhurt.\"\n\n   \"No greater crime is known on earth than flaying a Brahman; and the\n   king, therefore, must not even form in his mind the idea of killing a\n   priest.\"\n\nThe Ninth Book relates to women, to families, and to the law of castes. It\nstates that women must be kept in a state of dependence.\n\n   \"Their fathers protect them in childhood; their husbands protect them\n   in youth; their sons protect them in age. A woman is never fit for\n   independence.\"\n\nIt is the duty of men to watch and guard women, and very unfavorable\nopinions are expressed concerning the female character.\n\n   \"Women have no business with the text of the Veda; this is fully\n   settled; therefore having no knowledge of expiatory texts, sinful women\n   must be as foul as falsehood itself. This is a fixed law.\"\n\nIt is, however, stated that good women become like goddesses, and shall be\njoined with their husbands in heaven; and that a man is only perfect when\nhe consists of three persons united,--his wife, himself, and his son. Manu\nalso attributes to ancient Brahmans a maxim almost verbally the same as\nthat of the Bible, namely, \"The husband is even one person with his wife.\"\nNothing is said by Manu concerning the cremation of widows, but, on the\nother hand, minute directions are given for the behavior of widows during\ntheir life. Directions are also given concerning the marriage of daughters\nand sons and their inheritance of property. The rest of the book is\ndevoted to a further description of crimes and punishments.\n\nThe Tenth Book relates to the mixed classes and times of distress.\n\nThe Eleventh Book relates to penance and expiation. In this book is\nmentioned the remarkable rite which consists in drinking the fermented\njuice of the moon-plant (or acid asclepias) with religious ceremonies.\nThis Hindu sacrament began in the Vedic age, and the Sanhita of the\nSama-Veda consists of hymns to be sung at the moon-plant sacrifice.[51]\nThis ceremony is still practised occasionally in India, and Dr. Hang has\ntasted this sacred beverage, which he describes as astringent, bitter,\nintoxicating, and very disagreeable.[52] It is stated by Manu that no one\nhas a right to drink this sacred juice who does not properly provide for\nhis own household. He encourages sacrifices by declaring that they are\nhighly meritorious and will expiate sin. Involuntary sins require a much\nlighter penance than those committed with knowledge. Crimes committed by\nBrahmans require a less severe penance than those performed by others;\nwhile those committed against Brahmans involve a much deeper guilt and\nrequire severer penance. The law declares:--\n\n   \"From his high birth alone a Brahman is an object of veneration, even\n   to deities, and his declarations are decisive evidence.\"\n\n   \"A Brahman, who has performed an expiation with his whole mind fixed on\n   God, purifies his soul.\"\n\nDrinking intoxicating liquor (except in the Soma sacrifice) is strictly\nprohibited, and it is even declared that a Brahman who tastes intoxicating\nliquor sinks to the low caste of a Sudra. If a Brahman who has tasted the\nSoma juice even smells the breath of a man who has been drinking spirits,\nhe must do penance by repeating the Gayatri, suppressing his breath, and\neating clarified butter. Next to Brahmans, cows were the objects of\nreverence, probably because, in the earliest times, the Aryan race, as\nnomads, depended on this animal for food. He who kills a cow must perform\nvery severe penances, among which are these:--\n\n   \"All day he must wait on a herd of cows and stand quaffing the dust\n   raised by their hoofs; at night, having servilely attended them, he\n   must sit near and guard them.\"\n\n   \"Free from passion, he must stand while they stand, follow when they\n   move, and lie down near them when they lie down.\"\n\n   \"By thus waiting on a herd for three months, he who has killed a cow\n   atones for his guilt.\"\n\nFor such offences as cutting down fruit-trees or grasses, or killing\ninsects, or injuring sentient creatures, the penance is to repeat so many\ntexts of the Veda, to eat clarified butter, or to stop the breath. A\nlow-born man who treats a Brahman disrespectfully, or who even overcomes\nhim in argument, must fast all day and fall prostrate before him. He who\nstrikes a Brahman shall remain in hell a thousand years. Great, however,\nis the power of sincere devotion. By repentance, open confession, reading\nthe Scripture, almsgiving, and reformation, one is released from guilt.\nDevotion, it is said, is equal to the performance of all duties; and even\nthe souls of worms and insects and vegetables attain heaven by the power\nof devotion. But especially great is the sanctifying influence of the\nVedas. He who can repeat the whole of the Rig-Veda would be free from\nguilt, even if he had killed the inhabitants of the three worlds.\n\nThe last book of Manu is on transmigration and final beatitude. The\nprinciple is here laid down that every human action, word, and thought\nbears its appropriate fruit, good or evil. Out of the heart proceed three\nsins of thought, four sins of the tongue, and three of the body, namely,\ncovetous, disobedient, and atheistic thoughts; scurrilous, false,\nfrivolous, and unkind words; and actions of theft, bodily injury, and\nlicentiousness. He who controls his thoughts, words, and actions is called\na triple commander. There are three qualities of the soul, giving it a\ntendency to goodness, to passion, and to darkness. The first leads to\nknowledge, the second to desire, the third to sensuality. To the first\nbelong study of Scripture, devotion, purity, self-command, and obedience.\nFrom the second proceed hypocritical actions, anxiety, disobedience, and\nself-indulgence. The third produces avarice, atheism, indolence, and every\nact which a man is ashamed of doing. The object of the first quality is\nvirtue; of the second, worldly success; of the third, pleasure. The souls\nin which the first quality is supreme rise after death to the condition of\ndeities; those in whom the second rules pass into the bodies of other\nmen; while those under the dominion of the third become beasts and\nvegetables. Manu proceeds to expound, in great detail, this law of\ntransmigration. For great sins one is condemned to pass a great many times\ninto the bodies of dogs, insects, spiders, snakes, or grasses. The change\nhas relation to the crime: thus, he who steals grain shall be born a rat;\nhe who steals meat, a vulture; those who indulge in forbidden pleasures of\nthe senses shall have their senses made acute to endure intense pain.\n\nThe highest of all virtues is disinterested goodness, performed from the\nlove of God, and based on the knowledge of the Veda. A religious action,\nperformed from hope of reward in this world or the next, will give one a\nplace in the lowest heaven. But he who performs good actions without hope\nof reward, \"perceiving the supreme soul in all beings, and all beings in\nthe supreme soul, fixing his mind on God, approaches the divine nature.\"\n\n   \"Let every Brahman, with fixed attention, consider all nature as\n   existing in the Divine Spirit; all worlds as seated in him; he alone as\n   the whole assemblage of gods; and he the author of all human actions.\"\n\n   \"Let him consider the supreme omnipresent intelligence as the sovereign\n   lord of the universe, by whom alone it exists, an incomprehensible\n   spirit; pervading all beings in five elemental forms, and causing them\n   to pass through birth, growth, and decay, and so to revolve like the\n   wheels of a car.\"\n\n   \"Thus the man who perceives in his own soul the supreme soul present in\n   all creatures, acquires equanimity toward them all, and shall be\n   absolved at last in the highest essence, even that of the Almighty\n   himself.\"\n\nWe have given these copious extracts from the Brahmanic law, because this\ncode is so ancient and authentic, and contains the bright consummate\nflower of the system, before decay began to come.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6. The Three Hindoo Systems of Philosophy,--S\u00e1nkhya, Vedanta, and Nyasa.\n\n\nDuncker says[53] that the Indian systems of philosophy were produced in\nthe sixth or seventh century before Christ. As the system of Buddha\nimplies the existence of the S\u00e1nkhya philosophy, the latter must have\npreceded Buddhism.[54] Moreover, Kapila and his two principles are\ndistinctly mentioned in the Laws of Manu,[55] and in the later\nUpanishads.[56] This brings it to the Brahmana period of Max M\u00fcller, B.C.\n600 to B.C. 800, and probably still earlier. Dr. Weber at one time was of\nthe opinion that Kapila and Buddha were the same person, but afterward\nretracted this opinion.[57] Colebrooke says that Kapila is mentioned in\nthe Veda itself, but intimates that this is probably another sage of the\nsame name.[58] The sage was even considered to be an incarnation of\nVischnu, or of Agni. The Vedanta philosophy is also said by Lassen to be\nmentioned in the Laws of Manu.[59] This system is founded on the\nUpanishads, and would seem to be later than that of Kapila, since it\ncriticises his system, and devotes much space to its confutation.[60] But\nDuncker regards it as the oldest, and already beginning in the Upanishads\nof the Vedas.[61] As the oldest works now extant in both systems are later\nthan their origin, this question of date can only be determined from their\ncontents. That which logically precedes the other must be chronologically\nthe oldest.\n\nThe S\u00e1nkhya system of Kapila is contained in many works, but notably in\nthe K\u00e1rik\u00e1, or S\u00e1nkhya-K\u00e1rik\u00e1, by Iswara Krishna. This consists in\neighty-two memorial verses, with a commentary.[62] The Vedanta is\ncontained in the Sutras, the Upanishads, and especially the Brahma-Sutra\nattributed to Vyasa.[63] The Nyaya is to be found in the Sutras of Gotama\nand Canade.[64]\n\nThese three systems of Hindoo philosophy, the S\u00e1nkhya, the Nyaya, and the\nVedanta, reach far back into a misty twilight, which leaves it doubtful\nwhen they began or who were their real authors. In some points they agree,\nin others they are widely opposed. They all agree in having for their\nobject deliverance from the evils of time, change, sorrow, into an eternal\nrest and peace. Their aim is, therefore, not merely speculative, but\npractical. All agree in considering existence to be an evil, understanding\nby existence a life in time and space. All are idealists, to whom the\nworld of sense and time is a delusion and snare, and who regard the Idea\nas the only substance. All agree in accepting the fact of transmigration,\nthe cessation of which brings final deliverance. All consider that the\nmeans of this deliverance is to be found in knowledge, in a perfect\nknowledge of reality as opposed to appearance. And all are held by\nBrahmans, who consider themselves orthodox, who honor the Vedas above all\nother books, pay complete respect to the Hinduism of the day, perform the\ndaily ceremonies, and observe the usual caste rules.[65] The systems of\nphilosophy supplement the religious worship, but are not intended to\ndestroy it. The Vedantists hold that while in truth there is but one God,\nthe various forms of worship in the Vedas, of Indra, Agni, the Maruts,\netc., were all intended for those who could not rise to this sublime\nmonotheism. Those who believe in the S\u00e1nkhya maintain that though it\nwholly omits God, and is called \"the system without a God,\" it merely\nomits, but does not deny, the Divine existence.[66]\n\nEach of these philosophies has a speculative and a practical side. The\nspeculative problem is, How did the universe come? The practical problem\nis, How shall man be delivered from evil?\n\nIn answering the first question, the Vedanta, or Mimansa doctrine,\nproceeds from a single eternal and uncreated Principle; declaring that\nthere is only ONE being in the universe, God or Brahm, and that all else\nis Maya, or illusion. The Sankhya accepts TWO eternal and uncreated\nsubstances, Soul and Nature. The Nyaya assumes THREE eternal and uncreated\nsubstances,--Atoms, Souls, and God.\n\nThe solution of the second problem is the same in all three systems. It is\nby knowledge that the soul is emancipated from body or matter or nature.\nWorship is inadequate, though not to be despised. Action is injurious\nrather than beneficial, for it implies desire. Only knowledge can lead to\nentire rest and peace.\n\nAccording to all three systems, the transmigration of the soul through\ndifferent bodies is an evil resulting from desire. As long as the soul\nwishes anything, it will continue to migrate and to suffer. When it\ngathers itself up into calm insight, it ceases to wander and finds repose.\n\nThe _Vedanta_ or _Mimansa_ is supposed to be referred to in Manu.[67]\n_Mimansa_ means \"searching.\" In its logical forms it adopts the method so\ncommon among the scholastics, in first stating the question, then giving\nthe objection, after that the reply to the objection, and lastly the\nconclusion. The first part of the Mimansa relates to worship and the\nceremonies and ritual of the Veda. The second part teaches the doctrine of\nBrahma. Brahma is the one, eternal, absolute, unchangeable Being. He\nunfolds into the universe as Creator and Created. He becomes first ether,\nthen air, then fire, then water, then earth. From these five elements all\nbodily existence proceeds. Souls are sparks from the central fire of\nBrahma, separated for a time, to be absorbed again at last.\n\nBrahma, in his highest form as Para-Brahm, stands for the Absolute Being.\nThe following extract from the S\u00e1ma-Veda (after Haug's translation)\nexpresses this: \"The generation of Brahma was before all ages, unfolding\nhimself evermore in a beautiful glory; everything which is highest and\neverything which is deepest belongs to him. Being and Not-Being are\nunveiled through Brahma.\"\n\nThe following passage is from a Upanishad, translated by Windischmann:--\n\n\"How can any one teach concerning Brahma? he is neither the known nor the\nunknown. That which cannot be expressed by words, but through which all\nexpression comes, this I know to be Brahma. That which cannot be thought\nby the mind, but by which all thinking comes, this I know is Brahma. That\nwhich cannot be seen by the eye, but by which the eye sees, is Brahma. If\nthou thinkest that thou canst know it, then in truth thou knowest it very\nlittle. To whom it is unknown, he knows it; but to whom it is known, he\nknows it not.\"\n\nThis also is from Windischmann, from the Kathaka Upanishad: \"One cannot\nattain to it through the word, through the mind, or through the eye. It is\nonly reached by him who says, 'It is! It is!' He perceives it in its\nessence. Its essence appears when one perceives it as it is.\"\n\nThe old German expression _Istigkeit_, according to Bunsen, corresponds to\nthis. This also is the name of Jehovah as given to Moses from the burning\nbush: \"And God said unto Moses, I AM THE I AM. Thus shalt thou say unto\nthe children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.\" The idea is that God\nalone really exists, and that the root of all being is in him. This is\nexpressed in another Upanishad: \"HE WHO EXISTS is the root of all\ncreatures; he WHO EXISTS is their foundation, and in him they rest.\"\n\nIn the Vedanta philosophy this speculative pantheism is carried further.\nThus speaks Sankara, the chief teacher of the Vedanta philosophy\n(\"Colebrooke's Essays\"): \"I am the great Brahma, eternal, pure, free, one,\nconstant, happy, existing without end. He who ceases to contemplate other\nthings, who retires into solitude, annihilates his desires, and subjects\nhis passions, he understands that Spirit is the One and the Eternal. The\nwise man annihilates all sensible things in spiritual things, and\ncontemplates that one Spirit who resembles pure space. Brahma is without\nsize, quality, character, or division.\"\n\nAccording to this philosophy (says Bunsen) the world is the Not-Being. It\nis, says Sankara, \"appearance without Being; it is like the deception of a\ndream.\" \"The soul itself,\" he adds, \"has no actual being.\"\n\nThere is an essay on Vedantism in a book published in Calcutta, 1854, by a\nyoung Hindoo, Shoshee Chunder Dutt, which describes the creation as\nproceeding from Maya, in this way: \"Dissatisfied with his own solitude,\nBrahma feels a desire to create worlds, and then the volition ceases so\nfar as he is concerned, and he sinks again into his apathetic happiness,\nwhile the desire, thus willed into existence, assumes an active character.\nIt becomes Maya, and by this was the universe created, without exertion on\nthe part of Brahma. This passing wish of Brahma carried, however, no\nreality with it. And the creation proceeding from it is only an illusion.\nThere is only one absolute Unity really existing, and existing without\nplurality. But he is like one asleep. Krishna, in the Gita, says: 'These\nworks (the universe) confine not me, for I am like one who sitteth aloof\nuninterested in them all.' The universe is therefore all illusion, holding\na position between something and nothing. It is real as an illusion, but\nunreal as being. It is not true, because it has no essence; but not false,\nbecause its existence, even as illusion, is from God. The Vedanta\ndeclares: 'From the highest state of Brahma to the lowest condition of a\nstraw, all things are delusion.'\" Chunder Dutt, however, contradicts\nBunsen's assertion that the soul also is an illusion according to the\nVedanta. \"The soul,\" he says, \"is not subject to birth or death, but is in\nits substance, from Brahma himself.\" The truth seems to be that the\nVedanta regards the individuation of the soul as from Maya and illusive,\nbut the substance of the soul is from Brahma, and destined to be absorbed\ninto him. As the body of man is to be resolved into its material elements,\nso the soul of man is to be resolved into Brahma. This substance of the\nsoul is neither born nor dies, nor is it a thing of which it can be said,\n\"It was, is, or shall be.\" In the Gita, Krishna tells Arjun that he and\nthe other princes of the world \"never were not.\"[68]\n\nThe Vedantist philosopher, however, though he considers all souls as\nemanations from God, does not believe that all of them will return into\nGod at death. Those only who have obtained a knowledge of God are rewarded\nby absorption, but the rest continue to migrate from body to body so long\nas they remain unqualified for the same. \"The knower of God becomes God.\"\nThis union with the Deity is the total loss of personal identity, and is\nthe attainment of the highest bliss, in which are no grades and from which\nis no return. This absorption comes not from good works or penances, for\nthese confine the soul and do not liberate it. \"The confinement of fetters\nis the same whether the chain be of gold or iron.\" \"The knowledge which\nrealizes that everything is Brahm alone liberates the soul. It annuls the\neffect both of our virtues and vices. We traverse thereby both merit and\ndemerit, the heart's knot is broken, all doubts are split, and all our\nworks perish. Only by perfect abstraction, not merely from the senses, but\nalso from the thinking intellect and by remaining in the knowing\nintellect, does the devotee become identified with Brahm. He then remains\nas pure glass when the shadow has left it. He lives destitute of passions\nand affections. He lives sinless; for as water wets not the leaf of the\nlotus, so sin touches not him who knows God.\" He stands in no further need\nof virtue, for \"of what use can be a winnowing fan when the sweet southern\nwind is blowing.\" His meditations are of this sort: \"I am Brahm, I am\nlife. I am everlasting, perfect, self-existent, undivided, joyful.\"\n\nIf therefore, according to this system, knowledge alone unites the soul to\nGod, the question comes, Of what use are acts of virtue, penances,\nsacrifices, worship? The answer is, that they effect a happy\ntransmigration from the lower forms of bodily life to higher ones. They\ndo not accomplish the great end, which is absorption and escape from Maya,\nbut they prepare the way for it by causing one to be born in a higher\ncondition.\n\nThe second system of philosophy, the S\u00e1nkhya of Kapila, is founded not on\none principle, like the Vedanta, but on two. According to the seventy\naphorisms, Nature is one of these principles. It is uncreated and eternal.\nIt is one, active, creating, non-intelligent. The other of the two\nprinciples, also uncreated and eternal, is Soul, or rather Souls. Souls\nare many, passive, not creative, intelligent, and in all things the\nopposite to Nature. But from the union of the two all the visible universe\nproceeds, according to the law of cause and effect.\n\nGod not being recognized in this system, it is often called atheism. Its\nargument, to show that no one perfect being could create the universe, is\nthis. Desire implies want, or imperfection. Accordingly, if God desired to\ncreate, he would be unable to do so; if he was able, he would not desire\nto do it. In neither case, therefore, could God have created the universe.\nThe gods are spoken of by the usual names, Brahma, Indra, etc., but are\nall finite beings, belonging to the order of human souls, though superior.\n\nEvery soul is clothed in two bodies,--the interior original body, the\nindividualizing force, which is eternal as itself and accompanies it\nthrough all its migrations; and the material, secondary body, made of the\nfive elements, ether, air, fire, water, and earth. The original body is\nsubtile and spiritual. It is the office of Nature to liberate the Soul.\nNature is not what we perceive by the senses, but an invisible plastic\nprinciple behind, which must be known by the intellect. As the Soul\nascends by goodness, it is freed by knowledge. The final result of this\nemancipation is the certainty of non-existence,--\"neither I am, nor is\naught mine, nor do I exist,\"--which seems to be the same result as that of\nHegel, Being = Not-Being. Two or three of the aphorisms of the Karika are\nas follows:--\n\n\n   \"LIX. As a dancer, having exhibited herself to the spectator, desists\n   from the dance, so does Nature desist, having manifested herself to the\n   Soul.\"\n\n   \"LX. Generous Nature, endued with qualities, does by manifold means\n   accomplish, without benefit (to herself), the wish of ungrateful Soul,\n   devoid of qualities.\"\n\n   \"LXI. Nothing, in my opinion, is more gentle than Nature; once aware of\n   having been seen, she does not again expose herself to the gaze of\n   Soul.\"\n\n   \"LXVI. Soul desists, because it has seen Nature. Nature desists,\n   because she has been seen. In their (mere) union there is no motive for\n   creation.\"\n\nAccordingly, the result of knowledge is to put an end to creation, and to\nleave the Soul emancipated from desire, from change, from the material\nbody, in a state which is Being, but not Existence (_esse,_ not\n_existere_; Seyn, not Da-seyn).\n\nThis S\u00e1nkhya philosophy becomes of great importance, when we consider that\nit was the undoubted source of Buddhism. This doctrine which we have been\ndescribing was the basis of Buddhism.[69]\n\nM. Cousin has called it the sensualism of India,[70] but certainly without\npropriety. It is as purely ideal a doctrine as that of the Vedas. Its two\neternal principles are both ideal. The plastic force which is one of them,\nKapila distinctly declares cannot be perceived by the senses.[71] Soul,\nthe other eternal and uncreated principle, who \"is witness, solitary,\nbystander, spectator, and passive,\"[72] is not only spiritual itself, but\nis clothed with a spiritual body, within the material body. In fact, the\nKarika declares the material universe to be the result of the contact of\nthe Soul with Nature, and consists in chains with which Nature binds\nherself, for the purpose (unconscious) of delivering the Soul. When by a\nprocess of knowledge the Soul looks through these, and perceives the\nultimate principle beyond, the material universe ceases, and both Soul and\nNature are emancipated.[73]\n\nOne of the definitions of the Karika will call to mind the fourfold\ndivision of the universe by the great thinker of the ninth century,\nErigena. In his work, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 he asserts that there is, (1.)\nA Nature which creates and is not created. (2.) A Nature which is created\nand creates. (3.) A Nature which is created and does not create. (4.) A\nNature which neither creates nor is created. So Kapila (Karika, 3) says,\n\"Nature, the root of all things, is productive but not a production. Seven\nprinciples are productions and productive. Sixteen are productions but not\nproductive. Soul is neither a production nor productive.\"\n\nMr. Muir (Sanskrit Texts, Part III. p. 96) quotes the following passages\nin proof of the antiquity of Kapila, and the respect paid to his doctrine\nin very early times:--\n\n\n   _Svet. Upanishad._ \"The God who superintends every mode of production\n   and all forms, who formerly nourished with various knowledge his son\n   Kapila the rishi, and beheld him at his birth.\"\n\n   \"_Bhagavat Purana_ (I. 3, 10) makes Kapila an incarnation of Vischnu.\n   In his fifth incarnation, in the form of Kapila, he declared to Asuri\n   the Sankhya which defines the collection of principles.\n\n   \"_Bhagavat Purana_ (IX. 8, 12) relates that Kapila, being attacked by\n   the sons of King Sangara, destroyed them with fire which issued from\n   his body. But the author of the Purana denies that this was done in\n   _anger_. 'How could the sage, by whom the strong ship of the Sankhya\n   was launched, on which the man seeking emancipation crosses the ocean\n   of existence, entertain the distinction of friend and foe'?\"\n\nThe S\u00e1nkhya system is also frequently mentioned in the Mahabarata.\n\nThe Nyaya system differs from that of Kapila, by assuming a third eternal\nand indestructible principle as the basis of matter, namely, _Atoms_. It\nalso assumes the existence of a Supreme Soul, Brahma, who is almighty and\nallwise. It agrees with Kapila in making all souls eternal, and distinct\nfrom body. Its evil to be overcome is the same, namely, transmigration;\nand its method of release is the same, namely _Buddh\u00ef_, or knowledge. It\nis a more dialectic system than the others, and is rather of the nature of\na logic than a philosophy.\n\nMr. Banerjea, in his Dialogues on the Hindu philosophy, considers the\nBuddhists' system as closely resembling the Nyaya system. He regards the\nBuddhist Nirvana as equivalent to the emancipation of the Nyaya system.\nApavarga, or emancipation, is declared in this philosophy to be final\ndeliverance from pain, birth, activity, fault, and false notions. Even so\nthe Pali doctrinal books speak of Nirvana as an exemption from old age,\ndisease, and death. In it desire, anger, and ignorance are consumed by the\nfire of knowledge. Here all selfish distinctions of mine and thine, all\nevil thoughts, all slander and jealousy, are cut down by the weapon of\nknowledge. Here we have an experience of immortality which is cessation of\nall trouble and perfect felicity.[74]\n\n\n\n\u00a7 7. Origin of the Hindoo Triad.\n\n\nThere had gradually grown up among the people a worship founded on that of\nthe ancient Vedas. In the West of India, the god RUDRA, mentioned in the\nVedic hymns, had been transformed into Siva. In the Rig-Veda Rudra is\nsometimes the name for Agni.[75] He is described as father of the winds.\nHe is the same as Maha-deva. He is fierce and beneficent at once. He\npresides over medicinal plants. According to Weber (Indische Stud., II.\n19) he is the Storm-God. The same view is taken by Professor Whitney.[76]\nBut his worship gradually extended, until, under the name of Siva, the\nDestroyer, he became one of the principal deities of India. Meantime, in\nthe valley of the Ganges, a similar devotion had grown up for the Vedic\ngod VISCHNU, who in like manner had been promoted to the chief rank in the\nHindoo Pantheon. He had been elevated to the character of a Friend and\nProtector, gifted with mild attributes, and worshipped as the life of\nNature. By accepting the popular worship, the Brahmans were able to oppose\nBuddhism with success.\n\nWe have no doubt that the Hindoo Triad came from the effort of the\nBrahmans to unite all India in one worship, and it may for a time have\nsucceeded. Images of the Trimurtti, or three-faced God, are frequent in\nIndia, and this is still the object of Brahmanical worship. But beside\nthis practical motive, the tendency of thought is always toward a triad of\nlaw, force, or elemental substance, as the best explanation of the\nuniverse. Hence there have been Triads in so many religions: in Egypt, of\n_Osiris_ the Creator, _Typhon_ the Destroyer, and _Horus_ the Preserver;\nin Persia, of _Ormazd_ the Creator, _Ahriman_ the Destroyer, and _Mithra_\nthe Restorer; in Buddhism, of _Buddha_ the Divine Man, _Dharmma_ the Word,\nand _Sangha_ the Communion of Saints. Simple monotheism does not long\nsatisfy the speculative intellect, because, though it accounts for the\nharmonies of creation, it leaves its discords unexplained. But a dualism\nof opposing forces is found still more unsatisfactory, for the world does\nnot appear to be such a scene of utter warfare and discord as this. So the\nmind comes to accept a Triad, in which the unities of life and growth\nproceed from one element, the antagonisms from a second, and the higher\nharmonies of reconciled oppositions from a third. The Brahmanical Triad\narose in the same way.[77]\n\nThus grew up, from amid the spiritual pantheism into which all Hindoo\nreligion seemed to have settled, another system, that of the Trimurtti, or\nDivine Triad; the Indian Trinity of _Brahma, Vischnu_, and _Siva_. This\nTriad expresses the unity of Creation, Destruction, and Restoration. A\nfoundation for this already existed in a Vedic saying, that the highest\nbeing exists in three states, that of creation, continuance, and\ndestruction.\n\nNeither of these three supreme deities of Brahmanism held any high rank in\nthe Vedas. Siva (\u00c7iva) does not appear therein at all, nor, according to\nLassen, is Brahma mentioned in the Vedic hymns, but first in a Upanishad.\nVischnu is spoken of in the Rig-Veda, but always as one of the names for\nthe sun. He is the Sun-God. His three steps are sunrise, noon, and sunset.\nHe is mentioned as one of the sons of Aditi; he is called the\n\"wide-stepping,\" \"measurer of the world,\" \"the strong,\" \"the deliverer,\"\n\"renewer of life,\" \"who sets in motion the revolutions of time,\" \"a\nprotector,\" \"preserving the highest heaven.\" Evidently he begins his\ncareer in this mythology as the sun.\n\nBRAHMA, at first a word meaning prayer and devotion, becomes in the laws\nof Manu the primal God, first-born of the creation, from the self-existent\nbeing, in the form of a golden egg. He became the creator of all things by\nthe power of prayer. In the struggle for ascendency which took place\nbetween the priests and the warriors, Brahma naturally became the deity of\nthe former. But, meantime, as we have seen, the worship of Vischnu had\nbeen extending itself in one region and that of Siva in another. Then took\nplace those mysterious wars between the kings of the Solar and Lunar\nraces, of which the great epics contain all that we know. And at the close\nof these wars a compromise was apparently accepted, by which Brahma,\nVischnu, and Siva were united in one supreme God, as creator, preserver,\nand destroyer, all in one.\n\nIt is almost certain that this Hindoo Triad was the result of an ingenious\nand successful attempt, on the part of the Brahmans, to unite all classes\nof worshippers in India against the Buddhists. In this sense the Brahmans\nedited anew the Mahabharata, inserting in that epic passages extolling\nVischnu in the form of Krishna. The Greek accounts of India which followed\nthe invasion of Alexander speak of the worship of Hercules as prevalent\nin the East, and by Hercules they apparently mean the god Krishna.[78]\nThe struggle between the Brahmans and Buddhists lasted during nine\ncenturies (from A.D. 500 to A.D. 1400), ending with the total expulsion of\nBuddhism, and the triumphant establishment of the Triad, as the worship of\nIndia.[79]\n\nBefore this Triad or Trimurtti (of Brahma, Vischnu, and Siva) there seems\nto have been another, consisting of Agni, Indra, and Surya.[80] This may\nhave given the hint of the second Triad, which distributed among the three\ngods the attributes of Creation, Destruction, and Renovation. Of these\nBrahma, the Creator, ceased soon to be popular, and the worship of Siva\nand Vischnu as Krishna remain as the popular religion of India.\n\nOne part, and a very curious one, of the worship of Vischnu is the\ndoctrine of the Avatars, or incarnations of that deity. There are ten of\nthese Avatars,--nine have passed and one is to come. The object of Vischnu\nis, each time, to save the gods from destruction impending over them in\nconsequence of the immense power acquired by some king, giant, or demon,\nby superior acts of austerity and piety. For here, as elsewhere, extreme\nspiritualism is often divorced from morality; and so these extremely\npious, spiritual, and self-denying giants are the most cruel and\ntyrannical monsters, who must be destroyed at all hazards. Vischnu, by\nforce or fraud, overcomes them all.\n\nHis first Avatar is of the Fish, as related in the Mahabharata. The object\nwas to recover the Vedas, which had been stolen by a demon from Brahma\nwhen asleep. In consequence of this loss the human race became corrupt,\nand were destroyed by a deluge, except a pious prince and seven holy men\nwho were saved in a ship. Vischnu, as a large fish, drew the ship safely\nover the water, killed the demon, and recovered the Vedas. The second\nAvatar was in a Turtle, to make the drink of immortality. The third was in\na Boar, the fourth in a Man-Lion, the fifth in the Dwarf who deceived\nBali, who had become so powerful by austerities as to conquer the gods\nand take possession of Heaven. In the eighth Avatar he appears as Krishna\nand in the ninth as Buddha.\n\nThis system of Avatars is so peculiar and so deeply rooted in the system,\nthat it would seem to indicate some law of Hindoo thought. Perhaps some\nexplanation may be reached thus:--\n\nWe observe that,--\n\nVischnu does not mediate between Brahma and Siva, but between the deities\nand the lower races of men or demons.\n\nThe danger arises from a certain fate or necessity which is superior both\nto gods and men. There are laws which enable a man to get away from the\npower of Brahma and Siva.\n\nBut what is this necessity but nature, or the nature of things, the laws\nof the outward world of active existences? It is not till essence becomes\nexistence, till spirit passes into action, that it becomes subject to law.\n\nThe danger then is from the world of nature. The gods are pure spirit, and\nspirit is everything. But, now and then, nature _seems to be something_,\nit will not be ignored or lost in God. Personality, activity, or human\nnature rebel against the pantheistic idealism, the abstract spiritualism\nof this system.\n\nTo conquer body, Vischnu or spirit enters into body, again and again.\nSpirit must appear as body to destroy Nature. For thus is shown that\nspirit cannot be excluded from anything,--that it can descend into the\nlowest forms of life, and work _in_ law as well as above law.\n\nBut all the efforts of Brahmanism could not arrest the natural development\nof the system. It passed on into polytheism and idolatry. The worship of\nIndia for many centuries has been divided into a multitude of sects. While\nthe majority of the Brahmans still profess to recognize the equal divinity\nof Brahma, Vischnu, and Siva, the mass of the people worship Krishna,\nRama, the Lingam, and many other gods and idols. There are Hindoo atheists\nwho revile the Vedas; there are the Kabirs, who are a sort of Hindoo\nQuakers, and oppose all worship; the _Ramanujas_, an ancient sect of\nVischnu worshippers; the _Ramavats_, living in monasteries; the _Panthis_,\nwho oppose all austerities; the _Maharajas_, whose religion consists with\ngreat licentiousness. Most of these are worshippers of Vischnu or of Siva,\nfor Brahma-worship has wholly disappeared.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 8. The Epics, the Puranas, and modern Hindoo Worship.\n\n\nThe Hindoos have two great epics, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, each\nof immense length, and very popular with the people. Mr. Talboys Wheeler\nhas recently incorporated both epics (of course much abridged) into his\nHistory of India, and we must refer our readers to his work for a\nknowledge of these remarkable poems. The whole life of ancient India\nappears in them, and certainly they are not unworthy products of the\ngenius of that great nation.\n\nAccording to Lassen,[81] the period to which the great Indian epics refer\nfollows directly on the Vedic age. Yet they contain passages inserted at a\nmuch later epoch, probably, indeed, as long after as the war which ended\nin the expulsion of the Buddhists from India.[82] Mr. Talboys Wheeler\nconsiders the war of Rama and the Monkeys against Ravana to refer to this\nconflict, and so makes the Ramayana later than the Mahabharata. The\nmajority of writers, however, differ from him on this point. The writers\nof the Mahabharata were evidently Brahmans, educated under the laws of\nManu.[83] But it is very difficult to fix the date of either poem with any\napproach to accuracy. Lassen has proved that the greater part of the\nMahabharata was written before the political establishment of\nBuddhism.[84] These epics were originally transmitted by oral tradition.\nThey must have been brought to their present forms by Brahmans, for their\ndoctrine is that of this priesthood. Now if such poems had been composed\nafter the time of Asoka, when Buddhism became a state religion in India,\nit must have been often referred to. No such references appear in these\nepics, except in some solitary passages, which are evidently modern\nadditions.[85] Hence the epics must have been composed before the time of\nBuddhism. This argument of Lassen's is thought by Max M\u00fcller to be\nconclusive, and if so it disproves Mr. Talboys Wheeler's view of the\npurpose of the Ramayana.\n\nFew Hindoos now read the Vedas. The Puranas and the two great epics\nconstitute their sacred books. The Ramayana contains about fifty thousand\nlines, and is held in great veneration by the Hindoos. It describes the\nyouth of Rama, who is an incarnation of Vischnu, his banishment and\nresidence in Central India, and his war with the giants and demons of the\nSouth, to recover his wife, Sita. It probably is founded on some real war\nbetween the early Aryan invaders of Hindostan and the indigenous\ninhabitants.\n\nThe Mahabharata, which is probably of later date, contains about two\nhundred and twenty thousand lines, and is divided into eighteen books,\neach of which would make a large volume. It is supposed to have been\ncollected by Vyasa, who also collected the Vedas and Puranas. These\nlegends are very old, and seem to refer to the early history of India.\nThere appear to have been two Aryan dynasties in ancient India,--the Solar\nand Lunar. Rama belonged to the first and Bharata to the second. Pandu, a\ndescendant of the last, has five brave sons, who are the heroes of this\nbook. One of them, Arjuna, is especially distinguished. One of the\nepisodes is the famous Bhagavat-gita. Another is called the Brahman's\nLament. Another describes the deluge, showing the tradition of a flood\nexisting in India many centuries before Christ. Another gives the story of\nSavitri and Satyavan. These episodes occupy three fourths of the poem, and\nfrom them are derived most of the legends of the Puranas. A supplement,\nwhich is itself a longer poem than the Iliad and Odyssey combined (which\ntogether contain about thirty thousand lines), is the source of the modern\nworship of Krishna. The whole poem represents the multilateral character\nof Hinduism. It indicates a higher degree of civilization than that of the\nHomeric poems, and describes a vast variety of fruits and flowers existing\nunder culture. The characters are nobler and purer than those of Homer.\nThe pictures of domestic and social life are very touching; children are\ndutiful to their parents, parents careful of their children; wives are\nloyal and obedient, yet independent in their opinions; and peace reigns in\nthe domestic circle.\n\nThe different works known as the Puranas are derived from the same\nreligious system as the two epics. They repeat the cosmogony of the poems,\nand they relate more fully their mythological legends. Siva and Vischnu\nare almost the sole objects of worship in the Puranas. There is a\nsectarian element in their devotion to these deities which shows their\npartiality, and prevents them from being authorities for Hindoo belief as\na whole.[86]\n\nThe Puranas, in their original form, belong to a period, says Mr. Wilson,\na century before the Christian era. They grew out of the conflict between\nBuddhism and Brahmanism. The latter system had offered no personal gods to\nthe people and given them no outward worship, and the masses had been\nuninterested in the abstract view of Deity held by the Brahmans.[87]\n\nAccording to Mr. Wilson,[88] there are eighteen Puranas which are now read\nby the common people. They are read a great deal by women. Some are very\nancient, or at least contain fragments of more ancient Puranas. The very\nword signifies \"antiquity.\" Most of them are devoted to the worship of\nVischnu. According to the Bhagavat Purana,[89] the only reasonable object\nof life is to meditate on Vischnu. Brahma, who is called in one place\n\"the cause of causes,\" proclaims Vischnu to be the only pure absolute\nessence, of which the universe is the manifestation. In the Vischnu\nPurana, Brahma, at the head of the gods, adores Vischnu as the Supreme\nBeing whom he himself cannot understand.\n\nThe power of ascetic penances is highly extolled in the Puranas, as also\nin the epics. In the Bhagavat it is said that Brahma, by a penitence of\nsixteen thousand years, created the universe. It is even told in the\nRamayana, that a sage of a lower caste became a Brahman by dint of\nausterities, in spite of the gods who considered such a confusion of\ncastes a breach of Hindoo etiquette.[90] To prevent him from continuing\nhis devotions, they sent a beautiful nymph to tempt him, and their\ndaughter was the famous Sakuntala. But in the end, the obstinate old\nascetic conquered the gods, and when they still refused to Brahmanize him,\nhe began to create new heavens and new gods, and had already made a few\nstars, when the deities thought it prudent to yield, and allowed him to\nbecome a Brahman. It is also mentioned that the Ganges, the sacred river,\nin the course of her wanderings, overflowed the sacrificial ground of\nanother powerful ascetic, who incontinently drank up, in his anger, all\nits waters, but was finally induced by the persuasions of the gods to set\nthe river free again by discharging it from his ears. Such were the freaks\nof sages in the times of the Puranas.\n\nNever was there a more complete example of piety divorced from morality\nthan in these theories. The most wicked demons acquire power over gods and\nmen, by devout asceticism. This principle is already fully developed in\nthe epic poems. The plot of the Ramayana turns around this idea. A Rajah,\nRavana, had become so powerful by sacrifice and devotion, that he\noppressed the gods; compelled Yama (or Death) to retire from his\ndominions; compelled the sun to shine there all the year, and the moon to\nbe always full above his Raj. Agni (Fire) must not burn in his presence;\nthe Maruts (Winds) must blow only as he wishes. He cannot be hurt by gods\nor demons. So Vischnu becomes incarnate as Rama and the gods become\nincarnate as Monkeys, in order to destroy him. Such vast power was\nsupposed to be attained by piety without morality.\n\nThe Puranas are derived from the same system as the epic poems, and carry\nout further the same ideas. Siva and Vischnu are almost the only gods who\nare worshipped, and they are worshipped with a sectarian zeal unknown to\nthe epics. Most of the Puranas contain these five topics,--Creation,\nDestruction and Renovation, the Genealogy of the gods, Reigns of the\nManus, and History of the Solar and Lunar races. Their philosophy of\ncreation is derived from the S\u00e1nknya philosophy. Pantheism is one of their\ninvariable characteristics, as they always identify God and Nature; and\nherein they differ from the system of Kapila. The form of the Puranas is\nalways that of a dialogue. The Puranas are eighteen in number, and the\ncontents of the whole are stated to be one million six hundred thousand\nlines.[91]\n\nThe religion of the Hindoos at the present time is very different from\nthat of the Vedas or Manu. Idolatry is universal, and every month has its\nspecial worship,--April, October, and January being most sacred. April\nbegins the Hindoo year. During this sacred month bands of singers go from\nhouse to house, early in the morning, singing hymns to the gods. On the\n1st of April Hindoos of all castes dedicate pitchers to the shades of\ntheir ancestors. The girls bring flowers with which to worship little\nponds of water dedicated to Siva. Women adore the river Ganges, bathing in\nit and offering it flowers. They also walk in procession round the banyan\nor sacred tree. Then they worship the cow, pouring water on her feet and\nputting oil on her forehead. Sometimes they take a vow to feed some\nparticular Brahman luxuriously during the whole month. They bathe their\nidols with religious care every day and offer them food. This lasts during\nApril and then stops.\n\nIn May the women of India worship a goddess friendly to little babies,\nnamed Shus-ty. They bring the infants to be blessed by some venerable\nwoman before the image of the goddess, whose messenger is a cat. Social\nparties are also given on these occasions, although the lower castes are\nkept distinct at four separate tables. The women also, not being allowed\nto meet with the men at such times, have a separate entertainment by\nthemselves.\n\nThe month of June is devoted to the bath of Jugger-naut, who was one of\nthe incarnations of Vischnu. The name, Jugger-naut, means Lord of the\nUniverse. His worship is comparatively recent. His idols are extremely\nugly. But the most remarkable thing perhaps about this worship is that it\ndestroys, for the time, the distinction of castes. While within the walls\nwhich surround the temple Hindoos of every caste eat together from the\nsame dish. But as soon as they leave the temple this equality disappears.\nThe ceremony of the bath originated in this legend. The idol Jugger-naut,\ndesiring to bathe in the Ganges, came in the form of a boy to the river,\nand then gave one of his golden ornaments to a confectioner for something\nto eat. Next day the ornament was missing, and the priests could find it\nnowhere. But that night in a dream the god revealed to a priest that he\nhad given it to a certain confectioner to pay for his lunch; and it being\nfound so, a festival was established on the spot, at which the idol is\nannually bathed.\n\nThe other festival of this month is the worship of the Ganges, the sacred\nriver of India. Here the people come to bathe and to offer sacrifices,\nwhich consist of flowers, incense, and clothes. The most sacred spot is\nwhere the river enters the sea. Before plunging into the water each one\nconfesses his sins to the goddess. On the surface of this river castes are\nalso abolished, the holiness of the river making the low-caste man also\nholy.\n\nIn the month of July is celebrated the famous ceremony of the car of\nJugger-naut, instituted to commemorate the departure of Krishna from his\nnative land. These cars are in the form of a pyramid, built several\nstories high, and some are even fifty feet in height. They are found in\nevery part of India, the offerings of wealthy people, and some contain\ncostly statues. They are drawn by hundreds of men, it being their faith\nthat each one who pulls the rope will certainly go to the heaven of\nKrishna when he dies. Multitudes, therefore, crowd around the rope in\norder to pull, and in the excitement they sometimes fall under the wheels\nand are crushed. But this is accidental, for Krishna does not desire the\nsuffering of his worshippers. He is a mild divinity, and not like the\nfierce Siva, who loves self-torture.\n\nIn the month of August is celebrated the nativity of Krishna, the story of\nwhose birth resembles that in the Gospel in this, that the tyrant whom he\ncame to destroy sought to kill him, but a heavenly voice told the father\nto fly with the child across the Jumna, and the tyrant, like Herod, killed\nthe infants in the village. In this month also is a feast upon which no\nfire must be kindled or food cooked, and on which the cactus-tree and\nserpents are worshipped..\n\nIn September is the great festival of the worship of Doorga, wife of Siva.\nIt commences on the seventh day of the full moon and lasts three days. It\ncommemorates a visit made by the goddess to her parents. The idol has\nthree eyes and ten hands. The ceremony, which is costly, can only be\ncelebrated by the rich people, who also give presents on this occasion to\nthe poor. The image is placed in the middle of the hall of the rich man's\nhouse. One Brahman sits before the image with flowers, holy water,\nincense. Trays laden with rice, fruit, and other kinds of food are placed\nnear the image, and given to the Brahmans. Goats and sheep are then\nsacrificed to the idol on an altar in the yard of the house. When the head\nof the victim falls the people shout, \"Victory to thee, O mother!\" Then\nthe bells ring, the trumpets sound, and the people shout for joy. The\nlamps are waved before the idol, and a Brahman reads aloud from the\nScripture. Then comes a dinner on each of the three days, to which the\npoor and the low-caste people are also invited and are served by the\nBrahmans. The people visit from house to house, and in the evening there\nis music, dancing, and public shows. So that the worship of the Hindoos\nis by no means all of it ascetic, but much is social and joyful,\nespecially in Bengal.\n\nIn October, November, and December there are fewer ceremonies. January is\na month devoted to religious bathing. Also, in January, the religious\nHindoos invite Brahmans to read and expound the sacred books in their\nhouses, which are open to all hearers. In February there are festivals to\nKrishna.\n\nThe month of March is devoted to ascetic exercises, especially to the\nfamous one of swinging suspended by hooks. It is a festival in honor of\nSiva. A procession goes through the streets and enlists followers by\nputting a thread round their necks. Every man thus enlisted must join the\nparty and go about with it till the end of the ceremony under pain of\nlosing caste. On the day before the swinging, men thrust iron or bamboo\nsticks through their arms or tongues. On the next day they march in\nprocession to the swinging tree, where the men are suspended by hooks and\nwhirled round the tree four or five times.\n\nIt is considered a pious act in India to build temples, dig tanks, or\nplant trees by the roadside. Rich people have idols in their houses for\ndaily worship, and pay a priest who comes every morning to wake up the\nidols, wash and dress them, and offer them their food. In the evening he\ncomes again, gives them their supper and puts them to bed.\n\nMr. Gangooly, in his book, from which most of the above facts are drawn,\ndenies emphatically the statement so commonly made that Hindoo mothers\nthrow their infants into the Ganges. He justly says that the maternal\ninstinct is as strong with them as with others; and in addition to that,\ntheir religion teaches them to offer sacrifices for the life and health of\ntheir children.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 9. Relation of Brahmanism to Christianity.\n\n\nHaving thus attempted, in the space we can here use, to give an account of\nBrahmanism, we close by showing its special relation as a system of\nthought to Christianity.\n\nBrahmanism teaches the truth of the reality of spirit, and that spirit is\ninfinite, absolute, perfect, one; that it is the substance underlying all\nexistence. Brahmanism glows through and through with this spirituality.\nIts literature, no less than its theology, teaches it. It is in the dramas\nof Calidasa, as well as in the sublime strains of the Bhagavat-gita.\nSomething divine is present in all nature and all life,--\n\n    \"Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns,\n     And the round ocean and the living air.\"\n\nNow, with this Christianity is in fullest agreement. We have such passages\nin the Scripture as these: \"God is a Spirit\"; \"God is love; whoso dwelleth\nin love dwelleth in God, and God in him\"; \"In him we live, and move, and\nhave our being\"; \"He is above all, and through all, and in us all.\" But\nbeside these texts, which strike the key-note of the music which was to\ncome after, there are divine strains of spiritualism, of God all in all,\nwhich come through a long chain of teachers of the Church, sounding on in\nthe Confessions of Augustine, the prayers of Thomas Aquinas, Anselm,\nBonaventura, St. Bernard, through the Latin hymns of the Middle Ages, and\ndevelop themselves at last in what is called romantic art and romantic\nsong. A Gothic cathedral like Antwerp or Strasburg,--what is it but a\nstriving upward of the soul to lose itself in God? A symphony of\nBeethoven,--what is it but the same unbounded longing and striving toward\nthe Infinite and Eternal? The poetry of Wordsworth, of Goethe, Schiller,\nDante, Byron, Victor Hugo, Manzoni, all partake of the same element. It is\nopposed to classic art and classic poetry in this, that instead of limits,\nit seeks the unlimited; that is, it believes in spirit, which alone is the\nunlimited; the _in_finite, that which _is,_ not that which appears; the\n_essence_ of things, not their _ex_istence or outwardness.\n\nThus Christianity meets and accepts the truth of Brahmanism. But how does\nit fulfil Brahmanism? The deficiencies of Brahmanism are these,--that\nholding to eternity, it omits time, and so loses history. It therefore is\nincapable of progress, for progress takes place in time. Believing in\nspirit, or infinite unlimited substance, it loses person, or definite\nsubstance, whether infinite or finite. The Christian God is the infinite,\ndefinite substance, self-limited or defined by his essential nature. He is\ngood and not bad, righteous and not the opposite, perfect love, not\nperfect self-love. Christianity, therefore, gives us God as a person, and\nman also as a person, and so makes it possible to consider the universe as\norder, kosmos, method, beauty, and providence. For, unless we can conceive\nthe Infinite Substance as definite, and not undefined; that is, as a\nperson with positive characters; there is no difference between good and\nbad, right and wrong, to-day and to-morrow, this and that, but all is one\nimmense chaos of indefinite spirit. The moment that creation begins, that\nthe spirit of the Lord moves on the face of the waters, and says, \"Let\nthere be light,\" and so divides light from darkness, God becomes a person,\nand man can also be a person. Things then become \"separate and divisible\"\nwhich before were \"huddled and lumped.\"\n\nChristianity, therefore, fulfils Brahmanism by adding to eternity time, to\nthe infinite the finite, to God as spirit God as nature and providence.\nGod in himself is the unlimited, unknown, dwelling in the light which no\nman can approach unto; hidden, not by darkness, but by light. But God, as\nturned toward us in nature and providence, is the infinite definite\nsubstance, that is, having certain defined characters, though these have\nno bounds as regards extent. This last view of God Christianity shares\nwith other religions, which differ from Brahmanism in the opposite\ndirection. For example, the religion of Greece and of the Greek\nphilosophers never loses the definite God, however high it may soar. While\nBrahmanism, seeing eternity and infinity, loses time and the finite, the\nGreek religion, dwelling in time, often loses the eternal and the\nspiritual. Christianity is the mediator, able to mediate, not by standing\nbetween both, but by standing beside both. It can lead the Hindoos to an\nInfinite Friend, a perfect Father, a Divine Providence, and so make the\npossibility for them of a new progress, and give to that ancient and\nhighly endowed race another chance in history. What they want is evidently\nmoral power, for they have all intellectual ability. The effeminate\nquality which has made them slaves of tyrants during two thousand years\nwill be taken out of them, and a virile strength substituted, when they\ncome to see God as law and love,--perfect law and perfect love,--and to\nsee that communion with him comes, not from absorption, contemplation, and\ninaction, but from active obedience, moral growth, and personal\ndevelopment. For Christianity certainly teaches that we unite ourselves\nwith God, not by sinking into and losing our personality, in him, but by\ndeveloping it, so that we may be able to serve and love him.\n\n\n\n\nChapter IV.\n\nBuddhism, or the Protestantism of the East.\n\n\n\n  \u00a7 1. Buddhism, in its Forms, resembles Romanism; in its Spirit,\n         Protestantism.\n  \u00a7 2. Extent of Buddhism. Its Scriptures.\n  \u00a7 3. Sakyamuni, the Founder of Buddhism.\n  \u00a7 4. Leading Doctrines of Buddhism.\n  \u00a7 5. The Spirit of Buddhism Rational and Humane.\n  \u00a7 6. Buddhism as a Religion.\n  \u00a7 7. Karma and Nirvana.\n  \u00a7 8. Good and Evil of Buddhism.\n  \u00a7 9. Relation of Buddhism to Christianity.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 1. Buddhism, in its Forms, resembles Romanism; in its Spirit,\nProtestantism.\n\n\nOn first becoming acquainted with the mighty and ancient religion of\nBuddha, one may be tempted to deny the correctness of this title, \"The\n_Protestantism_ of the East.\" One might say, \"Why not rather the\n_Romanism_ of the East?\" For so numerous are the resemblances between the\ncustoms of this system and those of the Romish Church, that the first\nCatholic missionaries who encountered the priests of Buddha were\nconfounded, and thought that Satan had been mocking their sacred rites.\nFather Bury, a Portuguese missionary,[92] when he beheld the Chinese\nbonzes tonsured, using rosaries, praying in an unknown tongue, and\nkneeling before images, exclaimed in astonishment: \"There is not a piece\nof dress, not a sacerdotal function, not a ceremony of the court of Rome,\nwhich the Devil has not copied in this country.\" Mr. Davis (Transactions\nof the Royal Asiatic Society, II. 491) speaks of \"the celibacy of the\nBuddhist clergy, and the monastic life of the societies of both sexes; to\nwhich might be added their strings of beads, their manner of chanting\nprayers, their incense, and their candles.\" Mr. Medhurst (\"China,\" London,\n1857) mentions the image of a virgin, called the \"queen of heaven,\"\nhaving an infant in her arms, and holding a cross. Confession of sins is\nregularly practised. Father Huc, in his \"Recollections of a Journey in\nTartary, Thibet, and China,\" (Hazlitt's translation), says: \"The cross,\nthe mitre, the dalmatica, the cope, which the grand lamas wear on their\njourneys, or when they are performing some ceremony out of the\ntemple,--the service with double choirs, the psalmody, the exorcisms, the\ncenser suspended from five chains, and which you can open or close at\npleasure,--the benedictions given by the lamas by extending the right hand\nover the heads of the faithful,--the chaplet, ecclesiastical celibacy,\nreligious retirement, the worship of the saints, the fasts, the\nprocessions, the litanies, the holy water,--all these are analogies\nbetween the Buddhists and ourselves.\" And in Thibet there is also a Dalai\nLama, who is a sort of Buddhist pope. Such numerous and striking analogies\nare difficult to explain. After the simple theory \"que le diable y \u00e9tait\npour beaucoup\" was abandoned, the next opinion held by the Jesuit\nmissionaries was that the Buddhists had copied these customs from\nNestorian missionaries, who are known to have penetrated early even as far\nas China.[93] But a serious objection to this theory is that Buddhism is\nat least five hundred years older than Christianity, and that many of\nthese striking resemblances belong to its earliest period. Thus Wilson\n(Hindu Drama) has translated plays written before the Christian era, in\nwhich Buddhist monks appear as mendicants. The worship of relics is quite\nas ancient. Fergusson[94] describes topes, or shrines for relics, of very\ngreat antiquity, existing in India, Ceylon, Birmah, and Java. Many of them\nbelong to the age of Asoka, the great Buddhist emperor, who ruled all\nIndia B.C. 250, and in whose reign Buddhism became the religion of the\nstate, and held its third \u0152cumenical Council.\n\nThe ancient Buddhist architecture is very singular, and often very\nbeautiful. It consists of topes, rock-cut temples, and monasteries. Some\nof the topes are monolithic columns, more than forty feet high, with\nornamented capitals. Some are immense domes of brick and stone, containing\nsacred relics. The tooth of Buddha was once preserved in a magnificent\nshrine in India, but was conveyed to Ceyion A.D. 311, where it still\nremains an object of universal reverence. It is a piece of ivory or bone\ntwo inches long, and is kept in six cases, the largest of which, of solid\nsilver, is five feet high. The other cases are inlaid with rubies and\nprecious stones.[95] Besides this, Ceylon possesses the \"left collar-bone\nrelic,\" contained in a bell-shaped tope, fifty feet high, and the thorax\nbone, which was placed in a tope built by a Hindoo Raja, B.C. 250, beside\nwhich two others were subsequently erected, the last being eighty cubits\nhigh. The Sanchi tope, the finest in India,[96] is a solid dome of stone,\none hundred and six feet in diameter and forty-two feet high, with a\nbasement and terrace, having a colonnade, now fallen, of sixty pillars,\nwith richly carved stone railing and gateway.\n\nThe rock-cut temples of the Buddhists are very ancient, and are numerous\nin India. Mr. Fergusson, who has made a special personal study of these\nmonuments, believes that more than nine hundred still remain, most of them\nwithin the Bombay presidency. Of these, many date back two centuries\nbefore our era. In form they singularly resemble the earliest Roman\nCatholic churches. Excavated out of the solid rock, they have a nave and\nside aisles, terminating in an apse or semi-dome, round which the aisle is\ncarried. One at Karli, built in this manner, is one hundred and twenty-six\nfeet long and forty-five wide, with fifteen richly carved columns on each\nside, separating the nave from the aisles. The facade of this temple is\nalso richly ornamented, and has a great open window for lighting the\ninterior, beneath an elegant gallery or rood-loft.\n\nThe Buddhist rock-cut monasteries in India are also numerous, though long\nsince deserted. Between seven and eight hundred are known to exist, most\nof them having been excavated between B.C. 200 and A.D. 500. Buddhist\nmonks, then as now, took the same three vows of celibacy, poverty, and\nobedience, which are taken by the members of all the Catholic orders. In\naddition to this, _all_ the Buddhist priests are mendicants. They shave\ntheir heads, wear a friar's robe tied round the waist with a rope, and beg\nfrom house to house, carrying their wooden bowl in which to receive boiled\nrice. The old monasteries of India contain chapels and cells for the\nmonks. The largest, however, had accommodation for only thirty or forty;\nwhile at the present time a single monastery in Thibet, visited by MM. Huc\nand Gabet (the lamasery of Kounboum), is occupied by four thousand lamas.\nThe structure of these monasteries shows clearly that the monkish system\nof the Buddhists is far too ancient to have been copied from the\nChristians.\n\nIs, then, the reverse true? Did the Catholic Christians derive their\nmonastic institutions, their bells, their rosary, their tonsure, their\nincense, their mitre and cope, their worship of relics, their custom of\nconfession, etc., from the Buddhists? Such is the opinion of Mr. Prinsep\n(Thibet, Tartary, and Mongolia, 1852) and of Lassen (Indische\nAlterthumskunde). But, in reply to this view, Mr. Hardwicke objects that\nwe do not find in history any trace of such an influence. Possibly,\ntherefore, the resemblances may be the result of common human tendencies\nworking out, independently, the same results. If, however, it is necessary\nto assume that either religion copied from the other, the Buddhists may\nclaim originality, on the ground of antiquity.\n\nBut, however this may he, the question returns, Why call Buddhism the\nProtestantism of the East, when all its external features so much resemble\nthose of the Roman Catholic Church?\n\nWe answer: Because deeper and more essential relations connect Brahmanism\nwith the Romish Church, and the Buddhist system with Protestantism. The\nhuman mind in Asia went through the same course of experience, afterward\nrepeated in Europe. It protested, in the interest of humanity, against\nthe oppression of a priestly caste. Brahmanism, like the Church of Rome,\nestablished a system of sacramental salvation in the hands of a sacred\norder. Buddhism, like Protestantism, revolted, and established a doctrine\nof individual salvation based on personal character. Brahmanism, like the\nChurch of Rome, teaches an exclusive spiritualism, glorifying penances and\nmartyrdom, and considers the body the enemy of the soul. But Buddhism and\nProtestantism accept nature and its laws, and make a religion of humanity\nas well as of devotion. To such broad statements numerous exceptions may\ndoubtless be always found, but these are the large lines of distinction.\n\nThe Roman Catholic Church and Brahmanism place the essence of religion in\nsacrifices. Each is eminently a sacrificial system. The daily sacrifice of\nthe mass is the central feature of the Romish Church. So Brahmanism is a\nsystem of sacrifices. But Protestantism and Buddhism save the soul by\nteaching. In the Church of Rome the sermon is subordinate to the mass; in\nProtestantism and in Buddhism sermons are the main instruments by which\nsouls are saved. Brahmanism is a system of inflexible castes; the priestly\ncaste is made distinct and supreme; and in Romanism the priesthood almost\nconstitutes the church. In Buddhism and Protestantism the laity regain\ntheir rights. Therefore, notwithstanding the external resemblance of\nBuddhist rites and ceremonies to those of the Roman Catholic Church, the\ninternal resemblance is to Protestantism. Buddhism in Asia, like\nProtestantism in Europe, is a revolt of nature against spirit, of humanity\nagainst caste, of individual freedom against the despotism of an order, of\nsalvation by faith against salvation by sacraments. And as all revolts are\napt to go too far, so it has been with Buddhism. In asserting the rights\nof nature against the tyranny of spirit, Buddhism has lost God. There is\nin Buddhism neither creation nor Creator. Its tracts say: \"The rising of\nthe world is a natural case.\" \"Its rising and perishing are by nature\nitself.\" \"It is natural that the world should rise and perish.\"[97] While\nin Brahmanism absolute spirit is the only reality, and this world is an\nillusion, the Buddhists know only this world, and the eternal world is so\nentirely unknown as to be equivalent to nullity. But yet, as no revolt,\nhowever radical, gives up _all_ its antecedents, so Buddhism has the same\n_aim_ as Brahmanism, namely, to escape from the vicissitudes of time into\nthe absolute rest of eternity. They agree as to the object of existence;\nthey differ as to the method of reaching it. The Brahman and the Roman\nCatholic think that eternal rest is to be obtained by intellectual\nsubmission, by passive reception of what is taught us and done for us by\nothers: the Buddhist and Protestant believe it must be accomplished by an\nintelligent and free obedience to Divine laws. Mr. Hodgson, who has long\nstudied the features of this religion in Nepaul, says: \"The one infallible\ndiagnostic of Buddhism is a belief in the infinite capacity of the human\nintellect.\" The name of Buddha means the Intelligent One, or the one who\nis wide awake. And herein also is another resemblance to Protestantism,\nwhich emphasizes so strongly the value of free thought and the seeking\nafter truth. In Judaism we find two spiritual powers,--the prophet and the\npriest. The priest is the organ of the pardoning and saving love of God;\nthe prophet, of his inspiring truth. In the European Reformation, the\nprophet revolting against the priest founded Protestantism; in the Asiatic\nReformation he founded Buddhism. Finally, Brahmanism and the Roman\nCatholic Church are more religious; Buddhism and Protestant Christianity,\nmore moral. Such, sketched in broad outline, is the justification for the\ntitle of this chapter; but we shall be more convinced of its accuracy\nafter looking more closely into the resemblances above indicated between\nthe religious ceremonies of the East and West.\n\nThese resemblances are chiefly between the Buddhists and the monastic\norders of the Church of Rome. Now it is a fact, but one which has never\nbeen sufficiently noticed, that the whole monastic system of Rome is based\non a principle foreign to the essential ideas of that church. The\nfundamental doctrine of Rome is that of salvation by sacraments. This\nalone justifies its maxim, that \"out of communion with the Church there is\nno salvation.\" The sacrament of Baptism regenerates the soul; the\nsacrament of Penance purifies it from mortal sin; the sacrament of the\nEucharist renews its life; and that of Holy Orders qualifies the priest\nfor administering these and the other sacraments. But if the soul is saved\nby sacraments, duly administered and received, why go into a religious\norder to save the soul? Why seek by special acts of piety, self-denial,\nand separation from the world that which comes sufficiently through the\nusual sacraments of the church? The more we examine this subject, the more\nwe shall see that the whole monastic system of the Church of Rome is an\n_included Protestantism_, or a Protestantism within the church.\n\nMany of the reformers before the Reformation were monks. Savonarola, St.\nBernard, Luther himself, were monks. From the monasteries came many of the\nleaders of the Reformation. The Protestant element in the Romish Church\nwas shut up in monasteries during many centuries, and remained there as a\nforeign substance, an alien element included in the vast body. When a\nbullet, or other foreign substance, is lodged in the flesh, the vital\npowers go to work and build up a little wall around it, and shut it in. So\nwhen Catholics came who were not satisfied with a merely sacramental\nsalvation, and longed for a higher life, the sagacity of the Church put\nthem together in convents, and kept them by themselves, where they could\ndo no harm. One of the curious homologons of history is this repetition in\nEurope of the course of events in Asia. Buddhism was, for many centuries,\ntolerated in India in the same way. It took the form of a monasticism\nincluded in Brahmanism, and remained a part of the Hindoo religion. And\nso, when the crisis came and the conflict began, this Hindoo Protestantism\nmaintained itself for a long time in India, as Lutheranism continued for a\ncentury in Italy, Spain, and Austria. But it was at last driven out of its\nbirthplace, as Protestantism was driven from Italy and Spain; and now only\nthe ruins of its topes, its temples, and its monasteries remain to show\nhow extensive was its former influence in the midst of Brahmanism.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. Extent of Buddhism. Its Scriptures.\n\n\nYet, though expelled from India, and unable to maintain its control over\nany Aryan race, it has exhibited a powerful propagandist element, and so\nhas converted to its creed the majority of the Mongol nations. It embraces\nnearly or quite (for statistics here are only guesswork)[98] three hundred\nmillions of human beings. It is the popular religion of China; the state\nreligion of Thibet, and of the Birman Empire; it is the religion of Japan,\nSiam, Anam, Assam, Nepaul, Ceylon, in short, of nearly the whole of\nEastern Asia.\n\nConcerning this vast religion we have had, until recently, very few means\nof information. But, during the last quarter of a century, so many sources\nhave been opened, that at present we can easily study it in its original\nfeatures and its subsequent development. The sacred books of this religion\nhave been preserved independently, in Ceylon, Nepaul, China, and Thibet.\nMr. G. Turnour, Mr. Georgely, and Mr. R. Spence Hardy are our chief\nauthorities in regard to the Pitikas, or the Scriptures in the Pali\nlanguage, preserved in Ceylon. Mr. Hodgson has collected and studied the\nSanskrit Scriptures, found in Nepaul. In 1825 he transmitted to the\nAsiatic Society in Bengal sixty works in Sanskrit, and two hundred and\nfifty in the language of Thibet. M. Csoma, an Hungarian physician,\ndiscovered in the Buddhist monasteries of Thibet an immense collection of\nsacred books, which had been translated from the Sanskrit works previously\nstudied by Mr. Hodgson. In 1829 M. Schmidt found the same works in the\nMongolian. M. Stanislas Julien, an eminent student of the Chinese, has\nalso translated works on Buddhism from that language, which ascend to the\nyear 76 of our era.[99] More recently inscriptions cut upon rocks,\ncolumns, and other monuments in Northern India, have been transcribed and\ntranslated. Mr. James Prinsep deciphered these inscriptions, and found\nthem to be in the ancient language of the province of Magadha where\nBuddhism first appeared. They contain the decrees of a king, or raja,\nnamed Pyadasi, whom Mr. Turnour has shown to be the same as the famous\nAsoka, before alluded to. This king appears to have come to the throne\nsomewhere between B.C. 319 and B.C. 260. Similar inscriptions have been\ndiscovered throughout India, proving to the satisfaction of such scholars\nas Burnouf, Prinsep, Turnour, Lassen, Weber, Max M\u00fcller, and\nSaint-Hilaire, that Buddhism had become almost the state religion of\nIndia, in the fourth century before Christ.[100]\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. Sakya-muni, the Founder of Buddhism.\n\n\nNorth of Central India and of the kingdom of Oude, near the borders of\nNepaul, there reigned, at the end of the seventh century before Christ, a\nwise and good king, in his capital city, Kapilavastu[101]. He was one of\nthe last of the great Solar race, celebrated in the ancient epics of\nIndia. His wife, named _Maya_ because of her great beauty, became the\nmother of a prince, who was named Sidd\u00e2rtha, and afterward known as the\nBuddha[102]. She died seven days after his birth, and the child was\nbrought up by his maternal aunt. The young prince distinguished himself by\nhis personal and intellectual qualities, but still more by his early\npiety. It appears from the laws of Manu that it was not unusual, in the\nearliest periods of Brahmanism, for those seeking a superior piety to turn\nhermits, and to live alone in the forest, engaged in acts of prayer,\nmeditation, abstinence, and the study of the Vedas. This practice,\nhowever, seems to have been confined to the Brahmans. It was, therefore, a\ngrief to the king, when his son, in the flower of his youth and highly\naccomplished in every kingly faculty of body and mind, began to turn his\nthoughts toward the life of an anchorite. In fact, the young Sidd\u00e2rtha\nseems to have gone through that deep experience out of which the great\nprophets of mankind have always been born. The evils of the world pressed\non his heart and brain; the very air seemed full of mortality; all things\nwere passing away. Was anything permanent? anything stable? Nothing but\ntruth; only the absolute, eternal law of things. \"Let me see that,\" said\nhe, \"and I can give lasting peace to mankind. Then shall I become their\ndeliverer.\" So, in opposition to the strong entreaties of his father,\nwife, and friends, he left the palace one night, and exchanged the\nposition of a prince for that of a mendicant. \"I will never return to the\npalace,\" said he, \"till I have attained to the sight of the divine law,\nand so become Buddha.\"[103]\n\nHe first visited the Brahmans, and listened to their doctrines, but found\nno satisfaction therein. The wisest among them could not teach him true\npeace,--that profound inward rest, which was already called Nirvana. He\nwas twenty-nine years old. Although disapproving of the Brahmanic\nausterities as an end, he practised them during six years, in order to\nsubdue the senses. He then became satisfied that the path to perfection\ndid not lie that way. He therefore resumed his former diet and a more\ncomfortable mode of life, and so lost many disciples who had been\nattracted by his amazing austerity. Alone in his hermitage, he came at\nlast to that solid conviction, that KNOWLEDGE never to be shaken, of the\nlaws of things, which had seemed to him the only foundation of a truly\nfree life. The spot where, after a week of constant meditation, he at last\narrived at this beatific vision, became one of the most sacred places in\nIndia. He was seated under a tree, his face to the east, not having moved\nfor a day and night, when he attained the triple science, which was to\nrescue mankind from its woes. Twelve hundred years after the death of the\nBuddha, a Chinese pilgrim was shown what then passed for the sacred tree.\nIt was surrounded by high brick walls, with an opening to the east, and\nnear it stood many topes and monasteries. In the opinion of M.\nSaint-Hilaire, these ruins, and the locality of the tree, may yet be\nrediscovered. The spot deserves to be sought for, since there began a\nmovement which has, on the whole, been a source of happiness and\nimprovement to immense multitudes of human beings, during twenty-four\ncenturies.\n\nHaving attained this inward certainty of vision, he decided to teach the\nworld his truth. He knew well what it would bring him,--what opposition,\ninsult, neglect, scorn. But he thought of three classes of men: those who\nwere already on the way to the truth, and did not need him; those who were\nfixed in error, and whom he could not help; and the poor doubters,\nuncertain of their way. It was to help these last, the doubters, that the\nBuddha went forth to preach. On his way to the holy city of India,\nBenares, a serious difficulty arrested him at the Ganges, namely, his\nhaving no money to pay the boatman for his passage. At Benares he made his\nfirst converts, \"turning the wheel of the law\" for the first time. His\ndiscourses are contained in the sacred books of the Buddhists. He\nconverted great numbers, his father among the rest, but met with fierce\nopposition from the Hindoo Scribes and Pharisees, the leading Brahmans. So\nhe lived and taught, and died at the age of eighty years.\n\nNaturally, as soon as the prophet was dead he became very precious in all\neyes. His body was burned with much pomp, and great contention arose for\nthe unconsumed fragments of bone. At last they were divided into eight\nparts, and a tope was erected, by each of the eight fortunate possessors,\nover such relics as had fallen to him. The ancient books of the North and\nSouth agree as to the places where the topes were built, and no Roman\nCatholic relics are so well authenticated. The Buddha, who believed with\nJesus that \"the flesh profiteth nothing,\" and that \"the word is spirit and\nlife,\" would probably have been the first to condemn this idolatry. But\nfetich-worship lingers in the purest religions.\n\nThe time of the death of Sakya-muni, like most Oriental dates, is\nuncertain. The Northern Buddhists, in Thibet, Nepaul, etc., vary greatly\namong themselves. The Chinese Buddhists are not more certain. Lassen,\ntherefore, with most of the scholars, accepts as authentic the period upon\nwhich all the authorities of the South, especially of Ceylon, agree, which\nis B.C. 543. Lately Westergaard has written a monograph on the subject, in\nwhich, by a labored argument, he places the date about two hundred years\nlater. Whether he will convince his brother _savans_ remains to be seen.\n\nImmediately after the death of Sakya-muni a general council of his most\neminent disciples was called, to fix the doctrine and discipline of the\nchurch. The legend runs that three of the disciples were selected to\nrecite from memory what the sage had taught. The first was appointed to\nrepeat his teaching upon discipline; \"for discipline,\" said they, \"is the\nsoul of the law.\" Whereupon Upali, mounting the pulpit, repeated all of\nthe precepts concerning morals and the ritual. Then Ananda was chosen to\ngive his master's discourses concerning faith or doctrine. Finally,\nKasyapa announced the philosophy and metaphysics of the system. The\ncouncil sat during seven months, and the threefold division of the sacred\nScriptures of Buddhism was the result of their work; for Sakya-muni wrote\nnothing himself. He taught by conversation only.\n\nThe second general council was called to correct certain abuses which had\nbegun to creep in. It was held about a hundred years after the teacher's\ndeath. A great fraternity of monks proposed to relax the conventual\ndiscipline, by allowing greater liberty in taking food, in drinking\nintoxicating liquor, and taking gold and silver if offered in alms. The\nschismatic monks were degraded, to the number of ten thousand, but formed\na new sect. The third council, held during the reign of the great Buddhist\nEmperor Asoka, was called on account of heretics, who, to the number of\nsixty thousand, were degraded and expelled. After this, missionaries were\ndespatched to preach the word in different lands. The names and success of\nthese missionaries are recorded in the _Mahawanso_, or Sacred History,\ntranslated by Mr. George Turnour from the Singhalese. But what is\nremarkable is, that the relics of some of them have been recently found in\nthe Sanchi topes, and in other sacred buildings, contained in caskets,\nwith their names inscribed on them. These inscribed names correspond with\nthose given to the same missionaries in the historical books of Ceylon.\nFor example, according to the _Mahawanso_, two missionaries, one named\nKassapo (or Kasyapa), and the other called Majjhima (or Madhyama), went to\npreach in the region of the Himalayan Mountains. They journeyed, preached,\nsuffered, and toiled, side by side, so the ancient history informs us,--a\nhistory composed in Ceylon in the fifth century of our era, with the aid\nof works still more ancient;[104] and now, when the second Sanchi tope was\nopened in 1851, by Major Cunningham, the relics of these very missionaries\nwere discovered.[105] The tope was perfect in 1819, when visited by\nCaptain Fell,--\"not a stone fallen.\" And though afterward injured, in\n1822, by some amateur relic-hunters, its contents remained intact. It is a\nsolid hemisphere, built of rough stones without mortar, thirty-nine feet\nin diameter; it has a basement six feet high, projecting all around five\nfeet, and so making a terrace. It is surrounded by a stone railing, with\ncarved figures. In the centre of this tope was found a small chamber, made\nof six stones, containing the relic-box of white sandstone, about ten\ninches square. Inside this were four caskets of steatite (a sacred stone\namong the Buddhists), each containing small portions of burnt human bone.\nOn the outside lid of one of these boxes was this inscription: \"Relics of\nthe emancipated Kasyapa Gotra, missionary to the whole Hemawanta.\" And on\nthe inside of the lid was carved: \"Relics of the emancipated Madhyama.\"\nThese relics, with those of eight other leading men of the Buddhist\nChurch, had rested in this monument since the age of Asoka, and cannot\nhave been placed there later than B.C. 220.\n\nThe missionary spirit displayed by Buddhism distinguishes it from all\nother religions which preceded Christianity. The religion of Confucius\nnever attempted to make converts outside of China. Brahmanism never went\nbeyond India. The system of Zoroaster was a Persian religion; that of\nEgypt was confined to the Valley of the Nile; that of Greece to the\nHellenic race. But Buddhism was inflamed with the desire of bringing all\nmankind to a knowledge of its truths. Its ardent and successful\nmissionaries converted multitudes in Nepaul, Thibet, Birmah, Ceylon,\nChina, Siam, Japan; and in all these states its monasteries are to-day the\nchief sources of knowledge and centres of instruction to the people. It is\nidle to class such a religion as this with the superstitions which debase\nmankind. Its power lay in the strength of conviction which inspired its\nteachers; and that, again, must have come from the sight of truth, not the\nbelief in error.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4. Leading Doctrines of Buddhism.\n\n\nWhat, then, are the doctrines of Buddhism? What are the essential\nteachings of the Buddha and his disciples? Is it a system, as we are so\noften told, which denies God and immortality? Has _atheism_ such a power\nover human hearts in the East? Is the Asiatic mind thus in love with\neternal death? Let us try to discover.\n\nThe hermit of Sakya, as we have seen, took his departure from two profound\nconvictions,--the evil of perpetual change, and the possibility of\nsomething permanent. He might have used the language of the Book of\nEcclesiastes, and cried, \"Vanity of vanities! all is vanity!\" The profound\ngloom of that wonderful book is based on the same course of thought as\nthat of the Buddha, namely, that everything goes round and round in a\ncircle; that nothing moves forward; that there is no new thing under the\nsun; that the sun rises and sets, and rises again; that the wind blows\nnorth and south, and east and west, and then returns according to its\ncircuits. Where can rest be found? where peace? where any certainty?\nSidd\u00e2rtha was young; but he saw age approaching. He was in health; but he\nknew that sickness and death were lying in wait for him. He could not\nescape from the sight of this perpetual round of growth and decay, life\nand death, joy and woe. He cried out, from the depths of his soul, for\nsomething stable, permanent, real.\n\nAgain, he was assured that this emancipation from change and decay was to\nbe found in knowledge. But by knowledge he did not intend the perception\nand recollection of outward facts,--not learning. Nor did he mean\nspeculative knowledge, or the power of reasoning. He meant intuitive\nknowledge, the sight of eternal truth, the perception of the unchanging\nlaws of the universe. This was a knowledge which was not to be attained by\nany merely intellectual process, but by moral training, by purity of heart\nand lite. Therefore he renounced the world, and went into the forest, and\nbecame an anchorite.\n\nBut just at this point he separated himself from the Brahmans. They also\nwere, and are, believers in the value of mortification, abnegation,\npenance. They had their hermits in his day. But they believed in the value\nof penance as accumulating merit. They practised self-denial for its own\nsake. The Buddha practised it as a means to a higher end,--emancipation,\npurification, intuition. And this end he believed that he had at last\nattained. At last he _saw_ the truth. He became \"wide awake.\" Illusions\ndisappeared; the reality was before him. He was the Buddha,--the MAN WHO\nKNEW.\n\nStill he was a man, not a God. And here again is another point of\ndeparture from Brahmanism. In that system, the final result of devotion\nwas to become absorbed in God. The doctrine of the Brahmans is divine\nabsorption; that of the Buddhists, human development. In the Brahmanical\nsystem, God is everything and man nothing. In the Buddhist, man is\neverything and God nothing. Here is its atheism, that it makes so much of\nman as to forget God. It is perhaps \"without God in the world,\" but it\ndoes not deny him. It accepts the doctrine of the three worlds,--the\neternal world of absolute being; the celestial world of the gods, Brahma,\nIndra, Vischnu, Siva; and the finite world, consisting of individual\nsouls and the laws of nature. Only it says, of the world of absolute\nbeing, Nirvana, we know nothing. That is our aim and end; but it is the\ndirect opposite to all we know. It is, therefore, to us as nothing. The\ncelestial world, that of the gods, is even of less moment to us. What we\nknow are the everlasting laws of nature, by obedience to which we rise,\ndisobeying which we fall, by perfect obedience to which we shall at last\nobtain Nirvana, and rest forever.\n\nTo the mind of the Buddha, therefore, the world consisted of two orders of\nexistence,--souls and laws. He saw an infinite multitude of souls,--in\ninsects, animals, men,--and saw that they were surrounded by inflexible\nlaws,--the laws of nature. To know these and to obey them,--this was\nemancipation.\n\nThe fundamental doctrine of Buddhism, taught by its founder and received\nby all Buddhists without exception, in the North and in the South, in\nBirmah and Thibet, in Ceylon and China, is the doctrine of the four\nsublime truths, namely:--\n\n   1. All existence is evil, because all existence is subject to change\n   and decay.\n\n   2. The source of this evil is the desire for things which are to change\n   and pass away.\n\n   3. This desire, and the evil which follows it, are not inevitable; for\n   if we choose we can arrive at Nirvana, when both shall wholly cease.\n\n   4. There is a fixed and certain method to adopt, by pursuing which we\n   attain this end, without possibility of failure.\n\nThese four truths are the basis of the system. They are: 1st, the evil;\n2d, its cause; 3d, its end; 4th, the way of reaching the end.\n\nThen follow the eight steps of this way, namely:--\n\n   1. Right belief, or the correct faith.\n\n   2. Right judgment, or wise application of that faith to life.\n\n   3. Right utterance, or perfect truth in all that we say and do.\n\n   4. Right motives, or proposing always a proper end and aim.\n\n   5. Right occupation, or an outward life not involving sin.\n\n   6. Right obedience, or faithful observance of duty.\n\n   7. Right memory, or a proper recollection of past conduct.\n\n   8. Right meditation, or keeping the mind fixed on permanent truth.\n\nAfter this system of doctrine follow certain moral commands and\nprohibitions, namely, five, which apply to all men, and five others which\napply only to the novices or the monks. The five first commandments are:\n1st, do not kill; 2d, do not steal; 3d, do not commit adultery; 4th, do\nnot lie; 5th, do not become intoxicated. The other five are: 1st, take no\nsolid food after noon; 2d, do not visit dances, singing, or theatrical\nrepresentations; 3d, use no ornaments or perfumery in dress; 4th, use no\nluxurious beds; 5th, accept neither gold nor silver.\n\nAll these doctrines and precepts have been the subject of innumerable\ncommentaries and expositions. Everything has been commented, explained,\nand elucidated. Systems of casuistry as voluminous as those of the Fathers\nof the Company of Jesus, systems of theology as full of minute analysis as\nthe great _Summa Totius Theologi\u00e6_ of St. Thomas, are to be found in the\nlibraries of the monasteries of Thibet and Ceylon. The monks have their\nGolden Legends, their Lives of Saints, full of miracles and marvels. On\nthis simple basis of a few rules and convictions has arisen a vast fabric\nof metaphysics. Much of this literature is instructive and entertaining.\nSome of it is profound. Baur, who had made a special study of the\nintricate speculations of the Gnostics, compares them with \"the vast\nabstractions of Buddhism.\"\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5. The Spirit of Buddhism Rational and Humane.\n\n\nUltimately, two facts appear, as we contemplate this system,--first, its\nrationalism; second, its humanity.\n\nIt is a system of rationalism. It appeals throughout to human reason. It\nproposes to save man, not from a future but a present hell, and to save\nhim by teaching. Its great means of influence is the sermon. The Buddha\npreached innumerable sermons; his missionaries went abroad preaching.\nBuddhism has made all its conquests honorably, by a process of rational\nappeal to the human mind. It was never propagated by force, even when it\nhad the power of imperial rajas to support it. Certainly, it is a very\nencouraging fact in the history of man, that the two religions which have\nmade more converts than any other, Buddhism and Christianity, have not\ndepended for their success on the sword of the conqueror or the frauds of\npriestcraft, but have gained their victories in the fair conflict of\nreason with reason. We grant that Buddhism has not been without its\nsuperstitions and its errors; but it has not deceived, and it has not\npersecuted. In this respect it can teach Christians a lesson. Buddhism has\nno prejudices against those who confess another faith. The Buddhists have\nfounded no Inquisition; they have combined the zeal which converted\nkingdoms with a toleration almost inexplicable to our Western experience.\nOnly one religious war has darkened their peaceful history during\ntwenty-three centuries,--that which took place in Thibet, but of which we\nknow little. A Siamese told Crawford that he believed all the religions of\nthe world to be branches of the true religion. A Buddhist in Ceylon sent\nhis son to a Christian school, and told the astonished missionary, \"I\nrespect Christianity as much as Buddhism, for I regard it as a help to\nBuddhism.\" MM. Hue and Gabet converted no Buddhist in Tartary and Thibet,\nbut they partially converted one, bringing him so far as to say that he\nconsidered himself at the same time a good Christian and a good Buddhist.\n\nBuddhism is also a religion of humanity. Because it lays such stress on\nreason, it respects all men, since all possess this same gift. In its\norigin it broke down all castes. All men, of whatever rank, can enter its\npriesthood. It has an unbounded charity for all souls, and holds it a duty\nto make sacrifices for all. One legend tells us that the Buddha gave his\nbody for food to a starved tigress, who could not nurse her young through\nweakness. An incident singularly like that in the fourth chapter of John\nis recorded of the hermit, who asked a woman of low caste for water, and\nwhen she expressed surprise said, \"Give me drink, and I will give you\ntruth.\" The unconditional command, \"Thou shalt not kill,\" which applies to\nall living creatures, has had great influence in softening the manners of\nthe Mongols. This command is connected with the doctrine of transmigration\nof souls, which is one of the essential doctrines of this system as well\nas of Brahmanism. But Buddhism has abolished human sacrifices, and indeed\nall bloody offerings, and its innocent altars are only crowned with\nflowers and leaves. It also inculcates a positive humanity, consisting of\ngood actions. All its priests are supported by daily alms. It is a duty of\nthe Buddhist to be hospitable to strangers, to establish hospitals for the\nsick and poor, and even for sick animals, to plant shade-trees, and erect\nhouses for travellers. Mr. Malcom, the Baptist missionary, says that he\nwas resting one day in a _zayat_ in a small village in Birmah, and was\nscarcely seated when a woman brought a nice mat for him to lie on. Another\nbrought cool water, and a man went and picked for him half a dozen good\noranges. None sought or expected, he says, the least reward, but\ndisappeared, and left him to his repose. He adds: \"None can ascend the\nriver without being struck with the hardihood, skill, energy, and\ngood-humor of the Birmese boatmen. In point of temper and morality they\nare infinitely superior to the boatmen on our Western waters. In my\nvarious trips, I have seen no quarrel nor heard a hard word.\"\n\nMr. Malcom goes on thus: \"Many of these people have never seen a white man\nbefore, but I am constantly struck with their politeness. They desist from\nanything on the slightest intimation; never crowd around to be\ntroublesome; and if on my showing them my watch or pencil-case, or\nanything which particularly attracts them, there are more than can get a\nsight, the outer ones stand aloof and wait till their turn comes....\n\n\"I saw no intemperance in Birmah, though an intoxicating liquor is made\neasily of the juice of a palm....\n\n\"A man may travel from one end of the kingdom to the other without money,\nfeeding and lodging as well as the people.\"\n\n\"I have seen thousands together, for hours, on public occasions, rejoicing\nin all ardor, and no act of violence or case of intoxication....\n\n\"During my whole residence in the country I never saw an indecent act or\nimmodest gesture in man or woman.... I have seen hundreds of men and women\nbathing, and no immodest or careless act....\n\n\"Children are treated with great kindness, not only by the mother but the\nfather, who, when unemployed, takes the young child in his arms, and seems\npleased to attend to it, while the mother cleans the rice or sits\nunemployed at his side. I have as often seen fathers caressing female\ninfants as male. A widow with male and female children is more likely to\nbe sought in marriage than if she has none....\n\n\"Children are almost as reverent to parents as among the Chinese. The aged\nare treated with great care and tenderness, and occupy the best places in\nall assemblies.\"\n\nAccording to Saint-Hilaire's opinion, the Buddhist morality is one of\nendurance, patience, submission, and abstinence, rather than of action,\nenergy, enterprise. Love for all beings is its nucleus, every animal being\nour possible relative. To love our enemies, to offer our lives for\nanimals, to abstain from even defensive warfare, to govern ourselves, to\navoid vices, to pay obedience to superiors, to reverence age, to provide\nfood and shelter for men and animals, to dig wells and plant trees, to\ndespise no religion, show no intolerance, not to persecute, are the\nvirtues of these people. Polygamy is tolerated, but not approved. Monogamy\nis general in Ceylon, Siam, Birinah; somewhat less so in Thibet and\nMongolia. Woman is better treated by Buddhism than by any other Oriental\nreligion.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6. Buddhism as a Religion.\n\n\nBut what is the religious life of Buddhism? Can there be a religion\nwithout a God? And if Buddhism has no God, how can it have worship,\nprayer, devotion? There is no doubt that it has all these. We have seen\nthat its _cultus_ is much like that of the Roman Catholic Church. It\ndiffers from this church in having no secular priests, but only regulars;\nall its clergy are monks, taking the three vows of poverty, chastity, and\nobedience. Their vows, however, are not irrevocable; they can relinquish\nthe yellow robe, and return into the world, if they find they have\nmistaken their vocation.\n\nThe God of Buddhism is the Buddha himself, the deified man, who has become\nan infinite being by entering Nirvana. To him prayer is addressed, and it\nis so natural for man to pray, that no theory can prevent him from doing\nit. In Thibet, prayer-meetings are held even in the streets. Huc says:\n\"There is a very touching custom at Lhassa. In the evening, just before\nsundown, all the people leave their work, and meet in groups in the public\nstreets and squares. All kneel and begin to chant their prayers in a low\nand musical tone. The concert of song which rises from all these numerous\nreunions produces an immense and solemn harmony, which deeply impresses\nthe mind. We could not help sadly comparing this Pagan city, where all the\npeople prayed together, with our European cities, where men would blush to\nbe seen making the sign of the cross.\"\n\nIn Thibet _confession_ was early enjoined. Public worship is there a\nsolemn confession before the assembled priests. It confers entire\nabsolution from sins. It consists in an open confession of sin, and a\npromise to sin no more. Consecrated water is also used in the service of\nthe Pagodas.\n\nThere are thirty-five Buddhas who have preceded Sakya-muni, and are\nconsidered the chief powers for taking away sin. These are called the\n\"Thirty-five Buddhas of Confession.\" Sakya-muni, however, has been\nincluded in the number. Some lamas are also joined with them in the sacred\npictures, as Tsonkhapa, a lama born in A.D. 1555, and others. The\nmendicant priests of Buddha are bound to confess twice a month, at the new\nand full moon.\n\nThe Buddhists have also nunneries for women. It is related that\nSakya-muni consented to establish them at the earnest request of his aunt\nand nurse, and of his favorite disciple, Ananda. These nuns take the same\nvows as the monks. Their rules require them to show reverence even to the\nyoungest monk, and to use no angry or harsh words to a priest. The nun\nmust be willing to be taught; she must go once a fortnight for this\npurpose to some virtuous teacher; she must not devote more than two weeks\nat a time to spiritual retirement; she must not go out merely for\namusement; after two years' preparation she can be initiated, and she is\nbound to attend the closing ceremonies of the rainy season.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 7. Karma and Nirvana.\n\n\nOne of the principal metaphysical doctrines of this system is that which\nit called Karma. This means the law of consequences, by which every act\ncommitted in one life entails results in another. This law operates until\none reaches Nirvana. Mr. Hardy goes so far as to suppose that Karma causes\nthe merits or demerits of each soul to result at death in the production\nof another consciousness, and in fact to result in a new person. But this\nmust be an error. Karma is the law of consequences, by which every act\nreceives its exact recompense in the next world, where the soul is born\nagain. But unless the same soul passes on, such a recompense is\nimpossible.\n\n\"_Karma_\" said Buddha, \"is the most essential property of all beings; it\nis inherited from previous births, it is the cause of all good and evil,\nand the reason why some are mean and some exalted when they come into the\nworld. It is like the shadow which always accompanies the body.\" Buddha\nhimself obtained all his elevation by means of the Karma obtained in\nprevious states. No one can obtain Karma or merit, but those who hear the\ndiscourses of Buddha.\n\nThere has been much discussion among scholars concerning the true meaning\nof Nirvana, the end of all Buddhist expectation. Is it annihilation? Or is\nit absorption in God? The weight of authority, no doubt, is in favor of\nthe first view. Burnouf's conclusion is: \"For Buddhist theists, it is the\nabsorption of the individual life in God; for atheists, absorption of this\nindividual life in the nothing. But for both, it is deliverance from all\nevil, it is supreme affranchisement.\" In the opinion that it is\nannihilation agree Max M\u00fcller, Tumour, Schmidt, and Hardy. And M.\nSaint-Hilaire, while calling it \"a hideous faith,\" nevertheless assigns it\nto a third part of the human race.\n\nBut, on the other hand, scholars of the highest rank deny this view. In\nparticular, Bunsen (_Gott in der Geschichte_) calls attention to the fact\nthat, in the oldest monuments of this religion, the earliest Sutras,\nNirvana is spoken of as a condition attained in the present life. How then\ncan it mean annihilation? It is a state in which all desires cease, all\npassions die. Bunsen believes that the Buddha never denied or questioned\nGod or immortality.\n\nThe following account of NIRVANA is taken from the Pali Sacred Books:--\n\n\n   \"Again the king of S\u00e1gal said to N\u00e1gas\u00e9na: 'Is the joy of Nirvana\n   unmixed, or is it associated with sorrow?' The priest replied that it\n   is unmixed satisfaction, entirely free from sorrow.\n\n   \"Again the king of S\u00e1gal said to N\u00e1gas\u00e9na: 'Is Nirvana in the east,\n   west, south, or north; above or below? Is there such a place as\n   Nirvana? If so, where is it?' N\u00e1gas\u00e9na: 'Neither in the east, south,\n   west, nor north, neither in the sky above, nor in the earth below, nor\n   in any of the infinite sakwalas, is there such a place as Nirvana.'\n   Milinda: 'Then if Nirvana have no locality, there can be no such thing;\n   and when it is said that any one attains Nirvana, the declaration is\n   false.' N\u00e1gas\u00e9na: 'There is no such place as Nirvana, and yet it\n   exists; the priest who seeks it in the right manner will attain it.'\n   'When Nirvana is attained, is there such a place?' N\u00e1gas\u00e9na: 'When a\n   priest attains Nirvana there is such a place.' Milinda: 'Where is that\n   place?' N\u00e1gas\u00e9na: 'Wherever the precepts can be observed; it may be\n   anywhere; just as he who has two eyes can see the sky from any or all\n   places; or as all places may have an eastern side.'\"\n\nThe Buddhist asserts Nirvana as the object of all his hope, yet, if you\nask him what it is, may reply, \"Nothing.\" But this cannot mean that the\nhighest good of man is annihilation. No pessimism could be more extreme\nthan such a doctrine. Such a belief is not in accordance with human\nnature. Tennyson is wiser when he writes:--\n\n    \"Whatever crazy sorrow saith,\n    No life that breathes with human breath\n    Has ever truly longed for death.\n\n    \"'T is LIFE, whereof our nerves are scant,\n    O life, not death, for which we pant;\n    More life, and fuller, that I want.\"\n\nThe Buddhist, when he says that Nirvana is _nothing,_ means simply that it\nis _no thing_; that it is nothing to our present conceptions; that it is\nthe opposite of all we know, the contradiction, of what we call life now,\na state so sublime, so wholly different from anything we know or can know\nnow, that it is the same thing as nothing to us. All present life is\nchange; _that_ is permanence: all present life is going up and down;\n_that_ is stability: all present life is the life of sense; _that_ is\nspirit.\n\nThe Buddhist denies God in the same way. He is the unknowable. He is the\nimpossible to be conceived of.\n\n    \"Who shall name Him\n    And dare to say,\n    '_I believe in Him_'?\n    Who shall deny Him,\n    And venture to affirm,\n    '_I believe in Him not?_'\"[106]\n\nTo the Buddhist, in short, the element of time and the finite is all, as\nto the Brahman the element of eternity is all. It is the most absolute\ncontradiction of Brahmanism which we can conceive.\n\nIt seems impossible for the Eastern mind to hold at the same time the two\nconceptions of God and nature, the infinite and the finite, eternity and\ntime. The Brahmaus accept the reality of God, the infinite and the\neternal, and omit the reality of the finite, of nature, history, time, and\nthe world. The Buddhist accepts the last, and ignores the first.\n\nThis question has been fully discussed by Mr. Alger in his very able work,\n\"Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life,\" and his conclusion is\nwholly opposed to the view which makes Nirvana equivalent to annihilation.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 8. Good and Evil of Buddhism.\n\n\nThe good and the evil of Buddhism are thus summed up by M. Saint-Hilaire.\n\nHe remarks that the first peculiarity of Buddhism is the wholly practical\ndirection taken by its founder. He proposes to himself the salvation of\nmankind. He abstains from the subtle philosophy of the Brahmans, and takes\nthe most direct and simple way to his end. But he does not offer low and\nsensual rewards; he does not, like so many lawgivers, promise to his\nfollowers riches, pleasures, conquests, power. He invites them to\nsalvation by means of virtue, knowledge, and self-denial. Not in the\nVedas, nor the books which proceed from it, do we find such noble appeals,\nthough they too look at the infinite as their end. But the indisputable\nglory of Buddha is the boundless charity to man with which his soul was\nfilled. He lived to instruct and guide man aright. He says in so many\nwords, \"My law is a law of grace for all\" (Burnouf, Introduction, etc., p.\n198). We may add to M. Saint-Hilaire's statement, that in these words the\nBuddha plainly aims at what we have called a catholic religion. In his\nview of man's sorrowful life, all distinctions of rank and class fall\naway; all are poor and needy together; and here, too, he comes in contact\nwith that Christianity which says, \"Come unto me, all ye that labor and\nare heavy-laden.\" Buddha also wished to cure the sicknesses, not only of\nthe Hindoo life, but of the life of mankind.\n\nM. Saint-Hilaire adds, that, in seeking thus to help man, the means of the\nBuddha are pure, like his ends. He tries to convince and to persuade: he\ndoes not wish to compel. He allows confession, and helps the weak and\nsimple by explanations and parables. He also tries to guard man against\nevil, by establishing habits of chastity, temperance, and self-control. He\ngoes forward into the Christian graces of patience, humility, and\nforgiveness of injuries. He has a horror of falsehood, a reverence for\ntruth; he forbids slander and gossip; he teaches respect for parents,\nfamily, life, home.\n\nYet Saint-Hilaire declares that, with all these merits, Buddhism has not\nbeen able to found a tolerable social state or a single good government.\nIt failed in India, the land of its birth. Nothing like the progress and\nthe development of Christian civilization appears in Buddhism. Something\nin the heart of the system makes it sterile, notwithstanding its excellent\nintentions. What is it?\n\nThe fact is, that, notwithstanding its benevolent purposes, its radical\nthought is a selfish one. It rests on pure individualism,--each man's\nobject is to save his own soul. All the faults of Buddhism, according to\nM. Saint-Hilaire, spring from this root of egotism in the heart of the\nsystem.\n\nNo doubt the same idea is found in Christianity. Personal salvation is\nherein included. But Christianity _starts_ from a very different point: it\nis the \"kingdom of Heaven.\" \"Thy kingdom come: thy will be done on earth.\"\nIt is not going on away from time to find an unknown eternity. It is God\nwith us, eternity here, eternal life abiding in us now. If some narrow\nProtestant sects make Christianity to consist essentially in the salvation\nof our own soul hereafter, they fall into the condemnation of Buddhism.\nBut that is not the Christianity of Christ. Christ accepts the great\nprophetic idea of a Messiah who brings down God's reign into this life. It\nis the New Jerusalem coming down from God out of heaven. It is the earth\nfull of the knowledge of God, as the waters cover the sea. It is all\nmankind laboring together for this general good.\n\nThis solitary preoccupation with one's own salvation causes the religious\nteachers of Buddhism to live apart, outside of society, and take no\ninterest in it. There is in the Catholic and Protestant world, beside the\nmonk, a secular priesthood, which labors to save other men's bodies and\nsouls. No such priesthood exists in Buddhism.\n\nMoreover, not the idea of salvation from evil,--which keeps before us evil\nas the object of contemplation,--but the idea of good, is the true motive\nfor the human conscience. This leads us up at once to God; this alone can\ncreate love. We can only love by seeing something lovely. God must seem,\nnot terrible, but lovely, in order to be loved. Man must seem, not mean\nand poor, but noble and beautiful, before we can love him. This idea of\nthe good does not appear in Buddhism, says M. Saint-Hilaire. Not a spark\nof this divine flame--that which to see and show has given immortal glory\nto Plato and to Socrates--has descended on Sakya-muni. The notion of\nrewards, substituted for that of the infinite beauty, has perverted\neverything in his system.\n\nDuty itself becomes corrupted, as soon as the idea of the good disappears.\nIt becomes then a blind submission to mere law. It is an outward\nconstraint, not an inward inspiration. Scepticism follows. \"The world is\nempty, the heart is dead surely,\" is its language. Nihilism arrives sooner\nor later. God is nothing; man is nothing; life is nothing; death is\nnothing; eternity is nothing. Hence the profound sadness of Buddhism. To\nits eye all existence is evil, and the only hope is to escape from time\ninto eternity,--or into nothing,--as you may choose to interpret Nirvana.\nWhile Buddhism makes God, or the good, and heaven, to be equivalent to\nnothing, it intensifies and exaggerates evil. Though heaven is a blank,\nhell is a very solid reality. It is present and future too. Everything in\nthe thousand hells of Buddhism is painted as vividly as in the hell of\nDante. God has disappeared from the universe, and in his place is only the\ninexorable law, which grinds on forever. It punishes and rewards, but has\nno love in it. It is only dead, cold, hard, cruel, unrelenting law. Yet\nBuddhists are not atheists, any more than a child who has never heard of\nGod is an atheist. A child is neither deist nor atheist: he has _no_\ntheology.\n\nThe only emancipation from self-love is in the perception of an infinite\nlove. Buddhism, ignoring this infinite love, incapable of communion with\nGod, aiming at morality without religion, at humanity without piety,\nbecomes at last a prey to the sadness of a selfish isolation. We do not\nsay that this is always the case, for in all systems the heart often\nredeems the errors of the head. But this is the logical drift of the\nsystem and its usual outcome.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 9. Relation of Buddhism to Christianity.\n\n\nIn closing this chapter, let us ask what relation this great system\nsustains to Christianity.\n\nThe fundamental doctrine and central idea of Buddhism is personal\nsalvation, or _the salvation of the soul by personal acts of faith and\nobedience_. This we maintain, notwithstanding the opinion that some\nschools of Buddhists teach that the soul itself is not a constant element\nor a special substance, but the mere result of past merit or demerit. For\nif there be no soul, there can be no transmigration. Now it is certain\nthat the doctrine of transmigration is the very basis of Buddhism, the\ncorner-stone of the system. Thus M. Saint-Hilaire says: \"The chief and\nmost immovable fact of Buddhist metaphysics is the doctrine of\ntransmigration.\" Without a soul to migrate, there can be no migration.\nMoreover, the whole ethics of the system would fall with its metaphysics,\non this theory; for why urge men to right conduct, in order to attain\nhappiness, or Nirvana, hereafter, if they are not to exist hereafter. No,\nthe soul's immortality is a radical doctrine in Buddhism, and this\ndoctrine is one of its points of contact with Christianity.\n\nAnother point of contact is its doctrine of reward and punishment,--a\ndoctrine incompatible with the supposition that the soul does not pass on\nfrom world to world. But this is the essence of all its ethics, the\nimmutable, inevitable, unalterable consequences of good and evil. In this\nalso it agrees with Christianity, which teaches that \"whatsoever a man\nsoweth that shall he also reap\"; that he who turns his pound into five\nwill he set over five cities, he who turns it into ten, over ten cities.\n\nA third point of contact with Christianity, however singular it may at\nfirst appear to say so, is the doctrine of Nirvana. Nirvana, to the\nBuddhist, means the absolute, eternal world, beyond time and space; that\nwhich is nothing to us now, but will be everything hereafter. Incapable of\ncognizing both time and eternity, it makes them absolute negations of each\nother.\n\nThe peculiarity of Plato, according to Mr. Emerson and other Platonists\nwas, that he was able to grasp and hold intellectually both\nconceptions,--of God and man, the infinite and finite, the eternal and the\ntemporal. The merit of Christianity is, in like manner, that it is able to\ntake up and keep, not primarily as dogma, but as life, both these\nantagonistic ideas. Christianity recognizes God as the infinite and\neternal, but recognizes also the world of time and space as real. Man\nexists as well as God: we love God, we must love man too. Brahmanism loves\nGod, but not man; it has piety, but not humanity. Buddhism loves man, but\nnot God; it has humanity, but not piety; or if it has piety, it is by a\nbeautiful want of logic, its heart being wiser than its head. That which\nseems an impossibility in these Eastern systems is a fact of daily life to\nthe Christian child, to the ignorant and simple Christian man or woman,\nwho, amid daily duty and trial, find joy in both heavenly and earthly\nlove.\n\nThere is a reason for this in the inmost nature of Christianity as\ncompared with Buddhism. Why is it that Buddhism is a religion without God?\nSakya-muni did not ignore God. The object of his life was to attain\nNirvana, that is, to attain a union with God, the Infinite Being. He\nbecame Buddha by this divine experience. Why, then, is not this religious\nexperience a constituent element in Buddhism, as it is in Christianity?\nBecause in Buddhism man struggles upward to find God, while in\nChristianity God comes down to find man. To speak in the language of\ntechnical theology, Buddhism is a doctrine of works, and Christianity of\ngrace. That which God gives all men may receive, and be united by this\ncommunity of grace in one fellowship. But the results attained by effort\nalone, divide men; because some do more and receive more than others. The\nsaint attained Buddha, but that was because of his superhuman efforts and\nsacrifices; it does not encourage others to hope for the same result.\n\nWe see, then, that here, as elsewhere, the superiority of Christianity is\nto be found in its quantity, in its fulness of life. It touches Buddhism\nat all its good points, in all its truths. It accepts the Buddhistic\ndoctrine of rewards and punishments, of law, progress, self-denial,\nself-control, humanity, charity, equality of man with man, and pity for\nhuman sorrow; but to all this it adds--how much more! It fills up the\ndreary void of Buddhism with a living God; with a life of God in man's\nsoul, a heaven here as well as hereafter. It gives us, in addition to the\nstruggle of the soul to find God, a God coming down to find the soul. It\ngives a divine as real as the human, an infinite as solid as the finite.\nAnd this it does, not by a system of thought, but by a fountain and stream\nof life. If all Christian works, the New Testament included, were\ndestroyed, we should lose a vast deal no doubt; but we should not lose\nChristianity; for that is not a book, but a life. Out of that stream of\nlife would be again developed the conception of Christianity, as a thought\nand a belief. We should be like the people living on the banks of the\nNile, ignorant for five thousand years of its sources; not knowing whence\nits beneficent inundations were derived; not knowing by what miracle its\ngreat stream could flow on and on amid the intense heats, where no rain\nfalls, and fed during a course of twelve hundred miles by no single\naffluent, yet not absorbed in the sand, nor evaporated by the ever-burning\nsun. But though ignorant of its source, they know it has a source, and can\nenjoy all its benefits and blessings. So Christianity is a full river of\nlife, containing truths apparently the most antagonistic, filling the soul\nand heart of man and the social state of nations with its impulses and\nits ideas. We should lose much in losing our positive knowledge of its\nhistory; but if all the books were gone, the tablets of the human heart\nwould remain, and on these would be written the everlasting Gospel of\nJesus, in living letters which no years could efface and no changes\nconceal.\n\n\n\n\nChapter V.\n\nZoroaster and the Zend Avesta.\n\n\n\n  \u00a7 1. Ruins of the Palace of Xerxes at Persepolis.\n  \u00a7 2. Greek Accounts of Zoroaster. Plutarch's Description of his Religion.\n  \u00a7 3. Anquetil du Perron and his Discovery of the Zend Avesta.\n  \u00a7 4. Epoch of Zoroaster. What do we know of him?\n  \u00a7 5. Spirit of Zoroaster and of his Religion.\n  \u00a7 6. Character of the Zend Avesta.\n  \u00a7 7. Later Development of the System in the Bundehesch.\n  \u00a7 8. Relation of the Religion of the Zend Avesta to that of the Vedas.\n  \u00a7 9. Is Monotheism or pure Dualism the Doctrine taught in the Zend\n         Avesta?\n  \u00a7 10. Relation of this System to Christianity. The Kingdom of Heaven.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 1. Ruins of the Palace of Xerxes at Persepolis.\n\n\nIn the southwestern part of Persia is the lovely valley of Schiraz, in the\nprovince of Farsistan, which is the ancient Persis. Through the long\nspring and summer the plains are covered with flowers, the air is laden\nwith perfume, and the melody of birds, winds, and waters fills the ear.\nThe fields are covered with grain, which ripens in May; the grapes,\napricots, and peaches are finer than those of Europe. The nightingale (or\nbulbul) sings more sweetly than elsewhere, and the rose-bush, the national\nemblem of Persia, grows to the size of a tree, and is weighed down by its\nluxuriant blossoms. The beauty of this region, and the loveliness of the\nwomen of Schiraz awakened the genius of Hafiz and of Saadi, the two great\nlyric poets of the East, both of whom resided here.\n\nAt one extremity of this valley, in the hollow of a crescent formed by\nrocky hills, thirty miles northwest of Schiraz, stands an immense\nplatform, fifty feet high above the plain, hewn partly out of the mountain\nitself, and partly built up with gray marble blocks from twenty to sixty\nfeet long, so nicely fitted together that the joints can scarcely be\ndetected. This platform is about fourteen hundred feet long by nine\nhundred broad, and its faces front the four quarters of the heavens. You\nrise from the plain by flights of marble steps, so broad and easy that a\nprocession on horseback could ascend them. By these you reach a landing,\nwhere stand as sentinels two colossal figures sculptured from great blocks\nof marble. The one horn in the forehead seems to Heeren to indicate the\nUnicorn; the mighty limbs, whose muscles are carved with the precision of\nthe Grecian chisel, induced Sir Robert Porter to believe that they\nrepresented the sacred bulls of the Magian religion; while the solemn,\nhalf-human repose of the features suggests some symbolic and supernatural\nmeaning. Passing these sentinels, who have kept their solitary watch for\ncenturies, you ascend by other flights of steps to the top of the terrace.\nThere stand, lonely and beautiful, a few gigantic columns, whose lofty\nfluted shafts and elegantly carved capitals belong to an unknown order of\narchitecture. Fifty or sixty feet high, twelve or fifteen feet in\ncircumference, they, with a multitude of others, once supported the roof\nof cedar, now fallen, whose beams stretched from capital to capital, and\nwhich protected the assembled multitudes from the hot sun of Southern\nAsia. Along the noble upper stairway are carved rows of figures, which\nseem to be ascending by your side. They represent warriors, courtiers,\ncaptives, men of every nation, among whom may be easily distinguished the\nnegro from the centre of Africa. Inscriptions abound, in that strange\narrow-headed or wedge-shaped character,--one of the most ancient and\ndifficult of all,--which, after long baffling the learning of Europe, has\nat last begun yielded to the science and acuteness of the present century.\nOne of the inscriptions copied from these walls was read by Grotefend as\nfollows:--\n\n\n   \"Darius the King, King of Kings, son of Hystaspes, successor of the\n   Ruler of the World, Djemchid.\"\n\nAnother:--\n\n\n   \"Xerxes the King, King of Kings, son of Darius the King, successor of\n   the Ruler of the World.\"\n\nMore recently, other inscriptions have been deciphered, one of which is\nthus given by another German Orientalist, Benfey:--[107]\n\n\n   \"Ahura-Mazda (Ormazd) is a mighty God; who has created the earth, the\n   heaven, and men; who has given glory to men; who has made Xerxes king,\n   the ruler of many. I, Xerxes, King of Kings, king of the earth near and\n   far, son of Darius, an Ach\u00e6menid. What I have done here, and what I\n   have done elsewhere, I have done by the grace of Ahura-Mazda.\"\n\nIn another place:--\n\n\n   \"Artaxerxes the King has declared that this great work is done by me.\n   May Ahura-Mazda and Mithra protect me, my building, and my\n   people[108].\"\n\nHere, then, was the palace of Darius and his successors, Xerxes and\nArtaxerxes, famous for their conquests,--some of which are recorded on\nthese walls,--who carried their victorious arms into India on the east,\nSyria and Asia Minor on the west, but even more famous for being defeated\nat Marathon and Thermopyl\u00e6. By the side of these columns sat the great\nkings of Persia, giving audience to ambassadors from distant lands. Here,\nperhaps, sat Cyrus himself, the founder of the Persian monarchy, and\nissued orders to rebuild Jerusalem. Here the son of Xerxes, the Ahasuerus\nof Scripture, may have brought from Susa the fair Esther. For this is the\nfamous Persepolis, and on those loftier platforms, where only ruinous\nheaps of stones now remain, stood that other palace, which Alexander\nburned in his intoxication three hundred and thirty years before Christ.\n\"Solitary in their situation, peculiar in their character,\" says Heeren,\n\"these ruins rise above the deluge of years which has overwhelmed all the\nrecords of human grandeur around them, and buried all traces of Susa and\nBabylon. Their venerable antiquity and majestic proportions do not more\ncommand our reverence, than the mystery which involves their construction\nawakens the curiosity of the most unobservant spectator. Pillars which\nbelong to no known order of architecture, inscriptions in an alphabet\nwhich continues an enigma, fabulous animals which stand as guards at the\nentrance, the multiplicity of allegorical figures which decorate the\nwalls,--all conspire to carry us back to ages of the most remote\nantiquity, over which the traditions of the East shed a doubtful and\nwavering light.\"\n\nDiodorus Siculus says that at Persepolis, on the face of the mountain,\nwere the tombs of the kings of Persia, and that the coffins had to be\nlifted up to them along the wall of rock by cords. And Ctesias tells us\nthat \"Darius, the son of Hystaspes, had a tomb prepared for himself in the\ndouble mountain during his lifetime, and that his parents were drawn up\nwith cords to see it, but fell and were killed.\" These very tombs are\nstill to be seen on the face of the mountain behind the ruins. The figures\nof the kings are carved over them. One stands before an altar on which a\nfire is burning. A ball representing the sun is above the altar. Over the\neffigy of the king hangs in the air a winged half-length figure in fainter\nlines, and resembling him. In other places he is seen contending with a\nwinged animal like a griffin.\n\nAll this points at the great Iranic religion, the religion of Persia and\nits monarchs for many centuries, the religion of which Zoroaster was the\ngreat prophet, and the Avesta the sacred book. The king, as servant of\nOrmazd, is worshipping the fire and the sun,--symbols of the god; he\nresists the impure griffin, the creature of Ahriman; and the half-length\nfigure over his head is the surest evidence of the religion of Zoroaster.\nFor, according to the Avesta, every created being has its archetype or\nFereuer (Ferver, Fravashis), which is its ideal essence, first created by\nthe thought of Ormazd. Even Ormazd himself has his Fravashis,[109] and\nthese angelic essences are everywhere objects of worship to the disciple\nof Zoroaster. We have thus found in Persepolis, not only the palace of the\ngreat kings of Persia, but the home of that most ancient system of\nDualism, the system of Zoroaster.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. Greek Accounts of Zoroaster. Plutarch's Description of his Religion.\n\n\nBut who was Zoroaster, and what do we know of him? He is mentioned by\nPlato, about four hundred years before Christ. In speaking of the\neducation of a Persian prince he says that \"one teacher instructs him in\nthe magic of Zoroaster, the son (or priest) of Ormazd (or Oromazes), in\nwhich is comprehended all the worship of the gods.\" He is also spoken of\nby Diodorus, Plutarch, the elder Pliny, and many writers of the first\ncenturies after Christ. The worship of the Magians is described by\nHerodotus before Plato. Herodotus gives very minute accounts of the\nritual, priests, sacrifices, purifications, and mode of burial used by the\nPersian Magi in his time, four hundred and fifty years before Christ; and\nhis account closely corresponds with the practices of the P\u00e2rs\u00ees, or\nfire-worshippers, still remaining in one or two places in Persia and India\nat the present day. \"The Persians,\" he says, \"have no altars, no temples\nnor images; they worship on the tops of the mountains. They adore the\nheavens, and sacrifice to the sun, moon, earth, fire, water, and\nwinds.\"[110] \"They do not erect altars, nor use libations, fillets, or\ncakes. One of the Magi sings an ode concerning the origin of the gods,\nover the sacrifice, which is laid on a bed of tender grass.\" \"They pay\ngreat reverence to all rivers, and must do nothing to defile them; in\nburying they never put the body in the ground till it has been torn by\nsome bird or dog; they cover the body with wax, and then put it in the\nground.\" \"The Magi think they do a meritorious act when they kill ants,\nsnakes, reptiles.\"[111]\n\nPlutarch's account of Zoroaster[112] and his precepts, is very\nremarkable. It is as follows:--\n\n\"Some believe that there are two Gods,--as it were, two rival workmen; the\none whereof they make to be the maker of good things, and the other bad.\nAnd some call the better of these God, and the other D\u00e6mon; as doth\nZoroastres, the Magee, whom they report to be five thousand years elder\nthan the Trojan times. This Zoroastres therefore called the one of these\nOromazes, and the other Arimanius; and affirmed, moreover, that the one of\nthem did, of anything sensible, the most resemble light, and the other\ndarkness and ignorance; but that Mithras was in the middle betwixt them.\nFor which cause, the Persians called Mithras the mediator. And they tell\nus that he first taught mankind to make vows and offerings of thanksgiving\nto the one, and to offer averting and feral sacrifice to the other. For\nthey beat a certain plant called homomy[113] in a mortar, and call upon\nPluto and the dark; and then mix it with the blood of a sacrificed wolf,\nand convey it to a certain place where the sun never shines, and there\ncast it away. For of plants they believe, that some pertain to the good\nGod, and others again to the evil D\u00e6mon; and likewise they think that such\nanimals as dogs, fowls, and urchins belong to the good; but water animals\nto the bad, for which reason they account him happy that kills most of\nthem. These men, moreover, tell us a great many romantic things about\nthese gods, whereof these are some: They say that Oromazes, springing from\npurest light, and Arimanius, on the other hand, from pitchy darkness,\nthese two are therefore at war with one another. And that Oromazes made\nsix gods[114], whereof the first was the author of benevolence, the second\nof truth, the third of justice, and the rest, one of wisdom, one of\nwealth, and a third of that pleasure which accrues from good actions; and\nthat Arimanius likewise made the like number of contrary operations to\nconfront them. After this, Oromazes, having first trebled his own\nmagnitude, mounted up aloft, so far above the sun as the sun itself above\nthe earth, and so bespangled the heavens with stars. But one star (called\nSirius or the Dog) he set as a kind of sentinel or scout before all the\nrest. And after he had made four-and-twenty gods more, he placed them all\nin an egg-shell. But those that were made by Arimanius (being themselves\nalso of the like number) breaking a hole in this beauteous and glazed\negg-shell, bad things came by this means to be intermixed with good. But\nthe fatal time is now approaching, in which Arimanius, who by means of\nthis brings plagues and famines upon the earth, must of necessity be\nhimself utterly extinguished and destroyed; at which time, the earth,\nbeing made plain and level, there will be one life, and one society of\nmankind, made all happy, and one speech. But Theopompus saith, that,\naccording to the opinion of the Magees, each of these gods subdues, and is\nsubdued by turns, for the space of three thousand years apiece, and that\nfor three thousand years more they quarrel and fight and destroy each\nother's works; but that at last Pluto shall fail, and mankind shall be\nhappy, and neither need food, nor yield a shadow.[115] And that the god\nwho projects these things doth, for some time, take his repose and rest;\nbut yet this time is not so much to him although it seems so to man, whose\nsleep is but short. Such, then, is the mythology of the Magees.\"\n\nWe shall see presently how nearly this account corresponds with the\nreligion of the P\u00e2rsis, as it was developed out of the primitive doctrine\nof Zoroaster.[116]\n\nBesides what was known through the Greeks, and some accounts contained in\nArabian and Persian writers, there was, until the middle of the last\ncentury, no certain information concerning Zoroaster and his teachings.\nBut the enterprise, energy, and scientific devotion of a young Frenchman\nchanged the whole aspect of the subject, and we are now enabled to speak\nwith some degree of certainty concerning this great teacher and his\ndoctrines.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. Anquetil du Perron and his Discovery of the Zend Avesta.\n\n\nAnquetil du Perron, born at Paris in 1731, devoted himself early to the\nstudy of Oriental literature. He mastered the Hebrew, Arabic, and Persian\nlanguages, and by his ardor in these studies attracted the attention of\nOriental scholars. Meeting one day in the Royal Library with a fragment of\nthe Zend Avesta, he was seized with the desire of visiting India, to\nrecover the lost books of Zoroaster, \"and to learn the Zend language in\nwhich they were written, and also the Sanskrit, so as to be able to read\nthe manuscripts in the _Biblioth\u00e8que du Roi_, which no one in Paris\nunderstood.\"[117] His friends endeavored to procure him a situation in an\nexpedition just about to sail; but their efforts not succeeding, Du Perron\nenlisted as a private soldier, telling no one of his intention till the\nday before setting out, lest he should be prevented from going. He then\nsent for his brother and took leave of him with many tears, resisting all\nthe efforts made to dissuade him from his purpose. His baggage consisted\nof a little linen, a Hebrew Bible, a case of mathematical instruments, and\nthe works of Montaigne and Charron. A ten days' march, with other\nrecruits, through wet and cold, brought him to the port from whence the\nexpedition was to sail. Here he found that the government, struck with his\nextraordinary zeal for science, had directed that he should have his\ndischarge and a small salary of five hundred livres. The East India\nCompany (French) gave him a passage gratis, and he set sail for India,\nFebruary 7, 1755, being then twenty-four years old. The first two years in\nIndia were almost lost to him for purposes of science, on account of his\nsicknesses, travels, and the state of the country disturbed by war between\nEngland and France[118]. He travelled afoot and on horseback over a great\npart of Hindostan, saw the worship of Juggernaut and the monumental caves\nof Ellora, and, in 1759, arrived at Surat, where was the P\u00e2rs\u00ee community\nfrom which he hoped for help in obtaining the object of his pursuit. By\nperseverance and patience he succeeded in persuading the Destours, or\npriests, of these fire-worshippers, to teach him the Zend language and to\nfurnish him with manuscripts of the Avesta. With one hundred and eighty\nvaluable manuscripts he returned to Europe, and published, in 1771, his\ngreat work,--the Avesta translated into French, with notes and\ndissertations. He lived through the French Revolution, shut up with his\nbooks, and immersed in his Oriental studies, and died, after a life of\ncontinued labor, in 1805. Immense erudition and indomitable industry were\njoined in Anquetil du Perron to a pure love of truth and an excellent\nheart.\n\nFor many years after the publication of the Avesta its genuineness and\nauthenticity were a matter of dispute among the learned men of Europe; Sir\nWilliam Jones especially denying it to be an ancient work, or the\nproduction of Zoroaster. But almost all modern writers of eminence now\nadmit both. Already in 1826 Heeren said that these books had \"stood the\nfiery ordeal of criticism.\" \"Few remains of antiquity,\" he remarks, \"have\nundergone such attentive examination as the books of the Zend Avesta. This\ncriticism has turned out to their advantage; the genuineness of the\nprincipal compositions, especially of the Vendidad and Izeschne (Ya\u00e7na),\nhas been demonstrated; and we may consider as completely ascertained all\nthat regards the rank of each book of the Zend Avesta.\"\n\nRhode (one of the first of scholars of his day in this department) says:\n\"There is not the least doubt that these are the books ascribed in the\nmost ancient times to Zoroaster.\" Of the Vendidad he says: \"It has both\nthe inward and outward marks of the highest antiquity, so that we fear not\nto say that only prejudice or ignorance could doubt it[119].\"\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4. Epoch of Zoroaster. What do we know of him?\n\n\nAs to the age of these books, however, and the period at which Zoroaster\nlived, there is the greatest difference of opinion. He is mentioned by\nPlato (Alcibiades, I. 37), who speaks of \"the magic (or religious\ndoctrines) of Zoroaster the Ormazdian\" (_magedan Zoroastran ton\nOromazon_[120]). As Plato speaks of his religion as something established\nin the form of Magism, or the system of the Medes, in West Iran, while the\nAvesta appears to have originated in Bactria, or East Iran[121], this\nalready carries the age of Zoroaster back to at least the sixth or seventh\ncentury before Christ. When the Avesta was written, Bactria was an\nindependent monarchy. Zoroaster is represented as teaching under King\nVista\u00e7pa. But the Assyrians conquered Bactria B.C. 1200, which was the\nlast of the Iranic kingdoms, they having previously vanquished the Medes,\nHyrcanians, Parthians, Persians, etc. As Zoroaster must have lived before\nthis conquest, his period is taken back to a still more remote time, about\nB.C. 1300 or B.C. 1250[122] It is difficult to be more precise than this.\nBunsen indeed[123] suggests that \"the date of Zoroaster, as fixed by\nAristotle, cannot be said to be so very irrational. He and Eudoxus,\naccording to Pliny, place him six thousand years before the death of\nPlato; Hermippus, five thousand years before the Trojan war,\" or about\nB.C. 6300 or B.C. 6350. But Bunsen adds: \"At the present stage of the\ninquiry the question whether this date is set too high cannot be answered\neither in the negative or affirmative.\" Spiegel, in one of his latest\nworks,[124] considers Zoroaster as a neighbor and contemporary of Abraham,\ntherefore as living B.C. 2000 instead of B.C. 6350. Professor Whitney of\nNew Haven places the epoch of Zoroaster at \"least B.C. 1000,\" and adds\nthat all attempts to reconstruct Persian chronology or history prior to\nthe reign of the first Sassanid have been relinquished as futile.[125]\nD\u00f6llinger[126] thinks he may have been \"somewhat later than Moses, perhaps\nabout B.C. 1300,\" but says, \"it is impossible to fix precisely\" when he\nlived. Rawlinson[127]| merely remarks that Berosus places him anterior to\nB.C. 2234. Haug is inclined to date the G\u00e2th\u00e2s, the oldest songs of the\nAvesta, as early as the time of Moses.[128] Rapp,[129] after a thorough\ncomparison of ancient writers, concludes that Zoroaster lived B.C. 1200 or\n1300. In this he agrees with Duncker, who, as we have seen, decided upon\nthe same date. It is not far from the period given by the oldest Greek\nwriter who speaks of Zoroaster,--Xanthus of Sardis, a contemporary of\nDarius. It is the period given by Cephalion, a writer of the second\ncentury, who takes it from three independent sources. We have no sources\nnow open to us which enable us to come nearer than this to the time in\nwhich he lived.\n\nNor is anything known with certainty of the place where he lived or the\nevents of his life. Most modern writers suppose that he resided in\nBactria. Haug maintains that the language of the Zend books is\nBactrian[130]. A highly mythological and fabulous life of Zoroaster,\ntranslated by Anquetil du Perron, called the Zartusht-Namah[131],\ndescribes him as going to Iran in his thirtieth year, spending twenty\nyears in the desert, working miracles during ten years, and giving lessons\nof philosophy in Babylon, with Pythagoras as his pupil. All this is based\non the theory (now proved to be false) of his living in the time of\nDarius. \"The language of the Avesta,\" says Max M\u00fcller, \"is so much more\nprimitive than the inscriptions of Darius, that many centuries must have\npassed between the two periods represented by these two strata of\nlanguage[132].\" These inscriptions are in the Ach\u00e6menian dialect, which is\nthe Zend in a later stage of linguistic growth.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5. Spirit of Zoroaster and of his Religion\n\n\nIt is not likely that Zoroaster ever saw Pythagoras or even Abraham. But\nthough absolutely nothing is known of the events of his life, there is not\nthe least doubt of his existence nor of his character. He has left the\nimpress of his commanding genius on great regions, various races, and long\nperiods of time. His religion, like that of the Buddha, is essentially a\nmoral religion. Each of them was a revolt from the Pantheism of India, in\nthe interest of morality, human freedom, and the progress of the race.\nThey differ in this, that each takes hold of one side of morality, and\nlets go the opposite. Zoroaster bases his law on the eternal distinction\nbetween right and wrong; Sakya-muni, on the natural laws and their\nconsequences, either good or evil. Zoroaster's law is, therefore, the law\nof justice; Sakya-muni's, the law of mercy. The one makes the supreme good\nto consist in truth, duty, right; the other, in love, benevolence, and\nkindness. Zoroaster teaches providence: the monk of India teaches\nprudence. Zoroaster aims at holiness, the Buddha at merit. Zoroaster\nteaches and emphasizes creation: the Buddha knows nothing of creation, but\nonly nature or law. All these oppositions run back to a single root. Both\nare moral reformers; but the one moralizes according to the method of\nBishop Butler, the other after that of Archdeacon Paley. Zoroaster\ncognizes all morality as having its root within, in the eternal\ndistinction between right and wrong motive, therefore in God; but\nSakya-muni finds it outside of the soul, in the results of good and evil\naction, therefore in the nature of things. The method of salvation,\ntherefore, according to Zoroaster, is that of an eternal battle for good\nagainst evil; but according to the Buddha, it is that of self-culture and\nvirtuous activity.\n\nBoth of these systems, as being essentially moral systems in the interest\nof humanity, proceed from persons. For it is a curious fact, that, while\nthe essentially spiritualistic religions are ignorant of their founders,\nall the moral creeds of the world proceed from a moral source, i.e. a\nhuman will. Brahmanism, Gnosticism, the Sufism of Persia, the Mysteries of\nEgypt and Greece, Neo-Platonism, the Christian Mysticism of the Middle\nAges,--these have, strictly speaking, no founder. Every tendency to the\nabstract, to the infinite, ignores personality.[133] Individual mystics we\nknow, but never the founder of any such system. The religions in which the\nmoral element is depressed, as those of Babylon, Assyria, Egypt, Greece,\nRome, are also without personal founders. But moral religions are the\nreligions of persons, and so we have the systems of Confucius, Buddha,\nZoroaster, Moses, Mohammed.[134] The Protestant Reformation was a protest\nof the moral nature against a religion which had become divorced from\nmorality. Accordingly we have Luther as the founder of Protestantism; but\nmedi\u00e6val Christianity grew up with no personal leader.\n\nThe whole religion of the Avesta revolves around the person of Zoroaster,\nor Zarathustra. In the oldest part of the sacred books, the G\u00e2th\u00e2s of the\nYa\u00e7na, he is called the _pure_ Zarathustra, good in thought, speech, and\nwork. It is said that Zarathustra alone knows the precepts of Ahura-Mazda\n(Ormazd), and that he shall be made skilful in speech. In one of the\nG\u00e2th\u00e2s he expresses the desire of bringing knowledge to the pure, in the\npower of Ormazd, so as to be to them strong joy (Spiegel, G\u00e2th\u00e2 Ustvaiti,\nXLII. 8), or, as Haug translates the same passage (Die G\u00e2th\u00e2s des\nZarathustra, II. 8): \"I will swear hostility to the liars, but be a strong\nhelp to the truthful.\" He prays for truth, declares himself the most\nfaithful servant in the world of Ormazd the Wise One, and therefore begs\nto know the best thing to do. As the Jewish prophets tried to escape their\nmission, and called it a burden, and went to it \"in the heat and\nbitterness of their spirit,\" so Zoroaster says (according to Spiegel):\n\"When it came to me through your prayer, I thought that the spreading\nabroad of your law through men was something difficult.\"\n\nZoroaster was one of those who was oppressed with the sight of evil. But\nit was not outward evil which most tormented him, but spiritual\nevil,--evil having its origin in a depraved heart and a will turned away\nfrom goodness. His meditations led him to the conviction that all the woe\nof the world had its root in sin, and that the origin of sin was to be\nfound in the demonic world. He might have used the language of the Apostle\nPaul and said, \"We wrestle not with flesh and blood,\"--that is, our\nstruggle is not with man, but with principles of evil, rulers of darkness,\nspirits of wickedness in the supernatural world. Deeply convinced that a\ngreat struggle was going on between the powers of light and darkness, he\ncalled on all good men to take part in the war, and battle for the good\nGod against the dark and foul tempter.\n\nGreat physical calamities added to the intensity of this conviction. It\nappears that about the period of Zoroaster, some geological convulsions\nhad changed the climate of Northern Asia, and very suddenly produced\nsevere cold where before there had been an almost tropical temperature.\nThe first Fargard of the Vendidad has been lately translated by both\nSpiegel and Haug, and begins by speaking of a good country, Aryana-Va\u00eajo,\nwhich was created a region of delight by Ahura-Mazda (Ormazd). Then it\nadds that the \"evil being, Angra-Mainyus (Ahriman), full of death, created\na mighty serpent, and winter, the work of the Devas. Ten months of winter\nare there, two months of summer.\" Then follows, in the original document,\nthis statement: \"Seven months of summer are (were?) there; five months of\nwinter were there. The latter are cold as to water, cold as to earth, cold\nas to trees. There is the heart of winter; there all around falls deep\nsnow. There is the worst of evils.\" This passage has been set aside as an\ninterpolation by both Spiegel and Haug. But they give no reason for\nsupposing it such, except the difficulty of reconciling it with the\npreceding passage. This difficulty, however, disappears, if we suppose it\nintended to describe a great climatic change, by which the original home\nof the Aryans, Aryana-Va\u00eajo, became suddenly very much colder than before.\nSuch a change, if it took place, was probably the cause of the emigration\nwhich transferred this people from Aryana-Va\u00eajo (Old Iran) to New Iran, or\nPersia. Such a history of emigration Bunsen and Haug suppose to be\ncontained in this first Fargard (or chapter) of the Vendidad. If so, it\ntakes us back further than the oldest part of the Veda, and gives the\nprogress of the Aryan stream to the south from its original source on the\ngreat plains of Central Asia, till it divided into two branches, one\nflowing into Persia, the other into India. The first verse of this\nvenerable document introduces Ormazd as saying that he had created new\nregions, desirable as homes; for had he not done so, all human beings\nwould have crowded into this Aryana-Va\u00eajo. Thus in the very first verse of\nthe Vendidad appears the affectionate recollection of these emigrant races\nfor their fatherland in Central Asia, and the Zoroasterian faith in a\ncreative and protective Providence. The awful convulsion which turned\ntheir summer climate into the present Siberian winter of ten months'\nduration was part of a divine plan. Old Iran would have been too\nattractive, and all mankind would have crowded into that Eden. So the\nevil Ahriman was permitted to glide into it, a new serpent of destruction,\nand its seven months of summer and five of winter were changed to ten of\nwinter and two of summer.[135]\n\nThis Aryana-Va\u00eajo, Old Iran, the primeval seat of the great Indo-European\nrace, is supposed by Haug and Bunsen to be situated on the high plains\nnortheast of Samarcand, between the thirty-seventh and fortieth degrees of\nnorth latitude, and the eighty-sixth and ninetieth of east longitude. This\nregion has exactly the climate described,--ten months of winter and two of\nsummer. The same is true of Western Thibet and most of Central Siberia.\nMalte-Brun says: \"The winter is nine or ten months long through almost the\nwhole of Siberia.\" June and July are the only months wholly free from\nsnow. On the parallel of 60\u00b0, the earth on the 28th of June was found\nfrozen, at a depth of three feet.\n\nBut is there reason to think that the climate was ever different?\nGeologists assure us that \"great oscillations of climate have occurred in\ntimes immediately antecedent to the peopling of the earth by man.\"[136]\nBut in Central and Northern Asia there is evidence of such fluctuations of\ntemperature in a much more recent period. In 1803, on the banks of the\nLena, in latitude 70\u00b0, the entire body of a mammoth fell from a mass of\nice in which it had been entombed perhaps for thousands of years, but with\nthe flesh so perfectly preserved that it was immediately devoured by\nwolves. Since then these frozen elephants have been found in great\nnumbers, in so perfect a condition that the bulb of an eye of one of them\nis in the Museum at Moscow.[137] They have been found as far north as 75\u00b0.\nHence Lyell thinks it \"reasonable to believe that a large region in\nCentral Asia, including perhaps the southern half of Siberia, enjoyed at\nno very remote period in the earth's history a temperate climate,\nsufficiently mild to afford food for numerous herds of elephants and\nrhinoceroses.\"\n\nAmid these terrible convulsions of the air and ground, these antagonisms\nof outward good and evil, Zoroaster developed his belief in the dualism of\nall things. To his mind, as to that of the Hebrew poet, God had placed all\nthings against each other, two and two. No Pantheistic optimism, like that\nof India, could satisfy his thought. He could not say, \"Whatever is, is\nright\"; some things seemed fatally wrong. The world was a scene of war,\nnot of peace and rest. Life to the good man was not sleep, but battle. If\nthere was a good God over all, as he devoutly believed, there was also a\nspirit of evil, of awful power, to whom we were not to yield, but with\nwhom we should do battle. In the far distance he saw the triumph of good;\nbut that triumph could only come by fighting the good fight now. But his\nweapons were not carnal. \"Pure thoughts\" going out into \"true words\" and\nresulting in \"right actions\"; this was the whole duty of man.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6. Character of the Zend Avesta.\n\n\nA few passages, taken from different parts of the Zend Avesta, will best\nillustrate these tendencies, and show how unlike it is, in its whole\nspirit, to its sister, the Vedic liturgy. Twin children of the old Aryan\nstock, they must have struggled together like Esau and Jacob, before they\nwere born. In such cases we see how superficial is the philosophy which,\nbeginning with synthesis instead of analysis, declares the unity of all\nreligions before it has seen their differences. There _is_ indeed, what\nCudworth has called \"the symphony of all religions,\" but it cannot be\ndemonstrated by the easy process of gathering a few similar texts from\nConfucius, the Vedas, and the Gospels, and then announcing that they all\nteach the same thing. We must first find the specific idea of each, and we\nmay then be able to show how each of these may take its place in the\nharmonious working of universal religion.\n\nIf, in taking up the Zend Avesta, we expect to find a system of theology\nor philosophy, we shall be disappointed. It is a liturgy,--a collection of\nhymns, prayers, invocations, thanksgivings. It contains prayers to a\nmultitude of deities, among whom Ormazd is always counted supreme, and the\nrest only his servants.\n\n\"I worship and adore,\" says Zarathustra (Zoroaster), \"the Creator of all\nthings, Ahura-Mazda (Ormazd), full of light! I worship the Am\u0115sha-\u00e7pentas\n(Amshaspands, the seven archangels, or protecting spirits)! I worship the\nbody of the primal Bull, the soul of the Bull! I invoke thee, O Fire, thou\nson of Ormazd, most rapid of the Immortals! I invoke Mithra, the lofty,\nthe immortal, the pure, the sun, the ruler, the quick Horse, the eye of\nOrmazd! I invoke the holy Sraosha, gifted with holiness, and Racn\u00e7u\n(spirit of justice), and Arstat (spirit of truth)! I invoke the Fravashi\nof good men, the Fravashi of Ormazd, the Fravashi of my own soul! I praise\nthe good men and women of the whole world of purity! I praise the Ha\u014fma,\nhealth-bringing, golden, with moist stalks. I praise Sraosha, whom four\nhorses carry, spotless, bright-shining, swifter than the storms, who,\nwithout sleeping, protects the world in the darkness.\"\n\nThe following passages are from the oldest part of the Avesta, the\nG\u00e2th\u00e2s:--\n\n   \"Good is the thought, good the speech, good the work of the pure\n   Zarathustra.\"\n\n   \"I desire by my prayer with uplifted hands this joy,--the pure works of\n   the Holy Spirit, Mazda,.... a disposition to perform good actions,....\n   and pure gifts for both worlds, the bodily and spiritual.\"\n\n   \"I have intrusted my soul to Heaven.....and I will teach what is pure\n   so long as I can.\"\n\n   \"I keep forever purity and good-mindedness. Teach thou me, Ahura-Mazda,\n   out of thyself; from heaven, by thy mouth, whereby the world first\n   arose.\"\n\n   \"Thee have I thought, O Mazda, as the first, to praise with the\n   soul,.... active Creator,.... Lord of the worlds,.... Lord of good\n   things,.... the first fashioner,.... who made the pure creation,....\n   who upholds the best soul with his understanding.\"\n\n   \"I praise Ahura-Mazda, who has created the cattle, created the water\n   and good trees, the splendor of light, the earth and all good. We\n   praise the Fravashis of the pure men and women,--whatever is fairest,\n   purest, immortal.\"\n\n   \"We honor the good spirit, the good kingdom, the good law,--all that is\n   good.\"\n\n   \"Here we praise the soul and body of the Bull, then our own souls, the\n   souls of the cattle which desire to maintain us in life,.... the good\n   men and women,.... the abode of the water,.... the meeting and parting\n   of the ways,.... the mountains which make the waters flow,.... the\n   strong wind created by Ahura-Mazda,.... the Ha\u014fma, giver of increase,\n   far from death.\"\n\n   \"Now give ear to me, and hear! the Wise Ones have created all. Evil\n   doctrine shall not again destroy the world.\"\n\n   \"In the beginning, the two heavenly Ones spoke--the Good to the\n   Evil--thus; 'Our souls, doctrines, words, works, do not unite\n   together.'\"\n\n   \"How shall I satisfy thee, O Mazda, I, who have little wealth, few men?\n   How may I exalt thee according to my wish!.... I will be contented with\n   your desires; this is the decision of my understanding and of my soul.\"\n\nThe following is from the Khordah Avesta:--\n\n   \"In the name of God, the giver, forgiver, rich in love, praise be to\n   the name of Ormazd, the God with the name, 'Who always was, always is,\n   and always will be'; the heavenly amongst the heavenly, with the name\n   'From whom alone is derived rule.' Ormazd is the greatest ruler,\n   mighty, wise, creator, supporter, refuge, defender, completer of good\n   works, overseer, pure, good, and just.\n\n   \"With all strength (bring I) thanks; to the great among beings, who\n   created and destroyed, and through his own determination of time,\n   strength, wisdom, is higher than the six Amshaspands, the circumference\n   of heaven, the shining sun, the brilliant moon, the wind, the water,\n   the fire, the earth, the trees, the cattle, the metals, mankind.\n\n   \"Offering and praise to that Lord, the completer of good works, who\n   made men greater than all earthly beings, and through the gift of\n   speech created them to rule the creatures, as warriors against the\n   Da\u00eavas.[138]\n\n   \"Praise the omniscience of God, who hath sent through the holy\n   Zarathustra peace for the creatures, the wisdom of the law,--the\n   enlightening derived from the heavenly understanding, and heard with\n   the ears,--wisdom and guidance for all beings who are, were, and will\n   be, (and) the wisdom of wisdoms; which effects freedom from hell for\n   the soul at the bridge, and leads it over to that Paradise, the\n   brilliant, sweet-smelling of the pure.\n\n   \"All good do I accept at thy command, O God, and think, speak, and do\n   it. I believe in the pure law; by every good work seek I forgiveness\n   for all sins. I keep pure for myself the serviceable work and\n   abstinence from the unprofitable. I keep pure the six powers,--thought,\n   speech, work, memory, mind, and understanding. According to thy will am\n   I able to accomplish, O accomplisher of good, thy honor, with good\n   thoughts, good words, good works.\n\n   \"I enter on the shining way to Paradise; may the fearful terror of hell\n   not overcome me! May I step over the bridge Chinevat, may I attain\n   Paradise, with much perfume, and all enjoyments, and all brightness.\n\n   \"Praise to the Overseer, the Lord, who rewards those who accomplish\n   good deeds according to his own wish, purifies at last the obedient,\n   and at last purifies even the wicked one of hell. All praise be to the\n   creator, Ormazd, the all-wise, mighty, rich in might; to the seven\n   Amshaspands; to Ized Bahr\u00e2m, the victorious annihilator of foes.\"\n\n\n   \"HYMN TO A STAR.\n\n   \"The star Tistrya praise we, the shining, majestic, with pleasant good\n   dwelling, light, shining, conspicuous, going around, healthful,\n   bestowing joy, great, going round about from afar, with shining beams,\n   the pure, and the water which makes broad seas, good, far-famed, the\n   name of the bull created by Mazda, the strong kingly majesty, and the\n   Fravashi of the holy pure, Zarathustra.\n\n   \"For his brightness, for his majesty, will I praise him, the star\n   Tistrya, with audible praise. We praise the star Tistrya, the\n   brilliant, majestic, with offerings, with Ha\u014fma bound with flesh, with\n   Ma\u00fathra which gives wisdom to the tongue, with word and deed, with\n   offerings with right-spoken speech.\"\n\n   \"The star Tistrya, the brilliant, majestic, we praise, who glides so\n   softly to the sea like an arrow, who follows the heavenly will, who is\n   a terrible pliant arrow, a very pliant arrow, worthy of honor among\n   those worthy of honor, who comes from the damp mountain to the shining\n   mountain.\"\n\n\n   \"HYMN TO MITHRA.\n\n   \"Mithra, whose long arms grasp forwards here with Mithra-strength; that\n   which is in Eastern India he seizes, and that which [is] in the Western\n   he smites, and what is on the steppes of Ra\u00faha, and what is at the ends\n   of this earth.\n\n   \"Thou, O Mithra, dost seize these, reaching out thy arms. The\n   unrighteous destroyed through the just is gloomy in soul. Thus thinks\n   the unrighteous: Mithra, the artless, does not see all these evil\n   deeds, all these lies.\n\n   \"But I think in my soul: No earthly man with a hundred-fold strength\n   thinks so much evil as Mithra with heavenly strength thinks good. No\n   earthly man with a hundred-fold strength speaks so much evil as Mithra\n   with heavenly strength speaks good. No earthly man with a hundred-fold\n   strength does so much evil as Mithra with heavenly strength does good.\n\n   \"With no earthly man is the hundred-fold greater heavenly understanding\n   allied as the heavenly understanding allies itself to the heavenly\n   Mithra, the heavenly. No earthly man with a hundred-fold strength hears\n   with the ears as the heavenly Mithra, who possesses a hundred\n   strengths, sees every liar. Mightily goes forward Mithra, powerful in\n   rule marches he onwards; fair visual power, shining from afar, gives he\n   to the eyes.\"\n\n\n   \"A CONFESSION, OR PATET.[139]\n\n   \"I repent of all sins. All wicked thoughts, words, and works which I\n   have meditated in the world, corporeal, spiritual, earthly, and\n   heavenly, I repent of, in your presence, ye believers. O Lord, pardon\n   through the three words.\n\n   \"I confess myself a Mazdaya\u00e7nian, a Zarathustrian, an opponent of the\n   Da\u00eavas, devoted to belief in Ahura, for praise, adoration,\n   satisfaction, and laud. As it is the will of God, let the Za\u014fta say to\n   me, Thus announces the Lord, the Pure out of Holiness, let the wise\n   speak.\n\n   \"I praise all good thoughts, words, and works, through thought, word,\n   and deed. I curse all evil thoughts, words, and works away from\n   thought, word, and deed. I lay hold on all good thoughts, words, and\n   works, with thoughts, words, and works, i.e. I perform good actions, I\n   dismiss all evil thoughts, words, and works, from thoughts, words, and\n   works, i.e. I commit no sins.\n\n   \"I give to you, ye who are Amshaspands, offering and praise, with the\n   heart, with the body, with my own vital powers, body and soul. The\n   whole powers which I possess I possess in dependence on the Yazatas. To\n   possess in dependence upon the Yazatas means (as much as) this: if\n   anything happens so that it behoves to give the body for the sake of\n   the soul, I give it to them.\n\n   \"I praise the best purity, I hunt away the D\u00e9vs, I am thankful for the\n   good of the Creator Ormazd, with the opposition and unrighteousness\n   which come from Gan\u00e2-mainyo, am I contented and agreed in the hope of\n   the resurrection. The Zarathustrian law created by Ormazd I take as a\n   plummet. For the sake of this way I repent of all sins.\n\n   \"I repent of the sins which can lay hold of the character of men, or\n   which have laid hold of my character, small and great which are\n   committed amongst men, the meanest sins as much as is (and) can be, yet\n   more than this, namely, all evil thoughts, words, and works which (I\n   have committed) for the sake of others, or others for my sake, or if\n   the hard sin has seized the character of an evil-doer on my\n   account,--such sins, thoughts, words, and works, corporeal, mental,\n   earthly, heavenly, I repent of with the three words: pardon, O Lord, I\n   repent of the sins with Patet.\n\n   \"The sins against father, mother, sister, brother, wife, child, against\n   spouses, against the superiors, against my own relations, against those\n   living with me, against those who possess equal property, against the\n   neighbors, against the inhabitants of the same town, against servants,\n   every unrighteousness through which I have been amongst sinners,--of\n   these sins repent I with thoughts, words, and works, corporeal as\n   spiritual, earthly as heavenly, with the three words: pardon, O Lord, I\n   repent of sins.\n\n   \"The defilement with dirt and corpses, the bringing of dirt and corpses\n   to the water and fire, or the bringing of fire and water to dirt and\n   corpses; the omission of reciting the Avesta in mind, of strewing about\n   hair, nails, and toothpicks, of not washing the hands, all the rest\n   which belongs to the category of dirt and corpses, if I have thereby\n   come among the sinners, so repent I of all these sins with thoughts,\n   words, and works, corporeal as spiritual, earthly as heavenly, with the\n   three words: pardon, O Lord, I repent of sin.\n\n   \"That which was the wish of Ormazd the Creator, and I ought to have\n   thought, and have not thought, what I ought to have spoken and have not\n   spoken, what I ought to have done and have not done; of these sins\n   repent I with thoughts, words, and works,\" etc.\n\n   \"That which was the wish of Ahriman, and I ought not to have thought\n   and yet have thought, what I ought not to have spoken and yet have\n   spoken, what I ought not to have done and yet have done; of these sins\n   I repent,\" etc.\n\n   \"Of all and every kind of sin which I have committed against the\n   creatures of Ormazd, as stars, moon, sun, and the red burning fire, the\n   dog, the birds, the five kinds of animals, the other good creatures\n   which are the property of Ormazd, between earth and heaven, if I have\n   become a sinner against any of these, I repent,\" etc.\n\n   \"Of pride, haughtiness, covetousness, slandering the dead, anger, envy,\n   the evil eye, shamelessness, looking at with evil intent, looking at\n   with evil concupiscence, stiff-neckedness, discontent with the godly\n   arrangements, self-willedness, sloth, despising others, mixing in\n   strange matters, unbelief, opposing the Divine powers, false witness,\n   false judgment, idol-worship, running naked, running with one shoe, the\n   breaking of the low (midday) prayer, the omission of the (midday)\n   prayer, theft, robbery, whoredom, witchcraft, worshipping with\n   sorcerers, unchastity, tearing the hair, as well as all other kinds of\n   sin which are enumerated in this Patet, or not enumerated, which I am\n   aware of, or not aware of, which are appointed or not appointed, which\n   I should have bewailed with obedience before the Lord, and have not\n   bewailed,--of these sins repent I with thoughts, words, and works,\n   corporeal as spiritual, earthly as heavenly. O Lord, pardon, I repent\n   with the three words, with Patet.\n\n   \"If I have taken on myself the Patet for any one and have not performed\n   it, and misfortune has thereby come upon his soul or his descendants, I\n   repent of the sin for every one with thoughts,\" etc.\n\n   \"With all good deeds am I in agreement, with all sins am I not in\n   agreement, for the good am I thankful, with iniquity am I contented.\n   With the punishment at the bridge, with the bonds and tormentings and\n   chastisements of the mighty of the law, with the punishment of the\n   three nights (after) the fifty-seven years am I contented and\n   satisfied.\"\n\nThe Avesta, then, is not a system of dogmatics, but a book of worship. It\nis to be read in private by the laity, or to be recited by the priests in\npublic. Nevertheless, just such a book may be the best help to the\nknowledge of the religious opinions of an age. The deepest convictions\ncome to light in such a collection, not indeed in a systematic statement,\nbut in sincerest utterance. It will contain the faith of the heart rather\nthan the speculations of the intellect. Such a work can hardly be other\nthan authentic; for men do not forge liturgies, and, if they did, could\nhardly introduce them into the worship of a religious community.\n\nThe Avesta consists of the Vendidad, of which twenty-two Fargards, or\nchapters, have been preserved; the Vispered, in twenty-seven; the Ya\u00e7na,\nin seventy; and the Khordah Avesta, or Little-Avesta, which contains the\nYashts, Patets, and other prayers for the use of the laity. Of these,\nSpiegel considers the G\u00e2th\u00e2s of the Ya\u00e7na to be the oldest, next the\nVendidad, lastly, the first part of the Ya\u00e7na, and the Khordah Avesta.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 7. Later Development of the System in the Bundehesch.\n\n\nThe Bundehesch is a book later than these, and yet, in its contents,\nrunning back to a very early period. Windischmann,[140] who has recently\ngiven us a new translation of this book, says: \"In regard to the\nBundehesch, I am confident that closer study of this remarkable book, and\na more exact comparison of it with the original texts, will change the\nunfavorable opinion hitherto held concerning it into one of great\nconfidence. I am justified in believing that its author has given us\nmainly only the ancient doctrine, taken by him from original texts, most\nof which are now lost. The more thoroughly it is examined the more\ntrustworthy it will be found to be.\"\n\nThe following summary of the P\u00e2rs\u00ee system is mostly derived from the\nBundehesch, and the later writings of the P\u00e2rs\u00ees. We have abridged it from\nRhode. In the time of Zoroaster himself, it was probably far from being so\nfully elaborated. Only the germs of it are to be found in the elder books\nof the Avesta. It has been doubted if the doctrine of Zer\u00e2na-Akerana, or\nthe Monad behind the Duad, is to be found in the Avesta; though important\ntexts in the Vendidad[141] seem indeed to imply a Supreme and Infinite\nBeing, the creator both of Ormazd and Ahriman.\n\nIn the beginning, the Eternal or Absolute Being (Zer\u00e2na-Akerana) produced\ntwo other great divine, beings. The first, who remained true to him, was\nAhura-Mazda, King of Light. The other was Ahriman (Angra-Mainyus), King of\nDarkness. Ormazd found himself in a world of light and Ahriman in\nboundless darkness, and the two became antagonists.\n\nThe Infinite Being (Zerana-Akerana) now determined, in order to destroy\nthe evil which Ahriman had caused, to create the visible world by Ormazd;\nand he fixed its duration at twelve thousand years. This was divided into\nfour periods of three thousand years each. In the first period Ormazd\nshould rule alone; in the second Ahriman should begin to operate, but\nstill be subordinate; in the third they should both rule together; and in\nthe fourth Ahriman should have the ascendency.\n\nOrmazd began the creation by bringing forth the Fereuers (Fravashi).\nEverything which has been created, or which is to be created, has its\nFravashi, which contains the reason and basis of its existence. Even\nOrmazd has his Fravashi in relation to Zer\u00e2na-Akerana (the Infinite). A\nspiritual and invisible world preceded, therefore, this visible material\nworld as its prototype.\n\nIn creating the material world, which was in reality only an incorporation\nof the spiritual world of Fravashis, Ormazd first created the firm vault\nof heaven, and the earth on which it rests. On the earth he created the\nhigh mountain Albordj[142] which soared upward through all the spheres of\nthe heaven, till it reached the primal light, and Ormazd made this summit\nhis abode. From this summit the bridge Chinevat stretches to the vault of\nheaven, and to Gorodman, which is the opening in the vault above Albordj.\nGorodman is the dwelling of the Fravashis and of the blessed, and the\nbridge leading to it is precisely above the abyss Duzahk,--the monstrous\ngulf, the home of Ahriman beneath the earth.\n\nOrmazd, who knew that after the first period his battle with Ahriman would\nbegin, armed himself, and created for his aid the whole shining host of\nheaven,--sun, moon, and stars,--mighty beings of light, wholly submissive\nto him. First he created \"the heroic runner, who never dies, the sun,\" and\nmade him king and ruler of the material world. From Albordj he sets out on\nhis course, he circles the earth in the highest spheres of heaven, and at\nevening returns. Then he created the moon, which \"has its own light,\"\nwhich, departing from Albordj, circles the earth in a lower sphere, and\nreturns; then the five smaller planets, and the whole host of fixed stars,\nin the lowest circle of the heavens. The space between the earth and the\nfirm vault of heaven is therefore divided into three spheres, that of the\nsun, of the moon, and of the stars.\n\nThe host of stars--common soldiers in the war with Ahriman--was divided\ninto four troops, with each its appointed leader. Twelve companies were\narranged in the twelve signs of the zodiac. All these were grouped into\nfour great divisions, in the east, west, north, and south. The planet\nTistrya (Jupiter) presides over and watches that in the east, and is named\nPrince of the Stars; Sitavisa (Saturn) presides over the western division;\nVanant (or Mercury) over that of the south; and Hapto-iringa (Mars) over\nthe stars of the north. In the middle of the heavens is the great star\nMesch, Meschgah (Venus). He leads them against Ahriman.\n\nThe dog Sirius (Sura) is another watchman of the heavens; but he is fixed\nto one place, at the bridge Chinevat, keeping guard over the abyss out of\nwhich Ahriman comes.\n\nWhen Ormazd had completed these preparations in the heavens, the first of\nthe four ages drew to an end, and Ahriman saw, from the gloomy depths of\nhis kingdom, what Ormazd had done. In opposition to this light creation,\nhe created a world of darkness, a terrible community, equal in number and\npower to the beings of light. Ormazd, knowing all the misery that Ahriman\nwould cause, yet knowing that the victory would remain with himself,\noffered to Ahriman peace; but Ahriman chose war. But, blinded by Ormazd's\nmajesty, and terrified by the sight of the pure Fravashis of holy men, he\nwas conquered by Ormazd's strong word, and sank back into the abyss of\ndarkness, where he lay fettered during the three thousand years of the\nsecond period.\n\nOrmazd now completed his creation upon the earth. Sapandomad was guardian\nspirit of the earth, and the earth, as Hethra, was mother of all living.\nKhordad was chief of the seasons, years, months, and days, and also\nprotector of the water which flowed from the fountain Anduisur, from\nAlbordj. The planet Tistrya was commissioned to raise the water in vapor,\ncollect it in clouds, and let it fall in rain, with the aid of the planet\nSitavisa. These cloud-compellers were highly reverenced. Amerdad was\ngeneral deity of vegetation; but the great Mithra was the god of\nfructification and reproduction in the whole organic world; his work was\nto lead the Fravashis to the bodies they were to occupy.\n\nEverything earthly in the light-world of Ormazd had its protecting deity.\nThese guardian spirits were divided into series and groups, had their\ncaptains and their associated assistants. The seven Amshaspands (in Zend,\nAm\u0115sha-\u00e7pentas) were the chief among these, of whom Ormazd was first. The\nother six were Bahman, King of Heaven; Ardibehescht, King of Fire;\nSchariver, King of the Metals; Sapandomad, Queen of the Earth; Amerdad,\nKing of Vegetables; and Khordad, King of Water.\n\nSo ended the second age. In it Ormazd had also produced the great\nprimitive Bull, in which, as the representative of the animal world, the\nseeds of all living creatures were deposited.\n\nWhile Ormazd was thus completing his light-creation, Ahriman, in his dark\nabyss, was effecting a corresponding creation of darkness,--making a\ncorresponding evil being for every good being created by Ormazd. These\nspirits of night stood in their ranks and orders, with their seven\npresiding evil spirits, or Da\u00eavas, corresponding to the Amshaspands.\n\nThe vast preparations for this great war being completed, and the end of\nthe second age now coming, Ahriman was urged by one of his Da\u00eavas to begin\nthe conflict. He counted his host; but as he found nothing therein to\noppose to the Fravashis of good men, he sank back in dejection. Finally\nthe second age expired, and Ahriman now sprang aloft without fear, for he\nknew that his time was come. His host followed him, but he alone succeeded\nin reaching the heavens; his troops remained behind. A shudder ran over\nhim, and he sprang from heaven upon the earth in the form of a serpent,\npenetrated to its centre, and entered into everything which he found upon\nit. He passed into the primal Bull, and even into fire, the visible symbol\nof Ormazd, defiling it with smoke and vapor. Then he assailed the heavens,\nand a part of the stars were already in his power, and veiled in smoke and\nmist, when he was attacked by Ormazd, aided by the Fravashis of holy men;\nand after ninety days and ninety nights he was completely defeated, and\ndriven back with his troops into the abyss of Duzahk.\n\nBut he did not remain there, for through the middle of the earth he built\na way for himself and his companions, and is now living on the earth\ntogether with Ormazd,--according to the decree of the Infinite.\n\nThe destruction which he produced in the world was terrible. Nevertheless,\nthe more evil he tried to do, the more he ignorantly fulfilled the\ncounsels of the Infinite, and hastened the development of good. Thus he\nentered the Bull, the original animal, and injured him so that he died.\nBut when he died, Kaiomarts, the first man, came out of his right\nshoulder, and from his left Goshurun, the soul of the Bull, who now became\nthe guardian spirit of the animal race. Also the whole realm of clean\nanimals and plants came from the Bull's body. Full of rage, Ahriman now\ncreated the unclean animals,--for every clean beast an unclean. Thus\nOrmazd created the dog, Ahriman the wolf; Ormazd all useful animals,\nAhriman all noxious ones; and so of plants.\n\nBut to Kaiomarts, the original man, Ahriman had nothing to oppose, and so\nhe determined to kill him. Kaiomarts was both man and woman, but through\nhis death there came from him the first human pair; a tree grew from his\nbody, and bore ten pair of men and women. Meschia and Meschiane were the\nfirst. They were originally innocent and made for heaven, and worshipped\nOrmazd as their creator. But Ahriman tempted them. They drank milk from a\ngoat and so injured themselves. Then Ahriman brought them fruit, they ate\nit, and lost a hundred parts of their happiness, so that only one\nremained. The woman was the first to sacrifice to the Da\u00eavas. After fifty\nyears they had two children, Siamak and Veschak, and died a hundred years\nold. For their sins they remain in hell until the resurrection.\n\nThe human race, which had thus become mortal and miserable by the sin of\nits first parents, assumed nevertheless a highly interesting position. The\nman stands in the middle between the two worlds of light and darkness,\nleft to his own free will. As a creature of Ormazd he can and ought to\nhonor him, and assist him in the war with evil; but Ahriman and his Da\u00eavas\nsurround him night and day, and seek to mislead him, in order to increase\nthereby the power of darkness. He would not be able at all to resist these\ntemptations, to which his first parents had already yielded, had not\nOrmazd taken pity on him, and sent him a revelation of his will in the law\nof Zoroaster. If he obeys these precepts he is safe from the Da\u00eavas, under\nthe immediate protection of Ormazd. The substance of the law is the\ncommand, \"THINK PURELY, SPEAK PURELY, ACT PURELY.\" All that comes from\nOrmazd is pure, from Ahriman impure; and bodily purity has a like worth\nwith moral purity. Hence the multitude and minuteness of precepts\nconcerning bodily cleanliness. In fact the whole liturgic worship turns\ngreatly on this point.\n\nThe Fravashis of men originally created by Ormazd are preserved in heaven,\nin Ormazd's realm of light. But they must come from heaven, to be united\nwith a human body, and to go on a path of probation in this world, called\nthe \"Way of the Two Destinies.\" Those who have chosen the good in this\nworld are received after death by good spirits, and guided, under the\nprotection of the dog Sura, to the bridge Chinevat; the wicked are dragged\nthither by the Da\u00eavas. Here Ormazd holds a tribunal and decides the fate\nof the souls. The good pass the bridge into the mansions of the blessed,\nwhere they are welcomed with rejoicing by the Amshaspands; the bad fall\nover into the Gulf of Duzahk, where they are tormented by the Da\u00eavas. The\nduration of the punishment is fixed by Ormazd, and some are redeemed\nearlier by means of the prayers and intercessions of their friends, but\nmany must remain till the resurrection of the dead.\n\nAhriman himself effects this consummation, after having exercised great\npower over men during the last three thousand years. He created seven\ncomets (in opposition to the seven planets), and they went on their\ndestructive paths through the heavens, filling all things with danger, and\nall men with terror. But Ormazd placed them under the control of his\nplanets to restrain them. They will do so, till by the decree of the\nInfinite, at the close of the last period, one of the comets will break\nfrom his watchman, the moon, and plunge upon the earth, producing a\ngeneral conflagration. But before this Ormazd will send his Prophet\nSosio\u00e7h and bring about the conversion of mankind, to be followed by the\ngeneral resurrection.\n\nOrmazd will clothe anew with flesh the bones of men, and relatives and\nfriends will recognize each other again. Then comes the great division of\nthe just from the sinners.\n\nWhen Ahriman shall cause the comet to fall on the earth to gratify his\ndestructive propensities, he will be really serving the Infinite Being\nagainst his own will. For the conflagration caused by this comet will\nchange the whole earth into a stream like melted iron, which will pour\nimpetuously down into the realm of Ahriman. All beings must now pass\nthrough this stream: to the righteous it will feel like warm milk, and\nthey will pass through to the dwellings of the just; but all the sinners\nshall be borne along by the stream into the abyss of Duzahk. Here they\nwill burn three days and nights, then, being purified, they will invoke\nOrmazd, and be received into heaven.\n\nAfterward Ahriman himself and all in the Duzahk shall be purified by this\nfire, all evil be consumed, and all darkness banished.\n\nFrom the extinct fire there will come a more beautiful earth, pure and\nperfect, and destined to be eternal.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nHaving given this account of the P\u00e2rs\u00ee system, in its later development,\nlet us say that it was not an _invention_ of Zoroaster, nor of any one\nelse. Religions are not invented: they grow. Even the religion of Mohammed\ngrew out of pre-existent beliefs. The founder of a religion does not\ninvent it, but gives it form. It crystallizes around his own deeper\nthought. So, in the time of Zoroaster, the popular imagination had filled\nnature with powers and presences, and given them names, and placed them in\nthe heavens. For, as Schiller says:--\n\n                          \"'Tis not merely\n    The human being's pride which peoples space\n    With life and mystical predominance;\n    For also for the stricken heart of Love,\n    This visible nature and this lower world\n    Are all too common.\"\n\nZoroaster organized into clearer thought the pre-existing myths, and\ninspired them with moral ideas and vital power.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 8. Relation of the Religion of the Zend Avesta to that of the Vedas.\n\n\nThat the Vedic religion and that of the Avesta arose out of an earlier\nAryan religion, monotheistic in its central element, but with a tendency\nto immerse the Deity in nature, seems evident from the investigations of\nPictet and other scholars. This primitive religion of the Aryan race\ndiverged early in two directions, represented by the Veda and the Avesta.\nYet each retains much in common with the other. The names of the powers,\nIndra, Sura, Naoghaithya, are in both systems. In the Veda they are gods,\nin the Avesta evil spirits. Indra, worshipped throughout the Rig-Veda as\none of the highest deities, appears in the Avesta as an evil being.[143]\nSura (\u00c7ura), one of the most ancient names of Shiva, is also denounced and\nopposed in the Avesta[144] as a Da\u00eava, or Dew. And the third (N\u00e2oghaithya,\nN\u00e2ouhaiti), also an evil spirit in the Avesta, is the N\u00e2satya of the\nVeda,[145] one of the A\u00e7vinas or twins who precede the Dawn. The Dews or\nDa\u00eavas of the Avesta are demons, in the Vedas they are gods. On the other\nhand, the Ahuras, or gods, of the Avesta are Asuras, or demons, in the\nVedic belief. The original land of the race is called Aryavesta in the\nLaws of Manu (II. 22), and Aryana-Va\u00eajo in the Avesta. The God of the Sun\nis named Mithra, or Mitra, in both religions. The Yima of the P\u00e2rs\u00ee system\nis a happy king; the Yama of the Hindoos is a stern judge in the realms of\ndeath. The dog is hateful in the Indian system, an object of reverence in\nthat of Zoroaster. Both the religions dread defilement through the touch\nof dead bodies. In both systems fire is regarded as divine. But the most\nstriking analogy perhaps is to be found in the worship paid by both to the\nintoxicating fermented juice of the plant _Asclepias acida_, called Soma\nin the Sanskrit and Ha\u014fma in the Zend. The identity of the Ha\u014fma with the\nIndian Soma has long been proved.[146] The whole of the S\u00e1ma-Veda is\ndevoted to this moon-plant worship; an important part of the Avesta is\noccupied with hymns to Ha\u014fma. This great reverence paid to the same plant,\non account of its intoxicating qualities, carries us back to a region\nwhere the vine was unknown, and to a race to whom intoxication was so new\nan experience as to seem a gift of the gods. Wisdom appeared to come from\nit, health, increased power of body and soul, long life, victory in\nbattle, brilliant children. What Bacchus was to the Greeks, this divine\nHa\u014fma, or Soma, was to the primitive Aryans.[147]\n\nIt would seem, therefore, that the two religions setting out from the\nsame point, and having a common stock of primitive traditions, at last\nsaid each to the other, \"Your gods are my demons.\" The opposition was\nmutual. The dualism of the Persian was odious to the Hindoo, while the\nabsence of a deep moral element in the Vedic system shocked the solemn\npuritanism of Zoroaster. The religion of the Hindoo was to dream, that of\nthe Persian to fight. There could be no more fellowship between them than\nthere is between a Quaker and a Calvinist.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 9. Is Monotheism or pure Dualism the Doctrine of the Zend Avesta?\n\n\nWe find in the Avesta, and in the oldest portion of it, the tendencies\nwhich resulted afterward in the elaborate theories of the Bundehesch. We\nfind the Ze\u00e2rna-Akerana, in the Vendidad (XIX. 33,44,55),--\"The Infinite\nTime,\" or \"All-embracing Time,\"--as the creator of Ahriman, according to\nsome translations. Spiegel, indeed, considers this supreme being, above\nboth Ormazd and Ahriman, as not belonging to the original Persian\nreligion, but as borrowed from Semitic sources. But if so, then Ormazd is\nthe supreme and uncreated being, and creator of all things. Why, then, has\nOrmazd a Fravashi, or archetype? And in that case, he must either himself\nhave created Ahriman, or else Ahriman is as eternal as he; which latter\nsupposition presents us with an absolute, irreconcilable dualism. The\nbetter opinion seems, therefore, to be, that behind the two opposing\npowers of good and evil, the thesis and antithesis of moral life, remains\nthe obscure background of original being, the identity of both, from which\nboth have proceeded, and into whose abyss both shall return.\n\nThis great consummation is also intimated by the fact that in the same\nFargard of the Vendidad (XIX. 18) the future restorer or saviour is\nmentioned, Sosio\u00e7h (\u00c7aoshyan\u00e7), who is expected by the P\u00e2rs\u00ees to come at\nthe end of all things, and accomplish the resurrection, and introduce a\nkingdom of untroubled happiness.[148] Whether the resurrection belongs to\nthe primitive form of the religion remains as doubtful, but also as\nprobable, as when Mr. Alger discussed the whole question in his admirable\nmonograph on the Doctrine of the Future Life. Our remaining fragments of\nthe Zend Avesta say nothing of the periods of three thousand years'\nduration. Two or three passages in the Avesta refer to the\nresurrection.[149] But the conflict between Ormazd and Ahriman, the\npresent struggle between good and evil, the ideal world of the Fravashis\nand good spirits,--these unquestionably belong to the original belief.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 10. Relation of this System to Christianity. The Kingdom of Heaven.\n\n\nOf this system we will say, in conclusion, that in some respects it comes\nnearer to Christianity than any other. Moreover, though so long dead, like\nthe great nation of which it was the inspiration and life,--though swept\naway by Mohammedanism,--its influence remains, and has permeated both\nJudaism and Christianity. Christianity has probably received from it,\nthrough Judaism, its doctrine of angels and devils, and its tendency to\nestablish evil in the world as the permanent and equal adversary of good.\nSuch a picture as that by Retzsch of the Devil playing chess with the\nyoung man for his soul, such a picture as that by Guido of the conflict\nbetween Michael and Satan, such poems as Milton's Paradise Lost and\nGoethe's Faust, could perhaps never have appeared in Christendom, had it\nnot been for the influence of the system of Zoroaster on Jewish, and,\nthrough Jewish, on Christian thought. It was after the return from Babylon\nthat the Devil and demons, in conflict with man, became a part of the\ncompany of spiritual beings in the Jewish mythology. Angels there were\nbefore, as messengers of God, but devils there were not; for till then an\nabsolute Providence ruled the world, excluding all interference of\nantagonistic powers. Satan, in Job, is an angel of God, not a devil; doing\na low kind of work, indeed, a sort of critical business, fault-finding,\nand looking for flaws in the saints, but still an angel, and no devil. But\nafter the captivity the horizon of the Jewish mind enlarged, and it took\nin the conception of God as allowing freedom to man and angels, and so\npermitting bad as well as good to have its way. And then came in also the\nconception of a future life, and a resurrection for ultimate judgment.\nThese doctrines have been supposed, with good reason, to have come to the\nJews from the influence of the great system of Zoroaster.\n\nThere is no doubt, however, that the Jewish prophets had already prepared\na point of contact and attachment for this system, and developed\naffinities therewith, by their great battle-cry to the nation for right\nagainst wrong, and their undying conviction of an ultimate restoration of\nall good things. But the Jews found also in the Persian faith the one\namong all religions most like their own, in this, that it had no idols,\nand no worship but that addressed to the Unseen. Sun and fire were his\nsymbols, but he himself was hidden behind the glorious veil of being. And\nit seems as if the Jews needed this support of finding another nation also\nhating idolatry, before they could really rise above their tendency to\nbackslide into it. \"In the mouth of two witnesses,\" the spiritual worship\nof God was established; and not till Zoroaster took the hand of Moses did\nthe Jews cease to be idolaters. After the return from the captivity that\ntendency wholly disappears.\n\nBut a deeper and more essential point of agreement is to be found in the\nspecial practical character of the two systems, regarding life as a battle\nbetween right and wrong, waged by a communion of good men fighting against\nbad men and bad principles.\n\nPerhaps, in reading the New Testament, we do not always see how much\nChristianity turns around the phrase, and the idea behind it, of a\n\"kingdom of Heaven.\" The Beatitudes begin \"Blessed are the poor in spirit,\nfor theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.\" Both John the Baptist and Christ\nannounce that the _kingdom of Heaven_ is at hand. The parables revolve\nround the same idea of \"the kingdom.\" which is likened first to this, and\nthen to that; and so, passing on into the Epistles, we have the \"kingdom\nof Heaven\" still as the leading conception of Christianity. \"The kingdom\nof God is not meat nor drink\";--such are common expressions.\n\nThe peculiar conception of the Messiah also is of the King, the Anointed\none, the Head of this divine Monarchy. When we call Jesus the Christ, we\nrepeat this ancient notion of the kingdom of God among men. He himself\naccepted it; he called himself the Christ. \"Thou sayest,\" said he, to\nPilate, \"that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came\nI into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth.\"\n\nAll through antiquity there ran the longing for a communion or association\nof the wise and good, in order to establish truth and justice in the\nworld. The tendency of error is to divide; the tendency of selfishness is\nto separation. Only goodness and truth are capable of real communion,\ninterpenetration, and so of organic life and growth. This is their\nstrength, power, and hope. Hence all the efforts at associated action in\nantiquity, such as the College of Pythagoras, the ideal Republic of Plato,\nthe Spartan Commonwealth, the communities of the Essenes, the monastic\ninstitutions of Asia and Europe; and hence, too, the modern attempts, in\nProtestantism, by Fourier, the Moravians, the Shakers, Saint-Simon, Robert\nOwen, and others.\n\nBut among the Jews this desire appeared, first in their national\norganization, as a theosophic and theocratic community, and afterward,\nwhen this broke down and the nation was divided, in a larger prophetic\nhope of the Messianic times. There is a tendency in the human mind, when\nit sees a great work to be done, to look for a leader. So the Jewish hope\nlooked for a leader. Their true King was to come, and under him peace and\nrighteousness were to reign, and the kingdom of heaven begin on earth. It\nwas to be on earth. It was to be here and now. And so they waited and\nlonged.\n\nMeantime, in the Persian religion, the seed of the same hope was sown.\nThere also the work of life was, to unite together a community of good men\nand good angels, against bad men and devils, and so make a kingdom of\nheaven. Long and sore should the conflict be; but the victory at last\nwould be sure. And they also looked for a Sosioch, or Mediator, who was to\nbe what the Messiah was to be to the Jews. And here was the deep and real\npoint of union between the two religions; and this makes the profound\nmeaning of the story of the Star which was seen in the East and which\nguided the Magi of Zoroaster to the cradle of Christ.\n\nJesus came to be the Messiah. He fulfilled that great hope as he did\nothers. It was not fulfilled, in the sense of the letter of a prophecy\nbeing acted out, but in the sense of the prophecy being carried up and on\nto its highest point, and so being filled full of truth and value. The\nfirst and chief purpose of Christianity was, not to save the souls of men\nhereafter, as the Church has often taught, but to found a kingdom of\nheaven here, on earth and in time. It was not to say, \"Lo here!\" or \"Lo\nthere!\" but to say, \"_Now_ is the accepted time\"; \"the kingdom of God is\namong you.\" In thus continuing and developing to its highest point the\ncentral idea of his national religion, Jesus made himself the true Christ\nand fulfilled all the prophecies. Perhaps what we need now is to come back\nto that notion of the kingdom of heaven here below, and of Jesus the\npresent king,--present, because still bearing witness to the truth.\nChristians must give up thinking about Christianity as only a means of\nescaping a future hell and arriving at a future heaven. They must show\nnow, more than ever, that, by a union of loving and truthful hearts, God\ncomes here, immortality begins here, and heaven lies about us. To fight\nthe good fight of justice and truth, as the disciples of Zoroaster tried\nto fight it,--this is still the true work of man; and to make a union of\nthose who wish thus to fight for good against evil,--this is still the\ntrue church of Christ.\n\nThe old religion of Zoroaster died, Taut as the corn of wheat, which, if\nit die, brings forth much fruit.\n\nA small body of P\u00e2rs\u00ees remain to-day in Persia, and another in\nIndia,--disciples of this venerable faith. They are a good, moral,\nindustrious people. Some of them are very wealthy and very generous. Until\nMr. George Peabody's large donations, no one had bestowed so much on\npublic objects as Sir Jamsetjee Jeejeeboy, who had given to hospitals,\nschools, and charities, some years since, a million and a half of dollars.\nDuring our Rebellion, some of the P\u00e2rs\u00ees sent gifts to the Sanitary\nCommission, out of sympathy with the cause of freedom and Union.\n\nWho can estimate the power of a single life? Of Zoroaster we do not know\nthe true name, nor when he lived, nor where he lived, nor exactly what he\ntaught. But the current from that fountain has flowed on for thousands of\nyears, fertilizing the souls of men out of its hidden sources, and helping\non, by the decree of Divine Providence, the ultimate triumph of good over\nevil, right over wrong.\n\n\n\n\nChapter VI.\n\nThe Gods of Egypt.\n\n\n\n  \u00a7 1. Antiquity and Extent of Egyptian Civilization.\n  \u00a7 2. Religious Character of the Egyptians. Their Ritual.\n  \u00a7 3. Theology of Egypt. Sources of our Knowledge concerning it.\n  \u00a7 4. Central Idea of Egyptian Theology and Religion. Animal Worship.\n  \u00a7 5. Sources of Egyptian Theology. Age of the Empire and Affinities of\n         the Race.\n  \u00a7 6. The Three Orders of Gods.\n  \u00a7 7. Influence of Egypt upon Judaism and Christianity.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 1. Antiquity and Extent of Egyptian Civilization.\n\n\nThe ancient Egyptians have been the object of interest to the civilized\nworld in all ages; for Egypt was the favorite home of civilization,\nscience, and religion. It was a little country, the gift of the river\nNile; a little strip of land not more than seven miles wide, but\ncontaining innumerable cities and towns, and in ancient times supporting\nseven millions of inhabitants. Renowned for its discoveries in art and\nscience, it was the world's university; where Moses and Pythagoras,\nHerodotus and Plato, all philosophers and lawgivers, went to school. The\nEgyptians knew the length of the year and the form of the earth; they\ncould calculate eclipses of the sun and moon; were partially acquainted\nwith geometry, music, chemistry, the arts of design, medicine, anatomy,\narchitecture, agriculture, and mining. In architecture, in the qualities\nof grandeur and massive proportions, they are yet to be surpassed. The\nlargest buildings elsewhere erected by man are smaller than their\npyramids; which are also the oldest human works still remaining, the\nbeauty of whose masonry, says Wilkinson, has not been surpassed in any\nsubsequent age. An obelisk of a single stone now standing in Egypt weighs\nthree hundred tons, and a colossus of Ramses II. nearly nine hundred. But\nHerodotus describes a monolithic temple, which must have weighed five\nthousand tons, and which was carried the whole length of the Nile, to the\nDelta. And there is a roof of a doorway at Karnak, covered with sandstone\nblocks forty feet long. Sculpture and bas-reliefs three thousand five\nhundred years old, where the granite is cut with exquisite delicacy, are\nstill to be seen throughout Egypt. Many inventions, hitherto supposed to\nbe modern, such as glass, mosaics, false gems, glazed tiles, enamelling,\nwere well known to the Egyptians. But, for us, the most fortunate\ncircumstance in their taste was their fondness for writing. No nation has\never equalled them in their love for recording all human events and\ntransactions. They wrote down all the details of private life with\nwonderful zeal, method, and regularity. Every year, month, and day had its\nrecord, and thus Egypt is the monumental land of the earth. Bunsen says\nthat \"the genuine Egyptian writing is at least as old as Menes, the\nfounder of the Empire; perhaps three thousand years before Christ.\" No\nother human records, whether of India or China, go back so far. Lepsius\nsaw the hieroglyph of the reed and inkstand on the monuments of the fourth\ndynasty, and the sign of the papyrus roll on that of the twelfth dynasty,\nwhich was the last but one of the old Empire. \"No Egyptian,\" says\nHerodotus, \"omits taking accurate note of extraordinary and striking\nevents.\" Everything was written down. Scribes are seen everywhere on the\nmonuments, taking accounts of the products of the farms, even to every\nsingle egg and chicken. \"In spite of the ravages of time, and though\nsystematic excavation has scarcely yet commenced,\" says Bunsen, \"we\npossess chronological records of a date anterior to any period of which\nmanuscripts are preserved, or the art of writing existed in any other\nquarter.\" Because they were thus fond of recording everything, both in\npictures and in three different kinds of writing; because they were also\nfond of building and excavating temples and tombs in the imperishable\ngranite; because, lastly, the dryness of the air has preserved for us\nthese paintings, and the sand which has buried the monuments has prevented\ntheir destruction,--we have wonderfully preserved, over an interval of\nforty-five centuries, the daily habits, the opinions, and the religious\nfaith of that ancient time.\n\nThe oldest mural paintings disclose a state of the arts of civilization so\nadvanced as to surprise even those who have made arch\u00e6ology a study, and\nwho consequently know how few new things there are under the sun. It is\n_not_ astonishing to find houses with doors and windows, with verandas,\nwith barns for grain, vineyards, gardens, fruit-trees, etc. We might also\nexpect, since man is a fighting animal, to see, as we do, pictures of\nmarching troops, armed with spears and shields, bows, slings, daggers,\naxes, maces, and the boomerang; or to notice coats of mail, standards,\nwar-chariots; or to find the assault of forts by means of scaling-ladders.\nBut these ancient tombs also exhibit to us scenes of domestic life and\nmanners which would seem to belong to the nineteenth century after our\nera, rather than to the fifteenth century before it. Thus we see monkeys\ntrained to gather fruit from the trees in an orchard; houses furnished\nwith a great variety of chairs, tables, ottomans, carpets, couches, as\nelegant and elaborate as any used now. There are comic and _genre_\npictures of parties, where the gentlemen and ladies are sometimes\nrepresented as being the worse for wine; of dances where ballet-girls in\nshort dresses perform very modern-looking pirouettes; of exercises in\nwrestling, games of ball, games of chance like chess or checkers, of\nthrowing knives at a mark, of the modern thimblerig, wooden dolls for\nchildren, curiously carved wooden boxes, dice, and toy-balls. There are\nmen and women playing on harps, flutes, pipes, cymbals, trumpets, drums,\nguitars, and tambourines. Glass was, till recently, believed to be a\nmodern invention, unknown to the ancients. But we find it commonly used as\nearly as the age of Osertasen I., more than three thousand eight hundred\nyears ago; and we have pictures of glass-blowing and of glass bottles as\nfar back as the fourth dynasty. The best Venetian glass-workers are unable\nto rival some of the old Egyptian work; for the Egyptians could combine\nall colors in one cup, introduce gold between two surfaces of glass, and\nfinish in glass details of feathers, etc., which it now requires a\nmicroscope to make out. It is evident, therefore, that they understood the\nuse of the magnifying-glass. The Egyptians also imitated successfully the\ncolors of precious stones, and could even make statues thirteen feet high,\nclosely resembling an emerald. They also made mosaics in glass, of\nwonderfully brilliant colors. They could cut glass, at the most remote\nperiods. Chinese bottles have also been found in previously unopened tombs\nof the eighteenth dynasty, indicating commercial intercourse reaching as\nfar back as that epoch. They were able to spin and weave, and color cloth;\nand were acquainted with the use of mordants, the wonder in modern\ncalico-printing. Pliny describes this process as used in Egypt, but\nevidently without understanding its nature. Writing-paper made of the\npapyrus is as old as the Pyramids. The Egyptians tanned leather and made\nshoes; and the shoemakers on their benches are represented working exactly\nlike ours. Their carpenters used axes, saws, chisels, drills, planes,\nrulers, plummets, squares, hammers, nails, and hones for sharpening. They\nalso understood the use of glue in cabinet-making, and there are paintings\nof veneering, in which a piece of thin dark wood is fastened by glue to a\ncoarser piece of light wood. Their boats were propelled by sails on yards\nand masts, as well as by oars. They used the blow-pipe in the manufacture\nof gold chains and other ornaments. They had rings of gold and silver for\nmoney, and weighed it in scales of a careful construction. Their\nhieroglyphics are carved on the hardest granite with a delicacy and\naccuracy which indicates the use of some metallic cutting instrument,\nprobably harder than our best steel. The siphon was known in the fifteenth\ncentury before Christ. The most singular part of their costume was the\nwig, worn by all the higher classes, who constantly shaved their heads, as\nwell as their chins,--which shaving of the head is supposed by Herodotus\nto be the reason of the thickness of the Egyptian skull. They frequently\nwore false beards. Sandals, shoes, and low boots, some very elegant, are\nfound in the tombs. Women wore loose robes, ear-rings, finger-rings,\nbracelets, armlets, anklets, gold necklaces. In the tombs are found vases\nfor ointment, mirrors, combs, needles. Doctors and drugs were not unknown\nto them; and the passport system is no modern invention, for their deeds\ncontain careful descriptions of the person, exactly in the style with\nwhich European travellers are familiar. We have only mentioned a small\npart of the customs and arts with which the tombs of the Egyptians show\nthem to have been familiar. These instances are mostly taken from\nWilkinson, whose works contain numerous engravings from the monuments\nwhich more than verify all we have said.\n\nThe celebrated French Egyptologist, M. Mariette, has very much enlarged\nour knowledge of the more ancient dynasties, by his explorations, first\nunder a mission from the French government, and afterward from that of\nEgypt. The immense temples and palaces of Thebes are all of a date at\nleast B.C. 1000. We know the history of Egypt very well as far back as the\ntime of the Hyks\u00f4s, or to the eighteenth dynasty. M. Mariette has\ndiscovered statues and Sphinxes which he believes to have been the work of\nthe Hyks\u00f4s, the features being wholly different from that of the typical\nEgyptian. Four of these Sphinxes, found by Mariette on the site of the old\nTanis, have the regular body of a lion, according to the canon of Egyptian\nart, but the human heads are wholly un-Egyptian. Mariette, in describing\nthem, says that in the true Egyptian Sphinx there is always a quiet\nmajesty, the eye calm and wide open, a smile on the lips, a round face,\nand a peculiar coiffure with wide open wings. Nothing of this is to be\nfound in these Sphinxes. Their eyes are small, the nose aquiline, the\ncheeks hard, the mouth drawn down with a grave expression.\n\nThese Shepherd Kings, the Hyks\u00f4s, ruled Lower Egypt, according to Manetho,\nfive hundred and eleven years, which, according to Renan,[150] brings the\npreceding dynasty (the fourteenth of Manetho) as early as B.C. 2000.\nMonuments of the twelfth and thirteenth dynasties are common. The oldest\nobelisk dates B.C. 2800. Thanks to the excavations of M. Mariette, we now\nhave a large quantity of sculptures and statues of a still earlier epoch.\nM. Renan describes[151] tombs visited by himself, which he considers to be\nthe oldest known, and which he regards as being B.C. 4000,[152] where were\nrepresented all the details of domestic life. The tone of these pictures\nwas glad and gay; and, what is remarkable, they had no trace of the\nfuneral ritual or the god Osiris. These were not like tombs, but rather\nlike homes. To secure the body from all profanation, it was concealed in a\npit, carefully hidden in the solid masonry. These tombs belong to the six\nfirst dynasties.\n\nThe great antiquity of Egyptian civilization is universally admitted; but\nto fix its chronology and precise age becomes very difficult, from the\nfact that the Egyptians had no era from which to date forward or backward.\nThis question we shall return to in a subsequent section of this chapter.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. Religious Character of the Egyptians. Their Ritual.\n\n\nBut, wonderful as was the civilization of Egypt, it is not this which now\nchiefly interests us. They were prominent among all ancient nations for\ntheir interest in religion, especially of the ceremonial part of religion,\nor worship. Herodotus says: \"They are of all men the most excessively\nattentive to the worship of the gods.\" And beside his statement to that\neffect, there is evidence that the origin of much of the theology,\nmythology, and ceremonies of the Hebrews and Greeks was in Egypt. \"The\nnames of almost all the gods,\" says Herodotus, \"came from Egypt into\nGreece\" (Euterpe, 50). The Greek oracles, especially that of Dodona, he\nalso states to have been brought from Egypt (II. 54-57), and adds,\nmoreover, that the Egyptians were the first who introduced public\nfestivals, processions, and solemn supplications, which the Greeks learned\nfrom them. \"The Egyptians, then,\" says he, \"are beyond measure scrupulous\nin matters of religion (\u00a7 64). They invented the calendar, and connected\nastrology therewith.\" \"Each month and day,\" says Herodotus (II. 82), \"is\nassigned to some particular god, and each person's birthday determines his\nfate.\" He testifies (II. 123) that \"the Egyptians were also the first to\nsay that the soul of man is immortal, and that when the body perishes it\ntransmigrates through every variety of animal.\" It seems apparent, also,\nthat the Greek mysteries of Eleusis were taken from those of Isis; the\nstory of the wanderings of Ceres in pursuit of Proserpine being manifestly\nborrowed from those of Isis in search of the body of Osiris. With this\ntestimony of Herodotus modern writers agree. \"The Egyptians,\" says\nWilkinson, \"were unquestionably the most pious nation of all antiquity.\nThe oldest monuments show their belief in a future life. And Osiris, the\nJudge, is mentioned in tombs erected two thousand years before Christ.\"\nBunsen tells us that \"it has at last been ascertained that all the great\ngods of Egypt are on the oldest monuments,\" and says: \"It is a great and\nastounding fact, established beyond the possibility of doubt, that the\nempire of Menes on its first appearance in history possessed an\nestablished mythology, that is, a series of gods. Before the empire of\nMenes, the separate Egyptian states had their temple worship regularly\norganized.\"\n\nEverything among the Egyptians, says M. Maury,[153] took the stamp of\nreligion. Their writing was so full of sacred symbols that it could\nscarcely be used for any purely secular purpose. Literature and science\nwere only branches of theology. Art labored only in the service of worship\nand to glorify the gods. Religious observances were so numerous and so\nimperative, that the most common labors of daily life could not be\nperformed without a perpetual reference to some priestly regulation. The\nEgyptian only lived to worship. His fate in the future life was constantly\npresent to him. The sun, when it set, seemed to him to die; and when it\nrose the next morning, and tricking its beams flamed once more in the\nforehead of the sky, it was a perpetual symbol of a future resurrection.\nReligion penetrated so deeply into the habits of the land, that it almost\nmade a part of the intellectual and physical organization of its\ninhabitants. Habits continued during many generations at last become\ninstincts, and are transmitted with the blood.[154] So religion in Egypt\nbecame an instinct. Unaltered by the dominion of the Persians, the\nPtolemies, and Romans, it was, of all polytheisms, the most obstinate in\nits resistance to Christianity, and retained its devotees down to the\nsixth century of our era.[155]\n\nThere were more festivals in Egypt than among any other ancient people,\nthe Greeks not excepted. Every month and day was governed by a god. There\nwere two feasts of the New-Year, twelve of the first days of the months,\none of the rising of the dog-star (Sirius, called Sothis), and others to\nthe great gods, to seed-time and harvest, to the rise and fall of the\nNile. The feast of lamps at Sais was in honor of Neith, and was kept\nthroughout Egypt.[156] The feast of the death of Osiris; the feast of his\nresurrection (when people called out, \"We have found him! Good luck!\");\nfeasts of Isis (one of which lasted four days); the great feast at\nBubastis, greatest of all,--these were festivals belonging to all Egypt.\nOn one of them as many as seven hundred thousand persons sailed on the\nNile with music. At another, the image of the god was carried to the\ntemple by armed men, who were resisted by armed priests in a battle in\nwhich many were often killed.\n\nThe history of the gods was embodied in the daily life of the people. In\nan old papyrus described by De Roug\u00e9,[157] it is said: \"On the twelfth of\nChorak no one is to go out of doors, for on that day the transformation\nof Osiris into the bird Wennu took place; on the fourteenth of Toby no\nvoluptuous songs must be listened to, for Isis and Nepthys bewail Osiris\non that day. On the third of Mechir no one can go on a journey, because\nSet then began a war.\" On another day no one must go out. Another was\nlucky, because on it the gods conquered Set; and a child born on that day\nwas supposed to live to a great age.\n\nEvery temple had its own body of priests. They did not constitute an\nexclusive caste, though they were continued in families. Priests might be\nmilitary commanders, governors of provinces, judges, and architects.\nSoldiers had priests for sons, and the daughters of priests married\nsoldiers. Of three brothers, one was a priest, another a soldier, and a\nthird held a civil employment.[158] Joseph, a stranger, though naturalized\nin the country, received as a wife the daughter of the High-Priest of On,\nor Heliopolis.\n\nThe priests in Egypt were of various grades, as the chief priests or\npontiffs, prophets, judges, scribes, those who examined the victims,\nkeepers of the robes, of the sacred animals, etc.\n\nWomen also held offices in the temple and performed duties there, though\nnot as priestesses.\n\nThe priests were exempt from taxes, and were provided for out of the\npublic stores. They superintended sacrifices, processions, funerals, and\nwere initiated into the greater and lesser mysteries; they were also\ninstructed in surveying. They were particular in diet, both as to quantity\nand quality. Flesh of swine was particularly forbidden, and also that of\nfish. Beans were held in utter abhorrence, also peas, onions, and garlic,\nwhich, however, were offered on the altar. They bathed twice a day and\ntwice in the night, and shaved the head and body every three days. A great\npurification took place before their fasts, which lasted from seven to\nforty-two days.\n\nThey offered prayers for the dead.\n\nThe dress of the priests was simple, chiefly of linen, consisting of an\nunder-garment and a loose upper robe, with full sleeves, and the\nleopard-skin above; sometimes one or two feathers in the head.\n\nChaplets and flowers were laid upon the altars, such as the lotus and\npapyrus, also grapes and figs in baskets, and ointment in alabaster vases.\nAlso necklaces, bracelets, and jewelry, were offered as thanksgivings and\ninvocations.\n\nOxen and other animals were sacrificed, and the blood allowed to flow over\nthe altar. Libations of wine were poured on the altar. Incense was offered\nto all the gods in censers.\n\nProcessions were usual with the Egyptians; in one, shrines were carried on\nthe shoulders by long staves passed through rings. In others the statues\nof the gods were carried, and arks like those of the Jews, overshadowed by\nthe wings of the goddess of truth spread above the sacred beetle.\n\nThe prophets were the most highly honored of the priestly order. They\nstudied the ten hieratical books. The business of the stolists[159] was to\ndress and undress the images, to attend to the vestments of the priests,\nand to mark the beasts selected for sacrifice. The scribes were to search\nfor the Apis, or sacred bull, and were required to possess great learning.\n\nThe priests had no sinecure; their life was full of minute duties and\nrestrictions. They seldom appeared in public, were married to one wife,\nwere circumcised like other Egyptians, and their whole time was occupied\neither in study or the service of their gods. There was a gloomy tone to\nthe religion of Egypt, which struck the Greeks, whose worship was usually\ncheerful. Apuleius says \"the gods of Egypt rejoice in lamentations, those\nof Greece in dances.\" Another Greek writer says, \"The Egyptians offer\ntheir gods tears.\"\n\nUntil Swedenborg[160] arrived, and gave his disciples the precise measure\nand form of the life to come, no religion has ever taught an immortality\nas distinct in its outline and as solid in its substance as that of the\nEgyptians. The Greek and Roman hereafter was shadowy and vague; that of\nBuddhism remote; and the Hebrew Beyond was wholly eclipsed and overborne\nby the sense of a Divine presence and power immanent in space and time. To\nthe Egyptian, this life was but the first step, and a very short one, of\nan immense career. The sun (Ra) alternately setting and rising, was the\nperpetually present type of the progress of the soul, and the Sothiac\nperiod (symbolized by the Phoenix) of 1421 years from one heliacal rising\nof Sirius at the beginning of the fixed Egyptian year to the next, was\nalso made to define the cycle of human transmigrations. Two Sothiac\nperiods correspond nearly to the three thousand years spoken of by\nHerodotus, during which the soul transmigrates through animal forms before\nreturning to its human body. Then, to use the Egyptian language, the soul\narrived at the ship of the sun and was received by Ra into his solar\nsplendor. On some sarcophagi the soul is symbolized by a hawk with a human\nhead, carrying in his claws two rings, which probably signify the two\nSothiac cycles of its transmigrations.\n\nThe doctrine of the immortality of the soul, says Mr. Birch,[161] is as\nold as the inscriptions of the twelfth dynasty, many of which contain\nextracts from the Ritual of the Dead. One hundred and forty-six chapters\nof this Ritual have been translated by Mr. Birch from the text of the\nTurin papyrus, the most complete in Europe. Chapters of it are found on\nmummy-cases, on the wraps of mummies, on the walls of tombs, and within\nthe coffins on papyri. This Ritual is all that remains of the Hermetic\nBooks which constituted the library of the priesthood. Two antagonist\nclasses of deities appear in this liturgy as contending for the soul of\nthe deceased,--Osiris and his triad, Set and his devils. The Sun-God,\nsource of life, is also present.\n\nAn interesting chapter of the Ritual is the one hundred and twenty-fifth,\ncalled the Hall of the Two Truths. It is the process of \"separating a\nperson from his sins,\" not by confession and repentance, as is usual in\nother religions, but by denying them. Forty-two deities are said to be\npresent to feed on the blood of the wicked. The soul addresses the Lords\nof Truth, and declares that it has not done evil privily, and proceeds to\nspecifications. He says: \"I have not afflicted any. I have not told\nfalsehoods. I have not made the laboring man do more than his task. I have\nnot been idle. I have not murdered. I have not committed fraud. I have not\ninjured the images of the gods. I have not taken scraps of the bandages of\nthe dead. I have not committed adultery. I have not cheated by false\nweights. I have not kept milk from sucklings. I have not caught the sacred\nbirds.\" Then, addressing each god by name, he declares: \"I have not been\nidle. I have not boasted. I have not stolen. I have not counterfeited, nor\nkilled sacred beasts, nor blasphemed, nor refused to hear the truth, nor\ndespised God in my heart.\" According to some texts, he declares,\npositively, that he has loved God, that he has given bread to the hungry,\nwater to the thirsty, garments to the naked, and an asylum to the\nabandoned.\n\nFuneral ceremonies among the Egyptians were often very imposing. The cost\nof embalming, and the size and strength of the tomb, varied with the\nposition of the deceased. When the seventy days of mourning had elapsed,\nthe body in its case was ferried across the lake in front of the temple,\nwhich represented the passage of the soul over the infernal stream. Then\ncame a dramatic representation of the trial of the soul before Osiris. The\npriests, in masks, represented the gods of the underworld. Typhon accuses\nthe dead man, and demands his punishment. The intercessors plead for him.\nA large pair of scales is set up, and in one scale his conduct is placed\nin a bottle, and in the other an image of truth. These proceedings are\nrepresented on the funeral papyri. One of these, twenty-two feet in\nlength, is in Dr. Abbott's collection of Egyptian antiquities, in New\nYork. It is beautifully written, and illustrated with careful drawings.\nOne represents the Hall of the Two Truths, and Osiris sitting in\njudgment, with the scales of judgment before him.[162]\n\nMany of the virtues which we are apt to suppose a monopoly of Christian\nculture appear as the ideal of these old Egyptians. Brugsch says a\nthousand voices from the tombs of Egypt declare this. One inscription in\nUpper Egypt says: \"He loved his father, he honored his mother, he loved\nhis brethren, and never went from his home in bad-temper. He never\npreferred the great man to the low one.\" Another says: \"I was a wise man,\nmy soul loved God. I was a brother to the great men and a father to the\nhumble ones, and never was a mischief-maker.\" An inscription at Sais, on a\npriest who lived in the sad days of Cambyses, says: \"I honored my father,\nI esteemed my mother, I loved my brothers. I found graves for the unburied\ndead. I instructed little children. I took care of orphans as though they\nwere my own children. For great misfortunes were on Egypt in my time, and\non this city of Sais.\"\n\nSome of these declarations, in their \"self-pleasing pride\" of virtue,\nremind one of the noble justification of himself by the Patriarch\nJob.[163] Here is one of them, from the tombs of Ben-Hassan, over a Nomad\nPrince:--\n\n\"What I have done I will say. My goodness and my kindness were ample. I\nnever oppressed the fatherless nor the widow. I did not treat cruelly the\nfishermen, the shepherds, or the poor laborers. There was nowhere in my\ntime hunger or want. For I cultivated all my fields, far and near, in\norder that their inhabitants might have food. I never preferred the great\nand powerful to the humble and poor, but did equal justice to all.\"\n\nA king's tomb at Thebes gives us in few words the religious creed of a\nPharaoh:--\n\n\"I lived in truth, and fed my soul with justice. What I did to men was\ndone in peace, and how I loved God, God and my heart well know. I have\ngiven bread to the hungry, water to the thirsty, clothes to the naked,\nand a shelter to the stranger. I honored the gods with sacrifices, and the\ndead with offerings.\"\n\nA rock at Lycopolis pleads for an ancient ruler thus: \"I never took the\nchild from its mother's bosom, nor the poor man from the side of his\nwife.\" Hundreds of stones in Egypt announce as the best gifts which the\ngods can bestow on their favorites, \"the respect of men, and the love of\nwomen.\"[164] Religion, therefore, in Egypt, connected itself with morality\nand the duties of daily life. But kings and conquerors were not above the\nlaws of their religion. They were obliged to recognize their power and\ntriumphs as not their own work, but that of the great gods of their\ncountry. Thus, on a monumental stele discovered at Karnak by M. Mariette,\nand translated by De Roug\u00e9,[165] is an inscription recording the triumphs\nof Thothmes III., of the eighteenth dynasty (about B.C. 1600), which\nsounds like the song of Miriam or the Hymn of Deborah. We give some\nstanzas in which the god Amun addresses Thothmes:--\n\n    \"I am come: to thee have I given to strike down Syrian princes;\n    Under thy feet they lie throughout the breadth of their country,\n    Like to the Lord of Light, I made them see thy glory,\n    Blinding their eyes with light, O earthly image of Amun!\n\n    \"I am come: to thee have I given to strike down Asian peoples;\n    Captive now thou hast led the proud Assyrian chieftains;\n    Decked in royal robes, I made them see thy glory;\n    In glittering arms and fighting, high in thy lofty chariot.\n\n    \"I am come: to thee have I given to strike down western nations;\n    Cyprus and the Ases have both heard thy name with terror;\n    Like a strong-horned bull I made them see thy glory;\n    Strong with piercing horns, so that none can stand before him.\n\n    \"I am come: to thee have I given to strike down Lybian archers;\n    All the isles of the Greeks submit to the force of thy spirit;\n    Like a regal lion, I made them see thy glory;\n    Couched by the corpse he has made, down in the rocky valley.\n\n    \"I am come: to thee have I given to strike down the ends of the ocean.\n    In the grasp of thy hand is the circling zone of the waters;\n    Like the soaring eagle, I have made them see thy glory,\n    Whose far-seeing eye there is none can hope to escape from.\"\n\nA similar strain of religious poetry is in the Papyrus of Sallier, in the\nBritish Museum.[166] This is an epic by an Egyptian poet named Pentaour,\ncelebrating the campaigns of Ramses II., the Sesostris of the Greeks, of\nthe nineteenth dynasty. This great king had been called into Syria to put\ndown a formidable revolt of the Kheta (the Hittites of the Old Testament).\nThe poem seems to have been a famous one, for it had the honor of being\ncarved in full on the walls at Karnak, a kind of immortality which no\nother epic poet has ever attained. It particularly describes an incident\nin the war, when, by a stratagem of the enemy, King Ramses found himself\nseparated from the main body of his army and attacked by the enemy in full\nforce. Pentaour describes him in this situation as calling on Amun, God of\nThebes, for help, recounting the sacrifices he had offered to him, and\nasking whether he would let him die in this extremity by the ignoble hands\nof these Syrian tribes. \"Have I not erected to thee great temples? Have I\nnot sacrificed to thee thirty thousand oxen? I have brought from\nElephantina obelisks to set up to thy name. I invoke thee, O my father,\nAmun. I am in the midst of a throng of unknown tribes, and alone. But Amun\nis better to me than thousands of archers and millions of horsemen. Amun\nwill prevail over the enemy.\" And, after defeating his foes, in his song\nof triumph, the king says, \"Amun-Ra has been at my right and my left in\nthe battles; his mind has inspired my own, and has prepared the downfall\nof my enemies. Amun-Ra, my father, has brought the whole world to my\nfeet.\"[167]\n\nThus universal and thus profound was the religious sentiment among the\nEgyptians.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. Theology of Egypt. Sources of our Knowledge concerning it.\n\n\nAs regards the theology of the Egyptians and their system of ideas, we\nmeet with difficulty from the law of secrecy which was their habit of\nmind. The Egyptian priesthood enveloped with mystery every opinion, just\nas they swathed the mummies, fold above fold, in preparing them for the\ntomb. The names and number of their gods we learn from the monuments.\nTheir legends concerning them come to us through Plutarch, Herodotus,\nDiodorus, and other Greek writers. Their doctrine of a future life and\nfuture judgment is apparent in their ceremonies, the pictures on the\ntombs, and the papyrus Book of the Dead. But what these gods _mean_, what\nare their offices, how they stand related to each other and to mankind,\nwhat is the ethical bearing of the religion, it is not so easy to learn.\n\nNevertheless, we may find a clew to a knowledge of this system, if in no\nother way, at least by ascertaining its central, ruling idea, and pursuing\nthis into its details. The moment that we take this course, light will\nbegin to dawn upon us. But before going further, let us briefly inquire\ninto the sources of our knowledge of Egyptian mythology.\n\nThe first and most important place is occupied by the monuments, which\ncontain the names and tablets of the gods of the three orders. Then come\nthe sacred books of the Egyptians, known to us by Clemens Alexandrinus.\nFrom him we learn that the Egyptians in his time had forty-two sacred\nbooks in five classes. The first class, containing songs or hymns in\npraise of the gods, were very old, dating perhaps from the time of Menes.\nThe other books treated of morals, astronomy, hieroglyphics, geography,\nceremonies, the deities, the education of priests, and medicine. Of these\nsacred Hermaic books, one is still extant, and perhaps it is as\ninteresting as any of them. We have two copies of it, both on papyrus, one\nfound by the French at Thebes, the other by Champollion in Turin. And\nLepsius considers this last papyrus to be wholly of the date of the\neighteenth or nineteenth dynasty, consequently fifteen hundred or sixteen\nhundred years before Christ, and the only example of an Egyptian book\ntransmitted from the times of the Pharaohs. Bunsen believes it to belong\nto the fourth class of Hermaic books, containing Ordinances as to the\nFirst Fruits, Sacrifices, Hymns, and Prayers. In this book the deceased\nis the person who officiates. His soul journeying on gives utterance to\nprayers, confessions, invocations. The first fifteen chapters, which make\na connected whole, are headed, \"Here begins the Sections of the\nGlorification in the Light of Osiris.\" It is illustrated by a picture of a\nprocession, in which the deceased soul follows his own corpse as chief\nmourner, offering prayers to the Sun-God. Another part of the book is\nheaded, \"The Book of Deliverance, in the Hall of twofold Justice,\" and\ncontains the divine judgments on the deceased. Forty-two gods occupy the\njudgment-seat. Osiris, their president, bears on his breast the small\ntablet of chief judge, containing a figure of Justice. Before him are seen\nthe scales of divine judgment. In one is placed the statue of Justice, and\nin the other the heart of the deceased, who stands in person by the\nbalance containing his heart, while Anubis watches the other scale. Horus\nexamines the plummet indicating which way the beam inclines. Thoth, the\nJustifier the Lord of the Divine Word, records the sentence.[168]\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4. Central Idea of Egyptian Theology and Religion. Animal Worship.\n\n\nWe now proceed to ask what is the IDEA of Egyptian mythology and theology?\n\nWe have seen that the idea of the religion of India was Spirit; the One,\nthe Infinite, the Eternal; a pure spiritual Pantheism, from which the\nelements of time and space are quite excluded. The religion of Egypt\nstands at the opposite pole of thought as its antagonist. Instead of\nSpirit, it accepts Body; instead of Unity, Variety; instead of Substance,\nForm. It is the physical reaction from Brahmanism. Instead of the worship\nof abstract Deity, it gives us the most concrete divinity, wholly\nincarnated in space and time. Instead of abstract contemplation, it gives\nus ceremonial worship. Instead of the absorption of man into God, it gives\nus transmigration through all bodily forms.[169] It so completely\nincarnates God, as to make every type of animal existence divine; hence\nthe worship of animals. It makes body so sacred, that the human body must\nnot be allowed to perish. As the Brahman, contemplating eternity, forgot\ntime, and had no history, so on the other hand the Egyptian priest, to\nwhom every moment of time is sacred, records everything and turns every\nevent into history; and as it enshrines the past time historically on\nmonuments, so it takes hold of future time prophetically through oracles.\n\nThe chief peculiarity about the religion of Egypt, and that which has\nalways caused the greatest astonishment to foreigners, was the worship of\nanimals. Herodotus says (Book II. \u00a7 65), \"That all animals in Egypt, wild\nand tame, are accounted sacred, and that if any one kills these animals\nwilfully he is put to death.\" He is, however, mistaken in asserting that\n_all_ animals are sacred; for many were not so, though the majority were.\nWilkinson gives a list of the animals of Egypt to the number of over one\nhundred, more than half of which were sacred, and the others not. As\nhunting and fishing were favorite sports of the Egyptians, it is apparent\nthat there must have been animals whom it was lawful to kill.\nNevertheless, it is certain that animal worship is a striking peculiarity\nof the Egyptian system. Cows were sacred to Isis, and Isis was represented\nin the form of a cow. The gods often wore the heads of animals; and Kneph,\nor Amun, with the ram's head, is one of the highest of the gods, known\namong the Greeks as Jupiter Ammon. The worship of Apis, the sacred bull of\nMemphis, the representative of Osiris, was very important among the\nEgyptian ceremonies. Plutarch says that he was a fair and beautiful image\nof the soul of Osiris. He was a bull with black hair, a white spot on his\nforehead, and some other special marks. He was kept at Memphis in a\nsplendid temple. His festival lasted seven days, when a great concourse of\npeople assembled. When he died his body was embalmed and buried with great\npomp, and the priests went in search of another Apis, who, when discovered\nby the marks, was carried to Memphis, carefully fed and exercised, and\nconsulted as an oracle. The burial-place of the Apis bulls was, a few\nyears ago, discovered near Memphis. It consists of an arched gallery hewn\nin the rock, two thousand feet long and twenty feet in height and breadth.\nOn each side is a series of recesses, each containing a large sarcophagus\nof granite, fifteen by eight feet, in which the body of a sacred bull was\ndeposited. In 1852 thirty of these had been already found. Before this\ntomb is a paved road with lions ranged on each side, and before this a\ntemple with a vestibule.\n\nIn different parts of Egypt different animals were held sacred. The animal\nsacred in one place was not so regarded in another district. These sacred\nanimals were embalmed by the priests and buried, and the mummies of dogs,\nwolves, birds, and crocodiles are found by thousands in the tombs. The\norigin and motive of this worship is differently explained. It is certain\nthat animals were not worshipped in the same way as the great gods, but\nwere held sacred and treated with reverence as containing a divine\nelement. So, in the East, an insane person is accounted sacred, but is not\nworshipped. So the Roman Catholics distinguish between Dulia and Latria,\nbetween the worship of gods and reverence of saints. So, too, Protestants\nconsider the Bible a holy book and the Sabbath a holy day, but without\nworshipping them. It is only just to make a similar distinction on behalf\nof the Egyptians. The motives usually assigned for this worship--motives\nof utility--seem no adequate explanation. \"The Egyptians,\" says Wilkinson,\n\"may have deified some animals to insure their preservation, some to\nprevent their unwholesome meat being used as food.\" But no religion was\never established in this way. Man does not worship from utilitarian\nconsiderations, but from an instinct of reverence. It is possible, indeed,\nthat such a reverential instinct may have been awakened towards certain\nanimals, by seeing their vast importance arising from their special\ninstincts and faculties. The cow and the ox, the dog, the ibis, and the\ncat, may thus have appeared to the Egyptians, from their indispensable\nutility, to be endowed with supernatural gifts. But this feeling itself\nmust have had its root in a yet deeper tendency of the Egyptian mind. They\nreverenced the mysterious manifestation of God in all outward nature. No\none can look at an animal, before custom blinds our sense of strangeness,\nwithout a feeling of wonder at the law of instinct, and the special,\ndistinct peculiarity which belongs to it. Every variety of animals is a\nmanifestation of a divine thought, and yet a thought hinted rather than\nexpressed. Each must mean something, must symbolize something. But what\ndoes it mean? what does it symbolize? Continually we seem just on the\npoint of penetrating the secret; we almost touch the explanation, but are\nbaffled. A dog, a cat, a snake, a crocodile, a spider,--what does each\nmean? why were they made? why this infinite variety of form, color,\nfaculty, character? Animals thus in their unconscious being, as\nexpressions of God's thoughts, are mysteries, and divine mysteries.[170]\n\nNow every part of the religion of Egypt shows how much they were attracted\ntoward _variety_, toward nature, toward the outward manifestations of the\nDivine Spirit. These tendencies reached their utmost point in their\nreverence for animal life. The shallow Romans, who reverenced only\nthemselves, and the Greeks, who worshipped nothing but human nature more\nor less idealized, laughed at this Egyptian worship of animals and plants.\n\"O sacred nation! whose gods grow in gardens!\" says Juvenal. But it\ncertainly shows a deeper wisdom to see something divine in nature, and to\nfind God in nature, than to call it common and unclean. And there is more\nof truth in the Egyptian reverence for animal individuality, than in the\nunfeeling indifference to the welfare of these poor relations which\nChristians often display. When Jesus said that \"not a sparrow falls to the\nground without your Father,\" he showed all these creatures to be under the\nprotection of their Maker. It may be foolish to worship animals, but it is\nstill more foolish to despise them.\n\nThat the belief in transmigration is the explanation of animal worship is\nthe opinion of Bunsen. The human soul and animal soul, according to this\nview, are essentially the same,--therefore the animal was considered as\nsacred as man. Still, we do not _worship_ man. Animal worship, then, must\nhave had a still deeper root in the sense of awe before the mystery of\norganized life.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5. Sources of Egyptian Theology. Age of the Empire and Affinities of the\nRace.\n\n\nBut whence came this tendency in the human mind? Did it inhere in the\nrace, or was it the growth of external circumstances? Something, perhaps,\nmay be granted to each of these causes. The narrow belt of fertile land in\nEgypt, fed by the overflowing Nile, quickened by the tropical sun, teeming\nwith inexhaustible powers of life, continually called the mind anew to the\nactive, creative powers of nature. And yet it may be suspected that the\nlaw of movement by means of antagonism and reaction may have had its\ninfluence also here. The opinion is now almost universal, that the impulse\nof Egyptian civilization proceeded from Asia. This is the conclusion of\nBunsen at the end of his first volume. \"The cradle of the mythology and\nlanguage of Egypt,\" says he, \"is Asia. This result is arrived at by the\nvarious ethnological proofs of language which finds Sanskrit words and\nforms in Egypt, and of comparative anatomy, which shows the oldest\nEgyptian skulls to have belonged to Caucasian races.\" If, then, Egyptian\ncivilization proceeded from Central Asia, Egyptian mythology and religion\nprobably came as a quite natural reaction from the extreme spiritualism of\nthe Hindoos. The question which remains is, whether they arrived at their\nnature-worship directly or indirectly; whether, beginning with Fetichism,\nthey ascended to their higher conceptions of the immortal gods; or,\nbeginning with spiritual existence, they traced it downward into its\nmaterial manifestations; whether, in short, their system was one of\nevolution or emanation. For every ancient theogony, cosmogony, or ontogony\nis of one kind or the other. According to the systems of India and of\nPlatonism, the generation of beings is by the method of emanation.\nCreation is a falling away, or an emanation from the absolute. But the\nsystems of Greek and Scandinavian mythology are of the opposite sort. In\nthese, spirit is evolved from matter; matter up to spirit works. They\nbegin with the lowest form of being,--night, chaos, a mundane egg,--and\nevolve the higher gods therefrom.\n\nIt is probable that we find in Egypt a double tendency. One is the Asiatic\nspiritualism, the other the African naturalism. The union of the ideal and\nthe real, of thought and passion, of the aspirations of the soul and the\nfire of a passionate nature, of abstract meditation and concrete life, had\nfor its result the mysterious theology and philosophy which, twenty\ncenturies after its burial under the desert sands, still rouses our\ncuriosity to penetrate the secret of this Sphinx of the Nile.\n\nWe have seen in a former section that the institutions of Egypt, based on\na theocratic monarchy, reach back into a dim and doubtful antiquity.\nMonuments, extending through thirty-five centuries, attest an age\npreceding all written history. These monuments, so far as deciphered by\nmodern Egyptologists, have confirmed the accuracy of the lists of kings\nwhich have come to us from Manetho. We have no monument anterior to the\nfourth dynasty, but at that epoch we find the theocracy fully\norganized.[171] The general accuracy of Manetho's list has been\ndemonstrated by the latest discoveries of M. Mariette, and has rendered\ndoubtful the idea of any of the dynasties being contemporaneous.\n\nThe main chronological points, however, are by no means as yet fixed.\nThus, the beginning of the first dynasty is placed by B\u00f6ckh at B.C. 5702,\nby Lepsius B.C. 3892, by Bunsen B.C. 3623, by Brugsch B.C. 4455, by Lauth\nB.C. 4157, by Duncker 3233.[172] The period of the builders of the great\nPyramids is fixed by Bunsen at B.C. 3229, by Lepsius at B.C. 3124, by\nBrugsch at B.C. 3686, by Lauth at B.C. 3450, and by B\u00f6ckh at B.C.\n4933.[173]\n\nThe Egyptian priests told Herodotus that there were three hundred and\nthirty-one kings, from Menes to Moeris, whose names they read out of a\nbook. After him came eleven others, of whom Sethos was the last. From\nOsiris to Amasis they counted fifteen thousand years, though Herodotus did\nnot believe this statement. If the three hundred and forty-two kings\nreally existed, it would make Menes come B.C. 9150,--at an average of\ntwenty-five years' reign to each king. Diodorus saw in Egypt a list of\nfour hundred and seventy-nine kings. But he says in another place that\nMenes lived about four thousand seven hundred years before his time.\nManetho tells us that from Menes there were thirty dynasties, who reigned\nfive thousand three hundred and sixty-six years. But he gives a list of\nfour hundred and seventy-two kings in these dynasties, to the time of\nCambyses. The contradictions are so great, and the modes of reconciling\nManetho, Herodotus, Diodorus, Eratosthenes, and the monuments are so\ninadequate, that we must regard the whole question of the duration of the\nmonarchy as unsettled. But from the time when the calendar must have been\nfixed, from the skill displayed in the Pyramids, and other reasons\nindependent of any chronology, Duncker considers the reign of Menes as old\nas B.C. 3500.\n\nThe history of Egypt is divided into three periods, that of the old, the\nmiddle, and the new monarchy. The first extends from the foundation of the\nunited kingdom by Menes to the conquest of the country by the Hyks\u00f4s. The\nsecond is from this conquest by the Hyks\u00f4s till their expulsion. The\nthird, from the re-establishment of the monarchy by Amosis to its final\nconquest by Persia. The old monarchy contained twelve dynasties; the\nHyks\u00f4s or middle monarchy, five; the new monarchy, thirteen: in all,\nthirty.\n\nThe Hyks\u00f4s, or Shepherd Kings, were at first supposed to be the Hebrews:\nbut this hypothesis adapted itself to none of the facts. A recent treatise\nby M. Chabas[174] shows that the Hyks\u00f4s were an Asiatic people, occupying\nthe country to the northeast of Egypt. After conquering Lower Egypt,\nApapi was king of the Hyks\u00f4s and Tekenen-Ra ruled over the native\nEgyptians of the South. A papyrus, as interpreted by M. Chabas, narrates\nthat King Apapi worshipped only the god Sutech (Set), and refused to allow\nthe Egyptian gods to be adored. This added to the war of races a war of\nreligion, which resulted in the final expulsion of the Shepherds, about\nB.C. 1700. The Hyks\u00f4s are designated on the monuments and in the papyri as\nthe \"Scourge\" or \"Plague,\" equivalent in Hebrew to the _Tzir'ah,_ commonly\ntranslated \"hornet,\" but evidently the same as the Hebrew _tzavaath_,\n\"plague,\" and the Arabic _tzeria_, \"scourge,\" or \"plague.\"[175]\n\nAccording to the learned Egyptologist, Dr. Brugsch, the Hebrew slaves in\nEgypt are referred to in a papyrus in the British Museum of the date of\nRamses II. (B.C. 1400), in a description by a scribe named Pinebsa of the\nnew city of Ramses. He tells how the slaves throng around him to present\npetitions against their overseers. Another papyrus reads (Lesley, \"Man's\nOrigin and Destiny\"): \"The people have erected twelve buildings. They made\ntheir tale of bricks daily, till they were finished.\" The first\ncorroboration of the biblical narrative which the Egyptian monuments\nafford, and the first synchronism between Jewish and Egyptian history,\nappear in the reign of Ramses II., about B.C. 1400, in the nineteenth\ndynasty.\n\nIt appears from the monuments and from the historians that somewhere about\nB.C. 2000, or earlier, this great movement of warlike nomadic tribes\noccurred, which resulted in the conquest of Lower Egypt by the pastoral\npeople known as Hyks\u00f4s. It was perhaps a movement of Semitic races, the\nBedouins of the desert, like that which nearly three thousand years after\nunited them as warriors of Islam to overflow North Africa, Syria, Persia,\nand Spain. They oppressed Egypt for five hundred years (Brugsch), and\nappear on the monuments under the name of Amu (the herdsmen) or of Aadu\n(the hated ones). Their kings resided at Tanis (in Egyptian Avaris), in\nthe Delta. That their conquests had a religious motive, and were made,\nlike that of Mohammed, in the interest of monotheism, seems possible. At\nall events, we find one of them, Apapi, erecting a temple to Sutech (the\nSemitic Baal), and refusing to allow the worship of other deities.[176]\n\nThe majority of Egyptologists believe that the Hebrews entered Egypt while\nthese Hyks\u00f4s kings, men of the same Semitic family and monotheistic\ntendencies, were ruling in Lower Egypt. The bare subterranean temple\ndiscovered by M. Mariette, with the well near it filled with broken\nstatues of the Egyptian gods, is an indication of those tendencies. The\n\"other king, who knew not Joseph,\" was a king of the eighteenth dynasty,\nwho conquered the Hyks\u00f4s and drove them out of Egypt. Apparently the\ncourse of events was like that which many centuries later occurred in\nSpain. In both cases, the original rulers of the land, driven to the\nmountains, gradually reconquered their country step by step. The result of\nthis reconquest of the country would also be in Egypt, as it was in Spain,\nthat the Semitic remnants left in the land would be subject to a severe\nand oppressive rule. The Jews in Egypt, like the Moors in Spain, were\nvictims of a cruel bondage. Then began the most splendid period of\nEgyptian history, during the seventeenth, sixteenth, fifteenth, and\nfourteenth centuries before Christ. The Egyptian armies overran Syria,\nAsia Minor, and Armenia as far as the Tigris.\n\nRamses II., the most powerful monarch of this epoch, is probably the king\nwhose history is given by Herodotus and other Greek writers under the name\nof Sesostris.[177] M. de Roug\u00e9 believes himself able to establish this\nidentity. He found in the Museum at Vienna a stone covered with\ninscriptions, and dedicated by a person whose name is given as Ramses\nMei-Amoun, exactly in the hieroglyphics of the great king. But this\nperson's name is also written elsewhere on the stone _Ses_, and a third\ntime as _Ses Mei-amoun,_ showing that _Ses_ was a common abbreviation of\nRamses. It is also written _Sesu_, or _Sesesu_, which is very like the\nform in which Diodorus writes Sesostris, namely, _Sesoosis_.[178] Now\nRamses II., whose reign falls about B.C. 1400, erected a chain of\nfortresses to defend the northeastern border of Egypt against the Syrian\nnomads. One of these fortresses was named from the King Ramses, and\nanother Pachtum. The papyri contain accounts of these cities. One papyrus,\nin the British Museum,[179] is a description by a scribe named Pinebsa, of\nthe aspect of the city Ramses, and of the petitions of the laborers for\nrelief against their overseers. These laborers are called _Apuru_,\nHebrews. In a papyrus of the Leyden Museum, an officer reports to his\nsuperior thus: \"May my lord be pleased. I have distributed food to the\nsoldiers and to the Hebrews, dragging stones for the great city Ramses\nMeia-moum. I gave them food monthly.\" This corresponds with the passage\n(Exodus i. 11): \"They built for Pharaoh treasure-cities, Pithom and\nRaamses.\"[180]\n\nThe birth of Moses fell under the reign of Ramses II. The Exodus was under\nthat of his successor, Menepthes. This king had fallen on evil times; his\npower was much inferior to that of his great predecessor; and he even\ncondescended to propitiate the anti-Egyptian element, by worshipping its\ngods. He has left his inscription on the monuments with the title,\n\"Worshipper of Sutech-Baal in Tanis.\" The name of Moses is Egyptian, and\nsignifies \"the child.\"\n\n\"Joseph,\" says Brugsch, \"was never at the court of an Egyptian Pharaoh,\nbut found his place with the Semitic monarchs, who reigned at Avaris-Tanis\nin the Delta, and whose power extended from this point as far as Memphis\nand Heliopolis.\" The \"king who knew not Joseph\" was evidently the\nrestored Egyptian dynasty of Thebes. These monarchs would be naturally\naverse to all the Palestinian inhabitants of the land. And the monuments\nof their reigns represent the labors of subject people, under\ntask-masters, cutting, carrying, and laying stones for the walls of\ncities.\n\nTo what race do the Egyptians belong? The only historic document which\ntakes us back so far as this is the list of nations in the tenth chapter\nof Genesis. We cannot, indeed, determine the time when it was written. But\nBunsen, Ebers,[181] and other ethnologists are satisfied that the author\nof this chapter had a knowledge of the subject derived either from the\nPhoenicians or the Egyptians. Ewald places his epoch with that of the\nearly Jewish kings. According to this table the Egyptians were descended\nfrom Ham, the son of Noah, and were consequently of the same original\nstock with the Japhetic and Semitic nations. They were not negroes, though\ntheir skin was black, or at least dark.[182] According to Herodotus they\ncame from the heart of Africa; according to Genesis (chap. x.) from Asia.\nWhich is the correct view?\n\nThe Egyptians themselves recognized no relationship with the negroes, who\nonly appear on the monuments as captives or slaves.\n\nHistory, therefore, helps us little in this question of race. How is it\nwith Comparative Philology and Comparative Anatomy?\n\nThe Coptic language is an idiom of the old Egyptian tongue, which seems to\nbelong to no known linguistic group. It is related to other African\nlanguages only through the lexicon, and similarly with the Indo-European.\nSome traces of grammatic likeness to the Semitic may be found in it; yet\nthe view of Bunsen and Schwartz, that in very ancient times it arose from\nthe union of Semitic and Indo-European languages, remains only a\nhypothesis.[183] Merx (in Schenkel's Bibel-Lexicon) says this view \"rests\nupon a wish formed in the interest of the Philosophy of History; and the\nbelief of a connection between these tongues is not justified by any\nscientific study of philology. No such ethnological affinity can be\ngranted,--a proof of which is that all facts in its favor are derived from\ncommon roots, none from common grammar.\" Benfey, however, assumed two\ngreat branches of Semitic nationalities, one flowing into Africa, the\nother into Western Asia.[184] Ebers[185] gives some striking resemblances\nbetween Egyptian and Chaldaic words, and says he possesses more than three\nhundred examples of this kind; and in Bunsen's fifth volume are\ncomparative tables which give as their result that a third part of the old\nEgyptian words in Coptic literature are Semitic, and a tenth part\nIndo-European. If these statements are confirmed, they may indicate some\nclose early relations between these races.\n\nThe anatomy of the mummies seems to show a wide departure from negro\ncharacteristics. The skull, chin, forehead, bony system, facial angle,\nhair, limbs, are all different. The chief resemblances are in the flat\nnose, and form of the backbone.[186] Scientific ethnologists have\ntherefore usually decided that the old Egyptians were an Asiatic people\nwho had become partially amalgamated with the surrounding African tribes.\nMax Duncker comes to this conclusion,[187] and says that the Berber\nlanguages are the existing representatives of the old Egyptian. This is\ncertainly true as concerns the Copts, whose very name is almost identical\nwith the word \"Gupti,\" the old name from which the Greeks formed the term\n\u00c6gypti.[188] Alfred Maury (Revue d. D. Mondes, September, 1867) says that,\n\"according to all appearances, Egypt was peopled from Asia by that Hamitic\nrace which comprised the tribes of Palestine, Arabia, and Ethiopia. Its\nancient civilization was, consequently, the sister of that which built\nBabylon and Nineveh. In the valley of the Nile, as in those of the\nEuphrates and the Tigris, religion gave the motive to civilization, and in\nall the three nations there was a priesthood in close alliance with an\nabsolute monarchy.\" M. de Roug\u00e9 is of the same opinion. In his examination\nof the monuments of the oldest dynasties, he finds the name given to the\nEgyptians by themselves to be merely \"the Men\" (Rut),--a word which by the\nusual interchange of R with L, and of T with D, is identical with the\nHebrew Lud (plural Ludim), whom the Book of Genesis declares to have been\na son of Misraim. This term was applied by the Israelites to all the races\non the southeast shore of the Mediterranean. It is, therefore, believed by\nM. de Roug\u00e9 that the Egyptians were of the same family with these Asiatic\ntribes on the shores of Syria. Here, then, as in so many other cases, a\nnew civilization may have come from the union of two different races,--one\nAsiatic, the other African. Asia furnished the brain, Africa the fire, and\nfrom the immense vital force of the latter and the intellectual vigor of\nthe former sprang that wonderful civilization which illuminated the world\nduring at least five thousand years.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6. The Three Orders of Gods.\n\n\nThe Egyptian theology, or doctrine of the gods, was of two\nkinds,--esoteric and exoteric, that is, an interior theology for the\ninitiated, and an exterior theology for the uninitiated. The exterior\ntheology, which was for the whole people, consisted of the mythological\naccounts of Isis and Osiris, the judgments of the dead, the transmigration\nof the soul, and all matters connected with the ceremonial worship of the\ngods. But the interior, hidden theology is supposed to have related to the\nunity and spirituality of the Deity.\n\nHerodotus informs us that the gods of the Egyptians were in three orders;\nand Bunsen believes that he has succeeded in restoring them from the\nmonuments. There are eight gods of the first order, twelve gods of the\nsecond order, and seven gods of the third order. The gods of the third\norder are those of the popular worship, but those of the first seem to be\nof a higher and more spiritual class. The third class of gods were\nrepresentative of the elements of nature, the sun, fire, water, earth,\nair. But the gods of the first order were the gods of the priesthood,\nunderstood by them alone, and expressing ideas which they shrank from\ncommunicating to the people. The spiritual and ideal part of their\nreligion the priests kept to themselves as something which the people were\nincapable of understanding. The first eight gods seem to have been a\nrepresentation of a process of divine development or emanation, and\nconstituted a transition from the absolute spiritualism of the Hindoos to\nthe religion of nature and humanity in the West. The Hindoo gods were\nemanations of spirit: the gods of Greece are idealizations of Nature. But\nthe Egyptian gods represent spirit passing into matter and form.\n\nAccordingly, if we examine in detail the gods of the first order, who are\neight, we find them to possess the general principle of self-revelation,\nand to constitute, taken together, a process of divine development. These\neight, according to Bunsen, are Amn, or Ammon; Khem, or Chemmis; Mut, the\nMother Goddess; Num, or Kneph; Seti, or Sate; Phtah, the Artist God; Net,\nor Neith, the Goddess of Sais; and Ra, the Sun, the God of Heliopolis. But\naccording to Wilkinson they stand in a little different order: 1. Neph, or\nKneph; 2. Amun, or Ammon; 3. Pthah; 4. Khem; 5. Sate; 6. Maut, or Mut; 7.\nPasht, or Diana; and 8. Neith, or Minerva, in which list Pasht, the\nGoddess of Bubastis, is promoted out of the second order and takes the\nplace of Ra, the Sun, who is degraded.\n\nSupposing these lists to be substantially correct, we have, as the root of\nthe series, Ammon, the Concealed God, or Absolute Spirit. His titles\nindicate this dignity. The Greeks recognized him as corresponding to their\nZeus. He is styled King of the Gods, the Ruler, the Lord of Heaven, the\nLord of the Thrones, the Horus or God of the Two Egypts. Thebes was his\ncity. According to Manetho, his name means concealment; and the root \"Amn\"\nalso means to veil or conceal. His original name was Amn; thus it stands\nin the rings of the twelfth dynasty. But after the eighteenth dynasty it\nis Amn-Ra, meaning the Sun. \"Incontestably,\" says Bunsen, \"he stands in\nEgypt as the head of the great cosmogonic development.\"\n\nNext comes Kneph, or God as Spirit,--the Spirit of God, often confounded\nwith Amn, also called Cnubis and Num. Both Plutarch and Diodorus tell us\nthat his name signifies Spirit, the Num having an evident relation with\nthe Greek \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1, and the Coptic word \"Nef,\" meaning also to blow. So too\nthe Arabic \"Nef\" means breath, the Hebrew \"Nuf,\" to flow, and the Greek\n\u03c0\u03bd\u03ad\u03c9, to breathe. At Esneh he is called the Breath of those in the\nFirmament; at Elephantina, Lord of the Inundations. He wears the ram's\nhead with double horns (by mistake of the Greeks attributed to Ammon), and\nhis worship was universal in Ethiopia. The sheep are sacred to him, of\nwhich there were large flocks in the Thebaid, kept for their wool. And the\nserpent or asp, a sign of kingly dominion,--hence called basilisk,--is\nsacred to Kneph. As Creator, he appears under the figure of a potter with\na wheel. In Phil\u00e6 he is so represented, forming on his wheel a figure of\nOsiris, with the inscription, \"Num, who forms on his wheel the Divine\nLimbs of Osiris.\" He is also called the Sculptor of all men, also the god\nwho made the sun and moon to revolve. Porphyry says that Pthah sprang from\nan egg which came from the mouth of Kneph, in which he is supported by\nhigh monumental authority.\n\nThe result of this seems to be that Kneph represents the absolute Being as\nSpirit, the Spirit of God moving on the face of the waters,--a moving\nspirit pervading the formless chaos of matter.\n\nPerhaps the next god in the series is Pthah, by the Greeks called\nHeph\u00e6stus, or Vulcan, representing formation, creation by the truth,\nstability; called in the inscriptions, Lord of Truth, Lord of the\nBeautiful Face, Father of the Beginnings, moving the Egg of the Sun and\nMoon. With Horapollo and Plutarch, we may consider the Scarabeus, or\nBeetle, which is his sign, as an emblem of the world and its creation. An\ninscription calls him Creator of all things in the world. Iamblicus says,\n\"The God who creates with truth is Pthah.\" He was also connected with the\nsun, as having thirty fingers,--the number of days in a month. He is\nrepresented sometimes as a deformed dwarf.\n\nThe next god in the series is Khem, the Greek Pan,--the principle of\ngeneration, sometimes holding the ploughshare.\n\nThen come the feminine principles corresponding with these three latter\ngods. Amun has naturally no companion. Mut, the mother, is the consort of\nKhem the father. Seti,--the Ray or Arrow,--a female figure, with the horns\nof a cow, is the companion of Kneph. And Neith, or Net, the goddess of\nSais, belongs to Pthah. The Greek Minerva Ath\u00ean\u00ea is thought to be derived\nfrom Neith by an inversion of the letters,[189]--the Greeks writing from\nleft to right and the Egyptians from right to left. Her name means, \"I\ncame from myself.\" Clemens says that her great shrine at Sais has an open\nroof with the inscription, \"I am all that was and is and is to be, and no\nmortal has lifted my garment, and the fruit I bore is Helios.\" This would\nseem to identify her with Nature.\n\nFor the eighth god of the first order we may take either Helios or Ra or\nPhra, the Sun-God; from whence came the name of the Pharaohs, or we may\ntake Pasht, Bubastis, the equivalent of the Greek Diana. On some accounts\nit would seem that Ra was the true termination of this cycle. We should\nthen have, proceeding from the hidden abyss of pure Spirit, first a\nbreathing forth, or spirit in motion; then creation, by the word of truth;\nthen generation, giving life and growth; and then the female qualities of\nproduction, wisdom, and light, completed by the Sun-God, last of the\nseries. Amn, or Ammon, the Concealed God, is the root, then the creative\npower in Kneph, then the generative power in Khem, the Demiurgic power in\nPtah, the feminine creative principle of Nature in Neith, the productive\nprinciple in Mut, or perhaps the nourishing principle, and then the living\nstimulus of growth, which carries all forward in Ra.\n\nBut we must now remember that two races meet in Egypt,--an Asiatic race,\nwhich brings the ideas of the East; and an Ethiopian, inhabitants of the\nland, who were already there. The first race brought the spiritual ideas\nwhich were embodied in the higher order of gods. The Africans were filled\nwith the instinct of nature-worship. These two tendencies were to be\nreconciled in the religion of Egypt. The first order of gods was for the\ninitiated, and taught them the unity, spirituality, and creative power of\nGod.[190] The third order--the circle of Isis and Osiris--were for the\npeople, and were representative of the forms and forces of outward\nnature. Between the two come the second series,--a transition from the one\nto the other,--children of the higher gods, parents of the lower,--neither\nso abstract as the one nor so concrete as the other,--representing neither\npurely divine qualities on the one side, nor merely natural forces on the\nother, but rather the faculties and powers of man. Most of this series\nwere therefore adopted by the Greeks, whose religion was one essentially\nbased on human nature, and whose gods were all, or nearly all, the ideal\nrepresentations of human qualities. Hence they found in Khunsu, child of\nAmmon, their Hercules, God of Strength; in Thoth, child of Kneph, they\nfound Hermes, God of Knowledge; in Pecht, child of Pthah, they found their\nArtemis, or Diana, the Goddess of Birth, protector of women; in Athor, or\nHathor, they found their Aphrodit\u00ea, Goddess of Love. Seb was Chronos, or\nTime; and Nutpe was Rhea, wife of Chronos.\n\nThe third order of gods are the children of the second series, and are\nmanifestations of the Divine in the outward universe. But though standing\nlowest in the scale, they were the most popular gods of the Pantheon; had\nmore individuality and personal character than the others; were more\nuniversally worshipped throughout Egypt, and that from the oldest times.\n\"The Osiris deities,\" says Herodotus, \"are the only gods worshipped\nthroughout Egypt.\" \"They stand on the oldest monuments, are the centre of\nall Egyptian worship, and are perhaps the oldest original objects of\nreverence,\" says Bunsen. How can this be if they belong to a lower order\nof Deities, and what is the explanation of it? There is another historical\nfact also to be explained. Down to the time of Ramses, thirteen hundred\nyears before Christ, Typhon, or Seth, the God of Destruction, was the\nchief of this third order, and the most venerated of all the gods. After\nthat time a revolution occurred in the worship, which overthrew Seth, and\nhis name was chiselled out of the monuments, and the name of Amun inserted\nin its place. This was the only change which occurred in the Egyptian\nreligion, so far as we know, from its commencement until the time of the\nC\u00e6sars.[191] An explanation of both these facts may be given, founded on\nthe supposed amalgamation in Egypt of two races with their religions.\nSupposing that the gods of the higher orders represented the religious\nideas of a Semitic or Aryan race entering Egypt from Asia, and that the\nOsiris group were the gods of the African nature-worship, which they found\nprevailing on their arrival, it is quite natural that the priests should\nin their classification place their own gods highest, while they should\nhave allowed the external worship to go on as formerly, at least for a\ntime. But, after a time, as the tone of thought became more elevated, they\nmay have succeeded in substituting for the God of Terror and Destruction a\nhigher conception in the popular worship.\n\nThe myth of Isis and Osiris, preserved for us by Plutarch, gives the most\nlight in relation to this order of deities.\n\nSeb and Nutpe, or Nut, called by the Greeks Chronos and Rhea, were the\nparents of this group. Seb is therefore Time, and Nut is Motion or perhaps\nSpace. The Sun pronounced a curse on them, namely, that she should not be\ndelivered, on any day of the year. This perhaps implies the difficulty of\nthe thought of Creation. But Hermes, or Wisdom, who loved Rhea, won, at\ndice, of the Moon, five days, the seventieth part of all her\nilluminations, which he added to the three hundred and sixty days, or\ntwelve months. Here we have a hint of a correction of the calendar, the\nnecessity of which awakened a feeling of irregularity in the processes of\nnature, admitting thereby the notion of change and a new creation. These\nfive days were the birthdays of the gods. On the first Osiris is born, and\na voice was heard saying, \"The Lord of all things is now born.\" On the\nsecond day, Arueris-Apollo, or the elder Horus; on the third, Typhon, who\nbroke through a hole in his mother's side; on the fourth, Isis; and on the\nfifth, Nepthys-Venus, or Victory. Osiris and Arueris are children of the\nSun, Isis of Hermes, Typhon and Nepthys of Saturn.\n\nIsis became the wife of Osiris, who went through the world taming it by\nmeans of oratory, poetry, and music. When he returned, Typhon took\nseventy-two men and also a queen of Ethiopia, and made an ark the size of\nOsiris's body, and at a feast proposed to give it to the one whom it\nshould fit. Osiris got into it, and they fastened down the lid and\nsoldered it and threw it into the Nile. Then Isis put on mourning and went\nto search for it, and directed her inquiries to little children, who were\nhence held by the Egyptians to have the faculty of divination. Then she\nfound Anubis, child of Osiris, by Nepthys, wife of Typhon, who told her\nhow the ark was entangled in a tree which grew up around it and hid it.\nThe king had made of this tree a pillar to support his house. Isis sat\ndown weeping; the women of the queen came to her, she stroked their hair,\nand fragrance passed into it. She was made nurse to the queen's child, fed\nhim with her finger, and in the night-time, by means of a lambent flame,\nburned away his impurities. She then turned herself into a swallow and\nflew around the house, bewailing her fate. The queen watched her\noperations, and being alarmed cried out, and so robbed her child of\nimmortality. Isis then begged the pillar, took it down, took out the\nchest, and cried so loud that the younger son of the king died of fright.\nShe then took the ark and the elder son and set sail. The cold air of the\nriver chilled her, and she became angry and cursed it, and so dried it up.\nShe opened the chest, put her cheek to that of Osiris and wept bitterly.\nThe little boy came and peeped in; she gave him a terrible look, and he\ndied of fright. Isis then came to her son Horus, who was at nurse at Buto.\nTyphon, hunting by moonlight, saw the ark, with the body of Osiris, which\nhe tore into fourteen parts and threw them about. Isis went to look for\nthem in a boat made of papyrus, and buried each part in a separate place.\n\nAfter this the soul of Osiris returned out of Hades to train up his son.\nThen came a battle between Horus and Typhon, in which Typhon was\nvanquished, but Isis allowed him to escape. There are other less important\nincidents in the story, among them that Isis had another son by the soul\nof Osiris after his death, who is the god called Harpocrates, represented\nas lame and with his finger on his mouth.[192]\n\nPlutarch declares that this story is symbolical, and mentions various\nexplanations of the allegory. He rejects, at once, the rationalistic\nexplanation, which turns these gods into eminent men,--sea-captains, etc.\n\"I fear,\" says he, \"this would be to stir things that are not to be\nstirred, and to declare war (as Simonides says), not only against length\nof time, but also against many nations and families of mankind, whom a\nreligious reverence towards these gods holds fast bound like men\nastonished and amazed, and would be no other than going about to remove so\ngreat and venerable names from heaven to earth, and thereby shaking and\ndissolving that worship and persuasion that hath entered almost all men's\nconstitutions from their very birth, and opening vast doors to the\natheists' faction, who convert all divine matters into human.\" \"Others,\"\nhe says, \"consider these beings as demons intermediate between gods and\nmen. And Osiris afterwards became Serapis, the Pluto of the under-world.\"\n\nOther explanations of the myth are given by Plutarch. First, the\ngeographical explanation. According to this, Osiris is Water, especially\nthe Nile. Isis is Earth, especially the land of Egypt adjoining the Nile,\nand overflowed by it. Horus, their son, is the Air, especially the moist,\nmild air of Egypt. Typhon is Fire, especially the summer heat which dries\nup the Nile and parches the land. His seventy-two associates are the\nseventy-two days of greatest heat, according to the Egyptian opinion.\nNepthys, his wife, sister of Isis, is the Desert outside of Egypt, but\nwhich in a higher inundation of the Nile being sometimes overflowed,\nbecomes productive, and has a child by Osiris, named Anubis. When Typhon\nshuts Osiris into the ark, it is the summer heat drying up the Nile and\nconfining it to its channel. This ark, entangled in a tree, is where the\nNile divides into many mouths at the Delta and is overhung by the wood.\nIsis, nursing the child of the king, the fragrance, etc., represent the\nearth nourishing plants and animals. The body of Osiris, torn by Typhon\ninto fourteen parts, signifies either the division of the Nile at its\nmouths or the pools of water left after the drying up of the inundation.\n\nThere is so much in this account which accords with the facts, that there\ncan be no doubt of its correctness so far as it goes. At the same time it\nis evidently an incomplete explanation. The story means this, but\nsomething more. Beside the geographical view, Plutarch therefore adds a\nscientific and an astronomical explanation, as well as others more\nphilosophical. According to these, Osiris is in general the productive,\nthe creative power in nature; Isis, the female property of nature, hence\ncalled by Plato the nurse; and Typhon the destructive property in nature;\nwhile Horus is the mediator between creation and destruction. And thus we\nhave the triad of Osiris, Typhon, and Horus, essentially corresponding to\nthe Hindoo triad, Brahma, Siva, and Vishnu, and also to the Persian triad,\nOrmazd, Ahriman, and Mithra. And so this myth will express the Egyptian\nview of the conflict of good and evil in the natural world.\n\nBut it seems very likely that it was the object of the priests to elevate\nthis Osiris worship to a still higher meaning, making it an allegory of\nthe struggles, sorrows, and self-recovery of the human soul. Every human\nsoul after death took the name and symbols of Osiris, and then went into\nthe under-world to be judged by him. Connected with this was the doctrine\nof transmigration, or the passage of the soul through various bodies,--a\ndoctrine brought out of Egypt by Pythagoras. These higher doctrines were\ntaught in the mysteries. \"I know them,\" says Herodotus, \"but must not tell\nthem.\" Iamblicus professes to explain them in his work on the Mysteries.\nBut it is not easy to say how much of his own Platonism he has mingled\ntherewith. According to him, they taught in the mysteries that before all\nthings was one God immovable in the solitude of unity. The One was to be\nvenerated in silence. Then Emeph, or Neph, was god in his\nself-consciousness. After this in Amun, his intellect became truth,\nshedding light. Truth working by art is Pthah, and art producing good is\nOsiris.\n\nAnother remarkable fact must be at least alluded to. Bunsen says, that,\naccording to the whole testimony of the monuments, Isis and Osiris not\nonly have their roots in the second order, but are also themselves the\nfirst and the second order. Isis, Osiris, and Horus comprise all Egyptian\nmythology, with the exception of Amun and Neph. Of this fact I have seen\nno explanation and know of none, unless it be a sign of the purpose of the\npriests to unite the two systems of spiritualism and nature-worship into\none, and to elevate and spiritualize the lower order of gods.\n\nOne reason for thinking that the religious system of the priests was a\ncompromise between several different original tendencies is to be found in\nthe local worship of special deities in various places. In Lower Egypt the\nhighest god was Pthah, whom the Greeks identified with Vulcan; the god of\nfire or heat, father of the sun. He was in this region the chief god,\ncorresponding to Ammon in Upper Egypt. Manetho says that Pthah reigned\nnine thousand years before the other gods,--which must mean that this was\nby far the oldest worship in Egypt. As Ammon is the head of a cosmogony\nwhich proceeds according to emanation from spirit down to matter, so Pthah\nis at the beginning of a cosmogony which ascends by a process of evolution\nfrom matter working up to spirit. For from Pthah (heat) comes light, from\nlight proceeds life, from life arise gods, men, plants, animals, and all\norganic existence. The inscriptions call Pthah, \"Father of the Father of\nthe Gods,\" \"King of both Worlds,\" the \"God of all Beginnings,\" the \"Former\nof Things.\" The egg is one of his symbols, as containing a germ of life.\nThe scarab\u00e6us, or beetle, which rolls its ball of earth, supposed to\ncontain its egg, is dedicated to Pthah. His sacred city was Memphis, in\nLower Egypt. His son, Ra, the Sun-God, had his temple at On, near by,\nwhich the Greeks called Heliopolis, or City of the Sun. The cat is sacred\nto Ra. As Pthah is the god of all beginnings in Lower Egypt, so Ra is the\nvitalizing god, the active ruler of the world, holding a sceptre in one\nhand and the sign of life in the other.\n\nThe goddesses of Lower Egypt were Neith at Sais, Leto, the goddess whose\ntemple was at Buto, and Pacht at Babastis. In Upper Egypt, as we have\nseen, the chief deity was Amun, or Ammon, the Concealed God, and Kneph, or\nKnubis. With them belonged the goddess Mut[193] (the mother) and Khonso.\nThe two oldest gods were Mentu, the rising sun, and Atmu, the setting sun.\n\nWe therefore find traces of the same course of religious thought in Egypt\nas we shall afterward find in Greece. The earlier worship is of local\ndeities, who are afterwards united in a Pantheon. As Zeus was at first\nworshipped in Dodona and Arcadia, Apollo in Crete and Delos, Aphrodit\u00ea in\nCyprus, Ath\u00ean\u00ea at Athens, and afterward these tribal and provincial\ndeities were united in one company as the twelve gods of Olympus, so in\nEgypt the various early theologies were united in the three orders, of\nwhich Ammon was made the head. But, in both countries, each city and\nprovince persevered in the worship of its particular deity. As Ath\u00ean\u00ea\ncontinued to be the protector of Athens, and Aphrodit\u00ea of Cyprus, so, in\nEgypt, Set continued to be the god of Ombos, Leto of Buto, Horus of Edfu,\nKhem of Coptos.\n\nBefore concluding this section, we must say a word of the practical\nmorality connected with this theology. We have seen, above, the stress\nlaid on works of justice and mercy. There is a papyrus in the Imperial\nlibrary at Paris, which M. Chabas considers the oldest book in the world.\nIt is an autograph manuscript written B.C. 2200, or four thousand years\nago, by one who calls himself the son of a king. It contains practical\nphilosophy like that of Solomon in his proverbs. It glorifies, like the\nProverbs, wisdom. It says that \"man's heart rules the man,\" that \"the bad\nman's life is what the wise know to be death,\" that \"what we say in secret\nis known to him who made our interior nature,\" that \"he who made us is\npresent with us though we are alone.\"\n\nIs not the human race one, when this Egyptian four thousand years ago,\ntalks of life as Solomon spoke one thousand years after, in Jud\u00e6a; and as\nBenjamin Franklin spoke, three thousand years after Solomon, in America?\n\n\n\n\u00a7 7. Influence of Egypt on Judaism and Christianity.\n\n\nHow much of the doctrine and ritual of Egypt were imported into Judaism by\nMoses is a question by no means easy to settle. Of Egyptian theology\nproper, or the doctrine of the gods, we find no trace in the Pentateuch.\nInstead of the three orders of deities we have Jehovah; instead of the\nimages and pictures of the gods, we have a rigorous prohibition of\nidolatry; instead of Osiris and Isis, we have a Deity above all worlds and\nbehind all time, with no history, no adventures, no earthly life. But it\nis perhaps more strange not to find any trace of the doctrine of a future\nlife in Mosaism, when this was so prominent among the Egyptians. Moses\ngives no account of the judgment of souls after death; he tells nothing of\nthe long journey and multiform experiences of the next life according to\nthe Egyptians, nothing of a future resurrection and return to the body.\nHis severe monotheism was very different from the minute characterization\nof gods in the Egyptian Pantheon. The personal character of Jehovah, with\nits awful authority, its stern retribution and impartial justice, was\nquite another thing from the symbolic ideal type of the gods of Egypt.\nNothing of the popular myth of Osiris, Isis, Horus, and Typhon is found in\nthe Pentateuch, nothing of the transmigration of souls, nothing of the\nworship of animals; nothing of the future life and judgment to come;\nnothing of the embalming of bodies and ornamenting of tombs. The cherubim\namong the Jews may resemble the Egyptian Sphinx; the priests' dress in\nboth are of white linen; the Urim and Thummim, symbolic jewels of the\npriests, are in both; a quasi-hereditary priesthood is in each; and both\nhave a temple worship. But here the parallels cease. Moses left behind\nEgyptian theology, and took only some hints for his ritual from the Nile.\n\nThere may perhaps be a single exception to this statement. According to\nBrugsch[194] and other writers, the Papyrus buried with the mummy\ncontained the doctrine of the Divine unity. The name of God was not\ngiven, but instead the words NUK PU NUK, \"I am the I am,\" corresponding\nto the name given in Exodus iii. 14, Jahveh (in a corrupt form Jehovah).\nThis name, Jahveh, has the same meaning with the Egyptian Nuk pu Nuk, \"I\nam the I am.\" At least so say Egyptologists. If this is so, the\ncoincidence is certainly very striking.\n\nThat some of the ritualism to which the Jews were accustomed in Egypt\nshould have been imported into their new ceremonial, is quite in\naccordance with human nature. Christianity, also, has taken up many of the\ncustoms of heathenism.[195] The rite of circumcision was probably adopted\nby the Jews from the Egyptians, who received it from the natives of\nAfrica. Livingstone has found it among the tribes south of the Zambesi,\nand thinks this custom there cannot be traced to any Mohammedan source.\nPrichard believes it, in Egypt, to have been a relic of ancient African\ncustoms. It still exists in Ethiopia and Abyssinia. In Egypt it existed\nfar earlier than the time of Abraham, as appears by ancient mummies.\nWilkinson affirms it to have been \"as early as the fourth dynasty, and\nprobably earlier, long before the time of Abraham.\" Herodotus tells us\nthat the custom existed from the earliest times among the Egyptians and\nEthiopians, and was adopted from them by the Syrians of Palestine. Those\nwho regard this rite as instituted by a Divine command may still believe\nthat it already existed among the Jews, just as baptism existed among them\nbefore Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize. Both in Egypt and among\nthe Jews it was connected with a feeling of superiority. The circumcised\nwere distinguished from others by a higher religious position. It is\ndifficult to trace the origin of sentiments so alien to our own ways of\nthought; but the hygienic explanation seems hardly adequate. It may have\nbeen a sign of the devotion of the generative power to the service of God,\nand have been the first step out of the untamed license of the passions,\namong the Africans.\n\nIt has been supposed that the figure of the Cherubim among the Jews was\nderived from that of the Sphinx. There were three kinds of Sphinxes in\nEgypt,--the _andro-sphinx_, with the head of a man and the body of a lion;\nthe _crio-sphinx_, with the head of a ram and the body of a lion; and the\n_hieraco-sphinx_, with the head of a hawk and a lion's body. The first was\na symbol of the union of wisdom and strength. The Sphinx was the solemn\nsentinel, placed to watch the temple and the tomb, as the Cherubim watched\nthe gates of Paradise after the expulsion of Adam. In the Cherubim were\njoined portions of the figure of a man with those of the lion, the ox, and\nthe eagle. In the Temple the Cherubim spread their wings above the ark;\nand Wilkinson gives a picture from the Egyptian tombs of two kneeling\nfigures with wings spread above the scarab\u00e6us. The Persians and the Greeks\nhad similar symbolic figures, meant to represent the various powers of\nthese separate creatures combined in one being; but the Hebrew figure was\nprobably imported from Egypt.\n\nThe Egyptians had in their temples a special interior sanctuary, more holy\nthan the rest. So the Jews had their Holy of Holies, into which only the\nhigh-priest went, separated by a veil from the other parts of the Temple.\nThe Jews were commanded on the Day of Atonement to provide a scapegoat, to\ncarry away the sins of the people, and the high-priest was to lay his\nhands on the head of the goat and confess the national sins, \"putting them\nupon the head of the goat\" (Lev. xvi. 21, 22), and it was said that \"the\ngoat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited.\"\nSo, among the Egyptians, whenever a victim was offered, a prayer was\nrepeated over its head, \"that if any calamity were about to befall either\nthe sacrifices or the land of Egypt, it might be averted on this\nhead.\"[196]\n\nSuch facts as these make it highly probable that Moses allowed in his\nritual many ceremonies borrowed from the Egyptian worship.\n\nThat Egyptian Christianity had a great influence on the development of the\nsystem of Christian doctrine is not improbable.[197] The religion of\nancient Egypt was very tenacious and not easily effaced. Successive waves\nof Syrian, Persian, Greek, and Roman conquest rolled over the land,\nscarcely producing any change in her religion or worship. Christianity\nconquered Egypt, but was itself deeply tinged with the faith of the\nconquered. Many customs found in Christendom may be traced back to Egypt.\nThe Egyptian at his marriage put a gold ring on his wife's finger, as a\ntoken that he intrusted her with all his property, just as in the Church\nof England service the bridegroom does the same, saying, \"With all my\nworldly goods I thee endow.\" Clemens tells us that this custom was derived\nby the Christians from the Egyptians. The priests at Phil\u00e6 threw a piece\nof gold into the Nile once a year, as the Venetian Doge did into the\nAdriatic. The Feast of Candles at Sais is still marked in the Christian\ncalendar as Candlemas Day. The Catholic priest shaves his head as the\nEgyptian priest did before him. The Episcopal minister's linen surplice\nfor reading the Liturgy is taken from the dress of obligation, made of\nlinen, worn by the priest in Egypt. Two thousand years before the Pope\nassumed to hold the keys, there was an Egyptian priest at Thebes with the\ntitle of \"Keeper of the two doors of Heaven.\"[198]\n\nIn the space which we have here at command we are unable to examine the\nquestion of doctrinal influences from Egypt upon orthodox Christianity.\nFour doctrines, however, are stated by the learned Egyptologist, Samuel\nSharpe, to be common to Egyptian mythology and church orthodoxy. They are\nthese:--\n\n\n   1. That the creation and government of the world is not the work of one\n   simple and undivided Being, but of one God made up of several persons.\n   This is the doctrine of plural unity.\n\n   2. That salvation cannot be expected from the justice or mercy of the\n   Supreme Judge, unless an atoning sacrifice is made to him by a divine\n   being.\n\n   3. That among the persons who compose the godhead, one, though a god,\n   could yet suffer pain and be put to death.\n\n   4. That a god or man, or a being half god and half a man once lived on\n   earth, born of an earthly mother but without an earthly father.\n\nThe gods of Egypt generally appear in triads, and sometimes as three gods\nin one. The triad of Thebes was Amun-Ra, Athor, and Chonso,--or father,\nmother, and son. In Nubia it was Pthah, Amun-Ra, and Horus-Ra. At Phil\u00e6 it\nwas Osiris, Isis, and Horus. Other groups were Isis, Nephthys, and Horus;\nIsis, Nephthys, and Osiris; Osiris, Athor, and Ra. In later times Horus\nbecame the supreme being, and appears united with Ra and Osiris in one\nfigure, holding the two sceptres of Osiris, and having the hawk's head of\nHorus and the sun of Ra. Eusebius says of this god that he declared\nhimself to be Apollo, Lord, and Bacchus. A porcelain idol worn as a charm\ncombines Pthah the Supreme God of Nature, with Horus the Son-God, and\nKneph the Spirit-God. The body is that of Pthah, God of Nature, with the\nhawk's wings of Horus, and the ram's head of Kneph. It is curious that\nIsis the mother, with Horus the child in her arms, as the merciful gods\nwho would save their worshippers from the vengeance of Osiris the stern\njudge, became as popular a worship in Egypt in the time of Augustus, as\nthat of the Virgin and Child is in Italy to-day. Juvenal says that the\npainters of Rome almost lived by painting the goddess Isis, the Madonna of\nEgypt, which had been imported into Italy, and which was very popular\nthere.\n\nIn the trial of the soul before Osiris, as represented on tablets and\npapyri, are seen the images of gods interceding as mediators and offering\nsacrifices on its behalf. There are four of these mediatorial gods, and\nthere is a tablet in the British Museum in which the deceased is shown as\nplacing the gods themselves on the altar as his sin-offering, and pleading\ntheir merits.[199]\n\nThe death of Osiris, the supreme god of all Egypt, was a central fact in\nthis mythology. He was killed by Typhon, the Egyptian Satan, and after\nthe fragments of his body had been collected by \"the sad Isis,\" he\nreturned to life as king of the dead and their judge.[200]\n\nIn connection with these facts it is deserving of notice that the doctrine\nof the trinity and that of the atonement began to take shape in the hands\nof the Christian theologians of Egypt. The Trinity and its symbols were\nalready familiar to the Egyptian mind. Plutarch says that the Egyptians\nworshipped Osiris, Isis, and Horus under the form of a triangle. He adds\nthat they considered everything perfect to have three parts, and that\ntherefore their good god made himself threefold, while their god of evil\nremained single. Egypt, which had exercised so powerful an influence on\nthe old religion of Rome, was destined also greatly to influence\nChristianity. Alexandria was the head-quarters of learning and profound\nreligious speculations in the first centuries. Clemens, Origen, Dionysius,\nAthanasius, were eminent teachers in that school. Its doctrines were[201]\nthat God had revealed himself to all nations by his Logos, or Word.\nChristianity is its highest revelation. The common Christian lives by\nfaith, but the more advanced believer has gnosis, or philosophic insight\nof Christianity as the eternal law of the soul. This doctrine soon\nsubstituted speculation in place of the simplicity of early Christianity.\nThe influence of Alexandrian thought was increased by the high culture\nwhich prevailed there, and by the book-trade of this Egyptian city. All\nthe oldest manuscripts of the Bible now extant were transcribed by\nAlexandrian penmen. The oldest versions were made in Alexandria. Finally\nthe intense fervor of the Egyptian mind exercised its natural influence on\nChristianity, as it did on Judaism and Heathenism. The Oriental\nspeculative element of Egyptian life was reinforced by the African fire;\nand in Christianity, as before in the old religion, we find both working\ntogether. By the side of the Alexandrian speculations on the nature of God\nand the Trinity appear the maniacal devotion of the monks of the Thebaid.\nThe ardor of belief which had overcome even the tenacity of Judaism, and\nmodified it into its two Egyptian forms of the speculations of Philo and\nthe monastic devotion of the Therapeut\u00e6, reappeared in a like action upon\nChristian belief and Christian practice. How large a part of our present\nChristianity is due to these two influences we may not be able to say. But\npalpable traces of Egyptian speculation appear in the Church doctrines of\nthe Trinity and atonement, and the material resurrection[202] of the same\nparticles which constitute the earthly body. And an equally evident\ninfluence from Egyptian asceticism is found in the long history of\nChristian monasticism, no trace of which appears in the New Testament, and\nno authority for which can be found in any teaching or example of Christ.\nThe mystical theology and mystical devotion of Egypt are yet at work in\nthe Christian Church. But beside the _doctrines_ directly derived from\nEgypt, there has probably come into Christianity another and more\nimportant element from this source. The _spirit_ of a race, a nation, a\ncivilization, a religion is more indestructible than its forms, more\npervasive than its opinions, and will exercise an interior influence long\nafter its outward forms have disappeared. The spirit of the Egyptian\nreligion was reverence for the divine mystery of organic life, the worship\nof God in creation, of unity in variety, of each in all. Through the\nChristian Church in Egypt, the schools of Alexandria, the monks of the\nThebaid, these elements filtered into the mind of Christendom. They gave a\nmaterialistic tone to the conceptions of the early Church, concerning God,\nSatan, the angels and devils, Heaven, Hell, the judgment, and the\nresurrection. They prevented thereby the triumph of a misty Oriental\nspiritualism. Too gross indeed in themselves, they yet were better than\nthe Donatism which would have turned every spiritual fact into a ghost or\na shadow. The African spirit, in the fiery words of a Tertullian and an\nAugustine, ran into a materialism, which, opposed to the opposite extreme\nof idealism, saved to the Church its healthy realism.\n\nThe elaborate work of Bunsen on \"Egypt's Place in Universal History\" does\nnot aid us much in finding the place of Egyptian religion in universal\nreligion. It was strictly an ethnic religion, never dreaming of extending\nitself beyond the borders of the Nile, until long after the conquest of\nEgypt by the Romans. Then, indeed, Egyptian temples were welcomed by the\nlarge hospitality of Rome, and any traveller may see the ruins of the\ntemple of Serapis[203] at Pozzuoli, and that of Isis at Pompeii. The gods\nof Greece, as we have seen, took some hints from Egypt, but the Greek\nOlympus, with its bright forms, was very different from the mysterious\nsombre worship of Egypt.\n\nThe worship of variety, the recognition of the Divine in nature, the\nsentiment of wonder before the mystery of the world, the feeling that the\nDeity is in all life, in all form, in all change as well as in what is\npermanent and stable,--this is the best element and the most original part\nof the Egyptian religion. So much we can learn from it positively; and\nnegatively, by its entire dissolution, its passing away forever, leaving\nno knowledge of itself behind, we can learn how empty is any system of\nfaith which is based on concealment and mystery. All the vast range of\nEgyptian wisdom has gone, and disappeared from the surface of the earth,\nfor it was only a religion of the priests, who kept the truth to\nthemselves and did not venture to communicate it to the people. It was\nonly priestcraft, and priestcraft, like all other craft, carries in itself\nthe principle of death. Only truth is immortal,--open, frank, manly truth.\nConfucius was true; he did not know much, but he told all he knew. Buddha\ntold all he knew. Moses told all he heard. So they and their works\ncontinue, being built on faith in men. But the vast fabric of Egyptian\nwisdom,--its deep theologies, its mysterious symbolism, its majestic art,\nits wonderful science,--remain only as its mummies remain and as its tombs\nremain, an enigma exciting and baffling our curiosity, but not adding to\nour real life.\n\n\n\n\nChapter VII.\n\nThe Gods of Greece.\n\n\n\n  \u00a7 1. The Land and the Race.\n  \u00a7 2. Idea and General Character of Greek Religion.\n  \u00a7 3. The Gods of Greece before Homer.\n  \u00a7 4. The Gods of the Poets.\n  \u00a7 5. The Gods of the Artists.\n  \u00a7 6. The Gods of the Philosophers.\n  \u00a7 7. The Worship of Greece.\n  \u00a7 8. The Mysteries. Orphism.\n  \u00a7 9. Relation of Greek Religion to Christianity.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 1. The Land and the Race.\n\n\nThe little promontory and peninsula, famous in the history of mankind as\nGreece, or Hellas, projects into the Mediterranean Sea from the South of\nEurope. It is insignificant on the map, its area being only two thirds as\nlarge as that of the State of Maine. But never was a country better\nsituated in order to develop a new civilization. A temperate climate,\nwhere the vine, olive, and fig ripened with wheat, barley, and flax; a\nrich alluvial soil, resting on limestone, and contained in a series of\nvalleys, each surrounded by mountains; a position equally remote from\nexcesses of heat and cold, dryness and moisture; and finally, the\never-present neighborhood of the sea,--constituted a home well fitted for\nthe physical culture of a perfect race of men.\n\nComparative Geography, which has pointed out so many relations between the\nterrestrial conditions of nations and their moral attainments, has laid\ngreat stress on the connection between the extent of sea-coast and a\ncountry's civilization. The sea line of Europe, compared with its area, is\nmore extensive than that of any other continent, and Europe has had a more\nvarious and complete intellectual development than elsewhere. Africa,\nwhich has the shortest sea line compared with its area, has been most\ntardy in mental activity. The sea is the highway of nations and the\npromoter of commerce; and commerce, which brings different races together,\nawakens the intellect by the contact of different languages, religions,\narts, and manners. Material civilization, it is true, does not commence on\nthe sea-shore, but in river intervals. The arts of life were invented in\nthe valleys of the Indus and Ganges, of the Yellow and Blue Rivers of\nChina, of the Euphrates and the Nile. But the Phoenician navigators in the\nMediterranean brought to the shores of Greece the knowledge of the arts of\nEgypt, the manufactures of Tyre, and the products of India and Africa.\nEvery part of the coast of Greece is indented with bays and harbors. The\nMediterranean, large enough to separate the nations on its shores, and so\npermit independent and distinct evolution of character, is not so large as\nto divide them. Coasting vessels, running within sight of land, could\neasily traverse its shores. All this tempted to navigation, and so the\nGreeks learned to be a race of sailors. What the shore line of Europe was\nto that of the other continents, that the shore line of Greece was to the\nrest of Europe. Only long after, in the Baltic, the Northern\nMediterranean, did a similar land-locked sea create a similar love of\nnavigation among the Scandinavians.[204]\n\nAnother feature in the physical geography of Greece must be noticed as\nhaving an effect on the psychical condition of its inhabitants. Mountains\nintersected every part, dividing its tribes from each other. In numerous\nvalleys, separated by these mountain walls, each clan, left to itself,\nformed a special character of its own. The great chain of Pindus with its\nmany branches, the lofty ridges of the Peloponnesus, allowed the people of\nThessaly, Boeotia, Attica, Phocis, Locris, Argolis, Arcadia, Laconia, to\nattain those individual traits which distinguish them during all the\ncourse of Greek history.\n\nSuch physical conditions as we have described are eminently favorable to\na free and full development of national character. But this word\n\"development,\" so familiar to modern thought, implies not only outward\ncircumstances to educate, but a special germ to be educated. So long as\nthe human being is regarded as a lump of dough, to be moulded into any\nshape by external influences, no such term as \"development\" was needed.\nBut philosophical historians now admit national character to be the result\nof two factors,--the original ethnic germ in the race, and the terrestrial\ninfluences which unfold it.[205] A question, therefore, of grave moment\nconcerns the origin of the Hellenic people. Whence are they derived? what\nare their affinities? and from what region did they come?\n\nThe science of Comparative Philology, one of the great triumphs of modern\nscholarship, has enabled us now, for the first time, to answer this\nquestion. What no Greek knew, what neither Herodotus, Plato, nor Aristotle\ncould tell us, we are now able to state with certainty. The Greek\nlanguage, both in its grammar and its vocabulary, belongs to the family of\nIndo-European languages, of which the Sanskrit is the elder sister. Out of\neleven thousand six hundred and thirty-three Greek words, some two\nthousand are found to be Sanskrit, and three thousand more to belong to\nother branches of the Indo-European tongues. As the words common to the\nGreek and the Sanskrit must have been in use by both races before their\nseparation, while living together in Central Asia, we have a clew to the\ndegree of civilization attained by the Greeks before they arrived in\nEurope. Thus it appears that they brought from Asia a familiarity with\noxen and cows, horses, dogs, swine, goats, geese; that they could work in\nmetals; that they built houses, and were acquainted with the elements of\nagriculture, especially with farinaceous grains; they used salt; they had\nboats propelled by oars, but not sails; they divided the year by moons,\nand had a decimal notation.[206]\n\nThe Greeks, as a race, came from Asia later than the Latin races. They\nbelonged to that powerful Indo-European race, to which Europe owes its\ncivilization, and whose chief branches are the Hindoos, the Persians, the\nGreeks, the Latins, the Kelts, the Teutonic tribes, and the Slavi. The\noriginal site of the race was, as we have seen in our chapter on\nBrahmanism, in Bactria; and the earliest division of this people could not\nhave been later than three thousand or four thousand years before the\nChristian era. When the Hellenic branch entered Europe we have now no\nmeans of saying. It was so long anterior to Greek history that all\nknowledge of the time was lost, and only the faintest traditions of an\nAsiatic origin of their nation are to be found in Greek writers.\n\nThe Hellenic tribes, at the beginning of the seventh century before\nChrist, were divided into four groups,--the Achaians, \u00c6olians, Dorians,\nand Ionians,--with outlying tribes more or less akin. But this Hellenic\npeople had been preceded in Greece by another race known as Pelasgians. It\nis so difficult to say who these were, that Mr. Grote, in despair,\npronounces them unknowable, and relinquishes the problem. Some facts\nconcerning them may, however, be considered as established. Their\nexistence in Greece is pronounced by Thirwall to be \"the first\nunquestionable fact in Greek history.\" Homer speaks (Iliad, II. 681) of\n\"Pelasgian Argos,\" and of \"spear-skilled Pelasgians,\" \"noble Pelasgians,\"\n\"Pelasgians inhabiting fertile Larissa\" (II. 840; X. 429). Herodotus\nfrequently speaks of the Pelasgians. He says that the Dorians were a\nHellenic nation, the Ionians were Pelasgic; he does not profess to know\nwhat language the Pelasgians used, but says that those who in his time\ninhabited Crestona, Placia, and other regions, spoke a barbarous language,\nand that the people of Attica were formerly Pelasgic. He mentions the\nPelasgians as remaining to his time in Arcadia, after the Dorians had\nexpelled them from the rest of the Peloponnesus; says that the\nSamothracians adopted the mysteries of the Kabiri from the Pelasgians;\nthat the Pelasgians sacrificed victims to unknown gods at Dodona, and\nasked that oracle advice about what names they should give their gods.\nThese names, taken from Egypt, the Grecians received from them. Hellas was\nformerly called Pelasgia. The Athenians expelled the Pelasgians from\nAttica (whether justly or unjustly, Herodotus does not undertake to say),\nwhere they were living under Mount Hymettus; whereupon the Pelasgians of\nLemnos, in revenge, carried off a number of Athenian women, and afterward\nmurdered them; as an expiation of which crime they were finally commanded\nby the oracle at Delphi to surrender that island to Miltiades and the\nAthenians. Herodotus repeatedly informs us that nearly the whole Ionian\nrace were formerly called Pelasgians.[207]\n\nFrom all this it appears that the Pelasgians were the ancient occupants of\nnearly all Greece; that they were probably of the same stock as their\nHellenic successors, but of another branch; that their language was\nsomewhat different, and contained words of barbaric (that is Phoenician or\nEgyptian) origin, but not so different as to remain distinct after the\nconquest. From the Pelasgian names which remain, it is highly probable\nthat this people was of the same family with the old Italians.[208] They\nmust have constituted the main stem of the Greek people. The Ionians of\nAttica, the most brilliant portion of the Greeks, were of Pelasgic origin.\nIt may be therefore assumed, without much improbability, that while the\nDorian element gave the nation its strength and vital force, the Pelasgic\nwas the source of its intellectual activity and success in literature and\nart. Ottfried Muller remarks that \"there is no doubt that most of the\nancient religions of Greece owed their origin to this race. The Zeus and\nDi\u00f4n\u00ea of Dodona, Zeus and H\u00ear\u00ea of Argos, H\u00eaph\u00e6stos and Ath\u00ean\u00ea of Athens,\nD\u00eamet\u00ear and Cora of Eleusis, Herm\u00eas and Artemis of Arcadia, together with\nCadmus and the Cabiri of Thebes, cannot properly be referred to any other\norigin.\"[209]\n\nWelcker[210] thinks that the ethnological conceptions of Aeschylus, in his\n\"Suppliants,\" are invaluable helps in the study of the Pelasgic relations\nto the Greeks. The poet makes Pelasgos the king of Argos, and represents\nhim as ruling over the largest part of Greece. His subjects he calls\nGreeks, and they vote in public assembly by holding up their hands, so\ndistinguishing them from the Dorians, among whom no such democracy\nprevailed.[211] He protects the suppliant women against their Egyptian\npersecutors, who claimed them as fugitives from slavery. The character\nassigned by Aeschylus to this representative of the Pelasgian race is that\nof a just, wise, and religious king, who judged that it was best to obey\nGod, even at the risk of displeasing man.\n\nIt is evident, therefore, that from the earliest times there were in\nGreece two distinct elements, either two different races or two very\ndistinct branches of a common race. First known as Pelasgians and\nHell\u00eanes, they afterwards took form as the Ionian and Dorian peoples. And\nit is evident also that the Greek character, so strong yet so flexible, so\nmighty to act and so open to receive, with its stern virtues and its\ntender sensibilities, was the result of the mingling of these antagonist\ntendencies. Two continents may have met in Greece, if to the genius of\nthat wonderful people Asia lent her intellect and Africa her fire. It was\nthe marriage of soul and body, of nature and spirit, of abstract\nspeculation and passionate interest in this life. Darkness rests on the\nperiod when this national life was being created; the Greeks themselves\nhave preserved no record of it.\n\nThat some powerful influence from Egypt was acting on Greece during this\nforming period, and contributing its share to the great result, there can\nhardly be a question. All the legends and traditions hint at such a\nrelation, and if this were otherwise, we might be sure that it must have\nexisted. Egypt was in all her power and splendor when Greece was being\nsettled by the Aryans from Asia. They were only a few hundred miles apart,\nand the ships of Phoenicia were continually sailing to and fro between\nthem.\n\nThe testimony of Greek writers to the early influence of Egypt on their\ncountry and its religion is very full. Creuzer[212] says that the Greek\nwriters differed in regard to the connection of Attic and Egyptian\nculture, only as to How it was, not as to Whether it was. Herodotus says\ndistinctly and positively[213] that most of the names of the Greek gods\ncame from Egypt, except some whose names came from the Pelasgians. The\nPelasgians themselves, he adds, gave these Egyptian names to the unnamed\npowers of nature whom they before ignorantly worshipped, being directed by\nthe oracle at Dodona so to do. By \"name\" here, Herodotus plainly intends\nmore than a mere appellation. He includes also something of the\npersonality and character.[214] Before they were impersonal beings, powers\nof nature; afterwards, under Egyptian influence, they became persons. He\nparticularly insists on having heard this from the priestesses of Dodona,\nwho also told him a story of the black pigeon from Egypt, who first\ndirected the oracle to be established, which he interpreted, according to\nwhat he had heard in Egypt, to be a black Egyptian woman. He adds that the\nGreeks received, not only their oracles, but their public processions,\nfestivals, and solemn prayers from the Egyptians. M. Maury admits the\ninfluence of Egypt on the worship and ceremonies of Greece, and thinks it\nadded to their religion a more serious tone and a sentiment of veneration\nfor the gods, which were eminently beneficial. He doubts the story of\nHerodotus concerning the derivation of gods from Egypt, giving as a\nsufficient proof the fact that Homer's knowledge of Egyptian geography was\nvery imperfect.[215] But religious influences and geographical knowledge\nare very different things. Because the medi\u00e6val Christian writers had an\nimperfect knowledge of Palestine, it does not follow that their\nChristianity was not influenced in its source by Judaism. The objection to\nthe derivation of the Greek gods from Egypt, on account of the names on\nthe monuments being different from those of the Hellenic deities, is\nsufficiently answered by Creuzer, who shows that the Greeks translated the\nEgyptian word into an equivalent in their own language. Orphic ideas came\nfrom Egypt into Greece, through the colonies in Thrace and\nSamothrace.[216] The story of the Argive colony from Egypt, with their\nleader Danaus, connects some Egyptian immigration with the old Pelasgic\nruler of that city, the walls of which contained Pelasgic masonry. The\nlegends concerning Cecrops, Io, and Lelex, as leading colonies from Egypt\nto Athens and Megara, are too doubtful to add much to our argument. The\ninfluence of Egypt on Greek religion in later times is universally\nadmitted.[217]\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. Idea and General Character of Greek Religion.\n\n\nThe idea of Greek religion, which specially distinguishes it from all\nothers, is the human character of its gods. The gods of Greece are men and\nwomen, idealized men and women, men and women on a larger scale, but still\nintensely human. The gods of India, as they appear in the Sacred Books,\nare vast abstractions; and as they appear in sculpture, hideous and\ngrotesque idols. The gods of Egypt seem to pass away into mere symbols and\nintellectual generalizations. But the gods of Greece are persons, warm\nwith life, radiant with beauty, having their human adventures, wars,\nloves. The symbolical meaning of each god disappears in his personal\ncharacter.\n\nThese beings do not keep to their own particular sphere nor confine\nthemselves to their special parts, but, like men and women, have many\ndifferent interests and occupations. If we suppose a number of human\nbeings, young and healthy and perfectly organized, to be gifted with an\nimmortal life and miraculous endowments of strength, wisdom, and beauty,\nwe shall have the gods of Olympus.\n\nGreek religion differs from Brahmanism in this, that its gods are not\nabstract spirit, but human beings. It differs also from Buddhism, the god\nin which is also a man, in this, that the gods of Greece are far less\nmoral than Buddha, but far more interesting. They are not trying to save\ntheir souls, they are by no means ascetic, they have no intention of\nmaking progress through the universe by obeying the laws of nature, but\nthey are bent on having a good time. Fighting, feasting, and making love\nare their usual occupations. If they can be considered as governing the\nworld, it is in a very loose way and on a very irregular system. They\ninterfere with human affairs from time to time, but merely from whim or\nfrom passion. With the common relations of life they have little to do.\nThey announce no moral law, and neither by precept nor example undertake\nto guide men's consciences.\n\nThe Greek religion differs from many other religions also in having no one\ngreat founder or restorer, in having no sacred books and no priestly\ncaste. It was not established by the labors of a Zoroaster, Gautama,\nConfucius, or Mohammed. It has no Avesta, no Vedas, no Koran. Every\nreligion which we have thus far considered has its sacred books, but that\nof Greece has none, unless we accept the works of Homer and Hesiod as its\nBible. Still more remarkable is the fact of its having no priestly caste.\nBrahmanism and Egypt have an hereditary priesthood; and in all other\nreligions, though the priesthood might not be hereditary, it always\nconstituted a distinct caste. But in Greece kings and generals and common\npeople offer sacrifices and prayers, as well as the priests. Priests\nobtained their office, not by inheritance, but by appointment or election;\nand they were often chosen for a limited time.\n\nAnother peculiarity of the Greek religion was that its gods were not\nmanifestations of a supreme spirit, but were natural growths. They did not\ncome down from above, but came up from below. They did not emanate, they\nwere evolved. The Greek Pantheon is a gradual and steady development of\nthe national mind. And it is still more remarkable that it has three\ndistinct sources,--the poets, the artists, and the philosophers. Jupiter,\nor Zeus in Homer, is oftenest a man of immense strength, so strong that if\nhe has hold of one end of a chain and all the gods hold the other, with\nthe earth fastened to it beside, he will be able to move them all. Far\nmore grand is the conception of Jupiter as it came from the chisel of\nPhidias, of which Quintilian says that it added a new religious sentiment\nto the religion of Greece. Then came the philosophers and gave an entirely\ndifferent and higher view of the gods. Jupiter becomes with them the\nSupreme Being, father of gods and of men, omnipotent and omnipresent.\n\nOne striking consequence of the absence of sacred books, of a sacred\npriesthood, and an inspired founder of their religion, was the extreme\nfreedom of the whole system. The religion of Hellas was hardly a restraint\neither to the mind or to the conscience. It allowed the Greeks to think\nwhat they would and to do what they chose. They made their gods to suit\nthemselves, and regarded them rather as companions than as objects of\nreverence. The gods lived close to them on Olympus, a precipitous and\nsnow-capped range full of vast cliffs, deep glens, and extensive forests,\nless than ten thousand feet in height, though covered with snow on the top\neven in the middle of July.\n\nAccording to the Jewish religion, man was made in the image of God; but\naccording to the Greek religion the gods were made in the image of men.\nHeraclitus says, \"Men are mortal gods, and the gods immortal men.\" The\nGreek fancied the gods to be close to him on the summit of the mountain\nwhich he saw among the clouds, often mingling in disguise with mankind; a\nrace of stronger and brighter Greeks, but not very much wiser or better.\nAll their own tendencies they beheld reflected in their deities. They\nprojected themselves upon the heavens, and saw with pleasure a race of\ndivine Greeks in the skies above, corresponding with the Greeks below. A\ndelicious religion; without austerity, asceticism, or terror; a religion\nfilled with forms of beauty and nobleness, kindred to their own; with gods\nwho were capricious indeed, but never stern, and seldom jealous or very\ncruel. It was a heaven so near at hand, that their own heroes had climbed\ninto it, and become demigods. It was a heaven peopled with such a variety\nof noble forms, that they could choose among them the protector whom they\nliked best, and possibly themselves be selected as favorites by some\nguardian deity. The fortunate hunter, of a moonlight night, might even\nbehold the graceful figure of Diana flashing through the woods in pursuit\nof game, and the happy inhabitant of Cyprus come suddenly on the fair form\nof Venus resting in a laurel-grove. The Dryads could be seen glancing\namong the trees, the Oreads heard shouting on the mountains, and the\nNaiads found asleep by the side of their streams. If the Greek chose, he\ncould take his gods from the poets; if he liked it better, he could find\nthem among the artists; or if neither of these suited him, he might go to\nthe philosophers for his deities.\n\nThe Greek religion, therefore, did not guide or restrain, it only\nstimulated. The Greek, by intercourse with Greek gods, became more a Greek\nthan ever. Every Hellenic feeling and tendency was personified and took a\ndivine form; which divine form reacted on the tendency to develop it still\nfurther. All this contributed unquestionably to that wonderful phenomenon,\nGreek development. Nowhere on the earth, before or since, has the human\nbeing been educated into such a wonderful perfection, such an entire and\ntotal unfolding of itself, as in Greece. There, every human tendency and\nfaculty of soul and body opened in symmetrical proportion. That small\ncountry, so insignificant on the map of Europe, so invisible on the map of\nthe world, carried to perfection in a few short centuries every human art.\nEverything in Greece is art; because everything is finished, done\nperfectly well. In that garden of the world ripened the masterpieces of\nepic, tragic, comic, lyric, didactic poetry; the masterpieces in every\nschool of philosophic investigation; the masterpieces of history, of\noratory, of mathematics; the masterpieces of architecture, sculpture, and\npainting. Greece developed every form of human government, and in Greece\nwere fought and won the great battles of the world. Before Greece,\neverything in human literature and art was a rude and imperfect attempt;\nsince Greece, everything has been a rude and imperfect imitation.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. The Gods of Greece before Homer.\n\n\nThe Theogony of Hesiod, or Book of Genesis of the Greek gods, gives us the\nhistory of three generations of deities. First come the Uranids; secondly,\nthe Titans; and thirdly, the gods of Olympus. Beginning as powers of\nnature, they end as persons.[218]\n\nThe substance of Hesiod's charming account of these three groups of gods\nis as follows:--\n\nFirst of all things was Chaos. Next was broad-bosomed Earth, or Gaia. Then\nwas Tartarus, dark and dim, below the earth. Next appears Eros, or Love,\nmost beautiful among the Immortals. From Chaos came Erebus and black\nNight, and then sprang forth Ether and Day, children of Erebus and Night.\nThen Earth brought forth the starry Heaven, Uranos, like to herself in\nsize, that he might shelter her around. Gaia, or Earth, also bore the\nmountains, and Pontus or the barren Sea.\n\nThen Gaia intermarried with Uranos, and produced the Titans and Titanides,\nnamely, Ocean, Koeos, Krios, Hyperion, Iapetus, Theia and Rhea, Themis,\nMn\u00eamosyn\u00ea, Phoebe with golden coronet, and lovely Thethys. Lastly came\nKronos, or Time; with the Cycl\u00f4pes and the hundred-headed giants. All\nthese children were hid in the earth by Uranos, who dreaded them, till by\na contrivance of Gaia and Kronos, Uranos was dethroned, and the first age\nof the gods was terminated by the birth from the sea of the last and\nsweetest of the children of the Heaven, Aphrodit\u00ea, or Immortal\nBeauty,--the only one of this second generation who continued to reign on\nOlympus; an awful, beauteous goddess, says Hesiod, beneath whose delicate\nfeet the verdure throve around, born in wave-washed Cyprus, but floating\npast divine Cythera. Her Eros accompanied, and fair Desire followed.\n\nThus was completed the second generation of gods, the children of Heaven\nand Earth, called Titans. These had many children. The children of Ocean\nand Tethys were the nymphs of Ocean. Hyperion and Theia had, as children,\nHelios, Sel\u00ean\u00ea and E\u00f4s, or Sun, Moon, and Dawn. Koeos and Phoeb\u00ea had L\u00eat\u00f4\nand Asteria. One of the children of Krios was Pallas; those of Iapetus\nwere Prometheus, Epimetheus, and Atlas. Kronos married his sister Rhea,\nand their children were Hestia, D\u00eam\u00eat\u00ear and H\u00ear\u00ea; Had\u00eas, Poseid\u00f4n, and\nZeus,--all, except Had\u00eas or Pluto, belonging to the subsequent Olympian\ndeities.\n\nThe Olympian gods, with their cousins of the same generation, have grown\ninto persons, ceasing to be abstract ideas, or powers of nature. Five were\nthe children of Kronos, namely, Zeus, Poseid\u00f4n, H\u00ear\u00ea, Hestia, and D\u00eam\u00eat\u00ear;\nsix were children of Zeus, Apollo and Artemis, Heph\u00e6stos and Ar\u00eas, Herm\u00eas\nand Ath\u00ean\u00ea. The twelfth of the Olympian group, Aphrodit\u00ea, belonged to the\nsecond generation, being daughter of Uranos and of the Ocean. Beauty,\ndivine child of Sky and Sea, was conceived of as older than Power.\n\nThese are the three successive groups of deities; the second supplanting\nthe first, the third displacing the second. The earlier gods we must needs\nconsider, not as persons, but as powers of nature, not yet humanized.[219]\nThe last, seated on Olympus, are \"fair humanities.\"\n\nBut now, it is remarkable that there must have been, in point of fact,\nthree stages of religious development, and three successive actual\ntheologies in Greece, corresponding very nearly to these three legendary\ngenerations of gods.\n\nWhen the ancestors of the Hellenic race came from Asia, they must have\nbrought with them a nature-worship, akin to that which subsequently\nappeared in India in the earliest hymns of the Vedas. Comparative\nPhilology, as we have before seen, has established the rule, that whatever\nwords are common to all the seven Indo-European families must have been\nused in Central Asia before their dispersion. From this rule Pictet[220]\nhas inferred that the original Aryan tribes all worshipped the Heaven, the\nEarth, Sun, Fire, Water, and Wind. The ancestors of the Greeks must have\nbrought with them into Hellas the worship of some of these elementary\ndeities. And we find at least two of them, Heaven and Earth, represented\nin Hesiod's first class of the oldest deities. Water is there in the form\nof Pontus, the Sea, and the other Uranids have the same elementary\ncharacter.\n\nThe oldest hymns in the Vedas mark the second development of the Aryan\ndeities in India. The chief gods of this period are Indra, Varuna, Agni,\nSavitri, Soma. Indra is the god of the air, directing the storm, the\nlightning, the clouds, the rain; Varuna is the all-embracing circle of the\nheavens, earth, and sea; Savitri or Surja is the Sun, King of Day, also\ncalled Mitra; Agni is Fire; and Soma is the sacred fermented juice of the\nmoon-plant, often indeed the moon itself.\n\nAs in India, so in Greece, there was a second development of gods. They\ncorrespond in this, that the powers of nature began, in both cases, to\nassume a more distinct personality. Moreover, Indra, the god of the\natmosphere, he who wields the lightning, the thunderer, the god of storms\nand rain, was the chief god in the Vedic period. So also in Greece, the\nchief god in this second period was Zeus. He also was the god of the\natmosphere, the thunderer, the wielder of lightning. In the name \"Zeus\" is\na reminiscence of Asia. Literally it means \"the god,\" and so was not at\nfirst a proper name. Its root is the Sanskrit _Div_, meaning \"to shine.\"\nHence the word _Deva_, God, in the Vedic Hymns, from which comes \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 and\n\u0394\u03b9\u03c2, \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 in Greek, Deus in Latin. \u0396\u03b5\u03c5\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1 in Greek is Jupiter in\nLatin, coming from the Sanskrit _Djaus-piter._ Our English words \"divine,\"\n\"divinity,\" go back for their origin to the same Sanskrit root, _Div_. So\nmarvellously do the wrecks of old beliefs come drifting down the stream of\ntime, borne up in those frail canoes which men call words. In how many\nsenses, higher and lower, is it true that \"in the beginning was _the\nWord_.\"\n\nThis most ancient deity, god of storms, ruler of the atmosphere, favorite\ndivinity of the Aryan race in all its branches, became Indra when he\nreached India, Jupiter when he arrived in Italy, Zeus when in Epirus he\nbecame the chief god of the Pelasgi, and was worshipped at that most\nancient oracular temple of all Greece, Dodona. To him in the Iliad (XVI.\n235) does Achilles pray, saying: \"O King Jove, Dodonean, Pelasgian,\ndwelling afar off, presiding over wintry Dodona.\" A reminiscence of this\nold Pelasgian god long remained both in the Latin and Greek conversation,\nwhen, speaking of the weather, they called it Zeus, or Jupiter. Horace\nspeaks of \"cold Jupiter\" and \"bad Jupiter,\" as we should speak of a cold\nor rainy day. We also find in Horace (Odes III. 2: 29) the archaic form of\nthe word \"Jupiter,\" _Diespiter_, which, according to Lassen (I. 755),\nmeans \"Ruler of Heaven\"; being derived from Djaus-piter. _Piter_, in\nSanskrit, originally meant, says Lassen, Ruler or Lord, as well as Father.\n\nIn Arcadia and Boeotia the Pelasgi declared that their old deities were\nborn. By this is no doubt conveyed the historic consciousness that these\ndeities were not brought to them from abroad, but developed gradually\namong themselves out of nameless powers of nature into humanized and\npersonal deities. In the old days it was hardly more than a fetich\nworship. H\u00ear\u00ea was worshipped as a plank at Samos; Ath\u00ean\u00ea, as a beam at\nLindus; the Pallas of Attica, as a stake; Jupiter, in one place, as a\nrock; Apollo, as a triangle.\n\nTogether with Jupiter or Zeus, the Pelasgi worshipped Gaia or Mother\nEarth, in Athens, Sparta, Olympia, and other places. One of her names was\nDi\u00f4n\u00ea; another was Rhea. In Asia she was Cybele; but everywhere she\ntypified the great productive power of nature.\n\nAnother Pelasgic god was H\u00ealios, the Sun-God, worshipped with his sister\nS\u00eal\u00eane, the Moon. The Pelasgi also adored the darker divinities of the\nlower world. At Pylos and Elis, the king of Hades was worshipped as the\nawful A\u00efdoneus; and Persephon\u00ea, his wife, was not the fair Kora of\nsubsequent times, but the fearful Queen of Death, the murderess,\nhomologous to the savage wife of \u00c7iva, in the Hindoo Pantheon. To this age\nalso belongs the worship of the Kabiri, nameless powers, perhaps of\nPhoenician origin, connected with the worship of fire in Lemnos and\nSamothrace.\n\nThe Doric race, the second great source of the Hellenic family, entered\nGreece many hundreds of years after[221] the first great Pelasgic\nmigration had spread itself through Asia Minor, Greece, and Italy. It\nbrought with it another class of gods and a different tone of worship.\nTheir principal deities were Apollo and Artemis, though with these they\nalso worshipped, as secondary deities, the Pelasgic gods whose homes they\nhad invaded. The chief difference between the Pelasgic and Dorian\nconception of religion was, that with the first it was more emotional,\nwith the second more moral; the first was a mystic natural religion, the\nsecond an intellectual human religion. Ottfried M\u00fcller[222] says that the\nDorian piety was strong, cheerful, and bright. They worshipped Daylight\nand Moonlight, while the Pelasgians also reverenced Night, Darkness, and\nStorm. Funeral solemnities and enthusiastic orgies did not suit the Dorian\ncharacter. The Spartans had no splendid processions like the Athenians,\nbut they prayed the gods \"to give them what was honorable and good\"; and\nZeus Ammon declared that the \"calm solemnity of the prayers of the\nSpartans was dearer to him than all the sacrifices of the Greeks.\"[223]\n\nTwo facts are to be noticed in connection with this primitive religion.\nOne is the local distribution of the different deities and modes of\nworship through Greece. Every tribe had its own god and its own worship.\nIn one place it was Zeus and Gaia; in another, Zeus and Cybele; in a\nthird, Apollo and Artemis. At Samothrace prevailed the worship of the\nHeaven and the Earth.[224] Dione was worshipped with Zeus at Dodona.[225]\nThe Ionians were devoted to Poseid\u00f4n, god of the sea. In Arcadia, Ath\u00ean\u00ea\nwas worshipped as Tritonia. Herm\u00eas was adored on Mount Cyllene; Er\u00f4s, in\nBoeotia; Pan, in Arcadia. These local deities long remained as secondary\ngods, after the Pan-Hellenic worship of Olympus had overthrown their\nsupremacy. But one peculiarity of the Pre-Homeric religion was, that it\nconsisted in the adoration of different gods in different places. The\nreligion of Hellas, after Homer, was the worship of the twelve great\ndeities united on Mount Olympus.\n\nThe second fact to be observed in this early mythology is the change of\nname and of character through which each deity proceeds. Zeus alone\nretains the same name from the first.[226]\n\nAmong all Indo-European nations, the Heaven and the Earth were the two\nprimordial divinities. The Rig-Veda calls them \"the two great parents of\nthe world.\" At Dodona, Samothrace, and Sparta they were worshipped\ntogether. But while in India, Varuna, the Heavens, continued to be an\nobject of adoration in the Vedic or second period, in Greece it faded\nearly from the popular thought. This already shows the opposite genius of\nthe two nations. To the Hindoos the infinite was all important, to the\nGreeks the finite. The former, therefore, retain the adoration of the\nHeavens, the latter that of the Earth.\n\nThe Earth, Gaia, became more and more important to the Hellenic mind.\nPassing through various stages of development, she became, successively,\nGaia in the first generation, Rhea in the second, and D\u00eam\u00eat\u00ear (\u0393\u03ae \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1),\nMother Earth, in the third. In like manner the Sun is successively\nHyperi\u00f4n, son of Heaven and Earth; H\u00ealios, son of Hyperi\u00f4n and Theia; and\nPhoebus-Apollo, son of Zeus and Latona. The Moon is first Phoebe, sister\nof Hyperi\u00f4n; then Sel\u00ean\u00ea, sister of H\u00ealios; and lastly Artemis, sister of\nApollo. Pallas, probably meaning at first \"the virgin,\" became afterward\nidentified with Ath\u00ean\u00ea, daughter of Zeus, as Pallas-Ath\u00ean\u00ea. The Urania\nPontus, the salt sea, became the Titan Oceanos, or Ocean, and in another\ngeneration Poseid\u00f4n, or Neptune.\n\nThe early gods are symbolical, the later are personal. The turning-point\nis reached when Kronos, Time, arrives. The children of Time and Earth are\nno longer vast shadowy abstractions, but become historical characters,\nwith biographies and personal qualities. Neither Time nor History existed\nbefore Homer; when Time came, History began.\n\nThe three male children of Time were Zeus, Poseid\u00f4n, and Had\u00eas;\nrepresenting the three dimensions of space. Height, Breadth, and Depth;\nHeaven, Ocean, and Hell. They also represented the threefold progress of\nthe human soul: its aspiration and ascent to what is noble and good, its\ndescent to what is profound, and its sympathy with all that is various: in\nother words, its religion, its intelligence, and its affection.\n\nThe fable of Time devouring his children, and then reproducing them,\nevidently means the vicissitudes of customs and the departure and return\nof fashions. Whatever is born must die; but what has been will be again.\nThat Er\u00f4s, Love, should be at the origin of things from chaos, indicates\nthe primeval attraction with which the order of the universe begins. The\nmutilation of Uranos, Heaven, so that he ceased to produce children,\nsuggests the change of the system of emanation, by which the gods descend\nfrom the infinite, into that of evolution, by which they arise out of the\nfinite. It is, in fact, the end of Asia, and the beginning of Europe; for\nemanation is the law of the theologies of Asia, evolution that of Europe.\nAphrodit\u00ea, Beauty, was the last child of the Heavens, and yet born from\nthe Ocean. Beauty is not the daughter of the Heavens and the Earth, but of\nthe Heavens and the Ocean. The lights and shadows of the sky, the tints of\ndawn, the tenderness of clouds, unite with the toss and curve of the wave\nin creating Beauty. The beauty of outline appears in the sea, that of\nlight and color in the sky.[227]\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4. The Gods of the Poets.\n\n\nHerodotus says (II. 53), \"I am of opinion that Hesiod and Homer lived four\nhundred years before my time, and not more, and these were they who framed\na theogony for the Greeks, and gave names to the gods, and assigned to\nthem honors and arts, and declared their several forms. But the poets,\nsaid to be before them, in my opinion, were after them.\"\n\nThat two poets should create a theology and a worship for a great people,\nand so unite its separate tribes into a commonwealth of united states,\nseems to modern minds an absurdity. But the poets of Greece were its\nprophets. They received, intensified, concentrated, the tendencies of\nthought already in the air. All the drift was toward Pan-Hellenic worship\nand to a humanized theology, when the Homeric writers sang their song.\n\nThe Greeks must be conceived of as a nation of poets; hence all their\nmythology was poetry. Poetry was their life and joy, written or unwritten,\nsung or spoken. They were poets in the deeper sense of the word; not by\nwriting verses, but by looking at all nature and all life from its poetic\nside. Their exquisite mythology arose out of these spontaneous instincts.\nThe tendency of the Greek mind was to vitalize and harmonize nature.[228]\n\nAll the phenomena of nature, all the powers of the human soul, and all the\nevents of life, became a marvellous tissue of divine story. They walked\nthe earth, surrounded and overshadowed by heavenly attendants and\nsupernatural powers. But a striking peculiarity of this immense\nspiritualism was that it was almost without superstition. Their gods were\nnot their terror, but their delight. Even the great gods of Olympus were\naround them as invisible companions. Fate itself, the dark Moira, supreme\npower, mistress of gods and men, was met manfully and not timorously. So\nstrong was the human element, the sense of personal dignity and freedom,\nthat the Greek lived in the midst of a supernatural world on equal terms.\n\nNo doubt the elements of mythology are in all nations the same, consisting\nof the facts of nature and the facts of life. The heavens and the earth,\nday and night, the sun and moon, storms, fire, ocean, and rivers, love and\nbeauty, life and progress, war, wisdom, doom, and chance,--these, among\nall nations, supply the material for myths. But while, with some races,\nthese powers remain solemn abstractions, above and behind nature, among\nthe Greeks they descended into nature and turned to poetry, illuminating\nall of life.\n\nLet us imagine a Greek, possessed by the spirit of his nation and\nacquainted with its legendary history, visiting the holy places of that\nideal land. On the northern boundary he sees the towering summit of\nOlympus, on whose solemn heights reside the twelve great gods of his\ncountry. When the dark clouds roll along its defiles, and the lightning\nflashes from their black depths, it is Zeus, striking with his thunderbolt\nsome impious offender. There was held the great council of the Immortals.\nWhen the ocean was quiet, Poseid\u00f4n had left it to visit Olympus. There\ncame Heph\u00e6stos, quitting his subterranean fires and gloomy laborers, to\njest and be jested with, sitting by his beautiful queen. There, while the\nsun hung motionless in mid-heaven, Apollo descended from his burning\nchariot to join the feast. Artemis and D\u00eam\u00eat\u00ear came from the woods and\nfields to unite in the high assembly, and war was suspended while Ar\u00eas\nmade love to the goddess of Beauty. The Greek looked at Parnassus,\n\"soaring snow-clad through its native sky,\" with its Delphic cave and its\nCastalian fount, or at the neighboring summits of Helicon, where Pegasus\nstruck his hoof and Hippocr\u00ean\u00ea gushed forth, and believed that hidden in\nthese sunny woods might perhaps be found the muses who inspired Herodotus,\nHomer, Aeschylus, and Pindar. He could go nowhere without finding some\nspot over which hung the charm of romantic or tender association. Within\nevery brook was hidden a Naiad; by the side of every tree lurked a Dryad;\nif you listen, you may hear the Oreads calling among the mountains; if you\ncome cautiously around that bending hill, you may catch a glimpse of the\ngreat Pan himself. When the moonlight showers filled the forests with a\nmagical light, one might see the untouched Artemis gliding rapidly among\nthe mossy trunks. Beneath, in the deep abysses of earth, reigned the\ngloomy Pluto with the sad Persephon\u00ea, home-sick for the upper air. By the\nsea-shore Proteus wound his horn, the Sirens sang their fatal song among\nthe rocks, the Nereids and Oceanides gleamed beneath the green waters, the\nvast Amphitrite stretched her wide-embracing arms, and Thetis with her\nwater-nymphs lived in their submarine grottos. When the morning dawned,\nE\u00f4s, or Aurora, went before the chariot of the Sun, dropping flowers upon\nthe earth. Every breeze which stirred the tree-tops was a god, going on\nsome errand for Aeolus. The joy of inspired thought was breathed into the\nsoul by Phoebus; the genial glow of life, the festal mirth, and the glad\nrevel were the gift of Dionysos. All nature was alive with some touch of a\ndivine presence. So, too, every spot of Hellas was made interesting by\nsome legend of Hercules, of Theseus, of Prom\u00eatheus, of the great Dioscuri,\nof Minos, or D\u00e6dalus, of Jason and the Argonauts. The Greeks extended\ntheir own bright life backward through history, and upward through heroes\nand demigods to Zeus himself.\n\nIn Homer, the gods are very human. They have few traits of divinity,\nscarcely of dignity. Their ridicule of Vulcan is certainly coarse; the\nthreats of Zeus are brutal.\n\nAs a family, they live together on Olympus, feasting, talking, making\nlove, making war, deceiving each other, angry, and reconciled. They feed\non nectar and ambrosia, which makes them immortal; just as the Amrita\nmakes the Hindoo gods so. So in the Iliad we see them at their feast, with\nVulcan handing each the cup, pouring out nectar for them all. \"And then\ninextinguishable laughter arose among the immortal gods, when they saw\nVulcan bustling through the mansion. So they feasted all day till sundown;\nnor did the soul want anything of the equal feast, nor of the beautiful\nharp which Apollo held, nor of the Muses, who accompanied him, responding\nin turn with delicious voice.\"\n\n\"But when the splendid light of the sun was sunk, they retired to repose,\neach one to his house, which renowned Vulcan, lame of both legs, had\nbuilt. But Olympian Zeus went to his couch, and laid down to rest beside\nwhite-armed H\u00ear\u00ea.\"[229]\n\nOr sometimes they fight together, or with mortals; instances of both\nappear in the Iliad. It must be admitted that they do not appear to\nadvantage in these conflicts. They usually get the worst of it, and go\nback to Zeus to complain. In the Twenty-first Book they fight together,\nAr\u00eas against Ath\u00ean\u00ea, Ath\u00ean\u00ea also against his helper, Aphrodit\u00ea; Poseid\u00f4n\nand H\u00ear\u00ea against Apollo and Artemis, Vulcan against the river god,\nScamander. Ar\u00eas called Ath\u00ean\u00ea impudent, and threatened to chastise her.\nShe seized a stone and struck him on the neck, and relaxed his knees.\nSeven acres he covered falling, and his back was defiled with dust; but\nPallas-Ath\u00ean\u00ea jeered at him; and when Aphrodit\u00ea led him away groaning\nfrequently, Pallas-Ath\u00ean\u00ea sprang after, and smote her with her hand,\ndissolving her knees and dear heart. Apollo was afraid of Poseid\u00f4n, and\ndeclined fighting with him when challenged, for which Artemis rebuked him.\nOn this, H\u00ear\u00ea tells her that she can kill stags on the mountains, but is\nafraid to fight with her betters, and then proceeds to punish her, holding\nboth the hands of Artemis in one of hers, and beating her over the head\nwith her own bow. A disgraceful scene altogether, we must confess, and it\nis no wonder that Plato was scandalized by such stories.\n\nThus purely human were these gods; spending the summer's day in feasting\nbeneath the open sky; going home at sundown to sleep, like a parcel of\ngreat boys and girls. They are immortal indeed, and can make men so\nsometimes, but cannot always prevent the death of a favorite. Above them\nall broods a terrible power, mightier than themselves, the dark Fate and\nirresistible Necessity. For, after all, as human gods they were like men,\nsubject to the laws of nature. Yet as men, they are free, and in the\nfeeling of their freedom sometimes resist and defy fate.\n\nThe Homeric gods move through the air like birds, like wind, like\nlightning. They are stronger than men, and larger. Ar\u00eas, overthrown by\nPallas, covers seven acres of ground; when wounded by Diom\u00ead\u00eas he bellowed\nas loud as nine or ten thousand men, says the accurate Homer. The bodies\nof the gods, inexpressibly beautiful, and commonly invisible, are,\nwhenever seen by men, in an aureola of light. In Homer, Apollo is the god\nof archery, prophecy, and music. He is the far-darter. He shoots his\narrows at the Greeks, because his prophet had been ill-treated. \"He\ndescended from Olympus,\" says Homer, \"enraged in heart, having his bow and\nquiver on his shoulders. But as he moved the shafts rattled on the\nshoulders of him enraged; and he went onward like the night. Then he sat\nnear the ships, and sent an arrow, and dreadful was the clangor of the\nsilver bow.\"\n\nLater in the Iliad he appears again, defending the Trojans and deceiving\nAchilles. In the Homeric Hymn his birth on Delos is sweetly told; and how,\nwhen he was born, Earth smiled around, and all the goddesses shouted.\nThemis fed him on nectar and ambrosia; then he sprang up, called for a\nlyre and bow, and said he would declare henceforth to men the will of\nJove; and Delos, exulting, became covered with flowers.[230]\n\nThe Second Book of the Iliad begins thus: \"The rest, both gods and\nhorse-arraying men, slept all the night; but Jove sweet sleep possessed\nnot; but he pondered how he might destroy many at the Greek ships, and\nhonor Achilles. But this device appeared best to his mind, to send a fatal\ndream to Agamemnon. And he said, 'Haste, pernicious dream, to the swift\nships, and bid Agamemnon arm the Ach\u00e6ans to take wide-streeted Troy, since\nJuno has persuaded all the gods to her will.'\"\n\nThis was simply a lie, sent for the destruction of the Greeks.\n\nIn the First Book, Jupiter complains to Thetis that Juno is always\nscolding him, and good right had she to do so. Presently she comes in and\naccuses him of plotting something secretly with Thetis, and never letting\nher know his plans. He answers her by accusations of perversity: \"Thou art\nalways suspecting; but thou shalt produce no effect, but be further from\nmy heart.\" He then is so ungentlemanly as to threaten her with corporal\npunishment. The gods murmur; but Vulcan interposes as a peacemaker,\nsaying, \"There will be no enjoyment in our delightful banquet if you twain\nthus contend.\" Then he arose and placed the double cup in her hands and\nsaid, \"Be patient, my mother, lest I again behold thee beaten, and cannot\nhelp thee.\"\n\nHe here refers to a time when Jupiter hung his wife up in mid-heaven with\nanvils tied to her heels; and when Vulcan untied them he was pitched from\nOlympus down into the island of Lemnos, whence came his lameness. A rude\nand brutal head of a household was the poetic Zeus.\n\nNo doubt other and much more sublime views of the gods are to be found in\nHomer. Thus (Il. XV. 80) he compares the motion of Juno to the rapid\nthought of a traveller, who, having visited many countries, says, \"I was\nhere,\" \"I was there.\" Such also is the description (Il. XIII. 17) of\nNeptune descending from the top of Samothrace, with the hills and forests\ntrembling beneath his immortal feet. Infinite power, infinite faculty, the\ngods of Homer possessed; but these were only human faculty and power\npushed to the utmost. Nothing is more beautiful than the description of\nthe sleep of Jupiter and Juno, \"imparadised in each other's arms\" (Il.\nXIV. 350), while the divine earth produced beneath them a bed of flowers,\nsoftly lifting them from the ground. But the picture is eminently human;\nquite as much so as that which Milton has imitated from it.\n\nAfter Homer and Hesiod, among the Greek poets, come the lyrists. Callinus,\nthe Ephesian, made a religion of patriotism. Tyrt\u00e6us (B.C. 660), somewhat\nlater, of Sparta, was devoted to the same theme. Pindar, the Theban, began\nhis career (B.C. 494) in the time of the conquests of Darius, and composed\none of his Pythian odes in the year of the battle of Marathon. He taught a\ndivine retribution on good and evil; taught that \"the bitterest end awaits\nthe pleasure that is contrary to right,\"[231] taught moderation, and that\n\"a man should always keep in view the bounds and limits of things.\"[232]\nHe declared that \"Law was the ruler of gods and men.\" Moreover, he\nproclaimed that gods and men were of one family, and though the gods were\nfar higher, yet that something divine was in all men.[233] And in a\nfamous fragment (quoted by Bunsen[234]) he calls mankind the majestic\noffspring of earth; mankind, \"a gentle race, beloved of heaven.\"\n\nThe tragic poet, Aeschylus, is a figure like that of Michael Angelo in\nItalian art, grand, sombre, and possessed by his ideas. The one which\nrules him and runs darkly through all his tragedies is the supreme power\nof Nemesis, the terrible destiny which is behind and above gods and men.\nThe favorite theme of Greek tragedy is the conflict of fate and freedom,\nof the inflexible laws of nature with the passionate longings of man, of\n\"the emergency of the case with the despotism of the rule.\" This conflict\nappears most vividly in the story of Prom\u00eatheus, or Forethought; he,\n\"whose godlike crime was to be kind\"; he who resisted the torments and\nterrors of Zeus, relying on his own fierce mind.[235] In this respect,\nPrometheus in his suffering is like Job in his sufferings. Each refuses to\nsay he is wrong, merely to pacify God, when he does not see that he is\nwrong. As Prom\u00eatheus maintains his inflexible purpose, so Job holds fast\nhis integrity.\n\nSophocles is the most devout of the Greek tragedians, and reverence for\nthe gods is constantly enjoined in his tragedies. One striking passage is\nwhere Antigon\u00ea is asked if she had disobeyed the laws of the country, and\nreplies, \"Yes; for they were not the laws of God. They did not proceed\nfrom Justice, who dwells with the Immortals. Nor dared I, in obeying the\nlaws of mortal man, disobey those of the undying gods. For the gods live\nfrom eternity, and their beginning no man knows. I know that I must die\nfor this offence, and I die willingly. I must have died at some time, and\na premature death I account a gain, as finishing a life filled with\nsorrows.\"[236] This argument reminds us of the higher-law discussions of\nthe antislavery conflict, and the religious defiance of the fugitive slave\nlaw by all honest men.\n\nEuripides represents the reaction against the religious tragedy. His is\nthe anti-religious tragedy. It is a sneering defiance of the religious\nsentiment, a direct teaching of pessimism. Bunsen (\"God in History\") goes\nat length into the proof of this statement, showing that in Euripides the\ntheology of the poets encountered and submitted to the same sceptical\nreaction which followed in philosophy the divine teachings of Plato.[237]\nAfter this time Greek poetry ceased to be the organ of Greek religion. It\nis true that we have subsequent outbreaks of devout song, as in the hymn\nof Cleauthes, the stoic, who followed Zeno as teacher in the Porch (B.C.\n260). Though this belongs rather to philosophy than to poetry, yet on\naccount of its truly monotheistic and also devout quality, I add a\ntranslation here:[238]--\n\n    Greatest of the gods, God with many names, God ever-ruling and ruling all things!\n    Zeus, origin of nature, governing the universe by law,\n    All hail! For it is right for mortals to address thee;\n    Since we are thy offspring, and we alone of all\n    That live and creep on earth have the power of imitative speech.\n    Therefore will I praise thee, and hymn forever thy power.\n    Thee the wide heaven, which surrounds the earth, obeys;\n    Following where thou wilt, willingly obeying thy law.\n    Thou holdest at thy service, in thy mighty hands,\n    The two-edged, flaming, immortal thunderbolt,\n    Before whose flash all nature trembles.\n    Thou rulest in the common reason, which goes through all,\n    And appears mingled in all things, great or small,\n    Which, filling all nature, is king of all existences.\n    Nor without thee, O Deity, does anything happen in the world,\n    From the divine ethereal pole to the great ocean,\n    Except only the evil preferred by the senseless wicked.\n    But thou also art able to bring to order that which is chaotic,\n    Giving form to what is formless, and making the discordant friendly;\n    So reducing all variety to unity, and even making good out of evil.\n    Thus, through all nature is one great law,\n    Which only the wicked seek to disobey,--\n    Poor fools! who long for happiness,\n    But will not see nor hear the divine commands.\n\n           *       *       *       *       *\n\n    But do thou, O Zeus, all-bestower, cloud-compeller!\n    Ruler of thunder! guard men from sad error.\n    Father! dispel the clouds of the soul, and let us follow\n    The laws of thy great and just reign!\n    That we may be honored, let us honor thee again,\n    Chanting thy great deeds, as is proper for mortals.\n    For nothing can be better for gods or men\n    Than to adore with perpetual hymns the law common to all.\n\nThe result of our investigation thus far is, that beside all the\npolytheistic and anthropomorphic tendencies of the old religion, there yet\nlingered a faith in one supreme God, ruler of all things. This is the\ngeneral opinion of the best writers. For example, Welcker thus speaks of\nthe original substance of Greek religion:[239]--\n\n   \"In the remotest period of Greek antiquity, we meet the words \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 and\n   \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd, and the names \u0396\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 and \u039a\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd; anything older than which is\n   not to be found in this religion. Accordingly, the gods of these tribes\n   were from the first generally, if not universally, heavenly and\n   spiritual beings. Zeus was the immortal king of heaven, in opposition\n   to everything visible and temporal. This affords us a permanent\n   background of universal ideas, behind all special conceptions or local\n   appellations. We recognize as present in the beginnings of Greek\n   history the highest mental aspirations belonging to man. We can thus\n   avoid the mistaken doubts concerning this religion, which came from the\n   influence of the subsequent manifestations, going back to the deep root\n   from which they have sprung. The Divine Spirit has always been\n   manifested in the feelings even of the most uncultivated peoples.\n   Afterwards, in trying to bring this feeling into distinct\n   consciousness, the various childish conceptions and imperfect views of\n   religious things arise.\"\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5. The Gods of the Artists.\n\n\nThe artists, following the poets, developed still further the divinely\nhuman character of the gods. The architects of the temples gave, in their\npure and harmonious forms, the conception of religious beauty and majesty.\nStanding in some open elevated position, their snowy surface bathed in\nsunshine, they stood in serene strength, the types of a bright and joyful\nreligion. A superstitious worship seeks caves and darkness; the noble\nmajesty of the Greek temples said plainly that they belonged to a religion\nof light and peace.\n\nThe sculptor worked originally in company with the architect. The statues\nwere meant to adorn the temples, the temples were made as frames and\npedestals for the statues. The marble forms stood and walked on the\npediments and gave life to the frieze. They animated the exterior, or sat,\ncalm and strong, in the central shrine.\n\nThe poets, in giving a moral and human character to the gods, never quite\nforgot their origin as powers of nature. Jupiter Olympus is still the god\nof the sky, the thunderer. Neptune is the ruler of the ocean, the\nearth-shaker. Phoebus-Apollo is the sun-god. Artemis is the moonlight,\npure, chaste, and cold. But the sculptors finally leave behind these\nreminiscences, and in their hands the deities become purely moral beings.\nOn the brow of Jupiter sits a majestic calm; he is no angry wielder of the\nthunderbolt, but the gracious and powerful ruler of the three worlds. This\nconception grew up gradually, until it was fully realized by Phidias in\nhis statues at Olympia and Elis. Tranquil power and victorious repose\nappear even in the standing Jupiters, in which last the god appears as\nmore youthful and active.\n\nThe conception of Jupiter by Phidias was a great advance on that of Homer.\nHe, to be sure, professed to take his idea from the famous passage of the\nIliad where Jove shakes his ambrosial curls and bends his awful brows;\nand, nodding, shakes heaven and earth. That might be his text, but the\nsermon which he preached was far higher than it. This was the great statue\nof Jupiter, his masterpiece, made of ivory and gold for the temple at\nOlympia, where the games were celebrated by the united Hellenic race.\nThese famous games, which occurred every fifth year, lasting five days,\ncalling together all Greece, were to this race what the Passover was to\nthe Jewish nation, sacred, venerable, blending divine worship and human\njoy. These games were a chronology, a constitution, and a church to the\nPan-Hellenic race. All epochs were reckoned from them; as events occurring\nin such or such an Olympiad. The first Olympiad was seven hundred and\nseventy-six years before Christ; and a large part of our present knowledge\nof ancient chronology depends on these festivals. They bound Greece\ntogether as by a constitution; no persons unless of genuine Hellenic blood\nbeing allowed to contend at them, and a truce being proclaimed for all\nGreece while they lasted.\n\nHere at Olympia, while the games continued, all Greece came together; the\npoets and historians declaimed their compositions to the grand audience;\nopinions were interchanged, knowledge communicated, and the national life\nreceived both stimulus and unity.\n\nAnd here, over all, presided the great Jupiter of Phidias, within a Doric\ntemple, sixty-eight feet high, ninety-five wide, and two hundred and\nthirty long, covered with sculptures of Pentelic marble. The god was\nseated on his throne, made of gold, ebony, and ivory, studded with\nprecious stones. He was so colossal that, though seated, his head nearly\nreached the roof, and it seemed as if he would bear it away if he rose.\nThere sat the monarch, his head, neck, breast, and arms in massive\nproportions; the lower part of the body veiled in a flowing mantle;\nbearing in his right hand a statue of Victory, in his left a sceptre with\nhis eagle on the top; the Hours, the Seasons, and the Graces around him;\nhis feet on the mysterious Sphinx; and on his face that marvellous\nexpression of blended majesty and sweetness, which we know not only by the\naccounts of eyewitnesses, but by the numerous imitations and copies in\nmarble which have come down to us. One cannot fail to see, even in these\ncopies, a wonderful expression of power, wisdom, and goodness. The head,\nwith leonine locks of hair and thickly rolling beard, expresses power, the\nbroad brow and fixed gaze of the eyes, wisdom; while the sweet smile of\nthe lips indicates goodness. The throne was of cedar, ornamented with\ngold, ivory, ebony, and precious stones. The sceptre was composed of\nevery kind of metal. The statue was forty feet high, on a pedestal of\ntwelve feet. To die without having seen this statue was regarded by the\nGreeks as almost as great a calamity as not to have been initiated into\nthe mysteries.[240]\n\nIn like manner the poetic conception of Apollo was inferior to that of the\nsculptor. In the mind of the latter Phoebus is not merely an archer, not\nmerely a prophet and a singer, but the entire manifestation of genius. He\nis inspiration; he radiates poetry, music, eloquence from his sublime\nfigure. The Phidian Jupiter is lost to us, except in copies, but in the\nBelvedere Apollo we see how the sculptor could interpret the highest\nthought of the Hellenic mind. He who visits this statue by night in the\nVatican Palace at Rome, seeing it by torchlight, has, perhaps, the most\nwonderful impression left on his imagination which art can give. After\npassing through the long galleries of the Vatican, where, as the torches\nadvance, armies of statues emerge from the darkness before you, gaze on\nyou with marble countenance, and sink back into the darkness behind, you\nreach at last the small circular hall which contains the Apollo. The\neffect of torchlight is to make the statue seem more alive. One limb, one\nfeature, one expression after another, is brought out as the torches move;\nand the wonderful form becomes at last instinct with life. Milman has\ndescribed the statue in a few glowing but unexaggerated lines:--\n\n    \"For mild he seemed, as in Elysian towers,\n    Wasting, in careless ease, the joyous hours;\n    Haughty, as bards have sung, with princely sway\n    Curbing the fierce flame-breathing steeds of day;\n    Beauteous, as vision seen in dreamy sleep\n    By holy maid, on Delphi's haunted steep.\"\n\n           *       *       *       *       *\n\n    All, all divine; no struggling muscle glows,\n    Through heaving vein no mantling life-blood flows,\n    But, animate with Deity alone,\n    In deathless glory lives the breathing stone.\"[241]\n\nIn such a statue we see the human creative genius idealized. It is a\nmagnificent representation of the mind of Greece, that fountain of\noriginal thought from which came the Songs of Homer and the Dialogues of\nPlato, that unfailing source of history, tragedy, lyric poetry, scientific\ninvestigation. In the Belvedere Apollo we see expressed at once the genius\nof Homer, Aristotle, Herodotus, Aeschylus, Pindar, Thales, and Plato.\n\nWith Apollo is associated his sister Artemis, or Diana, another exquisite\nconception of Greek thought. Not the cold and cruel Diana of the poets;\nnot she who, in her prudish anger, turned Act\u00e6on into a stag, who slew\nOrion, who slew the children of Niobe, and demanded the death of\nIphigenia. Very different is the beautiful Diana of the sculptors, the\nArtemis, or untouched one, chaste as moonlight, a wild girl, pure, free,\nnoble; the ideal of youthful womanhood, who can share with man manly\nexercises and open-air sports, and add to manly strength a womanly grace.\nSo she seems in the statue; in swift motion, the air lifting her tunic\nfrom her noble limbs, while she draws a shaft from the quiver to kill a\nhind. No Greek could look at such a statue, and not learn to reverence the\npurity and nobleness of womanhood.\n\nPallas-Ath\u00ean\u00ea was the goddess of all the liberal arts and sciences. In\nbattle she proves too strong for Ar\u00eas or Mars, as scientific war is always\ntoo strong for that wild, furious war which Mars represented. She was the\ncivilizer of mankind. Her name Pallas means \"virgin,\" and her name Ath\u00ean\u00ea\nwas supposed to be the same as the Egyptian Neith, reversed; though modern\nscholars deny this etymology.\n\nThe Parthenon, standing on the summit of Athens, built of white marble,\nwas surrounded by columns 34 feet high. It was 230 feet long, 102 feet\nwide, and 68 high, and was perhaps the most perfect building ever raised\nby man. Every part of its exterior was adorned with Phidian sculpture; and\nwithin stood the statue of Ath\u00ean\u00ea herself, in ivory and gold, by the same\nmaster hand. Another colossal statue of the great goddess stood on the\nsummit of the Acropolis, and her polished brazen helmet and shield,\nflashing in the sun, could be seen far out at sea by vessels approaching\nAthens.\n\nThe Greek sculptors, in creating these wonderful ideals, were always\nfeeling after God; but for God incarnate, God in man. They sought for and\nrepresented each divine element in human nature. They were prophets of the\nfuture development of humanity. They showed how man is a partaker of the\ndivine nature. If they humanized Deity, they divinized humanity.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6. The Gods of the Philosophers.\n\n\nThe problem which the Greek philosophers set themselves to solve was the\norigin of things. As we have found a double element of race and religion\nrunning through the history of Greece, so we find a similar dualism in its\nphilosophy. An element of realism and another of idealism are in\nopposition until the time of Plato, and are first reconciled by that great\nmaster of thought. Realism appears in the Ionic nature-philosophy;\nidealism in Orphism, the schools of Pythagoras, and the Eleatic school of\nSouthern Italy.\n\nBoth these classes of thinkers sought for some central unity beneath the\noutward phenomena. Thales the Milesian (B.C. 600) said it was water. His\ndisciple, Anaximander, called it a chaotic matter, containing in itself a\nmotive-power which would take the universe through successive creations\nand destructions. His successor, Anaximenes, concluded the infinite\nsubstance to be air. Heraclitus of Ephesus (B.C. 500) declared it to be\nfire; by which he meant, not physical fire, but the principle of\nantagonism. So, by _water_, Thales must have intended the fluid element in\nthings. For that Thales was not a mere materialist appears from the\nsayings which have been reported as coming from him, such as this: \"Of all\nthings, the oldest is God; the most beautiful is the world; the swiftest\nis thought; the wisest is time.\" Or that other, that, \"Death does not\ndiffer at all from life.\" Thales also taught that a Divine power was in\nall things. The successor of Heraclitus, Anaxagoras (B.C. 494), first\ndistinguished God from the world, mind from matter, leaving to each an\nindependent existence.\n\nWhile the Greek colonies in Asia Minor developed thus the Asiatic form of\nphilosophy, the colonies in Magna Gr\u00e6cia unfolded the Italian or ideal\nside. Of these, Pythagoras was the earliest and most conspicuous. Born at\nSamos (B.C. 584), he was a contemporary of Thales of Miletus. He taught\nthat God was one; yet not outside of the world, but in it, wholly in every\npart, overseeing the beginnings of all things and their combinations.[242]\n\nThe head of the Italian school, known as Eleatics, was Xenophanes (born\nB.C. 600), who, says Zeller,[243] both a philosopher and a poet, taught\nfirst of all a perfect monotheism. He declared God to be the one and all,\neternal, almighty, and perfect being, being all sight, feeling, and\nperception. He is both infinite and finite. If he were only finite, he\ncould not _be_; if he were only infinite, he could not _exist_. He lives\nin eternity, and exists in time.[244]\n\nParmenides, scholar and successor of Xenophanes at Elea, taught that God,\nas pure thought, pervaded all nature. Empedocles (about B.C. 460)[245]\nfollowed Xenophanes, though introducing a certain dualism into his\nphysics. In theology he was a pure monotheist, declaring God to be the\nAbsolute Being, sufficient for himself, and related to the world as unity\nto variety, or love to discord. We can only recognize God by the divine\nelement in ourselves. The bad is what is separate from God, and out of\nharmony with him.\n\nAfter this came a sceptical movement, in which Gorgias, a disciple of\nEmpedocles (B.C. 404) and Protagoras the Abderite, taught the doctrine of\nnescience. The latter said: \"Whether there are gods or not we cannot say,\nand life is too short to find out.\"[246] Prodicus explained religion as\nfounded in utility, Critias derived it from statecraft. They argued that\nif religion was founded in human nature, all men would worship the same\ngods. This view became popular in Greece at the time of the Peloponnesian\nWar. Euripides, as we have seen, was a sceptic. Those who denied the\npopular gods were persecuted by the Athenians, but the sceptical spirit\nwas not checked by this course.[247] Anaxagoras escaped with his life only\nthrough the powerful protection of Pericles. Protagoras was sentenced to\ndeath, and his writings were burned. Diogenes was denounced as an atheist,\nand a reward of a talent was offered to any one who should kill him. For\nan unbelieving age is apt to be a persecuting one. When the kernel of\nreligion is gone, more stress is laid on keeping the shell untouched.\n\nIt was in the midst of these dilapidated opinions that Socrates came, that\nwonderful phenomenon in human history. A marvellous vision, glorifying\nhumanity! He may be considered as having created the science of ethics. He\nfirst taught the doctrine of divine providence, declaring that we can only\nknow God in his works. He placed religion on the basis of humanity,\nproclaiming the well-being of man to be the end of the universe. He\npreferred the study of final causes to that of efficient causes. He did\nnot deny the inferior deities, but regarded them only as we regard angels\nand archangels, saints and prophets; as finite beings, above man, but\ninfinitely below the Supreme Being. Reverence for such beings is quite\nconsistent with the purest monotheism.\n\nIn Plato, says Rixner[248] the two polar tendencies of Greek philosophy\nwere harmonized, and realism and idealism brought into accord. The school\nof realism recognized time, variety, motion, multiplicity, and nature; but\nlost substance, unity, eternity, and spirit. The other, the ideal Eleatic\nschool, recognized unity, but lost variety, saw eternity, but ignored\ntime, accepted being, but omitted life and movement.\n\nThe three views may be thus compared:--\n\n    Italian Philosophy,    Plato.              Ionian or Asiatic Atomic.\n        or Eleatic.\n      The One.          The One in All.                The All.\n      Unity.            Unity and Variety.             Variety.\n      Being.            Life.                          Motion.\n      Pantheism.        Divine in Nature.              Naturalism.\n      Substance.        Substance and Manifestation.   Phenomena.\n\nThe philosophy of Plato was the scientific completion of that of Socrates.\nSocrates took his intellectual departure from man, and inferred nature and\nGod. Plato assumed God, and inferred nature and man. He made goodness and\nnature godlike, by making God the substance in each. His was a divine\nphilosophy, since he referred all facts theoretically and practically to\nGod as the ground of their being.\n\nThe style of Plato singularly combined analysis and synthesis, exact\ndefinition with poetic life. His magnificent intellect aimed at uniting\nprecision in details with universal comprehension.[249]\n\nPlato, as regards his method of thought, was a strict and determined\ntranscendentalist. He declared philosophy to be the science of\nunconditioned being, and asserted that this was known to the soul by its\nintuitive reason, which is the organ of all philosophic insight. The\nreason perceives substance, the understanding only phenomena. Being \u03c4\u03bf \u03cc\u03bd,\nwhich is the reality in all actuality, is in the ideas or thoughts of God;\nand nothing exists or appears outwardly, except by the force of this\nindwelling idea. The WORD is the true expression of the nature of every\nobject; for each has its divine and natural name, beside its accidental\nhuman appellation. Philosophy is the recollection of what the soul has\nseen of things and their names.\n\nThe life and essence of all things is from God. Plato's idea of God is of\nthe purest and highest kind. God is one, he is Spirit, he is the supreme\nand only real being, he is the creator of all things, his providence is\nover all events. He avoids pantheism on one side, by making God a distinct\npersonal intelligent will; and polytheism on the other, by making him\nabsolute, and therefore one. Plato's theology is pure theism.[250]\n\nAckermann, in \"The Christian Element in Plato,\"[251] says: The Platonic\ntheology is strikingly near that of Christianity in regard to God's being,\nexistence, name, and attributes. As regards the existence of God, he\nargues from the movements of nature for the necessity of an original\nprinciple of motion.[252] But the real Platonic faith in God, like that of\nthe Bible, rests on immediate knowledge. He gives no definition of the\nessence of God, but says,[253] \"To find the Maker and Father of this All\nis hard, and having found him it is impossible to utter him.\" But the idea\nof Goodness is the best expression, as is also that of Being, though\nneither is adequate. The visible Sun is the image and child of the Good\nBeing. Just so the Scripture calls God the Father of light. Yet the idea\nof God was the object and aim of his whole philosophy; therefore he calls\nGod the Beginning and the End;[254] and \"the Measure of all things, much\nmore than _man_, as some people have said\" (referring to Protagoras, who\ntaught that \"man was the measure of all things\"). So even Aristotle\ndeclared that \"since God is the ground of all being, the first philosophy\nis theology\"; and Eusebius mentions that Plato thought that no one could\nunderstand human things who did not first look at divine things; and tells\na story of an Indian who met Socrates in Athens and asked him how he must\nbegin to philosophize. He replied that he must reflect on human life;\nwhereupon the Indian laughed and said that as long as one did not\nunderstand divine things he could know nothing about human things.\n\nThere is no doubt that Plato was a monotheist, and believed in one God,\nand when he spoke of gods in the plural, was only using the common form of\nspeech. That many educated heathen were monotheists has been sufficiently\nproved; and even Augustine admits that the mere use of the word \"gods\"\nproved nothing against it, since the Hebrew Bible said, \"the God of gods\nhas spoken.\"\n\nAristotle (B.C. 384), the first philologian and naturalist of antiquity,\nscholar of Plato, called \"the Scribe of Nature,\" and \"a reversed Plato,\"\ndiffering diametrically from his master in his methods, arrived at nearly\nthe same theological result. He taught that there were first truths, known\nby their own evidence. He comprised all notions of existence in that of\nthe \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, in which were the two spheres of the earthly and heavenly. The\nearthly sphere contained the changeable in the transient; the heavenly\nsphere contained the changeable in the permanent. Above both spheres is\nGod, who is unchangeable, permanent, and unalterable. Aristotle, however,\nomits God as Providence, and conceives him less personally than is done by\nPlato.\n\nIn the Stoical system, theism becomes pantheism.[255] There is one Being,\nwho is the substance of all things, from whom the universe flows forth,\nand into whom it returns in regular cycles.\n\nZeller[256] sums up his statements on this point thus: \"From all that has\nbeen said it appears that the Stoics did not think of God and the world as\ndifferent beings. Their system was therefore strictly pantheistic. The sum\nof all real existence is originally contained in God, who is at once\nuniversal matter and the creative force which fashions matter into the\nparticular materials of which things are made. We can, therefore, think of\nnothing which is not either God or a manifestation of God. In point of\nbeing, God and the world are the same, the two conceptions being declared\nby the Stoics to be absolutely identical.\"\n\nThe Stoic philosophy was materialism as regards the nature of things, and\nnecessity as regards the nature of the human will. The Stoics denied the\neverlasting existence of souls as individuals, believing that at the end\nof a certain cycle they would be resolved into the Divine Being.\nNevertheless, till that period arrives, they conceived the soul as\nexisting in a future state higher and better than this. Seneca calls the\nday of death the birthday into this better world. In that world there\nwould be a judgment on the conduct and character of each one; there\nfriends would recognize each other, and renew their friendship and\nsociety.\n\nWhile the Epicureans considered religion in all its usual forms to be a\ncurse to mankind, while they believed it impious to accept the popular\nopinions concerning the gods, while they denied any Divine Providence or\ncare for man, while they rejected prayer, prophecy, divination, and\nregarded fear as the foundation of religion, they yet believed, as their\nmaster Epicurus had believed, in the existence of the immortal gods. These\nbeings he regarded as possessing all human attributes, except those of\nweakness and pain. They are immortal and perfectly happy; exempt from\ndisease and change, living in celestial dwellings, clothed with bodies of\na higher kind than ours, they converse together in a sweet society of\npeace and content.\n\nSuch were the principal theological views of the Greek philosophers. With\nthe exception of the last, and that of the Sceptics, they were either\nmonotheistic or consistent with monotheism. They were, on the whole, far\nhigher than the legends of the poets or the visions of the artists. They\nwere, as the Christian Fathers were fond of saying, a preparation for\nChristianity. No doubt one cause of the success of this monotheistic\nreligion among the Greek-speaking nations was that Greek philosophy had\nundermined faith in Greek polytheism.\n\nThis we shall consider in another section.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 7. The Worship of Greece.\n\n\nThe public worship of Greece, as of other ancient nations, consisted of\nsacrifices, prayers, and public festivals. The sacrifices were for\nvictories over their enemies, for plentiful harvests, to avert the anger\nof some offended deity, for success in any enterprise, and those specially\ncommanded by the oracles.\n\nIn the earliest times fruits and plants were all that were offered.\nAfterward the sacrifices were libations, incense, and victims. The\nlibation consisted of a cup brimming with wine, which was emptied upon the\naltars. The incense, at first, was merely fragrant leaves or wood, burnt\nupon the altar; afterward myrrh and frankincense were used. The victims\nwere sheep, oxen, or other animals. To Hecate they offered a dog, to Venus\na dove, to Mars some wild animal, to Ceres the sow, because it rooted up\nthe corn. But it was forbidden to sacrifice the ploughing ox. The\nsacrifices of men, which were common among barbarous nations, were very\nrare in Greece.\n\nOn great occasions large sacrifices were offered of numerous victims,--as\nthe hecatomb, which means a hundred oxen. It is a curious fact that they\nhad a vessel of holy water at the entrance of the temples, consecrated by\nputting into it a burning torch from the altar, with which or with a\nbranch of laurel the worshippers were sprinkled on entering. The\nworshippers were also expected to wash their bodies, or at least their\nhands and feet, before going into the temple; a custom common also among\nthe Jews and other nations. So Ezekiel says: \"I will sprinkle you with\nclean water and you shall be clean.\" And the Apostle Paul says, in\nallusion to this custom: \"Let us draw near, having our hearts sprinkled\nfrom an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.\"\n\nAll these customs had a natural origin. The natural offering to the gods\nis that which we like best ourselves. The Greeks, eminently a social\npeople, in the enjoyment of their feasts, wished to give a part of\neverything to the gods. Loving wine, perfumes, and animal food, they\noffered these. As it was proper to wash before feasting with each other,\nit seemed only proper to do the same before offering the feast to the\ngods.\n\nThe essential part of the sacrifice was catching and pouring out the\nblood of the victim; for, in the view of the ancients, blood was the seat\nof life. Part of the victim was burned, and this was the portion supposed\nto be consumed by the god. Another part was eaten by the worshippers, who\nthus sat at table with the deity as his friends and companions. The joyful\ncharacter of Greek worship also appeared in the use of garlands of\nflowers, religious dances and songs.\n\nAll the festivals of the Greeks were religious. Some were of the seasons,\nas one in February to Zeus, the giver of good weather; and another in\nNovember to Zeus, the god of storms. There were festivals in honor of the\nplough, of the threshing-floor; festivals commemorating the victories at\nMarathon, Salamis, etc.; of the restoration of democracy by Thrasybulus;\nfeasts of the clothing of the images, on which occasion it was not lawful\nto work; feasts in commemoration of those who perished in the flood of\nDeucalion; feasts of nurses, feasts of youth, of women, of trades. Then\nthere were the great national festivals, celebrated every four years at\nOlympia and Delphi, and every three and five years at Nemea and the\nisthmus of Corinth. The Panathen\u00e6ic festival at Athens was held every five\nyears in honor of Ath\u00ean\u00ea, with magnificent processions, cavalcades of\nhorsemen, gymnastic games, military dances, recitations of the Homeric\npoems, and competition in music. On the frieze of the Parthenon was\nrepresented by the scholars of Phidias the procession of the Peplos. This\nwas a new dress made for the statue of Ath\u00ean\u00ea by young girls of Athens,\nbetween the ages of seven and eleven years. These girls, selected at a\nspecial ceremony, lived a year on the Acropolis, engaged in their sacred\nwork, and fed on a special diet. Captives were liberated on this occasion,\nthat all might share in the festival.\n\nSuch festivals constituted the acme of Greek life. They were celebrated in\nthe open air with pomp and splendor, and visitors came from far to assist\non these occasions. Prizes were given for foot and chariot races; for\nboxing, leaping, music, and even for kissing. The temples, therefore, were\nnot intended for worship, but chiefly to contain the image of the god.\nThe _cella_, or _adytum_, was small and often dark; but along the\nmagnificent portico or peristyle, which surrounded the four sides of the\nDoric temples, the splendid processions could circulate in full view of\nthe multitude.[257] The temple was therefore essentially an out-door\nbuilding, with its beauty, like that of a flower, exposed to light and\nair. It was covered everywhere, but not crowded, with sculpture, which was\nan essential part of the building. The pediments, the pedestals on the\nroofs, the metopes between the triglyphs, are as unmeaning without the\nsculpture as a picture-frame without its picture. So says Mr.\nFergusson;[258] and adds that, without question, color was also everywhere\nused as an integral part of the structure.\n\nPriesthood was sometimes hereditary, but was not confined to a class.\nKings, generals, and the heads of a family acted as priests and offered\nsacrifices. It was a temporary office, and Plato recommends that there\nshould be an annual rotation, no man acting as priest for more than one\nyear. Such a state of opinion excludes the danger of priestcraft, and is\nopposed to all hierarchal pretensions. The same, however, cannot be said\nof the diviners and soothsayers, who were so much consulted, and whose\nopinions determined so often the course of public affairs. They were often\nin the pay of ambitious men. Alcibiades had augurs and oracles devoted to\nhis interests, who could induce the Athenians to agree to such a course as\nhe desired. For the Greeks were extremely anxious to penetrate the future,\nand the power and influence of their oracles is, says D\u00f6llinger, a\nphenomenon unique in history.\n\nAmong these oracles, Delphi, as is well known, took the highest rank. It\nwas considered the centre of the earth, and was revered by the\nPan-Hellenic race. It was a supreme religious court, whose decisions were\nbelieved to be infallible. The despotism of the Pythian decisions was,\nhowever, tempered by their ambiguity. Their predictions, if they failed,\nseldom destroyed the faith of the believers; for always some explanation\ncould be devised to save the credit of the oracle. Thus, the Pythian\npromised the Athenians that they would take all the Syracusans prisoners.\nThey did not take them; but as a muster-roll of the Syracusan army fell\ninto their hands, this was considered to fulfil the promise.[259]\nAristides, the rhetorician, was told that the \"white maidens\" would take\ncare of him; and receiving a letter which was of advantage, he was fully\nconvinced that this was the \"white maiden.\" But neither imposition nor\ndelusion will satisfactorily explain the phenomena connected with oracles.\nThe foundation of them seems to have been a state allied to the modern\nmanifestations of magnetic sleep and clairvoyance.\n\n\"As the whole life of the Greeks,\" says D\u00f6llinger, \"was penetrated by\nreligion,\" they instinctively and naturally prayed on all occasions. They\nprayed at sunrise and sunset, at meal-times, for outward blessings of all\nkinds, and also for virtue and wisdom. They prayed standing, with a loud\nvoice, and hands lifted to the heavens. They threw kisses to the gods with\ntheir hands.\n\nSo we see that the Greek worship, like their theology, was natural and\nhuman, a cheerful and hopeful worship, free from superstition. This\nelement only arrives with the mysteries, and the worship of the Cthonic\ngods. To the Olympic gods supplications were addressed as to free moral\nagents, who might be persuaded or convinced, but could not be compelled.\nTo the under-world deities prayer took the form of adjuration, and\ndegenerated into magic formulas, which were supposed to force these\ndeities to do what was asked by the worshipper.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 8. The Mysteries. Orphism.\n\n\nThe early gods of most nations are local and tribal. They belong only to\nlimited regions, or to small clans, and have no supposed authority or\ninfluence beyond. This was eminently the case in Greece; and after the\ngreat Hellenic worship had arrived, the local and family gods retained\nalso their position, and continued to be reverenced. In Athens, down to\nthe time of Alexander, each tribe in the city kept its own divinities and\nsacrifices. It also happened that the supreme god of one state would be\nadored as a subordinate power in another. Every place had its favorite\nprotector. As different cities in Italy have their different Madonnas,\nwhom they consider more powerful than the Madonna of their neighbors, so\nin Greece the same god was invoked in various localities under different\nsurnames. The Arcadian Zeus had the surname of Lyc\u00e6us, derived, probably,\nfrom \u039b\u03c5\u03be, Lux, light. The Cretan Jupiter was called Asterios. At Karia he\nwas Stratios. Iolaus in Euripides (the Herakleid\u00e6, 347) says: \"We have\ngods as our allies not inferior to those of the Argives, O king; for Juno,\nthe wife of Jove, is their champion, but Minerva ours; and I say, to have\nthe best gods tends to success, for Pallas will not endure to be\nconquered.\"[260] So, in the \"Suppliants\" of Aeschylus, the Egyptian Herald\nsays (838): \"By no means do I dread the deities of this place; for they\nhave not nourished me nor preserved me to old age.\"[261]\n\nTwo modes of worship met in Greece, together with two classes of gods. The\nPelasgi, as we have seen, worshipped unnamed impersonal powers of the\nuniverse, without image or temple. But to this was added a worship which\nprobably came through Thrace, from Asia and Egypt. This element introduced\nreligious poetry and music, the adoration of the muses, the rites and\nmysteries of D\u00eam\u00eat\u00ear, and the reverence for the Kabiri, or dark divinities\nof the lower world.\n\nOf these, the MYSTERIES were the most significant and important. Their\norigin must be referred to a great antiquity, and they continued to be\npractised down to the times of the Roman Emperors. They seem not to belong\nto the genuine Greek religion, but to be an alien element introduced into\nit. The gods of the Mysteries are not the beings of light, but of\ndarkness, not the gods of Olympus, but of the under-world. Everything\nconnected with the Mysteries is foreign to the Hellenic mind. This\nworship is secret; its spirit is of awe, terror, remorse; its object is\nexpiation of sin. Finally, it is a hieratic worship, in the hands of\npriests.\n\nAll this suggests Egypt as the origin of the Mysteries. The oldest were\nthose celebrated in the island of Samothrace, near the coast of Asia\nMinor. Here Orpheus is reputed to have come and founded the Bacchic\nMysteries; while another legend reports him to have been killed by the\nBacchantes for wishing to substitute the worship of Apollo for that of\nDionysos. This latter story, taken in connection with the civilizing\ninfluence ascribed to Orpheus, indicates his introducing a purer form of\nworship. He reformed the licentious drunken rites, and established in\nplace of them a more serious religion. He died a martyr to this purer\nfaith, killed by the women, who were incited to this, no doubt, by the\npriests of the old Bacchic worship.\n\nThe worship of Dionysos Zagreus, which was the Orphic form of Bacchism,\ncontained the doctrines of retribution in another life,--a doctrine common\nto all the Greek Mysteries.\n\nIt would seem probable, from an investigation of this subject, that two\nelements of worship are to be found in the Greek religion, which were\nnever quite harmonized. One is the worship of the Olympian deities, gods\nof light and day, gods of this world, and interested in our present human\nlife. This worship tended to promote a free development of character; it\nwas self-possessed, cheerful, and public; it left the worshipper unalarmed\nby any dread of the future, or any anxiety about his soul. For the Olympic\ngods cared little about the moral character of their worshippers; and the\ndark Fate which lay behind gods and men could not be propitiated by any\nrites, and must be encountered manfully, as one meets the inevitable.\n\nThe other worship, running parallel with this, was of the Cthonic gods,\ndeities of earth and the under-world, rulers of the night-side of nature,\nand monarchs of the world to come. Their worship was solemn, mysterious,\nsecret, and concerned expiation of sin, and the salvation of the soul\nhereafter.\n\nNow, when we consider that the Egyptian popular worship delighted in just\nsuch mysteries as these; that it related to the judgment of the soul\nhereafter; that its solemnities were secret and wrapped in dark symbols;\nand that the same awful Cthonic deities were the objects of its\nreverence;--when we also remember that Herodotus and the other Greek\nwriters state that the early religion of the Pelasgi was derived from\nEgypt, and that Orpheus, the Thracian, brought thence his doctrine,--there\nseems no good reason for denying such a source. On the other hand, nothing\ncan be more probable than an immense influence on Pelasgic worship,\nderived through Thrace, from Egypt. This view is full of explanations, and\nmakes much in the Greek mythology clear which would otherwise be obscure.\n\nThe Greek myth of D\u00eam\u00eat\u00ear and Persephon\u00ea, for example, seems to be an\nadaptation to the Hellenic mind and land of the Egyptian myth of Osiris\nand Isis. Both are symbols, first, of natural phenomena; and, secondly, of\nthe progress of the human soul. The sad Isis seeking Osiris, and the sad\nD\u00eam\u00eat\u00ear seeking Persephon\u00ea constitute evidently the same legend; only\nOsiris is the Nile, evaporated into scattered pools by the burning heat,\nwhile Persephon\u00ea is the seed, the treasure of the plant, which sinks into\nthe earth, but is allowed to come up again as the stalk, and pass a part\nof its life in the upper air. But both these nature-myths were\nspiritualized in the Mysteries, and made to denote the wanderings of the\nsoul in its search for truth. Similar to these legends was that of\nDionysos Zagreus, belonging to Crete, according to Euripides and other\nwriters. Zagreus was the son of the Cretan Zeus and Persephon\u00ea, and was\nhewn in pieces by the Titans, his heart alone being preserved by Ath\u00ean\u00ea,\nwho gave it to Zeus. Zeus killed the Titans, and enclosed the heart in a\nplaster image of his child. According to another form of the story, Zeus\nswallowed the heart, and from it reproduced another Dionysos. Apollo\ncollected the rest of the members, and they were reunited, and restored to\nlife.\n\nThe principal mysteries were those of Bacchus and Ceres. The Bacchic\nmysteries were very generally celebrated throughout Greece, and were a\nwild nature-worship; partaking of that frenzy which has in all nations\nbeen considered a method of gaining a supernatural and inspired state, or\nelse as the result of it. The Siva worship in India, the Pythoness at\nDelphi, the Schamaism of the North, the whirling dervishes of the\nMohammedans; and some of the scenes at the camp-meetings in the Western\nStates, belong to the same class as the Bacchic orgies.\n\nThe Eleusinian mysteries were very different. These were in honor of\nCeres; they were imported from Egypt. The wanderings of Isis in search of\nOsiris were changed to those of Ceres or D\u00eam\u00eat\u00ear (the mother-earth = Isis)\nin search of Persephon\u00ea. Both represented in a secondary symbolism the\nwanderings of the soul, seeking God and truth. This was the same idea as\nthat of Apuleius in the beautiful story of Psyche.\n\nThese mysteries were celebrated at Eleusis by the Athenians every fourth\nyear. They were said to have been introduced B.C. 1356, and were very\nsacred. All persons were required to be initiated. If they refused it they\nwere supposed to be irreligious. \"Have you been initiated?\" was asked in\ndangerous situations. The initiated were said to be calm in view of death.\nIt was the personal religion of the Greeks.\n\nIn the greater mysteries at Eleusis the candidates were crowned with\nmyrtle, and admitted by night into a vast temple, where they were purified\nand instructed, and assisted at certain grand solemnities. The doctrines\ntaught are unknown, but are supposed to have been the unity of God and the\nimmortality of the soul. But this is only conjecture.\n\nBacchus is believed to have been originally an Indian god, naturalized in\nGreece, and his mysteries to be Indian in their character. The genial life\nof nature is the essential character of Bacchus. One of the names of the\nIndian Siva is Dionichi, which very nearly resembles the Greek name of\nBacchus, Dionysos. He was taken from the Meros, or thigh of Jupiter. Now\nMount Meru, in India, is the home of the gods; by a common etymological\nerror the Greeks may have thought it the Greek word for _thigh_, and so\ntranslated it.\n\nThe Bacchic worship, in its Thracian form, was always distasteful to the\nbest of the Greeks; it was suspected and disliked by the enlightened,\nproscribed by kings, and rejected by communities. It was an interpolated\nsystem, foreign to the cheerful nature of Greek thought.\n\nAs to the value of the mysteries themselves, there was a great difference\nof opinion among the Greeks. The people, the orators, and many of the\npoets praised them; but the philosophers either disapproved them openly,\nor passed them by in silence. Socrates says no word in their favor in all\nhis reported conversations. Plato complains of the immoral influence\nderived from believing that sin could be expiated by such ceremonies.[262]\nThey seem to have contained, in reality, little direct instruction, but to\nhave taught merely by a dramatic representation and symbolic pictures.\n\nWho Orpheus was, and when he lived, can never be known. But the\nprobabilities are that he brought from Egypt into Greece, what Moses took\nfrom Egypt into Palestine, the Egyptian ideas of culture, law, and\ncivilization. He reformed the Bacchic mysteries, giving them a more\nelevated and noble character, and for this he lost his life. No better\naccount of his work can be given than in the words of Lord Bacon.\n\n\n   \"The merits of learning,\" says he, \"in repressing the inconveniences\n   which grow from man to man, was lively set forth by the ancients in\n   that feigned relation of Orpheus' theatre, where all beasts and birds\n   assembled; and, forgetting their several appetites, some of prey, some\n   of game, some of quarrel, stood all sociably together, listening to the\n   airs and accords of the harp; the sound thereof no sooner ceased or was\n   drowned by some louder noise, but every beast returned to his own\n   nature; wherein is aptly described the nature and condition of men, who\n   are full of savage and unreclaimed desires of profit, of lust, of\n   revenge, which, as long as they give ear to precepts, to laws, to\n   religion, sweetly touched by eloquence and persuasion of books, of\n   sermons, of harangues, so long is society and peace maintained; but if\n   these instruments be silent, or that sedition and tumult make them not\n   audible, all things dissolve into anarchy and confusion.\"[263]\n\nOf the Orphic doctrines we are able to give a somewhat better account. As\nfar back as the sixth century before Christ, there were scattered through\nGreece hymns, lyrical poems, and prose treatises, treating of theological\nquestions, and called Orphic writings. These works continued to be\nproduced through many centuries, and evidently met an appetite in the\nGreek mind. They were not philosophy, they were not myths nor legends, but\ncontained a mystic and pantheistic theology.[264] The views of the\nPythagoreans entered largely into this system. The Orphic writings\ndevelop, by degrees, a system of cosmogony, in which Time was the first\nprinciple of things, from which came chaos and ether. Then came the\nprimitive egg, from which was born Phanes, or Manifestation. This being is\nthe expression of intelligence, and creates the heavens and the earth. The\nsoul is but the breath which comes from the whole universe, thus\norganized, and is imprisoned in the body as in a tomb, for sins committed\nin a former existence. Life is therefore not joy, but punishment and\nsorrow. At death the soul escapes from this prison, to pass through many\nchanges, by which it will be gradually purified. All these notions are\nalien to the Greek mind, and are plainly a foreign importation. The true\nGreek was neither pantheist nor introspective. He did not torment himself\nabout the origin of evil or the beginning of the universe, but took life\nas it came, cheerfully.\n\nThe pantheism of the Orphic theology is constantly apparent. Thus, in a\npoem preserved by Proclus and Eusebius it is said:[265]--\n\n    \"Zeus, the mighty thunderer, is first, Zeus is last,\n    Zeus is the head, Zeus the middle of all things.\n    From Zeus were all things produced. He is both man and woman;\n    Zeus is the depth of the earth, and the height of the starry heavens;\n    He is the breath of all things, the force of untamed fire;\n    The bottom of the sea; sun, moon, and stars;\n    Origin of all; king of all;\n    One Power, one God, one great Ruler.\"\n\nAnd another says, still more plainly:--\n\n    \"There is one royal body, in which all things are enclosed,\n    Fire and Water, Earth, Ether, Night and Day,\n    And Counsel, the first producer, and delightful Love,\n    For all these are contained in the great body of Zeus.\"\n\n\n\n\u00a7 9. Relation of Greek Religion to Christianity.\n\n\nOne of the greatest events in the history of man, as well as one of the\nmost picturesque situations, was when Paul stood on the Areopagus at\nAthens, carrying Christianity into Europe, offering a Semitic religion to\nan Aryan race, the culmination of monotheism to one of the most elaborate\nand magnificent polytheisms of the world. A strange and marvellous scene!\nFrom the place where he stood he saw all the grandest works of human\nart,--the Acropolis rose before him, a lofty precipitous rock, seeming\nlike a stone pedestal erected by nature as an appropriate platform for the\nperfect marble temples with which man should adorn it. On this noble base\nrose the Parthenon, temple of Minerva; and the temple of Neptune, with its\nsacred fountain. The olive-tree of Pallas-Ath\u00ean\u00ea was there, and her\ncolossal statue. On the plain below were the temples of Theseus and\nJupiter Olympus, and innumerable others. He stood where Socrates had stood\nfour hundred years before, defending himself against the charge of\natheism; where Demosthenes had pleaded in immortal strains of eloquence in\nbehalf of Hellenic freedom; where the most solemn and venerable court of\njustice known among men was wont to assemble. There he made the memorable\ndiscourse, a few fragments only of which have come to us in the Book of\nActs, but a sketch significant of his argument. He did not begin, as in\nour translation, by insulting the religion of the Greeks, and calling it\na superstition; but by praising them for their reverence and piety. Paul\nrespected all manifestations of awe and love toward those mysteries and\nglories of the universe, in which the invisible things of God have been\nclearly seen from the foundation of the world. Then he mentions his\nfinding the altar to the unknown God, mentioned also by Pausanias and\nother Greek writers, one of whom, Diogenes L\u00e6rtius, says that in a time of\nplague, not knowing to what god to appeal, they let loose a number of\nblack and white sheep, and whereever any one laid down they erected an\naltar to an unknown god, and offered sacrifices thereon. Then he announced\nas his central and main theme the Most High God, maker of heaven and\nearth, spiritual, not needing to receive anything from man, but giving him\nall things. Next, he proclaimed the doctrine of universal human\nbrotherhood. God had made all men of one blood; their varieties and\ndifferences, as well as their essential unity, being determined by a\nDivine Providence. But all were equally made to seek him, and in their\nvarious ways to find him, who is yet always near to all, since all are his\nchildren. God is immanent in all men, says Paul, as their life. Having\nthus stated the great unities of faith and points of agreement, he\nproceeds only in the next instance to the oppositions and criticisms; in\nwhich he opposes, not polytheism, but idolatry; though not blaming them\nseverely even for that. Lastly, he speaks of Jesus, as a man ordained by\nGod to judge the world and govern it in righteousness, and proved by his\nresurrection from the dead to be so chosen.\n\nHere we observe, in this speech, monotheism came in contact with\npolytheism, and the two forms of human religion met,--that which makes man\nthe child of God, and that which made the gods the children of men.\n\nThe result we know. The cry was heard on the sandy shore of Eurotas and in\ngreen Cythnus.--\"Great Pan is dead.\" The Greek humanities, noble and\nbeautiful as they were, faded away before the advancing steps of the\nJewish peasant, who had dared to call God his Father and man his brother.\nThe parables of the Prodigal Son and the Good Samaritan were stronger\nthan Homer's divine song and Pindar's lofty hymns. This was the religion\nfor man. And so it happened as Jesus had said: \"My sheep hear my voice and\nfollow me.\" Those who felt in their hearts that Jesus was their true\nleader followed him.\n\nThe gods of Greece, being purely human, were so far related to\nChristianity. That, too, is a human religion; a religion which makes it\nits object to unfold man, and to cause all to come to the stature of\nperfect men. Christianity also showed them God in the form of man; God\ndwelling on the earth; God manifest in the flesh. It also taught that the\nworld was full of God, and that all places and persons were instinct with\na secret divinity. Schiller (as translated by Coleridge) declares that\nLOVE was the source of these Greek creations:--\n\n                          \"'Tis not merely\n    The human being's pride that peoples space\n    With life and mystical predominance,\n    Since likewise for the stricken heart of Love\n    This visible nature, and this common world\n    Is all too narrow; yea, a deeper import\n    Lurks in the legend told my infant years\n    That lies upon that truth, we live to learn.\n    For fable is Love's world, his home, his birthplace;\n    Delightedly dwells he 'mong fays and talismans,\n    And spirits, and delightedly believes\n    Divinities, being himself divine.\n    The intelligible forms of ancient poets,\n    The fair humanities of Old Religion,\n    The Power, the Beauty, and the Majesty,\n    That had their haunts in dale or piny mountain,\n    Or forest by slow stream, or pebbly spring,\n    Or chasms or wat'ry depths;--all these have vanished.\n    They live no longer in the faith of Reason.\n    But still the heart doth need a language; still\n    Doth the old instinct bring back the old names.\"\n\n    _The Piccolomini_, Act II. Scene 4.\n\nAs a matter of fact we find the believers in the Greek religion more ready\nto receive Christianity than were the Jews. All through Asia Minor and\nGreece Christian churches were planted by Paul; a fact which shows that\nthe ground was somehow prepared for Christianity. It was ready for the\nmonotheism which Paul substituted for their multitude of gods, and for\ntheir idolatry and image-worship. The statues had ceased to be symbols,\nand the minds of the Greeks rested in the image itself. This idolatrous\nworship Paul condemned, and the people heard him willingly, as he called\nthem up to a more spiritual worship. We think, therefore, that the Greek\nreligion was a real preparation for Christianity. We have seen that it was\nitself in constant transition; the system of the poets passing into that\nof the artists, and that of the artists into that of the philosophers; so\nthat the philosophic religion, in turn, was ready to change into a\nChristian monotheism.\n\nIt may be said, since philosophy had undermined the old religion and\nsubstituted for it more noble ideas, why did it not take the seat of the\ndethroned faith, and sufficiently supply its place? If it taught a pure\nmonotheism and profound ethics, if it threw ample and adequate light on\nthe problem of God, duty, and immortality, what more was needed? If ideas\nare all that we want, nothing more. That Greek philosophy gave way before\nChristianity shows that it did not satisfy all the cravings of the soul;\nshows that man needs a religion as well as a religious philosophy, a faith\nas well as an intellectual system. A religion is one thing, a speculation\nis a very different thing. The old Greek religion, so long as it was a\nliving faith, was enough. When men really believed in the existence of\nOlympian Jove, Pallas-Ath\u00ean\u00ea, and Phoebus-Apollo, they had something above\nthem to which to look up. When this faith was disintegrated, no system of\nopinions, however pure and profound, could replace it. Another faith was\nneeded, but a faith not in conflict with the philosophy which had\ndestroyed polytheism; and Christianity met the want, and therefore became\nthe religion of the Greek-speaking world.\n\nReligion is a life, philosophy is thought; religion looks up, philosophy\nlooks in. We need both thought and life, and we need that the two shall be\nin harmony. The moment they come in conflict, both suffer. Philosophy had\ndestroyed the ancient simple faith of the Hellenic race in their deities,\nand had given them instead only the abstractions of thought. Then came\nthe Apostles of Christianity, teaching a religion in harmony with the\nhighest thought of the age, and yet preaching it out of a living faith.\nChristianity did not come as a speculation about the universe, but as a\ntestimony. Its heralds bore witness to the facts of God's presence and\nprovidence, of his fatherly love, of the brotherhood of man, of a rising\nto a higher life, of a universal judgment hereafter on all good and evil,\nand of Jesus as the inspired and ascended revealer of these truths. These\nfacts were accepted as realities; and once more the human mind had\nsomething above itself solid enough to support it.\n\nSome of the early Christian Fathers called on the heathen poets and\nphilosophers to bear witness to the truth. Clement of Alexandria[266]\nafter quoting this passage of Plato, \"around the king of all are all\nthings, and he is the cause of all good things,\" says that others, through\nGod's inspiration, have declared the only true God to be God. He quotes\nAntisthenes to this effect: \"God is not like to any; wherefore no one can\nknow him from an image.\" He quotes Cleanthes the Stoic:--\n\n    \"If you ask me what is the nature of the good, listen:\n    That which is regular, just, holy, pious,\n    Self-governing, useful, fair, fitting,\n    Grave, independent, always beneficial,\n    That feels no fear or grief; profitable, painless,\n    Helpful, pleasant, safe, friendly.\"\n\n\"Nor,\" says Clement, \"must we keep the Pythagoreans in the background, who\nsay, 'God is one; and he is not, as some suppose, outside of this frame of\nthings, but within it; in all the entireness of his being he pervades the\nwhole circle of existence, surveying all nature, and blending in\nharmonious union the whole; the author of his own forces and works, the\ngiver of light in heaven, and father of all; the mind and vital power of\nthe whole world, the mover of all things.'\"\n\nClement quotes Aratus the poet:--\n\n    \"That all may be secure\n    Him ever they propitiate first and last.\n    Hail, Father! great marvel, great gain to man.\"\n\n\"Thus also,\" says Clement, \"the Ascr\u00e6an Hesiod dimly speaks of God:--\n\n    'For he is the king of all, and monarch\n    Of the immortals, and there is none that can vie with him in power.'\n\n\"And Sophocles, the son of Sophilus, says:--\n\n    'One, in truth, one is God,\n    Who made both heaven and the far-stretching earth;\n    And ocean's blue wave, and the mighty winds;\n    But many of us mortals, deceived in heart,\n    Have set up for ourselves, as a consolation in our afflictions,\n    Images of the gods, of stone, or wood, or brass,\n    Or gold, or ivory;\n    And, appointing to these sacrifices and vain festivals,\n    Are accustomed thus to practise religion.'\n\n\"But the Thracian Orpheus, the son of Oeagrus, hierophant and poet, at\nonce, after his exposition of the orgies and his theology of idols,\nintroduces a palinode of truth with solemnity, though tardily singing the\nstrain:--\n\n    'I shall utter to whom it is lawful; but let the doors be closed,\n    Nevertheless, against all the profane. But do thou hear,\n    O Mus\u00e6us, for I will declare what is true.'\n\n\"He then proceeds:--\n\n    'He is one, self-proceeding; and from him alone all things proceed,\n    And in them he himself exerts his activity; no mortal\n    Beholds him, but he beholds all.'\"\n\nProfessor Cocker, in his work on \"Christianity and Greek Philosophy,\" has\ndevoted much thought to show that philosophy was a preparation for\nChristianity, and that Greek civilization was an essential condition to\nthe progress of the Gospel. He points out how Greek intelligence and\nculture, literature and art, trade and colonization, the universal spread\nof the Greek language, and especially the results of Greek philosophy,\nwere \"schoolmasters to bring men to Christ.\" He quotes a striking passage\nfrom Pressens\u00e9 to this effect. Philosophy in Greece, says Pressens\u00e9, had\nits place in the divine plan. It dethroned the false gods. It purified the\nidea of divinity.\n\nCocker sums up this work of preparation done by Greek philosophy, as\nseen,--\n\n\n   \"1. In the release of the popular mind from polytheistic notions, and\n   the purifying and spiritualizing of the theistic idea.\n\n   \"2. In the development of the theistic argument in a logical form.\n\n   \"3. In the awakening and enthronement of conscience as a law of duty,\n   and in the elevation and purification of the moral idea.\n\n   \"4. In the fact that, by an experiment conducted on the largest scale,\n   it demonstrated the insufficiency of reason to elaborate a perfect\n   ideal of moral excellence, and develop the moral forces necessary to\n   secure its realization.\n\n   \"5. It awakened and deepened the consciousness of guilt and the desire\n   for redemption.\"[267]\n\nThe large culture of Greece was evidently adapted to Christianity. The\nJewish mind recognized no such need as that of universal culture, and this\ntendency of Christianity could only have found room and opportunity among\nthose who had received the influence of Hellenic culture.\n\nThe points of contact between Christianity and Greek civilization are\ntherefore these:--\n\n1. The character of God, considered in both as an immanent, ever-working\npresence, and not merely as a creating and governing will outside the\nuniverse.\n\n2. The character of man, as capable of education and development, who is\nnot merely to obey as a servant, but to co-operate as a friend, with the\ndivine will, and grow up in all things.\n\n3. The idea of duty, as a reasonable service, and not a yoke.\n\n4. God's revelations, as coming, not only in nature, but also in inspired\nmen, and in the intuitions of the soul; a conception which resulted in the\nChristian doctrine of the Trinity.\n\nThe good of polytheism was that it saw something divine in nature. By\ndividing God into numberless deities, it was able to conceive of some\ndivine power in all earthly objects. Hence Wordsworth, complaining that\nwe can see little of this divinity now in nature, cries out:--\n\n            \"Good God! I'd rather be\n    A Pagan suckled in a creed outworn;\n    So might I, standing on this pleasant lea,\n    Have glimpses that would make me less forlorn;\n    Have sight of Proteus rising from the sea,\n    Or hear old Triton blow his wreath\u00e9d horn.\"\n\n\n\n\nChapter VIII.\n\nThe Religion of Rome.\n\n\n\n\n  \u00a7 1. Origin and essential Character of the Religion of Rome.\n  \u00a7 2. The Gods of Rome.\n  \u00a7 3. Worship and Ritual.\n  \u00a7 4. The Decay of the Roman Religion.\n  \u00a7 5. Relation of the Roman Religion to Christianity.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 1. Origin and essential Character of the Religion of Rome.\n\n\nIn the Roman state nothing grew, everything was made. The practical\nunderstanding was the despotic faculty in the genius of this people.\nFancy, imagination, humor, seem to have been omitted in the character of\nthe Latin race. The only form of wit which appeared among them was satire,\nthat is, wit used for a serious purpose, to punish crimes not amenable to\nother laws, to remove abuses not to be reached by the ordinary police. The\ngay, light-hearted Greek must have felt in Rome very much as a Frenchman\nfeels in England. The Romans did not know how to amuse themselves; they\npursued their recreations with ferocious earnestness, making always a\nlabor of their pleasure. They said, indeed, that it was well _sometimes_\nto unbend, _Dulce est desipere in locis_; but a Roman when unbent was like\nan unbent bow, almost as stiff as before.\n\nIn other words, all spontaneity was absent from the Roman mind. Everything\ndone was done on purpose, with a deliberate intention. This also appears\nin their religion. Their religion was not an inspiration, but an\nintention. It was all regular, precise, exact. The Roman cultus, like the\nRoman state, was a compact mass, in which all varieties were merged into a\nstern unity. All forms of religion might come to Rome and take their\nplaces in its pantheon, but they must come as servants and soldiers of\nthe state. Rome opened a hospitable asylum to them, just as Rome had\nestablished a refuge on the Capitoline Hill to which all outlaws might\ncome and be safe, on the condition of serving the community.\n\nAs everything in Rome must serve the state, so the religion of Rome was a\nstate institution, an established church. But as the state can only\ncommand and forbid outward actions, and has no control over the heart, so\nthe religion of Rome was essentially external. It was a system of worship,\na ritual, a ceremony. If the externals were properly attended to, it took\nno notice of opinions or of sentiments. Thus we find in Cicero (\"De Natura\nDeorum\") the chief pontiff arguing against the existence of the gods and\nthe use of divination. He claims to believe in religion as a pontifex,\nwhile he argues against it as a philosopher. The toleration of Rome\nconsisted in this, that as long as there was outward conformity to\nprescribed observances, it troubled itself very little about opinions. It\nsaid to all religions what Gallio said to the Jews: \"If it be a question\nof words and names and of your law, look ye to it; for I will be no judge\nof such matters.\" Gallio was a genuine representative of Roman sentiment.\nWith religion, as long as it remained within the limits of opinion or\nfeeling, the magistrate had nothing to do; only when it became an act of\ndisobedience to the public law it was to be punished. Indeed, the very\nrespect for national law in the Roman mind caused it to legalize in Rome\nthe worship of national gods. They considered it the duty of the Jews, in\nRome, to worship the Jewish God; of Egyptians, in Rome, to worship the\ngods of Egypt. \"Men of a thousand nations,\" says Dionysius of\nHalicarnassus, \"come to the city, and must worship the gods of their\ncountry, according to their laws at home.\" As long as the Christians in\nRome were regarded as a Jewish sect, their faith was a _religio licita_,\nwhen it was understood to be a departure from Judaism, it was then a\ncriminal rebellion against a national faith[268].\n\nThe Roman religion has often been considered as a mere copy of that of\nGreece, and has therefore been confounded with it, as very nearly the same\nsystem. No doubt the Romans were imitators; they had no creative\nimagination. They borrowed and begged their stories about the gods, from\nGreece or elsewhere. But Hegel has long ago remarked that the resemblance\nbetween the two religions is superficial. The gods of Rome, he says, are\npractical gods, not theoretic; prosaic, not poetic. The religion of Rome\nis serious and earnest, while that of Greece is gay. Dionysius of\nHalicarnassus thinks the Roman religion the better of the two, because it\nrejected the blasphemous myths concerning the loves and quarrels of the\nheavenly powers. But, on the other hand, the deities of Greece were more\nliving and real persons, with characters of their own. The deities of Rome\nwere working gods, who had each a task assigned to him. They all had some\nofficial duty to perform; while the gods of Olympus could amuse themselves\nas they pleased. While the Zeus of Greece spent his time in adventures,\nmany of which were disreputable, the Jupiter Capitolinus remained at home,\nattending to his sole business, which was to make Rome the mistress of the\nworld. The gods of Rome, says Hegel, are not human beings, like those of\nGreece, but soulless machines, gods made by the understanding, even when\nborrowed from Greek story. They were worshipped also in the interest of\nthe practical understanding, as givers of earthly fortune. The Romans had\nno real reverence for their gods; they worshipped them in no spirit of\nadoring love, but always for some useful object. It was a utilitarian\nworship. Accordingly the practical faculties, engaged in useful arts, were\ndeified. There was a Jupiter Pistor, presiding over bakers. There was a\ngoddess of ovens; and a Juno Moneta, who took care of the coin. There was\na goddess who presided over doing nothing, Tranquillitas Vacuna; and even\nthe plague had an altar erected to it. But, after all, no deities were so\ngreat, in the opinion of the Romans, as Rome itself. The chief distinction\nof these deities was that they belonged to the Roman state[269].\n\nCicero considers the Romans to be the most religious of all nations,\nbecause they carried their religion into all the details of life. This is\ntrue; but one might as well consider himself a devout worshipper of iron\nor of wood, because he is always using these materials, in doors and out,\nin his parlor, kitchen, and stable.\n\nAs the religion of Rome had no doctrinal system, its truths were\ncommunicated mostly by spectacles and ceremonies, which chiefly consisted\nin the wholesale slaughter of men and animals. There was something\nfrightful in the extent to which this was carried; for when cruelty\nproceeds from a principle and purpose, it is far worse than when arising\nfrom brutal passion. An angry man may beat his wife; but the deliberate,\nrepeated, and ingenious torments of the Inquisition, the massacre of\nthousands of gladiators in a Roman amphitheatre, or the torture of\nprisoners by the North American Indians, are all parts of a system, and\nreinforced by considerations of propriety, duty, and religious reverence.\n\nMommsen remarks[270], that the Roman religion in all its details was a\nreflection of the Roman state. When the constitution and institutions of\nRome changed, their religion changed with them. One illustration of this\ncorrespondence he finds in the fact that when the Romans admitted the\npeople of a conquered state to become citizens of Rome, their gods were\nadmitted with them; but in both cases the new citizens _(novensides_)\noccupied a subordinate position to the old settlers _(indigites[271]_).\n\nThat the races of Italy, among whom the Latin language originated, were of\nthe same great Asiatic stock as the Greeks, Germans, Kelts, and Slavic\ntribes, is sufficiently proved by the unimpeachable evidence of language.\nThe old Latin roots and grammatic forms all retain the analogies of the\nAryan families. Their gods and their religion bear marks of the same\norigin, yet with a special and marked development. For the Roman nation\nwas derived from at least three secondary sources,--the Latins, Sabines,\nand Etruscans. To these may be added the Pelasgian settlers on the western\ncoast (unless these are included in the Etruscan element), and the very\nancient race of Siculi or Sikels, whose name suggests, by its phonetic\nanalogy, a branch of that widely wandering race, the Kelts[272]. But the\nobscure and confused traditions of these Italian races help us very little\nin our present inquiry. That some of the oldest Roman deities were Latin,\nothers Sabine, and others Etruscan, is, however, well ascertained. From\nthe Latin towns Alba and Lavinium came the worship of Vesta, Jupiter,\nJuno, Saturn and Tellus, Diana and Mars. Niebuhr thinks that the Sabine\nritual was adopted by the Romans, and that Varro found the real remains of\nSabine chapels on the Quirinal. From Etruria came the system of\ndivination. Some of the oldest portions of the Roman religion were derived\nfrom agriculture. The god Saturn took his name from sowing. Picus and\nFaunus were agricultural gods. Pales, the goddess of herbage, had\nofferings of milk on her festivals. The Romans, says D\u00f6llinger, had no\ncosmogony of their own; a practical people, they took the world as they\nfound it, and did not trouble themselves about its origin. Nor had they\nany favorite deities; they worshipped according to what was proper, every\none in turn at the right time. Though the most polytheistic of religions,\nthere ran through their system an obscure conception of one supreme being,\nJupiter Optimus-Maximus, of whom all the other deities were but qualities\nand attributes. But they carried furthest of all nations this\npersonifying and deifying of every separate power, this minute subdivision\nof the deity. Heffter[273] says this was carried to an extent which was\nalmost comic. They had divinities who presided over talkativeness and\nsilence, over beginnings and endings, over the manuring of the fields, and\nover all household transactions. And as the number increased, it became\nalways more difficult to recollect which was the right god to appeal to\nunder any special circumstances. So that often they were obliged to call\non the gods in general, and, dismissing the whole polytheistic pantheon,\nto invoke some unknown god, or the supreme being. Sometimes, however, in\nthese emergencies, new deities were created for the occasion. Thus they\ncame to invoke the pestilence, defeat in battle, blight, etc., as\ndangerous beings whose hostility must be placated by sacrifices. A better\npart of their mythology was the worship of Modesty (Pudicitia), Faith or\nFidelity (Fides), Concord (Concordia), and the gods of home. It was the\nbusiness of the pontiffs to see to the creation of new divinities. So the\nRomans had a goddess Pecunia, money (from Pecus, cattle), dating from the\ntime when the circulating medium consisted in cows and sheep. But when\ncopper money came, a god of copper was added, \u00c6sculanus; and when silver\nmoney was invented, a god Argentarius arrived.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. The Gods of Rome.\n\n\nCreuzer, in speaking of the Italian worship, says that \"one fact which\nemerges more prominently than any other is the concourse of Oriental,\nPelasgic, Samothracian, and Hellenic elements in the religion of Rome.\" In\nlike manner the Roman deities bear traces of very different sources. We\nhave found reason to believe, in our previous chapters, that the religion\nof Egypt had a twofold origin, from Asiatic and African elements, and that\nthe religion of Greece, in like manner, was derived from Egyptian and\nPelasgic sources. So, too, we find the institutions and people of Rome\npartaking of a Keltic and Pelasgic origin. Let us now see what was the\ncharacter of the Roman deities.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nOne of the oldest and also most original of the gods of Rome was the\nSabine god JANUS. He was the deity who presided over beginnings and\nendings, over the act of opening and shutting. Hence the month which\nopened the year, January, received its name from this god, who also gave\nhis name to Janua, a gate or door[274], and probably to the hill\nJaniculum[275].\n\nThe Romans laid great stress on all beginnings; believing that the\ncommencement of any course of conduct determined, by a sort of magical\nnecessity, its results. Bad success in an enterprise they attributed to a\nwrong beginning, and the only remedy, therefore, was to begin anew. Ovid\n(Fasti, I. 179) makes Janus say, \"All depends on the beginning.\" When\nother gods were worshipped, Janus was invoked first of all. He was god of\nthe year. His temple had four sides for the four seasons, and each side\nhad three windows for the months. That his temple was open in war, but\nclosed in peace, indicated that the character of Rome in times of war was\nto attack and not to defend. She then opened her gates to send her troops\nforth against the enemy; while in seasons of peace she shut them in at\nhome. This symbol accords well with the haughty courage of the Republic,\nwhich commanded victory, by not admitting the possibility of defeat[276].\n\nThis deity is believed by Creuzer and others to have had an Indian origin,\nand his name to have been derived from the Sanskrit \"Jan,\" _to be born_.\nHe resembles no Greek god, and very probably travelled all the way from\nBactria to Rome.\n\nOn the Kalends of January, which was the chief feast of Janus, it was the\nduty of every Roman citizen to be careful that all he thought, said, or\ndid should be pure and true, because this day determined the character of\nthe year. All dressed themselves in holiday garb, avoided oaths, abusive\nwords, and quarrels, gave presents, and wished each other a happy year.\nThe presents were little coins with a Janus-head, and sweetmeats. It was\ncustomary to sacrifice to Janus at the beginning of all important\nbusiness.\n\nJanus was the great god of the Sabines, and his most ancient temple\nappears to have been on Mount Janiculum[277]. The altar of Fontus, son of\nJanus, and the tomb of Numa, a Sabine king, were both supposed to be\nthere. Ovid also[278] makes Janus say that the Janiculum was his citadel.\nAmp\u00e8re remarks as a curious coincidence, that this god, represented with a\nkey in his hand, as the heavenly gate-keeper, should have his home on the\nhill close to the Vatican, where is the tomb of Peter, who also bears a\nkey with the same significance. The same writer regards the Sabines as\ninhabiting the hills of Rome before the Pelasgi came and gave this name of\nRoma (meaning \"strength\") to their small fortress on one side of the\nPalatine.\n\nIn every important city of Etruria there were temples to the three gods,\nJUPITER, JUNO, and MINERVA. In like manner, the magnificent temple of the\nCapitol at Rome consisted of three parts,--a nave, sacred to Jupiter; and\ntwo wings or aisles, one dedicated to Juno and the other to Minerva. This\ntemple was nearly square, being two hundred and fifteen feet long and two\nhundred feet wide; and the wealth accumulated in it was immense. The walls\nand roof were of marble, covered with gold and silver.\n\nJUPITER, the chief god of Rome, according to most philologists, derives\nhis name (like the Greek \u0396\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2) from the far-away Sanskrit word \"Div\" or\n\"Diu,\" indicating the splendor of heaven or of day. Ju-piter is from\n\"Djaus-Pitar,\" which is the Sanskrit for _Father of Heaven_, or else from\n\"Diu-pitar,\" _Father of Light_. He is, at all events, the equivalent of\nthe Olympian Zeus. He carries the lightning, and, under many appellations,\nis the supreme god of the skies. Many temples were erected to him in Rome,\nunder various designations. He was called Pluvius, Fulgurator, Tonans,\nFulminator, Imbricitor, Serenator,--from the substantives designating\nrain, lightning, thunder, and the serene sky. Anything struck with\nlightning became sacred, and was consecrated to Jupiter. As the supreme\nbeing he was called Optimus Maximus, also Imperator, Victor, Invictus,\nStator, Pr\u00e6dator, Triumphator, and Urbis Custos. And temples or shrines\nwere erected to him under all these names, as the head of the armies, and\ncommander-in-chief of the legions; as Conqueror, as Invincible, as the\nTurner of Flight, as the God of Booty, and as the Guardian of the City.\nThere is said to have been in Rome three hundred Jupiters, which must mean\nthat Jupiter was worshipped under three hundred different attributes.\nAnother name of this god was Elicius, from the belief that a method\nexisted of eliciting or drawing down the lightning; which belief probably\narose from an accidental anticipation of Dr. Franklin's famous experiment.\nThere were no such myths told about Jupiter as concerning the Greek Zeus.\nThe Latin deity was a much more solemn person, his whole time occupied\nwith the care of the city and state. But traces of his origin as a ruler\nof the atmosphere remained rooted in language; and the Romans, in the time\nof Augustus, spoke familiarly of \"a cold Jupiter,\" for a cold sky, and of\na \"bad Jupiter,\" for stormy weather.\n\nThe Juno of the Capitol was the Queen of Heaven, and in this sense was the\nfemale Jupiter. But Juno was also the goddess of womanhood, and had the\nepithets of Virginensis, Matrona, and Opigena; that is, the friend of\nvirgins, of matrons, and the daughter of help. Her chief festival was the\nMatronalia, on the first of March, hence called the \"Women's Kalends.\" On\nthis day presents were given to women by their husbands and friends. Juno\nwas the patroness of marriage, and her month of June was believed to be\nvery favorable for wedlock. As Juno Lucina she presided over birth; as\nMater Matuta,[279] over children; as Juno Moneta, over the mint.\n\nThe name of Minerva, the Roman Ath\u00ean\u00ea, is said to be derived from an old\nEtruscan word signifying mental action.[280] In the songs of the Sabians\nthe word \"promenervet\" is used for \"monet.\" The first syllable evidently\ncontains the root, which in all Aryan languages implies thought. The\nTrinity of the Capitol, therefore, united Power, Wisdom, and Affection, as\nJupiter, Minerva, and Juno. The statue of Minerva was placed in schools.\nShe had many temples and festivals, and one of the former was dedicated to\nher as Minerva Medica.\n\nThe Roman pantheon contained three classes of gods and goddesses. First,\nthe old Italian divinities, Etruscan, Latin, and Sabine, naturalized and\nadopted by the state. Secondly, the pale abstractions of the\nunderstanding, invented by the College of Pontiffs for moral and political\npurposes. And thirdly, the gods of Greece, imported, with a change of\nname, by the literary admirers and imitators of Hellas.\n\nThe genuine deities of the Roman religion were all of the first order.\nSome of them, like Janus, Vertumnus, Faunus, Vesta, retained their\noriginal character; others were deliberately confounded with some Greek\ndeity. Thus Venus, an old Latin or Sabine goddess to whom Titus Tatius\nerected a temple as Venus Cloacina, and Servius Tullius another as Venus\nLibertina,[281] was afterward transformed into the Greek Aphrodit\u00ea,\ngoddess of love. If it be true, as is asserted by N\u00e6vius and Plautus, that\nshe was the goddess of gardens, as Venus Hortensis and Venus Fruti, then\nshe may have been originally the female Vertumnus. So Diana was originally\nDiva Jana, and was simply the female Janus, until she was transformed into\nthe Greek Artemis.\n\nThe second class of Roman divinities were those manufactured by the\npontiffs for utilitarian purposes,--almost the only instance in the\nhistory of religion of such a deliberate piece of god-making. The purpose\nof the pontiffs was excellent; but the result, naturally, was small. The\nworship of such abstractions as Hope (Spes), Fear (Pallor), Concord\n(Concordia), Courage (Virtus), Justice (\u00c6quitas), Clemency (Clementia),\ncould have little influence, since it must have been apparent to the\nworshipper himself that these were not real beings, but only his own\nconceptions, thrown heavenward.\n\nThe third class of deities were those adopted from Greece. New deities,\nlike Apollo, were imported, and the old ones Hellenized. The Romans had no\nstatues of their gods in early times; this custom they learned from\nGreece. \"A full river of influence,\" says Cicero, \"and not a little brook,\nhas flowed into Rome out of Greece[282].\" They sent to Delphi to inquire\nof the Greek oracle. In a few decades, says Hartung, the Roman religion\nwas wholly transformed by this Greek influence; and that happened while\nthe senate and priests were taking the utmost care that not an iota of the\nold ceremonies should be altered. Meantime the object was to identify the\nobjects of worship in other countries with those worshipped at home. This\nwas done in an arbitrary and superficial way, and caused great confusion\nin the mythologies[283]. Accidental resemblances, slight coincidences of\nnames, were sufficient for the identification of two gods. As long as the\nservice of the temple was unaltered, the priests troubled themselves very\nlittle about such changes. In this way, the twelve gods of Olympus--Zeus,\nPoseid\u00f4n, Apollo, Ar\u00eas, H\u00eaph\u00e6stos, Hermes, H\u00ear\u00ea, Ath\u00ean\u00ea, Artemis,\nAphrodit\u00ea, Hestia, and D\u00eam\u00eat\u00ear--were naturalized or identified as Jupiter,\nNeptune, Apollo, Mars, Vulcan, Mercury, Juno, Minerva, Diana, Venus,\nVesta, and Ceres, Dionysos became Liber or Bacchus; Persephon\u00ea,\nProserpina; and the Muses were accepted as the Greeks had imagined them.\n\nTo find the true Roman worship, therefore, we must divest their deities of\nthese Greek habiliments, and go back to their original Etruscan or Latin\ncharacters.\n\nAmong the Etruscans we find one doctrine unknown to the Greeks and not\nadopted by the Romans; that, namely, of the higher \"veiled deities,\"[284]\nsuperior to Jupiter. They also had a dodecad of six male and six female\ndeities, the Consentes and Complices, making a council of gods, whom\nJupiter consulted in important cases. Vertumnus was an Etruscan; so,\naccording to Ottfried M\u00fcller, was the Genius. So are the Lares, or\nhousehold protectors, and Charun, or Charon, a power of the under-world.\nThe minute system of worship was derived by Rome from Etruria. The whole\nsystem of omens, especially by lightning, came from the same source.\n\nAfter Janus, and three Capitoline gods (Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva), above\nmentioned, the Romans worshipped a series of deities who may be classed as\nfollows:--\n\n\nI. Gods representing the powers of nature:--\n\n1. SOL, the Sun. A Sabine deity. In later times the poets attributed to\nhim all the characters of Helios; but as a Roman god, he never emerged\ninto his own daylight.\n\n2. LUNA, the Moon. Also regarded as of Sabine origin.\n\n3. MATER MATUTA. Mother of Day, that is, the dawn. Worshipped at the\nMatronalia in June, as the possessor of all motherly qualities, and\nespecially as the protector of children from ill-treatment. As the storms\nwere apt to go down at morning, she was appealed to to protect mariners\nfrom shipwreck. The consul Tib. Semp. Gracchus dedicated a temple to her\nB.C. 176.\n\n4. TEMPESTATES, the tempests. A temple was dedicated to the storms, B.C.\n259.\n\n5. VULCANUS. This name is supposed to be from the same root as \"fulgeo,\"\n_to shine_. He was an old Italian deity. His temple is mentioned as\nexisting B.C. 491.\n\n6. FONTUS, the god of fountains. The Romans valued water so highly, that\nthey erected altars and temples to this divinity, and had a feast of\nfountains (Fontinalia) on October 13th. There were also goddesses of\nfountains, as Lynapha Juturna, the goddess of mineral springs. Egeria is\nthe only nymph of a fountain mentioned in Roman mythology.\n\n7. DIVUS PATER TIBERINUS, or Father Tiber, was of course the chief river\ngod. The augurs called him Coluber, the snake, from his meandering and\nbending current.\n\n8. NEPTUNUS. The origin of this word has been a great puzzle to the\nlearned, who, however, connect it with nebula, a cloud, as the clouds come\nfrom the sea. He had his temple and his festivals at Rome.\n\nOther deities connected with the powers of nature were PORTUNUS, the god\nof harbors; SALACIA, a goddess of the salt sea; TRANQUILLITAS, the goddess\nof calm weather.\n\n\nII. Gods of human relations:--\n\n1. VESTA, an ancient Latin goddess, and one of the oldest and most\nrevered. She was the queen of the hearth and of the household fire. She\nwas also the protector of the house, associated with the Lares and\nPenates. Some offering was due to her at every meal. She sanctified the\nhome.\n\nAfterward, when all Rome became one vast family, Vesta became the goddess\nof this public home, and her temple was the fireside of the city, in which\nburned always the sacred fire, watched by the vestal virgins. In this\nworship, and its associations, we find the best side of Roman\nmanners,--the love of home, the respect for family life, the hatred of\nimpurity and immodesty. She was also called \"the mother,\" and qualified as\nMater Stata, that is, the immovable mother.\n\n2. The PENATES and LARES. These deities were also peculiarly Roman. The\nLar, or Lares, were supposed to be the souls of ancestors which resided in\nthe home and guarded it. Their images were kept in an oratory or domestic\nchapel, called a Lararium, and were crowned by the master of the house to\nmake them propitious. The paterfamilias conducted all the domestic worship\nof the household, whether of prayers or sacrifices, according to the maxim\nof Cato, \"Scito dominum pro tota familia rem divinam facere[285].\" The\nPenates were beings of a higher order than the Lares, but having much the\nsame offices. Their name was from the words denoting the interior of the\nmansion (Penetralia, Penitus). They took part in all the joys and sorrows\nof the family. To go home was \"to return to one's Penates.\" In the same\nway, \"Lar meus\" meant \"my house \"; \"Lar conductus,\" \"a hired house \";\n\"Larem mutare\" meant to change one's house. Thus the Roman in his home\nfelt himself surrounded by invisible friends and guardians. No other\nnation, except the Chinese, have carried this religion of home so far.\nThis is the tender side of the stern Roman character. Very little of\npathos or sentiment appears in Roman poetry, but the lines by Catullus to\nhis home are as tender as anything in modern literature. The little\npeninsula of Sirmio on the Lago di Garda has been glorified by these few\nwords.\n\n3. The GENIUS. The worship of the genius of a person or place was also\npeculiarly Italian. Each man had his genius, from whom his living power\nand vital force came. Tertullian speaks of the genius of places. On coins\nare found the Genius of Rome. Almost everything had its genius,--nations,\ncolonies, princes, the senate, sleep, the theatre. The marriage-bed is\ncalled genial, because guarded by a genius. All this reminds us of the\nFravashi of the Avesta and of the Persian monuments. Yet the Genius also\ntakes his place among the highest gods.\n\n\nIII. Deities of the human soul:--\n\n1. MENS, Mind, Intellect.\n\n2. PUDICITIA, Chastity.\n\n3. PIETAS, Piety, Reverence for Parents.\n\n4 FIDES, Fidelity.\n\n5. CONCORDIA, Concord.\n\n6. VIRTUS, Courage.\n\n7. SPES, Hope.\n\n8. PALLOR or PAVOR, Fear.\n\n9. VOLUPTAS, Pleasure.\n\n\nIV. Deities of rural and other occupations:--\n\n1. TELLUS, the Earth.\n\n2. SATURNUS, Saturn. The root of this name is SAO = SERO, _to sow_. Saturn\nis the god of planting and sowing.\n\n3. OPS, goddess of the harvest.\n\n4. MARS. Originally an agricultural god, dangerous to crops; afterwards\ngod of war.\n\n5. SILVANUS, the wood god.\n\n6. FAUNUS, an old Italian deity, the patron of agriculture.\n\n7. TERMINUS, an old Italian deity, the guardian of limits and boundaries.\n\n8. CERES, goddess of the cereal grasses.\n\n9. LIBER, god of the vine, and of wine.\n\n10. BONA DEA, the good goddess. The worship of the good goddess was\nimported from Greece in later times; and perhaps its basis was the worship\nof D\u00eam\u00eat\u00ear. The temple of the good goddess was on Mount Aventine. At her\nfeast on the 1st of May all suggestions of the male sex were banished from\nthe house; no wine must be drunk; the myrtle, as a symbol of love, was\nremoved. The idea of the feast was of a chaste marriage, as helping to\npreserve the human race.\n\n11. MAGNA MATER, or Cybele. This was a foreign worship, but early\nintroduced at Rome.\n\n12. FLORA. She was an original goddess of Italy, presiding over flowers\nand blossoms. Great license was practised at her worship.\n\n13. VERTUMNUS, the god of gardens, was an old Italian deity, existing\nbefore the foundation of Rome.\n\n14. POMONA, goddess of the harvest.\n\n18. PALES. A rural god, protecting cattle. At his feast men and cattle\nwere purified.\n\nThe Romans had many other deities, whose worship was more or less\npopular. But those now mentioned were the principal ones. This list shows\nthat the powers of earth were more objects of reverence than the heavenly\nbodies. The sun and stars attracted this agricultural people less than the\nspring and summer, seedtime and harvest. Among the Italians the country\nwas before the city, and Rome was founded by country people.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. Worship and Ritual.\n\n\nThe Roman ceremonial worship was very elaborate and minute, applying to\nevery part of daily life. It consisted in sacrifices, prayers, festivals,\nand the investigation by augurs and haruspices of the will of the gods and\nthe course of future events. The Romans accounted themselves an\nexceedingly religious people, because their religion was so intimately\nconnected with the affairs of home and state.\n\nThe Romans distinguished carefully between things sacred and profane. This\nword \"profane\" comes from the root \"fari,\" _to speak_; because the gods\nwere supposed to speak to men by symbolic events. A _fane_ is a place thus\nconsecrated by some divine event; a _profane_ place, one not\nconsecrated.[286] But that which man dedicates to the gods (_dedicat_ or\n_dicat_) is sacred, or consecrated.[287] Every place which was to be\ndedicated was first \"liberated\" by the augur from common uses; then\n\"consecrated\" to divine uses by the pontiff. A \"temple\" is a place thus\nseparated, or cut off from other places; for the root of this word, like\nthat of \"tempus\" (time) is the same as the Greek \u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03c9, _to cut_.\n\nThe Roman year was full of festivals (_feri\u00e6_) set apart for religious\nuses. It was declared by the pontiffs a sin to do any common work on these\ndays, but works of necessity were allowed. These festivals were for\nparticular gods, in honor of great events in the history of Rome, or of\nrural occurrences, days of purification and atonement, family feasts, or\nfeasts in honor of the dead. The old Roman calendar[288] was as carefully\narranged as that of modern Rome. The day began at midnight. The following\nis a view of the Roman year in its relation to festivals:--\n\n\n_January_.\n\n   1. Feast of _Janus_, the god of beginnings.\n   9. _Agonalia_.\n  11. _Carmentalia_. In honor of the nymph Carmenta, a woman's\n        festival.\n  16. Dedication of the _Temple of Concord_.\n  31. Feast of the _Penates_.\n\n\n_February_.\n\n   1. Feast of _Juno Sospita_, the Savior: an old goddess.\n  13. _Faunalia_, dedicated to Faunus and the rural gods.\n  15. _Lupercalia_. Feast of fruitfulness.\n  17. _Fornacalia_. Feast of the oven goddess Fornax.\n  18 to 28. The _Februatio_, or feast of purification and atonement,\n        and the _Feralia_, or feast of the dead. Februus was an old\n        Etrurian god of the under-world. Also, the _Charistia_, a family\n        festival for putting an end to quarrels among relations.\n  23. Feast of _Terminus_, god of boundaries. Boundary-stones anointed\n        and crowned.\n\n\n_March_.\n\n   1. Feast of _Mars_. Also, the _Matronalia_. The Salii, priests\n        of Mars, go their rounds, singing old hymns.\n   6. Feast of _Vesta_.\n   7. Feast of _Vejovis_ or _Vedius_, i.e. the boy Jupiter.\n  14. _Equiria_, or horse-races in honor of Mars.\n  15. Feast of _Anna-Perenna_, goddess of health.\n  17. _Liberalia_, Feast of Bacchus. Young men invested with the\n        Toga-Virilis on this day.\n  19 to 23. Feast of _Minerva_, for five days. Offerings made to her\n        by all mechanics, artists, and scholars.\n\n\n_April_.\n\n   1. Feast of _Venus_, to whom the month is sacred.\n   4. _Megalesia_. Feast of Cybele and Altys. It lasted six days, and\n        was the Roman analogue of the feast of Ceres in Greece and of Isis\n        in Egypt.\n  12. _Cerealia_. Feast of Ceres. Games in the circus.\n  15. _Fordicicia_. Feast of cows.\n  21. _Palililia_. Feast of Pales, and of the founding of Rome.\n  23. _Vinalia_. Feast of new wine.\n  25. _Robigalia_. Feast of the goddess of blight, Robigo.\n  28. _Floralia_. Feast of the goddess Flora; very licentious.\n\n_May_.\n\n   1. Feast of the _Bona Dea_, the good goddess; otherwise Maia, Ops,\n        Tellus, or the Earth. This was the feast held by women secretly in\n        the house of the pontiff.\n   9. _Lemuralia_. Feast of the departed spirits or ghosts.\n  12. Games to _Mars_.\n  23. _Tubilustria_, to consecrate wind instruments.\n\n_June_.\n\n   1. Feast of _Carna_, goddess of the internal organs of the body,\n        and of _Juno Moneta_.\n   4. Feast of _Bellona_.\n   5. Feast of _Deus Fidius_.\n   7 to 15. Feast of _Vesta_.\n  19. _Matralia_. Feast of Mater Matuta.\n\nOther lesser festivals in this month to _Summanus, Fortuna, Fortis,\nJupiter Stator_, etc.\n\n\n_July_.\n\n   1. Day devoted to changing residences, like the 1st of May in New York.\n   4. _Fortuna Muliebris_.\n   5. _Populifuga_. In memory of the people's flight, on some\n        occasion, afterward forgotten.\n   7. Feast of _Juno Caprotina_.\n  15. Feast of _Castor and Pollux_.\n\nOther festivals in this month were the _Lucaria, Neptunalia_, and\n_Furinalia_.\n\n\n_August_.\n\n   1. Games to _Mars_.\n  17. Feast of the god _Portumnus_.\n  18. _Consualia_, feast of Consus. Rape of the Sabines.\n  23. _Vulcanalia_, to avert fires.\n  25. _Opeconsivia_. Feast of Ops Consiva.\n\n\n_September_.\n\nThe chief feasts in this month were the games (_Ludi Magni_ or _Romani_)\nin honor of Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva.\n\n\n_October_.\n\n  13. _Fontinalia_. Feast of fountains, when the springs were strewed\n        with flowers.\n  15. Sacrifice of a horse to _Mars_.\n\nThe feasts in November are unimportant.\n\n\n_December_.\n\n   5. _Faunalia_, in honor of Faunus.\n  19. _Saturnalia_, sacred to Saturn. A Roman thanksgiving for the\n        harvest. It lasted seven days, during which the slaves had their\n        liberty, in memory of the age of Saturn, when all were equal. The\n        rich kept open table to all comers, and themselves waited on the\n        slaves. Presents were interchanged, schools were closed. The Senate\n        did not sit.\n\nThus religion everywhere met the public life of the Roman by its\nfestivals, and laid an equal yoke on his private life by its requisition\nof sacrifices, prayers, and auguries. All pursuits must be conducted\naccording to a system, carefully laid down by the College of Pontiffs.\nSacrifices and prayers of one or another kind were demanded during most of\nthe occasions of life. Hidden in our word \"inaugurate\" is the record of\nthe fact that nothing could be properly begun without the assistance of\nthe augurs. Sacrifices of lustration and expiation were very common, not\nso much for moral offences as for ceremonial mistakes. The doctrine of the\n_opus operatum_ was supreme in Roman religion. The intention was of little\nimportance; the question was whether the ceremony had been performed\nexactly in accordance with rule. If not, it must be done again. Sometimes\nfifty or a hundred victims were killed before the priestly etiquette was\ncontented. Sometimes magistrates must resign because the college of augurs\nsuspected some informality in the ceremonies of their election. Laws were\nannulled and judicial proceedings revoked for the same reason. If the\naugurs declared the signs unfavorable, a public meeting must be adjourned\nand no business done. A single mistake in the form of a prayer would make\nit ineffectual. If a man went out to walk, there was a form to be recited;\nif he mounted his chariot, another. All these religious acts were of the\nnature of _charms_, which acted on the gods by an inherent power, and\ncompelled them to be favorable, whatever their own wishes might be. The\ngods were, therefore, as much the slaves of external mechanical laws as\nthe Romans themselves. In reality, the supreme god of Rome was law, in the\nform of rule. But these rules afterward expanded, as the Roman\ncivilization increased, into a more generous jurisprudence. Regularity\nbroadened into justice.[289] But for a long period the whole of the Roman\norganic law was a system of hard external method. And the rise of law as\njustice and reason was the decline of religion as mere prescription and\nrule. This one change is the key to the dissolution of the Roman system of\nreligious practices.\n\nThe seat of Roman worship in the oldest times was the Regia in the Via\nSacra, near the Forum. This was the house of the chief pontiff, and here\nthe sacrifices were performed[290] by the Rex Sacrorum. Near by was the\ntemple of Vesta. The Palatine Hill was regarded as the home of the Latin\ngods, while the Quirinal was that of the Sabine deities. But the Penates\nof Rome remained at Lavinium, the old metropolis of the Latin\nConfederation, and mother of the later city. Every one of the highest\nofficers of Rome was obliged to go and sacrifice to the ancient gods, at\nthis mother city of Lavinium, before entering on his office.\n\nThe old worship of Rome was free from idolatry. Jupiter, Juno, Janus, Ops,\nVesta, were not represented by idols. This feature was subsequently\nimported by means of Hellenic influences coming through Cuma and other\ncities of Magna Gr\u00e6cia. By the same channels came the Sibylline books.\nThere were ten Sibyls,--the Persian, Libyan, Delphian, Cum\u00e6an, Erythr\u00e6an,\nSamian, Amalth\u00e6an, Hellespontine, Phrygian, and Tiburtine. The Sibylline\nbooks authorized or commanded the worship of various Greek gods; they were\nintrusted to the Decemviri.\n\nRoman worship was at first administered by certain patrician families, and\nthis was continued till B.C. 300, when plebeians were allowed to enter the\nsacred colleges. A plebeian became Pontifex Maximus, for the first time,\nB.C. 253.\n\nThe pontiffs (Pontifices) derived their name (bridge-builders) from a\nbridge over the Tiber, which it was their duty to build and repair in\norder to sacrifice on either bank. They possessed the supreme authority in\nall matters of worship, and decided questions concerning marriage,\ninheritance, public games.\n\nThe Flamens were the priests of particular deities. The office was for\nlife, and there were fifteen Flamens in all. The Flamen Dialis, or priest\nof Jupiter, had a life burdened with etiquette. He must not take an oath,\nride, have anything tied with knots on his person, see armed men, look at\na prisoner, see any one at work on a Festa, touch a goat, or dog, or raw\nflesh, or yeast. He must not bathe in the open air, pass a night outside\nthe city, and he could only resign his office on the death of his wife.\nThis office is Pelasgic, and very ancient.\n\nThe Salii were from early times priests of Mars, who danced in armor, and\nsang old hymns. The Luperci were another body of priests, also of very\nancient origin. Other colleges of priests were the Epulones, Curiones,\nTities.\n\nThe Vestal virgins were highly honored and very sacred. Their work was to\ntend the fire of Vesta, and prevent the evil omen of its extinction. They\nwere appointed by the Pontifex Maximus. They were selected when very\nyoung, and could resign their office after thirty years of service. They\nhad a large revenue, enjoyed the highest honors, and to strike them was a\ncapital offence. If a criminal about to be executed met them, his life was\nspared. Consuls and pr\u00e6tors must give way to them in the streets. They\nassisted at the theatres and at all public entertainments. They could go\nout to visit and to dine with their relations. Their very presence\nprotected any one from assault, and their intercession must not be\nneglected. They prepared the sacred cakes, took part in many sacrifices,\nand had the charge of a holy serpent, keeping his table supplied with\nmeat.\n\nThe duty of the augurs was to inquire into the divine will; and they could\nprevent any public business by declaring the omens unfavorable. The name\nis probably derived from an old Aryan word, meaning \"sight\" or \"eye,\"\nwhich has come to us in the Greek \u03b1\u1f50\u03b3\u03ae, and the German _auge_. Our words\n\"auspicious\" and \"auspicate\" are derived from the \"auspices,\" or outlook\non nature which these seers practised. For they were in truth the Roman\n_seers_. Their business was to look, at midnight, into the starry heavens;\nto observe thunder, lightning, meteors; the chirping or flying of birds;\nthe habits of the sacred chickens; the appearance of quadrupeds; or\ncasualties of various kinds, as sneezing, stumbling, spilling salt or\nwine. The last relics of these superstitions are to be found in the little\nbooks sold in Rome, in which the fortunate number in a lottery is\nindicated by such accidents and events of common life.\n\nThe Romans, when at prayer, were in the habit of covering their heads, so\nthat no sound of evil augury might be heard. The suppliant was to kiss his\nright hand, and then turn round in a circle and sit down. Many formul\u00e6 of\nprayers were prescribed to be used on all occasions of life. They must be\nrepeated three times, at least, to insure success. Different animals were\nsacrificed to different gods,--white cattle with gilded horns to Jupiter,\na bull to Apollo, a horse to Mars. Sometimes the number of victims was\nenormous. On Caligula's accession, one hundred and sixty thousand victims\nwere killed in the Roman Empire.\n\nLustrations were great acts of atonement or purification, and are often\ndescribed by ancient writers. The city was lustrated by a grand procession\nof the four colleges of Augurs, Pontifices, Quindecemviri, and Septemviri.\nLucan, in his Pharsalia, describes such a lustration.[291] Tacitus gives a\nlike description, in his History,[292] of the ceremonies attending the\nrebuilding the Capitol. On an auspicious day, beneath a serene sky, the\nground chosen for the foundation was surrounded with ribbons and flowers.\nSoldiers, selected for their auspicious names, brought into the enclosure\nbranches from the trees sacred to the gods. The Vestal virgins, followed\nby a band of children, sprinkled the place with water drawn from three\nfountains and three rivers. The pr\u00e6tor and the pontiff next sacrificed a\nswine, a sheep, and a bull, and besought Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva to\nfavor the undertaking. The magistrates, priests, senators, and knights\nthen drew the corner-stone to its place, throwing in ingots of gold and\nsilver.\n\nThe Romans, ever anxious about the will of the gods, naturalized among\nthemselves the Etruscan institution of the Haruspices. The prodigies\nobserved were in the entrails of animals and the phenomena of nature. The\nparts of the entrails observed were the tongue, lungs, heart, liver, gall\nbladder, spleen, kidneys, and caul. If the head of the right lobe of the\nliver was absent, it was considered a very bad omen. If certain fissures\nexisted, or were absent, it was a portent of the first importance. But the\nRomans were a very practical people, and not easily deterred from their\npurpose. So if one sacrifice failed they would try another and another,\nuntil the portents were favorable. But sceptical persons were naturally\nled to ask some puzzling questions, such as these, which Cicero puts in\nhis work on Divination:[293] How can a cleft in a liver be connected, by\nany natural law, with my acquisition of a property? If it is so connected,\nwhat would be the result, if some one else, who was about to _lose_ his\nproperty, had examined the same victim? If you answer that the divine\nenergy, which extends through the universe, directs each man in the choice\nof a victim, then how happens it that a man having first had an\nunfavorable omen, by trying again should get a good one? How happens it\nthat a sacrifice to one deity gives a favorable sign, and that to another\nthe opposite? But these criticisms only arrived after the old Roman faith\nhad begun to decline.\n\nFuneral solemnities were held with great care and pomp, and festivals for\nthe dead were regularly celebrated. The dead father or mother was\naccounted a god, and yet a certain terror of ancestral spectres was shown\nby a practice of driving them out of the house by lustrations. For it was\nuncertain whether the paternal Manes were good spirits, Lares, or evil\nspirits, and Lemures. Consequently in May there was the Lemuria, or feast\nfor exorcising the evil spirits from houses and homes, conducted with\ngreat solemnity.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4. The Decay of the Roman Religion.\n\n\n\"The more distinguished a Roman became,\" says Mommsen, \"the less was he a\nfree man. The omnipotence of law, the despotism of the rule, drove him\ninto a narrow circle of thought and action, and his credit and influence\ndepended on the sad austerity of his life. The whole duty of man, with the\nhumblest and greatest of the Romans, was to keep his house in order, and\nbe the obedient servant of the state.\" While each individual could be\nnothing more than a member of the community, a single link in the iron\nchain of Roman power; he, on the other hand, shared the glory and might of\nall-conquering Rome. Never was such _esprit de corps_ developed, never\nsuch intense patriotism, never such absolute subservience and sacrifice\nof the individual to the community. But as man is manifold and cannot be\nforever confined to a single form of life, a reaction against this narrow\npatriotism was to be expected in the interest of personal freedom, and it\ncame very naturally from Greek influences. The Roman could not contemplate\nthe exuberant development of Greek thought, art, literature, society,\nwithout bitterly feeling how confined was his own range, how meagre and\nempty his own life. Hence, very early, Roman society began to be\nHellenized, but especially after the unification of Italy. To quote\nMommsen once more: \"The Greek civilization was grandly human and\ncosmopolitan; and Rome not only was stimulated by this influence, but was\npenetrated by it to its very centre.\" Even in politics there was a new\nschool, whose fixed idea was the consolidation and propagandism of\nrepublicanism; but this Philhellenism showed itself especially in the\nrealm of thought and faith. As the old faith died, more ceremonies were\nadded; for as life goes out, forms come in. As the winter of unbelief\nlowers the stream of piety, the ice of ritualism accumulates along its\nbanks. In addition to the three colleges of Pontiffs, Haruspices, and\nQuindecemviri, another of Epulones, whose business was to attend to the\nreligious feasts, was instituted in A.U. 558 (B.C. 196). Contributions and\ntithes of all sorts were demanded from the people. Hercules, especially,\nas is more than once intimated in the plays of Plautus, became very rich\nby his tithes.[294] Religion became more and more a charm, on the exact\nperformance of which the favor of the gods depended; so that ceremonies\nwere sometimes performed thirty times before the essential accuracy was\nattained.\n\nThe gods were now changed, in the hands of Greek statuaries, into\nornaments for a rich man's home. Greek myths were imported and connected\nwith the story of Roman deities, as Ennius made Saturn the son of Coelus,\nin imitation of the genealogy of Kronos. That form of rationalism called\nEuhemerism, which explains every god into a mythical king or hero, became\npopular. So, too, was the doctrine of Epicharmos, who considered the\ndivinities as powers of nature symbolized. According to the usual course\nof events, superstition and unbelief went hand in hand. As the old faith\ndied out, new forms of worship, like those of Cybele and Bacchus, came in.\nStern conservatives like Cato opposed all these innovations and\nscepticisms, but ineffectually.\n\nGibbon says that \"the admirable work of Cicero,'De Natur\u00e2 Deorum,' is the\nbest clew we have to guide us through this dark abyss\" (the moral and\nreligious teachings of the philosophers).[295] After, in the first two\nbooks, the arguments for the existence and providence of the gods have\nbeen set forth and denied, by Velleius the Epicurean, Cotta the\nacademician, and Balbus the Stoic; in the third book, Cotta, the head of\nthe priesthood, the Pontifex Maximus, proceeds to refute the stoical\nopinion that there are gods who govern the universe and provide for the\nwelfare of mankind. To be sure, he says, as Pontifex, he of course\nbelieves in the gods, but he feels free as a philosopher to deny their\nexistence. \"I believe in the gods,\" says he, \"on the authority and\ntradition of our ancestors; but if we reason, I shall reason against their\nexistence.\" \"Of course,\" he says, \"I believe in divination, as I have\nalways been taught to do. But who knows whence it comes? As to the voice\nof the Fauns, I never heard it; and I do not know what a Faun is. You say\nthat the regular course of nature proves the existence of some ordering\npower. But what more regular than a tertian or quartan fever? The world\nsubsists by the power of nature.\" Cotta goes on to criticise the Roman\npantheon, ridiculing the idea of such gods as \"Love, Deceit, Fear, Labor,\nEnvy, Old Age, Death, Darkness, Misery, Lamentation, Favor, Fraud,\nObstinacy,\" etc. He shows that there are many gods of the same name;\nseveral Jupiters, Vulcans, Apollos, and Venuses. He then denies\nprovidence, by showing that the wicked succeed and the good are\nunfortunate. Finally, all was left in doubt, and the dialogue ends with a\ntone of triumphant uncertainty. This was Cicero's contribution to\ntheology; and Cicero was far more religious than most men of his period.\n\nMany writers, and more recently Merivale,[296] have referred to the\nremarkable debate which took place in the Roman Senate, on the occasion of\nCatiline's conspiracy. C\u00e6sar, at that time chief pontiff, the highest\nreligious authority in the state, gave his opinion against putting the\nconspirators to death; for death, says he, \"is the end of all suffering.\nAfter death there is neither pain nor pleasure (_ultra neque cur\u00e6, neque\ngaudii locum_).\" Cato, the Stoic, remarked that C\u00e6sar had spoken well\nconcerning life and death. \"I take it,\" says he, \"that he regards as false\nwhat we are told about the sufferings of the wicked hereafter,\" but does\nnot object to that statement. These speeches are reported by Sallust, and\nare confirmed by Cicero's fourth Catiline Oration. The remarkable fact is,\nnot that such things were said, but that they were heard with total\nindifference. No one seemed to think it was of any consequence one way or\nthe other. Suppose that when the question of the execution of Charles I.\nwas before Parliament, it had been opposed by the Archbishop of Canterbury\n(had he been there) on the ground that after death all pain and pleasure\nceased. The absurdity of the supposition shows the different position of\nthe human mind at the two epochs.\n\nIn fact, an impassable gulf yawned between the old Roman religion and\nmodern Roman thought. It was out of the question for an educated Roman,\nwho read Plato and Zeno, who listened to Cicero and Hortensius, to believe\nin Janus and the Penates. \"All very well for the people,\" said they. \"The\npeople must be kept in order by these superstitions.\"[297] But the secret\ncould not be kept. Sincere men, like Lucretius, who saw all the evil of\nthese superstitions, and who had no strong religious sense, _would_ speak\nout, and proclaim _all_ religion to be priestcraft and an unmitigated\nevil. The poem of Lucretius, \"De Rerum Natur\u00e2,\" declares faith in the gods\nto have been the curse of the human race, and immortality to be a silly\ndelusion. He denies the gods, providence, the human soul, and any moral\npurpose in the universe. But as religion is an instinct, which will break\nout in some form, and when expelled from the soul returns in disguise,\nLucretius, denying all the gods, pours out a lovely hymn to Venus, goddess\nof beauty and love.\n\nThe last philosophic protest, in behalf of a pure and authoritative faith,\ncame from the Stoics. The names of Seneca, Epictetus, and Aurelius\nAntoninus gave dignity, if they could not bring safety, to the declining\nreligion of Rome.\n\nSeneca, indeed, was inferior to the other two in personal character, and\nwas more of a rhetorician than a philosopher. But noble thoughts occur in\nhis writings. \"A sacred spirit sits in every heart,\" he says, \"and treats\nus as we treat it.\" He opposed idolatry, he condemned animal sacrifices.\nThe moral element is very marked in his brilliant pages. Philosophy, he\nsays, is an effort to be wise and good.[298] Physical studies he condemns\nas useless.[299] Goodness is that which harmonizes with the natural\nmovements of the soul.[300] God and matter are the two principles of all\nbeing; God is the active principle, matter the passive. God is spirit, and\nall souls are part of this spirit.[301] Reason is the bond which unites\nGod and other souls, and so God dwells in all souls.[302]\n\nOne of the best sayings of Epictetus is that \"the wise man does not merely\nknow by tradition and hearsay that Jupiter is the father of gods and men;\nbut is inwardly convinced of it in his soul, and therefore cannot help\nacting and feeling according to this conviction.\"[303]\n\nEpictetus declared that the philosopher could have no will but that of the\ndeity; he never blames fate or fortune, for he knows that no real evil can\nbefall the just man. The life of Epictetus was as true as his thoughts\nwere noble, but he had fallen on an evil age, which needed for its reform,\nnot a new philosophy, but a new inspiration of divine life. This steady\ncurrent downward darkened the pure soul of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, of\nwhom Niebuhr says,[304] \"If there is any sublime human virtue, it is his.\"\nHe adds: \"He was certainly the noblest character of his time; and I know\nno other man who combined such unaffected kindness, mildness, and humility\nwith such conscientiousness and severity towards himself.\" \"If there is\nanywhere an expression of virtue, it is in the heavenly features of M.\nAurelius. His 'Meditations' are a golden book, though there are things in\nit which cannot be read without deep grief, for there we find this purest\nof men without happiness.\" Though absolute monarch of the Empire, and rich\nin the universal love of his people, he was not powerful enough to resist\nthe steady tendency to decay in society. Nor did he know that the power\nthat was to renew the life of the world was already present in\nChristianity. He himself was in soul almost a Christian, though he did not\nknow it, and though the Christian element of faith and hope was wanting.\nBut he expressed a thought worthy of the Gospel, when he said: \"The man of\ndisciplined mind reverently bids Nature, who bestows all things and\nresumes them again to herself, 'Give what thou wilt, and take what thou\nwilt.'\"[305]\n\nAlthough we have seen that Seneca speaks of a sacred, spirit which dwells\nin us, other passages in his works (quoted by Zeller) show that he was,\nlike other Stoics, a pantheist, and meant the soul of the world. He says\n(Nat. Qu., II. 45, and Prolog. 13): \"Will you call God the world? You may\ndo so without mistake. For he is all that you see around you.\" \"What is\nGod? The mind of the universe. What is God? All that you see, and all that\nyou do not see.\"[306]\n\nIt was not philosophy which destroyed religion in Rome. Philosophy, no\ndoubt, weakened faith in the national gods, and made the national worship\nseem absurd. But it was the general tendency downward; it was the loss of\nthe old Roman simplicity and purity; it was the curse of C\u00e6sarism, which,\ndestroying all other human life, destroyed also the life of religion. What\nit came to at last, in well-endowed minds, may be seen in this extract\nfrom the elder Pliny:--\n\n   \"All religion is the offspring of necessity, weakness, and fear. _What_\n   God is, if in truth he be anything distinct from the world, it is\n   beyond the compass of man's understanding to know. But it is a foolish\n   delusion, which has sprung from human weakness and human pride, to\n   imagine that such an infinite spirit would concern himself with the\n   petty affairs of men. It is difficult to say, whether it might not be\n   better for men to be wholly without religion, than to have one of this\n   kind, which is a reproach to its object. The vanity of man, and his\n   insatiable longing after existence, have led him also to dream of a\n   life after death. A being full of contradictions, he is the most\n   wretched of creatures; since the other creatures have no wants\n   transcending the bounds of their nature. Man is full of desires and\n   wants that reach to infinity, and can never be satisfied. His nature is\n   a lie, uniting the greatest poverty with the greatest pride. Among\n   these so great evils, the best thing God has bestowed on man is the\n   power to take his own life.\"[307]\n\nThe system of the Stoics was exactly adapted to the Roman character; but,\nnaturally, it exaggerated its faults instead of correcting them. It\nsupplanted all other systems in the esteem of leading minds; but the\nnarrowness of the Roman intellect reacted on the philosophy, and made that\nmuch more narrow than it was in the Greek thought. It became simple\nethics, omitting both the physical and metaphysical side.\n\nTurning to literature, we find in Horace a gay epicureanism, which always\nsays: \"Enjoy this life, for it will be soon over, and after death there is\nnothing left for us.\" Virgil tells us that those are happy who know the\ncauses of things, and so escape the terrors of Acheron. The serious\nTacitus, a man always in earnest, a penetrating mind, is by Bunsen called\n\"the last Roman prophet, but a prophet of death and judgment. He saw that\nRome hastened to ruin, and that C\u00e6sarism was an unmixed evil, but an evil\nnot to be remedied.\"[308] He declares that the gods had to mingle in Roman\naffairs as protectors; they now appeared only for vengeance.[309] Tacitus\nin one passage speaks of human freedom as superior to fate,[310] but in\nanother expresses his uncertainty on the whole question.[311] Equally\nuncertain was he concerning the future life, though inclined to believe\nthat the soul is not extinguished with the body.[312]\n\nBut the tone of the sepulchral monuments of that period is not so hopeful.\nHere are some which are quoted by D\u00f6llinger,[313] from Muratori and\nFabretti: \"Reader, enjoy thy life; for, after death, there is neither\nlaughter nor play, nor any kind of enjoyment.\" \"Friend, I advise thee to\nmix a goblet of wine and drink, crowning thy head with flowers. Earth and\nfire consume all that remains at death.\" \"Pilgrim, stop and listen. In\nHades is no boat and no Charon; no Eacus and no Cerberus. Once dead, we\nare all alike.\" Another says: \"Hold all a mockery, reader; nothing is our\nown.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSo ended the Roman religion; in superstition among the ignorant, in\nunbelief among the wise. It was time that something should come to renew\nhope. This was the gift which the Gospel brought to the Romans,--hope for\ntime, hope beyond time. This was the prayer for the Romans of the Apostle\nPaul: \"Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing,\nthat ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost.\"[314] A\nremarkable fact, that a Jewish writer should exhort Romans to hope and\ncourage!\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5. Relation of the Roman Religion to Christianity.\n\n\nThe idea of Rome is law, that of Christianity is love. In Roman worship\nlaw took the form of iron rules; in Roman theology it appeared as a stern\nfate; in both as a slavery. Christianity came as freedom, in a worship\nfree from forms, in a view of God which left freedom to man. Christianity\ncame to the Roman world, not as a new theory, but as a new life. As,\nduring the early spring, the power of the returning sun penetrates the\nsoil, silently touching the springs of life; so Christianity during two\nhundred years moved silently in the heart of Roman society, creating a new\nfaith, hope, and love. And as, at last, in the spring the grass shoots,\nthe buds open, the leaves appear, the flowers bloom; so, at last,\nChristianity, long working in silence and shadow, suddenly became\napparent, and showed that it had been transforming the whole tone and\ntemper of Roman civilization.\n\nBut wherever there is action there is also reaction, and no power or force\ncan wholly escape this law. So Roman thought, acted on by Christianity,\nreacted and modified in many respects the Gospel. Not always in a bad way,\nsometimes it helped its developments. For the Providence which made the\nGospel for the Romans made the Romans for the Gospel.\n\nThe great legacy bequeathed to mankind by ancient Rome was law. Other\nnations, it is true, had codes of law, like the Institutes of Manu in\nIndia, or the jurisprudence of Solon and the enactments of Lycurgus. But\nRoman law from the beginning was sanctified by the conviction that it was\nfounded on justice, and not merely on expediency or prudence. In\nsubmitting to the laws, even when they were cruel and oppressive, the\nRoman was obeying, not force, but conscience. The view which Plato gave as\nan ideal in Crito was realized in Roman society from the first. Consider\nthe cruel enactments which made the debtors the slaves of the creditor,\nand the fact that when the plebeians were ground to the earth by that\noppression, they did not attempt to resist the law, but in their despair\nfled from their homes, beyond the jurisdiction of Rome, to establish a new\ncity where these enactments could not reach them. Only when the laws are\nthus enforced by the public conscience as something sacred, does society\nbecome possible; and this sense of the divinity which hedges a code of\nlaws has been transmitted from ancient Rome into the civilization of\nEurope.\n\nCicero, in his admirable treatise on the laws, which unfortunately we have\nin an imperfect condition, devotes the whole of the first book to\nestablishing eternal justice as the basis of all jurisprudence. No better\ntext-book could have been found for the defence of what was called \"the\nhigher law,\" in the great American antislavery struggle, than this work of\nCicero. \"Let us establish,\" he says, \"the principles of justice on that\nsupreme law which has existed from all ages before any legislative\nenactments were written, or any political governments formed.\" \"Among all\nquestions, there is none more important to understand than this, _that man\nis born for justice_; and that law and equity have not been established by\nopinion, but by nature.\" \"It is an absurd extravagance in some\nphilosophers to assert that all things are necessarily just which are\nestablished by the laws and institutions of nations.\" \"Justice does not\nconsist in submission to written laws.\" \"If the will of the people, the\ndecrees of the senate, the decisions of magistrates, were sufficient to\nestablish rights, then it might become right to rob, to commit adultery,\nto forge wills, if this was sanctioned by the votes or decrees of the\nmajority.\" \"The sum of all is, that what is right should be sought for its\nown sake, because it is right, and not because it is enacted.\"\n\nLaw appears from the very beginnings of the Roman state. The oldest\ntraditions make Romulus, Numa, and Servius to be legislators. From that\ntime, after the expulsion of the Tarquins, Rome was governed by laws. Even\nthe despotism of the C\u00e6sars did not interfere with the general\nadministration of the laws in civil affairs; for the one-man power, though\nit may corrupt and degrade a state, does not immediately and directly\naffect many persons in their private lives. Law continued to rule in\ncommon affairs, and this legacy of a society organized by law was the gift\nof Rome to modern Europe. How great a blessing it has been may be seen by\ncomparing the worst Christian government with the best of the despotic\ngovernments of Asia. Mohammedan society is ruled by a hierarchy of\ntyranny, each little tyrant being in turn the victim of the one above him.\n\nThe feudal system, introduced by the Teutonic races, attempted to organize\nEurope on the basis of military despotism; but Roman law was too strong\nfor feudal law, and happily for mankind overcame it and at last expelled\nit.\n\nChristianity, in its ready hospitality for all the truth and good which it\nencounters, accepted Roman jurisprudence and gave to it a new lease of\nlife.[315] Christian emperors and Christian lawyers codified the long line\nof decrees and enactments reaching back to the Twelve Tables, and\nestablished them as the laws of the Christian world. But the spirit of\nRoman law acted on Christianity in a more subtle manner. It reproduced the\norganic character of the Roman state in the Western Latin Church, and it\nreproduced the soul of Roman law in the Western Latin theology.\n\nIt has not always been sufficiently considered how much the Latin Church\nwas a reproduction, on a higher plane, of the old Roman Commonwealth. The\nresemblance between the Roman Catholic ceremonies and those of Pagan Rome\nhas been often noticed. The Roman Catholic Church has borrowed from\nPaganism saints' days, incense, lustrations, consecrations of sacred\nplaces, votive-offerings, relics; winking, nodding, sweating, and bleeding\nimages; holy water, vestments, etc. But the Church of Rome itself, in its\ncentral idea of authority, is a reproduction of the Roman state religion,\nwhich was a part of the Roman state. The Eastern churches were sacerdotal\nand religious; the Church of Rome added to these elements that of an\norganized political authority. It was the resurrection of Rome,--Roman\nideas rising into a higher life. The Roman Catholic Church, at first an\naristocratic republic, like the Roman state, afterwards became, like the\nRoman state, a disguised despotism. The Papal Church is therefore a legacy\nof ancient Rome.[316]\n\nAnd just as the Roman state was first a help and then a hindrance to the\nprogress of humanity, so it has been with the Roman Catholic Church.\nAncient Rome gradually bound together into a vast political unity the\ndivided tribes and states of Europe, and so infused into them the\ncivilization which she had developed or received. And so the Papal Church\nunited Europe again, and once more permeated it with the elements of law,\nof order, of Christian faith. All intelligent Protestants admit the good\ndone in this way by the medi\u00e6val church.\n\nFor example, Milman[317] says, speaking of Gregory the Great and his work,\nthat it was necessary that there should be some central power like the\nPapacy to resist the dissolution of society at the downfall of the Roman\nEmpire. \"The life and death of Christianity\" depended, he says, \"on the\nrise of such a power.\" \"It is impossible to conceive what had been the\nconfusion, the lawlessness, the chaotic state of the Middle Ages, without\nthe medi\u00e6val Papacy.\"\n\nThe whole history of Rome had infused into the minds of Western nations a\nconviction of the importance of centralization in order to union. From\nRome, as a centre, had proceeded government, law, civilization.\nChristianity therefore seemed to need a like centre, in order to retain\nits unity. Hence the supremacy early yielded to the Bishop of Rome. His\nprimacy was accepted, because it was useful. The Papal Church would never\nhave existed, if Rome and its organizing ideas had not existed before\nChristianity was born.\n\nIn like manner the ideas developed in the Roman mind determined the course\nof Western theology, as differing from that of the East. It is well known\nthat Eastern theological speculation was occupied with the nature of God\nand the person of Christ, but that Western theology discussed sin and\nsalvation. Mr. Maine, in his work on \"Ancient Law,\" considers this\ndifference to have been occasioned by habits of thought produced by Roman\njurisprudence. I quote his language at some length:--\n\n\"What has to be determined is whether jurisprudence has ever served as the\nmedium through which theological principles have been viewed; whether, by\nsupplying a peculiar language, a peculiar mode of reasoning, and a\npeculiar solution of many of the problems of life, it has ever opened new\nchannels in which theological speculation could flow out and expand\nitself.\"\n\n\"On all questions,\" continues Mr. Maine, quoting Dean Milman, \"which\nconcerned the person of Christ and the nature of the Trinity, the Western\nworld accepted passively the dogmatic system of the East.\" \"But as soon as\nthe Latin-speaking empire began to live an intellectual life of its own,\nits deference to the East was at once exchanged for the agitation of a\nnumber of questions entirely foreign to Eastern speculation.\" \"The nature\nof sin and its transmission by inheritance, the debt owed by man and its\nvicarious satisfaction, and like theological problems, relating not to the\ndivinity but to human nature, immediately began to be agitated.\" \"I\naffirm,\" says Mr. Maine, \"without hesitation, that the difference between\nthe two theological systems is accounted for by the fact that, in passing\nfrom the East to the West, theological speculation had passed from a\nclimate of Greek metaphysics to a climate of Roman law. For some centuries\nbefore these controversies rose into overwhelming importance, all the\nintellectual activity of the Western Romans had been expended on\njurisprudence exclusively. They had been occupied in applying a peculiar\nset of principles to all combinations in which the circumstances of life\nare capable of being arranged. No foreign pursuit or taste called off\ntheir attention from this engrossing occupation, and for carrying it on\nthey possessed a vocabulary as accurate as it was copious, a strict method\nof reasoning, a stock of general propositions on conduct more or less\nverified by experience, and a rigid moral philosophy. It was impossible\nthat they should not select from the questions indicated by the Christian\nrecords those which had some affinity with the order of speculations to\nwhich they were accustomed, and that their manner of dealing with them\nshould not borrow something from their forensic habits. Almost every one\nwho has knowledge enough of Roman law to appreciate the Roman penal\nsystem, the Roman theory of the obligations established by contract or\ndelict, the Roman view of debts, etc., the Roman notion of the continuance\nof individual existence by universal succession, may be trusted to say\nwhence arose the frame of mind to which the problems of Western theology\nproved so congenial, whence came the phraseology in which these problems\nwere stated, and whence the description of reasoning employed in their\nsolution.\" \"As soon as they (the Western Church) ceased to sit at the feet\nof the Greeks and began to ponder out a theology of their own, the\ntheology proved to be permeated with forensic ideas and couched in a\nforensic phraseology. It is certain that this substratum of law in Western\ntheology lies exceedingly deep.\"[318]\n\nThe theory of the atonement, developed by the scholastic writers,\nillustrates this view. In the East, for a thousand years, the atoning work\nof Christ had been viewed mainly as redemption, as a ransom paid to\nobtain the freedom of mankind, enslaved by the Devil in consequence of\ntheir sins. It was not a legal theory, or one based on notions of\njurisprudence, but it was founded on warlike notions. Men were captives\ntaken in war, and, like all captives in those times, destined to slavery.\nTheir captor was Satan, and the ransom must be paid to him, as he held\nthem prisoners by the law of battle. Now as Christ had committed no sin,\nthe Devil had no just power over him; in putting Christ to death he had\nlost his rights over his other captives, and Christ could justly claim\ntheir freedom as a compensation for this injury. Christ, therefore,\nstrictly and literally, according to the ancient view, \"gave his life a\nransom for many.\"\n\nBut the mind of Anselm, educated by notions derived from Roman\njurisprudence, substituted for this original theory of the atonement one\nbased upon legal ideas. All, in this theory, turns on the law of debt and\npenalty. Sin he defines as \"not paying to God what we owe him.\"[319] But\nwe owe God constant and entire obedience, and every sin deserves either\npenalty or satisfaction. We are unable to make it good, for at every\nmoment we owe God all that we can do. Christ, as God-man, can satisfy God\nfor our omissions; his death, as offered freely, when he did not deserve\ndeath on account of any sin of his own, is sufficient satisfaction. It\nwill easily be seen how entirely this argument has substituted a legal\nbasis for the atonement in place of the old warlike foundation.\n\nThis, therefore, has been the legacy of ancient Rome to Christianity:\nfirstly, the organization of the Latin Church; secondly, the scholastic\ntheology, founded on notions of jurisprudence introduced into man's\nrelations to God. In turn, Christianity has bestowed on Western Europe\nwhat the old Romans never knew,--a religion of love and inspiration. In\nplace of the hard and cold Roman life, modern Europe has sentiment and\nheart united with thought and force. With Roman strength it has joined a\nChristian tenderness, romance, and personal freedom. Humanity now is\ngreater than the social organization; the state, according to our view, is\nmade for man, not man for the state. We are outgrowing the hard and dry\ntheology which we have inherited from Roman law through the scholastic\nteachers; but we shall not outgrow our inheritance from Rome of unity in\nthe Church, definite thought in our theology, and society organized by\nlaw.\n\n\n\n\nChapter IX.\n\nThe Teutonic and Scandinavian Religion.\n\n\n\n  \u00a7 1. The Land and the Race.\n  \u00a7 2. Idea of the Scandinavian Religion.\n  \u00a7 3. The Eddas and their Contents.\n  \u00a7 4. The Gods of Scandinavia.\n  \u00a7 5. Resemblance of the Scandinavian Mythology to that of Zoroaster.\n  \u00a7 6. Scandinavian Worship.\n  \u00a7 7. Social Character, Maritime Discoveries, and Political Institutions\n         of the Scandinavians.\n  \u00a7 8. Relation of this System to Christianity.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 1. The Land and the Race.\n\n\nThe great Teutonic or German division of the Indo-European family entered\nEurope subsequently to the Keltic tribes, and before the Slavic\nimmigration. This people overspread and occupied a large part of Northern\nCentral Europe, from which the attempts of the Romans to dispossess them\nproved futile. Of their early history we know very little. Bishop Percy\ncontrasts their love of making records, as shown by the Runic\ninscriptions, with the Keltic law of secrecy. The Druids forbade any\ncommunication of their mysteries by writing; but the German Scalds put all\ntheir belief into popular songs, and reverenced literature as a gift of\nthe gods. Yet we have received very little information concerning these\ntribes before the days of C\u00e6sar and Tacitus. C\u00e6sar describes them as\nwarlike, huge in stature; having reverence for women, who were their\naugurs and diviners; worshipping the Sun, the Moon, and Fire; having no\nregular priests, and paying little regard to sacrifices. He says that they\noccupied their lives in hunting and war, devoting themselves from\nchildhood to severe labors. They reverenced chastity, and considered it as\nconducive to health and strength. They were rather a pastoral than\nagricultural people; no one owning land, but each having it assigned to\nhim temporarily. The object of this provision was said to be to prevent\naccumulation of wealth and the loss of warlike habits. They fought with\ncavalry supported by infantry. In the time of Augustus all attempts at\nconquering Germany were relinquished, and war was maintained only in the\nhope of revenging the destruction of Varus and his three legions by the\nfamous German chief Arminius, or Herrman[320].\n\nTacitus freely admits that the Germans were as warlike as the Romans, and\nwere only inferior in weapons and discipline. He pays a generous tribute\nto Arminius, whom he declares to have been \"beyond all question the\nliberator of Germany,\" dying at thirty-seven, unconquered in war.[321]\nTacitus quotes from some ancient German ballads or hymns (\"the only\nhistoric monuments,\" says he, \"that they possess\") the names of Tuisto, a\ngod born from the earth, and Mannus, his son. Tacitus was much struck with\nthe physical characteristics of the race, as being so uniform. There was a\nfamily likeness, he says, among them all,--stern blue eyes, yellow hair,\nlarge bodies. Their wealth was in their flocks and herds. \"Gold and silver\nare kept from them by the anger, or perhaps by the favor, of Heaven.\"\nTheir rulers were elective, and their power was limited. Their judges were\nthe priests. They saw something divine in woman, and her judgments were\naccepted as oracles. Such women as Veleda and Aurinia were reverenced as\nprophets; \"but not adored or made into goddesses,\" says Tacitus, with a\nside-glance at some events at home. Their gods, Tacitus chooses to call\nMercury, Hercules, and Mars; but he distinctly says that the Germans had\nneither idols nor temples, but worshipped in sacred groves[322]. He also\nsays that the Germans divined future events by pieces of sticks, by the\nduel, and by the movements of sacred horses. Their leaders might decide\nthe less important matters, but the principal questions were settled at\npublic meetings. These assemblies were held at regular intervals, were\nopened by the priest, were presided over by the chief, and decided all\npublic affairs. Tacitus remarks that the spirit of liberty goes to such\nan extreme among the Germans as to destroy regularity and order. They will\nnot be punctual at their meetings, lest it should seem as if they attended\nbecause commanded to come.[323] Marriage was sacred, and, unlike other\nheathen nations, they were contented with one wife. They were affectionate\nand constant to the marriage vow, which meant to the pure German woman one\nhusband, one life, one body, and one soul. The ancient Germans, like their\nmodern descendants, drank beer and Rhenish wine, and were divided into\nnumerous tribes, who afterward reappeared for the destruction of the Roman\nEmpire, as the Goths, Vandals, Lombards, and Franks.\n\nThe Scandinavians were a branch of the great German family. Their\nlanguage, the old Norse, was distinguished from the Alemannic, or High\nGerman tongue, and from the Saxonic, or Low German tongue. From the Norse\nhave been derived the languages of Iceland, of the Ferroe Isles, of\nNorway, Sweden, and Denmark. From the Germanic branch have come German,\nDutch, Anglo-Saxon, M\u00e6so-Gothic, and English. It was in Scandinavia that\nthe Teutonic race developed its special civilization and religion. Cut off\nfrom the rest of the world by stormy seas, the people could there unfold\ntheir ideas, and become themselves. It is therefore to Scandinavia that we\nmust go to study the German religion, and to find the influence exercised\non modern civilization and the present character of Europe. This influence\nhas been freely acknowledged by great historians.\n\nMontesquieu says:[324]--\n\n\n   \"The great prerogative of Scandinavia is, that it afforded the great\n   resource to the liberty of Europe, that is, to almost all of liberty\n   there is among men. The Goth Jornandes calls the North of Europe the\n   forge of mankind. I would rather call it the forge of those instruments\n   which broke the fetters manufactured in the South.\"\n\nGeijer, in his Swedish History, tells us:--\n\n\n   \"The recollections which Scandinavia has to add to those of the\n   Germanic race are yet the most antique in character and comparatively\n   the most original. They offer the completest remaining example of a\n   social state existing previously to the reception of influences from\n   Rome, and in duration stretching onward so as to come within the sphere\n   of historical light.\"\n\nWe do not know how much of those old Northern ideas may be still mingled\nwith our ways of thought. The names of their gods we retain in those of\nour weekdays,--Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. Their popular\nassemblies, or Things, were the origin of our Parliament, our Congress,\nand our general assemblies. If from the South came the romantic admiration\nof woman, from the North came a better respect for her rights and the\nsense of her equality. Our trial by jury was immediately derived from\nScandinavia; and, according to Montesquieu, as we have seen, we owe to the\nNorth, as the greatest inheritance of all, that desire for freedom which\nis so chief an element in Christian civilization.\n\nScandinavia proper consists of those regions now occupied by the kingdoms\nof Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. The geographical peculiarity of this\ncountry is its proximity everywhere to the sea, and the great extent of\nits coast line. The great peninsula of Sweden and Norway, with the\nNorthern Ocean on its west, the Baltic and Gulf of Bothnia on its east,\npenetrated everywhere by creeks, friths, and arms of the sea, surrounded\nwith innumerable islands, studded with lakes, and cleft with rivers, is\nalso unrivalled, except by Switzerland, in the sublime and picturesque\nbeauty of its mountains. The other peninsula, that of Denmark, surrounded\nand penetrated also everywhere by the sea, differs in being almost level;\nrising nowhere, at its highest point, more than a thousand feet above the\nocean. Containing an area of only twenty-two thousand square miles, it is\nso penetrated with bays and creeks as to have four thousand miles of\ncoast. Like the northern peninsula, it is also surrounded with a multitude\nof islands, which are so crowded together, especially on its eastern\ncoast, as to make an archipelago. It is impossible to look at the map of\nEurope, and not be struck with the resemblance in these particulars\nbetween its northern and southern geography. The Baltic Sea is the\nMediterranean of Northern Europe. The peninsula of Denmark, with its\nmultitudinous bays and islands, corresponds to Greece, the Morea, and its\narchipelago. We have shown in our chapter on Greece that modern geography\nteaches that the extent of coast line, when compared with the superficial\narea of a country, is one of the essential conditions of civilization. Who\ncan fail to see the hand of Providence in the adaptation of races to the\ncountries they are to inhabit? The great tide of human life, flowing\nwestward from Central Asia, was divided into currents by the Caspian and\nBlack Seas, and by the lofty range of mountains which, under the name of\nthe Caucasus, Carpathian Mountains, and Alps, extends almost in an\nunbroken line from the western coast of the Caspian to the northern limits\nof Germany. The Teutonic races, Germans, Saxons, Franks, and Northmen,\nwere thus determined to the north, and spread themselves along the coast\nand peninsulas of the Northern Mediterranean. The other branch of the\ngreat Indo-European variety was distributed through Syria, Asia Minor,\nGreece, Southern France, Italy, and Spain. Each of these vast European\nfamilies, stimulated to mental and moral activity by its proximity to\nwater, developed its own peculiar forms of national character, which were\nafterwards united in modern European society. The North developed\nindividual freedom, the South social organization. The North gave force,\nthe South culture. From Southern Europe came literature, philosophy, laws,\narts; from the North, that respect for individual rights, that sense of\npersonal dignity, that energy of the single soul, which is the essential\nequipoise of a high social culture. These two elements, of freedom and\ncivilization, always antagonist, have been in most ages hostile. The\nindividual freedom of the North has been equivalent to barbarism, and from\ntime to time has rolled down a destroying deluge over the South, almost\nsweeping away its civilization, and overwhelming in a common ruin arts,\nliterature, and laws. On the other hand, civilization at the South has\npassed into luxury, has produced effeminacy, till individual freedom has\nbeen lost under grinding despotism. But in modern civilization a third\nelement has been added, which has brought these two powers of Northern\nfreedom and Southern culture into equipoise and harmony. This new element\nis Christianity, which develops, at the same time, the sense of personal\nresponsibility, by teaching the individual destiny and worth of every\nsoul, and also the mutual dependence and interlacing brotherhood of all\nhuman society. This Christian element in modern civilization saves it from\nthe double danger of a relapse into barbarism on the one hand, and a too\nrefined luxury on the other. The nations of Europe, to-day, which are the\nmost advanced in civilization, literature, and art, are also the most\ndeeply pervaded with the love of freedom; and the most civilized nations\non the globe, instead of being the most effeminate, are also the most\npowerful.\n\nThe Scandinavian people, destined to play so important a part in the\nhistory of the world, were, as we have said, a branch of the great\nIndo-European variety. We have seen that modern ethnology teaches that all\nthe races which inhabit Europe, with some trifling exceptions, belong to\none family, which originated in Central Asia. This has appeared and is\nproved by means of glossology, or the science of language. The closest\nresemblance exists between the seven linguistic families of Hindostan,\nPersia, Greece, Rome, Germany, the Kelts, and the Slavi; and it is a most\nstriking fact of human history, that from the earliest period of recorded\ntime down to the present day a powerful people, speaking a language\nbelonging to one or other of these races, should have in a great measure\nswayed the destinies of the world.\n\nBefore the birth of Christ the peninsula of Denmark was called by the\nRomans the Cimbric Chersonesus, or Cimbric peninsula. This name came from\nthe Cimbri, a people who, one hundred and eleven years before Christ,\nalmost overthrew the Roman Republic, exciting more terror than any event\nsince the days of Hannibal. More than three hundred thousand men, issuing\nfrom the peninsula of Denmark and the adjacent regions, poured like a\ntorrent over Gaul and Southern Germany. They met and overthrew in\nsuccession four Roman armies; until, finally, they were conquered by the\nmilitary skill and genius of Marius. After this eruption was checked, the\ngreat northern volcano slumbered for centuries. Other tribes from\nAsia--Goths, Vandals, Huns--combined in the overthrow of the Roman Empire.\nAt last the inhabitants of Scandinavia appear again under the name of\nNorthmen, invading and conquering England in the fifth century as Saxons,\nin the ninth century as Danes, and in the eleventh as Normans again\noverrunning England and France. But the peculiarity of the Scandinavian\ninvasions was their maritime character. Daring and skilful navigators,\nthey encountered the tempests of the Northern Ocean and the heavy roll of\nthe Atlantic in vessels so small and slight that they floated like\neggshells on the surface of the waves, and ran up the rivers of France and\nEngland, hundreds of miles, without check from shallows or rocks. In these\nfragile barks they made also the most extraordinary maritime discoveries.\nThe sea-kings of Norway discovered Iceland, and settled it A.D. 860 and\nA.D. 874. They discovered and settled Greenland A.D. 982 and A.D. 986. On\nthe western coast of Greenland they planted colonies, where churches were\nbuilt, and diocesan bishoprics established, which lasted between four and\nfive hundred years. Finally, in A.D. 1000, they discovered, by sailing\nfrom Greenland, the coast of Labrador, Nova Scotia, and Massachusetts Bay;\nand, five hundred years before the discovery of Columbus, gathered grapes\nand built houses on the southern side of Cape Cod. These facts, long\nconsidered mythical, have been established, to the satisfaction of\nEuropean scholars, by the publication of Icelandic contemporaneous annals.\nThis remarkable people have furnished nearly the whole population of\nEngland by means of the successive conquests of Saxon, Danes, and Normans,\ndriving the Keltic races into the mountainous regions of Wales and North\nScotland, where their descendants still remain. Colonizing themselves also\neverywhere in Northern Europe, and even in Italy and Greece, they have\nleft the familiar stamp of their ideas and habits in all our modern\ncivilization[325].\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. Idea of the Scandinavian Religion.\n\n\nThe central idea of the Scandinavian belief was the free struggle of soul\nagainst material obstacles, the freedom of the Divine will in its conflict\nwith the opposing forces of nature. The gods of the Scandinavians were\nalways at war. It was a system of dualism, in which sunshine, summer, and\ngrowth were waging perpetual battle with storm, snow, winter, ocean, and\nterrestrial fire. As the gods, so the people. War was their business,\ncourage their duty, fortitude their virtue. The conflict of life with\ndeath, of freedom with fate, of choice with necessity, of good with evil,\nmade up their history and destiny.\n\nThis conflict in the natural world was especially apparent in the\nstruggle, annually renewed, between summer and winter. Therefore the light\nand heat gods were their friends, those of darkness and cold their\nenemies. For the same reason that the burning heat of summer, Typhon, was\nthe Satan of Egypt; so in the North the Jotuns, ice-giants, were the\nScandinavian devils.\n\nThere are some virtues which are naturally associated together, such as\nthe love of truth, the sense of justice, courage, and personal\nindependence. There is an opposite class of virtues in like manner\nnaturally grouped together,--sympathy, mutual helpfulness, and a tendency\nto social organization. The serious antagonism in the moral world is that\nof truth and love. Most cases of conscience which present a real\ndifficulty resolve themselves into a conflict of truth and love. It is\nhard to be true without hurting the feelings of others; it is hard to\nsympathize with others and not yield a little of our inward truth. The\nsame antagonism is found in the religions of the world. The religions in\nwhich truth, justice, freedom, are developed tend to isolation, coldness,\nand hardness. On the other hand, the religions of brotherhood and human\nsympathy tend to weakness, luxury, and slavery.\n\nThe religion of the German races, which was the natural growth of their\norganization and moral character, belonged to the first class. It was a\nreligion in which truth, justice, self-respect, courage, freedom, were the\nessential elements. The gods were human, as in the Hellenic system, with\nmoral attributes. They were finite beings and limited in their powers.\nThey carried on a warfare with hostile and destructive agents, in which at\nlast they were to be vanquished and destroyed, though a restoration of the\nworld and the gods would follow that destruction.\n\nSuch was the idea in all the faith of the Teutonic race. The chief virtue\nof man was courage, his unpardonable sin was cowardice. \"To fight a good\nfight,\" this was the way to Valhalla. Odin sent his Choosers to every\nbattlefield to select the brave dead to become his companions in the joys\nof heaven.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. The Eddas and their Contents.\n\n\nWe have observed that Iceland was settled from Norway in the ninth\ncentury. A remarkable social life grew up there, which preserved the\nideas, manners, and religion of the Teutonic people in their purity for\nmany hundred years, and whose Eddas and Sagas are the chief source of our\nknowledge of the race. In this ultimate and barren region of the earth,\nwhere seas of ice make thousands of square miles desolate and\nimpenetrable, where icy masses, elsewhere glaciers, are here mountains,\nwhere volcanoes with terrible eruptions destroy whole regions of inhabited\ncountry in a few days with lava, volcanic sand, and boiling water, was\ndeveloped to its highest degree the purest form of Scandinavian life.\n\nThe religion of the Scandinavians is contained in the Eddas, which are\ntwo,--the poetic, or elder Edda, consisting of thirty-seven poems, first\ncollected and published at the end of the eleventh century; and the\nyounger, or prose Edda, ascribed to the celebrated Snorro Sturleson, born\nof a distinguished Icelandic family in the twelfth century, who, after\nleading a turbulent and ambitious life, and being twice chosen supreme\nmagistrate, was killed A.D. 1241. The principal part of the prose Edda is\na complete synopsis of Scandinavian mythology.\n\nThe elder Edda, which is the fountain of the mythology, consists of old\nsongs and ballads, which had come down from an immemorial past in the\nmouths of the people, but were first collected and committed to writing by\nS\u00e6mund, a Christian priest of Iceland in the eleventh century. He was a\nBard, or Scald, as well as a priest, and one of his own poems, \"The\nSun-Song,\" is in his Edda. This word \"Edda\" means \"great-grandmother,\" the\nancient mother of Scandinavian knowledge. Or perhaps this name was given\nto the legends, repeated by grandmothers to their grandchildren by the\nvast firesides of the old farm-houses in Iceland.\n\nThis rhythmical Edda consists of thirty-seven poems[326]. It is in two\nparts,--the first containing mythical poems concerning the gods and the\ncreation; the second, the legends of the heroes of Scandinavian history.\nThis latter portion of the Edda has the original and ancient fragments\nfrom which the German Nibelungen-lied was afterward derived. These songs\nare to the German poem what the ante-Homeric ballad literature of Greece\nabout Troy and Ulysses was to the Iliad and Odyssey as reduced to unity by\nHomer.\n\nThe first poem in the first part of the poetic Edda is the Voluspa, or\nWisdom of Vala. The Vala was a prophetess, possessing vast supernatural\nknowledge. Some antiquarians consider the Vala to be the same as the\nNornor, or Fates. They were dark beings, whose wisdom was fearful even to\nthe gods, resembling in this the Greek Prometheus. The Voluspa describes\nthe universe before the creation, in the morning of time, before the great\nYmir lived, when there was neither sea nor shore nor heaven. It begins\nthus, Vala speaking:--\n\n    \"I command the devout attention of all noble souls,\n    Of all the high and the low of the race of Heimdall;\n    I tell the doings of the All-Father,\n    In the most ancient Sagas which come to my mind.\n\n    \"There was an age in which Ymir lived,\n    When was no sea, nor shore, nor salt waves;\n    No earth below, nor heaven above,\n    No yawning abyss and no grassy land.\n\n    \"Till the sons of Bors lifted the dome of heaven,\n    And created the vast Midgard (earth) below;\n    Then the sun of the south rose above the mountains,\n    And green grasses made the ground verdant.\n\n    \"The sun of the south, companion of the moon,\n    Held the horses of heaven with his right hand;\n    The sun knew not what its course should be,\n    The moon knew not what her power should be,\n    The stars knew not where their places were.\n\n    \"Then the counsellors went into the hall of judgment,\n    And the all-holy gods held a council.\n    They gave names to the night and new moon;\n    They called to the morning and to midday,\n    To the afternoon and evening, arranging the times.\"\n\nThe Voluspa goes on to describe how the gods assembled on the field of\nIda, and proceeded to create metals and vegetables; after that the race of\ndwarfs, who preside over the powers of nature and the mineral world. Then\nVala narrates how the three gods, Odin, Honir, and Lodur, \"the mighty and\nmild Aser,\" found Ask and Embla, the Adam and Eve of the Northern legends,\nlying without soul, sense, motion, or color. Odin gave them their souls,\nHonir their intellects, Lodur their blood and colored flesh. Then comes\nthe description of the ash-tree Yggdrasil, of the three Norns, or sisters\nof destiny, who tell the Aser their doom, and the end and renewal of the\nworld; and how, at last, one being mightier than all shall arrive:--\n\n    \"Then comes the mighty one to the council of the gods,\n    He with strength from on high who guides all things,\n    He decides the strife, he puts an end to struggle,\n    He ordains eternal laws.\"\n\nIn the same way, in the Song of Hyndla, another of the poems of this Edda,\nis a prediction of one who shall come, mightier than all the gods, and put\nan end to the strife between Aser and the giants. The song begins:--\n\n    \"Wake, maid of maidens! Awake, my friend!\n    Hyndla, sister, dwelling in the glens!\n    It is night, it is cloudy; let us ride together\n    To the sacred place, to Valhalla.\"\n\nHyndla sings, after describing the heroes and princes born of the gods:--\n\n    \"One shall be born higher than all,\n    Who grows strong with the strength of the earth;\n    He is famed as the greatest of rulers,\n    United with all nations as brethren.\n\n    \"But one day there shall come another mightier than he;\n    But I dare not name his name.\n    Few are able to see beyond\n    The great battle of Odin and the Wolf.\"\n\nAmong the poems of the elder Edda is a Book of Proverbs, like those of\nSolomon in their sagacious observations on human life and manners. It is\ncalled the Havamal. At first we should hardly expect to find these maxims\nof worldly wisdom among a people whose chief business was war. But war\ndevelops cunning as well as courage, and battles are won by craft no less\nthan by daring. Consequently, among a warlike people, sagacity is\nnaturally cultivated.\n\nThe Havamal contains (in its proverbial section) one hundred and ten\nstanzas, mostly quatrains. The following are specimens:--\n\n    1. \"Carefully consider the end\n    Before you go to do anything,\n    For all is uncertain, when the enemy\n    Lies in wait in the house.\n\n    4. \"The guest who enters\n    Needs water, a towel, and hospitality.\n    A kind reception secures a return\n    In word and in deed.\n\n    7. \"The wise man, on coming in,\n    Is silent and observes,\n    Hears with his ears, looks with his eyes,\n    And carefully reflects on every event.\n\n    11. \"No worse a companion can a man take on his journey\n    Than drunkenness.\n    Not as good as many believe\n    Is beer to the sons of men.\n    The more one drinks, the less he knows,\n    And less power has he over himself.\n\n    26. \"A foolish man, in company, had better be silent.\n    Until he speaks no one observes his folly.\n    But he who knows little does not know this,\n    When he had better be silent.\n\n    29. \"Do not mock at the stranger\n    Who comes trusting in your kindness;\n    For when he has warmed himself at your fire,\n    He may easily prove a wise man.\n\n    34. \"It is better to depart betimes,\n    And not to go too often to the same house.\n    Love tires and turns to sadness\n    When one sits too often at another man's table.\n\n    35. \"One's own house, though small, is better,\n    For there thou art the master.\n    It makes a man's heart bleed to ask\n    For a midday meal at the house of another.\n\n    36. \"One's own house, though small, is better;\n    At home thou art the master.\n    Two goats and a thatched roof\n    Are better than begging.\n\n    38. \"It is hard to find a man so rich\n    As to refuse a gift.\n    It is hard to find a man so generous\n    As to be always glad to lend.\n\n    42. \"Is there a man whom you distrust,\n    And who yet can help you?\n    Be smooth in words and false in thought,\n    And pay back his deceit with cunning.\n\n    48. \"I hung my garments on two scarecrows,\n    And, when dressed, they seemed\n    Ready for the battle.\n    Unclothed they were jeered at by all.\n\n    52. \"Small as a grain of sand\n    Is the small sense of a fool;\n    Very unequal is human wisdom.\n    The world is made of two unequal halves.\n\n    53. \"It is well to be wise; it is not well\n    To be too wise.\n    He has the happiest life\n    Who knows well what he knows.\n\n    54. \"It is well to be wise; not well\n    To be too wise.\n    The wise man's heart is not glad\n    When he knows too much.\n\n    55. \"Two burning sticks placed together\n    Will burn entirely away.\n    Man grows bright by the side of man;\n    Alone, he remains stupid.\"\n\nSuch are the proverbs of the Havamal. This sort of proverbial wisdom may\nhave come down from the days when the ancestors of the Scandinavians left\nCentral Asia. It is like the fables and maxims of the Hitopades\u00e1.[327]\n\nAnother of these poems is called Odin's Song of Runes. Runes were the\nScandinavian alphabet, used for lapidary inscriptions, a thousand of which\nhave been discovered in Sweden, and three or four hundred in Denmark and\nNorway, mostly on tombstones. This alphabet consists of sixteen letters,\nwith the powers of F, U, TH, O, R, K, H, N, I, A, S, T, B, L, M, Y. The\nletters R, I, T, and B very nearly resemble the Roman letters of the same\nvalues. A magical power was ascribed to these Runes, and they were carved\non sticks and then scraped off, and used as charms. These rune-charms were\nof different kinds, eighteen different sorts are mentioned in this song.\n\nA song of Brynhilda speaks of different runes which she will teach Sigurd.\n\"_Runes of victory_ must those know, to conquer thine enemies. They must\nbe carved on the blade of thy sword. _Drink-Runes_ must thou know to make\nmaidens love thee. Thou must carve them on thy drinking horn. _Runes of\nfreedom_ must thou know to deliver the captives. _Storm-Runes_ must thou\nknow, to make thy vessel go safely over the waves. Carve them on the mast\nand the rudder. _Herb-Runes_ thou must know to cure disease. Carve them on\nthe bark of the tree. _Speech-Runes_ must thou know to defeat thine enemy\nin council of words, in the Thing. _Mind-Runes_ must thou know to have\ngood and wise thoughts. These are the Book-Runes, and Help-Runes, and\nDrink-Runes, and Power-Runes, precious for whoever can use them.\"\n\nThe second part of the poetic Edda contains the stories of the old heroes,\nespecially of Sigurd, the Achilles of Northern romance. There is also the\nSong of Volund, the Northern Smith, the German Vulcan, able to make swords\nof powerful temper. These songs and ballads are all serious and grave, and\nsometimes tender, having in them something of the solemn tone of the old\nGreek tragedy.\n\nThe prose Edda, as we have said, was the work of Snorro Sturleson, born in\nIceland in 1178[328]. He probably transcribed most of it from the\nmanuscripts in his hands, or which were accessible to him, and from the\noral traditions which had been preserved in the memory of the Skalds. His\nother chief work was the Heimskringla, or collection of Saga concerning\nthe history of the Scandinavians. In his preface to this last book he says\nhe \"wrote it down from old stories told by intelligent people\"; or from\n\"ancient family registers containing the pedigrees of kings,\" or from \"old\nsongs and ballads which our fathers had for their amusement\"\n\nThe prose Edda begins with \"The deluding of Gylfi,\" an ancient king of\nSweden. He was renowned for his wisdom and love of knowledge, and\ndetermined to visit Asgard, the home of the \u00c6sir, to learn something of\nthe wisdom of the gods. They, however, foreseeing his coming, prepared\nvarious illusions to deceive him. Among other things, he saw three\nthrones raised one above another.\n\n\n   \"He afterwards beheld three thrones raised one above another, with a\n   man sitting on each of them. Upon his asking what the names of these\n   lords might be, his guide answered: 'He who sits on the lowest throne\n   is a king; his name is Har (the High or Lofty One); the second is\n   Jafnhar (i.e. equal to the High); but he who sitteth on the highest\n   throne is called Thridi (the Third).' Har, perceiving the stranger,\n   asked him what his errand was, adding that he should be welcome to eat\n   and drink without cost, as were all those who remained in H\u00e1va Hall.\n   Gangler said he desired first to ascertain whether there was any person\n   present renowned for his wisdom.\n\n   \"'If thou art not the most knowing,' replied Har, 'I fear thou wilt\n   hardly return safe. But go, stand there below, and propose thy\n   questions; here sits one who will be able to answer them.'\n\n   \"Gangler thus began his discourse: 'Who is the first, or eldest of the\n   gods?'\n\n   \"'In our language,' replied Har, 'he is called Alfadir (All-Father, or\n   the Father of All); but in the old Asgard he had twelve names.'\n\n   \"'Where is this God?' said Gangler; 'what is his power? and what hath\n   he done to display his glory?'\n\n   \"'He liveth,' replied Har, 'from all ages, he governeth all realms, and\n   swayeth all things great and small.'\n\n   \"'He hath formed,' added Jafnhar, 'heaven and earth, and the air, and\n   all things thereunto belonging.'\n\n   \"'And what is more,' continued Thridi, 'he hath made man, and given him\n   a soul which shall live and never perish, though the body shall have\n   mouldered away, or have been burnt to ashes. And all that are righteous\n   shall dwell with him in the place called Gimli, or Ving\u00f3lf; but the\n   wicked shall go to Hel, and thence to Niflhel, which is below, in the\n   ninth world.'\"\n\nOf the creation of the world the Eddas thus speak: In the day-spring of\nthe ages there was neither seas nor shore nor refreshing breeze; there was\nneither earth below nor heaven above. The whole was only one vast abyss,\nwithout herb and without seas. The sun had no palace, the stars no place,\nthe moon no power. After this there was a bright shining world of flame to\nthe South, and another, a cloudy and dark one, toward the North. Torrents\nof venom flowed from the last into the abyss, and froze, and filled it\nfull of ice. But the air oozed up through it in icy vapors, which were\nmelted into living drops by a warm breath from the South; and from these\ncame the giant Ymir. From him came a race of wicked giants. Afterward,\nfrom these same drops of fluid seeds, children of heat and cold, came the\nmundane cow, whose milk fed the giants. Then arose also, in a mysterious\nmanner, Bor, the father of three sons, Odin, Vili, and Ve, who, after\nseveral adventures,--having killed the giant Ymir, and made out of his\nbody Heaven and Earth,--proceeded to form a man and woman named Ask and\nEmbla. Chaos having thus disappeared, Odin became the All-Father, creator\nof gods and men, with Earth for his wife, and the powerful Thor for his\noldest son. So much for the cosmogony of the Edda.\n\nOn this cosmogony, we may remark that it belongs to the class of\ndevelopment, or evolution, but combined with a creation. The Hindoo,\nGnostic, and Platonic theories suppose the visible world to have emanated\nfrom God, by a succession of fallings, from the most abstract spirit to\nthe most concrete matter. The Greeks and Romans, on the contrary, suppose\nall things to have come by a process of evolution, or development from an\noriginal formless and chaotic matter. The resemblance between the Greek\naccount of the origin of gods and men and that of the Scandinavians is\nstriking. Both systems begin in materialism, and are radically opposed to\nthe spiritualism of the other theory; and in its account of the origin of\nall things from nebulous vapors and heat the Edda reminds us of the modern\nscientific theories on the same subject.\n\nAfter giving this account of the formation of the world, of the gods, and\nthe first pair of mortals, the Edda next speaks of night and day, of the\nsun and moon, of the rainbow bridge from earth to heaven, and of the great\nAsh-tree where the gods sit in council. Night was the daughter of a\ngiant, and, like all her race, of a dark complexion. She married one of\nthe \u00c6sir, or children of Odin, and their son was Day, a child light and\nbeautiful, like its father. The Sun and Moon were two children, the Moon\nbeing the boy, and the Sun the girl; which peculiarity of gender still\nholds in the German language. The Edda gives them chariot and horses with\nwhich to drive daily round the heavens, and supposes their speed to be\noccasioned by their fear of two gigantic wolves, from Jotunheim, or the\nworld of darkness, which pursue them. The rainbow is named Bifrost, woven\nof three hues, and by this, as a bridge, the gods ride up every day to\nheaven from the holy fountain below the earth. Near this fountain dwell\nthree maidens, below the great Ash-tree, who decide every man's fate.\nThese Fates, or Norns, are named Urd, Verdandi, and Skuld,--three words\nmeaning \"past,\" \"present,\" and \"future.\" From Urd comes our word \"weird,\"\nand the weird sisters of Shakespeare. The red in the rainbow is burning\nfire, which prevents the frost-giants of Jotunheim from going up to\nheaven, which they otherwise might do. This region of the gods is called\nAsgard, and contains Valhalla, where they feast every day, with all heroes\nwho have died in battle; drinking mead, but not out of their enemies'\nskulls, as has been so often said. This mistake modern scholars have\nattributed to a mistranslation of a word in the original, which means\n\"curved horns,\" the passage being, \"Soon shall we drink ale out of the\ncurved branches of the skull,\" that is, of an animal. Their food is the\nflesh of a boar, which is renewed every day.\n\nIt is not to be supposed that Odin and the other gods lived quietly on\ntheir Olympus without adventures. Many entertaining ones are narrated in\nthe Edda, had we room to tell them. One of these describes the death of\nBaldur the Good, whom all beings loved. Having been tormented with bad\ndreams, indicating that his life was in danger, he told them to the\nassembled gods, who made all creatures and things, living or dead, take an\noath to do him no harm. This oath was taken by fire and water, iron and\nall other metals, stones, earths, diseases, poisons, beasts, birds, and\ncreeping things. After this, they amused themselves at their meeting in\nsetting Baldur up as a mark; some hurling darts or shooting arrows at him,\nand some cutting at him with swords and axes; and as nothing hurt him, it\nwas accounted a great honor done to Baldur. But wicked Loki, or Loke, was\nenvious at this; and, assuming the form of a woman, he inquired of the\ngoddess who had administered the oath, whether all things had taken it.\nShe said everything except one little shrub called mistletoe, which she\nthought too young and feeble to do any harm. Therefore Loki got the\nmistletoe, and, bringing it to one of the gods, persuaded him to throw it\nat Baldur, who, pierced to the heart, fell dead. The grief was immense. An\nespecial messenger was despatched to Queen Hela, in Hell, to inquire if,\non any terms, Baldur might be ransomed. For nine days and nights he rode\nthrough dark chasms till he crossed the river of Death, and entering the\nkingdom of Hela, made known his request. Hela replied that it should now\nbe discovered whether Baldur was so universally loved as was represented;\nfor that she would permit him to return to Asgard if all creatures and all\nthings, without exception, would weep for him. The gods then despatched\nmessengers through the world to beg all things to weep for Baldur, which\nthey immediately did. Then you might have seen, not only crocodiles but\nthe most ferocious beasts dissolved in tears. Fishes wept in the water,\nand birds in the air. Stones and trees were covered with pellucid\ndew-drops, and, for all we know, this general grief may have been the\noccasion of some of the deluges reported by geology. The messengers\nreturned, thinking the work done, when they found an old hag sitting in a\ncavern, and begged her to weep Baldur out of Hell. But she declared that\nshe could gain nothing by so doing, and that Baldur might stay where he\nwas, like other people as good as he; planting herself apparently on the\ngreat but somewhat selfish principle of non-intervention. So Baldur\nremains in the halls of Hela. But this old woman did not go unpunished.\nShe was shrewdly suspected to be Loki himself in disguise, and on inquiry\nso it turned out. Whereupon a hot pursuit of Loki took place, who, after\nchanging himself into many forms, was caught, and chained under\nsharp-pointed rocks below the earth.\n\nThe adventures of Thor are very numerous. The pleasantest, perhaps, is the\naccount of his journey to Jotunheim, to visit his enemies, the giants of\nCold and Darkness. On his way, being obliged to pass the night in the\nforest, he came to a spacious hall, with an open door, reaching from one\nside to the other. In this he went to sleep, but being aroused by an awful\nearthquake, Thor and his companions crept into a chamber which opened out\nof the hall. When day came they found, sleeping near them, an enormous\ngiant, so large, that, as it appeared, they had passed the night in the\nthumb of his glove. They travelled with him all day; and the next night\nThor considered himself justified in killing this giant, who was one of\ntheir enemies. Three times he launched his mallet with fearful force at\nthe giant's head, and three times the giant awoke to inquire whether it\nwas a leaf or an acorn which had fallen on his face. After taking leave of\ntheir enormous and invulnerable companion, they arrived at the abodes of\nJotunheim, and the city of Utgard, and entered the city of the king,\nUtgard Loki. This king inquired what great feat Thor and his companions\ncould do. One professed to be a great eater; on which the king of giants\ncalled one of his servants named Logi, and placed between them a trough\nfilled with meat. Thor's companion ate his share, but Logi ate meat and\nbone too, and the trough into the bargain, and was considered to have\nconquered. Thor's other companion was a great runner, and was set to run\nwith a young man named Hugi, who so outstripped him that he reached the\ngoal before the other had gone half-way. Then Thor was asked what he could\ndo himself. He said he would engage in a drinking-match, and was presented\nwith a large horn, and was requested to empty it at a single draught,\nwhich he expected easily to do, but on looking in the liquor seemed\nscarcely diminished. The second time he tried, and lowered it slightly. A\nthird, and it was still only sunk half an inch. Whereupon he was laughed\nat, and called for some new feat. \"We have a trifling game here,\"\nanswered the king, \"in which we exercise none but children. It is merely\nto lift my cat from the ground.\" Thor put forth his whole might, but could\nonly lift up one foot, and was laughed at again. Angry at this, he called\nfor some one to wrestle with him. \"My men,\" said King Utgard, \"would think\nit beneath them to wrestle with thee, but let some one call my old nurse\nEld, and let Thor wrestle with her.\" A toothless old woman entered the\nhall, and after a violent struggle Thor began to lose his footing, and\nwent home excessively mortified. But it turned out afterward that all this\nwas illusion. The three blows of the mallet, instead of striking the\ngiant's head, had fallen on a mountain, which he had dexterously put\nbetween, and made three deep ravines in it, which remain to this day. The\ntriumphant eater was Fire itself, disguised as a man. The successful\nrunner was Thought. The horn out of which Thor tried to drink was\nconnected with the ocean, which was lowered a few inches by his tremendous\ndraughts. The cat was the great Midgard Serpent, which goes round the\nworld, and Thor had actually pulled the earth a little way out of its\nplace; and the old woman was Old Age itself[329].\n\nAccording to this mythology, there is coming a time in which the world\nwill be destroyed by fire and afterward renewed. This will be, preceded by\nawful disasters; dreadful winters; wars, and desolations on earth; cruelty\nand deceit; the sun and moon will be devoured, the stars hurled from the\nsky, and the earth violently shaken. The Wolf (Fenrir), the awful Midgard\nSerpent, Loki, and Hela come to battle with the gods. The great Ash-tree\nwill shake with fear. The Wolf (Fenrir) breaks loose, and opens his\nenormous mouth. The lower jaw reaches to the earth, and the upper to\nheaven. The Midgard Serpent, by the side of the Wolf, vomits forth floods\nof poison. Heaven is rent in twain, and Surtur and the sons of Muspell\nride through the breach. These are the children of Light and Fire, who\ndwell in the South, and who seem to belong neither to the race of gods nor\nto that of giants, but to a third party, who only interfere at the close\nof the conflict. While the battle goes on between the gods and the giants\nthey keep their effulgent bands apart on the field of battle. Meantime\nHeimdall--doorkeeper of the gods--sounds his mighty trumpet, which is\nheard through the whole universe, to summon the gods to conflict. The\ngods, or \u00c6sir, and all the heroes of Valhalla, arm themselves and go to\nthe field. Odin fights with the Wolf; Thor with the Midgard Serpent, whom\nhe kills, but being suffocated with the floods of venom dies himself. The\nWolf swallows Odin, but at that instant Vidar sets his foot on its lower\njaw, and laying hold of the upper jaw tears it apart. He accomplishes this\nbecause he has on the famous shoe, the materials of which have been\ncollecting for ages, it being made of the shreds of shoe-leather which are\ncut off in making shoes, and which, on this account, the religious\nScandinavians were careful to throw away. Loki and Heimdall fight and kill\neach other. After this Surtur darts fire over the whole earth, and the\nwhole universe is consumed. But then comes the restitution of all things.\nThere will rise out of the sea a new heaven and a new earth. Two gods,\nVidar and Vali, and two human beings, a man and woman, survive the\nconflagration, and with their descendants occupy the heavens and earth.\nThe suns of Thor come with their father's hammer and put an end to war.\nBaldur, and Hodur, the blind god, come up from Hell, and the daughter of\nthe Sun, more beautiful than its mother, occupies its place in the skies.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4. The Gods of Scandinavia.\n\n\nWe can give no better account of the Norse pantheon than by extracting the\npassages from the prose Edda, which describe the gods. We take the\ntranslation in Mallet's Northern Antiquities:--\n\n\n   \"OF ODIN.\n\n   \"'I must now ask thee,' said Gangler, 'who are the gods that men are\n   bound to believe in?'\n\n   \"'There are twelve gods,' replied Har, 'to whom divine honors ought to\n   be rendered.'\n\n   \"'Nor are the goddesses,' added Jafhhar, 'less divine and mighty.'\n\n   \"'The first and eldest of the \u00c6sir,' continued Thridi, 'is Odin. He\n   governs all things, and although the other deities are powerful, they\n   all serve and obey him as children do their father. Frigga is his wife.\n   She foresees the destinies of men, but never reveals what is to come.\n   For thus it is said that Odin himself told Loki, \"Senseless Loki, why\n   wilt thou pry into futurity? Frigga alone knoweth the destinies of all,\n   though she telleth them never.\"'\n\n   \"'Odin is named Alfadir (All-father), because he is the father of all\n   the gods, and also Valfadir (Choosing Father), because he chooses for\n   his sons all those who fall in combat. For their abode he has prepared\n   Valhalla and Ving\u00f3lf, where they are called Einherjar (Heroes or\n   Champions). Odin is also called Hangagud, Haptagud, and Farmagud, and,\n   besides these, was named in many ways when he went to King\n   Geirraudr.'....\n\n\n   \"OF THOR.\n\n   \"'I now ask thee,' said Gangler, 'what are the names of the other gods?\n   What are their functions, and what have they brought to pass?'\n\n   \"'The mightiest of them,' replied Har, 'is Thor. He is called Asa-Thor\n   and Auku-Thor, and is the strongest of gods and men. His realm is named\n   Thr\u00fadv\u00e1ng, and his mansion Bilskirnir, in which are five hundred and\n   forty halls. It is the largest house ever built. Thus it is called in\n   the Gr\u00edmnism\u00e1l:--\n\n       \"Fire hundred halls\n       And forty more,\n       Methinketh, hath\n       Bowed Bilskirnir.\n       Of houses roofed\n       There's none I know\n       My son's surpassing.\"\n\n   \"'Thor has a car drawn by two goats called Tanngni\u00f3st and Tanngrisnir.\n   From his driving about in this car he is called Auku-Thor\n   (Charioteer-Thor). He likewise possesses three very precious things.\n   The first is a mallet called Mj\u00f6lnir, which both the Frost and Mountain\n   Giants know to their cost when they see it hurled against them in the\n   air; and no wonder, for it has split many a skull of their fathers and\n   kindred. The second rare thing he possesses is called the belt of\n   strength or prowess (Megingjardir). When he girds it about him his\n   divine might is doubly augmented; the third, also very precious, being\n   his iron gauntlets, which he is obliged to put on whenever he would lay\n   hold of the handle of his mallet. There is no one so wise as to be able\n   to relate all Thor's marvellous exploits, yet I could tell thee so many\n   myself that hours would be whiled away ere all that I know had been\n   recounted.'\n\n\n   \"OF BALDUR.\n\n   \"'I would rather,' said Gangler, 'hear something about the other \u00c6sir.'\n\n   \"'The second son of Odin,' replied Har, 'is Baldur, and it may be truly\n   said of him that he is the best, and that all mankind are loud in his\n   praise. So fair and dazzling is he in form and features, that rays of\n   light seem to issue from him; and thou mayst have some idea of the\n   beauty of his hair when I tell thee that the whitest of all plants is\n   called Baldur's brow. Baldur is the mildest, the wisest, and the most\n   eloquent of all the \u00c6sir, yet such is his nature that the judgment he\n   has pronounced can never be altered. He dwells in the heavenly mansion\n   called Breidablik, in which nothing unclean can enter. As it is said,--\n\n       \"'T is Breidablik called,\n       \"Where Baldur the Fair\n       Hath built him a bower,\n       In that land where I know\n       The least loathliness lieth.\"'\n\n\n   \"OF NJ\u00d6RD.\n\n   \"'The third god,' continued Har, 'is Nj\u00f6rd, who dwells in the heavenly\n   region called No\u00e1t\u00fan. He rules over the winds, and checks the fury of\n   the sea and of fire, and is therefore invoked by seafarers and\n   fishermen. He is so wealthy that he can give possessions and treasures\n   to those who call on him for them. Yet Nj\u00f6rd is not of the lineage of\n   the \u00c6sir, for he was born and bred in Vanaheim. But the Vanir gave him\n   as hostage to the \u00c6sir, receiving from them in his stead Hoenir. By\n   this means was peace re-established between the \u00c6sir and Vanir. Nj\u00f6rd\n   took to wife Skadi, the daughter of the giant Thjassi. She preferred\n   dwelling in the abode formerly belonging to her father, which is\n   situated among rocky mountains, in the region called Thrymheim, but\n   Nj\u00f6rd loved to reside near the sea. They at last agreed that they\n   should pass together nine nights in Thrymheim, and then three in\n   No\u00e1t\u00fan. One day, when Nj\u00f6rd came back from the mountains to Noatun, he\n   thus sang:--\n\n       \"Of mountains I'm weary,\n       Not long was I there,\n       Not more than nine nights;\n       But the howl of the wolf\n       Methought sounded ill\n       To the song of the swan-bird.\"\n\n   '\"To which Skadi sang in reply:--\n\n       \"Ne'er can I sleep\n       In my couch on the strand,\n       For the screams of the sea-fowl.\n       The mew as he comes\n       Every morn from the main\n       Is sure to awake me.\"\n\n   \"'Skadi then returned to the rocky mountains, and abode in Thrymheim.\n   There, fastening on her snow-skates and taking her bow, she passes her\n   time in the chase of savage beasts, and is called the Ondur goddess, or\n   Ondurd\u00eds.....'\n\n\n   \"OF THE GOD FREY, AND THE GODDESS FREYJA.\n\n   \"'Nj\u00f6rd had afterwards, at his residence at N\u00f3at\u00fan, two children, a son\n   named Frey, and a daughter called Freyja, both of them beauteous and\n   mighty. Frey is one of the most celebrated of the gods. He presides\n   over rain and sunshine, and all the fruits of the earth, and should be\n   invoked in order to obtain good harvests, and also for peace. He,\n   moreover, dispenses wealth among men. Freyja is the most propitious of\n   the goddesses; her abode in heaven is called F\u00f3lkv\u00e1ng. To whatever\n   field of battle she rides, she asserts her right to one half of the\n   slain, the other half belonging to Odin.....'\n\n\n   \"OF TYR.\n\n   \"'There is Tyr, who is the most daring and intrepid of all the gods. 'T\n   is he who dispenses valor in war, hence warriors do well to invoke him.\n   It has become proverbial to say of a man who surpasses all others in\n   valor that he is _Tyr-strong_, or valiant as Tyr. A man noted for his\n   wisdom is also said to be \"wise as Tyr.\" Let me give thee a proof of\n   his intrepidity. When the \u00c6sir were trying to persuade the wolf,\n   Fenrir, to let himself be bound up with the chain, Gleipnir, he,\n   fearing that they would never afterwards unloose him, only consented on\n   the condition that while they were chaining him he should keep Tyr's\n   right hand between his jaws. Tyr did not hesitate to put his hand in\n   the monster's mouth, but when Fenrir perceived that the \u00c6sir had no\n   intention to unchain him, he bit the hand off at that point, which has\n   ever since been called the wolf's joint (\u00falflidr). From that time Tyr\n   has had but one hand. He is not regarded as a peacemaker among men.'\n\n\n   \"OF THE OTHER GODS.\n\n   \"'There is another god,' continued Har, 'named Bragi, who is celebrated\n   for his wisdom, and more especially for his eloquence and correct forms\n   of speech. He is not only eminently skilled in poetry, but the art\n   itself is called from his name _Bragr_, which epithet is also applied\n   to denote a distinguished poet or poetess. His wife is named Iduna. She\n   keeps in a box the apples which the gods, when they feel old age\n   approaching, have only to taste of to become young again. It is in this\n   manner that they will be kept in renovated youth until Ragnar\u00f6k.....\n\n   \"'One of the gods is Heimdall, called also the White God. He is the son\n   of nine virgins, who were sisters, and is a very sacred and powerful\n   deity. He also bears the appellation of the Gold-toothed, on account of\n   his teeth being of pure gold, and also that of Hallinskithi. His horse\n   is called Gulltopp, and he dwells in Himinbj\u00f6rg at the end of Bifr\u00f6st.\n   He is the warder of the gods, and is therefore placed on the borders of\n   heaven, to prevent the giants from forcing their way over the bridge.\n   He requires less sleep than a bird, and sees by night, as well as by\n   day, a hundred miles around him. So acute is his ear that no sound\n   escapes him, for he can even hear the grass growing on the earth, and\n   the wool on a sheep's back. He has a horn called the Gjallar-horn,\n   which is heard throughout the universe.....\n\n   \"'Among the \u00c6sir,' continued Har,'we also reckon H\u00f6dur, who is blind,\n   but extremely strong. Both gods and men would be very glad if they\n   never had occasion to pronounce his name, for they will long have cause\n   to remember the deed perpetrated by his hand.\n\n   \"'Another god is Vidar, surnamed the Silent, who wears very thick\n   shoes. He is almost as strong as Thor himself, and the gods place great\n   reliance on him in all critical conjunctures.\n\n   \"'Vali, another god, is the son of Odin and Rinda; he is bold in war,\n   and an excellent archer.\n\n   \"'Another is called Ullur, who is the son of Sif, and stepson of Thor.\n   He is so well skilled in the use of the bow, and can go so fast on his\n   snow-skates, that in these arts no one can contend with him. He is also\n   very handsome in his person, and possesses every quality of a warrior,\n   wherefore it is befitting to invoke him in single combats.\n\n   \"'The name of another god is Forseti, who is the son of Baldur and\n   Nanna, the daughter of Nef. He possesses the heavenly mansion called\n   Glitnir, and all disputants at law who bring their cases before him go\n   away perfectly reconciled.....'\n\n\n   \"OF LOKI AND HIS PROGENY.\n\n   \"'There is another deity,' continued Har, 'reckoned in the number of\n   the \u00c6sir, whom some call the calumniator of the gods, the contriver of\n   all fraud and mischief, and the disgrace of gods and men. His name is\n   Loki or Loptur. He is the son of the giant Farbauti.....Loki is\n   handsome and well made, but of a very fickle mood, and most evil\n   disposition. He surpasses all beings in those arts called Cunning and\n   Perfidy. Many a time has he exposed the gods to very great perils, and\n   often extricated them again by his artifices.....\n\n   \"'Loki,' continued Har, 'has likewise had three children by Angurbodi,\n   a giantess of J\u00f6tunheim. The first is the wolf Fenrir; the second\n   Jormungand, the Midgard serpent; the third Hela (Death). The gods were\n   not long ignorant that these monsters continued to be bred up in\n   J\u00f6tunheim, and, having had recourse to divination, became aware of all\n   the evils they would have to suffer from them; their being sprung from\n   such a mother was a bad presage, and from such a sire, one still worse.\n   All-father therefore deemed it advisable to send one of the gods to\n   bring them to him. When they came he threw the serpent into that deep\n   ocean by which the earth is engirdled. But the monster has grown to\n   such an enormous size that, holding his tail in his mouth, he encircles\n   the whole earth. Hela he cast into Niflheim, and gave her power over\n   nine worlds (regions), into which she distributes those who are sent to\n   her, that is to say, all who die through sickness or old age. Here she\n   possesses a habitation protected by exceedingly high walls and strongly\n   barred gates. Her hall is called Elvidnir; Hunger is her table;\n   Starvation, her knife; Delay, her man; Slowness, her maid; Precipice,\n   her threshold; Care, her bed; and Burning Anguish forms the hangings of\n   her apartments. The one half of her body is livid, the other half the\n   color of human flesh. She may therefore easily be recognized; the more\n   so, as she has a dreadfully stern and grim countenance.\n\n   \"'The wolf Fenrir was bred up among the gods; but Tyr alone had the\n   daring to go and feed him. Nevertheless, when the gods perceived that\n   he every day increased prodigiously in size, and that the oracles\n   warned them that he would one day become fatal to them, they determined\n   to make a very strong iron fetter for him, which they called L\u00e6ding.\n   Taking this fetter to the wolf, they bade him try his strength on it.\n   Fenrir, perceiving that the enterprise would not be very difficult for\n   him, let them do what they pleased, and then, by great muscular\n   exertion, burst the chain, and set himself at liberty. The gods, having\n   seen this, made another fetter, half as strong again as the former,\n   which they called Dr\u00f3mi, and prevailed on the wolf to put it on,\n   assuring him that, by breaking this, he would give an undeniable proof\n   of his vigor.\n\n   \"'The wolf saw well enough that it would not be so easy to break this\n   fetter, but finding at the same time that his strength had increased\n   since he broke L\u00e6ding, and thinking that he could never become famous\n   without running some risk, voluntarily submitted to be chained. When\n   the gods told him that they had finished their task, Fenrir shook\n   himself violently, stretched his limbs, rolled on the ground, and at\n   last burst his chains, which flew in pieces all around him. He thus\n   freed himself from Dr\u00f3mi, which gave rise to the proverb \"_at leysa or\n   l\u00e6\u00f0ingi e\u00f0a at drepa or dr\u00f3ma_\" (to get loose out of L\u00e6ding, or to dash\n   out of Dr\u00f3mi), when anything is to be accomplished by strong efforts.'\n\n   \"'After this, the gods despaired of ever being able to bind the wolf;\n   wherefore All-father sent Skirnir, the messenger of Frey, into the\n   country of the Dark Elves (Svart\u00e1lfaheim) to engage certain dwarfs to\n   make the fetter called Gleipnir. It was fashioned out of six things; to\n   wit, the noise made by the footfall of a cat; the beards of women; the\n   roots of stones; the sinews of bears; the breath of fish; and the\n   spittle of birds. Though thou mayest not have heard of these things\n   before, thou mayest easily convince thyself that we have not been\n   telling thee lies. Thou must have seen that women have no beards, that\n   cats make no noise when they run, and that there are no roots under\n   stones. Now I know what has been told thee to be equally true, although\n   there may be some things thou art not able to furnish a proof of.'\n\n   \"'I believe what thou hast told me to be true,' replied Gangler, 'for\n   what thou hast adduced in corroboratiou of thy statement is\n   conceivable. But how was the fetter smithied?'\n\n   \"'This I can tell thee,' replied Har, 'that the fetter was as smooth\n   and soft as a silken string, and yet, as thou wilt presently hear, of\n   very great strength. When it was brought to the gods they were profuse\n   in their thanks to the messenger for the trouble he had given himself;\n   and taking the wolf with them to the island called Lyngvi, in the Lake\n   Amsvartnir, they showed him the cord, and expressed their wish that he\n   would try to break it, assuring him at the same time that it was\n   somewhat stronger than its thinness would warrant a person in supposing\n   it to be. They took it themselves, one after another, in their hands,\n   and after attempting in vain to break it, said, \"Thou alone, Fenrir,\n   art able to accomplish such a feat.\"\n\n   \"'\"Methinks,\" replied the wolf, \"that I shall acquire no fame in\n   breaking such a slender cord; but if any artifice has been employed in\n   making it, slender though it seems, it shall never come on my feet.\"\n\n   \"'The gods assured him that he would easily break a limber silken cord,\n   since he had already burst asunder iron fetters of the most solid\n   construction. \"But if thou shouldst not succeed in breaking it,\" they\n   added, \"thou wilt show that thou art too weak to cause the gods any\n   fear, and we will not hesitate to set thee at liberty without delay.\"\n\n   \"'\"I fear me much,\" replied the wolf, \"that if ye once bind me so fast\n   that I shall be unable to free myself by my own efforts, ye will be in\n   no haste to unloose me. Loath am I, therefore, to have this cord wound\n   round me; but in order that ye may not doubt my courage, I will\n   consent, provided one of you put his hand into my mouth as a pledge\n   that ye intend me no deceit.\"\n\n   \"'The gods wistfully looked at each other, and found that they had only\n   the choice of two evils, until Tyr stepped forward and intrepidly put\n   his right hand between the monster's jaws. Hereupon the gods, having\n   tied up the wolf, he forcibly stretched himself, as he had formerly\n   done, and used all his might to disengage himself, but the more efforts\n   he made, the tighter became the cord, until all the gods, except Tyr,\n   who lost his hand, burst into laughter at the sight.\n\n   \"'When the gods saw that the wolf was effectually bound, they took the\n   chain called Gelgja, which was fixed to the fetter, and drew it through\n   the middle of a large rock named Gj\u00f6ll, which they sank very deep into\n   the earth; afterwards, to make it still more secure, they fastened the\n   end of the cord to a massive stone called Thviti, which they sank still\n   deeper. The wolf made in vain the most violent efforts to break loose,\n   and, opening his tremendous jaws, endeavored to bite them. The gods,\n   seeing this, thrust a sword into his mouth, which pierced his under jaw\n   up to the hilt, so that the point touched the palate. He then began to\n   howl horribly, and since that time the foam flows continually from his\n   mouth in such abundance that it forms the river called Von. There will\n   he remain until Ragnar\u00f6k.'\"\n\nThere are also goddesses in the Valhalla, of whom the Edda mentions\nFrigga, Saga, and many others.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5. Resemblance of the Scandinavian Mythology to that of Zoroaster.\n\n\nThese are the main points of the Scandinavian mythology, the resemblance\nof which to that of Zoroaster has been often remarked. Each is a dualism,\nhaving its good and evil gods, its worlds of light and darkness, in\nopposition to each other. Each has behind this dualism a dim presence, a\nvague monotheism, a supreme God, infinite and eternal. In each the evil\npowers are for the present conquered and bound in some subterranean\nprisons, but are hereafter to break out, to battle with the gods and\novercome them, but to be destroyed themselves at the same time. Each\nsystem speaks of a great conflagration, in which all things will be\ndestroyed; to be followed by the creation of a new earth, more beautiful\nthan the other, to be the abode of peace and joy. The duty of man in each\nsystem is war, though this war in the Avesta is viewed rather as moral\nconflict, while in the Edda it is taken more grossly for physical\nstruggle. The tone of the theology of Zoroaster is throughout higher and\nmore moral than that of the Scandinavians. Its doctrine of creation is not\na mere development by a dark, unintelligent process, nor, on the other\nhand, is it a Hindoo or Gnostic system of emanation. It is neither pure\nmaterialism on the one hand nor pantheism on the other; but a true\ndoctrine of creation, for an intelligent and moral purpose, by the\nconscious and free act of the Creator. But in many of the details, again,\nwe find a singular correspondence between these two systems. Odin\ncorresponds to Ormazd, Loki to Ahriman, the \u00c6sir to the Amschaspands, the\ngiants of J\u00f3tunheim to the Da\u00eavas. So too the ox (Adudab) is the\nequivalent of the giant Ymir, and the creation of the man and woman,\nMeshia and Meshiane, is correlated to Ask and Embla. Baldur resembles the\nRedeemer Sosiosh. The bridge, Bifrost, which goes up to heaven, is the\nbridge Chinevat, which goes from the top of Albordj to heaven. The dog\nSirius (Sura), the watchman who keeps guard over the abyss, seems also to\ncorrespond to Surtur, the watchman of the luminous world at the South. The\nearth, in the Avesta, is called Hethra, and by the ancient Germans and\nScandinavians, Hertha,--the name given by Tacitus to this goddess,\nsignifying the earth, in all the Teutonic languages. In like manner, the\nGerman name for heaven, Himmel, is derived from the Sanskrit word\n\"Himmala,\" the name of the Himmalah Mountains in Central Asia, believed by\nthe ancient inhabitants of Asia to be the residence of their gods[330].\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6. Scandinavian Worship.\n\n\nThe religious ceremonies of the Scandinavians were simple. Their worship,\nlike that of the followers of Zoroaster, was at first held in the open\nair; but in later times they erected temples, some of which were quite\nsplendid. There were three great festivals in the year. The first was at\nthe winter solstice, and on the longest night of the year, which was\ncalled the Mother Night, as that which produced the rest. This great feast\nwas called Yul, whence comes the English Yule, the old name for Christmas,\nwhich festival took its place when the Scandinavians became Christians.\nTheir festival was in honor of the sun, and was held with sacrifices,\nfeasting, and great mirth. The second festival was in spring, in honor of\nthe earth, to supplicate fruitful crops. The third was also in the spring,\nin honor of Odin. The sacrifices were of fruits, afterward animals, and\noccasionally, in later times, human beings. The people believed in divine\ninterposition, and also in a fixed destiny, but especially in themselves,\nin their own force and courage. Some of them laughed at the gods, some\nchallenged them to fight with them, and professed to believe in nothing\nbut their own might and main. One warrior calls for Odin, as a foeman\nalone worthy of his steel, and it was considered lawful to fight the gods.\nThe quicken-tree, or mountain-ash, was believed to possess great virtues,\non account of the aid it afforded to Thor on one occasion.\n\nBeside the priests, the Northern nations had their soothsayers. They also\nbelieved that by the power of runes the dead could be made to speak. These\nrunes were called galder, and another kind of magic, mostly practised by\nwomen, was called seid. It was thought that these wise women possessed the\npower of raising and allaying storms, and of hardening the body so that\nthe sword could not cut it. Some charms could give preternatural strength,\nothers the power of crossing the sea without a ship, of creating and\ndestroying love, of assuming different forms, of becoming invisible, of\ngiving the evil eye. Garments could be charmed to protect or to destroy\nthe wearer. A horse's head, set on a stake, with certain imprecations,\nproduced fearful mischief to a foe.[331]\n\nVery few remains of temples have been found in the North. But (as Laing\nremarks in his \"Sea-Kings of Norway\") the most permanent remains of the\nreligion of Odin are found in the usages and languages of the descendants\nof those who worshipped him. These descendants all retain, in the names of\nWednesday, Thursday, and Friday, the recollections of the chief gods of\nthis mythology. Mara (the nightmare) still torments the sleep of the\nEnglish-speaking people; and the Evil One, Nokke (so says Laing), is the\nancestor of Old Nick.\n\nEvery ninth year solemn sacrifices were held in the great temple at Upsal\nin Sweden. The king and all citizens of importance must appear in person\nand bring offerings. Crowds came together on these occasions, and no one\nwas excluded, except for some base or cowardly action. Nine human beings\nwere sacrificed, usually captives or slaves, but in times of great\ncalamity even a king was made a victim. Earl Hakon, of Norway, offered his\nson in sacrifice to obtain a victory over some pirates. The bodies were\nburied in groves, which thence were regarded as very sacred. One, called\nOdin's grove, near the temple of Upsal, was sacred in every twig and leaf.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 7. Social Character, Maritime Discoveries, and Political Institutions of\nthe Scandinavians.\n\n\nOf the manners, customs, and habits of the Scandinavians, we cannot speak\nat length. Society among them was divided into two classes,--the\nlandholder or bondsmen, and the thralls or slaves. The duty of the last\nwas to perform domestic service and till the ground, and they consisted of\nprisoners taken in war and their children. The business of the landholder\nor bondsman was war, and his chief virtue courage. His maxim was, to\nconquer a single opponent, to attack two, not to yield to three, and only\nto give way to four. To die in battle was their high ambition; then they\nbelieved that they should pass to the halls of Odin. King Ragnar died\nsinging the pleasure of receiving death in battle, saying, \"The hours of\nmy life have passed away; I shall die laughing.\" Saxo, describing a duel,\nsaid that one of the champions fell, laughed, and died. Rather than die in\ntheir bed, some, when sick, leaped from a rock into the sea. Others, when\ndying, would be carried into a field of battle. Others induced their\nfriends to kill them. The Icelandic Sagas are filled with stories of\nsingle combats, or _holm-gangs_. When not fighting they were fond of\nfeasting; and the man who could drink the most beer was counted the best.\nThe custom of drinking toasts came from the North. As the English give the\nQueen, and we the President, as the first health on public occasions, so\nthey begin with a cup, first to Odin, and afterward to other deities, and\nthen to the memory of the dead, in what was called grave-beer. Their\ninstitutions were patriarchal; the head of the family was the chief of the\ntribe and also its priest. But all the freemen in a neighborhood met in\nthe Thing, where they decided disputes, laid down social regulations, and\ndetermined on public measures. The Thing was, therefore, legislature,\ncourt of justice, and executive council in one; and once a year, in some\ncentral place, there was held a similar meeting to settle the affairs of\nthe whole country, called the Land-Thing or All-Thing. At this the king\nwas chosen for the whole community, who sometimes appointed subordinate\nofficers called Yarls, or earls, to preside over large districts. Respect\nfor women was a marked trait among the Scandinavians, as Tacitus has\nnoticed of their congeners, the Germans. They were admired for their\nmodesty, sense, and force of character, rather than for the fascinations\nwhich the nations of the South prefer. When Thor described his battle with\nthe sorceress, the answer was, \"Shame, Thor! to strike a woman!\" The wife\nwas expected to be industrious and domestic. She carried the keys of the\nhouse; and the Sagas frequently mention wives who divorced their husbands\nfor some offence, and took back their dowry. The Skalds, or Bards, had a\nhigh place and great distinction among this people. Their songs\nconstituted the literature and history of the Scandinavians, and the\npeople listened, not as to the inspiration of an individual mind, but to\nthe pulsation of its own past life. Their praises were desired, their\nsatire feared, by the greatest heroes and kings. Their style was\nfigurative, sometimes bombastic, often obscure.\n\nOf the maritime expeditions of the Northmen we have already spoken. For\nmany centuries they were the terror of Europe, North and South. The\nsea-kings of Norway appeared before Constantinople in 866, and afterward a\nbody-guard of the emperors of the East was composed of these pirates, who\nwere called the Varangians. Even before the death of Charlemagne their\ndepredations brought tears to his eyes; and after his death they pillaged\nand burnt the principal cities of France, and even his own palace at\nAix-la-Chapelle. They carried their arms into Spain, Italy, and Greece. In\n844 a band of these sea-rovers sailed up the Guadalquiver and attacked\nSeville, then in possession of the Moors, and took it, and afterward\nfought a battle with the troops of Abderahman II. The followers of\nMohammed and the worshippers of Odin, the turbaned Moors and the\nfair-haired Norwegians, here met, each far from his original home, each\nhaving pursued a line of conquest, which thus came in contact at their\nfurthest extremes.\n\nThe Northmen in Italy sold their swords to different princes, and under\nCount Rainalf built the city of Aversa in 1029[332]. In Sicily the\nNorthern knights defeated the Saracens, and enabled the Greek Emperor to\nreconquer the island. Afterward they established themselves in Southern\nItaly, and took possession of Apulia. A league formed against them by the\nGreek and German Emperors and the Pope ended in the utter defeat of the\nPapal and German army by three thousand Normans, and they afterward\nreceived and held Apulia as a Papal fief. In 1060 Robert Guiscard became\nDuke of Apulia and Calabria, and at last of the whole kingdom of Naples.\nSicily was conquered by his brother, Count Roger, who, with a few\nNorthmen, routed vast numbers of the Saracens and completed the subjection\nof the island, after thirty years of war. Meantime his brother Robert\ncrossed the Adriatic and besieged and took Durazzo, after a fierce battle,\nin which the Scandinavian soldiers of the Greek Emperor fought with the\nNormans descended from the same Scandinavian ancestors.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 8. Relation of this System to Christianity.\n\n\nThe first German nation converted to Christianity was that of the Goths,\nwhose teacher was Ulphilas, born 318, consecrated a bishop in 348. Having\nmade many converts to Christianity among his people, a persecution arose\nagainst them from the pagan Goths; and in 355, in consequence of this\npersecution, he sought and obtained leave to settle his converts in M\u00e6sia.\nHe preached with fervor, studied the Scripture in Greek and Latin, and\nmade the first translation of the Bible into any German language.\nFragments of his Gothic version are preserved at Upsal. This copy, called\nthe \"Codex Argenteus,\" was captured by the Swedes at Prague during the\nThirty Years' War. This manuscript is of the sixth century, and, together\nwith some palimpsests, is the only source of our knowledge of this ancient\nversion[333].\n\nUlphilas was an Arian, and died confessing his faith in that form of\nUnitarianism. Neander says it is to the credit of the orthodox historians\nthat they do not on that account abate anything of their praise of\nUlphilas for his great labors as a missionary, confessor, and doctor. His\ntranslation was, for a long time, used all over Europe by the various\ntribes of German descent.\n\nUlphilas, therefore, led the way in that work which resulted in one of the\ngreatest events of modern history; namely, the conversion of the German\nrace to Christianity. It was by various families of this Teutonic\nstem--Goths, Vandals, Saxons, Lombards, Burgundians, Franks--that the\nRoman Empire was overthrown. If they had not been converted to\nChristianity before and during these conquests, what would have been the\nfate of European civilization? The only bond uniting the modern and\nancient world was the Christian faith, and this faith was so adapted to\nthe German character that it was everywhere accepted by them[334]. The\nconversion of the Anglo-Saxons by Augustin (A.D. 597), of the Germans by\nBoniface (A.D. 718-755), of the Saxons (A.D. 803), and the universal\ndownfall of German heathenism, was a condition _sine qua non_ of that\nunion of Latin and Greek culture with the German vitality, which was at\nthe root of modern European civilization. Previous to this the Visigoths\nwere converted, as we have seen; then the Ostrogoths; then the Vandals and\nGepid\u00e6,--all in the fourth century. The Franks became Christians in the\nfifth century, the Alemanni and Lombards in the sixth. All of these tribes\nwere converted by Arian missionaries, except the Franks. But the records\nof these missions have perished, for the historians were Catholics, \"who,\"\nsays Milman[335], \"perhaps destroyed, or disdained to preserve, the fame\nof Arian conquests to a common Christianity.\" \"It was a surprising\nspectacle,\" says he, \"to behold the Teutonic nations melting gradually\ninto the general mass of Christian worshippers. In every other respect\nthey were still distinct races. The conquering Ostrogoth or Visigoth, the\nVandal, the Burgundian, the Frank, stood apart from the subjugated Roman\npopulation, as an armed or territorial aristocracy. They maintain, in\ngreat part at least, their laws, their language, their habits, their\ncharacter; in religion alone they are blended into one society, constitute\none church, worship at the same altar, and render allegiance to the same\nhierarchy. This is the single bond of their common humanity.\"\n\nThe German races also established everywhere the feudal system, that\ncurious institution, which has been the subject of so much discussion, and\nhas perplexed the readers of history by its incongruities. These\nperplexities, however, may perhaps be relieved if we see that the\nessential character of this institution was this, that it was an army\npermanently quartered on a subject people. This definition contains the\nexplanation of the whole system. The Germans had overrun and conquered the\nRoman Empire. They intended to possess and retain it. But being much fewer\nin numbers than the conquered people, how could they do this? Suppose that\nwhen the Confederate States had been conquered by the Union Army it had\nbeen determined to hold them permanently as a conquered territory. It\ncould be done thus. First, the original inhabitants must be disarmed and\nput under stringent laws, like that of the curfew, etc. Then to every\nprivate soldier in the Union Army a farm, say of fifty acres, would be\nassigned, on condition that whenever summoned by the captain of his\ncompany he would present himself armed to do military duty. In like manner\nthe captain would receive, say a hundred acres, on condition of appearing\nwith his company when summoned by his colonel. Then the colonel would\nreceive five hundred acres, on condition of appearing with his regiment\nwhen summoned by the general. The general (_dux_, duke) must appear with\nhis brigade when summoned by the commander-in-chief (_imperator_,\nemperor), and he would hold perhaps a thousand acres on this condition.\nAll this land, thus held on condition of military service, would be held\nin fee, and would exemplify the actual foundation of the whole feudal\nsystem, which was simply an arrangement by which a conquering army could\nhold down the conquered nation.\n\nOf course, such a system as this was one of tyranny and cruelty, and\nduring several centuries it was tempered and softened only by the\nmediatorial influence of the Christian Church. This was the only power\nstrong enough to shield the oppressed and to hold back the arm of the\ntyrant. Feudalism served, no doubt, some useful purposes. It was a method\nof riveting together, with iron nails, the conquerors and conquered, until\nthey could come into a union of a better kind.\n\nIt was about the year 1000 that the people of the North were converted to\nChristianity. This process of conversion was a long time going on, and\nthere were several relapses into paganism; so that no precise time can be\nfixed for the conversion of a single nation, much less for that of the\ndifferent branches of the Scandinavian stock separately situated in Sweden\nand Denmark, Iceland and Greenland, and colonized in England and Normandy.\nA mission was established in Denmark, A.D. 822, and the king was baptized;\nbut the overthrow of this Christian king restricted the labors of the\nmissionary. An attempt was made in Sweden in 829, and the missionary,\nAnschar, remained there a year and a half; but the mission there\nestablished was soon overthrown. Uniting wisdom with his ardor, Anschar\nestablished at Hamburg schools where he educated Danish and Swedish boys\nto preach Christianity in their own language to their countrymen. But the\nNormans laid waste this city, and the Christian schools and churches were\ndestroyed. About 850 a new attempt was made in Sweden, and there the\nsubject was laid by the king before his council or parliament, consisting\nof two assemblies, and they decided to allow Christianity to be preached\nand practised, apparently on the ground that this new god, Christ, might\nhelp them in their dangers at sea, when the other gods could not. And\nthus, according to the independent character of this people, Christianity\nwas neither allowed to be imposed upon them by their king against their\nwill, nor excluded from the use of those who chose to adopt it. It took\nits chance with the old systems, and many of the Danes and Normans\nbelieved in worshipping both Odin and Christ at the same time. King Harold\nin Denmark, during the last half of the tenth century, favored the spread\nof Christianity, and was himself baptized with his wife and son, believing\nat first that the Christian God was more powerful than the heathen gods,\nbut finally coming to the conclusion that these last were only evil\nspirits. On the other hand, some of the Danes believed that Christ was a\ngod, and to be worshipped; but that he was a less powerful god than Odin\nor Thor. The son of King Harold, in 990, returned to paganism and drove\nout the Christian priests; but his son, Canute the Great, who began to\nreign in 1014, was converted to Christianity in England, and became its\nzealous friend. But these fierce warriors made rather poor Christians.\nAdam of Bremen says: \"They so abominate tears and lamentations, and all\nother signs of penitence which we think so salubrious, that they will\nneither weep for their own sins nor at the death of their best friends.\"\nThus, in these Northern regions, Christianity grew through one or two\ncenturies, not like the mustard-seed, but like the leaven, infusing itself\nmore and more into their national life. According to the testimony of an\neye-witness, Adam of Bremen, the Swedes were very susceptible to religious\nimpressions. \"They receive the preachers of the truth with great\nkindness,\" says he, \"if they are modest, wise, and able; and our bishops\nare even allowed to preach in their great public assemblies.\" In Norway,\nPrince Hacon, in the middle of the tenth century, attempted to establish\nChristianity, which he had learned in England. He proposed to the great\nnational assembly that the whole nation should renounce idolatry, worship\nGod and Christ, keep Sundays as festivals, and Fridays as fasts. Great\nopposition was made, and there was danger of universal insurrection, so\nthat the king had to yield, and even himself drink a toast to Odin and eat\nhorse-flesh, which was a heathen practice. Subsequent kings of Norway\nintroduced Christianity again; but the people, though willing to be\nbaptized, frequently continued Pagans, and only by degrees renounced, with\ntheir old worship, their habits of piracy. The Icelanders embraced\nChristianity at their All-Thing in the year 1000, but with the condition\nthat they might also continue their old worship, and be permitted the\neating of horse-flesh and exposition of infants. When the All-Thing broke\nup, the assembled multitudes went to the hot-baths to be baptized,\npreferring for this rite hot water to cold. The Scandinavians seem at this\nperiod to have lost their faith in their old religion, and to have been in\na transition state. One warrior says that he relies more on his own\nstrength and arms than upon Thor. Another says, \"I would have thee know\nthat I believe neither in idols nor spirits, but only in my own force and\ncourage.\" A warrior told King Olaff in Norway, \"I am neither Christian nor\nPagan. My companions and I have no other religion than confidence in our\nown strength and good success.\" Evidently Christianity for a long time sat\nvery lightly on these nations. They were willing to be baptized and accept\nsome of the outward ceremonies and festivals of the Catholic Church, which\nwere considerately made to resemble their old ones.\n\nNevertheless Christianity met many of the wants of this noble race of men;\nand, on the other hand, their instincts as a race were as well adapted to\npromote an equal development of every side of Christian life. The Southern\nraces of Europe received Christianity as a religion of order; the Northern\nraces, as a religion of freedom. In the South of Europe the Catholic\nChurch, by its ingenious organization and its complex arrangements,\nintroduced into life discipline and culture. In the North of Europe\nProtestant Christianity, by its appeals to the individual soul, awakens\nconscience and stimulates to individual and national progress. The nations\nof Southern Europe accepted Christianity mainly as a religion of sentiment\nand feeling; the nations of Northern Europe, as a religion of truth and\nprinciple. God adapted Christianity to the needs of these Northern races;\nbut he also adapted these races, with their original instincts and their\nprimitive religion, to the needs of Christianity. Without them, we do not\nsee how there could be such a thing in Europe to-day as Protestantism. It\nwas no accident which made the founder of the Reformation a Saxon monk,\nand the cradle of the Reformation Germany. It was no accident which\nbrought the great Gustavus Adolphus from the northern peninsula, at the\nhead of his Swedish Protestants, to turn the tide of war in favor of\nProtestantism and to die on the field of Lutzen, fighting for freedom of\nspirit. It is no accident which makes the Scandinavian races to-day, in\nSweden and Norway, in Denmark and North Germany and Holland, in England\nand the United States, almost the only Protestant nations of the world.\nThe old instincts still run in the blood, and cause these races to ask of\ntheir religion, not so much the luxury of emotion or the satisfaction of\nrepose, in having all opinions settled for them and all actions\nprescribed, as, much rather, light, freedom, and progress. To them\nto-day, as to their ancestors,\n\n    \"Is life a simple art\n      Of duties to be done,\n    A game where each man takes his part,\n      A race where all must run;\n    A battle whose great scheme and scope\n      They little care to know;\n    Content, as men at arms, to cope\n      Each with his fronting foe.\"\n\n\n\n\nChapter X.\n\nThe Jewish Religion.\n\n\n\n  \u00a7 1. Palestine, and the Semitic Races.\n  \u00a7 2. Abraham; or, Judaism as the family Worship of a Supreme Being.\n  \u00a7 3. Moses; or, Judaism as the national Worship of a just and holy King.\n  \u00a7 4. David; or, Judaism as the personal Worship of a Father and Friend.\n  \u00a7 5. Solomon; or, the Religious Relapse.\n  \u00a7 6. The Prophets; or, Judaism as the Hope of a spiritual and universal\n         Kingdom of God.\n  \u00a7 7. Judaism as a Preparation for Christianity.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 1. Palestine, and the Semitic Races.\n\n\nPalestine is a word equivalent to Philistia, or the land of the\nPhilistines. A similar name for the coast region of Syria has been found\non a monument in Nineveh,[336] and at Karnak in Egypt.[337] Josephus and\nPhilo use the term \"Palestine,\" as applying to the Philistines; and the\naccurate learning of Milton appears in his using it in the same\nsense.[338] \"The land of Canaan,\" \"The land of Israel,\" and \"Jud\u00e6a\" were\nthe names afterward given to the territory of the children of Israel. It\nis a small country, like others as famous; for it is only about one\nhundred and forty English miles in length, and forty in width. It\nresembles Greece and Switzerland, not only in its small dimensions, but by\nbeing composed of valleys, separated by chains of mountains and by ranges\nof hills. It was isolated by the great sea of sand on the east, and the\nMediterranean on the west. Sharply defined on the east, west, and south,\nit stretches indefinitely into Syria on the north. It is a hilly,\nhigh-lying region, having all the characters of Greece except proximity to\nthe sea, and all those of Switzerland except the height of the mountains.\nIts valleys were well watered and fertile. They mostly ran north and\nsouth; none opened a way across, Jud\u00e6a to the Mediterranean. This\ngeographical fact assisted in the isolation of the country. Two great\nroutes of travel passed by its borders without entering its hills. On the\nwest the plains of Philistia were the highway of the Assyrian and Egyptian\narmies. On the north the valley of the Orontes, separated by the chain of\nLebanon from Palestine, allowed the people of Asia a free passage to the\nsea. So, though surrounded by five great nations, all idolatrous,--the\nBabylonians, Medes, Assyrians, Phoenicians, and Egyptians,--the people of\nJud\u00e6a were enabled to develop their own character and institutions without\nmuch interference from without. Inaccessible from the sea, and surrounded,\nlike the Swiss, by the natural fortifications of their hills, like the\nSwiss they were also protected by their poverty from spoilers. But being\nat the point of contact of three continents, they had (like the\nMahommedans afterwards) great facilities for communicating their religious\nideas to other nations.\n\nPalestine is so small a country that from many points the whole of it may\nbe overlooked[339]. Toward the east, from all points, may be seen the high\nplateau of Moab and the mountains of Gilead. Snow-capped Hermon is always\nvisible on the north. In the heart of the land rises the beautiful\nmountain Tabor, clothed with vegetation to its summit. It is almost a\nperfect cone, and commands the most interesting view in all directions.\nFrom its top, to which you ascend from Nazareth by a path which Jesus may\nhave trod, you see to the northeast the lofty chain of Hermon (Jebel es\nSheikh = the Captain) rising into the blue sky to the height of ten\nthousand feet, covered with eternal snow. West of this appears the chain\nof Lebanon. At the foot of Tabor the plain of Esdraelon extends northerly,\ndotted with hills, and animated with the camps of the Arabs[340]. The Lake\nof Galilee gleams, a silver line, on the east, with Bashan and the\nmountains of Gilead in the distance, and farther to the southeast the\ngreat plateau of Moab rises like a mountain wall beyond the Jordan. The\nvalley of the Jordan itself, sunk far below the level of the\nMediterranean, is out of sight in its deep valley; nor is anything seen of\nthe Dead Sea. To the northwest rises rocky Carmel, overhanging the Bay of\nAccha (or Acre), on the Mediterranean.\n\nThe whole country stands high. Hebron, at the south, is three thousand\nfeet above the level of the sea; Jerusalem is twenty-six hundred; the\nMount of Olives, twenty-seven hundred; and Ebal and Gerizim in Samaria,\nthe same. The valley in which Nazareth stands is eight hundred and twenty\nfeet above the sea; that at the foot of Tabor, four hundred and\nthirty-nine; while the summit of Tabor itself is seventeen hundred and\nfifty. From Jud\u00e6a the land plunges downward very rapidly toward the east\ninto the valley of Jordan. The surface of Lake Galilee is already five\nhundred and thirty-five feet below that of the Mediterranean, and that of\nthe Dead Sea is five hundred feet lower down.[341] Palestine is therefore\na mountain fastness, and most of the waves of war swept by, leaving it\nuntouched and unassailed. From Jerusalem to Jericho the distance is only\nthirteen miles, but the latter place is a thousand feet lower than the\nformer, so that it was very proper to speak of a man's \"going down from\nJerusalem to Jericho.\"\n\nThe Jews belonged to what has been called the Semitic race. This family,\nthe only historic rival of the Japhetic (or Aryan) race, is ethnologically\ncomposed of the Assyrians and Babylonians, the Phoenicians, the Hebrews\nand other Syrian tribes, the Arabs and the Carthaginians. It is a race\nwhich has been great on land and at sea. In the valley of the Euphrates\nand that of the Tigris its sons carried all the arts of social life to the\nhighest perfection, and became mighty conquerors and warlike soldiers. On\nthe Mediterranean their ships, containing Phoenician navigators, explored\nthe coasts, made settlements at Carthage and Cadiz, and sailing out of the\nStraits of Gibraltar went as far north as Great Britain, and\ncircumnavigated Africa two thousand years before Vasco da Gama. This race\nhas given to man the alphabet, the Bible, the Koran, commerce, and in\nHannibal the greatest military genius of all time.\n\nThat the different nations inhabiting the region around the Euphrates and\nTigris, Syria and Arabia, belonged to one great race, is proved by the\nunimpeachable testimony of language. The Bible genealogies trace them to\nShem, the son of Noah. Ewald,[342] who believes that this region was\ninhabited by an aboriginal people long before the days of Abraham,--a\npeople who were driven out by the Canaanites,--nevertheless says that they\nno doubt were a Semitic people. The languages of all these nations is\nclosely related, being almost dialects of a single tongue, the differences\nbetween them being hardly greater than between the subdivisions of the\nGerman group of languages.[343] That which has contributed to preserve the\nclose homogeneity among these tongues is, that they have little power of\ngrowth or development. As M. Renan says, \"they have less lived than\nlasted.\"[344]\n\nThe Phoenicians used a language almost identical with the Hebrew. A\nsarcophagus of Ezmunazar, king of Sidon, dating from the fifth century\nbefore Christ, was discovered a few years since, and is now in the Museum\nof the Louvre. It contains some thirty sentences of the length of an\naverage verse in the Bible, and is in pure Hebrew.[345] In a play of\nPlautus[346] a Carthaginian is made to speak a long passage in his native\nlanguage, the Punic tongue; this is also very readable Hebrew. The black\nbasalt stele, lately discovered in the land of Moab, contains an\ninscription of Mesha, king of Moab, addressed to his god, Chemosh,\ndescribing his victory over the Israelites. This is also in a Hebrew\ndialect. From such facts it appears that the Hebrews, Phoenicians, and\nCanaanites were all congeners with each other, and with the Babylonians\nand Assyrians.\n\nBut now the striking fact appears that the Hebrew _religion_ differed\nwidely from that of these other nations of the same family. The Assyrians,\nBabylonians, Phoenicians, and Carthaginians all possessed a nearly\nidentical religion. They all believed in a supreme god, called by the\ndifferent names of Ilu, Bel, Set, Hadad, Moloch, Chemosh, Jaoh, El, Adon,\nAsshur. All believed in subordinate and secondary beings, emanations from\nthis supreme being, his manifestations to the world, rulers of the\nplanets. Like other pantheistic religions, the custom prevailed among the\nSemitic nations of promoting first one and then another deity to be the\nsupreme object of worship. Among the Assyrians, as among the Egyptians,\nthe gods were often arranged in triads, as that of Ann, Bel, and Ao. Anu,\nor Cannes, wore the head of a fish; Bel wore the horns of a bull; Ao was\nrepresented by a serpent. These religions represented the gods as the\nspirit within nature, and behind natural objects and forces,--powers\nwithin the world, rather than above the world. Their worship combined\ncruelty and licentiousness, and was perhaps as debasing a superstition as\nthe world has witnessed. The Greeks, who were not puritans themselves in\ntheir religion, were shocked at the impure orgies of this worship, and\nhorrified at the sacrifice of children among the Canaanites and\nCarthaginians.\n\nHow then did the Hebrews, under Moses and the later prophets, originate a\nsystem so widely different? Their God was above nature, not in it. He\nstood alone, unaccompanied by secondary deities; he made no part of a\ntriad; he was not associated with a female representative. His worship\nrequired purity, not pollution; its aim was holiness, and its spirit\nhumane, not cruel. Monotheistic in its spirit from the first, it became an\nabsolute monotheism in its development. Whence this wide departure in the\nHebrews from the religious tendencies and belief of the surrounding\nnations, who spoke the same language and belonged to the same stock?\n\nM. Renan considers this a question of race.[347] He says: \"The\nIndo-European race, distracted by the variety of the universe, never by\nitself arrived at monotheism. The Semitic race, on the other hand, guided\nby its firm and sure sight, instantly unmasked Divinity, and without\nreflection or reasoning attained the purest form of religion that humanity\nhas known.\" But the Assyrians, Babylonians, Arabians before Mohammed,\nPhoenicians, and Carthaginians, and perhaps the Egyptians, belonged to the\nSemitic race. Yet none of these nations attained to any monotheism purer\nthan that of the Veda or the Avesta. The Arabs, near relations of the\nHebrews, were divided between a worship like that of Babylon and Sab\u00e6ism,\nor star-worship. No doubt in all these Semitic families the idea of one\nsupreme god lay behind that of the secondary deities; but this was also\nthe case in the Aryan races. And in both this primitive monotheism receded\ninstead of becoming more distinct, with the single exception of the\nHebrews. M. Renan's view is not, therefore, supported by the facts. We\nmust look further to find the true cause, and therefore are obliged to\nexamine somewhat in detail the main points of Hebrew history. It would be\neasy, but would not accord with our plan, to accept the common Christian\nexplanation, and say, \"Monotheism was a direct revelation to Moses.\" For\nwe are now not able to assume such a revelation, and are obliged to\nconsider the subject from the outside, from the stand-point of pure\nhistory.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. Abraham; or, Judaism as the family Worship of a Supreme Being.\n\n\nWe have been so accustomed to regard the Jewish religion as a part of our\nown, and so to look at it from within, that it is hard to take the\nhistoric position, and to look at it from without. But to compare it with\nother religions, and to see what it really is and is not, this is\nnecessary. It becomes more difficult to assume the attitude of an\nimpartial observer, because of the doctrine of verbal inspiration, so\nuniversally taught in the Protestant Church. From childhood we have looked\non the Old Testament as inspired throughout, and all on the same level of\nabsolute infallibility. There is no high, no low, no degrees of certitude\nor probability, where every word is assumed to be the very word of God.\nBut those who still hold to the plenary inspiration of the Old Testament\nmust consent, for our present purpose, to suspend their faith in this\ndoctrine, and provisionally to look at the Old Testament with the same\nimpartial though friendly scrutiny with which we have regarded the sacred\nbooks of other nations. Not a little will be gained for the Jewish\nScriptures by this position. If they lose the authority which attaches to\nthe Word of God, they will gain the interest which belongs to the\nutterance of man.\n\nWhile M. Renan finds the source of Hebrew monotheism in a like tendency in\nthe whole Semitic race,--a supposition which we have seen to be\ncontradicted by the facts,--Max M\u00fcller regards the true origin of this\ntendency to be in Abraham himself, the friend of God, and Father of the\nFaithful. He calls attention to the fact that both Moses and Christ, and\nsubsequently Mohammed, preached no new God, but the God of Abraham.\n\"Thus,\" says he, \"the faith in the one living God, which seemed to require\nthe admission of a monotheistic instinct grafted in every member of the\nSemitic family, is traced back to one man.\" He adds his belief that this\nfaith of Abraham in one supreme God came to him by a special revelation.\n\nAnd if, by a special revelation, is meant a grand profound insight, an\ninspired vision of truth, so deep and so living as to make it a reality\nlike that of the outward world, then we see no better explanation of the\nmonotheism of the Hebrews than this conviction transmitted from Abraham\nthrough father and son, from generation to generation.\n\nFor the most curious fact about this Jewish people is, that every one of\nthem[348] is a child of Abraham. All looked back with the same ancestral\npride to their great progenitor, the friend of God. This has never been\nthe case with any other nation, for the Arabs are not a nation. One can\nhardly imagine a greater spur to patriotism than this union of pride of\ndescent with pride in one's nation and its institutions. The proudest and\npoorest Jew shared it together. There was one distinction, and that the\nmost honorable, which belonged equally to all.\n\nWe have seen that, in all the Semitic nations, behind the numerous divine\nbeings representing the powers of nature, there was dimly visible one\nSupreme Being, of whom all these were emanations. The tendency to lose\nsight of this First Great Cause, so common in the race, was reversed in\nAbraham. His soul rose to the contemplation of the Perfect Being, above\nall, and the source of all. With passionate love he adored this Most High\nGod, Maker of heaven and earth. Such was his devotion to this Almighty\nBeing, that men, wondering, said, \"Abraham is the friend of the Most High\nGod!\" He desired to find a home where he could bring up his children in\nthis pure faith, undisturbed and unperverted by the gross and low worship\naround him. In some \"deep dream or solemn vision\" it was borne in on his\nmind that he must go and find such a home.\n\nWe are not to suppose, however, that the mind of Abraham rose to a clear\nconception of the unity of God, as excluding all other divine beings. The\nidea of local, tribal, family gods was too deeply rooted to be at once\nrelinquished. Abraham, as described in Genesis, is a great Arab chief, a\ntype of patriarchal life, in which all authority is paternal. The religion\nof such a period is filial, and God is viewed as the protector and friend\nof the family or tribe. Only the family God of Abraham was the highest of\nall gods, the Almighty (Gen. xvii. 1), who was also the God of Isaac (Gen.\nxxviii. 3) and of Jacob (Gen. xxxv. 11).\n\nStanley[349] expresses his satisfaction that the time has past in which\nthe most fastidious believer can object to hearing Abraham called a\nBedouin sheik. The type has remained unchanged through all the centuries,\nand the picture in the Bible of Abraham in his tent, of his hospitality,\nhis self-respect, his courage, and also of his less noble traits,\noccasional cunning and falsehood, and cruelty toward Hagar and\nIshmael,--these qualities, good and bad, are still those of the desert.\nOnly in Abraham something higher and exceptional was joined with them.\n\nIn the Book of Genesis Abraham enters quite abruptly upon the scene. His\ngenealogy is given in Genesis (chap, xi.), he being the ninth in descent\nfrom Shem, each generation occupying a little more than thirty years. The\nbirth of Abraham is usually placed somewhere about two thousand years\nbefore Christ. His father's name was Terah, whom the Jewish and Mohammedan\ntraditions describe as an idolater and maker of idols. He had two\nbrothers, Nahor and Haran; the latter being the father of Lot, and the\nother, Nahor, being the grandfather of Rebecca, wife of Isaac. Abraham's\nfather, Terah, lived in Ur of the Chaldees (called in Scripture Casdim).\nThe Chaldees, who subsequently inhabited the region about the Persian\nGulf, seemed at first to have lived among the mountains of Armenia, at the\nsource of the Tigris; and this was the region where Abraham was born, a\nregion now occupied by the people called Curds, who are perhaps\ndescendants of the old Chaldees, the inhabitants of Ur. The Curds are\nMohammedans and robbers, and quite independent, never paying taxes to the\nPorte. The Chaldees are frequently mentioned in Scripture and in ancient\nwriters. Xenophon speaks of the Carduchi as inhabitants of the mountains\nof Armenia, and as making incursions thence to plunder the country, just\nas the Curds do now. He says they were found there by the younger Cyrus,\nand by the ten thousand Greeks. The Greeks, in their retreat, were obliged\nto fight their way through them, and found them very skilful archers. So\ndid the Romans under Crassus and Mark Antony. And so are they described by\nthe Prophet Habakkuk (chap, i. 6-9):--\n\n    \"For lo, I raise up the Chaldeans,\n    A bitter and hasty nation,\n    Which marches far and wide in the earth,\n    To possess the dwellings that are not theirs.\n    They are terrible and dreadful,\n    Their decrees and their judgments proceed only from themselves.\n    Swifter than leopards are their horses,\n    And fiercer than the evening wolves.\n    Their horsemen prance proudly around;\n    And their horsemen shall come from afar and fly,\n    Like the eagle when he pounces on his prey.\n    They all shall come for violence,\n    In troops,--their glance is ever forward!\n    They gather captives like the sand!\"\n\nAs they were in the time of Habakkuk, so are they to-day. Shut up on every\nside in the Persian Empire, their ancestors, the Carduchi, refused\nobedience to the great king and his satraps, just as the Curds refuse to\nobey the grand seignior and his pashas. They can raise a hundred and forty\nthousand armed men. They are capable of any undertaking. Mohammed himself\nsaid, \"They would yet revolutionize the world.\"\n\nThe ancient Chaldees seem to have been fire-worshippers, like the\nPersians. They were renowned for the study of the heavens and the worship\nof the stars, and some remains of Persian dualism still linger among their\ndescendants, who are accused of Devil-worship by their neighbors.\n\nThat Abraham was a real person, and that his story is historically\nreliable, can hardly be doubted by those who have the historic sense. Such\npictures, painted in detail with a Pre-Raphaelite minuteness, are not of\nthe nature of legends. Stories which are discreditable to his character,\nand which place him in a humiliating position towards Pharaoh and\nAbimelech, would not have appeared in a fictitious narrative. The mythical\naccounts of Abraham, as found among the Mohammedans and in the\nTalmud,[350] show, by their contrast, the difference between fable and\nhistory.\n\nThe events in the life of Abraham are so well known that it is not\nnecessary even to allude to them. We will only refer to one, as showing\nthat others among the tribes in Palestine, besides Abraham, had a faith in\nGod similar to his. This is the account of his meeting with Melchisedek.\nThis mysterious person has been so treated by typologists that all human\nmeaning has gone out of him, and he has become, to most minds, a very\nvapory character.[351] But this is doing him great injustice.\n\nOne mistake often made about him is, to assume that \"Melchisedek, King of\nSalem,\" gives us the name and residence of the man, whereas both are his\nofficial titles. His name we do not know; his office and title had\nswallowed it up. \"King of Justice and King of Peace,\"--this is his\ndesignation. His office, as we believe, was to be umpire among the chiefs\nof neighboring tribes. By deciding the questions which arose among them,\naccording to equity, he received his title of \"King of Justice.\" By thus\npreventing the bloody arbitrament of war, he gained the other name, \"King\nof Peace.\" All questions, therefore, as to where \"Salem\" was, fall to the\nground. Salem means \"peace\"; it does not mean the place of his abode.\n\nBut in order to settle such intertribal disputes, two things were\nnecessary: first, that the surrounding Bedouin chiefs should agree to take\nhim as their arbiter; and, secondly, that some sacredness should attach to\nhis character, and give authority to his decisions. Like others in those\ndays, he was both king and priest; but he was priest \"of the Most High\nGod,\"--not of the local gods of the separate tribes, but of the highest\nGod, above all the rest. That he was the acknowledged arbiter of\nsurrounding tribes appears from the fact that Abraham paid to him tithes\nout of the spoils. It is not likely that Abraham did this if there were no\nprecedent for it; for he regarded the spoils as belonging, not to himself,\nbut to the confederates in whose cause he fought. No doubt it was the\ncustom, as in the case of Delphi, to pay tithes to this supreme arbiter;\nand in doing so Abraham was simply following the custom. The Jewish\ntraveller, Wolff, states that in Mesopotamia a similar custom prevails at\nthe present time. One sheik is selected from the rest, on account of his\nsuperior probity and piety, and becomes their \"King of Peace and\nRighteousness.\" A similar custom, I am told, prevails among some American\ntribes. Indeed, where society is organized by clans, subject to local\nchiefs, some such arrangement seems necessary to prevent perpetual feuds.\n\nThis \"King of Justice and Peace\" gave refreshments to Abraham and his\nfollowers after the battle, blessing him in the name of the Most High God.\nAs he came from no one knows where, and has no official status or descent,\nthe fact that Abraham recognized him as a true priest is used in the Book\nof Psalms and the Epistle to the Hebrews to prove there is a true\npriesthood beside that of the house of Levi. A priest after the order of\nMelchisedek is one who becomes so by having in him the true faith, though\nhe has \"no father nor mother, beginning of days nor end of life,\" that is,\nno genealogical position in an hereditary priesthood.\n\nThe God of Abraham was \"The Most High.\" He was the family God of Abraham's\ntribe and of Abraham's descendants. Those who should worship other gods\nwould be disloyal to their tribe, false to their ancestors, and must be\nregarded as outlaws. Thus the faith in a Supreme Being was first\nestablished in the minds of the descendants of Abraham by family pride,\nreverence for ancestors, and patriotic feeling. The faith of Abraham, that\nhis God would give to his descendants the land of Palestine, and multiply\nthem till they should be as numerous as the stars or the sand, was that\nwhich made him the Father of the Faithful.\n\nThe faith of Abraham, as we gather it from Genesis, was in God as a\nSupreme Being. Though almighty, God was willing to be Abraham's personal\nprotector and friend. He talks with Abraham face to face. He comes to him,\nand agrees to give to him and to his posterity the land of Canaan, and in\nthis promise Abraham has entire faith. His monotheism was indeed of an\nimperfect kind. It did not exclude a belief in other gods, though they\nwere regarded as inferior to his own. His family God, though almighty, was\nnot omnipresent. He came down to learn whether the rumors concerning the\nsinfulness of Sodom were correct or not. He was not quite sure of\nAbraham's faith, and so he tested it by commanding him to sacrifice Isaac,\nin whom alone the promise to Abraham's descendants could be fulfilled. But\nthough the monotheism of Abraham was of so imperfect a kind, it had in it\nthe root of the better kind which was to come. It was imperfect, but not\nfalse. It was entire faith in the supreme power of Jehovah to do what he\nwould, and in his disposition to be a friend to the patriarch and his\nposterity. It was, therefore, trust in the divine power, wisdom, and\ngoodness. The difference between the religion of Abraham and that of the\npolytheistic nations was, that while they descended from the idea of a\nSupreme Being into that of subordinate ones, he went back to that of the\nSupreme, and clung to this with his whole soul.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. Moses; or, Judaism as the national Worship of a just and holy King.\n\n\nIn speaking of Moses and of his law, it may be thought necessary to begin\nby showing that such a man as Moses really existed; for modern criticism\nhas greatly employed itself in questioning the existence of great men. As\nthe telescope resolves stars into double, triple, and quadruple stars, and\nfinally into star-dust, so the critics, turning their optical tubes toward\nthat mighty orb which men call Homer, have declared that they have\nresolved him into a great number of little Homers. The same process has\nbeen attempted in regard to Shakespeare. Some have tried to show that\nthere never was any Shakespeare, but only many Shakespeare writers. In\nlike manner, the critics have sought to dissolve Moses with their powerful\nanalysis, and, instead of Moses, to give us a number of fragmentary\nwritings from different times and hands, skilfully joined together; in\nfact, instead of Moses, to give us a mosaic. Criticism substitutes human\ntendencies in the place of great men, does not love to believe in genius,\nand often appears to think that a number of mediocrities added together\ncan accomplish more than one man of genius.\n\nCertainly this is a mistake. The easiest and most natural solution of\nwonderful results is the supposition of genius, inspiration, heroism, as\ntheir cause. Great men explain history. Napoleon explains the history of\nEurope during a quarter of a century. Suppose a critic, a thousand years\nhence, should resolve Napoleon into half a dozen Napoleons; would they\nexplain the history of Europe as well? Given a man like Napoleon, and we\ncan understand the French campaigns in Italy and Germany, the overthrow of\nAustria, the annihilation of Prussia, the splendid host of field-marshals,\nthe Bonaparte circle of kings, the Codex, the Simplon Road, and the many\nchanges of states and governments on the map of Europe. One man of genius\nexplains it all. But take away the man of genius, and substitute a group\nof small men in his place, and the thing is much more obscure and\nunintelligible. So, given Moses, the man of genius and inspiration, and we\ncan understand the Exodus, understand the Jewish laws, understand the\nPentateuch, and understand the strange phenomenon of Judaism. But, instead\nof Moses, given a mosaic, however skilfully put together, and the thing is\nmore difficult. Therefore, Moses is to be preferred to the mosaic, as the\nmore reasonable and probable of the two, just as Homer is preferable to\nthe Homerids, and Shakespeare to the Shakespeare Club.[352]\n\nWe find in Moses the three elements of genius, inspiration, and\nknowledge. Perhaps it is not difficult to distinguish them. We see the\nnatural genius and temperament of Moses breaking out again and again\nthroughout his career, as the rocky strata underlying the soil crop out in\nthe midst of gardens, orchards, and fields of corn. The basis of his\nnature was the hardest kind of rock, with a surging subterranean fire of\npassion beneath it. An awful soul, stem and terrible as Michael Angelo\nconceived him, the sublime genius carving the sublime lawgiver in\ncongenial marble. The statue is as stern as law itself. It sits in one of\nthe Roman churches, between two columns, the right hand grasping the\ntables of the law, the symbolic horns of power protruding from the brow,\nand the austere look of the judge bent upon those on the left hand. A\nfiery nature, an iron will, a rooted sense of justice, were strangely\noverflowed and softened by a tenderness toward his race, which was not so\nmuch the feeling of a brother for brethren as of a parent for children.\n\nEducated in the house of Pharaoh, and adopted by his daughter as her\nchild, taken by the powerful and learned priesthood of Egypt into their\nranks, and sharing for many years their honors and privileges, his heart\nyearned toward his brethren in the land of Goshen, and he went out to see\nthem in their sufferings and slavery. His impetuous nature broke out in\nsudden indignation at the sight of some act of cruelty, and he smote the\noverseer who was torturing the Jewish slave. That act made him an exile,\nand sent him to live in Arabia Petrea, as a shepherd. If he had thought\nonly of his own prospects and position, he would not have gone near the\nIsraelites at all, but lived quietly as an Egyptian priest in the palace\nof Pharaoh. But, as the writer to the Hebrews says, he \"refused, to be\ncalled the son of Pharaoh's daughter; choosing rather to suffer affliction\nwith the people of God than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a\nseason.\"[353] Another instance of his generous and tender feelings toward\nhis nation is seen in his behavior when the people made the golden calf.\nFirst, his anger broke out against them, and all the sternness of the\nlawgiver appeared in his command to the people to cut down their\nidolatrous brethren; then the bitter tide of anger withdrew, and that of\ntenderness took its place, and he returned into the mountain to the Lord\nand said, \"O, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods\nof gold. Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I\npray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.\" Moses did not make\nmuch account of human life. He struck dead the Egyptian who was\nill-treating a Jew; he slew the Jews who turned to idolatry; he slew the\nMidianites who tempted them; but then he was ready to give up his own life\ntoo for the sake of his people and for the sake of the cause. This spirit\nof Moses pervades his law, this same inconsistency went from his character\ninto his legislation; his relentless severity and his tender sympathy both\nappear in it. He knows no mercy toward the transgressor, but toward the\nunfortunate he is full of compassion. His law says, \"Eye for eye, tooth\nfor tooth, hand for hand, burning for burning, stripe for stripe.\" But it\nalso says, \"Ye shall neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him, for ye were\nstrangers in the land of Egypt. Ye shall not afflict any widow or\nfatherless child.\" \"If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by\nthee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer.\" \"If thou at all take thy\nneighbor's raiment to pledge, thou shalt deliver it unto him by that the\nsun goeth down, for that is his covering.\" \"If thou meet thine enemy's ox\nor his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again.\"\n\nSuch severities joined with such humanities we find in the character of\nMoses, and such we find to have passed from his character into his laws.\nBut perhaps the deepest spring of character, and its most essential trait,\nwas his sense of justice as embodied in law. The great idea of a just law,\nfreely chosen, under its various aspects of Divine command, ceremonial\nregulations, political order, and moral duty, distinguished his policy and\nlegislation from that of other founders of states. His laws rested on no\nbasis of mere temporal expediency, but on the two pivots of an absolute\nDivine will and a deliberate national choice. It had the double sanction\nof religion and justice; it was at once a revelation and a contract. There\nwas a third idea which it was the object of his whole system, and\nespecially of his ceremonial system, to teach and to cultivate,--that of\nholiness. God is a holy God, his law is a holy law, the place of his\nworship is a holy place, and the Jewish nation as his worshippers are a\nholy people. This belief appears in the first revelation which he received\nat the burning bush in the land of Midian. It explains many things in the\nLevitical law, which without this would seem trivial and unmeaning. The\nceremonial purifications, clean and unclean meats, the arrangements of the\ntabernacle, with its holy place, and its Holy of Holies, the Sabbath, the\ndresses of the priests, the ointment with which the altar was anointed,\nare all intended to develop in the minds of the people the idea of\nholiness.[354] And there never was a people on whose souls this notion was\nso fully impressed as it was upon the Jews. Examined, it means the eternal\ndistinction between right and wrong, between good and evil, and the\nessential hostility which exists between them. Applied to God, it shows\nhim to have a nature essentially moral, and a true moral character. He\nloves good and hates evil. He does not regard them with exactly the same\nfeeling. He cannot treat the good man and the bad man in exactly the same\nway. More than monotheism, this perhaps is the characteristic of the\ntheology of Moses.\n\nThe character of Moses had very marked deficiencies, it had its weakness\nas well as its strength. He was impetuous, impatient, wanting in\nself-possession and self-control. There is a verse in the Book of Numbers\n(believed by Eichhorn and Eosenmuller to be an interpolation) which calls\nhim the meekest of men. Such a view of his character is not confirmed by\nsuch actions as his killing the Egyptian, his breaking the stone tables,\nand the like. He declares of himself that he had no power as a speaker,\nbeing deficient probably in the organ of language. His military skill\nseems small, since he appointed Joshua for the military commander, when\nthe people were attacked by the Amalekites. Nor did he have, what seems\nmore important in a legislator, the practical tact of organizing the\nadministration of affairs. His father-in-law, Jethro, showed him how to\ndelegate the details of government to subordinates, and to reserve for\nhimself the general superintendence. Up to that time he had tried to do\neverything by himself. That great art, in administration, of selecting\nproper tools to work with, Moses did not seem to have.\n\nHaving thus briefly sketched some of the qualities of his natural genius\nand character, let us see what were the essential elements of his\nlegislation; and first, of his theology, or teachings concerning God.\n\nMonotheism, as we all know, lay at the foundation of the law of Moses. But\nthere are different kinds of monotheism. In one sense we have seen almost\nall ancient religions to have been monotheisms. All taught the existence\nof a Supreme Being. But usually this Supreme Being was not the object of\nworship, but had receded into the background, while subordinate gods were\nthose really reverenced. Moses taught that the Supreme Being who made\nheaven and earth, the Most High God, was also the only object of worship.\nIt does not appear that Moses denied the existence of the gods who were\nadored by the other nations; but he maintained that they were all inferior\nand subordinate, and far beneath Jehovah, and also that Jehovah alone was\nto be worshipped by the Jews. \"Thou shalt have no other gods before me\"\n(Exod. xx. 3; Deut. v. 7). \"Ye shall not go after other gods\" (Deut. vi.\n14). \"Ye shall make no mention of the name of other gods\" (Exod. xxiii.\n13). \"For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords\" (Deut. x.\n17). The first great peculiarity of the theology of Moses was therefore\nthis, that it taught that the Infinite and Supreme Being, who in most\nreligions was the hidden God, was to the Jews the revealed and\never-present God, the object of worship, obedience, trust, and love. His\nname was Jahveh, the \"I am,\" the Being of beings.[355]\n\nIn a certain sense Moses taught the strict unity of God. \"Hear, O Israel;\nthe Lord our God is one Lord\" (Deut. vi. 4), is a statement which Jesus\ncalls the chief of the commandments (Mark xii. 29, 30). For when God is\nconceived of as the Supreme Being he becomes at once separated by an\ninfinite distance from all other deities, and they cease to be gods in the\nsense in which he is God. Now as Moses gave to Jehovah infinite\nattributes, and taught that he was the maker and Lord of heaven and earth,\neternal (Deut. xxxiii. 27), a living God, it followed that there was no\nGod with him (Deut. xxxii. 39), which the prophets afterwards wrought out\ninto a simple monotheism. \"I am God, and there is no other God beside me\"\n(Isaiah xliv. 8). Therefore, though Moses did not assert in terms a simple\nmonotheism, he taught what contained the essential germ of that idea.\n\nThis one God, supreme and infinite, was also so spiritual that no idol, no\nstatue, was to be made as his symbol. He was a God of truth and stern\njustice, visiting the sins of parents on the children to the third and\nfourth generation of those who hated him, but showing mercy to thousands\nof those who loved and obeyed him. He was a God who was merciful,\nlong-suffering, gracious, repenting him of the evil, and seeking still to\npardon and to bless his people. No doubt there is anthropomorphism in\nMoses. But if man is made in God's image, then God is in man's image too,\nand we _must_, if we think of him as a living and real God, think of him\nas possessing emotions like our human emotions of love, pity, sorrow,\nanger, only purified from their grossness and narrowness.\n\nHuman actions and human passions are no doubt ascribed by Moses to God. A\ngood deal of criticism has been expended upon the Jewish Scriptures by\nthose who think that philosophy consists in making God as different and\ndistant from man as possible, and so prefer to speak of him as Deity,\nProvidence, and Nature. But it is only because man is made in the image of\nGod that he can revere God at all. Jacobi says that, \"God, in creating,\n_theo_morphizes man; man, therefore, necessarily _anthropo_morphizes God.\"\nAnd Swedenborg teaches that God is a man, since man was made in the image\nof God. Whenever we think of God as present and living, when we ascribe to\nhim pleasure and displeasure, liking and disliking, thinking, feeling, and\nwilling, we make him like a man. And _not_ to do this may be speculative\ntheism, but is practical atheism. Moses forbade the Jews to make any image\nor likeness of God, yet the Pentateuch speaks of his jealousy, wrath,\nrepentance; he hardens Pharaoh's heart, changes his mind about Balaam, and\ncomes down from heaven in order to see if the people of Sodom were as\nwicked as they were represented to be. These views are limitations to the\nperfections of the Deity, and so far the views of Moses were limited. But\nthis is also the strong language of poetry, which expresses in a striking\nand practical way the personality, holiness, and constant providence of\nGod.\n\nBut Moses was not merely a man of genius, he was also a man of knowledge\nand learning. During forty years he lived in Egypt, where all the learning\nof the world was collected; and, being brought up by the daughter of\nPharaoh as her son, was in the closest relations with the priesthood. The\nEgyptian priests were those to whom Pythagoras, Herodotus, and Plato went\nfor instruction. Their sacred books, as we have seen, taught the doctrine\nof the unity and spirituality of God, of the immortality of the soul, and\nits judgment in the future world, beside teaching the arts and sciences.\nMoses probably knew all that these books could teach, and there is no\ndoubt that he made use of this knowledge afterward in writing his law.\nLike the Egyptian priests he believed in one God; but, unlike them, he\ntaught that doctrine openly. Like them he established a priesthood,\nsacrifices, festivals, and a temple service; but, unlike them, he allowed\nno images or idols, no visible representations of the Unseen Being, and\ninstead of mystery and a hidden deity gave them revelation and a present,\nopen Deity. Concerning the future life, about which the Egyptians had so\nmuch to say, Moses taught nothing. His rewards and punishments were\ninflicted in this world. Retribution, individual and national, took place\nhere. As this could not have been from ignorance or accident, it must have\nhad a purpose, it must have been intentional. The silence of the\nPentateuch respecting immortality is one of the most remarkable features\nin the Jewish religion. It has been often objected to. It has been\nasserted that a religion without the doctrine of immortality and future\nretribution is no religion. But in our time philosophy takes a different\nview, declaring that there is nothing necessarily religious in the belief\nof immortality, and that to do right from fear of future punishment or\nhope of future reward is selfish, and therefore irreligious and immoral.\nMoreover it asserts that belief in immortality is a matter of instinct,\nand something to be assumed, not to be proved; and that we believe in\nimmortality just in proportion as the soul is full of life. Therefore,\nthough Moses did not teach the doctrine of immortality, he yet made it\nnecessary that the Jews should believe in it by the awakening influence of\nhis law, which roused the soul into the fullest activity.\n\nBut beside genius, beside knowledge, did not Moses also possess that which\nhe claimed, a special inspiration? And if so, what was his inspiration\nand what is its evidence? The evidence of his inspiration is in that which\nhe said and did. His inspiration, like that of Abraham, consisted in his\ninward vision of God, in his sight of the divine unity and holiness, in\nhis feeling of the personal presence and power of the Supreme Being, in\nhis perception of his will and of his law. He was inwardly placed by the\nDivine Providence where he could see these truths, and become the medium\nof communicating them to a nation. His inspiration was deeper than that of\nthe greatest of subsequent prophets. It was perhaps not so large, nor so\nfull, nor so high, but it was more entire; and therefore the power that\nwent forth from the word and life of Moses was not surpassed afterward.\n\"There arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord\nknew face to face.\" No prophet afterward till the time of Jesus did such a\nwork as he did. Purity, simplicity, and strength characterized his whole\nconduct. His theology, his liturgy, his moral code, and his civil code\nwere admirable in their design and their execution.\n\nWe are, indeed, not able to say how much of the Pentateuch came from\nMoses. Many parts of it were probably the work of other writers and of\nsubsequent times. But we cannot doubt that the essential ideas of the law\nproceeded from him.\n\nWe have regarded Moses and his laws on the side of religion and also on\nthat of morals; it remains to consider them on that of politics. What was\nthe form of government established by Moses? Was it despotism or freedom?\nWas it monarchy, aristocracy, democracy, or republicanism? Were the Jews a\nfree people or an enslaved people?\n\nCertainly the Jews were not enslaved. They had one great protection from\ndespotism,--a constitution. The Mosaic law was their constitution. It was\na written constitution, and could therefore be appealed to. It was a\npublished constitution, and was therefore known by all the people. It was\na sacred constitution; given on the authority of God, and therefore could\nnot be modified, except by the same authority. This constitution therefore\nwas a protection against despotism. A constitution like this excludes all\narbitrary and despotic authority. We can therefore safely say that the law\nof Moses saved the nation from despotism. Thus he gave them an important\nelement of political freedom. No matter how oppressive laws are, a\ngovernment of fixed law involves in the long run much more real freedom\nthan the government, however kind, which is arbitrary, and therefore\nuncertain and changeable.\n\nBut were these laws oppressive? Let us look at them in a few obvious\npoints of view.\n\nWhat did they exact in regard to taxation? We know that in Eastern\ngovernments the people have been ground to the earth by taxation, and that\nagriculture has been destroyed, the fruitful field become a wilderness,\nand populous countries depopulated, by this one form of oppression. It is\nbecause there has been no fixed rate of taxation. Each governor is allowed\nto take as much as he can from his subordinates, and each of the\nsubordinates as much as he can get from his inferiors, and so on, till the\npeople are finally reached, out of whom it must all come. But under the\nMosaic constitution the taxes were fixed and certain. They consisted in a\npoll-tax, in the first-fruits, and the tithes. The poll-tax was a\nhalf-shekel paid every year at the Temple, by every adult Jew. The\nfirst-fruits were rather an expression of gratitude than a tax. The tithes\nwere a tenth part of the annual produce of the soil, and went for the\nsupport of the Levites and the general expenses of the government.\n\nAnother important point relates to trials and punishments. What security\nhas one of a fair trial, in case he is accused of crime, or what assurance\nof justice in a civil cause? Now we know that in Eastern countries\neverything depends on bribery. This Moses forbade in his law. \"Thou shalt\ntake no gift, for the gift blindeth the eyes; thou shalt not wrest the\njudgment of the poor, but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor.\"\n\nAgain, the accuser and accused were to appear together before the judge.\nThe witnesses were sworn, and were examined separately. The people had\ncheap justice and near at hand. \"Judges and officers shalt thou make thee\nin all thy gates, throughout thy tribes; and they shall judge the people\nwith just judgment.\"\n\nThere were courts of appeal from these local judges.\n\nThere seems to have been no legislative body, since the laws of Moses were\nnot only a constitution but also a code. No doubt a common law grew up\nunder the decisions of the local courts and courts of appeal. But\nprovision was made by Moses for any necessary amendment of his laws by the\nreference which he made to any prophet like himself who might afterward\narise, whom the people were to obey.[356]\n\nThere was no provision in the Jewish constitution for a supreme executive.\nBut the law foretold that the time would come in which they would desire a\nking, and it defined his authority. He should be a constitutional king.\n(Deut. xvii. 14-20.)\n\nWe have already said that one great object and purpose of the ceremonial\nlaw of Moses was to develop in the minds of the people the idea of\nholiness. This is expressed (Lev. xix. 2), \"Speak unto all the\ncongregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be\nholy; for I the Lord your God am holy.\"\n\nAnother object of the ceremonial law was to surround the whole nation with\nan impenetrable hedge of peculiarities, and so to keep them separate from\nsurrounding nations. The ceremonial law was like a shell which protected\nthe kernel within till it was ripe. The ritual was the thorny husk, the\ntheology and morality were the sacred included fruit. In this point of\nview the strangest peculiarities of the ritual find an easy explanation.\nThe more strange they are, the better they serve their purpose. These\npeculiarities produced bitter prejudice between the Jews and the\nsurrounding nations. Despised by their neighbors, they despised them again\nin turn; and this mutual contempt has produced the result desired. The\nJews, in the very heart of the world, surrounded by great nations far more\npowerful than themselves, conquered and overrun by Assyrians, Medes,\nPersians, Syrians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, have been more entirely\nseparated from other nations than the Chinese or the people of Japan.\nDispersed as they are, they are still a distinct people, a nation within\nother nations. Like drops of oil floating on the water but never mingling\nwith it, so the Jews are found everywhere, floating drops of national life\nin the midst of other nationalities. In Leviticus (xviii. 3) we find the\ncommand, \"After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall\nye not do; and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring\nyou, shall ye not do; neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.\" They\nhave not obeyed this command in its letter, but continue to obey its\nspirit in its unwritten continuation: \"After the doings of the English and\nFrench and Americans shall ye not do, nor walk in their ordinances, but\nshall still continue a peculiar people.\"\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4. David; or, Judaism as the personal Worship of a Father and friend.\n\n\nMany disasters befell the Jews after their settlement in Palestine, which\nwe should allude to were we writing the heads of their history rather than\ngiving an account of their religion. Among these were their long conflict\nwith the Philistines, and their subjection by that people during twenty\nyears. The Philistines, it has been recently discovered, were not a\nSemitic nation, and were not in the land in the time of Moses. They are\nnot mentioned as a powerful people in the Pentateuch or the Book of\nJoshua, but suddenly appear as invaders in the time of the Judges,\ncompletely defeating and subduing the Canaanites along the shore. In fact,\nthe Philistines were probably an Indo-European or Aryan people, and their\nname is now believed to be the same as that of the Pelasgi. They were\nprobably a body of Pelasgi from the island of Crete, who, by successive\ninvasions, overran Palestine, and gave their name to it.[357] They were\nfinally reduced by David; and as his reign is the culminating period of\nJudaism, we will devote some space to his character and influence.\n\nThe life of David makes an epoch in Jewish history and human history.\nNations, like plants, have their period of flowers and of fruit. They have\ntheir springtime, their summer, autumn, and winter. The age of David among\nthe Jews was like the age of Pericles among the Greeks, of Augustus among\nthe Romans, of Louis XIV. in France, of Charles V. in Spain. Such periods\nseparate themselves from those which went before and from those which\nfollow. The period of David seems a thousand years removed from that of\nthe Judges, and yet it follows it almost immediately. As a few weeks in\nspring turn the brown earth to a glad green, load the trees with foliage,\nand fill the air with the perfume of blossoms and the song of birds, so a\nfew years in the life of a nation will change barbarism into civilization,\nand pour the light of literature and knowledge over a sleeping land. Arts\nflourish, external enemies are conquered, inward discontents are pacified,\nwealth pours in, luxury increases, genius accomplishes its triumphs.\nSummer, with its flowers and fruits, has arrived.\n\nWhen a nation is ripe for such a change, the advent of a man of genius\nwill accomplish it. Around him the particles crystallize and take form and\nbeauty. Such a man was David,--a brave soldier, a great captain, a\nsagacious adventurer, an artist, musician, and poet, a man of profound\nreligious experience; he was, more than all these, a statesman. By his\ngreat organizing ability he made a powerful nation out of that which, when\nhe came to the throne, consisted of a few discordant and half-conquered\ntribes. In the time of Saul the Israelites were invaded by all the\nsurrounding nations; by the Syrians on the north, the Ammonites and\nMoabites on the east, the Amalekites and Edomites on the south, and the\nPhilistines on the west. In the time of David all these nations were\ncompletely subdued, their cities garrisoned, and the power of the\nIsraelites submitted to from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean.\n\nMost great men are contented to be distinguished in one thing, and to lead\na single life; but David led three lives, each distinct from the\nother,--the life of a soldier and statesman, the life of a poet and\nartist, the life of deep religious experience. We will look at his\ncharacter in each of these three directions.\n\nWe have already said that David found the Israelites divided and half\nconquered, and left them united and conquerors. By means of his personal\nqualities he had made himself popular among the tribes. He was known as a\nbrave and cautious guerilla chief. His native generosity and\nopen-heartedness won him the love of the people. His religious tendencies\ngained for him the friendship of the priests, and the great influence of\nSamuel was always exerted in his favor. He was thus enabled to unite the\npeople, and gain their confidence till he could make use of them in larger\nenterprises. The Jews were not naturally a military nation, and were never\nmeant to be such. Yet when their strength was united they were capable, by\ntheir determination and tenacity of purpose, of extraordinary military\nexploits. Everything depended on their _morale_. Demoralized and weakened\nby doubts and scruples, or when conscious that they were disobeying the\nlaws of Moses, they were easily defeated by any invader. The first duty of\ntheir general was to bring them back from their idolatries and\nbackslidings to the service of God. Under Joshua it only needed two great\nbattles to conquer the whole land of Palestine. So, reunited under David,\na few campaigns made them victorious over the surrounding nations.\n\nThe early part of David's life was a perpetual discipline in prudence. He\nwas continually beset with dangers. He had to fly from the presence and\nferocious jealousy of Saul again and again, and even to take refuge with\nthe Philistines, who had reason enough to be his enemies. He fled from\nSaul to Samuel, and took shelter under his protection. Pursued to this\nretreat by the king, he had no resource but to throw himself on the mercy\nof the Philistines, and he went to Gath. When he saw himself in danger\nthere, he pretended to be insane; insanity being throughout the East a\nprotection from injury. His next step was to go to the cave Adullam, and\nto collect around him a body of partisans, with whom to protect himself.\nSaul watched his opportunity, and when David had left the fastnesses of\nthe mountain, and came into the city Keilah to defend it from the\nPhilistines, Saul went down with a detachment of troops to besiege him, so\nthat he had to fly again to the mountains. Betrayed by the Ziphites, as he\nhad been before betrayed by the men of Keilah, he went to another\nwilderness and escaped. The king continued to pursue him whenever he could\nget any tidings of his position, and again David was obliged to take\nrefuge among the Philistines. But throughout this whole period he never\npermitted himself any hostile measures against Saul, his implacable enemy.\nIn this he showed great wisdom, for the result of such a course would have\nbeen a civil war, in which part of the nation would have taken sides with\none and part with the other, and David never could have ascended the\nthrone with the consent of the whole people. But the consequence of his\nforbearance was, that when by the death of Saul the throne became vacant,\nDavid succeeded to it with scarcely any opposition. His subsequent course\nshowed always the same prudence. He disarmed his enemies by kindness and\nclemency. He understood the policy of making a bridge of gold for a flying\nenemy. When Abner, the most influential man of his opponents, offered to\nsubmit to him, David received him with kindness and made him a friend. And\nwhen Abner was treacherously killed by Joab, David publicly mourned for\nhim, following the bier, and weeping at the grave. The historian says\nconcerning this: \"And all the people took notice of it and it pleased\nthem: as whatsoever the king did pleased all the people. For all the\npeople understood that day that it was not of the king to slay Abner the\nson of Ner.\" His policy was to conciliate and unite. When Saul's son was\nslain by his own servants, who thought to please David by that act, he\nimmediately put them to death. Equally cautious and judicious was his\ncourse in transferring the Ark and its worship to Jerusalem. He did this\nonly gradually, and as he saw that the people were prepared for it.\n\nWe next will look at David in his character as man of genius, musician,\nartist, poet. It is not often that an eminent statesman and soldier is, at\nthe same time, a distinguished poet and writer. Sometimes they can write\nhistory or annals, like C\u00e6sar and Frederick the Great; but the imaginative\nand poetic element is rarely found connected with the determined will and\npractical intellect of a great commander. Alexander the Great had a taste\nfor good poetry, for he carried Homer with him through his campaigns; but\nthe taste of Napoleon went no higher than a liking for Ossian.\n\nBut David was a poet, in whom the tender, lyrical, personal element rose\nto the highest point. The daring soldier, when he took his harp, became\nanother man. He consoled himself and sought comfort in trial, and sang his\nthankfulness in his hours of joy. The Book of Psalms, so far as it is the\nwork of David, is the record of his life. As Horace says of Lucilius and\nhis book of Odes, that the whole of the old man's life hangs suspended\ntherein in votive pictures; and as Goethe says that his Lyrics are a book\nof confessions, in which joy and sorrow turn to song; so the Book of\nPsalms can only be understood when we consider it as David's poetical\nautobiography. In this he anticipates the Koran, which was the private\njournal of Mohammed.\n\n\"The harp of David,\" says Herder, \"was his comforter and friend. In his\nyouth he sang to its music while tending his flocks as a shepherd on the\nmountains of Jud\u00e6a. By its means he had access to Saul, and could sooth\nwith it the dark mood of the king. In his days of exile he confided to it\nhis sorrows. When he triumphed over his enemies the harp became in his\nroyal hands a thank-offering to the deity. Afterward he organized on a\nmagnificent scale music and poetry in the worship of God. Four thousand\nLevites, distinguished by a peculiar dress, were arranged in classes and\nchoirs under master-singers, of whom the three most distinguished, Asaph,\nHeman, and Jeduthun, are known to us by specimens of their art. In his\nPsalms his whole kingdom lives.\"\n\nWe speak of the inspiration of genius, and distinguish it from the\ninspiration of the religious teacher. But in ancient times the prophet and\npoet were often the same, and one word (as, in Latin, \"vates\") was used\nfor both. In the case of David the two inspirations were perfectly at one.\nHis religion was poetry, and his poetry was religion. The genius of his\npoetry is not grandeur, but beauty. Sometimes it expresses a single\nthought or sentiment, as that (Psalm cxxxiii.) describing the beauty of\nbrotherly union, or as that (Psalm xxiii.) which paints trust in God like\nthat of a sheep in his shepherd. Of the same sort is the fifteenth Psalm,\n\"Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle?\" the twenty-ninth, a description\nof a thunderstorm; the sixty-seventh, \"O God, be merciful to us and bless\nus\"; the eighty-fourth, \"How lovely are thy tabernacles\"; and the last\nPsalm, calling on mankind to praise God in all ways.\n\nIt is a striking fact that these Hebrew lyrics, written long before the\nfoundation of Rome, and before the time of Homer, should be used to-day in\nChristian worship and for private devotion all over the world.\n\nIn speaking of the Vedas and the Avesta we said that in such hymns and\nliturgies the truest belief of a nation can be found. What men say to God\nin their prayers may be assumed to express their practical convictions.\nThe Jewish religion is not to be found so surely in its Levitical code as\nin these national lyrics, which were the liturgy of the people.[358]\n\nWhat then do they say concerning God? They teach his universal dominion.\nThey declare that none in the heaven can be compared to him (Psalm\nlxxxix.); that he is to be feared above all gods (Psalm xcvi.). They teach\nhis eternity; declaring that he is God from everlasting to everlasting;\nthat a thousand years in his sight are as yesterday; that he laid the\nfoundations of the earth and made the heavens, and that when these perish\nhe will endure; that at some period they shall be changed like a garment,\nbut that God will always be the same (Psalm xc., cii.). They teach in\nnumerous places that God is the Creator of all things. They adore and\nbless his fatherly love and kindness, which heals all our diseases and\nredeems our life, crowning us with loving-kindness, pitying us, and\nforgiving our sins (Psalm ciii.). They teach that he is in all nature\n(Psalm civ.), that he searches and knows all our thoughts, and that we can\ngo nowhere from his presence (Psalm cxxxix.). They declare that he\nprotects all who trust in him (Psalm xci., cxxi.), and that he purifies\nthe heart and life (Psalm cxix.), creating in us a clean heart, and not\nasking for sacrifice, but for a broken spirit (Psalm li.).\n\nThese Psalms express the highest and best moments of Jewish life, and rise\nin certain points to the level of Christianity. They do not contain the\nChristian spirit of forgiveness, nor that of love to one's enemy. They are\nstill narrowed to the range of the Jewish land and nation, and do not\nembrace humanity. They are mountain summits of faith, rising into the pure\nair and light of day from hidden depths, and appearing as islands in the\nocean. They reach, here and there, the level of the vast continent, though\nnot broad enough themselves to become the home of all races and nations.\n\nThere is nothing in the Vedas, nothing in the Avesta, nothing in the\nsacred books of Egypt, or the philosophy of Greece and Rome, which so\nunites the grandeur of omnipotence with the tenderness of a father toward\nhis child.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5. Solomon; or, the Religious Relapse.\n\n\nWe have seen how the religion of Abraham, as the family worship of the\nSupreme Being, was developed into that of Moses, as the national worship\nof a just and holy King. We have seen it going onward from that, ascending\nin the inspirations of David into trust in an infinite God as a friend,\nand love to him as a father. We now come to a period of relapse. Under\nSolomon and his successors, this religion became corrupted and degraded.\nIts faith was changed into doubt, its lofty courage into the fear of kings\nand tyrants, its worship of the Most High into adoration of the idols of\nits neighbors. The great increase of power and wealth in the hands of\nSolomon corrupted his own heart and that of his people. Luxury came in;\nand, as in Rome the old puritanic virtues were dissolved by the desire for\nwealth and pleasure, so it happened among the Jews. Then came the\nretribution, in the long captivity in Babylon, and the beginning of a new\nand better life under this hard discipline. And then comes the age of the\nProphets, who gradually became the teachers of a higher and broader faith.\nSo, when the Jews returned to Jerusalem, they came back purified, and\nprepared to become once more loyal subjects of Jehovah.\n\nThe principle of hereditary succession, but not of primogeniture, had been\nestablished by an agreement between David and the people when he proposed\nerecting a Temple at Jerusalem. He had appointed his son Solomon as his\nsuccessor before his own death. With the entrance of Solomon we have an\nentirely different personality from any whom we have thus far met. With\nhim also is inaugurated a new period and a different age. The age of Moses\nwas distinguished as that of law,--on the side of God absolute authority,\ncommanding and forbidding; on the side of man the only question was\nbetween obedience and disobedience. Moses was the Law-giver, and his age\nwas the age of law. In the time of the Judges the question concerned\nnational existence and national independence. The age of the Judges was\nthe heroic age of the Jewish nation. The Judges were men combining\nreligious faith with patriotism; they were religious heroes. Then came the\ntime of David, in which the nation, having become independent, became also\npowerful and wealthy. After his time the religion, instead of being a law\nto be obeyed or an impulse to action, became ceremony and pageant. Going\none step further, it passed into reflection and meditation. In the age of\nSolomon the inspiration of the national religion had already gone. A great\nintellectual development had taken the place of inspiration. So that the\nJewish nation seems to have passed through a fourfold religious\nexperience. Religion was first law, then action, next inspiration and\nsentiment, afterward ceremony, and lastly opinion and intellectual\nculture.\n\nIt is the belief of Herder and other scholars that the age of Solomon gave\nbirth to a copious literature, born of peace, tranquillity, and\nprosperity, which has all passed away except a few Psalms, the Book of\nProverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon.\n\nSolomon is personally a much less interesting character than David; for\npolicy is never so interesting as impulse, and the crimes of policy seem\nworse than those of passion. The first act of Solomon was of this sort. He\nput his brother Adonijah to death for his attempt to seize the throne.\nJoab, who supported Adonijah against Solomon, was also put to death, for\nwhich we do not grieve, when we remember his assassination of Abner and\nAmasa, shedding the blood of war in peace. But the cold, unscrupulous\ncharacter of Solomon is seen in his ordering Joab to be slain in the\ntabernacle while holding the horns of the altar, and causing Adonijah to\nbe taken by force from the same place of refuge. No religious\nconsideration or superstitious fear could prevent Solomon from doing what\nhe thought necessary for his own security. He had given Adonijah a\nconditional pardon, limited to good behavior on his part. But after his\nestablishment on the throne Adonijah requested the mother of Solomon,\nBathsheba, to ask her son to give him for a wife the beautiful Abishag,\nthe last wife of David. Solomon understood this to mean, what his mother\ndid not understand, that his brother was still intriguing to supplant him\non the throne, and with cool policy he ordered him to immediate execution.\nSolomon could pardon a criminal, but not a dangerous rival. He deposed the\nhigh-priest for the same reason, considering him to be also dangerous.\nShimei, who seems to have been wealthy and influential as well as a\ndetermined character, was ordered not to leave Jerusalem under penalty of\ndeath. He did so, and Solomon put him to death. David, before his death,\nhad warned Solomon to keep an eye both on Joab and on Shimei, for David\ncould forgive his own enemies, but not those of his cause; he was not\nafraid on his own account, but was afraid for the safety of his son.\n\nBy the death of Joab and Shimei, Solomon's kingdom was established, and\nthe glory and power of David was carried to a still higher point of\nmagnificence. Supported by the prophets on the one hand and by the priests\non the other, his authority was almost unlimited. We are told that \"Judah\nand Israel were many, as the sand which is by the sea in multitude, eating\nand drinking and making merry. And Solomon reigned over all kingdoms from\nthe river unto the land of the Philistines, and unto the border of Egypt;\nthey brought presents, and served Solomon all the days of his life. And\nSolomon's provision for one day was thirty measures of fine flour, and\nthreescore measures of meal, ten fat oxen, and twenty oxen out of the\npastures, and an hundred sheep, beside harts, and roebucks, and fallow\ndeer, and fatted fowl.\" The wars of David were ended. Solomon's was a\nreign of peace. \"And Judah and Israel dwelt safely, every man under his\nvine and under his fig-tree, from Dan even to Beersheba, all the days of\nSolomon. And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots,\nand twelve thousand horsemen.\" \"And God gave Solomon wisdom and\nunderstanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart, even as the sand\nthat is on the sea-shore. And Solomon's wisdom excelled the wisdom of all\nthe children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt. For he was\nwiser than all men; than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, and Chalcol, and\nDarda, the sons of Mahol; and his fame was in all nations round about.\"\n\"And there came of all people to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all\nkings of the earth, which had heard of his wisdom.\" The great power and\nwealth of the Jewish court at this period are historically verified by the\ntraditions still extant among the Arabs of Solomon's superhuman splendor.\n\nThe story (1 Kings iii. 5) of Solomon's dream, in which he chose an\nunderstanding heart and wisdom, rather than riches and honor, reminds us\nof the choice of Hercules. It is not unlikely that he had such a dream, it\nis quite probable that he always preferred wisdom to anything else, and it\nis certain that his wisdom came from God. This is the only connection we\ncan trace between the dream and its fulfilment.\n\nSolomon inaugurated a new policy by entering into alliances and making\ntreaties with his powerful neighbors. He formed an alliance with the king\nof Egypt, and married his daughter. He also made a treaty of commerce and\nfriendship with the king of Tyre on the north, and procured from him cedar\nwith which to build the Temple and his own palace. He received an embassy\nalso from the queen of Sheba, who resided in the south of Arabia. By means\nof the Tyrian ships he traded to the west as far as the coasts of Spain\nand Africa, and his own vessels made a coasting voyage of three years'\nduration to Tarshish, from which they brought ivory, gold, silver, apes,\nand peacocks. This voyage seems to have been through the Red Sea to\nIndia.[359] He also traded in Asia, overland, with caravans. And for their\naccommodation and defence he built Tadmor in the desert (afterward called\nPalmyra), as a great stopping-place. This city in later days became famous\nas the capital of Zenobia, and the remains of the Temple of the Sun,\nstanding by itself in the midst of the Great Desert, are among the most\ninteresting ruins in the world.[360]\n\nThe great work of Solomon was building the Temple at Jerusalem in the\nyear B.C. 1005. This Temple was destroyed, and rebuilt by Nehemiah B.C.\n445. It was rebuilt by Herod B.C. 17. Little remains from the time of\nSolomon, except some stones in the walls of the substructions; and the\nmosque of Omar now stands on the old foundation. No building of antiquity\nso much resembles the Temple of Solomon as the palace of Darius at\nPersepolis. In both buildings the porch opened into the large hall, both\nhad small chambers on the side, square masses on both sides of the porch,\nand the same form of pillars. The parts of Solomon's Temple were, first, a\nporch thirty feet wide and fifteen feet deep; second a large hall sixty by\nthirty; and then the holy of holies, which was thirty feet cube. The whole\nexternal dimensions of the building were only sixty feet by one hundred\nand twenty, or less than many an ordinary parish church. The explanation\nis that it was copied from the Tabernacle, which was a small building, and\nwas necessarily somewhat related to it in size. The walls were of stone,\non extensive stone foundations. Inside it was lined with cedar, with\nfloors of cypress, highly ornamented with carvings and gold. The brass\nwork consisted of two ornamented pillars called Jachin and Boaz, a brazen\ntank supported by twelve brass oxen, and ten baths of brass, ornamented\nwith figures of lions, oxen, and cherubim.\n\nThe Book of Kings says of Solomon (1 Kings iv. 32) that \"he spake three\nthousand proverbs, and his songs were a thousand and five. And he spake of\ntrees, from the cedar-tree that is in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that\nspringeth out of the wall: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl and of\ncreeping things, and of fishes.\" He was, according to this account, a\nvoluminous writer on natural history, as well as an eminent poet and\nmoralist. Of all his compositions there remains but one, the Book of\nProverbs, which was probably in great part composed by him. It is true\nthat three books in the Old Testament bear his name,--Proverbs,\nEcclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. But of these Ecclesiastes was\nprobably written afterward, and though the Song of Songs may have been\nwritten by Solomon, it was probably the work of another, living at or\nnear his time.\n\nBut of the Book of Proverbs there cannot be much doubt. It contains some\nof the three thousand of which Solomon was the reputed author. It shows\nhis style of mind very clearly,--the cool understanding, the calculating\nprudence, the continual reference to results, knowledge of the world as\ndistinguished from knowledge of human nature, or of individual character.\nThe Book of Proverbs contains little heroism or poetry, few large ideas,\nnot much enthusiasm or sentiment. It is emphatically a book of wisdom. It\nhas good, hard, practical sense. It is the \"Poor Richard's Almanac\" of\nHebrew literature. We can conceive of King Solomon and Benjamin Franklin\nconsulting together, and comparing notes of their observations on human\nlife, with much mutual satisfaction. It is curious to meet with such a\nthoroughly Western intellect, a thousand years before Christ, on the\nthrone of the heroic David.\n\nAmong these proverbs there are many of a kindly character. Some are\nsemi-Christian in their wise benevolence. Many show great shrewdness of\nobservation, and have an epigrammatic wit. We will give examples of each\nkind:--\n\n\n    PROVERBS HAVING A SEMI-CHRISTIAN CHARACTER.\n\n    \"If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread;\n    If thirsty, give him water to drink,\n    For thou wilt heap coals of fire on his head,\n    And Jehovah will reward thee.\"\n\n    \"To deliver those that are dragged to death,\n    Those that totter to the slaughter,\n    Spare thyself not.\n    If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not,\n    Doth not He that weighs the heart observe it?\n    Yea, He that keeps thy soul knows it.\n    And He will render to every man according to his works.\"\n\n    \"Put not thyself forth in the presence of the king,\n    Nor station thyself in the place of great men.\n    Far better it is that one should say to thee,\n    Come up hither!\n    Than that he should put thee in a lower place,\n    In the presence of the prince.\"\n\n    \"The lip of truth shall be established forever,\n    But the tongue of falsehood is but for a moment.\"\n\n\n    PROVERBS SHOWING SHREWDNESS OF OBSERVATION.\n\n    \"As one that takes a dog by the ears,\n    So is he that passing by becomes enraged on account of another's\n      quarrel.\"\n\n    \"Where there is no wood the fire goes out;\n    So where there is no talebearer contention ceases.\"\n\n    \"The rich rules over the poor,\n    And the borrower is servant to the lender.\"\n\n    \"The slothful man says, There is a lion without,\n    I shall be slain in the streets.\"\n\n    \"A reproof penetrates deeper into a wise man\n    Than a hundred stripes into a fool.\"\n\n    \"Hope deferred makes the heart sick.\"\n\n    \"The way of transgressors is hard.\"\n\n    \"There is that scatters, and yet increases.\"\n\n    \"It is naught, it is naught, saith the buyer,\n    But when he goeth his way then he boasteth.\"\n\n\n    PROVERBS WITTILY EXPRESSED.\n\n    \"The legs of a lame man are not equal,\n    So is a proverb in the mouth of fools.\"[361]\n\n    \"As a thorn runs into the hand of a drunkard,\n    So is a proverb in the mouth of a fool.\"[362]\n\n    \"As clouds and wind without rain,\n    So is a man who boasts falsely of giving.\"\n\n    \"A soft tongue breaks bones.\"\n\n    \"As vinegar to the teeth, and smoke to the eyes,\n    So is the sluggard to him that sends him.\"\n\n    \"The destruction of the poor is their poverty.\"\n\n    \"A merry heart is a good medicine.\"\n\nBut what are human wisdom and glory? It seems that Solomon was to\nillustrate its emptiness. See the king, in his old age, sinking into\nidolatry and empty luxury, falling away from his God, and pointing the\nmoral of his own proverbs. He himself was the drunkard, into whose hand\nthe thorn of the proverb penetrated, without his heeding it. This prudent\nand wise king, who understood so well all the snares of temptation and all\nthe arts of virtue, fell like the puppet of any Asiatic court. What a\ncontrast between the wise and great king as described in I Kings iv. 20-34\nand the same king in his degenerate old age!\n\nIt was this last period in the life of Solomon which the writer of\nEcclesiastes took as the scene and subject of his story. With marvellous\npenetration and consummate power he penetrates the mind of Solomon and\npaints the blackness of desolation, the misery of satiety, the dreadful\ndarkness of a soul which has given itself to this world as its only\nsphere.\n\nNever was such a picture painted of utter scepticism, of a mind wholly\ndarkened, and without any remaining faith in God or truth.\n\nThese three books mark the three periods of the life of Solomon.\n\nThe Song of Songs shows us his abounding youth, full of poetry, fire, and\ncharm.\n\nThe Proverbs give his ripened manhood, wise and full of all earthly\nknowledge,--Aristotle, Bacon, Socrates, and Franklin, all in one.\n\nAnd Ecclesiastes represents the darkened and gloomy scepticism of his old\nage, when he sank as low down as he had before gone up. But though so sad\nand dark, yet it is not without gleams of a higher and nobler joy to come.\nBetter than anything in Proverbs are some of the noble sentiments breaking\nout in Ecclesiastes, especially at the end of the book.\n\nThe Book of Ecclesiastes is a wonderful description of a doubt so deep, a\ndespair so black, that nothing in all literature can be compared to it. It\ndescribes, in the person of Solomon, utter scepticism born of unlimited\nworldly enjoyment, knowledge, and power.\n\nThe book begins by declaring that all is vanity, that there is nothing\nnew under the sun, no progress in any direction, but all things revolving\nin an endless circle, so that there is neither meaning nor use in the\nworld.[363] It declares that _work_ amounts to nothing, for one cannot do\nany really good thing; that knowledge is of no use, but only produces\nsorrow; that pleasure satiates.[364] Knowledge has only this advantage\nover ignorance, that it enables us to see things as they are, but it does\nnot make them better, and the end of all is despair.[365] Sensual pleasure\nis the only good.[366] Fate and necessity rule all things. Good and evil\nboth come at their appointed time. Men are cheated and do not see the\nnullity of things, because they have the world in their heart, and are\nabsorbed in the present moment.[367]\n\nMen are only a higher class of beasts. They die like beasts, and have no\nhereafter.[368]\n\nIn the fourth chapter the writer goes more deeply into this pessimism. He\nsays that to die is better than to live, and better still never to have\nbeen born. A fool is better than a wise man, because he does nothing and\ncares for nothing.[369]\n\nSuccess is bad, progress is an evil; for these take us away from others,\nand leave us lonely, because above them and hated by them.[370]\n\nWorship is idle. Do not offer the sacrifice of fools, but stop when you\nare going to the Temple, and return. Do not pray. It is of no use. God\ndoes not hear you. Dreams do not come from God, but from what you were\ndoing before you went to sleep. Eat and drink, that is the best.[371] All\nmen go as they come.\n\nSo the dreary statement proceeds. Men are born for no end, and go no one\ncan tell where. Live a thousand years, it all comes to the same thing. Who\ncan tell what is good for a man in this shadowy, empty life?[372]\n\nIt is better to look on death than on life, wiser to be sad than to be\ncheerful. If you say, \"There _have been_ good times in the past,\" do not\nbe too sure of that. If you say, \"We can be good, at least, if we cannot\nbe happy,\" there is such a thing as being _too_ good, and cheating\nyourself out of pleasure.[373]\n\nWomen are worse than men. You may find one good man among a thousand, but\nnot one good woman.[374]\n\nIt is best to be on the right side of the powers that be, for they can do\nwhat they please. Speedy and certain punishment alone can keep men from\ndoing evil. The same thing happens to the good and to the wicked. All\nthings come alike to all. This life is, in short, an inexplicable puzzle.\nThe perpetual refrain is, eat, drink, and be merry.[375]\n\nIt is best to do what you can, and think nothing about it. Cast your bread\non the waters, very likely you will get it again. Sow your seed either in\nthe morning or at night; it makes no difference.[376]\n\nDeath is coming to all. All is vanity. I continue to preach, because I see\nthe truth, and may as well say it, though there is no end to talking and\nwriting. You may sum up all wisdom in six words: \"Fear God and keep his\ncommandments.\"[377]\n\nThe Book of Ecclesiastes teaches a great truth in an unexampled strain of\npathetic eloquence. It teaches what a black scepticism descends on the\nwisest, most fortunate, most favored of mankind, when he looks only to\nthis world and its joys. It could, however, only have been written by one\nwho had gone through this dreadful experience. The intellect alone never\nsounded such depths as these. Moreover, it could hardly have been written\nunless in a time when such scepticism prevailed, nor by one who, having\nlived it all, had not also lived _through_ it all, and found the cure for\nthis misery in pure unselfish obedience to truth and right. It seems,\ntherefore, like a Book of Confessions, or the Record of an Experience,\nand as such well deserves its place in the Bible and Jewish literature.\n\nThe Book of Job is a still more wonderful production, but in a wholly\ndifferent tone. It is full of manly faith in truth and right. It has no\njot of scepticism in it. It is a noble protest against all hypocrisies and\nall shams. Job does not know why he is afflicted, but he will never\nconfess that he is a sinner till he sees it. The Pharisaic friends tell\nhim his sufferings are judgments for his sins, and advise him to admit it\nto be so. But Job refuses, and declares he will utter no \"words of wind\"\nto the Almighty. The grandest thought is here expressed in the noblest\nlanguage which the human tongue has ever uttered.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6. The Prophets; or, Judaism as the Hope of a spiritual and universal\nKingdom of God.\n\n\nBefore we proceed to examine the prophetic writings of the Old Testament,\nit is desirable to make some remarks upon prophecy in general, and on the\ncharacter of the Hebrew prophets.\n\nProphecy in general is a modification of inspiration. Inspiration is\nsight, or rather it is insight. _All_ our knowledge comes to us through\nthe intellectual power which may be called sight, which is of two\nkinds,--the sight of external things, or outsight; and the sight of\ninternal things, which is insight, or intuition. The senses constitute the\norganization by which we see external things; consciousness is the\norganization by which we perceive internal things. Now the organs of sense\nare the same in kind, but differ in degree in all men. All human beings,\nas such, have the power of perceiving an external world, by means of the\nfive senses. But though all have these five senses, all do not perceive\nthe same external phenomena by means of them. For, in the first place,\ntheir senses differ in degrees of power. Some men's eyes are telescopic,\nsome microscopic, and some are blind. Some men can but partially\ndistinguish colors, others not at all. Some have acute hearing, others\nare deaf. And secondly, what men perceive through the senses differs\naccording to what is about them. A man living in China cannot see Mont\nBlanc or the city of New York; a man on the other side of the moon can\nnever see the earth. A man living in the year 1871 cannot see Alexander\nthe Great or the Apostle Paul. And thirdly, two persons may be looking at\nthe same thing, and with senses of the same degree of power, and yet one\nmay be able to see what the other is not able to see. Three men, one a\ngeologist, one a botanist, and one a painter, may look at the same\nlandscape, and one will see the stratification, the second will see the\nflora, and the third the picturesque qualities of the scene. As regards\noutsight then, though men in general have the same senses to see with,\nwhat they see depends (1) on their quality of sense, (2) on their position\nin space and time, (3) and on their state of mental culture.\n\nThat which is true of the perception of external phenomena is also true of\nthe perception of internal things.\n\nInsight, or intuition, has the same limitations as outsight. These are (1)\nthe quality of the faculty of intuition; (2) the inward circumstances or\nposition of the soul; (3) the soul's culture or development. Those who\ndeny the existence of an intuitive faculty, teaching that all knowledge\ncomes from without through the senses, sometimes say that if there were\nsuch a faculty as intuition, men would all possess intuitively the same\nknowledge of moral and spiritual truth. They might as well say that, as\nall men have eyes, all must see the same external objects.\n\nAll men have more or less of the intuitive faculty, but some have much\nmore than others. Those who have the most are called, by way of eminence,\ninspired men. But among these there is a difference as regards the objects\nwhich are presented by God, in the order of his providence, to their\nintuitive faculty. Some he places inwardly among visions of beauty, and\nthey are inspired poets and artists. Others he places inwardly amid\nvisions of temporal and human life, and they become inspired discoverers\nand inventors. And others he places amid visions of religious truth, and\nthey are inspired prophets, lawgivers, and evangelists. But these again\ndiffer in their own spiritual culture and growth. Moses and the Apostle\nPaul were both inspired men, but the Apostle Paul saw truths which Moses\ndid not see, because the Apostle Paul had reached a higher degree of\nspiritual culture. Christ alone possessed the fulness of spiritual\ninspiration, because he alone had attained the fulness of spiritual life.\n\nNow the inspired man may look inwardly either at the past, the present, or\nthe future. If he look at the past he is an inspired historian; if at the\npresent, an inspired lawgiver, or religious teacher; if at the future, an\ninspired prophet. The inspired faculty may be the same, and the difference\nmay be in the object inwardly present to its contemplation. The seer may\nlook from things past to things present, from things present to things to\ncome, and his inspiration be the same. He fixes his mind on the past, and\nit grows clear before him, and he sees how events were and what they mean.\nHe looks at the present, and sees how things ought to be. He looks at the\nfuture, and sees how things shall be.\n\nThe Prophets of the Old Testament were not, as is commonly supposed, men\nwho only uttered predictions of the future. They were men of action more\nthan of contemplation. Strange as it may seem to us, who are accustomed to\nconsider their office as confined to religious prediction, their chief\nduty was that of active politicians. They mixed religion and politics.\nThey interfered with public measures, rebuked the despotism of the kings\nand the political errors of the people. Moreover, they were the\nconstitutional lawyers and publicists of the Hebrews, inspired to look\nbackward and explain the meaning of the Mosaic law as well as to look\nforward to its spiritual development in the reign of the Messiah.\nPrediction, therefore, of future events, was a very small part of the work\nof the Prophets. Their main duty was to warn, rebuke, teach, exhort, and\nencourage.\n\nThe Hebrew prophets were under the law. They were loyal to Moses and to\nhis institutions. But it was to the spirit rather than to the letter, the\nidea rather than the form. They differed from the priests in preferring\nthe moral part of the law to the ceremonial. They were great reformers in\nbringing back the people from external formalism to vital obedience. They\nconstantly made the ceremonial part of the law subservient to the moral\npart of the law. Thus Samuel said to Saul: \"Hath the Lord as great delight\nin burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord?\nBehold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of\nrams.\" And so afterward Isaiah declared in the name of the Lord, that the\nsacrifices of a wicked people were vain, and their incense an abomination.\n\nWe read of the schools of the Prophets, where they studied the law of\nMoses, and were taught the duties of their office. In these schools music\nwas made use of as a medium of inspiration.\n\nBut the office of a prophet was not limited by culture, sex, age, or\ncondition. Women, like Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Huldah, and Noadiah;\ninexperienced youths, like Jeremiah; men of high standing in society, like\nIsaiah and Daniel; humble men, like the ploughman Elisha and the herdsman\nAmos; men married and unmarried, are numbered among the Prophets. Living\npoorly, wearing sackcloth, feeding on vegetables, imprisoned or\nassassinated by kings, stoned by the people, the most unpopular of men,\nsometimes so possessed by the spirit as to rave like madmen, obliged to\ndenounce judgments and woes against kings and people, it is no wonder that\nthey often shrank from their terrible office. Jonah ran to hide in a ship\nof Tarshish. They have called their message a burden, like Isaiah; they\nhave cried out like Jeremiah, \"Ah, Lord God, I cannot speak, for I am a\nchild\"; like Ezekiel, they have been obliged to make their faces harder\nthan flints in order to deliver their message.\n\nDean Stanley, in speaking of the Prophets of the Old Testament, says that\ntheir theology consisted in proclaiming the unity of God against all\npolytheism, and the spirituality of God against all idolatry, in declaring\nthe superiority of moral to ceremonial duties, and in announcing the\nsupremacy of goodness above the letter, ceremony, or dogma. This makes\nthe contrast between the Prophets and all other sacred persons who have\nexisted in pagan and, he adds, even in Christian times. Dean Stanley says\nthe Prophets were religious teachers, without the usual faults of\nreligious teachers, and he proposes them as an example to the Christian\nclergy. He says: \"O, if the spirit of our profession, of our order, of our\nbody, were the spirit, or anything like the spirit, of the ancient\nProphets! If with us truth, charity, justice, fairness to opponents, were\na passion, a doctrine, a point of honor, to be upheld with the same energy\nas that with which we uphold our own position and our own opinions!\"\n\nThe spirit of the world asks first, Is it safe? secondly, Is it true? The\nspirit of the Prophets asks first, Is it true? secondly, Is it safe? The\nspirit of the world asks first, Is it prudent? secondly, Is it right? The\nspirit of the Prophets asks first, Is it right? secondly, Is it prudent?\nTaken as a whole, the prophetic order of the Jewish Church remains alone.\nIt stands like one of those vast monuments of ancient days, with ramparts\nbroken, with inscriptions defaced, but stretching from hill to hill,\nconveying in its long line of arches the pure rill of living water over\ndeep valley and thirsty plain, far above all the puny modern buildings\nwhich have grown up at its feet, and into the midst of which it strides\nwith its massive substructions, its gigantic height, its majestic\nproportions, unrivalled by any erection of modern time.\n\nThe predictions of the future by the Prophets of Jud\u00e6a were far higher in\ntheir character than those which come occasionally to mankind through\ndreams and presentiments. Yet no doubt they proceeded from the same\nessentially Iranian faculty. This also is asserted by the Dean of\nWestminster, who says that there is a power of divination granted in some\ninexplicable manner to ordinary men, and he refers to such instances as\nthe prediction of the discovery of America by Seneca, that of the\nReformation by Dante, and the prediction of the twelve centuries of Roman\ndominion by the apparition of twelve vultures to Romulus, which was so\nunderstood four hundred years before its actual accomplishment. If such\npresentiments are not always verified, neither were the predictions of\nthe Prophets always fulfilled. Jonah announced, in the most distinct and\nabsolute terms, that in forty days Nineveh should be destroyed. But the\npeople repented, and it was _not_ destroyed. Their predictions of the\nMessiah are remarkable, especially because in speaking of him and his time\nthey went out of the law and the spirit of the law, and became partakers\nof the spirit of the Gospel. The Prophets of the Jews, whatever else we\ndeny to their predictions, certainly foresaw Christianity. They describe\nthe coming of a time in which the law should be written in the heart, of a\nking who should reign in righteousness, of a prince of peace, of one who\nshould rule by the power of truth, not by force, whose kingdom should be\nuniversal and everlasting, and into which all nations of the earth should\nflow. What the Prophets foresaw was not times nor seasons, not dates nor\nnames, not any minute particulars. But they saw a future age, they lived\nout of their own time in another time, which had not yet arrived. They\nleft behind them Jewish ceremonialism, and entered into a moral and\nspiritual religion. They dropped Jewish narrowness and called all mankind\nbrethren. In this they reach the highest form of foresight, which is not\nsimply to predict a coming event, but to live in the spirit of a future\ntime.\n\nThus the Prophets developed the Jewish religion to its highest point. The\nsimple, childlike faith of Abraham became, in their higher vision, the\nsight of a universal Father, and of an age in which all men and nations\nshould be united into one great moral kingdom. Further than this, it was\nnot possible to go in vision. The difference between the Prophets and\nJesus was, that he accomplished what they foresaw. His life, full of faith\nin God and man, became the new seed of a higher kingdom than that of\nDavid. He was the son of David, as inheriting the loving trust of David in\na heavenly Father; he was also the Lord of David, by fulfilling David's\nlove to God with his own love to man; making piety and charity one, faith\nand freedom one, reason and religion one, this life and the life to come\none. He died to accomplish this union and to make this atoning sacrifice.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 7. Judaism as a Preparation for Christianity.\n\n\nAfter the return from the captivity the Jewish nation remained loyal to\nJehovah. The dangers of polytheism and idolatry had passed. We no more\nhear of either of these tendencies, but, on the contrary, a rigid and\nalmost bigoted monotheism was firmly established. Their sufferings, the\nteaching of their Prophets, perhaps the influence of the Persian worship,\nhad confirmed them in the belief that Jehovah was one and alone, and that\nthe gods of the nations were idols. They had lost forever the sacred ark\nof the covenant and the mysterious ornaments of the high-priest. Their\nkings had disappeared, and a new form of theocracy took the place of a\nroyal government. The high-priest, with the great council, became the\nsupreme authority. The government was hierarchal.\n\nHellenic influences began to act on the Jewish mind, and a peculiar\ndialect of Hebrew-Greek, called the Hellenistic, was formed. The\nSeptuagint, or Greek version of the Old Testament, was made in Alexandria\nabout B.C. 260. In Egypt, Greek philosophy began to affect the Jewish\nmind, the final result of which was the system of Philo. Greek influences\nspread to such an extent that a great religious revolution took place in\nPalestine (B.C. 170), and the Temple at Jerusalem was turned into a temple\nof Olympic Jupiter. Many of the priests and leading citizens accepted this\nchange, though the heart of the people rejected it with horror. Under\nAntiochus the Temple was profaned, the sacrifices ceased, the keeping of\nthe Sabbath and use of the Scriptures were forbidden by a royal edict.\nThen arose the Maccabees, and after a long and bitter struggle\nre-established the worship of Jehovah, B.C. 141.\n\nAfter this the mass of the people, in their zeal for the law and their old\ninstitutions, fell in to the narrow bigotry of the Pharisees. The\nSadducees were Jewish Epicureans, but though wealthy were few, and had\nlittle influence. The Essenes were Jewish monks, living in communities,\nand as little influential as are the Shakers in Massachusetts to-day. They\nwere not only few, but their whole system was contrary to the tone of\nJewish thought, and was probably derived from Orphic Pythagoreanism.[378]\n\nThe Talmud, that mighty maze of Jewish thought, commencing after the\nreturn from the captivity, contains the history of the gradual progress\nand development of the national mind. The study of the Talmud is necessary\nto the full understanding of the rise of Christianity. Many of the\nparables and precepts of Jesus may have had their origin in these\ntraditions and teachings. For the Talmud contains much that is excellent,\nand the originality of Jesus was not in saying what never had been thought\nbefore, but in vitalizing all old truth out of a central spiritual life.\nHis originality was not novelty, but vitality. We have room here but for a\nsingle extract.[379]\n\n\"'Six hundred and thirteen injunctions,' says the Talmud, 'was Moses\ninstructed to give to the people. David reduced them all to eleven, in the\nfifteenth Psalm: Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle who shall dwell\non thy holy hill? He that walketh uprightly,' &c.\n\n\"'The Prophet Isaiah reduced them to six (xxxiii. 15): He that walketh\nrighteously,' &c.\n\n\"'The Prophet Micah reduced them to three (vi. 8): What doth the Lord\nrequire of thee but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly\nwith thy God?\n\n\"'Isaiah once more reduced them to two (lvi. 1): Keep ye judgment and do\njustice.\n\n\"'Amos (v. 4) reduced them all to one: Seek ye me and ye shall live.\n\n\"'But lest it might be supposed from this that God could be found in the\nfulfilment of his whole law only, Habakkuk said (ii. 4): The just shall\nlive by his faith.'\"\n\nThus we have seen the Jewish religion gradually developed out of the\nfamily worship of Abraham, through the national worship of the law to the\npersonal and filial trust of David, and the spiritual monotheism of Job\nand the Prophets. Through all these changes there ran the one golden\nthread of faith in a Supreme Being who was not hidden and apart from the\nworld, but who came to man as to his child.\n\nAt first this belief was narrow and like that of a child[380] We read\nthat when Noah went into the ark, \"the Lord shut him in\"; that when Babel\nwas built, \"the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the\nchildren of men had built\"; that when Noah offered burnt-sacrifices, \"the\nLord smelled a sweet savor\"; that he told Moses to make him a sanctuary,\nthat he might dwell among the Israelites. We have seen, in our chapter on\nGreece, that Homer makes Jupiter send a pernicious dream to Agamemnon, to\ndeceive him; in other words, makes Jupiter tell a lie to Agamemnon. But\nhow is the account in I Kings xxii. 20-23, any better?[381]\n\nBut how all this ignorance was enlightened, and this narrowness enlarged,\nlet the magnificent theism of the Psalms, of Job, and of Isaiah testify.\nSolomon declares \"The heaven of heavens cannot contain him, how much less\nthis house that I have builded.\" Job and the Psalms and Isaiah describe\nthe omniscience, omnipresence, and inscrutable perfections of the Deity in\nlanguage to which twenty centuries have been able to add nothing.[382]\n\nThus Judaism was monotheism, first as a seed, then as a blade, and then as\nthe ear which the sun of Christianity was to ripen into the full corn. The\nhighest truth was present, implicitly, in Judaism, and became explicit in\nChristianity. The law was the schoolmaster to bring men to Christ. It\ntaught, however imperfectly, a supreme and living God; a Providence ruling\nall things; a Judge rewarding good and punishing evil; a holy Being, of\npurer eyes than to behold iniquity. It announced a moral law to be\nobeyed, the substance of which was to love God with all the heart, and\none's neighbor as one's self.\n\nWherever the Apostles of Christ went they found that Judaism had prepared\nthe way. Usually, in every place, they first preached to the Jews, and\nmade converts of them. For Judaism, though so narrow and so alien to the\nGreek and Latin thought, had nevertheless pervaded all parts of the Roman\nEmpire. Despised and satirized by philosophers and poets, it had yet won\nits way by its strength of conviction. It offered to men, not a\nphilosophy, but a religion; not thought, but life. Too intolerant of\ndifferences to convert the world to monotheism, it yet made a preparation\nfor its conversion. This was its power, and thus it went before the face\nof the Master, to prepare his way.\n\n\n\n\nChapter XI.\n\nMohammed and Islam.\n\n\n\n  \u00a7 1. Recent Works on the Life of Mohammed.\n  \u00a7 2. The Arabs and Arabia.\n  \u00a7 3. Early Life of Mohammed, to the Hegira.\n  \u00a7 4. Change in the Character of Mohammed after the Hegira.\n  \u00a7 5. Religious Doctrines and Practices among the Mohammedans.\n  \u00a7 6. The Criticism of Mr. Palgrave on Mohammedan Theology.\n  \u00a7 7. Mohammedanism a Relapse; the worst Form of Monotheism, and a\n         retarding Element in Civilization.\n\n  Note.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 1. Recent Works on the Life of Mohammed.\n\n\nDr. Samuel Johnson once declared, \"There are two objects of curiosity, the\nChristian world and the Mohammedan world; all the rest may be considered\nas barbarous.\" Since Dr. Johnson's time we have learned to be curious\nabout other forms of human thought, and regard the famous line of Terence\nas expressing more accurately the proper frame of mind for a Christian\nphilosopher. Nevertheless, Mohammedanism still claims a special interest\nand excites a peculiar curiosity. It is the only religion which has\nthreatened Christianity with a dangerous rivalry. It is the only other\nreligion, whose origin is in the broad daylight of history. Its author is\nthe only one among the great men of the world who has at the same time\nfounded a religion, formed a people, and established an empire. The\nmarvellous spread of this religion is a mystery which never ceases to\nstimulate the mind to new inquiry. How was it that in the short space of a\ncentury the Arab tribes, before always at war among themselves, should\nhave been united into an irresistible power, and have conquered Syria,\nPersia, the whole of Northern Africa and Spain? And with this religious\noutbreak, this great revival of monotheism in Asia, there came also as\nremarkable a renaissance of learning, which made the Arabs the teachers of\nphilosophy and art to Europe during a long period. Arab Spain was a focus\nof light while Christian Europe lay in medi\u00e6val darkness. And still more\ninteresting and perplexing is the character of Mohammed himself. What was\nhe,--an impostor or a prophet? Did his work advance or retard human\nprogress? What is his position in history? Such are some of the questions\non which we shall endeavor to throw light in the present chapter.\n\nWithin a few years new materials for this study have been made accessible\nby the labors of Weil, Caussin de Perceval, Muir, Sprenger, D\u00f6llinger, and\nArnold. Dr. Gustav Weil published his work[383] in 1843. It was drawn from\nArabic manuscripts and the Koran. When Weil began his studies on Mohammed\nin 1837, he found no book except that of Gagnier, published in 1732, from\nwhich he could derive substantial aid. But Gagnier had only collected,\nwithout any attempt at criticism, the traditions and statements concerning\nMohammed believed by orthodox Moslems. Satisfied that a literary want\nexisted at this point, Dr. Weil devoted himself to such studies as should\nenable him to supply it; and the result was a work concerning which Milman\nsays that \"nothing has escaped\" the diligence of its author. But four\nyears after appeared the book of M. Caussin de Perceval,[384] a work of\nwhich M. Saint-Hilaire says that it marks a new era in these studies, on\naccount of the abundance and novelty of its details, and the light thrown\non the period which in Arabia preceded the coming of Mohammed. Dr. A.\nSprenger, an eminent German scholar, early determined to devote himself to\nthe study of Oriental literature in the East. He spent a long time in\nIndia, and was for twelve years principal of a Mohammedan school in Delhi,\nwhere he established, in 1845, an illustrated penny magazine in the Hindoo\nlanguage. After returning to Europe with a vast number of Oriental\nmanuscripts, he composed his Life of Mohammed,[385] the result of\nextensive studies. Among the preparations for this work we will cite only\none. Dr. Sprenger edited in Calcutta the first volume of the I\u00e7\u00e2ba, which\ncontains the names and biographies of _eight thousand_ persons who were\npersonally acquainted with Mohammed.[386] But, as if to embarrass us with\nriches, comes also Mr. Muir[387] and presents us with another life of the\nprophet, likewise drawn from original sources, and written with learning\nand candor. This work, in four volumes, goes over the whole ground of the\nhistory of Arabia before the coming of the prophet, and then, from Arabic\nsources, narrates the life of Mohammed himself, up to the era of the\nHegira. The result of these researches is that we know accurately what Mr.\nHallam in his time despaired of knowing,--all the main points of the\nhistory of Mohammed. There is no legend, no myth, to trouble us. M.\nSaint-Hilaire says that the French are far less acquainted with\nCharlemagne than the Moslems are with their prophet, who came two\ncenturies earlier.\n\nA Mohammedan writer, Syed Ahmed Khan Bahador, has lately published, in\nEnglish, a series of Essays on the life of Mohammed, Arabia, the Arabs,\nMohammedan traditions, and kindred topics, written from the stand-point of\na believer in Islam.[388] He is dissatisfied with all the recent works on\nMohammed, including those of Dr. Sprenger and Mr. Muir. He believes that\nthe Arabic sources from which these biographies are derived are not the\nmost authentic. The special objections, however, which this able\nMohammedan urges against these European biographies by Sprenger and Muir\ndo not affect any of the important points in the history, but only details\nof small moment. Notwithstanding his criticisms, therefore, we may safely\nassume that we are in a condition to understand the actual life and\ncharacter of Mohammed. All that the Syed says concerning the duty of an\nimpartial and friendly judgment of Islam and its author is, of course,\ntrue. We shall endeavor in our treatment of Mohammed to follow this\nexhortation.\n\nSomething, however, is always gained by hearing what the believers in a\nsystem have to say in its behalf, and these essays of the Mohammedan\nscholar may help us in this way. One of the most curious parts of the\nvolume is that in which he treats of the prophecies concerning Mohammed in\nthe Old and New Testament. Most of our readers will be surprised at\nlearning that any such prophecies exist; and yet some of them are quite as\nstriking as many of those commonly adduced by writers on prophecy as\nreferring to Jesus Christ. For example (Deut. xviii. 15, 18), when Moses\npredicts that the Lord will raise up a prophet for the Jews, _from among\ntheir brethren_; by emphasizing this latter clause, and arguing that the\nJews had no brethren except the Ishmaelites, from whom Mohammed was born,\nan argument is derived that the latter was referred to. This is\nstrengthened by the declaration of Moses, that this prophet should be\n\"_like unto me_,\" since Deuteronomy xxxiv. 10 declares that \"there arose\nno prophet _in Israel_ like unto Moses.\"\n\nHabakkuk iii. 3 says: \"The Holy One came from Mount Paran.\" But Mount\nParan, argues our friend, is the mountain of Mecca.\n\nThe Hebrew word translated \"desire\" in Haggai ii. 7, \"The desire of all\nnations shall come,\" is said by Bahador to be the same word as the name\nMohammed. He is therefore predicted by his name in this passage.\n\nWhen Isaiah says (xxi. 7), according to the Septuagint translation, that\nhe \"saw two riders, one on an ass and one on a camel,\" Bahador argues that\nthe rider on the ass is Jesus, who so entered Jerusalem, and that the\nrider on the camel is Mohammed.\n\nWhen John the Baptist was asked if he were the Christ, or Elijah, or \"that\nprophet,\" Mohammedans say that \"that prophet,\" so anticipated, was their\nown.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. The Arabs and Arabia.\n\n\nThe Arabs are a Semitic people, belonging to the same great ethnologic\nfamily with the Babylonians, Assyrians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, Ethiopians,\nand Carthaginians. It is a race which has given to civilized man his\nliterature and his religion; for the alphabet came from the Phoenicians,\nand the Bible from the Jews. In Hannibal, it produced perhaps the greatest\nmilitary genius the world has seen; and the Tyrian merchants,\ncircumnavigating Africa, discovering Great Britain, and trading with\nIndia, ten centuries before Christ, had no equals on the ocean until the\ntime of the Portuguese discoveries, twenty-five centuries after. The Arabs\nalone, of the seven Semitic families, remained undistinguished and unknown\ntill the days of Mohammed. Their claim of being descended from Abraham is\nconfirmed by the unerring evidence of language. The Arabic roots are, nine\ntenths of them, identical with the Hebrew; and a similarity of grammatical\nforms shows a plain glossological relation. But while the Jews have a\nhistory from the days of Abraham, the Arabs had none till Mohammed. During\ntwenty centuries these nomads wandered to and fro, engaged in mutual wars,\nverifying the prediction (Gen. xvi. 12) concerning Ishmael: \"He will be a\nwild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against\nhim.\" Wherever such wandering races exist, whether in Arabia, Turkistan,\nor Equatorial Africa, \"darkness covers the earth, and gross darkness the\npeople.\" The earth has no geography, and the people no history. During all\nthis long period, from the time of Abraham to that of Mohammed, the Arabs\nwere not a nation, but only a multitude of tribes, either stationary or\nwandering. But of these two the nomad or Bedouin is the true type of the\nrace as it exists in Northern Arabia. The Arab of the South is\nin many respects different,--in language, in manners, and in\ncharacter,--confirming the old opinion of a double origin. But the\nNorthern Arab in his tent has remained unchanged since the days of the\nBible. Proud of his pure blood, of his freedom, of his tribe, and of his\nancient customs, he desires no change. He is, in Asia, what the North\nAmerican Indian is upon the western continent. As the Indian's, his chief\nvirtues are courage in war, cunning, wild justice, hospitality, and\nfortitude. He is, however, of a better race,--more reflective, more\nreligious, and with a thirst for knowledge. The pure air and the simple\nfood of the Arabian plains keep him in perfect health; and the necessity\nof constant watchfulness against his foes, from whom he has no defence of\nrock, forest, or fortification, quickens his perceptive faculties. But the\nArab has also a sense of spiritual things, which appears to have a root in\nhis organization. The Arabs say: \"The children of Shem are prophets, the\nchildren of Japhet are kings, and the children of Ham are slaves.\" Having\nno temples, no priesthood, no religious forms, their religion is less\nformal and more instinctive, like that of children. The Koran says: \"Every\nchild is born into the religion of nature; its parents make it a Jew, a\nChristian, or a Magian.\" But when Mohammed came, the religion of the Arabs\nwas a jumble of monotheism and polytheism,--Judaism, Christianity,\nidolatry, and fetichism. At one time there had been a powerful and\nintolerant Jewish kingdom in one region. In Yemen, at another period, the\nking of Abyssinia had established Christianity. But neither Judaism nor\nChristianity had ever been able to conquer the peninsula; and at the end\nof the sixth century idolatry was the most prevailing form of worship.\n\nAt this time Mohammed appeared, and in a few years united in one faith all\nthe warring tribes of Arabia; consolidated them into a single nation, and\nthen wielded their mighty and enthusiastic forces against Syria, Persia,\nand North Africa, triumphant wherever they moved. He, certainly, if ever\nman possessed it, had the rare gift of natural empire. To him, more than\nto any other of whom history makes mention, was given\n\n    \"The monarch mind, the mystery of commanding,\n      The birth-hour gift, the art Napoleon,\n    Of wielding, moulding, gathering, welding, banding,\n      The hearts of thousands till they moved as one.\"\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. Early Life of Mohammed, to the Hegira.\n\n\nBut it was not as a soldier or ambitious conqueror that Mohammed began his\ncareer. The first forty years of his life were passed in the quiet\npursuits of trade, or taking care of the property of Khad\u00eejah. Serious,\nthoughtful, devout, he made friends of all about him. His youth was\nunstained by vice, and his honorable character early obtained for him the\ntitle, given him by common consent, of Al Am\u00een, \"the faithful.\" At one\ntime he tended sheep and goats on the hills near Mecca. At Medina, after\nhe became distinguished he referred to this, saying, \"Pick me the blackest\nof those berries; they are such as I used to gather when I fed the flocks\nat Mecca. Verily, no prophet has been raised up who has not performed the\nwork of a shepherd.\" When twenty-five years of age, he entered into the\nservice of Khad\u00eejah, a rich widow, as her agent, to take charge of her\nmerchandise and to sell it at Damascus. When the caravan returned, and his\nadventure had proved successful, Khad\u00eejah, then forty years old, became\ninterested in the young man; she was wise, virtuous, and attractive; they\nwere married, and, till her death, Mohammed was a kind and loving husband.\nKhad\u00eejah sympathized with her husband in his religious tendencies, and was\nhis first convert. His habit was to retire to a cave on Mount Hira to pray\nand to meditate. Sadness came over him in view of the evils in the world.\nOne of the Suras of the Koran, supposed to belong to this period, is as\nfollows:--\n\n    _Sura 103._\n\n    \"By the declining day I swear!\n    Verily, man is in the way of ruin;\n    Excepting such as possess faith,\n    And do the things which be right,\n    And stir up one another to truth and steadfastness.\"\n\nAbout this time he began to have his visions of angels, especially of\nGabriel. He saw a light, and heard a voice, and had sentences like the\nabove put into his mind. These communications were accompanied by strong\nconvulsions (epilepsy, says Weil), in which he would fall to the ground\nand foam at the mouth. Sprenger considers it to have been a form of\nhysteria, with a mental origin, perhaps accompanied with catalepsy. The\nprophet himself said: \"Inspiration descends on me in two ways. Sometimes\nGabriel cometh and communicateth the revelation, as one man to another.\nThis is easy. But sometimes it is as the ringing of a bell, which rends me\nin pieces, and grievously afflicts me.\" One day, when Abu Bakr and Omar\nsat in the Mosque at Medina, Mohammed came suddenly upon them, lifting up\nhis beard and looking at it; and Abu Bakr said, \"Ah thou, for whom I would\nsacrifice father and mother; white hairs are hastening upon thee!\" \"Yes,\"\nsaid the prophet, \"H\u00fbd\" (Sura 11) \"and its sisters have hastened my white\nhairs.\" \"And who,\" asked Abu Bakr, \"are its sisters?\" \"The _Inevitable_\"\n(Sura 56) \"and the _Striking_\" (Sura 101), replied Mohammed. These three\nare called the \"terrific Suras.\"\n\nBut these last Suras came later than the period now referred to. At this\ntime his visions and revelations possessed _him_; he did not possess nor\ncontrol _them_. In later years the spirit of the prophet was more subject\nto the prophet. But the Koran is an unintelligible book unless we can\nconnect it with the biography of its writer. All the incidents of his life\ntook shape in some revelation. A separate revelation was given to\nencourage or to rebuke him; and in his later years the too subservient\ninspiration came to appease the jealousy of his wives when a new one was\nadded to their number. But, however it may have been afterward, in the\nbeginning his visions were as much a surprise to him as to others. A\ncareful distribution of the Suras, according to the events which befell\nhim, would make the Koran the best biography of the prophet. As we said of\nDavid and his Psalms, so it may be said of Mohammed, that his life hangs\nsuspended in these hymns, as in votive pictures, each the record of some\ngrave experience.[389]\n\nNow, it is impossible to read the detailed accounts of this part of the\nlife of Mohammed, and have any doubt of his profound sincerity. His\nearliest converts were his bosom-friends and the people of his household,\nwho were intimately acquainted with his private life. Nor does a man\neasily begin an ambitious course of deception at the age of forty; having\nlived till that time as a quiet, peaceful, and unobtrusive citizen,[390]\nwhat was he to gain by this career? Long years passed before he could make\nmore than a handful of converts. During these weary years he was the\nobject of contumely and hatred to the ruling tribe in Mecca. His life was\nhardly safe from them. Nothing could be more hopeless than his position\nduring the first twelve years of his public preaching. Only a strong\nconviction of the reality of his mission could have supported him through\nthis long period of failure, loneliness, and contempt. During all these\nyears the wildest imagination could not have pictured the success which\nwas to come. Here is a Sura in which he finds comfort in God and his\npromises.--\n\n    _Sura 93._\n\n      \"By the rising sunshine!\n      By the night when it darkeneth!\n    Thy Lord hath not removed from thee, neither hath he been displeased.\n    And verily the future shall be better than the past....\n    What! did he not find thee an orphan, and give thee a home?\n    And found thee astray, and directed thee?\"\n\nIn this Sura, Mohammed refers to the fact of the death of his mother,\nAmina, in his seventh year, his father having died a few months before. He\nvisited her tomb many years after, and lifted up his voice and wept. In\nreply to the questions of his companions, he said: \"This is the grave of\nmy mother; the Lord hath permitted me to visit it, and I asked leave to\npray for her, and it was not granted. So I called my mother to\nremembrance, and the tender memory of her overcame me, and I wept.\" The\nchild had been taken by his grandfather, Abd al Mut-talib, then eighty\nyears old, who treated him with the greatest indulgence. At his death,\nshortly after, Mohammed was adopted by his uncle, Abu T\u00e2lib, the chief of\nthe tribe. Abu T\u00e2lib brought him up like his own son, making him sleep by\nhis bed, eat by his side, and go with him wherever he went. And when\nMohammed, assuming his inspired position, declared himself a prophet, his\nuncle, then aged and universally respected, protected him from his\nenemies, though Abu himself never accepted his teaching. Mohammed\ntherefore had good reason to bless the Providence which had provided such\nprotectors for his orphaned infancy.\n\nAmong the earliest converts of Mohammed, after Khad\u00eejah, were his two\nadopted children, Ali and Zeid. Ali was the son of his guardian, Abu\nT\u00e2lib, who had become poor, and found it hard to support his family.\nMohammed, \"prompted by his usual kindness and consideration,\" says Mr.\nMuir, went to his rich uncle Abbas, and proposed that each of them should\nadopt one of Abu T\u00e2lib's children, which was done. His other adopted son,\nZeid, belonged to a Syrian tribe, and had been taken captive by marauders,\nsold into slavery, and given to Khad\u00eejah, who presented him to her\nhusband. After a while the father of Zeid heard where he was, and coming\nto Mecca offered a large sum as ransom for his son. Mohammed had become\nvery fond of Zeid, but he called him, and gave him his choice to go or\nstay. Zeid said, \"I will not leave thee; thou art in the place to me of\nfather and mother.\" Then Mohammed took him to the Kaaba, and touching the\nBlack Stone said, \"Bear witness, all here! Zeid is my son. I shall be his\nheir, and he mine.\" So the father returned home contented, and Zeid was\nhenceforth known as \"Zeid ibn Mohammed,\"--Zeid, the son of Mohammed.\n\nIt is reported that when Ali was about thirteen years old Mohammed was one\nday praying with him in one of the retired glens near Mecca, whither they\nhad gone to avoid the ridicule of their opponents. Abu T\u00e2lib, passing by,\nsaid, \"My nephew! what is this new faith I see thee following?\" \"O my\nuncle,\" replied Mohammed, \"it is the religion of God, his angels and\nprophets, the religion of Abraham. The Lord hath sent me as his apostle;\nand thou, uncle, art most worthy to be invited to believe.\" Abu T\u00e2lib\nreplied, \"I am not able, my nephew, to separate from the customs of my\nforefathers, but I swear that while I live no one shall trouble thee.\"\nThen he said to Ali, \"My son, he will not invite thee to anything which is\nnot good; wherefore thou art free to cleave to him.\"\n\nAnother early and important convert was Abu Bakr, father of Mohammed's\nfavorite wife, Ayesha, and afterward the prophet's successor. Ayesha said\nshe \"could not remember the time when both her parents were not true\nbelievers.\" Of Abu Bakr, the prophet said, \"I never invited any to the\nfaith who did not show hesitation, except Abu Bakr. When I proposed Islam\nto him he at once accepted it.\" He was thoughtful, calm, tender, and firm.\nHe is still known as \"Al Sad\u00eech,\" the true one. Another of his titles is\n\"the Second of the Two,\"--from having been the only companion of Mohammed\nin his flight from Mecca. Hassan, the poet of Medina, thus says of him:--\n\n    \"And the second of the two in the glorious cave, while the foes were\n         searching around, and they two were in the mountain,--\n    And the prophet of the Lord, they well knew, loved him more than all\n        the world; he held no one equal unto him.\"[391]\n\nAbu Bakr was at this time a successful merchant, and possessed some forty\nthousand dirhems. But he spent most of it in purchasing and giving freedom\nto Moslem slaves, who were persecuted by their masters for their religion.\nHe was an influential man among the Koreish. This powerful tribe, the\nrulers of Mecca, who from the first treated Mohammed with contempt,\ngradually became violent persecutors of him and his followers. Their main\nwrath fell on the unprotected slaves, whom they exposed to the scorching\nsun, and who, in their intolerable thirst, would sometimes recant, and\nacknowledge the idols. Some of them remained firm, and afterward showed\nwith triumph their scars. Mohammed, Abu Bakr, Ali, and all who were\nconnected with powerful families, were for a long time safe. For the\nprincipal protection in such a disorganized society was the principle that\neach tribe must defend every one of its members, at all hazards. Of\ncourse, Mohammed was very desirous to gain over members of the great\nfamilies, but he felt bound to take equal pains with the poor and\nhelpless, as appears from the following anecdote: \"The prophet was engaged\nin deep converse with the chief Wal\u00eed, for he greatly desired his\nconversion. Then a blind man passed that way, and asked to hear the Koran.\nBut Mohammed was displeased with the interruption, and turned from him\nroughly.\"[392] But he was afterward grieved to think he had slighted one\nwhom God had perhaps chosen, and had paid court to a reprobate. So his\nremorse took the form of a divine message and embodied itself as\nfollows:--\n\n    \"The prophet frowned and turned aside\n    Because the blind man came to him.\n    Who shall tell thee if he may not be purified?\n    Or whether thy admonition might not profit him?\n        The rich man\n        Thou receivest graciously,\n        Although he be not inwardly pure.\n    But him who cometh earnestly inquiring,\n    And trembling with anxiety,\n        Him thou dost neglect.\"[393]\n\nMohammed did not encourage his followers to martyrdom. On the contrary, he\nallowed them to dissemble to save themselves. He found one of his\ndisciples sobbing bitterly because he had been compelled by ill-treatment\nto abuse his master and worship the idols. \"But how dost thou find thy\nheart?\" said the prophet. \"Steadfast in the faith,\" said he. \"Then,\"\nanswered Mohammed, \"if they repeat their cruelty, thou mayest repeat thy\nwords.\" He also had himself an hour of vacillation. Tired of the severe\nand seemingly hopeless struggle with the Koreish, and seeing no way of\novercoming their bitter hostility, he bethought himself of the method of\ncompromise, more than seven centuries before America was discovered. He\nhad been preaching Islam five years, and had only forty or fifty converts.\nThose among them who had no protectors he had advised to fly to the\nChristian kingdom of Abyssinia. \"Yonder,\" said he, pointing to the west,\n\"lies a land wherein no one is wronged. Go there and remain until the Lord\nshall open a way for you.\" Some fifteen or twenty had gone, and met with a\nkind reception. This was the first \"Hegira,\" and showed the strength of\nfaith in these exiles, who gave up their country rather than Islam. But\nthey heard, before long, that the Koreish had been converted by Mohammed,\nand they returned to Mecca. The facts were these.\n\nOne day, when the chief citizens were sitting near the Kaaba, Mohammed\ncame, and began to recite in their hearing one of the Suras of the Koran.\nIn this Sura three of the goddesses worshipped by the Koreish were\nmentioned. When he came to their names he added two lines in which he\nconceded that their intercession might avail with God. The Koreish were so\ndelighted at this acknowledgment of their deities, that when he added\nanother line calling on them to worship Allah, they all prostrated\nthemselves on the ground and adored God. Then they rose, and expressed\ntheir satisfaction, and agreed to be his followers, and receive Islam,\nwith this slight alteration, that their goddesses and favorite idols were\nto be respected. Mohammed went home and began to be unhappy in his mind.\nThe compromise, it seems, lasted long enough for the Abyssinian exiles to\nhear of it and to come home. But at last the prophet recovered himself,\nand took back his concession. The verse of the Sura was cancelled, and\nanother inserted, declaring that these goddesses were only names, invented\nby the idolaters. Ever after, the intercession of idols was condemned with\nscorn. But Mohammed records his lapse thus in the seventeenth Sura of the\nKoran:--\n\n   \"And truly, they were near tempting thee from what we taught thee, that\n   thou shouldst invent a different revelation; and then they would have\n   inclined unto thee.\n\n   And if we had not strengthened thee, verily thou hadst inclined to them\n   a little.\n\n   Then thou shouldst not have found against us any helper.\"\n\nAfter this, naturally, the persecution became hotter than ever. A second\nbody of exiles went to Abyssinia. Had not the venerable Abu T\u00e2lib\nprotected Mohammed, his life might have been lost. As it was, the\npersecutors threatened the old man with deadly enmity unless he gave up\nMohammed. But Abu T\u00e2lib, though agreeing with them in their religion, and\nworshipping their gods, refused to surrender his nephew to them. Once,\nwhen Mohammed had disappeared, and his uncle suspected that the Koreish\nhad seized him, he armed a party of H\u00e2shimite youths with dirks, and went\nto the Kaaba, to the Koreish. But on the way he heard that Mohammed was\nfound. Then, in the presence of the Koreish, he told his young men to draw\ntheir dirks, and said, \"By the Lord! had ye killed him, not one of you had\nremained alive.\" This boldness cowed their violence for a time. But as the\nunpopularity of Mohammed increased, he and all his party were obliged to\ntake refuge with the H\u00e2shimites in a secluded quarter of the city\nbelonging to Abu T\u00e2lib. The conversion of Omar about this time only\nincreased their rage. They formed an alliance against the H\u00e2shimites,\nagreeing that they would neither buy nor sell, marry, nor have any\ndealings with them. This oath was committed to writing, sealed, and hung\nup in the Kaaba. For two or three years the H\u00e2shimites remained shut up in\ntheir fortress, and often deprived of the necessaries of life. Their\nfriends would sometimes secretly supply them with provisions; but the\ncries of the hungry children would often be heard by those outside. They\nwere blockaded in their intrenchments. But many of the chief people in\nMecca began to be moved by pity, and at last it was suggested to Abu T\u00e2lib\nthat the bond hung up in the Kaaba had been eaten by the ants, so as to be\nno longer valid. This being found to be the case, it was decided that the\nleague was at an end, and the H\u00e2shimites returned to their homes. But\nother misfortunes were in store for Mohammed. The good Abu T\u00e2lib soon\ndied, and, not long after, Khad\u00eejah. His protector gone, what could\nMohammed do? He left the city, and went with only Zeid for a companion on\na mission to T\u00e2yif, sixty or seventy miles east of Mecca, in hopes of\nconverting the inhabitants. Who can think of the prophet, in this lonely\njourney, without sympathy? He was going to preach the doctrine of One God\nto idolaters. But he made no impression on them, and, as he left the town,\nwas followed by a mob, hooting, and pelting him with stones. At last they\nleft him, and in the shadow of some trees he betook himself to prayer. His\nwords have been preserved, it is believed by the Moslems, and are as\nfollows: \"O Lord! I make my complaint unto thee of the feebleness of my\nstrength, and the weakness of my plans. I am insignificant in the sight of\nmen. O thou most merciful! Lord of the weak! Thou art my Lord! Do not\nabandon me. Leave me not a prey to these strangers, nor to my foes. If\nthou art not offended, I am safe. I seek refuge in the light of thy\ncountenance, by which all darkness is dispersed, and peace comes. There is\nno power, no help, but in thee.\" In that hour of prayer, the faith of\nMohammed was the same as that of Luther praying for protection against the\nPope. It was a part of the universal religion of human nature. Certainly\nthis man was no impostor. A man, going alone to summon an idolatrous city\nto repentance, must at least have believed in his own doctrine.\n\nBut the hour of success was at hand. No amount of error, no bitterness of\nprejudice, no vested interest in falsehood, can resist the determined\nconviction of a single soul. Only believe a truth strongly enough to hold\nit through good report and ill report, and at last the great world of\nhalf-believers comes round to you. And usually the success comes suddenly\nat last, after weary years of disappointment. The great tree, which seems\nso solid and firm, has been secretly decaying within, and is hollow at\nheart; at last it falls in a moment, filling the forest with the echoes of\nits ruin. The dam, which seems strong enough to resist a torrent, has been\nslowly undermined by a thousand minute rills of water; at last it is\nsuddenly swept away, and opens a yawning breach for the tumbling cataract.\nAnd almost as suddenly came the triumph of Mohammed.\n\nAt Medina and in its neighborhood there had long been numerous and\npowerful tribes of Jewish proselytes. In their conflicts with the\nidolaters, they had often predicted the speedy coming of a prophet like\nMoses. The Jewish influence was great at Medina, and that of the idolaters\nwas divided by bitter quarrels. Now it must be remembered that at this\ntime Mohammed taught a kind of modified Judaism. He came to revive the\nreligion of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He continually referred to the Old\nTestament and the Talmud for authority. He was a prophet and inspired, but\nnot to teach anything new. He was to restore the universal religion which\nGod had taught to man in the beginning,--the religion of all true\npatriarchs and prophets. Its essential doctrine was the unity of God, and\nhis supremacy and providence. Its one duty was Islam, or submission to the\nDivine will. Its worship was prayer and almsgiving. At this time he did\nnot make belief in himself the main point; it was to profess the unity of\nGod, and to submit wholly to God. So that the semi-Judaized pilgrims from\nMedina to Mecca were quite prepared to accept his teachings. Mohammed, at\nthe time of the pilgrimage, met with many of them, and they promised to\nbecome his disciples. The pledge they took was as follows: \"We will not\nworship any but the one God; we will not steal, nor commit adultery, nor\nkill our children (female): we will not slander at all, nor disobey the\nprophet in anything that is right.\" This was afterward called the \"Pledge\nof Women,\" because it did not require them to fight for Islam. This faith\nspread rapidly among the idolaters at Medina,--much more so than the\nJewish system. The Jews required too much of their proselytes; they\ninsisted on their becoming Jews. They demanded a change of all their\nprevious customs. But Mohammed only asked for submission.\n\nAbout this time Mohammed had his famous dream or vision, in which he was\ncarried by Gabriel on a winged steed to Jerusalem, to meet all the\nprophets of God and be welcomed by them to their number, and then to the\nseventh heaven into the presence of God. It was so vivid that he deemed it\na reality, and maintained that he had been to Jerusalem and to heaven.\nThis, and the Koran itself, were the only miracles he ever claimed.\n\nThe Medina Moslems having entered into a second pledge, to receive\nMohammed and his friends, and to protect them, the prophet gave orders to\nhis followers to leave Mecca secretly in small parties, and repair to\nMedina. As the stout sea-captain remains the last on a sinking vessel,\nMohammed stayed quietly at Mecca till all the others had gone. Only Abu\nBakr's family and his own remained. The rest of the believers, to the\nnumber of about two hundred, had disappeared.\n\nThe Koreish, amazed at these events, knew not what to do. Why had the\nMoslems gone? and why had Mohammed remained? How dared he to stay,\nunprotected, in their midst? They might kill him;--but then his tribe\nwould take a bloody vengeance on his murderers. At last they proposed to\nseize him, and that a number of men, one from each tribe and family,\nshould at the same moment drive their dirks into him. Or perhaps it might\nbe better to send an assassin to waylay him on his way to Medina. While\nthey were discussing these alternatives, news was brought to them that\nMohammed also had disappeared, and Abu Bakr with him. They immediately\nwent to their houses. In that of Mohammed they found the young Ali, who,\nbeing asked where his father was, replied, \"I do not know. I am not his\nkeeper. Did you not order him to go from the city? I suppose he is gone.\"\nGetting no more information at the house of Abu Bakr, they sent out\nparties of armed men, mounted on swift horses and camels, to search the\nwhole route to Medina, and bring the fugitives back. After a few days the\npursuers returned, saying that there were no signs of any persons having\ngone in that direction. If they had gone that way they would certainly\nhave overtaken them.\n\nMeantime where were the fugitives? Instead of going north to Medina, they\nhad hidden in a cave on a mountain, about five or six miles to the south\nof Mecca. Here they remained concealed three days and nights, in imminent\ndanger from their pursuers, who once, it is said, came to the mouth of the\ncave, but, seeing spiders' webs spun across the opening, concluded no one\ncould have gone in recently. There was a crevice in the roof through which\nthe morning light entered, and Abu Bakr said, \"If one of them were to\nlook down, he would see us.\" \"Think not so, Abu Bakr,\" said the prophet.\n\"We are two, but God is in the midst, a third.\"\n\nThe next day, satisfied that the heat of the pursuit had abated, they took\nthe camels which had privately been brought to them from the city by the\nson of Abu Bakr, and set off for Medina, leaving Mecca on the right. By\nthe calculations of M. Caussin de Perceval, it was on the 20th of June,\nA.D. 622.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4. Change in the Character of Mohammed after the Hegira.\n\n\nFrom the Hegira the Mohammedan era begins; and from that point of the\nprophet's history his fortunes rise, but his character degenerates. He has\nborne adversity and opposition with a faith and a patience almost sublime;\nbut prosperity he will not bear so well. Down to that time he had been a\nprophet, teaching God's truth to those who would receive it, and by the\nmanifestation of that truth commending himself to every man's conscience.\nNow he was to become a politician, the head of a party, contriving\nexpedients for its success. Before, his only weapon was truth; now, his\nchief means was force. Instead of convincing his opponents, he now\ncompelled them to submit by the terror of his power. His revelations\nchanged their tone; they adapted themselves to his needs, and on all\noccasions, even when he wanted to take an extra wife, inspiration came to\nhis aid.\n\nWhat sadder tragedy is there than to see a great soul thus conquered by\nsuccess? \"All these things,\" says Satan, \"I will give thee, if thou wilt\nfall down and worship me.\" When Jesus related his temptation to his\ndisciples he put it in the form of a parable. How could they, how can we,\nunderstand the temptations of a nature like that of Christ! Perhaps he saw\nthat he could have a great apparent success by the use of worldly means.\nHe could bring the Jew and the Gentile to acknowledge and receive his\ntruth. Some slight concession to worldly wisdom, some little compromise\nwith existing errors, some hardly perceptible variation from perfect\ntruthfulness, and lo! the kingdom of God would come in that very hour,\ninstead of lingering through long centuries. What evils might not be\nspared to the race, what woes to the world, if the divine gospel of love\nto God and man were inaugurated by Christ himself! This, perhaps, was one\nof the temptations. But Jesus said, \"Get thee behind me, Satan.\" He would\nuse only good means for good ends. He would take God's way to do God's\nwork. He would die on the cross, but not vary from the perfect truth. The\nsame temptation came to Mohammed, and he yielded. Up to the Hegira,\nMohammed might also have said, \"My kingdom is not of this world.\" But now\nthe sword and falsehood were to serve him, as his most faithful servants,\nin building up Islam. His _ends_ were the same as before. His object was\nstill to establish the service of the one living and true God. But his\n_means_, henceforth, are of the earth, earthy.\n\nWhat a noble religion would Islam have been, if Mohammed could have gone\non as he began! He accepted all the essential truths of Judaism, he\nrecognized Moses and Christ as true teachers. He taught that there was one\nuniversal religion, the substance of which was faith in one Supreme Being,\nsubmission to his will, trust in his providence, and good-will to his\ncreatures. Prayer and alms were the only worship which God required. A\nmarvellous and mighty work, says Mr. Muir, had been wrought by these few\nprecepts. From time beyond memory Mecca and the whole peninsula had been\nsteeped in spiritual torpor. The influences of Judaism, Christianity, and\nphilosophy had been feeble and transient. Dark superstitions prevailed,\nthe mothers of dark vices. And now, in thirteen years of preaching, a body\nof men and women had risen, who rejected idolatry; worshipped the one\ngreat God; lived lives of prayer; practised chastity, benevolence, and\njustice; and were ready to do and to bear everything for the truth. All\nthis came from the depth of conviction in the soul of this one man.\n\nTo the great qualities which Mohammed had shown as a prophet and\nreligious teacher were now added those of the captain and statesman. He\nhad at last obtained a position at Medina whence he could act on the Arabs\nwith other forces than those of eloquence and feeling. And now the man who\nfor forty years had been a simple citizen and led a quiet family life--who\nafterward, for thirteen years, had been a patient but despised teacher of\nthe unity of God--passed the last ten years of his strange career in\nbuilding up a fanatical army of warriors, destined to conquer half the\ncivilized world. From this period the old solution of the Mohammedan\nmiracle is in order; from this time the sword leads, and the Koran\nfollows. To this familiar explanation of Mohammedan success, Mr. Carlyle\nreplies with the question: \"Mohammedanism triumphed with the sword? But\nwhere did it get its sword?\" We can now answer that pithy inquiry. The\nsimple, earnest zeal of the original believers built up a power, which\nthen took the sword, and conquered with it. The reward of patient,\nlong-enduring faith is influence; with this influence ambition serves\nitself for its own purpose. Such is, more or less, the history of every\nreligion, and, indeed, of every political party. Sects are founded, not by\npoliticians, but by men of faith, by men to whom ideas are realities, by\nmen who are willing to die for them. Such faith always triumphs at last;\nit makes a multitude of converts; it becomes a great power. The deep and\nstrong convictions thus created are used by worldly men for their own\npurposes. That the Mohammedan impulse was thus taken possession of by\nworldly men is the judgment of M. Renan.[394] \"From all sides,\" says he,\n\"we come to this singular result: that the Mussulman movement was started\nalmost without religious faith; that, setting aside a small number of\nfaithful disciples, Mahomet really wrought very little conviction in\nArabia.\" \"The party of true Mussulmans had all their strength in Omar; but\nafter his assassination, that is to say, twelve years after the death of\nthe prophet, the opposite party triumphed by the election of Othman.\"\n\"The first generation of the Hegira was completely occupied in\nexterminating the primitive Mussulmans, the true fathers of Islamism.\"\nPerhaps it is bold to question the opinions of a Semitic scholar of the\nforce of M. Renan, but it seems to us that he goes too far in supposing\nthat such a movement as that of Islam could be _started_ without a\ntremendous depth of conviction. At all events, supported by such writers\nas Weil, Sprenger, and Muir, we will say that it was a powerful religious\nmovement founded on sincerest conviction, but gradually turned aside, and\nused for worldly purposes and temporal triumphs. And, in thus diverting it\nfrom divine objects to purely human ones, Mohammed himself led the way. He\nadds another, and perhaps the greatest, illustration to the long list of\nnoble souls whose natures have become subdued to that which they worked\nin; who have sought high ends by low means; who, talking of the noblest\ntruths, descend into the meanest prevarications, and so throw a doubt on\nall sincerity, faith, and honor. Such was the judgment of a great\nthinker--Goethe--concerning Mohammed. He believes him to have been at\nfirst profoundly sincere, but he says of him that afterward \"what in his\ncharacter is earthly increases and develops itself; the divine retires and\nis obscured: his doctrine becomes a means rather than an end. All kinds of\npractices are employed, nor are horrors wanting.\" Goethe intended to write\na drama upon Mohammed, to illustrate the sad fact that every man who\nattempts to realize a great idea comes in contact with the lower world,\nmust place himself on its level in order to influence it, and thus often\ncompromises his higher aims, and at last forfeits them[395]. Such a man,\nin modern times, was Lord Bacon in the political world; such a man, among\nconquerors, was Cromwell; and among Christian sects how often do we see\nthe young enthusiast and saint end as the ambitious self-seeker and\nJesuit! Then we call him a hypocrite, because he continues to use the\nfamiliar language of the time when his heart was true and simple, though\nindulging himself in luxury and sin. It is curious, when we are all so\ninconsistent, that we should find it so hard to understand inconsistency.\nWe, all of us, often say what is right and do what is wrong; but are we\ndeliberate hypocrites? No! we know that we are weak; we admit that we are\ninconsistent; we say amen to the \"video meliora, proboque,--deteriora\nsequor,\" but we also know that we are not deliberate and intentional\nhypocrites. Let us use the same large judgment in speaking of the faults\nof Cromwell, Bacon, and Mohammed.\n\nNo one could have foreseen the cruelty of which Mohammed, hitherto always\na kind-hearted and affectionate man, was capable toward those who resisted\nhis purpose. This first showed itself in his treatment of the Jews. He\nhoped to form an alliance with them, against the idolaters. He had\nadmitted the divine authority of their religion, and appealed to their\nScriptures as evidence of the truth of his own mission. He conformed to\ntheir ritual and customs, and made Jerusalem his Kibla, toward which he\nturned in prayer five times a day. In return for this he expected them to\nreceive him as a prophet; but this they refused to do. So he departed by\ndegrees from their customs, changed his Kibla to Mecca, and at last\ndenounced the Jews as stiff-necked unbelievers. The old quarrel between\nEsau and Jacob could not be appeased, nor an alliance formed between them.\n\nM. Saint-Hilaire[396] does not think that the character of Mohammed\nchanged when he became the founder of a state and head of a conquering\nparty. He thinks \"that he only yielded to the political necessities of his\nposition.\" Granted; but yielding to those necessities was the cause of\nthis gradual change in his character. The man who lies and murders from\nthe necessity of his political position can hardly remain a saint.\nPlunder, cold-blooded execution of prisoners, self-indulgence, became the\nhabit of the prophet henceforth, as we shall presently see.\n\nThe first battle against the Koreish, that of Badr, took place in January,\nA.D. 624. When Mohammed had drawn up his army, he prayed earnestly for\nthe victory. After a desperate struggle, the Koreish fled. Mohammed\nclaimed, by a special revelation, the fifth part of the booty. As the\nbodies of his old opponents were cast into a pit, he spoke to them\nbitterly. When the prisoners were brought before him he looked fiercely at\none of them. \"There is death in that glance,\" said the unhappy man, and\npresently the prophet ordered him to be beheaded. Two days after, another\nwas ordered for execution. \"Who will take care of my little girl?\" said\nhe. \"Hell-fire,\" replied Mohammed, and ordered him to be cut down. Shortly\nafter the battle, a Jewess who had written verses against Mohammed, was\nassassinated by one of his followers; and the prophet praised him for the\ndeed in the public mosque. Another aged Jew, for the same offence, was\nmurdered by his express command. A quarrel between some Jews and Moslems\nbrought on an attack by Mohammed upon the Jewish tribe. They surrendered\nafter a siege of fifteen days, and Mohammed ordered all the prisoners to\nbe killed; but at last, at the urgent request of a powerful chief in\nMedina, allowed them to go into exile, cursing them and their intercessor.\nMr. Muir mentions other cases of assassination of the Jews by the command\nof the prophet. All these facts are derived from contemporaneous Moslem\nhistorians, who glorify their prophet for this conduct. The worst action\nperhaps of this kind was the deliberate execution of seven or eight\nhundred Jewish prisoners, who had surrendered at discretion, and the sale\nof their wives and children into slavery. Mohammed selected from among\nthese women one more beautiful than the rest, for his concubine. Whether\nM. Saint-Hilaire considers all this as \"yielding to the political\nnecessities of his position,\" we do not know. But this man, who could\nstand by and see hundreds of captives slaughtered in cold blood, and then\nretire to solace himself with the widow of one of his victims, seems to us\nto have retained little of his early purity of soul.\n\nAbout this time Mohammed began to multiply wives, and to receive\nrevelations allowing him to do so beyond the usual limit of his law. He\nadded one after another to his harem, until he had ten wives, besides his\nslaves. His views on such subjects are illustrated by his presenting three\nbeautiful female slaves, taken in war, one to his father-in-law, and the\nothers to his two sons-in-law.\n\nSo, in a series of battles, with the Jewish tribes, the Koreish, the\nSyrians, passed the stormy and triumphant years of the Pontiff King. Mecca\nwas conquered, and the Koreish submitted in A.D. 630. The tribes\nthroughout Arabia acquiesced, one by one, in the prophet's authority. All\npaid tribute, or accepted Islam. His enemies were all under his feet; his\ndoctrines accepted; the rival prophets, Aswad and Museilama, overcome.\nThen, in the sixty-third year of his age, death drew near. On the last day\nof his life, he went into the mosque to attend morning prayer, then back\nto the room of his favorite wife, Ayesha, and died in her arms. Wild with\ngrief, Omar declared he was not dead, but in a trance. The grave Abu Bakr\ncomposed the excited multitude, and was chosen caliph, or successor to the\nprophet. Mohammed died on June 8, A.D. 632, and was buried the next day,\namid the grief of his followers. Abu Bakr and Omar offered the prayer:\n\"Peace be unto thee, O prophet of God; and the mercy of the Lord, and his\nblessing! We bear testimony that the prophet of God hath delivered the\nmessage revealed to him; hath fought in the ways of the Lord until God\ncrowned his religion with victory; hath fulfilled his words commanding\nthat he alone is to be worshipped in unity; hath drawn us to himself, and\nbeen kind and tender-hearted to believers; hath sought no recompense for\ndelivering to us the faith, neither hath sold it for a price at any time.\"\nAnd all the people said, \"Amen! Amen!\"\n\nConcerning the character of Mohammed, enough has been already said. He was\na great man, one of the greatest ever sent upon earth. He was a man of the\ndeepest convictions, and for many years of the purest purposes, and was\nonly drawn down at last by using low means for a good end. Of his visions\nand revelations, the same explanation is to be given as of those received\nby Joan of Arc, and other seers of that order. How far they had an\nobjective basis in reality, and how far they were the result of some\nabnormal activity of the imagination, it is difficult with our present\nknowledge to decide. But that these visionaries fully believed in their\nown inspiration, there can be little doubt.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5. Religious Doctrines and Practices among the Mohammedans.\n\n\nAs to the religion of Mohammed, and its effects on the world, it is easier\nto come to an opinion than concerning his own character. Its essential\ndoctrine, as before indicated, is the absolute unity and supremacy of God,\nas opposed to the old Arab Polytheism on the one hand and the Christian\nTrinity on the other. It however admits of angels and genii. Gabriel and\nMichael are the angels of power; Azriel, angel of death; Israfeel, angel\nof the resurrection. Eblis, or Satan, plays an important part in this\nmythology. The Koran also teaches the doctrine of Eternal Decrees, or\nabsolute Predestination; of prophets before Mohammed, of whom he is the\nsuccessor,--as Adam, Noah, Moses, and Jesus; of sacred books, of which all\nthat remain are the Pentateuch, Psalms, Gospels, and Koran; of an\nintermediate state after death; of the resurrection and judgment. All\nnon-believers in Islam go into eternal fire. There are separate hells for\nChristians, Jews, Sabians, Magians, idolaters, and the hypocrites of all\nreligions. The Moslem is judged by his actions. A balance is held by\nGabriel, one scale hanging over heaven and another over hell, and his good\ndeeds are placed in one and his bad ones in the other. According as his\nscale inclines, he goes to heaven or hell. If he goes to heaven, he finds\nthere seventy-two Houris, more beautiful than angels, awaiting him, with\ngardens, groves, marble palaces, and music. If women are true believers\nand righteous, they will also go to heaven, but nothing is said about\nhusbands being provided for them. Stress is laid on prayer, ablution,\nfasting, almsgiving, and the pilgrimage to Mecca. Wine and gaming are\nforbidden. There is no recognition, in the Koran, of human brotherhood. It\nis a prime duty to hate infidels and make war on them. Mohammed made it a\nduty for Moslems to betray and kill their own brothers when they were\ninfidels; and he was obeyed in more cases than one. The Moslem sects are\nas numerous as those of Christians. The Dabistan mentions seventy-three.\nThe two main divisions are into Sunnites and Shyites. The Persians are\nmostly Shyites, and refuse to receive the Sunnite traditions. They accept\nAli, and denounce Omar. Terrible wars and cruelties have taken place\nbetween these sects. Only a few of the Sunnite doctors acknowledge the\nShyites to be Moslems. They have a saying, \"to destroy a Shyite is more\nacceptable than to kill seventy other infidels of whatever sort.\"\n\nThe Turks are the most zealous of the Moslems. On Friday, which is the\nSabbath of Islam, all business is suspended. Prayers are read and sermons\npreached in the mosques. No one is allowed to be absent. The Ramadan fast\nis universally kept. Any one who breaks it twice is considered worthy of\ndeath. The fast lasts from sunrise to sunset. But the rich feast in the\nnight, and sleep during the day. The Turks have no desire to make\nproselytes, but have an intolerant hatred for all outside of Islam. The\nKalif is the Chief Pontiff. The Oulema, or Parliament, is composed of the\nImans, or religious teachers, the Muftis, or doctors of law, and Kadis, or\nministers of justice. The priests in Turkey are subordinate to the civil\nmagistrate, who is their diocesan, and can remove them at pleasure. The\npriests in daily life are like the laity, engage in the same business, and\nare no more austere than they.\n\nMr. Forster says, in regard to their devotion: \"When I contrast the\nsilence of a Turkish mosque, at the hour of public prayer, with the noise\nand tumult so frequent in Christian temples, I stand astonished at the\nstrange inversion, in the two religions, of the order of things which\nmight naturally be expected.\" \"I have seen,\" says another, \"a congregation\nof at least two thousand souls assembled in the mosque of St. Sophia, with\nsilence so profound, that until I entered the body of the building I was\nunaware that it contained a single worshipper.\"\n\nBishop Southgate, long a missionary bishop of the Episcopal Church of the\nUnited States, says: \"I have often met with Mussulmans who seem to possess\ndeep religious feeling, and with whom I could exercise something of a\nreligious communion. I have sometimes had my own mind quickened and\nbenefited by the reverence with which they spoke of the Deity, and have\nsometimes mingled in harmonious converse with them on holy things. I have\nheard them insist with much earnestness on the duty of prayer, when they\nappeared to have some spiritual sense of its nature and importance. I have\nsometimes found them entertaining elevated views of moral duty, and\nlooking with contempt on the pleasures of this world. These are indeed\nrare characters, but I should do injustice to my own conviction if I did\nnot confess that I had found them. In these instances I have been\nuniformly struck with a strong resemblance to patriarchal piety.\" He\ncontinues: \"When we sat down to eat, the old Turkish Bey implored a\nblessing with great solemnity, and rendered his thanks when we arose.\nBefore he left us he spread his carpet, and offered his evening devotions\nwith apparent meekness and humility; and I could not but feel how\nimpressive are the Oriental forms of worship when I saw his aged head\nbowed to the earth in religious homage.\"\n\nBishop Southgate adds further: \"I have never known a Mussulman, sincere in\nhis faith and devout and punctilious in his religious duties, in whom\nmoral rectitude did not seem an active quality and a living principle.\"\n\nIn seasons of plague \"the Turks appear perfectly fearless. They do not\navoid customary intercourse and contact with friends. They remain with and\nminister to the sick, with unshrinking assiduity.... In truth, there is\nsomething imposing in the unaffected calmness of the Turks at such times.\nIt is a spirit of resignation which becomes truly noble when exercised\nupon calamities which have already befallen them. The fidelity with which\nthey remain by the bedside of a friend is at least as commendable as the\nalmost universal readiness among the Franks to forsake it.\"\n\nFive times a day the Mezzuin proclaims the hour of prayer from the\nminaret in these words: \"There is no God but God. Mohammed is his prophet.\nCome to prayer.\" In the morning call he adds, \"Prayer is better than\nsleep.\" Immediately every Mussulman leaves his occupation, and prostrates\nhimself on the floor or ground, wherever he may he. It is very\ndisreputable to omit this.\n\nAn interesting account is given of the domestic life of Moslem women in\nSyria, by Miss Rogers, in her little book called \"Domestic Life in\nPalestine,\" published in 1862.\n\nMiss Rogers travelled in Palestine with her brother, who was British\nconsul at Damascus. The following passage illustrates the character of the\nwomen (Miss Rogers was obliged to sleep in the same room with the wives of\nthe governor of Arrabeh, near Naplous):--\n\n\"When I began to undress the women watched me with curiosity; and when I\nput on my night-gown they were exceedingly astonished, and exclaimed,\n'Where are you going? Why is your dress white?' They made no change for\nsleeping, and there they were, in their bright-colored clothes, ready for\nbed in a minute. But they stood round me till I said 'Good night,' and\nthen all kissed me, wishing me good dreams. Then I knelt down, and\npresently, without speaking to them again, got into bed, and turned my\nface to the wall, thinking over the strange day I had spent. I tried to\ncompose myself to sleep, though I heard the women whispering together.\nWhen my head had rested about five minutes on the soft red silk pillow, I\nfelt a hand stroking my forehead, and heard a voice saying, very gently,\n'Ya Habibi,' i.e. 'O beloved.' But I would not answer directly, as I did\nnot wish to be roused unnecessarily. I waited a little while, and my face\nwas touched again. I felt a kiss on my forehead, and a voice said,\n'Miriam, speak to us; speak, Miriam, darling.' I could not resist any\nlonger; so I turned round and saw Helweh, Saleh Bek's prettiest wife,\nleaning over me. I said, 'What is it, sweetness, what can I do for you?'\nShe answered, 'What did you do just now, when you knelt down and covered\nyour face with your hands?' I sat up, and said very solemnly, 'I spoke to\nGod, Helweh.' 'What did you say to him?' said Helweh. I replied, 'I wish\nto sleep. God never sleeps. I have asked him to watch over me, and that I\nmay fall asleep, remembering that he never sleeps, and wake up remembering\nhis presence. I am very weak. God is all-powerful. I have asked him to\nstrengthen me with his strength.' By this time all the ladies were sitting\nround me on the bed, and the slaves came and stood near. I told them I did\nnot know their language well enough to explain to them all I thought and\nsaid. But as I had learned the Lord's Prayer, by heart, in Arabic, I\nrepeated it to them, sentence by sentence, slowly. When I began, 'Our\nFather who art in heaven,' Helweh directly said, 'You told me your father\nwas in London.' I replied, 'I have two fathers, Helweh; one in London, who\ndoes not know that I am here, and cannot know till I write and tell him;\nand a Heavenly Father, who is here now, who is with me always, and sees\nand hears us. He is your Father also. He teaches us to know good from\nevil, if we listen to him and obey him.'\n\n\"For a moment there was perfect silence. They all looked startled, and as\nif they felt that they were in the presence of some unseen power. Then\nHelweh said, 'What more did you say?' I continued the Lord's Prayer, and\nwhen I came to the words, 'Give us day by day our daily bread,' they said,\n'Cannot you make bread yourself?' The passage, 'Forgive us our trespasses,\nas we forgive those who trespass against us,' is particularly forcible in\nthe Arabic language; and one of the elder women, who was particularly\nsevere and relentless-looking, said, 'Are you obliged to say that every\nday?' as if she thought that sometimes it would be difficult to do so.\nThey said, 'Are you a Moslem?' I said, 'I am not called a Moslem. But I am\nyour sister, made by the same God, who is the one only God, the God of\nall, my Father and your Father.' They asked me if I knew the Koran, and\nwere surprised to hear that I had read it. They handed a rosary to me,\nsaying, 'Do you know that?' I repeated a few of the most striking and\ncomprehensive attributes very carefully and slowly. Then they cried\nout, 'Mashallah, the English girl is a true believer'; and the\nimpressionable, sensitive-looking Abyssinian slave-girls said, with one\naccord, 'She is indeed an angel.'\n\n\"Moslems, men and women, have the name of Allah constantly on their lips,\nbut it seems to have become a mere form. This may explain why they were so\nstartled when I said, 'I was speaking to God.'\" She adds that if she had\nonly said, \"I was saying my prayers,\" or, \"I was at my devotions,\" it\nwould not have impressed them.\n\nNext morning, on awaking, Miss Rogers found the women from the\nneighborhood had come in \"to hear the English girl speak to God,\" and\nHelweh said, \"Now, Miriam, darling, will you speak to God?\" At the\nconclusion she asked them if they could say Amen, and after a moment of\nhesitation they cried out, \"Am\u00ean, am\u00ean!\" Then one said, \"Speak again, my\ndaughter, speak about _the bread_.\" So she repeated the Lord's Prayer with\nexplanations. When she left, they crowded around affectionately, saying,\n\"Return again, O Miriam, beloved!\"\n\nAfter this pleasant little picture, we may hear something on the other\nside. Two recent travellers, Mr. Palgrave and Mr. Vamb\u00e9ry, have described\nthe present state of Mohammedanism in Central Arabia and Turkistan, or\nCentral Asia. Barth has described it as existing among the negroes in\nNorth Africa. Count Gobineau has told us of Islam as it is in Persia at\nthe present day[397]. Mr. MacFarlane, in his book \"Kismet, or the Doom of\nTurkey,\" has pointed out the gradual decay of that power, and the utter\ncorruption of its administration. After reading such works as these,--and\namong them let us not forget Mr. Lane's \"Modern Egyptians,\"--the\nconclusion we must inevitably come to is, that the worst Christian\ngovernment, be it that of the Pope or the Czar, is very much better than\nthe best Mohammedan government. Everywhere we find arbitrary will taking\nthe place of law. In most places the people have no protection for life\nor property, and know the government only through its tax-gatherers. And\nall this is necessarily and logically derived from the fundamental\nprinciple of Mohammedan theology. God is pure will, not justice, not\nreason, not love. Christianity says, \"God is love\"; Mohammedanism says,\n\"God is will.\" Christianity says, \"Trust in God\"; Mohammedanism says,\n\"Submit to God.\" Hence the hardness, coldness, and cruelty of the system;\nhence its utter inability to establish any good government. According to\nMr. MacFarlane, it would be a blessing to mankind to have the Turks driven\nout of Europe and Asia Minor, and to have Constantinople become the\ncapital of Russia. The religion of Islam is an outward form, a hard shell\nof authority, hollow at heart. It constantly tends to the two antagonistic\nbut related vices of luxury and cruelty. Under the profession of Islam,\npolytheism and idolatry have always prevailed in Arabia. In Turkistan,\nwhere slavery is an extremely cruel system, they make slaves of Moslems,\nin defiance of the Koran. One chief being appealed to by Vambery (who\ntravelled as a Dervish), replied, \"We buy and sell the Koran itself, which\nis the holiest thing of all; why not buy and sell Mussulmans, who are less\nholy?\"\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6. The Criticism of Mr. Palgrave on Mohammedan Theology.\n\n\nMr. Palgrave, who has given the latest and best account of the condition\nof Central and Southern Arabia,[398] under the great Wahhabee revival,\nsums up all Mohammedan theology as teaching a Divine unity of pure will.\nGod is the only force in the universe. Man is wholly passive and impotent.\nHe calls the system, \"A pantheism of force.\" God has no rule but arbitrary\nwill. He is a tremendous unsympathizing autocrat, but is yet jealous of\nhis creatures, lest they should attribute to themselves something which\nbelongs to him. He delights in making all creatures feel that they are his\nslaves. This, Mr. Palgrave asserts, is the main idea of Mohammedanism,\nand of the Koran, and this was what lay in the mind of Mohammed. \"Of\nthis,\" says he, \"we have many authentic samples: the Saheeh, the\nCommentaries of Beyd\u0101wee, the Mishkat-el-Mesabeeh, and fifty similar\nworks, afford ample testimony on this point. But for the benefit of my\nreaders in general, all of whom may not have drunk equally deep at the\nfountain-heads of Islamitic dogma, I will subjoin a specimen, known\nperhaps to many Orientalists, yet too characteristic to be here omitted, a\nrepetition of which I have endured times out of number from admiring and\napproving Wahhabees in Nejed.\n\n\"Accordingly, when God--so runs the tradition,--I had better said the\nblasphemy--resolved to create the human race, he took into his hands a\nmass of earth, the same whence all mankind were to be formed, and in which\nthey after a manner pre-existed; and, having then divided the clod into\ntwo equal portions, he threw the one half into hell, saying, 'These to\neternal fire, and I care not'; and projected the other half into heaven,\nadding, 'And these to paradise, and I care not.'\n\n\"Commentary would here be superfluous. But in this we have before us the\nadequate idea of predestination, or, to give it a truer name,\npre-damnation, held and taught in the school of the Koran. Paradise and\nhell are at once totally independent of love and hatred on the part of the\nDeity, and of merits and demerits, of good or evil conduct, on the part of\nthe creature; and, in the corresponding theory, rightly so, since the very\nactions which we call good or ill deserving, right or wrong, wicked or\nvirtuous, are in their essence all one and of one, and accordingly merit\nneither praise nor blame, punishment nor recompense, except and simply\nafter the arbitrary value which the all-regulating will of the great\ndespot may choose to assign or impute to them. In a word, he burns one\nindividual through all eternity, amid red-hot chains and seas of molten\nfire, and seats another in the plenary enjoyment of an everlasting\nbrothel, between forty celestial concubines, just and equally for his own\ngood pleasure, and because he wills it.\n\n\"Men are thus all on one common level, here and hereafter, in their\nphysical, social, and moral light,--the level of slaves to one sole\nmaster, of tools to one universal agent. But the equalizing process does\nnot stop here: beasts, birds, fishes, insects, all participate of the same\nhonor or debasement; all are, like man, the slaves of God, the tools and\nautomata of his will; and hence Mahomet is simply logical and\nself-consistent when in the Koran he informs his followers that birds,\nbeasts, and the rest are 'nations' like themselves, nor does any intrinsic\ndistinction exist between them and the human species, except what\naccidental diversity the 'King,' the 'Proud One,' the 'Mighty,' the\n'Giant,' etc., as he styles his God, may have been pleased to make, just\nas he willed it, and so long as he may will it.\"\n\n\"The Wahhabee reformer,\" continues Mr. Palgrave, \"formed the design of\nputting back the hour-hand of Islam to its starting-point; and so far he\ndid well, for that hand was from the first meant to be fixed. Islam is in\nits essence stationary, and was framed thus to remain. Sterile like its\nGod, lifeless like its First Principle and Supreme Original, in all that\nconstitutes true life,--for life is love, participation, and progress, and\nof these the Koranic Deity has none,--it justly repudiates all change, all\nadvance, all development. To borrow the forcible words of Lord Houghton,\nthe 'written book' is the 'dead man's hand,' stiff and motionless;\nwhatever savors of vitality is by that alone convicted of heresy and\ndefection.\n\n\"But Christianity, with its living and loving God, begetter and begotten,\nspirit and movement; nay more,--a Creator made creature, the Maker and the\nmade existing in one; a Divinity communicating itself by uninterrupted\ngradation and degree, from the most intimate union far off to the faintest\nirradiation, through all that it has made for love and governs in love;\none who calls his creatures not slaves, not servants, but friends,--nay\nsons,--nay gods: to sum up, a religion in whose seal and secret 'God in\nman is one with man in God,' must also be necessarily a religion of\nvitality, of progress, of advancement. The contrast between it and Islam\nis that of movement with fixedness, of participation with sterility, of\ndevelopment with barrenness, of life with petrifaction. The first vital\nprinciple and the animating spirit of its birth must, indeed, abide ever\nthe same, but the outer form must change with the changing days, and new\noffshoots of fresh sap and greenness be continually thrown out as\nwitnesses to the vitality within; else were the vine withered and the\nbranches dead. I have no intention here--it would be extremely out of\nplace--of entering on the maze of controversy, or discussing whether any\ndogmatic attempt to reproduce the religious phase of a former age is\nlikely to succeed. I only say that life supposes movement and growth, and\nboth imply change; that to censure a living thing for growing and changing\nis absurd; and that to attempt to hinder it from so doing by pinning it\ndown on a written label, or nailing it to a Procrustean framework, is\ntantamount to killing it altogether. Now Christianity is living, and,\nbecause living, must grow, must advance, must change, and was meant to do\nso: onwards and forwards is a condition of its very existence; and I\ncannot but think that those who do not recognize this show themselves so\nfar ignorant of its true nature and essence. On the other hand, Islam is\nlifeless, and, because lifeless, cannot grow, cannot advance, cannot\nchange, and was never intended so to do; stand-still is its motto and its\nmost essential condition; and therefore the son of Abd-el-Wahh\u0101b, in doing\nhis best to bring it back to its primal simplicity, and making its goal of\nits starting-point, was so far in the right, and showed himself well\nacquainted with the nature and first principles of his religion.\"\n\n\n\n\u00a7 7. Mohammedanism a Relapse; the worst Form of Monotheism, and a\nretarding Element in Civilization.\n\n\nAccording to this view, which is no doubt correct, the monotheism of\nMohammed is that which makes of God pure will; that is, which exaggerates\npersonality (since personality is in will), making the Divine One an\nInfinite Free Will, or an Infinite I. But will divorced from reason and\nlove is wilfulness, or a purely arbitrary will.\n\nNow the monotheism of the Jews differed from this, in that it combined\nwith the idea of will the idea of justice. God not only does what he\nchooses, but he chooses to do only what is right. Righteousness is an\nattribute of God, with which the Jewish books are saturated.\n\nStill, both of these systems leave God outside of the world; _above_ all\nas its Creator and Ruler, _above_ all as its Judge; but not _through_ all\nand _in_ all. The idea of an Infinite Love must be added and made supreme,\nin order to give us a Being who is not only above all, but also through\nall and in all. This is the Christian monotheism.\n\nMohammed teaches not only the unity but also the spirituality of God, but\nhis idea of the divine Unity is of a numeric unity, not a moral unity; and\nso his idea of divine spirituality is that of an abstract\nspirituality,--God abstracted from matter, and so not to be represented by\npictures and images; God withdrawn out of the world, and above all,--in a\ntotal separation.\n\nJudaism also opposed idolatry and idol-worship, and taught that God was\nabove all, and the maker of the world; but it conceived of God as _with_\nman, by his repeated miraculous coming down in prophets, judges, kings;\nalso _with_ his people, the Jews, mysteriously present in their tabernacle\nand temple. Their spirituality was not quite as abstract then as that of\nthe Mohammedans.\n\nBut Christianity, as soon as it became the religion of a non-Semitic race,\nas soon as it had converted the Greeks and Romans, not only imparted to\nthem its monotheism, but received from them their strong tendencies to\npantheism. They added to the God \"above all,\" and the God \"with all,\" the\nGod \"in us all.\" True, this is also to be found in original Christianity\nas proceeding from the life of Jesus. The New Testament is full of this\nkind of pantheism,--God _in_ man, as well as God _with_ man. Jesus made\nthe step forward from God with man to God in man,--\"I in them, thou in\nme.\" The doctrine of the Holy Spirit is this idea, of God who is not only\nwill and power, not only wisdom and law, but also love; of a God who\ndesires communion and intercourse with his children, so coming and\ndwelling in them. Mohammed teaches a God above us; Moses teaches a God\nabove us, and yet with us; Jesus teaches God above us, God with us, and\nGod in us.\n\nAccording to this view, Mohammedanism is a relapse. It is going back to a\nlower level. It is returning from the complex idea to the simple idea. But\nthe complex is higher than the simple. The seed-germ, and the germ-cell,\nout of which organic life comes, is lower than the organizations which are\ndeveloped out of it. The Mollusks are more complex and so are higher than\nthe Radiata, the Vertebrata are more complex than the Mollusks. Man is the\nmost complex of all, in soul as well as body. The complex idea of God,\nincluding will, thought, and love, in the perfect unity, is higher than\nthe simplistic unity of will which Mohammed teaches. But the higher ought\nto come out of and conquer the lower. How, then, did Mohammedanism come\nout of Christianity and Judaism?\n\nThe explanation is to be found in the law of reaction and relapse.\nReaction is going back to a lower ground, to pick up something which has\nbeen dropped, forgotten, left behind, in the progress of man. The\ncondition of progress is that nothing shall be lost. The lower truth must\nbe preserved in the higher truth; the lower life taken up into the higher\nlife. Now Christianity, in going forward, had accepted from the\nIndo-Germanic races that sense of God in nature, as well as God above\nnature, which has always been native with those races. It took up natural\nreligion into monotheism. But in taking it up, it went so far as to lose\nsomething of the true unity of God. Its doctrine of the Trinity, at least\nin its Oriental forms, lost the pure personal monotheism of Judaism. No\ndoubt the doctrine of the Trinity embodies a great truth, but it has been\ncarried too far. So Mohammedanism came, as a protest against this tendency\nto plurality in the godhead, as a demand for a purely personal God It is\nthe Unitarianism of the East. It was a new assertion of the simple unity\nof God, against polytheism and against idolatry.\n\nThe merits and demerits, the good and evil, of Mohammedanism are to be\nfound in this, its central idea concerning God. It has taught submission,\nobedience, patience; but it has fostered a wilful individualism. It has\nmade social life lower. Its governments are not governments. Its virtues\nare stoical. It makes life barren and empty. It encourages a savage pride\nand cruelty. It makes men tyrants or slaves, women puppets, religion the\nsubmission to an infinite despotism. Time is that it came to an end. Its\nwork is done. It is a hard, cold, cruel, empty faith, which should give\nway to the purer forms of a higher civilization.\n\nNo doubt, Mohammedanism was needed when it came, and has done good service\nin its time. But its time is almost passed. In Europe it is an anachronism\nand an anomaly, depending for its daily existence on the support received\nfrom Christian powers, jealous of Russian advance on Constantinople. It\nwill be a blessing to mankind to have the capital of Russia on the\nBosphorus. A recent writer on Turkey thus speaks:--\n\n\n   \"The military strength of Mohammedanism was in its steady and\n   remorseless bigotry. Socially, it won by the lofty ideality of its\n   precepts, without pain or satiety. It accorded well, too, with the\n   isolate and primitive character of the municipalities scattered over\n   Asia. Resignation to God--a motto well according with Eastern\n   indolence--was borne upon its banners, while in the profusion of\n   delight hereafter was promised an element of endurance and courage. It\n   had, too, one strikingly Arabic characteristic,--simplicity.\n\n    \"One God the Arabian prophet preached to man;\n      One God the Orient still\n    Adores, through many a realm of mighty span,--\n      God of power and will.\n\n    \"A God that, shrouded in his lonely light,\n      Rests utterly apart\n    From all the vast creations of his might,\n      From nature, man, and art.\n\n    \"A Power that at his pleasure doth create\n      To save or to destroy;\n    And to eternal pain predestinate,\n      As to eternal joy.\n\n   \"It is the merit and the glory of Mohammed that, beside founding\n   twenty spiritual empires and providing laws for the guidance through\n   centuries of millions of men, he shook the foundations of the faith of\n   heathendom. Mohammed was the impersonation of two principles that reign\n   in the government of God,--destruction and salvation. He would receive\n   nations to his favor if they accepted the faith, and utterly destroy\n   them if they rejected it. Yet, in the end, the sapless tree must fall.\"\n\nM. H. Blerzey,[399] in speaking of Mohammedanism in Northern Africa,\nsays:--\n\n   \"At bottom there is little difference between the human sacrifices\n   demanded by fetichism and the contempt of life produced by the\n   Mussulman religion. Between the social doctrines of these Mohammedan\n   tribes and the sentiments of Christian communities there is an immense\n   abyss.\"\n\nAnd again:---\n\n   \"The military and fanatic despotism of the Arabs has vested during many\n   centuries in the white autochthonic races of North Africa, without any\n   fusion taking place between the conquering element and the conquered,\n   without destroying at all the language and manners of the subject\n   people, and, in a word, without creating anything durable. The Arab\n   conquest was a triumph of brute force, and nothing further.\"\n\nAnd M. Renan, a person well qualified to judge of the character of this\nreligion by the most extensive and impartial studies, gives this\nverdict:[400]--\n\n   \"Islamism, following as it did on ground that was none of the best,\n   has, on the whole, done as much harm as good to the human race. It has\n   stifled everything by its dry and desolating simplicity.\"\n\nAgain:--\n\n   \"At the present time, the essential condition of a diffused\n   civilization is the destruction of the peculiarly Semitic element, the\n   destruction of the theocratic power of Islamism, consequently the\n   destruction of Islamism itself.\"[401]\n\nAgain:--\n\n   \"Islamism is evidently the product of an inferior, and, so to speak, of\n   a meagre combination of human elements. For this reason its conquests\n   have all been on the average plane of human nature. The savage races\n   have been incapable of rising to it, and, on the other hand, it has not\n   satisfied people who carried in themselves the seed of a stronger\n   civilization.\"[402]\n\n\n\nNote to the Chapter on Mohammed.\n\n\nWe give in this note further extracts from Mr. Palgrave's description of\nthe doctrine of Islam.\n\n\"This keystone, this master thought, this parent idea, of which all the\nrest is but the necessary and inevitable deduction, is contained in the\nphrase far oftener repeated than understood, 'La Il\u0101h \u00edlla All\u0101h,' 'There\nis no God but God.' A literal translation, but much too narrow for the\nArab formula, and quite inadequate to render its true force in an Arab\nmouth or mind.\n\n\"'There is no God but God' are words simply tantamount in English to the\nnegation of any deity save one alone; and thus much they certainly mean in\nArabic, but they imply much more also. Their full sense is, not only to\ndeny absolutely and unreservedly all plurality, whether of nature or of\nperson, in the Supreme Being, not only to establish the unity of the\nUnbegetting and Unbegot, in all its simple and uncommunicable Oneness, but\nbesides this the words, in Arabic and among Arabs, imply that this one\nSupreme Being is also the only Agent, the only Force, the only Act\nexisting throughout the universe, and leave to all beings else, matter or\nspirit, instinct or intelligence, physical or moral, nothing but pure,\nunconditional passiveness, alike in movement or in quiescence, in action\nor in capacity. The sole power, the sole motor, movement, energy, and deed\nis God; the rest is downright inertia and mere instrumentality, from the\nhighest archangel down to the simplest atom of creation. Hence, in this\none sentence,' La Il\u0101h illa All\u0101h,' is summed up a system which, for want\nof a better name, I may be permitted to call the Pantheism of Force, or of\nAct, thus exclusively assigned to God, who absorbs it all, exercises it\nall, and to whom alone it can be ascribed, whether for preserving or for\ndestroying, for relative evil or for equally relative good. I say\n'relative,' because it is clear that in such a theology no place is left\nfor absolute good or evil, reason or extravagance; all is abridged in the\nautocratic will of the one great Agent: 'sic volo, sic jubeo, stet pro\nratione voluntas'; or, more significantly still, in Arabic, 'Kem\u0101\nyesha'o,' 'as he wills it,' to quote the constantly recurring expression\nof the Koran.\n\n\"Thus immeasurably and eternally exalted above, and dissimilar from, all\ncreatures, which lie levelled before him on one common plane of\ninstrumentality and inertness, God is one in the totality of omnipotent\nand omnipresent action, which acknowledges no rule, standard, or limit\nsave his own sole and absolute will. He communicates nothing to his\ncreatures, for their seeming power and act ever remain his alone, and in\nreturn he receives nothing from them; for whatever they may be, that they\nare in him, by him, and from him only. And secondly, no superiority, no\ndistinction, no pre-eminence, can be lawfully claimed by one creature over\nits fellow, in the utter equalization of their unexceptional servitude and\nabasement; all are alike tools of the one solitary Force which employs\nthem to crush or to benefit, to truth or to error, to honor or shame, to\nhappiness, or misery, quite independently of their individual fitness,\ndeserts, or advantage, and simply because he wills it, and as he wills it.\n\n\"One might at first think that this tremendous autocrat, this uncontrolled\nand unsympathizing power, would be far above anything like passions,\ndesires, or inclinations. Yet such is not the case, for he has with\nrespect to his creatures one main feeling and source of action, namely,\njealousy of them lest they should perchance attribute to themselves\nsomething of what is his alone, and thus encroach on his all-engrossing\nkingdom. Hence he is ever more prone to punish than to reward, to inflict\nthan to bestow pleasure, to ruin than to build. It is his singular\nsatisfaction to let created beings continually feel that they are nothing\nelse than his slaves, his tools, and contemptible tools also, that thus\nthey may the better acknowledge his superiority, and know his power to be\nabove their power, his cunning above their cunning, his will above their\nwill, his pride above their pride; or rather, that there is no power,\ncunning, will, or pride save his own.\n\n\"But he himself, sterile in his inaccessible height, neither loving nor\nenjoying aught save his own and self-measured decree, without son,\ncompanion, or counsellor, is no less barren for himself than for his\ncreatures, and his own barrenness and lone egoism in himself is the cause\nand rule of his indifferent and unregarding despotism around. The first\nnote is the key of the whole tune, and the primal idea of God runs through\nand modifies the whole system and creed that centres in him.\n\n\"That the notion here given of the Deity, monstrous and blasphemous as it\nmay appear, is exactly and literally that which the Koran conveys, or\nintends to convey, I at present take for granted. But that it indeed is\nso, no one who has attentively perused and thought over the Arabic text\n(for mere cursory reading, especially in a translation, will not suffice)\ncan hesitate to allow. In fact, every phrase of the preceding sentences,\nevery touch in this odious portrait, has been taken, to the best of my\nability, word for word, or at least meaning for meaning, from the 'Book,'\nthe truest mirror of the mind and scope of its writer.\n\n\"And that such was in reality Mahomet's mind and idea is fully confirmed\nby the witness-tongue of contemporary tradition.\"\n\n\n\n\nChapter XII.\n\nThe Ten Religions and Christianity.\n\n\n\n  \u00a7 1. General Results of this Survey.\n  \u00a7 2. Christianity a Pleroma, or Fulness of Life.\n  \u00a7 3. Christianity, as a Pleroma, compared with Brahmanism, Confucianism,\n         and Buddhism.\n  \u00a7 4. Christianity compared with the Avesta and the Eddas. The Duad in\n         all Religions.\n  \u00a7 5. Christianity and the Religions of Egypt, Greece, and Rome.\n  \u00a7 6. Christianity in Relation to Judaism and Mohammedanism. The Monad in\n         all Religions.\n  \u00a7 7. The Fulness of Christianity is derived from the life of Jesus.\n  \u00a7 8. Christianity as a Religion of Progress and of Universal Unity.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 1. General Results of this Survey.\n\n\nWe have now examined, as fully as our limits would allow, ten of the\nchief religions which have enlisted the faith of mankind. We are prepared\nto ask, in conclusion, what they teach us in regard to the prospects of\nChristianity, and the religious future of our race.\n\nFirst, this survey must have impressed on every mind the fact that man is\neminently a religious being. We have found religion to be his supreme and\nengrossing interest on every continent, in every millennium of historic\ntime, and in every stage of human civilization. In some periods men are\nfound as hunters, as shepherds, as nomads, in others they are living\nassociated in cities, but in all these conditions they have their\nreligion. The tendency to worship some superhuman power is universal.\n\nThe opinion of the positivist school, that man passes from a theological\nstage to one of metaphysics, and from that to one of science, from which\nlater and higher epoch both theology and philosophy are excluded, is not\nin accordance with the facts we have been observing. Science and art, in\nEgypt, went hand in hand with theology, during thousands of years. Science\nin Greece preceded the latest forms of metaphysics, and both Greek science\nand Greek philosophy were the preparation for Christian faith. In India\nthe Sankhya philosophy was the preparation for the Buddhist religion.\nTheology and religion to-day, instead of disappearing in science, are as\nvigorous as ever. Science, philosophy, and theology are all advancing\ntogether, a noble sisterhood of thought. And, looking at facts, we may\nask, In what age or time was religion more of a living force, acting on\nhuman affairs, than it is at present? To believe in things not seen, to\nworship a power above visible nature, to look forward to an unknown\nfuture, this is natural to man.\n\nIn the United States there is no established religion, yet in no country\nin the world is more interest taken in religion than with us. In the\nProtestant denominations it has dispensed with the gorgeous and imposing\nritual, which is so attractive to the common mind, and depends mainly on\nthe interest of the word of truth. Yet the Protestant denominations make\nconverts, build churches, and support their clergy with an ardor seemingly\nundiminished by the progress of science. There are no symptoms that man is\nlosing his interest in religion in consequence of his increasing knowledge\nof nature and its laws.\n\nSecondly, we have seen that these religions vary exceedingly from each\nother in their substance and in their forms. They have a great deal in\ncommon, but a great deal that is different. Mr. Wentworth Higginson,[403]\nin an excellent lecture, much of which has our cordial assent, says,\n\"Every race believes in a Creator and Governor of the world, in whom\ndevout souls recognize a Father also.\" But Buddhism, the most extensive\nreligion on the surface of the earth, explicitly denies creation, and\nabsolutely ignores any Ruler or Governor of the world. The Buddha neither\nmade the world nor preserves it, and the Buddha is the great object of\nBuddhist worship. Mr. Higginson says: \"Every race believes in\nimmortality.\" Though the Buddhists, as we have seen, believe in\nimmortality, it is in so obscure a form that many of the best scholars\ndeclare that the highest aim and the last result of all progress in\nBuddhism is annihilation. He continues, \"Every race recognizes in its\nreligious precepts the brotherhood of man.\" The Koran teaches no such\ndoctrine, and it is notorious that the Brahmanical system of caste, which\nhas been despotic in India for twenty-five hundred years, excludes such\nbrotherhood. Mr. Higginson therefore is of opinion that caste has grown up\nin defiance of the Vedas. The Vedas indeed are ignorant of caste, but they\nare also ignorant of human brotherhood. The system of caste was not a\ndefiance of the Vedas.\n\nNothing is gained for humanity by such statements, which are refuted\nimmediately by the most evident facts. The true \"sympathy of religions\"\ndoes not consist in their saying the same thing, any more than a true\nconcord in music consists in many performers striking the same note.\nVariety is the condition of harmony. These religions may, and we believe\nwill, be all harmonized; but thus far it is only too plain that they have\nbeen at war with each other. In order to find the resemblances we must\nbegin by seeing the differences.\n\nCudworth, in his great work, speaks of \"the symphony of all religions,\" an\nexpression which we prefer to that of Mr. Higginson. It expresses\nprecisely what we conceive to be the fact, that these religions are all\ncapable of being brought into union, though so very different. They may\nsay,\n\n    \"Are not we formed, as notes of music are,\n    For one another, though dissimilar?\n    Such difference, without discord, as shall make\n    The sweetest sounds.\"\n\nBut this harmony can only be established among the ethnic religions by\nmeans of a catholic religion which shall be able to take each of them up\ninto itself, and so finally merge them in a higher union. The Greek,\nRoman, and Jewish religions could not unite with each other; but they were\nunited by being taken up into Christianity. Christianity has assimilated\nthe essential ideas of the religions of Persia, Jud\u00e6a, Egypt, Greece,\nRome, and Scandinavia; and each of these religions, in turn, disappeared\nas it was absorbed by this powerful solvent. In the case of Greece, Rome,\nGermany, and Jud\u00e6a, this fact of their passing into solution in\nChristianity is a matter of history. Not all the Jews became Christians,\nnor has Judaism ceased to exist. This is perhaps owing to the doctrines of\nthe Trinity and the Deity of Christ, which offend the simplistic\nmonotheism of the Jewish mind. Yet Christianity at first grew out of\nJudaism, and took up into itself the best part of the Jews in and out of\nPalestine.\n\nThe question therefore is this, Will Christianity be able to do for the\nremaining religions of the world what it did for the Greeks, the Romans,\nand the Teutonic nations? Is it capable of becoming a universal religion?\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. Christianity a Pleroma, or Fulness of Life.\n\n\nIt is evident that Christianity can become the universal human religion\nonly by supplying the religious wants of all the races of men who dwell on\nall the face of the earth. If it can continue to give them all the truth\ntheir own religions contain, and add something more; if it can inspire\nthem with all the moral life which their own religions communicate, and\nyet more; and, finally, if it can unite the races of men in one family,\none kingdom of heaven,--then it is fitted to be and will become the\nuniversal religion. It will then not share the fate of those which have\npreceded it. It will not have its rise, progress, decline, and fall. It\nwill not become, in its turn, antiquated, and be left behind by the\nadvance of humanity. It will not be swallowed up in something deeper and\nbroader than itself. But it will appear as the desire of all nations, and\nChrist will reign until he has subdued all his enemies--error, war, sin,\nselfishness, tyranny, cruelty--under his feet.\n\nNow, as we have seen, Christianity differs from all other religions (on\nthe side of truth) in this, that it is a pleroma, or fulness of knowledge.\nIt does not differ, by teaching what has never been said or thought\nbefore. Perhaps the substance of most of the statements of Jesus may be\nfound scattered through the ten religions of the world, some here and some\nthere. Jesus claims no monopoly of the truth. He says. \"My doctrine is not\nmine, but his who sent me.\" But he _does_ call himself \"the Light of the\nWorld,\" and says that though he does not come to destroy either the law or\nthe prophets, he comes to fulfil them in something higher. His work is to\nfulfil all religions with something higher, broader, and deeper than what\nthey have,--accepting their truth, supplying their deficiencies.\n\nIf this is a fact, then it will appear that Christianity comes, not as an\nexclusive, but as an inclusive system. It includes everything, it excludes\nnothing but limitation and deficiency.\n\nWhether Christianity be really such a pleroma of truth or not, must be\nascertained by a careful comparison of its teachings, and the ideas lying\nback of them, with those of all other religions. We have attempted this,\nto some extent, in our Introduction, and in our discussion of each\nseparate religion. We have seen that Christianity, in converting the\nnations, always accepted something and gave something in return. Thus it\nreceived from Egypt and Africa their powerful realism, as in the writings\nof Tertullian, Origen, Augustine, and gave in return a spiritual doctrine.\nIt received God, as seen in nature and its organizations, and returned God\nas above nature. Christianity took from Greece intellectual activity, and\nreturned moral life. It received from Rome organization, and returned\nfaith in a fatherly Providence. It took law, and gave love. From the\nGerman races it accepted the love of individual freedom, and returned\nunion and brotherly love. From Judaism it accepted monotheism as the\nworship of a Supreme Being, a Righteous Judge, a Holy King, and added to\nthis faith in God as in all nature and all life.\n\nBut we will proceed to examine some of these points a little more\nminutely.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. Christianity, as a Pleroma, compared with Brahmanism, Confucianism,\nand Buddhism.\n\n\nChristianity and Brahmanism. The essential value of Brahmanism is its\nfaith in spirit as distinct from matter, eternity as distinct from time,\nthe infinite as opposed to the finite, substance as opposed to form.\n\nThe essential defect of Brahmanism is its spiritual pantheism, which\ndenies all reality to this world, to finite souls, to time, space, matter.\nIn its vast unities all varieties are swallowed up, all differences come\nto an end. It does not, therefore, explain the world, it denies it. It is\nincapable of morality, for morality assumes the eternal distinction\nbetween right and wrong, good and evil, and Brahmanism knows no such\ndifference. It is incapable of true worship, since its real God is spirit\nin itself, abstracted from all attributes. Instead of immortality, it can\nonly teach absorption, or the disappearance of the soul in spirit, as\nrain-drops disappear in the ocean.\n\nChristianity teaches a Supreme Being who is pure spirit, \"above all,\nthrough all, and in all,\" \"from whom, and through whom, and to whom are\nall things,\" \"in whom we live, and move, and have our being.\" It is a more\nspiritual religion than Brahmanism, for the latter has passed on into\npolytheism and idolatry, which Christianity has always escaped. Yet while\nteaching faith in a Supreme Being, the foundation and substance below all\nexistence, it recognizes him as A LIVING GOD. He is not absorbed in\nhimself, nor apart from his world, but a perpetual Providence, a personal\nFriend and Father. He dwells in eternity, but is manifested in time.\n\nChristianity, therefore, meets the truth in Brahmanism by its doctrine of\nGod as Spirit, and supplies its deficiencies by its doctrine of God as a\nFather.\n\nChristianity and the system of Confucius. The good side in the teaching of\nConfucius is his admirable morality, his wisdom of life in its temporal\nlimitations, his reverence for the past, his strenuous conservatism of all\nuseful institutions, and the uninterrupted order of the social system\nresting on these ideas.\n\nThe evil in his teaching is the absence of the supernatural element,\nwhich deprives the morality of China of enthusiasm, its social system of\nvitality, its order of any progress, and its conservatism of any\nimprovement. It is a system without hope, and so has remained frozen in an\nicy and stiff immobility for fifteen hundred years.\n\nBut Christianity has shown itself capable of uniting conservatism with\nprogress, in the civilization of Christendom. It respects order, reveres\nthe past, holds the family sacred, and yet is able also to make continual\nprogress in science, in art, in literature, in the comfort of the whole\ncommunity. It therefore accepts the good and the truth in the doctrines of\nConfucius, and adds to these another element of new life.\n\nChristianity and Buddhism. The truth in Buddhism is in its doctrine of the\nrelation of the soul to the laws of nature; its doctrine of consequences;\nits assurance of a strict retribution for every human action; its promise\nof an ultimate salvation in consequence of good works; and of a redemption\nfrom all the woes of time by obedience to the truth.\n\nThe evil in the system is that belonging to all legalism. It does not\ninspire faith in any living and present God, or any definite immortality.\nThe principle, therefore, of development is wanting, and it leaves the\nMongol races standing on a low plane of civilization, restraining them\nfrom evil, but not inspiring them by the sight of good.\n\nChristianity, like Buddhism, teaches that whatever a man sows that shall\nhe also reap; that those who by patient continuance in well-doing seek for\nglory, honor, and immortality shall receive eternal life; that the books\nshall be opened in the last day, and every man be rewarded according to\nhis works; that he whose pound gains five pounds shall be ruler over five\ncities. In short, Christianity, in its Scriptures and its practical\ninfluence, has always taught salvation by works.\n\nYet, beside this, Christianity teaches justification by faith, as the root\nand fountain of all real obedience. It inspires faith in a Heavenly Father\nwho has loved his every child from before the foundation of the world;\nwho welcomes the sinner back when he repents and returns; whose forgiving\nlove creates a new life in the heart. This faith evermore tends to awaken\nthe dormant energies in the soul of man; and so, under its influence, one\nrace after another has commenced a career of progress. Christianity,\ntherefore, can fulfil Buddhism also.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4. Christianity compared with the Avesta and the Eddas. The Duad in all\nReligions.\n\n\nThe essential truth in the Avesta and the Eddas is the same. They both\nrecognize the evil in the world as real, and teach the duty of fighting\nagainst it. They avoid the pantheistic indifference of Brahmanism, and the\nabsence of enthusiasm in the systems of Confucius and the Buddha, by the\ndoctrine of a present conflict between the powers of good and evil, of\nlight and of darkness. This gives dignity and moral earnestness to both\nsystems. By fully admitting the freedom of man, they make the sense of\nresponsibility possible, and so purify and feed morality at its roots.\n\nThe difficulty with both is, that they carry this dualistic view of nature\ntoo far, leaving it an unreconciled dualism. The supreme Monad is lost\nsight of in this ever-present Duad. Let us see how this view of evil, or\nthe dual element in life, appears in other systems.\n\nAs the Monad in religion is an expression of one infinite supreme\npresence, pervading all nature and life, so the Duad shows the antagonism\nand conflict between truth and falsehood, right and wrong, good and evil,\nthe infinite perfection and the finite imperfection. This is a conflict\nactually existing in the world, and one which religion must accept and\naccount for. Brahmanism does not accept it, but ignores it. This whole\nconflict is Maya, a deception and illusion. Yet, in this form of illusion,\nit makes itself so far felt, that it must be met by sacrifices, prayers,\npenances, and the law of transmigration; until all the apparent antagonism\nshall be swallowed up in the Infinite One, the only substance in the\nuniverse.\n\nBuddhism recognizes the conflict more fully. It frankly accepts the Duad\nas the true explanation of the actual universe. The ideal universe as\nNirvana may be one; but of this we know nothing. The actual world is a\ntwofold world, composed of souls and the natural laws. The battle of life\nis with these laws. Every soul, by learning to obey them, is able to\nconquer and use them, as steps in an ascent toward Nirvana.\n\nBut the belief of Zoroaster and that of Scandinavia regard the Duad as\nstill more deeply rooted in the essence of existing things. All life is\nbattle,--battle with moral or physical evil. Courage is therefore the\nchief virtue in both systems. The Devil first appears in theology in these\ntwo forms of faith. The Persian devil is Ahriman; the Scandinavian devil\nis Loki. Judaism, with its absolute and supreme God, could never admit\nsuch a rival to his power as the Persian Ahriman; yet as a being\npermitted, for wise purposes, to tempt and try men, he comes into their\nsystem as Satan. Satan, on his first appearance in the Book of Job, is one\nof the angels of God. He is the heavenly critic; his business is to test\nhuman virtue by trial, and see how deep it goes. His object in testing Job\nwas to find whether he loved virtue for its rewards, or for its own sake.\n\"Does Job serve God for naught?\" According to this view, the man who is\ngood merely for the sake of reward is not good at all.\n\nIn the Egyptian system, as in the later faith of India, the evil principle\nappears as a power of destruction. Siva and Typhon are the destroying\nagencies from whom proceed all the mischief done in the world.\nNevertheless, they are gods, not devils, and have their worship and\nworshippers among those whose religious nature is more imbued with fear\nthan with hope. The timid worshipped the deadly and destructive powers,\nand their prayers were deprecations. The bolder worshipped the good gods.\nSimilarly, in Greece, the Chtonic deities had their shrines and\nworshippers, as had the powers of Blight, Famine, and Pestilence at Rome.\n\nYet only in the Avesta is this great principle of evil set forth in full\nantagonism against the powers of light and love. And probably from\nPersia, after the captivity, this view of Satan entered into Jewish\ntheology. In the Old Testament, indeed, where Satan or the Devil as a\nproper name only occurs four times[404], in all which cases he is a\nsubordinate angel, the true Devil does not appear. In the Apocrypha he is\nsaid (Wisdom ii. 24) to have brought death into the world. The New\nTestament does not teach a doctrine of Satan, or the Devil, as something\nnew and revealed then for the first time, but assumes a general though\nvague belief in such a being. This belief evidently existed among the Jews\nwhen Christ came. It as evidently was not taught in the Old Testament. The\ninevitable inference is that it grew up in the Jewish mind from its\ncommunication with the Persian dualism.\n\nBut though the doctrine of a Devil is no essential part of\nChristianity[405], the reality and power of evil is fully recognized in\nthe New Testament and in the teachings of the Church. Indeed, in the\ndoctrine of everlasting punishment and of an eternal hell, it has been\ncarried to a dangerous extreme. The Divine sovereignty is seriously\ninfringed and invaded by such a view. If any outlying part of the universe\ncontinues in a state of permanent rebellion, God is not the absolute\nsovereign. But wickedness is rebellion. If any are to continue eternally\nin hell, it is because they continue in perpetual wickedness; that is, the\nrebellion against God will never be effectually suppressed. Only when\nevery knee bows, and every tongue confesses that Christ is Lord to the\nglory of God the Father; only when truth and love have subdued all enemies\nby converting them into friends, is redemption complete and the universe\nat peace.\n\nNow, Christianity (in spite of the illogical doctrine of everlasting\npunishment) has always inspired a faith in the redeeming power of love to\nconquer all evil. It has taught that evil can be overcome by good. It\nasserts truth to be more powerful than error, right than wrong. It teaches\nus in our daily prayer to expect that God's kingdom shall come, and his\nwill shall be done on earth as it is in Heaven. It therefore fulfils the\ntruth in the great dualisms of the past by its untiring hope of a full\nredemption from all sin and all evil.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5. Christianity and the Religions of Egypt, Greece, and Rome.\n\n\nThe Religion of Egypt. This system unfolded the truth of the Divine in\nthis world, of the sacredness of bodily organization, and the descent of\nDeity into the ultimate parts of his creation. Its defect was its\ninability to combine with this an open spiritualism. It had not the\ncourage of its opinions, so far as they related to the divine unity,\nspirituality, and eternity.\n\nChristianity also accepts the doctrine of God, present in nature, in man,\nin the laws of matter, in the infinite variety of things. But it adds to\nthis the elevated spiritualism of a monotheistic religion, and so accepts\nthe one and the all, unity and variety, substance and form, eternity and\ntime, spirit and body, as filled with God and manifesting him.\n\nThe Religions of Greece and Rome. The beauty of nature, the charm of art,\nthe genius of man, were idealized and deified in the Greek pantheon. The\ndivinity of law, organizing human society according to universal rules of\njustice, was the truth in the Roman religion. The defect of the Greek\ntheology was the absence of a central unity. Its polytheism carried\nvariety to the extreme of disorder and dissipation. The centrifugal force,\nnot being properly balanced by any centripetal power, inevitably ends in\ndissolution. The defect of Roman worship was, that its oppressive rules\nended in killing out life. Law, in the form of a stiff external\norganization, produced moral death at last in Rome, as it had produced\nmoral death in Jud\u00e6a.\n\nNow Christianity, though a monotheism, and a monotheism which has\ndestroyed forever both polytheism and idolatry wherever it has gone, is\nnot that of numerical unity. The God of Christianity differs in this from\nthe God of Judaism and Mohammedanism. He is an infinite will; but he is\nmore. Christianity cognizes God as not only above nature and the soul, but\nalso as in nature and in the soul. Thus nature and the soul are made\ndivine. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity expresses this enlargement\nof the Jewish monotheism from a numerical to a moral unity. The God of\nChrist is human in this respect, that he is conceived of in the image of\nman. Man is essentially a unit through his will, in which lies the secret\nof personal identity. But besides will he has intellect, by which he comes\ninto communion with the universe; and affection, by which he comes into\ncommunion with his race. Christianity conceives of God in the same way. He\nis an omnipresent will as the Father, Creator, and Ruler of all things. He\nis the Word, or manifested Truth in the Son, manifested through all\nnature, manifested through all human life. He is the Spirit, or\ninspiration of each individual soul. So he is Father, Son, and Spirit,\nabove all, through all, and in us all. By this larger view of Deity\nChristianity was able to meet the wants of the Aryan races, in whom the\npolytheistic tendency is so strong. That tendency was satisfied by this\nview of God immanent in nature and immanent in human life.\n\nJudaism and Mohammedanism, with their more concrete monotheism, have not\nbeen able to convert the Aryan races. Mohammedanism has never affected the\nmind of India, nor disturbed the ascendency of Brahmanism there. And\nthough it nominally possesses Persia, yet it holds it as a subject, not as\na convert. Persian Sufism is a proof of the utter discontent of the Aryan\nintellect with any monotheism of pure will. Sufism is the mystic form of\nMohammedanism, recognizing communion with God, and not merely submission,\nas being the essence of true religion. During the long Mohammedan dominion\nin Turkey it has not penetrated the minds or won the love of the Greek\nraces. It is evident that Christianity succeeded in converting the Greeks\nand Romans by means of its larger view of the Deity, of which the\ndoctrine of the Trinity, as it stands in the creeds, is a crude illogical\nexpression.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6. Christianity in Relation to Judaism and Mohammedanism. The Monad in\nall Religions.\n\n\nThere are three religions which teach the pure upity of God, or true\nmonotheism. These three Unitarian religions are Judaism, Christianity, and\nMohammedanism. They also all originated in a single race, the Semitic\nrace, that which has occupied the central region of the world, the centre\nof three continents. It is the race which tends to a religious unity, as\nthat of our Aryan ancestors tended to variety.\n\nBut what is pure monotheism? It is the worship of one alone God, separated\nby the vast abyss of the infinite from all finite beings. It is the\nworship of God, not as the Supreme Being only, not as the chief among many\ngods, as Jupiter was the president of the dynasty on Olympus, not merely\nthe Most High, but as the only God. It avoids the two extremes, one of\nmaking the Supreme Being head of a council or synod of deities, and the\nother of making him indeed infinite, but an infinite abstraction, or abyss\nof darkness. These are the two impure forms of monotheism. The first\nprevailed in Greece, Rome, Egypt, Scandinavia. In each of these religions\nthere was a supreme being,--Zeus, Jupiter, Ammon, Odin,--but this supreme\ngod was only _primus inter pares_, first among equals. The other impure\nform of monotheism prevailed in the East,--in Brahmanism, Buddhism, and\nthe religion of Zoroaster. In the one Parabrahm, in the other\nZerana-Akerana, in the third Nirvana itself, is the Infinite Being or\nsubstance, wholly separate from all that is finite. It is so wholly\nseparate as to cease to be an object of adoration and obedience. Not\nParabrahm, but Siva, Vischnu, and Brahma; not Zerana-Akerana, but Ormazd\nand the Amschaspands; not the infinite world of Nirvana, nor the mighty\nAdi-Buddha, but the Buddhas of Confession, the finite Sakya-Muni, are the\nobjects of worship in these systems.\n\nOnly from the Semitic race have arisen the pure monotheistic religions of\nJudaism, Christianity, and Mohammedanism. Each of these proclaims one only\nGod, and each makes this only God the object of all worship and service.\nJudaism says, \"Hear! O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord!\" (Deut. vi.\n4.) Originally among the Jews, God's name as the \"Plural of Majesty\"\nindicated a unity formed from variety; but afterward it became in the word\nJahveh a unity of substance. \"By my name Jehovah I was not known to them\"\n(i.e. to the Patriarchs).[406] That name indicates absolute Being, \"I am\nthe I am.\"[407]\n\nAncient Gentile monotheism vibrated between a personal God, the object of\nworship, who was limited and finite, and an infinite absolute Being who\nwas out of sight, \"whose veil no one had lifted.\" The peculiarity of the\nMosaic religion was to make God truly the one alone, and at the same time\ntruly the object of worship.\n\nIn this respect Judaism, Christianity, and Mohammedanism agree, and in\nthis they differ from all other religions. Individual thinkers, like\nSocrates, \u00c6schylus, Cicero, have reached the same conviction; but these\nthree are the only popular religions, in which God is at once the infinite\nand absolute, and the only object of worship.\n\nNow it is a remarkable fact that these three religions, which are the only\npure monotheistic religions, are at the same time the only religions which\nhave any claim to catholicity. Buddhism, though the religion of numerous\nnations, seems to be the religion of only one race, namely, the Turanic\nrace, or Mongols. The people of India who remain Buddhists, the Singalese,\nor inhabitants of Ceylon, belong to the aboriginal Tamul, or Mongol race.\nWith this exception then (which is no exception, as far as we know the\nethnology of Eastern Asia), the only religions which aim at Catholicism\nare these three, which are also the only monotheistic religions. Judaism\naimed at catholicity and hoped for it. It had an instinct of universality,\nas appeared in its numerous attempts at making proselytes of other\nnations. It failed of catholicity when it refused to accept as its Christ\nthe man who had risen above its national limitations, and who considered\nRoman tax-gatherers and Samaritans as already prepared to enter the\nkingdom of the Messiah. The Jews required all their converts to become\nJews, and in doing this left the catholic ground. Christianity in the\nmouth of Paul, who alone fully seized the true idea of his Master, said,\n\"Circumcision availeth nothing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.\"\nIn other words, he declared that it was _not_ necessary to become a Jew in\norder to be a Christian.\n\nThe Jewish mind, so far forth as it was monotheistic, aimed at\ncatholicity. The unity of God carries with it, logically, the unity of\nman. From one God as spirit we infer one human family. So Paul taught at\nAthens. \"God that made the world and all things therein, ... hath made of\none blood all races of men to dwell on all the face of the earth.\"\n\nBut the Jews, though catholic as monotheists, and as worshipping a\nspiritual God, were limited by their ritual and their intense national\nbigotry. Hereditary and ancestral pride separated them, and still separate\nthem, from the rest of mankind. \"_We have Abraham to our Father_\" is the\ntalisman which has kept them together, but kept them from union with\nothers.\n\nChristianity and Mohammedanism, therefore, remain the only two really\ncatholic religions. Each has overpassed all the boundaries of race.\nChristianity, beginning among the Jews, a Semitic people, passed into\nEurope, and has become the religion of Greeks, Romans, Kelts, Germans, and\nthe Slavic races of Russia, and has not found it impossible to convert the\nAfricans, the Mongols, and the American Indians. So too the Mohammedan\nreligion, also beginning among the Semitic race, has become the nominal\nreligion of Persia, Turkey, Northern Africa, and Central Asia. Monotheism,\ntherefore, includes a tendency to catholicity. But Islam has everywhere\nmade subjects rather than converts, and so has failed of entire success.\nIt has not assimilated its conquests.\n\nThe monotheism of Christianity, as we have already seen, while accepting\nthe absolute supremacy of the Infinite Being, so as to displace forever\nall secondary or subordinate gods, yet conceives of him as the present\ninspiration of all his children. It sees him coming down, to bless them in\nthe sunshine and the shower, as inspiring every good thought, as a\nprovidence guiding all human lives. And by this view it fulfils both\nJudaism and Mohammedanism, and takes a long step beyond them both.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 7. The Fulness of Christianity is derived from the Life of Jesus.\n\n\nChristianity has thus shown itself to be a universal solvent, capable of\nreceiving into itself the existing truths of the ethnic religions, and\nfulfilling them with something higher. Whenever it has come in contact\nwith natural religion, it has assimilated it and elevated it. This is one\nevidence that it is intended to become the universal religion of mankind.\n\nThis pleroma, or fulness, integrity, all-sidedness, or by whatever name we\ncall it, is something deeper than thought. A system of thought might be\ndevised large enough to include all the truths in all the religions of the\nworld, putting each in its own place in relation to the rest. Such a\nsystem might show how they all are related to each other, and all are in\nharmony. But this would be a philosophy, not a religion. No such\nphilosophy appears in the original records of Christianity. The New\nTestament does not present Jesus as a philosopher, nor Paul as a\nmetaphysician. There is no systematic teaching in the Gospels, nor in the\nEpistles. Yet we find there, in incidental utterances, the elements of\nthis many-sided truth, in regard to God, man, duty, and immortality. But\nwe find it as life, not as thought. It is a fulness of life in the soul of\nJesus, passing into the souls of his disciples and apostles, and from them\nin a continuous stream of Christian experience, down to the present time.\n\nThe word pleroma (\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1), in the New Testament, means that which fills\nup; fulness, fulfilling, filling full. The verb \"to fulfil\" (\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03cc\u03c9)\ncarries the same significance. To \"fulfil that which was spoken by the\nprophets,\" means to fill it full of meaning and truth. Jesus came, not to\ndestroy the law, but to fulfil it; that is, to carry it out further. He\nfulfilled Moses and the prophets, not by doing exactly what they foretold,\nin their sense, but by doing it in a higher, deeper, and larger sense. He\nfulfilled their thought as the flower fulfils the bud, and as the fruit\nfulfils the flower. The sense of the fulness of life in Jesus and in the\nGospel seems to have struck the minds of the early disciples, and\npowerfully impressed them. Hence the frequency with which they use this\nverb and noun, signifying fulness. Jesus fulfilled the law, the prophets,\nall righteousness, the Scriptures. He came in the fulness of time. His joy\nwas fulfilled. Paul prays that the disciples may be filled full of joy,\npeace, and hope, with the fruits of righteousness, with all knowledge,\nwith the spirit of God, and with all the fulness of God. He teaches that\nlove fulfils the law, that the Church is the fulness of Christ, that\nChrist fills all things full of himself, and that in him dwells all the\nfulness of the godhead bodily.\n\nOne great distinction between Christianity and all other religions is in\nthis pleroma, or fulness of life which it possesses, and which, to all\nappearance, came from the life of Jesus. Christianity is often said to be\ndifferenced from ethnic religions in other ways. They are natural\nreligions: it is revealed. They are natural: it is supernatural. They are\nhuman: it is divine. But _all_ truth is revealed truth; it all comes from\nGod, and, therefore, so far as ethnic religions contain truth, they also\nare revelations. Moreover, the supernatural element is to be found in all\nreligions; for inspiration, in some form, is universal. All great births\nof time are supernatural, making no part of the nexus of cause and effect.\nHow can you explain the work of Confucius, of Zoroaster, of the Buddha, of\nMohammed, out of the existing state of society, and the educational\ninfluences of their time? All such great souls are much more the makers of\ntheir age than its result; they are imponderable elements in civilization,\nnot to be accounted for by anything outside of themselves. Nor can we urge\nthe distinction of human and divine; for there is a divine element in all\nethnic religions, and a broadly human element in Christianity. Jesus is\nas much the representative of human nature as he is the manifestation of\nGod. He is the Son of man, no less than the Son of God.\n\nOne great fact which makes a broad distinction between other religions and\nChristianity is that _they_ are ethnic and _it_ is catholic. They are the\nreligions of races and nations, limited by these lines of demarcation, by\nthe bounds which God has beforehand appointed. Christianity is a catholic\nreligion: it is the religion of the human race. It overflows all\nboundaries, recognizes no limits, belongs to man as man. And this it does,\nbecause of the fulness of its life, which it derives from its head and\nfountain, Jesus Christ, in whom dwells the fulness both of godhead and of\nmanhood.\n\nIt is true that the great missionary work of Christianity has long been\nchecked. It does not now convert whole nations. Heathenism, Mohammedanism,\nJudaism, Brahmanism, Buddhism, stand beside it unmoved. What is the cause\nof this check?\n\nThe catholicity of the Gospel was born out of its fluent and full life. It\nwas able to convert the Greeks and Romans, and afterward Goths, Vandals,\nLombards, Franks, Scandinavians, because it came to them, not as a creed,\nbut as a life. But neither Roman Catholics nor Protestants have had these\nlarge successes since the Middle Ages. Instead of a life, Christianity\nbecame a church and a creed. When this took place, it gradually lost its\ngrand missionary power. It no longer preached truth, but doctrine; no\nlonger communicated life, but organized a body of proselytes into a rigid\nchurch. Party spirit took the place of the original missionary spirit.\nEven the majority of the German tribes was converted by Arian\nmissionaries, and orthodoxy has not the credit of that last grand success\nof Christianity. The conversion of seventy millions of Chinese in our own\nday to the religion of the Bible was not the work of Catholic or\nProtestant missionaries, but of the New Testament. The Church and the\ncreed are probably the cause of this failure. Christianity has been\npartially arrested in its natural development, first by the Papal Church,\nand secondly by the too rigid creeds of orthodoxy.\n\nIf the swarming myriads of India and Mongolia are to be converted to\nChristianity, it must be done by returning to the original methods. We\nmust begin by recognizing and accepting the truth they already possess. We\nmust be willing to learn of them, in order to teach them. Comparative\nTheology will become the science of missions if it help to show to\nChristians the truth and good in the creeds outside of Christendom. For to\nthe Church and to its sects, quite as much as to the world, applies the\nsaying, \"He that exalteth himself shall be abased, but he that humbleth\nhimself shall be exalted.\"\n\n\n\n\u00a7 8. Christianity as a Religion of Progress and of Universal Unity.\n\n\nAs long as a tree or an animal lives it continues to grow. An arrest of\ngrowth is the first symptom of the decline of life. Fulness of life,\ntherefore, as the essential character of Christianity, should produce a\nconstant development and progress; and this we find to be the case. Other\nreligions have their rise, progress, decline, and fall, or else are\narrested and become stationary. The religions of Persia, Egypt, Greece,\nRome, Scandinavia, have come to an end. As ethnic religions, they shared\nthe fortunes of the race or nation with which they were associated. The\nsystems of Confucius, of the Buddha, of Brahmanism, of Jud\u00e6a, of Mohammed,\nare arrested. They remain stationary. But, thus far, Christianity and\nChristendom advance together. Christianity has developed; out of its\nprimitive faith, several great theologies, the medi\u00e6val Papacy,\nProtestantism, and is now evidently advancing into new and larger forms of\nreligious, moral, and social activity.\n\nThe fact of a fulness of divine and human life in Jesus took form in the\ndoctrines of the incarnation and the Trinity. The fact of the reconciling\nand uniting power of this life took form in the doctrine of the atonement.\nBoth of these doctrines are illogical and false, in their form, as church\ndoctrines. But both of them represent most essential facts. We have seen\nthe truths in the doctrines of incarnation and the Trinity. The truth in\nthe atonement is, as the word itself signifies, the at-one-making power of\nthe Gospel. The reconciliation of antagonist truths and opposing\ntendencies, which philosophy has always unsuccessfully endeavored to state\nin theory, Christianity accomplishes in practice. Christianity continually\nreproduces from its depths of life a practical faith in God, both as law\nand as love, in man, both as a free and yet as a providentially guided\nbeing. It gives us God as unity and as variety, as the substance and as\nthe form of the world. It states the reality of evil as forcibly as any\nsystem of dualism, and yet produces a practical faith in good as being\nstronger than evil and sure to conquer it. In social life it reconciles\nthe authority of human law with the freedom of individual thought and\naction. In the best Christian governments, we find all the order which a\ndespotism can guarantee, with all the freedom to which a democracy can\naspire. No such social organization is to be found outside of Christendom.\nHow can this be, unless it is somehow connected with Christianity?\n\nThe civilization of Christendom consists in a practical reconciliation of\nantagonist tendencies. It is a \"pleroma\" in social life, a fulness of\nconcord, a harmony of many parts. The harmony is indeed by no means\ncomplete, for the millennium has not arrived. As yet the striking feature\nof Christendom is quantity, power, variety, fulness; not as yet\nco-operation, harmony, peace, union. Powers are first developed, which are\nafterward to be harmonized. The sword is not yet beaten into a\nploughshare, nor has universal peace arrived. Yet such is the inevitable\ntendency of things. As knowledge spreads, as wealth increases, as the\nmoral force of the world is enlarged, law, more and more, takes the place\nof force. Men no longer wear swords by their sides to defend themselves\nfrom attack. If attacked, they call the policeman. Towns are no longer\nfortified with walls, nor are the residences of noblemen kept in a state\nof defence. They are all folded in the peaceful arms of national law. So\nfar the atonement has prevailed. Only nations still continue to fight; but\nthe time is at hand when international law, the parliament of the world,\nthe confederation of man, shall take the place of standing armies and\niron-clad navies.\n\nSo, in society, internal warfare must, sooner or later, come to an end.\nPauperism and crime must be treated according to Christian methods.\nCriminals must be reformed, and punishment must be administered in\nreference to that end. Co-operation in labor and trade must take the place\nof competition. The principles by means of which these vast results will\nbe brought about are already known; the remaining difficulties are in\ntheir application. Since slavery fell in the United States, one great\nobstacle to the progress of man is removed. The next social evils in order\nwill be next assailed, and, one by one, will be destroyed. Christianity is\nbecoming more and more practical, and its application to life is\nconstantly growing more vigorous and wise.\n\nThe law of human life is, that the development of differences must precede\ntheir reconciliation. Variety must precede harmony, analysis must prepare\nthe way for synthesis, opposition must go before union. Christianity, as a\npowerful stimulus applied to the human mind, first develops all the\ntendencies of the soul; and afterward, by its atoning influence on the\nheart, reconciles them. Christ is the Prince of Peace. He came to make\npeace between man and God, between man and man, between law and love,\nreason and faith, freedom and order, progress and conservatism. But he\nfirst sends the sword, afterward the olive-branch. Nevertheless, universal\nunity is the object and end of Christianity.\n\n\n\n\nIndex of the Principal Authors Consulted in the Preparation of this\nWork.\n\n\n\nACKERMANN (D. C.). Das Christliche im Plato. Hamburg. 1835. (Translated in\nClark's Theological Library.) (Greece.)\n\n\u00c6SCHYLUS, and other Greek Poets. (Greece.)\n\nALGER (WM. R.). A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life.\nPhiladelphia: Childs. 1864.\n\nALLEN (JOSEPH H.). Hebrew Men and Times. Boston. 1861. (Jud\u00e6a.)\n\nAmerican Oriental Society, Journal of the. New Haven; published annually.\n(Oriental Religions.)\n\nAMP\u00c8RE (J. J. A.). L'Histoire Romaine. Paris. 1864. (Rome.)\n\n------ ------ La Science en Orient.\n\nAnthropological Society of London, Memoirs of (commenced in 1863-64).\n\nAsiatic Journal, 1816-1843. London.\n\nAsiatic Researches (commenced London. 1801).\n\nBALDWIN (JOHN D.). Pre-Historic Nations. New York. 1869.\n\nBANHERJEA (Rev. K. M.). Dialogues on Hindoo Philosophy, comprising the\nNyaya, Sankhya, and Vyasa. London. 1861. (Brahmanism.)\n\nBAUR (F. C.). Symbolik und Mythologie. Stuttgart. 1829.\n\nBLEEK (ARTHUR HENRY). Avesta. The religious Books of the Parsees.\nTranslated into English from Spiegel's German translation. Hertford. 1864.\n(Zoroaster.)\n\nB\u00d6EKH. Manetho und der Hundstern period. Berlin. 1840. (Egypt.)\n\nBURNOUF (EUGENE). Commentaire sur le Ya\u00e7na. Paris. 1823.\n\n------ ------ Introduction \u00e0 l'Histoire du Buddhisme Indien. Paris. 1844.\n\n------ ------ Le Bh\u00e2gavata Purana, on Histoire Poetique de Krichna. Paris.\n1840.\n\nBURNOUF (EMILE). Essai sur le Veda. 1863.\n\nBRUGSCH. Histoire de l'Egypte. Leipzig. 1859. ------- Aus dem Orient.\n\nBUNSEN (C. C. J.). Bibelwerk. Leipzig: Brockhaus. 1858. (Jud\u00e6a.)\n\n------ ------ Gott in der Geschichte. Leipzig. 1857.\n\n------ ------ \u00c6gypten's Stelle in der Weltgesehichte. Hamburg. 1845-1867.\nEnglish translation, 1868.\n\nCHABAS (F.). Les Pasteurs en Egypt. Amsterdam. 1868.\n\nCHASTEL (ETI\u00c9NNE). Histoire de la Destruction du Paganisme dans l'Empire\nd'Orient. Paris. 1850.\n\nChinese Reeorder and Missionary Journal. Foochow.\n\nCOCKER (B. F.). Christianity and Greek Philosophy. New York 1870.\n(Greece.)\n\nCOLEBROOKE (H. T.). Miscellaneous Essays; in two vols. London. 1837.\n(India.)\n\nCREUZER (FRIEDRICH). Symbolik und Mythologie der alten V\u00f6lker. Leipzig.\n1836. (Greece, India, Persia.)\n\nCUDWORTH (RALPH). The True Intellectual System of the Universe. American\nedition. 2 vols. 1837.\n\nCUNNINGHAM (ALEXANDER). The Ancient Geography of India. London. 1871.\n(Buddhism.)\n\n------ ------ Bhilsa Topes of India. (Buddhism.)\n\nDabistan, The. Translated from the Persian. Oriental Translation Fund.\n1843. (Persia, Brahmanism, Jud\u00e6a, Islam.)\n\nDALL (Mrs. CAROLINE H.). Egypt's Place in History. Boston. 1868.\n\nDAUMAS (LE GENERAL E.). La vie Arabe et la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Musulmane. Paris. 1869.\n\nDAVID (EMERIC). Jupiter et sa Culte. Paris. 1833. (Rome.)\n\nDE ROUG\u00c9 (VICOMTE DE). Examen critique de l'ouvrage de M. Bunsen. Paris.\n1847. (Egypt.)\n\n------ ------ \u00c9tudes sur le rituel Funeraire. Paris. 1860.\n\n------ ------ Le po\u00e9me de Pentaour. Paris. 1856. (Egypt.)\n\n------ ------ M\u00e9moire sur les Monuments des six premieres dynasties.\nParis. 1866. (Egypt.)\n\nDOLLINGER (JOHN J. I.). The Gentile and the Jew. London. Longman, 1862.\n(Greece, Rome, Jud\u00e6a, Egypt, &c.)\n\nDUNCKER (MAX). Geschichte des alterthums. Berlin. 1863. (Egypt, Babylon,\nJud\u00e6a, Assyria, India, Persia.)\n\nDUPERRON (ANQUETIL). Le Zendavesta. Paris. 1771. 3 vols. (Zoroaster.)\n\nDUTT (SHOSHEE CHUNDER). Essays. Calcutta. 1854. (Brahmanism.)\n\nEBERS. \u00c6gypten und die B\u00fccher Mosis. 1870.\n\nEWALD (HEINRICH). Geschichte des volkes Israel (the first two volumes\ntranslated by Russell Martineau). G\u00f6ttingen. 1845-1851. (Jud\u00e6a.)\n\nFARRAR (F. W.). Families of Speech. London. 1870.\n\nFAUCHE (HIPPOLYTE). Le Maha-Bharata, traduit compl\u00e8tement du Sanscrit en\nFran\u00e7ais. Paris. 1863.\n\n------ ------ Le Ramayana, traduit en Fran\u00e7ais. Paris. 1864. (Brahmanism.)\n\nFERGUSSON (JAMES). The Illustrated Handbook of Architecture. London. 1855.\n\nFRIEDLIEB (J. H.). Die Sibyllinischen Weissagungen. Leipzig. 1852. (Rome.)\n\nGOBINEAU. Les Religions et les Philosophies dans l'Asie Centrale. 1866.\n\nGERHARD (EDUARD). Griechische Mythologie, 3 Banden. Berlin. 1854.\n(Greece.)\n\nGIBBON (EDWARD). Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.\n\nGRIMM (JACOB). Deutsche Mythologie, Dritte Ausgabe. G\u00f6ttingen. 1854.\n(Germany.)\n\nGROTE (GEORGE). History of Greece. New York: Harper and Brothers. 1854.\n(Greece.)\n\n------ ------ Plato and the other Companions of Socrates. London: Murray.\n1867. (Greece.)\n\nHARDWICK (CHARLES). Christ and other Masters. London: Macmillan. 1863.\n(Jud\u00e6a, India, China, Egypt, Persia.)\n\nHARDY (R. SPENCE). Eastern Monachism. London: Partridge and Oakey. 1850.\n(Buddhism.)\n\n------ ------ A Manual of Buddhism in its Modern Development. London:\nPartridge and Oakey. 1853. (Buddhism.)\n\nHARIVANSA. Appendix to the Mahabharata, translated by Langlois. Oriental\nTranslation Fund. London. 1834. (India.)\n\nHARTUNG, (J. A.). Die Religion der R\u00f6mer. Erlangen. 1836.\n\n------ ------ Die Religion und Mythologie der Griechen. Leipzig. 1865.\n\nHAUG (MARTIN). Essays on the Sacred Language, Writings, and Religion of\nthe Parsees. Bombay. 1862. (Persia.)\n\nHEDGE (F. H.). The Primeval World of Hebrew Tradition. Boston: Roberts &\nBrothers. 1870. (Jud\u00e6a.)\n\nHEEREN (A. H. L.). Historical Researches into the Polities, Intercourse,\nand Trade of the Principal Nations of Antiquity. (English translation.)\nOxford. 1833.\n\nHEFFTER (M. W.). Mythologie der Griechen und R\u00f6mer. Leipzig. 1854. (Greeks\nand Romans.)\n\nHERODOTUS, and other Greek Historians. (Greece.)\n\nHIGGINSON (EDWARD). The Spirit of the Bible. London. 1863. (Jud\u00e6a.)\n\nHitopad\u00e9sa. Translated by Francis Johnson. London and Hertford. 1848.\n(India.)\n\nHUC (L'ABB\u00c9 \u00c9VARISTE REGIS). Souvenirs d'un voyage dans la Tartaric, le\nThibet et la Chine pendant les ann\u00e9es 1844, 1845, et 1846. Paris. 1852.\n\n------ ------ Le Christianisme en Chine. (1857.) (Both these works have\nbeen translated into English.) (Buddhism.)\n\nINMAN (F.). Ancient Faiths embodied in Ancient Names. 2 vols. London.\n1868.\n\nJONES (Sir WILLIAM). Works. 13 vols. 1807.\n\nJULIEN (M. STANISLAS). Memoires sur les contr\u00e9es occidentales, traduites\ndu Chinois en Francais. Paris. 1857. (China.)\n\n------ ------ Le Livre des Recompenses et des Peines. Paris. 1835.\n(Oriental Translation Fund.) (China.)\n\n------ ------ Le Tao-te King, le livre de la voie, et de la vertu, par le\nphilosophe Lao-tseu. Paris. 1842. (China.)\n\nKENRICK (JOHN). Ancient Egypt under the Pharaohs. Redfield. New York.\n1852.\n\nKLAUSSEN (R. H.). Aeneas und die Penaten. (Influence of the Greek Religion\non Italian Religions.) 1839.\n\nKLEUKER (JOHANN FRIEDRICH). Anhang zum Zend-avesta. Leipzig und Riga.\n1781.\n\n------ ------ Zend-avesta, Zoroaster's Lebendiges Wort. Riga. 1777. (From\nthe French of A. Du Perron.)\n\nKNOX (R.). The Races of Men. London. 1850.\n\nKOEPPEN (C. F.). Die Religion des Buddha. Berlin. 1857.\n\n------ ------ Die Lamaische hierarchie. Berlin. 1859.\n\nKREMER (ALFRED VON). Geschichte der herrchenden Ideen des Islams. Leipzig.\n1868.\n\nKURTZ (FRIEDRICH). Allgemeine Mythologie. Leipzig. 1869.\n\nLAING (SAMUEL). Chronicle of the Kings of Norway. London: Longman. 1844.\n(Scandinavia.)\n\nLANDSEER (JOHN). Sab\u00e6\u00e1n Researches. London. 1823.\n\nLANE (EDWARD WILLIAM). Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians. 2\nvols. 5th edition. London. 1848.\n\n------ ------ Selections from the Kuran, with an interwoven Commentary.\nLondon. 1843.\n\nLANOYE (F. DE). Rameses the Great. New York: Scribner. 1870. (Egypt.)\n\nLASSEN (C.). Indische Alterthumskunde. (4 Bande.) Bonn. 1847.\n\nLATHAM (R. G.). The Natural History of the Varieties of Man. London. 1850.\n\nDescriptive Ethnology. London. 1859.\n\nLEGGE (JAMES). The Chinese Classics, with a Translation, Critical and\nExegetical Notes, Prolegomena, and copious Indexes. Hongkong. 1861-1865.\n\nLENORMANT (FRAN\u00c7OIS). A Manual of the Ancient History of the East. London:\nAsher & Co. 1869. (Jud\u00e6a, Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Phoenicia,\nCarthage, Arabia.)\n\nLEPSIUS (RICHARD). Letters from Egypt, Ethiopia, and the Peninsula of\nSinai. London: Bohn. 1853. (Egypt.)\n\n------ ------ Uber die gotter der vier elemente. Berlin. 1856. (Egypt.)\n\n------ ------ Das Todtenbuch der \u00c6gypter. Leipzig. 1842.\n\nLESLEY (J. P.). Man's Origin and Destiny. Philadelphia: Lippincott & Co.\n1868. (Egypt, &c.)\n\nLIN-LE. The History of the Ti-Ping Revolution. London. 1866. (China.)\n\nMAINE. Ancient Law. London.\n\nMALAX (S. C.). God in China. Shin or Shangte? London (no date).\n\nMACKAY (ROBERT WILLIAM). The Progress of the Intellect as exemplified in\nthe Religious Development of the Greeks and Hebrews. 2 vols. London. 1850.\n\nMAURY (L. J. ALFRED). Histoire des Religions de la Gr\u00e8ce Antique. Park.\n1857. (Greece.)\n\n------ ------ Croyance et l'Antiquit\u00e9. Paris. 1863.\n\nMARIETTE (A. E.). Choix des Monuments decouverts pendantle d\u00e9blayement du\nS\u00e9rapeum de Memphis. Paris. 1856.\n\n------ ------ Memoire sur le m\u00e8re d'Apis. 1856.\n\nMEADOWS (T. TAYLOR). The Chinese and their Rebellions. 1856. (China.)\n\nMILMAN (HENRY HART). The History of the Jews. London. 1835. (Jud\u00e6a.)\n\n------ ------ The History of Latin Christianity. 4th edition. London.\n1867.\n\nMohammedan Dynasties in Spain. Oriental Translation Fund. London. 1840.\n(Islam.)\n\nMOMMSEN (THEODORE). Romische Geschichte. 3d edition. Berlin. 1861. 3 vols.\n8vo. Translated into English. London. 1862. (Rome.)\n\nMUIR (J.). Original Sanskrit Texts on the Origin and Progress of the\nReligion and Institutions of India. Four parts. Williams and Nordgate.\n1857-1863.\n\nMUIR (W.). Life of Mahomet and History of Islam to the Era of the Hegira.\nLondon. 1858.\n\nMULLENS (Rev. JOSEPH). The Religious Aspects of Hindu Philosophy stated\nand discussed. London. 1860.\n\nM\u00dcLLER (C. OTTTFRIED). Ancient Art and its Remains. London: Bonn. 1852.\n(Greece.)\n\nLiterature of Ancient Greece. London: Baldwin. 1850. (Greece.)\n\nDie Dorier. Breslau. 1825. Translated into English by Sir G. C. Lewis.\nOxford. 1830.\n\n\nMULLER (MAX). Rig-Veda Sanhita, translated and explained. Volume I. Hymns\nto the Maruts, or Storm Gods. London. 1869.\n\nHistory of Ancient Sanskrit Literature. 1860.\n\nChips from a German Workshop. 1870.\n\n\nM\u00dcLLER (WILHELM). Geschichte und System der Altdeutschen Religion.\nGottingen. 1844. (Germany.)\n\n\nNIEBUHR. Lectures on the History of Rome. London. 1852.\n\n\nN\u00d6LDEKE (THEODOR). Geschiehte des Quor\u00e2n. Gottingen. 1860.\n\n\nNOTT (J. C.) and GLIDDON (Geo.R.). Types of Mankind. Philadelphia. 1854.\n\nIndigenous Races of the Earth. Philadelphia. 1857.\n\n\nOUVAROFF (M.). Essai sur les Mysteres d'Eleusis. Paris. 1816.\n\n\nPALGRAVE (WILLIAM GIFFORD). A Year's Journey through Central and Eastern\nArabia. Third edition. 1866. London. (Islam.)\n\n\nPAUTHIER (G.). Les Livres sacres de l'Orient (containing the Chou-king,\nthe four books of Confucius and Mencius, the Laws of Manu, and the Coran).\nParis. 1843.\n\n\nPERCEVAL (CAUSSIN DE). Essai sur l'Histoire des Arabs, avant Islamisme,\npendant l'\u00e9poque de Mahomet, et jusqu'\u00e0 la r\u00e9duction de toutes les tribus\nsous la loi Mussalmane. Paris. 3 vols. 8vo. 1847-48. (Islam.)\n\n\nPICKERING (CHARLES). The Races of Men. Boston. 1846.\n\n\nPICTET (A.). Les Origines Indo-Europ\u00e9ennes, on les Aryas primitives.\nParis. 1859.\n\nPIGOTT (GRENVILLE). A Manual of Scandinavian Mythology. London: Pickering.\n1839.\n\n\nPOOLE (MRS.). Englishwoman in Egypt. Letters from Cairo. First and Second\nSeries. London, republished in Philadelphia. (Islam.)\n\n\nPRELLER (L.). Griechische Mythologie. Leipzig. 1854.\n\n\nPRIAULX (OSMOND DE B.). Qu\u00e6stiones Mosaic\u00e6. London. 1842.\n\n\nPRICHARD (JAMES COWLES). The Eastern Origin of the Celtic Nations. Edited\nby R. G. Latham. London. 1857.\n\n\nPRICHARD (J. C.) The Natural History of Man. London: Balli\u00e8re. 1855.\n(Egypt.)\n\n\nPRINSEP (JAMES). Essays on Indian Antiquities. 2 vols. London. 1858.\n\n\nRAPP (ADOLPH). Die Religion und Sitte der Perser. 1865.\n\n\nRAWLINSON (GEORGE). Herodotus.\n\nFive Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World. London. 1862-1868.\n\nManual of Ancient History. New York: Harper and Brothers. 1871. (Assyria,\nEgypt, Greece, Rome, etc.)\n\n\nRENAN (J. E.). Articles in the Revue des Deux Mondes.\n\n\u00c9tudes d'Histoire religieuse. Paris, 1857. Translated by O. B.\nFrothingham. New York. 1864.\n\nHistoire g\u00e9n\u00e9rale et syst\u00e8mes compar\u00e9s des langues S\u00e9mitiques. Paris.\n1863.\n\nRevue Arch\u00e9ologique. Paris (containing the principal articles of De Roug\u00e9\non Egypt).\n\n\nRHODE (J. G.). Die heilige Sage und Religions-System der alten Baktrer,\nMeder und Perser. Frankfurt am Main. 1820.\n\n\nRITTER (CARL). The Comparative Geography of Palestine and the Sinaitic\nPeninsula. Translated by William L. Gage. New York: D. Appleton & Co.\n1866. (Judasa.)\n\n\nRitual of the Buddhist Priesthood. (In Miscellaneous Oriental\nTranslations.) Oriental Translation Fund. 1834.\n\n\nRIXNER (T. A.). Haudbuch der Geschichte der Philosophic. (3 vols.) 1829.\n\n\nRODWELL (Rev. I. M.). The Coran, translated from the Arabic. The Suras,\narranged in Chronological Order. London. 1861.\n\n\nR\u00d6TH (EDUARD). Die \u00c4gyptische und die Zoroastrische Glaubenslehre.\nMannheim. 1846.\n\n\nSALVADOR (J.). Histoire des Institutions de Moise. Paris. 1862. (Jud\u00e6a.)\n\n\nSAINT-HILAIRE (J. BARTH\u00c9LEMY). Mahomet et le Coran. Paris. 1865. (Islam.)\n\nLe Bouddha et sa religion. Paris. 1860. (Buddhism.)\n\n\nSALE (GEORGE). The Koran, with preliminary Dissertations. Philadelphia.\n1833. (Islam.)\n\n\nS\u00e1nkhya K\u00e1rik\u00e1, The, translated by Colebrooke and Wilson. Oriental\nTranslation Fund. 1837. (India.)\n\n\nSCHLAGINTWEIT (EMIL). Buddhism in Thibet. Leipzig and London. 1863.\n\n\nSCHLEICHER (AUGUST). Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der\nIndo-Germanischen Sprachen. Weimar. 1866.\n\n\nSCHWENCK (KONRAD). Die Mythologie der R\u00f6mer. Frankfurt am Main. 1846.\n(Rome.)\n\nDie Mythologie der \u00c6gypter. Frankfurt am Main. 1846. (Egypt.)\n\n\nSMITH (WILLIAM). Dictionary of the Bible. Boston: Little, Brown, & Co.\n1860. (Jud\u00e6a.)\n\n\nSMITH (Lieut.-Col. C. H.). Natural History of the Human Species.\n\n\nSPIEGEL (F.). Avesta, die heiligen schriften der parsen. Vienna. 1860,\n1863. (Persia.)\n\nEran, das Land zwischen dem Indus und Tigris.\n\nCommentar uber das Avesta. Leipzig. 1864. (Persia.)\n\nSPRENGER (Dr. A.). Das Leben und die Lehre des Mohammed. Berlin. 1861.\n(Islam.)\n\n\nSTANLEY (ARTHUR P.). Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church. New\nYork: Scribner. 1863. (Jud\u00e6a.)\n\n\nSTEVENSON (Rev. J.) Translation of the Sanhita of the Sama-Veda. Oriental\nTranslation Fund. 1842. (India.)\n\n\nTACITUS, The Works of. (Rome and Germany.)\n\n\nTHORPE (BENJAMIN). Northern Mythology. London. 1851. (Scandinavia.)\n\n\nTOWNLEY (JAMES). The Reasons of the Laws of Moses. London. 1827.\n\n\nTURNOUR (Hon. GEO.). The Mah\u00e1wanso, with an introductory Essay on\nP\u00e1li-Buddhistic Literature, in 2 vols. Ceylon. 1837.\n\n\nTZSCHIRNER (H. G.). Der Fall der Heidenthums.\n\nUPHAM (EDWARD). Sacred and Historical Books of Ceylon. 3 vols. 1833.\n\n\nURQUHART (D.). The Spirit of the East. 2 vols. London. 1839.\n\n\nVAMB\u00c9RY. Travels in Turkistan.\n\n\nWASSILJEW (W.). Der Buddhismus, seine Dogmen, Geschichte, und Literatur.\nSt. Petersburg. 1860.\n\n\nWEBER (ALBRECHT). Indische Skizzen. Berlin. 1857. (Buddhism.)\n\n\nWEIL (Dr. G.). Mohammed der Prophet, sein Leben und seine Lehre.\nStuttgart. 1843.\n\n\nWELCKER (F. G.). Griechische G\u00f6tterlehre. 3 Banden. G\u00f6ttingen. 1857.\n\n\nWESTCOTT (B. A.). Introduction to the Study of the Gospels. Boston. 1862.\n\n\nWESTERGAARD (N. L.). Ueber Buddha's Todesjahr. Breslau. 1862.\n\n\nWHEELER (J. TALBOYS). History of India from the Earliest Times. London.\n1869.\n\n\nWILKINS (CHARLES). The Bhagvat-Gheeta. London. 1785.\n\n\nWILKINSON (Sir J. GARDNER). The Ancient Egyptians. London: Murray. 1854. 5\nvols. 8vo. (Egypt.)\n\n\nWILLIAMS (MONIER). Sakoontala, or the Lost Ring. Hertford. 1856.\n\n\nWILSON (ANDREW). The ever-victorious Army. Edinburgh. 1868. (China.)\n\n\nWILSON (HORACE HAYMAN). Select Works of. London. 1861. Containing Essays\non the Religion of the Hindoos. 2 vols. Essays on Sanskrit Literature. 3\nvols. Vischnu Purana. 3 vols. 1861-1866.\n\nSelect Specimens of the Theatre of the Hindoos. 3 vols. 1827.\n\nRig-Veda-Sanhita. Translated from the original Sanskrit. 4 vols. London.\n1850-1866.\n\n\nWINDISCHMANN (FRIEDRICH). Ursagen des Arischen Volker. Munich. 1853.\n\nZoroastriche Studien. 1863. \u00dcber das Bunddehesch.\n\n\nZeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft. Leipzig.\nCommenced 1847.\n\n\nZELLER (E.). The Stoics. Epicureans, and Sceptics (English translation).\nLondon. 1870.\n\n\n\n\nIndex of Subjects Treated in this Work.\n\n\nA.\n\n\nAbraham, source of Hebrew monotheism, 403.\n  \"      his inspiration, 403.\n  \"      his worship of the Most High God, 404.\n  \"      his native home at the source of the Tigris, 405.\n  \"      his historic character and events of his life, 406.\n  \"      his relation to Melchisedek, 406.\n  \"      character of his faith, 408.\n  \"      his monotheism imperfect, 408.\nAdam of Bremen, his account of Northern Christians, 394.\n\u00c6schylus, big religious character, 284.\nAnschar, missionary to the Swedes, 393.\nAntoninus, M. Aurelius, his religious character, 344.\nApollo Belvedere, in the Vatican, 289.\nArabs, the, and Arabia, 452.\n  \"    without a history till the time of Mohammed, 452.\nAristotle, his view of God, 296.\nArtemis, or Diana as represented by the sculptors, 290.\nAryana-Va\u00eajo, a region of delight, 184.\n  \"           its climate changes to cold, 185.\n  \"           supposed to be in Central Asia, 186.\nAryans, the, in Central Asia, 85.\n  \"     consist of seven races, 86.\n  \"     their name mentioned in Manu, in the Avesta, and by Herodotus, 87.\n  \"     their original home, 87.\n  \"     their mode of life, 88.\n  \"     they arrive in India, 89.\nAtonement, Christian, in its early form, influenced by Egyptian thought,\n     255.\n  \"        in its scholastic form, derived from Roman law, 352.\nAugurs, their duties, 337.\nAvesta, discovered by Duperron, 179.\n\n\n\nB.\n\n\nBaldur, his character described, 378.\n  \"     death of, the story, 373.\nBaltic Sea, the Mediterranean of modern Europe, 359.\nBona Dea, the good goddess, 330.\nBragi, the Scandinavian Apollo, 380.\nBrahma, chief deity in the Laws of Manu, 125.\n  \"     his worship has entirely disappeared, 128.\nBrahmanism, a difficult study, 81.\n  \"         no individual founder, 81.\n  \"         is a one-sided spiritualism, 83.\n  \"         passes into pantheism, 84.\n  \"         becomes idolatry, 85.\nBuddha, his early tendency to devotion, 148.\n  \"     not a proper name, but an official title, 148.\n  \"     his birthplace In India, 148.\n  \"     his different names (note), 148.\n  \"     his father, a prince of the solar race, 148.\n  \"     his early tendency to devotion, 148.\n  \"     he arrives at Nirvana, 149.\n  \"     devotes himself to teaching, 150.\n  \"     dies at the age of eighty years, 150.\n  \"     period of his death, 150.\nBuddhism, Protestantism of the East, 139.\n  \"       resemblance of its customs to those of the Romish Church, 139.\n  \"       its worship of relics very ancient, 140.\n  \"       its singular and beautiful architecture, 140.\n  \"       its shrines for relics, 141.\n  \"       its rock-cut temples and monasteries, 141.\n  \"       cannot have been copied from Catholicism, 141.\n  \"       its interior resemblance to Protestantism, 142.\n  \"       its respect for human freedom and human rights, 143.\n  \"       its belief in the capacity of the human intellect, 144.\n  \"       its monastic character, 144.\n  \"       its expulsion from India, 145.\n  \"       the religion of the Mongol nations, 146.\n  \"       its scriptures and their discovery, 147.\nBuddhists, their general councils, 151.\n  \"        their missionaries and missionary spirit, 151.\n  \"        their leading doctrines, 153.\n  \"        their idea of human development and progress, 154.\n  \"        their four great truths, 155.\n  \"        their moral commandments, 156.\n  \"        their system rational and humane, 156.\n  \"        their toleration, 157.\n  \"        their benevolence and hospitality, 158.\n  \"        their worship and ritual, 159.\n  \"        their doctrines of Karma and Nirvana, 161.\n  \"        good and evil of their system, 164.\n  \"        their doctrine of transmigration, 167.\n  \"        how far their teaching resembles Christianity, 167.\nBundehesch, opinion of Windischmann concerning it, 194.\n  \"         doctrinal system of, 195.\nBurlingame, Anson, his mission, 70.\n\n\n\nC.\n\n\nCarthaginians, their language a form of Hebrew, 400.\nCatholic religious, three, 18.\n  \"        \"        teach the unity of God, 18.\n  \"        \"        which have failed of universality, 19.\nCeres, Liber, Flora, and Pomona, rural deities, 330.\nChaldees of Ur, same as modern Curds, 405.\nChandragupta, contemporary of Alexander, 86.\nCherubim, its derivation from the Sphinx, 252.\nChinese civilization, its peculiarities, 32.\n  \"       \"           prose of Asia, 32.\n  \"       \"           its antiquity, 33.\n  \"       \"           its grotesque character, 36.\nChinese empire, its size, 33.\n  \"     history commences, 34.\n  \"     language, 34.\n  \"     wall and canals, 34.\n  \"     artesian wells, 34.\n  \"     inoculation, bronze money, mariner's compass, gunpowder, 35.\n  \"     art of printing, and libraries, 35.\n  \"     people possess freedom (note), 37.\n  \"     government based on education, 38.\n  \"     monarchy a family, 38.\n  \"     government a literary aristocracy, 38.\n  \"     civil-service examinations, 39.\n  \"     public boards and their duties, 42.\n  \"     viceroys, or governors of provinces, 42.\n  \"     agriculture carried to perfection, 43.\n  \"     \"Kings,\" or sacred books, 47.\n  \"     philosophy in its later developments, 52.\n  \"     doctrine of the grand extreme, 52.\n  \"     doctrine of Yang and Yin, or the positive and negative essences,\n          52.\n  \"     doctrine of holy men, 53.\n  \"     people, their amiable character, 59.\n  \"       \"     described by Lieutenant Forbes, 59.\n  \"       \"     described by Du Halde, 60.\n  \"       \"     described by Meadows, 60.\n  \"       \"     treatment of woman, 61.\nChristian apologists, their errors, 4.\n  \"         \"         have regarded most religions as human inventions, 4.\n  \"         \"         have considered them as debasing superstitions, 4.\nChristianity adapted to the Northern races, 395.\n  \"          a pleroma, or fulness of life, 492.\n  \"          an inclusive system, not exclusive, 493.\n  \"          summary of its relation to other religions, 494.\n  \"          a religion of progress, 507.\n  \"          a religion of universal unity, 508.\n  \"          has the power of continued progress, 29.\n  \"          in its various developments,29.\n  \"          meets the positive and negative side:\n               of Brahmanism, 24.\n               of Buddhism, 25.\n               of Confucius, 26.\n               of Zoroaster, 26.\n               of Egypt, 27.\n               of Greece, 28.\nCicero, his work \"De Natura Deorum,\" 341.\n  \"     on the speech of C\u00e6sar, 342.\nCircumcision, its origin and extent, 251.\nCleanthes, the Stoic, his hymn, 285.\nComparative Philology, its discoveries, 86.\n  \"         Theology either analytical or synthetical, 2.\n  \"           \"      its relation to Comparative Geography, 2.\n  \"           \"      its relation to human progress, 2.\n  \"           \"      must do justice to all religions, 3.\n  \"           \"      is still in its infancy, 3.\n  \"           \"      is a science, 3.\n  \"           \"      will furnish new evidence to the truth of\n                       Christianity, 13.\n  \"           \"      will show Christianity to be a catholic religion,\n                       adapted to all races, 15.\n  \"           \"      will show Christianity to be all-sided, 21.\n  \"           \"      will show Christianity capable of progress, 29.\n  \"           \"      in its probable results, 30.\nConfucius, his birth and ancestors, 44, 45.\n  \"        his influence, 44, 45.\n  \"        events of his life, 45, 46.\n  \"        edits the sacred books, or Kings, 47.\n  \"        his own writings, 47.\n  \"        his Table-Talk, extracts from, 48, 49.\n  \"        had a large organ of veneration, 50.\n  \"        had great energy and persistency, 51.\n  \"        his books distributed by tract societies, 51.\n  \"        one thousand six hundred and sixty temples erected to his\n             memory, 51.\n  \"        defects in his doctrine, 58.\n  \"        his system compared with Christianity, 59.\n  \"        good influence of his teachings, 58.\nConversion of the German races to Christianity, 390.\nCudworth and the Platonists have defended the Greek philosophers, 5.\n\n\n\nD.\n\n\nDavid, his life and epoch in human history, 422.\n  \"    his great military successes, 422.\n  \"    his prudence and sagacity in affairs, 423.\n  \"    a man of genius, poet, musician, 425.\n  \"    Book of Psalms a record of his life, 425.\n  \"    his Psalms often rise to the level of Christianity, 426.\nDecay of the Roman religion, 339.\nDenmark and Norway converted to Christianity, 392.\nDevil, the, in Old and New Testament, 498.\nDivination, Cicero speaks concerning, 339-341.\nDoctrinal influence of the Egyptian religion on Christianity, 258.\nDownfall of German heathenism, 391.\nDruids and Scalds, 355.\nDuad, the, in all religions, 396.\nDualism or monotheism the doctrine of the Avesta, 203.\n  \"     of the Scandinavian system, 384.\n  \"     in Christianity, 496.\nDuperron, Anquetil, his zeal for science, 178.\n  \"         \"       discovers the Avesta in India, 179\n\n\n\nE.\n\n\nEcclesiastes, a wonderful description of utter despair, 435.\nEddas, the, chief source of our knowledge of the early Scandinavians, 363.\n  \"    elder, or poetic, described, 364.\n  \"    its author, S\u00e6mund, 364.\n  \"    prose, by Snorro Sturteson, 369.\n  \"      \"    its contents, 369.\n  \"      \"    its account of creation, 370.\n  \"      \"    its account of the gods and giants, 371.\n  \"      \"    story of Baldur, 372.\n  \"      \"    adventures of Thor, 374.\n  \"      \"    consummation of all things, 375.\nEgyptian chronology, its uncertainty, 231.\n   \"         \"       opinions of Egyptologists concerning, 231, 232.\n   \"         \"       point of contact with that of the Hebrews, 233.\nEgyptian civilization, its extent, 209.\n  \"      architecture, its characteristics, 209.\n  \"      knowledge of arts, 210.\n  \"      love for making records, 210.\n  \"      mural paintings in tombs, 210.\n  \"      sphinxes discovered by Marietta, 210.\n  \"      mummies, their anatomy, 237.\n  \"      religion, its influence on Judaism, 250\n  \"        \"       its influence on Christianity, 253.\n  \"        \"       its triads, 254.\nEgyptians, ancient, their great interest in religion, 214.\n  \"        their gods on the oldest monuments, 215.\n  \"        lived in order to worship, 215.\n  \"        number of their festivals, 216.\n  \"        their priests, 217.\n  \"        their doctrine of immortality, 218.\n  \"        their ritual of the dead, 219.\n  \"        their funeral ceremonies, 220.\n  \"        their domestic and social virtues, 221.\n  \"        specimen of their hymns, 222, 223.\n  \"        mysterious character of their theology, 223.\n  \"        sources of our knowledge concerning, 224.\n  \"        modern works upon (note), 225.\n  \"        their doctrine of transmigration (note), 226.\n  \"        their animal worship, 227.\n  \"        their tendency to nature-worship, 229.\n  \"        their origin, 230-236.\nEpictetus, his view of religion, 343.\nEpicureans, believed in God, but not in religion, 297.\nEssential idea of Brahmanism, 21.\n  \"        \"   of Buddhism, 21.\n  \"        \"   of Confucius, 22.\n  \"        \"   of Zoroaster, 22.\n  \"        \"   of Egypt, 23.\n  \"        \"   of Greece, 24.\nEthnic religions, defined, 15.\n  \"      \"        most religions are such, 15.\n  \"      \"        related to ethnology, 15.\n  \"      \"        limited to races, 17.\nEuripides, his tragedy anti-religious, 285.\n\n\n\nF.\n\n\nFaunus, an old Italian god, 330.\nFenrir, the wolf, how he was fastened, 382.\nFeudal system, its essential character, 391.\nFlamens, priests of particular deities, 336.\nFontus, god of fountains, 328.\nFrey, and his daughter Freyja, 379.\n\n\n\nG.\n\n\nGeiger, Swedish history quoted, 357.\nGenius, a Roman god, 329.\nGerman races essentially Protestant, 395.\nGerman tribes converted by Arian missionaries, 506.\nGods of Egypt, the three orders of, 239.\n  \"   \"   \"    names of the first order, 239.\n  \"   \"   \"    character of the first order, 240.\n  \"   \"   \"    significant of the divine unity, 242.\n  \"   \"   \"    second order of, their human qualities, 243.\n  \"   \"   \"    third order of, the Osiris group, 242.\nGods of Greece before Homer, 270.\n  \"   \"   \"    oldest were the Uranids, 270.\n  \"   \"   \"    second race of, the Titans, 271.\n  \"   \"   \"    third race of, the Olympians, 271.\n  \"   \"   \"    the oldest were gods of the elements, 272.\n  \"   \"   \"    worshipped by the Dorians, were Apollo and Artemis, 274.\n  \"   \"   \"    local distribution of, 275.\n  \"   \"   \"    first symbolical, afterward personal, 276.\n  \"   \"   \"    in Hesiod and Homer, 277.\n  \"   \"   \"    poetic character of, 279.\n  \"   \"   \"    in Homer very human beings, 280.\n  \"   \"   \"    as described by the lyric poets, 283.\n  \"   \"   \"    as described by the tragedians, 284.\n  \"   \"   \"    as unfolded by the artists, 286.\n  \"   \"   \"    as seen in the works of Phidias, 287.\n  \"   \"   \"    as described by the philosophers, 291.\n  \"   \"   \"    how related to Christianity, 310.\nGods of the Vedas are the evil spirits of the Avesta, 202.\nGreece, its physical geography, 259.\n  \"     its mountains, climate, and soil, 260.\n  \"     its language akin to Sanskrit, 261.\n  \"     its people an Aryan race, 262.\n  \"     first inhabited by the Pelasgians, 262.\n  \"     afterward received the Dorians, 264.\n  \"     influenced powerfully by Egypt, 265.\nGreek mysteries, derived from Asia and Egypt, 302.\n  \"     \"        gods of belong to the underworld, 302.\n  \"     \"        alien to the Greek mind, 303.\n  \"     \"        Eleusinian, in honor of Ceres, 305.\n  \"     \"        in honor of Bacchus, derived from India, 305.\n  \"     \"        Orphic, and their doctrines, 306.\n  \"   religion, an essentially human religion, 266.\n  \"     \"       its gods, men and women, 267.\n  \"     \"       has no founder or restorer or priesthood, 267.\n  \"     \"       its gods evolved, not emanations, 268.\n  \"     \"       its freedom and hilarity, 269.\n  \"     \"       as viewed by Paul, 308.\n  \"     \"       as regarded by the early Christian fathers, 312.\n  \"     \"       and philosophy, a preparation for Christianity, 313.\n  \"   worship, sacrifices, prayers, and festivals, 297.\n  \"     \"      in early times, 298.\n  \"     \"      had numerous festivals, 299.\n  \"     \"      connected with augurs and oracles, 300.\nGylfi, deluding of, in the Edda, 369.\n\n\n\nH.\n\n\nHaruspices, derived from Etruria, 338.\nHavamal, or proverbs of the Scandinavians, 366.\nHeathen religions must contain more truth than error, 6.\n  \"       \"       cannot have been human inventions, 6.\n  \"       \"       must contain some revolution from God, 8.\n  \"       \"       how viewed by Christ and his apostles, 9.\n  \"       \"       how treated by Paul at Athens, 10.\n  \"       \"       how regarded by the early apologists, 12.\nHeimdall, warder of the gods, 380.\nHerder, his description of David, 425.\nHesiod, his account of the three groups of gods, 270.\nHindoo Epics, Ramayana and Mahabharata, 128.\n  \"      \"    they refer to the time succeeding the Vedic age, 128.\n  \"      \"    composed before the time of Buddhism, 129.\nHindoos, antagonisms of their character, 82.\n  \"      acute in speculations, but superstitious, 82.\n  \"      unite luxury and asceticism, 82.\n  \"      tend to idealism and religious spiritualism, 83.\n  \"      their doctrine of Maya, 84.\nHindoo year, calendar of, 132.\n  \"      \"   begins in April, a sacred month, 132.\nHoly of Holies, in the Egyptian and Jewish temples, 252.\nHomer his description of the gods, 280.\nHorace, his view of religion, 346.\nHyks\u00f4s, constitute the middle monarchy, 232.\n  \"     expelled from Egypt after five hundred years, 233.\n  \"     Hebrews in Egypt during their ascendency, 234, 235.\n  \"     or Shepherd Kings in Egypt, 213.\n  \"     a Semitic people from Asia, 232.\n  \"     conquered Lower Egypt B.C. 2000, 233.\nHyndla, song of, extracts from, 366.\n\n\n\nI.\n\n\nIcelanders converted to Christianity, 394.\nIncarnation, the fundamental doctrine of Christianity, 28.\nIndia, always a land of mystery, 81.\n  \"    overrun by conquerors, 81.\nInfinite and finite elements in Brahmanism and Christianity, 137.\nInjustice done to ethnic religions, 4.\nInspiration, its origin in the intuitive faculty, 439.\nIsis and Osiris, their legend, from Plutarch, 244.\n  \"   \"    \"     explanations of their myth, 246.\n  \"   \"    \"     identified with the first and second order, 248.\n\n\n\nJ.\n\n\nJanus, one of the oldest of Roman gods, 322.\n  \"    presided over beginnings and endings, 322.\n  \"    invoked before other gods, 322.\n  \"    his temple open in war, closed in peace, 322.\n  \"    believed by Creuzer to have an Indian origin, 323.\n  \"    has his chief feast in January, 323.\n  \"    a Sabine god on Mount Janiculum, 323.\nJews, a Semitic race, 399.\nJob, its grandeur of thought and expression, 438.\nJones, Sir William, his life and works, 78.\n  \"    progress since his time, 80.\nJudaism, a preparation for Christianity, 444.\n  \"      monotheistic after the captivity, 444.\n  \"      influenced by Greek philosophy, 444.\n  \"      its process of development, 445.\n  \"      at first childlike and narrow, 446.\n  \"      the seed of Christianity, 446.\nJuno, queen of heaven, and female Jupiter, 324.\n  \"   goddess of womanhood, 324.\n  \"   her chief feast the Matronalia in March, 324.\n  \"   her month of June favorable for wedlock, 325.\nJupiter, derived his name from the Sanskrit, 324.\n  \"      had many temples in Rome, 324.\n  \"      god of the weather, of storm, of lightning, 324.\n\n\n\nK.\n\n\n\"Kings,\" Chinese, names and number, 47.\n  \"      teach a personal God, 57.\n  \"      republished by Confucius, 47.\n\n\n\nL.\n\n\nLanguage of Ancient Egypt, 236.\nLao-tse, founder of Tao-ism, 50, 52.\n  \"      called a dragon by Confucius, 51.\n  \"      three forms of his doctrine, 54.\nLares, gods of home, 328.\nLoki, the god of cunning, 381.\nLower Egypt, gods worshipped in, 248.\nLucretius, his view of religion, 343.\nLuna, the moon, a Sabine deity, 327.\nLustrations, or great acts of atonement, 338.\n\n\n\nM.\n\n\nMagna Mater, a foreign worship at Rome, 330.\nMaine, his work on ancient law quoted, 351.\nMann, laws of, when written, 100.\n  \"   account of Creation, 101.\n  \"   dignity of the Brahmans, 103.\n  \"   importance of the Gayatari, 104.\n  \"   account of the twice-born man, 105.\n  \"   description of ascetic duties, 106.\n  \"   the anchorite described, 107.\n  \"   duties of the ruler described, 109.\n  \"   crimes and penalties described, 110.\n  \"   the law of castes described, 110.\n  \"   penance and expiation described, 110.\n  \"   respect for cows enjoined, 111.\n  \"   transmigration and final beatitude, 112.\nMaritime character of the Scandinavians, 361.\nMars, originally an agricultural god, 330.\nMaterialism in Christian doctrines, derived from Egypt, 256.\nMater Matuta, Latin goddess of the dawn (note), 325, 327.\nMelchisedek, king of justice and king of peace, 407.\nMinerva, her name derived from an Etruscan word, 325.\n  goddess of mental activity, 325.\n  one of the three deities of the capitol, 325.\nMissionary work of Christianity, why checked, 506.\nMoabite inscription in the Hebrew dialect, 400.\nMohammed, recent works concerning, 448.\n  \"       lives of, by Muir, Sprenger, Weil, and others, 449.\n  \"       essays on his life by Babador, 450.\n  \"       prophecies of, in the Old Testament, 451.\n  \"       lived a private life for forty years, 454.\n  \"       his early religious tendencies, 454.\n  \"       his inspirations, 454.\n  \"       his biography in the Koran, 455.\n  \"       his mother's death, 456.\n  \"       his first converts, 457.\n  \"       protected by his tribe, 458.\n  \"       his temporary relapse, 460.\n  \"       and his followers persecuted, 461.\n  \"       his first teaching a modified Judaism, 463.\n  \"       his departure to Medina with his followers, 464.\n  \"       change in his character after the Hegira, 465.\n  \"       in his last ten years a political leader, 467.\n  \"       Goethe's view of his character, 468.\n  \"       his cruel treatment of the Jews, 469.\n  \"       his numerous wives, 470.\n  \"       his death and character, 471.\nMohammedanism, its special interest, 448.\n  \"            its essential doctrine the absolute unity of God, 472.\n  \"            its teaching concerning the Bible and Koran, 472.\n  \"            does not recognize human brotherhood, 473.\n  \"            among the Turks, its character, 473.\n  \"            promotes religious feeling, 474.\n  \"            inspires courage and resignation, 474.\n  \"            in Palestine, described by Miss Rogers, 475.\n  \"            in Central Arabia, described by Mr. Palgrave, 478.\n  \"            in Central Asia, described by M. Vamb\u00e9ry, 477.\n  \"            in Persia, described by Count Gobmeau, 477.\n  \"            in Egypt, described by Mr. Lane, 477.\n  \"            in Turkey, described by Mr. MacFarlane, 478, 484.\n  \"            in Northern Africa, described by Barth and Blerzey, 477,\n                 485.\n  \"            its character given by M. Renan, 485.\n  \"            its monotheism lower than that of Judaism and Christianity, 481.\n  \"            does not convert the Aryan races, 500.\n  \"            pure from Polytheism, 502.\n  \"            has a tendency to catholicity, 503.\n  \"            a relapse to a lower stand point, 483.\n  \"            summary of its good and evil influence, 484.\nMonotheism (or Dualism), the doctrine of the Avesta, 203.\nMontesquieu quoted, 357.\nMoses, his historic character, 409.\n  \"    described by Strabo (note), 410.\n  \"    his natural genius and temperament, 411.\n  \"    his seventy and tenderness, 412.\n  \"    his sense of justice embodied in law, 412.\n  \"    his object to teach the holiness of God, 413.\n  \"    defects of his character, 413.\n  \"    character of his monotheism, 414.\n  \"    his monotheism described by Stanley (note), 414.\n  \"    his anthropomorphic view of God, 415.\n  \"    his acquaintance with Egyptian learning, 416.\n  \"    nature of his inspiration, 417.\n  \"    political freedom secured to the Jews by his law, 418.\n  \"    object of his ceremonial law, 420.\nMythology of Scandinavia and that of Zoroaster compared, 384.\n\n\n\nN.\n\n\nNames of our week-days Scandinavian, 358.\nNeptunus, origin of the name, 328.\nNestorian inscription in China, 71-78.\nNjord, ruler of the winds, 378.\nNorthern and Southern Europe compared, 359.\nNorthmen in France, Spain, Italy, and Greece, 389.\nNumber of Christians in the world, 146.\n  \"    of Buddhists in the world, 146.\n  \"    of Jews in the world, 146.\n  \"    of Mohammedans in the world, 146.\n  \"    of Brahmans, 146.\nNyaya, system of philosophy, assumes three principles, 122.\n  \"    system of philosophy, described by Banerjea, 123.\n\n\n\nO.\n\n\nOdin, or All-father, eldest of the \u00c6sir, 377.\n  \"   corresponds to Ormazd, 385.\n  \"   his festival in the spring, 386.\nOpa, goddess of the harvest, 330.\n\n\n\nP.\n\n\nPales, a rural god, 330.\nPalestine, or the land of the Philistines, 397.\n  \"        resembles Greece and Switzerland, 397.\n  \"        its mountainous character, 397.\n  \"        a small country, 398.\n  \"        its mountains and valleys, 399.\nPalgrave, note giving an extract from his book, 486.\nPapacy, medi\u00e6val, good done by it, 350.\n  \"     a reproduction of the Roman state religion, 350.\nPars\u00ee religion, its influence on Judaism, 205.\n  \"     \"       its influence on Christianity, 204.\n  \"     \"       teaches a kingdom of heaven, 207.\n  \"     \"       still continues in Persia and India, 208.\nParthenon, the, temple of Minerva, described, 290.\nPenates, gods of home, 328.\nPersepolis, ruins of the palace of Xerxes at, 170.\n  \"         inscriptions of Darius and Xerxes at, 170.\n  \"         tombs of the kings of Persia at, 174.\nPharisees, Sadducets, and Essenei, 444.\nPhidias, his statue of Jupiter described, 288.\nPhilistines, probably Pelasgi from Crete, 421.\nPhilosophy, early Greek, 291.\n  \"         Greek, in Asia Minor, 291.\n  \"         in Italy, 292.\nPh\u0153nicians, their language a form of Hebrew, 400.\nPlato harmonizes realism and idealism, 293.\n  \"   his philosophy completes that of Socrates, 294.\n  \"   his method that of transcendentalism, 294.\n  \"   his idea of God pure and high, 295.\n  \"   Christian element in, 295.\nPliny, the elder, his view of religion, 345.\nPresent work, an essay, or attempt, 1.\n  \"      \"    companson of religions its object, 1.\nProphecy, a modification of inspiration, 438.\nProphets of the Old Testament, men of action, 440.\n  \"      politicians and constitutional lawyers, 440.\n  \"      preferred the moral law to ceremonial, 441.\n  \"      described by Dean Stanley, 441.\n  \"      their inspiration came through a common human faculty, 442.\n  \"      their predictions not always realized, 443.\n  \"      their foresight of Christianity, 443.\n  \"      developed Judaism to its highest point, 443.\nProverbs, Book of, in the Edda, 365.\nPontiffs, their authority, 336.\nPositivism, its law of progress examined, 489.\nPuranas, the, much read by the common people, 130.\n  \"      devoted to the worship of Vischnu, 131.\n  \"      extol the power of penances, 132.\n  \"      ideas those of the epics, 132.\n  \"      their philosophy that of the Sunkhya, 132.\n\n\n\nR.\n\n\nRamses II. a powerful king B.C. 1400, 233.\n  \"        supposed to be the same as Sesostris, 234.\n  \"        birth of Moses during his reign, 335.\nRecognition of God in nature, best element of Egyptian religion, 257.\nRelation of the religion of the Avesta to the Vedas, 201.\nResults of the survey of ten religions, 489.\n  \"     in regard to their resemblance and difference, 490.\nResemblance of the Roman Catholic ceremonies to those of Pagan Rome, 350.\nRoman calendar, described, 332.\nRoman Catholic Church, teaches an exclusive spiritualism, 143.\n  \"     \"        \"     is eminently a sacrificial system, 143.\n  \"     \"        \"     its monastic system an included Protestantism, 145.\nRoman deities adopted from Greece, 326.\n  \"     \"     manufactured by the pontiffs, 326.\n  \"     \"     representing the powers of nature, 327.\n  \"     \"     representing human relations, 328.\n  \"     \"     presiding over rural occupations, 330.\n  \"     \"     derived from the Etruscans, 327.\n  \"   empire gave to Christianity its outward form (note), 350.\n  \"     \"    united the several states of Europe, 350.\n  \"   law, its influence on Western theology, 351.\n  \"   legal notions transferred to theology, 352.\n  \"   mind, wanting in spontaneity, 316.\n  \"     \"   serious, practical, hard, 316.\n  \"   religion, an established church, 317.\n  \"     \"       regarded chiefly external conduct, 317.\n  \"     \"       tolerant of questions of opinion, 317.\n  \"     \"       not a mere copy from Greece, 318.\n  \"     \"       described by Hegel, 318.\n  \"     \"       described by Cicero, 317-319.\n  \"     \"       described by Mommsen, 319.\n  \"     \"       a polytheism, with monotheism behind it, 320.\n  \"     \"       deified all events, 321.\nRomans, as a race, whence derived, 319.\n  \"        \"       belong to the Aryan family, 319.\n  \"        \"       composed of Latins, Sabines, and Etruscans, 320.\n  \"        \"       related to the Pelasgi and Celts, 320.\n  \"     their oldest deities, Latin, Sabine, and Etruscan, 320.\nRoman sepulchral monuments, their tone, 346.\nRoman thought and Roman religion opposed, 342.\nRoman worship, very elaborate and minute, 331.\n  \"     \"      full of festivals, 331.\n  \"     \"      distinguished  between things sacred and profane, 331.\n  \"     \"      a yoke on the public life of the Romans, 334.\n  \"     \"      directed by the College of Pontiffs, 334.\n  \"     \"      chief seat in the Via Sacra, 335.\n  \"     \"      governed by etiquette, 335.\n  \"     \"      originally free from idolatry, 336.\n  \"     \"      acted like a charm, 340.\nRome, ancient, its legacy to Christianity, 353.\nRunes, Odin's song of, in the Edda, 368.\n\n\n\nS.\n\n\nSalii, ancient priests of Mars, 336.\nS\u00e1nkhya philosophy, 114.\n  \"     founded on two principles, 120.\n  \"     considered atheistic, 120.\n  \"     the basis of Buddhism, 121.\n  \"     a very ancient system, 122.\nSaturnus, Saturn, god of planting, 330.\nScandinavia, consisting of what regions, 358.\n  \"          surrounded by the sea, 358.\n  \"          its adaptation to the Teutonic race, 359.\n  \"          formerly inhabited by the Cimbri, 360.\n  \"          the home of the Northmen, 361.\nScandinavian religion, a system of dualism, 362.\n  \"            \"       war its essential idea, 362.\n  \"            \"       its virtues, truth, justice, courage, 362.\nScandinavians, their early history, 355.\n  \"            described by C\u00e6sar, 355.\n  \"            described by Tacitus, 356.\n  \"            a branch of the great German family, 357.\n  \"            their language, the Norse and its derivatives, 357.\n  \"            our inheritance from, 358.\n  \"            their manners and institutious, 387.\n  \"            their respect for women, 388.\n  \"            their Scalds, or bards, 388.\n  \"            their maritime expeditions, 389.\nSea-Kings of Norway, their discoveries, 361.\nSeat of the Scandinavian race, 355.\nSecrecy, the evil in Egyptian religion, 257.\nSemitic races, their character and exploits, 399.\n  \"       \"    great navigators and discoverers, 399.\n  \"       \"    identity of their languages, 400.\n  \"       \"    nations of which they consist, 399.\n  \"       \"    their religion and gods, 401.\n  \"       \"    their tendency to monotheism, 402.\nSeneca, his view of religion, 343, 344.\nSerapis, the same as Osiris-Apis, 257.\nSibylline books, derived from Greece, 336.\nSiculi, supposed to be Kelte (note), 320.\nSilvanus, god of the woods, 330.\nSiva, does not appear in the Vedas, 125.\n  \"   worshipped with Brahma and Vischnu at the present time, 127.\n  \"   worshipped in the Puranas, 132.\n  \"   girls worship him with flowers, 132.\n  \"   his wife Doorga, festival of, 134.\n  \"   men swing on hooks in honor of, 135.\nSolomon, and the relapse of Judaism, 428.\n  \"      a less interesting character than David, 429.\n  \"      his unscrupulous policy, 429.\n  \"      the splendor and power of his reign, 430.\n  \"      his alliances with Egypt, Phoenicia, and Arabia, 341.\n  \"      his temple described, 432.\n  \"      his Book of Proverbs and its character, 433.\n  \"      account of his last days, 434.\n  \"      his scepticism described in Ecclesiastes, 435.\nSocrates, his character and work, 293.\nSol, the sun, a Sabine deity, 327.\nSoma plant of the Veda, the Ha\u014fma, 202.\nSophocles, the most devout of the Greek tragedians, 284.\nSpiritualism, in Brahmanism and Christianity, 136.\nStoics, as described by Zeller, 296.\n\n\n\nT.\n\n\nTacitus, the spirit of his writings, 346.\nTae-Ping (or Ti-Ping) insurrection, its origin, 62.\n  \"                     \"           its leader the heavenly prince, 62.\n  \"                     \"           essentially a religious movement, 64.\n  \"                     \"           based on the Bible, 65.\nTae-Pings (or Ti-Pings), their prayers, 65.\n  \"                      their public religious exercises, 66.\n  \"                      their moral reforms, 68.\n  \"                      put down by British intervention, 68.\n  \"                      worshipped one God, and believed in Jesus, 69.\nTalmud, the, extracts from, 445.\nTao-te-king, its doctrines described, 54.\n     \"       resembles the system of Hegel, 54.\n     \"       its doctrine of opposites, 55.\n     \"       its resemblance to Buddhism, 55.\n     \"       its tendency to magic, 56.\nTellus, the earth, a Roman god, 330.\nTempestates, the tempests, worshipped at Rome, 327.\nTerminus, an old Italian god, 330.\nThree classes of Roman gods, 325.\nTiberinus, or father Tiber, a Roman god, 328.\nThings, or popular assemblies of the Scandinavians, 358.\nThor, his character and prowess, 377.\n  \"   his famous mallet, 378.\n  \"   his journey to Jotunheim, 374.\n  \"   his fight with the Midgard serpent, 376.\nTriad, the Hindoo, its origin, 124.\n  \"    compared with other Triads, 124.\nTrinity, Christian, derived from Egypt, 255.\nTrinity the, its meaning in Christianity, 500.\nTruths and errors of the different systems, 21.\nTyr, the Scandinavian war god, 379.\n  \"  how he lost his hand, 380, 383.\n\n\n\nU.\n\n\nUlphilas, the Arian, first Christian teacher of the Germans, 390.\n  \"       his translation of the Bible into Gothic tongue, 390.\n\n\n\nV.\n\n\nVedanta philosophy assumes a single principle, 116.\n  \"       \"        knows no substance but God, 119.\n  \"       \"        described by Chunder Dutt, 118.\n  \"       \"        souls absorbed in God, 119.\nVedas, the, when written, 89-99.\n  \"         their chief gods, 89-99.\n  \"         traces of monotheism in, 90.\n  \"         some hymns given, 91, 92, 93, 95.\nVedic literature, divided into four periods, 95.\n  \"     \"         contains Chhandas, Mantras, Br\u00e2hmans, Upanishads, S\u00fbtras,\n                    and Ved\u00e2ngas, 96.\n  \"     \"         at first not committed to writing, 97.\nVenus, an early Latin or gabine goddess, 325.\nVertumnus, god of gardens, 330.\nVesta, goddess of the hearth, 328.\nVestal Virgins, their duties, 337.\nVischnu, mentioned in the Rig-Veda as Sun-God, 125.\n  \"      his Avatars, 126.\n  \"      one of the Triad, 126.\n  \"      incarnate as Juggernaut, 133.\n  \"      worshipped as Krishna, 134, 135.\n  \"      worshipped in the Puranas, 132.\nV\u00f6luspa, or wisdom of Vala, extracts from, 364.\nVulcanus, an Italian deity, 328.\n\n\n\nW.\n\n\nWahhabee, revival in Arabia, described by Palgrave, 478.\nWedding ring, in Egypt and Christendom, 253.\nWelcker, his opinion of the substance of Greek religion, 286.\nWorks on Scandinavian religion (note), 362.\nWorship of the Scandinavians, 385.\n\n\n\nZ.\n\n\nZend Avesta, a collection of hymns, prayers, and thanksgivings, 187.\n  \"    \"     extracts from the Gathas, 188.\n  \"    \"     extract from the Khordah Avesta, 189.\n  \"    \"     hymn to the star Tistrya, 190.\n  \"    \"     hymn to Mithra, 190.\n  \"    \"     a confession of sin, 191.\nZoroaster, mentioned by Plato, Diodorus, and other classic writers, 175.\n  \"        account of him by Herodotus, 175.\n  \"        account of him by Plutarch, 176.\n  \"        inquiry as to his epoch, 180.\n  \"        resided in Bactria, 181.\n  \"        spirit of his religion, 182.\n  \"        he continually appears in the Avesta, 186.\n  \"        oppressed with the sight of evil, 184.\n\n\n\nThe End.\n\n\n\n\nFootnotes\n\n\n\n[1] It is one of the sagacious remarks of Goethe, that \"the eighteenth\ncentury tended to analysis, but the nineteenth will deal with synthesis.\"\n\n[2] Professor Cocker's work on \"Christianity and Creek Philosophy,\" should\nalso be mentioned.\n\n[3] James Foster has a sermon on \"The Advantages of a Revelation,\" in\nwhich he declares that, at the time of Christ's coming, \"just notions of\nGod were, in general, erased from the minds of men. His worship was\ndebased and polluted, and scarce any traces could be discerned of the\ngenuine and immutable religion of nature.\"\n\n[4] John Locke, in his \"Reasonableness of Christianity,\" says that when\nChrist came \"men had given themselves up into the hands of their priests,\nto fill their heads with false notions of the Deity, and their worship\nwith foolish rites, as they pleased; and what dread or craft once began,\ndevotion soon made sacred, and religion immutable.\" \"In this state of\ndarkness and ignorance of the true God, vice and superstition held the\nworld.\" Quotations of this sort might be indefinitely multiplied. See an\narticle by the present writer, in the \"Christian Examiner,\" March, 1857.\n\n[5] Mosheim's Church History, Vol. I. Chap. I.\n\n[6] Neander, Church History, Vol. I. p. 540 (Am. ed.).\n\n[7] Essays and Reviews, Article VI.\n\n[8] In this respect the type has changed.\n\n[9] The actual depth reached in the St. Louis well, before the enterprise\nwas abandoned, was 3,843\u00bd feet on August 9, 1869. This well was bored for\nthe use of the St. Louis County Insane Asylum, at the public expense. It\nwas commenced March 31, 1866, under the direction of Mr. Charles H.\nAtkeson. At the depth of 1,222 feet the water became saltish, then\nsulphury. The temperature of the water, at the bottom of the well, was\n105\u00b0F. Toward the end of the work it seemed as if the limit of the\nstrength of wood and iron had been reached. The poles often broke at\npoints two or three thousand feet down. \"Annual Report (1870) of the\nSuperintendent of the St. Louis County Insane Asylum.\"\n\n[10] Andrew Wilson (\"The Ever-Victorious Army, Blackwood, 1868\") says that\n\"the Chinese people stand unsurpassed, and probably unequalled, in regard\nto the possession of freedom and self-government.\" He denies that\ninfanticide is common in China. \"Indeed,\" says he, \"there is nothing a\nChinaman dreads so much as to die childless. Every Chinaman desires to\nhave as large a family as possible; and the labors of female children are\nvery profitable.\"\n\n[11] Quoted by Mr. Meadows, who warrants the correctness of the account.\n\"The Chinese and their Rebellions,\" p. 404.\n\n[12] Dr. Legge thus arranges the Sacred Books of China, or the Chinese\nClassics:--\n\n  A. The Five _King_. [_King_ means a web of cloth, or the warp which\n     keeps the threads in their place.]\n\n    (a) _Yih-King_. (Changes.)\n    (b) _Shoo-King_. (History.)\n    (c) _She-King_. (Odes.)\n    (d) _Le-Ke-King_. (Rites.)\n    (e) _Ch'un-Ts'eu_. (Spring and Autumn. Annals from B.C. 721 to 480.)\n\n  B. The Four Books.\n\n    (a) _Lun-Yu_. (Analects, or Table-Talk of Confucius.)\n    (b) _Ta-Hio_. (Great Learning. Written by _Tsang-Sin_, a disciple\n        of Confucius.)\n    (c) _Chung-Yung_ (or Doctrine of the Mean), ascribed to _Kung-Keih_,\n        the grandson of Confucius.\n    (d) Works of _Mencius_.\n\nAfter the death of Confucius there was a period in which the Sacred Books\nwere much corrupted, down to the _Han_ dynasty (B.C. 201 to A.D. 24),\nwhich collected, edited, and revised them: since which time they have been\nwatched with the greatest care.\n\n\"The evidence is complete that the Classical Books of China have come down\nfrom at least a century before our era, substantially the same as we have\nthem at present.\"--_Legge_, Vol. I. Chap. 1. \u00a7 2.\n\nThe Four Books have been translated into French, German, and English. Dr.\nMarshman translated the Lun-Yu. Mr. Collie afterward published at Calcutta\nthe Four Books. But within a few years the labors of previous sinologues\nhave been almost superseded by Dr. Legge's splendid work, still in process\nof publication. We have, as yet, only the volumes containing the Four\nBooks of Confucius and his successors, and a portion of the Kings. Dr.\nLegge's work is in Chinese and English, with copious notes and extracts\nfrom many Chinese commentators. In his notes, and his preliminary\ndissertations, he endeavors to do justice to Confucius and his doctrines.\nPerhaps he does not fully succeed in this, but it is evident that he\nrespects the Chinese sage, and is never willingly unfair to him. If to the\nbooks above mentioned be added the works, of Pauthier, Stanislas Julien,\nMohl, and other French sinologues, and the German works on the same\nsubject we have a sufficient apparatus for the study of Chinese thought.\n\n[13] \"On the top of his head was a remarkable formation, in consequence of\nwhich he was named Kew.\"--Legge, Vol. I. Chap. VI. (note).\n\n[14] Meadows, \"The Chinese and their Rebellions,\" p. 332.\n\n[15] Meadows, p. 342.\n\n[16] \"Le Tao-te-king, le livre de la voie et de la vertu, compos\u00e9 dans, la\nvie si\u00e8cle avant l'\u00e8re Chr\u00e9tienne, par le philosophe Lao-tseu, traduit par\nStanislas Julien. Paris, 1842.\"\n\n[17] \"Le livre des R\u00e9compenses et des Peines. Julien, 1835.\"\n\n[18] \"Seyn and Nichte ist Dasselbe.\" Hegel.\n\n[19] \"The meek shall inherit the earth.\"\n\n[20] See \"La Magie et l'Astrologie, par Alfred Maury.\"\n\n[21] Was it some pale reflection of this Oriental philosophy which took\nform in the ode of Horace, \"Integer vit\u00e6\" (i. 22), in which he describes\nthe portentous wolf which fled from him?\n\n[22] Meadows, p. 28.\n\n[23] Meadows, p. 18.\n\n[24] Ti-Ping Tien-Kwoh; The History of the Ti-Ping Revolution, by Lin-Le,\nspecial agent of the Ti-Ping General-in-Chief, &c. Davy and Son, London,\n1866. Vol. 1. p. 806.\n\nMr. Andrew Wilson, author of \"The Ever-Victorious Army\" (Blackwood, 1868),\nspeaks with much contempt of Lin-Le's book. In a note (page 389) he\nbrings, certain charges against the author. Mr. Wilson's book is written to\nglorify Gordon, Wood, and others, who accepted roving commissions against\nthe Ti-Pings; and of course he takes their view of the insurrection. The\naccusations he brings against Lin-Le, even if correct, do not detract from\nthe apparent accuracy of that writer's story, nor from the weight of his\narguments.\n\n[25] Ibid., Vol. I. p. 315. These forms are given, says the writer, partly\nfrom memory.\n\n[26] Hong-Kong Gazette, October 12, 1855.\n\n[27] Intervention and Non-Intervention, by A. G. Stapleton.\n\n[28] Official Papers of the Chinese Legation. Berlin: T. Calvary & Co.,\nOberwasser Square. 1870.\n\n[29] From Hue's \"Christianity in China.\"\n\n[30] Now usually written S\u00e1koontal\u00e1 or S\u00e1kuntal\u00e1.\n\n[31] To avoid multiplying footnotes, we refer here to the chief sources on\nwhich we rely in this chapter. _C. Lassen_, Indische Altherthumskunde;\n_Max M\u00fcller_, History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature (and other works);\n_J. Muir_, Sanskrit Texts; _Pictet_, Les Origines Indo-Europ\u00e9ennes; _Sir\nWilliam Jones_, Works, 13 vols.; _Vivian de Saint-Martin,_ Etude, &c., and\narticles in the Revue Germanique; _Monier Williams_, Sakoontal\u00e1 (a new\ntranslation), the R\u00e1may\u00e1na, and the Mah\u00e1 Bh\u00e1rata; _Horace Hayman Wilson_,\nWorks (containing the Vischnu Purana, &c.); _Burnouf_, Essai sur la V\u00eada,\nLe Bhagavata Purana; _Stephenson_, the Sanhita of the Sama Veda; _Amp\u00e8re_,\nLa Science en Orient; _Bunsen_, Gott in der Geschichte; _Shea_ and\n_Troyer_, The Dabistan; _Hardwick_, Christ and other Masters; _J. Talboys\nWheeler_, History of India from the Earliest Times; Works published by the\nOriental Translation Fund; _Max Duncker_, Die Geschichte der Arier;\n_Rammohun Roy_, The Veds; _Mullens,_ Hindoo Philosophy.\n\n[32] \"The soul knows no persons.\"--EMERSON.\n\n[33] All Indian dates older than 300 B.C. are uncertain. The reasons for\nthis one are given carefully and in full by Pictet.\n\n[34] Our English word _daughter_, together with the Greek \u03b8\u03c5\u03b3\u1f00\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1, the\nZend _dughdar_, the Persian _docktar_, &c., corresponds with the Sanskrit\n_duhitar_, which means both daughter and milkmaid.\n\n[35] _Hatchet_, in Sanskrit _takshani_, in Zend _tasha_, in Persian\n_tosh_, Greek \u03c4\u03cc\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2, Irish _tuagh_, Old German _deksa_, Polish _tasalc_,\nRussian _tesaku._ And what is remarkable, the root _tak_ appears in the\nname of the hatchet in the languages of the South Sea Islanders and the\nNorth American Indians.\n\n[36] M. Vivien de Saint-Martin has determined more precisely than has been\ndone before the primitive country of the Aryans, and the route followed by\nthem in penetrating into India. They descended through Cabul to the\nPunjaub, having previously reached Cabul from the region between the\nJaxartes and the Oxus.\n\n[37] The Rig-Veda distinguishes the Aryans from the Dasjus. Mr. Muir\nquotes a multitude of texts in which Indra is called upon to protect the\nformer and slay the latter.\n\n[38] Agni, whence Ignis, in Latin.\n\n[39] See Talboys Wheeler, \"History of India.\"\n\n[40] M\u00fcller's Ancient Sanskrit Literature, page 569. He adds the following\nremarks: \"There is nothing to prove that this hymn is of a particularly\nancient date. On the contrary, there are expressions in it which seem to\nbelong to a later age. But even if we assign the lowest possible date to\nthis and similar hymns certain it is that they existed during the Mantra\nperiod, and before the composition of the Br\u00e2hmanas. For, to spite of all\nthe indications of a modern date, I see no possibility how we could\naccount for the allusions to it which occur in the Br\u00e2hmanas, or for its\npresence in the Sanhit\u00e2s, unless we admit that this poem formed part of\nthe final collection of the Rig-veda-Sanhit\u00e2, the work of the Mantra\nperiod.\"\n\n[41] Max M\u00fcller translates \"breathed, breathless by itself; other than it\nnothing since has been.\"\n\n[42] Max M\u00fcller says, \"Love fell upon it.\"\n\n[43] M\u00fcller, Sanskrit Lit., p. 546.\n\n[44] M\u00fcller, Sanskrit Lit., p. 552.\n\n[45] Ibid., p. 553.\n\n[46] That heat was \"a form of motion\" was thus early discovered.\n\n[47] It is the opinion of Maine (\"Ancient Law\") and other eminent\nscholars, that this code was never fully accepted or enforced in India,\nand remained always an ideal of the perfect Brahmanic state.\n\n[48] See Vivien de Saint-Martin, Revue Germanique, July 16, 1862. The\nSarasvati is highly praised in the Rig-Veda. Talboys Wheeler, II. 429.\n\n[49] Max M\u00fcller, Sanskrit Lit., p. 425.\n\n[50] Institutes of Hindu Law, or the Ordinances of Manu, according to the\nGloss of Calluca, Calcutta, 1796, \u00a7\u00a7 5, 6, 7, 8.\n\n[51] See translation of the Sanhita of the Sama-Veda, by the Rev. J.\nStevenson. London, 1842.\n\n[52] Max M\u00fcller, \"Chips,\" Vol. I. p. 107.\n\n[53] Geschichte der Arier, Buch V. \u00a7 8.\n\n[54] Lassen, I. 830.\n\n[55] Laws of Manu (XII. 50) speaks of \"the two principles of nature in the\nphilosophy of Kapila.\"\n\n[56] Duncker, as above.\n\n[57] M\u00fcller, Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 102.\n\n[58] Colebrooke, Miscellaneous Essays, I. 349.\n\n[59] Lassen, I. 834.\n\n[60] Colebrooke, I. 350, 352.\n\n[61] Duncker, I. 204 (third edition, 1867).\n\n[62] The S\u00e1nkhya-K\u00e1rik\u00e1, translated by Colebrooke. Oxford, 1837.\n\n[63] Essay on the Vedanta, by Chunder Dutt. Calcutta, 1854.\n\n[64] Colebrooke, I. 262.\n\n[65] The Religious Aspects of Hindu Philosophy: A Prize Essay, by Joseph\nMullens, p. 43. London, 1860. See also Dialogues on the Hindu Philosophy,\nby Rev. K. M. Banerjea. London, 1861.\n\n[66] Mullens, p. 44.\n\n[67] Duncker, I. 205. He refers to Manu, II. 160.\n\n[68] The Bhagavat-Gita, an episode in the Maha-Bharata, in an authority\nwith the Vedantists.\n\n[69] Burnouf, Introduction \u00e0 l'Histoire du Buddhisme Indien, I. 511, 520.\nHe says that Sukya-Muni began his career with the ideas of the S\u00e1nkhya\nphilosophy, namely, absence of God; multiplicity and eternity of human\nsouls; an eternal plastic nature; transmigration; and Nirvana, or\ndeliverance by knowledge.\n\n[70] Cours de l'Histoire de Philosophie, I. 200 (Paris, 1829); quoted by\nHardwick, I. 211.\n\n[71] Karika, 8. \"It is owing to the subtilty of Nature ... that it is not\napprehended by the senses.\"\n\n[72] Karika, 19.\n\n[73] Karika, 58, 62, 63, 68.\n\n[74] Quoted from the Lalita Vistara in Dialogues on the Hindu Philosophy.\nBy Rev. R. M. Banerjea. London: Williams and Nordgate, 1861.\n\n[75] Muir, Sanskrit Texts, Part IV. p. 253.\n\n[76] Journal Am. Orient. Soc., III. 318.\n\n[77] Even in the grammatical forms of the Sanskrit verb, this threefold\ntendency of thought is indicated. It has an active, passive, and middle\nvoice (like that of the cognate Greek), and the reflex action of its\nmiddle voice corresponds to the Restorer or Preserver.\n\n[78] See Colebrooke, Lassen, &c.\n\n[79] Lassen, I. 838; II. 446.\n\n[80] See Muir, Sanskrit Texts, Part IV. p. 136.\n\n[81] Lassen, Ind. Alterthum, I. 357.\n\n[82] Max M\u00fcller, Sanskrit Lit., 37.\n\n[83] Ibid., p. 46.\n\n[84] Ind. Alterthum, I. 483-499. M\u00fcller, Sanskrit Lit., 62, _note_.\n\n[85] As of the Atheist in the Ramayana, Javali, who advises Rama to\ndisobey his dead father's commands, on the ground that the dead are\nnothing.\n\n[86] Preface to the Vischnu Purana, translated by Horace Hayman Wilson.\nLondon, 1864.\n\n[87] Duncker, Geschichte, &c., II. 318.\n\n[88] Preface to his English translation of the Vischnu Purana.\n\n[89] Translated by E. Burnouf into French.\n\n[90] The Ramayana, &c., by Monier Williams Baden Professor of Sanskrit at\nOxford.\n\n[91] Preface to the translation of the Vischnu Purana, by H. H. Wilson.\n\n[92] Kesson, \"The Cross and the Dragon\" (London, 1854), quoted by\nHardwick.\n\n[93] See Note to Chap. II. on the Nestorian inscription in China.\n\n[94] Illustrated Handbook of Architecture, p. 67.\n\n[95] Hardy, Eastern Monachism, p. 224. Fergusson, p. 9.\n\n[96] Fergusson, p. 10. Cunningham, Bhilsa Topes of India.\n\n[97] Upham, Sacred and Historical Books of Ceylon.\n\n[98] Here are a few of the guesses:--\n\n                  Cunningham, _Bhilsa Topes_.\n  Christians                                            270 millions.\n  Buddhist                                              222    \"\n\n                  Hassel, _Penny Cyclop\u00e6dia_.\n  Christians                                            120 millions.\n  Jews                                                    4    \"\n  Mohammedans                                           252    \"\n  Brahmans                                              111    \"\n  Buddhists                                             315    \"\n\n                  Johnston, _Physical Atlas_.\n  Christians                                            301 millions.\n  Jews                                                    5    \"\n  Brahmans                                              133    \"\n  Mohammedans                                           110    \"\n  Buddhists                                             245    \"\n\n              Perkins, _Johnson's American Atlas_.\n  Christians                                            369 millions.\n  Mohammedans                                           160    \"\n  Jews                                                    6    \"\n  Buddhists                                             320    \"\n\n                  _New American Cyclop\u00e6dia_.\n  Buddhists                                             290 millions.\n\nAnd Professor Newmann estimates the number of Buddhists at 369 millions.\n\n[99] Le Bouddha et sa Religion. Par J. Barth\u00e9lemy Saint-Hilaire.--Eastern\nMonachism. By Spence Hardy.--Burnouf, Introduction, etc.--Koeppen, Die\nReligion des Buddha.\n\n[100] The works from which this chapter has been mostly drawn are\nthese:--Introduction \u00e0 l'Histoire du Buddhisme indien. Par E. Burnouf.\n(Paris, 1844) Le Bouddha et sa Religion. Par J. Barth\u00e9lemy Saint-Hilaire.\n(Paris, 1860.) Eastern Monachism. By R. Spence Hardy. (London, 1850.) A\nManual of Buddhism in its Modern Development. By R. Spence Hardy. (London,\n1853.) Die Religion des Buddha. Von Karl F. Koeppen. (Berlin, 1857.)\nIndische Alterthumskunde. Von Christian Lassen. (Bonn, 1852.) Der\nBuddhismus, Seine Dogmen, Geschichte, und Literatur. Von W. Wassiljew.\n(St. Petersburg, 1860.) Ueber Buddha's Todesjahr. Von N. L. Westergaard.\n(Breslau, 1862.) Gott in der Geschichte. Von C. C. J. Bunsen. (Leipzig,\n1858.) The Bhilsa Topes, or Buddhist Monuments of Central India. By A.\nCunningham. (London, 1854.) Buddhism in Thibet. By Emil Schlagintweit.\n(Leipzig and London, 1863.) Travels in Eastern countries by Hue and Gabet,\nand others. Eeferences to Buddhism in the writings of Max M\u00fcller, Maurice,\nBaur, Hardwick, Fergusson, Pritchard, Wilson, Colebrooke, etc.\n\n[101] At the end of the fourth century of our era a Chinese Buddhist made\na pilgrimage to the birthplace of Buddha, and found the city in ruins.\nAnother Chinese pilgrim visited it A.D. 632, and was able to trace the\nremains of the ruined palace, and saw a room which had been occupied by\nBuddha. These travels have been translated from the Chinese by M.\nStanislas Julien.\n\n[102] _Buddha_ is not a proper name, but an official title. Just as we\nought not to say Jesus Christ, but always Jesus _the_ Christ, so we should\nsay _Sidd\u00e2rtha_ the Buddha, or _Sakya-muni_ the Buddha, or _Gautama_ the\nBuddha. The first of these names, Sidd\u00e2rtha (contracted from\n_Sarv\u00e2rtha-siddha_) was the baptismal name given by his father, and means\n\"The fulfilment of every wish.\" Sakya-muni means \"The hermit of the race\nof Sakya,\"--Sakya being the ancestral name of his father's race. The name\n_Gautama_ is stated by Koeppen to be \"der priesterliche Beiname des\nGeschlechts der Sakya,\"--whatever that may mean.\n\n[103] The Sanskrit root, whence the English \"bode\" and \"forebode,\" means\n\"to know.\"\n\n[104] Saint-Hilaire.\n\n[105] Bhilsa Topes.\n\n[106] Goethe, Faust.\n\n[107] Die Persischen Keilinscriften (Leipzig, 1847.) See also the account\nof the inscription at Behistun, in Lenormant's \"Manual of Ancient\nHistory.\"\n\n[108] Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies.--Duncker, Geschichte des\nAlterthums, B. II.--Heeren, The Persians.--Fergusson, Illustrated\nHand-Book of Architecture.--Creuzer, Schriften. See also the works of\nOppert, Hinks, Menant, and Lassen.\n\n[109] Vendidad, Fargard, XIX.--XLVI. Spiegel, translated into English by\nBleek.\n\n[110] Herodotus, I. 131.\n\n[111] Herodotus, in various parts of his history.\n\n[112] \"Plutarch's Morals. Translated from the Greek by several hands.\nLondon. Printed for W. Taylor, at the Ship in Pater-noster Eow. 1718.\"\nThis passage concerning Zoroaster is from the \"Isis and Osiris\" in Vol.\nIV. of this old translation. We have retained the antique terminology and\nspelling. (See also the new American edition of this translation. Boston,\nLittle and Brown, 1871.)\n\n[113] This is the Ha\u00f4ma spoken of on page 202.\n\n[114] These, with Ormazd, are the seven Amshaspands enumerated on page\n197.\n\n[115] See the account, on page 195, of these four periods of three\nthousand years each.\n\n[116] Kleuker (Anhang zum Zend Avesta) has given a full _r\u00e9sum\u00e9_ of the\nreferences to Zoroaster and his religion in the Greek and Roman writers.\nMore recently, Professor Bapp of Tubingen has gone over the same ground in\na very instructive essay in the Zeitschrift der Deutsohen Morgenl\u00e2ndisshen\nGesellschaft. (Leipzig, 1865.)\n\n[117] Anq. du Perron, Zend Avesta; Disc. Pr\u00e8lim., p. vi.\n\n[118] At the time Anquetil du Perron was thus laboring in the cause of\nscience in India, two other men were in the same region devoting\nthemselves with equal ardor to very different objects. Clive was laying\nthe foundations of the British dominion in India; Schwartz was giving\nhimself up to a life of toil in preaching the Gospel to the Hindoos. How\nlittle would these three men have sympathized with each other, or\nappreciated each other's work! And yet how important to the progress of\nhumanity was that of each!\n\n[119] And with this conclusion the later scholars agree. Burnouf, Lassen,\nSpiegel, Westergaard, Haug, Bunsen, Max M\u00fcller, Roth, all accept the Zend\nAvesta as containing in the main, if not the actual words of Zoroaster,\nyet authentic reminiscences of his teaching. The G\u00e2th\u00e2s of the Ya\u00e7na are\nnow considered to be the oldest part of the Avesta, as appears from the\ninvestigations of Haug and others. (See Dr. Martin Haug's translation and\ncommentary of the Five G\u00e2th\u00e2s of Zarathustra. Leipzig, 1860.)\n\n[120] Even good scholars often follow each other in a false direction for\nwant of a little independent thinking. The Greek of Plato was translated\nby a long succession of writers, \"Zoroaster the _son_ of Oromazes,\" until\nsome one happened to think that this genitive might imply a different\nrelation.\n\n[121] Duncker (Gesch. des Alterthums, B. II.) gives at length the reasons\nwhich prove Zoroaster and the Avesta to have originated in Bactria.\n\n[122] Duncker (B. II. s. 483). So D\u00f6llinger.\n\n[123] Egypt's Place in Universal History, Vol. III. p. 471.\n\n[124] Eran, das Land zwischen dem Indus und Tigris.\n\n[125] Journal of the Am. Or. Soc., Vol. V. No. 2, p. 353.\n\n[126] The Gentile and Jew, Vol. I. p. 380.\n\n[127] Five Great Monarchies, Vol. III. p. 94.\n\n[128] Essays, &c., by Martin Haug, p. 255.\n\n[129] Die Religion und Sitte der Perser. Von Dr. Adolf Rapp. (1865.)\n\n[130] Bunsen, Egypt, Vol. III. p. 455.\n\n[131] Written in the thirteenth century after Christ. An English\ntranslation may be found in Dr. J. Wilson's \"P\u00e2rs\u00ee Religion.\"\n\n[132] Chips, Vol. I. p. 88.\n\n[133] So Mr. Emerson, in one of those observations which give us a system\nof philosophy in a sentence, says, \"The soul knows no persons.\" Perhaps he\nshould have said, \"The Spirit.\"\n\n[134] Islam is, in this sense, a moral religion, its root consisting in\nobedience to Allah and his prophet. Sufism, a Mohammedan mysticism, is a\nheresy.\n\n[135] Vendidad, Farg. I. 3. \"Therefore Angra-Mainyus, the death-dealing,\ncreated a mighty serpent and snow.\" The _serpent_ entering into the Iranic\nEden is one of the curious coincidences of the Iranic and Hebrew\ntraditions.\n\n[136] Lyell, Principles of Geology (eighth edition), p. 77.\n\n[137] Idem., p. 83. A similar change from a temperate climate to extreme\ncold has taken place in Greenland within five or six centuries.\n\n[138] The Da\u00eavas, or evil spirits of the Zend books, are the same as the\nD\u00eavas, or Gods of the Sanskrit religion.\n\n[139] The Patets are formularies of confession. They are written in P\u00e2rs\u00ee,\nwith occasional passages inserted in Zend.\n\n[140] Zoroast. Stud. 1863.\n\n[141] Vendidad, Fargard XIX. 33, 44, 55.\n\n[142] The Albordj of the Zend books is doubtless the modern range of the\nElbrooz. This mighty chain comes from the Caucasus into the northern\nfrontier of Persia. See a description of this region in \"Histoire des\nPerses, par le Comte de Gobineau. Paris, 1869.\"\n\n[143] See Burnouf, Comment, sur le Ya\u00e7na, p. 528. Flotard, La Religion\nprimitive des Indo-Europ\u00e9ens. 1864.\n\n[144] Vendidad, Fargard X. 17.\n\n[145] See Spiegel's note to the tenth Fargard of the Vendidad.\n\n[146] See Windischmann, \"Ueber den Soma-Cultus der Arien.\"\n\n[147] Perhaps one of the most widely diffused appellations is that of the\ndivine being. We can trace this very word _divine_ back to the ancient\nroot _Div_, meaning to shine. From this is derived the Sanskrit Devas, the\nZend Da\u00eava. the Latin Deus, the German Zio, the Greek Zeus, and also\nJupiter (from Djaus-piter). See Spiegel, Zend Avesta, Einleitung, Cap. I.\n\n[148] Spiegel, Vend. Farg. XIX. note.\n\n[149] Vendidad, Farg. XVIII. 110. Farvardin-Yasht, XVI.\n\n[150] Article in Revue des Deux Mondes, April, 1865.\n\n[151] Article in Revue des Deux Mondes, April, 1865.\n\n[152] Other Egyptologists would not agree to this antiquity.\n\n[153] Revue des Deux Mondes, September 1, 1887.\n\n[154] Revue des Deux Mondes, p. 195.\n\n[155] Yet this very organic religion, \"incorporate in blood and frame,\"\nwas a preparation for Christianity; and Dr. Brugsch (Aus dem Orient, p.\n73) remarks, that \"exactly in Egypt did Christianity find most martyrs;\nand it is no accident, but a part of the Divine plan, that in the very\nregion where the rock-cut temples and tombs are covered with memorials of\nthe ancient gods and kings, there, by their side, other numerous rock-cut\ninscriptions tell of a yet more profound faith and devotion born of\nChristianity.\"\n\n[156] It is yet marked in the almanacs as Candlemas Day, or the\nPurification of the Virgin Mary.\n\n[157] De Roug\u00e9, Revue Arch\u00e9ologique, 1853.\n\n[158] Amp\u00e8re, Revue Arch. 1849, quoted by D\u00f6llinger.\n\n[159] These designations are the Greek form of the official titles.\n\n[160] I do not know if it has been noticed that the principle of\nSwedenborg's. heaven was anticipated by Milton (Paradise Lost, V. 573),--\n\n                    \"What surmounts the reach\n    Of human sense I shall delineate so\n    By likening spiritual to corporeal forms,\n    As may express them best; _though what if Earth\n    Be but the shadow of Heaven, and things therein.\n    Each to the other like, more than on earth is thought_.\"\n\n\n\n[161] Bunsen, Egypt's Place, Vol. V. p. 129, _note_.\n\n[162] This Museum also contains three large mummies of the sacred bull of\nApis, a gold ring of Suphis, a gold necklace with the name of Menes, and\nmany other remarkable antiquities.\n\n[163] Book of Job, Chap. xxix.\n\n[164] Brugsch, as above.\n\n[165] Lenormant, Ancient History of the East, I. 234, in the English\ntranslation.\n\n[166] Translated by De Roug\u00e9. See Revue Contemporaine, August, 1856.\n\n[167] Egypt 3300 Years ago. By Lanoye.\n\n[168] Beside the monuments and the papyri, we have as sources of\ninformation the remains of the Egyptian historians Manetho and\nEratosthenes; the Greek accounts of Egypt by Herodotus, Plato, Diodorus\nSiculus, Plutarch, Jamblichus; and the modern researches of Heeren,\nChampollion, Rossalini, Young, Wilkinson. The more recent writers to be\nconsulted are as follows:--\n\nBunsen's \"\u00c6gypten's Stelle in der Weltgeschichte. Hamburg.\" (First volume\nprinted in 1845.) This great work was translated by C. C. Cottrel in five\n8vo volumes, the last published in 1867, after the death of both author\nand translator. The fifth volume of the translation contains a full\ntranslation of the \"Book of the Dead,\" by the learned Samuel Birch of the\nBritish Museum.\n\nEssays in the Revue Arch\u00e9ologique and other learned periodicals, by the\nVicomte de Roug\u00e9, Professor of Egyptian Philology at Paris. Works by M.\nChabas, M. Mariette, De Brugsch, \"Aus dem Orient,\" etc., Samuel Sharpe, A.\nMaury, Lepsius, and others.\n\n[169] The Egyptian doctrine of transmigration differed from that of the\nHindoos in this respect, that no idea of retribution seems to be connected\nwith it. According to Herodotus (II. 123), the soul must pass through all\nanimals, fishes, insects, and birds; in short, must complete the whole\ncircuit of animated existence, before it again enters the body of a man;\n\"and this circuit of the soul,\" he adds, \"is performed in three thousand\nyears.\" According to him, it does not begin \"until the body decays.\" This\nmay give us one explanation of the system of embalming; for if the circuit\nof transmigration is limited to three thousand years, and the soul cannot\nleave the body till it decays (the words of Herodotus are, \"the body\ndecaying,\" \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03b8\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2), then if embalming delays decay\nfor one thousand years, so much is taken off from the journey through\nanimals. That the soul was believed to be kept with the body as long as it\nwas undecayed is also expressly stated by Servius (Comm. on the \u00c6neid of\nVirgil): \"The learned Egyptians preserve the corpse from decay in tombs in\norder that its soul shall remain with it, and not quickly pass into other\nbodies.\"\n\nHence, too, the extraordinary pains taken in ornamenting the tombs, as the\npermanent homes of the dead during a long period. Diodorus says that they\nornamented the tombs as the enduring residences of mankind.\n\nTransmigration in India was retribution, but in Egypt it seems to have\nbeen a condition of progress. It was going back into the lower\norganizations, to gather up all their varied life, to add to our own. So\nTennyson suggests,--\n\n    \"If, through lower lives I came,\n    Though all experience past became\n    Consolidate in mind and frame,\" etc.\n\nBeside the reason for embalming given above, there may have been the\nmotive arising from the respect for bodily organization, so deeply rooted\nin the Egyptian mind.\n\n[170] Animals and plants, more than anything else, and animals more than\nplants, are the types of variety; they embody that great law of\ndifferentiation, one of the main laws of the universe, the law which is\nopposed to that of unity, the law of centrifugal force, expressed in our\nhumble proverb, \"It takes all sorts of people to make a world.\"\n\n[171] Maury, \"Revue des Deux Mondes, 1867.\" \"Man's Origin and Destiny, J.\nP. Lesley, 1868.\" \"Recherches sur les Monumens, etc., par M. de Roug\u00e9,\n1866.\"\n\n[172] Article \"\u00c6gypten,\" in Schenkel's Bibel-Lexicon, 1869. Duncker,\n\"Geschichte des Alterthums, Dritte Auflage, 1863.\"\n\n[173] See Duncker, as above.\n\n[174] Les Pasteurs en Egypt, par F. Chabas. Amsterdam, 1868.\n\n[175] The \"hornets,\" Ex. xxiii. 28, and Josh. xxiv. 11, 12, are not\ninsects, but the Hyks\u00f4s, who, driven from Egypt were overrunning Syria.\nSee New York Nation, article on the Hyks\u00f4s, May 13, 1869.\n\n[176] Pap. Tallier (Bunsen IV. 671) as translated by De Roug\u00e9, Goodwin,\n&c.: \"In the days when the land of Egypt was held by the invaders, King\nApapi (at Avaris) set up Sutekh for his lord; he worshipped no other god\nin the whole land.\"\n\n[177] I follow here De Roug\u00e9, Brugsch, and Duncker, rather than Bunsen.\n\n[178] Athen\u00e6um Fran\u00e7ais, 1856.\n\n[179] Lesley, Man's Origin and Destiny, p. 149. Brugsch, Aus dem Orient,\np. 37.\n\n[180] A common title on the monuments for the king is Per-aa, in the\ndialect of Upper Egypt, Pher-ao in that of Lower Egypt, meaning \"The lofty\nhouse,\" equivalent to the modern Turkish title, \"The Sublime Porte.\"\n\n[181] \"\u00c6gypten und die B\u00fccher Mosis, von Dr. Georg Ebers. Leipzig, 1868.\"\n\"Bunsen, Bibel-Werk,\" Erster Theil, p. 63.\n\n[182] \u00c6schylus calls the Egyptian sailors \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03c7\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2. Lucian calls a young\nEgyptian \"black-skinned,\" but Ammianus Marcellinus says, \"\u00c6gyptii plerique\nsubfusculi sunt et atrati.\"\n\n[183] \"\u00c6gypten und die B\u00fccher Mosis, von Ebers, Vol. I. p. 43.\"\n\n[184] \"Th. Benfey, Ueber das verh\u00e4ltniss der \u00e4gypt\u00eeschen Sprache zum\nsemitischen Sprachstamme, 1844.\"\n\n[185] \u00c6gypten, &c.\n\n[186] \"The skulls of the mummies agree with history in proving that Egypt\nwas peopled with a variety of tribes; and physiologists, when speaking\nmore exactly, have divided them into three classes. The first is the\nEgyptian proper, whose skull is shaped like the heads of the ancient\nTheban statues and the modern Nubians. The second is a race of men more\nlike the Europeans, and these mummies become more common as we approach\nthe Delta. These are perhaps the same as the modern Copts. The third is of\nan Arab race, and are like the heads of the laborers in the\npictures.\"--Sharpe, Hist. of Egypt, I. 3. He refers to Morton's Crania\n\u00c6gyptiaca for his authority.\n\nPrichard (Nat. Hist. of Man and Researches, &c.), after a full examination\nof the question concerning the ethnical relations of the Egyptians, and of\nMorton's craniological researches, concludes in favor of an Asiatic origin\nof the Egyptians, connected with an amalgamation with the African\nautocthones.\n\n[187] \"Dieser V\u00f6lkerschaften gehorten der kaukasischen Race an; ihre\nSprachen waren dem Semitischen am n\u00e4chsten Verwandt.\" G. des A. I. 11.\n\n[188] Brugsch derives it from Ki-Ptah = worshippers of Ptah.\n\n[189] Plato, Tim\u00e6us. Herod. II. 59. Gutschmidt and others deny this\netymologic relation of Neith to Ath\u00ean\u00ea.\n\n[190] \"There is a profound consolation hidden in the old Egyptian\ninscribed rocks. They show us that the weird figures, half man and half\nbeast, which we find carved and painted there, were not the true gods of\nEgypt, but politico-religious masks, concealing the true godhead. These\nrocks teach that the real object of worship was the one undivided Being,\nexisting from the Beginning, Creator of all things, revealing himself to\nthe illuminated soul as the Mosaic \"I AM THE I AM.\" It is true that this\npure doctrine was taught only to the initiated, and the stones forbid it\nto be published. 'This is a hidden mystery; tell it to no one; let it be\nseen by no eye, heard by no ear: only thou and thy teacher shall possess\nthis knowledge.'\" Brugsch, Aus dem Orient, p. 69.\n\nMay not one reason for concealing this doctrine of the unity and\nspirituality of God have been the stress of the African mind to variety\nand bodily form? The priests feared to encounter this great current of\nsentiment in the people, and so outwardly conformed to it.\n\n[191] So says Wilkinson.\n\n[192] The finger on the mouth symbolizes, not silence, but childhood.\n\n[193] The name \"Mut\" was also given to Neith, Pacht, and Isis.\n\n[194] Brugsch, Aus dem Orient, p. 48.\n\n[195] See Merivale, Conversion of the Northern Nations, p. 187, note,\nwhere he gives examples of \"the inveterate lingering of Pagan usages among\nthe nominally converted.\" But many of these were sanctioned by the\nCatholic Church.\n\n[196] Kenrick, I. 372 (American edition).\n\n[197] See for proofs, Egyptian Mythology and Egyptian Christianity, by\nSamuel Sharpe, 1863.\n\n[198] Sharpe, Egyptian Mythology and Egyptian Christianity.\n\n[199] Sharpe, as above.\n\n[200] The earliest form of the Christian doctrine of the atonement was\nthat the Devil killed Jesus in ignorance of his divine nature. The Devil\nwas thus deceived into doing what he had no right to do, consequently he\nwas obliged to pay for this by giving up the souls of sinners to which he\nhad a right. The Osiris myth of the death of a god, which deeply colored\nthe mysteries of Adonis and Eleusis, took its last form im this peculiar\ndoctrine of atonement.\n\n[201] Hase, Kirchengeschichte, \u00a7 87.\n\n[202] Which continues in Christianity, in spite of Paul's plain statement,\n\"Thou sowest _not_ the body which shall be.\"\n\n[203] Serapis was not a god of the Pharaonic times, but came into Egypt\nunder the Ptolemies. But lately M. Mariette has shown that Serapis was the\ndead bull Apis = Osiris-Apis. (\u1f48\u03c3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b9\u03c2.)\n\n[204] Mr. Grote (Vol. II. p. 222, American edition) refers to Strabo's\nremark on the great superiority of Europe over Asia and Africa in regard\nto the intersection and interpenetration of the land by the sea. He also\nquotes Cicero, who says that all Greece is in close contact to the sea,\nand only two or three tribes separated from it, while the Greek islands\nswim among the waves with their customs and institutions. He says that the\nancients remarked the greater activity, mutability, and variety in the\nlife of maritime nations.\n\n[205] Mr. Buckle is almost the only marked exception. He nowhere\nrecognizes the doctrine of race.\n\n[206] The ox is, in Sanskrit _go_ or _ga\u00fbs_, in Latin _bos_, in Greek \u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2.\n\nThe horse is, in Sanskrit _a\u00e7va_, in Zend _a\u00e7pa_, in Greek \u1f35\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, in Latin\n_equus_.\n\nThe sheep is, in Sanskrit _avis_, in Latin _ovis_, in Greek \u1f44\u03cas.\n\nThe goose is, in Sanskrit _hansa_, in Latin _anser_, in Old German _kans_,\nin Greek \u03c7\u03ae\u03bd.\n\nHouse is, in Sanskrit _dama_, in Latin _domus_, in Greek \u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2. Door is,\nin Sanskrit _dv\u00e2r_ or _du\u00e2ra_, in Greek \u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1, in Irish _doras_.\n\nBoat or ship is, in Sanskrit _na\u00fbs_, in Latin _navis_, in Greek \u03bd\u03b1\u03cd\u03c2. Oar\nis, in Sanskrit _aritram_, in Greek \u1f10\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 in Latin _remus_.\n\nThe Greeks distinguished themselves from the Barbarians as a grain-eating\nrace. Barbarians ate acorns.\n\n[207] Herod., I. 56, 57, 146; II. 51, 171; IV. 145; V. 26; VI. 137; VII.\n94; VIII. 44, 73.\n\n[208] Maury, Histoire des Religions de la Gr\u00e8ce Antique, Chap. I. p. 5. He\nmentions several Pelasgic words which seem to be identical with old\nItalian or Etruscan names.\n\n[209] M\u00fcller, Dorians, Introduction, \u00a7 10.\n\n[210] Griechische Gotterlehre, Einleitung, \u00a7 6.\n\n[211] See M\u00fcller, Dorians.\n\n[212] Symbolik und Mythologie, Th. III., Heft 1, chap. 5, \u00a7 1.\n\n[213] Herod. II. 50 _et seq_.\n\n[214] Among the ancients \u039f\u03bd\u1f78\u03bc\u03b1 often had this force. It denoted\npersonality. The meaning, therefore, of Herodotus is that the Egyptians\ntaught the Greeks to give their deities proper names, instead of common\nnames. A proper name is the sign of personality.\n\n[215] Maury, Religions de la Gr\u00e8ce, III. 263.\n\n[216] Diod. Sic., I. 92-96.\n\n[217] Gerhard, Griechische Mythologie, \u00a7 50, Vol. 1.\n\n[218] Mr. Grote (History of Greece, Part I. Chap. 1.) maintains that\nHeaven, Night, Sleep, and Dream \"are Persons, just as much as Zeus and\nApollo.\" I confess that I can hardly understand his meaning. The first\nhave neither personal qualities, personal life, personal history, nor\npersonal experience; they appear only as vast abstractions, and so\ndisappear again.\n\n[219] Keats, in his Hyperion, is the only modern poet who has caught the\nspirit of the mighty Titanic deities and is able to speak\n\n    \"In the large utterance of the early gods.\"\n\n[220] Pictet, Les Origines Indo-Europ\u00e9enes.\n\n[221] B.C. 1104. D\u00f6llinger.\n\n[222] Die Dorier, X. 9.\n\n[223] Ottfried M\u00fcller, Die Dorier.\n\n[224] Varro, quoted by Maury.\n\n[225] Dione was the female Jupiter, her name meaning simply \"the goddess,\"\nidentical with the Italic \"Juno,\" formed from \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n[226] But not the same character. At Dodona he was invoked as the Eternal.\nPausanias (X. c. 12, \u00a7 5) says that the priestesses of that shrine used\nthis formula in their prayer: \"Zeus was, Zeus is, Zeus shall be! O great\nZeus!\" On Olympus he was not conceived as eternal, but only as immortal.\n\n[227] Rev. G. W. Cox (A Manual of Mythology, London, 1867. The Mythology\nof the Aryan Nations, London, 1870) has shown much ingenuity in his\nefforts to trace the myths and legends of the Greeks, Germans, etc., back\nto some original metaphors in the old Vedic speech, most of which relate\nto the movements of the sun, and the phenomena of the heavens. It seems\nprobable that he carries this too far; for why cannot later ages originate\nmyths as well as the earlier? The analogies by which he seeks to\napproximate Greek, Scandinavian, and Hindoo stories are often fanciful.\nAnd the sun plays so overwhelming a part in this drama, that it reminds\none of the picture in \"Hermann and Dorothea,\" of the traveller who looked\nat the sun till he could see nothing else.\n\n    \"Schweben sichet ihr Bild, wohin er die Blicke nur wendet.\"\n\n\n\n[228] See Le Sentiment Religieux en Gr\u00e8ce, d'Hom\u00e8re \u00e0 Eschyle, par Jules\nGirard, Paris, 1869.\n\n[229] Iliad, Book I. v. 600.\n\n[230] Margaret Fuller used to distinguish Apollo and Bacchus as Genius and\nGeniality.\n\n[231] Isthmian, VI.\n\n[232] Pythian, II.\n\n[233] Nemean, VI.\n\n[234] God in History, IV. 10.\n\n[235] \"Atrocem animam Catonis.\"--Horace.\n\n[236] Antigon\u00ea, 450.\n\n[237] Yet, even in Euripides, we meet a strain like that (Hecuba, line\n800), which we may render as follows:--\n\n    \"For, though perhaps we may be helpless slaves,\n    Yet are the gods most strong, and over them\n    Sits LAW supreme. The gods are under law,--\n    So do we judge,--and therefore we can live\n    While right and wrong stand separate forever.\"\n\n\n[238] See the original in Herder's Greek text, Hellenische Blumenlese, and\nin Cudworth's Intellectual System.\n\n[239] Welcker, Grieschische Gotterlehre, \u00a7 25.\n\n[240] Ottfried M\u00fcller, History of Greek Art, \u00a7\u00a7 115, 347.\n\n[241] Oxford Prize Poems, Poem for 1812.\n\n[242] \u1f49 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2\u00b7 \u03ba\u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f72\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b1\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fb7, \u1f45\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f45\u03bb\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u1ff3, \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f45\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd.--Clem. Alex. Cohort. ad gentes.\n\n[243] Monotheism among the Greeks, translated in the Contemporary Review,\nMarch, 1867. Victor Cousin, Fragments de Philosophie Ancienne.\n\n[244] Quotations from Aristotle, in Rixner, I. \u00a7 75.\n\n[245] See Rixner, Zeller, and the poem of Empedocles on the Nature of\nThings (\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2), especially the commencement of the Third Book.\n\n[246] His famous doctrine, that \"man is the measure of all things,\" meant\nthat there is nothing true but that which appears to man to be so at any\nmoment. He taught, as we should now say, the subjectivity of knowledge.\n\n[247] Zeller, as before cited.\n\n[248] Geschichte der Philosophie.\n\n[249] The sentence which Plato wrote over his door, \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b5\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03af\u03c4\u03c9, probably means, \"Let no one enter who has not _definite_\nthoughts.\" So Goethe declared that _outline_ went deepest into the\nmysteries of nature.\n\n[250] For Proofs, see Ackermann, Cudworth, Tayler Lewis, and the\nNew-Englander, October, 1869.\n\n[251] Page 28, German edition.\n\n[252] Laws, X. 893.\n\n[253] Tim\u00e6us, IX.\n\n[254] Laws, IV. 715.\n\n[255] Zeller, as above. Also Zeller, \"Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics,\"\ntranslated by Reichel. London: Longmans, 1870.\n\n[256] Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, p. 140.\n\n[257] Mr. Fergusson thinks the peristyle not intended for an ambulatory,\nbut is unable to assign any other satisfactory purpose.\n\n[258] Illustrated Hand-Book of Architecture.\n\n[259] Plutarch, quoted by D\u00f6llinger.\n\n[260] Buckley's translation, in Bohn's Classical Library.\n\n[261] Ibid.\n\n[262] Republic, II. 17. See D\u00f6llinger's discussion of this subject, in\n\"The Gentile and the Jew,\" English translation, Vol. I. p. 125.\n\n[263] Advancement of Learning.\n\n[264] Ottfried M\u00fcller has shown that some of these writings existed in the\ntime of Euripides.\n\n[265] Cudworth's Intellectual System, I. 403 (Am. ed.). Rixner, Handbuch\nder Geschichte der Philosophie, Anhang, Vol. I.\n\n[266] Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. IV. p. 71.\n\n[267] Christianity and Greek Philosophy. By B. F. Cocker, D.D. New York:\nHarper and Brothers. 1870.\n\n[268] See Neander, Church History, Vol I. p. 88, American edition.\n\n[269] Hegel's Philosophic in W\u00f6rtlichen Aus\u00fczgen. Berlin, 1843.\n\n[270] Romische Geschichte, von Theodor Mommsen, Kap. XII.\n\n[271] Janus, Picus, Faunus, Romulus, were _indigites_. Funke, Real\nLexicon.\n\n[272] See Niebuhr's Lectures on the History of Rome, for facts concerning\nthe Siculi. The sound _el_ appears in Keltic, Gael, Welsch, Welsh,\nBelgians, Gauls, Galatians, etc. M. Grotefend (as quoted by Guigniaut, in\nhis notes to Creuzer) accepts this Keltic origin of the Siculi, believing\nthat they entered Italy from the northwest, and were gradually driven\nfarther south till they reached Sicily. Those who expelled them were the\nPelasgic races, who passed from Asia, south of the Caspian and Black Seas,\nthrough Asia Minor and Greece, preceding the Hellenic races. This accounts\nfor the statement of Herodotus that the Pelasgi came from Lydia in Asia\nMinor, without our being obliged to assume that they came by sea,--a fact\nhighly improbable. They were called Tyrrheanians, not from any city or\nking of Lydia, but, as M. Lepsius believes, from the Greek \u03c4\u03cd\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03b9\u03c2 (Latin,\n_turris_), a tower, because of their Cyclopean masonry. The Roman state,\non this supposition, may have owed its origin to the union of the two\ngreat Aryan races, the Kelts and Pelasgi.\n\n[273] Mythologie der Griechen und Romer, von Dr. M. W. Heffter. Leipzig,\n1854.\n\n[274] And so our word \"janitor\" comes to us from this very old Italian\ndeity.\n\n[275] Amp\u00e8re, L'Histoire Romaine.\n\n[276] This seems to us more probable than Buttman's opinion, that the\ntemple of Janus was originally by the gate of the city, which gate was\nopen in war and closed in peace. In practice, it would probably be\ndifferent.\n\n[277] \"Quis ignorat vel dictum vel conditum a Jano Janiculum?\" Solinus,\nII. 3, quoted by Amp\u00e8re.\n\n[278]\n\n    \"Arx mea collis erat, quem cultrix nomine nostro\n    Nuncupat h\u00e6c \u00e6tas, Janiculumque vocat.\"--Fasti, I. 245.\n\n\n\n[279] Mater Matuta (\"matutina,\" matinal) was a Latin goddess of the dawn,\nwho was absorbed into Juno, as often happened to the old Italian deities.\nHartung says: \"There was no limit to the superficial levity with which the\nRomans changed their worship.\"\n\n[280] The Etruscans worshipped a goddess named Menerfa or\nMenfra.--Heffter.\n\n[281] Heffter, p. 525. _Cloaca_ is derived from _cluere_, which means _to\nwash away._ Libertina or Libitina is the goddess of funerals.\n\n[282] Republic, II. 19.\n\n[283] Hartung.\n\n[284] \"Diis quos superiores et involutes vocant.\"--Seneca, Qu\u00e6st. Nat.,\nII. 41.\n\n[285] \"De re rustica\"; quoted by Merivale in the Preface to The Conversion\nof the Roman Empire.\n\n[286] From the same root come our words \"fate,\" \"fanatic,\" etc. \"Fanaticum\ndicitur arbor fulmine icta.\"--Festus, 69.\n\n[287] From \"sacrare\" or \"consecrare.\" Hence sacrament and sacerdotal.\n\n[288] The word \"calendar\" is itself derived from the Roman \"Kalends,\" the\nfirst day of the month.\n\n[289] See Merivale, The Conversion of the Roman Empire, Lect. IV. p. 74.\n\n[290] D\u00f6llinger, Gentile and Jew. Funke, Real Lexicon. Festus.\n\n[291] Book I. 592.\n\n[292] IV. 593.\n\n[293] De Divinatione, II. 12, etc.\n\n[294] A Greek epigram, recently translated, alludes to the same fact:--\n\n    \"Honey and milk are sacrifice to thee,\n    Kind Hermes, inexpensive deity.\n    But Hercules demands a lamb each day,\n    For keeping, so he says, the wolves away.\n    Imports it much, meek browsers of the sod,\n    Whether a wolf devour you, or a god?\"\n\n\n\n[295] Gibbon, Decline and Fall, Chap. II.\n\n[296] Conversion of the Roman Empire, Note A.\n\n[297] \"Expedit civitates falli in religione,\" said Varro.\n\n[298] \"Philosophia sapienti\u00e6 amor est.\" \"Nec philosophia sine virtute, nec\nsine philosophia virtus.\" Epist. XCI. 5.\n\n[299] \"Physica non faciunt bonos, sed doctos.\" Epist. CVI. 11.\n\n[300] \"Bonum est, quod ad se impetum animi secundum naturam movet.\" Epist.\nCXVIII. 9.\n\n[301] \"Universa ex materia et Deo constant.\" Epist. LXV. 24.\n\n[302] \"Socii Dei sumus et membra. Prope a te Deus est, tecum est, intus\nest. Sacer intra nos Spiritus sedet, malorum bonorumque nostrorum\nobservator et custos. Deus ad homines venit; immo, in homines.\" Epist.\nXCII. 41, 73.\n\n[303] Arrian's \"Discourses of Epictetus,\" III. 24.\n\n[304] Lectures on the History of Rome, III. 247.\n\n[305] Monolog., X. 14.\n\n[306] Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, p. 150.\n\n[307] Quoted by Neander, Church History, I. 10 (Am. ed.).\n\n[308] Gott in der Geschichte, Zweiter Theil, Seite 387.\n\n[309] Tacitus, History, I. 3.\n\n[310] Ibid., Annals, IV. 20.\n\n[311] Ibid., Annals, VI. 22.\n\n[312] Ibid., Agricola, 46.\n\n[313] The Greek and the Jew, Vol. II. p. 147.\n\n[314] Epistle to the Romans, xv. 13.\n\n[315] \"The legislation of Justinian, as far as it was original, in his\nCode, Pandects, and Institutes, was still almost exclusively Roman. It\nmight seem that Christianity could hardly penetrate into the solid and\nwell-compacted body of Roman law; or rather the immutable principles of\njustice had been so clearly discerned by the inflexible rectitude of the\nRoman mind, and so sagaciously applied by the wisdom of her great lawyers,\nthat Christianity was content to acquiesce in these statutes, which she\nmight despair, except in some respects, of rendering more\nequitable.\"--Milman, Latin Christianity, Vol. II. p. 11.\n\n[316] See Ranke, History of the Popes, Chap. I., where he says that the\nRoman Empire gave its outward form to Christianity (meaning _Latin_\nChristianity), and that the constitution of the hierarchy was necessarily\nmodelled on that of the Empire.\n\n[317] History of Latin Christianity, Vol. II. p. 100.\n\n[318] Maine, Ancient Law, Chap. IX.\n\n[319] \"Non aliud peccare quam Deo non reddere debitum.\"\n\n[320] C\u00e6sar, Bell. Gall., I. 36, 39, 48, 50; VI. 21, 22, 23.\n\n[321] \"Pr\u00e6liis ambiguus, bello non victus.\"--Annals, II. 88.\n\n[322] Tacitus, Germania, \u00a7\u00a7 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9.\n\n[323] \"Illud ex libertate vitium, quod non simul, nec ut jussi,\nconveniunt.\"--Germania, \u00a7 11.\n\n[324] Esprit des Loix.\n\n[325] See, for the history and religion of the Teutonic and Scandinavian\nrace, C\u00e6sar; Tacitus; Grimm's Deutsche Mythologie; Geschichte und System\nder Altdeutschen Religion, von Wilhelm Muller; Northern Mythology, by\nBenjamin Thorpe; The Sea-Kings of Norway, by S. Laing; Manual of\nScandinavian Mythology, by G. Pigott; Literature and Romance of Northern\nEurope, by William and Mary Hewitt; Die Edda, von Karl Simrock; Aryan\nMythology, by George W. Cox; Norse Tales, by Dasent, etc. But one of the\nbest as well as the most accessible summaries in English of this mythology\nis Mallet's Northern Antiquities, in Bohn's Antiquarian Library. This\nedition is edited by Mr. Blackwell with great judgment and learning.\n\n[326] See Die Edda, von Karl Simrock. Stuttgart, 1855. Literature and\nRomance of Northern Europe, by William and Mary Howitt. London, 1852.\nGeschichte und System der Altdeutschen Religion, von Withelm Muller.\nGottingen, 1844. Mallet's Northern Antiquities, edited by Blackwell, in\nBohn's Antiquarian Library.\n\n[327] Hitopades\u00e1; or, Salutary Counsels of Vishnu Sarman. Translated fiom\nthe Sanskrit by Francis Johnson. London and Hertford, 1848.\n\n[328] See Memoir of Snorro Sturleson, in Laing's Sea-Kings of Norway.\n\n[329] It would appear from this legend that the gods are idealizations of\nhuman will set over against the powers of nature. The battle of the gods\nand giants represents the struggles of the soul against the inexorable\nlaws of nature, freedom against fate, the spirit with the flesh, mind with\nmatter, human hope with change, disappointment, loss; \"the emergency of\nthe case with the despotism of the rule.\"\n\n[330] Physical circumstances produced alterations in the mythologies,\nwhose origin was the same. Thus, Loki, the god of fire, belongs to the\n\u00c6sir, because fire is hostile to frost, but represents the treacherous and\nevil subterranean fires, which in Iceland destroyed with lava, sand, and\nboiling water more than was injured by cold.\n\n[331] Northern Mythology, by Benjamin Thorpe.\n\n[332] Gibbon, Chap. LVI.\n\n[333] Smith's Dictionary of the Bible. Neander, Church History, Vol. II.\nAppendix.\n\n[334] See, for the conversion of the German races, Gibbon; Guizot, History\nof Civilization; Merivale, Conversion of the German Nations; Milman, Latin\nChristianity; Neander, History of the Christian Church; Hegel; Lecky,\nHistory of European Morals.\n\n[335] Latin Christianity, Book III. Chap. II.\n\n[336] Palaztu, on the Western Sea. Rawlinson's Herodotus, Vol. I., p. 487.\n\n[337] The word has been deciphered \"Pulusater.\" Smith's Dictionary of the\nBible, Palestine.\n\n[338] Ibid.\n\n[339] Palestine, and the Sinaitic Peninsula. By Carl Ritter. Translated by\nWilliam L. Gage. New York. 1866.\n\n[340] Ritter's Palestine, Vol. II. p. 315.\n\n[341] Lynch makes it thirteen hundred feet below the surface of the\nMediterranean. See Ritter.\n\n[342] History of Israel, translated by Russell Martineau, Vol. I. p. 231.\n\n[343] New American Cyclop\u00e6dia, art. Semitic Race.\n\n[344] Quoted by Le Normant, Manual of Ancient History of the East, Vol. I.\np. 71.\n\n[345] Remarks on the Phoenician Inscription of Sidon, by Professor William\nW. Turner, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. VII. No. 1.\n\n[346] Poenulus, Act V. Sc. 1.\n\n[347] See his Essay on the People of Israel, in Studies of Religious\nHistory and Criticism, translated by O. B. Frothingham.\n\n[348] Except the proselytes, who are adopted children.\n\n[349] History of the Jewish Church, Lect. I.\n\n[350] See, for these marvellous stories, Weil, Legends of the Mussulmans.\n\n[351] See my sermon on \"Melchisedek and his Moral,\" in \"The Hour that\nCometh,\" second edition.\n\n[352] Strabo, who probably wrote in the reign of Tiberius, thus describes\nMoses:--\n\n\n   \"Moses, an Egyptian priest, who possessed a considerable tract of Lower\n   Egypt, unable any longer to bear with what existed there, departed\n   thence to Syria, and with him went out many who honored the Divine\n   Being. For Moses taught that the Egyptians were not right in likening\n   the nature of God to beasts and cattle, nor yet the Africans or even\n   the Greeks, in fashioning their gods in the form of men. He held that\n   this only was God,--that which encompasses all of us, earth and sea,\n   that which we call heaven, the order of the world, and the nature of\n   things. Of this, who that had any sense would venture to invent an\n   image like to anything which exists among ourselves? Far better to\n   abandon all statuary and sculpture, all setting apart of sacred\n   precincts and shrines, and to pay reverence without any image whatever.\n   The course prescribed was that those who have the gift of divination\n   for themselves or others should compose themselves to sleep within the\n   Temple, and those who live temperately and justly mjiy expect to\n   receive lome good gift from God.\"\n\n\n[353] \"Esteeming the reproach of the Christ\" (that is, of the anointed,\nor, the anointed people) \"greater riches than the treasures of Egypt.\"\n\n[354] See this well explained in The Philosophy of the Plan of Salvation,\nby James B. Walker.\n\n[355] \"'Behold, when I shall come to the children of Israel, and shall say\nunto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you, and they shall\nsay, What is his name? What shall I say unto them? And God said unto\nMoses, I AM THE I AM..... Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel,\nI AM hath sent me unto you!'\n\n\"It has been observed that the great epochs of the history of the Chosen\nPeople are marked by the several names, by which in each the Divine Nature\nis indicated. In the patriarchal age we have already seen that the oldest\nHebrew form by which the most general idea of Divinity is expressed is\n'El-Elohim,' 'The Strong One,' 'The Strong Ones,' 'The Strong,' 'Beth-El,'\n'Peni-El,' remained even to the latest times memorials of this primitive\nmode of address and worship. But now a new name, and with it a new truth,\nwas introduced. I am Jehovah; I appeared unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,\nby the name of El-Shaddai (God Almighty); but by my name Jehovah was I not\nknown unto them. The only certain use of it before the time of Moses is in\nthe name of 'Jochebed,' borne by his own mother. It was the declaration of\nthe simplicity, the unity, the self-existence of the Divine Nature, the\nexact opposite to all the multiplied forms of idolatry, human, animal, and\ncelestial, that prevailed, as far as we know, everywhere else.\"--Stanley's\nJewish Church.\n\n[356] A man became a prophet only by his powers of insight and foresight;\nuntil that was certified to the people, he was no prophet to them. When it\nwas, it was because he _convinced_ them by his manifestation of the truth;\nconsequently any revision of the law by a prophet was a constitutional\namendment by the people themselves.\n\n[357] Hitzig, Urgeschichte und Mythologie der Philister. Tacitus probably\nreferred to the Cretan origin of the Philistines, when he says that the\nJews were originally natives of the island of Crete. See his account of\nMoses and his institutions, Historia, V. 1-6.\n\n[358]\n\n    \"Out from the heart of nature rolled\n    The burdens of the Bible old;\n    The litanies of nations came,\n    Like the volcano's tongue of flame,\n    Up from the burning core below,--\n    The canticles of love and woe.\"\n\nEmerson, _The Problem_.\n\n\n[359] See this point fully discussed in Ritter, Palestine (Am. ed.), Vol.\nI. pp. 81-151.\n\n[360] See Weil, Biblical Legends, for the Mohammedan traditions concerning\nSolomon.\n\n[361] For he perceives the idea, but not its application to himself.\n\n[362] Neither of them perceives that he is the object of the injury.\n\n[363] Eccles. i. 2-11.\n\n[364] Ibid. i. 12; ii. 11.\n\n[365] Ibid. ii. 12-20.\n\n[366] Ibid. ii. 24.\n\n[367] Ibid. iii. 1-11.\n\n[368] Ibid. iii. 18-21.\n\n[369] Ibid. iv. 1-3.\n\n[370] Ibid. iv. 9-12.\n\n[371] Ibid. v. 1-7, 18.\n\n[372] Ibid. vi.\n\n[373] Eccles. vii. 2, 10, 15, 16.\n\n[374] Ibid. vii. 26-28.\n\n[375] Ibid. viii. 2, 3, 4, 11, 14(ix. 2, 3), 15, 17.\n\n[376] Ibid. xi. 1, 2, 6.\n\n[377] Ibid. xii. 1-8, 9, 12, 13.\n\n[378] D\u00f6llinger, The Gentile and the Jew.\n\n[379] See article on the Talmud, Quarterly Review, 1867.\n\n[380] An anecdote was recently related of a little girl, five years old,\nwho was seen walking along the road, looking up into the trees. Being\nasked what she was seeking, she replied: \"Mamma told me God was\neverywhere, but I cannot see him in that tree.\" The faith of the\npatriarchs was like that of this child,--not false, but unenlightened.\n\n[381] \"And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and\nfall at Ramoth-Gilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on\nthat manner. And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and\nsaid, I will persuade him. And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? And he\nsaid, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all\nhis prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go\nforth and do so.\"\n\n[382] See Greg, The Creed of Christendom, Chap. V. Also, The Spirit of the\nBible, by Edward Higginson.\n\n[383] Mohammed der Prophet, sein Leben und seine Lehre. Stuttgart, 1843.\n\n[384] Essai sur l'histoire des Arabes, avant l'Islamisme, pendant l'\u00e9poque\nde Mahomet, et jusqu'\u00e0 la r\u00e9duction de toutes les tribus sous la loi\nmussulmane. Paris. 3 vols. 8vo. 1847-48.\n\n[385] Das Leben und die Lehre des Mohammed, etc. Von A. Sprenger. Berlin,\n1861.\n\n[386] Sprenger, Vorrede, p. xii.\n\n[387] The Life of Mahomet and History of Islam. By William Muir, Esq.\nLondon, 1858.\n\n[388] A Series of Essays on the Life of Mohammed, and Subjects subsidiary\nthereto. By Syed Ahmed Khan Bahador. London: Trabner & Co. 1870.\n\n[389]\n\n                        \"Quo fit ut omnis\n    Votiva pateat velut descripta tabella\n    Vita senis.\"\n\n    HORACE.\n\n\n\n[390] The same remark will apply to Cromwell.\n\n[391] \"Mohammed once asked Hassan if he had made any poetry about Abu\nBakr, and the poet repeated these lines; whereupon Mohammed laughed so\nheartily as to show his back teeth, and said, 'Thou hast spoken truly, O\nHassan! It is just as thou hast said.'\"--Muir, Vol. II. p. 256.\n\n[392] Muir, Vol. II. p. 128.\n\n[393] Koran, Sura 80.\n\n[394] Mahomet and the Origin of Islam. Studies of Religious History.\nTranslated by O. B. Frothingham.\n\n[395] Lewes, Life of Goethe, Vol. I. p. 207.\n\n[396] Mahomet et le Coran, par J. Barth\u00e9lemy Saint-Hilaire, Paris, 1865,\np. 114.\n\n[397] Les Religions et les Philosophies dans L'As\u00ede Centrale. Par M. le\nComte Gobineau. Paris.\n\n[398] A Year's Journey through Central and Eastern Arabia. By William\nGifford Palgrave. Third edition. 1866. London.\n\n[399] Article in Revue des Deux Mondes, January 15, 1868.\n\n[400] Studies in Religious History and Criticism. The Future of Religion\nin Modem Society.\n\n[401] Ibid., \"The Part of the Semitic People in the History of\nCivilization.\"\n\n[402] Ibid. The Future of Religion in Modern Society, The Origins of\nIslamism.\n\n[403] The Sympathy of Religions, an Address by Thomas Wentworth Higginson.\nBoston, 1871.\n\n[404] Job i. 6, 12; ii. 1; Zech. iii. 1; 1 Chron. xxi. 1.\n\n[405] In the passages where Satan or the Devil is mentioned, the truth\ntaught is the same, and the moral result the same, whether we interpret\nthe phrase as meaning a personal being, or the principle of evil. In many\nof these passages a personal being cannot be meant: for example, John vi.\n70; Matt. xvi. 23; Mark viii. 33; 1 Cor. v. 5; 2 Cor. xii. 7; 1 Thess. ii.\n18; 1 Tim. i. 20; Heb. ii. 14.\n\n[406] Exodus vi. 2.\n\n[407] Exodus iii. 14.","title":"Ten Great Religions: An Essay in Comparative Theology","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":192728}