{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_14867/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_14867","id":"gutenberg_14867","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14867","summary":null,"tags":["Buddhism -- Relations -- Christianity","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christianity and other religions","Hinduism -- Relations -- Christianity","Islam -- Relations -- Christianity"],"text":"Produced by Juliet Sutherland, Marilynda Fraser-Gunliffe, David King,\nand the Online Distributed Proofreading Team\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nORIENTAL RELIGIONS AND CHRISTIANITY\n\nA COURSE OF LECTURES DELIVERED ON THE ELY FOUNDATION\nBEFORE THE STUDENTS OF UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY,\nNEW YORK, 1891\n\nBY FRANK F. ELLINWOOD, D.D.\nSECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF FOREIGN MISSIONS\nOF THE\nPRESBYTERIAN CHURCH U.S.A.;\nLECTURER ON COMPARATIVE RELIGION\nIN THE UNIVERSITY OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK\n\nNEW YORK CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS 1892\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\nThe following lectures, prepared amid many cares and duties, have aimed\nto deal only with practical questions which are demanding attention in\nour time. They do not claim to constitute a treatise with close\nconnections and a logical order. Each presents a distinct topic, or a\nparticular phase of the present conflict of Christian truth with the\nerrors of the non-Christian religions. This independent treatment must\nconstitute my apology for an occasional repetition of important facts or\nopinions which have a common bearing on different discussions. No claim\nis made to scholarship in the Oriental languages. The ability to compare\noriginal sources and determine dates and intricate meanings of terms, or\nsettle points in dispute by a wide research in Sanscrit or Pali\nliteratures, can only be obtained by those who spend years in study\nalong these special lines. But so many specialists have now made known\nthe results of their prolonged linguistic studies in the form of\napproved English translations, that, as Professor Max Mueller has well\nsaid in his introduction to \"The Sacred Books of the East,\" \"there is\nno longer any excuse for ignorance of the rich treasures of Oriental\nLiterature.\"\n\nTwo considerations lend special importance to the topics here discussed.\nFirst, that the false systems in question belong not merely to the past,\nbut to our own time. And second, that the increased intercommunication\nof this age brings us into closer contact with them. They are no longer\nafar off and unheard of, nor are they any longer lying in passive\nslumber. Having received quickening influences from our Western\ncivilization, and various degrees of sympathy from certain types of\nWestern thought, they have become aggressive and are at our doors.\n\nOn controverted points I have made frequent quotations, for the reason\nthat the testimonies or opinions of writers of acknowledged competency\nare best given in their own words.\n\nI have labored under a profound conviction that, whatever may be the\nmerit and success of these modest efforts, the general class of subjects\ntreated is destined to receive increased attention in the near future;\nthat the Christian Church will not long be content to miscalculate the\ngreat conquest which she is attempting against the heathen systems of\nthe East and their many alliances with the infidelity of the West. And I\nam cheered with a belief that, in proportion to the intelligent\ndiscrimination which shall be exercised in judging of the non-Christian\nreligions, and the skill which shall be shown in presenting the\nimmensely superior truths of the Christian faith, will the success of\nthe great work of Missions be increased.\n\nIt scarcely needs to be said that I have not even attempted to give\nanything like a complete view of the various systems of which I have\nspoken. Only a few salient points have been touched upon, as some\npractical end has required. But if the mere outline here given shall\nlead any to a fuller investigation of the subjects discussed, I shall be\ncontent. I am satisfied that the more thoroughly the Gospel of\nRedemption is compared with the futile systems of self-righteousness\nwhich man has devised, the more wonderful it will appear.\n\nF.F. ELLINWOOD.\n\nNEW YORK, January 20, 1892.\n\n\n\n\n_THE ELY LECTURES_--1891.\n\n\nThe lectures contained in this volume were delivered to the students of\nUnion Theological Seminary in the year 1891, as one of the courses\nestablished in the Seminary by Mr. Zebulon Stiles Ely, in the following\nterms:\n\n     \"The undersigned gives the sum of ten thousand dollars to the Union\n     Theological Seminary of the city of New York, to found a\n     lectureship in the same, the title of which shall be 'The Elias P.\n     Ely Lectures on the Evidences of Christianity.'\n\n     \"The course of lectures given on this foundation is to comprise any\n     topics that serve to establish the proposition that Christianity is\n     a religion from God, or that it is the perfect and final form of\n     religion for man.\n\n     \"Among the subjects discussed may be:\n\n     \"The Nature and Need of a Revelation;\n\n     \"The Character and Influence of Christ and his Apostles;\n\n     \"The Authenticity and Credibility of the Scriptures, Miracles, and\n     Prophecy;\n\n     \"The Diffusion and Benefits of Christianity; and\n\n     \"The Philosophy of Religion in its Relation to the Christian\n     System.\n\n     \"Upon one or more of such subjects a course of ten public lectures\n     shall be given, at least once in two or three years. The\n     appointment of the lecturer is to be by the concurrent action of\n     the directors and faculty of said Seminary and the undersigned; and\n     it shall ordinarily be made two years in advance.\"\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nLECTURE I.\n\nTHE NEED OF UNDERSTANDING THE FALSE RELIGIONS 1\n\n     The New \"Science of Religion\" to be Viewed with Discrimination--The\n     Study of the Oriental Systems too Long a Monopoly of Anti-Christian\n     Scholars--The Changed Aspects of the Missionary Work--The\n     Significant Experience of Ziegenbalz--Fears Entertained in\n     Reference to this Subject by Timid Believers--The Different View\n     taken of the Old Heathen Systems of Greece and Rome--The Subject\n     Considered from the Standpoint of Missionary Candidates--The\n     Testimony of Intelligent and Experienced Missionaries--Reasons for\n     Studying Oriental Systems Found in the Increased Intercourse of the\n     Nations; in the Intellectual Quickening of Oriental Minds by\n     Education; in the Resistance and even Aggressiveness of Heathen\n     Systems; in the Diversities of the Buddhist Faith in Different\n     Lands--False Systems to be Studied with a Candid Spirit--The\n     Distinction to be Drawn between Religion and Ethics--Reasons why a\n     Missionary should Pursue these Studies before Arriving on his\n     Field--Reasons why the Ministry at Home Should Acquaint Themselves\n     with Heathen Systems--Their Active Alliance with Various Forms of\n     Western Infidelity--Intellectual Advantages to be Derived from such\n     Studies--A Broader and Warmer Sympathy with Universal Humanity to\n     be Gained--A Better Understanding of the Unique Supremacy of the\n     Gospel as the Only Hope of the World--Pastors at Home are also\n     Missionaries to the Heathen--They are Sharers in the Conflict\n     through the Press.\n\n\nLECTURE II.\n\nTHE METHODS OF THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN DEALING\n     WITH HEATHENISM 39\n\n     The Coincidences of the Present Struggle with that of the First\n     Christian Centuries--The Mediaeval Missionary Work of a Simple\n     Character--That of India, Japan, China, and the Turkish Empire a\n     Severe Intellectual Struggle as well as a Spiritual\n     Conquest--Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Islam, present\n     Obstacles and Resistances Similar to those of Ancient Greece and\n     Rome--How far Contrasts Appear between the Early and the Present\n     Conquests--The Methods of Paul--His Tact in Recognizing Truth\n     wherever Found, and Using it for his Purpose--The Attitude of the\n     Early Christian Fathers toward the Heathen--Augustine's\n     Acknowledgment of the Good which he Received from Cicero and\n     Plato--The Important Elements which Platonism Lacked, and which\n     were Found Only in the Gospel of Christ--The Great Secret of Power\n     in the Early Church Found in its Moral Earnestness, as Shown by\n     Simplicity of Life, and especially by Constancy even Unto a\n     Martyr's Death--The Contrast between the Frugality of the Early\n     Church and the Luxury and Vice of Roman Society--The Great Need of\n     this Element of Success at the Present Time--The Observance of a\n     Wise Discrimination in the Estimate of Heathen Philosophy by the\n     Great Leaders of the Early Church--The Generality with which\n     Classical Studies were Pursued by the Sons of the more Enlightened\n     Christian Fathers--Method Among the Leaders--The Necessity for a\n     thorough Knowledge of the Systems to be Met, as it was then\n     Recognized--The thorough Preparation of Augustine, Ambrose,\n     Iraeneus, and Others for their Work--Origen's Masterly and\n     Successful Reply to Celsus--The Use Made by the Early Fathers and\n     by the Churches of a Later Day, of the Philosophy of Plato and\n     Aristotle--Heathenism thus Conquered with its Own Weapons.\n\n\nLECTURE III.\n\nTHE SUCCESSIVE DEVELOPMENTS OF HINDUISM 73\n\n     The Great Variety in India's Religious Systems--The Early\n     Monotheistic Nature Worship and its Gradual Lapse Into\n     Polytheism--The Influence of Environment on the Development of\n     Systems--The Distinction between Aryanism and Brahmanism, and the\n     Abuses of the Latter in its Doctrines of Sacrifice and Caste--The\n     Causes which Led to the Overthrow of this System of\n     Sacerdotalism--The Upanishads and the Beginnings of Philosophy--The\n     Rise of Buddhism and the Six Schools of Philosophy--Points in\n     Common between them--The Code of Manu and its Countercheck to\n     Rationalism--Its Development and its Scope, its Merits and\n     Demerits--The Meaning of the Word Hinduism as here Used and the\n     Means by which it Gained Ascendency--The Place and Influence of the\n     Two Great Hindu Epics, their Origin, the Compromise which they\n     Wrought, and the New and Important Doctrines which They\n     Developed--The Trimurti and the Incarnations of Vishnu--The\n     Deterioration of the Literature and the Faith of India--The Puranas\n     and the Tantras--The Parallels between Hinduism and Christianity.\n\n\nLECTURE IV.\n\nTHE BHAGAVAD GITA AND THE NEW TESTAMENT 111\n\n     The Great Interest Felt in this Poem by a Certain Class of\n     Readers--Its Alleged Parallels to the Scriptures--The Plausibility\n     of the Recent Translation by Mr. Mohini M. Chatterji--Its\n     Patronizing Catholicity--The Same Claim to Broad Charity by Chunder\n     Sen and Others--Pantheism Sacrifices nothing to Charity, because\n     God is in All Things--All Moral Responsibility Ceases since God\n     Acts in Us--Mr. Chatterji's Broad Knowledge of Our Scriptures, and\n     his Skill in Selecting Passages for His Purpose--His Pleasing\n     Style--The Story of Krishna and Arjuna Told in the Interest of\n     Caste and Pantheism--The Growth of the Krishna Cult from Popular\n     Legends--The Origin of the Bhagavad Gita and its Place in the\n     Mahabharata--Its Use of the Six Philosophies--Krishna's\n     Exhortation--The Issue of the Battle in which Arjuna is Urged to\n     Engage--The \"Resemblances\" Explained by their Pantheistic\n     Interpretation--Fancied Resemblances which are only in the Sound of\n     Words--Coincidences Springing from Similar Causes--The Totally\n     Different Meaning which Pantheism gives them--Difference between\n     Union with Christ and the Pantheistic Pervasion of the\n     Infinite--The Differentials of Christianity.\n\n\nLECTURE V.\n\nBUDDHISM AND CHRISTIANITY 140\n\n     New Interest in Old Controversies Concerning Buddhism--Max Mueller's\n     Reply to the Alleged Influence of the System on Christianity--The\n     Distinction to be made between the Credible History of Gautama and\n     Later Legends--The Legends of the Pre-existent States and the\n     Wonders Attending the Earthly Life--The Northern and the Southern\n     Buddhism--The Sources of the Principal Legends--The Four Principal\n     Doctrines of Buddhism, Skandas, Trishna, Kharma, and\n     Nirvana--Difficulties in the Doctrines of Kharma and\n     Nirvana--Various Opinions of Scholars in Regard to the Nature of\n     Nirvana--Buddha's Final Reticence on the Subject--The Real Goal at\n     which the Average Buddhist Aims--The Need of a Careful Estimate of\n     the Merits and Demerits of Buddhism, and of the Hold which it is\n     likely to have on Western Minds--Its Points of Contact with Western\n     Errors--The Fact that Modern Buddhism, like many other False\n     Systems, Claims Christ as a Believer in its Principles--The Theory\n     that the Life of Christ is Modelled after that of the Buddha--The\n     Superior Authenticity of the Life of Christ--The Unreliable\n     Character of Buddhist Legends--The Intrinsic Improbability that a\n     Religion claiming a Distinct Derivation from Jewish Sources would\n     Borrow from a far-off Heathen System--The Contrast of Christ's\n     Loving Recognition of the Father in Heaven with the Avowed Atheism\n     of Buddhism--The General Spirit of the System Forbids all Thought\n     of Borrowing from it--Points of Contrast.\n\n\nLECTURE VI.\n\nMOHAMMEDANISM PAST AND PRESENT 178\n\n     Posthumous Legends of Mohammed; how they were Produced--Ancient\n     Arabia and its Religious Systems--The Vale of Mecca and its Former\n     Uses--The Birth of Mohammed, and his Religious Associations--His\n     Temperament and Character--The Beginnings of his Prophetic\n     Mission--Jews and Christians in Arabia and their Influence on\n     Mohammedanism--Their Errors and Shortcomings a Help to the\n     Reformer--Strange Doctrines of the Christian Church in Arabia--The\n     Lost Opportunity of the Early Christian Sects and the Fatal Neglect\n     of the Surrounding Nations--The Nomads of Arabia specially Prepared\n     for Conquest by their Manner of Life and their Enlistment as\n     Mercenary Soldiers--The Question of Mohammed's Real Character--The\n     Growth of his Ambition and his Increasing Sensuality and\n     Cruelty--Blasphemous Revelations in Behalf of the Prophet's Own\n     Lust--Discriminating Judgment Required on his Career as a\n     Whole--Mohammedan Schools--Noble Characters the Exception--General\n     Corrupting Influence of the System--Its Conquests in Northern\n     Africa and in the Soudan--The Early Races of Northern Africa, and\n     the General Deterioration of the Country--The Piracies of the\n     Barbary States--Civilization in Modern Egypt Due to Foreigners--The\n     Bloody Ravages of El Mahdi in the East and the Fanatic Samadu in\n     the West--The Testimony of a Secular Newspaper\n     Correspondent--Professor Drummond and Henry M. Stanley on the Slave\n     Traffic and Mohammedan Civilization--The Alleged Missionary\n     Operations of Mohammedans in West Soudan--The Account Given of Them\n     by Bishop Crowther, Schweinfurth, and Others--Canon Taylor and the\n     Egyptian Pashas--The Effects of European Education--Palgrave on\n     Mohammedan Intolerance of To-day--Mohammedanism and Temperance;\n     Exaggerated Accounts of it; Proofs to the Contrary--R. Bosworth\n     Smith's Protest against Canon Taylor's Extravagant Glorification of\n     Islam--His Plea for Missions.\n\n\nLECTURE VII.\n\nTHE TRACES OF A PRIMITIVE MONOTHEISM 222\n\n     Two Conflicting Theories on the History of Religion--That of the\n     Old and New Testaments--That of Modern Evolution--The Importance of\n     this Question--Professor Henry B. Smith's Estimate of Ebrard's\n     Discussion of it--Ebrard's Summing-up of the Argument--Professor\n     Naville's View of the Subject--Conclusions of Rev. W.A.P. Martin,\n     D.D., and Max Mueller--How far May we Attempt to Establish the Fact\n     of an Early Monotheism from Heathen Traditions?--Conceptions\n     Differing in Different Nations--Evidences of Monotheism in the\n     Vedas--Professor Banergea's Testimony--The Views Held by the Modern\n     Somajes--Monotheism in China--Monotheistic Worship in the Days of\n     Yao and Shun, 2300 B.C.--The Prayer of an Emperor of the Ming\n     Dynasty Quoted by Professor Legge--Remarkable Monument of\n     Monotheism in the Temple of Heaven--A Taouist Prayer--Zoroaster a\n     Monotheistic Reformer--The Inscription at Behistun--Testimony of\n     the Modern Parsee Catechism--No Nation without some Notion of a God\n     Supreme over All--Buddhists in Thibet--Egyptian Monotheism--The\n     Greek Poets--Old Monotheism in Mexico and Peru--Evidences of\n     Ramification and Decline in Polytheism--Egypt and India Give\n     Abundant Proofs--Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taouism all Show\n     Degeneration--Mohammedan Corruption since the Days of the Early\n     Caliphs--The Religions of Greece and Rome Became Effete--Even\n     Israel, in Spite of Instruction and Reproof, Lapsed into Idolatry\n     again and again--Even the Christian Church has Shown Similar\n     Tendencies.\n\n\nLECTURE VIII.\n\nINDIRECT TRIBUTES OF HEATHEN SYSTEMS TO THE DOCTRINES\n     OF THE BIBLE 266\n\n     The Universality and Similarity of Race Traditions--Their General\n     Support of the Old Testament History--Traditions of the Creation\n     Found in India, China, among the Northern Turanians and some\n     African Tribes--The Fall of Man as Traced in Assyria and among the\n     Hindus--The Buddhists of Ceylon, Mongolians, Africans and Tahitans\n     had Similar Traditions--The Flood--Traditions of the Chinese, the\n     Iranians, Greeks, Assyrians, Chaldeans, and Peruvians--The\n     Prevalence of Piacular Sacrifice and Tokens of a Sense of\n     Guilt--Traditions or Traces of Substitution Found in the\n     Vedas--Faint Traces in the Religion of the Egyptians--Traditions of\n     the Iroquois--Prophecies Looking to Divine Deliverers--The Tenth\n     Avatar of Vishnu yet to Come as a Restorer of Righteousness--The\n     Influence of the Tradition as Utilized by a Missionary--A Norse\n     Deliverer and Millennium--The Prediction of the Cumaean Sibyl Forty\n     Years before the Birth of Christ--Prevailing Conceptions of some\n     Mediator between God and Man--The Hindu Krishna as an\n     Example--Changes in Buddhism from the Old Atheism to Theism, and\n     even to a Doctrine of Salvation by Faith--A Trinity and at last a\n     Saviour--All the False Systems Claiming the Teachings and the\n     Character of Christ.\n\n\nLECTURE IX.\n\nETHICAL TENDENCIES OF THE EASTERN AND THE WESTERN\n     PHILOSOPHIES 294\n\n     The Prevalence of Speculation in all Ages in Regard to the Great\n     Questions of Man's Origin and Destiny, and His Relations to\n     God--The Various Schemes which have Seemingly Dispensed with the\n     Necessity for a Creator in Accounting for the Existence of the\n     Visible World--The Ancient Atomic Theories and Modern\n     Evolution--Kanada, Lucretius, Herbert Spencer--Darwin's Theory of\n     the Development of Species--Similar Theories Ascribed to the\n     Chinese--The Ethical Difficulties Attending Many Philosophic\n     Speculations, Ancient and Modern--Hindu Pantheism and Moral\n     Responsibility--In the Advance from Instinct to Conscience and\n     Religion, where does Moral Sentiment Begin?--If It was Right for\n     Primeval Man to Maraud, why Might not Robbery again Become His Duty\n     in Case of Extreme Deterioration?--Mr. Spencer's Theory of the\n     Origin of Moral Intuition--The Nobler Origin which the Scriptures\n     Assign to Man's Moral Nature--The Demonstrated Possibility of the\n     Most Radical and Sudden Moral Changes Produced by the Christian\n     Faith--Tendency of Ancient and Modern Theories to Lower the General\n     Estimate of Man--The Dignity with which the New Testament Invests\n     Him--The Ethical Tendency of the Doctrine of Evolution--The Opinion\n     Expressed on the Subject by Goldwin Smith--Peschel's Frank\n     Admission--The Pessimistic Tendency of all Anti-Biblical Theories\n     of Man's Origin, Life, and Destiny--Buddha, Schopenhauer, and the\n     Agnostics--The more Hopeful Influence of the Bible--The Tendency of\n     all Heathen Religions and all Anti-Christian Philosophies toward\n     Fatalism--Pantheism and the Philosophy of Spinoza Agreeing in this\n     Respect with the Hindu Vedantism--The Late Samuel Johnson's \"Piety\n     of Pantheism,\" and His Definition of Fatalism--What Saves the\n     Scriptural Doctrine of Fore-ordination from Fatalism--The Province\n     of Faith and of Trust.\n\n\nLECTURE X.\n\nTHE DIVINE SUPREMACY OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH 338\n\n     The Claim that Christianity is the only True Religion--The Peculiar\n     Tendencies of Modern Times to Deny this Supremacy and Monopoly--It\n     is not Enough in Such Times to Simply Ignore the Challenge--The\n     Unique Claim must be Defended--First: Christianity is\n     Differentiated from all Other Religions by the Fact of a Divine\n     Sacrifice for Sin--Mohammedanism, though Founded on a Belief in the\n     True God and Partly on the Old Testament Teachings, Offers no\n     Saviour--No Idea of Fatherhood is Found in any Non-Christian\n     Faith--The Gloom of Buddhism and the Terror of Savage\n     Tribes--Hinduism a System of Self-Help Merely--The Recognized\n     Grandeur of the Principle of Self-Sacrifice as Reflected from\n     Christ--Augustine Found a Way of Life only in His Divine\n     Sacrifice--Second: No Other Faith than Christianity is Made\n     Effectual by the Power of a Divine and Omnipotent Spirit--The\n     Well-Attested Fact of Radical Transformations of Character--Other\n     Systems have Made Converts only by Warlike Conquest or by Such\n     Motives as might Appeal to the Natural Heart--Christianity Rises\n     above all Other Systems in the Divine Personality of Christ--The\n     Contrast in this Respect between Him and the Authors of the\n     Non-Christian Systems--His Attractions and His Power Acknowledged\n     by all Classes of Men--The Inferiority of Socrates as Compared with\n     Christ--Bushnell's Tribute to the Perfection of this Divine\n     Personality--Its Power Attested in the Life of Paul--The Adaptation\n     of Christianity to all the Circumstances and Conditions of\n     Life--Abraham and the Vedic Patriarchs, Moses and Manu, David's Joy\n     and Gratitude, and the Gloom of Hindu or Buddhist Philosophy--Only\n     Christianity Brings Man to True Penitence and Humility--The\n     Recognized Beauty and the Convincing Lesson of the Prodigal\n     Son--The Contrast between Mohammed's Blasphemous Suras, which\n     Justify his Lust, and the Deep Contrition of David in the\n     Fifty-first Psalm--The Moral Purity of the Old and New Testaments\n     as Contrasted with all Other Sacred Books--The Scriptures Pure\n     though Written in Ages of Corruption and Surrounded by Immoral\n     Influences--Christ Belongs to no Land or Age--The Gospel Alone is\n     Adapted to all Races and all Time as the Universal Religion of\n     Mankind--Only Christianity Recognizes the True Relation between\n     Divine Help and Human Effort--It Encourages by Omnipotent\n     Co-operation--The All-Comprehensive Presentation of the Gospel.\n\n\nAPPENDIX 381\n\n\n\n\nORIENTAL RELIGIONS AND CHRISTIANITY\n\nLECTURE I.\n\nTHE NEED OF UNDERSTANDING THE FALSE RELIGIONS\n\n\nIt is said that the very latest among the sciences is the Science of\nReligion. Without pausing to inquire how far it admits of scientific\ntreatment, certain reasons which may be urged for the study of the\nexisting religions of the world will be considered in this lecture. It\nmust be admitted in the outset that those who have been the pioneers in\nthis field of research have not, as a rule, been advocates of the\nChristian faith. The anti-Christian theory that all religions may be\ntraced to common causes, that common wants and aspirations of mankind\nhave led to the development of various systems according to environment,\nhas until recently been the chief spur to this class of studies.\nAccordingly, the religions of the world have been submitted to some\npreconceived philosophy of language, or ethnology, or evolution, with\nthe emphasis placed upon such facts as seemed to comport with this\ntheory. Meanwhile there has been an air of broad-minded charity in the\nmanner in which the apologists of Oriental systems have treated the\nsubject. They have included Christ in the same category with Plato and\nConfucius, and have generally placed Him at the head; and this supposed\nbreadth of sentiment has given them a degree of influence with dubious\nand wavering Christians, as well as with multitudes who are without\nfaith of any kind.\n\nIn this country the study of comparative religion has been almost\nentirely in the hands of non-evangelical writers. We have had \"The Ten\nGreat Religions,\" from the pen of Rev. James Freeman Clarke; \"The\nOriental Religions,\" written with great labor by the late Samuel\nJohnson; and Mr. Moncure D. Conway's \"Anthology,\" with its flowers,\ngathered from the sacred books of all systems, and so chosen as to carry\nthe implication that they all are equally inspired. Many other works\ndesigned to show that Christianity was developed from ancient sun myths,\nor was only a plagiarism upon the old mythologies of India, have been\ncurrent among us. But strangely enough, the Christian Church has seemed\nto regard this subject as scarcely worthy of serious consideration. With\nthe exception of a very able work on Buddhism,[1] and several review\narticles on Hinduism, written by Professor S.H. Kellogg, very little has\nbeen published from the Christian standpoint.[2] The term \"heathenism\"\nhas been used as an expression of contempt, and has been applied with\ntoo little discrimination.\n\nThere is a reason, perhaps, why these systems have been underestimated.\nIt so happened that the races among whom the modern missionary\nenterprise has carried on its earlier work were mostly simple types of\npagans, found in the wilds of America, in Greenland and Labrador, in the\nWest Indies, on the African coast, or in the islands of the Pacific; and\nthese worshippers of nature or of spirits gave a very different\nimpression from that which the Apostles and the Early Church gained from\ntheir intercourse with the conquering Romans or the polished and\nphilosophic Greeks. Our missionary work has been symbolized, as Sir\nWilliam W. Hunter puts it, by a band of half-naked savages listening to\na missionary seated under a palm-tree, and receiving his message with\nchild-like and unquestioning faith.\n\nBut in the opening of free access to the great Asiatic nations, higher\ngrades of men have been found, and with these we now have chiefly to do.\nThe pioneer of India's missions, the devoted Ziegenbalg, had not been\nlong in his field before he learned the mistake which the churches in\nEurope had made in regard to the religion and philosophy of the Hindus.\nHe laid aside all his old notions when he came to encounter the\nmetaphysical subtleties of Hindu thought, when he learned something of\nthe immense Hindu literature, the voluminous ethics, the mystical and\nweird mythologies, the tremendous power of tradition and social\ncustoms--when, in short, he found his way hedged up by habits of thought\nwholly different from his own; and he resolved to know something of the\nreligion which the people of India already possessed.\n\nFor the benefit of others who might follow him he wrote a book on\nHinduism and its relations to Christianity, and sent it to Europe for\npublication. But so strong were the preconceived notions which prevailed\namong his brethren at home, that his manuscript, instead of being\npublished, was suppressed. \"You were not sent to India to study\nHinduism,\" wrote Franke, \"but to preach the Gospel.\" But Ziegenbalg\ncertainly was not wanting in his estimate of the chief end in view, and\nhis success was undoubtedly far greater for the intelligent plan upon\nwhich he labored. The time came when a change had passed over the\nsociety which had sent him forth. Others, less friendly than he to the\nGospel of Christ, had studied Hinduism, and had paraded it as a rival of\nChristianity; and in self-defence against this flank movement, the\nlong-neglected work of Ziegenbalg was brought forth from obscurity and\npublished.\n\nIt is partly in self-defence against similar influences, that the\nChristian Church everywhere is now turning increased attention to the\nstudy of Comparative Religion. In Great Britain a wider interest has\nbeen felt in the subject than in this country. And yet, even there the\nChurch has been far behind the enemies of evangelical truth in\ncomparing Christianity with false systems. Dr. James Stalker, of\nGlasgow, said a few months since that, whereas it might be expected that\nthe advocates of the true faith would be the first to compare and\ncontrast it with the false systems of the world, the work had been left\nrather to those who were chiefly interested in disparaging the truth and\nexalting error. Yet something has been done. Such men as Sir Monier\nWilliams, Sir William Muir, Professors Rawlinson, Fairbairn, and Legge,\nBishop Carpenter, Canon Hardwick, Doctors Caird, Dodds, Mitchell, and\nothers, have given the false systems of the East a thorough and candid\ntreatment from the Christian standpoint. The Church Missionary Society\nholds a lectureship devoted to the study of the non-Christian religions\nas a preparation for missionary work. And the representatives of that\nSociety in the Punjab have instituted a course of study on these lines\nfor missionaries recently arrived, and have offered prizes for the best\nattainments therein. Though we are later in this field of investigation,\nyet here also there is springing up a new interest, and it is safe to\npredict that within another decade the real character of the false\nreligions will be more generally understood.\n\nThe prejudice which has existed in regard to this subject has taken two\ndifferent forms: First, there has been the broad assumption upon which\nFranke wrote to Ziegenbalg, that all knowledge of heathenism is worse\nthan useless. Good men are asking, \"Is not such a study a waste of\nenergy, when we are charged with proclaiming the only saving truth? Is\nnot downright earnestness better than any possible knowledge of\nphilosophies and superstitions?\" And we answer, \"Yes: by all means, if\nonly the one is possible.\" Another view of the subject is more serious.\nMay there not, after all, be danger in the study of false systems? Will\nthere not be found perplexing parallels which will shake our trust in\nthe positive and exclusive supremacy of the Christian faith?\n\nNow, even if there were at first some risks to a simple, child-like\nconfidence, yet a timid attitude involves far greater risks: it amounts\nto a half surrender, and it is wholly out of place in this age of\nfearless and aggressive discussion, when all truth is challenged, and\nevery form of error must be met. Moreover, in a thorough study there is\nno danger. Sir Monier Williams tells us that at first he was surprised\nand a little troubled, but in the end he was more than ever impressed\nwith the transcendent truths of the Christian faith. Professor S.H.\nKellogg assures us that the result of his careful researches in the\nOriental systems is a profounder conviction of the great truths of the\nGospel as divine. And even Max Mueller testifies that, while making every\nallowance for whatever is good in the ethnic faiths, he has been the\nmore fully convinced of the great superiority of Christianity. Really,\nthose are in danger who receive only the superficial and misleading\nrepresentations of heathenism which one is sure to meet in our magazine\nliterature, or in works like \"Robert Elsmere\" and \"The Light of Asia.\"\n\nOne cannot fail to mark the different light in which we view the\nmythologies of the Greeks and Romans. If their religious beliefs and\nspeculations had remained a secret until our time, if the high ethical\nprecepts of Seneca and Marcus Aurelius had only now been proclaimed, and\nSocrates had just been celebrated in glowing verse as the \"Light of\nGreece,\" there would be no little commotion in the religious world, and\nthousands with only weak and troubled faith might be disturbed. But\nsimply because we thoroughly understand the mythology of Greece and\nRome, we have no fear. We welcome all that it can teach us. We cordially\nacknowledge the virtues of Socrates and assign him his true place. We\nenrich the fancy and awaken the intellectual energies of our youth by\nclassical studies, and Christianity shines forth with new lustre by\ncontrast with the heathen systems which it encountered in the Roman\nEmpire ages ago.\n\nAnd yet that was no easy conquest. The early church, when brought face\nto face with the culture of Greece and the self-assertion of Roman\npower, when confronted with profound philosophies like those of Plato\nand Aristotle, with the subtleties of the Stoics, and with countless\nadmixtures of Persian mysticism, had, humanly speaking, quite as\nformidable a task as those that are presented in the heathen systems of\nto-day. Very few of the champions of modern heathenism can compare with\nCelsus, and there are no more subtle philosophies than those of ancient\nGreece. Evidently, the one thing needed to disenchant the false systems\nof our time is a clear and accurate knowledge of their merits and\ndemerits, and of their true relation to Christianity.\n\nIt will be of advantage, for one thing, if we learn to give credit to\nthe non-Christian religions for the good which they may fairly claim.\nThere has existed a feeling that they had no rights which Christian men\nwere bound to respect. They have been looked upon as systems of unmixed\nevil, whose enormities it were impossible to exaggerate. And all such\nmisconceptions and exaggerations have only led to serious reactions.\nAnti-Christian writers have made great capital of the alleged\nmisrepresentations which zealous friends of missions have put upon\nheathenism; and there is always great force in any appeal for fair play,\non whichever side the truth may lie. Where the popular Christian idea\nhas presented a low view of some system, scarcely rising above the grade\nof fetichism, the apologists have triumphantly displayed a profound\nphilosophy. Where the masses of Christian people have credited whole\nnations with no higher notions of worship than a supreme trust in\nsenseless stocks and stones, some skilful defender has claimed that the\nidols were only the outward symbols of an indwelling conception of\ndeity, and has proceeded with keen relish to point out a similar use of\nsymbols in the pictures and images of the Christian Church.\n\nFrom one extreme many people have passed to another, and in the end have\ncredited heathen systems with greater merit than they possess. A marked\nillustration of this fact is found in the influence which was produced\nby Sir Edwin Arnold's \"Light of Asia.\" Sentimental readers, passing\nfrom surprise to credulity, were ready to invest the \"gentle Indian\nSaint\" with Christian conceptions which no real Buddhist ever thought\nof. Mr. Arnold himself is said to have expressed surprise that people\nshould have given to his poem so serious an interpretation, or should\nhave imagined for a moment that he intended to compare Buddhism with the\nhigher and purer teachings of the New Testament.\n\nIn considering some of the reasons which may be urged for the study of\nfalse systems, we will first proceed from the standpoint of the\ncandidate for the work of missions. And here there is a broad and\ngeneral reason which seems too obvious to require much argument. The\nskilful general or the civil engineer is supposed, of course, to survey\nthe field of contemplated operations ere he enters upon his work. The\nlate Dr. Duff, in urging the importance of a thorough understanding of\nthe systems which a missionary expects to encounter, illustrated his\npoint by a reference to the great Akbar, who before entering upon the\nconquest of India, twice visited the country in disguise, that he might\ngain a complete knowledge of its topography, its strongholds, and its\npoints of weakness, and the best methods of attack.\n\nWhile all religious teachers must understand their tasks, the need of\nspecial preparation is particularly urgent in the foreign missionary,\nowing to his change of environment. Many ideas and methods to which he\nhas been trained, and which would serve him well among a people of his\nown race, might be wholly out of place in India or China, Ram Chandra\nBose, M.A.--himself a converted Brahman--has treated with great\ndiscrimination the argument frequently used, that the missionary \"need\nonly to proclaim the Glad Tidings.\" He says: \"That the simple story of\nChrist and him crucified is, after all, the truth on which the\nregeneration of the Christian and the non-Christian lands must hang, no\none will deny. This story, ever fresh, is inherently fitted to touch the\ndead heart into life, and to infuse vitality into effete nationalities\nand dead civilizations. But a great deal of rubbish has to be removed in\nheathen lands, ere its legitimate consequences can be realized. And a\npatient, persistent study of the false religions, and the complicated\nsystems of philosophy associated with them, enables the missionary to\nthrow out of the way those heaps of prejudices and errors which make it\nimpossible for the story of the cross to reach and influence the\nheart.\"[3] It has been very wisely said that \"any fragment of truth\nwhich lies in a heathen mind unacknowledged is an insuperable barrier\nagainst conviction: recognized and used, it might prove a help;\nneglected and ignored, it is insurmountable.\"[4]\n\nThe late Dr. Mullens learned by careful observation, that the\nintellectual power of the Hindus had been so warped by false reasoning,\nthat \"they could scarcely understand how, when two principles are\ncontradictory, one must be given up as false. They are prepared to\nreceive both sides of a contradiction as true, and they feel at liberty\nto adopt that which seems the most comfortable. And nothing but a full\nexposure of evil, with a clear statement of the antagonistic truth,\nwill suffice to awaken so perverted an intellect.\"[5]\n\nThe missionary has often been surprised to find that the idea which he\nsupposed was clearly understood, was wholly warped by the medium of\nHindu thought, as a rod is apparently warped when plunged into a stream,\nor as a beautiful countenance is distorted by the waves and\nirregularities of an imperfect mirror. To the preacher, sin, for\nexample, is an enormity in the sight of God; but to his Hindu listener\nit may be only a breach of custom, or a ceremonial uncleanness. The\nindwelling of the Holy Spirit, as it is set forth in Paul's Epistles, is\nto the missionary a union in which his personality is still maintained\nin blest fellowship with God, while to his audience it may be only that\nout and out pantheism in which the deity within us supplants all\nindividual personality, and not only excludes all joy, but all\nresponsibility.\n\nProfessor W.G.T. Shedd has clearly pointed out the fact that the modern\nmissionary has a harder task in dealing with the perversions of the\nheathen mind than that to which the Apostles of the Early Church were\ncalled, owing to the prevalence in India and elsewhere of that pantheism\nwhich destroys the sense of moral responsibility. He says: \"The Greek\nand Roman theism left the human will free and responsible, and thus the\ndoctrine of sin could be taught. But the pantheistic systems of the East\ndestroy free will, by identifying God and man; and hence it is\nimpossible to construct the doctrine of sin and atonement except by\nfirst refuting the pantheistic ethics. The missionary can get no help\nfrom _conscience_ in his preaching, when this theory of God and the\nworld has the ground. But St. Paul appealed confidently 'to every man's\nconscience in the sight of God,' and called upon the ethics and theology\nof the Greek and Roman philosophers for a corroboration. The early\nApologists, Tertullian and others, did the same thing.\"\n\nThe testimonies which have been given within the last few years, by the\nmost intelligent and observing missionaries in Eastern lands, are of\nsuch peculiar significance and force, that I shall be justified in\nquoting a few at some length. Rev. George William Knox, D.D., of Tokio,\nJapan, in accepting an election to an honorary membership of the\nAmerican Society of Comparative Religion, wrote, December 17, 1890: \"I\nam deeply in sympathy with the objects of the Society, as indeed every\nmissionary must be. We have practical demonstrations of the value of\nresearch into the ethnic religions. Even at home the value of such\nresearch has already been great, but in these non-Christian lands it is\nindispensable. It is true that non-Christian systems, as found among the\npeople, rarely exhibit the forms or the doctrines which we learn from\nbooks, but I presume the same would be said by an intelligent Asiatic,\nwere he to study our sacred books and then compare results with much of\nthe religion which calls itself Christian in the West. And yet for the\nstudy even of the most debased forms of Christianity in South America or\nMexico, let us say, we must needs begin with our sacred books. And so\nit is with debased Buddhism in Japan. The Buddhism of Ceylon and of the\nbooks is unknown to this people, and when it is used as the basis of\nargument or exposition we do not hit the mark. Yet, after all, our debt\nis immeasurable to the societies and scholars that have made accessible\nthe sources that have yielded at last such systems as are dominant here.\n\n\"The study of non-Christian systems is essential to the missionary, even\nthough he does not refer to them in his preaching, but contents himself\nwith delivering the Gospel message. And that is the rule with\nmissionaries, so far as I know. But a knowledge of the native systems is\nimperative, that we may properly present our own. Otherwise we waste\ntime in teaching over again that which is already fully known, or we so\nspeak that our truth takes on the form of error, or we so underestimate\nthe thought of those whom we address, that the preaching of the wisdom\nof God sounds in their ears the preaching of foolishness. The adaptation\nof preaching to the hearers of Asiatic lands is a task that may well\nmake us thankful for every help that may be furnished us.... The\nmissionary is far too apt to come from the West with exalted notions of\nhis own superiority, and with a feeling of condescending pity for men\nwho, perhaps, have pondered the deep things of the universe far more\nthan he. Let him really master a philosophy like the Confucian, and he\nwill better illustrate the Christian grace of humility, and be so much\nthe better prepared for his work. His study will show him how\nastonishing is the light that has shone upon those men whom he has\nthought of as wholly in darkness. It will thus show him the true way of\napproach, and enable him to follow the lines of least resistance. It\nwill also reveal to him what is the essential character of the divine\nmessage which he himself bears. He will separate that peculiar and\nspiritual truth which is the Word of Life, and will bring it as glad\ntidings of great joy. Surely no man can study these ethnic faiths, no\nmatter with what appreciation of their measure of truth, and rejoicing\nin it, without a constantly growing conviction that the one power that\nconverts men and establishes God's kingdom on earth is the Word that is\neternal, the Son of God. He gathers in Himself all the truth of all the\nreligions, and He adds that divine Salvation and Life for which all the\nnations have waited, and without which the highest and deepest thought\nremains unable to bring men into living communion with the God and\nFather of us all.\"\n\nRev. Martyn Clark, D.D., Missionary of the Church Missionary Society at\nUmritsur, India, has given thorough study to the Sanscrit, and has\nthereby been enabled to expose the fallacies and misrepresentations\nwhich the Arya Somaj, in its bitter controversy with the Gospel, has put\nforth as to the real character of the Vedic literature. No man is better\nable to judge of the importance of a correct understanding of the errors\nof the non-Christian systems than he. In a letter accepting an honorary\nmembership of the above-named Society he says: \"The object of the\nSociety is one in which I am deeply interested, and I shall at all\ntimes do what I can to further its aims. I am convinced that there is\nmuch that is helpful to the cause of Christ to be learned in this field\nof research.\"\n\nRev. H. Blodgett, D.D., veteran Missionary of the American Board in\nPeking, in accepting a similar honor, says: \"My interest in these\nstudies has been deep and growing. It is high time that such a society\nas you represent should be formed. The study of Comparative Religion has\nlong enough been in the hands of those who hold all religions to be the\noutcome of the natural powers of the human mind, unaided by a revelation\nfrom God. It is time that those who believe in the revelation from God\nin the Old Testament, and in the New Testament founded upon the Old,\nshould study the great ethnic religions in the light derived from the\nBible.\"\n\nRev. James S. Dennis, D.D., long a Missionary of the Presbyterian\nMission in Beyrout, Syria, says in the same connection: \"The great\nmissionary movement of our age has brought us face to face with problems\nand conflicts which are far more deep and serious than those which\nconfront evangelistic efforts in our own land, and it is of the highest\nimportance that the Church at home should know as fully as possible the\npeculiar and profound difficulties of work in foreign fields. These\nancient religions of the East are behind intrenchments, and they are\nprepared to make a desperate resistance. Those who have never come into\nclose contact with their adherents, and discovered by experience the\ndifficulty of dislodging them and convincing them of the truth of the\nGospel, may very properly misunderstand the work of the foreign\nmissionary and wonder at his apparent failure, or at least his slow\nprogress. But I wonder at the success attained in the foreign field, and\nconsider it far more glorious and remarkable than it is generally\naccounted to be. A fuller acquaintance with the strength, and resources,\nand local eclat, and worldly advantages of these false religions, will\ngive the Church at home greater patience and faith in the great work of\nevangelizing the nations.\"[6]\n\nA specific reason for the study of the non-Christian religions is found\nin the changes which our intercourse with Eastern nations has already\nwrought. With our present means of intercommunication we are brought\nface to face with them, and the contact of our higher vitality has\naroused them from the comparative slumber of ages. Even our missionary\nefforts have given new vigor to the resistance which must be\nencountered. We have trained up a generation of men to a higher\nintellectual activity, and to a more earnest spirit of inquiry, and they\nare by no means all won over to the Christian faith. And there are\nthousands in India whom a Government education has left with no real\nfaith of any kind, but whose pride of race and venerable customs is\nraised to a higher degree than ever. They have learned something of\nChristianity; they have also studied their own national systems; they\nhave become especially familiar with all that our own sceptics have\nwritten against Christianity; still further, they have added to their\nintellectual equipment all that Western apologists have said of the\nsuperiority of the Oriental faiths. They are thus armed at every point,\nand they are using our own English tongue and all our facilities for\npublication. How is the young missionary, who knows nothing of their\nsystems or the real points of comparison, to deal with such men? It is\nvery true that not all ranks of Hindus are educated; there are millions\nwho know nothing of any religion beyond the lowest forms of\nsuperstition, and to these we owe the duty of a simple and plain\npresentation of Christ and Him crucified; but in every community where\nthe missionary is likely to live there are men of the higher class just\nnamed; and besides, professional critics and opposers are now employed\nto harass the bazaar preacher with perplexing questions, which are soon\nheard from the lips of the common people. A young missionary recently\nwrote of the surprise which he felt when a low caste man, almost without\nclothing, met him with arguments from Professor Huxley.\n\nMissionary Boards have sometimes sent out a specialist, and in some\nsense a champion, who should deal with the more intelligent classes of\nthe heathen. But such a plan is fraught with disadvantages. What is\nneeded is a thorough preparation in all missionaries, and that involves\nan indispensable knowledge of the forces to be met. The power of the\npress is no longer a monopoly of Christian lands. The Arya Somaj, of\nIndia, is now using it, both in the vernacular and in the English, in\nits bitter and often scurrilous attacks. One of its tracts recently sent\nto me contained an English epitome of the arguments of Thomas Paine. The\nsecular papers of Japan present in almost every issue some discussion on\nthe comparative merits of Christianity, Buddhism, Evolution, and\nTheosophy, and many of the young native ministry who at first received\nthe truth unquestioningly as a child receives it from his mother, are\nnow calling for men whom they can follow as leaders in their struggle\nwith manifold error.[7]\n\nEven Mohammedans are at last employing the press instead of the sword.\nNewspapers in Constantinople are exhorting the faithful to send forth\nmissionaries to \"fortify Africa against the whiskey and gunpowder of\nChristian commerce, by proclaiming the higher ethical principles of the\nKoran.\" Great institutions of learning are also maintained as the\nspecial propaganda of the Oriental religions. El Azar, established at\nCairo centuries ago, now numbers ten thousand students, and these when\ntrained go forth to all Arabic speaking countries.[8] The Sanskrit\ncolleges and monasteries of Benares number scarcely less than four\nthousand students,[9] who are being trained in the Sankhyan or the\nVedanta philosophy, that they may go back to their different provinces\nand maintain with new vigor the old faiths against the aggressions of\nChristianity. And in Kioto, the great religious centre of Japan, we find\nover against the Christian college of the American Board of Missions, a\nBuddhist university with a Japanese graduate of Oxford as its president.\nIn a great school at Tokio, also, Buddhist teachers, aided by New\nEngland Unitarians, are maintaining the superiority of Buddhism over\nWestern Christianity as a religion for Japan.[10]\n\nAnother reason why the missionary should study the false systems is\nfound in the greatly diversified forms which these systems present in\ndifferent lands and different ages. And just here it will be seen that a\npartial knowledge will not meet the demand. It might be even misleading.\nBuddhism, for example, has assumed an endless variety of forms--now\nappearing as a system of the baldest atheism, and now presenting an\napproximate theism. Gautama was certainly atheistic, and he virtually\ndenied the existence of the human soul. But in the northern development\nof his system, theistic conceptions sprang up. A sort of trinity had\nappeared by the seventh century A.D., and by the tenth century a supreme\nand celestial Buddha had been discovered, from whom all other Buddhas\nwere emanations. To-day there are at least twelve Buddhist sects in\nJapan, of which some are mystical, others pantheistic, while two hold a\nveritable doctrine of salvation by faith.[11]\n\nChina has several types of Buddhism, and Mongolia, Thibet, Nepaul,\nCeylon, Burmah, and Siam present each some special features of the\nsystem. How important that one should understand these differences in\norder to avoid blundering, and to wisely adapt his efforts! In India,\nunder the common generic name of Hinduism, there are also many sects:\nworshippers of Vishnu, worshippers of Siva, worshippers of Krishna.\nThere are Sikhs, and Jains, and devil worshippers; among the Dravidian\nand other pre-Aryan tribes there are victims of every conceivable\nsuperstition.\n\nNow, a missionary must know something of these faiths if he would fight\nwith \"weapons of precision.\" Paul, in becoming all things to all men,\nknew at least the differences between them. He preached the gospel with\na studied adaptation. He tells us that he so strove as to win, and \"not\nas those who beat the air.\" How alert were the combatants in the arena\nfrom which his simile is borrowed! How closely each athlete scanned his\nman, watched his every motion, knew if possible his every thought and\nimpulse! Much more, in winning the souls of darkened and misguided men,\nshould we learn the inmost workings of their minds, their habits of\nthought, and the nature of the errors which are to be dislodged.\n\nBut how shall the false systems of religions be studied? First, there\nshould be a spirit of entire candor. Truth is to be sought always, and\nat any cost; but in this case there is everything to be gained and\nnothing to be lost by the Christian teacher, and he can well afford to\nbe just. Our divine Exemplar never hesitated to acknowledge that which\nwas good in men of whatever nationality or creed. He could appreciate\nthe faith of Roman or Syro-Phoenician. He could see merit in a Samaritan\nas well as in a Jew, and could raise even a penitent publican to the\nplace of honor. It was only the Pharisees who hesitated to admit the\ntruth, until they could calculate the probable effect of their\nadmissions.\n\nThe very best experience of missionaries has been found in the line of\nChrist's example. \"The surest way to bring a man to acknowledge his\nerrors,\" says Bishop Bloomfield, \"is to give him full credit for\nwhatever he had learned of the truth.\"[12] \"What should we think,\" says\na keen observer of the work of missions--\"what should we think of an\nengineer who, in attempting to rear a light-house on a sandbar, should\nfail to acknowledge as a godsend any chance outcropping of solid rock to\nwhich he might fasten his stays?\"[13]\n\nBut in urging the duty of candor, I assume that an absolute freedom from\nbias is impossible on either side. It is sometimes amusing to witness\nthe assurance with which professed agnostics assume that they, and they\nalone, look upon questions of comparative religion with an unbiased and\njudicial mind. They have no belief, they say, in any religion, and are\ntherefore entirely without prejudice. But are they? Has the man who has\nforsaken the faith of his fathers and is deeply sensible of an\nantagonism between him and the great majority of those about him--has he\nno interest in trying to substantiate his position, and justify his\nhostility to the popular faith? Of all men he is generally the most\nprejudiced and the most bitter. We freely admit that we set out with a\ndecided preference for one religious system above all others, but we\ninsist that candor is possible, though an absolutely indifferent\njudgment is out of the question. Paul, who quoted to the Athenians their\nown poet, was fair-minded, and yet no man ever arraigned heathenism so\nterribly as he, and none was so intensely interested in the faith which\nhe preached.\n\nArchbishop Trench, in discussing the exaggerations from which a careful\nstudy of the Oriental religions would doubtless save us, says, \"There is\none against which we are almost unwilling to say a word. I mean the\nexaggeration of those who, in a deep devotion to the truth as it is in\nChrist Jesus, count themselves bound, by their allegiance to Him, to\ntake up a hostile attitude to everything not distinctly and avowedly\nChristian, as though any other position were a treachery to his cause,\nand a surrender of his exclusive right to the authorship of all the good\nwhich is in the world. In this temper we may dwell only on the guilt and\nmisery and defilements, the wounds and bruises and putrefying sores of\nthe heathen world; or if aught better is brought under our eye, we may\nlook askant and suspiciously upon it, as though all recognition of it\nwere a disparagement of something better. And so we may come to regard\nthe fairest deeds of unbaptized men as only more splendid sins. We may\nhave a short but decisive formula by which to try and by which to\ncondemn them. These deeds, we may say, were not of faith, and therefore\nthey could not please God; the men that wrought them knew not Christ,\nand therefore their work was worthless--hay, straw, and stubble, to be\nutterly burned up in the day of the trial of every man's work.\n\n\"Yet there is indeed a certain narrowness of view, out of which alone\nthe language of so sweeping a condemnation could proceed. Our allegiance\nto Christ, as the one fountain of light and life for the world, demands\nthat we affirm none to be good but Him, allow no goodness save that\nwhich has proceeded from Him; but it does not demand that we deny\ngoodness, because of the place where we find it, because we meet it, a\ngarden tree, in the wilderness. It only requires that we claim this for\nHim who planted, and was willing that it should grow there; whom it\nwould itself have gladly owned as its author, if, belonging to a happier\ntime, it could have known Him by his name, whom in part it knew by his\npower.\n\n\"We do not make much of a light of nature when we admit a righteousness\nin those to whom in the days of their flesh the Gospel had not come. We\nonly affirm that the Word, though not as yet dwelling among us, yet\nbeing the 'light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world,'\nhad also lighted them. Some glimpses of his beams gilded their\ncountenances, and gave to these whatever brightness they wore; and in\nrecognizing this brightness we are ascribing honor to Him, and not to\nthem; glorifying the grace of God, and not the virtues of man.\"[14]\n\nIn marked contrast with this, and tending to an extreme, is the\nfollowing, from the pen of Bishop Beveridge. It is quoted by Max Mueller,\nin the opening volume of \"The Sacred Books of the East,\" as a model of\ncandor.\n\n\"The general inclinations which are naturally implanted in my soul to\nsome religion, it is impossible for me to shift off; but there being\nsuch a multiplicity of religions in the world, I desire now seriously to\nconsider with myself which of them all to restrain these my general\ninclinations to. And the reason of this my inquiry is not, that I am in\nthe least dissatisfied with that religion I have already embraced; but\nbecause 'tis natural for all men to have an overbearing opinion and\nesteem for that particular religion they are born and bred-up in. That,\ntherefore, I may not seem biased by the prejudice of education, I am\nresolved to prove and examine them all; that I may see and hold fast to\nthat which is best.... Indeed, there was never any religion so barbarous\nand diabolical, but it was preferred above all other religions\nwhatsoever by them that did profess it; otherwise they would not have\nprofessed it.... And why, say they, may you not be mistaken as well as\nwe? Especially when there are, at least, six to one against your\nChristian religion; all of which think they serve God aright; and expect\nhappiness thereby as well as you.... And hence it is that in my looking\nout for the truest religion, being conscious to myself how great an\nascendancy Christianity holds over me beyond the rest, as being that\nreligion whereunto I was born and baptized; that the supreme authority\nhas enjoined and my parents educated me in; that which everyone I meet\nwithal highly approves of, and which I myself have, by a long-continued\nprofession, made almost natural to me; I am resolved to be more jealous\nand suspicious of this religion than of the rest, and be sure not to\nentertain it any longer without being convinced by solid and substantial\narguments of the truth and certainty of it. That, therefore, I may make\ndiligent and impartial inquiry into all religions and so be sure to find\nout the best, I shall for a time look upon myself as one not at all\ninterested in any particular religion whatsoever, much less in the\nChristian religion; but only as one who desires, in general, to serve\nand obey Him that made me in a right manner, and thereby to be made\npartaker of that happiness my nature is capable of.\"[15]\n\nSecond, in studying the false systems it is important to distinguish\nbetween religion and ethics. In the sphere of ethics the different\nfaiths of men may find much common ground, while in their religious\nelements they may be entirely true or utterly false. The teachings of\nConfucius, though agnostic, presented a moral code which places the\nrelations of the family and state on a very firm basis. And the very\nhighest precepts of Buddhism belong to the period in which it was\nvirtually atheistic. Many great and noble truths have been revealed to\nmankind through the conscience and the understanding, and these truths\nhave found expression in the proverbs or ethical maxims of all races. To\nthis extent God has nowhere left himself without witness. But all this\nis quite apart from a divinely revealed religion which may be cherished\nor be wholly lost. The golden rule is found not only in the New\nTestament, but negatively at least in the Confucian classics;[16] and\nthe Shastras of the Hindus present it in both the positive and the\nnegative form. And the still higher grace of doing good to those who\ninjure us, was proclaimed by Laotze, five hundred years before Christ\npreached the Sermon on the Mount.\n\nThe immense superiority of the ethical standard in Christianity, lies in\nits harmony and completeness. Confucius taught the active virtues of\nlife, Laotze those of a passive kind; Christianity inculcates both. In\nheathenism ethical truths exist in fragments--mere half truths, like the\nbroken and scattered remains of a temple once beautiful but now\ndestroyed. They hold no relation to any high religious purpose, because\nthey have no intelligent relation to God. Christian ethics begin with\nour relations to God as supreme, and they embrace the present life and\nthe world to come. The symmetry of the divine precept, \"Thou shalt love\nthe Lord thy God with all thy heart, and thy neighbor as thyself,\" finds\nno counterpart in the false religions of the world. Nowhere else, not\neven in Buddhism, is found the perfect law of love. The great secret of\npower in Christianity is God's unspeakable love to men in Christ; and\nthe reflex of that love is the highest and purest ever realized in human\nhearts.\n\nThirdly, the false systems should be studied by the Christian\nmissionary, not for their own sakes so much as for an ulterior purpose,\nand they should be studied in constant comparison with the religion\nwhich it is his business to proclaim. His aim is not that of a savant.\nLet us not disguise it: he is mainly endeavoring to gain a more thorough\npreparation for his own great work. The professional scholar at Oxford\nor Leipsic might condemn this acknowledged bias--this pursuit of truth\nas a means and not as an end--but if he would be entirely frank, he\nwould often find himself working in the interest of a linguistic\ntheory, or a pet hypothesis of social science. It was in this spirit\nthat Spencer and Darwin have searched the world for facts to support\ntheir systems.[17]\n\nI repeat, it is enough for the missionary that he shall be thoroughly\ncandid. He may exercise the burning zeal of Paul for the Gospel which he\nproclaims, if he will also exercise his clear discrimination, his\nscrupulous fairness, his courtesy, and his tact. Let him not forget that\nhe is studying religions comparatively; he should proceed with the Bible\nin one hand, and should examine the true and the false together.\nContrasts will appear step by step as he advances, and the great truths\nof Christianity will stand out in brighter radiance, for the shadows of\nthe background. If the question be asked, when and where shall the\nmissionary candidate study the false systems, I answer at once; before\nhe leaves his native land; and I assign three principal reasons. First:\nThe study of a new and difficult language should engross his attention\nwhen he reaches his field. This will prove one of the most formidable\ntasks of his life, and it will demand resolute, concentrated, and\nprolonged effort. Second: In gaining access to the people, studying\ntheir ways and winning their confidence, the missionary will find great\nadvantage in having gained some previous knowledge of their habits of\nthought and the intricacies of their beliefs. Third: The means and\nappliances of study are far greater here at home than on the mission\nfields. A very serious difficulty with most missionaries is the want of\nbooks on special topics; they have no access to libraries, and if one\nhas imagined that he can best understand the faiths of the people by\npersonal contact with them, he will soon learn with surprise how little\nhe can gain from them, and how little they themselves know of their own\nsystems. Those who do know have learned for the purpose of baffling the\nmissionary instead of helping him. The accumulation and the arrangement\nof anything like a systematic knowledge of heathen systems has cost the\ncombined effort of many missionaries and many Oriental scholars; and\nnow, after three generations have pursued these studies, it is still\nfelt that very much is to be learned from literatures yet to be\ntranslated. Such as there are, are best found in the home libraries.\n\nLet us for a few moments consider the question how far those who are not\nto become missionaries may be profited by a study of false systems. To a\nlarge extent, the considerations already urged will apply to them also,\nbut there are still others which are specially important to public\nteachers here at home. Dean Murray, in an able article published in the\n\"Homiletic Review\" of September, 1890, recommended to active and\ncareworn pastors a continued study of the Greek classics, as calculated\nto refresh and invigorate the mind, and increase its capacity for the\nduties of whatever sphere. All that he said of the Greek may also be\nsaid of the Hindu classics, with the added consideration that in the\nlatter we are dealing with the living issues of the day. Sir Monier\nWilliams, in comparing the two great Epics of the Hindus with those of\nHomer, names many points of superiority in the former.[18] It is safe to\nsay that no poems of any other land have ever exercised so great a spell\nover so many millions of mankind as the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, of\nIndia, and no other production is listened to with such delight as the\nstory of Rama as it is still publicly read at the Hindu festivals.\n\nOf philosophies, no system of India has approached so near to veritable\ndivine revelation as that of Plato, but in variety and subtlety, and in\ntheir far-reaching influence upon human life, the Indian schools,\nespecially the Vedanta, are scarcely excelled to this day. And they are\n_applied_ philosophies; they constitute the religion of the people. Max\nMueller has said truly that no other line of investigation is so\nfascinating as that which deals with the long and universal struggle of\nmankind to find out God, and to solve the mystery of their relations to\nhim. Unfortunately, human history has dealt mainly with wars and\nintrigues, and the rise and fall of dynasties; but compared with these\ncoarse and superficial elements, how much more interesting and\ninstructive to trace in all races of men the common and ceaseless\nyearnings after some solution of life's mysteries! One is stirred with\na deeper, broader sympathy for mankind when he witnesses this universal\nsense of dependence, this fear and trembling before the powers of an\nunseen world, this pitiful procession of unblest millions ever trooping\non toward the goal of death and oblivion. And from this standpoint, as\nfrom no other, may one measure the greatness and glory of the Gospel of\nJesus Christ.\n\nTo my mind there is nothing more pathetic than the spectacle of\nworld-wide fetichism. It is not to be contemplated with derision, but\nwith profoundest sympathy. We all remember the pathos of Scott's picture\nof his Highland heroine, with brain disordered by unspeakable grief,\nbeguiling her woes with childish ornaments of \"gaudy broom\" and plumes\nfrom the eagle's wing. But sadder far is the spectacle of millions of\nmen made for fellowship with God, building their hopes on the divinity\ndwelling in an amulet of tiger's teeth or serpent's fangs or curious\nshells. And it ought to enlarge our natures with a Christ-like sympathy\nwhen we contemplate those dark and desperate faiths which are but\nnightmares of the soul, which see in all the universe only malevolent\nspirits to be appeased, which, looking heavenward for a father's face,\nsee, as Richter expressed it, \"only a death's head with bottomless,\nempty sockets\" instead of a loving smile.[19]\n\nAnd what a field do the greater but equally false systems present for\nthe study of the human mind and heart! How was it that the simple nature\nworship of the Indo-Aryans grew into the vast deposit of modern\nHinduism, and developed those social customs which have become walls of\nadamant? How could Buddhism grow out of such a soil and finally cast its\nspell over so many peoples? What were the elements of power which\nenabled the great sage of China to rear a social and political fabric\nwhich has survived for so many centuries? How was it that Islam gained\nits conquests, and what is the secret of that dominion which it still\nholds? These surely are questions worthy of those who are called to deal\nwith human thought and human destiny. And when by comparison we find the\ngrand differentials which raise Christianity infinitely above them all,\nwe shall have gained the power of presenting its truths more clearly and\nmore convincingly to the minds and hearts of men.\n\nThere are some specific advantages flowing from the study of other\nreligions of which I will give little more than an enumeration.\n\n1. It impresses us with the universality of some more or less distinct\nconception of God. I am aware that from time to time explorers imagine\nthat they have found a race of men who have no notion of God, but in\nalmost every instance subsequent investigation has found a religious\nbelief. Such mistakes were made concerning the aborigines of Australia,\nthe Dyaks of Borneo, the Papuans, the Patagonians, and even the American\nIndians. The unity of the race finds a new and striking proof in the\nuniversality of religion.\n\n2. The study of false systems brings to light an almost unanimous\ntestimony for the existence of a vague primeval monotheism, and thus\naffords a strong presumptive corroboration of the Scriptural doctrine of\nman's apostasy from the worship of the true God.\n\n3. The clearest vindication of the severities of the Old Testament\nTheocracy, in its wars of extermination against the Canaanites and\nPhoenicians, is to be found in a careful study of the foul and cruel\ntypes of heathenism which those nations carried with them wherever their\ncolonies extended. A religion which enjoined universal prostitution, and\nled thus to sodomy and the burning of young children in the fires of\nMoloch, far exceeded the worst heathenism of Africa or the islands of\nthe Pacific. The Phoenician settlements on the Mediterranean have not\neven yet recovered from the moral blight of that religion; and had such\na cultus been allowed to spread over all Europe and the world, not even\na second Deluge could have cleansed the earth of its defilement. The\nextermination of the Canaanites, when considered as a part of one great\nscheme for establishing in that same Palestine a purer and nobler faith,\nand sending forth thence, not Phoenician corruption, but the Gospel of\nPeace to all lands, becomes a work of mercy to the human race.\n\n4. The ethics of the heathen will be found to vindicate the doctrines of\nthe Bible. This is a point which should be more thoroughly understood.\nIt has been common to parade the high moral maxims of heathen systems as\nproofs against the exclusive claims of Christianity. But when carefully\nconsidered, the lofty ethical truths found in all sacred books and\ntraditions, corroborate the doctrines of the Scriptures. They condemn\nthe nations \"who hold the truth in unrighteousness.\" They enforce the\ngreat doctrine that by their own consciences all mankind are convicted\nof sin, and are in need of a vicarious righteousness,--a full and free\nsalvation by a divine power. My own experience has been, and it is\ncorroborated by that of many others, that very many truths of the\nGospel, when seen from the stand-point of heathenism, stand out with a\nclearness never seen before.\n\nMany prudential reasons like those which we have given for the study of\nfalse systems by missionaries, pertain also to those who remain at home.\nBoth are concerned in the same cause, and both encounter the same\nassailments of our common faith. We are all missionaries in an important\nsense: we watch the conflict from afar, but we are concerned in all its\nissues. The bulletins of its battle-fields are no longer confined to\nmissionary literature; they are found in the daily secular press, and\nthey are discussed with favorable or unfavorable comments in the monthly\nmagazines. The missionary enterprise has come to attract great\nattention: it has many friends, and also many foes, here at home; it is\nmisrepresented by scoffers at our doors. The high merits of heathen\nsystems, set forth with every degree of exaggeration, pass into the\nhands of Christian families, in books and magazines and secular papers.\nApostles of infidelity are sent out to heathen countries to gather\nweapons against the truth. Natives of various Oriental lands, once\ntaught in our mission schools perhaps, but still heathen, are paraded on\nour lecture platforms, where they entertain us with English and American\narguments in support of their heathen systems and against Christianity.\nYoung pastors, in the literary clubs of their various communities, are\nsurprised by being called to discuss plausible papers on Buddhism, which\nsome fellow-member has contributed, and they are expected to defend the\ntruth. Or some young parishioner has been fascinated by a plausible\nTheosophist, or has learned from Robert Elsmere that there are other\nreligions quite as pure and sacred as our own. Or some chance lecturer\nhas disturbed the community with a discourse on the history of religious\nmyths. And when some anxious member of a church learns that his\nreligious instructor has no help for him on such subjects, that they lie\nwholly outside of his range, there is apt to be something more than\ndisappointment: there is a loss of confidence.\n\nIt is an unfortunate element in the case that error is more welcome in\nsome of our professedly neutral papers than the truth: an article\ndesigned to show that Christianity was borrowed from Buddhism or was\ndeveloped from fetichism will sometimes be welcomed as new sensation,\nwhile a reply of half the length may be rejected.\n\nThere is something ominous in these facts. Whether the secular press\n(not all papers are thus unfair) are influenced by partisan hatred of\nthe truth or simply by a reckless regard for whatever is most popular,\nthe facts are equally portentous. And if it be true that such\npublications are what the people most desire, the outlook for our\ncountry is dark indeed. The saddest consideration is that the power of\nthe secular press is so vast and far reaching. When Celsus wrote, books\nwere few. When Voltaire, Hume, and Thomas Paine made their assailments\non the Christian faith, the means of spreading the blight of error were\ncomparatively few. But now the accumulated arguments of German infidels\nfor the last half-century may be thrown into a five-cent Sunday paper,\nwhose issue will reach a quarter of a million of copies, which perhaps a\nmillion of men and women may read. These articles are copied into a\nhundred other papers, and they are read in the villages and hamlets;\nthey are read on the ranches and in the mining camps where no sermon is\never heard.\n\nIt is perfectly evident that in an age like this we cannot propagate\nChristianity under glass. It must grow in the open field where the free\nwinds of heaven shall smite and dissipate every cloud of error that may\npass over it, and where its roots shall only strike the deeper for the\nquestionings and conflicts that may often befall it. Error cannot be\novercome either by ignoring it or by the cheap but imbecile scolding of\nan ignorant pulpit.\n\nI cannot express the truth on this point more forcibly than by quoting\nthe trenchant words of Professor Ernest Naville, in his lectures on\n\"Modern Atheism.\" After having admitted that one, who can keep himself\nfar from the strifes and struggles of modern thought, will find\nsolitude, prayer, and calm activity, pursued under the guidance of\nconscience, most conducive to unquestioning faith and religious peace,\nhe says: \"But we are not masters of our own ways, and the circumstances\nof the present times impose on us special duties. The barriers which\nseparate the school and the world are everywhere thrown down; everywhere\nshreds of philosophy, and very often of very bad philosophy, scattered\nfragments of theological science, and very often of a deplorable\ntheological science, are insinuating themselves into the current\nliterature. There is not a literary review, there is scarcely a\npolitical journal, which does not speak on occasion, or without\noccasion, of the problems relating to our eternal interests. The most\nsacred beliefs are attacked every day in the organs of public opinion.\nAt such a juncture can men, who preserve faith in their own souls,\nremain like dumb dogs, or keep themselves shut up in the narrow limits\nof the schools? Assuredly not. We must descend to the common ground and\nfight with equal weapons the great battles of thought. For this purpose\nit is necessary to state questions which run the risk of startling\nsincerely religious persons. But there is no help for it if we are to\ncombat the adversaries on their own ground; and because it is thus only\nthat we can prove to all that the torrent of negations is but a passing\nrush of waters, which, fret as they may in their channels, shall be\nfound to have left not so much as a trace of their passage upon the Rock\nof Ages.\" The fact that Professor Naville's lectures were delivered in\nGeneva and Lausanne, to audiences which together numbered over two\nthousand five hundred people, affords abundant proof that the people are\nprepared to welcome the relief afforded by a clear and really able\ndiscussion of these burning questions. In the ordinary teaching of the\npulpit they would be out of place, but every public teacher should be\nable to deal with them on suitable occasions.\n\nIn a single concluding word, the struggle of truth and error has become\nworld-wide. There are no ethnic religions now. There is Christianity in\nCalcutta, and there is Buddhism in Boston. The line of battle is the\nparallel that belts the globe. It is not a time for slumber or for mere\npious denunciation. There must be no blundering: the warfare must be\nwaged with weapons of precision, and then victory is sure. It is well if\nour missionary effort of a century has drawn the fire of the enemy; it\nis well if the time has come to hold up the truth face to face with\nerror, and to fight out and over again the conflict of Elijah and the\nPriests of Baal.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 1: _The Light of Asia and the Light of the World_. Macmillan &\nCo.]\n\n[Footnote 2: The late Professor Moffat, of Princeton Theological\nSeminary, published a _Comparative History of Religions_, but its field\nwas too broad for a thorough treatment.]\n\n[Footnote 3: _Methodist Quarterly_.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Quoted in _Manual of India Missions_.]\n\n[Footnote 5: _Manual of India Missions._]\n\n[Footnote 6: Similar views, though in briefer terms, have been presented\nby Rev. William A.P. Martin, D.D., of Peking; Rev. John L. Nevins, D.D.,\nof Chefou; Rev. A.P. Happer, D.D., and Rev. B.C. Henry, D.D., of Canton;\nProfessor John Wortabet, M.D., of Beyrout; Rev. Jacob Chamberlain, D.D.,\nMissionary of the Reformed Church in Madras; Rev. Z.J. Jones, D.D.,\nMissionary of the American M.E. Church at Bareilly, India; Rev. K.C.\nChattergee and Ram Chandra Bose, both converts from high caste Hinduism\nand both eminent ministers of the Gospel in India; and Rev. E.W. Blyden,\nD.D., the accomplished African scholar of Liberia.]\n\n[Footnote 7: The _Japan Mail_ of September 30, 1891, in reviewing the\nprogress of religious and philosophic discussion as carried on by the\nnative press of the Empire, says: \"The Buddhist literature of the season\nshows plainly the extent to which the educated members of the (Buddhist)\npriesthood are seeking to enlarge their grasp by contact with Western\nphilosophy and religious thought. We happen to know that a prominent\npriest of the Shinsu sect is deeply immersed in Comte's humanitarianism.\nIn _Kyogaku-roushu_ (a native paper) are published instalments of\nSpencer's philosophy. Another paper, the _Hauseikwai_, has an article\nurging the desirability of a general union of all the (Buddhist) sects,\nsuch as Colonel Olcott brought about in India between the northern and\nthe southern Buddhists.\"]\n\n[Footnote 8: _Leaves from an Egyptian Note-book._]\n\n[Footnote 9: Papers of Rev. Mr. Hewlett in the _Indian Evangelical\nReview_.]\n\n[Footnote 10: In an address given in Tokio, by Rev. Mr. Knapp, of\nBoston, Buddhists in Japan were advised to build their religion of the\nfuture upon their own foundations, and not upon the teachings of Western\npropagandists.]\n\n[Footnote 11: _The Twelve Buddhist Sects of Japan_, by Bunyiu Nanjio,\nOxon.]\n\n[Footnote 12: Quoted in _Manual of India Missions_.]\n\n[Footnote 13: Quoted in _Manual of India Missions_.]\n\n[Footnote 14: _Hulsean Lectures_, 1846.]\n\n[Footnote 15: Private Thoughts on Religion, Part I., Article 2.]\n\n[Footnote 16: Confucius not only taught that men should not do to others\nwhat they would not have done to them, but when one of his disciples\nasked him to name one word which should represent the whole duty of man,\nhe replied \"Reciprocity.\"]\n\n[Footnote 17: Whoever will read the Preface of Mr. Spencer's work on\nSociology will be surprised at the means which have been used in\ncollecting and verifying supposed facts; a careful perusal of the book\nwill show that all classes of testimony have been accepted, so far as\nthey were favorable. Adventurers, reporters, sailors, and that upon the\nbriefest and most casual observation, have been deemed capable of\ninterpreting the religious beliefs of men. Even Peschel doubts many of\ntheir conclusions.]\n\n[Footnote 18: See _Indian Wisdom_.]\n\n[Footnote 19: Archbishop Trench, after speaking in his Hulsean lectures\nof the advantages which we may gain from an earnest study of the\nstruggles of thoughtful men, who amid heathen darkness have groped after\na knowledge of the true God, and of the gratitude which we ought to feel\nwho have received a more sure word of prophecy, adds in words of rare\nbeauty: \"And perhaps it shall seem to us as if that star in the natural\nheavens which guided those Eastern sages from their distant home, was\nbut the symbol of many a star which, in the world's mystical night, such\nas, being faithfully followed, availed to lead humble and devout hearts\nfrom far-off regions of superstition and error, till they knelt beside\nthe cradle of the Babe of Bethlehem, and saw all their weary wanderings\nrepaid in a moment, and all their desires finding a perfect fulfilment\nin Him.\"]\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE II.\n\nTHE METHODS OF THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN DEALING WITH HEATHENISM\n\n\nThe coincidences of our present conquest of the non-Christian races with\nthat to which the Apostolic Church was called are numerous and striking.\nNot even one hundred years ago was the struggle with heathen error so\nsimilar to that of the early Church.\n\nTo a great extent the missionary efforts of the mediaeval centuries\nencountered only crude systems, which it was comparatively easy to\novercome. The rude tribes of Northern Europe were converted by the\nChristianity of the later Roman Empire, even though they were\nconquerors. Their gods of war and brute force did not meet all the\ndemands of life. As a source of hope and comfort, their religion had\nlittle to be compared with the Christian faith, and as to philosophy\nthey had none. They had inherited the simple nature worship which was\ncommon to all branches of the Aryan race, and they had expanded it into\nvarious ramifications of polytheism; but they had not fortified it with\nsubtle speculations like those of the Indo-Aryans, nor had their\nmythologies become intrenched in inveterate custom, and the national\npride which attends an advanced civilization.\n\nAt a later day Christian missionaries in Britain found the Norse\nreligion of the Saxons, Jutes, and Angles, scarcely holding the\nconfidence of either rulers or subjects. They had valued their gods\nchiefly for the purposes of war, and they had not always proved\nreliable. The king of Northumbria, like Clovis of France, had vowed to\nexchange his deities for the God of the Christians if victory should be\ngiven him on a certain battle-field; and when he had assembled his\nthanes to listen to a discussion between the missionary Paulinus and the\npriests of Woden on the comparative merits of their respective faiths,\nthe high priest frankly admitted his dissatisfaction with a religion\nwhich he had found utterly disappointing and useless; and when other\nchief counsellors had given the same testimony, and a unanimous vote had\nbeen taken to adopt the Christian faith, he was the first to commence\nthe destruction of the idols.[20]\n\nThe still earlier missionaries among the Druid Celts of Britain and\nFrance, though they found in Druidism a more elaborate faith than that\nof the Norsemen, encountered no such resistance as we find in the great\nreligious systems of our day. Where can we point to so easy a conquest\nas that of Patrick in Ireland, or that of the Monks of Iona among the\nPicts and Scots?\n\nThe Druids claimed that they already had many things in common with the\nChristian doctrines,[21] and what was a still stronger element in the\ncase, they made common cause with the Christians against the wrongs\ninflicted on both by pagan Rome. The Roman emperors were not more\ndetermined to extirpate the hated and, as they thought, dangerous\ninfluences of Christianity, than they were to destroy every vestige of\nDruidism as their only hope of conquering the invincible armies of\nBoadicea. And thus the mutual experience of common sufferings opened a\nwide door for the advancement of Christian truth.\n\nThe conquests of Welsh and Irish missionaries in Burgundy, Switzerland,\nand _Germany_, encountered no elaborate book religions, and no profound\nphilosophies. They had to deal with races of men who were formidable\nonly with weapons of warfare, and who, intent chiefly on conquest and\nmigration, had few institutions and no written historic records. The\npeaceful sceptre of the truth was a new force in their experience, and\nthe sympathetic and self-denying labors of a few missionaries tamed the\nfierce Vikings to whom Britain had become a prey, and whose incursions\neven the armies of Charlemagne could not resist.\n\nHow different is our struggle with the races now under the sceptre of\nIslam, for example--inflated as they are with the pride of wide\nconquest, and looking contemptuously upon that Christian faith which it\nwas their early mission to sweep away as a form of idolatry! How\ndifferent is our task in India, which boasts the antiquity of the noble\nSanskrit and its sacred literature, and claims, as the true\nrepresentative of the Aryan race, to have given to western nations their\nphilosophy, their religion, and their civilization! How much more\ndifficult is our encounter with Confucianism, which claims to have laid\nthe foundations of the most stable structure of social and political\ninstitutions that the world has ever known, and which to-day, after\ntwenty-five centuries of trial, appeals to the intellectual pride of all\nintelligent classes in a great empire of four hundred millions! And\nfinally, how different is our task with Buddhism, so mystical and\nabstruse, so lofty in many of its precepts, and yet so cold and thin, so\nflexible and easily adapted, and therefore so varied and many sided! The\nreligious systems with which we are now confronted find their\ncounterparts only in the heathenism with which the early Church had to\ndeal many centuries ago; and for this reason the history of those early\nstruggles is full of practical instruction for us now. How did the early\nChurch succeed in its great conquest? What methods were adopted, and\nwith what measures of success?\n\nIn one respect there is a wide difference in the two cases. The Apostles\nwere attempting to convert their conquerors. They belonged to the\nvanquished race; they were of a despised nationality. The early fathers\nalso were subjects of Pagan powers. Insomuch as the Roman emperors\nclaimed divine honors, there was an element of treason in their\npropagandism. The terrible persecutions which so long devastated the\nearly Church found their supposed justification in the plea of\nself-defence against a system which threatened to subvert cherished and\ntime-honored institutions. Candid writers, like Archdeacon Farrar, admit\nthat Christianity did hasten the overthrow of the Roman Empire.\n\nBut we find no conquering powers in our pathway. Christianity and\nChristian civilization have become dominant in the earth. The weakness\nof the Christian Church in its conquests now is not in being baffled and\ncrippled by tyranny and persecution, but rather in the temptation to\narrogance and the abuse of superior power, in the overbearing spirit\nshown in the diplomacy of Christian nations and the unscrupulous\naggressions of their commerce. There is also a further contrast in the\nfact that in the early days the advantages of frugality and simple\nhabits of life were on the side of the missionaries. Roman society\nespecially was beginning to suffer that decay which is the inevitable\nconsequence of long-continued luxury, while the Church observed\ntemperance in all things and excelled in the virtues which always tend\nto moral and social victory.[22]\n\nOn the other hand, we who are the ambassadors to the heathen of to-day,\nare ourselves exposed to the dangers which result from wealth and\nexcessive luxury. Our grade of life, our scale of expenditure, even the\nstyle in which our missionaries live, excites the amazement of the\nfrugal heathen to whom they preach. And as for the Church at home, it is\nhardly safe for a Persian or a Chinaman to see it. Everyone who visits\nthis wonderful eldorado carries back such romantic impressions as excite\nin others, not so much the love of the Gospel as the love of mammon.\nWhen the Church went forth in comparative poverty, and with an intense\nmoral earnestness, to preach righteousness, temperance, and the judgment\nto come; when those who were wealthy gave all to the poor--like Anthony\nof Egypt, Jerome, Ambrose, and Francis of Assisi--and in simple garments\nbore the Gospel to those who were surfeited with luxuries and pleasures,\nand were sick of a life of mere indulgence, then the truth of the Gospel\nconquered heathenism with all that the world could give. But whether a\nChurch in the advanced civilization of our land and time, possessed of\nenormous wealth, enjoying every luxury, and ever anxious to gain more\nand more of this present world, can convert heathen races who deem\nthemselves more frugal, more temperate, and less worldly than we, is a\nproblem which remains to be solved. We have rare facilities, but we have\ngreat drawbacks. God's grace can overcome even our defects, and He has\npromised success.\n\nBut in the proud intellectual character of the systems encountered\nrespectively by the ancient and by the modern Church, there are\nremarkable parallels. The supercilious pride of Brahminism, or the lofty\nscorn of Mohammedanism, is quite equal to that self-sufficient Greek\nphilosophy in whose eyes the Gospel was the merest foolishness. And the\nimmovable self-righteousness of the Stoics has its counterpart in the\nConfucianism of the Chinese literati. A careful comparison of the six\nschools of Hindu philosophy with the various systems of Greece and\nRome, will fill the mind with surprise at the numerous\ncorrespondences--one might almost say identities. And that surprise is\nthe greater from the fact that no proof exists that either has been\nborrowed from the other.\n\nThe atomic theory of creation advanced by Lucretius is found also in the\nNyaya philosophy of the Hindus. The pessimism of Pliny and Marcus\nAurelius was much more elaborately worked out by Gautama. The Hindus had\ntheir categories and their syllogisms as well as Aristotle. The\nconception of a dual principle in deity which the early Church traced in\nall the religious systems of Egypt, Phoenicia, and Assyria, and whose\ninfluence poisoned the life of the Phoenician colonies, and was so\ncorrupting to the morals of Greece and Rome, was also elaborated by the\nSankhya philosophy of Kapila, and it has plunged Hindu society into as\ndeep a degradation as could be found in Pompeii or Herculaneum.[23] The\nIndian philosophy partook far more of the pantheistic element than that\nof Greece. Plato and Aristotle had clearer conceptions of the\npersonality of the deity and of the distinct and responsible character\nof the human soul than any school of Hindu philosophers--certainly\nclearer than the Vedantists, and their ethics involved a stronger sense\nof sin.\n\nGerman philosophy has borrowed its pantheism from India rather than from\nGreece, and in its most shadowy developments it has never transcended\nthe ancient Vedantism of Vyasa.\n\nAs in the early centuries, so in our time, different systems of religion\nhave been commingled and interwoven into protean forms of error more\ndifficult to understand and dislodge than any one of the faiths and\nphilosophies of which they were combined. As the Alexandrian Jews\nintertwined the teachings of Judaism and Platonism; as Manichaeans and\nGnostics corrupted the truths of the Old and New Testaments with ideas\nborrowed from Persian mysticism; as various eclectic systems gathered up\nall types of thought which the wide conquests of the Roman Empire\nbrought together, and mingled them with Christian teachings; so now the\nincreased intercommunication, and the quickened intellectual activity\nof our age have led to the fusion of different systems, ancient and\nmodern, in a negative and nerveless religion of humanity. We now have in\nthe East not only Indian, but Anglo-Indian, speculations. The\nunbelieving Calcutta graduate has Hegel and Spinoza interwoven with his\nVedantism, and the eclectic leader of the Brahmo Somaj, while placing\nChrist at the head of the prophets and recognizing the authority of all\nsacred bibles of the races, called on Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and\nMohammedans to unite in one theistic church of the New Dispensation in\nIndia. Not even the old Gnostics could present so striking an admixture\nas that of the Arya Somaj. It has appropriated many of those Christian\nethics which have been learned from a century of contact with\nmissionaries and other Christian residents. It has approved the more\nhumane customs and reforms of Christendom, denouncing caste, and the\ndegradation of woman. It has repudiated the corrupt rites and the\ndegrading superstitions of Hinduism. At the same time its hatred of the\nChristian faith is most bitter and intense.\n\nAnd there are other alliances, not a few, between the East and the West.\nIn India and Japan the old Buddhism is compounded with American\nSpiritualism and with modern Evolution, under a new application of the\nancient name of Theosophy. In Japan representatives of advanced\nUnitarianism are exhorting the Japanese Buddhists to build the religion\nof the future on their old foundations, and to avoid the propagandists\nof western Christianity.\n\nThe bland and easy-going catholicity which professes so much in our day,\nwhich embraces all faiths and unfaiths in one sweet emulsion of\nmeaningless negations, which patronizes the Christ and His doctrines,\nand applies the nomenclature of Christianity to doctrines the very\nopposite of its teachings, finds a counterpart in the smooth and vapid\ncompromises of the old Gnostics. \"Gnosticism,\" says Uhlhorn, \"combined\nGreek philosophies, Jewish theology, and ancient Oriental theosophy,\nthus forming great systems of speculative thought, all with the object\nof displaying the world's development. From a pantheistic First Cause,\nGnosticism traced the emanation of a series of aeons--beings of Light.\nThe source of evil was supposed to be matter, which in this material\nworld holds light in captivity. To liberate the light and thus redeem\nthe world, Christ came, and thus Christianity was added as the crowning\nand victorious element in this many-sided system of speculation. But\nChrist was regarded not so much as a Saviour of individual souls as an\nemancipator of a disordered kosmos, and the system which seemed to\naccord great honor to Christianity threatened to destroy its life and\npower.\" So, according to some of our Modern Systems, men are to find\ntheir future salvation in the grander future of the race.[24]\n\nNot only do we encounter mixtures of truth and error, but we witness\nsimilar attempts to prove that whatever is best in Christianity was\nborrowed from heathenism. Porphyry and others maintained that Pythagoras\nand Theosebius had anticipated many of the attributes and deeds of\nChrist, and Philostratus was prompted by the wife of Severus to write a\nhistory of Appolonius of Tyana which should match the life of Christ.\nAnd in precisely the same way it has been variously claimed in our time\nthat the story of Christ's birth, childhood, and ministry were borrowed\nfrom Buddha and from Krishna, and that the whole conception of his\nvicarious suffering for the good of men is a clever imitation of\nPrometheus Bound. Now, in the earlier conflict it was important to know\nthe facts on both sides in order to meet these allegations of Porphyry,\nMarinus, and others, and it is equally important to understand the\nprecise ground on which similar charges are made with equal assurance\nnow.[25] The very same old battles are to be fought over again, both\nwith philosophy and with legend.\n\nAnd it is very evident that, with so many points of similarity between\nthe early struggle of Christianity with heathenism and that of our own\ntime, it is quite worth our labor to inquire what were the general\nmethods then pursued. Then victory crowned the efforts of the Church.\nThat which humanly speaking seemed impossible, was actually\naccomplished. From our finite standpoint, no more preposterous command\nwas ever given than that which Christ gave to his little company of\ndisciples gathered in the mountains of Galilee, or that last word before\nhis ascension on Mt. Olivet, in which He placed under their responsible\nstewardship, not only Jerusalem, but all Judea and Samaria, and the\n\"uttermost parts of the earth.\" The disciples were without learning or\nsocial influence, or political power. They had no wealth and few\nfacilities, and so far as they knew there were no open doors. They were\nhated by their Jewish countrymen, ridiculed by the ubiquitous and\ncultured Greeks, and frowned upon by the conquering powers of Rome. How\nthen did they succeed? How was it that in three or four centuries they\nhad virtually emptied the Roman Pantheon of its heathen deities, and\nhad gained the sceptre of the empire and the world?\n\nIt is easy to misapprehend the forces which won the victory. The\ndisciples first chosen to found the Church were fishermen, but that\naffords no warrant for the belief that only untutored men were employed\nin the early Church, or for the inference that the Salvation Army are to\ngain the conquest now. They were inspired; these are not; and a few only\nwere chosen, with the very aim of setting at naught the intolerant\nwisdom of the Pharisees. But when the Gospel was to be borne to heathen\nraces, to the great nations whose arrogance was proportionate to their\nlearning and their power, a very different man was selected. Saul of\nTarsus had almost every needed qualification seen from a human point of\nview. Standing, as he must, between the stiff bigotry of Judaism and the\nsubtleties of Greek philosophy, he was fortunately familiar with both.\nHe was a man of rare courtesy, and yet of matchless courage. Whether\naddressing a Jewish governor or the assembled philosophers and\ncounsellors of Athens, he evinced an unfailing tact. He knew how to\nconciliate even a common mob of heathen idolators and when to defy a\nhigh priest, or plead the immunities of his Roman citizenship before a\nRoman proconsul.\n\nIn tracing the methods of the early Church in dealing with heathenism,\nwe begin, therefore, with Paul; for although he was differentiated from\nall modern parallels by the fact that he was inspired and endowed with\nmiraculous power, yet that does not invalidate the force of those\ngeneral principles of action which he illustrated. He was the first and\ngreatest of all missionaries, and through all time it will be safe and\nprofitable to study his characteristics and his methods. He showed the\nvalue of thorough training in his own faith, and of a full understanding\nof all the errors he was to contend with. He could reason with Jews out\nof their own Scriptures, or substantiate his position with Greeks by\nciting their own poets. He was certainly uncompromising in maintaining\nthe sovereignty of the one God, Jehovah, but he was not afraid to admit\nthat in their blind way the heathen were also groping after the same\nsupreme Father of all. The unknown God at Athens he accepted as an\nadumbration of Him whom he proclaimed, and every candid reader must\nadmit that in quoting the words of Aratus, which represent Zeus as the\nsupreme creator whose offspring we are, he conveys the impression of a\nreal resemblance, if not a partial and obscured identity.\n\nThe essential principle here is that Paul frankly acknowledged whatever\nglimpses of truth he found in heathen systems, and made free use of them\nin presenting the fuller and clearer knowledge revealed in the Gospel.\nNo man ever presented a more terrible arraignment of heathenism than\nthat which he makes in the first chapter of his epistle to the Romans,\nand yet, with marvellous discrimination he proceeds, in the second\nchapter, to show how much of truth God has imparted to the\nunderstandings and the consciences of all men. And he seems to imply\nthe Holy Spirit's regenerative work through Christ's atonement, when he\nmaintains that whoever shall, \"by patient continuance in well doing,\nseek glory and immortality,\" to him shall \"eternal life\" be given; but\n\"tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that doeth evil, to the\nJew first, and also to the Gentile.\" Peter was not prepared to be a\nmissionary till he had been divested of his Jewish narrowness by\nwitnessing the power of grace in the Roman centurion at Cesarea. That\nwidened out his horizon immensely. He saw that God in his ultimate plan\nwas no respecter of persons or of races.\n\nThere has been great difference of opinion as to whether the annual\nworship of the supreme God of Heaven in the great imperial temple at\nPeking is in any degree a relic of the worship of the true God once\nrevealed to mankind. Such Chinese scholars as Martin and Legge and\nDouglass think that it is; others deny it. Some men raise a question\nwhether the Allah of the Mohammedan faith is identical with the Jehovah\nof the Old Testament. Sales, the profoundest expositor of Islam,\nconsiders him the same. Moslems themselves have no doubt of it: the\nintent of the Koran is that and nothing else; Old Testament teachings\nare interwoven with almost every sura of its pages. I think that Paul\nwould have conceded this point at once, and would the more successfully\nhave urged the claims of Jesus, whom the Koran presents as the only\nsinless prophet. Of course Mohammedans do not recognize the Triune God\nas we now apprehend Him, from the New Testament standpoint; neither did\nancient believers of Israel fully conceive of God as He has since been\nmore fully revealed in the person and the sacrifice of his Son--Jesus\nChrist.\n\nBoth the teachings and the example of Paul seem to recognize the fact\nthat conceptions of God, sometimes clear and sometimes dim, may exist\namong heathen nations; and many of the great Christian fathers evidently\ntook the same view. They admitted that Plato's noble teachings were\ncalculated to draw the soul toward God, though they revealed no real\naccess to Him such as is found in Christ. Archbishop Trench, in his\nHulsean lectures on \"Christ the Desire of the Nations,\" dwells\napprovingly upon Augustine's well-known statement, that he had been\nturned from vice to an inspiring conception of God by reading the\n\"Hortensius\" of Cicero. Augustine's own reference to the fact is found\nin the fourth book of his \"Confessions,\" where he says: \"In the ordinary\ncourse of study I fell upon a certain book of Cicero whose speech almost\nall admire--not so his heart. This book contains an exhortation to\nphilosophy, and is called 'Hortensius.' But this book altered my\naffections and turned my prayers to Thyself, O Lord, and made me have\nother purposes and desires. Every vain hope at once became worthless to\nme, and I longed with an incredible burning desire for an immortality of\nwisdom, and began now to arise that I might return to Thee. For not to\nsharpen my tongue did I employ that book: nor did it infuse into me its\nstyle, but its matter.\"\n\nThe \"Hortensius\" of Cicero has not survived till our time, and we know\nnot what it contained; but we cannot fail to notice this testimony of a\nmature and eminent saint to the spiritual benefit which he had received\nat the age of thirty-one, from reading the works of a heathen\nphilosopher. And a most interesting proof is here furnished for the\nfreedom with which the Spirit of God works upon the hearts of men, and\nthe great variety of means and agencies which He employs,--and that\nbeyond the pale of the Christian Church, and even beyond the actual\nknowledge of the historic Christ. It would be interesting to know\nwhether the regeneration of Augustine occurred just then, when he says\nin such strong language, that this book altered his affections and\nturned his prayers unto God, and made him \"long with an indescribable\nburning desire for an immortality of wisdom.\" All men are saved, if at\nall, by the blood of Christ through the renewing of the Holy Ghost; but\nwhat was the position of such men as Augustine and Cornelius of Cesarea\nbefore they fully and clearly saw Jesus as the actual Messiah, and as\nthe personal representative of that Grace of God in which they had\nalready reposed a general faith, is at least an interesting question.\n\nNot less positive is the acknowledgment which Augustine makes of the\nbenefits which he had received from Plato. And he mentions many others,\nas Virgininus, Lactantius, Hilary, and Cyprian, who, like himself,\nhaving once been heathen and students of heathen philosophy, had, as he\nexpresses it, \"spoiled the Egyptians, bringing away with them rich\ntreasures from the land of bondage, that they might adorn therewith the\ntrue tabernacle of the Christian faith.\" Augustine seems to have been\nfond of repeating both this argument and this his favorite illustration.\nIn his \"Doctrine of Christ\" he expands it more fully than in his\n\"Confessions.\" He says: \"Whatever those called philosophers, and\nespecially the Platonists, may have said conformable to our faith, is\nnot only not to be dreaded, but is to be claimed from them as unlawful\npossessors, to our use. For, as the Egyptians not only had idols and\nheavy burdens which the people of Israel were to abhor and avoid, but\nalso vessels and ornaments of gold and silver and apparel which that\npeople at its departure from Egypt privily assumed for a better use, not\non its own authority but at the command of God, the very Egyptians\nunwittingly furnishing the things which themselves used not well; so all\nthe teaching of the Gentiles not only hath feigned and superstitious\ndevices, and heavy burdens of a useless toil, which we severally, as\nunder the leading of Christ we go forth out of the fellowship of the\nGentiles, ought to abhor and avoid, but it also containeth liberal arts,\nfitter for the service of truth, and some most useful moral precepts; as\nalso there are found among them some truths concerning the worship of\nthe One God Himself, as it were their gold and silver which they did not\nthemselves form, but drew from certain veins of Divine Providence\nrunning throughout, and which they perversely and wrongfully abuse to\nthe service of demons. These, the Christian, when he severs himself from\ntheir wretched fellowship, ought to take from them for the right use of\npreaching of the Gospel. For what else have many excellent members of\nour faith done? See we not how richly laden with gold and silver and\napparel that most persuasive teacher and most blessed martyr, Cyprian,\ndeparted out of Egypt? Or Lactantius, or Victorinus, Optatus, Hilary,\nnot to speak of the living, and Greeks innumerable? And this, Moses\nhimself, that most faithful servant of God, first did, of whom it is\nwritten, that 'he was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians.'\"\n\nLet us for a moment pause and see of what these treasures of Egypt\nconsisted, and especially what Plato taught concerning God. Like\nSocrates, he ridiculed the absurd but popular notion that the gods could\nbe full of human imperfections, could make war upon each other, could\nengage in intrigues, and be guilty of base passions. And he earnestly\nmaintained that it was demoralizing to children and youth to hold up\nsuch beings as objects of worship. Such was his condemnation of what he\nconsidered false gods. He was equally opposed to the idea that there is\nno God. \"All things,\" he says, \"are from God, and not from some\nspontaneous and unintelligent cause.\" \"Now, that which is created,\" he\nadds, \"must of necessity be created by some cause--but how can we find\nout the Father and maker of all this universe? If the world indeed be\nfair, and the artificer good, then He must have looked to that which is\nexternal--for the world is the fairest of creatures, as He is the best\nof causes.\"\n\nPlato's representation of the mercy of God, of his providential care, of\nhis unmixed goodness, of his eternal beauty and holiness--are well-nigh\nup to the New Testament standard. So is also his doctrine of the\nimmortality of the soul. The fatal deficiency is that he does not\n_know_. He has received no divine revelation. \"We will wait,\" he said in\nanother passage, \"for one, be it a god or a god-inspired man, to teach\nus our religious duties, and as Athene in Homer says to Diomede, to take\naway the darkness from our eyes.\" And in still another place he adds:\n\"We must lay hold of the best human opinion in order that, borne by it\nas on a raft, we may sail over the dangerous sea of life, unless we can\nfind a stronger boat, _or some word of God which will more surely and\nsafely carry us_.\"[26]\n\nThere is a deep pathos in the question which I have just quoted, \"How\ncan we find out the Father and maker of all this universe?\" And in the\nlast sentence quoted, Plato seems to have felt his way to the very\nthreshold of the revelation of Christ.[27]\n\nAugustine shows a discrimination on this subject too important to be\noverlooked, when he declares that while the noble philosophy of the\nPlatonists turned his thoughts away from his low gratifications to the\ncontemplation of an infinite God, it left him helpless. He was profited\nboth by what philosophy taught him and by what it could not teach: it\ncreated wants which it could not satisfy. In short, he was prepared by\nits very deficiencies to see in stronger contrast the all-satisfying\nfulness of the Gospel of Eternal Life. Plato could tell him nothing of\nany real plan of redemption, and he confesses with tender pathos that\nhe found no Revealer, no divine sacrifice for sin, no uplifted Cross, no\ngift of the transforming Spirit, no invitation to the weary, no light of\nthe Resurrection.[28] Now, just here is the exact truth; and Augustine\nhas conferred a lasting benefit upon the Christian Church by this grand\nlesson of just discrimination. He and other Christian fathers knew where\nto draw the lines carefully and wisely with respect to heathen errors.\n\nWe often have occasion to complain of the sharpness of the controversies\nof the early Church, but it could scarcely be otherwise in an age like\nthat. It was a period of transitions and of rude convulsions. The\nfoundations of the great deep of human error were being broken up. It\nwas no time for flabby, jelly-fish convictions. The training which the\ngreat leaders had received in philosophy and rhetoric had made them keen\ndialectics. They had something of Paul's abhorrence of heathen\nabominations, for they saw them on every hand. They saw also the\nspecious admixtures of Gnosticism, and they met them squarely.\nTertullian's controversy with Marcion, Augustine's sharp issue with\nPelasgius, Ambrose's bold and uncompromising resistance to Arianism,\nOrigen's able reply to Celsus, all show that the great leaders of the\nChurch were not men of weak opinions. The discriminating concessions\nwhich they made, therefore, were not born of an easy-going\nindifferentism and the soft and nerveless charity that regards all\nreligions alike. They found a medium between this pretentious extreme\nand the opposite evil of ignorant and narrow prejudgment; and nothing is\nmore needed in the missionary work of our day than that intelligent and\nwell-poised wisdom which considers all the facts and then draws just\ndistinctions; which will not compensate for conscious ignorance with\ncheap misrepresentation or wholesale denunciation.\n\n1. Now, first of all, in considering the methods of the early Church and\nits secret of power in overcoming the errors of heathenism, it must be\nborne in mind that the victory was mainly due to the _moral earnestness_\nwhich characterized that period. In this category we must place the\ninfluence which sprang from the martyrdom of thousands who surrendered\nlife rather than relinquish their faith. That this martyr spirit did not\nalways produce a true symmetry of Christian character cannot be denied.\nThe tide of fanaticism swept in, sometimes, with the current of true\nreligious zeal, and inconsistencies and blemishes marred even the\nsaintliest self-sacrifice; but there was no resisting the mighty logic\nof the spirit of martyrdom as a whole. The high and the low, the wise\nand the unlettered, the rich and the poor, the old and the young, strong\nmen and delicate women, surrendered themselves to the most cruel\ntortures for the love of Christ. This spectacle, while it may have\nserved only to enrage a Nero and urge him on to even more Satanic\ncruelty, could not be wholly lost upon the more thoughtful Marcus\nAurelius and others like him. It was impossible to resist the moral\nforce of so calm and resolute a surrender unto torture and death.\nMoreover, an age which produced such relinquishment of earthly\npossessions as was shown by men like Anthony and Ambrose, who were ready\nto lay down the emoluments of high political position and distribute\ntheir large fortunes for the relief of the poor; and such women as Paula\nand others of high position, who were ready to sacrifice all for Christ\nand retire into seclusion and voluntary poverty--an age which could\nproduce such characters and could show their steady perseverance unto\nthe end, could not fail to be an age of resistless moral power; and it\nwould be safe to say that no heathen system could long stand against the\nsustained and persistent force of such influences. Were the Christian\nChurch of to-day moved by even a tithe of that high self-renunciation,\nto say nothing of braving the fires of martyrdom, if it possessed in\neven partial degree the same sacrifice of luxury and ease, and the same\nconsecration of effort and of influence, the conquest of benighted\nnations would be easy and rapid.\n\nThe frugality of the early Christians, the simplicity of life which the\ngreat body of the Church observed, and to which even wealthy converts\nmore or less conformed, was also, doubtless, a strong factor in the\ngreat problem of winning the heathen to Christ. Probably in no age could\nChristian simplicity find stronger contrasts than were presented by the\nluxury and extravagance, the unbridled indulgence and profligacy, which\ncharacterized the later periods of the Roman Empire. Universal conquest\nof surrounding nations had brought untold wealth. The Government had\nhastened the process of decay by lavish distribution to the people of\nthose resources which obviated the necessity of unremitting toil. It had\ndevoted large expenditures to popular amusements, and demagogues had\nsquandered the public funds for the purpose of securing their own\npreferment. Over against the moral earnestness of the persecuted\nChristian Church, there was in the nation itself and the heathenism\nwhich belonged to it, an utter want of character or conviction. These\nconditions of the conquest, as I have already indicated, do not find an\nexact counterpart with us now. There is more of refined Christian\nculture than existed in the early Church; probably there is also more of\norganized Christian effort. In many points the comparison is in our\nfavor, but earnestness, and the spiritual power which attends it, are on\na lower grade. There is no escape from the conviction that just here\nlies the reason why the Christian Church, with all her numbers, her vast\nmaterial resources, and her unlimited opportunities, cannot achieve a\ngreater success.\n\n2. But, on the intellectual side, and as relating to the methods of\ndirect effort, there are many points in which imitation of the early\nexample is entirely practicable. And first, the wise discrimination\nwhich was exercised by Augustine and other Christian leaders is entirely\npracticable now. There has prevailed in our time an indiscriminate\ncarelessness in the use of terms in dealing with this subject. The\nstrong language which the Old Testament employed against the\nabominations of Baalism, we have seemed to regard as having equal force\nagainst the ethics of Confucius or Gautama. \"Heathenism\" is the one\nbrand which we have put upon all the non-Christian religions. I wish it\nwere possible to exchange the term for a better.[29] Baalism was\nundoubtedly the most besotted, cruel, and diabolical religion that has\never existed on the earth. When we carefully study it we are not\nsurprised at the strong language of denunciation which the Old Testament\nemploys. But as I have already shown, we find in the New Testament a\ndifferent spirit exercised toward the types of error which our Saviour\nand his disciples were called to meet. There is only gentleness in our\nLord's dealings with those who were without the Jewish Church. His\nstrongest denunciations were reserved for hypocrites who knew the truth\nand obeyed it not. He declared that the men of Nineveh would rise up in\njudgment against those who rejected the clear message of God's own Son.\nThe man who goes forth to the great mission fields with the feeling that\nit is his province to assail as strongly as possible the deeply-rooted\nconvictions of men, instead of winning them to a more excellent way, is\nworse than one who beats the air; he is doing positive harm; he is\ntrifling with precious souls. He does not illustrate the spirit of\nChrist.\n\nThe wisest of the early Fathers sometimes differed widely from each\nother in their methods; some were denunciatory, others were even too\nready to excuse. The great African controversialist, Tertullian, was\nunsparing in his anathemas, not only against heathen customs, which were\nvile indeed, but against the teachings of the noblest philosophy. He had\nwitnessed the former; he had not candidly studied the latter. With a\nblind zeal, which has too often been witnessed in the history of good\ncauses, he denounced Plato, Aristotle, and even Socrates with a violence\nwhich marred the character of so great a man. On the other hand, Justin\nMartyr and Clement of Alexandria were perhaps excessively broad. Of two\nnoted Alexandrines, Archdeacon Farrar says: \"They were philosophers in\nspirit; they could enforce respect by their learning and their large,\nrounded sympathy, where rhetorical denunciation and ecclesiastical\nanathemas would only have been listened to with a frown of anger, or a\nlook of disdain. Pagan youths would have listened to Clement when he\nspoke of Plato as 'the truly noble and half-inspired,' while they would\nhave looked on Tertullian as an ignorant railer, who could say nothing\nbetter of Socrates than to call him the 'Attic buffoon,' and of\nAristotle than to characterize him as the 'miserable Aristotle.'\"\n\nTatian and Hermes also looked upon Greek philosophy as an invention of\nthe devil. Irenaeus was more discriminating. He opposed the broad and lax\ncharity of the Alexandrines, but he read the Greek philosophy, and when\ncalled to the bishopric of Lyons, he set himself to the study of the\nGallic Druidism, believing that a special adaptation would be called for\nin that remote mission field.[30] Basil was an earnest advocate of the\nGreek philosophy as giving a broader character to Christian education.\n\nThere were among the Fathers many different types of men, some\nphilosophically inclined, others better able to use practical arguments.\nSome were more successful in appealing to the signs of the times, the\nclear evidences of that corruption and decay to which heathenism had\nled. They pointed to the degradation of women, the prevalence of vice,\nthe inordinate indulgence in pleasures, the love of excitement, the\ncruel frenzy of the gladiatorial shows, the unrest and pessimism and\ndespair of all society. One of the most remarkable appeals of this kind\nis found in a letter of Cyprian to his friend Donatus. \"He bids him seat\nhimself in fancy on some mountain top and gaze down upon what he has\nabandoned (for he is a Christian), on the roads blocked by brigands, the\nsea beset by pirates, the camps desolated by the horrors of many wars,\non the world reeking with bloodshed, and the guilt which, in proportion\nto its magnitude, was extolled as a glory. Then, if he would turn his\ngaze to the cities, he would behold a sight more gloomy than all\nsolitudes. In the gladiatorial games men were fattened for mutual\nslaughter, and publicly murdered to delight the mob. Even innocent men\nwere urged to fight in public with wild beasts, while their mothers and\nsisters paid large sums to witness the spectacle. In the theatres\nparricide and infanticide were dealt with before mixed audiences, and\nall pollution and crimes were made to claim reverence because presented\nunder the guise of religious mythology. In the homes was equal\ncorruption; in the forum bribery and intrigue ran rife; justice was\nsubverted, and innocence was condemned to prison, torture, and death.\nLuxury destroyed character, and wealth became an idol and a curse.\"[31]\nArguments of this kind were ready enough to hand whenever Christian\nteachers were disposed to use them, and their descriptions found a real\ncorroboration in society as it actually appeared on every hand. None\ncould question the counts in the indictment.\n\n3. While the Christian Fathers and the missionaries differed in their\nestimates of heathenism, and in their methods of dealing with it, one\nthing was recognized by all whom we designate as the great leaders,\nnamely, the imperative necessity of a thorough knowledge of it. They\nunderstood both the low superstition of the masses and the loftier\nteaching of the philosophers. On the other hand, they had the same\nestimate of the incomparable Gospel of Christ that we have; they\nrealized that it was the wisdom of God and the power of God unto\nsalvation as clearly as the best of us, but they did not claim that it\nwas to be preached blindly and without adaptation. The verities of the\nNew Testament teachings, the transforming power of the Holy Ghost, the\nnecessity for a new birth and for the preternatural influence of grace,\nboth in regeneration and in sanctification, were as strongly maintained\nas they have ever been in any age of the Church; but the Fathers were\ncareful to know whether they were casting the good seed upon stony\nplaces, or into good ground where it would spring up and bear fruit. The\nliberal education of that day was, in fact, an education along the old\nlines of heathen philosophy, poetry, history, and rhetoric; and a broad\ntraining was valued as highly as it has been in any subsequent period.\nIt was thoroughly understood that disciplined intellect, other things\nbeing equal, may expect a degree of influence which can never fall to\nthe lot of ignorance, however sanctified its spirit. There has never\nbeen a stronger type of men than the Christian Fathers. They were\nlearned men, for the age in which they lived, and their learning had\nspecial adaptations to the work assigned them. Many of them, like\nCyprian, Clement, Hilary, Martin of Tours, had been born and educated in\nheathenism; while others, like Basil, Gregory, Origen, Athanasius,\nJerome, and Augustine, though born under Gospel influences, studied\nheathen philosophy and poetry at the instance of their Christian\nparents.\n\n4. Some of the leaders familiarized themselves with the speculations of\nthe day, not merely for the sake of a wider range of knowledge, but that\nthey might the more successfully refute the assailants of the faith,\nmany of whom were men of great power. They were fully aware that it\nbehooved them to know their ground, for their opponents studied the\npoints of comparison carefully. The infidel Celsus studied Christianity\nand its relation to the Old Testament histories and prophecies, and he\narmed himself with equal assiduity with all the choicest weapons drawn\nfrom Greek philosophy. How was such a man to be met? His able attack on\nChristianity remained fifty years unanswered. To reply adequately was\nnot an easy task. Doubtless there were many, then as now, who thought\nthat the most comfortable way of dealing with such things was to let\nthem alone. But a wiser policy prevailed. Origen was requested to\nprepare an answer, and, although such work was not congenial to him, he\ndid so because he felt that the cause of the truth demanded it. His\nreply outlived the attack which it was designed to meet, and in all\nsubsequent ages it has been a bulwark of defence.[32]\n\nOrigen was not of a pugnacious spirit--it was well that he was not--but\nwith wide and thorough preparation he summoned all his energies to meet\nthe foe. Archdeacon Farrar says of him, that he had been trained in the\nwhole circle of science. He could argue with the pupils of Plato, or\nthose of Zeno, on equal terms, and he deems it fortunate that one who\nwas called, as he was, to be a teacher at Alexandria, where men of all\nnations and all creeds met, had a cosmopolitan training and a\ncosmopolitan spirit.\n\nNo less resolute was the effort of Ambrose in resisting the errors of\nArianism, and he also adapted himself to the work in hand. He had not\nbeen afraid of Platonism. On the other hand, we are told that Plato,\nnext to his Bible, constituted a part of his daily reading, and that,\ntoo, in the period of his ripest Christian experience, and when he\ncarried his studies and his prayers far into the hours of the night. But\nin dealing with Arianism he needed a special understanding of all its\nintricacies, and when among its advocates and supporters he encountered\na powerful empress as well as her ablest advocates, he had need of all\nthe powers within him--that power of moral earnestness which had led him\nto give all his property to the poor--that power of strong faith, which\nprepared him, if need be, to lay down his life--the power of a\ndisciplined intellect, and a thorough knowledge of the whole issue.\n\n5. The early Fathers not only studied the heathen philosophies of Plato\nand Aristotle, but they learned to employ them, and their successors\ncontinued to employ them, even to the Middle Ages, and the period of the\nReformation. As an intellectual framework, under which truth should be\npresented in logical order, it became a strong resource of the early\nChristian teachers. Let me refer you on this point to the clear\nstatements of Professor Shedd.[33] He has well said that \"when\nChristianity was revealed in its last and beautiful form by the\nincarnation of the Eternal World, it found the human mind already\noccupied by human philosophy. Educated men were Platonists, or Stoics,\nor Epicureans. During the age of Apologetics, which extended from the\nend of the apostolic age to the death of Origen, the Church was called\nto grapple with these systems, to know as far as possible what they\ncontained, and to discriminately treat their contents, rejecting some\nthings, utilizing others.\" \"We shall see,\" he continues, \"that Plato,\nAristotle, and Cicero exerted more influence than all other philosophic\nminds united upon the greatest of Christian Fathers, upon the greatest\nof the School men, and upon the greatest of the theologians of the\nReformation, Calvin and Melancthon; and if we look at European philosophy,\nas it has been unfolded in England, Germany, and France, we can perceive\nthat all the modern philosophic schools have discussed the principles\nof human reason in very much the same manner in which Plato and\nAristotle discussed them twenty-two centuries ago.\"\n\nI need hardly say, in closing, that it is not necessary to borrow from\nthe heathen systems of to-day as extensively as the Fathers did from the\nsystems of Greece and Rome, and it would be discordant with good taste\nto illustrate our sermons with quotations from the Hindu poets as\nlavishly as good Jeremy Taylor graced his discourses with gems from the\npoets of Greece. But I think that we may so far heed the wise examples\nfurnished by Church history as to face the false systems of our time\nwith a candid and discriminating spirit, and by a more adequate\nknowledge to disenchant the bugbears with which their apologists would\nalarm the Church.\n\nWe are entering upon the broadest and most momentous struggle with\nheathen error that the world has ever witnessed. Again, in this later\nage, philosophy and multiform speculation are becoming the handmaids of\nHindu pantheism and Buddhist occultism, as well as of Christian truth.\nThe resources of the East and the West are combined and subsidized by\nthe enemy as well as by the Church. As in old Rome and Alexandria, so\nnow in London and Calcutta all currents of human thought flow together,\nand truth is in full grapple with error. It is no time to be idle or to\ntake refuge in pious ignorance, much less to fear heathen systems as so\nmany haunted houses which superstitious people dare not enter--as if the\nGospel were not as potent a talisman now as it was ages ago. Let us\nfearlessly enter these abodes of darkness, throw open the shutters, and\nlet in the light of day, and the hobgoblins will flee. Let us explore\nevery dark recess, winnow out the miasma and the mildew with the pure\nair of heaven, and the Sun of Righteousness shall fill the world.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 20: _The Norsemen_, Maclear.]\n\n[Footnote 21: The Druid bard Taliesen says: \"Christ, the Word from the\nbeginning, was from the beginning our teacher, and we never lost His\nteaching. Christianity was a new thing in Asia, but there never was a\ntime when the Druids of Britain held not its doctrines.\"--_St. Paul in\nBritain_, p. 86.]\n\n[Footnote 22: Uhlhorn's _Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism_.]\n\n[Footnote 23: The same dualism of the male and the female principle is\nfound in the Shinto of Japan. See Chamberlain's translation of the\n_Kojiki_.]\n\n[Footnote 24: The late George Eliot has given expression to this grim\nsolace, and Mr. John Fiske, in his _Destiny of Man_, claims that the\ngoal of all life, from the first development of the primordial cell, is\nthe perfected future man.]\n\n[Footnote 25: Voltaire found great delight in the so-called _Ezour\nVeda_, a work which claimed to be an ancient Veda containing the\nessential truths of the Bible. The distinguished French infidel was\nhumbled, however, when it turned out that the book was the pious fraud\nof a Jesuit missionary who has hoped thus to win the Hindus to\nChristianity.]\n\n[Footnote 26: Quoted by Uhlhorn in _The Conflict of Christianity with\nHeathenism_, p. 70. He also quotes Seneca as saying: \"Oh, if one only\nmight have a guide to truth!\"]\n\n[Footnote 27: Plato showed by his writings and his whole life that he\nwas a true seeker after the knowledge of God, whom he identified with\nthe highest good. Though he believed in an efficient creatorship, he\nheld that matter is eternal. Ideas are also eternal, but the world is\ngenerated. He was not a Pantheist, as he clearly placed God outside of,\nor above, the universe. He regarded the soul of man as possessed of\nreason, moral sensibility, and appetite.\n\nOn the doctrine of future immortality Plato was most emphatic.\n\nHe also believed that the soul in a previous state had been pure and\nsinless, but had fallen. He taught that recovery from this fallen\ncondition is to be accomplished by the pursuit of philosophy and the\npractice of virtue (not as merit but as discipline), by contemplating\nthe highest ideal which is the character of God, and by thinking of\neternity. Plato regarded suffering as disciplinary when properly\nimproved. True philosophy may raise the soul above the fear of death.\nThis was proved by Socrates. Both Socrates and Plato seemed to believe\nin a good demon (spirit) whose voice was a salutary and beneficent\nguide. As to eschatology, Plato looked forward to a heaven where the\nvirtuous soul shall dwell in the presence of God, and in the enjoyment\nof pure delights.\n\nAristotle's idea of God was scarcely less exalted than that of Plato. He\nexpressed it thus: \"The principle of life is in God; for energy of mind\nconstitutes life, and God is this energy. He, the first mover, imparts\nmotion and pursues the work of creation as something that is loved. His\ncourse of life must be similar to what is most excellent in our own\nshort career. But he exists forever in this excellence, whereas this is\nimpossible for us. His pleasure consists in the exercise of his\nessential energy, and on this account vigilance, wakefulness, and\nperception are most agreeable to him. Again, the more we examine God's\nnature the more wonderful does it appear to us. He is an eternal and\nmost excellent being. He is indivisible, devoid of parts, and having no\nmagnitude, for God imparts motion through infinite time, and nothing\nfinite, as magnitude is, can have an infinite capacity. He is a being\ndevoid of passions and unalterable.\"--Quoted in _Indian Wisdom_, p.\n125.]\n\n[Footnote 28: \"Those pages present not the image of this piety, the\ntears of confession, Thy sacrifice, a troubled spirit, a broken and a\ncontrite heart, the salvation of the people, the Bridal city, the\nearnest of the Holy Ghost, the cup of our redemption. No man sings\nthere, 'Shall not my soul be submitted unto God? for of Him cometh my\nsalvation, for He is my God and my salvation, my guardian, I shall no\nmore be grieved.' No one there hears Him call 'Come unto me all ye that\nlabor.'\"--_Confessions_, Bk. vii., xxi. \"But having then read those\nbooks of the Platonists, and thence being taught to search for\nincorporeal truth, I saw Thy invisible things, understood by the things\nwhich are made; and though cast back, I perceived what that was which,\nthrough the darkness of my mind, I was hindered from contemplating,\nbeing assured 'that Thou wert and wert infinite, and yet not diffused in\nspace, finite or infinite, and that Thou truly art who art the same\never, in no part nor motion varying; and that all other things are from\nThee.... Of these things I was assured, yet too insecure to enjoy Thee.\nI prated as one skilled, but I had not sought Thy way in Christ our\nSaviour; I had proved to be not skilled but killed.\"--_Confessions_, Bk.\nvii., xx.]\n\n[Footnote 29: We may judge of the bearing of the common term heathen as\napplied to non-Christian nations, when we consider that the Greeks and\nRomans characterized all foreigners as \"barbarians,\" that Mohammedans\ncall all Christians \"infidels,\" and the Chinese greet them as \"foreign\ndevils.\" The missionary enterprise as a work of conciliation should\nillustrate a broader spirit.]\n\n[Footnote 30: _The Celts_, Maclear.]\n\n[Footnote 31: _Lives of the Fathers_, Farrar.]\n\n[Footnote 32: \"Christianity,\" says Max Mueller, \"enjoyed no privileges\nand claimed no immunities when it boldly confronted and confounded the\nmost ancient and the most powerful religions of the world. Even at\npresent it craves no mercy and it receives no mercy from those whom our\nmissionaries have to meet face to face in every part of the world; and\nunless our religion has ceased to be what it was, its defenders should\nnot shrink from this new trial of its strength, but should encourage\nrather than depreciate the study of comparative theology.\"--_Science of\nReligion_, p. 22.]\n\n[Footnote 33: _History of Christian Theology_, Vol. I., p. 52.]\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE III.\n\nTHE SUCCESSIVE DEVELOPMENTS OP HINDUISM\n\n\nThe religious systems of India, like its flora, display luxuriant\nvariety and confusion. Hinduism is only another banyan-tree whose\nbranches have become trunks, and whose trunks have produced new\nbranches, until the whole has become an intellectual and moral jungle of\nvast extent. The original stock was a monotheistic nature worship, which\nthe Hindu ancestors held in common with other branches of the Aryan\nfamily when dwelling together on the high table-lands of Central Asia,\nor, as some are now claiming, in Eastern Russia. Wherever may have been\nthat historic \"cradle\" in which the infancy of our race was passed, it\nseems certain from similarities of language, that this Aryan family once\ndwelt together, and had a common worship, and called the supreme deity\nby a common name. It was a worship of the sky, and at length of various\npowers of nature, _Surya_, the sun: _Agni_, fire: _Indra_, rain, etc. It\nis maintained by many authors, in India as well as in Europe, that these\ndesignations were only applied as names of one and the same potential\ndeity. This is the ground held by the various branches of the modern\nSomaj of India. Yet we must not suppose that the monotheism of the\nearly Aryans was all that we understand by that term; it is enough that\nthe power addressed was _one_ and personal. Even henotheism, the last\nname which Professor Max Mueller applies to the early Aryan faith,\ndenotes oneness in this sense. The process of differentiation and\ncorruption advanced more rapidly among the Indo-Aryans than in the\nIranian branch of the same race, and in all lands changes were wrought\nto some extent by differences of climate and by environment.[34] The\nNorsemen, for example, struggling with the wilder and sterner forces of\nstorm and wintry tempest, would naturally differ in custom, and finally\nin faith, from the gentle Hindu under his Indian sky; yet there were\ncommon elements traceable in the earliest traditions of these races, and\nthe fact that religions are not wholly dependent upon local conditions\nis shown by both Christianity and Buddhism, which have flourished most\nconspicuously and permanently in lands where they were not indigenous.\n\n\"In the Vedas,\" says Sir Monier Williams, \"unity in the conception of\ndeity soon diverged into various ramifications. Only a few of the hymns\nappear to contain the simple conception of one divine, self-existent,\nomnipresent Being, and even in these, the idea of one God, present in\nall nature, is somewhat nebulous and undefined.\" One of the earliest\ndeifications that we can trace was that of _Varuna_, who represented the\noverhanging sky. The hymns addressed to Varuna are not only the\nearliest, but they are the loftiest and most spiritual in their\naspirations. They find in him an element of holiness before which sin is\nan offence; and in some vague sense he is the father of all things, like\nthe Zeus whom Paul recognized in the poetry of Greece.\n\nBut, as already stated, this vague conception of God as one, was already\nin a transition toward separate impressions of the different powers of\nnature. If the idea of God was without any very clear personality and\nmore or less obscure, it is not strange that it should come to be thus\nspecialized as men thought of objects having a manifestly benign\ninfluence--as the life-quickening sun or the reviving rain. It is not\nstrange that, without a knowledge of the true God, they should have been\nfilled with awe when gazing upon the dark vault of night, and should\nhave rendered adoration to the moon and her countless retinue of stars.\nIf there must be idolatry, let it be that sublime nature worship of the\nearly Aryans, though even that was sure to degenerate into baser forms.\nOne might suppose that the worship of the heavenly bodies would remain\nthe purest and noblest; and yet the sun-worship of the Assyrians and the\nPhoenicians became unspeakably vile in its sensuousness, and finally the\nmost wicked and abominable of all heathen systems. India in her darkest\ndays never sank so low, and when her degradation came it was through\nother conceptions than those of nature worship.\n\nIn the early Vedic hymns are to be found many sublime passages which\nseem to suggest traces of those common traditions concerning the\ncreation--the Fall of man and the Deluge, which we believe to have been\nthe earliest religious heritage of mankind. They contrast strongly with\nthe later and degrading cosmogonies of degenerate heathen systems, and\nespecially with the grotesque fancies of the subsequent Hindu mythology.\nIn the Xth Mandala of the Rig Veda we find the following account of\nprimeval chaos, which reminds one of the Mosaic Genesis:\n\n   \"In the beginning there was neither aught nor naught,\n    There was neither sky nor atmosphere above.\n    What then enshrouded all the teeming universe?\n    In the receptacle of what was it contained?\n    Was it enveloped in the gulph profound of water?\n    There was then neither death nor immortality.\n    There was then neither day nor night, nor light nor darkness.\n    Only the _Existing One_ breathed calmly self-contained,\n    Naught else but him there was, naught else above, beyond;\n    Then first came darkness hid in darkness, gloom in gloom,\n    Next all was water, chaos indiscreet\n    In which the _One_ lay void, shrouded in nothingness,\n    Then turning inward by self-developed force\n    Of inner fervor and intense abstraction grew.\"\n\n\nIn the early Vedic period many of the corruptions of later times were\nunknown. There was no distinct doctrine of caste, no transmigration, no\nmist of pantheism, no idol-worship, no widow-burning, and no authorized\ninfanticide. The abominable tyranny which was subsequently imposed upon\nwoman was unknown; the low superstitions of the aboriginal tribes had\nnot been adopted; nor, on the other hand, had philosophy and\nspeculation taken possession of the Hindu mind. The doctrine of the\nTrimurti and the incarnations had not appeared.[35]\n\nThe faith of the Hindus in that early period may be called _Aryanism_,\nor _Vedism_. It bore sway from the Aryan migration, somewhere about one\nthousand five hundred, or two thousand, years before Christ, to about\neight hundred years before Christ.[36] By that time the priestly class\nhad gained great power over all other ranks. They had begun to work over\nthe Vedas to suit their own purposes, selecting from them such portions\nas could be framed into an elaborate ritual--known as the Brahmanas. The\nperiod during which they continued this ritualistic development is known\nas the Brahmana period. This extended from about eight hundred to five\nhundred B.C.[37] These, however, are only the approximate estimates of\nmodern scholarship: such a thing as ancient history is unknown to the\nHindu race. This Brahmana period was marked by the intense and\noverbearing sacerdotalism of the Brahmans, and by an extreme development\nof the doctrine of caste. Never was priestly tyranny carried to greater\nlength than by these lordly Brahmans of India. One of the chief abuses\nof their system was their depravation of sacrifice.\n\nThe earliest conception of sacrifice represented in the Vedas is that of\na vicarious offering of Parusha, a Divine being. Very obscure\nreferences to this are found in the oldest of the four Vedas, dating\nprobably not later than 1200 B.C. It is brought out still more clearly\nin a Brahmana which was probably composed in the seventh century B.C. It\nis there said that the \"Lord of creatures offered himself a sacrifice\nfor the Gods.\" Principal Fairbairn finds Vedic authority for the idea\nthat the creation of the world was accomplished by the self-sacrifice of\ndeity; and Manu ascribes the creation of mankind to the austerities of\nthe gods. Sir Monier Williams, the late Professor Banergea, and many\nothers, have regarded these references to a Divine sacrifice for the\nbenefit of gods and men as dim traces of a revelation once made to\nmankind of a promised atonement for the sins of the world.[38]\n\nBut so far as the actual observances of the early Hindus were concerned,\nthey seem to have made their offerings rather in the spirit of Cain than\nin the faith of Abel. They simply fed the gods with their gifts, and\nregaled them with soma juice, poured forth in libations; the savor of\nmelted butter also was supposed to be specially grateful. Still there is\nreason to believe that the piacular idea of sacrifice was never wholly\nlost, but that the Hindus, in common with all other races, found\noccasion--especially when great calamities befell them--to appease the\ngods with the blood of sacrifice. In the early days human sacrifices\nwere offered, and occasionally at least down to a late period.[39] It\nwas a convenient policy of the priesthood, however, to hypothecate the\nclaim for a human victim by accepting the substitution of a goodly\nnumber of horses or cows. A famous tradition is given, in the Aitareya\nBrahmana, of a prince[40] who had been doomed to sacrifice by a vow of\nhis father, but who bought as a substitute the son of a holy\nBrahman--paying the price of a hundred cows. When none could be found to\nbind the lad on the altar, the pious father offered to perform the task\nfor another hundred cows. Then there was no one found to slay the\nvictim, and the father offered for still another hundred to do even\nthat. As the victim was of high caste the gods interposed, and the\nBrahman was still the possessor of a son plus the cattle. The incident\nwill illustrate the greed of the priesthood and the depravation of\nsacrifice. It had become a system of bargaining and extortion. The\nsacrifices fed the priesthood more substantially than the gods. There\nwas great advantage in starting with the human victim as the unit of\nvalue, and it is easy to see how substitution of animals became\nimmensely profitable. The people were taught that it was possible, if\none were rich enough in victims, even to bankrupt heaven. Even demons by\nthe value of their offerings might demand the sceptre of Indra.[41]\n\nHand in hand with this growth of the sacrificial system was the\ndevelopment of caste; the former was done away by the subsequent\nprotest of Buddhism and the philosophic schools; but the latter has\nremained through all the stages of Hindu history.[42] Such was\n_Brahmanism_. Its thraldom has never been equalled. The land was deluged\nwith the blood of slain beasts. All industries were paralyzed with\ndiscouragement. Social aspiration was blighted, patriotism and national\nspirit were weakened, and India was prepared for those disastrous\ninvasions which made her the prey of all northern races.\n\nIt was in protest against these evils that Gautama and many able\nphilosophers arose about 500 B.C. Already the intellectual classes had\nmatched the Brahmans by drawing upon Vedic authority for their\nphilosophy. As the Brahmans had produced a ritual from the Vedas, so\nthe philosophers framed a sort of philosophic Veda in the _Upanishads_.\nMen had begun to ask themselves the great questions of human life and\ndestiny, \"Whence am I? What is this mysterious being of which I am\nconscious?\" They had begun to reason about nature, the origin of matter,\nthe relation of mortals to the Infinite. The school of the Upanishads\nregarded themselves as an aristocracy of intellect, and held philosophy\nas their esoteric and peculiar prerogative. It was maintained that two\ndistinct kinds of revelation had been made to men. First, that simple\nkind which was designed for priests and the common masses, for all those\nwho regarded only effects and were satisfied with sacerdotal assumption\nand merit-making. But, secondly, there was a higher knowledge which\nconcerned itself with the origin of the world and the hidden causes of\nthings. Even to this day the Upanishads are the Vedas of the thinking\nclasses of India.[43]\n\nAs the Brahmanas gave first expression to the doctrine of caste, so in\nthe Upanishads we find the first development of pantheism and the\ndoctrine of transmigration. The conclusion had already been reached that\n\"There is only one Being who exists: He is within this universe and yet\noutside this universe: whoe'er beholds all living creatures as in Him,\nand Him the universal spirit, as in all, thenceforth regards no creature\nwith contempt.\"\n\nThe language of Hindu speculation exhausts its resources in similes by\nwhich to represent personal annihilation. Man's origin and relations\nare accounted for very tersely by such illustrations as these: \"As the\nweb issues from the spider, as little sparks proceed from fire, so from\nthe One Soul proceed all breathing animals, all worlds, all the gods,\nall beings.\" Then as to destiny: \"These rivers proceed from the east\ntoward the west, thence from the ocean they rise in the form of vapor,\nand dropping again, they flow toward the south and merge into the ocean.\nAnd as the flowing rivers are merged into the sea, losing their names\nand forms, so the wise, freed from name and form, pass into the Divine\nspirit, which is greater than the great.\"[44] Another favorite\nillustration is that of the moon's reflection in the water-jar, which\ndisappears the moment the moon itself is hidden. \"If the image in the\nwater has no existence separate from that of the moon,\" says the Hindu,\n\"how can it be shown that the human soul exists apart from God?\"\n\nThe Mundaka Upanishad, based upon the Atharva Veda (one of the\nlatest,--the Upanishad being later still), contains this account of the\nuniverse: \"As the spider spins and gathers back (its thread); as plants\nsprout on the earth; as hairs grow on a living person; so is this\nuniverse here produced from the imperishable nature. By contemplation\nthe vast one germinates; from him food (or body) is produced; and thence\nsuccessively, breath, mind, real (elements) worlds, and immortality\nresulting from (good) deeds.\n\n\"The Omniscient is profound contemplation consisting in the knowledge\nof him who knows all; and from that, the (manifested) vast one, as well\nas names, forms, and food proceed; and this is truth.\"[45]\n\nIt is a great blemish upon the Upanishads, that while there are subtle,\nand in some respects sublime, utterances to be found here and there, the\ngreat mass is fanciful and often puerile, and in many instances too low\nand prurient to bear translation into the English language. This is\nclearly alleged by Mr. Bose, and frankly admitted by Max Mueller.[46]\n\nIn the common protest which finally broke down the system of Brahmanical\nsacrifice, and for a time relaxed the rigors of caste tyranny, Buddhism\nthen just appearing (say 500 B.C.), joined hand in hand with the\nphilosophies. Men were tired of priestcraft, and by a natural reaction\nthey went to an opposite extreme; they were tired of religion itself.\nBuddha became an undoubted atheist or agnostic, and six distinct schools\nof philosophy arose on the basis of the Upanishads--some of which were\npurely rationalistic, some were conservative, others radical. Some\nresembled the Greek \"Atomists\" in their theory,[47] and others fought\nfor the authority, and even the supreme divinity, of the Vedas.[48] All\nbelieved in the eternity of matter, and the past eternity of the soul;\nall accepted the doctrine of transmigration, and maintained that the\nspiritual nature can only act through a material body. All were\npessimistic, and looked for relief only in absorption.\n\nBut the progress of Hindu thought was marked by checks and\ncounter-checks. As the tyranny of the priesthood had led to the protest\nof philosophy, so the extreme and conflicting speculations of\nphilosophic rationalism probably gave rise to the conservatism of the\nCode of Manu. No adequate idea of the drift of Hindu thought can be\ngained without assigning due influence to this all-important body of\nlaws. They accomplished more in holding fast the power of the Brahmans,\nand enabling them to stem the tide of intellectual rebellion, and\nfinally to regain the sceptre from the hand of Buddhism, than all other\nliteratures combined. Their date cannot be definitely known. They were\ncomposed by different men and at different times. They probably followed\nthe Upanishads, but antedated the full development of the philosophic\nschools.\n\nMany of the principles of Manu's Code had probably been uttered as early\nas the seventh century B.C.[49] The ferment of rationalistic thought was\neven then active, and demanded restraint. The one phrase which expresses\nthe whole spirit of the laws of Manu is intense conservatism. They stand\nfor the definite authority of dogma; they re-assert in strong terms the\nauthority of the Vedas; they establish and fortify by all possible\ninfluences, the institution of caste. They enclose as in an iron\nframework, all domestic, social, civil, and religious institutions.\nThey embrace not only the destiny of men upon the earth, but also the\nrewards and punishments of the future life. Whatever they touched was\npetrified. Abuses which had crept in through the natural development of\nhuman depravity--for example, the oppression of woman--the laws of Manu\nstamped with inflexible and irreversible authority. The evils which grow\nup in savage tribes are bad enough, the tyranny of mere brute force is\nto be deplored, but worst of all is that which is sanctioned by statute,\nand made the very corner-stone of a great civilization. Probably no\nother system of laws ever did so much to rivet the chains of domestic\ntyranny.[50]\n\nThe Code of Manu has been classified as, 1st, sacred knowledge and\nreligion; 2d, philosophy; 3d, social rules and caste organization; 4th,\ncriminal and civil laws; 5th, systems of penance; 6th, eschatology, or\nthe doctrine of future rewards. No uninspired or non-Vedic production\nhas equal authority in India. We can only judge of its date by its\nrelative place among other books. It applies Vedic names to the gods,\nthough it mentions Brahma and Vishnu, but it makes no reference to the\nTrimurti. Pantheism was evidently in existence and was made prominent in\nthe code. The influence of Manu over the jurisprudence of India was a\nmatter of growth. At first the code appears to have been a guide in\ncustoms and observances, but as it gained currency it acquired the force\nof law, and extended its sway over all the tribes of India. It was not,\nhowever, maintained as a uniform code throughout the land, but its\nprinciples were found underlying the laws of all the provinces. Its very\nmerits were finally fruitful of evil. Human weal was sacrificed to the\nover-shadowing power of a system of customs cunningly wrought and\nestablished by Brahmanical influence. The author was evidently a\nBrahman, and the whole work was prepared and promulgated in the\ninterests of Brahmanism as against all freedom of thought. Its support\nof the Vedas was fanatical. Thus: \"A Brahman by retaining the Rig Veda\nin his memory incurs no guilt, though he should destroy the three\nworlds.\" Again: \"When there is contradiction of two precepts in the\nVeda, both are declared to be law; both have been justly promulgated by\nknown sages as valid law.\"\n\nThe laws of Manu make no mention of the doctrine of _Bakti_ or faith,\nand there is no reference to the worship of the _Sakti_; both of these\nwere of later date. The doctrine of transmigration, however, is fully\nstated, and as a consequence of this the hells described in the code,\nthough places of torture, resolve themselves into merely temporary\npurgatories, while the heavens become only the steps on the road to a\nunion with deity. There is reason to believe that the practice of\nemploying idols to represent deity was unknown at the time the code was\ncompiled. There is no allusion to public services or to teaching in the\ntemples, the chief rites of religion were of a domestic kind, and the\npriests of that age were nothing more than domestic chaplains.\n\nManu's theory of creation was this: \"The Self-Existent, having willed to\nproduce various beings from his own substance, first with a thought\ncreated the waters and placed on them a productive seed or egg. Then he\nhimself was born in that egg in the form of Brahma. Next he caused the\negg to divide itself, and out of its two divisions there came the heaven\nabove and the earth beneath. Afterward, having divided his own substance\nhe became half male, half female. From that female was produced Viraj,\nfrom whom was created the secondary progenitor of all beings. Then from\nthe Supreme Soul he drew forth Manu's intellect.\" This mixed cosmogony\nis supposed to indicate a diversity of authorship.\n\nIt will be seen that this is much less philosophical than the theory of\ncreation quoted above from the Mundaka Upanishad.[51] If we compare\nManu's account with the description of the \"Beginning\" found in one of\nthe hymns of the Rig Veda,[52] we shall see that there has been a\ndownward trend of Hinduism from the simple and sublime conceptions of\nthe early poets to that which is grotesque, and which has probably been\nworked over to suit the purposes of the Brahmans. No mythological legend\nwas too absurd if it promoted the notion of the divine origin of the\nManus (sages) and the Brahmans.\n\nManu makes much of the Vedic passage which refers to the origin of\ncaste.[53] He maintained that this distinction of caste was as much a\nlaw of nature and divine appointment as the separation of different\nclasses of animals. The prominence accorded to the Brahmans was nothing\nshort of divine. \"Even when Brahmans employ themselves in all sorts of\ninferior occupations (as poverty often compels them to do) they must\nunder all circumstances be honored, for they are to be regarded as\nsupreme divinities.\" \"A Brahman's own power is stronger than the power\nof the king, therefore by his own might he may chastise his foes.\" \"He\nwho merely assails a Brahman with intent to kill him, will continue in\nhell for a hundred years, and he who actually strikes him must endure a\nthousand years.\"\n\nIt is always the truth that is mingled with the errors of any system\nwhich constitutes its life and gives it perpetuity, and there is much in\nthe Code of Manu to be admired. Like the Confucian ethics, it laid its\nfoundations in the respect due from childhood to parents, and in\nguarding the sanctities of the home. It aimed at fairness between ruler\nand subject, in an age when over most of the Asiatic continent the\nwildest caprice of rulers was the law of their respective realms. Manu\ntaught the duty of kings toward their subjects in most emphatic terms.\nThey were to regard themselves as servants, or rather as fathers, of the\npeople; and rules were prescribed for their entire conduct. They were\nthe representatives of deity in administering the affairs of mortals,\nand must realize their solemn responsibility.[54] It must ever be\nacknowledged that the Hindu laws respecting property were characterized\nby wisdom and equity. Taxation was not subject to caprice or injustice;\nwhere discriminations occurred they were in favor of the poor, and the\nheaviest burdens were laid where they should be laid, upon the rich.\nThere were wise adaptations, calculated to develop the industry and\nself-help of the weakest classes, and care was taken that they never\nshould become oppressive. No political or civic tyranny could be\nallowed; but that of the priesthood in its relations to all ranks, and\nthat of the householder toward his wife and toward all women, were quite\nsufficient. In this last regard we scarcely know which was the\ngreater--the heartless wickedness of the Code, or its blind and bigoted\nfolly. How it was that laws could be framed which indicated such rare\nsagacity, which in many other respects were calculated to build up the\nvery highest civilization, and which, at the same time, failed to\nforesee that this oppression of woman must result in the inevitable\ndegeneracy of succeeding generations of men, must ever remain a\nmystery.[55]\n\nWe have glanced at the purer and simpler Aryanism of the early period,\nat the bigoted, tyrannical Brahmanism, with its ritual, its sacrifices,\nits caste. We have merely alluded to the rationalistic reaction of the\nphilosophers and the Buddhists. We shall now see that the Brahman power\nis not broken, but that it will regain all and more than it has lost,\nthat it will prove elastic enough to embrace all that has gone before;\nthat while Buddhism will be banished, many of its elements will be\nretained, and the whole woven into one marvellous texture which we will\ncall _Hinduism_.[56] Even during the period of Buddhism's greatest\ntriumphs, say, two or three centuries before Christ, changes of great\nmoment were going on in the Brahmanical faith. The old sacrificial\nsystem had lost its power, but the flexible and inexhaustible resources\nof Brahmanical cunning were by no means dormant. In the border wars of\nthe Aryans, with rival invaders on the one hand, and with the conquered\nbut ever restless aborigines on the other, great and popular heroes had\nsprung up. The exploits of these heroes had been celebrated in two great\nepics, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, and the popularity of these\npoems was immense. The heroes were of the soldier caste, and gave to\nthat caste a prestige which seemed to the Brahmans formidable and\ndangerous.[57] The divine prerogatives of their order were all in\njeopardy.\n\nThe remedy chosen by the Brahmans was a bold and desperate one. These\nheroes must be raised out of the soldier caste by making them divine. As\nsuch they would hold a nearer relation to the divine Brahmans than to\nthe soldiers. The legends were therefore worked over--Brahmanized--so to\nspeak.[58] Rama, who had overcome certain chieftains of Ceylon, and\nKrishna, who had won great battles in Rajputana, were raised to the rank\nof gods and demi-gods. By an equal exaggeration the hostile chiefs of\nrival invaders were transformed to demons, and the black, repulsive hill\ntribes, who were involved as allies in these conflicts, were represented\nas apes. As a part of this same Brahmanizing process, the doctrine of\nthe Trimurti was developed, and also the doctrine of incarnation. Most\nconspicuous were the incarnations of Vishnu; Rama and Krishna were\nfinally placed among the ten incarnations of that deity. This was a\nskilful stroke of policy, for it was now no longer the heroes of the\nsoldier caste who had won victory for the Aryans; it was Vishnu, the\npreserver, the care-taker, and sympathizer with all the interests of\nmankind. The development of the doctrines of the Trimurti and of\nincarnation undoubtedly followed both the rise of Buddhism and the\npromulgation of the Laws of Manu.\n\nMeanwhile the Brahmans were shrewd enough to adapt themselves to certain\nother necessities. The influence of Buddhism was still a force which\nwas not to be disregarded. It had demonstrated one thing which had never\nbeen recognized before, and that was the need of a more human and\nsympathetic element in the divine objects of worship. Men were weary of\nworshipping gods who had no kindly interest in humanity. They were weary\nof a religion which had no other element than that of fear or of\nbargaining with costly sacrifices. They longed for something which had\nthe quality of mercy. Buddha had demonstrated the value of this element,\nand by an adroit stroke of policy the Brahmans adopted Gautama as the\nninth avatar of Vishnu. Meanwhile they adopted the heroic Krishna as the\ngod of sympathy--the favorite of the lower masses who were not too\ncritical toward his vices.\n\nWe have now reached the fully developed form of _Hinduism_.[59] The\nBrahmans had embraced every element that could give strength to their\nbroad, eclectic, and all-embracing system.[60] The doctrine of the\nTrimurti had become a strong factor, as it furnished a sort of\nframework, and gave stability. As compared with the early Aryanism, it\nremoved the idea of deity from merely natural forces to that of abstract\nthoughts, principles, and emotions, as active and potent in the world.\nAt the same time it retained the old Vedic deities under new names and\nwith new functions, and it did not abate its professed regard for Vedic\nauthority. The Brahmans had rendered their system popular in a sense\nwith the intellectual classes by adopting all the philosophies. They had\nstopped the mouth of Buddhist protest by embracing the Buddha among\ntheir incarnations. They had shown an advance in the succession of\nincarnations from the early embodiments of brute force, the fish, the\ntortoise, the boar, up to heroes, and from these to the ninth avatar,\nthe Buddha, as a moralist and philosopher.[61] They left on record the\nprediction that a tenth should come--and he is yet to come--who, in a\nstill higher range of moral and spiritual power, should redeem and\nrenovate the earth, and establish a kingdom of righteousness.\n\nMeanwhile, in this renaissance of the Hindu faith, this wide, politic,\nself-adapting system, we find not only Buddhism, Philosophy, the early\nAryanism, and the stiff cultus of Brahmanism, but there is also a large\ninfusion of the original superstitions of the Dravidians, Kohls,\nSantals, and other nature worshippers of the hill tribes. Much of the\npolytheism of the modern Hindus--the worship of hills, trees, apes,\ncattle, the sun, the moon, unseen spirits, serpents, etc.--has been\nadopted from these simple tribes, so that the present system embraces\nall that has ever appeared on the soil of India--even Mohammedanism to\nsome extent; and as some contend, very much also has been incorporated\nfrom the early teachings of the so-called St. Thomas Christians of\nMalabar. Such is the immense composite which is called Hinduism. It\ncontinued its development through the early centuries of the Christian\nera, and down even to the Middle Ages. Since then there has been\ndisintegration instead of growth. The Brahmans have not only retained\nthe Aryan deities, and extended Vishnu's incarnate nature over the epic\nheroes, but in the Puranas they have woven into the alleged lives of the\nincarnate gods the most grotesque mythologies and many revolting vices.\n\nIt may be interesting to trace for a moment the influence of the\ndifferent lines of Hindu literature upon the general development of\nnational character. Of course, the early Vedic literature has never lost\nits influence as the holy and inspired source of all knowledge to the\nHindu race; but we have seen how much more potential were the Brahmanas\nand the Upanishad philosophy drawn from the Vedas, than were those\nsacred oracles themselves; how the Brahmanas riveted the chains of\npriestcraft and caste, and how the philosophies invigorated the\nintellect of the people at a time when they were most in danger of\nsinking into the torpor of ignorance and base subserviency to ritual and\nsacrifice; how it gave to the better classes the courage to rise up in\nrebellion and throw off every yoke, and think for themselves. We have\nseen how Buddhism by its protest against sacerdotalism crippled for a\ntime the power of the Brahmans and raised a representative of the\nsoldier caste to the chief place as a teacher of men; how its\ninculcation of pity to man and beast banished the slaughter and cruelty\nof wholesale and meaningless sacrifice, and how its example of sympathy\nchanged Hinduism itself, and brought it into nearer relations with\nhumanity. Driven from India, though it was, it left an immense deposit\nof influence and of power. We have seen how, as a counter-check to\nphilosophy and Buddhism, the Code of Manu reasserted the authority of\nthe Vedas, and riveted anew the chains of caste, and how it compensated\nfor its oppressiveness by many wholesome and benign\nregulations--accomplishing more, perhaps, than all other literatures\ncombined to maintain the stability of Hinduism, through its many\nvicissitudes, and in spite of the heterogeneous elements which it\nreceived and incorporated.\n\nScarcely less important was the influence of the great epics--the\nRamayana and the Mahabharata--with their doctrine of Trimurti and the\nincarnations of Vishnu in the national heroes. This conciliated the\nsoldier caste, subsidized the most popular characters in Hindu\ntradition, at the same time that it made them tenfold more glorious than\nbefore. The Epics widened out the field of Hindu mythology immensely.\nNever before had there been such a boundless range for the imagination.\nThe early Brahmans had cramped all intellectual growth, and held mankind\nby the leash of priestly ritual. The philosophies had been too strait\nand lofty for any but the higher class; Manu's laws had been a stern\nschool-master to keep the people under curbs and restraints; even the\nBrahmans themselves were the slaves of their own ritual. But all the\npeople could understand and admire Rama's wonderful victories over the\ndemon Ravana. All could appreciate the devotion of the lovely Sita, and\nweep when she was kidnapped and borne away, like Grecian Helen, to the\ndemon court in Ceylon; and they could be thrilled with unbounded joy\nwhen she was restored--the truest and loveliest of wives--to be the\nsharer of a throne.\n\nThe Epics took such hold of the popular heart that any fact, any theory,\nany myth that could be attached to them found ready credence. The\nMahabharata especially became a general texture upon which any\nphilosophy, or all the philosophies, might be woven at will. And for a\nlong period, extending from three or four centuries B.C. onward far into\nthe Christian era, it was ever ready to receive modifications from the\nfertile brain and skilful hand of any devout Brahman. A striking example\nof this was the introduction of the Bhagavad Gita. When this was\ncomposed, somewhere about the second or third century of our era, there\nwas no little conflict between the different schools of philosophy; and\nits unknown author attempted to unite them all in a poem which should\nharmonize their contradictions and exalt the virtues of each, and at the\nsame time reiterate all the best maxims of Hinduism. Some centuries\nlater, the pronounced Vedantist Sancarakarya revamped the poem and gave\nits philosophy a more pantheistic character; later still the demigod\nKrishna was raised to full rank as the supreme Vishnu--the Creator and\nUpholder of all things.[62]\n\nIt is important to notice that in the trend of Hindu literature through\nso many ages there has been no upward movement, but rather a decline.\nNowhere do we find hymns of so pure and lofty a tone as in the early\nVedas. No philosophy of the later times has equalled that of the\nUpanishads and the six Darsanas. No law-giver like Manu has appeared for\ntwenty-four centuries. No Sanskrit scholarship has equalled that of the\ngreat grammarian Panini, who lived in the fourth century B.C. And\nalthough no end of poetry has succeeded the great Epics, it has shown\ndeterioration. The Puranas, written at a later day, reveal only a\nreckless zeal to exalt the incarnate deities. They may properly be\ncalled histories of the incarnations of Brahma, Vishnu, Siva, and\nglorifications of Krishna. And the very nature of the subjects with\nwhich they deal gives free scope to an unbridled imagination and to the\nmost reckless exaggeration.\n\nIf anything more were wanting to insure their extravagance, it may be\nfound in the fact that they were inspired by the rivalry of the\nrespective worshippers of different gods. The Puranas mark the\ndevelopment of separate sects, each of which regarded its particular\ndeity as the supreme and only god. The worshippers of Vishnu and the\nworshippers of Siva were in sharp rivalry, and they have continued\ntheir separation to this day.[63] Those who came to worship Vishnu as\nincarnate in Krishna, gained an advantage in the popular element\nassociated with a favorite hero. Yet this was matched by the influence\nof the Sankhya philosophy, which assigned to Siva a male and female\ndualism, a doctrine which finally plunged Hinduism into deepest\ndegradation. It brought about a new development known as Saktism, and\nthe still later and grosser literature of the Tantras. In these,\nHinduism reached its lowest depths. The modern \"Aryas\" discard both the\nTantras and the Puranas, and assert that the popular incarnations of\nVishnu were only good men. They take refuge from the corruptions of\nmodern Hinduism in the purer teachings of the early Vedas.\n\n\n_The Contrasts of Hinduism and Christianity._\n\nHinduism has some elements in common with Christianity which it is well\nto recognize. It is theistic; it is a religion, as distinguished from\nthe agnostic and ethical systems of India and China.[64] Hinduism always\nrecognized a direct divine revelation which it regards with profound\nreverence; and through all its variations and corruptions it has\ninculcated in the minds of the Indian races a deeply religious feeling.\nIt has been claimed that it has made the Hindus the most devotional\npeople in the world. Like Christianity, Hinduism appeals to man's\nintellectual nature, and it is inwrought with profound philosophy. It\ndoes not, however, like some modern systems, teach that divine truth has\nbeen revealed to man by natural processes; rather it regards the early\nrevelation as having suffered obscuration.[65] It also has its trinity,\nits incarnations, and its predictions of a Messiah who shall restore the\ntruth and establish righteousness. The Hindu traditions maintain that\nmankind descended from a single pair;[66] that the first estate of the\nrace was one of innocence; that man was one of the last products of\ncreation; that in the first ages he was upright, and consequently happy.\n\"The beings who were thus created by Brahma are said to have been\nendowed with righteousness and perfect faith; they abode wherever they\npleased, unchecked by any impediment; their hearts were free from guile;\nthey were pure, made exempt from toil by observance of sacred\ninstitutes. In their sanctified minds Hari dwelt; they were filled with\nperfect wisdom by which they contemplated the glory of Vishnu.\" Hartwell\nhas pointed out the fact that the early Hindu traditions here unite with\nthe Scriptural account in virtually denying all those theories of\nevolution which trace the development of man from lower animals.[67]\n\nBut compared with Christianity, its contrasts are far greater than its\nresemblances. First, as to the nature of God, there is an infinite\ndifference between the cold and unconscious Brahman, slumbering for ages\nwithout thought or emotion or any moral attribute, and the God of\nIsrael, whose power and wisdom and goodness, whose mercy and truth and\ntender compassion, are so constantly set forth in the Bible. The latter\ncompares Himself to a Father who cares for his children, and who has\nredeemed the world by an infinite sacrifice. Even in the most popular\nemanation of Brahman--even in Vishnu--there is nothing of a fatherly\nspirit, no appeal as to children, no kindly remonstrance against sin, no\nmoral instruction, or effort to encourage and establish character, no\npromise of reward, no enkindling of immortal hope.\n\nSecond, there is a striking contrast in the comparative estimates which\nHinduism and Christianity place upon the human soul. Unlike Buddhism,\nHinduism does recognize the existence of a soul, but it is only a\ntemporary emanation, like the moon's reflection in the water. It\nresembles its source as does the moon's image, but coldly and in a most\nunsatisfactory sense; there is no capacity for fellowship, and the end\nis absorption.[68] On the other hand, Christianity teaches us that we\nare created in God's image, but not that we _are_ his image. We are\nseparate, though dependent, and if reunited to him through Christ we\nshall dwell in his presence forever.\n\nThird, the two systems are in strong contrast in the comparative hopes\nwhich they hold out for the future. The doctrine of transmigration casts\na gloom over all conscious being; it presents an outlook so depressing\nas to make life a burden, and the acme of all possible attainment is\nindividual extinction, or what amounts to the same thing, absorption\ninto deity. The logic of it is that it would be better still not to have\nbeen born at all. Christianity promises an immediate transfer to a life\nof unalloyed blessedness, and an endless growth of all our powers and\ncapacities; but why should Hinduism urge the cultivation of that whose\nreal destiny is \"effacement?\" Hinduism finds the explanation of life's\nmysteries and inscrutable trials in the theory of sins committed in a\nprevious existence. Christianity, while recognizing the same trials,\nrelieves them with the hope of solutions in a future life of\ncompensating joy. The one turns to that which is past, unchangeable and\nhopeless, and finds only sullen despair; the other anticipates an\ninheritance richer than eye hath seen, or ear heard, or heart conceived.\n\nFourth, Hinduism has no Saviour and no salvation. It is not a religion\nin the highest sense of _rescue_ and reconciliation. It avails us of no\nsaving power higher than our own unaided effort. It implies the ruin of\nsin, but provides no remedy. It presents no omnipotent arm stretched\nforth to save.\n\nIts fatalism places man under endless disabilities, and then bids him to\nescape from the nexus if he can; but it reveals no divine helper, no\nsacrifice, no mediator, no regenerating Spirit. It has no glad tidings\nto proclaim, no comfort in sorrow, no victory over the sting of death,\nno resurrection unto Life. Though at a period subsequent to the\npreaching of the Gospel in India--perhaps the seventh or eighth century\nA.D.--a doctrine of faith (_Bakti_) was engrafted upon Hinduism, yet it\nhad no hint of a Saviour from sin and death.[69]\n\nFifth, in Hinduism there is no liberty for the free action of the human\nspirit. Though the life of a Brahman is intensely religious, yet it is\ncramped with exactions which are not only abortive but positively\nbelittling. The code of Brahmanism never deals with general principles\nin the regulation of conduct, but fills the whole course of life with\npunctilious minutiae of observances. Instead of prescribing, as Christ\ndid, an all-comprehensive law of supreme love to God and love to our\nneighbor as ourselves, it loads the mind with petty exactions, puerile\nprecepts, inane prohibitions. \"Unlike Christianity, which is all spirit\nand life,\" says Dr. Duff, \"Hinduism is all letter and death.\" Repression\ntakes the place of inspiration and the encouragement of hope.\n\nThere are a thousand subtle principles in Hinduism whose influence is\nfelt in society and in the state, and to which the faith and power of\nthe Gospel present the very strongest contrasts. For example, while\nChristianity has raised woman to a position of respect and honor, and\nmade her influence felt as something sacred and potential in the family\nand in all society, Hinduism has brought her down even from the place\nwhich she occupied among the primitive Aryans, to an ever-deepening\ndegradation. It has made her life a burden and a curse. Pundita Ramabai,\nin her plea for high-caste Hindu women, quotes a prayer of a child widow\nin which she asks, \"O Father of the world, hast Thou not created us? or\nhas perchance some other God made us? Dost Thou only care for men? O\nAlmighty One, hast Thou not power to make us other than we are, that we\ntoo may have some part in the blessings of life?\" Even in this last\ndecade of the nineteenth century the priesthood of Bengal are defending\nagainst all humane legislation those old customs which render the\ngirlhood of Hindu women a living death.[70]\n\nIn its broad influence Christianity has raised the once savage tribes\nof Europe to the highest degree of culture, and made them leaders and\nrulers of the world; but Hinduism has so weakened and humbled the once\nconquering Aryans that they have long been an easy prey to every\ninvading race. Christianity shows in its sacred Book a manifest progress\nfrom lower to higher moral standards--from the letter to the spirit,\nfrom the former sins that were winked at to the perfect example of\nChrist, from the narrow exclusiveness of Judaism to the broad and\nall-embracing spirit of the Gospel, from prophecy to fulfilment, from\ntypes and shadows to the full light of Redemption; the sacred books of\nHinduism have degenerated from the lofty aspirations of the Vedic\nnature-worship to the vileness of Saktism, from the noble praises of\nVaruna to the low sensuality of the Tantras, from Vedic conceptions of\nthe creation, sublime as the opening of St. John's Gospel, to the myths\nof the divine turtle or the boar, or the escapades of the supreme and\n\"adorable Krishna.\"[71]\n\nChristianity breaks down all barriers which divide and alienate mankind,\nand establishes a universal brotherhood in Christ; Hinduism has raised\nthe most insurmountable barriers and developed the most inexorable\nsocial tyranny ever inflicted on the human race. The Hebrew economy also\nrecognized a priestly class, but they were chosen from among their\nbrethren and were only a distinct family; they made no claim to divine\nlineage, and they were guiltless of social tyranny.\n\nChristianity enjoins a higher and purer ethic than it has ever found in\nthe natural moral standards of any people; it aims at perfection; it\ntreats the least infraction as a violation of the whole law; it regards\neven corrupt thoughts as sins; it bids us be holy even as He is holy in\nwhose sight the heavens are unclean. Hinduism, on the other hand, is\nbelow the ethical standard of respectable Hindu society. The better\nclasses are compelled to apologize for it by asserting that that which\nis debasing in men may be sinless in the gods. The offences of Krishna\nand Arjuna would not be condoned in mortals; the vile orgies of the\n\"left-handed worshippers\" of Siva would not be tolerated but for their\nreligious character. The murders committed by the Thugs in honor of Kali\nwere winked at only because a goddess demanded them. The naked\nprocessions of Chaitanya's followers would be dispersed by the police\nanywhere but in India.\n\nIt is the peculiar distinction of India that it has been the theatre of\nnearly all the great religions. Brahmanism, Buddhism, and Mohammedanism\nhave all made trial of their social and political power and have failed.\nLast of all came Christianity. The systems which preceded it had had\ncenturies of opportunity; and yet Christianity has done more for the\nelevation of Hindu society in the last fifty years than they had\naccomplished in all the ages of their dominion. Neither Buddhism nor\nMohammedanism had made any serious impression on caste; neither had\nbeen able to mitigate the wrongs which Brahmanism had heaped upon\nwoman--Mohammedanism had rather increased them. The horrors of the satti\nand the murder of female infants--those bitterest fruits of priestly\ntyranny--were left unchecked until the British Government, inspired by\nmissionary influence and a general Christian sentiment, branded them as\ninfamous and made them crimes. But now even the native sentiment of the\nbetter classes in India is greatly changed by these higher influences,\nand the conventional morality is rising above the teachings of the\nnational religion. Widow-burning and infanticide belong almost wholly to\nthe past. Child-marriage is coming into disrepute, and caste, though not\ndestroyed, is crippled, and its preposterous assumptions are falling\nbefore the march of social progress.\n\nPerhaps the very highest tribute which Hinduism has paid to Christianity\nis seen in the fact that the modern Arya Somaj has borrowed its ethics\nand some of its religious doctrines, and is promulgating them under\nVedic labels and upon Vedic authority.[72] It has renounced those\ncorruptions of Hinduism which can no longer bear the light--such as\nenforced widowhood and the general oppression of woman. It denounces the\nincarnations of Vishnu as mere inventions, and therefore cuts up by the\nroots the whole Krishna cult and dissipates the glory of the Bhagavad\nGita. It abhors polytheism, and not only proclaims the supremacy of one\nonly true God, self-existent, the creator and upholder of all things,\nbut it maintains that such was the teaching of the Vedas. But although\nthis modern eclectic system adopts the whole ethical outcome of\nChristian civilization in India for its own purposes, it shows a most\nuncompromising hostility to Christianity. Though it claims to be\npositively theistic, it seems ready to enter into alliance with any form\nof atheism or agnosticism, Eastern or Western, against the spread of\nChristian influence in India.\n\nIn speaking of the movement of revived Aryanism I assume that with the\nmore intelligent and progressive classes of India the old Hinduism is\ndead. Of course, millions of men still adhere to the old corruptions.\nMillions in the remoter districts would retain the festival of\nJuggernaut, the hook-swinging, even infanticide and widow-burning, if\nthey dared. The revolting orgies of Kali and Doorga, and the vilest\nforms of Siva worship, even the murderous rites of the Thugs, might be\nrevived by the fanatical, if foreign influence were withdrawn; but,\ntaking India as a whole, these things are coming to be discarded. The\npeople are ashamed of them; they dare not undertake to defend them in\nthe open day of the present civilization. All intelligent Hindus are\npersuaded to accept the situation, and look to the future instead of the\npast. The country is full of new influences which must be counted as\nfactors. British rule is there, and is there to stay. Education has\ncome--good, bad, and indifferent. English University training is\nbringing forward a host of acute thinkers of native blood. But the\nforces of Western infidelity are also there, grappling with Western\nChristianity on Indian soil, and before the eyes of the conquered and\nstill sullen people. The vilest of English books and the worst of French\nnovels in English translations are in the markets. All the worst phases\nof European commerce are exhibited. The opium monopoly, the liquor\ntraffic, and all the means and methods of unscrupulous money-getting,\nwith the wide-spread example of drinking habits, and unbounded luxury\nand extravagance.\n\nAnd, in opinions, the war of aggression is no longer on one side only.\nWhile the foreigner speaks and writes of superstition, of heathenism, of\nabominable rites now passing away, the native Hindu press is equally\nemphatic in its condemnation of what it calls the swinish indulgence of\nthe Anglo-Saxon, his beer-drinking and his gluttony, his craze for money\nand material power, his disgust at philosophy and all intellectual\naspiration, his half-savage love for the chase and the destruction of\nanimal life. Educated Hindus throw back against the charge of idolatry\nour idolatry of pelf, which, as they claim, eclipses every other thought\nand aspiration, leads to dishonesty, over-reaching, and manifold crime,\nand sinks noble ethics to the low level of expediency or self-interest;\nthe conquest is not yet won.\n\nA hundred varieties of creed have sprung up beneath this banyan-tree\nwhich I have called Hinduism. There are worshippers of Vishnu, of Siva,\nof Kali, of Krishna as Bacchus, and of Krishna as the supreme and\nadorable God. There are Sikhs, and Jains, and Buddhists; Theosophists,\nVedantic Philosophers, Mohammedans, Brahmos, Parsees, Evolutionists, and\nAgnostics; Devil-worshippers, and worshippers of ghosts and serpents;\nbut in considering these as forces to be met by Christian influence, we\nmust regard them all as in virtual alliance with each other. They are\nall one in pride of race and of venerable custom. They are all one in\ntheir hatred of foreign dominion, and of the arrogance and overbearing\nassumption of the European.[73]\n\nThe Hindu religions, therefore, however divided, and however weak and\nmoribund they may be taken singly, find a real vitality in the union of\ncommon interests, in the sentiments of patriotism, in the pride of their\nphilosophy, in the glory of their ancient history as the true and\noriginal Aryans, compared with whom Western nations are mere offshoots.\n\nTheir religious faith is mixed and involved with patriotism, politics,\nand race prejudice, and on the other hand Christianity in India is\nhandicapped by political and commercial interest and a hated domination.\nOn both sides these combined influences must be considered in estimating\nthe future issues of the great conflict. The question is not how\nChristianity and Hinduism would fare in a conflict pure and simple,\nunembarrassed by complications, but how Christianity with its drawbacks\nis likely to succeed against Hinduism with its manifold intrenchments.\n\nBut, while weighing well the obstacles, how great are the\nencouragements! What an auspicious fact that even a hostile organization\nhas appropriated the Christian cultus bodily, and can find no better\nweapons than its blessed truths. Christianity is felt as a silent power,\neven though under other names. It is, after all, the leaven that is\nworking all-powerfully in India to-day.\n\nThere was a period in the process of creation when light beamed dimly\nupon the earth, though the sun, its source, had not yet appeared. So\nthrough the present Hinduism there is a haze of Christian truth, though\nthe Sun of Righteousness is not yet acknowledged as its source.\n\nBut the Spirit of God broods over the waters, and the true Light of the\nworld will break on India.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 34: The fact that environment has to a certain extent affected\nthe religions of mankind is entirely overworked, when men like Buckle\nmake it formative and controlling.]\n\n[Footnote 35: Instead of the later and universal pessimism, there was in\nthe Vedic religion a simple but joyous sense of life.]\n\n[Footnote 36: _Hinduism_, p. 31.]\n\n[Footnote 37: _Chips from a German Workshop_, vol. i., p. 15.]\n\n[Footnote 38: _Aryan Witness_, p. 204; also _Hinduism_, p. 36.]\n\n[Footnote 39: Ibid., p. 37.]\n\n[Footnote 40: A son of Hariscandra. _Hinduism_, p. 37.]\n\n[Footnote 41: This is in strong contrast with the Old Testament\nprecepts, which everywhere had greater respect to the heart of the\nofferer than to the gifts.]\n\n[Footnote 42: The Brahmans had found certain grades of population marked\nby color lines, shaded off from the negroid aborigines to the\nDravidians, and from them to the more recent and nobler Aryans, and they\nwere prompt also to seize upon a mere poetic and fanciful expression\nfound in the Rig Veda, which seemed to give countenance to their\nfourfold caste distinction by representing one class as having sprung\nfrom the head of Brahma, another from the shoulders, the third from his\nthighs, and a fourth from his feet. Altogether they founded a social\nsystem which has been the wonder of the ages, and which has given to the\n_Brahmans_ the prestige of celestial descent. The _Kshatreych_ or\nsoldier caste stands next, and as it has furnished many military leaders\nand monarchs who disputed the arrogant claims of the Brahmans, conflicts\nof the upper castes have not been infrequent.\n\nThe _Vaishya_, or farmer caste, has furnished the principal groundwork\nof many admixtures and subdivisions, until at the present time there are\nendless subcastes, to each of which a particular kind of employment is\nassigned. The _Sudras_ are still the menials, but there are different\ngrades of degradation even among them.]\n\n[Footnote 43: _Hindu Philosophy_, Bose, p. 47.]\n\n[Footnote 44: _Indian Wisdom_ on the Brahmanas and Upanishads. Also\n_Hindu Philosophy_, Bose.]\n\n[Footnote 45: _Colebrook's Essays_, foot-note, p. 85.]\n\n[Footnote 46: See _Introduction to the Sacred Books of the East_, vol. i.]\n\n[Footnote 47: Vaiseshika Philosophy, in _Indian Wisdom_.]\n\n[Footnote 48: Mimansa Philosophy. Ibid.]\n\n[Footnote 49: Sir Monier Williams assigns the Code of Manu _in its\npresent form_ to the sixth century B.C. _Indian Wisdom_, p. 215. Other\nOriental scholars consider it older.]\n\n[Footnote 50: These tendencies were more intensely emphasized in some of\nthe later codes, which, however, were only variations of the greater one\nof Manu.]\n\n[Footnote 51: See p. 82.]\n\n[Footnote 52: Quoted on p. 76.]\n\n[Footnote 53: See note, p. 80.]\n\n[Footnote 54: Sir Monier Williams declares that some of Mann's precepts\nare worthy of Christianity. _Indian Wisdom_, p. 212.]\n\n[Footnote 55: It should be set down to the credit of the Code of Manu\nthat with all its relentless cruelty toward woman it nowhere gives\ncountenance to the atrocious custom of widow-burning which soon\nafterward became an important factor in the Hindu system and desolated\nthe homes of India for more than two thousand years.\n\nThere would seem to be some dispute as to whether or not widow-burning\nis sanctioned in the Rig Veda. Colebrooke, in his _Essays_ (Vol. I., p,\n135), quotes one or two passages which authorize the rite, but Sir\nMonier Williams (_Indian Wisdom_, p. 259, note) has shown that changes\nwere made in this text at a much later day for the purpose of gaining\nVedic authority for a cruel system, of which even so late a work as the\nCode of Manu makes no mention, and (page 205 Ibid.) he quotes another\npassage from the Rig Veda which directs a widow to ascend the pyre of\nher husband as a token of attachment, but to leave it before the burning\nis begun.]\n\n[Footnote 56: As the spread of Buddhism had owed much to the political\ntriumph of King Ashoka, so the revival of Hinduism was greatly indebted\nto the influence of a new dynasty about a century B.C.]\n\n[Footnote 57: _Indian Wisdom_, p. 314.]\n\n[Footnote 58: Ibid., p. 317.]\n\n[Footnote 59: Brahmanism and Hinduism are often used interchangeably,\nbut all confusion will be avoided by confining the former to that\nintense sacerdotalism which prevailed during the Brahmana period, while\nthe latter is used more comprehensively, or is referred particularly to\nthe later and fully developed system.]\n\n[Footnote 60: _Hinduism_, pp. 12, 13.]\n\n[Footnote 61: The Brahmans were careful, however, to brand the Buddha,\nwhile admitting him as an avatar. Their theory was that Vishnu appeared\nin Gautama for the purpose of deluding certain demons into despising the\nworship of the gods, and thus securing their destruction. This affords\nan incidental proof that Gautama was regarded as an atheist.--See\n_Indian Wisdom_, p. 335.]\n\n[Footnote 62: See _Aryan Witness_, closing chapter; also _Christ and\nOther Masters_, p. 198, notes 1, 2, and 3.]\n\n[Footnote 63: See _Brahmanism and Hinduism_, Monier Williams.]\n\n[Footnote 64: Hardwick traces similarities between Hindu traditions and\nChristianity in such points as these: 1, The primitive state of man; 2,\nhis fall by transgression; 3, his punishment in the Deluge; 4, the rite\nof sacrifice; 5, the primitive hope of restoration.--_Christ and Other\nMasters_, p. 209.]\n\n[Footnote 65: The Hindus hold that \"truth was originally deposited with\nmen, but gradually slumbered and was forgotten; the knowledge of it\nreturns like a recollection.\"--_Humboldt's Kosmos_, ii., p. 112.]\n\n[Footnote 66: _Professor Wilson's Lectures_, p. 52.]\n\n[Footnote 67: _Vishnu Puranas_, p. 45, note 4.]\n\n[Footnote 68: Buddhism is still more disheartening, since it denies the\nseparate conscious existence of the ego. There cannot be divine\nfellowship, therefore, but only the current of thoughts and emotions\nlike the continuous flame of a burning candle. Not our souls will\nsurvive, but our Karma.]\n\n[Footnote 69: _Christ and Other Masters_, p. 182.]\n\n[Footnote 70: Yet in spite of Manu and the inveteracy of old custom,\nthere gleams here and there in Hindu literature and history a bright\nideal of woman's character and rank; while the _Ramayana_ has its model\nSita, the _Mahabharata_, i., 3028, has this peerless sketch:\n\n   \"A wife is half the man, his truest friend;\n    A loving wife is a perpetual spring\n    Of virtue, pleasure, wealth; a faithful wife\n    Is his best aid in seeking heavenly bliss;\n    A sweetly-speaking wife is a companion\n    In solitude; a father in advice;\n    A mother in all seasons of distress;\n    A rest in passing through life's wilderness.\"\n\nThis, however, is a pathetic outburst: the tyranny of the ages remains.]\n\n[Footnote 71: Even in the later development of the doctrine of faith\n(Bakti) Hinduism fails to connect with it any moral purification or\nelevation. See quotations from Elphinstone and Wilson in _Christ and\nOther Masters_, p. 234.]\n\n[Footnote 72: See a recent _Catechism_ published by the Arya Somaj.]\n\n[Footnote 73: The following hymn, quoted from the Arya _Catechism_,\nreveals the proud spirit of revived Aryanism:\n\n   \"We are the sons of brave Aryas of yore,\n    Those sages in learning, those heroes in war.\n    They were the lights of great nations before,\n    And shone in that darkness like morning's bright star,\n    A beacon of warning, a herald from far.\n    Have we forgotten our Rama and Arjun,\n    Yudistar or Bishma or Drona the Wise?\n    Are not we sons of the mighty Duryodani?\n    Where did Shankar and great Dayananda arise?\n    'In India, in India!' the echo replies.\n    Ours the glory of giving the world\n    Its science, religion, its poetry and art.\n    We were the first of the men who unfurled\n    The banner of freedom on earth's every part,\n    Brought tidings of peace and of love to each heart.\"]\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE IV.\n\nTHE BHAGAVAD GITA AND THE NEW TESTAMENT\n\n\nNo other portion of Hindu literature has made so great an impression on\nWestern minds as the Bhagavad Gita, \"The Lord's Lay,\" or the \"Song of\nthe Adorable.\" It has derived its special importance from its supposed\nresemblance to the New Testament. And as it claims to be much older than\nthe oldest of the Gospels or the Epistles, it carries the inference that\nthe latter may have borrowed something from it.\n\nA plausible translation has been published in Boston by Mr. Mohini M.\nChatterji, who devoutly believes this to be the revealed word of the\nSupreme Creator and Upholder of the universe.[74] He admits that at a\nlater day \"the same God, worshipped alike by Hindus and Christians,\nappeared again in the person of Jesus Christ,\" and that \"in the Bible He\nrevealed Himself to Western nations, as the Bhagavad Gita had proclaimed\nHim to the people of the East.\" And he draws the inference that \"If the\nScriptures of the Brahmans and the Scriptures of the Jews and\nChristians, widely separated as they are by age and nationality, are but\ndifferent names for one and the same truth, who can then say that the\nScriptures contradict each other? A careful and reverent collation of\nthe two sets of Scriptures will show forth the conscious and intelligent\ndesign of revelation.\" The fact that the Bhagavad Gita is thoroughly\npantheistic, while the Bible emphasizes the personality of God in\nfellowship with the distinct personality of human souls, seems to\ninterpose no serious difficulty in Mr. Chatterji's view, since he says\n\"'The Lord's Lay' is for philosophic minds, and therefore deals more at\nlength with the mysteries of the being of God.\" \"In the Bhagavad Gita,\"\nhe says, \"consisting of seven hundred and seventy verses, the principal\ntopic is the being of God, while scarcely the same amount of exposition\nis given to it in the whole Bible;\" and he adds, \"The explanation of\nthis remarkable fact is found in the difference between the genius of\nthe Hebrew and the Brahman race, and also in the fact that the teachings\nof Jesus Christ were addressed to 'the common people.'\"[75]\n\nThe air of intellectual superiority which is couched in these words is\nconspicuous. Mr. Chatterji also finds an inner satisfaction in what he\nconsiders the broad charity of the Brahmanical Scriptures. He quotes a\npassage from the Narada Pancharata which speaks of the Buddha as \"the\npreserver of revelation for those outside of the Vedic authority.\" And\nhe concludes that when one such revealer is admitted there can be no\nreason for excluding others; therefore Christianity also should be\nallowed a place. He declares on Vedic authority that whosoever receives\nthe true knowledge of God, however revealed, attains eternal life. And\nfor a parallel to this he quotes the saying of Christ, that \"this is\neternal life that they might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus\nChrist whom Thou hast sent.\" \"The Brahmanical Scriptures,\" he says, \"are\nof one accord in teaching that when the heart is purified God is seen;\nso also Jesus Christ declares that the pure in heart are blessed, for\nthey shall see God.\"\n\nOur translator discards the often-repeated theory that the Christian\nScriptures have copied the wise sayings of Krishna; and it is very\nsignificant that an argument to which superficial apologists constantly\nresort is discarded by this real Hindu, as he supports the theory that\nas both were direct revelations from Vishnu, there was in his view no\nneed of borrowing. His contention is that God, who \"at sundry times and\nin divers manners\" has spoken to men in different ages, made known his\ntruth, and essentially the same truth, both on the plains of India and\nin Judea. And he reminds Hindus and Christians alike, that this\nknowledge of truth carries with itself an increased responsibility. He\nsays: \"The man who sees the wonderful workings of the Spirit among the\nnations of the earth, bringing each people to God by ways unknown to\nothers, is thereby charged with a duty. To him with terrible precision\napplies the warning given by Gamaliel to the Pharisees, 'Take heed to\nyourselves what ye intend to do ... lest ye be found to fight even\nagainst God.' If one be a Brahman, let him reflect when opposing the\nreligion of Jesus what it is that he fights. The truths of Christianity\nare the same as those on which his own salvation depends. How can he be\na lover of truth, which is God, if he knows not his beloved under such a\ndisguise? And if he penetrates behind the veil, which should tend only\nto increase the ardor of his love, he cannot hate those who in obedience\nto the same truth are preaching the Gospel of Christ to all nations.\nIndeed he ought to rejoice at his brothers' devotion to the self-same\nGod, and to see that he is rendering service to Him by helping others to\ncarry out the behests given to them by the Divine Master. If, on the\nother hand, he be a Christian, let him remember that while he is\ncommanded to preach repentance and remission of sins in the Saviour\nJesus, he is also warned against 'teaching for doctrines the\ncommandments of men.'\" All this seems like charity, but really it is\nlaxity.\n\nAnd here is the very essence of Hinduism. Its chief characteristic, that\nwhich renders it so hard to combat, is its easy indifference to all\ndistinctions. To reason with it is like grasping a jelly-fish. Its\npantheism, which embraces all things, covers all sides of all questions.\nIt sees no difficulties even between things which are morally opposites.\nContradictions are not obstacles, and both sides of a dilemma may be\nharmonized. And to a great extent this same vagueness of conviction\ncharacterizes all the heathen systems of the East. The Buddhists and\nthe Shintoists in Japan justify their easy-going partnership by the\nfavorite maxim that, while \"there are many paths by which men climb the\nsides of Fusyama, yet upon reaching the summit they all behold the same\nglorious moon.\" The question whether all do in fact reach the summit is\none which does not occur to an Oriental to ask.\n\nThis same pantheistic charity is seen in the well-known appeal of the\nlate Chunder Sen, which as an illustration is worth repeating here:\n\"Cheshub Chunder Sen, servant of God, called to be an apostle of the\nChurch of the New Dispensation, which is in the holy city of Calcutta;\nto all the great nations of the world and to the chief religious sects\nin the East and West, to the followers of Moses and of Jesus, of Buddha,\nConfucius, Zoroaster, Mohammed, Nanak, and of the various Hindu sects;\ngrace be to you and peace everlasting. Whereas sects, discords, and\nstrange schisms prevail in our father's family; and whereas this setting\nof brother against brother has proved the prolific source of evil, it\nhas pleased God to send into the world a message of peace and\nreconciliation. This New Dispensation He has vouchsafed to us in the\nEast, and we have been commanded to bear witness to the nations of the\nearth ... Thus saith the Lord: 'I abominate sects and desire love and\nconcord ... I have at sundry times spoken through my prophets and my\nmany dispensations. There is unity. There is one music but many\ninstruments, one body but many members, one spirit but many gifts, one\nblood but many nations, one Church but many churches. Let Asia and\nEurope and America and all nations prove this New Dispensation and the\ntrue fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of men.'\"\n\nThis remarkable production--so Pauline in style and so far from Paul in\ndoctrine--seems to possess everything except definite and robust\nconviction. And its limp philosophy was not sufficient to withhold even\nChunder Sen himself from the abandonment of his principles not long\nafterward. This sweet perfume of false charity, with which he thus\ngently sprayed the sects and nations of mankind, lost its flavor ere the\nink of his message was fairly dry; while he who in similar language\nannounced his call to an Apostleship eighteen centuries ago, is still\nturning the world upside down.\n\n\"Charity\" is the watchword of indifferentism in the West as well as in\nthe East; and the East and the West are joining hands in their effort to\nsoothe the world into slumber with all its sins and woes unhealed. Some\nmonths ago an advanced Unitarian from Boston delivered a farewell\naddress to the Buddhists of Japan, in which he presented three great\nUnitarians of New England--Channing, Emerson, and Parker--in a sort of\ntransfiguration of gentleness and charity. He maintained that the lives\nof these men had been an unconscious prophecy of that mild and gentle\nBuddhism which he had found in Japan, but of which they had died without\nthe sight.[76]\n\nThus the transcendentalism of New England joins hands with the Buddhism\nand the Shintoism of Japan, and the Brahmanism of Calcutta, and all are\nin accord with Mr. Chatterji and the Bhagavad Gita. Even the\nTheosophists profess their sympathy with the Sermon on the Mount, and\nclaim Christ as an earlier prophet. The one refrain of all is \"Charity.\"\nAll great teachers are avatars of Vishnu. The globe is belted with this\nmultiform indifferentism, and I am sorry to say that it is largely the\ngospel of the current literature and of the daily press. In it all there\nis no Saviour and no salvation. Religions are all ethnic and local,\nwhile the _ignis fatuus_ of a mystic pantheism pervades the world.\n\nMr. Chatterji's preface closes with a prayer to the \"merciful Father of\nhumanity to remove from all races of men every unbrotherly feeling in\nthe sacred name of religion, which is but one.\" The prayer were touching\nand beautiful on the assumption that there were no differences between\ntruth and error. And there are thousands, even among us, who are asking,\n\"Why may not Christians respond to this broad charity, and admit this\nHindu eclectic poem to an equal place with the New Testament?\" More or\nless indifferent to all religions, and failing to understand the real\nprinciples on which they severally rest, they are ready to applaud a\nchallenge like that which we are considering, and to contrast it with\nthe alleged narrowness and intolerance of Christian Theism.\n\nI have dwelt thus at length upon Mr. Chatterji's introduction, and have\nillustrated it by references to similar specious claims of other faiths,\nin order that I might bring into clearer view the main issue which this\nbook now presents to the American public. It is the softest, sweetest\nvoice yet given to that gospel of false charity which is the fashion of\nour times. Emerson and others caught it from afar and discoursed to a\ngeneration now mostly gone of the gentle maxims of Confucius, Krishna,\nand Gautama. But now Krishna is among us in the person of his most\ndevout apostle, and a strange hand of fellowship is stretched out toward\nus from the land of the Vedas.\n\nIt behooves us to inquire, first, into the pantheistic philosophy which\nunderlies these sayings, and to ask for their meaning as applied in real\nlife; and second, we shall need to know something of Krishna, and\nwhether he speaks as one having authority. It should be borne in mind\nthat pantheism sacrifices nothing whatever by embracing all religions,\nsince even false religions are a worship of Vishnu in their way, while\nChristianity by its very nature would sacrifice everything. According to\npantheism all things that exist, and all events that transpire, are\nexpressions of the Divine will. The one only existent Being embraces all\ncauses and all effects, all truth and all falsehood. He is no more the\nsource of good than of evil. \"I am immortality,\" says Krishna. \"I am\nalso death.\" Man with all his thoughts and acts is but the shadow of\nGod, and moves as he is moved upon. Arjuna's divine counsellor says to\nhim: \"The soul, existing from eternity, devoid of qualities,\nimperishable, abiding in the body, yet supreme, acts not nor is by any\nact polluted. He who perceives that actions are performed by Prakriti\nalone, and that the soul is not an actor, sees the truth aright.\"\n\nNow, if this reasoning be correct, it is not we that sin; not we that\nworship; and in the last analysis all religions are alike; they are only\nthe varied expressions of the thought of God. As He manifests his power\nin nature in a thousand forms, producing some objects that are beautiful\nto the eye and others that are repulsive, so in his spiritual\nmanifestations He displays a like variety. The ignorance and degradation\nof fetichism are His, as well as the highest revelations of spiritual\ntruth. A certain class of evolutionists tell us that God contrived the\nserpent's poison-fang and the mother's tender instinct with \"the same\ncreative indifference.\" And the broad pantheism which overrides the\ndistinctions of eternal right and wrong, and divests God of all moral\ndiscriminations, puts Vedantism and Fetichism, Christianity and\nWitchcraft, upon the same basis. The Bhagavad Gita and the Gospel both\nenjoin the brotherhood of men, but what are the meanings which they give\nto this term? What are their aims, respectively? One is endeavoring to\nenforce the rigid and insurmountable barriers of caste; the other\ncommends a mission of love which shall regard neither Jew nor Greek,\nBarbarian, Scythian, bond nor free. It will become apparent, I think,\nthat there may be parallels or similarities which relate to mere phrases\nwhile their meanings are wide apart.\n\nJudging from Mr. Chatterji's own stand-point, his work has been well\ndone. He has shown a careful study not only of his own literatures and\nphilosophies, but also of the scriptures of the Old and New\nTestament--in this respect setting us an example worthy to be followed\nby Christian scholars. Such a man has in the outset an immense advantage\nover those who know nothing of the enemies' positions, but regard them\nonly with disdain. Before the high court of public opinion, as\nrepresented by our current literature, mere ex-parte assumption will go\nto the wall, even though it has the better cause, while adroit error,\nintelligently put and courteously commended, will win the day. This is a\nlesson which the Christian Church greatly needs to learn. Mr.\nChatterji's work is the more formidable for its charming graces of\nstyle. He has that same facility and elegance in the use of the English\nlanguage for which so many of his countrymen, Sheshadri, Bose, Banergea,\nChunder Sen, Mozoomdar, and others have been distinguished. He is a\nmodel of courtesy, and he seems sincere.\n\nBut turning from the translator to the book itself, we shall now inquire\nwho was Krishna, Arjuna's friend, what was the origin of the \"Lord's\nLay,\" and what are its real merits as compared with the New Testament?\nKrishna and Arjuna--like Rama Chandra--were real human heroes who\ndistinguished themselves in the wars of the Indo-Aryans with rival\ntribes who contested the dominion of Northern India. They did not live\nthree thousand years before Christ, as our translator declares, for they\nbelonged to the soldier caste, and according to the consensus of\nOriental scholarship the system of caste did not exist till about the\nbeginning of the Brahmanic period--say eight hundred years before\nChrist. Krishna was born in the Punjab, near Merut, and it was near\nthere that his chief exploits were performed. The legends represent him\nas a genial but a reckless forester, brave on the battle-field, but\nleading a life of low indulgence. The secret of his power lay in his\nsympathy. His worship, even as a heroic demi-god, brought a new and\nwelcome element into Hinduism as contrasted with the remorselessness of\nSiva or the cold indifference of Brahma. It was the dawn of a doctrine\nof faith, and in this character it was probably of later date than the\nrise of Buddhism. Indeed, the Brahmans learned this lesson of the value\nof Divine sympathy from the Buddha. The supernatural element ascribed to\nKrishna, as well as to Rama, was a growth, and had its origin in the\njealousy of the Brahmans toward the warrior caste. His exaltation as the\nSupreme was an after-thought of the inventive Brahmans. As stated in a\nformer lecture, these heroes had acquired great renown; and their\nexploits were the glory and delight of the dazzled populace. In raising\nthem to the rank of deities, and as such appropriating them as kindred\nto the divine Brahmans, the shrewd priesthood saved the prestige of\ntheir caste and aggrandized their system by a fully developed doctrine\nof incarnations. Thus, by a growth of centuries, the Krishna cult\nfinally crowned the Hindu system.\n\nThe Mahabharata, in which the Bhagavad Gita was incorporated by some\nauthor whose name is unknown, is an immense literary mosaic of two\nhundred and twenty thousand lines. It is heterogeneous, grotesque,\ninconsistent, and often contradictory--qualities which are scarcely\nconsidered blemishes in Hindu literature.\n\nThe Bhagavad Gita was incorporated as a part of this great epic probably\nas late as the second or third century of our era, and by that time\nKrishna had come to be regarded as divine, though his full and\nextravagant deification as the \"Adorable One\" probably did not appear\ntill the author of \"Narada Pancharata\" of the eighth century had added\nwhatever he thought the original author should have said five centuries\nbefore. As it now stands the poem very cleverly weaves into one fabric\nmany lofty aphorisms borrowed from the Upanishads and the later\nphilosophic schools, upon the groundwork of a popular story of which\nArjuna is the hero. Arjuna and his four brothers are about to engage in\na great battle with their cousins for the possession of an hereditary\nthrone. The divine Krishna, once himself a hero, becomes Arjuna's\ncharioteer, that in that capacity he may act as his counsellor. As the\nbattle array is formed, Arjuna is seized with misgivings at the thought\nof slaughtering his kindred for the glory of a sceptre. \"I cannot--will\nnot fight,\" he says; \"I seek not victory, I seek no kingdom; what shall\nwe do with regal pomp and power? what with enjoyments, or with life\nitself, when we have slaughtered all our kindred here?\"\n\nKrishna then enters upon a long discourse upon the duties of caste and\nthe indwelling of the Infinite, showing that the soul, which is a part\nof deity, cannot be slain though the body may be hewn to pieces. \"The\nwise,\" he says, \"grieve not for the departed nor for those who yet\nsurvive. Never was the time when I was not, nor thou, nor yonder chiefs,\nand never shall be the time when all of us shall not be. As the embodied\nsoul in this corporeal frame moves swiftly on through boyhood, youth,\nand age, so will it pass through other forms hereafter; be not grieved\nthereat.... As men abandon old and threadbare clothes to put on others\nnew, so casts the embodied soul its worn-out frame to enter other forms.\nNo dart can pierce it; flame cannot consume it, water wet it not, nor\nscorching breezes dry it--indestructible, eternal, all-pervading,\ndeathless.\"[77]\n\nIt may seem absurd to Western minds that a long discourse, which\nconstitutes a volume of intricate pantheistic philosophy, should be\ngiven to a great commander just at the moment when he is planning his\nattack and is absorbed with the most momentous responsibilities; it\nseems to us strangely inconsistent also to expatiate elaborately upon\nthe merits of the Yoga philosophy, with its asceticism and its holy\ntorpor, when the real aim is to arouse the soul to ardor for the hour of\nbattle. But these infelicities are no obstacle to the Hindu mind, and\nthe consistency of the plot is entirely secondary to the doctrine of\ncaste and of philosophy which the author makes Krishna proclaim. Gentle\nas many of its precepts are, the Bhagavad Gita, or the \"Lord's Lay,\" is\na battle-song uttered by the Supreme Being while the contending hosts\nawaited the signal for fratricidal carnage.\n\nThe grotesqueness which characterizes all Hindu literature is not\nwanting in this story of Krishna and Arjuna, as given in the great poem\nof which the Bhagavad Gita forms a part. The five sons of Pandu are\nrepresentatives of the principle of righteousness, while the hundred\nbrothers of the rival branch are embodiments of evil. Yet, when the\nvictory had been gained and the sceptre was given to the sons of Pandu,\nthey despised it and courted death, though the \"Adorable One\" had urged\nthem on to strife.\n\nBishma, the leader of the hostile force, in a personal encounter with\nArjuna, had been filled so full of darts that he could neither stand nor\nlie down. Every part of his body was bristling with arrows, and for\nfifty-eight days he lingered, leaning on their sharp points. Meanwhile\nthe eldest of the victors, finding his throne only a \"delusion and a\nsnare,\" and being filled with remorse, was urged by Krishna to visit his\nunfortunate adversary and receive instruction and comfort. Bishma, lying\nupon his bed of spikes, edified him with a series of long and tedious\ndiscourses on pantheistic philosophy, after which he asked the\ntender-hearted Krishna for permission to depart. He is no longer the\nembodiment of evil: the cruel arrows with which the ideal of goodness\nhad pierced him fall away, the top of his head opens, and his spirit\nsoars to heaven shining like a meteor. How strange a reversal is here!\nHow strange that he who had been the representative of all evil should\nhave been transformed by his suffering, and should have been made to\ninstruct and comfort the man of success.\n\nMr. Chatterji falls into a fatal inconsistency when, in spite of his\nassumption that this poem is the very word of Krishna spoken at a\nparticular time, in a particular place, he informs us that \"all Indian\nauthorities agree in pronouncing it to be the essence of all sacred\nwritings. They call it an Upanishad--a term applied to the wisdom, as\ndistinguished from the ceremonial, part of the Vedas, and to no book\nless sacred.\" More accurately he might have said that it is a compend of\nall Hindu literatures, the traditional as well as the inspired, and with\na much larger share of the former than of the latter. Pantheism, which\nis its quintessence, did not exist in the early Vedic times. Krishna was\nnot known as a god even in the period of the Buddha.[78] And the Epics,\nwhich are so largely drawn upon, are later still. And it is upon the\nbasis of the Epics, and the still later Puranas, that the common people\nof India still worship him as the god of good-fellowship and of lust.\nThe masses longed for a god of human sympathies, even though he were a\nBacchus.\n\nIn the Bhagavad Gita as we now have it, with its many changes, Krishna\nhas become the supreme God, though according to Lassen his actual\nworship as such was not rendered earlier than the sixth century; and\nProfessor Banergea claims that it \"was not at its zenith till the\neighth century, and that it then borrowed much from Christian, or at\nleast Hebrew, sources.\" Webber and Lorinser have maintained a similar\nview. Krishna as the Supreme and Adorable One has never found favor\nexcept with the pantheists, and to this day the worship of the real\nKrishna as a Bacchus is the most popular of all Hindu festivals, and\nnaturally it is the most demoralizing.\n\nWe are now prepared to assume that the pantheistic groundwork of the\npoem on the one hand, and its borrowed Christian conceptions and\nChristian nomenclature on the other, will explain its principal alleged\nparallels with the New Testament. With his great familiarity with our\nBible, and his rare ability in adjusting shades of thought and\nexpression, Mr. Chatterji has presented no less than two hundred and\nfourteen passages which he matches with texts from the Bible. Many of\nthese are so adroitly worded that one not familiar with the\npeculiarities of Hindu philosophy might be stumbled by the comparisons.\nMr. R.C. Bose tells us that this poem has wrought much evil among the\nforeign population of India; and in this country there are thousands of\neven cultivated people with whom this new translation will have great\ninfluence. Men with unsettled minds who have turned away with contempt\nfrom the crudities of spiritualism, who are disgusted with the rough\nassailments of Ingersoll, and who find only homesickness and desolation\non the bleak and wintry moor of agnostic science, may yet be attracted\nby a book which is so elevated and often sublime in its philosophy, and\nso chaste in its ethical precepts, and which, like Christianity, has\nbridged the awful chasm between unapproachable deity and our human\nconditions and wants by giving to the world a God-man.\n\nIf the original author and the various expositors of the Bhagavad Gita\nhave not borrowed from the Christian revelation, they have rendered an\nundesigned tribute to the great Christian doctrine of a divine and human\nmediator: they have given striking evidence of a felt want in all\nhumanity of a _God with men_. If it was a deeply conscious want of the\nhuman heart which led the heathen of distant India to grope their way\nfrom the cheerless service of remorseless deities to one who could be\ntouched with a feeling of their infirmities, and could walk these\nearthly paths as a counsellor by their side, how striking is the analogy\nto essential Christian truth!\n\nLet us examine some of the alleged parallels. They may be divided into\nthree classes:\n\n1. Those which are merely fanciful. Nine-tenths of the whole number are\nof this class. They are such as would never occur to a Hindu on hearing\nthe gospel truth. Only one who had examined the two records in the keen\nsearch for parallels, and whose wish had been the father of his thought,\nwould have seen any resemblance. I shall not occupy much time with\nthese.\n\n2. Those resemblances which are only accidental. It may be an accident\nof similar circumstances or similar causes; it may be a chance\nresemblance in the words employed, while there is no resemblance in the\nthoughts expressed.\n\n3. Those coincidences which spring from natural causes. For an example\nof these, the closing chapter of the Apocalypse speaks of Christ as \"the\nAlpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End.\" It is a natural\nexpression to indicate his supreme power and glory as Creator and final\nJudge of all things. In a similar manner Krishna is made to say, \"I am\nBeginning, Middle, End, Eternal Time, the Birth and the Death of all. I\nam the symbol A among the characters. I have created all things out of\none portion of myself.\" There are two meanings in Krishna's words. He is\nin all things pantheistically, and he is the first and best of all\nthings. In the tenth chapter he names with great particularity sixty-six\nclasses of things in which he is always the first: the first of\nelephants, horses, trees, kings, heroes, etc. \"Among letters I am the\nvowel A.\" \"Among seasons I am spring.\" \"Of the deceitful I am the dice.\"\n\nThe late Dr. Mullens calls attention to the fact that the Orphic Hymns\ndeclare \"Zeus to be the first and Zeus the last. Zeus is the head and\nZeus the centre.\" In these three similar forms of description one common\nprinciple of supremacy rules. The difference is that in the Christian\nrevelation and in the Orphic Hymns there is dignity, while in Krishna's\ndiscourse there is frivolous and vulgar particularity. Let us notice a\nfew examples of the alleged parallels more particularly.\n\nIn Chapter IX. Krishna says: \"Whatever thou doest, whatever thou\neatest, whatever thou offerest in sacrifice, etc., commit that to me.\"\nThis is compared with 1 Corinthians x. 31: \"Whether therefore ye eat or\ndrink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.\" Also to\nColossians x. 17: \"Whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name\nof the Lord Jesus.\"\n\nEven if there were no pantheistic differential at the foundation of\nthese utterances, it would not be at all strange if exhortations to an\nall-embracing devotion should thus in each case be made to cover all the\ndaily acts of life. But aside from this there is a wide difference in\nthe fundamental ideas which these passages express. Paul's thought is\nthat of loving devotion to an infinite Friend and Saviour; it is such an\noffering of loyalty and love as one conscious being can make to another\nand a higher. But Krishna identifies the giver with the receiver, and\nArjuna is taught to regard the gift itself as an act of God. The phrase\n\"commit that to me\" is equivalent to \"ascribe that to me.\" In the\ncontext we read: \"Of those men, who thinking of me in identity (with\nthemselves), worship me, for them always resting in me, I bear the\nburden of acquisition and preservation of possessions. Even those the\ndevotees of other gods, who worship in faith, they worship me in\nignorance.\" In other words, the worshipper is to make no difference\nbetween himself and the Infinite. He is to refer all his daily acts to\nthe Infinite as the real actor, his own personal ego being ignored. This\nis not Paul's idea; it is the very reverse of it. It could give comfort\nonly to the evil-doer who desired to shift his personal responsibility.\n\nLet us consider another alleged resemblance. In the fifth chapter\nKrishna declares that whoever knows him \"attains rest.\" This is\npresented as a parallel to the words in Christ's prayer: \"This is life\neternal that they might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ\nwhom Thou hast sent.\"\n\nIn both passages the knowledge of God is made the chief blessing to be\nsought, but in the one case knowledge means only a recognition of the\nInfinite Ego as existing in one's personal ego: it is a mere acceptance\nof that philosophic theory of life. Thus one of the Upanishads declares\nthat \"whoever sees all things in God, and God in all things, sees the\ntruth aright;\" his philosophy is correct. On the other hand, what Christ\nmeant was not the recognition of a pantheistic theory, but a real\nheart-knowledge of the Father's character, a loving experience of his\ndivine mercy, his fatherly love, his ineffable glory. The one was cold\nphilosophy, the other was experience, fellowship, gratitude, filial\nlove.\n\nWhat pantheism taught was that God cannot be known practically--that He\nis without limitations or conditions that we can distinguish Him from\nour finiteness only by divesting our conception of Him of all that we\nare wont to predicate of ourselves. He is subject to no such limitations\nas good or evil. In Chapter IX., Krishna says: \"As air existing in space\ngoes everywhere and is unlimited, so are all things in me.... I am the\nVedic rite, I am the sacrifice, I am food, I am sacred formula, I am\nimmortality, I am also death; also the latent cause and the manifest\neffect.\" To know the God of the Bhagavad Gita is to know that he cannot\nbe known. \"God is infinite in attributes,\" says Mr. Chatterji, \"and yet\ndevoid of attributes. This is the God whom the Bhagavad Gita proclaims.\"\n\nBy a similar contradiction the more the devout worshipper knows of God\nthe less he knows, because the process of knowledge is a process of\n\"effacement;\" the closer the gradual union becomes the fainter is the\nself-personality, till at length it fades away entirely, and is merged\nand lost as a drop in the illimitable sea. This is the so-called \"rest\"\nwhich Krishna promises as the reward of knowing him. It is rest in the\nsense of extinction; it is death; while that which Christ promises is\neternal Life with unending and rapturous activity, with ever-growing\npowers of fellowship and of love.\n\nTake another alleged parallel. Chapter VI. commends the man who has\nreached such a measure of indifference that \"his heart is _even_ in\nregard to friends and to foes, to the righteous and to evil-doers;\" and\nthis is held up as a parallel to the Sermon on the Mount, which commends\nlove to enemies that we may be children of the heavenly Father who\nsendeth rain upon the just and upon the unjust. In the one case the\napathy of the ascetic, the extinction of susceptibility, the ignoring of\nmoral distinctions, the crippling and deadening of our noblest powers;\nin the other the use of these powers in all ways of beneficence toward\nthose who injure us, even as God, though his heart is by no means \"even\"\nas between the righteous and the wicked, stills shows kindness to both.\nNow, in view of the great plausibility of the parallels which are thus\npresented to the public--parallels whose subtle fallacy the mass of\nreaders are almost sure to overlook--one can hardly exaggerate the\nimportance of thoroughly sifting the philosophy that underlies them, and\nespecially on the part of those who are, or are to become, the defenders\nof the truth.[79]\n\nBut turning from particular parallels to a broader comparison, there is\na general use of expressions in the New Testament in regard to which\nevery Christian teacher should aim at clear views and careful\ndiscriminations; for example, when we are said to be \"temples of the\nHoly Ghost,\" or when Christ is said to be \"formed in us the hope of\nglory,\" or it is \"no longer we that live, but Christ that liveth in us.\"\nIt cannot be denied that defenders of the Bhagavad Gita, and of the\nwhole Indo-pantheistic philosophy, might make out a somewhat plausible\ncase along these lines. I recall an instance in which an honored pastor\nhad made such extravagant use of these New Testament expressions that\nsome of his co-presbyters raised the question of a trial for pantheism.\nBut it is one thing to employ strong terms of devotional feeling, as is\noften done, especially in prayer, and quite another to frame theories\nand philosophies, and present them as accurate statements of truth. The\nNew Testament nowhere speaks of the indwelling Spirit in such a sense as\nimplies an obliteration or absorption of the conscious individual ego,\nwhile \"effacement\" instead of fellowship is a favorite expression in the\nBhagavad Gita. Paul in his most ecstatic language never gives any hint\nof extinction, but, on the contrary, he magnifies the conception of a\nseparate, conscious, ever-growing personality, living and rejoicing in\nDivine fellowship for evermore.\n\nIn the New Testament the expressions of our union with Christ are often\nreversed: instead of speaking of Christ as abiding in the hearts and\nlives of his people, they are sometimes said to abide in Him, and that\nnot in the sense of absorption. Paul speaks of the \"saints in Christ,\"\nof his own \"bonds in Christ,\" of being \"baptized in Christ,\" of becoming\n\"a new creature in Christ,\" of true Christians as being one body in\nChrist, of their lives being \"hid with Christ in God.\" Believers are\nspoken of as being \"buried with Christ,\" \"dead with Christ.\" Every form\nof expression is used to represent fellowship, intimacy, spiritual union\nwith Him, but always in a rational and practical sense, and with full\nimplication of our distinct and separate personality. The essential hope\nof the Gospel is that those who believe in Christ shall never die, that\neven their mortal bodies shall be raised in his image, and that they\nshall be like Him and shall abide in his presence. On the other hand,\n\"The essence of this pantheistic system,\" says Mr. Chatterji, \"is the\ndenial of real existence to the individual spirit, and the insistance\nupon its true identity with God\" (Chapter IV.).\n\nIt only remains to be said that, whatever may be the similarities of\nexpression between this Bible of pantheism and that of Christianity,\nhowever they may agree in the utterance of worthy ethical maxims, that\nwhich most broadly differentiates the Christian faith from Hindu\nphilosophy is the salient presentation of great fundamental truths which\nare found in the Word of God alone.\n\n1. The doctrine that God in Christ is \"made sin\" for the redemption of\nsinful man--that He is \"the end of the law for righteousness\" for them\nthat believe; this is indeed Divine help: this is salvation. Divinity\ndoes not here become the mere charioteer of human effort, for the\npurpose of coaching it in the duties of caste and prompting it to fight\nout its destiny by its own valor. Christ is our expiation, takes our\nplace, for our sakes becomes poor that we through his poverty may become\nrich. What a boon to all fakirs and merit-makers of the world if they\ncould feel that that law of righteousness which they are striving to\nwork out by mortifications and self-tortures had been achieved for them\nby the Son of God, and that salvation is a free gift! This is something\nthat can be apprehended alike by the philosopher and by the unlettered\nmasses of men.\n\n2. Another great truth found in our Scriptures is that the pathway by\nwhich the human soul returns to God is not the way of knowledge in the\nsense of philosophy, but the way of intelligent confidence and loving\ntrust. \"With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the\nmouth confession is made.\" Man by wisdom has never known God. This has\nbeen the vain effort of Hindu speculation for ages. The author of the\nNyaya philosophy assumed that all evil springs from misapprehension, and\nthat the remedy is to be found in correct methods of investigation,\nguided by skilfully arranged syllogisms. This has been in all ages the\nchief characteristic of speculative Hinduism. And the Bhagavad Gita\nfurnishes one of its very best illustrations. Of its eighteen chapters,\nfifteen are devoted to \"Eight Knowledge.\" And by knowledge is meant\nabstract speculation. It is a reaching after oneness with the deity by\nintrospection and metaphysical analysis.\n\n\"Even if thou wert the greatest evil-doer among all the unrighteous,\"\nsays Krishna, \"thou shalt cross over all sins even by the ark of\nknowledge.\" \"Oh, Arjuna, as blazing fire reduces fuel to ashes, so the\nfire of knowledge turns all action into ashes.\" But in the first place a\nknowledge of the infinite within us is unattainable, and in the second\nplace it could not avail us even if attainable. It is not practical\nknowledge; it is not a belief unto righteousness. Faith is not an act of\nthe brain merely, but of the whole moral nature. The wisdom of self must\nbe laid aside, self-righteousness cast into the dust, the pride and\nrebellion of the will surrendered, and the whole man become as a little\nchild. This is the way of knowledge that can be made experimental; this\nis the knowledge that is unto eternal life.\n\n3. Another great differential of the New Testament is found in its true\ndoctrine of divine co-operation with the human will. Our personality is\nnot destroyed that the absolute may take its place, but the two act\ntogether. \"For men of renunciation,\" says the Bhagavad Gita, \"whose\nhearts are at rest from desire and anger, and knowing the only self,\nthere is on both sides of death effacement (of the individual) in the\nsupreme spirit.\" In such a person, therefore, even on this side of\ndeath, there is a cessation of the individual in the supreme. Over\nagainst this the Gospel presents the doctrine of co-operative grace,\nwhich instead of crippling our human energies arouses them to their\nhighest and best exertion. \"Work out your own salvation with fear and\ntrembling, for it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of\nhis good pleasure.\" The divine acts with and through the human, but does\nnot destroy it. It imparts the greatest encouragement, the truest\ninspiration.\n\n4. We notice but one more out of many points of contrast between the\ndoctrines of the Hindu and the Christian Bibles, viz., the difference\nbetween ascetic inaction and the life of Christian activity as means of\nreligious growth. I am aware that in the earlier chapters of the\nBhagavad Gita, Krishna urges Arjuna to valiant activity on the\nbattle-field, but that is for a special purpose, viz., the establishment\nof caste distinctions. It is wholly foreign to Hindu philosophy; it is\neven contradictory. The author of the poem, who seems to be aware of the\ninconsistency of arousing Arjuna to the mighty activities of the\nbattle-field, and at the same time indoctrinating him in the spirit of\na dead and nerveless asceticism, struggles hard with the awkward task of\nbridging the illogical chasm with three chapters of mystification.\n\nBut we take the different chapters as they stand, and in their obvious\nmeaning. \"The man of meditation is superior to the man of action,\" says\nChapter I., 46, \"therefore, Arjuna, become a man of meditation.\" How the\nman of meditation is to proceed is told in Chapter VI., 10-14. \"Let him\nwho has attained to meditation always strive to reduce his heart to rest\nin the Supreme, dwelling in a secret place alone, with body and mind\nunder control, devoid of expectation as well as of acceptance. Having\nplaced in a clean spot one's seat, firm, not very high nor very low,\nformed of the skins of animals, placed upon cloth and cusa grass upon\nthat, sitting on that seat, strive for meditation, for the purification\nof the heart, making the mind one-pointed, and reducing to rest the\naction of the thinking principle as well as that of the senses and\norgans. Holding the body, neck, and head straight and unmoved, perfectly\ndetermined, and not working in any direction, but as if beholding the\nend of his own nose, with his heart in supreme peace, devoid of fear,\nwith thought controlled and heart in me as the supreme goal, he\nremains.\"\n\nHow different from all this is that prayer of Christ, \"I pray not that\nThou shouldst take them out of the world, but that Thou shouldst keep\nthem from the evil.\" Or those various words spoken to his disciples:\n\"Let your light so shine before men that others seeing your good works\nshall glorify your Father which is in heaven.\" \"Work while the day\nlasts, for the night cometh in which no man can work.\"\n\nWho can imagine Paul spending all those years of opportunity in sitting\non a leopard skin, watching the end of his nose instead of turning the\nworld upside down! In that true sense in which Christ lived within him,\nHe filled every avenue of his being with the aggressive spirit of God's\nown love for dying men. The same spirit which brought Christ from heaven\nto earth sent Paul out over the earth. He was not even content to work\non old foundations, but regarding himself as under sentence of death he\nlonged to make the most of his votive life, to bear the torch of the\ntruth into all realms of darkness. He was none the less a philosopher\nbecause he preferred the simple logic of God's love, nor did he hesitate\nto confront the philosophy of Athens or the threatenings of Roman\ntyrants. He was ready for chains and imprisonment, for perils of\ntempests or shipwreck, or robbers, or infuriate mobs, or death itself.\n\nNo Hindu fakir was ever more conscious of the struggle with inward\ncorruption than he, and at times he could cry out, \"Oh, wretched man\nthat I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?\" but he did\nnot seek relief in idleness and inanity, but in what Dr. Chalmers called\n\"the expulsive power of new affections,\" in new measures of Christlike\ndevotion to the cause of truth and humanity. In a word, Christ and his\nkingdom displaced the power of evil. He could do all things through\nChrist who strengthened him.\n\nNor was the peace which he felt and which he commended to others the\npeace of mere negative placidity and indifference. It was loving\nconfidence and trust. \"Be careful for nothing\"--we hear him saying to\nhis friends at Philippi--\"be careful for nothing; but in all things by\nprayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, make known your requests\nunto God: and the peace of God, which passeth understanding, shall keep\nyour minds and hearts through Christ Jesus.\" And yet to show how this\nconsists with devout activity, he commends, in immediate connection with\nit, the cultivation of every active virtue known to men. Thus,\n\"_Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever\nthings are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are\nlovely, whatsoever things are of good report, if there be any virtue, if\nthere be any praise, think on these things._\"\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 74: Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1889.]\n\n[Footnote 75: The author seems to overlook the fact that the chief\nexcellence of an evangel to lost men is that it appeals to the masses.]\n\n[Footnote 76: Address published in the _Japan Mail_, 1890.]\n\n[Footnote 77: There is scarcely another passage in all Hindu literature\nwhich is so full of half-truths as this, or which turns the sublime\npowers of the human soul to so unworthy a purpose.]\n\n[Footnote 78: In an enumeration of Hindu gods made in Buddha's time\nKrishna does not appear.]\n\n[Footnote 79: Never before has there been so much danger as now that the\nlines of truth will be washed out by the flood-tides of sentimental and\nsemi Christian substitutes and makeshifts. As with commodities, so with\nreligion, dilution and adulteration are the order of the day and a\nlittle Christianity is made to flavor a thousand shams.]\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE V.\n\nBUDDHISM AND CHRISTIANITY\n\n\nNew interest has recently been awakened in old controversies concerning\nthe relations of Christianity and Buddhism. The so-called Theosophists\nand Esoteric Buddhists are reviving exploded arguments against\nChristianity as means of supporting their crude theories. The charge of\nGerman sceptics, that Christianity borrowed largely from Buddhism, is\nmade once more the special stock in trade of these new and fanatical\norganizations. To this end books, tracts, and leaflets are scattered\nbroadcast, and especially in the United States and Great Britain.\n\nProfessor Max Mueller says, in a recent article published in _Longman's\nNew Review_: \"Who has not suffered lately from Theosophy and Esoteric\nBuddhism? Journals are full of it, novels overflow with it, and one is\nflooded with private and confidential letters to ask what it all really\nmeans. Many people, no doubt, are much distressed in their minds when\nthey are told that Christianity is but a second edition of Buddhism. 'Is\nit really true?' they ask. 'Why did you not tell us all this before?\nSurely, you must have known it, and were only afraid to tell it.' Then\nfollow other questions: 'Does Buddhism really count more believers than\nany other religion?' 'Is Buddhism really older than Christianity, and\ndoes it really contain many things which are found in the Bible?'\" And\nthe learned professor proceeds to show that there is no evidence that\nChristianity has borrowed from Buddhism. In this country these same\nideas are perhaps more widely circulated than in England. They are\nsubsidizing the powerful agency of the secular press, particularly the\nSunday newspapers, and thousands of the people are confronting these\npuzzling questions. There is occasion, therefore, for a careful and\ncandid review of Buddhism by all leaders of thought and defenders of\ntruth.\n\nIn the brief time allotted me, I can only call attention to a few\nsalient points of a general character. In the outset, a distinction\nshould be drawn between Buddhist history and Buddhist legend, for just\nat this point the danger of misrepresentation lies. It is true that the\nBuddha lived before the time of Christ, and therefore anything of the\nnature of real biography must be of an earlier date than the teachings\nof Jesus; but whether the _legends_ antedate His life and doctrines is\nquite another question. The Buddhist apologists all assume that they do,\nand it is upon the legends that most of the alleged parallelisms in the\ntwo records are based. How, then, shall we draw the line between history\nand legend? The concensus of the best scholarship accepts those\ntraditions in which the northern and southern Buddhist records agree,\nwhich the Council of Patna, B.C. 242, adopted as canonical, and which\nare in themselves credible and consistent with the teachings of Gautama\nhimself. According to this standard of authority Gautama was born about\nthe sixth century B.C., as the son and heir of a rajah of the Sakya\ntribe of Aryans, living about eighty miles north by northwest of\nBenares. His mother, the principal wife of Kajah Suddhodana, had lived\nmany years without offspring, and she died not long after the birth of\nthis her only son, Siddartha. In his youth he was married and surrounded\nby all the allurements and pleasures of an Oriental court. He, too,\nappears to have remained without an heir till he was twenty-nine years\nof age, when, upon the birth of a son, certain morbid tendencies came to\na climax, and he left his palace secretly and sought true comfort in a\nlife of asceticism. For six years he tried diligently the resources of\nHindu self-mortification, but becoming exhausted by his austerities,\nalmost unto death, he abandoned that mode of life, having apparently\nbecome atheistic. He renounced the idea of merit-making as a means of\nspiritual attainment, and he was sorely tempted, no doubt, to return to\nhis former life of ease. But he withstood the temptation and resolved to\nforego earthly pleasure, and teach mankind what he conceived to be the\nway of life, through self-control. He had tried pleasure; next he had\ntried extreme asceticism; he now struck out what he called \"The Middle\nPath,\" as between self-indulgence on the one hand, and extreme bodily\nmortification as a thing of merit on the other. This middle ground still\ndemanded abstinence as favorable to the highest mental and moral\nconditions, but it was not carried to such extremes as to weaken the\nbody or the mind, or impair the fullest operation of every faculty.[80]\n\nThere can be no doubt that Gautama's relinquishment of Hinduism marked a\ngreat and most trying crisis. It involved the loss of all confidence in\nhim on the part of his disciples, for when he began again to take\nnecessary food they all forsook him as a failure. It was while sitting\nunder the shade of an Indian fig-tree (Boddhi-tree) that this struggle\noccurred and his victory was gained. There his future course was\nresolved upon; there was the real birth-place of Buddhism as a system.\nHe thenceforth began to preach the law, or what he regarded as the way\nof self-emancipation, and therefore the way of life. He first sought his\nfive followers, who had abandoned him, and succeeded in winning them\nback. He gathered at length a company of about sixty disciples, whom he\ntrained and sent forth as teachers of his new doctrines. Yet, still\ninfluenced by the old Hindu notions of the religious life, he formed his\ndisciples into an order of mendicants, and in due time he established an\norder of nuns.\n\nIt was when Gautama rose up from his meditation and his high resolve\nunder the Bo-tree, that he began his career as \"The Enlightened.\" He was\nnow a Buddha, and claimed to have attained Nirvana. All that has been\nwritten of his having left his palace with the purpose of becoming a\nsaviour of mankind, is the sheer assumption of the later legends and\ntheir apologists. Buddhism was an after-thought, only reached after six\nyears of bootless asceticism. There is no evidence that when Siddartha\nleft his palace he had any thought of benefiting anybody but himself. He\nentered upon the life of the recluse with the same motives and aims that\nhave influenced thousands of other monks and anchorets of all lands and\nages--some of them princes like himself. Nevertheless, for the noble\ndecision which was finally reached we give him high credit. It seems to\nhave been one of the noblest victories ever gained by man over lower\nimpulses and desires. The passions of youth were not yet dead within\nhim; worldly ambition may be supposed to have been still in force; but\nhe chose the part of a missionary to his fellow-men, and there is no\nevidence that he ever swerved from his purpose. He had won a great\nvictory over himself, and that fact constituted a secret of great power.\nGautama was about thirty-five years of age when he became a Buddha, and\nfor forty-five years after that he lived to preach his doctrines and to\nestablish the monastic institution which has survived to our time. He\ndied a natural death from indigestion at the age of eighty--greatly\nvenerated by his disciples, and the centre of what had already become a\nwide-spread system in a large district of India.\n\nThe legends of Buddhism are a very different thing from the brief sketch\nwhich I have given, and which is based upon the earlier Buddhist\nliterature. These sprang up after Gautama's death, and their growth\nextended through many centuries--many centuries even of the Christian\nera. The legends divide the life of the Buddha into three periods: 1.\nThat of his pre-existent states. 2. That part of his life which extended\nfrom his birth to his enlightenment under the Bo-tree. 3. The forty-five\nyears of his Buddhaship. The legends have no more difficulty in dealing\nwith the particular experiences of the pre-existent states than in\nenriching and adorning the incidents of his earthly life; and both are\ndoubtless about equally authentic.\n\nGautama discarded the idea of a divine revelation; he rejected the\nauthority of the Vedas totally. He denied that he was divine, but\ndistinctly claimed to be a plain and earnest man. All that he knew, he\nhad discovered by insight and self-conquest. To assume that he was\npre-existently divine and omniscient subverts the whole theory of his\nso-called \"discovery,\" and is at variance with the idea of a personal\nconquest. The chief emphasis and force of his teachings lay in the\nassumption that he did simply what other men might do; for his mission\nwas that of a teacher and exempler merely. He was a saviour only in that\nhe taught men how to save themselves.\n\nThe pre-existent states are set forth in the \"Jatakas,\" or Birth Stories\nof Ceylon, which represent him as having been born five hundred and\nthirty times after he became a Bodisat (a predestined Buddha). As a\nspecimen of his varied experience while becoming fitted for Buddaship,\nwe read that he was born eighty-three times as an ascetic, fifty-eight\nas a monarch, forty-three as a deva, twenty-four as a Brahman, eighteen\nas an ape; as a deer ten, an elephant six, a lion ten; at least once\neach as a thief, a gambler, a frog, a hare, a snipe. He was also\nembodied in a tree. But as a Bodisat he could not be born in hell, nor\nas vermin, nor as a woman! Says Spence Hardy, with a touch of irony: \"He\ncould descend no lower than a snipe.\"\n\nNorthern legends represent Buddha as having \"incarnated\" for the purpose\nof bringing relief to a distressed world. He was miraculously\nconceived--his mother's side in the form of a white elephant. All nature\nmanifested its joy on the occasion. The ocean bloomed with flowers; all\nbeings from many worlds showed their wonder and sympathy. Many miracles\nwere wrought even during his childhood, and every part of his career was\nfilled with marvels. At his temptation under the Bo-tree, Mara (Satan)\ncame to him mounted on an elephant sixteen miles high and surrounded by\nan encircling army of demons eleven miles deep.[81] Finding him proof\nagainst his blandishments, he hurled mountains of rocks against him, and\nassailed him with fire and smoke and ashes and filth--all of which\nbecame as zephyrs on his cheek or as presents of fragrant flowers. Last\nof all, he sent his three daughters to seduce him. Their blandishments\nare set forth at great length in the \"Romantic Legend.\"\n\nIn the Northern Buddhist literature--embracing both the \"Romantic\nLegend\"[82] and the \"Lalita Vistara\"--many incidents of Buddha's\nchildhood are given which show a seeming coincidence with the life of\nChrist. It is claimed that his birth was heralded by angelic hosts, that\nan aged sage received him into his arms and blessed him, that he was\ntaken to the temple for consecration, that a jealous ruler sought to\ndestroy him, that in his boyhood he astonished the doctors by his\nwisdom, that he was baptized, or at least took a bath, that he was\ntempted, transfigured, and finally received up into heaven. These will\nbe noticed farther on; it is only necessary to say here that the legends\ngiving these details are first at variance with the early canonical\nhistory, and second, that they are of such later dates as to place most\nof them probably within the Christian era.\n\n_The Four Peculiar and Characteristic Doctrines of Buddhism._\n\n1. Its peculiar conception of the soul. 2. Its doctrine of Trishna and\nUpadana. 3. Its theory of Kharma. 4. Its doctrine of Nirvana.\n\n1. The Skandas, five in number, constitute in their interaction what all\nothers than Buddhists regard as the soul. They consist of material\nproperties; the senses; abstract ideas; tendencies or propensities; and\nthe mental powers. The soul is the result of the combined action of\nthese, as the flame of a candle proceeds from the combustion of its\nconstituent elements. The flame is never the same for two consecutive\nmoments. It seems to have a perpetuated identity, but that is only an\nillusion, and the same unreality pertains to the soul. It is only a\nsuccession of thoughts, emotions, and conscious experiences. We are not\nthe same that we were an hour ago. In fact, there is no such thing as\nbeing--there is only a constant _becoming_. We are ever passing from one\npoint to another throughout our life; and this is true of all beings and\nall things in the universe. How it is that the succession of experiences\nis treasured up in memory is not made clear. This is a most subtle\ndoctrine, and it has many points of contact with various speculations of\nmodern times. It has also a plausible side when viewed in the light of\nexperience, but its gaps and inconsistencies are fatal, as must be seen\nwhen it is thoroughly examined.\n\n2. The second of the cardinal doctrines is that of Trishna. Trishna is\nthat inborn element of desire whose tendency is to lead men into evil.\nSo far, it is a misfortune or a form of original sin. Whatever it may\nhave of the nature of guilt hangs upon the issues of a previous life.\nUpadana is a further stage in the same development. It is Trishna\nripened into intense craving by our own choice and our own action. It\nthen becomes uncontrollable and is clearly a matter of guilt. Now, the\nmomentum of this Upadana is such that it cannot be arrested by death.\nLike the demons of Gadara it must again become incarnate, even though it\nshould enter the body of a brute. And this transitional something, this\nrestless moral or immoral force which must work out its natural results\nsomehow and somewhere, and that in embodied form projects into future\nbeing a residuum which is known as Kharma.\n\n3. What, then, is Kharma? Literally it means \"the doing.\" It is a man's\nrecord, involving the consequences and liabilities of his acts. It is a\nscore which must be settled. A question naturally arises, how the record\nof a soul can survive when the soul itself has been \"blown out.\" The\nillustration of the candle does not quite meet the case. If the flame\nwere something which when blown out immediately seized upon some other\nsubstance in which the work of combustion proceeded, it would come\nnearer to a parallel. One candle may light another before itself is\nextinguished, but it does not do it by an inherent necessity. But this\nflame of the soul, this Kharma, must enter some other body of god, or\nman, or beast.\n\nAgain, the question arises, How can responsibility be transferred from\none to another? How can the heavy load of a man's sin be laid upon some\nnew-born infant, while the departing sinner has himself no further\nconcern in his evil Kharma, but sinks into non-existence the moment his\n\"conformations\" are touched with dissolution? Buddhism acknowledges a\nmystery here; no real explanation can be given, and none seems to have\nbeen attempted by Buddhist writers. To be consistent, Gautama, in\ndenying the existence of God and of the soul as an entity, should have\ntaught the materialistic doctrine of annihilation. This, however, he\ncould not do in the face of that deep-rooted idea of transmigration\nwhich had taken entire possession of the Hindu mind. Gautama was\ncompelled therefore to bridge a most illogical chasm as best he could.\nKharma without a soul to cling to is something in the air. It alights\nlike some winged seed upon a new-born set of Skandas with its luckless\nboon of ill desert, and it involves the fatal inconsistency of investing\nwith permanent character that which is itself impermanent.\n\nBut the question may be asked, \"Do we not admit a similar principle when\nwe speak of a man's influence as something that survives him?\" We\nanswer, \"No.\" Influence is a simple radiation of impressions. A man may\nleave an influence which men are free to accept or not, but it is quite\na different thing if he leaves upon a successor the moral liabilities of\na bankrupt character. Gautama's own Kharma, for example, ceased to exist\nupon his entering Nirvana; there was no re-birth; but his influence\nlives forever, and has extended to millions of his fellow-men.\n\nThe injustice involved in the doctrine of Kharma is startling. The\nnew-born soul that inherits its unsettled score has no memory or\nconsciousness that connects it with himself; it is not heredity; it is\nnot his father's character that invests him. This Kharma may have\ncrossed the ocean from the death-bed of some unknown man of another\nrace. The doctrine is the more astonishing when we consider that no\nSupreme Being is recognized as claiming this retribution. There is no\nGod; it is a vague law of eternal justice, a law without a law-giver or\na judge. There can therefore be no pardon, no commutation of sentence,\nno such thing as divine pity or help. The only way in which one can\ndisentangle himself is by breaking forever the connection between spirit\nand matter which binds him with the shackles of conscious being.\n\n4. Nirvana. No doctrine of Buddhism has been so much in dispute as this.\nIt has been widely maintained that Nirvana means extinction. But T.W.\nRhys Davids and others have held that it is \"the destruction of malice,\npassion, and delusion,\" and that it may be attained in this life. The\ndefinition is quoted from comparatively recent Pali translations.[83]\nGautama, therefore, reached Nirvana forty-five years before his death.\nIt is claimed, however, that insomuch as it cuts off Kharma, or\nre-birth, it involves entire extinction of being upon the dissolution of\nthe body.[84] It is held by still others that Nirvana is a return to the\noriginal and all-pervading Boddhi-essence. This theory, which is really\na concession to the Brahmanical doctrine of absorption into the infinite\nBrahma, has a wide following among the modern Buddhists in China and\nJapan. It is a form of Buddhist pantheism.\n\nAs to the teaching of Gautama on this subject, Professor Max Mueller,\nwhile admitting that the meta-physicians who followed the great teacher\nplainly taught that the entire personal entity of an arhat (an\nenlightened one) would become extinct upon the death of the body, yet\nreasons, in his lecture on Buddhistic Nihilism, that the Buddha himself\ncould not have taught a doctrine so disheartening. At the same time he\nquotes the learned and judicial Bishop Bigandet as declaring, after\nyears of study and observation in Burmah, that such is the doctrine\nascribed to the great teacher by his own disciples. Gautama is quoted as\nclosing one of his sermons in these words: \"Mendicants, that which binds\nthe teacher to existence is cut off, but his body still remains. While\nhis body still remains he shall be seen by gods and men, but after the\ntermination of life, upon the dissolution of the body, neither gods nor\nmen shall see him.\" T.W. Rhys Davids expresses the doctrine of Nirvana\ntersely and correctly when he says: \"Utter death, with no new life to\nfollow, is, then, a result of, but it is not, Nirvana.\"[85] Professor\nOldenberg suggests, with much plausibility, that the Buddha was more\nreticent in regard to the doctrine of final extinction in the later\nperiods of his life; that the depressing doctrine had been found a\nstumbling-block, and that he came to assume an agnostic position on the\nquestion. In his \"Buddha,\"[86] Professor Oldenberg, partly in answer to\nthe grounds taken by Professor Max Mueller in his lecture on Buddhistic\nNihilism, has very fully discussed the question whether the ego survives\nin Nirvana in any sense. He claims that certain new translations of Pali\ntexts have given important evidence on the subject, and he sums up with\nthe apparent conclusion that the Buddha, moved by the depressing\ninfluence which the grim doctrine of Nirvana, in the sense of\nextinction, was producing upon his disciples, assumed a position of\nreticence as to whether the ego survives or not. The venerable Malukya\n(see p. 275) is said to have plied the Master with questions. \"Does the\nperfect Buddha live on beyond death, or does he not? It pleases me not\nthat all this should remain unanswered, and I do not think it right. May\nit please the Master to answer me if he can. But when anyone does not\nunderstand a matter, then a straightforward man says, 'I do not know\nthat.'\" The Buddha replies somewhat evasively that he has not undertaken\nto decide such questions, because they are not for spiritual\nedification.\n\nThe question, What is Nirvana? has been the object of more extensive\ndiscussion than its importance demands. Practically, the millions of\nBuddhists are not concerned with the question. They find no attraction\nin either view. They desire neither extinction nor unconscious\nabsorption into the Boddhi essence (or Brahm). What they anticipate is\nan improved transmigration, a better birth. The more devout may indulge\nthe hope that their next life will be spent in one of the Buddhist\nheavens; others may aspire to be men of high position and influence. The\nreal heaven to which the average Buddhist looks forward is apt to be\nsomething very much after his own heart, or at least something indicated\nby the estimate which he himself places upon his own character and life.\nThere may be many transmigrations awaiting him, but he is chiefly\nconcerned for the next in order. The very last object to excite his\ninterest is that far-off shadow called Nirvana.\n\nIn estimating the conflict of Christianity with Buddhism we must not\ntake counsel merely of our own sense of the absurdity of Gautama's\nteachings; we are to remember that in Christian lands society is made up\nof all kinds of people; that outside of the Christian Church there are\nthousands, and even millions, who, with respect to faith, are in utter\nchaos and darkness. The Church therefore cannot view this subject from\nits own stand-point merely. Let us glance at certain features of\nBuddhism which render it welcome to various classes of men who dwell\namong us in Western lands. First of all, the system commends itself to\nmany by its intense individualism. Paul's figure of the various parts of\nthe human frame as illustrating the body of Christ, mutual in the\ninterdependence of all its members, would be wholly out of place in\nBuddhism. Even the Buddhist monks are so many units of introverted\nself-righteousness. And individualism differently applied is the\ncharacteristic of our age, and therefore a bond of sympathy is supplied.\n\"Every man for himself,\" appeals to modern society in many ways.\n\nAgain, Gautama magnified the human intellect and the power of the human\nwill. \"O Ananda,\" he said, \"be lamps unto yourselves; depend upon no\nother.\" He claimed to have thought out, and thought through every\nproblem of existence, to have penetrated every secret of human nature in\nthe present, and in the life to come, and his example was commended to\nall, that they might follow in their measure. So also our transcendental\nphilosophers have glorified the powers and possibilities of humanity,\nand have made genius superior to saintliness.[87] There are tens of\nthousands who in this respect believe in a religion of humanity, and who\nworship, if they worship at all, the goddess of reason. All such have a\nnatural affinity for Buddhism.\n\nAnother point in common between this system and the spirit of our age is\nits broad humanitarianism--beneficence to the lower grades of life. When\nlove transcends the bounds of the human family it does not rise up\ntoward God, it descends toward the lower orders of the animal world.\n\"Show pity toward everything that exists,\" is its motto, and the insect\nand the worm hold a larger relative place in the Buddhist than in the\nChristian view. The question \"Are ye not of more value than many\nsparrows?\" might be doubtful in the Buddhist estimate, for the teacher\nhimself, in his pre-existent states, had often been incarnate in\ninferior creatures. It is by no means conceded that Jesus, in asking his\ndisciples this question, had less pity for the sparrows than the Buddha,\nor that his beneficence was less thoughtful of the meanest thing that\nglides through the air or creeps upon the earth; but the spirit of\nChristianity is more discriminating, and its love rises up to heaven,\nwhere, beginning with God, it descends through every grade of being.\n\nYet it is quite in accordance with the spirit and aim of thousands to\nmagnify the charity that confines itself to bodily wants and\ndistresses, to sneer at the relief which religion may bring to the far\ngreater anguish of the spirit, and to look upon love and loyalty to God\nas superstition. Is it any wonder that such persons have a warm side\ntoward Buddhism? Again, this system has certain points in common with\nour modern evolution theories. It is unscientific enough certainly in\nits speculations, but it gets on without creatorship or divine\nsuperintendence, and believes in the inflexible reign of law, though\nwithout a law-giver. It assigns long ages to the process of creation, if\nwe may call it creation, and in development through cycles it sees\nlittle necessity for the work of God.\n\nIt can also join hands cordially with many social theories of the day.\nThe pessimism of Buddhists, ancient or modern, finds great sympathy in\nthe crowded populations of the Western as well as the Eastern world.\nAnd, almost as a rule, Esoteric Buddhism, American Buddhism,\nNeo-Buddhism, or whatever we may call it, is a cave of Adullam to which\nall types of religious apostates and social malcontents resort. The\nthousands who have made shipwreck of faith, who have become soured at\nthe unequal allotments of Providence, who have learned to hate all who\nare above them and more prosperous than they, are just in the state of\nmind to take delight in Buddha's sermon at Kapilavastu, as rehearsed by\nSir Edwin Arnold. There all beings met--gods, devas, men, beasts of the\nfield, and fowls of the air--to make common cause against the\nrelentless fate that rules the world, and to bewail the sufferings and\ndeath which fill the great charnel-house of existence, while Buddha\nvoiced their common complaint and stood before them as the only pitying\nfriend that the universe had found. It was the first great Communist\nmeeting of which we have any record.[88] The wronged and suffering\nuniverse was there, and all\n\n            \"took the promise of his piteous speech,\n   So that their lives, prisoned in the shape of ape,\n   Tiger or deer, shagged bear, jackal or wolf,\n   Foul-feeding kite, pearled dove or peacock gemmed,\n   Squat toad or speckled serpent, lizard, bat,\n   Yea, or fish fanning the river waves,\n   Touched meekly at the skirts of brotherhood\n   With man, who hath less innocence than these:\n   And in mute gladness knew their bondage broke\n   Whilst Buddha spoke these things before the king.\"\n\nThere was no mention of sin, but only of universal misfortune!\n\nIn contrast with the deep shadows of a brooding and all-embracing\npessimism like this, we need only to hint at that glow of hope and joy\nwith which the Sun of Righteousness has flooded the world, and the\nfatherly love and compassion with which the Old Testament and the New\nare replete, the divine plan of redemption, the psalms of praise and\nthanksgiving, the pity of Christ's words and acts, and his invitations\nto the weary and heavy-laden. In one view it is strange that pessimism\nshould have comfort in the fellowship of pessimism, but so it is; there\nis luxury even in the sympathy of hate, and so Buddhist pessimism is a\nwelcome guest among us, though our Communistic querulousness is more\nbitter.\n\nOnce more, Buddhist occultism has found congenial fellowship in American\nspiritualism. Of late we hear less of spirit-rappings and far more of\nTheosophy. But this is only the same crude system with other names, and\nrendered more respectable by the cast-off garments of old Indian\nphilosophy. There is a disposition in the more intellectual circles to\nassume a degree of disdain toward the crudeness of spiritualism and its\nvulgar familiarity with departed spirits, who must ever be disturbed by\nits beck and call; but it is confidently expected that the thousands,\nnay, as some say, millions, of American spiritualists will gladly\nwelcome the name and the creed of Buddha.[89] It will be idle therefore\nto assume that the old sleepy system of Gautama has no chance in this\nwide-awake republic of the West.[90]\n\nI have already called attention to the special tactics of Buddhists just\nnow in claiming that Christianity, having been of later origin, has\nborrowed its principal facts and its teachings. Let us examine the\ncharge. It is a real tribute to the character of Christ that so many\nsects of false religionists have in all ages claimed Him either as a\nfollower or as an incarnation of their respective deities. Others have\nacknowledged his teachings as belonging to their particular style and\ngrade. The bitter and scathing calumny of Celsus, in the first\ncenturies of our era, did not prevent numerous attempts to prove the\nidentity of Christ's teachings with some of the most popular\nphilosophies of the heathen world. Porphyry claimed that many of\nChrist's virtues were copied from Pythagoras. With like concession\nMohammedanism included Jesus as one of the six great prophets, and\nconfessedly the only sinless one among them all. Many a fanatic in the\nsuccessive centuries has claimed to be a new incarnation of the Son of\nGod. Hindus have named Him as an incarnation of Vishnu for the Western,\nas was Krishna for the Eastern World. As was indicated in the opening of\nthis lecture, the Theosophists are making special claim to Him,[91] and\nare reviving the threadbare theory that He was a follower of Buddha.\n\nSo strong an effort is made to prove that Christianity has borrowed both\nits divine leader and its essential doctrines from India, that a\nmoment's attention may well be given to the question here. One\nallegation is that the Evangelists copied the Buddhist history and\nlegends in their account of Christ's early life. Another is that the\nleaders of the Alexandrian Church worked over the gospel story at a\nlater day, having felt more fully the influence of India at that great\ncommercial centre. The two theories are inconsistent with each other,\nand both are inconsistent with the assumption that Christ Himself was a\nBuddhist, and taught the Buddhist doctrines, since this supposition\nwould have obviated the need of any manipulation or fraud at any point.\n\nIn replying as briefly as possible I shall endeavor to cover both\nallegations. In strong contrast with these cheap assertions of\nAlexandrian corruption and plagiarism is the frank admission of such\nkeen critics as Renan, Weiss, Volkmar, Schenkel, and Hitzig,[92] that\nthe gospel record as we have it, was written during a generation in\nwhich some of the companions of Jesus still lived. Renan says of Mark's\nGospel that \"it is full of minute observations, coming doubtless from an\neye-witness,\" and he asserts that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written\n\"in substantially their present form by the men whose names they bear.\"\nThese Gospels were the work of men who knew Jesus. Matthew was one of\nthe Twelve; John in his Epistle speaks of himself as an eye-witness.\nThey were written in a historic age and were open to challenge. They\nwere nowhere contradicted in contemporary history. They fit their\nenvironment.\n\nHow is it with the authenticity of Buddhist literature? Oldenberg says,\n\"For the _when_ of things men of India have never had a proper organ,\"\nand Max Mueller declares to the same effect, that \"the idea of a\nfaithful, literal translation seems altogether foreign to Oriental\nminds.\" He also informs us that there is not a single manuscript in\nIndia which is a thousand years old, and scarcely one that can claim\nfive hundred years. For centuries after Gautama's time nothing was\nwritten; all was transmitted by word of mouth. Buddhists themselves say\nthat the Pali canonical texts were written about 88 B.C.[93]\n\nAny fair comparison of the two histories should confine itself to the\nwritings which are regarded as canonical respectively, and whose dates\ncan be fixed. No more importance should be attached to the later\nBuddhist legends than to the \"Apocryphal Gospels,\" or to the absurd\n\"Christian Legends\" which appeared in the middle ages. The Buddhist\nCanon was adopted by the Council of Patna 242 B.C. The legends which are\ngenerally compared with the canonical story of Christ are not included\nin that Canon, or at most very few of them. They are drawn from certain\npoetical books written much later, and holding about the same relation\nto the Buddhist Canon that the \"Paradise Lost\" and \"Paradise Regained\"\nof Milton bear to the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Who\nwould think of quoting \"Paradise Lost\" in any sober comparison of\nBiblical truth with the teachings of other religions?[94]\n\nEven the canonical literature, that which is supposed to contain the\ntrue history and teachings of Buddha, is far from authoritative, owing\nto the acknowledged habit--acknowledged even by the author of the\n\"Dhammapada\" of adding commentaries, notes, etc., to original teachings.\nNot only was this common among Buddhist writers, but even more\nsurprising liberties were taken with the narrative. For example: The\nlegend describing Buddha's leave-taking of his harem is clearly borrowed\nfrom an earlier story of Yasa, a wealthy young householder of Benares,\nwho, becoming disgusted with his harem, left his sleeping dancing girls\nand fled to the Buddha for instruction. Davids and Oldenberg, in\ntranslating this legend from the \"Mahavagga,\" say in a note, \"A\nwell-known incident in the life of Buddha has evidently been shaped\nafter the model of this story;\" and they declare that \"_nowhere in the\n'Pali Pitakas' is this scene of Buddha's leave-taking mentioned_.\"\n\nAs another evidence of the way in which fact and fiction have been mixed\nand manipulated for a purpose, one of the legends, which has often been\npresented as a parallel to the story of Christ, represents the Buddha as\nrepelling the temptation of Mara by quoting texts of \"scripture,\" and\nthe scripture referred to was the \"Dhammapada.\" But the \"Dhammapada\" was\ncompiled hundreds of years after Buddha's death. Besides, there were no\n\"scriptures\" of any kind in his day, for nothing was written till two or\nthree centuries later; and worse still, Buddha is made to quote his own\nsubsequent teachings; for the \"Dhammapada\" claims to consist of the\nsacred words of the \"enlightened one.\" Most of the legends of Buddhism\nwere wholly written after the beginning of the Christian era, and it\ncannot be shown that any were written in their present form until two or\nthree centuries of that era had elapsed. T.W. Rhys Davids says of the\n\"Lalita Vistara\" which contains a very large proportion of them, and one\nform of which is said to have been translated into Chinese in the first\ncentury A.D., \"that there is no real proof that it existed in its\npresent form before the year 600 A.D.\" The \"Romantic Legend\" cannot be\ntraced farther back than the third century A.D. Oldenberg says: \"No\nbiography of Buddha has come down to us from ancient times, from the age\nof the Pali texts, and we can safely say that no such biography was in\nexistence then.\" Beal declares that the Buddhist legend, as found in the\nvarious Epics of Nepaul, Thibet, and China, \"is not framed after _any_\nIndian model of any date, but is to be found worked out, so to speak,\namong northern peoples, who were ignorant of, or indifferent to, the\npedantic stories of the Brahmans. In the southern and primitive records\nthe terms of the legend are wanting. _Buddha is not born of a royal\nfamily; he is not tempted before his enlightenment; he works no\nmiracles, and he is not a Universal Saviour._\"\n\nThe chances are decidedly that if any borrowing has been done it was on\nthe side of Buddhism. It has been asserted that thirty thousand\nBuddhist monks from Alexandria once visited Ceylon on the occasion of a\ngreat festival. This is absurd on the face of it; but that a Christian\ncolony settled in Malabar at a very early period is attested by the\npresence of thousands of their followers even to this day.\n\nIn discussing the specific charge of copying Buddhist legends in the\ngospel narratives, we are met at the threshold by insurmountable\nimprobabilities. To some of these I ask a moment's attention. I shall\nnot take the time to discuss in detail the alleged parallels which are\nparaded as proofs. To anyone who understands the spirit of Judaism and\nits attitude toward heathenism of all kinds, it is simply inconceivable\nthat the Christian disciples, whose aim it was to propagate the faith of\ntheir Master in a Jewish community, should have borrowed old Indian\nlegends, which, by the terms of the supposition, must have been widely\nknown as such. And Buddhist apologists must admit that it is a little\nstrange that the Scribes and Pharisees, who were intelligent, and as\nalert as they were bitter, should never have exposed this transparent\nplagiarism. The great concern of the Apostles was to prove to Jews and\nGentiles that Jesus was the Christ of Old Testament prophecy. The whole\ndrift of their preaching and their epistles went to show that the gospel\nhistory rested squarely and uncompromisingly on a Jewish basis. Peter\nand John, Stephen and Paul, constantly \"reasoned with the Jews out of\ntheir own Scriptures.\" How unspeakably absurd is the notion that they\nwere trying to palm off on those keen Pharisees a Messiah who, though in\nthe outset at Nazareth he publicly traced his commission to Old\nTestament prophecy, was all the while copying an atheistic philosopher\nof India!\n\nIt is equally inconceivable that the Christian fathers should have\ncopied Buddhism. They resisted Persian mysticism as the work of the\nDevil, and it was in that mysticism, if anywhere, that Buddhist\ninfluence existed in the Levant. Whoever has read Tertullian's withering\ncondemnation of Marcion may judge how far the fathers of the Church\nfavored the heresies of the East. Augustine had himself been a Manichean\nmystic, and when after his conversion he became the great theologian of\nthe Church, he must have known whether the teachings of the Buddha were\nbeing palmed off on the Christian world. The great leaders of that age\nwere men of thorough scholarship and of the deepest moral earnestness.\nMany of them gave up their possessions and devoted their lives to the\npromotion of the truths which they professed. Scores of them sealed\ntheir faith by martyr deaths.\n\nBut even if we were to accept the flippant allegation that they were all\nimpostors, yet we should be met by an equally insurmountable difficulty\nin the utter silence of the able and bitter assailants of Christianity\nin the first two or three centuries. Celsus prepared himself for his\nwell-known attack on Christianity with the utmost care, searching\nhistory, philosophy, and every known religion from which he could derive\nan argument against the Christian faith.\n\nWhy did he not strike at the very root of the matter by exposing those\nstupid plagiarists who were attempting to play off upon the intelligence\nof the Roman world a clumsy imitation of the far-famed Buddha? It was\nthe very kind of thing that the enemies of Christianity wanted. Why\nshould the adroit Porphyry attempt to work up a few mere scraps of\nresemblance from the life of Pythagoras, when all he had to do was to\nlay his hand upon familiar legends which afforded an abundance of the\nvery thing in demand?\n\nAgain, it is to be remembered that Christianity has always been\nrestrictive and opposed to admixtures with other systems. It repelled\nthe Neo-Platonism of Alexandria, and it fought for two or three\ncenturies against Gnosticism, Manichaeism, and similar heresies: and the\nassumption, in the face of all this, that the Christian Church went out\nof its way to copy Indian Buddhism, must be due either to gross\nignorance or to reckless misrepresentation. On the other hand, it is in\naccordance with the very genius of Buddhism to borrow. It has absorbed\nevery indigenous superstition and entered into partnership with every\nlocal religious system, from the Devil Worship of Burmah and Ceylon to\nthe Taouism of China and the Shinto of Japan. In its long-continued\ncontact with Christianity it has changed from the original atheism of\nGautama to various forms of theism, and in some of its sects, at least,\nfrom a stanch insistance on self-help alone to an out-and-out doctrine\nof salvation by faith. This is true of the Shin and Yodo sects of\nJapan. From recognizing no God at all at first, Buddhism had, by the\nseventh century A.D., a veritable Trinity, with attributes resembling\nthose of the Triune God of the Christians, and by the tenth century it\nhad five trinities with One Supreme Adi-Buddha over them all. Everyone\nmay judge for himself whether these later interpolations of the system\nwere borrowed from the New Testament Trinity, which had been proclaimed\nthrough all the East ten centuries before. Buddhism is still absorbing\nforeign elements through the aid of its various apologists. Sir Edwin\nArnold has greatly added to the force of its legend by the Christian\nphrases and Christian conceptions which he has read into it. Toward the\nclose of the \"Light of Asia\" he also introduces into the Buddha's sermon\nat Kapilavastu the teachings of Herbert Spencer and others of our own\ntime.\n\nBut altogether the most stupendous improbability lies against the whole\nassumption that Christ and his followers based their \"essential\ndoctrines\" on the teachings of the Buddha. The early Buddhism was\natheistic: this is the common verdict of Davids, Childers, Sir Monier\nWilliams, Kellogg, and many others. The Buddha declared that \"without\ncause and unknown is the life of man in this world,\" and he recognized\nno higher being to whom he owed reverence. \"The Buddhist Catechism,\" by\nSubhadra, shows that modern Buddhism has no recognition of God.\n\nIt says (page 58): \"Buddhism teaches the reign of perfect goodness and\nwisdom _without a personal God_, continuance of individuality _without\nan immortal soul_, eternal happiness without a local heaven, the way of\nsalvation without a vicarious saviour, redemption worked out by each one\nhimself without any prayers, sacrifices, and penances, without the\nministry of ordained priests, without the intercession of saints,\n_without divine mercy_.\" And then, by way of authentication, it adds:\n\"These, and many others which have become the fundamental doctrines of\nthe Buddhist religion, were recognized by the Buddha in the night of his\nenlightenment under the Boddhi-tree.\" And yet we are told that this is\nthe system which Christ and his followers copied. Compare this passage\nwith the Lord's Prayer, or with the discourse upon the lilies, and its\nlesson of trust in God the Father of all! I appeal not merely to\nChristian men, but to _any_ man who has brains and common-sense, was\nthere ever so preposterous an attempt to establish an identity of\ndoctrines?\n\nBut what is the evidence found in the legends themselves? Several\nleading Oriental scholars, and men not at all biased in favor of\nChristianity, have carefully examined the subject, and have decided that\nthere is no connection whatever. Professor Seydel, of Leipsic, who has\ngiven the most scientific plea for the so-called coincidences, of which\nhe claims there are fifty-one, has classified them as: 1, Those which\nmay have been merely accidental, having arisen from similar causes, and\nnot necessarily implying any borrowing on either side; 2, those which\nseem to have been borrowed from the one narrative or the other; and 3,\nthose which he thinks were clearly copied by the Christian writers. In\nthis last class he names but five out of fifty-one.\n\nKuenen, who has little bias in favor of Christianity, and who has made a\nvery thorough examination of Seydel's parallels, has completely refuted\nthese five.[95] And speaking of the whole question he says: \"I think we\nmay safely affirm that we must abstain from assigning to Buddhism the\nsmallest direct influence on the origin of Christianity.\" He also says\nof similar theories of de Bunsen: \"A single instance is enough to teach\nus that inventive fancy plays the chief part in them.\"[96]\n\nRhys Davids, whom Subhadra's \"Buddhist Catechism\" approves as the chief\nexponent of Buddhism, says on the same subject: \"I can find no evidence\nof any actual or direct communication of these ideas common to Buddhism\nand Christianity from the East to the West.\" Oldenberg denies their\nearly date, and Beal denies them an Indian origin of any date.\n\n\n_Contrasts between Buddhism and Christianity._\n\nRhys Davids has pointed out the fact that, while Buddhism in some points\nis more nearly allied to Christianity than any other system, yet in\nothers it is the farthest possible from it in its spirit and its\ntendency. If we strike out those ethical principles which, to a large\nextent, are the common heritage of mankind, revealed in the\nunderstanding and the conscience, we shall find in what remains an\nalmost total contrariety to the Christian faith. To give a few examples\nonly.\n\n1. Christ taught the existence and glory of God as Supreme, the Creator\nand Father, the righteous Judge. His supreme mission to reconcile all\nmen to God was the key-note of all His ministry. By His teaching the\nhearts of men are lifted up above all earthly conceptions to the worship\nof infinite purity, and to the comforting assurance of more than a\nfather's care and love. Buddhism, on the contrary, knows nothing of God,\noffers no heavenly incentive, no divine help. Leading scholars are\nagreed that, whatever it may be now, the original orthodox Buddhism was\nessentially atheistic. It despised the idea of divine help, and taught\nmen to rely upon themselves. While, therefore, Buddhism never rose above\nthe level of earthly resources, and contemplated only lower orders of\nbeing, Christianity begins with God as supreme, to be worshipped and\nloved with all the heart, mind, and strength, while our neighbors are to\nbe loved as ourselves.\n\n2. Christ represented Himself as having pre-existed from the foundation\nof the world, as having been equal with God in the glory of heaven, all\nof which He resigned that He might enter upon the humiliation of our\nearthly state, and raise us up to eternal life. He distinctly claimed\noneness and equality with the Father. Buddha claimed no such antecedent\nglory; he spoke of himself as a man merely; the whole aim of his\nteaching was to show in himself what every man might accomplish. Later\nlegends ascribe to him a sort of pre-existence, in which five hundred\nand thirty successive lives were passed, sometimes as a man, sometimes\nas a god, many times as an animal. But even these claims were not made\nby Buddha himself--except so far as was implied by the common doctrine\nof transmigration.\n\nFurthermore, in relation to the alleged pre-existences, according to\nstrict Buddhist doctrine it was not really he who had gone before, it\nwas only a Kharma or character that had exchanged hands many times\nbefore it could be taken up by the real and conscious Buddha born upon\nthe earth. Still further, even after the beginning of his earthly life\nhe lived for many years in what, according to his own teaching, was\nheinous sin, all of which is fatal to the theory of pre-existent\nholiness.\n\n3. Christ is a real Saviour; His atonement claimed to be a complete\nransom from the penalty of sin, and by His teaching and example, and by\nthe power of the Holy Spirit, He overcomes the power of sin itself,\ntransforming the soul into His own image. Buddha, on the other hand, did\nnot claim to achieve salvation for any except himself, though Mr. Arnold\nand others constantly use such terms as \"help\" and \"salvation.\" Nothing\nof the kind is claimed by the early Buddhist doctrines; they plainly\ndeclare that purity and impurity belong to one's self, and that no one\ncan purify another.\n\n4. Christ emphatically declared Himself a helper, even in this life:\n\"Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give\nyou rest.\" He promised also to send his Spirit as a comforter, as a\nsupporter of his disciples' faith, as a guide and teacher, at all times\ncaring for their need; in whatever exigency his grace would be\nsufficient for them. On the contrary, Buddha taught his followers that\nno power in heaven or earth could help them; the victory must be their\nown. \"How can we hope to amend a life,\" says Bishop Carpenter, \"which is\nradically bad, by the aid of a system which teaches that man's highest\naim should be to escape from life? All that has been said against the\nascetic and non-worldly attitude of Christianity might be urged with\nadditional force against Buddhism. It is full of the strong, sweet,\npathetic compassion which looks upon life with eyes full of tears, but\nonly to turn them away from it again, as from an unsolved and insoluble\nriddle.\" And he substantiates his position by quoting Reville and\nOldenberg. Reville reaches this similar conclusion: \"Buddhism, born on\nthe domain of polytheism, has fought against it, not by rising above\nnature in subordinating it to a single sovereign spirit, but by\nreproving nature in principle, and condemning life itself as an evil and\na misfortune. Buddhism does not measure itself against this or that\nabuse, does not further the development or reformation of society,\neither directly or indirectly, for the very simple reason that it turns\naway from the world on principle.\"\n\nOldenberg, one of the most thorough of Pali scholars, says: \"For the\nlower order of the people, for those born to toil in manual labor,\nhardened by the struggle for existence, the announcement of the\nconnection of misery with all forms of existence was not made, nor was\nthe dialectic of the law of the painful concatenation of causes and\neffects calculated to satisfy 'the poor in spirit.' 'To the wise\nbelongeth this law,' it is said, 'not to the foolish.' Very unlike the\nwork of that Man who 'suffered little children to come unto Him, for of\nsuch is the kingdom of God.' For children, and those who are like\nchildren, the arms of Buddha are not opened.\"\n\n5. Christ and his disciples set before men the highest motives of life.\nThe great end of man was to love God supremely, and one's neighbor as\nhimself. Every true disciple was to consider himself an almoner and\ndispenser of the divine goodness to his race. It was this that inspired\nthe sublime devotion of Paul and of thousands since his time. It is the\nsecret principle of all the noblest deeds of men. Gautama had no such\nhigh and unselfish aim. He found no inspiring motive above the level of\nhumanity. His system concentrates all thought and effort on one's own\nlife--virtually on the attainment of utter indifference to all things\nelse. The early zeal of Gautama and his followers in preaching to their\nfellow-men was inconsistent with the plain doctrines taught at a later\nday. If in any case there were those who, like Paul, burned with desire\nto save their fellow-men, all we can say is, they were better than their\ncreed. Such was the spirit of the Gospel, rather than the idle and\nuseless torpor of the Buddhist order. \"Here, according to Buddhists,\"\nsays Spence Hardy, \"is a mere code of proprieties, an occasional opiate,\na plan for being free from discomfort, a system for personal profit.\"\nBuddhism certainly taught the repression of human activity and\ninfluence. Instead of saying, \"Let your light so shine before men that\nthey, seeing your good works, may glorify your Father who is in heaven,\"\nor \"Work while the day lasts,\" it said, \"If thou keepest thyself silent\nas a broken gong, thou hast attained Nirvana.\" \"To wander about like the\nrhinoceros alone,\" was enjoined as the pathway of true wisdom.\n\n6. Christ taught that life, though attended with fearful alternatives,\nis a glorious birthright, with boundless possibilities and promise of\ngood to ourselves and others. Buddhism makes life an evil which it is\nthe supreme end of man to conquer and cut off from the disaster of\nre-birth. Christianity opens a path of usefulness, holiness, and\nhappiness in this life, and a career of triumph and glory in the endless\nages to come. Both Buddhism and Hinduism are worse than other\npessimistic systems in their fearful law of entailment through countless\ntransmigrations, each of which must be a struggle.\n\n7. Christ, according to the New Testament, \"ever liveth to make\nintercession for us,\" and the Holy Spirit represents Him constantly as\nan ever-living power in the world, to regenerate, save, and bless. But\nBuddha is dead, and his very existence is a thing of the past. Only\ntraditions and the influence of his example can help men in the struggle\nof life. Said Buddha to his disciples: \"As a flame blown by violence\ngoes out and cannot be reckoned, even so a Buddha delivered from name\nand body disappears and cannot be reckoned as existing.\" Again, he said\nto his Order, \"Mendicants, that which binds the Teacher (himself) is cut\noff, but his body still remains. While this body shall remain he will be\nseen by gods and men, but after the termination of life, upon the\ndissolution of the body, neither gods nor men shall see him.\"\n\n8. Christ taught the sacredness of the human body. \"Know ye not that\nyour body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you?\" said His\ngreat Apostle. But Buddhism says: \"As men deposit filth upon a dungheap\nand depart regretting nothing, wanting nothing, so will I depart leaving\nthis body filled with vile vapors.\" Christ and His disciples taught the\ntriumphant resurrection of the body in spiritual form and purity after\nHis own image. The Buddhist forsakes utterly and forever the deserted,\ncast-off mortality, while still he looks only for another habitation\nequally mortal and corruptible, and possibly that of a lower animal.\nThus, through all these lines of contrast, and many others that might be\nnamed, there appear light and life and blessedness on the one hand, and\ngloom and desolation on the other.\n\nThe gloomy nature of Buddhism is well expressed in Hardy's \"Legends and\nTheories of Buddhism\" as follows: \"The system of Buddhism is\nhumiliating, cheerless, man-marring, soul-crushing. It tells me that I\nam not a reality, that I have no soul. It tells me that there is no\nunalloyed happiness, no plenitude of enjoyment, no perfect unbroken\npeace in the possession of any being whatever, from the highest to the\nlowest, in any world. It tells me that I may live myriads of millions of\nages, and that not in any of those ages, nor in any portion of any age,\ncan I be free from apprehension as to the future, until I attain to a\nstate of unconsciousness; and that in order to arrive at this\nconsummation I must turn away from all that is pleasant, or lovely, or\ninstructive, or elevating, or sublime. It tells me by voices ever\nrepeated, like the ceaseless sound of the sea-wave on the shore, that I\nshall be subject to sorrow, impermanence, and unreality so long as I\nexist, and yet that I cannot cease to exist, nor for countless ages to\ncome, as I can only attain nirvana in the time of a Supreme Buddha. In\nmy distress I ask for the sympathy of an all-wise and all-powerful\nfriend. But I am mocked instead by the semblance of relief, and am told\nto look to Buddha, who has ceased to exist; to the Dharma that never was\nin existence, and to the Sangha, the members of which are real\nexistences, but like myself are partakers of sorrow and sin.\"\n\nHow shall we measure the contrast between all this and the ecstacies of\nChristian hope, which in various forms are expressed in the Epistles of\nPaul; the expected crown of righteousness, the eternal weight of glory;\nheirship with Christ in an endless inheritance; the house not made with\nhands; the General Assembly of the first born? Even in the midst of\nearthly sorrows and persecutions he could say, \"Nay, in all things we\nare more than conquerors through Him that loved us. For I am persuaded\nthat neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor\npowers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth,\nnor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of\nGod which is in Christ Jesus, our Lord.\"\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 80: It is by no means certain that Buddha's followers, in\ncarrying out his system, have not lapsed into the old notions of\nmerit-making asceticism to greater or less extent, and have become\nvirtually very much like the torpid and useless fakirs of the old\nHinduism.]\n\n[Footnote 81: The _Jataka_ legends of Ceylon, dating in their present\nform about 500 A.D., greatly enlarge the proportions of this Northern\nlegend, making the elephant over seven thousand miles high, and widening\nout the surrounding army to one hundred and sixty four miles.]\n\n[Footnote 82: Of the _Romantic Legend_ found in Nepaul, Beall's\ntranslation is probably the best.]\n\n[Footnote 83: See Appendix of _Origin and Growth of Religion as\nillustrated in Buddhism_.]\n\n[Footnote 84: See _Buddhism_, pp. 110-115.]\n\n[Footnote 85: _Buddhism_, p. 114.]\n\n[Footnote 86: Pp. 265-285.]\n\n[Footnote 87: It is the boast of the author of _Esoteric Buddhism_, that\nstrange mixture of Western spiritualism with Oriental mysticism, that\nhis system despises the tame \"goody, goody\" spirit of Christianity, and\ndeals with the endless growth of mind.]\n\n[Footnote 88: _Light of Asia_.]\n\n[Footnote 89: Mr. Sinnett, in his _Esoteric Buddhism_, expressed the\nidea that it was high time that the crudities of spiritualism should be\ncorrected by the more philosophic occultism of the East.]\n\n[Footnote 90: The points of contact between Buddhism and certain forms\nof Western thought have been ably treated by Professor S.H. Kellogg, in\nthe _Light of Asia and Light of the World_.]\n\n[Footnote 91: A recent tract has appeared, entitled _Theosophy the\nReligion of Jesus_.]\n\n[Footnote 92: Cited by Professor Kellogg.]\n\n[Footnote 93: Professor T.W. Rhys Davids, in his introduction to\n_Buddhism_, enumerates the following sources of knowledge concerning the\nearly Buddhism:\n\n1. The _Lalita Vistara_, a Sanscrit work of the Northern Buddhists \"full\nof extravagant fictions\" concerning the early portion of Gautama's life.\nDavids compares it to Milton's _Paradise Regained_, as a source of\nhistory, and claims that although parts of it were translated into\nChinese in the first century of our era, there is no proof of its\nexistence in its present form earlier than the sixth century A.D.\n\n2. Two Thibetan versions, based chiefly on the _Lalita Vistara_.\n\n3. The _Romantic Legend_, from the Sanscrit of the Northern Buddhists,\ntranslated into Chinese in the sixth century A.D.; English version by\nBeal published in 1875. This also is an extravagant poem. This and the\n_Lalita Vistara_ embrace most of the alleged parallels to the Life of\nChrist.\n\n4. The original Pali text of the _Commentary on the Jatakas_, written in\nCeylon probably about the fifth century of our era. Davids considers its\naccount down to the time of Gautama's return to Kapilavastu, \"the best\nauthority we have.\" It contains word for word almost the whole of the\nlife of Gautama given by Turnour, from a commentary on the\n_Buddhavansa_, \"which is the account of the Buddhas contained in the\nsecond Pitaka.\"\n\n5. An account taken by Spence Hardy from Cingalese books of a\ncomparatively modern date.\n\n6. An English translation by Bigandet of a Burmese account, which was\nitself a translation of unknown date made from a Pali version.\n\n7. An account of the death of Gautama, given in Pali and said to be the\noldest of all the sources. It is full of wonders created by the fancy of\nthe unknown author, but differs widely from the fancy sketches of the\n_Lalita Vistara_ of the North.\n\n8. A translation by Mr. Alabaster of a Siamese account. It does not\nclaim to be exact.]\n\n[Footnote 94: T.W. Rhys Davids illustrates the worthlessness of poetic\nnarrations as grounds of argument by quoting from Milton's _Paradise\nRegained_ this mere fancy sketch of the accompaniments of Christ's\ntemptation:\n\n          \"And either tropic now\n   'Gan thunder and both ends of heaven; the clouds\n   From many a horrid rift abortive poured\n   Fierce rain with lightning mixed, water with fire\n   In ruin reconciled; nor slept the winds\n   Within their stony caves, but rush'd abroad\n   From the four hinges of the world, and fell\n   On the vex'd wilderness; whose tallest pines\n   Tho' rooted deep as high and sturdiest oaks,\n   Bowed their stiff necks, loaden with stormy blasts\n   Or torn up sheer. Ill wast Thou shrouded then,\n   O patient Son of God, yet stood'st alone\n   Unshaken! nor yet staid the terror there;\n   Infernal ghosts and hellish furies round\n   Environed Thee; some howl'd, some yell'd, some shriek'd,\n   Some bent at Thee their fiery darts, while Thou\n   Sat'st unappall'd in calm and sinless peace.\"\n                                                          Book iv.]\n\n[Footnote 95: See _National Religion and Universal Religion_, p. 362.]\n\n[Footnote 96: _Hibbert Lectures_, 1882.]\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE VI.\n\nMOHAMMEDANISM PAST AND PRESENT\n\n\nIt has been the fate of every great religious teacher to have his memory\nenveloped in a haze of posthumous myths. Even the Gospel history was\nembellished with marvellous apocryphal legends of the childhood of\nChrist. Buddhism very soon began to be overgrown with a truly Indian\nluxuriance of fables, miracles, and pre-existent histories extending\nthrough five hundred past transmigrations. In like manner, the followers\nof Mohammed traced the history of their prophet and of their sacred city\nback to the time of Adam. And Mohammedan legends were not a slow and\nnatural growth, as in the case of most other faiths. There was a set\npurpose in producing them without much delay. The conquests of Islam\nover the Eastern empires had been very rapid. The success of Mohammed's\ncause and creed had exceeded the expectations of his most sanguine\nfollowers. In the first half of the seventh century--nay, between the\nyears 630 and 638 A.D.--Jerusalem, Damascus, and Aleppo had fallen\nbefore the arms of Omar and his lieutenant \"Khaled the Invincible,\" and\nin 639 Egypt was added to the realm of the Khalifs. Persia was conquered\nin A.D. 640.\n\nIt seemed scarcely possible that achievements so brilliant could have\nbeen the work of a mere unlettered Arab and his brave but unpretentious\nsuccessors. The personnel of the prophet must be raised to an adequate\nproportion to such a history. Special requisition was made therefore for\nincidents. The devout fancy of the faithful was taxed for the\npicturesque and marvellous; and the system which Mohammed taught, and\nthe very place in which he was born, must needs be raised to a\nsupernatural dignity and importance. Accordingly, the history of the\nprophet was traced back to the creation of the world, when God was said\nto have imparted to a certain small portion of earthy dust a mysterious\nspark of light. When Adam was formed this particular luminous dust\nappeared in his forehead, and from him it passed in a direct line to\nAbraham. From Abraham it descended, not to Isaac, but to Ishmael; and\nthis was the cause of Sarah's jealousy and the secret of all Abraham's\ndomestic troubles. Of course, this bright spark of heavenly effulgence\nreappearing on the brow of each lineal progenitor, was designed\nultimately for Mohammed, in whom it shone forth with tenfold brightness.\n\nThere is real historic evidence of the fact that the Vale of Mecca had\nfor a long time been regarded as sacred ground. It was a sort of forest\nor extensive grove, a place for holding treaties among the tribes, a\ncommon ground of truce and a refuge from the avenger. It was also a\nplace for holding annual fairs, for public harangues, and the\ncompetitive recitation of ballads and other poems. But all this, however\ncreditable to the culture of the Arab tribes, was not sufficient for\nthe purposes of Islam. The Kaaba, which had been a rude heathen temple,\nwas raised to the dignity of a shrine of the true God, or rather it was\nrestored, for it was said to have been built by Adam after a divine\npattern. The story was this: At the time of the Fall, Adam and Eve had\nsomehow become separated. Adam had wandered away to Ceylon, where a\nmountain peak still bears his name. But having been divinely summoned to\nMecca to erect this first of earthly temples, he unexpectedly found Eve\nresiding upon a hill near the city, and thenceforward the Valley of\nMecca became their paradise regained. At the time of the Deluge the\nKaaba was buried in mud, and for centuries afterward it was overgrown\nwith trees.\n\nWhen Hagar and her son Ishmael were driven out from the household of\nAbraham, they wandered by chance to this very spot, desolate and\nforsaken. While Hagar was diligently searching for water, more anxious\nto save the life of her son than her own, Ishmael, boy-like, sat poking\nthe sand with his heel; when, behold, a spring of water bubbled up in\nhis footprint. And this was none other than the sacred well Zemzem,\nwhose brackish waters are still eagerly sought by every Moslem pilgrim.\nAs Ishmael grew to manhood and established his home in the sacred city,\nAbraham was summoned to join him, that they together might rebuild the\nKaaba. But in the succeeding generations apostacy again brought ruin\nupon the place, although the heathen Koreish still performed sacred\nrites there--especially that of sevenfold processions around the sacred\nstone. This blackened object, supposed to be an aerolite which fell\nages ago, is still regarded as sacred, and the sevenfold circuits of\nMohammedan pilgrims take the place of the ancient heathen rites.\n\nLaying aside these crude legends, and confining our attention to\nprobable history, I can only hope, in the compass of a single lecture,\nto barely touch upon a series of prominent points without any very\ncareful regard to logical order. This will perhaps insure the greatest\nclearness as well as the best economy of time. And first, we will glance\nat the personal history of Mohammed--a history, it should be remembered,\nwhich was not committed to writing till two hundred years after the\nprophet's death, and which depends wholly on the enthusiastic traditions\nof his followers. Born in the year 561 A.D., of a recently widowed\nmother, he appears to have been from the first a victim of epilepsy, or\nsome kindred affection whose paroxysms had much to do with his\nsubsequent experiences and his success. The various tribes of Arabia\nwere mostly given to a form of polytheistic idolatry in which, however,\nthe conception of a monotheistic supremacy was still recognized. Most\nscholars, including Renan, insist on ascribing to the Arabians, in\ncommon with all other Shemitic races, a worship of one God as Supreme,\nthough the Arabian Allah, like the Baal of Canaan and Phoenicia, was\nsupposed to be attended by numerous inferior deities. Though Islam\nundoubtedly borrowed the staple of its truths from the Old Testament,\nyet there was a short confession strikingly resembling the modern creed\nof to-day, which had been upon the lips of many generations of Arabians\nbefore Mohammed's time. Thus it ran: \"I dedicate myself to thy service,\nO Allah. Thou hast no companion except the companion of whom thou art\nmaster and of whatever is his.\"\n\nA society known as the \"Hanifs\" existed at the time of Mohammed's early\nmanhood, and we know not how long before, whose aim was to bring back\ntheir countrymen from the degrading worship and cruel practices of\nheathenism to the purity of monotheistic worship. The old faith had been\nreinforced in the minds of the more intelligent Arabs by the truths\nlearned from Jewish exiles, who, as early as the Babylonish captivity,\nhad found refuge in Arabia; and it is a striking fact that the four\nHanif leaders whom the young Mohammed found on joining their society,\nwere pleading for the restoration of the faith of Abraham. All these\nleaders refused to follow his standard when he began to claim supremacy\nas a prophet; three of them were finally led to Christianity, and the\nfourth died in a sort of quandary between the Christian faith and Islam.\nThe first two, Waraka and Othman, were cousins of Mohammed's wife, and\nthe third, Obadulla, was his own cousin. Zaid, the last of the four,\npresents to us a very pathetic picture. He lived and died in perplexity.\nBanished from Mecca by those who feared his conscientious censorship, he\nlived by himself on a neighboring hillside, an earnest seeker after\ntruth to the last; and he died with the prayer on his lips, \"O God, if I\nknew what form of worship is most pleasing to thee, so would I serve\nthee, but I know it not.\" It is to the credit of Mohammed that he\ncherished a profound respect for this man. \"I will pray for him,\" he\nsaid; \"in the Resurrection he also will gather a church around him.\"[97]\n\nIn spite of his maladies and the general delicacy of his nervous\norganization, Mohammed evinced in early youth a degree of energy and\nintellectual capacity which augured well for his future success in some\nimportant sphere. Fortune also favored him in many ways. His success as\nmanager of the commercial caravans of a wealthy widow led to his\nacceptance as her husband. She was fourteen years his senior, but she\nseems to have entirely won his affections and to have proved\nindispensable, not only as a patroness, but as a wise and faithful\ncounsellor. So long as she lived she was the good spirit who called\nforth his better nature, and kept him from those low impulses which\nsubsequently wrought the ruin of his character, even in the midst of his\nsuccesses. On the one hand, it is an argument in favor of the sincerity\nof Mohammed's prophetic claims, that this good and true woman was the\nfirst to believe in him as a prophet of God; but, on the other hand, we\nmust remember that she was a loving wife, and that that charity which\nthinketh no evil is sometimes utterly blind to evil when found in this\ntender relation.\n\nWe have no reason to doubt that Mohammed was a sincere \"Hanif.\" Having\nmeans and leisure for study, and being of a bright and thoughtful mind,\nhe doubtless entered with enthusiasm into the work of reforming the\nidolatrous customs of his countrymen. From this high standpoint, and\nfree from superstitious fear of a heathen priesthood, he was prepared to\nestimate in their true enormity the degrading rites which he everywhere\nwitnessed under the abused name of religion. That hatred of idolatry\nwhich became the main spring of his subsequent success, was thus\nnourished and strengthened as an honest and abiding sentiment. He was,\nmoreover, of a contemplative--we may say, of a religious--turn of mind.\nHis maladies gave him a tinge of melancholy, and, like the Buddha, he\nshowed a characteristic thoughtfulness bordering upon the morbid.\nBecoming more and more a reformer, he followed the example of many other\nreformers by withdrawing at stated times to a place of solitude for\nmeditation; at least such is the statement of his followers, though\nthere are evidences that he took his family with him, and that he may\nhave been seeking refuge from the heat. However this may have been, the\nplace chosen was a neighboring cave, in whose cool shade he not only\nspent the heated hours of the day, but sometimes a succession of days\nand nights.\n\nPerhaps the confinement increased the violence of his convulsions, and\nthe vividness and power of the strange phantasmagorias which during his\nparoxysms passed through his mind. It was from one of these terrible\nattacks that his alleged call to the prophetic office was dated. The\nprevailing theories of his time ascribed all such experiences to the\ninfluence of supernatural spirits, either good or evil, and the sufferer\nwas left to the alternative of assuming either that he had received\nmessages from heaven, or that he had been a victim of the devil. After\na night of greater suffering and more thrilling visions than he had ever\nexperienced before, Mohammed chose the more favorable interpretation,\nand announced to his sympathizing wife Kadijah that he had received from\nGabriel a solemn call to become the Prophet of God.\n\nThere has been endless discussion as to how far he may have been\nself-deceived in making this claim, and how far he may have been guilty\nof conscious imposture. Speculation is useless, since on the one hand we\ncannot judge a man of that age and that race by the rigid standards of\nour own times; and on the other, we are forbidden to form a too\nfavorable judgment by the subsequent developments of Mohammed's\ncharacter and life, in regard to which no other interpretation than that\nof conscious fraud seems possible.[98]\n\nAside from the previous development and influence of a monotheistic\nreform, and the favoring circumstance of a fortunate marriage, he found\nhis way prepared by the truths which had been made known in Arabia by\nboth Jews and Christians. The Jews had fled to the Arabian Peninsula\nfrom the various conquerors who had laid waste Jerusalem and overrun the\nterritories of the Ten Tribes. At a later day, many Christians had also\nfound an asylum there from the persecutions of hostile bishops and\nemperors. Sir William Muir has shown how largely the teachings of the\nKoran are grounded upon those of the Old and New Testaments.[99] All\nthat is best in Mohammedanism is clearly borrowed from Judaism and\nChristianity. Mohammed was illiterate and never claimed originality.\nIndeed, he plead his illiteracy as a proof of direct inspiration. A far\nbetter explanation would be found in the knowledge derived from inspired\nrecords, penned long before and under different names.\n\nThe prophet was fortunate not only in the possession of truths thus\nindirectly received, but in the fact that both Jews and Christians had\nlapsed from a fair representation of the creeds which they professed.\nThe Jews in Arabia had lost the true spirit of their sacred scriptures,\nand were following their own perverted traditions rather than the\noracles of God. They had lost the vitality and power of the truths\nrevealed to their fathers, and were destitute of moral earnestness and\nall spiritual life. On the other hand, the Christian sects had fallen\ninto low superstitions and virtual idolatry. The Trinity, as they\nrepresented it, gave to Mohammed the impression that the Virgin Mary,\n\"Mother of God,\" was one of the three persons of the Trinity, and that\nthe promise of the coming Paraclete might very plausibly be appropriated\nby himself.[100] The prevailing worship of pictures, images, and relics\nappeared in his vision as truly idolatrous as the polytheism of the\nheathen Koreish. It was clear to him that there was a call for some\nzealous iconoclast to rise up and deliver his country from idolatry. The\nwhole situation seemed auspicious. Arabia was ripe for a sweeping\nreformation. It appears strange to us, at this late day, that the\nchurches of Christendom, even down to the seventh century, should have\nfailed to christianize Arabia, though they had carried the Gospel even\nto Spain and to Britain on the west, and to India and China on the east.\nIf they had imagined that the deserts of the Peninsula were not\nsufficiently important to demand attention, they certainly learned their\nmistake; for now the sad day of reckoning had come, when swarms of\nfanatics should issue from those deserts like locusts, and overrun their\nChristian communities, humble their bishops, appropriate their sacred\ntemples, and reduce their despairing people to the alternatives of\napostacy, tribute, slavery, or the sword.\n\nIt seems equally strange that the great empires which had carried their\nconquests so far on every hand had neglected to conquer Arabia. It was,\nindeed, comparatively isolated; it certainly did not lie in the common\npaths of the conquerors; doubtless it appeared barren, and by no means a\ntempting prize; and withal it was a difficult field for a successful\ncampaign. But from whatever reason, the tribes of Arabia had never been\nconquered. Various expeditions had won temporary successes, but the\nproud Arab could boast that his country had never been brought into\npermanent subjection.[101] Meanwhile the heredity of a thousand years\nhad strengthened the valor of the Arab warrior. He was accustomed to the\nsaddle from his very infancy; he was almost a part of his horse. He was\ntrained to the use of arms as a robber, when not engaged in tribal wars.\nHis whole activity, his all-absorbing interest, was in hostile forays.\nHe knew no fear; he had no scruples. He had been taught to feel that, as\na son of Ishmael every man's hand was turned against him, and of simple\nright his hand might be turned against every man.\n\nNor was this all. The surrounding nations, east and west, had long been\naccustomed to employ these sons of the desert as mercenary soldiers.\nThey had all had a hand in training them for their terrible work, by\nimparting to them a knowledge of their respective countries, their\nresources, their modes of warfare, and their points of weakness. How\nmany nations have thus paved the way to their own destruction by\ncalling in allies, who finally became their masters![102]\n\nOn Mohammed's part, there is no evidence that at the outset he\ncontemplated a military career. At first a reformer, then a prophet, he\nwas driven to arms in self-defence against his persecutors, and he was\nfortunate in being able to profit by a certain jealousy which existed\nbetween the rival cities of Mecca and Medina. Fleeing from Mecca with\nonly one follower, Abu Bekr, leaving the faithful Ali to arrange his\naffairs while he and his companion were hidden in a cave, he found on\nreaching Medina a more favorable reception. He soon gathered a\nfollowing, which enabled him to gain a truce from the Meccans for ten\nyears; and when they on their part violated the truce, he was able to\nmarch upon their city with a force which defied all possible resistance,\nand he entered Mecca in triumph. Medina had been won partly by the\nsupposed credentials of the prophet, but mainly by jealousy of the rival\ncity. Mecca yielded to a superior force of arms, but in the end became\nthe honored capital and shrine of Islam.\n\nFrom this time the career of Mohammed was wholly changed. He was now an\nambitious conqueror, and here as before, the question how far he may\nhave sincerely interpreted his remarkable fortune as a call of God to\nsubdue the idolatrous nations, must remain for the present unsettled.\nPossibly further light may be thrown upon it as we proceed. Let us\nconsider some of the changes which appear in the development of this\nman's character. If we set out with that high ideal which would seem to\nbe demanded as a characteristic of a great religious teacher, and\ncertainly of one claiming to be a prophet of God, we ought to expect\nthat his character would steadily improve in all purity, humanity,\ntruthfulness, charity, and godlikeness. The test of character lies in\nits trend. If the founder of a religion has not grown nobler and better\nunder the operation of his own system, that fact is the strongest\npossible condemnation of the system. A good man generally feels that he\ncan afford to be magnanimous and pitiful in proportion to his victories\nand his success. But Mohammed became relentless as his power increased.\nHe had at first endeavored to win the Arabian Jews to his standard. He\nhad adopted their prophets and much of the Old Testament teachings; he\nhad insisted upon the virtual identity of the two religions. But having\nfailed in his overtures, and meanwhile having gained superior power, he\nwaged against them the most savage persecution. On one occasion he\nordered the massacre of a surrendered garrison of six hundred Jewish\nsoldiers. At another time he put to the most inhuman torture a leader\nwho had opposed his cause; in repeated instances he instigated the crime\nof assassination.[103] In early life he had been engaged in a peaceful\ncaravan trade, and all his influence had been cast in favor of universal\nsecurity as against the predatory habits of the heathen Arabs; but on\ncoming to power he himself resorted to robbery to enrich his exchequer.\nSales mentions twenty-seven of these predatory expeditions against\ncaravans, in which Mohammed was personally present.[104]\n\nThe biographers of his early life represent him as a man of a natural\nkindness of disposition, and a sensitive temperament almost bordering on\ntimidity. Though not particularly genial, he was fond of children, and\nhad at first, as his recorded utterances show, frequent impulses of pity\nand magnanimity. But he became hardened as success crowned his career.\nThe temperateness which characterized his early pleadings and\nremonstrances with those who differed from him, gave place to bitter\nanathemas; and there was rooted in his personal character that\nrelentless bigotry which has been the key-note of the most intolerant\nsystem known upon the earth.\n\nA still more marked change occurred in the increasing sensuality of\nMohammed. Such lenient apologists as E. Bosworth Smith and Canon Taylor\nhave applied their most skilful upholstery to the defects of his\nscandalous morals. Mr. Smith has even undertaken to palliate his\nappropriation of another man's wife, and the blasphemy of his pretended\nrevelation in which he made God justify his passion.[105] These authors\nbase their chief apologies upon comparisons between Mohammed and the\nworse depravity of the heathen Arabs, or they balance accounts with some\nof his acknowledged virtues.\n\nBut the case baffles all such advocacy. The real question is, what was\nthe _drift_ of the prophet's character? What was the influence of his\nprofessed principles on his own life? It cannot be denied that his moral\ntrend was downward. If we credit the traditions of his own followers, he\nhad lived a virtuous life as the husband of one wife,[106] and that for\nmany years. But after the death of Kadijah he entered upon a career of\npolygamy in violation of his own law. He had fixed the limit for all\nMoslems at four lawful wives; and in spite of the arguments of R.\nBosworth Smith, we must regard it as a most damning after-thought that\nmade the first and only exception to accommodate his own weakness. By\nthat act he placed himself beyond the help of all sophistry, and took\nhis true place in the sober judgment of mankind. And by a law which is\nas unerring as the law of gravitation, he became more and more sensual\nas age advanced. At the time of his death he was the husband of eleven\nwives. We are not favored with a list of his concubines:[107] we only\nknow that his system placed no limit upon the number.[108] Now, if a\nprophet claiming direct inspiration could break his own inspired laws\nfor his personal accommodation; if, when found guilty of adultery, he\ncould compel his friend and follower to divorce his wife that he might\ntake her; if upon each violation of purity and decency he did not shrink\nfrom the blasphemy of claiming a special revelation which made God the\nabettor of his vices, and even represented Him as reproving and\nthreatening his wives for their just complaints--if all this does not\nstamp a man as a reckless impostor, what further turpitude is required?\n\nAt the same time it is evident that constant discrimination is demanded\nin judging of the character of Mohammed. It is not necessary to assume\nthat he was wholly depraved at first, or to deny that for a time he was\nthe good husband that he is represented to have been, or that he was a\nsincere and enthusiastic reformer, or even that he may have interpreted\nsome of his _early_ hallucinations as mysterious messages from heaven.\nAt various times in his life he doubtless displayed noble sentiments and\nperformed generous acts. But when we find him dictating divine\ncommunications with deliberate purpose for the most villainous objects,\nwhen we find the messages of Gabriel timed and graded to suit the\nexigencies of his growing ambition, or the demands of his worst\npassions, we are forced to a preponderating condemnation. The Mohammed\nof the later years is a remorseless tyrant when occasion requires, and\nat all times the slave of unbridled lust. Refined and cultivated\nMohammedan ladies--I speak from testimony that is very direct--do not\nhesitate to condemn the degrading morals of their prophet, and to\ncontrast him with the spotless purity of Jesus; \"but then,\" they add,\n\"God used him for a great purpose, and gave him the most exalted honor\namong men.\" Alas! it is the old argument so often employed in many\nlands. Success, great intellect, grand achievements gild all moral\ndeformity, and win the connivance of dazzled minds. In this case,\nhowever, it is not a hero or a statesman, but an alleged prophet of God,\nthat is on trial.\n\nIt is a question difficult to decide, how far Mohammed made\nMohammedanism, and how far the system moulded him. The action of cause\nand effect was mutual, and under this interaction both the character and\nthe system were slow growths. The Koran was composed in detached\nfragments suited to different stages of development, different degrees\nand kinds of success, different demands of personal impulse or changes\nof conduct. The Suras, without any claim to logical connection, were\nwritten down by an amanuensis on bits of parchment, or pieces of wood or\nleather, and even on the shoulder-bones of sheep. And they were each the\nexpression of Mohammed's particular mood at the time, and each entered\nin some degree into his character from that time forth. The man and the\nbook grew together, the system, through all its history, fairly\nrepresents the example of the man and the teaching of the book.\n\nLet us next consider the historic character and influence of the system\nof Islam. In forming just conclusions as to the real influence of\nMohammedanism, a judicial fairness is necessary. In the first place, we\nmust guard against the hasty and sweeping judgments which are too often\nindulged in by zealous Christians; and on the other hand, we must\ncertainly challenge the exaggerated statements of enthusiastic\napologists. It is erroneous to assert that Islam has never encouraged\neducation, that it has invariably been adverse to all progress, that it\nknows nothing but the Koran, or that Omar, in ordering the destruction\nof the Alexandrian library, is the only historical exponent of the\nsystem. Such statements are full of partial truths, but they are also\nmingled with patent errors.\n\nThe Arab races in their original home were naturally inclined to the\nencouragement of letters, particularly of poetry, and Mohammed himself,\nthough he had never been taught even to read, much less to write, took\nspecial pains to encourage learning. \"Teach your children poetry,\" he\nsaid; \"it opens the mind, lends grace to wisdom, and makes the heroic\nvirtues hereditary.\"[109] According to Sprenger, he gave liberty to\nevery prisoner who taught twelve boys of Mecca to write. The Abbasside\nprinces of a later day offered most generous prizes for superior\nexcellence in poetry, and Bagdad, Damascus, Alexandria, Bassora, and\nSamarcand were noted for their universities.[110] Cordova and Seville\nwere able to lend their light to the infant university of Oxford. The\nfine arts of sculpture and painting were condemned by the early caliphs,\ndoubtless on account of the idolatrous tendencies which they were\nsupposed to foster; but medicine, philosophy, mathematics, chemistry,\nand astronomy were especially developed, and that at a time when the\nnations of Europe were mostly in darkness.[111] Yet it cannot be denied\nthat on the whole the influence of Islam has been hostile to learning\nand to civilization.[112] The world will never forget that by the\nburning of the great library of Alexandria the rich legacy which the old\nworld had bequeathed to the new was destroyed. By its occupation of\nEgypt and Constantinople, and thus cutting off the most important\nchannels of communication, the Mohammedan power became largely\nresponsible for the long eclipse of Europe during the Middle Ages.\n\nMoreover, when zealous advocates of the system contrast the barbarism of\nRichard Coeur de Lion with the culture and humanity of Saladin, they\nseem to forget that the race of Richard had but just emerged from the\nsavagery of the Northmen, while Saladin and his race had not only\ninherited the high moral culture of Judaism and Christianity, but had\nvirtually monopolized it. It was chiefly by the wars of the Crusaders\nthat Western Europe became acquainted with the civilization of the\nOrient.\n\nInstead of ignoring the advantages which the East had over the West at\nthat period, it would be more just to inquire what comparative\nimprovements of their respective opportunities have been made by Western\nChristianity and Eastern Mohammedanism since that time. It would be an\ninteresting task, for example, to start with the period of Saladin and\nCoeur de Lion, and impartially trace on the one hand the influence of\nChristianity as it moulded the savage conquerors of the Roman Empire,\nand from such rude materials built up the great Christian nations of the\nnineteenth century; and on the other hand, follow the banner of the\nCrescent through all the lands where it has borne sway: Persia, Arabia,\nNorthern India, Egypt, the Barbary States, East Africa, and the Soudan,\nand then draw an unbiased conclusion as to which system, as a system,\nhas done more to spread general enlightenment, foster the sentiments of\nkindness and philanthropy, promote human liberty, advance civilization,\nincrease and elevate populations, promote the purity and happiness of\nthe family and the home, and raise the standards of ethics and true\nreligion among mankind.[113]\n\nOne of the brilliant dynasties of Mohammedan history was that of the\nMoors of Spain. We can never cease to admire their encouragement of arts\nand their beautiful architecture, but is it quite certain that all this\nwas a direct fruit of Islam? The suggestion that it may have been partly\ndue to contact with the Gothic elements which the Moors vanquished,\nfinds support in the fact that nothing of the kind appeared on the\nopposite coast of Africa. And while the Mohammedan Empire in India has\nleft the most exquisite architectural structures in the world, it is\nwell known that they were the work of European architects.\n\nBut in considering the influence which Islam has exerted on the whole,\nlack of time compels me to limit our survey to Africa, except as other\nlands may be referred to incidentally.[114] That the first African\nconquests, extending from Egypt to Morocco, were simple warlike\ninvasions in which the sword was the only instrument of propagandism, no\none will deny. But it is contended that in later centuries a great work\nhas been accomplished in Western Soudan, and is still being\naccomplished, by missionary effort and the general advance of a\nwholesome civilization.\n\nAny fair estimate of Mohammedan influence must take account of the\nelements which it found in Northern Africa at the time of its conquests.\nThe states which border on the Mediterranean had once been powerful and\ncomparatively enlightened. They had been populous and prosperous. The\nPhoenician colony in Carthage had grown to be no mean rival of Rome's\nmilitary power. Egypt had been a great centre of learning, not only in\nthe most ancient times, but especially after the building of Alexandria.\nMore western lands, like Numidia and Mauritania, had been peopled by\nnoble races.\n\nAfter the introduction of Christianity, Alexandria became the bright\nfocus into which the religions and philosophies of the world poured\ntheir concentrated light. Some of the greatest of the Christian fathers,\nlike Augustine, Tertullian, and Cyprian, were Africans. The foundations\nof Latin Christianity were laid by these men. The Bishopric of Hippo was\na model for all time in deep and intelligent devotion. The grace and\nstrength, the sublime and all-conquering faith of Monica, and others\nlike her, furnished a pattern for all Christian womanhood and\nmotherhood.\n\nI do not forget that before the time of the Mohammedan invasion the\nVandals had done their work of devastation, or that the African Church\nhad been woefully weakened and rent by wild heresies and schisms, or\nthat the defection of the Monophysite or Coptic Church of Egypt was one\nof the influences which facilitated the Mohammedan success. But making\ndue allowance for all this, vandalism and schism could not have\ndestroyed so soon the ancient civilization or sapped the strength of the\nNorth African races. The process which has permanently reduced so many\nonce populous cities and villages to deserts, and left large portions of\nthe Barbary States with only the moldering ruins of their former\ngreatness, has been a gradual one. For centuries after the Arab conquest\nthose states were virtually shut off from communication with Europe, and\nfor at least three centuries more, say from 1500 down to the generation\nwhich immediately preceded our own, they were known chiefly by the\npiracies which they carried on against the commerce of all maritime\nnations. Even the Government of the United States was compelled to pay a\nmillion of dollars for the ransom of captured American seamen, and it\npaid it not to private corsairs, but to the Mohammedan governments by\nwhich those piracies were subsidized, as a means of supplying the public\nexchequer. These large amounts were recovered only when our navy, in\nco-operation with that of England, extirpated the Riff piracies by\nbombarding the Moslem ports. The vaunted civilizations of the North\nAfrican states would have been supported by wholesale marauding to this\nday, had not their piratical fleets been thus summarily swept from the\nseas by other powers.\n\nIf Egypt has shown a higher degree of advancement it has been due to her\npeculiar geographical position, to the inexhaustible fertility of the\nDelta, and, most of all, to the infusion of foreign life and energy into\nthe management of her affairs. Ambitious adventurers, like the Albanian\nMehamet Ali, have risen to power and have made Egypt what she is, or\nrather what she was before the more recent intervention of the European\npowers. Even Canon Taylor admits that for centuries it has been\nnecessary to import more vigorous foreign blood for the administration\nof Egyptian affairs.[115]\n\nIt will be admitted that Mohammedan conquests have been made in mediaeval\ntimes, and down to our own age, in Central Africa, and that along the\nsouthern borders of Sahara a cordon of more or less prosperous states\nhas been established; also, that the civilization of those states\ncontrasts favorably with the savagery of the cannibal tribes with which\nthey have come in contact. Probably the best--that is to say, the least\nobjectionable--exemplifications of Islam now to be found in the world\nare seen in some of the older states of Western Soudan. The Mandingo of\nthe central uplands furnished a better material than the \"unspeakable\nTurk,\" and it would not be quite fair to ascribe all his present virtues\nto the Moslem rule.\n\nBut _how_ have these conquests in Central Africa been made? The\ncontention of the apologists for Islam is that recently, at least, and\nprobably more or less in the past, a quiet missionary work has greatly\nextended monotheism, temperance, education, and general comfort, and\nthat it has done more than all other influences for the permanent\nextinction of the slave trade! Dr. E.W. Blyden, in answer to the charge\nthat Mohammedan Arabs are now, and long have been, chiefly responsible\nfor the horrors of that trade, and that even when Americans bought\nslaves for their plantations, Moslem raiders in the interior instigated\nthe tribal quarrels which supplied the markets on the coast, contends\nthat the Moslem conquests do most effectually destroy the trade, since\ntribes which have become Moslem can no longer be enslaved by\nMoslems.[116] It is a curious argument, especially as it seems to ignore\nthe fact that at the present time both the supply and the demand depend\non Mohammedan influence.\n\nAs to the means by which the Soudanese States are now extending their\npower we may content ourselves with a mere reference to the operations\nof the late \"El Mahdi\" in the East and the notorious Samadu in the West.\nTheir methods may be accepted as illustrations of a kind of tactics\nwhich have been employed for ages. The career of El Mahdi is already\nwell known. Samadu was originally a prisoner, captured while yet a boy\nin one of the tribal wars near the headwaters of the Niger. Partly by\nintrigue and partly by the aid of his religious fanaticism he at length\nbecame sufficiently powerful to enslave his master. Soon afterward he\nproclaimed his divine mission, and declared a _Jehad_ or holy war\nagainst all infidels. Thousands flocked to his banner, influenced\nlargely by the hope of booty; and ere long, to quote the language of a\nlay correspondent of the London _Standard_, written in Sierra Leone\nSeptember 18, 1888, \"he became the scourge of all the peaceable states\non the right bank of the Upper Niger.\" Since 1882 he has attempted to\ndispute the territorial claims of the French on the upper, and of the\nEnglish on the lower Niger, though without success. But he has seemed to\navenge his disappointment the more terribly on the native tribes.\n\nThe letter published in the _Standard_ gives an account of an official\ncommission sent by the Governor of Sierra Leone to the headquarters of\nSamadu in 1888, and in describing the track of this Western Mahdi in his\napproaches to the French territories it says: \"The messengers report\nthat every town and village through which they passed was in ruins, and\nthat the road, from the borders of Sulimania to Herimakono, was lined\nwith human skeletons, the remains of unfortunates who had been slain by\nSamadu's fanatical soldiery, or had perished from starvation through the\ndevastation of the surrounding country. Some of these poor wretches, to\njudge from the horrible contortions of the skeletons, had been attacked\nby vultures and beasts of prey while yet alive, and when too near their\nlingering death to have sufficient strength to beat them off. Around the\nruined towns were hundreds of doubled-up skeletons, the remains of\nprisoners who, bound hand and foot, had been forced upon their knees,\nand their heads struck off. Keba, the heroic Bambara king, is still\nresisting bravely, but he has only one stronghold (Siaso) left, and the\nend cannot now be far off.\"\n\nSamadu's career in this direction having been arrested, he next turned\nhis attention toward the tribes under English protection on the\nsoutheast, \"where, unfortunately, there was no power to take up the\ncause of humanity and arrest his progress. Before long he entirely\noverran and subjected Kouranko, Limbah, Sulimania, Kono, and Kissi. The\nmost horrible atrocities were committed; peaceable agriculturists were\nslaughted in thousands, and their women and children carried off into\nslavery. Falaba, the celebrated capital of Sulimania, and the great\nemporium for trade between Sierra Leone and the Niger, was captured and\ndestroyed; and all the inhabitants of that district, whom every\ntraveller, from Winwood Reade down to Dr. Blyden, has mentioned with\npraise for their industry and docility, have been exterminated or\ncarried off. Sulimania, which was the garden of West Africa, has now\nbecome a howling wilderness.\"\n\nAnd the writer adds: \"The people of the States to the south of Futa\nDjallon are pagans, and Samadu makes their religion a pretext for his\noutrages. He is desirous, he says, of converting them to the 'True\nFaith,' and his modes of persuasion are murder and slavery. What could\nbe more horrible than the story just brought down by the messengers who\nwere with Major Festing? Miles of road strewn with human bones;\nblackened ruins where were peaceful hamlets; desolation and emptiness\nwhere were smiling plantations. What has become of the tens of\nthousands of peaceful agriculturists, their wives and their innocent\nchildren? Gone; converted, after Samadu's manner, to the 'True Faith.'\nAnd thus the conversion of West Africa to Islamism goes merrily on,\nwhile _dilettante_ scholars at home complacently discuss the question as\nto whether that faith or Christianity is the more suitable for the\nNegro; and the British people, dead to their generous instincts of old,\nmake no demand that such deeds of cruelty and horror shall be arrested\nwith a strong hand.\"[117]\n\nSimilar accounts of the African _propagandism_ of Islam might be given\nin the very words of numerous travellers and explorers, but one or two\nwitnesses only shall be summoned to speak of the Mohammedan dominion and\ncivilization in East Africa. Professor Drummond, in giving his\nimpressions of Zanzibar, says: \"Oriental in its appearance, Mohammedan\nin its religion, Arabian in its morals, a cesspool of wickedness, it is\na fit capital to the Dark Continent.\" And it is the great emporium--not\nan obscure settlement, but the consummate flower of East African\ncivilization and boasting in the late Sultan Bargash, an unusually\nenlightened Moslem ruler. Of the interior and the ivory-slave trade\npursued under the auspices of Arab dominion the same author says: \"Arab\nencampments for carrying on a wholesale trade in this terrible commodity\nare now established all over the heart of Africa. They are usually\nconnected with wealthy Arab traders at Zanzibar and other places on the\ncoast, and communication is kept up by caravans, which pass at long\nintervals from one to the other. Being always large and well-supplied\nwith the material of war, these caravans have at their mercy the feeble\nand divided native tribes through which they pass, and their trail\nacross the continent is darkened with every aggravation of tyranny and\ncrime. They come upon the scene suddenly; they stay only long enough to\nsecure their end, and disappear only to return when a new crop has\narisen which is worth the reaping. Sometimes these Arab traders will\nactually settle for a year or two in the heart of some quiet community\nin the remote interior. They pretend perfect friendship; they molest no\none; they barter honestly. They plant the seeds of their favorite\nvegetables and fruits--the Arab always carries seeds with him--as if\nthey meant to stay forever. Meantime they buy ivory, tusk after tusk,\nuntil great piles of it are buried beneath their huts, and all their\nbarter goods are gone. Then one day suddenly the inevitable quarrel is\npicked. And then follows a wholesale massacre. Enough only are spared\nfrom the slaughter to carry the ivory to the coast; the grass huts of\nthe village are set on fire; the Arabs strike camp; and the slave march,\nworse than death, begins. The last act in the drama, the slave march, is\nthe aspect of slavery which in the past has chiefly aroused the passions\nand the sympathy of the outside world, but the greater evil is the\ndemoralization and disintegration of communities by which it is\nnecessarily preceded. It is essential to the traffic that the region\ndrained by the slaver should be kept in perpetual political ferment;\nthat, in order to prevent combination, chief should be pitted against\nchief, and that the moment any tribe threatens to assume a dominating\nstrength it should either be broken up by the instigation of rebellion\namong its dependencies or made a tool of at their expense. The\ninter-relation of tribes is so intricate that it is impossible to\nexaggerate the effect of disturbing the equilibrium at even a single\ncentre. But, like a river, a slave caravan has to be fed by innumerable\ntributaries all along its course, at first in order to gather a\nsufficient volume of human bodies for the start, and afterward to\nreplace the frightful loss by desertion, disablement, and death.\"\n\nNext to Livingstone, whose last pathetic appeal to the civilized world\nto \"heal the open sore of Africa\" stands engraved in marble in\nWestminster Abbey, no better witness can be summoned in regard to the\nslave trade and the influence of Islam generally in Eastern and Central\nAfrica than Henry M. Stanley. From the time when he encountered the\nMohammedan propagandists at the Court of Uganda he has seen how\nintimately and vitally the faith and the traffic are everywhere united.\nI give but a single passage from his \"Congo Free State,\" page 144.\n\n\"We discovered that this horde of banditti--for in reality and without\ndisguise they were nothing else--was under the leadership of several\nchiefs, but principally under Karema and Kibunga. They had started\nsixteen months previously from Wane-Kirundu, about thirty miles below\nVinya Njara. For eleven months the band had been raiding successfully\nbetween the Congo and the Lubiranzi, on the left bank. They had then\nundertaken to perform the same cruel work between the Biyerre and\nWane-Kirundu. On looking at my map I find that such a territory within\nthe area described would cover superficially 16,200 square geographical\nmiles on the left bank, and 10,500 miles on the right, all of which in\nstatute mileage would be equal to 34,700 square miles, just 2,000 square\nmiles greater than the island of Ireland, inhabited by about 1,000,000\npeople.\n\n\"The band when it set out from Kirundu numbered 300 fighting men, armed\nwith flint-locks, double-barrelled percussion guns, and a few\nbreech-loaders; their followers, or domestic slaves and women, doubled\nthis force.... Within the enclosure was a series of low sheds extending\nmany lines deep from the immediate edge of the clay bank inland, 100\nyards; in length the camp was about 300 yards. At the landing-place\nbelow were 54 long canoes, varying in carrying capacity. Each might\nconvey from 10 to 100 people.... The first general impressions are that\nthe camp is much too densely peopled for comfort. There are rows upon\nrows of dark nakedness, relieved here and there by the white dresses of\nthe captors. There are lines or groups of naked forms--upright,\nstanding, or moving about listlessly; naked bodies are stretched under\nthe sheds in all positions; naked legs innumerable are seen in the\nperspective of prostrate sleepers; there are countless naked\nchildren--many mere infants--forms of boyhood and girlhood, and\noccasionally a drove of absolutely naked old women bending under a\nbasket of fuel, or cassava tubers, or bananas, who are driven through\nthe moving groups by two or three musketeers. On paying more attention\nto details, I observe that mostly all are fettered; youths with iron\nrings around their necks, through which a chain, like one of our boat\nanchor-chains, is rove, securing the captives by twenties. The children\nover ten are secured by these copper rings, each ringed leg brought\ntogether by the central ring.\"\n\nBy a careful examination of statistics Mr. Stanley estimates that\ncounting the men killed in the raids and those who perish on the march\nor are slain because supposed to be worthless, every 5,000 slaves\nactually sold cost over 30,000 lives.\n\nBut there are Arabs and Arabs we are told. The slave-dealers of East\nAfrica and the barbarous chieftains who push their bloody conquests in\nWestern Soudan are bad enough, it is admitted, but they are\n\"exceptions.\" Yet we insist that they illustrate the very spirit of\nMohammed himself, who authorized the taking of prisoners of war as\nslaves. Their plea is that they save the souls of those they capture;\nmany of these traders are Mollahs--Pharisees of the Pharisees. Canon\nTaylor, Dr. Blyden, and others have given us glowing accounts of \"Arab\nmissionaries going about without purse or scrip, and disseminating their\nreligion by quietly teaching the Koran;\" but the venerable Bishop\nCrowther, who has spent his whole life in that part of Africa where\nthese conquests are supposed to be made, declares that the real vocation\nof the quiet apostles of the Koran is that of fetish peddlers.[118] If\nit be objected that this is the biased testimony of a Christian\nmissionary, it may be backed by the explorer Lander, who, in speaking of\nthis same class of men, says: \"These Mollahs procure an easy subsistence\nby making fetishes or writing charms on bits of wood which are washed\noff carefully into a basin of water, and drank with avidity by the\ncredulous multitude.\" And he adds: \"Those who profess the Mohammedan\nfaith among the negroes are as ignorant and superstitious as their\nidolatrous brethren; nor does it appear that their having adopted a new\ncreed has either improved their manners or bettered their condition in\nlife.\" Dr. Schweinfurth also describes the Mohammedan missionaries whom\nhe found at Khartoum as \"polluted with every abominable vice which the\nimagination of man can conceive of.\" In answer to various statements\nwhich had been published in regard to the rapid missionary progress made\nby Mohammedans in West Central Africa, Bishop Crowther wrote a letter to\nthe Church Missionary Society at the beginning of 1888, giving the\nresults of his own prolonged observation. He describes the methods used\nas:\n\n1. War upon the heathen tribes. \"If the Chief of a heathen tribe accepts\nthe Koran his people are at once counted as converts and he is received\ninto favor, and is thus prepared to become an instrument in conquering\nother tribes. But on the refusal to accept the Koran war is declared,\nthe destruction of their country is the consequence, and horrible\nbloodshed. The aged, male and female, are massacred, while the salable\nare led away as slaves. One half of the slaves are reserved by the\nchief, the other half is divided among the soldiers to encourage them to\nfuture raids.\"\n\n2. Another cause of large increase is polygamy. \"For although but four\nlawful wives are allowed, there is unlimited license for concubinage.\"\n\n3. The sale of charms is so conducted as to prove not only a means of\nprofit but a shrewd propaganda. \"When childless women are furnished with\nthese, they are pledged, if successful, to dedicate their children to\nIslam.\"\n\nAnd Bishop Crowther verifies the statement made by others in reference\nto East Africa, that the priests \"besides being charm-makers are traders\nboth in general articles and more largely in slaves.\"[119]\n\nWe have only time to consider one question more, viz., What is the\ncharacter of Islam as we find it to-day, and what are its prospects of\ndevelopment? It is a characteristic of our age that no religion stands\nwholly alone and uninfluenced by others. It is especially true that the\nsystems of the East are all deeply affected by the higher ethics and\npurer religious conceptions borrowed from Christianity. Thus many\nMohammedans of our day, and especially those living in close contact\nwith our Christian civilization, are rising to higher conceptions of God\nand of religious truth than have been entertained by Moslems hitherto.\nCanon Taylor, in a little volume entitled \"Leaves from an Egyptian\nNote-Book,\" has drawn a picture of Islam which Omar and Othman would\nhardly have recognized. In the first place it should be remembered that,\nas he confesses, his reputation as a defender of Mohammed and his system\nhad gone before him to Cairo, and that he was understood to be a seeker\nafter facts favorable to his known views. This opened the hearts of\nfriendly Pashas and served to bring out all the praises that they could\nbestow upon their own faith. It appears accordingly that he was assured\nby them that polygamy is widely discarded and condemned by prominent\nMoslems in such cities as Cairo and Alexandria, that many leading men\nare highly intelligent and widely read, that they profess belief in most\nof the doctrines held by the Christian Church, that they receive the\ninspired testimony of the Old and New Testaments--except in so far as\nthey have been corrupted by Christian manipulation. This exception,\nhowever, includes all that is at variance with the Koran. They advocate\ntemperance and condemn the slave trade. They encourage the general\npromotion of education, and what seems to the credulous Canon most\nremarkable of all is that they express deep regret that Christians do\nnot feel the same charity and fellowship toward Moslems that they feel\ntoward Christians!\n\nNow, making all due abatement for the _couleur de rose_ which these\neasy-going and politic Pashas may have employed with their English\nchampion, it is undoubtedly true that a class of Mohammedans are found\nin the great cosmopolitan cities of the Levant who have come to\nrecognize the spirit of the age in which they live. Many of them have\nbeen educated in Europe; they speak several languages; they read the\ncurrent literature; they are ashamed of the old fanatical Mohammedanism.\nThough they cherish a partisan interest in the recognized religion of\ntheir country, their faith is really eclectic; it comes not from Old\nMecca, but is in part a product of the awakened thought of the\nnineteenth century. But Canon Taylor's great fallacy lies in trying to\npersuade himself and an intelligent Christian public that this is Islam.\nHe wearies himself in his attempts to square the modern Cairo with the\nold, and to trace the modern gentlemanly Pasha, whose faith at least\nsits lightly upon his soul, as a legitimate descendant of the fanatical\nand licentious prophet of Arabia. When he strives to convince the world\nthat because these courteous Pashas feel kindly enough toward the Canon\nof York and others like him, therefore Islam is and always has been a\ncharitable and highly tolerant system, he simply stultifies the whole\ntestimony of history. He tells us that his Egyptian friends complain\nthat \"whereas they regard us as brother-believers and accept our\nscriptures, they are nevertheless denounced as infidels. And they ask\nwhy should an eternal coldness reign in our hearts.\"\n\nProbably they are not acquainted with Samadu of Western Soudan and his\nmethods of propagandism. They have forgotten the career of El Mahdi;\nthey are not familiar with the terrible oppression of the Jews in\nMorocco--with which even that in Russia cannot compare; they have not\nread the dark accounts of the extortion practised by the Wahabees of\nArabia, even upon Moslems of another sect on their pilgrimages to\nMecca,[120] nor do they seem to know that Syrian converts from Islam are\nnow hiding in Egypt from the bloodthirsty Moslems of Beyrut. Finally, he\nforgets that the very \"children are taught formulas of prayer in which\nthey may compendiously curse Jews and Christians and all\nunbelievers.\"[121]\n\nA more plausible case is made out by Canon Taylor, Dr. Blyden, and\nothers on the question of temperance. It is true that Moslems, as a\nrule, are not hard drinkers. Men and races of men have their besetting\nsins. Drinking was not the special vice of the Arabs. Their country was\ntoo arid; but they had another vice of which Mohammed was the chief\nexemplar. Canon Taylor is doubtless correct also in the statement that\nthe English protectorate in Egypt has greatly increased the degree of\nintemperance, and that in this respect the presence of European races\ngenerally has been a curse. Certainly too much cannot be said in\ncondemnation of the wholesale liquor trade carried on in Africa by\nunscrupulous subjects of Christian nations. But it should be remembered\nthat the whiskey of Cairo and of the West Coast does not represent\nChristianity any more than the Greek assassin or the Italian pickpocket\nin Cairo represents Islam. Christian philanthropists in Europe and\nAmerica are seeking to suppress the evil. If Christian missionaries in\nWest Africa were selling rum as Moslem Mollahs are buying and selling\nslaves in Uganda, if the Bible authorized the system as the Koran\nencourages slavery and concubinage, as means of propagandism, a parallel\nmight be presented; but the very reverse is true.\n\nAs a rule Nomadic races are not as greatly inclined to the use of ardent\nspirits as are the descendants of the ancient tribes of Northern Europe.\nThe difference is due to climate, temperament, heredity, and the amount\nof supply. The Koran discourages intemperance and so does the Bible;\nboth are disregarded when the means of gratification are abundant.\n\nThe Moguls of India were sots almost as a rule. Wealthy Persian Moslems\nare the chief purchasers of the native wines. Lander, Schweinfurth, and\neven Mungo Parke all speak of communities in Central Africa as wholly\ngiven to intemperance.[122] Egyptians even, according to Canon Taylor,\nfind the abundant supplies afforded by Europeans too tempting for the\nrestraints of the Koran.\n\nOne of the most significant indications that the sober judgment of all\nenlightened men favors the immense superiority of the Christian faith\nover all ethnic systems is the fact that even those zealous apologists\nwho have most plausibly defended the non-Christian religions have\nsubsequently evinced some misgivings and have even become advocates of\nthe superior light of Christianity. Sir Edwin Arnold, seeing how\nseriously some ill-grounded Christian people had interpreted \"The Light\nof Asia,\" has since made amends by writing \"The Light of the World.\" And\nE. Bosworth Smith, on reading the extravagant glorification given to\nIslam by Canon Isaac Taylor, whom he accuses of plagiarism and absurd\nexaggeration, has come to the stand as a witness against his extreme\nviews. Without acknowledging any important modification of his own\nformer views he has greatly changed the place of emphasis. He has not\nonly recorded his condemnation of Canon Taylor's extravagance but he has\nmade a strong appeal for the transcendent superiority of the Christian\nfaith as that alone which must finally regenerate Africa and the world.\nHe has called public attention to the following pointed criticism of\nCanon Taylor's plea for Islam, made by a gentleman long resident in\nAlgeria, and he has given it his own endorsement: \"Canon Isaac Taylor,\"\nsays the writer, \"has constructed at the expense of Christianity a\nrose-colored picture of Islam, by a process of comparison in which\nChristianity is arraigned for failures in practice, of which\nChristendom is deeply and penitently conscious, no account being taken\nof Christian precept; while Islam is judged by its better precepts only,\nno account being taken of the frightful shortcomings in Mohammedan\npractice, even from the standard of the Koran.\"[123] No indictment ever\ncarried its proofs more conspicuously on its face than this.\n\nE. Bosworth Smith's subsequent tribute to the relative superiority of\nthe Christian faith was given in an address before the Fellows of Zion's\nCollege, February 21, 1888. I give his closing comparison entire; also\nhis eloquent appeal for Christian Missions in Africa. \"The resemblances\nbetween the two Creeds are indeed many and striking, as I have implied\nthroughout; but, if I may, once more, quote a few words which I have\nused elsewhere in dealing with this question, the contrasts are even\nmore striking than the resemblances. The religion of Christ contains\nwhole fields of morality and whole realms of thought which are all but\noutside the religion of Mohammed. It opens humility, purity of heart,\nforgiveness of injuries, sacrifice of self, to man's moral nature; it\ngives scope for toleration, development, boundless progress to his mind;\nits motive power is stronger even as a friend is better than a king, and\nlove higher than obedience. Its realized ideals in the various paths of\nhuman greatness have been more commanding, more many-sided, more holy,\nas Averroes is below Newton, Harun below Alfred, and Ali below St. Paul.\nFinally, the ideal life of all is far more elevating, far more\nmajestic, far more inspiring, even as the life of the founder of\nMohammedanism is below the life of the Founder of Christianity.\n\n\"If, then, we believe Christianity to be truer and purer in itself than\nIslam, and than any other religion, we must needs wish others to be\npartakers of it; and the effort to propagate it is thrice blessed--it\nblesses him that offers, no less than him who accepts it; nay, it often\nblesses him who accepts it not. The last words of a dying friend are apt\nto linger in the chambers of the heart till the heart itself has ceased\nto beat; and the last recorded words of the Founder of Christianity are\nnot likely to pass from the memory of His Church till that Church has\ndone its work. They are the marching orders of the Christian army; the\nconsolation for every past and present failure; the earnest and the\nwarrant, in some shape or other, of ultimate success. The value of a\nChristian mission is not, therefore, to be measured by the number of its\nconverts. The presence in a heathen or a Muslim district of a single man\nwho, filled with the missionary spirit, exhibits in his preaching and,\nso far as may be, in his life, the self-denying and the Christian\nvirtues, who is charged with sympathy for those among whom his lot is\ncast, who is patient of disappointment and of failure, and of the sneers\nof the ignorant or the irreligious, and who works steadily on with a\nsingle eye to the glory of God and the good of his fellow-men, is, of\nitself, an influence for good, and a centre from which it radiates,\nwholly independent of the number of converts he is able to enlist. There\nis a vast number of such men engaged in mission work all over the\nworld, and our best Indian statesmen, some of whom, for obvious reasons,\nhave been hostile to direct proselytizing efforts, are unanimous as to\nthe quantity and quality of the services they render.\n\n\"Nothing, therefore, can be more shallow, or more disingenuous, or more\nmisleading, than to attempt to disparage Christian missions by pitting\nthe bare number of converts whom they claim against the number of\nconverts claimed by Islam. The numbers are, of course, enormously in\nfavor of Islam. But does conversion mean the same, or anything like the\nsame, thing in each? Is it _in pari materia_, and if not, is the\ncomparison worth the paper on which it is written? The submission to the\nrite of circumcision and the repetition of a confession of faith,\nhowever noble and however elevating in its ultimate effect, do not\nnecessitate, they do not even necessarily tend toward what a Christian\nmeans by a change of heart. It is the characteristic of Mohammedanism to\ndeal with batches and with masses. It is the characteristic of\nChristianity to speak straight to the individual conscience.\n\n\"The conversion of a whole Pagan community to Islam need not imply more\neffort, more sincerity, or more vital change, than the conversion of a\nsingle individual to Christianity. The Christianity accepted wholesale\nby Clovis and his fierce warriors, in the flush of victory, on the field\nof battle, or by the Russian peasants, when they were driven by the\nCossack whips into the Dnieper, and baptized there by force--these are\ntruer parallels to the tribal conversions to Mohammedanism in Africa at\nthe present day. And, whatever may have been their beneficial effects in\nthe march of the centuries, they are not the Christianity of Christ, nor\nare they the methods or the objects at which a Christian missionary of\nthe present day would dream of aiming.\n\n\"A Christian missionary could not thus bring over a Pagan or a Muslim\ntribe to Christianity, even if he would; he ought not to try thus to\nbring them over, even if he could. 'Missionary work,' as remarked by an\nable writer in the _Spectator_ the other day, 'is sowing, not reaping,\nand the sowing of a plant which is slow to bear.' At times, the\ndifficulties and discouragements may daunt the stoutest heart and the\nmost living faith. But God is greater than our hearts and wider than our\nthoughts, and, if we are able to believe in Him at all, we must also\nbelieve that the ultimate triumph of Christianity--and by Christianity I\nmean not the comparatively narrow creed of this or that particular\nChurch, but the Divine Spirit of its Founder, that Spirit which, exactly\nin proportion as they are true to their name, informs, and animates, and\nunderlies, and overlies them all--is not problematical, but certain, and\nin His good time, across the lapse of ages, will prove to be, not local\nbut universal, not partial but complete, not evanescent but\neternal.\"[124]\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 97: Sprenger's _Life of Mohammed_, pp. 40, 41.]\n\n[Footnote 98: It is a suspicious fact that the first chapter of the\n_Koran_ begins with protestations that it is a true revelation, and with\nmost terrible anathemas against all who doubt it. This seems\nsignificant, and contrasts strongly with the conscious truthfulness and\nsimplicity of the Gospel narrators.]\n\n[Footnote 99: Nor have later defenders of the system failed to derive\nalleged proofs of their system from Biblical sources. Mohammedan\ncontroversialists have urged some very specious and plausible arguments;\nfor example, Deut. xviii. 15-18, promises that the Lord shall raise up\nunto Israel a prophet from _among their brethren_. But Israel had no\nbrethren but the sons of Ishmael. There was also promised a prophet like\nunto Moses; but Deut. xxxiv. declares that \"_There arose no Prophet in\nIsrael like unto Moses_.\"\n\nWhen John the Baptist was asked whether he were the Christ, or Elijah,\nor \"_that prophet_,\" no other than Mohammed could have been meant by\n\"_that prophet_.\"]\n\n[Footnote 100: Rev. Mr. Bruce, missionary in Persia, states that\npictures of the Father, the Son, and Mary are still seen in Eastern\nchurches.--_Church Missionary Intelligencer_, January, 1882.]\n\n[Footnote 101: Sales, in his _Preliminary Discourse_, Section 1st,\nenumerates the great nations which have vainly attempted the conquest of\nArabia, from the Assyrians down to the Romans, and he asserts that even\nthe Turks have held only a nominal sway.]\n\n[Footnote 102: China owes her present dynasty to the fact that the hardy\nManchus were called in as mercenaries or as allies.]\n\n[Footnote 103: Dr. Koelle: quoted in _Church Missionary Intelligencer_.]\n\n[Footnote 104: Sales: _Koran and Preliminary Discourse_, Wherry's\nedition, p. 89. One of the chief religious duties under the _Koran_ was\nthe giving of alms (Zakat), and under this euphonious name was included\nthe tax by which Mohammed maintained the force that enabled him to keep\nup his predatory raids on the caravans of his enemies.]\n\n[Footnote 105: _Mohammed and Mohammedanism_, p. 123.]\n\n[Footnote 106: Dr. Koelle gravely questions this.]\n\n[Footnote 107: One of the most wicked and disastrous of all Mohammed's\nlaws was that which allowed the free practice of capturing women and\ngirls in war, and retaining them as lawful chattels in the capacity of\nconcubines. It has been in all ages a base stimulus to the raids of the\nslave-hunter. Sir William Muir has justly said, that so long as a free\nsanction to this great evil stands recorded on the pages of the _Koran_,\nMohammedans will never of their own accord cease to prosecute the\nslave-trade.]\n\n[Footnote 108: According to Dr. Koelle, the number of women and children\nwho fell to the prophet's share of captives at the time of his great\nslaughter of the surrendered Jewish soldiers, was two hundred.]\n\n[Footnote 109: _Mohammed, Buddha, and Christ_, p. 112.]\n\n[Footnote 110: _Mohammed, Buddha, and Christ_.]\n\n[Footnote 111: Ibid, p. 112.]\n\n[Footnote 112: Says Sir William Muir: \"Three radical evils flow from the\nfaith, in all ages and in every country, and must continue to flow _so\nlong as the Koran is the standard of belief_. _First_, polygamy, divorce,\nand slavery are maintained and perpetuated, striking at the root of\npublic morals, poisoning domestic life, and disorganizing society.\n_Second_, freedom of thought and private judgment in religion is crushed\nand annihilated. The sword still is, and must remain, the inevitable\npenalty for the denial of Islam. Toleration is unknown. _Third_, a\nbarrier has been interposed against the reception of Christianity. They\nlabor under a miserable delusion who suppose that Mohammedanism paves\nthe way for a purer faith. No system could have been devised with more\nconsummate skill for shutting out the nations over which it has sway\nfrom the light of truth. _Idolatrous_ Arabia (judging from the analogy\nof other nations) might have been aroused to spiritual life and to the\nadoption of the faith of Jesus. _Mohammedan_ Arabia is to the human eye\nsealed against the benign influences of the Gospel.... The sword of\nMohammed and the Koran are the most stubborn enemies of civilization,\nliberty, and truth which the world has yet known.\"--_Church Missionary\nIntelligencer_, November, 1885.]\n\n[Footnote 113: Osborne, in his _Islam under the Arabs_, and Marcus\nDodds, in _Mohammed, Buddha, and Christ_, have emphasized the fact that\nIslam, however favorably it might compare with the Arabian heathenism\nwhich it overthrew, was wholly out of place in forcing its\nsemi-barbarous cultus upon civilizations which were far above it. It\nmight be an advance upon the rudeness and cruelty of the Koreish, but\nthe misfortune was that it stamped its stereotyped and unchanging\nprinciples and customs upon nations which were in advance of it even\nthen, and which, but for its deadening influence, might have made far\ngreater progress in the centuries which followed.\n\nIts bigoted founder gave the _Koran_ as the sufficient guide for all\ntime. It arrested the world's progress as far as its power extended.\nVery different was the spirit of Judaism. \"It distinctly disclaimed both\nfinality and completeness. Every part of the Mosaic religion had a\nforward look, and was designed to leave the mind in an attitude of\nexpectation.\"\n\nMohammedanism, in claiming to be the one religion for all men and all\ntime, is convicted of absurdity and imposture by its failures; by the\nretrograde which marks its whole history in Western Asia. As a universal\nreligion it has been tried and found wanting.]\n\n[Footnote 114: It has been claimed that the spread of Mohammedanism in\nIndia is far more rapid than that of Christianity. If this were true in\npoint of fact, it would be significant; for India under British rule\nfurnishes a fair field for such a contest. But it so happens that there,\nwhere Islam holds no sword of conquest, and no arbitrary power to compel\nthe faith of men, its growth is very slow, it only keeps pace with the\ngeneral increase of the population. It cannot compare with the\nadvancement of Christianity. I subjoin an extract from Sir W. Hunter's\npaper in the _Nineteenth Century_ for July, 1888:\n\n\"The official census, notwithstanding its obscurities of classification\nand the disturbing effects of the famine of 1877, attests the rapid\nincrease of the Christian population. So far as these disturbing\ninfluences allow of an inference for all British India, the normal rate\nof increase among the general population was about 8 per cent, from 1872\nto 1881, while the actual rate of the Christian population was over 30\nper cent. But, taking the lieutenant-governorship of Bengal as the\ngreatest province outside the famine area of 1877, and for whose\npopulation, amounting to one-third of the whole of British India, really\ncomparable statistics exist, the census results are clear. The general\npopulation increased in the nine years preceding 1881 at the rate of\n10.89 per cent., the Mohammedans at the rate of 10.96 per cent., the\nHindus at some undetermined rate below 13.64 per cent., Christians of\nall races at the rate of 40.71 per cent., and the native Christians at\nthe rate of 64.07 per cent.\"]\n\n[Footnote 115: _Leaves from an Egyptian Note-book._]\n\n[Footnote 116: _Christianity, Islam, and the Negro Race_, p. 241.]\n\n[Footnote 117: For the full text of the letter to the _Standard_, see\n_Church Missionary Intelligencer_, December, 1888.]\n\n[Footnote 118: _Church Missionary Intelligencer_, 1887, p. 653.]\n\n[Footnote 119: See _Church Missionary Intelligencer_, April, 1888.]\n\n[Footnote 120: Over against Canon Taylor's glowing accounts of this\nbroad and gentle charity we may place the testimony of Palgrave in\nregard to the remorseless rapacity practised by the Wahabees upon the\nShiyaees of Persia while passing through their territory in their\npilgrimages to a common shrine. He tells us that \"forty gold tomans were\nfixed as the claim of the Wahabee treasury on every Persian pilgrim for\nhis passage through R'ad, and forty more for a safe conduct through the\nrest of the empire--eighty in all....\n\n\"Every local governor on the way would naturally enough take the hint,\nand strive not to let the 'enemies of God' (for this is the sole title\ngiven by Wahabees to all except themselves) go by without spoiling them\nmore or less....\n\n\"So that, all counted up, the legal and necessary dues levied on every\nPersian Shiyaee while traversing Central Arabia, and under Wahabee\nguidance and protection, amounted, I found, to about one hundred and\nfifty gold tomans, equalling nearly sixty pounds sterling, English, no\nlight expenditure for a Persian, and no despicable gain to an\nArab.\"--Palgrave's _Central and Eastern Africa_, p. 161.]\n\n[Footnote 121: Dodds: _Mohammed, Buddha, and Christ_, p. 118.]\n\n[Footnote 122: _Church Missionary Intelligencer_, November, 1887.]\n\n[Footnote 123: _Church Missionary Intelligencer_, February, 1888, p.\n66.]\n\n[Footnote 124: _Church Missionary Intelligencer_, April, 1888.]\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE VII.\n\nTHE TRACES OF A PRIMITIVE MONOTHEISM\n\n\nThere are two conflicting theories now in vogue in regard to the origin\nof religion. The first is that of Christian theists as taught in the Old\nand New Testament Scriptures, viz., that the human race in its first\nancestry, and again in the few survivors of the Deluge, possessed the\nknowledge of the true God. It is not necessary to suppose that they had\na full and mature conception of Him, or that that conception excluded\nthe idea of other gods. No one would maintain that Adam or Noah\ncomprehended the nature of the Infinite as it has been revealed in the\nhistory of God's dealings with men in later times. But from their simple\nworship of one God their descendants came gradually to worship various\nvisible objects with which they associated their blessings--the sun as\nthe source of warmth and vitality, the rain as imparting a quickening\npower to the earth, the spirits of ancestors to whom they looked with a\nspecial awe, and finally a great variety of created things instead of\nthe invisible Creator. The other theory is that man, as we now behold\nhim, has been developed from lower forms of animal life, rising first to\nthe state of a mere human animal, but gradually acquiring intellect,\nconscience, and finally a soul;--that ethics and religion have been\ndeveloped from instinct by social contact, especially by ties of family\nand the tribal relation; that altruism which began with the instinctive\ncare of parents for their offspring, rose to the higher domain of\nreligion and began to recognize the claims of deity; that God, if there\nbe a God, never revealed himself to man by any preternatural means, but\nthat great souls, like Moses, Isaiah, and Plato, by their higher and\nclearer insight, have gained loftier views of deity than others, and as\nprophets and teachers have made known their inspirations to their\nfellow-men. Gradually they have formed rituals and elaborated\nphilosophies, adding such supernatural elements as the ignorant fancy of\nthe masses was supposed to demand.\n\nAccording to this theory, religions, like everything else, have grown up\nfrom simple germs: and it is only in the later stages of his development\nthat man can be said to be a religious being. While an animal merely,\nand for a time even after he had attained to a rude and savage manhood,\na life of selfish passion and marauding was justifiable, since only thus\ncould the survival of the fittest be secured and the advancement of the\nrace attained.[125] It is fair to say that there are various shades of\nthe theory here presented--some materialistic, some theistic, others\nhaving a qualified theism, and still others practically agnostic. Some\neven who claim to be Christians regard the various religions of men as\nso many stages in the divine education of the race--all being under the\ndirect guidance of God, and all designed to lead ultimately to\nChristianity which is the goal.\n\nThat God has overruled all things, even the errors and wickedness of\nmen, for some wise object will not be denied; that He has implanted in\nthe human understanding many correct conceptions of ethical truth, so\nthat noble principles are found in the teachings of all religious\nsystems; that God is the author of all truth and all right impulses,\neven in heathen minds, is readily admitted. But that He has directly\nplanned and chosen the non-Christian religions on the principle that\nhalf-truths and perverted truths and the direct opposites of the truth,\nwere best adapted to certain stages of development--in other words, that\nHe has causatively led any nation into error and consequent destruction\nas a means of preparing for subsequent generations something higher and\nbetter, we cannot admit. The logic of such a conclusion would lead to a\nremorseless fatalism. Everything would depend on the age and the\nenvironment in which one's lot were cast. We cannot believe that\nfetishism and idolatry have been God's kindergarten method of training\nthe human race for the higher and more spiritual service of His kingdom.\n\nTurning from the testimony of the Scriptures on the one hand and the _a\npriori_ assumptions of evolution on the other, what is the witness of\nthe actual history of religions? Have they shown an upward or a downward\ndevelopment? Do they appear to have risen from polytheism toward simpler\nand more spiritual forms, or have simple forms been ramified into\npolytheism?[126] If we shall be able to establish clear evidence that\nmonotheistic or even henotheistic types of faith existed among all, or\nnearly all, the races at the dawn of history, a very important point\nwill have been gained. The late Dr. Henry B. Smith, after a careful\nperusal of Ebrard's elaborate presentation of the religions of the\nancient and the modern world, and his clear proofs that they had at\nfirst been invariably monotheistic and had gradually lapsed into\nramified forms of polytheism, says in his review of Ebrard's work: \"We\ndo not know where to find a more weighty reply to the assumptions and\ntheories of those writers who persist in claiming, according to the\napproved hypothesis of a merely naturalistic evolution, that the\nprimitive state of mankind was the lowest and most debased form of\npolytheistic idolatry, and that the higher religions have been developed\nout of these base rudiments. Dr. Ebrard shows conclusively that the\nfacts all lead to another conclusion, that gross idolatry is a\ndegeneration of mankind from antecedent and purer forms of religious\nworship.... He first treats of the civilized nations of antiquity, the\nAryan and Indian religions, the Vedas, the Indra period of Brahmanism\nand Buddhism; then of the religion of the Iranians, the Avesta of the\nParsees; next of the Greeks and Romans, the Egyptians, the Canaanites,\nand the heathen Semitic forms of worship, including the Phoenicians,\nAssyrians, and Babylonians. His second division is devoted to the\nhalf-civilized and savage races in the North and West of Europe, in Asia\nand Polynesia (Tartars, Mongols, Malays, and Cushites); then the races\nof America, including a minute examination of the relations of the\ndifferent races here to the Mongols, Japanese, and old Chinese\nimmigrations.\"[127]\n\nEbrard himself, in summing up the results of these prolonged\ninvestigations, says: \"We have nowhere been able to discover the least\ntrace of any forward and upward movement from fetichism to polytheism,\nand from that again to a gradually advancing knowledge of the one God;\nbut, on the contrary, we have found among all the peoples of the heathen\nworld a most decided tendency to sink from an earlier and relatively\npurer knowledge of God toward something lower.\"[128]\n\nIf these conclusions, reached by Ebrard and endorsed by the scholarly\nDr. Henry B. Smith, are correct, they are of great importance; they\nbring to the stand the witness of the false religions themselves upon an\nissue in which historic testimony as distinguished from mere theories is\nin special demand in our time. Of similar import are the well-considered\nwords of Professor Naville, in the first of his lectures on modern\natheism.[129] He says: \"Almost all pagans seem to have had a glimpse of\nthe divine unity over the multiplicity of their idols, and of the rays\nof the divine holiness across the saturnalia of their Olympi. It was a\nGreek (Cleanthus) who wrote these words: 'Nothing is accomplished on the\nearth without Thee, O God, save the deeds which the wicked perpetrate in\ntheir folly.' It was in a theatre at Athens, that the chorus of a\ntragedy sang, more than two thousand years ago: 'May destiny aid me to\npreserve, unsullied, the purity of my words, and of all my actions,\naccording to those sublime laws which, brought forth in the celestial\nheights, have the raven alone for their father, to which the race of\nmortals did not give birth and which oblivion shall never entomb. In\nthem is a supreme God, and one who waxes not old.' It would be easy to\nmultiply quotations of this order and to show, in the documents of\nGrecian and Roman civilization, numerous traces of the knowledge of the\nonly and holy God.\"\n\nWith much careful discrimination, Dr. William A.P. Martin, of the\nPeking University, has said: \"It is customary with a certain school to\nrepresent religion as altogether the fruit of an intellectual process.\nIt had its birth, say they, in ignorance, is modified by every stage in\nthe progress of knowledge, and expires when the light of philosophy\nreaches its noon-day. The fetish gives place to a personification of the\npowers of nature, and this poetic pantheon is, in time, superseded by\nthe high idea of unity in nature expressed by monotheism. This theory\nhas the merit of verisimilitude. It indicates what might be the process\nif man were left to make his own religion; but it has the misfortune to\nbe at variance with facts. A wide survey of the history of civilized\nnations (and the history of others is beyond reach) shows that the\nactual process undergone by the human mind in its religious development\nis precisely opposite to that which this theory supposes; in a word,\nthat man was not left to construct his own creed, but that his\nblundering logic has always been active in its attempts to corrupt and\nobscure a divine original. The connection subsisting between the\nreligious systems of ancient and distant countries presents many a\nproblem difficult of solution. Indeed, their mythologies and religious\nrites are generally so distinct as to admit the hypothesis of an\nindependent origin; but the simplicity of their earliest beliefs\nexhibits an unmistakable resemblance, suggestive of a common source.\n\n\"China, India, Egypt, and Greece all agree in the monotheistic type of\ntheir early religion. The Orphic hymns, long before the advent of the\npopular divinities, celebrated the Pantheos, the Universal God. The odes\ncompiled by Confucius testify to the early worship of Shangte, the\nSupreme Euler. The Vedas speak of 'one unknown true Being, all-present,\nall-powerful; the Creator, Preserver, and Destroyer of the universe.'\nAnd in Egypt, as late as the time of Plutarch, there were still vestiges\nof a monotheistic worship. 'The other Egyptians,' he says, 'all made\nofferings at the tombs of the sacred beasts; but the inhabitants of the\nThebaid stood alone in making no such offerings, not regarding as a god\nanything that can die, and acknowledging no god but one, whom they call\nKneph, who had no birth, and can have no death. Abraham, in his\nwanderings, found the God of his fathers known and honored in Salem, in\nGerar, and in Memphis; while at a later day Jethro, in Midian, and\nBalaam, in Mesopotamia, were witnesses that the knowledge of Jehovah was\nnot yet extinct in those countries.'\"[130]\n\nProfessor Max Mueller speaks in a similar strain of the lapse of mankind\nfrom earlier and simpler types of faith to low and manifold\nsuperstitions: \"Whenever we can trace back a religion to its first\nbeginning,\" says the distinguished Oxford professor, \"we find it free\nfrom many of the blemishes that offend us in its later phases. The\nfounders of the ancient religions of the world, as far as we can judge,\nwere minds of a high stamp, full of noble aspirations, yearning for\ntruth, devoted to the welfare of their neighbors, examples of purity and\nunselfishness. What they desired to found upon earth was but seldom\nrealized, and their sayings, if preserved in their original form,\noffered often a strange contrast to the practice of those who profess to\nbe their disciples. As soon as a religion is established, and more\nparticularly when it has become the religion of a powerful state, the\nforeign and worldly elements encroach more and more on the original\nfoundation, and human interests mar the simplicity and purity of the\nplan which the founder had conceived in his own heart and matured in his\ncommunings with his God.\"[131]\n\nBut in pursuing our subject we should clearly determine the real\nquestion before us. How much may we expect to prove from the early\nhistory of the non-Christian systems? Not certainly that all nations\nonce received a knowledge of the Old Testament revelation, as some have\nclaimed, nor that all races possessed at the beginning of their several\nhistoric periods one and the same monotheistic faith. We cannot prove\nfrom non-scriptural sources that their varying monotheistic conceptions\nsprang from a common belief. We cannot prove either the supernatural\nrevelation which Professor Max Mueller emphatically rejects, nor the\nidentity of the well-nigh universal henotheisms which he professes to\nbelieve. We cannot prove that the worship of one God as supreme did not\ncoexist with a sort of worship of inferior deities or ministering\nspirits. Almost as a rule, the worship of ancestors, or spirits, or\nrulers, or the powers of nature, or even totems and fetishes has been\nrendered as subordinate to the worship of the one supreme deity who\ncreated and upholds all things. Even the monotheism of Judaism and of\nChristianity has been attended with the belief in angels and the worship\nof intercessory saints, to say nothing of the many superstitions which\nprevail among the more ignorant classes. We shall only attempt to show\nthat monotheism, in the sense of worshipping _one God as supreme_, is\nfound in nearly all the early teachings of the world. That these crude\nfaiths are one in the origin is only presumable, if we leave the\ntestimony of the Bible out of the account.\n\nWhen on a summer afternoon we see great shafts of light arising and\nspreading fan-shaped from behind a cloud which lies along the western\nhorizon, we have a strong presumption that they all spring from one\ngreat luminary toward which they converge, although that luminary is\nhidden from our view. So tracing the convergence of heathen faiths with\nrespect to one original monotheism, back to the point where the\nprehistoric obscurity begins, we may on the same principle say that all\nthe evidence in the case, and it is not small, points toward a common\norigin for the early religious conceptions of mankind.\n\nProfessor Robert Flint, in his scholarly article on theism in \"The\nBritannica,\" seems to discard the idea that the first religion of\nmankind was monotheism; but a careful study of his position will show\nthat he has in view those conceptions of monotheism which are common to\nus, or, as he expresses it, \"monotheism in the ordinary or proper sense\nof the term,\" \"monotheism properly so called,\" \"monotheism which excludes\npolytheism,\" etc. Moreover, he maintains that we cannot, from historical\nsources, learn what conceptions men first had of God. Even when speaking\nof the Old Testament record, he says: \"These chapters (of Genesis),\nalthough they plainly teach monotheism and represent the God whose words\nand acts are recorded in the Bible as no mere national God, but the only\ntrue God, they do not teach what is alone in the question--that there\nwas a primitive monotheism, a monotheism revealed and known from the\nbeginning. They give no warrant to the common assumption that God\nrevealed monotheism to Adam, Noah, and others before the Flood, and that\nthe traces of monotheistic beliefs and tendencies in heathendom are\nderivable from the tradition of this primitive and antediluvian\nmonotheism. The one true God is represented as making himself known by\nparticular words and in particular ways to Adam, but is nowhere said to\nhave taught him that He only was God.\" It is plain that Professor Flint\nis here dealing with a conception of monotheism which is exclusive of\nall other gods. And his view is undoubtedly correct, so far as Adam was\nconcerned. There was no more need of teaching him that his God was the\nonly God, than that Eve was the only woman. With Noah the case is not so\nplain. He doubtless worshipped God amid the surroundings of polytheistic\nheathenism. Enoch probably had a similar environment, and there is no\ngood reason for supposing that their monotheism may not have been as\nexclusive as that of Abraham. But with respect to the Gentile nations,\nthe dim traces of this monism or henotheism which Professor Flint seems\nto accord to Adam and to Noah, is all that we are contending for, and\nall that is necessary to the argument of this lecture. We may even admit\nthat heathen deities may sometimes have been called by different names\nwhile the one source of power was intended. Different names seem to have\nbeen employed to represent different manifestations of the one God of\nthe Old Testament according to His varied relations toward His people.\nThere are those who deny this polyonomy, as Max Mueller has called it,\nand who maintain that the names in the earliest Veda represented\ndistinct deities; but, by similar reasoning, Professor Tiele and others\ninsist that three different Hebrew Gods, according to their respective\nnames, were worshipped in successive periods of the Jewish history. It\nseems quite possible, therefore, that a too restrictive definition of\nmonotheism may prove too much, by opening the way for a claim that even\nthe Jewish and Christian faith, with its old Testament names of God, its\nangels, its theophanies, and its fully developed trinity, is not\nstrictly monotheistic. For our present purpose, traces of the worship of\none supreme God--call it monotheism or henotheism--is all that is\nrequired.\n\nWith these limitations and qualifications in view, let us turn to the\nhistory of some of the leading non-Christian faiths. Looking first to\nIndia, we find in the 129th hymn of the Rig Veda, a passage which not\nonly presents the conception of one only supreme and self-existing\nBeing, but at the same time bears significant resemblance to our own\naccount of the creation from chaos. It reads thus:\n\n   \"In the beginning there was neither naught nor aught,\n    Then there was neither atmosphere nor sky above,\n    There was neither death nor immortality,\n    There was neither day nor night, nor light, nor darkness,\n    Only the EXISTENT ONE breathed calmly self-contained.\n    Naught else but He was there, naught else above, beyond.\n    Then first came darkness hid in darkness, gloom in gloom;\n    Next all was water, chaos indiscrete,\n    In which ONE lay void, shrouded in nothingness.\"[132]\n\nIn the 121st hymn of the same Veda occurs a passage which seems to\nresemble the opening of the Gospel of St. John. It reads thus, as\ntranslated by Sir Monier Williams:\n\n     \"Him let us praise, the golden child that was In the beginning, who\n     was born the Lord, Who made the earth and formed the sky.\"\n\n\"The one born Lord\" reminds us of the New Testament expression, \"the\nonly begotten Son.\" Both were \"in the beginning;\" both were the creators\nof the world. While there is much that is mysterious in these\nreferences, the idea of oneness and supremacy is too plain to be\nmistaken. Professor Max Mueller has well expressed this fact when he\nsaid: \"There is a monotheism which precedes polytheism in the Veda; and\neven in the invocation of their (inferior) gods, the remembrance of _a_\nGod, one and infinite, breaks through the mist of an idolatrous\nphraseology like the blue sky that is hidden by passing clouds.\"[133]\nThese monotheistic conceptions appear to have been common to the Aryans\nbefore their removal from their early home near the sources of the Oxus,\nand we shall see further on that in one form or another they survived\namong all branches of the migrating race. The same distinguished scholar\ntraces the early existence of monotheism in a series of brief and rapid\nreferences to nearly all the scattered Aryans not only, but also to the\nTuranians on the North and East, to the Tungusic, Mongolic, Tartaric,\nand Finnic tribes. \"Everywhere,\" he says, \"we find a worship of nature,\nand the spirits of the departed, but behind it all there rises a belief\nin some higher power called by different names, who is Maker and\nProtector of the world, and who always resides in heaven.\"[134] He also\nspeaks of an ancient African faith which, together with its worship of\nreptiles and of ancestors, showed a vague hope of a future life, \"and a\nnot altogether faded reminiscence of a supreme God,\" which certainly\nimplies a previous knowledge.[135]\n\nThe same prevalence of one supreme worship rising above all idolatry he\ntraces among the various tribes of the Pacific Islands. His\ngeneralizations are only second to those of Ebrard. Although he rejects\nthe theory of a supernatural revelation, yet stronger language could\nhardly be used than that which he employs in proof of a universal\nmonotheistic faith.[136] \"Nowhere,\" he says, \"do we find stronger\narguments against idolatry, nowhere has the unity of God been upheld\nmore strenuously against the errors of polytheism, than by some of the\nancient sages of India. Even in the oldest of the sacred books, the Rig\nVeda, composed three or four thousand years ago, where we find hymns\naddressed to the different deities of the sky, the air, the earth, the\nrivers, the protest of the human heart against many gods breaks forth\nfrom time to time with no uncertain sound.\" Professor Mueller's whole\nposition is pretty clearly stated in his first lecture on \"The Science\nof Religion,\" in which he protests against the idea that God once gave\nto man \"a _preternatural_ revelation\" concerning Himself; and yet he\ngives in this same lecture this striking testimony to the doctrine of an\nearly and prevailing monotheistic faith:\n\n\"Is it not something worth knowing,\" he says, \"worth knowing even to us\nafter the lapse of four or five thousand years, that before the\nseparation of the Aryan race, before the existence of Sanskrit, Greek,\nor Latin, before the gods of the Veda had been worshipped, and before\nthere was a sanctuary of Zeus among the sacred oaks of Dodona, one\nSupreme deity had been found, had been named, had been invoked by the\nancestors of our race, and had been invoked by a name which has never\nbeen excelled by any other name?\" And again, on the same subject, he\nsays: \"If a critical examination of the ancient language of the Jews\nleads to no worse results than those which have followed from a careful\ninterpretation of the petrified language of ancient India and Greece, we\nneed not fear; we shall be gainers, not losers. Like an old precious\nmedal, the ancient religion, after the rust of ages has been removed,\nwill come out in all its purity and brightness; and the image which it\ndiscloses will be the image of the Father, the Father of all the nations\nupon earth; and the superscription, when we can read it again, will be,\nnot only in Judea, but in the languages of all the races of the world,\nthe Word of God, revealed where alone it can be revealed--revealed in\nthe heart of man.\"[137]\n\nThe late Professor Banergea, of Calcutta, in a publication entitled \"The\nAryan Witness,\" not only maintained the existence of monotheism in the\nearly Vedas, but with his rare knowledge of Sanskrit and kindred\ntongues, he gathered from Iranian as well as Hindu sources many\nevidences of a monotheism common to all Aryans. His conclusions derive\nspecial value from the fact that he was a high caste Hindu, and was not\nonly well versed in the sacred language, but was perfectly familiar with\nHindu traditions and modes of thought. He was as well qualified to judge\nof early Hinduism as Paul was of Judaism, and for the same reason. And\nfrom his Hindu standpoint, as a Pharisee of the Pharisees, though\nafterward a Christian convert, he did not hesitate to declare his\nbelief, not only that the early Vedic faith was monotheistic, but that\nit contained traces of that true revelation, once made to men.[138]\n\nIn the same line we find the testimony of the various types of revived\nAryanism of our own times. The Brahmo Somaj, the Arya Somaj, and other\nsimilar organizations, are not only all monotheistic, but they declare\nthat monotheism was the religion of the early Vedas. And many other\nHindu reforms, some of them going as far back as the twelfth century,\nhave been so many returns to monotheism. A recent Arya catechism\npublished by Ganeshi, asserts in its first article that there is one\nonly God, omnipotent, infinite, and eternal. It proceeds to show that\nthe Vedas present but one, and that when hymns were addressed to Agni,\nVayu, Indra, etc., it was only a use of different names for one and the\nsame Being.[139]\n\nIt represents God as having all the attributes of supreme Deity. He\ncreated the world by His direct power and for the revelation of His\nglory to His creatures. Man, according to the Aryas, came not by\nevolution nor by any of the processes known to Hindu philosophy, but by\ndirect creation from existing atoms.\n\nIn all this it is easy to see that much has been borrowed from the\nChristian conception of God's character and attributes, but the value of\nthis Aryan testimony lies in the fact that it claims for the ancient\nVedas a clear and positive monotheism.\n\nIf we consult the sacred books of China, we shall find there also many\ntraces of an ancient faith which antedates both Confucianism and\nTaouism. The golden age of the past to which all Chinese sages look with\nreverence, was the dynasty of Yao and Shun, which was eighteen centuries\nearlier than the period of Confucius and Laotze. The records of the\nShu-king which Confucius compiled, and from which unfortunately his\nagnosticism excluded nearly all its original references to religion,\nnevertheless retain a full account of certain sacred rites performed by\nShun on his accession to the full imperial power. In those rites the\nworship of One God as supreme is distinctly set forth as a \"customary\nservice,\" thereby implying that it was already long established.\nSeparate mention is also made of offerings to inferior deities, as if\nthese were honored at his own special instance. It is unquestionably\ntrue that in China, and indeed in all lands, there sprang up almost from\nthe first a tendency to worship, or at least to fear, unseen spirits.\nThis tendency has coexisted with all religions of the world--even with\nthe Old Testament cult--even with Christianity. To the excited\nimaginations of men, especially the ignorant classes, the world has\nalways been a haunted world, and just in proportion as the light of true\nreligion has become dim, countless hordes of ghosts and demons have\nappeared. When Confucius arose this gross animism had almost monopolized\nthe worship of his countrymen, and universal corruption bore sway. He\nwas not an original thinker, but only a compiler of the ancient wisdom,\nand in his selections from the traditions of the ancients, he compiled\nthose things only which served his great purpose of building up, from\nthe relations of family and kindred, the complete pyramid of a\nwell-ordered state in which the Emperor should hold to his subjects the\nplace of deity. If such honor to a mortal seemed extravagant, yet in his\nview a wise emperor was far worthier of reverence than the imaginary\nghosts of the popular superstitions. Yet, even Confucius could not quite\nsucceed in banishing the idea of divine help, nor could he destroy that\nhigher and most venerable worship which has ever survived amid all the\ncorruptions of polytheism. Professor Legge, of Oxford, has claimed, from\nwhat he regards as valid linguistic proofs, that at a still earlier\nperiod than the dynasty of Yao and Shun there existed in China the\nworship of one God. He says: \"Five thousand years ago the Chinese were\nmonotheists--not henotheists, but monotheists\"--though he adds that even\nthen there was a constant struggle with nature-worship and\ndivination.[140]\n\nThe same high authority cites a remarkable prayer of an Emperor of the\nMing dynasty (1538 A.D.) to show that in spite of the agnosticism and\nreticence of Confucius, Shangte has been worshipped in the centuries\nwhich have followed his time. The prayer is very significant as showing\nhow the One Supreme God stands related to the subordinate gods which\npolytheism has introduced. The Emperor was about to decree a slight\nchange in the name of Shangte to be used in the imperial worship. He\nfirst addressed the spirits of the hills, the rivers, and the seas,\nasking them to intercede for him with Shangte. \"We will trouble you,\"\nsaid he, \"on our behalf to exert your spiritual power and to display\nyour vigorous efficacy, communicating our poor desires to Shangte, and\npraying him graciously to grant us his acceptance and regard, and to be\npleased with the title which we shall reverently present.\" But very\ndifferent was the language used when he came to address Shangte himself.\n\"Of old, in the beginning,\" he began,--\"Of old in the beginning, there\nwas the great chaos without form, and dark. The five elements had not\nbegun to revolve nor the sun and moon to shine. In the midst thereof\nthere presented itself neither form nor sound. Thou, O spiritual\nSovereign! earnest forth in thy presidency, and first didst divide the\ngrosser parts from the purer. Thou madest heaven: Thou madest earth:\nThou madest man. All things got their being with their producing power.\nO Te! when Thou hadst opened the course for the inactive and active\nforces of matter to operate, thy making work went on. Thou didst\nproduce, O Spirit! the sun and moon and five planets, and pure and\nbeautiful was their light. The vault of heaven was spread out like a\ncurtain, and the square earth supported all on it, and all creatures\nwere happy. I, thy servant, presume reverently to thank Thee.\" Farther\non he says: \"All the numerous tribes of animated beings are indebted to\nThy favor for their being. Men and creatures are emparadised in Thy\nlove. All living things are indebted to Thy goodness. But who knows\nwhence his blessings come to him? It is Thou, O Lord! who art the\nparent of all things.\"[141]\n\nSurely this prayer humbly offered by a monarch would not be greatly out\nof place among the Psalms of David. Its description of the primeval\nchaos strikingly resembles that which I have quoted from the Rig Veda,\nand both resemble that of the Mosaic record. If the language used does\nnot present the clear conception of one God, the Creator and the\nUpholder of all things, and a supreme and personal Sovereign over kings\nand even \"gods,\" then language has no meaning. The monotheistic\nconception of the second petition is as distinct from the polytheism of\nthe first, as any prayer to Jehovah is from a Roman Catholic's prayer\nfor the intercession of the saints; and there is no stronger argument in\nthe one case against monotheism than in the other. Dr. Legge asserts\nthat both in the Shu-king and in the Shiking, \"Te,\" or \"Shangte,\"\nappears as a personal being ruling in heaven and in earth, the author of\nman's moral nature, the governor among the nations, the rewarder of the\ngood and the punisher of the evil.[142] There are proofs that Confucius,\nthough in his position with respect to God he fell short of the doctrine\nof the ancient sages, yet believed in the existence of Shangte as a\npersonal being. When in old age he had finished his writings, he laid\nthem on an altar upon a certain hill-top, and kneeling before the altar\nhe returned thanks that he had been spared to complete his work.[143]\nMax Mueller says of him: \"It is clear from many passages that with\nConfucius, Tien, or the Spirit of Heaven, was the supreme deity, and\nthat he looked upon the other gods of the people--the spirits of the\nair, the mountains, and the rivers,[144] and the spirits of the\ndeparted, very much with the same feeling with which Socrates regarded\nthe mythological deities of Greece.\"[145]\n\nBut there remains to this day a remarkable evidence of the worship of\nthe supreme God, Shangte, as he was worshipped in the days of the\nEmperor Shun, 2356 B.C. It is found in the great Temple of Heaven at\nPeking. Dr. Martin and Professors Legge and Douglas all insist that the\nsacrifices there celebrated are relics of the ancient worship of a\nsupreme God. China is full of the traces of polytheism; the land swarms\nwith Taouist deities of all names and functions, with Confucian and\nancestral tablets, and with Buddhist temples and dagobas; but within the\nsacred enclosure of this temple no symbol of heathenism appears. Of the\nAugust Imperial service Dr. Martin thus eloquently speaks:[146] \"Within\nthe gates of the southern division of the capital, and surrounded by a\nsacred grove so extensive that the silence of its deep shades is never\nbroken by the noise of the busy world around it, stands the Temple of\nHeaven. It consists of a single tower, whose tiling of resplendent azure\nis intended to represent the form and color of the aerial vault. It\ncontains no image; but on a marble altar a bullock is offered once a\nyear as a burnt sacrifice, while the monarch of the empire prostrates\nhimself in adoration of the Spirit of the Universe. This is the high\nplace of Chinese devotion, and the thoughtful visitor feels that he\nought to tread its courts with unsandalled feet, for no vulgar idolatry\nhas entered here. This mountain-top still stands above the waves of\ncorruption, and on this solitary altar there still rests a faint ray of\nits primeval faith. The tablet which represents the invisible deity is\ninscribed with the name Shangte, the Supreme Ruler, and as we\ncontemplate the Majesty of the Empire before it, while the smoke ascends\nfrom his burning sacrifice, our thoughts are irresistably carried back\nto the time when the King of Salem officiated as priest of the Most High\nGod. There is,\" he adds, \"no need of extended argument to establish the\nfact that the early Chinese were by no means destitute of the knowledge\nof the true God.\" Dr. Legge, the learned translator of the Chinese\nclassics, shares so fully the views here expressed, that he actually put\nhis shoes from off his feet before ascending the great altar, feeling\nthat amidst all the mists and darkness of the national superstition, a\ntrace of the glory of the Infinite Jehovah still lingered there. And in\nmany a discussion since he has firmly maintained that that is in a dim\nway an altar of the true and living God.\n\nLaotze, like Confucius, was agnostic; yet he could not wholly rid\nhimself of the influence of the ancient faith. His conception of Taou,\nor Reason, was rationalistic, certainly, yet he invested it with all the\nattributes of personality, as the word \"Wisdom\" is sometimes used in the\nOld Testament. He spoke of it as \"The Infinite Supreme,\" \"The First\nBeginning,\" and \"The Great Original.\" Dr. Medhurst has translated from\nthe \"Taou Teh King\" this striking Taouist prayer: \"O thou perfectly\nhonored One of heaven and earth, the rock, the origin of myriad\nenergies, the great manager of boundless kalpas, do Thou enlighten my\nspiritual conceptions. Within and without the three worlds, the Logos,\nor divine Taou, is alone honorable, embodying in himself a golden light.\nMay he overspread and illumine my person. He whom we cannot see with the\neye, or hear with the ear, who embraces and includes heaven and earth,\nmay he nourish and support the multitudes of living beings.\"\n\nIf we turn to the religion of the Iranian or Persian branch of the Aryan\nfamily, we find among them also the traces of a primitive monotheism;\nand that it was not borrowed from Semitic sources, through the\ndescendants of Abraham or others, Ebrard has shown clearly in the second\nvolume of his \"Apologetics.\" Max Mueller also maintains the identity of\nthe Iranian faith with that of the Indo-Aryans. The very first notices\nof the religion of the Avesta represent it as monotheistic. Ahura Mazda,\neven when opposed by Ahriman, is supreme, and in the oldest hymns or\ngathas of the Yasna, Ahriman does not appear; there are references to\nevil beings, but they have no formidable head; Persian dualism,\ntherefore, was of later growth. Zoroaster, whom Monier Williams assigns\nto the close of the sixth century B.C.,[147] speaks of himself as a\nreformer sent to re-establish the pure worship of Ahura, and Haug\nconsiders the conception of Ahura identical with that of Jehovah. High\non a rocky precipice at Behistun, Rawlinson has deciphered an\ninscription claiming to have been ordered by Darius Hystaspes, who lived\n500 B.C., which is as clearly monotheistic as the Song of Moses. The\nVendidad, which Rawlinson supposes to have been composed 800 years B.C.,\nis full of references to minor gods, but Ahura is always supreme. The\nmodern Parsees of Bombay claim to be monotheistic, and declare that such\nhas been the faith of their fathers from the beginning.\n\nA Parsee catechism published in Bombay twenty-five years ago reads thus:\n\"We believe in only one God, and do not believe in any besides Him....\nHe is the God who created the heavens, the earth, the angels, the stars,\nthe sun, the moon, the fire, the water, ... and all things of the\nworlds; that God we believe in, Him we invoke, Him we adore.\" And lest\nthis should be supposed to be a modern faith, the confession further\ndeclares that \"This is the religion which the true prophet Zurthust, or\nZoroaster, brought from God.\"\n\nThe Shintoists of Japan, according to their sacred book, the \"Kojiki,\"\nbelieve in one self-existent and supreme God, from whom others emanated.\nFrom two of these, male and female, sprang the Goddess of the Sun, and\nfrom her the royal line of the Mikados. There was no creation, but the\ntwo active emanations stirred up the eternally existing chaos, till from\nit came forth the teeming world of animal and vegetable life.\n\nIt has often been asserted that tribes of men are found who have no\nconception of God. The author of \"Two Years in the Jungle\" declares that\nthe Hill Dyaks of Borneo are without the slightest notion of a divine\nbeing. But a Government officer, who for two years was the guest of\nRajah Brooke, succeeded after long delay in gaining a key to the\nreligion of these Dyaks. He gives the name of one Supreme being among\nsubordinate gods, and describes minutely the forms of worship. Professor\nMax Mueller, while referring to this same often-repeated allegation as\nhaving been applied to the aborigines of Australia, cites one of Sir\nHercules Robinson's Reports on New South Wales, which contains this\ndescription of the singular faith of one of the lowest of the interior\ntribes:[148] First a being is mentioned who is supreme and whose name\nsignifies the \"maker or cutter-out,\" and who is therefore worshipped as\nthe great author of all things. But as this supreme god is supposed to\nbe inscrutable and far removed, a second deity is named, who is the\n_revealer_ of the first and his mediator in all the affairs of men.[149]\n\nRev. A.C. Good, now a missionary among the cannibal tribes of West\nAfrica, stated in the Presbyterian General Assembly at Saratoga in May,\n1890, that with all the fetishes and superstitions known among the\ntribes on the Ogovie, if a man is asked who made him, he points to the\nsky and utters the name of an unknown being who created all things.[150]\nWhen Tschoop, the stalwart Mohican chief, came to the Moravians to ask\nthat a missionary might be sent to his people, he said: \"Do not send us\na man to tell us that there is a God--we all know that; or that we are\nsinners--we all know that; but send one to tell us about\nsalvation.\"[151] Even Buddhism has not remained true to the atheism of\nits founder. A Thibetan Lama said to Abbe Huc: \"You must not confound\nreligious truths with the superstitions of the vulgar. The Tartars\nprostrate themselves before whatever they see, but there is one only\nSovereign of the universe, the creator of all things, alike without\nbeginning and without end.\"\n\nBut what is the testimony of the great dead religions of the past with\nrespect to a primitive monotheism? It is admitted that the later\ndevelopments of the old Egyptian faith were polytheistic. But it has\ngenerally been conceded that as we approach the earliest notices of that\nfaith, monotheistic features more and more prevail. This position is\ncontested by Miss Amelia B. Edwards and others, who lean toward the\ndevelopment theory. Miss Edwards declares that the earliest faith of\nEgypt was mere totemism, while on the other hand Ebrard, gathering up\nthe results of the researches of Lepsius, Ebers, Brugsch, and Emanuel de\nRouge, deduces what seem to be clear evidences of an early Egyptian\nmonotheism. He quotes Manetho, who declares that \"for the first nine\nthousand years the god Ptah ruled alone; there was no other.\" According\nto inscriptions quoted by De Rouge, the Egyptians in the primitive\nperiod worshipped \"the one being who truly lives, who has made all\nthings, and who alone has not been made.\" This one God was known in\ndifferent parts of Egypt under different names, which only in later\ntimes came to stand for distinct beings. A text which belongs to a\nperiod fifteen hundred years before Moses says:\n\n\"He has made all that is; thou alone art, the millions owe their being\nto thee; he is the Lord of all that which is, and of that which is not.\"\nA papyrus now in Paris, dating 2300 B.C., contains quotations from two\nmuch older records, one a writing of the time of King Suffern, about\n3500 B.C., which says: \"The operation of God is a thing which cannot be\nunderstood.\" The other, from a writing of Ptah Hotep, about 3000 B.C.,\nreads: \"This is the command of the God of creation, the peaceable may\ncome and issue orders.... The eating of bread is in conformity with the\nordinance of God; can one forget that his blessing rests thereupon?...\nIf thou art a prudent man teach thy son the love of God.\"[152]\n\nProfessor Ernest Naville, in speaking of this same subject in a course\nof popular lectures in Geneva, said: \"Listen now to a voice which has\ncome forth actually from the recesses of the sepulchre: it reaches us\nfrom ancient Egypt.\n\n\"In Egypt, as you know, the degradation of the religious idea was in\npopular practice complete. But under the confused accents of\nsuperstition the science of our age is succeeding in catching from afar\nthe vibrations of a sublime utterance. In the coffins of a large number\nof mummies have been discovered rolls of papyrus containing a sacred\ntext which is called 'The Book of the Dead.' Here is the translation of\nsome fragments which appear to date from a very remote epoch. It is God\nwho speaks thus: 'I am the Most Holy, the Creator of all that\nreplenishes the earth, and of the earth itself, the habitation of\nmortals. I am the Prince of the infinite ages. I am the Great and Mighty\nGod, the Most High, shining in the midst of the careering stars and of\nthe armies which praise me above thy head.... It is I who chastise the\nevil-doers and the persecutors of Godly men. I discover and confound the\nliars. I am the all-seeing Avenger, ... the Guardian of my laws in the\nland of the righteous.' These words are found mingled in the text, from\nwhich I extract them, with allusions to inferior deities; and it must be\nacknowledged that the translation of the ancient documents of Egypt is\nuncertain enough; still this uncertainty does not appear to extend to\nthe general sense and bearing of the recent discoveries of our\n_savans_.\"[153]\n\nProfessor Flint as against Cudworth, Ebrard, Gladstone, and others,\nmaintains that the Egyptian religion at the very dawn of its history had\n\"certain great gods,\" though he adds that \"there were not so many as in\nlater times.\" \"Ancestor worship, but not so developed as in later times,\nand animal worship, but very little of it compared with later times.\" On\nthe other hand, as against Professor Tiele, Miss Amelia B. Edwards, and\nothers, he says: \"For the opinion that its lower elements were older\nthan the higher there is not a particle of properly historical evidence,\nnot a trace in the inscriptions of mere propitiation of ancestors or of\nbelief in the absolute divinity of kings or animals; on the contrary\nancestors are always found propitiated through prayer to some of the\ngreat gods; kings worshipped as emanations and images of the sun god and\nthe divine animals adored as divine symbols and incarnations.\"\n\nAmong the Greeks there are few traces of monotheism, but we have reason\nfor this in the fact that their earliest literature dates from so late a\nperiod. It began with Homer not earlier than 600 B.C., and direct\naccounts of the religion of the Greeks are not traced beyond 560 B.C.\nBut Welcker, whose examinations have been exhaustive, has, in the\nopinion of Max Mueller, fairly established the primitive monotheism of\nthe Greeks. Mueller says: \"When we ascend with him to the most distant\nheights of Greek history the idea of God as the supreme being stands\nbefore us as a simple fact. Next to this adoration of One God the father\nof men we find in Greece a worship of nature. The powers of nature,\noriginally worshipped as such, were afterward changed into a family of\ngods, of which Zeus became the king and father. The third phase is what\nis generally called Greek mythology; but it was preceded in time, or at\nleast rendered possible in thought, by the two prior conceptions, a\nbelief in a supreme God and a worship of the powers of nature.... The\ndivine character of Zeus, as distinguished from his mythological\ncharacter, is most carefully brought out by Welcker. He avails himself\nof all the discoveries of comparative philology in order to show more\nclearly how the same idea which found expression in the ancient\nreligions of the Brahmans, the Sclavs, and the Germans had been\npreserved under the same simple, clear, and sublime name by the original\nsettlers of Hellas.\"[154]\n\nThe same high authority traces in his own linguistic studies the\nimportant fact that all branches of the Aryan race preserve the same\nname for the Supreme Being, while they show great ramification and\nvariation in the names of their subordinate gods. If, therefore, the\nIndo-Aryans give evidence of a monotheistic faith at the time of their\ndispersion, there is an _a priori_ presumption for the monotheism of the\nGreeks. \"Herodotus,\" says Professor Rawlinson, \"speaks of God as if he\nhad never heard of polytheism.\" The testimony of the Greek poets shows\nthat beneath the prevailing polytheism there remained an underlying\nconception of monotheistic supremacy. Professor Rawlinson quotes from an\nOrphic poem the words:\n\n       \"Ares is war, peace\n   Soft Aphrodite, wine that God has made\n   Is Dionysius, Themis is the right\n   Men render to each. Apollo, too,\n   And Phoebus and AEschlepius, who doth heal\n   Diseases, are the sun. All these are one.\"\n\nMax Mueller traces to this same element of monotheism the real greatness\nand power of the Hellenic race when he says: \"What was it, then, that\npreserved in their hearts (the Greeks), in spite even of the feuds of\ntribes and the jealousies of states, the deep feeling of that ideal\nunity which constitutes a people? It was their primitive religion; it\nwas a dim recollection of the common allegiance they owed from time\nimmemorial to the great father of gods and men; it was their belief in\nthe old Zeus of Dodona in the Pan-Hellenic Zeus.\"[155] \"There is, in\ntruth, but one,\" says Sophocles, \"one only God, who made both heaven and\nlong-extended earth and bright-faced swell of seas and force of winds.\"\nXenophanes says: \"'Mongst gods and men there is one mightiest God not\nmortal or in form or thought. Entire he sees and understands, and\nwithout labor governs all by mind.\" Aratus, whom Paul quotes,[156] says:\n\"With Zeus began we; let no mortal voice of men leave Zeus unpraised.\nZeus fills the heavens, the streets, the marts. Everywhere we live in\nZeus. Zeus fills the sea, the shores, the harbors. _We are his\noffspring, too._\" The reference made by Paul evidently implies that this\nZeus was a dim conception of the one true God.\n\nThat all branches of the Semitic race were monotheistic we may call not\nonly Ebrard and Mueller, but Renan, to witness. According to Renan,\nevidences that the monotheism of the Semitic races was of a very early\norigin, appears in the fact that all their names for deity--El, Elohim,\nIlu, Baal, Bel, Adonai, Shaddai, and Allah--denote one being and that\nsupreme. These names have resisted all changes, and doubtless extend as\nfar back as the Semitic language or the Semitic race. Max Mueller, in\nspeaking of the early faith of the Arabs, says: \"Long before Mohammed\nthe primitive intuition of God made itself felt in Arabia;\" and he\nquotes this ancient Arabian prayer: \"I dedicate myself to thy service, O\nAllah. Thou hast no companion, except the companion of whom thou art\nmaster absolute, and of whatever is his.\" The book of Job and the story\nof Balaam indicate the prevalence of an early monotheism beyond the pale\nof the Abrahamic church. In the records of the kings of Assyria and\nBabylonia there is a conspicuous polytheism, yet it is significant that\neach king worshipped _one God only_. And this fact suggests, as a wide\ngeneralization, that political and dynastic jealousies had their\ninfluence in multiplying the names and differentiating the attributes of\nancient deities. This was notably the case in ancient Egypt, where each\ninvasion and each change of dynasty led to a new adjustment of the\nEgyptian Pantheon.\n\nRome had many gods, but Jupiter was supreme. Herodotus says of the\nScythians, that they had eight gods, but one was supreme, like Zeus. The\nNorthmen, according to Dr. Dascent, had one supreme god known as the\n\"All-fader.\" The Druids, though worshipping various subordinate deities,\nbelieved in One who was supreme--the creator of all things and the soul\nof all things. Though conceived of in a Pantheistic sense, He was\npersonal and exerted a moral control, as is shown by the famous triad:\n\"Fear God; be just to all men; die for your country.\" In the highest and\npurest period of the old Mexican faith we read of the Tezcucan monarch\nNezahualcoyotl, who said: \"These idols of wood and stone can neither\nhear nor feel; much less could they make the heavens and the earth, and\nman who is the lord of it. These must be the work of the all-powerful\nunknown God, the Creator of the universe, on whom alone I must rely for\nconsolation and support.\"[157] The Incas of Peru also, though\nsun-worshippers, believed in a supreme creator who made the sun. The\noldest of their temples was reared to the supreme god \"Virachoca.\" And\none of the greatest Incas has left his declared belief that \"there must\nbe above the sun a greater and more powerful ruler, at whose behest the\nsun pursues his daily and untiring round.\"[158]\n\nIt has been assumed throughout this lecture, that instead of an advance\nin the religions of men, there has everywhere been decline. Our proofs\nof this are not theoretic but historic. As an example, all writers are\nagreed, I believe, that during the historic period the religion of the\nEgyptians steadily deteriorated until Christianity and Mohammedanism\nsuperseded it. In strong contrast with the lofty and ennobling prayer\nwhich we have quoted from an ancient Egyptian record, is the degradation\nof the later worship. On a column at Heliopolis, belonging to the fourth\ncentury before Christ, is inscribed this petition: \"O thou white cat,\nthy head is the head of the sun god, thy nose is the nose of Thoth, of\nthe exceeding great love of Hemopolis.\" The whole prayer is on this low\nlevel. Clement, of Alexandria, after describing the great beauty of an\nEgyptian temple, proceeds to say: \"The innermost sanctuary is concealed\nby a curtain wrought in gold, which the priest draws aside, and there is\nseen a cat, or a crocodile, or a serpent, which wriggles on a purple\ncover.\"[159]\n\nThat the religions of India have degenerated is equally clear. The fact\nthat all the medieval and modern reforms look back for their ideals to\nthe earlier and purer Aryan faith, might of itself afford sufficient\nproof of this, but we have also abundant evidence which is direct. In\nthe Rig Veda there is little polytheism, and no idolatry. There is no\ndoctrine of caste, no base worship of Siva with the foul enormities of\nSaktism.[160] In the most ancient times there was no doctrine of\ntransmigration, nor any notion that human life is an evil to be overcome\nby self-mortification. Woman was comparatively free from the oppressions\nwhich she suffered in the later periods. Infanticide had not then been\nsanctioned and enjoined by religious authority, and widow burning and\nthe religious murders of the Thugs were unknown. And yet so deeply were\nthese evils rooted at the beginning of the British rule in India, that\nthe joint influence of Christian instruction and Governmental authority\nfor a whole century has not been sufficient to overcome them.\n\nBuddhism in the first two or three centuries had much to commend it.\nKing Ashoka left monuments of practical beneficence and philanthropy\nwhich have survived to this day. But countless legends soon sprang up to\nmar the simplicity of Gautama's ethics. Corruptions crept in.\nCompromises were made with popular superstitions and with Hindu\nSaktism.[161] The monastic orders sank into corruption, and by the ninth\ncentury of our era the system had been wholly swept from India. The\nBuddhism of Ceylon was planted first by the devout son and daughter of a\nking, and for a time was characterized by great purity and devotion. But\nnow it exists only in name, and a prominent missionary of the country\ndeclared, in the London Missionary Conference of 1888, that nine-tenths\nof the Cingalese were worshippers of serpents or of spirits.[162] The\nprevailing Buddhism in Thibet, from the eighth to the tenth century, was\nan admixture with Saktism and superstition. Where the system has\nsurvived in any good degree of strength, it has been due either to\ngovernment support or to an alliance with other religions. The history\nof Taouism has shown a still worse deterioration. Laotze, though\nimpracticable as a reformer, was a profound philosopher. His teachings\nset forth a lofty moral code. Superstition he abominated. His ideas of\ndeity were cold and rationalistic, but they were pure and lofty. But the\nmodern Taouism is a medley of wild and degrading superstitions.\nAccording to its theodicy all nature is haunted. The ignorant masses are\nenthralled by the fear of ghosts, and all progress is paralyzed by the\nnightmare of \"fung shuay.\" Had not Taouism been balanced by the sturdy\ncommon-sense ethics of Confucianism, the Chinese might have become a\nrace of savages.[163]\n\nThe decline of Mohammedanism from the sublime fanaticism of Abu Bekr and\nthe intellectual aspirations of Haroun Al Raschid, to the senseless\nimbecility of the modern Turk, is too patent to need argument. The worm\nof destruction was left in the system by the vices of Mohammed himself;\nand from the higher level of his early followers it has not only\ndeteriorated, but it has dragged down everything else with it. It has\ndestroyed the family, because it has degraded woman. It has separated\nher immeasurably from the status of dignity and honor which she enjoyed\nunder the influence of the early Christian church, and it has robbed her\nof even that freedom which was accorded to her by heathen Rome. One need\nonly look at Northern Africa, the land of Cyprian and Origen, of\nAugustine and the saintly Monica, to see what Islam has done. And even\nthe later centuries have brought no relief. Prosperous lands have been\nrendered desolate and sterile, and all progress has been paralyzed.\n\nIn the history of the Greek religion it is granted that there were\nperiods of advancement. The times of the fully developed Apollo worship\nshowed vast improvement over previous periods, but even Professor Tiele\nvirtually admits that this was owing to the importation of foreign\ninfluences. It was not due to any natural process of evolution; and it\nwas followed by hopeless corruption and decline. The last days of both\nGreece and Rome were degenerate and full of depression and despair.\n\nIt is not contended that no revivals or reforms are possible in\nheathenism. There have been many of these, but with all allowance for\nspasmodic efforts, the general drift has been always downward.[164]\nThere is a natural disposition among men to multiply objects of\nworship. Herbert Spencer's principle, that development proceeds from the\nhomogeneous to the heterogeneous, is certainly true of the religions of\nthe world; but his other principle, that development proceeds from the\nincoherent to the coherent, does not apply. Incoherency and moral chaos\nmark the trend of all man-made faiths. The universal tendency to\ndeterioration is well summed up as follows by Professor Naville:\n\n\"Traces are found almost everywhere in the midst of idolatrous\nsuperstitions, of a religion comparatively pure and often stamped with a\nlofty morality. Paganism is not a simple fact; it offers to view in the\nsame bed two currents (like the Arve and the Arveiron)--the one pure,\nthe other impure. What is the relation between these two currents? ...\nDid humanity begin with a coarse fetishism, and thence rise by slow\ndegrees to higher conceptions? Do the traces of a comparatively pure\nmonotheism first show themselves in the recent periods of idolatry?\nContemporary science inclines more and more to answer in the negative.\nIt is in the most ancient historical ground that the laborious\ninvestigators of the past meet with the most elevated ideas of religion.\nCut to the ground a young and vigorous beech-tree, and come back a few\nyears afterward. In place of the tree cut down you will find\ncoppice-wood; the sap which nourished a single trunk has been divided\namong a multitude of shoots. This comparison expresses well enough the\nopinion which tends to prevail among our savants on the subject of the\nhistorical development of religions. The idea of one God is at the\nroots--it is primitive; polytheism is derivative.\"[165]\n\nWe have thus far drawn our proofs of man's polytheistic tendencies from\nthe history of the non-Christian religions. In proof of the same general\ntendency we now turn to the history of the Israelites, the chosen people\nof God. We may properly appeal to the Bible as history, especially when\nshowing idolatrous tendencies even under the full blaze of the truth. In\nspite of the supernatural revelation which they claimed to\npossess--notwithstanding all their instructions, warnings, promises,\ndeliverances, divinely aided conquests--they relapsed into idolatry\nagain and again. Ere they had reached the land of promise they had begun\nto make images of the gods of Egypt. They made constant compromises and\nalliances with the Canaanites, and not even severe judgments could\nwithhold them from this downward drift. Their wisest king was\ndemoralized by heathen marriages, and his successors openly patronized\nthe heathen shrines. The abominations of Baal worship and the nameless\nvices of Sodom were practised under the very shadow of the Temple.[166]\nJudgments followed upon this miserable degeneracy. Prophets were sent\nwith repeated warnings, and many were slain for their faithful messages.\nTribe after tribe was borne into captivity, the Temple was destroyed,\nand at last the nation was virtually broken up and scattered abroad.\n\nThere was indeed a true development in the church of God from the\nAbrahamic period to the Apostolic day. There was a rising from a narrow\nnational spirit to one which embraced the whole brotherhood of man, from\ntype and prophecy to fulfilment, from the sins that were winked at, to a\npurer ethic and the perfect law of love; but these results came not by\nnatural evolution--far enough from it. They were wrought out not by man,\nbut we might almost say, in spite of man. Divine interpositions were all\nthat saved Judaism from a total wreck, even as the national unity was\ndestroyed. A new Dispensation was introduced, a Divine Redeemer and an\nOmnipotent Spirit were the forces which saved the world from a second\nuniversal apostasy.\n\nWe come nearer still to the church of God for proofs of man's inherent\ntendency to polytheism. Even under the new Dispensation we have seen the\nchurch sink into virtual idolatry. Within six centuries from the time of\nChrist and His apostles there had been a sad lapse into what seemed the\nworship of images, pictures, and relics, and a faith in holy places and\nthe bones of saints. What Mohammed saw, or thought he saw, was a\nChristian idolatry scarcely better than that of the Arabian Koreish.\nAnd, as if by the judgment of God, the churches of the East were swept\nwith a destruction like that which had been visited upon the Ten Tribes.\nIn the Christianity of to-day, viewed as a whole, how strong is the\ntendency to turn from the pure spiritual conception of God to some more\nobjective trust--a saint, a relic, a ritual, an ordinance. In the old\nchurches of the East or on the Continent of Europe, how much of virtual\nidolatry is there even now? It is only another form of the tendency in\nman to seek out many devices--to find visible objects of trust--to try\nnew panaceas for the ailments of the soul--to multiply unto himself gods\nto help his weakness. This is just what has been done in all ages and\namong all races of the world. This explains polytheism. Man's religious\nnature is a vine, and God is its only proper support. Once fallen from\nthat support, it creeps and grovels in all directions and over all false\nsupports.\n\nWe have not resorted to Divine revelation for proofs except as history.\nBut our conclusions drawn from heathen sources bring us directly, as one\nface answereth to another face in a glass, to the plain teachings of\nPaul and other inspired writers, who tell us that the human race was\nonce possessed of the knowledge of One Supreme God, but that men\napostatized from Him, preferring to worship the creature rather than the\nCreator. There are no traces of an upward evolution toward clearer\nknowledge and purer lives, except by the operation of outward causes,\nbut there are many proofs that men's hearts have become darkened and\ntheir moral nature more and more depraved. In all lands there have been\nthose who seemed to gain some glimpses of truth, and whose teachings\nwere far above the average sentiment and character of their times, but\nthey have either been discarded like Socrates and the prophets of\nIsrael, or they have obtained a following only for a time and their\nprecepts have fallen into neglect. It has been well said that no race of\nmen live up to their religion, however imperfect it may be. They first\ndisregard it, and then at length degrade it, to suit their apostate\ncharacter.\n\nPaul's estimate of heathen character was that of a man who, aside from\nhis direct inspiration, spoke from a wide range of observation. He was a\nphilosopher by education, and he lived in an age and amid national\nsurroundings which afforded the broadest knowledge of men, of customs,\nof religious faiths, of institutions. Trained as a Jew, dealing\nconstantly with the most enlightened heathen, persecuting the\nChristians, and then espousing their cause, his preparation for a broad,\ncalm, and unerring judgment of the character of the Gentile nations was\ncomplete; and his one emphatic verdict was _apostasy_.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 125: Fiske: _The Destiny of Man_, pp. 78-80.]\n\n[Footnote 126: We do not care to enter the field of pre-historic\nspeculation where the evolution of religion from totemism or fetishism\nclaims to find its chief support. We are considering only the\ntraditional development of the ancient faiths of man.]\n\n[Footnote 127: _Introduction to Christian Theology_, Appendix, pp. 166,\n167.]\n\n[Footnote 128: Ebrard's _Apologetics_, vols. ii. and iii.]\n\n[Footnote 129: _Modern Atheism_, p. 13.]\n\n[Footnote 130: _The Chinese_, pp. 163, 164.]\n\n[Footnote 131: _Chips from a German Workshop_, vol. i., p. 23.]\n\n[Footnote 132: Professor Banergea (see _Indian Antiquary_, February,\n1875) thinks that this Hindu account of creation shows traces of the\ncommon revelation made to mankind.]\n\n[Footnote 133: _Science of Religion_, p. 99.]\n\n[Footnote 134: _Science of Religion_, p. 88.]\n\n[Footnote 135: \"The ancient relics of African faith are rapidly\ndisappearing at the approach of Mohammedan and Christian missionaries;\nbut what has been preserved of it, chiefly through the exertions of\nlearned missionaries, is full of interest to the student of religion,\nwith its strange worship of snakes and ancestors, its vague hope of a\nfuture life, and its not altogether faded reminiscence of a Supreme God,\nthe Father of the black as well as of the white man.\"--_Science of\nReligion_, p. 39.]\n\n[Footnote 136: While he maintains that the idea of God must have\npreceded that of _gods_, as the plural always implies the singular, he\nyet claims very justly that the exclusive conception of monotheism as\nagainst polytheism could hardly have existed. Men simply thought of God\nas God, as a child thinks of its father, and does not even raise the\nquestion of a second.--See _Chips from a German Workshop_, vol. i., p.\n349.]\n\n[Footnote 137: St. Augustine, in quoting Cyprian, shows that the fathers\nof the Church looked upon Plato as a monotheist. The passage is as\nfollows: \"For when he (Cyprian) speaks of the Magians, he says that the\nchief among them, Hostanes, maintains that the true God is invisible,\nand that true angels sit at His throne; and that Plato agrees with this\nand believes in one God, considering the others to be demons; and that\nHermes Trismegistus also speaks of one God, and confesses that He is\nincomprehensible.\" Angus., _De Baptismo contra Donat_., Lib. VI., Cap.\nXLIV.]\n\n[Footnote 138: _The Aryan Witness_, passim.]\n\n[Footnote 139: Aristotle said, \"God, though He is one, has many names,\nbecause He is called according to the states into which He always enters\nanew.\"]\n\n[Footnote 140: _The Religions of China_, p. 16.]\n\n[Footnote 141: _The Religions of China_, p. 49.]\n\n[Footnote 142: \"In the year 1600 the Emperor of China declared in an\nedict that the Chinese should adore, not the material heavens, but the\n_Master_ of heaven.\"--Cardinal Gibbons: _Our Christian Heritage_.]\n\n[Footnote 143: Martin: _The Chinese_, p. 106.]\n\n[Footnote 144: It has been related by Rev. Hudson Taylor that the\nfishermen of the Fukien Province, when a storm arises, pray to the\ngoddess of the sea; but when that does not avail they throw all the\nidols aside and pray to the \"Great-grandfather in Heaven.\" Father is a\ngreat conception to the Chinese mind. Great-grandfather is higher still,\nand stands to them for the Supreme.]\n\n[Footnote 145: _Science of Religion_, p. 86.]\n\n[Footnote 146: _The Chinese_, p. 99.]\n\n[Footnote 147: Other writers contend that he was probably\ncontemporaneous with Abraham. Still others think Zoroaster a general\nname for great prophets. Darmestetter inclines to this view.]\n\n[Footnote 148: _Chips from a German Workshop._]\n\n[Footnote 149: Archbishop Vaughn, of Sydney, emphatically declares that\nthe aborigines of Australia believe in a Supreme Being.]\n\n[Footnote 150: Rev. Mr. Johnson, of Lagos, has expressed a belief that\nthe pagan tribes of West Africa were monotheists before the incursion of\nthe Mohammedans. Rev. Alfred Marling, of Gaboon, bears the same\ntestimony of the Fans.]\n\n[Footnote 151: Rev. A.C. Thompson, D.D. _The Moravians_.\n\nOne of the early converts from among the Ojibwas, said to the\nmissionary, Rev. S.G. Wright: \"A great deal of your preaching I readily\nunderstand, especially what you say about our real characters. We\nIndians all know that it is wrong to lie, to steal, to be dishonest, to\nslander, to be covetous, and we always know that the Great Spirit hates\nall these things. All this we knew before we ever saw the white man. I\nknew these things when I was a little boy. We did not, however, know the\nway of pardon for these sins. In our religion there is nothing said by\nthe wise men about pardon. We knew nothing of the Lord Jesus Christ as a\nSaviour.\"]\n\n[Footnote 152: Professor Tiele, of Leyden, asserts that \"It is\naltogether erroneous to regard the Egyptian religion as the polytheistic\ndegeneration of a prehistoric monotheism. It was polytheistic from the\nbeginning.\" But on one of the oldest of Egyptian monuments is found this\nhymn, which is quoted by Cardinal Gibbons in _Our Christian\nInheritance_:\n\n   \"Hail to thee, say all creatures; ...\n   The gods adore thy majesty,\n   The spirits thou has made exalt thee,\n   Rejoicing before the feet of their begetter.\n   They cry out welcome to thee,\n   Father of the fathers of all the gods,\n   Who raises the heavens, who fixes the earth;\n   We worship thy spirit who alone hast made us,\n   We whom thou hast made thank thee that thou hast given us birth,\n   We give to thee praises for thy mercy toward us.\"]\n\n[Footnote 153: _Modern Atheism_, p. 13.]\n\n[Footnote 154: _Chips from a German Workshop_, vol. ii., pp. 146, 147.]\n\n[Footnote 155: _Science of Religion_, Lecture III., p. 57.]\n\n[Footnote 156: Acts xvii. 28.]\n\n[Footnote 157: Prescott's _Conquest of Mexico_.]\n\n[Footnote 158: Reville in his _Hibbert Lectures_ on Mexican and Peruvian\nreligions asserts that polytheism existed from the beginning, but our\ncontention is that One God was supreme and created the sun.]\n\n[Footnote 159: De Pressense: _The Ancient World and Christianity_.]\n\n[Footnote 160: Bournouf found the Tantras so obscene that he refused to\ntranslate them.]\n\n[Footnote 161: T. Rhys Davids: _Buddhism_, p. 208.]\n\n[Footnote 162: _Report of Missionary Conference_, vol. i, p. 70.]\n\n[Footnote 163: Buddhism, in the _Britannica_.]\n\n[Footnote 164: Rev. S.G. Wright, long a missionary among the American\nIndians, says: \"During the forty-six years in which I have been laboring\namong the Ojibway Indians, I have been more and more impressed with the\nevidence, showing itself in their language, that at some former time\nthey have been in possession of much higher ideas of God's attributes,\nand of what constitutes true happiness, immortality, and virtue, as well\nas of the nature of the Devil and his influence in the world, than those\nwhich they now possess. The thing which early in our experience\nsurprised us, and which has not ceased to impress us, is, that, with\ntheir present low conceptions of spiritual things, they could have\nchosen so lofty and spiritual a word for the Deity. The only\nsatisfactory explanation seems to be that, at an early period of their\nhistory, they had higher and more correct ideas concerning God than\nthose which they now possess, and that these have become, as the\ngeologists would say, _fossilized_ in their forms of speech, and so\npreserved.\"--_Bibliotheca Sacra_, October, 1889.]\n\n[Footnote 165: _Modern Atheism_, p. 10.]\n\n[Footnote 166: I. Kings, xiv., and II. Kings, xxiii.]\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE VIII.\n\nINDIRECT TRIBUTES OF HEATHEN SYSTEMS TO THE DOCTRINES OF THE BIBLE\n\n\nI am to speak of certain indirect tributes borne by the non-Christian\nreligions to the doctrines of Christianity. One such tribute of great\nvalue we have already considered in the prevalence of early monotheism,\nso far corroborating the scriptural account of man's first estate, and\naffording many proofs which corroborate the scriptural doctrine of human\napostasy. Others of the same general bearing will now be considered. The\nhistory of man's origin, the strange traditions of his fall by\ntransgression and his banishment from Eden, of the conflict of good with\nevil represented by a serpent, of the Deluge and the dispersion of the\nhuman race, have all been the subjects of ridicule by anti-Christian\nwriters:--though by turns they have recognized these same facts and have\nused them as proofs that Christianity had borrowed them from old myths.\nThe idea of sacrifice, or atonement, of Divine incarnation, of a\ntrinity, of mediation, of a salvation by faith instead of one's own\nmerits, have been represented as unphilosophical, and therefore\nimprobable in the nature of the case.\n\nIt becomes an important question, therefore, whether other religions of\nmankind show similar traditions, however widely they have dwelt apart,\nand however diversified their languages, literatures, and institutions\nmay have been in other respects. And it is also an important question,\nwhether even under heathen systems, the consciousness of sin and the\ndeepest moral yearnings of men have found expression along the very\nlines which are represented by the Christian doctrines of grace. To\nthese questions we now address ourselves. What are the lessons of the\nvarious ethnic traditions? And how are we to account for their striking\nsimilarities? The most obvious theory is, that a common origin must be\nassigned to them, that they are dim reminiscences of a real knowledge\nonce clear and distinct. The fact that with their essential unity they\ndiffer from each other and differ from our Scriptural record, seems to\nrather strengthen the theory that all--our own included--have been\nhanded down from the pre-Mosaic times--ours being divinely edited by an\ninspired and infallible author. Their differences are such as might have\nbeen expected from separate transmissions, independently made.\n\nWe have, first of all, the various traditions of the Creation. In most\nheathen races there have appeared, in their later stages, grave and\ngrotesque cosmogonies; and a too common impression is, that these\nrepresent the real teachings of their sacred books or their earliest\ntraditions. But when one enters upon a careful study of the\nnon-Christian religions, and traces them back to their sources, he finds\nmore rational accounts of the Creation and the order of nature, and\nsees striking points of resemblance to the Mosaic record. The story of\nGenesis represents the \"Beginning\" as formless, chaotic, and dark. The\nSpirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. The heavens and the\nearth were separated. Light appeared long before the sun and moon were\nvisible, and the day and night were clearly defined. Creation proceeded\nin a certain order from vegetable to animal life, and from lower animals\nto higher, and last of all man appeared. In heathen systems we find\nfragments of this traditional account, and, as a rule, they are more or\nless clear in proportion to their nearness to, or departure from, the\ngreat cradle of the human race.[167] Thus Professor Rawlinson quotes\nfrom an Assyrian account of the creation, as found upon the clay tablets\ndiscovered in the palace of Assur-bani-pal, a description of\nformlessness, emptiness, and darkness on the deep--of a separation\nbetween the earth and sky--and of the light as preceding the appearance\nof the sun. That account also places the creation of animals before that\nof man, whom it represents as being formed of the dust of the earth, and\nas receiving a divine effluence from the Creator.[168] According to an\nEtruscan saga quoted by Suidas, God created the world in six periods of\n1,000 years each. In the first, the heavens and the earth; in the\nsecond, the firmament; in the third, the seas; in the fourth, the sun,\nmoon, and stars; in the fifth, the beasts of the land, the air, and the\nsea; in the sixth, man. According to a passage in the Persian Avesta,\nthe supreme Ormazd created the visible world by his word in six periods\nor thousands of years: in the first, the heavens with the stars; in the\nsecond, the water and the clouds; in the third, the earth and the\nmountains; in the fourth, the trees and the plants; in the fifth, the\nbeasts which sprang from the primeval beast; in the sixth, man.[169]\n\nAs we get farther away from the supposed early home of the race, the\ntraditions become more fragmentary and indistinct. The Rig Veda,\nMandala, x., 129, tells us that:\n\n     \"In the beginning there was neither naught nor aught; There was\n     neither day nor night nor light nor darkness; Only the EXISTENT ONE\n     breathed calmly. Next came darkness, gloom on gloom. Next all was\n     water--chaos indiscrete.\"[170]\n\nStrikingly similar is the language quoted in a former lecture from the\nprayer of a Chinese emperor of the Ming Dynasty. It runs thus: \"Of old,\nin the beginning, there was the great chaos without form and dark. The\nfive elements had not begun to revolve, nor the sun and moon to shine.\nIn the midst thereof there presented itself neither form nor sound.\nThou, O Spiritual Sovereign, didst divide the grosser parts from the\npurer. Thou madest heaven: Thou madest earth: Thou madest man.\"\n\nThere is a possibility that these conceptions may have come from\nChristian sources instead of primitive Chinese traditions, possibly from\nearly Nestorian missionaries, though this is scarcely probable, as\nChinese emperors have been slow to introduce foreign conceptions into\ntheir august temple service to Shangte; its chief glory lies in its\nantiquity and its purely national character. Buddhism had already been\nin China more than a thousand years, and these prayers are far enough\nfrom its teachings. May we not believe that the ideas here expressed had\nalways existed in the minds of the more devout rulers of the empire? In\nsimilar language, the Edda of the Icelandic Northmen describes the\nprimeval chaos.\n\nThus:\n\n   \"'Twas the morning of time\n    When yet naught was,\n    Nor sand nor sea was there,\n    Nor cooling streams.\n    Earth was not formed\n    Nor heaven above.\n    A yawning gap was there\n    And grass nowhere.\"\n\nNot unlike these conceptions of the \"Beginning\" is that which Morenhout\nfound in a song of the Tahitans, and which ran thus:\n\n   \"He was; Toaroa was his name,\n    He existed in space; no earth, no heaven, no men.\"\n\nM. Goussin adds the further translation: \"Toaroa, the Great Orderer, is\nthe origin of the earth: he has no father, no posterity.\"[171] The\ntradition of the Odshis, a negro tribe on the African Gold Coast,\nrepresents the creation as having been completed in six days. God\ncreated first the woman; then the man; then the animals; then the trees\nand plants; and lastly the rocks. God created nothing on the seventh\nday. He only gave men His commandments. The reversal of the order here\nonly confirms the supposition that it is an original tradition. We find\neverywhere on the Western Hemisphere, north and south, plain recognition\nof the creation of the world by one Supreme God, though the order is not\ngiven. How shall we account for the similarities above indicated, except\non the supposition of a common and a very ancient source?\n\nStill more striking are the various traditions of the Fall of man by\nsin. In the British Museum there is a very old Babylonian seal which\nbears the figures of a man and a woman stretching out their hands toward\na fruit-tree, while behind the woman lurks a serpent. A fragment bearing\nan inscription represents a tree of life as guarded on all sides by a\nsword. Another inscription describes a delectable region surrounded by\nfour rivers. Professors Rawlinson and Delitzsch both regard this as a\nreference to the Garden of Eden.\n\n\"The Hindu legends,\" says Hardwick, \"are agreed in representing man as\none of the last products of creative wisdom, as the master-work of God;\nand also in extolling the first race of men as pure and upright,\ninnocent and happy. The beings who were thus created by Brahma are all\nsaid to have been endowed with righteousness and perfect faith; they\nabode wherever they pleased, unchecked by any impediment; their hearts\nwere free from guile; they were pure, made free from toil by observance\nof sacred institutes. In their sanctified minds Hari dwelt; and they\nwere filled with perfect wisdom by which they contemplated the glory of\nVishnu.\n\n\"The first men were, accordingly, the best. The Krita age, the 'age of\ntruth,' the reign of purity, in which mankind, as it came forth from the\nCreator, was not divided into numerous conflicting orders, and in which\nthe different faculties of man all worked harmoniously together, was a\nthought that lay too near the human heart to be uprooted by the ills and\ninequalities of actual life. In this the Hindu sided altogether with the\nHebrew, and as flatly contradicted the unworthy speculations of the\nmodern philosopher, who would fain persuade us that human beings have\nnot issued from one single pair, and also, that the primitive type of\nmen is scarcely separable from that of ordinary animals....\"[172]\n\nSpence Hardy, in speaking on this subject, describes a Buddhist legend\nof Ceylon which represents the original inhabitants of the world as\nhaving been once spotlessly pure, and as dwelling in ethereal bodies\nwhich moved at will through space. They had no need of sun or moon. They\nlived in perfect happiness and peace till, at last, one of their number\ntasted of a strange substance which he found lying on the surface of the\nearth. He induced others to eat also, whereupon all knew good and evil,\nand their high estate was lost. They now had perpetual need of food,\nwhich only made them more gross and earthly. Wickedness abounded, and\nthey were in darkness. Assembling together, they fashioned for\nthemselves a sun, but after a few hours it fell below the horizon, and\nthey were compelled to create a moon.[173] An old Mongolian legend\nrepresents the first man as having transgressed by eating a pistache\nnut. As a punishment, he and all his posterity came under the power of\nsin and death, and were subjected to toil and suffering.[174] A\ntradition of the African Odshis, already named, relates that formerly\nGod was very near to men. But a woman, who had been pounding banana\nfruit in a mortar, inadvertently entering His presence with a pestle in\nher hands, aroused His anger, and He withdrew into the high heavens and\nlistened to men no more. Six rainless years brought famine and distress,\nwhereupon they besought Him to send one of His counsellors who should be\ntheir daysman, and should undertake their cause and care for them. God\nsent his chief minister, with a promise that He would give rain and\nsunshine, and He directed that His rainbow should appear in the\nsky.[175] The inhabitants of Tahiti have a tradition of a fall which is\nvery striking; and Humboldt, after careful study, reached the conclusion\nthat it had not been derived through any communication with Christian\nlands, but was an old native legend. The Karens of Burmah had a story of\nan early temptation of their ancestors by an evil being and their\nconsequent apostasy. Many other races who have no definite tradition of\nthis kind have still some vague notion of a golden age in the past.\nThere has been everywhere a mournful and pathetic sense of something\nlost, of degeneracy from better days gone by, of Divine displeasure and\nforfeited favor. The baffled gropings of all false religions seem to\nhave been so many devices to regain some squandered heritage of the\npast. All this is strikingly true of China.\n\nStill more clear and wellnigh universal are the traditions of a flood.\nThe Hindu Brahmanas and the Mahabharata of a later age present legends\nof a deluge which strikingly resemble the story of Genesis. Vishnu\nincarnate in a fish warned a great sage of a coming flood and directed\nhim to build an ark. A ship was built and the sage with seven others\nentered. Attached to the horn of the fish the ship was towed over the\nwaters to a high mountain top.[176] The Chinese also have a story of a\nflood, though it is not given in much detail. The Iranian tradition is\nvery fragmentary and seems to confound the survivor with the first man\nof the creation. Yima, the Noah of the story, was warned by the\nbeginning of a great winter rain, by which the waters were raised 19,000\nfeet. Yima was commanded to prepare a place of safety for a number of\nchosen men, birds, and beasts. It was to be three stories high, and to\nbe furnished with a high door and window, but whether it was a ship or a\nrefuge on the mountain top does not appear. The same tradition speaks of\nEden and of a serpent, but the account is suddenly cut short.[177]\n\nThe Greek traditions of a flood varied according to the different\nbranches of the Greek nation. The Arcadians traced their origin to\nDardanus, who was preserved from the great flood in a skin-covered boat.\nThe Pelasgians held the tradition of Deucalion and his wife, who were\nsaved in a ship which was grounded on the summit of Pindus. As the water\nreceded they sent out a dove to search for land. The Assyrian account,\nwhich was found a few years ago on a tablet in the palace of\nAssur-bani-pal, claims to have been related as a matter of personal\nexperience by Sisit, the Chaldean Noah, who was commanded to construct a\nship 600 cubits long, into which he should enter with his family and his\ngoods. At the time appointed the earth became a waste. The very gods in\nheaven fled from the fury of the tempest and \"huddled down in their\nrefuge like affrighted dogs.\" The race of men was swept away. On the\nseventh day Sisit opened a window and saw that the rain was stayed, but\nthe water was covered with floating corpses; all men had become as clay.\nThe ship rested on a mountain top, and Sisit sent forth a dove, a\nswallow, and a raven. The dove and the swallow returned, but the raven\nwas satisfied with the floating carcasses. Sisit went forth and offered\nsacrifice, around which \"the gods hovered like flies.\"\n\nProfessor Rawlinson thinks that these accounts and those given in\nGenesis were both derived from the earlier traditions, the Assyrian\nversion having been greatly corrupted. The Chaldean tradition is\nslightly different. The Noah of the Chaldeans was commanded in a dream\nnot only to build a ship, but to bury all important documents and so\npreserve the antediluvian history. As the flood subsided he, his family,\nand his pilot were transferred to heaven, but certain friends who were\nsaved with them remained and peopled the earth. Among the ancient\nPeruvians we find a tradition of a great deluge which swept the earth.\nAfter it had passed, the aged man Wiracotscha rose out of Lake Titicaca\nand his three sons issued from a cave and peopled the earth.[178] Hugh\nMiller and others have named many similar traditions.\n\nThe fact that in nearly every case those who were rescued from the flood\nimmediately offered piacular sacrifices suggests the recognition in all\nhuman history of still another fundamental doctrine of Christianity, the\nuniversal sense of sin. This conviction was especially strong when the\nsurvivors of a Divine judgment beheld the spectacle of a race swept away\nfor their transgressions; but there are abundant traces of it in all\nages of the world. The exceptions are found in those instances where\nfalse systems of philosophy have sophisticated the natural sense of\nguilt by destroying the consciousness of personality. All races of men\nhave shown a feeling of moral delinquency and a corresponding fear. The\nlate C. Loring Brace, in his work entitled \"The Unknown God,\" quotes\nsome striking penitential psalms or prayers offered by the Akkadians of\nNorthern Assyria four thousand years ago.\n\nThe deep-seated conviction of guilt which is indicated by the old\nreligion of the Egyptians is well set forth by Dr. John Wortabet, of\nBeyrut, in a pamphlet entitled \"The Temples and Tombs of Thebes.\" He\nsays: \"The immortality of the soul, its rewards and punishments in the\nnext world, and its final salvation and return into the essence of the\ndivinity were among the most cherished articles of the Egyptian creed.\nHere (in the tombs), as on the papyri which contain the 'Ritual of the\nDead,' are represented the passage of the soul through the nether world\nand its introduction into the Judgment Hall, where Osiris, the god of\nbenevolence, sits on a throne, and with the assistance of forty-two\nassessors proceeds to examine the deceased. His actions are weighed in a\nbalance against truth in the presence of Thoth, the ibis-headed god of\nwisdom, and if found wanting he is hounded out in the shape of an\nunclean animal by Anubis, the jackal-headed god of the infernal regions.\nThe soul then proceeds in a series of transmigrations into the bodies of\nanimals and human beings and thus passes through a purgatorial process\nwhich entitles it to appear again before the judgment-seat of Osiris. If\nfound pure it is conveyed to Aalu, the Elysian fields, or the 'Pools of\nPeace.' After three thousand years of sowing and reaping by cool waters\nit returns to its old body (the preserved mummy), suffers another period\nof probation, and is ultimately absorbed into the godhead. One of the\nmost impressive scenes in the whole series is that where the soul, in\nthe form of a mummified body, stands before Osiris and the forty-two\njudges to be examined on the forty-two commandments of the Egyptian\nreligion. Bearing on its face the signs of solemnity and fear, and\ncarrying in its hand a feather, the symbol of veracity, it says among\nother things: 'I have not blasphemed the gods, I have defrauded no man,\nI have not changed the measures of Egypt, I have not prevaricated at the\ncourts of justice, I have not lied, I have not stolen, I have not\ncommitted adultery, I have done no murder, I have not been idle, I have\nnot been drunk, I have not been cruel, I have not famished my family, I\nhave not been a hypocrite, I have not defiled my conscience for the sake\nof my superiors, I have not smitten privily, I have lived on truth, I\nhave made it my delight to do what men command and the gods approve, I\nhave given bread to the hungry and drink to the thirsty and clothes to\nthe naked, my mouth and hands are pure.' Now what strikes one with great\nforce in this remarkable passage from the walls of the old sand-covered\ntombs is the wonderful scope and fulness with which the laws of right\nand wrong were stamped upon the Egyptian conscience. There is here a\nrecognition, not only of the great evils which man shall not commit, but\nalso of many of those positive duties which his moral nature requires.\nIt matters not that these words are wholly exculpatory; they\nnevertheless recognize sin.\"\n\nBut perhaps no one has depicted man's sense of guilt and fear more\neloquently than Dean Stanley when speaking of the Egyptian Sphinx.\nProceeding upon the theory that that time-worn and mysterious relic is a\ncouchant lion whose projecting paws were long since buried in the desert\nsands, and following the tradition that an altar once stood before that\nmighty embodiment of power, he graphically pictures the transient\ngenerations of men, in all the sin and weakness of their frail humanity,\ncoming up with their offerings and their prayers \"between the paws of\ndeity.\" It is a grim spectacle, but it emphasizes the sense of human\nguilt. Only the Revealed Word of God affords a complete and satisfactory\nexplanation of the remarkable fact that the human race universally stand\nself-convicted of sin.\n\nThere is also a tribute to the truth of Christianity in certain traces\nof a conception of Divine sacrifice for sin found in some of the early\nreligious faiths of men. All are familiar with the difference between\nthe offerings of Abel and those of Cain--the former disclosing a faith\nin a higher expiation. In like manner there appear mysterious references\nto a divine and vicarious sacrifice in the early Vedas of India. In the\nParusha Sukta of the Rig Veda occurs this passage: \"From him called\nParusha was born Viraj, and from Viraj was Parusha produced, whom gods\nmade their oblation. With Parusha as a victim they performed a\nsacrifice.\" Manu says that Parusha, \"the first man,\" was called Brahma,\nand was produced by emanation from the \"self-existent spirit.\" Brahma\nthus emanating, was \"the first male,\" or, as elsewhere called, \"the born\nlord.\" By him the world was made. The idea is brought out still more\nstrikingly in one of the Brahmanas where the sacrifice is represented as\nvoluntary and all availing. \"Surely,\" says Sir Monier Williams, \"in\nthese mysterious allusions to the sacrifice of a representative man we\nmay perceive traces of the original institution of sacrifice as a\ndivinely appointed ordinance, typical of the one great offering of the\nSon of God for the sins of the world.\" The late Professor Banergea, of\nCalcutta, reaching the same conclusion, says: \"It is not easy to account\nfor the genesis of these ideas in the Veda, of 'one born in the\nbeginning Lord of creatures,' offering himself a sacrifice for the\nbenefit of deified mortals, except on the assumption that it is based\nupon the tradition of the 'Lamb slain from the foundation of the\nworld.'\"\n\nNo doubt modern scepticism might be slow to acknowledge any such\ninference as this; but as Professor Banergea was a high-caste Hindu of\ngreat learning, and was well acquainted with the subtleties of Hindu\nthought, his opinion should have great weight. And when we remember how\neasily scientific scepticism is satisfied with the faintest traces of\nwhatever strengthens its theories--how thin are some of the\ngeneralizations of Herbert Spencer--how very slight and fanciful are the\nresemblances of words which philologists often accept as indisputable\nproofs--how far-fetched are the inferences sometimes drawn from the\nappearance of half-decayed fossils as proofs and even demonstrations of\nthe law of evolution--we need not be over-modest in setting forth these\ntraces of an original divine element in the institution of typical\nsacrifices among men.\n\nIt is never safe to assume positively this or that meaning for a\nmysterious passage found in the sacred books of non-Christian systems,\nbut there are many things which seem at least to illustrate important\nprecepts of the Christian faith. Thus the slain Osiris of the Egyptians\nwas said to enter into the sufferings of mortals. \"Having suffered the\ngreat wound,\" so the record runs, \"he was wounded in every other wound.\"\nAnd we read in \"The Book of the Dead\" that \"when the Lord of truth\ncleanses away defilement, evil is joined to the deity that the truth may\nexpel the evil.\"[179] This seems to denote an idea of vicarious\nrighteousness.\n\nThe Onondaga Indians had a tradition that the celestial Hiawatha\ndescended from heaven and dwelt among their ancestors, and that upon the\nestablishment of the League of the Iroquois he was called by the Great\nSpirit to sanctify that League by self-sacrifice. As the Indian council\nwas about to open, Hiawatha was bowed with intense suffering, which\nfaintly reminds one of Christ's agony in Gethsemane. He foresaw that his\ninnocent and only child would be taken from him. Soon after a messenger\nfrom heaven smote her to the earth by his side. Then, having drank this\ncup of sorrow, he entered the council and guided its deliberations with\nsuperhuman wisdom.[180] In citing this incident nothing more is intended\nthan to call attention to some of the mysterious conceptions which seem\nto float dimly through the minds of the most savage races, and which\nshow at the very least that the idea of vicarious sacrifice is not\nstrange to mankind, but is often mysteriously connected with their\ngreatest blessings. The legend of \"Prometheus Bound,\" as we find it in\nthe tragedies of AEschylus, is so graphic in its picture of vicarious\nsuffering for the good of men that infidel writers have charged the\nstory of the Cross with plagiarism, and have applied to Prometheus some\nof the expressions used in the fifty-third chapter of the Prophecy of\nIsaiah. We are often told that there is injustice in the very idea of\nvicarious suffering, as involved in the Christian doctrine of salvation,\nor that the best instincts of a reasonable humanity revolt against it.\nBut such criticisms are sufficiently met by these analogies which we\nfind among all nations.\n\nLet me next call attention to some of the predicted deliverers for whom\nthe nations have been looking. Nothing found in the study of the\nreligious history of mankind is more striking than the universality of a\nvague expectation of coming messiahs. According to the teachings of\nHinduism there have been nine incarnations of Vishnu, of whom Buddha was\nadmitted to be one. But there is to be a tenth avatar who shall yet come\nat a time of great and universal wickedness, and shall establish a\nkingdom of righteousness on the earth. Some years ago the Rev. Dr. John\nNewton, of Lahore, took advantage of this prediction and wrote a tract\nshowing that the true deliverer and king of righteousness had already\ncome in the person of Jesus Christ. So striking seemed the fulfilment\nviewed from the Hindu standpoint, that some hundreds in the city of\nRampore were led to a faith in Christ as an avatar of Vishnu.\n\nA remarkable illustration of a felt want of something brighter and more\nhopeful is seen in the legends and predictions of the Teutonic and Norse\nreligions. The faiths of all the Teutonic races were of the sternest\ncharacter, and it was such a cultus that made them the terror of Europe.\nThey worshipped their grim deities in the congenial darkness of deep\nforest shades. There was no joy, no sense of divine pity, no peace. They\nwere conscious of deep and unutterable wants which were never met. They\nyearned for a golden age and the coming of a deliverer. Baldr, one of\nthe sons of Woden, had passed away, but prophecy promised that he should\nreturn to deliver mankind from sorrow and from death. \"When the twilight\nof the gods should have passed away, then amid prodigies and the crash\nand decay of a wicked world, in glory and joy he should return, and a\nglorious kingdom should be renewed.\" Or, in the words of one of their\nown poets:\n\n   \"Then unsown the swath shall flourish and back come Baldr;\n    With him Hoder shall dwell in Hropter's palace,\n    Shrines of gods the great and holy,\n    There the just shall joy forever,\n          And in pleasure pass the ages.\"\n\nThe well-known prediction of the Sibyl of Cumae bears testimony to the\nsame expectation of mankind. The genuine Sibylline Oracles were in\nexistence anterior to the birth of Christ. Virgil died forty years\nbefore that event, and the well-known eclogue _Pollio_ is stated by him\nto be a transcript of the prophetic carmen of the Sibyl of Cumae. But for\nthe fact that it has a Roman instead of a Jewish coloring, it might\nalmost seem Messianic. The oracle speaks thus: \"The last era, the\nsubject of the Sibyl song of Cumae, has now arrived; the great series of\nages begins anew. The virgin returns--returns the reign of Saturn. The\nprogeny from heaven now descends. Be thou propitious to the Infant Boy\nby whom first the Iron Age shall expire, and the Golden Age over the\nwhole world shall commence. Whilst thou, O Pollio, art consul, this\nglory of our age shall be made manifest, and the celestial months begin\ntheir revolutions. Under thy auspices whatever vestiges of our guilt\nremain, shall, by being atoned for, redeem the earth from fear forever.\nHe shall partake of the life of the gods. He shall reign over a world in\npeace with his father's virtues. The earth, sweet boy, as her\nfirst-fruits, shall pour thee forth spontaneous flowers. The serpent\nshall die: the poisonous and deceptive tree shall die. All things,\nheavens and earth and the regions of the sea, rejoice at the advent of\nthis age. The time is now at hand.\"[181] Forty years later the Christ\nappeared. Whether Virgil had been influenced by Hebrew prophecy it is\nimpossible to say. It may be that the so-called Sibyl had caught\nsomething of the same hope which led the Magi of the East to the cradle\nof the infant Messiah, but in any case the eclogue voiced a vague\nexpectation which prevailed throughout the Roman Empire.\n\nIn modern as well as in ancient times nations and races have looked for\ndeliverers or for some brighter hope. Missionaries found the Hawaiians\ndissatisfied and hopeless; their idols had been thrown away. The Karens\nwere waiting for the arrival of the messengers of the truth. The\nMexicans, at the time of the Spanish conquest, were looking for a\ncelestial benefactor. The very last instance of an anxious looking for a\ndeliverer is that which quite recently has so sadly misled our Sioux\nIndians.\n\nMankind have longed not only for deliverers, but also for _mediators_.\nThe central truth of the Christian faith is its divine sympathy and help\nbrought down into our human nature. In other words, mediation--God with\nman. The faith of the Hindus, lacking this element, was cold and\nremorseless. Siva, the god of destruction, and his hideous and\nblood-thirsty wives, had become chief objects of worship, only because\ndestruction and death led to life again. But there was no divine help.\nThe gods were plied with sharp bargains in sacrifice and merit; they\nwere appeased; they were cajoled; but there was no love. But the time\ncame when the felt want of men for something nearer and more sympathetic\nled to the doctrine of Vishnu's incarnations: first grotesque deliverers\nin animal shapes, but at length the genial and sympathetic Krishna. He\nwas not the highest model of character, but he was human. He had\nassociated with the rustics and frolicked around their camp-fires. He\nbecame Arjuna's charioteer and rendered him counsel and help in that low\ndisguise. He was a sharer of burdens--a counsellor and friend. And he\nbecame the most popular of all Hindu deities.\n\nThe important point in all this is that this old system, so\nself-sufficient and self-satisfied, should have groped its way toward a\ndivine sympathizer in human form, a living and helpful god among men.\nHinduism had not been wanting in anthropomorphisms: it had imagined the\npresence of God in a thousand visible objects which rude men could\nappreciate. Trees, apes, cattle, crocodiles, and serpents had been\ninvested with an in-dwelling spirit, but it had found no mediator. Men\nhad been trying by all manner of devices to sublimate their souls, and\nclimb Godward by their own self-mortification; but they had realized no\ndivine help. To meet this want they developed a veritable doctrine of\nfaith. They had learned from Buddhism the great influence and power of\none who could instruct and counsel and encourage. Some Oriental scholars\nthink that they had also learned many things from Christian\nsources.[182]\n\nHowever that may be--from whatever source they had gained this\nsuggestion--they found it to accord with the deepest wants of the human\nheart. And the splendid tribute which that peculiar development bears to\nthe great fundamental principles of the Christian faith, is all the more\nstriking for the fact that it grew up in spite of the adamantine\nconvervatism of a system, all of whose teachings had been in a precisely\nopposite direction. It was old Hinduism coming out of its intrenchments\nto pay honor to the true way of eternal life. Probably the doctrine\nfirst sprang from a felt want, but was subsequently reinforced by\nChristian influences.\n\nThe late Professor Banergea, in his \"Aryan Witness,\" gives what must be\nregarded as at least a very plausible account of the last development of\nthe so-called Krishna cult, and of this doctrine of faith. He thinks\nthat it borrowed very much from western monotheists. He quotes a passage\nfrom the Narada Pancharata, which represents a pious Brahman of the\neighth century A.D., as having been sent to the far northwest, where\n\"white-faced monotheists\" would teach him a pure faith in the Supreme\nVishnu or Krishna. He quotes also, from another and later authority, a\ndialogue in which this same Brahman reproved Vyasa for not having\ncelebrated the praises of Krishna as supreme. This Professor Banergea\nregarded as proof that previously to the eighth century Krishna has been\nworshipped only as a demigod. But the whole drift of the old Brahmanical\ndoctrines had been toward sacrifice as a debt and credit system, and\nthat plan had failed. It had impoverished the land and ruined the\npeople, and had brought no spiritual comfort. Men had found that they\ncould not buy salvation.\n\nMoreover, Buddhism and other forms of rationalistic philosophy, after\nprolonged and thorough experiment, had also failed. The Hindu race had\nfound that as salvation could not be purchased with sacrifices, neither\ncould it be reasoned out by philosophy, nor worked out by austerities.\nIt must come from a Divine helper. Thus, when Narada had wearied\nhimself with austerities--so we read in the Narada Pancharata--he heard\na voice from heaven saying: \"If Krishna is worshipped, what is the use\nof austerities? If Krishna is _not_ worshipped, what is the use of\nausterities? If Krishna is within and without, what is the use of\nausterities? If Krishna is _not_ within and without, what is the use of\nausterities? Stop, O Brahman; why do you engage in austerities? Go\nquickly and get matured faith in Krishna, as described by the sect of\nVishnu who snaps the fetters of the world.\" \"We are thus led,\" says\nProfessor Banergea, \"to the very genesis of the doctrine of faith in\nconnection with Hinduism. And it was admittedly not an excogitation of\nthe Brahmanical mind itself. Narada had brought it from the land of 'the\nwhites,' where he got an insight into Vishnu as the Saviour which was\nnot attainable elsewhere.\" And he then persuaded the author of one of\nthe Puranas to recount the \"Lord's acts\"--in other words, the history of\nKrishna, with the enforcement of faith in his divinity: \"Change the\nname,\" says Banergea, \"and it is almost Christian doctrine.\"[183]\n\nIt is an interesting fact that Buddhism, in its progress through the\ncenturies, has also wrought out a doctrine of faith by a similar\nprocess. It began as a form of atheistic rationalism. Its most salient\nfeature was staunch and avowed independence of all help from gods or\nmen. It emphasized in every way the self-sufficiency of one's own mind\nand will to work out emancipation. But when Buddha died no enlightened\ncounsellor was left, and another Buddha could not be expected for four\nthousand years. The multitudes of his disciples felt that, theory or no\ntheory, there was an awful void. The bald and bleak system could not\nstand on such a basis. The human heart cried out for some divine helper,\nsome one to whom man could pray. Fortunately there were supposed to be\npredestined Buddhas.--\"Bodisats\"--then living in some of the heavens,\nand as they were preparing themselves to become incarnate Buddhas, they\nmust already be interested in human affairs, and especially the\nMaitreyeh, who would appear on earth next in order.\n\nSo Buddhism, in spite of its own most pronounced dogmas, began to pray\nto an unseen being, began to depend and trust, began to lay hold on\ndivine sympathy, and look to heaven for help. By the seventh century of\nour era the northern Buddhists, whether influenced in part by the\ncontact of Christianity, or not, had subsidized more than one of these\ncoming Buddhas. They had a complete Trinity. One person of this Trinity,\nthe everywhere present Avolokitesvara, became the chief object of\nworship, the divine helper on whom all dependence was placed. This\nmythical being was really the God of northern Buddhism in the Middle\nAges, and is the popular sympathizer of all Mongolian races to the\npresent day. In Thibet he is supposed to be incarnate in the Grand Lama.\nIn China he is incarnate in Quanyen, the goddess of mercy. With sailors\nshe is the goddess of the sea. In many temples she is invoked by the\nsick, the halt, the blind, the impoverished. Her images are sometimes\nrepresented with a hundred arms to symbolize her omnipotence to save.\nBeal says of this, as Banergea says of the faith element of the Krishna\ncult, that it is wholly alien to the religion whose name it bears: it is\nnot Buddhism. He thinks that it has been greatly affected by Christian\ninfluences.\n\nAnother mythical being who is worshipped as God in China and Japan, is\nAmitabba, a Dhyana or celestial Buddha, who in long kalpas of Time has\nacquired merit enough for the whole world. Two of the twelve Buddhist\nsects of Japan have abandoned every principle taught by Gautama, except\nhis ethics, and have cast themselves upon the free grace of Amitabba.\nThey have exchanged the old atheism for theism. They have given up all\ndependence on merit-making and self-help; they now rely wholly on the\ninfinite merit of another. Their religious duties are performed out of\ngratitude for a free salvation wrought out for them, and no longer as\nthe means of gaining heaven. They live by a faith which works by love.\nThey expect at death an immediate transfer to a permanent heaven,\ninstead of a series of transmigrations. Their Buddha is not dead, but he\never liveth to receive into his heavenly realm all who accept his grace,\nand to admit them to his divine fellowship forever. By a direct and\ncomplete imputation they are made sharers in his righteousness, and\nbecome joint heirs in his heavenly inheritance. Whatever the genesis of\nthese strange cults which now prevail as the chief religious beliefs\namong the Mongolian races, they are marvellously significant. They have\ncome almost to the very threshold of Christianity. What they need is the\ntrue Saviour and not a myth, a living faith and not an empty delusion.\nNevertheless, they prove that faith in a divine salvation is the only\nreligion that can meet the wants of the human soul.\n\nThere is something very encouraging in these approaches toward the great\ndoctrines of salvation. I do not believe that these sects have come so\nnear to the true Messiah without the influence of the Spirit of God, and\nwithout more or less light from Christian sources. But partly they have\nbeen moved by those wants which Hinduism and Buddhism could not satisfy.\nThe principle of their faith is worthy of recognition, and the\nmissionary should say as Paul said: \"Whom ye ignorantly worship, Him\ndeclare I unto you.\"\n\nIt is a very significant fact that most of the Brahmo Somajes of India\nhave adopted Jesus Christ as the greatest of the world's prophets.\nChunder Sen sometimes spoke of him as a devout Christian would speak.\nThe Arya Somaj would not own His name, but it has graced its Hindu creed\nwith many of His essential doctrines. Quite recently a new organ of the\nBrahmo Somaj, published at Hyderabad, has announced as its leading\nobject, \"to harmonize pure Hinduism and pure Christianity, with Christ\nas the chief corner-stone.\" In the exact words of this paper, called\n_The Harmony_, its aim is \"to preach Christ as the eternal Son of God,\nas the Logos in all prophets and saints before and after the\nincarnation, as the incarnate, perfect righteousness by whose obedience\nman is made righteous.... Christ is the reconciliation of man with man,\nand of all men with God, the harmony of humanity with humanity, and of\nall humanity with Divinity.\" This prospectus condemns the average\nChristianity of foreigners in India--the over-reaching, \"beef-eating,\nbeer-drinking\" Anglo-Saxon type, \"which despises the Hindu Scriptures\nand yet belies its own;\" but it exalts the spotless and exalted Christ\nand builds all the hopes of humanity upon Him. How will the mere\nphilosopher explain this wonderful power of personality over men of all\nraces, if it be not Divine?\n\nBut perhaps the most remarkable tribute to the transcendent character of\nChrist is seen in the fact that _all_ sects of religionists, the most\nfanatical and irrational, seem to claim Him as in some sense their own.\nMormonism, even when plunging into the lowest depths of degradation, has\nalways claimed to rest on the redemption of Jesus Christ.\nMohammedanism--even the Koran itself--has always acknowledged Christ as\nthe only sinless prophet. All the others, from Adam to Mohammed, stand\nconvicted of heinous offences, and they will not reappear on earth;\nwhile He who knew no sin shall, according to Mohammedan prophecy, yet\ncome again to judge the earth. The worshippers of Krishna, some of whom\nare found among us in this land, claim Christ as one of the true avatars\nof Vishnu, and heartily commend His character and His teachings. Our\nwestern Buddhists are just now emphasizing the idea that Christ was the\nsacred Buddha of Palestine, that he studied and taught \"the eight-fold\npath,\" became an arahat, and attained Nirvana, and that the Christian\nChurch has only misrepresented His transcendent wisdom and purity. The\nablest tract on Theosophy that I have yet seen is entitled \"Theosophy\nthe Religion of Jesus.\"\n\nHow marvellous is all this--that Theosophists, Aryas, Brahmos,\nBuddhists, Moslems, though they hate Christianity and fight it to the\ndeath--still bow before the mild sceptre of Christ. As the central light\nof the diamond shines alike through every facet and angle, so His\ndoctrine and character are claimed as the glory of every creed. Many\ntypes of heathen faiths honor Him, and many schools of philosophic\nscepticism. Some of the noblest tributes to His unearthly purity have\nbeen given by men who rejected His divinity. In spite of itself the most\nearnest thought of many races, many systems, many creeds, has\ncrystallized around Him. History has made Him its moral centre, the\ncalendar of the nations begins with Him, and the anniversary of His\nbirth is the festival of the civilized world. The prediction that all\nnations should call Him blessed is already fulfilled.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 167: It is worthy of note that both the Pentateuch and most\nheathen traditions agree, as to the order or stages of creation, with\nthe geological record of modern science.]\n\n[Footnote 168: Rawlinson: _Ancient Monarchies_.]\n\n[Footnote 169: Ebrard: _Apologetics_, vol. ii.]\n\n[Footnote 170: Williams: _Indian Wisdom_, p. 22.]\n\n[Footnote 171: De Quatrefages: _The Human Species_, p. 490.]\n\n[Footnote 172: _Christ and Other Masters_, p. 281.]\n\n[Footnote 173: _Manual of Buddhism_, p. 66.]\n\n[Footnote 174: Ebrard: _Apologetics_, vol. ii.]\n\n[Footnote 175: Ibid.]\n\n[Footnote 176: _Indian Wisdom_, pp. 32, 393.]\n\n[Footnote 177: Ebrard: _Apologetics_, vol. ii.]\n\n[Footnote 178: Ebrard: _Apologetics_, vol. iii.]\n\n[Footnote 179: De Pressense: _The Ancient World and Christianity_, p.\n87.]\n\n[Footnote 180: Schoolcraft: _Notes on the Iroquois_.]\n\n[Footnote 181: Quoted by Morgan in _St. Paul in Britain_, p. 23.]\n\n[Footnote 182: The full development of the doctrine was not reached till\nfar on in the Christian centuries. Hardwick: _Christ and Other Masters_,\np. 204.]\n\n[Footnote 183: _Aryan Witness_, closing chapter.]\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE IX.\n\nETHICAL TENDENCIES OF THE EASTERN AND THE WESTERN PHILOSOPHIES\n\n\nIt is not my purpose to discuss the comparative merits of philosophic\nsystems, but only to consider some practical bearings of philosophy,\nancient and modern, upon vital questions of morals and religion. There\nhas been no lack of speculation in the world. For ages the most gifted\nminds have labored and struggled to solve the mysteries of the Universe\nand of its Author. But they have missed the all-important fact that with\nthe heart, as well as with the intellect, men are to be learners of the\nhighest wisdom, and that they are to listen to the voice of God not only\nin nature, but in the soul.\n\nSo the old questions, still unsolved, are ever asked anew. The same\nwearying researches and the same confident assertions, to be replaced by\nothers equally confident, are found both in the ancient and in the\nmodern history of mankind. By wisdom the present generation has come no\nnearer to finding out God than men of the remotest times. The cheerless\nconclusion of agnosticism was reached in India twenty-four centuries\nago, and Confucius expressed it exactly when he said, with reference to\nthe future, \"We do not know life; how can we know death?\" This same\ndubious negation probably has the largest following of all types of\nunbelief in our time. It is not atheism: that, to the great mass of men,\nis unthinkable; it is easier to assume simply that \"we do not know.\" Yet\nalmost every form of agnosticism, ancient or modern, claims to possess a\nvast amount of very positive knowledge. Speculative hypothesis never\nemployed the language of dogmatic assurance so confidently as now. Even\ntheosophic occultism speaks of itself as \"science.\"\n\nThat which strikes one first of all in the history of philosophy is the\nsimilarity between ancient and modern speculations upon the great\nmysteries of the world.\n\n1. Notice with what accord various earlier and later theories dispense\nwith real and personal creatorship in the origin of the universe. The\natomic theory of creation is by no means a modern invention, and so far\nas evolution is connected with that hypothesis, evolution is very old.\nMr. Herbert Spencer states his theory thus: \"First in the order of\nevolution is the formation of simple mechanical aggregates of atoms,\ne.g., molecules, spheres, systems; then the evolution of more complex\naggregations or organisms: then the evolution of the highest product of\norganization, thought; and lastly, the evolution of the complex\nrelations which exist between thinking organisms, or society with its\nregulative laws, both civil and moral.\" Between these stages, he tells\nus, \"there is no fixed line of demarcation.... The passage from one to\nthe other is continuous, the transition from organization to thought\nbeing mediated by the nerve-system, in the molecular changes of which\nare to be found the mechanical correlates and equivalents of all\nconscious processes.\" It will be seen that this comprehensive statement\nis designed to cover, if not the creation, at least the creative\nprocesses of all things in the universe of matter and in the universe of\nthought.\n\nMr. Spencer does not allude here to the question of a First Cause back\nof the molecules and their movements, though he is generally understood\nto admit that such a Cause may exist. He does not in express terms deny\nthat at some stage in this development there may have been introduced a\ndivine spark of immortal life direct from the Creator's hand. He even\nmaintains that \"the conscious soul is not the product of a collocation\nof material particles, but is in the deepest sense a Divine\neffluence.\"[184] Yet he seems to get on without any very necessary\nreliance upon such an intervention, since the development from the atom\nto the civilized man is \"a continuous process,\" and throughout the whole\ncourse from molecule to thought and moral and social law, \"there are no\nlines of demarcation.\" He leaves it for the believer in theistic\nevolution to show when and where and how the Divine effluence is\nintroduced.\n\nSimilar to this was the theory which the Hindu Kanada propounded more\nthan two thousand years ago. As translated and interpreted by Colebrook,\nKanada taught that two earthly atoms concurring by an unseen and\npeculiar virtue called \"adrishta,\" or by the will of God, or by time, or\nby competent cause, constitute a double atom of earth; and by concourse\nof three binary atoms a tertiary atom is produced, and by concourse of\nfour triple atoms a quaternary, and so on.[185] Thus the great earth is\nproduced. The system of Lucretius was much the same, though neither\nLucretius nor Spencer has recognized any such force as adrishta.[186]\n\nWhat seems to distinguish Mr. Spencer's theory is the extension of this\nevolutionary process to mind and spirit in the development of thought\nand feeling. He does not say that mind resides in the molecules, but\nthat their movements attend (if they do not originate and control) the\noperation of the mind. Professor Leconte seems to go farther when he\nsays that \"in animals brain-changes are in all cases the cause of\npsychical phenomena; in man alone, and only in his higher activities,\npsychic changes precede and determine brain changes.\"[187] We shall see\nfarther on that Mr. Spencer, in his theory of intuition, admits this\nsame principle by logical inference, and traces even man's highest\nfaculties to brain or nerve changes in our ancestors. Kanada also held\nthat mind, instead of being a purely spiritual power, is atomic or\nmolecular, and by logical deduction the mental activities must depend\non the condition of the molecules.\n\nRam Chandra Bose, in expounding Kanada's theory, says: \"The general idea\nof mind is that _which is subordinate to substance_, being also found in\nintimate relations in an atom, and it is itself material.\" The early\nBuddhist philosophers also taught that physical elements are among the\nfive \"skandas\" which constitute the phenomenal soul. Democritus and\nLucretius regarded the mind as atomic, and the primal \"monad\" of\nLeibnitz was the living germ--smallest of things--which enters into all\nvisible and invisible creations, and which is itself all-potential; it\nis a living microcosm; it is an immortal soul. These various theories\nare not parallels, but they have striking similarities. And I believe\nthat Professor Tyndall, in his famous Belfast Address, virtually\nacknowledges Lucretius as the father of the modern atomic theories.\nWhether Lucretius borrowed them from India, we shall not stop to\ninquire, but we may safely assert that modern philosophers, German,\nFrench or English, have borrowed them from one or both.\n\nIt is not my purpose to discuss the truth or falsity of the atomic\ntheory, or the relation of mind to the movements of molecules in the\nbrain; I simply point out the fact that this is virtually an old\nhypothesis; and I leave each one to judge how great a degree of light it\nhas shed upon the path of human life in the ages of the past, how far it\navailed to check the decline of Greece and Rome, and how much of real\nmoral or intellectual force it has imparted to the Hindu race. The\ncredulous masses of men should not be left to suppose that these are new\nspeculations, nor to imagine that that which has been so barren in the\npast can become a gospel of hope in the present and the future.\n\nThe constant tendency with young students of philosophy, is to conclude\nthat the hypotheses which they espouse with so much enthusiasm are new\nrevelations in metaphysics and ethics as well as in physical\nscience--compared with which the Christian cultus of eighteen centuries\nis now effete and doomed. It is well, therefore, to know that so far\nfrom these speculations having risen upon the ruins of Christianity,\nChristianity rose upon the ruins of these speculations as, in modified\nforms, they had been profoundly elaborated in the philosophies of Greece\nand Rome. Lucretius was born a century before the Christian era, and\nDemocritus, whose disciple he became, lived earlier still. Kanada, the\natomist philosopher of India, lived three centuries before Democritus.\nThe early Christian fathers were perfectly familiar with the theories of\nLucretius. We are indebted to Jerome for many of the facts which we\npossess concerning him. Nearly all the great leaders of the church, from\nOrigen to Ambrose, had studied Greek philosophy, some of them had been\nits devotees before their conversion to the Christian faith. There is at\nleast incidental evidence that the Apostle Paul was versed in the\ncurrent philosophy as well as in the poetry of Greece.\n\nThese great men--great in natural powers and in philosophic\ntraining--had seen just what the speculations of Democritus, Lucretius,\nZeno, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle could do; they had indeed\nundermined the low superstitions of their time, but they had proved\npowerless to regenerate society, or even relieve the individual\npessimism and despair of men like Seneca, Pliny, or Marcus Aurelius.\nLucretius, wholly or partially insane, died by his own hand. The light\nof philosophy left the Roman Empire, as Uhlhorn and others have clearly\nshown, under the shadow of a general despair. And it was in the midst of\nthat gloom that the light of Christianity shone forth. Augustine, who\nhad fathomed various systems and believed in them, tells us that it was\nthe philosophy which appeared in the writings and in the life of the\nApostle Paul which finally wrought the great change in his career. Plato\nhad done much; Paul and the Cross of Christ did infinitely more.\n\nThe development of higher forms of life from lower by natural selection,\nas set forth by the late Charles Darwin, has been supposed to be an\nentirely new system. Yet the Chinese claim to have held a theory of\ndevelopment which represents the mountains as having once been covered\nby the sea. When the waters subsided small herbs sprang up, which in the\ncourse of ages developed into trees. Worms and insects also appeared\nspontaneously, like lice upon a living body; and these after a long\nperiod became larger animals--beetles became tortoises; worms, serpents.\nThe mantis was developed into an ape, and certain apes became at length\nhairless. One of these by accident struck fire with a flint. The\ncooking of food at length followed the use of fire, and the apes, by\nbeing better nourished, were finally changed into men. Whether this\ntheory is ancient or modern, it is eminently Chinese, and it shows the\nnatural tendency of men to ascribe the germs of life to spontaneous\ngeneration, because they fail to see the Great First Cause who produces\nthem. The one thing which is noticeable in nearly all human systems of\nreligion and philosophy, is that they have no clear and distinct idea of\ncreatorship. They are systems of evolution; in one way or another they\nrepresent the world as having _grown_. Generally they assume the\neternity of matter, and often they are found to regard the present\ncosmos as only a certain stage in an endless circle of changes from life\nto death and from death to life. The world rebuilds itself from the\nwreck and debris of former worlds. It is quite consistent with many of\nthese systems that there should be gods, but as a rule they recognize no\nGod. While all races of men have shown traces of a belief in a Supreme\nCreator and Ruler far above their inferior deities, yet their\nphilosophers, if they had any, have sooner or later bowed Him out.\n\n2. Most systems of philosophic speculation, ancient and modern, tend to\nweaken the sense of moral accountability. First, the atomic theory,\nwhich we have just considered, leads to this result by the molecular,\nand therefore purely physical, origin which it assigns to moral acts and\nconditions. We have already alluded to Herbert Spencer's theory of\nintuition. In the \"Data of Ethics,\" page 123, he says: \"I believe that\nthe experiences of utility, organized and consolidated through all past\ngenerations of the human race, have been producing corresponding nervous\nmodifications, which by continued transmission and accumulation _have\nbecome in us certain faculties of moral intuition_, certain emotions\ncorresponding to right and wrong conduct which have no apparent basis in\nthe individual experiences of utility.\"\n\nIt appears from this statement that, so far as we are concerned, our\nmoral intuitions are the results of \"nervous modifications,\" if not in\nourselves, at least in our ancestors, so that the controlling influence\nwhich rules, and which ought to rule, our conduct is a nervous, and\ntherefore a physical, condition which we have inherited. It follows,\ntherefore, that every man's conscience or inherited moral sense is bound\nby a necessity of his physical constitution. And if this be so, why is\nthere not a wide door here opened for theories of moral insanity, which\nmight come at length to cast their shield over all forms and grades of\ncrime? It is easy to see that, whatever theory of creation may be\nadmitted as to the origin of the human soul, this hypothesis rules out\nthe idea of an original moral likeness of the human spirit to a Supreme\nMoral Ruler of the universe, in whom righteousness dwells as an eternal\nprinciple; and it finds no higher source for what we call conscience\nthan the accumulated experience of our ancestors.\n\nThe materialistic view recently presented by Dr. Henry Maudsley, in an\narticle entitled, \"The Physical Basis of Mind\"--an article which seems\nto follow Mr. Spencer very closely--would break down all moral\nresponsibility. His theory that true character depends upon what he\ncalls the reflex action of the nerve-cells; that acts of reason or\nconscience which have been put forth so many times that, in a sense,\nthey perform themselves without any exercise of consciousness, are the\nbest; that a man is an instinctive thief or liar, or a born poet,\nbecause the proper nervous structure has been fixed in his constitution\nby his ancestors; that any moral act, so long as it is conscious, is not\ningrained in character, and the more conscious it is, the more dubious\nit is; and that \"virtue itself is not safely lodged until it has become\na habit\"--in other words, till it has become an automatic and\nunconscious operation of the nerve-cells, such a doctrine, in its\nextreme logical results, destroys all voluntary and conscious loyalty to\nprinciple, and renders man a mere automatic machine.\n\nOn the other hand Mr. A.R. Wallace, in combating the theory that the\nmoral sense in man is based on the utility experienced by our ancestors,\nrelates the following incident: \"A number of prisoners taken during the\nSantal insurrection were allowed to go free on parole, to work at a\ncertain spot for wages. After some time cholera attacked them and they\nwere obliged to leave, but everyone of them returned and gave up his\nearnings to the guard. Two hundred savages with money in their girdles\nwalked thirty miles back to prison rather than break their word. My own\nexperience with savages has furnished me with similar, although less\nseverely tested, instances; and we cannot avoid asking how it is that,\nin these few cases 'experience of utility' have left such an\noverpowering impression, while in others they have left none.... The\nintuitional theory which I am now advocating explains this by the\nsupposition that there is a feeling--a sense of right and wrong--in our\nnature antecedent to, and independent of, experiences of utility.\"[188]\n\n3. Theories which confound the origin of man with that of brutes,\nwhether in the old doctrine of transmigration or in at least some of the\ntheories of evolution, involve a contradiction in man's ethical history.\nThe confusion shown in the Buddhist Jatakas, wherein Buddha, in the\nprevious existences which prepared him for his great and holy mission,\nwas sometimes a saint and sometimes a gambler and a thief, is scarcely\ngreater, from an ethical point of view, than that which evolution\nencounters in bridging the chasm between brute instinct and the lofty\nethics of the perfected man.\n\nThe lower grades of animal life know no other law than the instinct\nwhich prompts them to devour the types which are lower still. This\ndestruction of the weaker by the stronger pervades the whole brute\ncreation; it is a life of violence throughout. On the other hand, all\nweaker creatures, exposed to such ravages, protect themselves\nuniversally by deception. The grouse shields her young from hawks or\nother carnivora by running in the opposite direction, with the assumed\nappearance of a broken wing. The flat fish, to escape its mortal\nenemies, lies upon the bottom of the stream, scarcely distinguishable in\ncolor or appearance from the sand which constitutes its bed. Nature\nseems to aid and abet its falsehood by the very form which has been\nassigned to it. And so also the gift of transparency helps the chameleon\nin seeming to be a part of the green plant, or the brown bark, upon\nwhich it lies. And Professor Drummond, in his interesting account of his\nAfrican travels, describes certain insects which render themselves\nindistinguishable either in color or in form from the branchings and\nexfoliation of certain grasses upon which they feed. Deception therefore\nbecomes a chief resource of the weak, while violence is that of the\nstrong. And those which are in the middle of the scale practise both.\nThere are still other animals which are invested with attributes of all\nthat is meanest and most contemptible in character. The sly and\ninsinuating snake gliding noiselessly toward the victim of its envenomed\nsting--the spider which spreads forth its beautiful and alluring net,\nsparkling with morning dew, while it lurks in a secret corner, ready to\nfall upon its luckless prey--the sneaking and repulsive hyena, too\ncowardly to attack the strong and vigorous, but waiting for the\ncrippled, the helpless, the sick, and dying--if all these are in the\nschool of preparation for that noble stage of manhood when truth and\nrighteousness shall be its crown of glory, then, where is the\nturning-point? Where do violence, meanness, and deception gradually beam\nforth into benevolence and truth?\n\n   \"The spider kills the fly. The wiser sphinx\n    Stings the poor spider in the centre nerve,\n    Which paralyzes only; lays her eggs,\n    And buries with them with a loving care\n    The spider, powerless but still alive,\n    To warm them unto life, and afterward\n    To serve as food among the little ones.\n    This is the lesson nature has to teach,\n    'Woe to the conquered, victory to the strong.'\n    And so through all the ages, step by step,\n    The stronger and the craftier replaced\n    The weaker, and increased and multiplied.\n    And in the end the outcome of the strife\n    Was man, who had dominion over all,\n    And preyed on all things, and the stronger man\n    Trampled his weaker brother under foot.\"\n\nMr. John Fiske maintains that mankind, during the previous bestial\nperiod, were compelled like all other animals to maraud and destroy, as\na part of the plan of natural selection in securing the survival of the\nfittest; the victories of the strong over the weak were the steps and\nstages of the animal creation in its general advancement. And he further\nstates that, even after man had entered upon the heritage of his\nmanhood, it was still for a time the true end of his being to maraud as\nbefore and to despoil all men whose weakness placed them in his power.\nIt was only thus that the steady improvement of the race could be\nsecured; and in that view it was man's duty to consult the dictates of\nselfishness and cruelty rather than those of kindness. To use Mr.\nFiske's own words, \"If we could put a moral interpretation upon events\nwhich antedated morality as we understand it, we should say it was their\nduty to fight; and the reverence accorded to the chieftain who murdered\nmost successfully in behalf of his clansmen was well deserved.\"[189]\n\nMuch to the same effect writes Professor Leconte. \"In organic evolution\nthe weak, the sick, the helpless, the unfit in anyway, perish, _and\nought to perish_, because this is the most efficient way of\nstrengthening the _blood or physical nature_ of the species, and thus of\ncarrying forward evolution. In human evolution (which occurs at an\nadvanced stage) the weak, the helpless, the sick, the old, the unfit in\nanyway, are sustained, _and ought to be sustained_, because sympathy,\nlove, pity, strengthen the _spirit and moral nature_ of the race.\"[190]\nThere is this difference, however, between this statement and that of\nMr. Fiske, that it does not indicate at what point \"human evolution\"\nbegins; it does not expressly declare that the subject of evolution,\neven after he has become a man, is still for a time in duty bound to\nfight in the interest of selfishness and natural selection. Still he\nreverses the \"ought\" as he advances from organic to human evolution.\n\nAccording to both authors, when, in view of new environments and new\nsocial requirements, it became more advantageous to each individual man\nthat he should cease to maraud, should learn to regard the rights of\nothers, should respect the family relation, and subordinate his selfish\ninterest to the general good; then altruism dawned upon the world, moral\nprinciple appeared, and the angel of benevolence and love became\nenshrined in the human breast. Step by step this favored being, the\nideal of natural selection in all her plans, advanced to a stage in\nwhich it became incumbent to even subordinate self to the good of\nothers, not only to spare the weak but to tenderly care for them, and\neven to love those who have treated him with unkindness and abuse. While\nin the early stages the law of life and progress had been the sacrifice\nof others for selfish good; now the crowning glory consists in\nself-sacrifice for the good of all but self.\n\nThe logical result of this reasoning cannot escape the notice of any who\ncarefully consider it. If, for any reason, any community of human beings\nshould decline in moral and intellectual character until they should\nfinally reach the original state of savagery, it would again become\ntheir duty to lay aside all high ethical claims as no longer suited to\ntheir condition. The extraneous complications which had grown out of\nmere social order having passed away, rectitude also would pass away;\nbenevolence, philanthropy, humanity, would be wholly out of place, and\nhowever lovely Christian charity might appear from a sentimental point\nof view, it would be ill adapted to that condition of society. In such a\nstate of things the strong and vigorous, if sacrificing themselves to\nthe weak, would only perpetuate weakness, and it would be their duty\nrather to extirpate them, and by the survival only of the fittest to\nregain the higher civilization. I state the case in all its naked\ndeformity, because it shows the confusion and darkness of a world in\nwhich God is not the moral centre.\n\nAnd here, as already stated, modern speculation joins hands with the old\nheathen systems. According to Hindu as well as Buddhist philosophy, this\nretrograde process might not only carry civilized man back to savagery,\nbut might place him again in the category of brutes. If tendencies\ncontrol all things and have no limit, why might they not remand the\nhuman being to lower and lower forms, until he should reach again the\nstatus of the mollusk?\n\nNow, over against all the systems which make mind either a product or a\nphenomenon of matter, we have the Scriptural doctrine that man was\ncreated in the image of God. This fact explains the differences which\ndistinguish him from the beasts of the field; for even in his lowest\nestate he is amenable to the principle of right and wrong. Paul taught,\nin the first chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, that when men descend\nto the grade of beasts--and he shows that they may descend even below\nthe dignity of beasts--so far from becoming exempt from moral claims,\nthey fall under increased condemnation. The old Hindu systems taught\nthat there can be no release from the consequences of evil acts. They\ntraced them from one rebirth to another in kharma, as modern speculation\ntraces them physically in heredity. The one saw no relief except in the\nchanges of endless transmigrations, the other finds it only in the\ngradual readjustment of the nerve-cells. But we know by observation and\nexperience that the spiritual power of the Holy Ghost can transform\ncharacter at once. No fact in the history of Christianity is more firmly\nor more widely established than this. The nerve-tissues to the contrary\nnotwithstanding, the human soul may be born again. The persecuting Saul\nmay become at once a chief apostle. The blasphemer, the sot, the\ndebauchee, the murderer, may be transformed to a meek and sincere\nChristian. Millions of the heathen, with thousands of years of savage\nand bestial heredity behind them, have become pure and loyal disciples\nof the spotless Redeemer. The fierce heathen Africaner, as well as the\ndissolute Jerry McCauley, have illustrated this transforming power.\n\nProfessor Huxley and others, in our time, are trying to elaborate some\nbasis of ethics independently of religion. But, as a matter of fact,\nthese very men are living on conventional moral promptings and\nrestraints derived from the Bible. The best basis of morals yet known is\nthat of Christianity, and it is from its high and ennobling cultus that\neven the enemies of the truth are deriving their highest inspiration.\nMr. Goldwin Smith, in an able article published in the _Forum_ of April,\n1891, on the question, \"Will Morality Survive Faith?\" shows at least\nthat the best ethics which the world now has are the outcome of\nreligious belief and of Christian belief, and he leads the minds of his\nreaders to gravely doubt whether a gospel of agnostic evolution could\never produce those forces of moral prompting and restraint which the\ncenturies of Christianity have developed. He does not hesitate to assert\nthat those who hold and advocate the modern anti-theistic speculations\nare themselves living upon the influence of a Christian cultus which has\nsurvived their faith. A true test of their principles could only be made\nwhen a generation should appear upon which no influence of Christian\nparents still remained, and in a society in which Christian sentiment\nno longer survived.[191] It may be said that the _truth_ must be\nreceived without regard to the results which may follow. This is\nadmitted, but the same cannot be said of _theories_. If there is\nperfect harmony between all truths in the physical and the moral world,\nthen all these should have their influence in reaching final\nconclusions.\n\n4. The philosophies, ancient and modern, have agreed in lowering the\ncommon estimate of man as man; they have exerted an influence the\nopposite of that in which the New Testament pleads for a common and an\nexalted brotherhood of the race.\n\nHinduism raised the Brahman almost to the dignity of the gods, and\ndebased the Sudra to a grade but a little higher than the brute. Buddha\ndeclared that his teachings were for the wise, and not for the simple.\nThe philosophers of Greece and Rome, even the best of them, regarded\nthe helot and the slave as of an inferior grade of beings--even though\noccasionally a slave by his superior force rose to a high degree. In\nlike manner the whole tendency of modern evolution is to degrade the\ndignity and sacredness of humanity. It is searching for \"missing links;\"\nit measures the skulls of degraded races for proofs of its theories. It\nhas travellers and adventurers on the lookout for tribes who have no\nconception of God, and no religious rites; it searches caves and dredges\nlakes for historical traces of man when he had but recently learned to\n\"stand upright upon his hind legs.\" The lower the types that can be\nfound, the more valuable are they for the purposes required. All this\ntends to the dishonoring of the inferior types of men. Wherever\nChristianity had changed the old estimates of the philosophers, and had\nled to the nobler sentiment that God had made of one blood all nations\nand races, and had stamped His own image on them all, and even redeemed\nthem all by the sacrifice of His Son, the speculations of sceptical\nbiology have in a measure counteracted its benign influence. They have\nfostered the contempt of various classes for a dark skin or an inferior\ncivilization. They indirectly encourage those who, with little merit of\ntheir own, speak contemptuously of the \"Buck Indian,\" \"the Nigger,\" the\n\"Heathen Chinee.\" They encourage the \"hoodlum,\" and so far as they have\nany influence, give an implied sanction to much unrighteous legislation.\n\nEven Peschel, who will not be suspected of any bias toward Christianity,\nhas said on this subject: \"This dark side of the life of uncivilized\nnations has induced barbarous and inhuman settlers in transoceanic\nregions to assume as their own a right to cultivate as their own the\ninheritance of the aborigines, and to extol the murder of races as a\ntriumph of civilization. Other writers, led away by Darwinian dogmas,\nfancied that they had discovered populations which had, as it were,\nremained in a former animal condition for the instruction of our times.\"\nAnd he adds: \"Thus in the words of a 'History of Creation,' in the taste\nnow prevalent, 'in Southern Asia and the East of Africa men live in\nhordes, mostly climbing trees and eating fruit, unacquainted with fire,\nand using no weapons but stones and clubs, after the manner of the\nhigher apes.' It can be shown,\" he continues, \"that these statements are\nderived from the writings of a learned scholar of Bonn on the condition\nof savage nations, the facts of which are based either on the\ndepositions of an African slave of the Doko tribe, a dwarfish people in\nthe south of Shoa, or on the assertions of Bengalese planters, or\nperhaps on the observations of a sporting adventurer, that a mother and\ndaughter, and at another time a man and woman, were found in India in a\nsemi-animal condition. On the other hand, not only have neither nations,\nnor even hordes, in an ape-like condition ever been encountered by any\ntrustworthy traveller of modern times, but even those races which in the\nfirst superficial descriptions were ranked far below our grade of\ncivilization have, on nearer acquaintance, been placed much nearer the\ncivilized nations. No portion of the human race has yet been discovered\nwhich does not possess a more or less rich vocabulary, rules of\nlanguage, artificially pointed weapons, and various implements, as well\nas the art of kindling fire.[192]\"\n\nThe assertion has been made again and again that races are found which\nare possessed of no knowledge or conception of Deity, but this\nassumption has been thoroughly refuted by Max Mueller and many others.\n\nThere is a very general assumption abroad in the world that bigotry and\neven bias of judgment belong exclusively to the advocates of religious\ntruth, and that the teachers of agnostic science are, in the nature of\nthe case, impartial and therefore authoritative. But the generalizations\nwhich have been massed by non-Christian anthropologists and sociologists\nare often gleaned and culled under the strongest subserviency to some\nfavorite hypothesis, and that on the most superficial observation and\nfrom the most unreliable authorities. De Quatrefages, an anthropologist\nof profound learning, and certainly with no predilections for Christian\ntheism, in speaking of the alleged evidences given by Sir John Lubbock\nand Saint-Hilaire to show that many races of men have been found\ndestitute of any conception of Deity, says: \"When the writers against\nwhom I am now arguing have to choose between two evidences, the one\nattesting, and the other denying, the existence of religious belief in a\npopulation, it is always the latter which they seem to think should be\naccepted. More often than not, they do not even mention the contrary\nevidences, however definite, however authentic they may be. Now, it is\nevidently much _easier not to see_ than to _discover_ that which may be\nin so many ways rendered inappreciable to our eyes. When a traveller\nstates that he has proved the existence of religious sentiments in a\npopulation which by others has been declared destitute of them, when he\ngives precise details upon such a delicate question, he has\nunquestionably at least probability in his favor. I see nothing to\nauthorize this rejection of _positive evidence_ and unconditional\nacceptance of _negative evidence_. This, however, is too often the case.\nI might justify this imputation by taking one by one almost all the\nexamples of so-called atheist populations pointed out by different\nauthors.\"[193] De Quatrefages then proceeds to show how, with respect to\nAmerican tribes, Robertson is quoted while D'Orbigny is passed in\nsilence, even though he has by the testimony of many authors disproved\nthe statements of Robertson; how Baegert's negative and sweeping\nstatements in regard to the California tribes are accepted, while the\nvery specific testimony of De Mofras in regard both to the fact and to\nthe nature of their worship is rejected. In relation to the Mincopies,\nMouat (negative) is adopted against Symes and Day. The Hottentots are\nadjudged atheistic on the testimony of Le Vaillant, in spite of the\nunited witness of Kolben, Saar, Tachard, Boeving, and Campbell. The\nKaffirs are declared to be destitute of religion on the statements of\nBurchel, while Livingstone and Cazalis have given clear accounts of the\nreligion of the different Kaffir tribes.\n\nIn a similar manner Professor Flint, of Edinburgh, arraigns Sir John\nLubbock and certain other advocates of the atheistic theory concerning\nsavage tribes, for the partiality of their selection of testimony and\nfor the superficial evidence which they accept when favorable to their\ntheories. After reviewing Lubbock's wholesale quotations concerning the\nIndian tribes of Brazil, he says, \"These are Sir John Lubbock's\ninstances from South American tribes. But I find that they are all\neither erroneous or insufficiently established.\" And he gives many\ncounter-proofs. \"It will never do,\" he says, \"to believe such sweeping\nstatements--sweeping negatives--merely because they happen to be\nprinted.\" Farther on he adds: \"But I think that he (Lubbock) might have\ntold us that Humboldt, whose travels in South America were so extensive,\nwhose explorations were so varied, scientific, and successful, and who\ncertainly was uninfluenced by traditional theological beliefs, _found no\ntribes and peoples without a religion_; and that Prince Max von Neuwied\ntells us that in all his many and wide wanderings in Brazil he had found\nno tribes the members of which did not give manifest signs of religious\nfeelings.\"\n\nIn the appendix of the book from which these extracts are made,\nProfessor Flint says: \"No one, I think, who has not a theory to maintain\ncan consider the circumstances in which most of the Brazilian Indian\ntribes are placed without coming to the conclusion that they must have\nsunk from a higher intellectual and religious level.\"\n\nI have dwelt at length upon these arraignments of the careless and\nbiased utterances of supposed scientists, because it is so much the\nfashion of our times to support certain theories of anthropology by\nmassing the supposed evidences of man's degradation found, even now, in\nthe environments of savage life. Many readers, apparently dazed by the\nvast accumulation of indiscriminate and heterogeneous statements which\nthey have no time to examine, yield an easy and blind assent, based\neither on the supposed wisdom of the writer or upon the fact that so\nmany others believe, and they imagine that no little courage is required\non their part to risk the loss of intellectual caste. A vast amount of\nthe thinking of our age, although it claims to be scientific, is really\na matter of simple faith--faith in the opinions and dicta of\ndistinguished leaders. And under such circumstances, is it not our\nprivilege and our duty as Christian men to at least challenge and\ncross-question those theories which depress and dishonor our common\nhumanity before we yield them our assent?\n\nThe majority of scientists now so confidently assume the certain\nderivation of man from lower orders of life, that, as Max Mueller has\nexpressed it, their intolerance greets \"with a perfect howl of derision\na man like Virchow,\" who dares to declare that proof of man's derivation\nfrom animals is still wanting. Nevertheless Virchow, himself an\nevolutionist, maintains his ground, as the following passage quoted some\nmonths since from _The London Tablet_ will show:\n\n\"Some sensation has been caused at the recent Anthropological Congress\nin Vienna by the speech of the great Berlin biologist, Professor\nVirchow. About a year ago Virchow, on a similar occasion, made a severe\nattack on the Darwinian position, and this year he is similarly\noutspoken. We make the following extracts from his long address to the\nCongress:\n\n\"'Twenty years ago, when we met at Innspruck, it was precisely the\nmoment when the Darwinian theory had made its first victorious mark\nthroughout the world. My friend Vogt at once rushed into the ranks of\nthe champions of this doctrine. We have since sought in vain for the\nintermediate stages which were supposed to connect man with the apes;\nthe proto-man, the pro-anthropos is not yet discovered. For\nanthropological science the pro-anthropos is not even a subject of\ndiscussion. The anthropologist may, perhaps, see him in a dream, but as\nsoon as he awakes he cannot say that he has made any approach toward\nhim. At that time in Innspruck the prospect was, apparently, that the\ncourse of descent from ape to man would be reconstructed all at once,\nbut now we cannot even prove the descent of the separate races from one\nanother.[194] At this moment we are able to say that among the peoples\nof antiquity no single one was any nearer to the apes than we are. At\nthis moment I can affirm that there is not upon earth any absolutely\nunknown race of men. The least known of all are the peoples of the\ncentral mountainous districts of the Malay peninsula, but otherwise we\nknow the people of Terra del Fuego quite as well as the Eskimo,\nBashkirs, Polynesians, and Lapps. Nay! we know more of many of these\nraces than we do of certain European tribes. I need only mention the\nAlbanians. Every living race is still human; no single one has yet been\nfound that we can designate as Simian or quasi-Simian. Even when in\ncertain ones phenomena appear which are characteristic of the\napes--e.g., the peculiar ape-like projections of the skull in certain\nraces--still we cannot on that account alone say that these men are\nape-like. As regards the Lake dwellings, I have been able to submit to\ncomparative examination nearly every single skull that has been found.\nThe result has been that we have certainly met with opposite\ncharacteristics among various races; but of all these there is not one\nthat lies outside of the boundaries of our present population. It can\nthus be positively demonstrated that in the course of five thousand\nyears no change of type worthy of mention has taken place. If you ask me\nwhether the first man were white or black, I can only say I don't know.'\n\n\"Professor Virchow thus summed up the question as to what\nanthropological science during the last forty years has gained, and\nwhether, as many contend, it has gone forward or backward.\n\n\"'Twenty years ago the leaders of our science asserted that they knew\nmany things which, as a matter of fact, they did not know. Nowadays we\nknow what we know. I can only reckon up our account in so far as to say\nthat we have made no debts; that is, we have made no loan from\nhypotheses; we are in no danger of seeing that which we know over-turned\nin the course of the next moment. We have levelled the ground so that\nthe coming generation may make abundant use of the material at their\ndisposition. As an attainable objective of the next twenty years, we\nmust look to the anthropology of the European nationalities.'\"\n\n5. Another demoralizing type of speculation which has exerted a wide\ninfluence in many ages and on many nations is pantheism. By abdicating\nthe place and function of the conscious ego, by making all things mere\nspecialized expressions of infinite Deity, and yet failing to grasp any\nclear conception of what is meant by Deity, men have gradually\ndestroyed that sense of moral responsibility which the most savage show\nto have been a common heritage. It is not among the lowest and most\nsimple races that missionaries find the greatest degree of obtuseness\nand insensibility with respect to sin; it is among populations like\nthose of India, where the natural promptings of conscience have been\nsophisticated by philosophic theories. The old Vedantism, by\nrepresenting all things as mere phenomenal expressions of infinite\nBrahm, tended necessarily to destroy all sense of personal\nresponsibility. The abdication of the personal ego is an easy way of\nshifting the burden of guilt. The late Naryan Sheshadri declared that\none thing which led him to renounce Hinduism was the fact that, when he\ncame to trace its underlying principles to their last logical result he\nsaw no ground of moral responsibility left. It plunged him into an abyss\nof intellectual and moral darkness without chart or compass. It\nparalyzed conscience and moral sensibility.\n\nIt is equally impossible to reason ourselves into any consciousness of\nmerit or demerit, if we are moved only by some vague law of nature whose\nbehest, as described by Mr. Buckle, we cannot resist, whose operations\nwithin us we cannot discern, and whose drift or tendency we cannot\nforesee. It makes little difference whether we build our faith upon the\ngod of pantheism or upon the unknowable but impersonal force which is\nsupposed to move the world, which operates in the same ways upon all\ngrades of existence from the archangel to the mote in the sunbeam,\nwhich moves the molecules of the human brain only as it stirs the\nglobules of sap in the tree or plant. It is difficult to see how, upon\nany such hypothesis, we are any more responsible for our volitions and\naffections than we are for our heart-beats or respirations. And yet we\nare conscious of responsibility in the one case and not in the other.\nConsciousness comes in with tremendous force at just this point, all\ntheories and speculations to the contrary notwithstanding. And we dare\nnot disregard its testimony or its claims. We know that we are morally\nresponsible.\n\n6. Many philosophic systems, ancient and modern, have tended to fill the\nworld with gloomy pessimism. Pessimism is very old and very widespread.\nSchopenhauer acknowledges his indebtedness to Gautama for much of the\nphilosophy which is known by his name. In Hinduism and Buddhism, as well\nas in the teachings of the German pessimists, the natural complainings\nof the human heart are organized into philosophical systems. There is in\nall human nature quite enough of querulousness against the unequal\nallotments of Providence, but all these systems inculcate and foster\nthat discontent by the sanctions of philosophy. The whole assumption of\n\"The Light of Asia\" is that the power that upholds and governs the world\nis a hard master, from whose leash we should escape if we can by\nannihilating our powers and faculties, and abdicating our conscious\nbeing; that the world and the entire constitution of things are all\nwrong; that misery is everywhere in the ascendant, and that man and\nbeast can only make common cause against the tyranny of a reckless\nfate, and cry out with common voice for some sympathizing benefactor who\ncan pity and deliver. There is no hint that sin has wrought the evil.\nMan is not so much a sinner as the victim of a hard lot; he is\nunfortunate, and it is the world that is wrong. Therefore the true end\nof life is to get rid of the recurrence of life.\n\nIn much of our modern agnosticism there is the same dark outlook, and\nagnosticism naturally joins hands with pessimism. Dr. Noah Porter, in\none of the series of \"Present-Day Tracts,\" has shown it to be a doctrine\nof despair. A well-known lecturer who has loudly declaimed against what\nhe considers the remorseless character of the Old Testament, has\nacknowledged that it is not more cruel than nature; that in the actual\nworld about us we find the same dark mystery, the weak perishing before\nthe strong, the wicked prosperous, the just oppressed, and the innocent\ngiven as a prey to the guilty; and his conclusion is that deism is no\nmore defensible than Christianity. His pessimistic estimate of the\nactual world drives him to a disbelief in a personal God.\n\nWe do not ignore the sad facts of life; even the Christian is often\nsaddened by the mysteries which he cannot explain. Bishop J. Boyd\nCarpenter, in speaking of the sad and cheerless spirit of Buddhism, has\nsaid: \"There are moments in which we are all Buddhists; when life has\ndisappointed us, when weariness is upon us, when the keen anguish born\nof the sight of human suffering appals and benumbs us, when we are\nfrozen to terror, and our manhood flies at the sight of the Medusa-like\nhead of the world's unappeased and unappeasable agony; then we too are\ntorn by the paroxysm of anguish; we would flee to the Nirvana of\noblivion and unconsciousness, turning our back upon what we cannot\nalleviate, and longing to lay down the burden of life, and to escape\nfrom that which has become insupportable.\"[195] But these are only the\ndark and seemingly forsaken hours in which men sit in despair beneath\nthe juniper-tree and imagine that all the world has gone wrong. The\njuniper-tree in Christianity is the exception; the Bo-tree of Buddhism,\nwith the same despondent estimate, is the rule. No divine message came\nto show the Buddha a brighter side. And the agnostic stops his ears that\nno voice of cheer may be heard. The whole philosophy of Buddhism and of\nmodern agnosticism is pessimistic. The word and Spirit of God do not\ndeny the sad facts of human life in a world of sin, but they enable the\nChristian to triumph over them, and even to rejoice in tribulation.\n\n7. And this leads to one more common feature of all false systems, their\nfatalism. Among the exaggerated claims which are made for heathen\nreligions in our day, it is alleged that they rest upon a more humane\nphilosophy than appears in the grim fatalism of our Christian theology,\nespecially that of the Calvinistic type. Without entering upon any\ndefence of Christian doctrines of one type or another, it would be easy\nto show that fatalism, complete and unmitigated, is at the foundation of\nall Oriental religion and philosophy, all ancient or modern pantheism,\nand most of the various types of agnosticism. While this has been the\npoint at which all infidel systems have assailed the Christian faith, it\nhas nevertheless been the goal which they have all reached by their own\nspeculations. They have differed from Christianity in that their\npredestinating, determining force, instead of being qualified by any\nplay of free-will, or any feasible plan of ultimate and superabounding\ngood, has been a real fatalism, changeless, hopeless, remorseless. That\nthe distaff of the Fates, and the ruthless sceptre of the Erinnys,\nentered in full force into all the religions of the Greeks and Romans,\nscarcely needs to be affirmed. They controlled all human affairs, and\neven the gods were subject to them. The Sagas of the Northmen also were\nfull of fatalism, and that principle still survives in the folk-lore and\ncommon superstitions of all Scandinavian, Teutonic, and Celtic races.\n\nThe fatalism of the Hindus is plainly stated in the \"Code of Manu,\"\nwhich declares that, \"in order to distinguish actions, he (the creator)\nseparated merit from demerit. To whatever course of action the Lord\nappointed each kind of being, that alone it has spontaneously adopted in\neach succeeding creation. Whatever he has assigned to each at the first\ncreation, noxiousness or harmlessness, gentleness or ferocity, virtue or\nsin, truth or falsehood, that clings to it.\"[196] The same doctrine is\nput in still more offensive form when it is declared that \"Manu (here\nused in the sense of creator) allotted to woman a love of her bed, of\nher seat, of ornament, also impure desires, wrath, dishonesty, and bad\nconduct.\"[197] There would be some relief from this horrible doctrine if\nin subsequent chapters of Manu there were kindly tokens of grace, or\nsympathy for woman, or any light of hope here or hereafter; but the\nwhole teaching and spirit of the \"Code\" rests as an iron yoke upon\nwomanhood, and it is largely a result of this high authority that the\nfemale sex has for ages been subjected to the most cruel tyranny and\ndegradation. It might well be said that, in spite of the horrors of\ninfanticide, the most merciful element of Hinduism with respect to woman\nis the custom by which so large a proportion of female children have\nbeen destroyed at birth. The same fatalistic principles affect all ranks\nand conditions of Hindu society. The poor Sudra is not only low-born and\ndegraded, but he is immovably fixed in his degradation. He is cut off\nfrom all hope or aspiration; he cannot rise from the thraldom of his\nfate. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna declares to Arjuna that it is\n\n   \"Better to do the duty of one's caste\n    Though bad or ill performed, and fraught with evil,\n    Than undertake the business of another,\n    However good it be.\"\n\nThus even the laws of right and wrong are subordinate to the fatality of\ncaste, and all aspiration is paralyzed.\n\nOn the other hand, it has been acknowledged repeatedly that the sternest\ntype of Puritan theology, as a moral and political force, is full of\ninspiration; it does not deaden the soul; it stimulates the action of\nfree-will; its moral earnestness has been a great power in molding\nnational destinies. Mr. Bancroft has not hesitated to declare that the\ngreat charters of human liberty are largely due to its strong conception\nof a divine and all-controlling purpose. Even Matthew Arnold admitted\nthat its stern \"Hebraic\" culture, as he called it, had wrought some of\nthe grandest achievements of history. But Hindu fatalists, noble Aryans\nas they were at first, have been conquered by every race of invaders\nthat has chosen to assail them. And no better result could have been\nexpected from a philosophy whose _summum bonum_ is the renunciation of\nlife as not worth living, and the loss of all personality by absorption\ninto the One supreme existence.\n\nBuddhism does not present the same fatalistic theory of creation as\nBrahminism, but it introduces even a more aggravated fatalism into human\nlife. Both alike load down the newly-born with burdens of guilt and\nconsequent suffering transmitted from previous existences. But in the\ncase of Buddhism there is no identity between the sinner, who incurred\nthe guilt, and the recipient of the evil kharma, which demands\npunishment. Every man comes into the world entangled in the moral\nbankruptcy of some one who has gone before, he knows not who nor where.\nThere is no consciousness of identity, no remembrance, no possible sense\nof guilt, or notion of responsibility. It is not the same soul that\nsuffers, for in either case there is no soul; there is only a bundle of\nso-called skandhas--certain faculties of mind and body newly combined\nwhose interaction produces thought and emotion. Yet there is conscious\nsuffering. Scoffers have long pointed with indignation at the Christian\ndoctrine that a child inherits a moral bias from his parents, but\nnowadays evolutionists carry the law of heredity to an extreme which no\nhyper-Calvinist ever thought of, and many cavillers at \"original sin\"\nhave become eloquent in their praises of Buddhism, which handicaps each\nchild with the accumulated demerit of pre-existent beings with whom he\nhad no connection whatever.[198] The Christian doctrine imputes\npunishable guilt only so far as each one's free choice makes the sin his\nown: the dying infant who has no choice is saved by grace; but upon\nevery Buddhist, however short-lived, there rests an heir-loom of destiny\nwhich countless transmigrations cannot discharge.\n\nIn Mohammedanism the doctrine of fate--clear, express, and emphatic--is\nfully set forth. The Koran resorts to no euphemism or circumlocution in\ndeclaring it. Thus, in Sura lxxiv. 3, 4, we read: \"Thus doth God cause\nto err whom he pleases, and directeth whom he pleases.\" Again, Sura xx.\n4, says: \"The fate of every man have we bound round his neck.\" As is\nwell known, fatalism as a practical doctrine of life has passed into all\nMohammedan society. \"Kismet\" (it is fated) is the exclamation of\ndespair with which a Moslem succumbs to adversity and often dies without\nan effort to recover. In times of pestilence missionaries in Syria have\nsometimes found whole villages paralyzed with despair. Yielding to the\nfatalism of their creed, the poor mountaineers have abandoned all means\nof cure and resigned themselves to their fate. The same fatal paralysis\nhas affected all liberty of thought, all inventiveness and enterprise,\nall reform of evils, all higher aspiration of the oppressed people.\n\nWith the lower forms of religious belief, fetishism, animism, serpent\nworship, demon worship, the case is still worse. The only deities that\nare practically recognized in these rude faiths are generally supposed\nto be malevolent beings, who have not only fixed an evil fate upon men,\nbut whose active and continued function it is to torment them. Though\nthere is a lingering belief in a Supreme Being who created all things,\nyet he is far off and incomprehensible. He has left his creatures in the\nhands of inferior deities, at whose mercy they pass a miserable\nexistence. Looking at the dark facts of life and having no revelation of\na merciful God they form their estimates of Deity from their trials,\nhardships, fears, and they are filled with dread; all their religious\nrites have been devised for appeasing the powers that dominate and\ndistress the world. And yet a pronounced agnostic has asked us to\nbelieve that even this wide-spread horror, this universal nightmare of\nheathen superstition, is more humane than the Calvinistic creed.\n\nIf we inquire into the tendency of all types of ancient or modern\npantheism in this particular phase, we shall find them, without\nexception, fatalistic. They not merely make God the author of sin--they\nmake Him the sinner. Our misdeeds are not our acts, but God's. Thus the\nvaunted Bhagavad Gita, uniting the Sankhyan and the Vedanta\nphilosophies, makes Krishna say to Arjuna: \"All actions are incessantly\nperformed by operation of the qualities of Prakriti (the self-existing\nEssence). Deluded by the thought of individuality, the soul vainly\nbelieves itself to be the doer. The soul, existing from eternity, devoid\nof qualities, imperishable, abiding in the body, acts not, nor is by any\nact polluted. He who sees that actions are performed by Prakriti alone,\nand that the soul is not an actor, perceives the truth.\"[199] Such is\nHindu pantheism. Yet this most inconsistent system charges man with\nguilt. It represents his inexorable fate as pursuing him through endless\ntransmigrations, holding over him the lash of retribution, while it\nexacts the very last farthing. Still, from first to last, it is not he\nthat acts, but some fractional part of the One only Existence which\nfills all space.\n\nThe philosophy of Spinoza was quite as fatalistic as the Hindu Vedanta.\nHe taught, according to Schwegler, that \"The finite has no independent\nexistence in itself: it exists because the unrestrained productive\nenergy of the (infinite) Substance spontaneously produced an infinite\nvariety of particular forms. It has, however, no proper reality; it\nexists only in and through the Substance. Finite things are the most\nexternal, the last, the most subordinate forms of existence into which\nthe universal life is specialized, and they manifest their finitude in\nthat they are without resistance, subject to the infinite chain of\ncausality which binds the world. The divine Substance works freely\naccording to the inner essence of its own nature; individuals, however,\nare not free, but are subject to the influence of those things with\nwhich they come into contact. It follows from these metaphysical\ngrounds,\" Schwegler continues, \"that what is called free-will cannot be\nadmitted. For, since man is only a mode, he, like any other mode, stands\nin an endless series of conditioning causes, and no free-will can,\ntherefore, be predicated of him.\" Further on he adds: \"Evil, or sin, is,\ntherefore, only relative and not positive, for nothing happens against\nGod's will. It is only a simple negation or deprivation, which only\nseems to be a reality in our representation.\"[200] The late Samuel\nJohnson, in his chapter on \"The Morality and Piety of Pantheism,\"\nundertakes to defend both the Vedantic and the Spinozan philosophy by\npointing out a distinction between an \"external compulsion and an inner\nforce which merges us in the Infinite. Though both are equally efficient\nas to the result, and both are inconsistent with individual freedom, yet\nreal fate is only that which is external.... While destiny or fate in\nthe sense of absolute external compulsion would certainly be\ndestructive, not only of moral responsibility but of personality itself,\nyet religion or science without fate is radically unsound.\" Again he\nadds: \"We cannot separate perfection and fate. Deity whose sway is not\ndestiny is not venerable, nor even reliable. It would be a purpose that\ndid not round the universe, a love that could not preserve it. Theism\nwithout fate is a kind of atheism, and a self-dominated atheism. But\nholding justice to be the true necessity or fate, is properly theism,\nthough it refuses the name.\"[201]\n\nThe reasoning here reminds one of the conclusions of a still more recent\nwriter, who while condemning what he considers the fatalism of\nCalvinistic theology, still asserts that its logic leaves no alternative\nbut the denial of a personal God. And an early Buddhist philosopher has\nleft a fragment which gives the very same reason for agnosticism. Thus\nhe says: \"If the world was made by God (Isvara) there should be no such\nthing as sorrow or calamity, nor doing wrong, nor doing right; for all,\nboth pure and impure, deeds must come from Isvara.... If he makes\nwithout a purpose he is like a suckling child, or with a purpose, he is\nnot complete. Sorrow and joy spring up in all that lives; these, at\nleast, are not alike the works of Isvara, for if he causes love and joy\nhe must himself have love and hate. But if he loves and hates, he is not\nrightly called self-existent. 'Twere equal, then, the doing right or\ndoing wrong. There should be no reward of works; the works themselves\nbeing his, then all things are the same to him, the maker.\"\n\nThis was a Buddhist's answer to the Hindu pantheism, and there follows\na reply also to the Oriental dualism which attempted to solve the\ndifficulty by assigning two great first causes, one good and the other\nevil. \"Nay,\" says this Buddhist philosopher, \"if you say there is\nanother cause beside this Isvara, then he is not the end or sum of all,\nand therefore all that lives may, after all, be uncreated, and so you\nsee the thought of Isvara is overthrown.\"[202] Thus the same problems of\nexistence have taxed human speculation in all lands and all ages. The\nsame perplexities have arisen, and the same cavils and complaints.\n\nThere is an important sense in which all forms of materialism are\nfatalistic in their relation to moral responsibility. James Buechner\nassures us that \"what is called man's soul or mind is now almost\nuniversally conceded as equivalent to a function of the substance of the\nbrain.\" Walter Bagehot, like Maudsley, suggests that the newly born\nchild has his destiny inscribed on his nervous tissues.[203] Mr. Buckle\nassures us that certain underlying but indefinable laws of society, as\nindicated by statistics, control human action irrespective of choice or\nmoral responsibility. Even accidents, the averages of forgetfulness or\nneglect, are the subjects of computation. To support his position he\ncites the averages of suicides, or the number of letters deposited\nyearly in a given post-office, the superscription of which has been\nforgotten. Thus, underlying all human activity there is an unknown\nforce, a vague something--call it Deity, or call it Fate--which controls\nhuman affairs irresistibly.\n\nIt would be amusing, if it were not sad, to see what devices and what\nnames have been resorted to in order to get rid of a personal God. The\nHindu Sankhyans ascribed all things to the \"Eternally Existing Essence.\"\nThe Greek Atomists called it an \"Inconceivable Necessity;\" Anaxagoras,\n\"The World-forming Intelligence;\" Hegel, \"Absolute Idea;\" Spinoza,\n\"Absolute Substance;\" Schopenhauer, \"Unconscious Will.\" Spencer finds\nonly \"The Unknowable;\" Darwin's virtual Creator is \"Natural Selection;\"\nMatthew Arnold recognize a \"Stream of Tendency not our own which makes\nfor righteousness.\" Nothing can be more melancholy than this dreary\nwaste of human speculation, this weary and bootless search after the\nsecret of the universe. At the same time a deaf ear is turned to those\nvoices of nature and revelation which speak of a benevolent Creator. But\nthe point to which I call particular attention in this connection is,\nthat these vague terms, whatever else they may mean, imply in each case\nsome law of necessity which moulds the world. They are only the names of\nthe Fates whom all philosophies have set over us. If we have been\ncorrect in tracing an element of fatalism through all the heathen\nfaiths, and all ancient and modern philosophies, how is it that the\nwhole army of unbelief concentrate their assailments against divine\nsovereignty in the Word of God, and yet are ready to laud and approve\nthese systems which exhibit the same things in greater degree and\nwithout mitigation?\n\nThat which differentiates Christianity is the fact that, while it does\nrepresent God as the originator and controller of all things, it yet\nrespects the freedom of the human will, which Mohammedanism does not,\nwhich Hinduism does not, which ancient or modern Buddhism does not,\nwhich Materialism does not. Not only the Word of God but our own reason\ntells us that the Creator of this world must have proceeded upon a\ndefinite and all-embracing plan; and yet at the same time, not only the\nWord of God, but our own consciousness, tells us that we are free to act\naccording to our own will. How these things are to be reconciled we know\nnot, simply because we are finite and God is infinite. I once stood\nbefore the great snowy range of the Himalayas, whose lofty peaks rose\ntwenty-five thousand feet above the sea. None could see how those\ngigantic masses stood related to each other, simply because no mortal\never has explored, or ever can explore, their awful and unapproachable\nrecesses.\n\nSo with many great truths concerning the being, attributes, and works of\nGod. One may say that God predetermined and then foresaw what He had\nordained; another that He foresaw and then resolved to effect what he\nhad foreseen. Neither is correct, or at least neither can know that he\nis correct. God is not subject to our conditions of time and space. It\nis impossible that He, whose knowledge and will encompass all things,\nshould be affected by our notions of order and sequence; there is with\nHim no before and after. The whole universe, with all its farthest\nextended history, stood before Him from all eternity as one conception\nand as one purpose; and the conception and the purpose were one. The\ntoo frequent mistake of human formulas is that they undertake to reason\nout infinite mysteries on our low anthropomorphic lines, one in one\nextreme and another in another. We cannot fit the ways of God to the\nmeasure of our logic or our metaphysics. What we have to do with many\nthings is simply to believe and trust and wait.[204] On the other hand,\nthere are many things of a practical nature which God has made very\nplain. He has brought them down to us. The whole scheme of grace is an\nadaptation of the mysteries of the Godhead to our knowledge, faith,\nobedience, and love.\n\nAnd this leads directly to the chief differential which Christianity\npresents in contrast with the fatalisms of false systems, viz., that\nwhile sin and death abound, as all must see, the Gospel alone reveals a\nsuperabounding grace. It is enough for us that the whole scheme is one\nof Redemption, that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the\nworld--nay, that He made the world, and made it for an infinitely\nbenevolent purpose. If dark mysteries appear in the Word or in the\nworld, we are to view them in the light of Calvary, and wait till we can\nsee as we are seen; for this world is Christ's, and will surely subserve\nHis ends, which are those of infinite compassion.\n\nOur position, therefore, as before the abettors of heathen or agnostic\nphilosophy, is impregnable: the fatalism is all theirs, the union of\nsovereign power with infinite love is ours. We have reason as well as\nthey. We realize the facts and mysteries of life as fully as they, but\nare not embittered by them. We see nothing to be gained by putting out\nthe light we have. We prefer faith to pessimism, incarnate love to the\ntyranny of \"unconscious will.\"\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 184: Quoted in Fiske's _Destiny of Man_, p. 117.]\n\n[Footnote 185: See _Indian Wisdom_, p. 82.]\n\n[Footnote 186: What Kanada meant by adrishta was a sort of habit of\nmatter derived from its past combinations in a previous cosmos, one or\nmore. The rod which has been bent will bend again, and so matter which\nhas once been combined will unite again.]\n\n[Footnote 187: _Evolution and its Relation to Religious Thought_, p.\n327.]\n\n[Footnote 188: _On Natural Selection_, p. 353.]\n\n[Footnote 189: _The Destiny of Man_, p. 80.]\n\n[Footnote 190: _Evolution and its Relation to Religious Thought_, p.\n88.]\n\n[Footnote 191: Some of Goldwin Smith's utterances are such as these: \"If\nmorality has been based on religion there must be reason to fear that\nthe foundation being removed the superstructure will fall. That it has\nrested on religion so far as the great majority are concerned will\nhardly be doubted.\" ... \"The presence of this theistic sanction has been\nespecially apparent in all acts and lives of all heroic self-sacrifice\nand self-devotion.\" ... \"All moral philosophers whose philosophy has\nbeen practically effective, from Socrates down, have been religious.\nMany have tried to find an independent basis but have not been\nsuccessful--at least have not arrived at any agreement.\" ... \"Thucydides\nascribed the fall of Greece to the fall of religion. Machiavelianism\nfollowed the fall of the Catholic faith.\" ... \"Into the void left by\nreligion came spiritual charlatanry and physical superstition, such as\nthe arts of the hierophant of Isis, the soothsayer, the\nastrologer--significant precursors of our modern mediums.\" ...\n\"Conscience as a mere evolution of tribal experience may have\nimportance, but it can have no authority, and 'Nature' is an unmeaning\nword without an Author of nature--or rather it is a philosophic name for\nGod.\" ... \"Evolution is not moral, nor can morality be educed from it.\nIt proclaims as its law the survival of the fittest, and the only proof\nof fitness is survival.\" ... \"We must remember that whatever may be our\nphilosophic school we are still living under the influence of theism,\nand most of us under Christianity. There is no saying how much of\nChristianity still lingers in the theories of agnostics.\" ... \"The\ngeneration after the next may perhaps see agnosticism, moral as well as\nreligious, tried on a clear field.\" These utterances are weighty, though\ndetached. We only raise a doubt whether \"the generation after the next\"\nwill see agnosticism tried on a clear field. On the contrary, it will be\nsurrounded as now, and more and more, by Christian influences, and will\nstill depend on those influences to save it from the sad results of its\nown teachings.]\n\n[Footnote 192: _The Races of Man_, pp. 137, 138.]\n\n[Footnote 193: _The Human Species_, p. 478.]\n\n[Footnote 194: Mr. John Fiske declares that man is descended from the\ncatarrhine apes.--_Destiny of Man_, p. 19. Professor Le Conte maintains\nthat no existing animal could ever be developed into man. He traces all\nexisting species up from a common stock, of which man is the head. The\ncommon line of ancestors are all extinct.--_Evolution in Relation to\nReligious Thought_, p. 90.]\n\n[Footnote 195: _The Permanent Elements in Religion_, p. 154]\n\n[Footnote 196: Book II., 13.]\n\n[Footnote 197: Book IX., 17.]\n\n[Footnote 198: Development by \"heredity\" and the Buddhist doctrine of\ntransmigration, though both fatalistic, reach that result in different\nways; they are, in fact, contradictory. Character, according to\nBuddhism, is inherited not from parents: it follows the line of\naffinity.]\n\n[Footnote 199: _Indian Wisdom_, p. 152.]\n\n[Footnote 200: _History of Philosophy_, pp. 220, 221.]\n\n[Footnote 201: _Oriental Religions_--_India_. Part II., p. 44.]\n\n[Footnote 202: Beal, _Buddhism in China_, p. 180.]\n\n[Footnote 203: _Physics and Politics_.]\n\n[Footnote 204: \"Probably no more significant change awaits the theology\nof the future than the recognition of this province of the unknown, and\nthe cessation of controversy as to matters that come within it, and\ntherefore admit of no dogmatic settlement.\"--Tulloch's _Religious\nThought in Britain_, p. 24.]\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE X.\n\nTHE DIVINE SUPREMACY OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH.\n\n\nWe have in previous lectures instituted brief and partial comparisons\nbetween Christianity and particular faiths of the East, but I now\npropose a general comparative survey.\n\nNever before has the Christian Faith been so boldly challenged to show\ncause for its supreme and exclusive claims as in our time. The early\nChristians encountered something of the same kind: it seemed very\npreposterous to the proud Roman that an obscure sect, coming out of\ndespised Nazareth, should refuse to place a statue of its deified\nFounder within the Pantheon, in the goodly company of renowned gods from\nevery part of the Roman Empire; but it did so refuse and gave its\nreasons, and it ultimately carried its point. It gained the Pantheon and\nRome itself for Christ alone. He was proclaimed as the One Redeemer of\nthe world, and this claim has been maintained from that day to this.\n\"There can be no diversity,\" said His followers, \"for there is no other\nname given under heaven among men whereby we must be saved. The very\ngenius of Christianity means supremacy and monopoly, for the reason that\nit is divine and God cannot be divided against Himself.\" But in our time\nthe whole world is brought very closely together. The religions of men,\nlike their social customs and political institutions, are placed in\ncontact and comparison. The enemies of the Christian faith here, in\nWestern lands, naturally make the most of any possible alliances with\nother systems supposed to antagonize Christianity; while a multitude of\nothers, having no particular interest in any religion, and rather\npriding themselves upon a broad charity which is but a courteous name\nfor indifference, are demanding with a superior air that fair play shall\nbe shown to all religions alike. The Church is therefore called upon to\ndefend her unique position and the promulgation of her message to\nmankind. Why does she refuse to admit the validity of other religions,\nand why send her missionaries over the earth to turn the non-Christian\nraces from those faiths which are their heritage by birth, and in which\nthey honestly put their trust? Why not respect everywhere that noblest\nof all man's instincts which prompts him to inquire after God, who hath\nmade of one blood all nations that dwell upon the earth? If the old\nHindu pantheism of the Bhagavad Gita taught that the worshippers of\nother gods were only worshipping the One Supreme Vishnu unawares; if\nBuddhism forbids its followers to assert that theirs is the only\nreligion, or even that it is the best religion;[205] is it not time that\nChristians should emulate this noble charity?\n\nThis plausible plea is urged with such force and volume, it is so backed\nby the current literature and the secular newspaper press that it\ncannot be ignored. The time has come when the Church must not only be\nable to give a reason for the faith she professes, but must assign\nreasons why her faith should supplant every other. I am aware that many\nare insisting that her true course is to be found in an intensive zeal\nin the promulgation of her own doctrines without regard to any other.\n\"Preach the Gospel,\" it is said, \"whether men will hear or whether they\nforbear.\" But it must be borne in mind that Paul's more intelligent\nmethod was to strive as one who would win, and not as they who beat the\nair. The Salvation Army will reach a certain class with their mere\nunlettered zeal. The men who purposely read only One Book, but read that\non their knees, doubtless have an important work to do, but the Church\nas a whole cannot go back to the time when devout zealots sneered at the\nidea of an educated ministry. The conflict of truth and error must be\nwaged intelligently. There are sufficient reasons for claiming a divine\nsupremacy for the Gospel over all heathen faiths, and the sooner we\nthoroughly understand the difference, the more wisely and successfully\nshall we accomplish our work.\n\nWherein, then, consists the unique supremacy of the Christian faith?\n\n1. It alone offers a real salvation. We are not speaking of ethics, or\nconceptions of God, or methods of race culture, but of that one element\nwhich heals the wounds of acknowledged sin and reconciles men to God.\nAnd this is found in Christianity alone. There is no divine help in any\nother. Systems of speculation, theories of the universe, and of our\nrelation to the Infinite are found in all sacred books of the East.\nThere are lofty ethical teachings gathered from the lips of many\nmasters, and records of patient research, cheerful endurance of ascetic\nrigors, and the voluntary encounter of martyrs' deaths. And one cannot\nbut be impressed by this spectacle of earnest struggles in men of every\nland and every age to find some way of peace. But in none of the ethnic\nreligions has there been revealed a divine and heaven-wrought salvation.\nThey have all begun and ended with human merit and human effort. Broken\ncisterns have everywhere taken the place of the One Fountain of Eternal\nLife. Though all these systems recognize the sin and misery of the\nworld, and carry their estimate of them to the length of downright\npessimism, they have discovered no eye that could pity and no arm that\ncould bring salvation. In the silence and gloom of the world's history\nonly one voice has said, \"Lo, I come! in the volume of the Book it is\nwritten of me.\" And although men have in all ages striven to rid\nthemselves of sin by self-mortification, and even mutilation, yet the\never-recurring question, \"Who shall deliver me from the body of this\ndeath?\" was never answered till Paul answered it in his rapturous\nacknowledgment of victory through the righteousness of Christ. Mohammed\nnever claimed to be a saviour or even an intercessor. He was the sword\nof God against idolators, and the ambassador of God to believers; but\nbeyond the promise of a sensuous heaven, he offered no salvation. He had\nno remedy for sin--except that in his own case he claimed a special\nrevelation of clemency and indulgence. Many a wholesome truth derived\nfrom the Old Testament scriptures was promulgated to the faithful, but\nself-righteousness, and especially valor in Mohammedan conquest, was\noffered as the key to paradise.[206]\n\nDoubtless we should view the false systems with discrimination. Like the\nsublime philosophy of Plato, Mohammedanism does teach an exalted idea of\nGod, and there is, accordingly, a dignity and reverence in its forms of\nworship. I once witnessed a very imposing spectacle in the great mosque\nat Delhi, on the Moslem Sabbath. Several hundred Indian Mohammedans were\nrepeating their prayers in concert. They were in their best attire, and\nfresh from their ablutions, and their concerted genuflections, the\nsubdued murmur of their many voices, and the general solemnity of their\ndemeanor, rendered the whole service most impressive. It contrasted\nstrongly with the spectacle which I witnessed a little later in the\ntemple of Siva, in Benares. The unspeakable worship of the linga, the\nscattering of rice and flowers and the pouring of libations before this\nsymbol; the hanging of garlands on the horns of sacred bulls, and that\nby women; the rushing to and fro, tracking the filth of the sacred\nstables into the trodden ooze of rice and flowers which covered the\ntemple pavements; the drawing and sipping of water from the adjacent\ncesspool, known as the sacred well; the shouting and striking of bells,\nand the general frenzy of the people--all this could be considered as\nnothing short of wild and depraved orgies. If we must choose, give us\nIslam, whether in contrast with the Siva worship of India or with the\ntyranny of the witch doctors of interior Africa.\n\nYet, I repeat, Islam has no salvation, no scheme of grace, no great\nPhysician. In visiting any Mohammedan country one is impressed with this\none defect, the want of a Mediator. I once stood in the central hall of\nan imposing mansion in Damascus, around the frieze of which were\ndescribed, in Arabic letters of gold, \"The Hundred Names of Allah.\" They\nwere interpreted to me by a friend as setting forth the lofty attributes\nof God--for example, \"The Infinite,\" \"The Eternal,\" \"The Creator,\" \"The\nAll-Seeing,\" \"The Merciful,\" \"The Just.\" No one could help being\nimpressed by these inspiring names. They were the common heritage of\nJudaism and Christianity before Islam adopted them, and they are well\ncalculated to fill the soul with reverence and awe. But there is another\nclass of names which were predicted by Judaism and rejoiced in by\nChristianity, but which Islam rejects; for example, \"Messiah,\"\n\"Immanuel,\" or God with us, \"The Son of God,\" \"The Son of Man,\" \"The\nRedeemer,\" \"The Elder Brother.\" In a word, Islam has nothing to fill the\nbreach between a holy and just God and the conscience-smitten souls of\nmen. These honored names of Allah are as sublime as the snow-peaks of\nthe Himalayas and as inaccessible. How can we attain unto them? Without\na Daysman how shall we bridge the abyss that lies between? Even Israel\nplead for Moses to speak to them in place of the Infinite, and they\nvoiced a felt want of all human hearts.\n\nYet no religious system but Christianity reveals a Mediator. There is in\nother faiths no such conception as the fatherhood of God. Though such\nnames as Dyauspater, Zeuspiter or Jupiter, and others bearing the import\nof father are sometimes found, yet they imply only a common source, as\nthe sun is the source of life. They lack the elements of love and\nfostering care. There can be no real fatherhood and no spirit of\nadoption except through union with the Son of God. The idea that\nre-birth and remission of sin may be followed by adoption and heirship,\nand joint heirship with the Son of the Infinite, belongs to the\nChristian faith alone; and the hope and inspiration of such a heritage,\nseen in contrast with the endless and disheartening prospects of\ncountless transmigrations, are beyond the power of language to describe.\nIt was with infinite reason that Paul was taught to regard his work\namong the Gentiles as a rescue or a deliverance \"from darkness unto\nlight, and from the power of Satan unto God,\" and it was a priceless\nboon which enabled him to offer at once the full remission of sins and a\npart in the glorious inheritance revealed through faith in Christ.\n\nMere ethical knowledge cannot comfort the human soul. Contrast the gloom\nof Marcus Aurelius with the joy of David in Psalm cxix.; and Seneca,\nalso, with all his discernment, and his eloquent presentation of\nbeautiful precepts, was one of the saddest, darkest characters of Roman\nhistory. He was the man who schemed with Catiline, and who at the same\ntime that he wrote epigrams urged Nero onward with flattery and\nencouragement to his most infamous vices and his boldest crimes.\nKnowledge of ethical maxims and the power of expressing them, therefore,\nis one thing, religion is another. Religion is a device, human or\ndivine, for raising up men by a real or a supposed supernatural aid. It\nought to reveal God as a helper and a Saviour. It ought to be a\nprovision of grace by which the Just can yet be a justifier of them that\nare weak and wounded by sin. The ethical systems of the heathen world\ncorroborate the Scriptural diagnosis of man's character and condition,\nbut they fail as prescriptions. So far as divine help and regenerative\npower are concerned, they leave the race helpless still.\n\nChristianity is a system of faith in a moral as well as in an\nintellectual sense. It inculcates a spirit of loving, filial trust\ninstead of a querulous self-righteousness which virtually chides the\nunknown Ruler of the universe. According to \"The Light of Asia\" when the\nBuddha preached at Kapilavastu there were assembled men and devils,\nbeasts and birds, all victims alike of the cruel fate that ruled the\nworld. Existence was an evil and only the Buddha could be found to pity.\nBut that pity offered no hope except in the destruction of hope, and the\ndestruction of all desire, all aspiration, even all feeling; while\nChristianity offers a hope which maketh not ashamed, even an immortal\ninheritance.[207] Hinduism also, like Islam and Buddhism, lacks every\nelement of divine salvation. It is wholly a thing of merit. The infinite\nBrahm is said to be void of attributes of all kinds. No anthropomorphic\nconception can be predicated of him. The three Gods of the Trimurti are\ncold and distant--though for Vishnu in his alleged incarnation of\nKrishna, a sympathetic nature was claimed at a later day--borrowed, some\nsay, from Buddhism, or, according to others, from Christianity. In the\nHindu saint all spiritual power in this life is the merit power of\nascetic austerities, all hope for the future world lies in the cleansing\nefficacy of endless transmigrations of which the goal is absorption into\ndeity.\n\nBut the difficulty with both Buddhism and Hinduism is that\ntransmigration cannot regenerate. It is only a vague postponement of the\nmoral issues of the soul. There is recognized no future intervention\nthat can effect a change in the downward drift, and why should a\nthousand existences prove better than one? According to a law of physics\nknown as the persistence of force, a body once set in motion will never\nstop unless through the intervention of some other resisting force. And\nthis is strikingly true of moral character and the well-known power and\nmomentum of habit. Who shall change the leopard's spots or deflect the\nfatal drift of a human soul? Remorselessly these Oriental systems exact\nfrom Kharma the uttermost farthing. They emphasize the fact that\naccording to the sowing shall be the reaping, and that in no part of the\nuniverse can ill desert escape its awards. Even if change were possible,\ntherefore, how shall the old score be settled? What help, what rescue\ncan mere infinitude of time afford, though the transmigrations should\nnumber tens of thousands? There is no hint that any pitying eye of God\nor devil looks upon the struggle, or any arm is stretched forth to raise\nup the crippled and helpless soul. Time is the only Saviour--time so\nvast, so vague, so distant, that the mind cannot follows its cycles or\ntrace the relations of cause and effect.\n\nIn contrast with all this, Christianity bids the Hindu ascetic cease\nfrom his self-mortification and become himself a herald of Glad Tidings.\nIt invites the hook-swinger to renounce his useless torture and accept\nthe availing sacrifice of Him who hung upon the Cross. It relieves woman\nfrom the power of Satan, as exercised in those cruel disabilities which\nfalse systems have imposed upon her, and assigns her a place of honor in\nthe kingdom of God. The world has not done scoffing at the idea of a\nvicarious sacrifice for the sins of men, and yet it has advanced so far\nthat its best thinkers, even without any religious bias, are agreed that\nthe principle of self-sacrifice is the very highest element of character\nthat man can aspire to. And this is tantamount to an acknowledgment that\nthe great principle which the Cross illustrates, and on which the\nsalvation of the race is made to rest, is the crowning glory of all\nethics and must be therefore the germinal principle of all true\nreligion.\n\nChristianity with its doctrine of voluntary Divine Sacrifice was no\nafter-thought. Paul speaks of it as \"the mystery which hath been hid\nfrom ages and from generations but now is made manifest.\" It was the one\ngreat mystery which angels had desired to look into and for which the\nwhole world had waited in travail and expectation. Christ was \"the Lamb\nslain from the foundation of the world,\" and the entire world-history\nhas proceeded under an economy of grace. And I repeat, its fundamental\nprinciple of sacrifice, exemplified as it has been through the\nChristian centuries, has won the recognition even of those who were not\nthemselves the followers of Christ. \"The history of self-sacrifice\nduring the last eighteen hundred years,\" says Lecky, \"has been mainly\nthe history of the action of Christianity upon the world. Ignorance and\nerror have no doubt often directed the heroic spirit into wrong\nchannels, and sometimes even made it a cause of great evil to mankind;\nbut it is the moral type and beauty, the enlarged conception and\npersuasive power of the Christian faith that have chiefly called it into\nbeing; and it is by their influence alone that it can be permanently\nmaintained.\"[208] Speaking of the same principle Carlyle says: \"It is\nonly with renunciation that life, properly speaking, can be said to\nbegin.... In a valiant suffering for others, not in a slothful making\nothers suffer for us, did nobleness ever lie.\" And George Sand in still\nstronger terms has said, \"There is but one sole virtue in the world--the\nEternal Sacrifice of self.\"\n\nWhile we ponder these testimonies coming from such witnesses we remember\nhow the Great Apostle traces this wonder-working principle back to its\nDivine Source, and from that Source down into all the commonest walks of\nlife when he says, \"Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ,\nwho, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with\nGod; but made himself of no reputation, and took on Him the form of a\nservant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion\nas a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the\ndeath of the Cross.\" Or when he reminds the Corinthians that, though\nChrist was rich, yet for their sake He became poor, that they through\nHis poverty might be rich.\n\nIn all the Oriental systems there is nothing like this, either as a\ndivine source of all-availing help and rescue, or as a celestial spring\nof human action. It is through this communicable grace that Christ\nbecomes the Way, the Truth, the Life. Well might Augustine say that\nwhile the philosophy of Plato led him to lofty conceptions of God, it\ncould not show him how to approach Him or be reconciled unto Him. \"For\nit is one thing,\" he says, \"from the mountain's shaggy top to see the\nland of peace and to find no way thither; and in vain to essay through\nways impossible, opposed and beset by fugitives and deserters, under\ntheir captain the lion and the dragon; and another to keep on the way\nthat leads thither guarded by the host of the heavenly General, where\nthey spoil not that have deserted the heavenly army; for they avoid it\nas very torment. These things did wonderfully sink into my bowels when I\nread that _least of Thy Apostles_, and had meditated upon Thy works and\ntrembled exceedingly.\" While Christianity is wholly unique in providing\nan objective Salvation instead of attempting to work out perfection from\n\"beggarly elements\" within the soul itself, as all heathen systems do,\nand as all our modern schemes of mere ethical culture do, it at the same\ntime implants in the heart the most fruitful germs of subjective\nspiritual life. Its superior transformation of human character, as\ncompared with all other cults, is not only a matter of doctrine but also\na matter of history. It is acknowledged that Christianity has wrought\nmost powerfully of all faiths in taming savage races as well as\nindividual men, in moulding higher civilizations and inspiring\nsentiments of humanity and brotherly love. \"Christ,\" says one of the\nBampton Lecturers, \"is the Light that broods over all history.... All\nthat there is upon earth of beauty, truth, and goodness, all that\ndistinguishes the civilized man from the savage is this gift.\" And if it\nbe asked how the leaven of Christ's influence has pervaded all society,\nthe answer is that the work is presided over by a divine and omnipotent\nSpirit who represents Christ, who carries out what He began, who by a\ndirect and transforming power renews and enlightens and prompts the\nsoul.\n\nChristianity, then, is not a record, a history of what was said and done\neighteen centuries ago: it is not a body of doctrines and precepts: it\nis the living power of God in the soul of man. The written Word is the\nsword of this Divine Spirit. The renewed soul is begotten of the Spirit\nand it is instinct with the indwelling of the Spirit. No other system\nmakes any claim to such an influence as that of the Holy Ghost. Sacred\nbooks, written systems of law or ethics would all prove a dead\nletter--the Bible itself, as well as the Veda, would be a dead letter\nbut for the co-operation of this Divine Spirit. Sacred Scriptures might\nbe venerated, they would not be obeyed. The dead heart must be quickened\nand renewed and only Christianity reveals the Transforming Power.\n_Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again he cannot\nsee the Kingdom of God._\n\nInstantaneous renewal of the character and the life is not even claimed\nby other faiths; there is in them nothing like the conversion of Saul of\nTarsus, or that of thousands of others well known in the history of\nChristian experience. There are no such changes in men who, from having\nled lives of profligacy and irreligion, have turned at once into paths\nof righteousness--have tamed their wild propensities and submitted\nthemselves to the gentle law of love. But under Christian influence we\nhave seen Africaner the savage transformed to a tractable, humane, and\nloving disciple. We have seen the wild and bloodthirsty Koord subdued\nand made as a little child. We have seen the cannibal King Thokambo, of\nFiji, turned from his cruelty to a simple, childlike faith, and made to\nprefer the good of his people to the glory of a powerless sceptre. Whole\nraces, like the Northmen, have been tamed from savagery and made\npeaceable and earnest followers of Christ. In our own time it has been\nsaid of a missionary in the South Pacific Islands, \"that when he arrived\non his field there were no Christians, and when he closed his labors\nthere were no heathen.\"\n\nThe religion of Gautama has won whole tribes of men, Hinduism and\nMohammedanism are even now winning converts from fetish-worshipping\nraces, but, so far as I know, none of these faiths have ever made\nconverts except either by war or by the presentation of such motives as\nmight appeal to the natural heart of man; there has been no spiritual\ntransformation. If it be said that the Buddhist Nirvana and the Hindu\ndoctrine of final absorption cannot attract the natural heart, the ready\nanswer is that Nirvana and absorption are not the real inspiration of\ntheir respective systems. They are so far removed into the dim future as\nto exert no practical influence on the great mass of men. The future\nestate that is really expected and desired is a happy ideal\ntransmigration, and perhaps many of them; and the chief felicity of the\nHindu is that no particular estate is prescribed. While the Christian is\npromised a heaven to which the natural heart does not aspire, the Hindu\nmay imagine and prefigure his own heaven. His next life may be as carnal\nas the celestial hunting-ground of the Indian or the promised paradise\nof the Moslem. It may be only the air-castle of a day-dreamer. There is\nno moral transformation. There is no expulsive power of a new and higher\naspiration. Old things have not passed away; nothing has become new.\n\nBut the grace of God in Christ claims to work an entire change in the\ndesires and aspirations of the heart by the power of the Holy Ghost.\nPaul found the men of Ephesus highly civilized in a sense, but \"dead in\ntrespasses and sins,\" \"walking according to the course of this world,\nand having their conversation in the lusts of the flesh.\" But God by His\nSpirit so \"quickened\" them that they were able to understand and\nappreciate one of the most spiritual of all his Epistles. He addressed\nthem as \"new creatures,\" as God's \"workmanship,\" \"_created in Christ\nJesus unto good works_.\"\n\nAs has already been noticed, all theories of moral transformation found\nin heathen systems require time. The process is carried on by intensive\nand long-continued thought, or by gradual accumulations of merit. Only\nthe Buddha was enlightened _per sallum_,[209] so to speak. And quite in\naccord with this view are those modern forms of materialism which\nmaintain that mental and moral habits consist in gradual impressions\nmade in the molecules of the nerve-tissues--that these impressions come\nat length to determine our acts without the necessity of either purpose\nor conscious recognition, and that only when right action becomes thus\ninvoluntary can character strictly be said to exist.[210] But such\ntheories certainly do not harmonize with the known facts of Christian\nconversion already alluded to. We do not refuse to recognize a certain\ndegree of truth hidden in these speculations. We are aware that\ncontinued thought or emotion promotes a certain habit, and that in the\nChristian life such habit becomes an element of strength. We also admit\nthat high and pure thought and emotion stamp themselves at length upon\nour physical nature, and appear in the very expression of the\ncountenance, but when we look for the transforming impulse that can\nbegin and sustain such habitual exercises in spite of the natural\nsinfulness and corruption which all systems admit, we find it only in\nthe Christian doctrine of the new birth by the power of the Holy Ghost.\n\nOn these two doctrines of a Divine Vicarious Sacrifice and of the\ntransforming power of a Divine Spirit we might rest our case. It should\nbe sufficient to show, first, that Christianity alone provides a divine\nsalvation in which God is made sin for us; and second, that its power\nalone, though objective, works in us the only effectual subjective\ntransformation by a direct influence from on high. But there are many\nother points of contrast in which the transcendent character of\nChristianity appears.\n\nFirst, an important differential lies in the completeness of the Divine\npersonality of Jesus. Buddhism, Confucianism, and Mohammedanism, were\nstrongly supported by the personality of their founders. We also\ncheerfully accord to such men as Socrates and Plato great personal\ninfluence. They have impressed themselves upon the millions of mankind\nmore deeply than statesmen, or potentates, or conquerors; but not one of\nthese presents to us a complete and rounded character, judged even from\na human stand-point. Mohammed utterly failed on the ethical side.[211]\nHis life was so marred by coarse sensuality, weak effeminacy, heartless\ncruelty, unblushing hypocrisy, and heaven-defying blasphemy, that but\nfor his stupendous achievements, and his sublime and persistent\nself-assertion, he would long since have been buried beneath the\ncontempt of mankind.[212] Confucius appears to have been above reproach\nin morals, and that amid universal profligacy; but he was cold in\ntemperament, unsympathetic, and slavishly utilitarian in his teachings.\nHis ethics lacked symmetry and just proportion. The five relations which\nconstituted his ethico-political system were everything. They were made\nthe basis of inexorable social customs which sacrificed some of the\ntenderest and noblest promptings of the human heart. Confucius mourned\nthe death of his mother, for filial respect was a part of his system,\nbut for his dying wife there is no evidence of grief or regret, and when\nhis son mourned the death of his wife the philosopher reproved him. In\nall things he reasoned upward toward the throne; his grand aim was to\nbuild up an ideal state. He therefore magnified reverence for parents\nand all ancestors even to the verge of idolatry, but he utterly failed\nin that symmetry in which Paul makes the duties of parents and children\nmutual. Under his system a father might exercise his caprice almost to\nthe power of life or death, and a Chinese mother-in-law is proverbially\na tyrant. The beautiful sympathy of Christ, shown in blessing little\nchildren and in drawing lessons from their simple trust, would have been\nutterly out of place in the great sage of China. Confucius seems to\nhave troubled himself but slightly, if at all, about the wants of the\npoor and the suffering; he taught no doctrine of self-sacrifice for the\nignorant and the unworthy. His ideal of the \"superior man\" would have\nbeen tarnished by that contact with the lowly and degraded which was the\nglory of the Christ. And when his cotemporary, Laotze, taught the duty\nof doing good, even to enemies, he repudiated the principle as uncalled\nfor in the relative duties which should govern mankind.[213]\n\nWith respect to personality, probably a higher claim has been made for\nGautama than for either of the characters who have been named. Sir Edwin\nArnold, in his preface to the \"Light of Asia,\" has assigned to him a\nvirtual sinlessness, and such is doubtless the character which his\nfollowers would claim for him. But as a model for the great masses of\nmen Gautama was very far from perfection. He had little of the genial\nsunlight of humanity; in every fibre of his nature he was a recluse; his\nviews of life were pessimistic; he had no glad tidings for the\nsorrowing; no encouragement for the weary and the heavy laden.[214] His\nagnosticism was ill adapted to the irrepressible wants of mankind, for\nthey must place their trust in a higher power, real or imagined.[215]\nBut while he cast a cloud over the being of God he drove his despairing\ncountrymen to the worship of serpents and evil spirits. In Ceylon, which\nis _par eminence_ an orthodox Buddhist country, ninety per cent. of the\npopulation are said to be devil worshippers, and the devil jugglers are\npatronized even by the Buddhist monks.[216] As the philosophy of Gautama\nwas above the comprehension of the common people, so his example was\nalso above their reach. It utterly lacked the element of trust, and\ninvolved the very destruction of society. To \"wander apart like a\nrhinoceros\" and \"be silent as a broken gong\" might be practicable for a\nchosen few, if only self were to be considered, but silence and\nisolation are not worthy ideals in a world of mutual dependence and\nwhere all life's blessings are enhanced by the ministries of the strong\nto the necessities of the weak. Infinitely higher was the example of Him\nwho said, \"My Father worketh hitherto, and I work;\" and who accordingly\nexhorted his disciples to work while the day lasts. Christ prayed not\nthat they should be taken out of the world, but that they should be kept\nfrom the evil.\n\nAgain the Buddha's life furnished but a poor example in the domestic\nduties. His abandonment of his wife and child cannot be justified upon\nany sound theory of life. Whatever may be said of the merits of celibacy\nin those who are under no marriage vows, the abandonment of sacred\nrelations once formed must be considered a crime against all society. As\nMohammed's example of impurity has cast a blight over all Moslem lands,\nso Gautama's withdrawal from his home has borne, and is still bearing,\nits evil fruit. In Burmah it is common for a Buddhist who desires a\nchange of wives to abandon his family for the sacred life of a\nmonastery, where, if he remains but a single month, he sunders the old\nrelation and is at liberty to form a new one. Good men are disgusted,\nbut there is the example of \"the Blessed One!\" It will be admitted that\nin comparison with Hinduism the Buddhist ethics advanced woman to a\nhigher social condition, but when modern apologists compare Gautama with\nChrist there are many contrasts which cannot be disguised.\n\nIn some respects Socrates stands highest among great philosophers.\nMohammed's career cost him nothing but gained for him everything that\nman's earthly nature could desire. Gautama made only a temporary\nsacrifice; he changed lower indulgences for honor and renown, and died\nat a ripe old age surrounded by loving friends. But Socrates resolutely\nand calmly suffered martyrdom for his principles. The sublime dignity\nand self-control of his dying hours will never cease to win the\nadmiration of mankind; yet Socrates was by no means a complete\ncharacter. He died unto himself merely. He left no gospel of peace to\nhumanity. His influence, however pure, could not, and in fact did not,\nbecome a diffusive and transforming leaven, either in his own or in any\nsubsequent generation. The late Matthew Arnold has said, \"The radical\ndifference between Jesus and Socrates is that such a conception as\nPaul's (conception of faith) would, if applied to Socrates, be out of\nplace and ineffective. Socrates inspired boundless friendship and\nesteem, but the inspiration of reason and conscience is the one\ninspiration which comes from him and which impels us to live righteously\nas he did. A penetrating enthusiasm of love, sympathy, pity, adoration,\nreinforcing the inspiration of reason and duty does not belong to\nSocrates. With Jesus it is different. On this point it is needless to\nargue: history has proved. In the midst of errors the most prosaic, the\nmost immoral, the most unscriptural, concerning God, Christ, and\nrighteousness, the immense emotion of love and sympathy inspired by the\nperson and character of Jesus has had to work almost by itself alone for\nrighteousness, but it has worked wonders.\"[217]\n\nThis tribute to the completeness and power of Christ's personality is\ncalculated to remind one of a memorable chapter in the well-known work\nof the late Dr. Horace Bushnell, entitled, \"Nature and the\nSupernatural.\" With a wonderful power it portrays Christ as rising above\nthe plane of merely human characters--as belonging to no age or race or\nstage of civilization--as transcendent not in some of the virtues, but\nin them all--as never subject to prejudice, or the impulse of passion,\nnever losing that perfect poise which it has been impossible for the\ngreatest of men to achieve--as possessed of a mysterious magnetism which\ncarried conviction to His hearers even when claiming to be one with the\nInfinite--as inspiring thousands with a love which has led them to give\ntheir lives for His cause.[218]\n\nI have often thought that one of the most striking evidences of the\ndivine reality of the Christian faith is found in the reflection of\nChrist's personality in the character and life of the apostle Paul.[219]\nNo one can doubt that Paul was a real historic personage, that from\nhaving been a strict and influential Jew he became a follower of Jesus\nand gave himself to His service with a sublime devotion; that he sealed\nthe sincerity of his belief by a life of marvellous self-denial. He had\nno motive for acting a false part at such cost; on the contrary, an\nunmistakable genuineness is stamped upon his whole career. How shall we\nexplain that career? Where else in the world's history have we seen a\ngifted and experienced man, full of strong and repellant prejudices, so\nstamped and penetrated by the personality of another?\n\nOn what theory can we account for such a change in such a life, except\nthat his own story of his conversion was strictly true, that he had felt\nin his inmost soul a power so overwhelming as to sweep away his\nprejudices, humble his pride, arm him against the derision of his former\nfriends, and prepare him for inevitable persecution and for the martyr\ndeath of which he was forewarned? So vivid were his impressions of this\ndivine personality that it seemed almost to absorb his own. Christ,\nthough He had ascended, was still with him as a living presence. All his\ninspiration, all his strength came from Him. His plans and purposes\ncentred in his Divine Master, and his only ambition was to be found\nwell-pleasing in his sight. He saw all types and prophecies fulfilled in\nHim as the Son of God, the fulness of His glory, and the express image\nof His person. Paul never indulged in any similes by which to express\nthe glory of heaven; it was enough that we should be like Christ and be\nwith Him where He is.\n\nThe writings of all the apostles differ from the books of other\nreligions in the fact that their doctrines, precepts, and exhortations\nare so centred in their divine Teacher and Saviour. Buddha's disciples\ncontinued to quote their Master, but Buddha was dead. Theoretically not\neven his immortal soul survived. He had declared that when his bodily\nlife should cease there would be nothing left of which it could be said\n\"I am.\"\n\nBut to the vivid and realizing faith of Christ's followers He is still\ntheir living Head, their Intercessor, their Guide. His resurrection is\nthe warrant of their future life. He has gone before and will come again\nto receive His own. Christianity is Christ: all believers are members of\nHis mystic body: the Church is His bride. He is the Alpha and the Omega\nof the world's history. In the contemplation of His personality as the\nchief among ten thousand His people are changed into His image as from\nglory to glory. The ground of salvation in Christianity is not in a\nchurch, nor a body of doctrines, not even in the teachings of the\nMaster: it is in Christ Himself as a humiliated sacrifice and a\ntriumphant Saviour.\n\nSecond, the religion of the Bible differs from every other in its\ncompleteness and scope--its adaptation to all the duties and experiences\nof life and to all races and all conditions of men. It alone is able to\nmeet all the deep and manifold wants of mankind. Hardwick has very aptly\npointed out a contrast in this respect between the faith of Abraham and\nthat of the early Indo-Aryan chiefs as portrayed in the Rig Veda. The\npressing wants of humanity necessitate a faith that is of the nature of\na heartfelt trust. No other can be regarded as strictly religious. Now\nAbraham's faith was something more than a speculation or a creed. It was\nan all-embracing confidence in God. He had an abiding sense of His\npresence and he confided in Him as his constant guide, defender, and\nfriend. His family, his flocks, his relations to the hostile tribes who\nsurrounded him, the promised possession of the land to which he\njourneyed--all these were matters which he left in the hands of an\nunseen but ever-faithful friend. His was a practical faith--a real and\ncomplete venture, and it involved gratitude and loyalty and love.\nAbraham's childhood had been spent in the home of an idolatrous father;\nfor Shemite as well as Aryan had departed from the worship of the true\nGod. In Chaldea, as in India, men had come to worship the sun and moon\nand the forces of nature. But while the Hindu wandered ever farther away\nfrom Jehovah, Abraham restored the faith which his ancestors had lost.\nHe had no recourse to Indra or Varuna, he sought no help from devas or\ndeparted spirits. He looked to God alone, for he had heard a voice\nsaying, \"I am the Almighty God, walk before me and be thou\nperfect.\"[220] Under the inspiration of such a summons Abraham became\n\"the father of the faithful.\" He was the representative and exemplar of\nreal and practical faith, not only to the Hebrew race but to all\nmankind. He staked his all upon a promise which he regarded as divine\nand therefore sure. He believed in the Lord and He counted it to him for\nrighteousness. He left home and country and ventured among hostile\ntribes in an assured confidence that he should gain a possession, though\nempty-handed, and a countless posterity, though yet childless, and that\nall this would be granted him not for his own glory, but that all\nnations might be blest in him. And this subordination of self and this\nuplifting of his soul to a sublime hope rendered him patient when\nfulfilment seemed postponed, and strong against temptation when spoils\nand emoluments were offered him; for in some sense, vague perhaps, he\nforesaw a Messiah and a Kingdom of Righteousness, and he was girded with\nconfidence to the last, though he died without the sight.\n\nWe look in vain for anything to be compared with this in the Vedic\nliterature, still less in that of the period of Brahmanical\nsacerdotalism, or in the still later speculations of the philosophic\nschools. Real Hinduism is wanting in the element of trust. Its only\nfaith is a belief, a theory, a speculation. It receives nothing and\nexpects nothing as a free gift of God. Sacrificial rites survived in the\nearly Vedic period, but they had lost all prophetic significance. They\nterminated in themselves and rested upon their own value. There was no\nremembered promise and no expectation of any specific fulfilment. The\nHindu gained simply what he bought with his merit or his offerings, and\nhe had no greater sense of gratitude to deity than to the tradesman of\nwhom he made a purchase in the bazaar. There are, indeed, traces in some\nof the earliest Vedic hymns of a feeling of dependence upon superior\npowers, yet the Brahmanical priesthood taught men that he who was rich\nenough to offer a sacrifice of a hundred horses might bankrupt heaven,\nand by his simple right of purchase even rob Indra of his throne.[221]\nAs stated in a previous lecture, so far was this system from \"the faith\nwhich works by love\" that even demons, by costly sacrifices might\ndispute the supremacy of the universe.\n\nThere is an equally significant contrast between the legislation of\nMoses and that of Manu. The life and experience of the former are\ninterwoven with his statutes. They are illustrated with references to\nactual events in the history of the people. The blessings, the trials,\nthe punishments, the victories, the defeats of Israel enter into the\ntexture of the whole Mosaic record: it is full of sympathetic feeling;\nit takes hold on the actual life of men and therefore is able to reform\nand elevate them. It brings not only Moses, but Jehovah Himself into\npersonal sympathy with the people. But Manu presents statutes only. Many\nof these are wholesome as laws, but they are destitute of tenderness or\ncompassion. No indication is given of the author's own experience, and\nwe are left in doubt whether there were not many authors to whom the\ngeneral name of Manu was applied. There is no inculcation of gratitude\nand love to God, or any hint of His love to men. No prayer, no song, no\nconfession of dependence, no tribute of praise, no record of trembling,\nyet trustful, experience. It is all cold, lifeless precept and\nprohibition, with threats of punishment here and hereafter. Religious\nexaction is most strict, but there are few religious privileges except\nfor Brahmans, and these they possess by divine birthright. No\nparticular favor is asked from any being in heaven or on earth.\n\nWith respect to this same element of personal trust, and real, heartfelt\nexperience, contrast David also with any author whose name is given in\nHindu literature. He was full of humanity, large-hearted, loving,\ngrateful, and though stained by sin, yet he was so penitent and humble\nand tender that he was said to be a man after God's own heart. He was a\nsuccessful warrior and a great king, but he held all his honor and his\npower as a divine gift and for the Divine glory. Compare the 119th Psalm\nwith the Upanishads, or with any of the six schools of philosophy. The\none deals with moral precepts and spiritual aspirations, all the others\nwith subtle theories of creation or problems of the universe. The one is\nthe outflowing of joyous experience found in obedience to God's moral\nlaw, and only out of the heart could such a psalm have been written. The\nlaw of God had become not a barrier or a hamper, but a delight.\nEvidently David had found a religion which filled every avenue and met\nevery want of his whole being.\n\nAgain, only the religion of Christ brings man into his proper relation\nof penitence and humility before God. It is necessary to the very\nconception of reconciliation to a higher and purer being that\nwrong-doing shall be confessed. All the leading faiths of the world have\ntraditions of the fall of man from a higher and holier estate, and most\nof them--notably Hinduism, Buddhism, ancient Druidism, and the Druse\nreligion of Mount Lebanon--declare that the fall was the result of\npride and rebellion of spirit. And of necessity the wrong, if it cannot\nbe undone, must at least be confessed. Self-justification is\nperpetuation. The offender must lay aside his false estimate of self and\nadmit the justice whose claims he has violated. Even in the ordinary\nintercourse of men this principle is universally recognized. There can\nbe no reconciliation without either actual reparation or at least a\nfrank acknowledgment. Governmental pardon always implies repentance and\npromised reform, and between individuals a due concession to violated\nprinciple is deemed the dictate of the truest honor. How can there be\nreconciliation to God, then, without repentance and humiliation? Of what\nvalue can heathen asceticism and merit-making be while the heart is\nstill barred and buttressed with self-righteousness? The longer a man\napproaches the Holiness of Deity with the offerings of his own\nself-consequence the greater does the enormity of his offence become and\nthe wider the breach which he attempts to close.\n\nEven if he could render a perfect obedience and service for the future,\nhe could never overtake the old unsettled score. The prodigal cannot\nrecover the squandered estate or wipe out the record of folly and sin,\nand if there be no resource of free remission on the one hand, and no\ndeep and genuine repentance on the other, there can be no possible\nadjustment. The universal judgment and conscience of men so decide.\nPhilosophers may present this method and that of moral culture and\nassimilation to the character of the Infinite, but practically all men\nwill approve the philosophy taught in Christ's touching parable of the\nProdigal Son. The beauty, the force, the propriety of its principles\nstrike the human understanding, whether of the sage or of the savage,\nlike a flash of sunlight, and no human heart can fail to be touched by\nits lessons. Yet where in all the wide waste of heathen faiths or\nphilosophies is there anything which even remotely resembles the story\nof the Prodigal? Where is the system in which such an incident and such\na lesson would not be wholly out of place?\n\nIn that ancient book of the Egyptian religion known as \"The Book of the\nDead,\" the souls of the departed when arraigned before the throne of\nOsiris are represented as all joining in one refrain of\nself-exculpation, uttering such pleas as these: \"I have not offended or\ncaused others to offend.\" \"I have not snared ducks illegally on the\nNile.\" \"I have not used false weights or measures.\" \"I have not\ndefrauded my neighbor by unjustly opening the sluices upon my own land!\"\nAny sense of the inward character of sin or any conception of wrong\nattitudes of mind or heart toward God is utterly wanting. It is simply\nthe plea of \"not guilty,\" which even the most hardened culprit may make\nin court. In one of the Vedic hymns to Varuna there is something which\nlooks like confession of sin, but it really ends in palliation. \"It was\nnot our doing, O Varuna, it was necessity; an intoxicating draught,\npassion, dice, thoughtlessness. The old is there to mislead the young.\nEven sleep brings unrighteousness.\" And the remission sought for is not\none involving a change of character but only release from an external\nbond. \"Absolve us from the sins of our fathers and from those which we\ncommitted with our own bodies. Release Vasishtha, O King, like a thief\nwho has feasted on stolen oxen. Release him like a calf from the\nrope.\"[222]\n\nIn the Penitential Psalms of the ancient Akkadians, who inhabited\nNorthern Assyria in the times of Abraham, and who may have retained\nsomething of that true faith from which Abraham's father had declined,\nwe find a nearer approach to true penitence, but that also lacks the\ninner sense of sin and seeks merely an exemption from punishments.\n\nOnly in the Old and New Testaments is sin recognized as of the nature of\npersonal guilt. Accordingly, Christianity alone recognizes the fact that\nright thoughts and motives and a worthy character are the gifts of God.\nCicero has truly remarked[223] that men justly thank God for external\nblessings, but never for virtue, or talent, or character. All that is\nregarded as their own. And such is the conceit of human\nself-righteousness in all man-made religions, whether Hindu or Greek,\nancient or modern. Philosophy is in its very nature haughty and\naristocratic. Even Plato betrays this element. It is only the Christian\napostle that is heard to say, with heartfelt emotion, \"By the grace of\nGod I am what I am.\" The Buddha declared that he recognized no being in\nany world to whom he owed any special reverence; and especially in his\nlater years, when his disciples had come to look upon him as in a sense\ndivine, he regarded himself as the highest of all intelligences on the\nearth or in the various heavens. Such assumptions in both Buddha and\nConfucius will explain the fact that for ages both have been virtually\nworshipped. \"At fifteen,\" said Confucius, \"I had my mind bent on\nlearning. At thirty I stood firm. At forty I had no doubt. At fifty I\nknew the decrees of Heaven. At sixty my ear was an obedient organ for\nthe reception of truth. At seventy I could follow what my heart desired\nwithout transgressing what was right.\"[224] Yet neither of these great\nteachers claimed to be a divine Saviour. They were simply exemplars;\ntheir self-righteousness was supposed to be attainable by all.\n\nI cannot do better in this connection than point out a striking contrast\nin the recorded experiences of two well-known historic characters. Islam\nhonors David, King of Israel, and accords him a place among its\naccredited prophets. Both David and Mohammed were guilty of adultery\nunder circumstances of peculiar aggravation. Mohammed covered his\noffence by a blasphemous pretence of special revelations from God,\njustifying his crime and chiding him for such qualms of conscience as he\nhad. David lay in dust and ashes while he bemoaned not only the\nconsequences of his sin and the breach of justice toward his neighbor,\nbut also the deep spiritual offence of his act. \"Against Thee, and Thee\nonly, O God, have I sinned, and done this evil in Thy sight.\"\nProfoundest penitence on the one hand and Heaven-daring blasphemy on\nthe other, the Bible and the Koran being witnesses!\n\nAnother marked distinction is seen in the moral purity of the Christian\nScriptures as contrasted with the so-called sacred books of all other\nreligions. That which is simply human will naturally be expected to show\nthe moral taint of lapsed humanity. The waters cannot rise higher than\nthe fountain-head, nor can one gather figs from thistles. In our social\nintercourse with men we sooner or later find out their true moral level.\nAnd so in what is written, the exact grade of the author will surely\nappear. And it is by this very test that we can with tolerable accuracy\ndistinguish the human from the divine in religious records. It is not\ndifficult to determine what is from heaven and what is of the earth.\n\nNo enlightened reader of Greek mythology can proceed far without\ndiscovering that he is dealing with the prurient and often lascivious\nimaginings of semi-barbarous poets. He finds the poetry and the art of\nGreece both reflecting the character of a passionate people, bred under\na southern sun and in an extremely sensuous age. If he ventures into the\nlowest depths of the popular religious literature of Greece or Rome, or\nancient Egypt or Phoenicia, he finds unspeakable vice enshrined among\nthe mysteries of religion, and corruptions which an age of refinement\nrefuses to translate or depict abound on every hand. Or apply the same\ntest to the literature of Hinduism, even in its earliest and purest\nstages. The sacred Vedas, which are supposed to have been breathed into\nthe souls of ancient rishis by direct divine effluence, are tainted here\nand there by debasing human elements, and that not incidentally but as\nthe very soul of the Hindu system. For example, when the Vedic hymns\npromise as future rewards the lowest sensual indulgences[225] none can\ndoubt the earthly source of their inspiration. As for the Upanishads,\nwhich are regarded as _Sruti_ or inspired, Professor Max Mueller, in his\nIntroduction to the first volume of \"The Sacred Books of the East,\"\nvirtually admits the impropriety of translating them for English readers\nwithout expurgation. Mr. Ram Chandra Bose, of Lucknow, declares himself\nunable, for the same reason, to give a full and unabridged account of\nthe ancient Hindu sacrifices.[226] The later literatures of the Puranas\nand the Tantras are lower still. Anti-Christian Orientalists have so\ngenerally conveyed the popular impression that their culled and\nexpurgated translations were fair representations of Hindu literature\nthat Wilson finally felt called upon in the interest of truth and\nhonesty to lift the veil from some of the later revelations of the\nPuranas, and it is sufficient to say that the Greek mythology is fairly\noutdone by the alleged and repeated escapades of the chief Hindu\ndeities.\n\nThe traditions of all ancient religions found on either hemisphere, and\nthe usages observed among savage tribes of to-day all conform to the\nsame low moral gauge. All are as deplorably human as the degraded\npeoples who devised them. In Mexico and Peru, as well as in Egypt and in\nBabylonia, base human passion was mingled with the highest teachings of\nreligion.[227] Buddhism has generally been considered an exception to\nthis general rule, and it will be confessed that its influence has been\nvastly higher than that of the old Hinduism, or the religions of Canaan,\nor Greece, or Rome, and immeasurably higher in morals than that of\nIslam; yet even Buddhism has been colored by its European advocates with\nfar too roseate a hue. Sir Edwin Arnold was not the first biographer of\nGautama to glorify incidentally the seductive influences of his Indian\nharem, and to leave on too many minds the impression that, after all,\nthe luxurious palace of Sidartha was more attractive than the beggars'\nbowl of the enlightened \"Tathagata.\" The Bishop of Colombo, in an able\narticle on Buddhism, arraigns the apologetic translators of Buddhistic\nliterature for having given to the world an altogether erroneous\nimpression of the moral purity of the Sacred Books of Ceylon.[228]\n\nThe vaunted claim that the early Buddhist records, and especially the\nearly rock inscriptions found in caves, are pure, whatever corruptions\nmay have crept into more modern manuscripts, is well met by letters from\na recent traveller, which speak of certain Buddhist inscriptions so\nquestionable in character that they cannot be translated or\ndescribed.[229]\n\nIt is scarcely necessary for me to speak of the base appeal to man's low\npassions found in the Koran. It is only necessary to trace its\nunmistakable influence in the moral degeneracy of Mohammedan populations\nin all lands and all ages--destroying the sacredness of the home,\ndegrading woman, engendering unnatural vices, and poisoning all society\nfrom generation to generation. It is indeed a hard task for its\napologists, by any kind of literary veneering to cover the moral\ndeformity and the blasphemous wickedness which, side by side with\nacknowledged excellences, mar the pages of the Koran. The soiled\nfinger-marks of the sensual Arab everywhere defile them. Like the blood\nof Banquo, they defy all ocean's waters to wash them out. It was easy\nenough for Mohammed to copy many exalted truths from Judaism and\nChristianity, and no candid mind will deny that there are many noble\nprecepts in the Koran; but after all has been said, its ruling spirit is\nbase. Even its promised heaven is demoralizing. It is characteristically\na human book, and very low in the ethical scale at that.\n\nLet us now turn to the Bible; let us remember that the Old Testament\nrepresents those early centuries when the people of Israel were\nsurrounded by the corruptions of Baal worship, which transcended the\ngrovelling wickedness of all other heathen systems, ancient or modern.\nLet us bear in mind the kind of training which the nation had received\namid the corruptions of Egypt, all rendered more effective for evil by\ntheir degrading bondage; and with all these disadvantages in view, let\nus search everywhere, from Genesis to Malachi, and see if there be one\nprurient utterance, one sanction for, or even connivance at, impurity\nin all those records, written by men in different lands and ages, men\nrepresenting all social grades, all vocations in life, and chosen from\namong all varieties of association. Who will deny that these men appear\nto have been raised by some unaccountable power to a common level of\nmoral purity which was above their age, their social standards, their\nnatural impulses, or any of the highest human influences which could\nhave been exerted upon them?\n\nThey were often called to deal plainly with moral evils. They record\ninstances of grievous dereliction, in some cases the writers were\nthemselves the offenders. But there is always reproof. The story always\nhas a salutary moral. Sin is always shown to be a losing game, a sowing\nto the wind and a reaping of the whirlwind. It is either followed by\nsevere judgments, or it is repented of with a contrition which bows even\na great monarch in dust and ashes.\n\nThe books of the New Testament were also written in an age of great\nmoral corruption. Judaism was virtually dead; the current religion in\nthe Holy City was \"a sad perversion of the truth.\" Hypocrisy sat in high\nplaces when John Baptist came with his protest and his rebukes. The\nHerods, who held the sceptres of provincial authority, were either base\ntime-servers, or worse, they were monsters of lust and depravity. In the\nfar-off capitals of the dominant heathen races vice had attained its\nfull fruitage and was already going to seed and consequent decay.\nAthens, Corinth, Ephesus, and Antioch were steeped in iniquity, while\nthe emperors who wielded the sceptre of the Roman empire were hastening\nthe ruin of the existing civilization. It was in such an age and amid\nsuch surroundings that the Gospels and the Epistles came forth as the\nlotus springs, pure and radiant from the foul and fetid quagmire. What\ncould have produced them? The widely accepted rule that religions are\nthe products of their environments is surely at fault here. Neither in\nthe natural impulses of a dozen Judean fishermen and peasants, nor in\nthe bigoted breast of Saul of Tarsus, could these unique and sublime\nconceptions have found their genesis. They are manifestly divine. How\nexalted is the portraiture of the Christ! What human skill could have\ndepicted a character which no ideal of our best modern culture can\nequal?\n\nIn all the New Testament there are none but the highest and purest\nethical teachings, and even the most poetical descriptions of heaven are\nfree from any faintest tinge of human folly. The Apocalypse is full of\nimages which appeal to the senses, but there is nothing which does not\nminister to the most rigid purity; while the representations which Paul\nmakes of eternal felicity are strictly and conspicuously spiritual and\nelevating. Everywhere, from Matthew to Revelations, it is the pure in\nheart who shall see God, and the inducement held out is to be pure\nbecause He is pure. And although the gift of eternal life is a free\ngift, yet it affords no excuse for laxity. The sixth chapter of the\nEpistle to the Romans is a remonstrance against all presumption in those\nthat are \"under grace.\" \"Reckon ye yourselves to be dead indeed unto\nsin, but alive unto God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Let not sin\ntherefore rule in your mortal body that ye should obey it in the lusts\nthereof. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness\nunto sin, but yield yourselves unto God as those that are alive from the\ndead.\"[230] The religion of the New Testament is a spiritual religion,\nthe resurrection body is a spiritual body; heaven is not an Indian\nhunting-ground, nor a Vikings Valhalla of shield-clad warriors, nor a\nMoslem harem. It is a spiritual abode, and its companionships are with\nGod and the Lamb, with the church of the first-born and of saints made\nperfect. Now, all that we can say of these lofty and pure conceptions is\nthat flesh and blood never revealed them. They are divine. They are out\nof the range of our native humanity; they are not the things that human\nnature desires, and it is only by the high culture of transforming grace\nthat human aspirations are raised to their level.\n\nIn conclusion, there are many points in which Christianity asserts its\nunique supremacy over all other systems of which there is time but for\nthe briefest mention. It presents to man the only cultus which can have\nuniversal adaptation. Christ only, belongs to all ages and all races.\nBuddha is but an Asiatic, Mohammed is an Arab and belongs only to the\nEast. The religion or philosophy of Confucius has never found adaptation\nto any but Mongolian races; his social and political pyramid would\ncrumble in contact with republican institutions. On the other hand, the\nreligion of Christ is not only adapted to all races, but it aims at\ntheir union in one great brotherhood. Again, Christianity alone presents\nthe true relation between Divine help and human effort. It does not\ninvest marred and crippled human nature with a false and impossible\nindependence, neither does it crush it. Whenever heathen systems have\ntaught a salvation by faith they have lost sight of moral obligation.\nWeitbrecht and others state this as a fact with the Hindu doctrine of\nBakti (faith) adopted in the later centuries; De Quatrefages asserts the\nsame of the Tahitans. But the faith of the New Testament everywhere\nsupposes a Divine and effectual co-operation. \"Work out your own\nsalvation with fear and trembling, for it is God that worketh in you to\nwill and to do of His good pleasure.\" It bids men serve not as\nhirelings, but as sons and heirs; it stimulates hope without engendering\npride; it administers discipline, but with a father's love; it teaches\nthat trials are not judgments, but wholesome lessons. Of all religions\nit alone inculcates a rational and consoling doctrine of Providence. It\ndeclares that to the righteous death is not destruction, but a sleep in\npeace and hope. It bids the Christian lay off his cares and worries--in\nall things making his requests known unto God with thanksgivings; and\nyet it enjoins him not to rest in sloth, but to aspire after all that is\npure and true and honorable and lovely and of good report in human life\nand conduct. It saves him from sin not by the stifling and atrophy of\nany God-given power, but by the expulsive influence of new affections;\nit bids him be pure even as God is pure.\n\nThere is in the brief epistle of Paul to Titus a passage which in a\nsingle sentence sets forth the way of salvation in its fulness. It\ntraces redemption to the grace of God, and it makes it a free provision\nfor all men; yet it insists upon carefulness and sobriety. Salvation is\nshown to begin _now_ in the laying aside of all sin and the living of a\ngodly life. Meanwhile it cheers the soul with expectation that Christ\nshall dwell with the redeemed in triumph, as He once came in\nhumiliation, and it keeps ever in mind the great truth that His mission\nis not merely to secure for man future exemptions and possessions, but\nto build up character--character that shall continue to rise and expand\nforever.\n\n_For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,\nteaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live\nsoberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; looking for that\nblessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our\nSaviour Jesus Christ; who gave Himself for us that He might redeem us\nfrom all iniquity, and purify unto Himself a peculiar people zealous of\ngood works._\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 205: _Holy Bible and Sacred Books of the East_, p. 12.]\n\n[Footnote 206: Mohammed was once asked whether he trusted in his own\nmerit or in the mercy of God, and he answered, \"The mercy of God.\" But\nthe whole drift of his teaching belied this one pious utterance.]\n\n[Footnote 207: Of the terrible darkness and bewilderment into which\nbenighted races are often found Schoolcraft furnishes this graphic and\npainful picture in the condition of the Iroquois:\n\n\"Their notions of a deity, founded apparently on some dreamy tradition\nof original truth, are so subtile and divisible, and establish so\nheterogeneous a connection between spirit and matter of all imaginable\nforms, that popular belief seems to have wholly confounded the possible\nwith the impossible, the natural with the supernatural. Action, so far\nas respects cause and effect, takes the widest and wildest range,\nthrough the agency of good or evil influences, which are put in motion\nalike for noble or ignoble ends--alike by men, beasts, devils, or gods.\nSeeing something mysterious and wonderful, he believes all things\nmysterious and wonderful; and he is afloat without shore or compass, on\nthe wildest sea of superstition and necromancy. He sees a god in every\nphenomenon, and fears a sorcerer in every enemy. Life, under such a\nsystem of polytheism and wild belief, is a constant scene of fears and\nalarms. Fear is the predominating passion, and he is ready, wherever he\ngoes, to sacrifice at any altar, be the supposed deity ever so\ngrotesque. He relates just what he believes, and unluckily he believes\neverything that can possibly be told. A beast, or a bird, or a man, or a\ngod, or a devil, a stone, a serpent, or a wizard, a wind, or a sound, or\na ray of light--these are so many causes of action, which the meanest\nand lowest of the series may put in motion, but which shall in his\ntheology and philosophy vibrate along the mysterious chain through the\nuppermost, and life or death may at any moment be the reward or the\npenalty.\"--_Notes on the Iroquois_, p. 263.]\n\n[Footnote 208: _History of Rationalism_.]\n\n[Footnote 209: And even the Buddha had spent six years in\nself-mortification and in the diligent search for what he regarded as\nthe true wisdom.]\n\n[Footnote 210: Henry Maudsley, in _The Arena_ of April, 1891.]\n\n[Footnote 211: \"Barren Mohammedanism has been in all the higher and more\ntender virtues, because its noble morality and its pure theism have been\nunited with no living example.\"--Lecky, _History of Morals_, vol. ii.,\np. 10.]\n\n[Footnote 212: The most intelligent Mohammedans, as we have shown in a\nformer lecture, admit the moral blemishes of his character as compared\nwith the purity of Jesus and only revere him as the instrument of a\ngreat Divine purpose. His only element of greatness was success. Even\nthe Koran convicts him of what the world must regard as heinous sin, and\npresents Jesus as the only sinless prophet.]\n\n[Footnote 213: Douglass, _Confucianism and Taouism_.]\n\n[Footnote 214: The apologists of Buddhism have made much of the story of\na distressed young mother who came to the \"Master\" bearing in her arms\nthe dead body of her first-born--hoping for some comfort or help. He\nbade her bring him some mustard seed found in a home where no child had\ndied. After a wearisome but vain search he only reminded her of the\nuniversality of death. No hope of a future life and a glad recovery of\nthe lost was given. As an illustration of Buddhism the example is a good\none.]\n\n[Footnote 215: \"Men wanted a Father in heaven, who should take account\nof their efforts and assure them a recompense. Men wanted a future of\nrighteousness, in which the earth should belong to the feeble and the\npoor; they wanted the assurance that human suffering is not all loss,\nbut that beyond this sad horizon, dimmed by tears, are happy plains\nwhere sorrow shall one day find its consolation.\"--Renan, _Hibbert\nLectures_, p. 42.]\n\n[Footnote 216: See report of Missionary Conference, London, 1888, vol.\ni., p. 70.]\n\n[Footnote 217: _St. Paul and Protestantism_, p. 79, quoted by Bishop\nCarpenter.]\n\n[Footnote 218: It is hardly necessary to remind the reader of the\nwell-known tribute which Napoleon, in his conversations with his friends\non the island of St. Helena, paid to the transcendent personality of\nChrist. He drew a graphic contrast between the so-called glory which had\nbeen won by great conquerors like Alexander, Caesar, and himself, and\nthat mysterious and all-mastering power which in all lands and all ages\ncontinues to attach itself to the person, the name, the memory of\nChrist, for whom, after eighteen centuries of time, millions of men\nwould sacrifice their lives.]\n\n[Footnote 219: Augustine appears to have been greatly moved by the life\nas well as by the writings of Paul. In an account given of his\nconversion to his friend Romanianus, he says, \"So then stumbling,\nhurrying, hesitating, I seized the apostle Paul, 'for never,' said I,\n'could they have wrought such things, or lived as it is plain they did\nlive, if their writings and arguments were opposed to this so high a\ngood.'\"--_Confessions_, Bk. vii., xxi., note.]\n\n[Footnote 220: Genesis, xvii. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 221: The doctrine of human merit-making was carried to such an\nextreme under the Brahmanical system that the gods became afraid of its\npower. They sometimes found it necessary to send apsaras (nymphs), wives\nof genii, to tempt the most holy ascetics, lest their austerities and\ntheir merit should proceed too far.--_See Article Brahmanism, in the\nBritannica._]\n\n[Footnote 222: Mueller, _Chips from a German Workshop_, vol. i., p. 40.]\n\n[Footnote 223: De Nat. Deorum, iii., 36.]\n\n[Footnote 224: _Chips from a German Workshop_, p. 304.]\n\n[Footnote 225: See Murdock's _Vedic Religion_, p. 57.]\n\n[Footnote 226: _Hindu Philosophy_.]\n\n[Footnote 227: The most sacred of human victims offered by the Aztecs\nwere prepared by a month of unbridled lust. See Prescott's _Conquest_.]\n\n[Footnote 228: _Nineteenth Century_, July, 1888.]\n\n[Footnote 229: Letters of Rev. Pentecost in _The Christian at Work_,\n1891.]\n\n[Footnote 230: The same principles are set forth with great emphasis in\nIsaiah, Chap. iii.]\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX\n\nBOOKS OF REFERENCE\n\n\nThe books relating directly or indirectly to the wide range of topics\ndiscussed in the following lectures are too numerous for citation here;\nbut there are some which are so essential to a thorough knowledge of\ncomparative religion and comparative philosophy, that a special\nacknowledgment is due.\n\n\"The Sacred Books of the East\" are indispensable to one who would catch\nthe real spirit of the Oriental religions. The translations from Hindu,\nBuddhist, Mohammedan, Confucian, and Zoroastrian literatures, by Max\nMueller, Rhys Davids, Oldenberg, Fausboll, Palmer, Darmesteter, Mills,\nLegge, Buhler, West, Beal, and other able scholars, are invaluable. The\nvarious other works of Max Mueller, \"The Science of Religion,\" \"Chips\nfrom a German Workshop,\" \"The Origin and Growth of Religion,\" \"Physical\nReligion,\" etc., fill an important place in all study of these subjects.\n\n\"Indian Wisdom,\" by Sir Monier Williams, is the most comprehensive, and\nin many ways the best, of all compends of Hindu religion and philosophy.\nHis abridged work, \"Hinduism,\" and the larger volume entitled\n\"Brahmanism and Hinduism,\" are also valuable. R.C. Bose has given to the\npublic an able treatise entitled \"Hindu Philosophy.\" Other books on\nHinduism to which more or less reference is made, are: \"The Vedic\nReligion,\" by McDonald; \"India and the Indians,\" by Duff; \"The Life and\nLetters of Colbrooke;\" \"The Bhagavad Gita,\" as translated by Chatterji;\n\"The Vishnu Puranas,\" by Wilson; \"The Ramayana,\" by Griffiths;\n\"Brahmoism,\" by Bose; \"The Oriental Christ,\" by Mozoomdar; \"Christianity\nand Hindu Philosophy,\" by Ballantyne.\n\nAmong the ablest books on Buddhism are: \"Buddhism;\" \"The Growth of\nReligion as illustrated by Buddhism,\" and the able article on the same\nsubject in the \"Britannica\"--all by Rhys Davids. \"Buddha: His Life,\nCharacter, and Order,\" by Professor Oldenberg, is a scarcely less\nimportant contribution to Buddhist literature. \"The Light of Asia,\" by\nSir Edwin Arnold, has done more than any other work to interest Western\nnations in the legends of Gautama; perhaps no other Oriental character\nhas been more successfully popularized. Of the many efforts to correct\nthe misleading impressions given by this fanciful but really poetic\nstory, \"The Light of Asia and the Light of the World,\" by Dr. S.H.\nKellogg, is probably the ablest. Dr. Edkins, in \"Chinese Buddhism,\" and\nProfessor Beal, in \"Buddhism in China,\" have very successfully shown the\ncharacteristics of the Chinese types of the system. Spence Hardy, in his\n\"Manual of Buddhism,\" has rendered a similar service in relation to the\nBuddhism of Ceylon, while Bigandet has set forth that of Burmah, and\nAlabaster that of Siam. Sir Monier Williams, in his more recent work,\n\"Buddhism,\" has done much to counteract the fashionable tendency of most\nOrientalists to idealize the Buddhist system.\n\nOther works relating to Buddhism are, \"Mohammed, Buddha, and Christ,\" by\nDodds; \"Buddhism (Modern),\" by Subhadra; and \"Esoteric Buddhism,\" by\nSinnett. Maurice, Bishop Carpenter, Brace, the Bishop of Colombo,\nMartin, and many others have ably discussed the subject.\n\nOf all works on Mohammedanism, Sale's translation of the Koran, with a\n\"Preliminary Discourse,\" is the most comprehensive and important.\nSprenger's \"Life of Mohammed, from Original Sources,\" is perhaps next in\nrank. \"Islam and Mahomet,\" by Samuel Johnson; \"Mohammed and\nMohammedanism,\" by E. Bosworth Smith; \"Christianity, Islam, and the\nNegro Race,\" by E.W. Blyden; and \"Leaves from an Egyptian Note-book,\" by\nCanon Isaac Taylor, are among the principal apologies for Islam.\nGibbon's fifth volume of the \"Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire\" has\nat least done ample justice to the glory of the Mohammedan conquest.\n\nOf those who have ably controverted the claims of Islam, the late Dr.\nPfander, of Northern India, will perhaps hold the first rank. Of the\nthree Moulvies who were selected to meet him in public discussion, two\nare said to have been converted to Christianity by his arguments. The\nconcessions of the Koran to the truths of the Old and New Testaments\nhave been ably pointed out by Sir William Muir in \"The Koran,\" and Dr.\nE.M. Wherry, in his \"Commentary,\" has established the striking fact,\nthat of all the prophets named in the Koran, including Mohammed, Jesus\nalone is represented as sinless. The modern apologists of Mohammed and\nhis system have been well answered by Knox in current numbers of the\n_Church Missionary Intelligencer_. Other works upon the subject are\n\"Islam,\" by Stobart; \"Islam as a Missionary Religion,\" by Haines;\n\"Essays on Eastern Questions,\" by Palgrave. Sir William Muir's \"History\nof the Caliphate\" is an important and recent work.\n\nConfucianism and Taouism may be fairly understood, even by those who\nhave not the time for a careful study of Legge's translations of the\nChinese classics, by reference to the following works: \"China and the\nChinese,\" by Medhurst; \"The Religions of China,\" by Legge; \"The\nChinese,\" by Martin; \"Confucianism and Taouism,\" by Douglass; \"Religion\nin China,\" by Edkins. The late Samuel Johnson, in his \"Oriental\nReligions,\" has devoted a large volume to the religions of China,\nprincipally to the ethics and political economy of the Confucian system;\nand James Freeman Clark has given considerable attention to Confucianism\nas one of \"The Ten Great Religions.\"\n\nZoroastrianism is ably treated by Darmesteter in the Introduction to his\ntranslation of the \"Zend Avesta.\" Instructive lectures on the religion\nand literature of Persia may be found in the first volume of Max\nMueller's \"Chips from a German Workshop;\" also in \"The Religion of the\nIranians,\" found in Ebrard's \"Apologetics,\" vol. ii. West's and\nDarmesteter's translations of \"Pahlavi Texts,\" in the \"Sacred Books of\nthe East,\" are also suggestive.\n\nIn the following discussions, relating broadly to the ancient as well as\nthe modern religions and philosophies of the world, and their contrasts\nto Christian truth, reference is made directly or indirectly to the\nfollowing works: \"Christ and Other Masters,\" by Hardwick; \"The Ancient\nWorld and Christianity,\" by Edward de Pressense; \"The Religions of the\nWorld,\" by Maurice; \"The Aryan Witness,\" by Banergea; \"The Unknown God,\"\nby Brace; \"The Permanent Elements in Religion,\" by Boyd Carpenter;\n\"Oriental and Linguistic Studies,\" by A.D. Whitney; \"The Doomed\nReligions,\" by Reid; \"The Idea of God,\" by Fiske; \"The Destiny of Man,\"\nby Fiske; \"The Races of Man,\" by Peschel; \"Introduction to the\nPhilosophy of Religion,\" by Caird; \"National Religions and Universal\nReligions,\" by Kuenen; \"Some Elements of Religion,\" by Liddon; \"Outlines\nof the History of Ancient Religions,\" by Tiele; \"The Philosophy of\nReligion,\" by Pfleiderer; \"Our Christian Heritage,\" by Cardinal Gibbons;\n\"Hulsean Lectures, 1845-6,\" by Trench; \"Hibbert Lectures, 1880,\" by\nRenan; \"Origins of English History,\" by Elton; \"St. Paul in Britain\"\n(Druidism), by Morgan; \"Fossil Men and their Modern Representatives,\" by\nDawson; \"Modern Ideas of Evolution,\" by Dawson; \"Marcus Aurelius,\" by\nRenan; \"Epictetus,\" Bonn's Library; \"Confessions,\" by St. Augustine;\n\"History of the Egyptian Religion,\" by Tiele; \"Lucretius,\" Bonn's\nLibrary; \"Lives of the Fathers,\" by Farrar; \"The Vikings of Western\nChristendom,\" by Keary; \"Principles of Sociology,\" by Spencer; \"The\nDescent of Man,\" by Darwin; \"Evolution and Its Relation to Christian\nThought,\" by Le Conte; \"History of European Morals,\" by Lecky; \"The\nKojiki\" (Sacred Books of Shinto), Chamberlain's translation; \"The\nWitness of History to Christ,\" by Farrar; \"Anti-Theistic Theories,\" by\nFlint; \"The Human Species,\" by De Quatrefages.","title":"Oriental Religions and Christianity: A Course of Lectures Delivered on the Ely Foundation Before the; Students of Union Theological Seminary, New York, 1891","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":106773}