{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_20137/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_20137","id":"gutenberg_20137","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/20137","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Archaeology & Anthropology","Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Islam","Religions"],"text":"E-text prepared by Marilynda Fraser-Cunliffe, Graeme Mackreth, and the\nProject Gutenberg Online Distributed Proofreading Team\n(http://www.pgdp.net/) from page images generously made available by the\nMaking of America collection of the University of Michigan Libraries\n(http://www.hti.umich.edu/m/moagrp/)\n\n\n\nNote: Images of the original pages are available through the Making\n      of America collection of the University of Michigan Libraries. See\n      http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=moa;idno=AJF2939.0001.001\n\n\n\n\n\nA COMPARATIVE VIEW OF RELIGIONS.\n\nTranslated from the Dutch of\n\nJ. H. SCHOLTEN,\nProfessor at Leyden,\n\nby Francis T. Washburn.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nReprinted by permission from \"The Religious Magazine and Monthly\nReview.\"\nBoston: Crosby & Damrell, 100 Washington St. 1870.\n\n\n\n\nA COMPARATIVE VIEW OF RELIGIONS.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.[1]\n\n\nThe conception of religion presupposes, _a_, God as object; _b_, man as\nsubject; _c_, the mutual relation existing between them. According to\nthe various stages of development which men have reached, religious\nbelief manifests itself either in the form of a passive feeling of\ndependence, where the subject, not yet conscious of his independence,\nfeels himself wholly overmastered by the deity, or the object of\nworship, as by a power outside of and opposed to himself; or, when the\nfeeling of independence has awakened, in a one-sided elevation of the\nhuman, whereby man in worshiping a deity deifies himself. In the highest\nstage of religious development, the most entire feeling of dependence is\nunited in religion with the strongest consciousness of personal\nindependence. The first of these forms is exhibited in the fetich and\nnature-worship of the ancient nations; the second in Buddhism, and in\nthe deification of the human, which reaches its full height among the\nGreeks. The true religion, prepared in Israel, is the Christian, in\nwhich man, grown conscious of his oneness with God, is ruled by the\ndivine as an inner power of life, and acts spontaneously and freely\nwhile in the fullest dependence upon God. Since Christ, no more perfect\nreligion has appeared. What is true and good in Islamism was borrowed\nfrom Israel and Christianity.\n\nAlthough it is probable that every nation passed through different forms\nof religious belief before its religion reached its highest development,\nyet the earlier periods lie in great part beyond the reach of historical\ninvestigation. The history of religion, therefore, has for its task the\nreview of the various forms of religion with which we are historically\nacquainted, in the order of psychological development.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nFETICHISM. THE CHINESE. THE EGYPTIANS.\n\n\n1. FETICHISM.\n\nThe lowest stage of religious development is fetichism, as it is found\namong the savage tribes of the polar regions, and in Africa, America,\nand Australia. In this stage, man's needs are as yet very limited and\nexclusively confined to the material world. Still too little developed\nintellectually to worship the divine in nature and her powers, he thinks\nhe sees the divinity which he seeks in every unknown object which\nstrikes his senses, or which his imagination calls up. In this stage,\nreligion has no higher character than that of caprice and of love of\nthe mysterious and marvelous, mixed with fear and a slavish adoration of\nthe divine. The worship and the priest's office (Shaman, Shamanism)\nconsist here chiefly in the use of charms, to exorcise a dreaded power.\nFrom this savage fetichism the nature-worship found among the Aztecs in\nMexico, and the worship of the sun in Peru, are distinguished by the\ngreater definiteness and order of their religious conceptions and\nusages. In them the gods have names, and an ordained priesthood cares\nfor the religious interests of the people. The highest form to which\nfetichism has attained is the worship of Manitou, the great spirit,\nwhich is found among the ancient tribes of North America.\n\n\n2. THE CHINESE.\n\nWhen man reaches a higher development, caprice and chance disappear from\nreligion. Having outgrown fetichism, man begins, as is the case among\nthe Chinese, to distinguish in the world around him an active and a\npassive principle, force and matter (Yang and Yn), heaven and earth\n(Kien and Kouen). We have here nature-worship in its beginnings. In this\nstage, even less than in fetichism, is there a definite idea of God,\nmuch less a conception of him as personal and spiritual lord. The\nChinese, from the practical, empirical point of view peculiar to him,\nrecognizes the spiritual only in man and chiefly in the state. His\nreligion, therefore, is confined exclusively to the faithful keeping of\nthe laws of the state (the Celestial Kingdom), in which he sees the\nreflection of heaven, to the recognition of the Emperor as the son and\nrepresentative of heaven, and to the worship of the forefathers,\nespecially of the great men and departed emperors, to whose memory the\nChinese temples, or pagodas, are dedicated. The origin of this religion\ndates, according to the tradition, from Fo-hi (2950 B.C.), the founder\nof the Chinese state. In the fifth century before Christ, Kong-tse, or\nKong-fu-tse (Confucius), appeared as a reformer of the religion of his\ncountrymen, and gathered the ancient records and traditions of his\npeople into a sacred literature, which is known by the name of the\n\"King\" (the books), \"Yo-King\" (the book of nature), \"Chu-King\" (the book\nof history), \"Chi-King\" (the book of songs). The contents of the \"King\"\nbecame later with the Chinese sages Meng-tse (360 B.C.) and Tschu-tsche\n(1200 A.D.) an object of philosophical speculation. The doctrine of\nLao-tse, the younger contemporary of Kong-tse, which lays down as the\nbasis of the world, that is of the unreal or non-existent, a supreme\nprinciple, _Tao_, or _Being_, corresponds with the Brahma doctrine of\nthe Indians, among whom he lived for a long time; but this doctrine\nnever became popular in China.\n\n\n3. THE EGYPTIANS.\n\nThe worship of nature, which is seen in its beginnings among the\nChinese, exhibits itself among the Egyptians in a more developed form as\ntheogony. Here also the reflecting mind rose to the recognition of two\nfundamental principles, the producing and the passive power of nature,\nKneph and Neith, from which sprang successively the remaining powers of\nnature, time, air, earth, light and darkness, personified by the fantasy\nof the people into as many divinities. The Egyptian mythology also (none\nhas as yet been discovered among the Chinese) exhibits a like character.\nFruitfulness and drought, the results of the Nile's overflowing and\nreceding, are imaged in the myth of _Osiris_, _Isis_, and _Typhon_. The\nvisible form under which the divine was worshiped in Egypt was the\nsacred animal, the bull _Apis_, dedicated to _Osiris_, the cow,\ndedicated to _Isis_, as symbols of agriculture; the bird _Ibis_, the\ncrocodile, the dog _Anubis_, and other animals, whose physical\ncharacteristics impressed the as yet childish man, who saw in them the\nsymbol, either of the beneficent power of nature which moved him to\nthankfulness, or of a destructive power which he dreaded and whose anger\nhe sought to avert. The religion of Egypt was not of a purely spiritual\ncharacter. To the man whose eye is not yet open to the manifestation of\nthe spiritual around him and in him, the divine is not spirit, but as\nyet only nature. The animal, although in the form of the sphinx\napproaching the human, holds in Egyptian art a place above the human as\nsymbol of the divine.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nTHE ARIAN NATIONS.\n\n\n1. THE EAST ARIANS. THE INDIANS.\n\nIn the development of religion among the Indians, the following periods\nmay be distinguished:--\n\n   _a._ The original Veda-religion.\n\n   _b._ The priestly religion of the Brahmins.\n\n   _c._ The philosophical speculation.\n\n   _d._ Buddhism.\n\n   _e._ The modified Brahminism after Buddha, in connection with the\n   worship of Vishnu and Siva.\n\n\n_a. The original Veda-religion._\n\nThe original religion of Arya originated in Bactria. From thence, before\nthe time of Zoroaster, it was brought over, with the great migration of\nthe people, to the land of the seven rivers, which they conquered, and\nwhich stretched from the Indus to the Hesidrus. It consisted, according\nto the oldest literature of the Veda, in a polytheistical worship of the\ndivine, either as the beneficent or the baneful power of nature. The\nclear, blue sky, the light of the sun, the rosy dawn, the storm that\nspends itself in fruitful rain, the winds and gales which drive away the\nclouds, the rivers whose fruitful slime overspreads the fields,--these\nmoved the inhabitants of India to the worship of the divine as the\nbeneficent power of nature which blesses man. On the other hand, he\nchanged under the impression of the harmful phenomena of nature, the\ndark and close-packed clouds which hold back the rain and intercept the\nsunshine, the parching heat of summer, which dries up the rivers and\nhinders growth and fruitfulness, and these also he erected into objects\nof awe and religious adoration. From this view of nature sprang the\nIndian mythology. The oldest divinity (Deva) of the Indians is Varuna,\nthe all-embracing heaven, who marks out their courses for the heavenly\nluminaries, who rules the day and the night, who is lord of life and\ndeath, whose protection is invoked, whose anger deprecated. After him,\nthe great ruler of nature, there appear, in the Veda hymns, Indra, the\nblue sky, god of light and thunder, the warrior who in battle stands\nbeside the combatants; Vayu, the god of the wind, the chief of the\nMaruts, or the winds; Rudra, the god of the hurricane; Vritra, the\nhostile god of the clouds; Ahi, the parching heat of summer. In the\nmythology of the people, Indra, god of light, aided by Vayu and Rudra,\nwages war with Vritra,--who, as god of the clouds, holds back the rain\nand the light,--and appears as opponent of the destructive Ahi. The\nother divinities also which appear in the Vedas are personified powers\nof nature,--the twin brothers Aswins (equites), or the first rays of the\nsun, Ushas the maiden, or the rosy dawn, Surya, Savitri, the god of the\nsun. Great significance is given in the Indian mythology to Agni, the\ngod of fire, who burns the sacrifice in honor of the gods, who conveys\nthe offerings and prayers of men to gods and their gifts to men, who\ngladdens the domestic hearth, lights up the darkness of night, drives\naway the evil spirits, the Ashuras and Rakshas, and purges of evil the\nsouls of men. Religion, still wholly patriarchal in form, and free from\nhierarchical constraint and from the later dogmatic narrowness, bore in\nthis earlier stage of its development the character of the still free\nand warlike life of a nomadic people living in the midst of a sublime\nnature, where everything, the clear sky, sunshine, and boisterous storm,\nmountains and rivers, disposed to worship. As yet the Indian knew no\nclose priestly caste. Worship consisted in prayers and offerings,\nespecially in the Soma-offering, which was offered as food to the gods.\nNo fear of future torment after death as yet embittered the enjoyment of\nlife and made dying fearful. Yama was the friendly guide of the souls of\nheroes to the heaven of Indra or Varuna, and not yet the inexorable\nprince of hell who tormented the souls of the ungodly in the kingdom of\nthe dead. Of later barbarous usages also, such as the widow's\nsacrificing herself on the funeral pile of her departed husband, there\nwas as yet no trace; and in the heroic poetry, as yet not disfigured by\nlater Brahminical alterations and additions, the heroes Krishna and Rama\nappear as types of courage and self-sacrifice, and not, as later, as\navatars, or human incarnations, of the deity.\n\n\n_b. Brahminism._\n\nWhen the nomadic and warlike life of the nations of India in the land of\nthe seven rivers, in connection with their removal to the conquered land\nof the Ganges (1300 B.C.), gave place to a more ordered social\nconstitution, a priestly class formed itself, which began to represent\nthe people before the deity, and from its chief function, _Brahma_, or\nprayer, took the name of _Brahmins_, i.e., the praying. This Brahma,\nbefore whose power even the gods must yield, was gradually exalted by\nthe Brahmins to the highest deity, to whom, under the name of Brahma,\nthe old Veda divinities were subordinated. Brahma is no god of the\npeople, but a god of the priests; not the lord of nature, but the\nabstract and impersonal _Being_, out of whom nature and her phenomena\nemanate. From Brahma the priest derives his authority; and the system of\ncaste, by which the priesthood is raised to the first rank, its origin.\nThe worship of Brahma consists in doing penance and in abstinence. Yama,\nonce a celestial divinity, now becomes the god of the lower world, where\nhe who disobeys Brahma is tormented after death. Immortality consists in\nreturning to Brahma; but is the portion only of the perfectly godly\nBrahmin, while the rest of mankind can rise to this perfect state only\nafter many painful new births. The Brahmin, in the exclusive possession\nof religious knowledge, reads and expounds the Vedas (knowledge),\nexalted to infallible scripture, and on them constructs his doctrine.\n\nThus the once vigorous, natural life of the Indians gave place to a\nconception of the world which repressed the soul, and annihilated man's\npersonality. The many-sidedness of the earlier theology resolved itself\ninto the abstract unity of an impersonal All, and thus the glory of\nnature passed by unmarked, as nought or non-existent, and lost its\ncharm. At the same time, the old heroic sagas were displaced by legends\nof saints, and the heroic spirit of the olden epic by an asceticism\nwhich repressed the human, and before whose power even the gods stood in\nawe. With Brahminism the religion lost its original and natural\ncharacter, and became characterized by a slavish submission to a\npriesthood, which abrogated the truly human.\n\n\n_c. The Speculative Systems._\n\nThe doctrine of the Brahmins occasioned the rise of various theological\nand philosophical systems. To these belong, first, the \"Vedanta,\" (end\nof the Veda) or the dogmatic-apologetic exposition of the Veda. This\ncontains (1) the establishment of the authority of the Veda as holy\nscripture revealed by Brahma, and also of the relation in which it\nstands to tradition; (2) the proof that everything in the Veda has\nreference to Brahma; (3) the ascetic system, or the discipline. To\nexplain contradictory statements in the older and later parts of the\nVeda, Brahminical learning makes use of the subtleties of an\nharmonistical method of interpretation. Second, the \"Mimansa\" (inquiry),\ndevoted to the solution of the problem, How can the material world\nspring from Brahma, or the immaterial? According to this system, there\nis only one Supreme Being, Paramatma, a name by which Brahma himself had\nbeen already distinguished in Manu's book of law. Outside of this\nhighest _Being_, there is nothing real. The world of sense, or nature,\n(Maya, the female side of Brahma), is mere seeming and illusion of the\nsenses. The human spirit is a part of Brahma, but perverted, misled by\nthis same illusion to the conceit that he is individual. This illusion\nis done away with by a deeper insight, by means of which the dualism\nvanishes from the wise man's view, and the conceit gives place to the\ntrue knowledge that Brahma alone really exists, that nature, on the\ncontrary, is nought, and the human spirit nothing else than Brahma\nhimself. Third, the \"Sankya\" (criticism) originating with Kapila, in\nwhich, in opposition to the \"Mimansa,\" the individual being and the real\nexistence of nature, in opposition to spirit, is laid down as the\nstarting-point, and the result reached is the doctrine of two original\nforces, spirit and nature, from whose reciprocal action and reaction\nupon each other the union of soul and body is to be explained. Is this\nunion unnatural, then the effort of the wise man should be to free\nhimself, through the perception that the soul is not bound to the body,\nfrom the dominion of matter. In this system, there is no room for an\ninfinite being, for, if a material world exist, then must God be limited\nby its existence, and therefore cease to be infinite, that is God. The\nSankya philosophy here came in conflict with the orthodox doctrine of\nthe Brahmins, and prepared the way for Buddhism.\n\n\n_d. Buddhism._\n\nAgainst Brahminism Buddhism arose as a reaction. Siddharta, son of\nSuddhodana, the King of Kapilavastu, of the family of the Sakya, (about\n450 B.C.) moved by the misery of his fellow-countrymen, determined to\nexamine into the causes of it, and, if possible, to find means of\nremedying it. Initiated into the wisdom of the Brahmins, but not\nsatisfied with that, after years of solitary retirement and quiet\nmeditation, penetrated with the principles of the Sankya, he traversed\nthe land as pilgrim (Sakya-muni, Sramana, Gautama) and opened to the\npeople of India a new religious epoch. The tendency of the new doctrine\nwas to break up the system of caste, and free the people from the\ngalling yoke of the Brahminical hierarchy and dogmas. While in\nBrahminism man was deprived of his individuality, and regarded only as\nan effluence from Brahma, and tormented by the fear of hell, and by the\nthought of a ceaseless process of countless new births awaiting him\nafter death, whence the necessity of the most painful penances and\nchastisements, Sakya-muni began with man as an individual, and in morals\nput purity, abstinence, patience, brotherly love, and repentance for\nsins committed above sacrifice and bodily mortification, and opened to\nhis followers the prospect, after this weary life, no more to be exposed\nto the ever-recurring pains of new birth, but released from all\nsuffering to return to Nirvana, or nothingness. While Brahminism drew a\ndistinction between man and man, and with hierarchical pride took no\nthought of the Sudra or lower class of the people, and limited wisdom to\nthe priestly caste, Sakya-muni preached the equality of all men, came\nforward as a preacher to the people, used the people's language, and\nchose his followers out of all classes, even from among women. Both of\nthese opposed systems are one-sided. In Brahminism, God is all, and man,\nas personal being, nothing; in Buddhism, man is recognized as an\nindividual, but apart from God, while in both systems, the highest\nendeavor is to be delivered from, according to Brahminism a seeming,\naccording to Sakya-muni a really existing individuality, the source of\nall human woe, and to lose one's self either in Brahma or in the\nNirvana.\n\nLess on account of his doctrine, in which there is found neither a God\nnor a personal immortality, than on account of the universal character\nof his words and of his life, Sakya-muni continued in honor after his\ndeath, as the benefactor of the people and as the Buddha, the wise,\npre-eminently; and afterwards was deified, and took his place in the\nranks of the recognized gods as their superior. Thus there arose in\nBuddhism, by a departure from the doctrine of the master, a new\npolytheism. This was afterwards, through the influence of the\nBrahminical priestly caste, suppressed in India, but spread over other\nparts of Asia, to the islands of the Indian Archipelago, and also to\nChina.\n\n\n_e. Later modification of Brahminism in connection with the worship of\nSiva and Vishnu._\n\nWhile Brahminism saw itself menaced by the steadily increasing influence\nof Buddhism, the former nature-religion, dispossessed by the Brahmins,\nasserted its rights in the worship of Siva in the valleys of the\nHimalaya Mountains, and in that of Vishnu on the banks of the Ganges.\nSiva is the Rudra of the Veda, the boisterous god of storms, the giver\nof rain and growth. Vishnu is the same divinity among other races,\nconceived under the influence of a softer climate in a modified form as\nthe blue sky. Both divinities, originally belonging to different parts\nof India, were afterwards taken, first Vishnu, and then also Siva, into\nthe theological system of the Brahmins, and formed with Brahma, but not\nuntil the fourth century after Christ, the trimurti, according to which\nthe one supreme being Parabrama is worshiped in the threefold form of\nBrahma the creating, Vishnu the sustaining, and Siva the destroying\npower of nature. To this later period of Brahminism belongs also the\nalteration of the old epics, the Ramayana and Mahabharata, by which the\nheroes Rama and Krishna are represented as avatars, that is incarnations\nor human impersonations, of Vishnu. In this also there is evidently an\neffort to bring the deity, conceived as the abstract One, into closer\nunion with man, an effort which is likewise visible in the later Yoga\nsystem of the Brahmins, in which, by the admission of Buddhistic\nelements, the visible world is recognized as real, the old rigid\nasceticism mitigated, Vishnu represented as the soul of the world, and\nimmortality taught as a return of the individual soul to Brahma.\n\n\n2. THE WEST ARIANS, IRANIANS.\n\n[THE BACTRIANS, MEDES, PERSIANS.]\n\nThe ancient religion of the Bactrians in the period before Zoroaster was\npatriarchal, and consisted in the worship of fire, as the beneficent\npower of nature, and of Mithras, the god of the sun, combined with that\nof the good spirits (Ahuras), among which were Geus-Urva (the spirit of\nthe earth), Cpento-mainyus (the white spirit), Armaiti (the earth, or\nalso the spirit of piety), and of the hero-spirits Sraosha, Traetona,\nwhich as light and darkness are distinguished from Angro (the black\nspirit).\n\nLater, as it seems, the theology and worship of the neighboring nomadic\nArya penetrated to these nations, and caused a religious conflict which\nended with the migration of Arya to the south. At this period\nZarathustra[2] (Zoroaster) came forward under the Bactrian priest and\nKing Kava Vistaspa, as defender and reformer of the religion of the\nfathers against the encroachments of a strange doctrine. The Devas\n(Zend, Dews) or the gods of the Indian Veda appear with Zarathustra as\nevil spirits. Not Indra, but the hero Traetona, wages war with Ahi\n(Zend, Azhi), while the kavis, or priests, are attacked by him as\ndeceivers and liars. From the belief in good spirits (Ahuras, i.e.,\nthe living, and Mazdas, i.e., the wise), the ancient genii of the\ncountry, Zarathustra developed the belief of one highest God,\nAhura-Mazda (Ormuzd, Greek, [Greek: Osompzes]), a doctrine which he\nreceived by divine inspiration through the mediation of the spirit\nSrasha. Ahura-Mazda, surrounded by the Amesha-Spenta (Amshaspands), or\nthe holy immortals, not until later reduced to seven, is the creator of\nlight and life. The hurtful and evil, on the contrary, is non-existence\n(akem), and in the oldest parts of the Avesta, the Gathas, which go back\nto Zarathustra and his first followers, is not yet conceived as a\npersonal being. First in the Vendidad, written after Zarathustra, does\nAngro-mainyus (Ahriman), or the evil one, with his Dews, although\nsubordinated to Ahura-Mazda, gain a place in the Iranian conception of\nthe universe, as the adversary of Ahura-Mazda, and as the cause of evil\nin the natural and spiritual world. From these conceptions there was\ndeveloped in the later Parsism the system of the four periods of the\nworld, each of three thousand years, in the book \"Bundehesh.\" In the\nfirst period, Ahura-Mazda appears as creator of the world and as the\nsource of good. The creation, completed by Ahura-Mazda in six days by\nmeans of the word (Honover), is in the second period destroyed by\nAngro-mainyus, who, appearing upon the earth in the form of a serpent,\nseduces the first human pair, created by Ahura-Mazda. In the third\nperiod, which begins with the revelation given to Zarathustra,\nAhura-mazda and Angro-mainyus strive together for man. After this\nfollows, in the fourth period, the victory gained by Ahura-Mazda.\nSosiosh (Saoshyas), the deliverer already foretold in the Vendidad,\nappears. The resurrection of the dead, not taught by Zarathustra or in\nthe Vendidad, takes place. The judgment of the world begins; the good\nare received into paradise and the sinners banished to hell. At last,\nall is purified, and Angro-mainyus himself and his Dews submit\nthemselves to Ahura-Mazda, whose victory is celebrated in heaven with\nsongs of praise.\n\nThus among the Iranian races, out of the old patriarchal worship of fire\nand light, on the occasion of the religious struggle with the Indian\nArya, and under the influence of Zarathustra, there was developed the\ndoctrine of one supreme God,[3] who, surrounded by the good spirits of\nheaven, wages war against evil, whence arose later the moral opposition\nbetween Ahura-Mazda and Angro-mainyus resulting in the victory of the\ngood principle over the bad. The old dualism of force and matter,\nbeneficent and destructive powers of nature, light and darkness, becomes\nin Parsism moral. The deity, no longer identified with nature, becomes a\npersonal, spiritual being, the creator of mankind; and the end of the\nworld's development is conceived as the triumph of the good. Hence the\nhigh rank which the doctrine of Zarathustra and its further development\nholds in the history of religion.\n\n\n3. THE GREEKS.\n\nAs man rises in spiritual development, nature becomes to him a\nrevelation ever more and more manifold of the divine. To the Greek\n(Pelasgi, Hellenes) the whole of nature was living, and his imagination\npeopled her everywhere with divine beings, who in wood and field, in\nrivers and on mountains (Oreads, Dryads, Naiads, Sileni, &c.), hovered\nfriendly round him. The Greek was indeed distinguished from other\nnations by this richer and more elevated view of nature; but he excelled\nthem most of all in this, that the divine object which he worshiped was\nconceived both in form and character after the human. Zeus, Phoebus\nApollo, Pallas Athene, Aphrodite, Ares, Hephaestus, Hestia, Hermes,\nArtemis, were originally powers of nature personified, as some epithets\nin Homer[4] still indicate; but they became, sometimes under the same\nnames, types of power and lordship, science and art, courage and\nsensuous beauty. While Dionysus, Demeter, Hades, and Persephone remained\nearthly, and Helios, Eos, Iris, and Hecate, heavenly divinities, and\nOceanus, Poseidon, Amphitrite, Proteus, and Nereus ruled the waters,\nZeus was conceived as the god of the sky and of thunder, who hurled the\nbolts, the great king and lawgiver, the father of men, and Hera,\noriginally the air, became the protecting goddess of married life;\nApollo, the god of light, who shot forth his arrows, not at first\nidentified with Helios, became the god of divination and poetry, who led\nthe choir of the muses; the goddess of light, Athene, became the\ncontentious goddess of wisdom; Aphrodite, born of the foam of the sea,\nonce the symbol of the fruitful power of nature, later, encircled by the\nGraces, became the type of womanly beauty and charm, to which the\nstrength of man, personified in Ares, corresponds. In like manner in the\nlater mythology, Hephaestus, the god of fire, appeared as the god of the\nforge, Hestia, the goddess of fire, as the protector of the household\nhearth, and Hermes, the god of the storm and of rain, as the messenger\nof the gods, the type of cunning and craftiness, while Artemis, the\ngoddess of the moon, the fruitful mother of nature, took the character\nof the chaste maiden, the goddess of hunting, who with her nymphs and\nhounds nightly roamed the fields and woods. The monsters, the Sphinx,\nthe Minotaur, the Cyclops, the Centaurs, symbols of a yet unhuman or\nhalf human power of nature, were overcome by the Greek heroes, Perseus,\nHercules, Jason, Theseus, OEdipus, the types of human strength and\nvalor. The religious festivals were enlivened by trials of men's\nstrength and skill in games, and the historian and poet offered to the\ngods the products of human genius. In the religion of the Greeks,\nhowever, the moral element, although not passed over and in the Greek\nepic and tragedy not seldom expressed in grand characters, stood\nnevertheless too little in the foreground, so that the worship of the\ndivine, as in the older nature-worship, especially in the feasts in\nhonor of Dionysus and Aphrodite, was marked by immoral practices. The\nconception of a future life, which taken in connection with a future\nretribution has a moral tendency, had but little attraction for the\nGreek, who rejoiced in the glory of the earth, and saw in nature and in\nman the kingdom of the divine. The passage from the earlier poetical\nnature-worship to the worship of the divine in human form seems to be\nindicated in the war which Olympian Zeus waged with Cronos and the\nTitans. The origin and development of the various elements and powers of\nnature, Chaos, Eros, Uranus, Gaea, the Giants, Styx, Erebus, Hemera,\nAEther, &c, became, with the poets and philosophers after Homer, matters\nof speculation, of which the theogonies of Hesiod, Orpheus, Pherecydes,\nand others furnish proof.\n\n\n4. THE ROMANS.\n\nIn the religion of the Greeks, the aesthetic and moral character of the\nGrecian people was deified, and in the Romans also we see how that which\nmen value most exerts an influence upon their worship of the divine. The\nprimitive religion of the Romans, borrowed from the Sabines and\nEtruscans, bears everywhere, in distinction to that of the Greeks, the\nmarks of the practical and political character of the Roman people. The\noldest national divinities are, first, Jupiter or Jovis, the god of the\nheavens, Mars or Mavors, the god of the field and of war, Quirinus\n(Janus?) the protector of the Quirites, afterwards, together with Juno\n(Dione) and Minerva, worshiped in the Capitol, (Dii Capitolini);\nsecond, Vesta, and the gods of the house and family, the Lares and\nPenates; third, the rural divinities, Saturnus, Ops, Liber, Faunus,\nSilvanus, Terminus, Flora, Vertumnus, and Pomona; fourth and last,\npersonifications, in part of the powers of nature, Sol, Luna, Tellus,\nNeptunus, Orcus, Proserpina, in part of moral and social qualities and\nstates, such as Febris, Salus, Mens, Spes, Pudicitia, Pietas, Fides,\nConcordia, Virtus, Bellona, Victoria, Pax, Libertas, and others.\nPeculiarly Roman also is the conception of the _manes_, or shades of the\ndeparted, who hover as protecting genii about the living. Afterwards,\nalong with the culture of the Greeks, their gods also were taken,\nalthough rather outwardly than inwardly, into the spirit of the people,\nand the original character of the gods of Latium was modified after the\nnew mythology. Notwithstanding this, however, the worship of the Romans\nretained its political and practical character. The priests (sacerdotes)\nFlamines, Salii, Feciales, the Pontifices with the Pontifex Maximus at\ntheir head, the Augurs, were likewise officers of the state, and did not\nform a hierarchy apart from the state and alongside of it.\n\n\n5. THE CELTS.\n\nAmong the Celtic tribes in Brittany, Ireland, and Gaul, and on both\nbanks of the Rhine, out of an aboriginal life of nature characterized by\nwildness and license, religion developed itself in the form of the\nworship of two chief divinities, a male divinity, Hu, the begetting, and\na female, Ceridwen, the bearing, power of nature. The priesthood busied\nitself with speculations about the divine, the origin of the world, and\nthe continued existence of man after death, conceived in the form of the\ntransmigration of souls. Nor did the people's faith lack the conception\nof good and evil spirits, fairies, dwarfs, elves, which to the still\nchildish fancy are objects of fear or superstitious veneration. To the\nservice of these divinities the priesthood, the Druids, were\nconsecrated, and beside them the bards, or poets, held a more\nindependent place.\n\n\n6. THE GERMANS AND SCANDINAVIANS.\n\nMore developed intellectually is the nature-religion of the ancient\nGermans (Teutons) and Scandinavians, which betrays thereby the character\nof the Aryan race to which these nations, like the Celts, originally\nbelonged. The highest god of the Germans is Wodan, called Odhin among\nthe Norsemen, the god of the heavens, and of the sun, who protects the\nearth, and is the source of light and fruitfulness, the spirit of the\nworld, and the All-father (Alfadhir). From the union of heaven and\nearth, there springs the god Thunar or Donar among the Germans, Thor\namong the Norsemen, the bold god of thunder who wages war against the\nenemies of gods and men. Besides these there are the sons of Wodan, Fro\n(German), Freyx (Norse), the god of peace, Zio (German), Tyx (Norse),\nthe god of war, Aki (German), Oegir (Norse), god of the sea, Vol\n(German), Ullr (Norse), god of hunting, and others, to whom are joined\nfemale divinities, such as Nerthus (German), Joerdh (Norse), the fruitful\ngoddess of the earth, Holda (German), Freiya (Norse), the goddess of\nlove, Nehalennia, goddess of plenty, Frikka (German), Frigg (Norse), the\nwife of Wodan, mother of all the living, Hellia (German), Hel (Norse),\nthe inexorable goddess of the lower world. Opposed to these divinities\n(Asen and Asinnen) stands Loko (German), Loki (Norse), enemy of the\ndivine. In addition to these there appear in the Norse and German Sagas,\nbesides the heroes, a multitude of spirits, good and hostile, giants,\nelves, Elfen (German), Alfen (Norse), white spirits of light, and black\ndwarfs, house, forest, and water spirits. The worship was most simple,\nand, as was the case with the ancient Semites, the Indians of the Veda,\nand the Greeks, as yet independent of temple service and priestly\nconstraint. The holy places of the Germans were woods, and hills, and\nfountains, and in the mysterious rustling of the leaves and in the\nmurmuring of the waters the pious spirit caught the breathing of the\ndeity.[5] The father of the house is priest, and the recognition by\nthese races more than elsewhere of worth in woman is apparent also in\ntheir religion. In the description of the kingdom of the dead in the\nGerman-Norse mythology, Walhalla is the abode of the heroes, hell the\ngathering place of the other dead. Notwithstanding these still childish\nconceptions, there was revealed in the moral character and heroic spirit\nof the German forefathers the germ of a higher development, which makes\nthe nations of Germany and Northern Europe capable beyond others of a\nconstantly higher conception and estimation of the Christian\nreligion.[6]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nTHE RELIGION OF THE SEMITES.\n\n\nI. THE PHOENICIANS, SYRIANS, BABYLONIANS, CARTHAGINIANS, AND ARABIANS.\n\nIn the Semitic races the religious spirit rose above nature-worship in\nthe effort to separate God from nature, and to elevate him above nature\nas Lord, Baal (plural Baalim, either from the different places where he\nwas worshiped, or the various names under which he was worshiped), Bel,\nEl, Adon (Adonis). Thus Bel among the Babylonians, Baal among the\nAmmonites and Moabites, was the god of light, the lord of heaven, the\ncreator of mankind, who had his throne above the clouds and was invoked\non mountains.[7] Also the title Molech and Baal Molech to designate the\nSupreme Being among the ancient Phoenicians and Carthaginians, and the\nnations nearest related to Israel, the Moabites and Ammonites, as well\nas the derived names Milcom (Kamos) [Chemosh, Eng. ver.], among the\nAmmonites, and Melkartht at Tyre and Carthage, indicate, like Baal, an\noriginal effort to conceive God as the ruler of nature. Agreeing with\nthis conception of the Deity, there is manifest, as well in the worship\nof Baal as of Molech and the female Astarte (Melecheth)[8] [Ashtaroth,\nEng. ver.], worshiped with him, partly in the abstinence from marriage,\npartly in the human sacrifice, especially the sacrifice of the\nfirst-born, the aim, through abnegation of the life of sense, and\nthrough the sacrifice, even though unnatural, of what is dearest to man,\nto appease a divinity who as lord and governor rules and subjects to\nhimself the power of nature and every propensity of sense.[9]\n\nIn spite of the effort to elevate the Deity as Lord and King above\nnature, most of the Semitic nations gradually sank back into the old\nnature-worship, and, uniting with the worship of the highest God, Baal\nand Bel, that of a female divinity under the names of Baaltis, Beltis,\nAschera, Mylitta, they made religion to consist in the sacrifice of\nchastity to the will of the Deity, as the fruitful, productive power of\nnature, and thus fell into gross immorality.[10]\n\nReligion appears in another form among the Semites in the worship of the\nstars among the Babylonians and ancient Arabians. This astrolatry,\noriginally a kind of fetichism, became nature-worship, and gradually\nrose to the worship of the intelligence manifested to our contemplation\nin the movement of the heavenly luminaries. Astrology arose, and\nreligion no longer expressed itself in passive acquiescence, but was\nunited with the effort to guide the life by the knowledge to be drawn,\nas men imagined, from the motion of the stars.\n\n\nISRAELITISH RELIGION.\n\n\n_a. Its origin. The patriarchal religion. Mosaism. Prophetism._\n\nWhile most of the Semitic nations, in opposition to the effort to\nelevate God above nature as lord and governor, returned to the old\nnature-religion with its grossly sensual worship of the divine, and\nothers got no farther than to the conception of a deity, who, like a\nconsuming fire, stood opposed to nature, and was to be appeased and\npropitiated by human sacrifices, there was developed among the\nIsraelitish people, gradually and in constantly higher measure, in\nconnection with a higher moral and religious disposition, the worship of\nGod as a being who, though distinct from nature, is yet not opposed to\nit, and thus no longer demands human sacrifices, but obedience and moral\nconsecration.\n\nThe common origin of the religion of the Israelites and that of their\nSemitic relations, though hardly evident even in the oldest monuments of\nthe Hebrew literature, appears from the following facts and particulars:\nfirstly, the composition of Israelitish names not only with El, but also\nwith Baal, such as Jerubbaal (adversary of Baal), (Gideon),[11]\nEsbaal,[12] Meribbaal,[13] names which afterwards, on account of the\naversion which the ever-increasing distance in religion between the\nIsraelitish nation and the nations related to it must, from the nature\nof the case, have inspired against the name of Baal, are changed into\nJerubboseth,[14] Isboseth,[15] and Mephiboseth[16], as also the\ninterchanging of El and Baal,[17] of Baal-jada[18] and Eljada,[19] seem\nto point to an ancient period when the name Baal (Lord) was used, like\nEl, Elohim, El Eljon, El Schaddai, Adonai, even among the Israelites,\nto designate the Supreme Being. Secondly, the God of Abraham (Elohim),\nalthough he desires no human sacrifices, nevertheless praises the\nwillingness of the father to offer up his first-born, and sees in that\nthe highest proof of devotedness and obedience.[20] Thirdly,\ncircumcision, already before Moses[21] the bloody symbol of consecration\nto God,[22] and also the right of Jahveh to the first-born, and the\nnecessity of ransoming them from him,[23] imply an earlier conception of\nthe deity as a being, who, although on a higher development of the\nreligion he is not indeed any longer thought to desire human sacrifice,\nnevertheless has a right to such a sacrifice, and thus demands indemnity\nfor remitting it. Fourthly, the later conception, of Jahveh as a\ndestroying fire, and the way in which the God of Israel is conceived in\nconnection with fire, and as manifesting himself in fire,[24] betray,\neven in the midst of a more advanced religious development, an original\nrelationship with the like conceptions of the other Semites. Fifthly,\neven in the orthodox Jahveh-worship, some symbols, as the twelve oxen in\nthe porch of the temple,[25] the horns of the altar for\nburnt-offerings,[26] perhaps also the in part oxlike form of the\ncherubim,[27] point to an earlier worship of the deity under the form of\nan ox, the symbol of the highest might, especially among the Semitic\nraces.[28]\n\nIn confirmation of the supposition thus suggested of a community of\norigin in the religion of the Israelites and in that of the nations\nrelated to them, there is also to be remarked, firstly, the sympathy\nalways felt among the people of Israel for the worship of Baal and\nMolech, in face of the strongest opposition on the part of the\nprophets;[29] secondly, the statement of Amos,[30] that even in the\nwilderness the Israelites worshiped Molech; thirdly, the fact that in\nthe time of the Judges, Jephthah offered his daughter to Jahveh,[31] and\nstill later the feeling, not driven out even by Mosaism, that the wrath\nof Jahveh must be appeased by human blood,[32] a necessity which David\nrecognizes;[33] fourthly, the ancient custom in Israel, as in the\nnations related to them, of worshiping the deity on mountains and\nheights,[34] against which the priestly legislation strove in the\ninterest of the pure worship of Jahveh;[35] fifthly, the heterodox\nworship of Jahveh in the kingdom of the ten tribes under the form of a\ncalf.[36]\n\nFrom all this it seems fair to conclude that the religion of the oldest\nforefathers of Israel had its root originally in one and the same soil\nwith the religion of the other Semites. Out of an earlier\nnature-religion there developed among the Semites the conception of\nBaal, the lord of nature, and of Molech with his inhuman worship. While,\nhowever, the other Semites remained in this lower stage, or rather sank\nback more and more into the immorality of the nature-religion,--an\nhypothesis suggested by a comparison of the religious state of the\nnations of Canaan in Abraham's time with their state at the time of the\nconquest of the land by Joshua and afterwards,--in the family of\nAbraham, religious consciousness rose to the recognition of a deity,\nwho, although he had a right to human sacrifices, yet did not claim such\nsacrifices, but was satisfied with men's willingness to bring them to\nhim. With this higher development of religion, the names of the Supreme\nBeing, Baal and Molech, originally common to the whole race, came more\nand more into contempt, and were regarded as the expression of\nabominable idolatry,[37] while even the worship of Jahveh under the form\nof a calf, originally permitted, was later branded by the prophets as\nheresy.\n\nThough it was in the family of Abraham that even in Mesopotamia[38] the\nbeginning of this higher development of the Semitic religion showed\nitself, which, after his migration to Canaan became the heritage of his\nfamily, yet the patriarch of Israel did not stand alone in this respect\namong the Semites. The old Canaanitish chieftains also of the\npatriarchal period, Melchizedek and Abimelech, worship the same God as\nhe,[39] while on the other hand in his own family not all traces of\npolytheistic superstition have disappeared,[40] and these traces are\nalso visible still later in Israel.[41]\n\nThe patriarchal religion, which afterwards with the great majority fell\ninto oblivion, was recalled afresh to men's minds by Moses, and the God\nof the fathers was preached by him under the name before unknown of\nJahveh,[42] to whom, with the exclusion of all other gods, religious\nworship is due.[43] The Jahveh of Moses, like the El Eljon of the\npatriarchs, is the one only object of worship (Deus Unus), yet without\nexcluding the possibility of other gods existing.[44] Not until later\ndid the more developed conception of Jahveh arise as the one only God\n(Deus unicus),[45] who is throned in heaven, and like the Elohim of the\npatriarchs, encircled by celestial beings (Bene Elohim, Malakim,\nAngels), who execute his commands, yet are not objects of religious\nadoration.\n\nThe religious standpoint of Moses is the legal. Jehovah stands related\nto his people as the Holy, as lawgiver and judge; and the true moral\nconsecration to God is symbolically expressed in the ritual, especially\nin the sacrifice, while the relation of the people to God is based upon\nthe mediation of the priests. Along with this, and out of Mosaism, after\nthe time of Samuel, prophetism was developed, in which independent\nreligious conviction, outside the limits of the priesthood, and without\ndistinction of rank or birth,[46] awoke among the people. Prophetism, in\nthe domain of religion, is the development of the religious spirit to\nindividual independence and freedom. The prophet, rising above the legal\nstandpoint and outward ceremonial, puts the essence of true worship in\nmorality,[47] but recognizes also along with the deepest feeling of\ndependence upon God, in the independence[48] and spontaneity of the\nreligious and moral life, the irresistible power of the divine spirit,\nby which the Most High, though apart from the world and throned in\nheaven, puts himself into the closest and most intimate communion with\nthe true worshiper. Thus the gulf which divided Jahveh, as a God afar\noff, from the world and his worshipers, closed up more and more. With\nthe conviction of the pureness and truth[49] of her religion, Israel\nfelt the calling to raise it to the religion of the world, and in the\nrealization of this she saw the ideal of the future.[50]\n\n\n_b. The Israelitish religion after the Captivity._\n\nThe free character which distinguished prophetism in the religion of\nIsrael changed, after the return of the people from captivity,\nespecially with the party of the Pharisees, to literalness and\nformalism. The prophets gave place to the synagogue, the living\nproclamation of the truth to scriptural erudition, the spirit of\nfreedom to slavish subjection to Scripture and tradition. As the ancient\nproductions of the Indian literature, originally the expression of the\npopular thought of India, were elevated by the Brahmins into Veda, holy,\ninspired scripture, so also the religious literature of Israel took on\nthe character of a closed Canon, so that what was once the expression of\nreligious life became now rule of faith. The standpoint of the law which\nprophetism had already overcome was again strongly maintained, the law\nenriched with a number of new ordinances, and the essence of religion\nmade to consist partly in dogmatic speculation, partly in a merely\noutward service, devoid of inner life. The Messianic prediction, or the\nexpectation that the kingdom, divided in Rehoboam's reign, once more\nunited under a prince of the house of David, should be exalted to new\nbloom and lustre,--which in the older prophets was the natural and\nhistorically explicable form in which the ideal of Israel's future\npresented itself to the seer, but which, under the influence of the\nchanged political conditions, had already been replaced in the later\nprophecy by the more general conception of a future triumph of the true\nreligion of which Israel was the bringer,--[51]returned, yet not as the\nideal of the prophetic spirit, but as a dogma, the product of scriptural\ninterpretation. The pure monotheism, by which formerly a place in the\nProvidence of God had been allotted to everything, even to moral\nevil,[52] became corrupted, under the influence of Parsism, by the\nconception of two kingdoms, of God and of the Devil. The angels,\noriginally the messengers of Providence, became under mythological\nnames, Gabriel, Raphael, Michael, &c., so many middle beings who filled\nthe space between the Deity, existing apart from the world, and the\nworld. The lower world (sheol, [Greek: aides]), formerly the general\nabode of the dead, of bad and good without distinction, was split into\ntwo parts, paradise and gehenna, and became a place of recompense, and,\nalong with this, religion, once an end, became the means of warding off\na dreaded punishment, or of gaining a future of bliss. The doctrine of\nimmortality, as the continuation of man's moral development, which was\nformerly unknown in Israel, appeared, as in the later Parsism, in the\nform of a bodily resurrection of the dead, at first of the righteous\nonly, but afterwards in the form of a general resurrection, by mediation\nof the Messiah, at whose appearing, which was expected just before the\nend of the present state of things, the great judgment of the world, of\nliving and dead, was to be held, heaven and earth renewed, and the\nkingdom of God founded. Beside the learned party of the Pharisees stood\nthe Sadducees, who subordinated religion to politics, rejected the\nMessianic idea and the authority of tradition, and, in denying\nimmortality in the form of a bodily resurrection, failed to perceive the\ntruth of immortality, for whose recognition the premises and germs\nexisted in the religion of Israel, though not as yet developed. The\nthird party, that of the Essenes, was marked by quiet piety, and in many\nrespects also by excessive asceticism. In the midst of the Pharisaic\nformalism, the unbelief of the Sadducees, and the pietism of the\nEssenes, there was yet in Israel a seed of true worshipers, who, though\nnot above the dogmatic prejudices of their time, had heart and mind open\nfor the true religion, and who set the true blessing to be looked for\nfrom the Messiah in the satisfying of their religious and moral needs.\n\n\n3. THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.\n\nThe Israelitish religion, which reached its highest stage of development\nin prophetism, but which among the later Jews after Ezra degenerated,\nwith the Pharisees into formalism and worship of the letter, with the\nEssenes into mysticism and asceticism, and which with the Sadducees,\nalong with the sacrifice of the prophetic ideal of the future, was\nsubordinated to politics, developed in Christianity, but freed from once\ncherished national expectations and outward forms, into a purely\nspiritual knowledge and worship of God. Jesus fathomed the deep meaning\nof the religion of his people, and its original fitness to become,\nthrough higher development, the religion of the world. Jesus devoted\nhimself to the end of forming the human race into one great society (the\nkingdom of heaven), of which religion should be the soul and life, and,\nconvinced of his calling, proclaimed himself as the Son of man, who, as\nsuch, belonged not to Israel alone, but to mankind. Jesus combated both\nthe formalism and exclusiveness of the Pharisees, and the unbelief of\nthe Sadducees, and with word and deed preached a religion which,\nindependent of all outward form, took hold of the human heart, and\nwhich, developing into an independent principle in man, was to find its\ncommission, not in the authority of Scripture or tradition, not even in\nthat of his name, but in its own power and truth. In him religion\nappeared as the power of self-sacrificing love, which fears not even\ndeath, and to which dying is not the losing of life, but the development\nof life. In distinction from other religions, in which either God and\nman are strangers to each other, and opposed to each other, or man's\npersonality is, as it were, sunk in God, Christianity is the religion by\nwhich man, in the full enjoyment of individual development, and with the\nsense of his own strength, lives in the consciousness of the most entire\ndependence upon God. Religion in its highest form, conceived as the\noneness of man with God, is realized in Christianity.[53]\n\n\n4. ISLAMISM.\n\nThe religion of the ancient nomadic tribes of the Arabian peninsula\noriginally exhibited a polytheistical character, in the form of the\nworship, in part of sacred stones, in part of the powers of nature,\nespecially of the stars, whose position and motion were thought to exert\nan influence, beneficent or baneful, upon the destinies of men. With\nthese conceptions was combined a certain leaning toward monotheism,\nwhich manifested itself especially in the common worship of Allah taala\n(equivalent to El Eljon), which was afterwards quickened and\nstrengthened by association with the Jewish tribes, with whom they held\nthemselves to be related by descent from Abraham. The Parsee doctrine of\ndemons, also, was not unknown in Arabia, after the conquest of the\nPersians in the fifth century. After the third, fourth, and fifth\ncenturies, Christianity also, though in a corrupt form, or, definitely,\nin the form of Monophysitism and Nestorianism, which had been condemned\nby the church, became established in Arabia.\n\nAmid such diverse elements, there was need of unity in the domain of\nreligion, a need for which Mohammed, after the example of others of his\nfamily, sought to provide.\n\nHe was born at Mecca (571) of an honorable family, belonging to the\nKoreish tribe. Finding no satisfaction for his restless spirit in the\ntrade to which after his parents' death he had at first devoted himself,\nhe gave himself up, in solitary retirement, to quiet meditation, and\nbecame more and more convinced of his calling to put an end, by means of\na better religion, to the confusion existing among his countrymen with\nregard to religion. The religious idea which overmastered him presented\nitself to his powerful Oriental imagination in the form of a vision as a\nrevelation of Allah taala, made to him in the fortieth year of his life\nby mediation of the angel Gabriel. His conviction, thus acquired, was\nconfirmed by revelations afterwards received; and, shared at first with\na small circle of trusted friends, gradually spread wider, until at last\nMohammed came forward in the ancient sanctuary, the Kaaba, at Mecca, as\nprophet of Allah. For this he was pursued by his countrymen, and fled\nfrom thence to Medina, in the year 622, the beginning of the Moslem era.\nThe number of his followers increasing, he had recourse to arms. He\nconquered Mecca in 630, and made the Kaaba, after destroying the idols\nin it, the sanctuary of the new religion.\n\nThe doctrine of Mohammed (Islam, submission to God, whence his followers\ntake the name of Moslems), is contained in the Koran. The various\nSuras, or divisions, originally the revelations received by the prophet\nat different periods of his life reduced to writing, were, soon after\nhis death, united by Abu Bekr into one holy book, under the name of the\nKoran (al Kitab, the book), which, like the Bible among the later Jews\nand Christians, was clothed with divine authority. The central doctrine\nof Mohammed is the belief in one God, Allah, who, as the Creator and\nLord of all things, in strictest isolation from the world, is throned in\nheaven. All that takes place upon the earth befalls according to the\neternal decree of God, a conception in which, at least among the\nOrthodox Moslems, the Sunnites, who are distinguished in this respect,\nas in others, from the dissenting Shiites, there is no place left for\nhuman freedom. This God has from the earliest times revealed himself to\nsome privileged men, Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus (Isa). To the\nlast is due the honor of having been the reformer of degenerate Judaism.\nHe is not, as the Christians of Mohammed's time taught, the Son of God\nin a metaphysical sense, much less God himself,--Allah is one, he\nneither begets nor is begotten,--but a prophet of human descent. The\ngreatest and last prophet is Mohammed himself, in whom prophetism\nreached its fulfillment. Along with the doctrine regarding God and his\nrelation to the world, prayer, hospitality, and benevolence occupy a\nprominent place in the teaching of Mohammed, looked at from its\npractical side, and also the belief in a future life, in the\nJewish-Parsee form of the resurrection of the dead, the judgment of the\nworld, future reward and punishment, paradise and hell. The truth of\nthis divine revelation rests upon the very fact of its having been\nrevealed, and, according to Mohammed, it no more needs scientific proof\nthan confirmation by miracles, to which Islamism did not appeal until\nlater.\n\nThe opinion which formerly prevailed among Christians that Mohammed was\nan impostor, a false prophet, was bound up with the conception that God,\nto the exclusion of other nations, had revealed himself immediately and\nsupernaturally first to Israel, and afterwards through Christ to all\nmankind. Hence it followed that Christianity was not prized as the\nhighest religion, existing along with less developed forms of religion,\nbut was opposed as the only true religion to all others, which were\nregarded as the fruit of imposture and error, an opinion to which the\nreligious and political struggles in which Islam and Christendom have\nbeen involved also richly contributed. Mohammed was seer and prophet,\nfilled with fiery zeal for religion, and, while he stands indeed in this\nrespect, both personally and with regard to the contents of his\npreaching and the means by which he sought to gain admission for his\ndoctrine, below the seers of Israel, and far below the founder of\nChristianity, yet, on the other hand, his monotheism, abstract as it is,\nmust be regarded as a wholesome reaction against the ever-increasing\npolytheistical superstition to which in his time the Christian church of\nthe East especially had sunk. Islamism stands, however, below original\nChristianity, the religion of Jesus and the Apostles, in that, by\nseparating God, as the abstract one Supreme Being, from the world, it\nleaves no place for the doctrine of God's immanence, or the indwelling\nof the Spirit of God in man. Hence in Islamism the divine revelation\nremains purely mechanical, with no natural point of connection in man,\nand therefore there is no possibility of an enduring prophetism, which\nis the fundamental principle of Christianity. From this separation of\nGod and man, the Mohammedan doctrine of predestination, in distinction\nfrom the Christian, acquires its abstract and fatalistic character,\nwhereby man, instead of being regarded as a being in whose free activity\nGod's power and life are glorified, is conceived as a passive instrument\nof a higher power. To true moral independence, therefore, the Moslem\ndoes not attain. His religion is legal and external, and therefore\nintolerant and exclusive; and when Islamism, led by excited passion and\na heated imagination, disregarded the sanctity of marriage, and held up\nas a reward before the faithful Moslem a paradise characterized by\nsensual enjoyment, it missed at once the deep moral and spiritual\ncharacter of Christianity. To these defects must be ascribed the fact\nthat Islamism, adapted to the need of the East, and therefore spread\nover a large part of Asia and Africa, has not, with the exception of the\nempire of Turkey, and for a time also of Spain, penetrated Europe; and,\novershadowed by a higher development of humanity, has reached its\nhighest bloom, while Christianity, brought back to its original purity,\nremains the religion of the civilized world.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 1: Translated from the Dutch of Prof. J.H. Scholten, by F.T.\nWashburn. This constitutes the first part of Prof. Scholten's History of\nReligion and Philosophy. (_Geschiedenis der Godsdienst en\nWijsbegeerte._) Third edition. Leyden, 1863. Of this work there is a\ntranslation in French by M. Albert Reville (Paris, 1861); but this\ntranslation, which was made from an earlier edition, is very defective\nin the first part, Prof. Scholten having added a great deal in his last\nedition. There is also a translation of it in German, by D.E.R.\nRedepenning (Elberfeld, 1868). This German translation has been revised\nand enlarged by Prof. Scholten, and is therefore superior in some\nrespects to the original Dutch. The present translation has been revised\nupon it.]\n\n[Footnote 2: According to Buusen 3000 or 2500 B.C., Haug 2000 B.C., Max\nMueller 1200 B.C., Max Duncker 1300 or 1250 B.C., and according to\nRoeth. I. p. 348, who still puts Vistaspa before Darius Hystaspes,\nbetween 589 and 512 B.C.]\n\n[Footnote 3: The doctrine of the _Zervana akarana_ (infinite time) as\nthe original One, from which the opposition between Ormuzd and Ahriman\nwas held to spring, dates from a later period.]\n\n[Footnote 4: [Greek: Zeus kelainephes, ahidheri nahion, nephelegerheta\nZeus, Here bohopis, glaukhopis Hathhene].]\n\n[Footnote 5: Of the Germans Tacitus writes, _Germ._, c. 9, \"Eos nec\ncohibere parietibus Deos neque in ullam humanioris speciem assimilare,\nex magnitudine coelestium arbitrantur. Lucos ac nemora consecrant\ndeorumque nominibus appellant secretum illud, quod sola reverentia\nvident.\"]\n\n[Footnote 6: Among the Roman writers who furnish us with information\nupon the religion of the Germans, Tacitus deserves mention, in his\n\"Germania,\" as well as in his \"Annales\" _passim_. The chief source with\nregard to the Norse religion is the older Edda, under the title \"Edda\nSaemundar hin Froda.\"]\n\n[Footnote 7: Numb. xxii. 41; xxiii. 28; 2 Kings, xxiii. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 8: Judges, ii. 13; 1 Sam. vii. 4; xii. 10; 1 Kings, xi. 5, 7,\n33; 2 Kings, xxiii. 13; Jer. vii. 18; xliv. 17, 19.]\n\n[Footnote 9: Levit. xviii. 21; xx. 2; 2 Kings, iii. 26, 27; xvi. 3;\nxxiii. 10; Ps. cvi. 38; Jer. vii. 31; xix. 5; xxxii. 35; Micah, vi. 7;\nEzek. xv. 4, 6; [?] xvi. 20, Comp. I Kings, xviii: 28.]\n\n[Footnote 10: Numb. xxv. I, _et seq_; Josh. xxii. 17; Baruch, vi. 41,\n43.]\n\n[Footnote 11: Judges, vi. 32. and elsewhere.]\n\n[Footnote 12: 1 Chron. viii. 33; ix. 39.]\n\n[Footnote 13: 1 Chron. viii. 34; ix. 40.]\n\n[Footnote 14: 2 Sam. xi. 21.]\n\n[Footnote 15: 2 Sam. ii. 8, and elsewhere.]\n\n[Footnote 16: 2 Sam. iv. 4, and elsewhere.]\n\n[Footnote 17: Judges, viii. 33; ix. 4. Comp. with ix. 46.]\n\n[Footnote 18: 1 Chron. xiv. 7.]\n\n[Footnote 19: 1 Chron. iii. 8; 2 Sam. v. 16.]\n\n[Footnote 20: Gen. xxii.]\n\n[Footnote 21: Gen. xvii. 23-27.]\n\n[Footnote 22: Ex. iv. 24-26.]\n\n[Footnote 23: Ex. xiii. 2, 12-16; xxii. 28, 29; xxx. 11-16; xxxiv. 19,\n20.]\n\n[Footnote 24: Gen. xv. 17; Ex. iii. 2; xix. 16-18; xxiv. 17; xl. 38;\nLevit. x. 2; Numb. xvi. 35; Deut. iv. 15, 24; v. 24, 25.]\n\n[Footnote 25: 1 Kings, vii. 25, 29.]\n\n[Footnote 26: Ex. xxvii. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 27: Comp. Ezek. i. 10; x. 14.]\n\n[Footnote 28: 1 Kings, xviii. 23.]\n\n[Footnote 29: 1 Kings, xi. 5; 2 Kings, xvi. 3; xxi. 3; xxiii. 4, _et\nseq_; 2 Chron. xxxiii. 3; Ezek. xvi. 20, 21; Jer. xix. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 30: Amos. v. 25, 26.]\n\n[Footnote 31: Judges, xi. 30-40.]\n\n[Footnote 32: Ex. xxxii. 27-29; Numb. xxv. 4.]\n\n[Footnote 33: 2 Sam. xxi. 1-14.]\n\n[Footnote 34: 1 Kings, iii. 2; xi. 7; 2 Kings, xii. 3; xiv. 4; xvii. 11;\nxviii. 4; xxiii. 5, 19; 2 Chron. xxi. 11.]\n\n[Footnote 35: 2 Chron. xxxiv. 3; Ezek. vi. 3; xx. 28.]\n\n[Footnote 36: 1 Kings, xii. 28, 33. Comp. Ex. xxxii. 4, 19.]\n\n[Footnote 37: Levit. xviii. 21; xx. 2; Deut. xii. 31.]\n\n[Footnote 38: Gen. xxiv, xxviii.]\n\n[Footnote 39: Gen. xiv. 18-20; xx. 3, 4.]\n\n[Footnote 40: Gen. xxxi. 19, 30, _et seq_; xxxv. 2-4; Joshua, xxiv. 2,\n14.]\n\n[Footnote 41: Judges, xviii. 14, _et seq_; 1 Sam. xix. 13; 2 Kings,\nxviii. 4; Ezek. xx. 7.]\n\n[Footnote 42: Ex. iii. 13, _et seq_; vi. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 43: Ex. xx. 2, 3.]\n\n[Footnote 44: Ex. viii. 10; xv. 11; xviii. 11; xx. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 45: Deut vi. 4; iv. 28, 35; xxxii. 39; Isaiah, xliv. 6, 8;\nxlv. 5, 6.]\n\n[Footnote 46: Amos, vii. 14.]\n\n[Footnote 47: Isa. i. 11-18; Jer. vii. 21-23.]\n\n[Footnote 48: Dutch, _zelfstandigheid_, literally, self-existence;\nwithout an equivalent, as far as I know, in vernacular English.--Tr.]\n\n[Footnote 49: _Zelfstandigheid_, again, expressing objective existence,\nreality, independent of subjective thought or feeling.--Tr.]\n\n[Footnote 50: Jer. xxxi. 31, _et seq_; Isa. ii. 2-4; Amos, ix. 12; Isa.\nxxv. 6; lii. 15; lvi. 6, 7; lxvi. 23; Zech. viii. 23; xiv. 9, 16.]\n\n[Footnote 51: Isa. liii.]\n\n[Footnote 52: Job i, ii.--Tr.]\n\n[Footnote 53: The most original sources of the Christian religion are\nthe Synoptic Gospels, in which, however, criticism must distinguish\nbetween the older and later portions. The fourth Gospel is marked by a\nmore profound speculation upon the person and the work of Christ, by\nwhich the Christian mind freed itself entirely from the Jewish forms in\nwhich Jesus, as a popular teacher in Israel, had set forth his\ndoctrine.]","title":"A Comparative View of Religions","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":10541}