{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_2634/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_2634","id":"gutenberg_2634","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2634","summary":null,"tags":["Anthropology","Bible and science","Category: Archaeology & Anthropology","Category: History - Ancient","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Evolution","Paleontology","Science"],"text":"Produced by D.R. Thompson\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE EVOLUTION OF THEOLOGY: AN ANTHROPOLOGICAL STUDY\n\nESSAY #8 FROM \"SCIENCE AND HEBREW TRADITION\"\n\n\nBy Thomas Henry Huxley\n\n\n\nI conceive that the origin, the growth, the decline, and the fall\nof those speculations respecting the existence, the powers, and the\ndispositions of beings analogous to men, but more or less devoid of\ncorporeal qualities, which may be broadly included under the head of\ntheology, are phenomena the study of which legitimately falls within\nthe province of the anthropologist. And it is purely as a question of\nanthropology (a department of biology to which, at various times, I have\ngiven a good deal of attention) that I propose to treat of the evolution\nof theology in the following pages.\n\nWith theology as a code of dogmas which are to be believed, or at any\nrate repeated, under penalty of present or future punishment, or as a\nstorehouse of anaesthetics for those who find the pains of life too\nhard to bear, I have nothing to do; and, so far as it may be possible,\nI shall avoid the expression of any opinion as to the objective truth or\nfalsehood of the systems of theological speculation of which I may find\noccasion to speak. From my present point of view, theology is regarded\nas a natural product of the operations of the human mind, under the\nconditions of its existence, just as any other branch of science, or\nthe arts of architecture, or music, or painting are such products. Like\nthem, theology has a history. Like them also, it is to be met with in\ncertain simple and rudimentary forms; and these can be connected by a\nmultitude of gradations, which exist or have existed, among people of\nvarious ages and races, with the most highly developed theologies of\npast and present times. It is not my object to interfere, even in the\nslightest degree, with beliefs which anybody holds sacred; or to alter\nthe conviction of any one who is of opinion that, in dealing with\ntheology, we ought to be guided by considerations different from those\nwhich would be thought appropriate if the problem lay in the province\nof chemistry or of mineralogy. And if people of these ways of thinking\nchoose to read beyond the present paragraph, the responsibility for\nmeeting with anything they may dislike rests with them and not with me.\n\nWe are all likely to be more familiar with the theological history of\nthe Israelites than with that of any other nation. We may therefore\nfitly make it the first object of our studies; and it will be convenient\nto commence with that period which lies between the invasion of Canaan\nand the early days of the monarchy, and answers to the eleventh and\ntwelfth centuries B.C. or thereabouts. The evidence on which any\nconclusion as to the nature of Israelitic theology in those days must be\nbased is wholly contained in the Hebrew Scriptures--an agglomeration\nof documents which certainly belong to very different ages, but of the\nexact dates and authorship of any one of which (except perhaps a few\nof the prophetical writings) there is no evidence, either internal or\nexternal, so far as I can discover, of such a nature as to justify more\nthan a confession of ignorance, or, at most, an approximate conclusion.\nIn this venerable record of ancient life, miscalled a book, when it\nis really a library comparable to a selection of works from English\nliterature between the times of Beda and those of Milton, we have the\nstratified deposits (often confused and even with their natural order\ninverted) left by the stream of the intellectual and moral life of\nIsrael during many centuries. And, embedded in these strata, there are\nnumerous remains of forms of thought which once lived, and which,\nthough often unfortunately mere fragments, are of priceless value to\nthe anthropologist. Our task is to rescue these from their relatively\nunimportant surroundings, and by careful comparison with existing forms\nof theology to make the dead world which they record live again. In\nother words, our problem is palaeontological, and the method pursued\nmust be the same as that employed in dealing with other fossil remains.\n\nAmong the richest of the fossiliferous strata to which I have alluded\nare the books of Judges and Samuel. [1] It has often been observed that\nthese writings stand out, in marked relief from those which precede and\nfollow them, in virtue of a certain archaic freshness and of a greater\nfreedom from traces of late interpolation and editorial trimming.\nJephthah, Gideon and Samson are men of old heroic stamp, who would\nlook as much in place in a Norse Saga as where they are; and if the\nvarnish-brush of later respectability has passed over these memoirs of\nthe mighty men of a wild age, here and there, it has not succeeded in\neffacing, or even in seriously obscuring, the essential characteristics\nof the theology traditionally ascribed to their epoch.\n\nThere is nothing that I have met with in the results of Biblical\ncriticism inconsistent with the conviction that these books give us a\nfairly trustworthy account of Israelitic life and thought in the times\nwhich they cover; and, as such, apart from the great literary merit of\nmany of their episodes, they possess the interest of being, perhaps, the\noldest genuine history, as apart from mere chronicles on the one hand\nand mere legends on the other, at present accessible to us.\n\nBut it is often said with exultation by writers of one party, and often\nadmitted, more or less unwillingly, by their opponents, that these\nbooks are untrustworthy, by reason of being full of obviously unhistoric\ntales. And, as a notable example, the narrative of Saul's visit to the\nso-called \"witch of Endor\" is often cited. As I have already intimated,\nI have nothing to do with theological partisanship, either heterodox or\northodox, nor, for my present purpose, does it matter very much whether\nthe story is historically true, or whether it merely shows what the\nwriter believed; but, looking at the matter solely from the point of\nview of an anthropologist, I beg leave to express the opinion that\nthe account of Saul's necromantic expedition is quite consistent with\nprobability. That is to say, I see no reason whatever to doubt, firstly,\nthat Saul made such a visit; and, secondly, that he and all who were\npresent, including the wise woman of Endor herself, would have given,\nwith entire sincerity, very much the same account of the business as\nthat which we now read in the twenty-eighth chapter of the first book of\nSamuel; and I am further of opinion that this story is one of the most\nimportant of those fossils, to which I have referred, in the material\nwhich it offers for the reconstruction of the theology of the time. Let\nus therefore study it attentively--not merely as a narrative which, in\nthe dramatic force of its gruesome simplicity, is not surpassed, if it\nis equalled, by the witch scenes in Macbeth--but as a piece of evidence\nbearing on an important anthropological problem.\n\nWe are told (1 Sam. xxviii.) that Saul, encamped at Gilboa, became\nalarmed by the strength of the Philistine army gathered at Shunem. He\ntherefore \"inquired of Jahveh,\" but \"Jahveh answered him not, neither\nby dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.\" [2] Thus deserted by Jahveh,\nSaul, in his extremity, bethought him of \"those that had familiar\nspirits, and the wizards,\" whom he is said, at some previous time, to\nhave \"put out of the land\"; but who seem, nevertheless, to have been\nvery imperfectly banished, since Saul's servants, in answer to his\ncommand to seek him a woman \"that hath a familiar spirit,\" reply without\na sign of hesitation or of fear, \"Behold, there is a woman that hath\na familiar spirit at Endor\"; just as, in some parts of England, a\ncountryman might tell any one who did not look like a magistrate or a\npoliceman, where a \"wise woman\" was to be met with. Saul goes to this\nwoman, who, after being assured of immunity, asks, \"Whom shall I bring\nup to thee?\" whereupon Saul says, \"Bring me up Samuel.\" The woman\nimmediately sees an apparition. But to Saul nothing is visible, for he\nasks, \"What seest thou?\" And the woman replies, \"I see Elohim coming up\nout of the earth.\" Still the spectre remains invisible to Saul, for he\nasks, \"What form is he of?\" And she replies, \"An old man cometh up,\nand he is covered with a robe.\" So far, therefore, the wise woman\nunquestionably plays the part of a \"medium,\" and Saul is dependent upon\nher version of what happens.\n\nThe account continues:--\n\n   And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he bowed with\n   his face to the ground and did obeisance. And Samuel said to\n   Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me to bring me up? And Saul\n   answered, I am sore distressed: for the Philistines make war\n   against me, and Elohim is departed from me and answereth me no\n   more, neither by prophets nor by dreams; therefore I have called\n   thee that thou mayest make known unto me what I shall do.\n   And Samuel said, Wherefore then dost thou ask of me, seeing that\n   Jahveh is departed from thee and is become thine adversary?\n   And Jahveh hath wrought for himself, as he spake by me, and\n   Jahveh hath rent the kingdom out of thine hand and given it to\n   thy neighbour, even to David. Because thou obeyedst not the\n   voice of Jahveh and didst not execute his fierce wrath upon\n   Amalek, therefore hath Jahveh done this thing unto thee this\n   day. Moreover, Jahveh will deliver Israel also with thee into\n   the hands of the Philistines; and to-morrow shalt thou and thy\n   sons be with me: Jahveh shall deliver the host of Israel also\n   into the hand of the Philistines. Then Saul fell straightway his\n   full length upon the earth and was sore afraid because of the\n   words of Samuel... (v. 14-20).\n\nThe statement that Saul \"perceived\" that it was Samuel is not to be\ntaken to imply that, even now, Saul actually saw the shade of the\nprophet, but only that the woman's allusion to the prophetic mantle and\nto the aged appearance of the spectre convinced him that it was Samuel.\nReuss [3] in fact translates the passage \"Alors Saul reconnut que\nc'etait Samuel.\" Nor does the dialogue between Saul and Samuel\nnecessarily, or probably, signify that Samuel spoke otherwise than by\nthe voice of the wise woman. The Septuagint does not hesitate to call\nher [Greek], that is to say, a ventriloquist, implying that it was she\nwho spoke--and this view of the matter is in harmony with the fact that\nthe exact sense of the Hebrew words which are translated as \"a woman\nthat hath a familiar spirit\" is \"a woman mistress of _Ob._\" _Ob_ means\nprimitively a leather bottle, such as a wine skin, and is applied alike\nto the necromancer and to the spirit evoked. Its use, in these senses,\nappears to have been suggested by the likeness of the hollow sound\nemitted by a half-empty skin when struck, to the sepulchral tones in\nwhich the oracles of the evoked spirits were uttered by the medium.\nIt is most probable that, in accordance with the general theory of\nspiritual influences which obtained among the old Israelites, the spirit\nof Samuel was conceived to pass into the body of the wise woman, and\nto use her vocal organs to speak in his own name--for I cannot discover\nthat they drew any clear distinction between possession and inspiration.\n[4]\n\nIf the story of Saul's consultation of the occult powers is to be\nregarded as an authentic narrative, or, at any rate, as a statement\nwhich is perfectly veracious so far as the intention of the narrator\ngoes--and, as I have said, I see no reason for refusing it this\ncharacter--it will be found, on further consideration, to throw a\nflood of light, both directly and indirectly, on the theology of Saul's\ncountrymen--that is to say, upon their beliefs respecting the nature and\nways of spiritual beings.\n\nEven without the confirmation of other abundant evidences to the same\neffect, it leaves no doubt as to the existence, among them, of the\nfundamental doctrine that man consists of a body and of a spirit, which\nlast, after the death of the body, continues to exist as a ghost. At the\ntime of Saul's visit to Endor, Samuel was dead and buried; but that his\nspirit would be believed to continue to exist in Sheol may be concluded\nfrom the well-known passage in the song attributed to Hannah, his\nmother:--\n\n     Jahveh killeth and maketh alive;\n     He bringeth down to Sheol and bringeth up.\n                                  (1 Sam. ii. 6.)\n\nAnd it is obvious that this Sheol was thought to be a place underground\nin which Samuel's spirit had been disturbed by the necromancer's\nsummons, and in which, after his return thither, he would be joined by\nthe spirits of Saul and his sons when they had met with their bodily\ndeath on the hill of Gilboa. It is further to be observed that the\nspirit, or ghost, of the dead man presents itself as the image of\nthe man himself--it is the man, not merely in his ordinary corporeal\npresentment (even down to the prophet's mantle) but in his moral and\nintellectual characteristics. Samuel, who had begun as Saul's friend and\nended as his bitter enemy, gives it to be understood that he is annoyed\nat Saul's presumption in disturbing him; and that, in Sheol, he is as\nmuch the devoted servant of Jahveh and as much empowered to speak in\nJahveh's name as he was during his sojourn in the upper air.\n\nIt appears now to be universally admitted that, before the exile, the\nIsraelites had no belief in rewards and punishments after death, nor in\nanything similar to the Christian heaven and hell; but our story proves\nthat it would be an error to suppose that they did not believe in the\ncontinuance of individual existence after death by a ghostly simulacrum\nof life. Nay, I think it would be very hard to produce conclusive\nevidence that they disbelieved in immortality; for I am not aware that\nthere is anything to show that they thought the existence of the souls\nof the dead in Sheol ever came to an end. But they do not seem to\nhave conceived that the condition of the souls in Sheol was in any way\naffected by their conduct in life. If there was immortality, there was\nno state of retribution in their theology. Samuel expects Saul and his\nsons to come to him in Sheol.\n\nThe next circumstance to be remarked is that the name of _Elohim_ is\napplied to the spirit which the woman sees \"coming up out of the earth,\"\nthat is to say, from Sheol. The Authorised Version translates this in\nits literal sense \"gods.\" The Revised Version gives \"god\" with \"gods\"\nin the margin. Reuss renders the word by \"spectre,\" remarking in a\nnote that it is not quite exact; but that the word Elohim expresses\n\"something divine, that is to say, superhuman, commanding respect and\nterror\" (\"Histoire des Israelites,\" p. 321). Tuch, in his commentary on\nGenesis, and Thenius, in his commentary on Samuel, express substantially\nthe same opinion. Dr. Alexander (in Kitto's \"Cyclopaedia\" s. v. \"God\")\nhas the following instructive remarks:--\n\n   [_Elohim_ is] sometimes used vaguely to describe unseen\n   powers or superhuman beings that are not properly thought of as\n   divine. Thus the witch of Endor saw \"Elohim ascending out of the\n   earth\" (1 Sam. xxviii. 13), meaning thereby some beings of an\n   unearthly, superhuman character. So also in Zechariah xii. 8, it\n   is said \"the house of David shall be as Elohim, as the angel of\n   the Lord,\" where, as the transition from Elohim to the angel of\n   the Lord is a minori ad majus, we must regard the former as a\n   vague designation of supernatural powers.\n\nDr. Alexander speaks here of \"beings\"; but there is no reason to\nsuppose that the wise woman of Endor referred to anything but a solitary\nspectre; and it is quite clear that Saul understood her in this sense,\nfor he asks \"What form is HE of?\"\n\nThis fact, that the name of Elohim is applied to a ghost, or disembodied\nsoul, conceived as the image of the body in which it once dwelt, is\nof no little importance. For it is well known that the same term was\nemployed to denote the gods of the heathen, who were thought to have\ndefinite quasi-corporeal forms and to be as much real entities as any\nother Elohim. [5] The difference which was supposed to exist between\nthe different Elohim was one of degree, not one of kind. Elohim was, in\nlogical terminology, the genus of which ghosts, Chemosh, Dagon,\nBaal, and Jahveh were species. The Israelite believed Jahveh to be\nimmeasurably superior to all other kinds of Elohim. The inscription\non the Moabite stone shows that King Mesa held Chemosh to be, as\nunquestionably, the superior of Jahveh. But if Jahveh was thus\nsupposed to differ only in degree from the undoubtedly zoomorphic or\nanthropomorphic \"gods of the nations,\" why is it to be assumed that\nhe also was not thought of as having a human shape? It is possible for\nthose who forget that the time of the great prophetic writers is at\nleast as remote from that of Saul as our day is from that of Queen\nElizabeth, to insist upon interpreting the gross notions current in the\nearlier age and among the mass of the people by the refined conceptions\npromulgated by a few select spirits centuries later. But if we take the\nlanguage constantly used concerning the Deity in the books of Genesis,\nExodus, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, or Kings, in its natural sense (and I am\naware of no valid reason which can be given for taking it in any other\nsense), there cannot, to my mind, be a doubt that Jahveh was conceived\nby those from whom the substance of these books is mainly derived, to\npossess the appearance and the intellectual and moral attributes of a\nman; and, indeed, of a man of just that type with which the Israelites\nwere familiar in their stronger and intellectually abler rulers and\nleaders. In a well-known passage in Genesis (i. 27) Elohim is said to\nhave \"created man in his own image, in the image of Elohim created he\nhim.\" It is \"man\" who is here said to be the image of Elohim--not man's\nsoul alone, still less his \"reason,\" but the whole man. It is obvious\nthat for those who call a manlike ghost Elohim, there could be no\ndifficulty in conceiving any other Elohim under the same aspect. And if\nthere could be any doubt on this subject, surely it cannot stand in the\nface of what we find in the fifth chapter, where, immediately after a\nrepetition of the statement that \"Elohim created man, in the likeness\nof Elohim made he him,\" it is said that Adam begat Seth \"in his own\nlikeness, after his image.\" Does this mean that Seth resembled Adam only\nin a spiritual and figurative sense? And if that interpretation of\nthe third verse of the fifth chapter of Genesis is absurd, why does it\nbecome reasonable in the first verse of the same chapter?\n\nBut let us go further. Is not the Jahveh who \"walks in the garden in\nthe cool of the day\"; from whom one may hope to \"hide oneself among the\ntrees\"; of whom it is expressly said that \"Moses and Aaron, Nadab and\nAbihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel,\" saw the Elohim of Israel\n(Exod. xxiv. 9-11); and that, although the seeing Jahveh was understood\nto be a high crime and misdemeanour, worthy of death, under ordinary\ncircumstances, yet, for this once, he \"laid not his hand on the nobles\nof Israel\"; \"that they beheld Elohim and did eat and drink\"; and that\nafterwards Moses saw his back (Exod. xxxiii. 23)--is not this Deity\nconceived as manlike in form? Again, is not the Jahveh who eats with\nAbraham under the oaks at Mamre, who is pleased with the \"sweet savour\"\nof Noah's sacrifice, to whom sacrifices are said to be \"food\" [6]--is\nnot this Deity depicted as possessed of human appetites? If this were\nnot the current Israelitish idea of Jahveh even in the eighth century\nB.C., where is the point of Isaiah's scathing admonitions to his\ncountrymen: \"To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto\nme? saith Jahveh: I am full of the burnt-offerings of rams and the fat\nof fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs,\nor of he-goats\" (Isa. i. 11). Or of Micah's inquiry, \"Will Jahveh be\npleased with thousands of rams or with ten thousands of rivers of oil?\"\n(vi. 7.) And in the innumerable passages in which Jahveh is said to be\njealous of other gods, to be angry, to be appeased, and to repent; in\nwhich he is represented as casting off Saul because the king does not\nquite literally execute a command of the most ruthless severity; or as\nsmiting Uzzah to death because the unfortunate man thoughtlessly, but\nnaturally enough, put out his hand to stay the ark from falling--can any\none deny that the old Israelites conceived Jahveh not only in the image\nof a man, but in that of a changeable, irritable, and, occasionally,\nviolent man? There appears to me, then, to be no reason to doubt that\nthe notion of likeness to man, which was indubitably held of the ghost\nElohim, was carried out consistently throughout the whole series of\nElohim, and that Jahveh-Elohim was thought of as a being of the same\nsubstantially human nature as the rest, only immeasurably more powerful\nfor good and for evil.\n\nThe absence of any real distinction between the Elohim of different\nranks is further clearly illustrated by the corresponding absence of any\nsharp delimitation between the various kinds of people who serve as the\nmedia of communication between them and men. The agents through whom\nthe lower Elohim are consulted are called necromancers, wizards, and\ndiviners, and are looked down upon by the prophets and priests of the\nhigher Elohim; but the \"seer\" [7] connects the two, and they are all\nalike in their essential characters of media. The wise woman of Endor\nwas believed by others, and, I have little doubt, believed herself, to\nbe able to \"bring up\" whom she would from Sheol, and to be inspired,\nwhether in virtue of actual possession by the evoked Elohim, or\notherwise, with a knowledge of hidden things, I am unable to see that\nSaul's servant took any really different view of Samuel's powers, though\nhe may have believed that he obtained them by the grace of the higher\nElohim. For when Saul fails to find his father's asses, his servant says\nto him--\n\n   Behold, there is in this city a man of Elohim, and he is a man\n   that is held in honour; all that he saith cometh surely to pass;\n   now let us go thither; peradventure, he can tell us concerning\n   our journey whereon we go. Then said Saul to his servant, But\n   behold if we go, what shall we bring the man? for the bread is\n   spent in our vessels and there is not a present to bring to the\n   man of Elohim. What have we? And the servant answered Saul again\n   and said, Behold I have in my hand the fourth part of a shekel\n   of silver: that will I give to the man of Elohim to tell us our\n   way. (Beforetime in Israel when a man went to inquire of Elohim,\n   then he said, Come and let us go to the Seer: for he that is now\n   called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer [8])\n   (1 Sam. ix. 6-10).\n\nIn fact, when, shortly afterwards, Saul accidentally meets Samuel, he\nsays, \"Tell me, I pray thee, where the Seer's house is.\" Samuel answers,\n\"I am the Seer.\" Immediately afterwards Samuel informs Saul that the\nasses are found, though how he obtained his knowledge of the fact is not\nstated. It will be observed that Samuel is not spoken of here as, in\nany special sense, a seer or prophet of Jahveh, but as a \"man of\nElohim\"--that is to say, a seer having access to the \"spiritual powers,\"\njust as the wise woman of Endor might have been said to be a \"woman\nof Elohim\"--and the narrator's or editor's explanatory note seems to\nindicate that \"Prophet\" is merely a name, introduced later than the time\nof Samuel, for a superior kind of \"Seer,\" or \"man of Elohim.\" [9]\n\nAnother very instructive passage shows that Samuel was not only\nconsidered to be diviner, seer, and prophet in one, but that he was\nalso, to all intents and purposes, priest of Jahveh--though, according\nto his biographer, he was not a member of the tribe of Levi. At the\noutset of their acquaintance, Samuel says to Saul, \"Go up before me into\nthe high place,\" where, as the young maidens of the city had just before\ntold Saul, the Seer was going, \"for the people will not eat till he\ncome, because he doth bless the sacrifice\" (1 Sam. x. 12). The use of\nthe word \"bless\" here--as if Samuel were not going to sacrifice, but\nonly to offer a blessing or thanksgiving--is curious. But that Samuel\nreally acted as priest seems plain from what follows. For he not only\nasks Saul to share in the customary sacrificial feast, but he disposes\nin Saul's favour of that portion of the victim which the Levitical\nlegislation, doubtless embodying old customs, recognises as the priest's\nspecial property. [10]\n\nAlthough particular persons adopted the profession of media between men\nand Elohim, there was no limitation of the power, in the view of ancient\nIsrael, to any special class of the population. Saul inquires of Jahveh\nand builds him altars on his own account; and in the very remarkable\nstory told in the fourteenth chapter of the first book of Samuel\n(v. 37-46), Saul appears to conduct the whole process of divination,\nalthough he has a priest at his elbow. David seems to do the same.\n\nMoreover, Elohim constantly appear in dreams--which in old Israel did\nnot mean that, as we should say, the subject of the appearance \"dreamed\nhe saw the spirit\"; but that he veritably saw the Elohim which, as a\nsoul, visited his soul while his body was asleep. And, in the course\nof the history of Israel Jahveh himself thus appears to all sorts\nof persons, non-Israelites as well as Israelites. Again, the Elohim\npossess, or inspire, people against their will, as in the case of Saul\nand Saul's messengers, and then these people prophesy--that is to say,\n\"rave\"--and exhibit the ungoverned gestures attributed by a later age to\npossession by malignant spirits. Apart from other evidence to be adduced\nby and by, the history of ancient demonology and of modern revivalism\ndoes not permit me to doubt that the accounts of these phenomena given\nin the history of Saul may be perfectly historical.\n\nIn the ritual practices, of which evidence is to be found in the books\nof Judges and Samuel, the chief part is played by sacrifices, usually\nburnt offerings. Whenever the aid of the Elohim of Israel is sought, or\nthanks are considered due to him, an altar is built, and oxen, sheep,\nand goats are slaughtered and offered up. Sometimes the entire victim\nis burnt as a holocaust; more frequently only certain parts, notably\nthe fat about the kidneys, are burnt on the altar. The rest is properly\ncooked; and, after the reservation of a part for the priest, is made the\nfoundation of a joyous banquet, in which the sacrificer, his family,\nand such guests as he thinks fit to invite, participate. [11] Elohim was\nsupposed to share in the feast, and it has been already shown that that\nwhich was set apart on the altar, or consumed by fire, was spoken of as\nthe food of Elohim, who was thought to be influenced by the costliness,\nor by the pleasant smell, of the sacrifice in favour of the sacrificer.\n\nAll this bears out the view that, in the mind of the old Israelite,\nthere was no difference, save one of degree, between one Elohim and\nanother. It is true that there is but little direct evidence to show\nthat the old Israelites shared the widespread belief of their own, and\nindeed of all times, that the spirits of the dead not only continue to\nexist, but are capable of a ghostly kind of feeding and are grateful for\nsuch aliment as can be assimilated by their attenuated substance, and\neven for clothes, ornaments, and weapons. [12] That they were familiar\nwith this doctrine in the time of the captivity is suggested by the\nwell-known reference of Ezekiel (xxxii. 27) to the \"mighty that are\nfallen of the uncircumcised, which are gone down to [Sheol] hell with\ntheir weapons of war, and have laid their swords under their heads.\"\nPerhaps there is a still earlier allusion in the \"giving of food for the\ndead\" spoken of in Deuteronomy (xxvi. 14). [13]\n\nIt must be remembered that the literature of the old Israelites, as\nit lies before us, has been subjected to the revisal of strictly\nmonotheistic editors, violently opposed to all kinds of idolatry, who\nare not likely to have selected from the materials at their disposal any\nobvious evidence, either of the practice under discussion, or of that\nancestor-worship which is so closely related to it, for preservation in\nthe permanent records of their people.\n\nThe mysterious objects known as _Teraphim,_ which are occasionally\nmentioned in Judges, Samuel, and elsewhere, however, can hardly be\ninterpreted otherwise than as indications of the existence both of\nancestor-worship and of image-worship in old Israel. The teraphim\nwere certainly images of family gods, and, as such, in all probability\nrepresented deceased ancestors. Laban indignantly demands of his\nson-in-law, \"Wherefore hast thou stolen my Elohim?\" which Rachel, who\nmust be assumed to have worshipped Jacob's God, Jahveh, had carried off,\nobviously because she, like her father, believed in their divinity. It\nis not suggested that Jacob was in any way scandalised by the idolatrous\npractices of his favourite wife, whatever he may have thought of her\nhonesty when the truth came to light; for the teraphim seem to have\nremained in his camp, at least until he \"hid\" his strange gods \"under\nthe oak that was by Shechem\" (Gen. xxxv. 4). And indeed it is open\nto question if he got rid of them then, for the subsequent history of\nIsrael renders it more than doubtful whether the teraphim were regarded\nas \"strange gods\" even as late as the eighth century B.C.\n\nThe writer of the books of Samuel takes it quite as a matter of course\nthat Michal, daughter of one royal Jahveh worshipper and wife of the\nservant of Jahveh _par excellence,_ the pious David, should have her\nteraphim handy, in her and David's chamber, when she dresses them up in\ntheir bed into a simulation of her husband, for the purpose of deceiving\nher father's messengers. Even one of the early prophets, Hosea, when\nhe threatens that the children of Israel shall abide many days without\n\"ephod or teraphim\" (iii. 4), appears to regard both as equally proper\nappurtenances of the suspended worship of Jahveh, and equally certain\nto be restored when that is resumed. When we further take into\nconsideration that only in the reign of Hezekiah was the brazen serpent,\npreserved in the temple and believed to be the work of Moses, destroyed,\nand the practice of offering incense to it, that is, worshipping it,\nabolished--that Jeroboam could set up \"calves of gold\" for Israel to\nworship, with apparently none but a political object, and certainly with\nno notion of creating a schism among the worshippers of Jahveh, or of\nrepelling the men of Judah from his standard--it seems obvious, either\nthat the Israelites of the tenth and eleventh centuries B.C. knew not\nthe second commandment, or that they construed it merely as part of the\nprohibition to worship any supreme god other than Jahveh, which precedes\nit.\n\nIn seeking for information about the teraphim, I lighted upon the\nfollowing passage in the valuable article on that subject by Archdeacon\nFarrar, in Ritto's \"Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature,\" which is\nso much to the purpose of my argument, that I venture to quote it in\nfull:--\n\n   The main and certain results of this review are that the\n   teraphim were rude human images; that the use of them was an\n   antique Aramaic custom; that there is reason to suppose them to\n   have been images of deceased ancestors; that they were consulted\n   oracularly; that they were not confined to Jews; that their use\n   continued down to the latest period of Jewish history;\n   and lastly, that although the enlightened prophets and strictest\n   later kings regarded them as idolatrous, the priests were much\n   less averse to such images, and their cult was not considered in\n   any way repugnant to the pious worship of Elohim, nay, even to\n   the worship of him \"under the awful title of Jehovah.\" In fact,\n   they involved _a monotheistic idolatry very different indeed\n   from polytheism;_ and the tolerance of them by priests, as\n   compared with the denunciation of them by the prophets, offers a\n   close analogy to the views of the Roman Catholics respecting\n   pictures and images as compared with the views of Protestants.\n   It was against this use of idolatrous symbols and emblems in a\n   monotheistic worship that the _second_ commandment was\n   directed, whereas the first is aimed against the graver sin of\n   direct polytheism. But the whole history of Israel shows how\n   utterly and how early the law must have fallen into desuetude.\n   The worship of the golden calf and of the calves at Dan and\n   Bethel, against which, so far as we know, neither Elijah nor\n   Elisha said a single word; the tolerance of high places,\n   teraphim and betylia; the offering of incense for centuries to\n   the brazen serpent destroyed by Hezekiah; the occasional\n   glimpses of the most startling irregularities sanctioned\n   apparently even in the temple worship itself, prove most\n   decisively that a pure monotheism and an independence of symbols\n   was the result of a slow and painful course of God's disciplinal\n   dealings among the noblest thinkers of a single nation, and not,\n   as is so constantly and erroneously urged, the instinct of the\n   whole Semitic race; in other words, one single branch of the\n   Semites was under God's providence _educated_ into pure\n   monotheism only by centuries of misfortune and series of\n   inspired men (vol. iii. p. 986).\n\nIt appears to me that the researches of the anthropologist lead him to\nconclusions identical in substance, if not in terms, with those here\nenunciated as the result of a careful study of the same subject from a\ntotally different point of view.\n\nThere is abundant evidence in the books of Samuel and elsewhere that\nan article of dress termed an _ephod_ was supposed to have a peculiar\nefficacy in enabling the wearer to exercise divination by means of\nJahveh-Elohim. Great and long continued have been the disputes as to the\nexact nature of the ephod--whether it always means something to wear, or\nwhether it sometimes means an image. But the probabilities are that\nit usually signifies a kind of waistcoat or broad zone, with\nshoulder-straps, which the person who \"inquired of Jahveh\" put on. In\n1 Samuel xxiii. 2 David appears to have inquired without an ephod, for\nAbiathar the priest is said to have \"come down with an ephod in his\nhand\" only subsequently. And then David asks for it before inquiring of\nJahveh whether the men of Keilah would betray him or not. David's action\nis obviously divination pure and simple; and it is curious that he seems\nto have worn the ephod himself and not to have employed Abiathar as a\nmedium. How the answer was given is not clear though the probability is\nthat it was obtained by casting lots. The _Urim_ and _Thummim_ seem to\nhave been two such lots of a peculiarly sacred character, which were\ncarried in the pocket of the high priest's \"breastplate.\" This last was\nworn along with the ephod.\n\nWith the exception of one passage (1 Sam. xiv. 18) the ark is ignored in\nthe history of Saul. But in this place the Septuagint reads \"ephod\" for\nark, while in 1 Chronicles xiii. 3 David says that \"we sought not unto\nit [the ark] in the days of Saul.\" Nor does Samuel seem to have paid\nany regard to the ark after its return from Philistia; though, in his\nchildhood, he is said to have slept in \"the temple of Jahveh, where the\nark of Elohim was\" (1 Sam. iii. 3), at Shiloh and there to have been the\nseer of the earliest apparitions vouchsafed to him by Jahveh. The\nspace between the cherubim or winged images on the canopy or cover\n(_Kapporeth_) of this holy chest was held to be the special seat of\nJahveh--the place selected for a temporary residence of the Supreme\nElohim who had, after Aaron and Phineas, Eli and his sons for priests\nand seers. And, when the ark was carried to the camp at Eben-ezer, there\ncan be no doubt that the Israelites, no less than the Philistines, held\nthat \"Elohim is come into the camp\" (iv. 7), and that the one, as much\nas the other, conceived that the Israelites had summoned to their aid\na powerful ally in \"these (or this) mighty Elohim\"--elsewhere called\nJahve-Sabaoth, the Jahveh of Hosts. If the \"temple\" at Shiloh was\nthe pentateuchal tabernacle, as is suggested by the name of \"tent of\nmeeting\" given to it in 1 Samuel ii. 22, it was essentially a large\ntent, though constituted of very expensive and ornate materials; if, on\nthe other hand, it was a different edifice, there can be little doubt\nthat this \"house of Jahveh\" was built on the model of an ordinary house\nof the time. But there is not the slightest evidence that, during the\nreign of Saul, any greater importance attached to this seat of the cult\nof Jahveh than to others. Sanctuaries, and \"high places\" for sacrifice,\nwere scattered all over the country from Dan to Beersheba. And, as\nSamuel is said to have gone up to one of these high places to bless the\nsacrifice, it may be taken for tolerably certain that he knew nothing of\nthe Levitical laws which severely condemn the high places and those who\nsacrifice away from the sanctuary hallowed by the presence of the ark.\n\nThere is no evidence that, during the time of the Judges and of Samuel,\nany one occupied the position of the high priest of later days. And\npersons who were neither priests nor Levites sacrificed and divined or\n\"inquired of Jahveh,\" when they pleased and where they pleased, without\nthe least indication that they, or any one else in Israel at that\ntime, knew they were doing wrong. There is no allusion to any special\nobservance of the Sabbath; and the references to circumcision are\nindirect.\n\nSuch are the chief articles of the theological creed of the old\nIsraelites, which are made known to us by the direct evidence of the\nancient record to which we have had recourse, and they are as remarkable\nfor that which they contain as for that which is absent from them.\nThey reveal a firm conviction that, when death takes place, a something\ntermed a soul or spirit leaves the body and continues to exist in Sheol\nfor a period of indefinite duration, even though there is no proof of\nany belief in absolute immortality; that such spirits can return to\nearth to possess and inspire the living; that they are, in appearance\nand in disposition, likenesses of the men to whom they belonged, but\nthat, as spirits, they have larger powers and are freer from physical\nlimitations; that they thus form a group among a number of kinds of\nspiritual existences known as Elohim, of whom Jahveh, the national\nGod of Israel, is one; that, consistently with this view, Jahveh was\nconceived as a sort of spirit, human in aspect and in senses, and with\nmany human passions, but with immensely greater intelligence and power\nthan any other Elohim, whether human or divine. Further, the evidence\nproves that this belief was the basis of the Jahveh-worship to which\nSamuel and his followers were devoted; that there is strong reason for\nbelieving, and none for doubting, that idolatry, in the shape of the\nworship of the family gods or teraphim, was practised by sincere and\ndevout Jahveh-worshippers; that the ark, with its protective tent or\ntabernacle, was regarded as a specially, but by no means exclusively,\nfavoured sanctuary of Jahveh; that the ephod appears to have had a\nparticular value for those who desired to divine by the help of Jahveh;\nand that divination by lots was practised before Jahveh. On the other\nhand, there is not the slightest evidence of any belief in retribution\nafter death, but the contrary; ritual obligations have at least as\nstrong sanction as moral; there are clear indications that some of\nthe most stringent of the Levitical laws were unknown even to Samuel;\npriests often appear to be superseded by laymen, even in the performance\nof sacrifices and divination; and no line of demarcation can be drawn\nbetween necromancer, wizard, seer, prophet, and priest, each of whom is\nregarded, like all the rest, as a medium of communication between the\nworld of Elohim and that of living men.\n\nThe theological system thus defined offers to the anthropologist no\nfeature which is devoid of a parallel in the known theologies of other\nraces of mankind, even of those who inhabit parts of the world most\nremote from Palestine. And the foundation of the whole, the ghost\ntheory, is exactly that theological speculation which is the most widely\nspread of all, and the most deeply rooted among uncivilised men. I am\nable to base this statement, to some extent, on facts within my own\nknowledge. In December 1848, H.M.S. _Rattlesnake,_ the ship to which\nI then belonged, was anchored off Mount Ernest, an island in Torres\nStraits. The people were few and well disposed; and, when a friend of\nmine (whom I will call B.) and I went ashore, we made acquaintance\nwith an old native, Paouda by name. In course of time we became quite\nintimate with the old gentleman, partly by the rendering of mutual good\noffices, but chiefly because Paouda believed he had discovered that B.\nwas his father-in-law. And his grounds for this singular conviction were\nvery remarkable. We had made a long stay at Cape York hard by; and, in\naccordance with a theory which is widely spread among the Australians,\nthat white men are the reincarnated spirits of black men, B. was held to\nbe the ghost, or _narki,_ of a certain Mount Ernest native, one Antarki,\nwho had lately died, on the ground of some real or fancied resemblance\nto the latter. Now Paouda had taken to wife a daughter of Antarki's,\nnamed Domani, and as soon as B. informed him that he was the ghost of\nAntarki, Paouda at once admitted the relationship and acted upon it.\nFor, as all the women on the island had hidden away in fear of the ship,\nand we were anxious to see what they were like, B. pleaded pathetically\nwith Paouda that it would be very unkind not to let him see his daughter\nand grandchildren. After a good deal of hesitation and the exaction of\npledges of deep secrecy, Paouda consented to take B., and myself as B.'s\nfriend, to see Domani and the three daughters, by whom B. was received\nquite as one of the family, while I was courteously welcomed on his\naccount.\n\nThis scene made an impression upon me which is not yet effaced. It left\nno question on my mind of the sincerity of the strange ghost theory\nof these savages, and of the influence which their belief has on their\npractical life. I had it in my mind, as well as many a like result\nof subsequent anthropological studies, when, in 1869, [14] I wrote as\nfollows:--\n\n   There are savages without God in any proper sense of the word,\n   but none without ghosts. And the Fetishism, Ancestor-worship,\n   Hero-worship, and Demonology of primitive savages are all, I\n   believe, different manners of expression of their belief in\n   ghosts, and of the anthropomorphic interpretation of out-of-the-\n   way events which is its concomitant. Witchcraft and sorcery are\n   the practical expressions of these beliefs; and they stand in\n   the same relation to religious worship as the simple\n   anthropomorphism of children or savages does to theology.\n\nI do not quote myself with any intention of making a claim to\noriginality in putting forth this view; for I have since discovered that\nthe same conception is virtually contained in the great \"Discours sur\nl'Histoire Universelle\" of Bossuet, now more than two centuries old:\n[15]--\n\n   Le culte des hommes morta faisoit presque tout le fond de\n   l'idolatrie; presque tous les hommes sacrificient aux manes,\n   c'est-a-dire aux ames des morts. De si anciennes erreurs nous\n   font voir a la verite combien etoit ancienne la croyance de\n   l'immortalite de l'ame, et nous montrent qu'elle doit etre\n   rangee parmi les premieres traditions du genre humain.\n   Mais l'homme, qui gatoit tout, en avoit etrangement abuse,\n   puisqu'elle le portoit a sacrificer aux morts. On alloit meme\n   jusqu'a cet exces, de leur sacrifier des hommes vivans; ou tuoit\n   leurs esclaves, et meme leurs femmes, pour les aller servir dans\n   l'autre monde.\n\nAmong more modern writers J. G. Muller, in his excellent \"Geschichte\nder amerikanischen Urreligionen\" (1855), clearly recognises\n\"gespensterhafter Geisterglaube\" as the foundation of all savage\nand semi-civilised theology, and I need do no more than mention the\nimportant developments of the same view which are to be found in Mr.\nTylor's \"Primitive Culture,\" and in the writings of Mr. Herbert Spencer,\nespecially his recently-published \"Ecclesiastical Institutions.\" [16]\n\nIt is a matter of fact that, whether we direct our attention to\nthe older conditions of civilised societies, in Japan, in China, in\nHindostan, in Greece, or in Rome, [17] we find, underlying all\nother theological notions, the belief in ghosts, with its inevitable\nconcomitant sorcery; and a primitive cult, in the shape of a worship of\nancestors, which is essentially an attempt to please, or appease their\nghosts. The same thing is true of old Mexico and Peru, and of all the\nsemi-civilised or savage peoples who have developed a definite cult; and\nin those who, like the natives of Australia, have not even a cult, the\nbelief in, and fear of, ghosts is as strong as anywhere else. The most\nclearly demonstrable article of the theology of the Israelites in the\neleventh and twelfth centuries B.C. is therefore simply the article\nwhich is to be found in all primitive theologies, namely, the belief\nthat a man has a soul which continues to exist after death for a longer\nor shorter time, and may return, as a ghost, with a divine, or at least\ndemonic, character, to influence for good or evil (and usually for\nevil) the affairs of the living. But the correspondence between the old\nIsraelitic and other archaic forms of theology extends to details. If,\nin order to avoid all chance of direct communication, we direct\nour attention to the theology of semi-civilised people, such as the\nPolynesian Islanders, separated by the greatest possible distance,\nand by every conceivable physical barrier, from the inhabitants of\nPalestine, we shall find not merely that all the features of old\nIsraelitic theology, which are revealed in the records cited, are found\namong them; but that extant information as to the inner mind of these\npeople tends to remove many of the difficulties which those who have not\nstudied anthropology find in the Hebrew narrative.\n\nOne of the best sources, if not the best source, of information on these\ntopics is Mariner's _Tonga Islands,_ which tells us of the condition of\nCook's \"Friendly Islanders\" eighty years ago, before European influence\nwas sensibly felt among them. Mariner, a youth of fair education and of\nno inconsiderable natural ability (as the work which was drawn up from\nthe materials he furnished shows), was about fifteen years of age when\nhis ship was attacked and plundered by the Tongans: he remained four\nyears in the islands, familiarised himself with the language, lived the\nlife of the people, became intimate with many of them, and had every\nopportunity of acquainting himself with their opinions, as well as with\ntheir habits and customs. He seems to have been devoid of prejudices,\ntheological or other, and the impression of strict accuracy which his\nstatements convey has been justified by all the knowledge of Polynesian\nlife which has been subsequently acquired.\n\nIt is desirable, therefore, to pay close attention to that which Mariner\ntells us about the theological views of these people: [18]--\n\n   The human soul, after its separation from the body, is\n   termed a _hotooa_ (a god or spirit), and is believed to\n   exist in the shape of the body; to have the same propensities as\n   during life, but to be corrected by a more enlightened\n   understanding, by which it readily distinguishes good from evil,\n   truth from falsehood, right from wrong; having the same\n   attributes as the original gods, but in a minor degree, and\n   having its dwelling for ever in the happy regions of Bolotoo,\n   holding the same rank in regard to other souls as during this\n   life; it has, however, the power of returning to Tonga to\n   inspire priests, relations, or others, or to appear in dreams to\n   those it wishes to admonish; and sometimes to the external eye\n   in the form of a ghost or apparition; but this power of\n   reappearance at Tonga particularly belongs to the souls of\n   chiefs rather than of matabooles. (vol. ii. p. 130).\n\nThe word \"hotooa\" is the same as that which is usually spelt \"atua\"\nby Polynesian philologues, and it will be convenient to adopt this\nspelling. Now under this head of \"_Atuas_ or supernatural intelligent\nbeings\" the Tongans include:--\n\n\"1. The original gods. 2. The souls of nobles that have all attributes\nin common with the first but inferior in degree. 3. The souls of\nmatabooles [19] that are still inferior, and have not the power as the\ntwo first have of coming back to Tonga to inspire the priest, though\nthey are supposed to have the power of appearing to their relatives.\n4. The original attendants or servants, as it were, of the gods, who,\nalthough they had their origin and have ever since existed in Bolotoo,\nare still inferior to the third class. 5. The _Atua pow_ or mischievous\ngods. 6. _Mooi,_ or the god that supports the earth and does not belong\nto Bolotoo (vol. ii. pp. 103, 104).\"\n\nFrom this it appears that the \"Atuas\" of the Polynesian are exactly\nequivalent to the \"Elohim\" of the old Israelite. [20] They comprise\neverything spiritual, from a ghost to a god, and from \"the merely\ntutelar gods to particular private families\" (vol, ii. p. 104), to\nTa-li-y-Tooboo, who was the national god of Tonga. The Tongans had no\ndoubt that these Atuas daily and hourly influenced their destinies\nand could, conversely, be influenced by them. Hence their \"piety,\" the\nincessant acts of sacrificial worship which occupied their lives, and\ntheir belief in omens and charms. Moreover, the Atuas were believed to\nvisit particular persons,--their own priests in the case of the higher\ngods, but apparently anybody in that of the lower,--and to inspire them\nby a process which was conceived to involve the actual residence of the\ngod, for the time being, in the person inspired, who was thus rendered\ncapable of prophesying (vol. ii. p. 100). For the Tongan, therefore,\ninspiration indubitably was possession.\n\nWhen one of the higher gods was invoked, through his priest, by a chief\nwho wished to consult the oracle, or, in old Israelitic phraseology,\nto \"inquire of,\" the god, a hog was killed and cooked over night, and,\ntogether with plantains, yams, and the materials for making the peculiar\ndrink _kava_ (of which the Tongans were very fond), was carried next day\nto the priest. A circle, as for an ordinary kava-drinking entertainment,\nwas then formed; but the priest, as the representative of the god,\ntook the highest place, while the chiefs sat outside the circle, as an\nexpression of humility calculated to please the god.\n\n\n   As soon as they are all seated the priest is considered as\n   inspired, the god being supposed to exist within him from that\n   moment. He remains for a considerable time in silence with his\n   hands clasped before him, his eyes are cast down and he rests\n   perfectly still. During the time the victuals are being shared\n   out and the kava preparing, the matabooles sometimes begin to\n   consult him; sometimes he answers, and at other times not;\n   in either case he remains with his eyes cast down. Frequently he\n   will not utter a word till the repast is finished and the kava\n   too. When he speaks he generally begins in a low and very\n   altered tone of voice, which gradually rises to nearly its\n   natural pitch, though sometimes a little above it. All that he\n   says is supposed to be the declaration of the god, and he\n   accordingly speaks in the first person, as if he were the god.\n   All this is done generally without any apparent inward emotion\n   or outward agitation; but, on some occasions, his countenance\n   becomes fierce, and as it were inflamed, and his whole frame\n   agitated with inward feeling; he is seized with an universal\n   trembling, the perspiration breaks out on his forehead, and his\n   lips turning black are convulsed; at length tears start in\n   floods from his eyes, his breast heaves with great emotion, and\n   his utterance is choked. These symptoms gradually subside.\n   Before this paroxysm comes on, and after it is over, he often\n   eats as much as four hungry men under other circumstances could\n   devour. The fit being now gone off, he remains for some time\n   calm and then takes up a club that is placed by him for the\n   purpose, turns it over and regards it attentively; he then looks\n   up earnestly, now to the right, now to the left, and now again\n   at the club; afterwards he looks up again and about him in like\n   manner, and then again fixes his eyes on the club, and so on for\n   several times. At length he suddenly raises the club, and, after\n   a moment's pause, strikes the ground or the adjacent part of the\n   house with considerable force, immediately the god leaves him,\n   and he rises up and retires to the back of the ring among the\n   people (vol. i. pp. 100, 101).\n\nThe phenomena thus described, in language which, to any one who is\nfamiliar with the manifestations of abnormal mental states among\nourselves, bears the stamp of fidelity, furnish a most instructive\ncommentary upon the story of the wise woman of Endor. As in the latter,\nwe have the possession by the spirit or soul (Atua, Elohim), the strange\nvoice, the speaking in the first person. Unfortunately nothing (beyond\nthe loud cry) is mentioned as to the state of the wise woman of Endor.\nBut what we learn from other sources (_e.g._ 1 Sam. x. 20-24) respecting\nthe physical concomitants of inspiration among the old Israelites\nhas its exact equivalent in this and other accounts of Polynesian\nprophetism. An excellent authority, Moerenhout, who lived among the\npeople of the Society Islands many years and knew them well, says that,\nin Tahiti, the _role_ of the prophet had very generally passed out of\nthe hands of the priests into that of private persons who professed\nto represent the god, often assumed his name, and in this capacity\nprophesied. I will not run the risk of weakening the force of\nMoerenhout's description of the prophetic state by translating it:--\n\n\"Un individu, dans cet etat, avait le bras gauche enveloppe d'un morceau\nd'etoffe, signe de la presence de la Divinite. Il ne parlait que d'un\nton imperieux et vehement. Ses attaques, quand il allait prophetiser,\netaient aussi effroyables qu'imposantes. Il tremblait d'abord de tous\nses membres, la figure enflee, les yeux hagards, rouges et etincelants\nd'une expression sauvage. Il gesticulait, articulait des mots vides de\nsens, poussait des cris horribles qui faisaient tressaillir tous\nles assistants, et s'exaltait parfois au point qu'on n'osait par\nl'approcher. Autour de lui, le silence de la terreur et du respect....\nC'est alors qu'il repondait aux questions, annoncait l'avenir, le destin\ndes batailles, la volonte des dieux; et, chose etonnante! au sein de\nce delire, de cet enthousiasme religieux, son langage etait grave,\nimposant, son eloquence noble et persuasive.\" [21]\n\nJust so Saul strips off his clothes, \"prophesies\" before Samuel, and\nlies down \"naked all that day and night.\"\n\nBoth Mariner and Moerenhout refuse to have recourse to the hypothesis of\nimposture in order to account for the inspired state of the Polynesian\nprophets. On the contrary, they fully believe in their sincerity.\nMariner tells the story of a young chief, an acquaintance of his, who\nthought himself possessed by the Atua of a dead woman who had fallen in\nlove with him, and who wished him to die that he might be near her in\nBolotoo. And he died accordingly. But the most valuable evidence on this\nhead is contained in what the same authority says about King Finow's\nson. The previous king, Toogoo Ahoo, had been assassinated by Finow, and\nhis soul, become an Atua of divine rank in Bolotoo, had been pleased\nto visit and inspire Finow's son--with what particular object does not\nappear.\n\n   When this young chief returned to Hapai, Mr. Mariner, who was\n   upon a footing of great friendship with him, one day asked him\n   how he felt himself when the spirit of Toogoo Ahoo visited him;\n   he replied that he could not well describe his feelings, but the\n   best he could say of it was, that he felt himself all over in a\n   glow of heat and quite restless and uncomfortable, and did not\n   feel his own personal identity, as it were, but seemed to have a\n   mind different from his own natural mind, his thoughts wandering\n   upon strange and unusual subjects, though perfectly sensible of\n   surrounding objects. He next asked him how he knew it was the\n   spirit of Toogoo Ahoo? His answer was, 'There's a fool! How can\n   I tell you _how_ I knew it! I felt and knew it was so by a\n   kind of consciousness; my _mind_ told me that it was Toogoo\n   Ahoo (vol. i. pp. 104, 105).\n\nFinow's son was evidently made for a theological disputant, and fell\nback at once on the inexpugnable stronghold of faith when other evidence\nwas lacking. \"There's a fool! I know it is true, because I know it,\" is\nthe exemplar and epitome of the sceptic-crushing process in other places\nthan the Tonga Islands.\n\nThe island of Bolotoo, to which all the souls (of the upper classes at\nany rate) repair after the death of the body, and from which they return\nat will to interfere, for good or evil, with the lives of those whom\nthey have left behind, obviously answers to Sheol. In Tongan tradition,\nthis place of souls is a sort of elysium above ground and pleasant\nenough to live in. But, in other parts of Polynesia, the corresponding\nlocality, which is called Po, has to be reached by descending into the\nearth, and is represented dark and gloomy like Sheol. But it was not\nlooked upon as a place of rewards and punishments in any sense. Whether\nin Bolotoo or in Po, the soul took the rank it had in the flesh; and,\na shadow, lived among the shadows of the friends and houses and food of\nits previous life.\n\nThe Tongan theologians recognised several hundred gods; but there was\none, already mentioned as their national god, whom they regarded as far\ngreater than any of the others, \"as a great chief from the top of the\nsky down to the bottom of the earth\" (Mariner, vol. ii. p. 106). He\nwas also god of war, and the tutelar deity of the royal family, whoever\nhappened to be the incumbent of the royal office for the time being. He\nhad no priest except the king himself, and his visits, even to\nroyalty, were few and far between. The name of this supreme deity was\nTa-li-y-Tooboo, the literal meaning of which is said to be \"Wait there,\nTooboo,\" from which it would appear that the peculiar characteristic\nof Ta-li-y-Tooboo, in the eyes of his worshippers, was persistence of\nduration. And it is curious to notice, in relation to this circumstance,\nthat many Hebrew philologers have thought the meaning of Jahveh to be\nbest expressed by the word \"Eternal.\" It would probably be difficult to\nexpress the notion of an eternal being, in a dialect so little fitted\nto convey abstract conceptions as Tongan, better than by that of one who\nalways \"waits there.\"\n\nThe characteristics of the gods in Tongan theology are exactly those\nof men whose shape they are supposed to possess, only they have more\nintelligence and greater power. The Tongan belief that, after death, the\nhuman Atua more readily distinguishes good from evil, runs parallel with\nthe old Israelitic conception of Elohim expressed in Genesis, \"Ye shall\nbe as Elohim, knowing good from evil.\" They further agreed with the old\nIsraelites, that \"all rewards for virtue and punishments for vice happen\nto men in this world only, and come immediately from the gods\" (vol. ii.\np. 100). Moreover, they were of opinion that though the gods approve of\nsome kinds of virtue, are displeased with some kinds of vice, and, to a\ncertain extent, protect or forsake their worshippers according to\ntheir moral conduct, yet neglect to pay due respect to the deities, and\nforgetfulness to keep them in good humour, might be visited with even\nworse consequences than moral delinquency. And those who will carefully\nstudy the so-called \"Mosaic code\" contained in the books of Exodus,\nLeviticus, and Numbers, will see that, though Jahveh's prohibitions of\ncertain forms of immorality are strict and sweeping, his wrath is quite\nas strongly kindled against infractions of ritual ordinances. Accidental\nhomicide may go unpunished, and reparation may be made for wilful theft.\nOn the other hand, Nadab and Abihu, who \"offered strange fire before\nJahveh, which he had not commanded them,\" were swiftly devoured by\nJahveh's fire; he who sacrificed anywhere except at the allotted place\nwas to be \"cut off from his people\"; so was he who ate blood; and the\ndetails of the upholstery of the Tabernacle, of the millinery of the\npriests' vestments, and of the cabinet work of the ark, can plead direct\nauthority from Jahveh, no less than moral commands.\n\nAmongst the Tongans, the sacrifices were regarded as gifts of food and\ndrink offered to the divine Atuas, just as the articles deposited by the\ngraves of the recently dead were meant as food for Atuas of lower rank.\nA kava root was a constant form of offering all over Polynesia. In the\nexcellent work of the Rev. George Turner, entitled _Nineteen Years in\nPolynesia_ (p. 241), I find it said of the Samoans (near neighbours of\nthe Tongans):--\n\n   _The offerings_ were principally cooked food. As in ancient\n   Greece so in Samoa, the first cup was in honour of the god.\n   It was either poured out on the ground or _waved_ towards\n   the heavens, reminding us again of the Mosaic ceremonies.\n   The chiefs all drank a portion out of the same cup, according to\n   rank; and after that, the food brought as an offering was\n   divided and eaten '_there before the Lord._'\n\nIn Tonga, when they consulted a god who had a priest, the latter, as\nrepresentative of the god, had the first cup; but if the god, like\nTa-li-y-Tooboo, had no priest, then the chief place was left vacant, and\nwas supposed to be occupied by the god himself. When the first cup of\nkava was filled, the mataboole who acted as master of the ceremonies\nsaid, \"Give it to your god,\" and it was offered, though only as a matter\nof form. In Tonga and Samoa there were many sacred places or _morais,_\nwith houses of the ordinary construction, but which served as temples in\nconsequence of being dedicated to various gods; and there were altars\non which the sacrifices were offered; nevertheless there were few or\nno images. Mariner mentions none in Tonga, and the Samoans seem to have\nbeen regarded as no better than atheists by other Polynesians because\nthey had none. It does not appear that either of these peoples had\nimages even of their family or ancestral gods.\n\nIn Tahiti and the adjacent islands, Moerenhout (t. i. p. 471) makes the\nvery interesting observation, not only that idols were often absent,\nbut that, where they existed, the images of the gods served merely as\ndepositories for the proper representatives of the divinity. Each of\nthese was called a _maro aurou,_ and was a kind of girdle artistically\nadorned with red, yellow, blue, and black feathers--the red feathers\nbeing especially important--which were consecrated and kept as sacred\nobjects within the idols. They were worn by great personages on solemn\noccasions, and conferred upon their wearers a sacred and almost divine\ncharacter. There is no distinct evidence that the _maro aurou_ was\nsupposed to have any special efficacy in divination, but one cannot fail\nto see a certain parallelism between this holy girdle, which endowed its\nwearer with a particular sanctity, and the ephod.\n\nAccording to the Rev. R. Taylor, the New Zealanders formerly used the\nword _karakia_ (now employed for \"prayer\") to signify a \"spell, charm,\nor incantation,\" and the utterance of these karakias constituted the\nchief part of their cult. In the south, the officiating priest had a\nsmall image, \"about eighteen inches long, resembling a peg with a\ncarved head,\" which reminds one of the form commonly attributed to the\nteraphim.\n\n\"The priest first bandaged a fillet of red parrot feathers under the\ngod's chin, which was called his pahau or beard; this bandage was made\nof a certain kind of sennet, which was tied on in a peculiar way. When\nthis was done it was taken possession of by the Atua, whose spirit\nentered it. The priest then either held it in the hand and vibrated it\nin the air whilst the powerful karakia was repeated, or he tied a piece\nof string (formed of the centre of a flax leaf) round the neck of the\nimage and stuck it in the ground. He sat at a little distance from it,\nleaning against a tuahu, a short stone pillar stuck in the ground in a\nslanting position and, holding the string in his hand, he gave the god a\njerk to arrest his attention, lest he should be otherwise engaged, like\nBaal of old, either hunting, fishing, or sleeping, and therefore must\nbe awaked.... The god is supposed to make use of the priest's tongue in\ngiving a reply. Image-worship appears to have been confined to one part\nof the island. The Atua was supposed only to enter the image for the\noccasion. The natives declare they did not worship the image itself, but\nonly the Atua it represented, and that the image was merely used as a\nway of approaching him.\" [22]\n\nThis is the excuse for image-worship which the more intelligent\nidolaters make all the world over; but it is more interesting to observe\nthat, in the present case, we seem to have the equivalents of divination\nby teraphim, with the aid of something like an ephod (which, however, is\nused to sanctify the image and not the priest) mixed up together. Many\nHebrew archaeologists have supposed that the term \"ephod\" is sometimes\nused for an image (particularly in the case of Gideon's ephod), and the\nstory of Micah, in the book of Judges, shows that images were, at any\nrate, employed in close association with the ephod. If the pulling of\nthe string to call the attention of the god seems as absurd to us as\nit appears to have done to the worthy missionary, who tells us of the\npractice, it should be recollected that the high priest of Jahveh was\nordered to wear a garment fringed with golden bells.\n\n\n   And it shall be upon Aaron to minister; and the sound thereof\n   shall be heard when he goeth in unto the holy place before\n   Jahveh, and when he cometh out, that he die not (Exod.\n   xxviii. 35).\n\nAn escape from the obvious conclusion suggested by this passage has\nbeen sought in the supposition that these bells rang for the sake of\nthe worshippers, as at the elevation of the host in the Roman Catholic\nritual; but then why should the priest be threatened with the well-known\npenalty for inadvisedly beholding the divinity?\n\nIn truth, the intermediate step between the Maori practice and that of\nthe old Israelites is furnished by the Kami temples in Japan. These are\nprovided with bells which the worshippers who present themselves ring,\nin order to call the attention of the ancestor-god to their presence.\nGrant the fundamental assumption of the essentially human character of\nthe spirit, whether Atua, Kami, or Elohim, and all these practices are\nequally rational.\n\nThe sacrifices to the gods in Tonga, and elsewhere in Polynesia, were\nordinarily social gatherings, in which the god, either in his own person\nor in that of his priestly representative, was supposed to take part.\nThese sacrifices were offered on every occasion of importance, and even\nthe daily meals were prefaced by oblations and libations of food and\ndrink, exactly answering to those offered by the old Romans to their\nmanes, penates, and lares. The sacrifices had no moral significance,\nbut were the necessary result of the theory that the god was either a\ndeified ghost of an ancestor or chief, or, at any rate, a being of like\nnature to these. If one wanted to get anything out of him, therefore,\nthe first step was to put him in good humour by gifts; and if one\ndesired to escape his wrath, which might be excited by the most trifling\nneglect or unintentional disrespect, the great thing was to pacify\nhim by costly presents. King Finow appears to have been somewhat of a\nfreethinker (to the great horror of his subjects), and it was only his\nuntimely death which prevented him from dealing with the priest of a\ngod, who had not returned a favourable answer to his supplications,\nas Saul dealt with the priests of the sanctuary of Jahveh at Nob.\nNevertheless, Finow showed his practical belief in the gods during the\nsickness of a daughter, to whom he was fondly attached, in a fashion\nwhich has a close parallel in the history of Israel.\n\n   If the gods have any resentment against us, let the whole\n   weight of vengeance fall on my head. I fear not their vengeance\n   --but spare my child; and I earnestly entreat you, Toobo Totai\n   [the god whom he had evoked], to exert all your influence with\n   the other gods that I alone may suffer all the punishment they\n   desire to inflict (vol. i. p. 354).\n\nSo when the king of Israel has sinned by \"numbering the people,\" and\nthey are punished for his fault by a pestilence which slays seventy\nthousand innocent men, David cries to Jahveh:--\n\n   Lo, I have sinned, and I have done perversely; but these sheep,\n   what have they done? let thine hand, I pray thee, be against me,\n   and against my father's house. (2 Sam. xxiv. 17).\n\nHuman sacrifices were extremely common in Polynesia; and, in Tonga, the\n\"devotion\" of a child by strangling was a favourite method of averting\nthe wrath of the gods. The well-known instances of Jephthah's sacrifice\nof his daughter and of David's giving up the seven sons of Saul to be\nsacrificed by the Gibeonites \"before Jahveh,\" appear to me to leave no\ndoubt that the old Israelites, even when devout worshippers of Jahveh,\nconsidered human sacrifices, under certain circumstances, to be not only\npermissible but laudable. Samuel's hewing to pieces of the miserable\ncaptive, sole survivor of his nation, Agag, \"before Jahveh,\" can hardly\nbe viewed in any other light. The life of Moses is redeemed from Jahveh,\nwho \"sought to slay him,\" by Zipporah's symbolical sacrifice of her\nchild, by the bloody operation of circumcision. Jahveh expressly affirms\nthat the first-born males of men and beasts are devoted to him; in\naccordance with that claim, the first-born males of the beasts are duly\nsacrificed; and it is only by special permission that the claim to the\nfirst-born of men is waived, and it is enacted that they may be redeemed\n(Exod. xiii. 12-15). Is it possible to avoid the conclusion that\nimmolation of their first-born sons would have been incumbent on the\nworshippers of Jahveh, had they not been thus specially excused? Can any\nother conclusion be drawn from the history of Abraham and Isaac?\nDoes Abraham exhibit any indication of surprise when he receives the\nastounding order to sacrifice his son? Is there the slightest evidence\nthat there was anything in his intimate and personal acquaintance with\nthe character of the Deity, who had eaten the meat and drunk the milk\nwhich Abraham set before him under the oaks of Mamre, to lead him to\nhesitate--even to wait twelve or fourteen hours for a repetition of\nthe command? Not a whit. We are told that \"Abraham rose early in the\nmorning\" and led his only child to the slaughter, as if it were the\nmost ordinary business imaginable. Whether the story has any historical\nfoundation or not, it is valuable as showing that the writer of it\nconceived Jahveh as a deity whose requirement of such a sacrifice need\nexcite neither astonishment nor suspicion of mistake on the part of his\ndevotee. Hence, when the incessant human sacrifices in Israel,\nduring the age of the kings, are put down to the influence of foreign\nidolatries, we may fairly inquire whether editorial Bowdlerising has not\nprevailed over historical truth.\n\nAn attempt to compare the ethical standards of two nations, one of which\nhas a written code, while the other has not, is beset with difficulties.\nWith all that is strange and, in many cases, repulsive to us in the\nsocial arrangements and opinions respecting moral obligation among\nthe Tongans, as they are placed before us, with perfect candour, in\nMariner's account, there is much that indicates a strong ethical\nsense. They showed great kindliness to one another, and faithfulness in\nstanding by their comrades in war. No people could have better observed\neither the third or the fifth commandment; for they had a particular\nhorror of blasphemy, and their respectful tenderness towards their\nparents and, indeed, towards old people in general, was remarkable.\n\nIt cannot be said that the eighth commandment was generally observed,\nespecially where Europeans were concerned; nevertheless a well-bred\nTongan looked upon theft as a meanness to which he would not condescend.\nAs to the seventh commandment, any breach of it was considered\nscandalous in women and as something to be avoided in self-respecting\nmen; but, among unmarried and widowed people, chastity was held very\ncheap. Nevertheless the women were extremely well treated, and often\nshowed themselves capable of great devotion and entire faithfulness. In\nthe matter of cruelty, treachery, and bloodthirstiness, these islanders\nwere neither better nor worse than most peoples of antiquity. It is to\nthe credit of the Tongans that they particularly objected to slander;\nnor can covetousness be regarded as their characteristic; for Mariner\nsays:--\n\n   When any one is about to eat, he always shares out what he has\n   to those about him, without any hesitation, and a contrary\n   conduct would be considered exceedingly vile and selfish (vol.\n   ii p. 145).\n\nIn fact, they thought very badly of the English when Mariner told them\nthat his countrymen did not act exactly on that principle. It further\nappears that they decidedly belonged to the school of intuitive moral\nphilosophers, and believed that virtue is its own reward; for\n\n   Many of the chiefs, on being asked by Mr. Mariner what motives\n   they had for conducting themselves with propriety, besides the\n   fear of misfortunes in this life, replied, the agreeable and\n   happy feeling which a man experiences within himself when he\n   does any good action or conducts himself nobly and generously as\n   a man ought to do; and this question they answered as if they\n   wondered such a question should be asked. (vol. ii. p. 161).\n\nOne may read from the beginning of the book of Judges to the end of the\nbooks of Samuel without discovering that the old Israelites had a moral\nstandard which differs, in any essential respect (except perhaps in\nregard to the chastity of unmarried women), from that of the Tongans.\nGideon, Jephthah, Samson, and David are strong-handed men, some of whom\nare not outdone by any Polynesian chieftain in the matter of murder\nand treachery; while Deborah's jubilation over Jael's violation of the\nprimary duty of hospitality, proffered and accepted under circumstances\nwhich give a peculiarly atrocious character to the murder of the guest;\nand her witch-like gloating over the picture of the disappointment of\nthe mother of the victim--\n\n   The mother of Sisera cried through the lattice,\n   Why is his chariot so long in coming? (Jud. v. 28.)\n--would not have been out of place in the choral service of the most\nsanguinary god in the Polynesian pantheon.\n\nWith respect to the cannibalism which the Tongans occasionally\npractised, Mariner says:--\n\n   Although a few young ferocious warriors chose to imitate what\n   they considered a mark of courageous fierceness in a\n   neighbouring nation, it was held in disgust by everybody else\n   (vol. ii. p. 171).\n\nThat the moral standard of Tongan life was less elevated than that\nindicated in the \"Book of the Covenant\" (Exod. xxi.-xxiii.) may be\nfreely admitted. But then the evidence that this Book of the Covenant,\nand even the ten commandments as given in Exodus, were known to the\nIsraelites of the time of Samuel and Saul, is (to say the least) by no\nmeans conclusive. The Deuteronomic version of the fourth commandment is\nhopelessly discrepant from that which stands in Exodus. Would any later\nwriter have ventured to alter the commandments as given from Sinai, if\nhe had had before him that which professed to be an accurate statement\nof the \"ten words\" in Exodus? And if the writer of Deuteronomy had not\nExodus before him, what is the value of the claim of the version of the\nten commandments therein contained to authenticity? From one end to\nthe other of the books of Judges and Samuel, the only \"commandments\nof Jahveh\" which are specially adduced refer to the prohibition of the\nworship of other gods, or are orders given _ad hoc,_ and have nothing to\ndo with questions of morality.\n\nIn Polynesia, the belief in witchcraft, in the appearance of spiritual\nbeings in dreams, in possession as the cause of diseases, and in omens,\nprevailed universally. Mariner tells a story of a woman of rank who was\ngreatly attached to King Finow, and who, for the space of six months\nafter his death, scarcely ever slept elsewhere than on his grave, which\nshe kept carefully decorated with flowers:--\n\n\"One day she went, with the deepest affliction, to the house of Mo-oonga\nToobo, the widow of the deceased chief, to communicate what had happened\nto her at the _fytoca_ [grave] during several nights, and which caused\nher the greatest anxiety. She related that she had dreamed that the\nlate How [King] appeared to her and, with a countenance full of\ndisappointment, asked why there yet remained at Vavaoo so many\nevil-designing persons; for he declared that, since he had been at\nBolotoo, his spirit had been disturbed [22] by the evil machinations of\nwicked men conspiring against his son; but he declared that 'the youth'\nshould not be molested nor his power shaken by the spirit of rebellion;\nthat he therefore came to her with a warning voice to prevent such\ndisastrous consequences (vol. i. p. 424).\"\n\nOn inquiry it turned out that the charm of _tattao_ had been performed\non Finow's grave, with the view of injuring his son, the reigning king,\nand it is to be presumed that it was this sorcerer's work which had\n\"disturbed\" Finow's spirit. The Rev. Richard Taylor says in the work\nalready cited: \"The account given of the witch of Endor agrees most\nremarkably with the witches of New Zealand\" (p. 45).\n\nThe Tongans also believed in a mode of divination (essentially similar\nto the casting of lots) the twirling of a cocoanut.\n\n   The object of inquiry... is chiefly whether a sick person will\n   recover; for this purpose the nut being placed on the ground, a\n   relation of the sick person determines that, if the nut, when\n   again at rest, points to such a quarter, the east for example,\n   that the sick man will recover; he then prays aloud to the\n   patron god of the family that he will be pleased to direct the\n   nut so that it may indicate the truth; the nut being next spun,\n   the result is attended to with confidence, at least with a full\n   conviction that it will truly declare the intentions of the gods\n   at the time (vol. ii. p. 227).\n\nDoes not the action of Saul, on a famous occasion, involve exactly the\nsame theological presuppositions?\n\n   Therefore Saul said unto Jahveh, the Elohim of Israel, Shew the\n   right. And Jonathan and Saul were taken by lot: but the people\n   escaped. And Saul said, Cast _lots_ between me and Jonathan\n   my son. And Jonathan was taken. And Saul said to Jonathan, Tell\n   me what thou hast done.... And the people rescued Jonathan so\n   that he died not (1 Sam. xiv. 41-45).\n\nAs the Israelites had great yearly feasts, so had the Polynesians; as\nthe Israelites practised circumcision, so did many Polynesian people;\nas the Israelites had a complex and often arbitrary-seeming multitude\nof distinctions between clean and unclean things, and clean and unclean\nstates of men, to which they attached great importance, so had the\nPolynesians their notions of ceremonial purity and their _tabu,_ an\nequally extensive and strange system of prohibitions, violation of which\nwas visited by death. These doctrines of cleanness and uncleanness no\ndoubt may have taken their rise in the real or fancied utility of the\nprescriptions, but it is probable that the origin of many is indicated\nin the curious habit of the Samoans to make fetishes of living animals.\nIt will be recollected that these people had no \"gods made with hands,\"\nbut they substituted animals for them.\n\nAt his birth\n\n\"every Samoan was supposed to be taken under the care of some tutelary\ngod or _aitu_ [= Atua] as it was called. The help of perhaps half a\ndozen different gods was invoked in succession on the occasion, but the\none who happened to be addressed just as the child was born was marked\nand declared to be the child's god for life.\n\n\"These gods were supposed to appear in some _visible incarnation,_ and\nthe particular thing in which his god was in the habit of appearing was,\nto the Samoan, an object of veneration. It was in fact his idol, and\nhe was careful never to injure it or treat it with contempt. One, for\ninstance, saw his god in the eel, another in the shark, another in the\nturtle, another in the dog, another in the owl, another in the lizard;\nand so on, throughout all the fish of the sea and birds and four-footed\nbeasts and creeping things. In some of the shell-fish even, gods were\nsupposed to be present. A man would eat freely of what was regarded as\nthe incarnation of the god of another man, but the incarnation of his\nown particular god he would consider it death to injure or eat.\" [23]\n\nWe have here that which appears to be the origin, or one of the origins,\nof food prohibitions, on the one hand, and of totemism on the other.\nWhen it is remembered that the old Israelites sprang from ancestors who\nare said to have resided near, or in, one of the great seats of ancient\nBabylonian civilisation, the city of Ur; that they had been, it is said\nfor centuries, in close contact with the Egyptians; and that, in the\ntheology of both the Babylonians and the Egyptians, there is abundant\nevidence, notwithstanding their advanced social organisation, of the\nbelief in spirits, with sorcery, ancestor-worship, the deification of\nanimals, and the converse animalisation of gods--it obviously needs very\nstrong evidence to justify the belief that the rude tribes of Israel did\nnot share the notions from which their far more civilised neighbours had\nnot emancipated themselves.\n\nBut it is surely needless to carry the comparison further. Out of the\nabundant evidence at command, I think that sufficient has been produced\nto furnish ample grounds for the belief, that the old Israelites of the\ntime of Samuel entertained theological conceptions which were on a level\nwith those current among the more civilised of the Polynesian islanders,\nthough their ethical code may possibly, in some respects, have been more\nadvanced. [24]\n\nA theological system of essentially similar character, exhibiting the\nsame fundamental conceptions respecting the continued existence\nand incessant interference in human affairs of disembodied spirits,\nprevails, or formerly prevailed, among the whole of the inhabitants\nof the Polynesian and Melanesian islands, and among the people of\nAustralia, notwithstanding the wide differences in physical character\nand in grade of civilisation which obtain among them. And the same\nproposition is true of the people who inhabit the riverain shores of the\nPacific Ocean whether Dyaks, Malays, Indo-Chinese, Chinese, Japanese,\nthe wild tribes of America, or the highly civilised old Mexicans and\nPeruvians. It is no less true of the Mongolic nomads of Northern Asia,\nof the Asiatic Aryans and of the Ancient Greeks and Romans, and it holds\ngood among the Dravidians of the Dekhan and the negro tribes of Africa.\nNo tribe of savages which has yet been discovered, has been conclusively\nproved to have so poor a theological equipment as to be devoid of a\nbelief in ghosts, and in the utility of some form of witchcraft, in\ninfluencing those ghosts. And there is no nation, modern or ancient,\nwhich, even at this moment, has wholly given up the belief; and in which\nit has not, at one time or other, played a great part in practical life.\n\nThis _sciotheism,_ [25] as it might be called, is found, in several\ndegrees of complexity, in rough correspondence with the stages of social\norganisation, and, like these, separated by no sudden breaks.\n\nIn its simplest condition, such as may be met with among the Australian\nsavages, theology is a mere belief in the existence, powers, and\ndisposition (usually malignant) of ghostlike entities who may be\npropitiated or scared away; but no cult can properly be said to exist.\nAnd, in this stage, theology is wholly independent of ethics. The moral\ncode, such as is implied by public opinion, derives no sanction from the\ntheological dogmas, and the influence of the spirits is supposed to be\nexerted out of mere caprice or malice.\n\nAs a next stage, the fundamental fear of ghosts and the consequent\ndesire to propitiate them acquire an organised ritual in simple forms of\nancestor-worship, such as the Rev. Mr. Turner describes among the people\nof Tanna (_l.c._ p. 88); and this line of development may be followed\nout until it attains its acme in the State-theology of China and\nthe Kami-theology [26] of Japan. Each of these is essentially\nancestor-worship, the ancestors being reckoned back through family\ngroups, of higher and higher order, sometimes with strict reference to\nthe principle of agnation, as in old Rome; and, as in the latter, it is\nintimately bound up with the whole organisation of the State. There are\nno idols; inscribed tablets in China, and strips of paper lodged in a\npeculiar portable shrine in Japan, represent the souls of the deceased,\nor the special seats which they occupy when sacrifices are offered by\ntheir descendants. In Japan it is interesting to observe that a national\nKami--Ten-zio-dai-zin--is worshipped as a sort of Jahveh by the nation\nin general, and (as Lippert has observed) it is singular that his\nspecial seat is a portable litter-like shrine, termed the Mikosi, in\nsome sort analogous to the Israelitic ark. In China, the emperor is\nthe representative of the primitive ancestors, and stands, as it were,\nbetween them and the supreme cosmic deities--Heaven and Earth--who are\nsuperadded to them, and who answer to the Tangaloa and the Maui of the\nPolynesians.\n\nSciotheism, under the form of the deification of ancestral ghosts, in\nits most pronounced form, is therefore the chief element in the theology\nof a great moiety, possibly of more than half, of the human race. I\nthink this must be taken to be a matter of fact--though various opinions\nmay be held as to how this ancestor-worship came about. But on the other\nhand, it is no less a matter of fact that there are very few people\nwithout additional gods, who cannot, with certainty, be accounted for as\ndeified ancestors.\n\nWith all respect for the distinguished authorities on the other side,\nI cannot find good reasons for accepting the theory that the cosmic\ndeities--who are superadded to deified ancestors even in China; who are\nfound all over Polynesia, in Tangaloa and Maui, and in old Peru, in the\nSun--are the product either of the \"search after the infinite,\" or of\nmistakes arising out of the confusion of a great chief's name with the\nthing signified by the name. But, however this may be, I think it is\nagain merely matter of fact that, among a large portion of mankind,\nancestor-worship is more or less thrown into the background either by\nsuch cosmic deities, or by tribal gods of uncertain origin, who have\nbeen raised to eminence by the superiority in warfare, or otherwise, of\ntheir worshippers.\n\nAmong certain nations, the polytheistic theology, thus constituted, has\nbecome modified by the selection of some one cosmic or tribal god, as\nthe only god to whom worship is due on the part of that nation (though\nit is by no means denied that other nations have a right to worship\nother gods), and thus results a worship of one God--_monolatry,_ as\nWellhausen calls it--which is very different from genuine monotheism.\n[27] In ancestral sciotheism, and in this _monolatry,_ the ethical\ncode, often of a very high order, comes into closer relation with the\ntheological creed. Morality is taken under the patronage of the god or\ngods, who reward all morally good conduct and punish all morally evil\nconduct in this world or the next. At the same time, however, they\nare conceived to be thoroughly human, and they visit any shadow of\ndisrespect to themselves, shown by disobedience to their commands, or by\ndelay, or carelessness, in carrying them out, as severely as any breach\nof the moral laws. Piety means minute attention to the due performance\nof all sacred rites, and covers any number of lapses in morality, just\nas cruelty, treachery, murder, and adultery did not bar David's claim to\nthe title of the man after God's own heart among the Israelites; crimes\nagainst men may be expiated, but blasphemy against the gods is an\nunpardonable sin. Men forgive all injuries but those which touch their\nself-esteem; and they make their gods after their own likeness, in their\nown image make they them.\n\nIt is in the category of monolatry that I conceive the theology of the\nold Israelites must be ranged. They were polytheists, in so far as they\nadmitted the existence of other Elohim of divine rank beside Jahveh;\nthey differed from ordinary polytheists, in so far as they believed\nthat Jahveh was the supreme god and the one proper object of their own\nnational worship. But it will doubtless be objected that I have been\nbuilding up a fictitious Israelitic theology on the foundation of the\nrecorded habits and customs of the people, when they had lapsed from\nthe ordinances of their great lawgiver and prophet Moses, and that my\nconclusions may be good for the perverts to Canaanitish theology, but\nnot for the true observers of the Sinaitic legislation. The answer to\nthe objection is that--so far as I can form a judgment of that which is\nwell ascertained in the history of Israel--there is very little ground\nfor believing that we know much, either about the theological and social\nvalue of the influence of Moses, or about what happened during the\nwanderings in the Desert.\n\nThe account of the Exodus and of the occurrences in the Sinaitic\npeninsula; in fact, all the history of Israel before the invasion of\nCanaan, is full of wonderful stories, which may be true, in so far as\nthey are conceivable occurrences, but which are certainly not probable,\nand which I, for one, decline to accept until evidence, which deserves\nthat name, is offered of their historical truth. Up to this time I know\nof none. [28] Furthermore, I see no answer to the argument that one\nhas no right to pick out of an obviously unhistorical statement the\nassertions which happen to be probable and to discard the rest. But it\nis also certain that a primitively veracious tradition may be smothered\nunder subsequent mythical additions, and that one has no right to cast\naway the former along with the latter. Thus, perhaps the fairest way of\nstating the case may be as follows.\n\nThere can be no _a priori_ objection to the supposition that the\nIsraelites were delivered from their Egyptian bondage by a leader called\nMoses, and that he exerted a great influence over their subsequent\norganisation in the Desert. There is no reason to doubt that, during\ntheir residence in the land of Goshen, the Israelites knew nothing\nof Jahveh; but, as their own prophets declare (see Ezek. xx.), were\npolytheistic idolaters, sharing in the worst practices of their\nneighbours. As to their conduct in other respects, nothing is known. But\nit may fairly be suspected that their ethics were not of a higher order\nthan those of Jacob, their progenitor, in which case they might derive\ngreat profit from contact with Egyptian society, which held honesty and\ntruthfulness in the highest esteem. Thanks to the Egyptologers, we now\nknow, with all requisite certainty, the moral standard of that society\nin the time, and long before the time, of Moses. It can be determined\nfrom the scrolls buried with the mummified dead and from the\ninscriptions on the tombs and memorial statues of that age. For,\nthough the lying of epitaphs is proverbial, so far as their subject is\nconcerned, they gave an unmistakable insight into that which the writers\nand the readers of them think praiseworthy.\n\nIn the famous tombs at Beni Hassan there is a record of the life of\nPrince Nakht, who served Osertasen II., a Pharaoh of the twelfth dynasty\nas governor of a province. The inscription speaks in his name: \"I was\na benevolent and kindly governor who loved his country.... Never was\na little child distressed nor a widow ill-treated by me. I have never\nrepelled a workman nor hindered a shepherd. I gave alike to the widow\nand to the married woman, and have not preferred the great to the small\nin my gifts.\" And we have the high authority of the late Dr. Samuel\nBirch for the statement that the inscriptions of the twelfth dynasty\nabound in injunctions of a high ethical character. \"To feed the hungry,\ngive drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, bury the dead, loyally\nserve the king, formed the first duty of a pious man and faithful\nsubject.\" [29] The people for whom these inscriptions embodied their\nideal of praiseworthiness assuredly had no imperfect conception of\neither justice or mercy. But there is a document which gives still\nbetter evidence of the moral standard of the Egyptians. It is the \"Book\nof the Dead,\" a sort of \"Guide to Spiritland,\" the whole, or a part,\nof which was buried with the mummy of every well-to-do Egyptian, while\nextracts from it are found in innumerable inscriptions. Portions of this\nwork are of extreme antiquity, evidence of their existence occurring\nas far back as the fifth and sixth dynasties; while the 120th chapter,\nwhich constitutes a sort of book by itself, and is known as the \"Book of\nRedemption in the Hall of the two Truths,\" is frequently inscribed upon\ncoffins and other monuments of the nineteenth dynasty (that under which,\nthere is some reason to believe, the Israelites were oppressed and the\nExodus took place), and it occurs, more than once, in the famous tombs\nof the kings of this and the preceding dynasty at Thebes. [30] This\n\"Book of Redemption\" is chiefly occupied by the so-called \"negative\nconfession\" made to the forty-two Divine Judges, in which the soul of\nthe dead denies that he has committed faults of various kinds. It\nis, therefore, obvious that the Egyptians conceived that their gods\ncommanded them not to do the deeds which are here denied. The \"Book\nof Redemption,\" in fact, implies the existence in the mind of the\nEgyptians, if not in a formal writing, of a series of ordinances,\ncouched, like the majority of the ten commandments, in negative terms.\nAnd it is easy to prove the implied existence of a series which\nnearly answers to the \"ten words.\" Of course a polytheistic and\nimage-worshipping people, who observed a great many holy days, but no\nSabbaths, could have nothing analogous to the first or the second and\nthe fourth commandments of the Decalogue; but answering to the third, is\n\"I have not blasphemed;\" to the fifth, \"I have not reviled the face\nof the king or my father;\" to the sixth, \"I have not murdered;\" to the\nseventh, \"I have not committed adultery;\" to the eighth, \"I have not\nstolen,\" \"I have not done fraud to man;\" to the ninth, \"I have not\ntold falsehoods in the tribunal of truth,\" and, further, \"I have not\ncalumniated the slave to his master.\" I find nothing exactly similar to\nthe tenth commandment; but that the inward disposition of mind was held\nto be of no less importance than the outward act is to be gathered from\nthe praises of kindliness already cited and the cry of \"I am pure,\"\nwhich is repeated by the soul on trial. Moreover, there is a minuteness\nof detail in the confession which shows no little delicacy of moral\nappreciation--\"I have not privily done evil against mankind,\" \"I\nhave not afflicted men,\" \"I have not withheld milk from the mouths of\nsucklings,\" \"I have not been idle,\" \"I have not played the hypocrite,\"\n\"I have not told falsehoods,\" \"I have not corrupted woman or man,\" \"I\nhave not caused fear,\" \"I have not multiplied words in speaking.\"\n\nWould that the moral sense of the nineteenth century A.D. were as far\nadvanced as that of the Egyptians in the nineteenth century B.C. in this\nlast particular! What incalculable benefit to mankind would flow from\nstrict observance of the commandment, \"Thou shalt not multiply words\nin speaking!\" Nothing is more remarkable than the stress which the\nold Egyptians, here and elsewhere, lay upon this and other kinds of\ntruthfulness, as compared with the absence of any such requirement in\nthe Israelitic Decalogue, in which only a specific kind of untruthfulnes\nis forbidden.\n\nIf, as the story runs, Moses was adopted by a princess of the royal\nhouse, and was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, it is\nsurely incredible that he should not have been familiar from his youth\nup, with the high moral code implied in the \"Book of Redemption.\" It\nis surely impossible that he should have been less familiar with the\ncomplete legal system, and with the method of administration of justice,\nwhich, even in his time, had enabled the Egyptian people to hold\ntogether, as a complex social organisation, for a period far longer than\nthe duration of old Roman society, from the building of the city to\nthe death of the last Caesar. Nor need we look to Moses alone for the\ninfluence of Egypt upon Israel. It is true that the Hebrew nomads who\ncame into contact with the Egyptians of Osertasen, or of Ramses, stood\nin much the same relation to them, in point of culture, as a Germanic\ntribe did to the Romans of Tiberius, or of Marcus Antoninus; or as\nCaptain Cook's Omai did to the English of George the Third. But, at the\nsame time, any difficulty of communication which might have arisen out\nof this circumstance was removed by the long pre-existing intercourse\nof other Semites, of every grade of civilisation, with the Egyptians. In\nMesopotamia and elsewhere, as in Phenicia, Semitic people had attained\nto a social organisation as advanced as that of the Egyptians; Semites\nhad conquered and occupied Lower Egypt for centuries. So extensively had\nSemitic influences penetrated Egypt that the Egyptian language, during\nthe period of the nineteenth dynasty, is said by Brugsch to be as full\nof Semitisms as German is of Gallicisms; while Semitic deities had\nsupplanted the Egyptian gods at Heliopolis and elsewhere. On the other\nhand, the Semites, as far as Phenicia, were extensively influenced by\nEgypt.\n\nIt is generally admitted [31] that Moses, Phinehas (and perhaps Aaron),\nare names of Egyptian origin, and there is excellent authority for\nthe statement that the name _Abir,_ which the Israelites gave to their\ngolden calf, and which is also used to signify the strong, the heavenly,\nand even God, [32] is simply the Egyptian Apis. Brugsch points out that\nthe god, Tum or Tom, who was the special object of worship in the city\nof Pi-Tom, with which the Israelites were only too familiar, was called\nAnkh and the \"great god,\" and had no image. Ankh means \"He who lives,\"\n\"the living one,\" a name the resemblance of which to the \"I am that I\nam\" of Exodus is unmistakable, whatever may be the value of the fact.\nEvery discussion of Israelitic ritual seeks and finds the explanation\nof its details in the portable sacred chests, the altars, the priestly\ndress, the breastplate, the incense, and the sacrifices depicted on the\nmonuments of Egypt. But it must be remembered that these signs of the\ninfluence of Egypt upon Israel are not necessarily evidence that such\ninfluence was exerted before the Exodus. It may have come much later,\nthrough the close connection of the Israel of David and Solomon, first\nwith Phenicia and then with Egypt.\n\nIf we suppose Moses to have been a man of the stamp of Calvin, there is\nno difficulty in conceiving that he may have constructed the substance\nof the ten words, and even of the Book of the Covenant, which curiously\nresembles parts of the Book of the Dead, from the foundation of Egyptian\nethics and theology which had filtered through to the Israelites\nin general, or had been furnished specially to himself by his early\neducation; just as the great Genevese reformer built up a puritanic\nsocial organisation on so much as remained of the ethics and theology of\nthe Roman Church, after he had trimmed them to his liking.\n\nThus, I repeat, I see no _a priori_ objection to the assumption that\nMoses may have endeavoured to give his people a theologico-political\norganisation based on the ten commandments (though certainly not quite\nin their present form) and the Book of the Covenant, contained in our\npresent book of Exodus. But whether there is such evidence as amounts to\nproof, or, I had better say, to probability, that even this much of\nthe Pentateuch owes its origin to Moses is another matter. The mythical\ncharacter of the accessories of the Sinaitic history is patent, and\nit would take a good deal more evidence than is afforded by the bare\nassertion of an unknown writer to justify the belief that the people who\n\"saw the thunderings and the lightnings and the voice of the trumpet\nand the mountain smoking\" (Exod. xx. 18); to whom Jahveh orders Moses to\nsay, \"Ye yourselves have seen that I have talked with you from heaven.\nYe shall not make other gods with me; gods of silver and gods of gold ye\nshall not make unto you\" (_ibid._ 22, 23), should, less than six weeks\nafterwards, have done the exact thing they were thus awfully forbidden\nto do. Nor is the credibility of the story increased by the statement\nthat Aaron, the brother of Moses, the witness and fellow-worker of the\nmiracles before Pharaoh, was their leader and the artificer of the\nidol. And yet, at the same time, Aaron was apparently so ignorant of\nwrongdoing that he made proclamation, \"Tomorrow shall be a feast to\nJahveh,\" and the people proceeded to offer their burnt-offerings\nand peace-offerings, as if everything in their proceedings must be\nsatisfactory to the Deity with whom they had just made a solemn covenant\nto abolish image-worship. It seems to me that, on a survey of all the\nfacts of the case, only a very cautious and hypothetical judgment is\njustifiable. It may be that Moses profited by the opportunities afforded\nhim of access to what was best in Egyptian society to become acquainted,\nnot only with its advanced ethical and legal code, but with the more or\nless pantheistic unification of the Divine to which the speculations of\nthe Egyptian thinkers, like those of all polytheistic philosophers, from\nPolynesia to Greece, tend; if indeed the theology of the period of the\nnineteenth dynasty was not, as some Egyptologists think, a modification\nof an earlier, more distinctly monotheistic doctrine of a long\nantecedent age. It took only half a dozen centuries for the theology\nof Paul to become the theology of Gregory the Great; and it is possible\nthat twenty centuries lay between the theology of the first worshippers\nin the sanctuary of the Sphinx and that of the priests of Ramses Maimun.\n\nIt may be that the ten commandments and the Book of the Covenant are\nbased upon faithful traditions of the efforts of a great leader to\nraise his followers to his own level. For myself, as a matter of pious\nopinion, I like to think so; as I like to imagine that, between Moses\nand Samuel, there may have been many a seer, many a herdsman such as him\nof Tekoah, lonely amidst the hills of Ephraim and Judah, who cherished\nand kept alive these traditions. In the present results of Biblical\ncriticism, however, I can discover no justification for the common\nassumption that, between the time of Joshua and that of Rehoboam, the\nIsraelites were familiar with either the Deuteronomic or the Levitical\nlegislation; or that the theology of the Israelites, from the king who\nsat on the throne to the lowest of his subjects, was in any important\nrespect different from that which might naturally be expected from their\nprevious history and the conditions of their existence. But there is\nexcellent evidence to the contrary effect. And, for my part, I see no\nreason to doubt that, like the rest of the world, the Israelites had\npassed through a period of mere ghost-worship, and had advanced through\nAncestor-worship and Fetishism and Totemism to the theological level at\nwhich we find them in the books of Judges and Samuel.\n\nAll the more remarkable, therefore, is the extraordinary change which is\nto be noted in the eighth century B.C. The student who is familiar with\nthe theology implied, or expressed, in the books of Judges, Samuel, and\nthe first book of Kings, finds himself in a new world of thought, in\nthe full tide of a great reformation, when he reads Joel, Amos, Hosea,\nIsaiah, Micah, and Jeremiah.\n\nThe essence of this change is the reversal of the position which, in\nprimitive society, ethics holds in relation to theology. Originally,\nthat which men worship is a theological hypothesis, not a moral ideal.\nThe prophets, in substance, if not always in form preach the opposite\ndoctrine. They are constantly striving to free the moral ideal from the\nstifling embrace of the current theology and its concomitant ritual.\nTheirs was not an intellectual criticism, argued on strictly scientific\ngrounds; the image-worshippers and the believers in the efficacy of\nsacrifices and ceremonies might logically have held their own against\nanything the prophets have to say; it was an ethical criticism. From\nthe height of his moral intuition--that the whole duty of man is to do\njustice and to love mercy and to bear himself as humbly as befits his\ninsignificance in face of the Infinite--the prophet simply laughs at the\nidolaters of stocks and stones and the idolaters of ritual. Idols of the\nfirst kind, in his experience, were inseparably united with the\npractice of immorality, and they were to be ruthlessly destroyed. As for\nsacrifices and ceremonies, whatever their intrinsic value might be, they\nmight be tolerated on condition of ceasing to be idols; they might even\nbe praiseworthy on condition of being made to subserve the worship of\nthe true Jahveh--the moral ideal.\n\nIf the realm of David had remained undivided, if the Assyrian and the\nChaldean and the Egyptian had left Israel to the ordinary course of\ndevelopment of an Oriental kingdom, it is possible that the effects of\nthe reforming zeal of the prophets of the eighth and seventh centuries\nmight have been effaced by the growth, according to its inevitable\ntendencies, of the theology which they combated. But the captivity made\nthe fortune of the ideas which it was the privilege of these men to\nlaunch upon an endless career. With the abolition of the Temple-services\nfor more than half a century, the priest must have lost and the scribe\ngained influence. The puritanism of a vigorous minority among the\nBabylonian Jews rooted out polytheism from all its hiding-places in the\ntheology which they had inherited; they created the first consistent,\nremorseless, naked monotheism, which, so far as history records,\nappeared in the world (for Zoroastrism is practically ditheism, and\nBuddhism any-theism or no-theism); and they inseparably united therewith\nan ethical code, which, for its purity and for its efficiency as a bond\nof social life, was and is, unsurpassed. So I think we must not judge\nEzra and Nehemiah and their followers too hardly, if they exemplified\nthe usual doom of poor humanity to escape from one error only to fall\ninto another; if they failed to free themselves as completely from the\nidolatry of ritual as they had from that of images and dogmas; if they\ncherished the new fetters of the Levitical legislation which they had\nfitted upon themselves and their nation, as though such bonds had the\nsanctity of the obligations of morality; and if they led succeeding\ngenerations to spend their best energies in building that \"hedge round\nthe Torah\" which was meant to preserve both ethics and theology, but\nwhich too often had the effect of pampering the latter and starving the\nformer. The world being what it was, it is to be doubted whether Israel\nwould have preserved intact the pure ore of religion, which the prophets\nhad extracted for the use of mankind as well as for their nation, had\nnot the leaders of the nation been zealous, even to death, for the dross\nof the law in which it was embedded. The struggle of the Jews, under the\nMaccabean house, against the Seleucidae was as important for mankind as\nthat of the Greeks against the Persians. And, of all the strange ironies\nof history, perhaps the strangest is that \"Pharisee\" is current, as\na term of reproach, among the theological descendants of that sect of\nNazarenes who, without the martyr spirit of those primitive Puritans,\nwould never have come into existence. They, like their historical\nsuccessors, our own Puritans, have shared the general fate of the poor\nwise men who save cities.\n\nA criticism of theology from the side of science is not thought of\nby the prophets, and is at most indicated in the books of Job and\nEcclesiastes, in both of which the problem of vindicating the ways of\nGod to man is given up, though on different grounds, as a hopeless one.\nBut with the extensive introduction of Greek thought among the Jews,\nwhich took place, not only during the domination of the Seleucidae in\nPalestine, but in the great Judaic colony which flourished in Egypt\nunder the Ptolemies, criticism, on both ethical and scientific grounds,\ntook a new departure.\n\nIn the hands of the Alexandrian Jews, as represented by Philo, the\nfundamental axiom of later Jewish, as of Christian monotheism, that the\nDeity is infinitely perfect and infinitely good, worked itself out into\nits logical consequence--agnostic theism. Philo will allow of no point\nof contact between God and a world in which evil exists. For him God has\nno relation to space or to time, and, as infinite, suffers no predicate\nbeyond that of existence. It is therefore absurd to ascribe to Him\nmental faculties and affections comparable in the remotest degree to\nthose of men; He is in no way an object of cognition; He is [Greek] and\n[Greek] [33]--without quality and incomprehensible. That is to say the\nAlexandrian Jew of the first century had anticipated the reasonings\nof Hamilton and Mansell in the nineteenth, and, for him, God is the\nUnknowable in the sense in which that term is used by Mr. Herbert\nSpencer. Moreover, Philo's definition of the Supreme Being would not be\ninconsistent with that \"substantia constans infinitis attributis, quorum\nunumquodque aeternam et infinitam essentiam exprimit,\" given by another\ngreat Israelite, were it not that Spinoza's doctrine of the immanence of\nthe Deity in the world puts him, at any rate formally, at the antipodes\nof theological speculation. But the conception of the essential\nincognoscibility of the Deity is the same in each case. However, Philo\nwas too thorough an Israelite and too much the child of his time to be\ncontent with this agnostic position. With the help of the Platonic\nand Stoic philosophy, he constructed an apprehensible, if not\ncomprehensible, quasi-deity out of the Logos; while other more or less\npersonified divine powers, or attributes, bridged over the interval\nbetween God and man; between the sacred existence, too pure to be called\nby any name which implied a conceivable quality, and the gross and evil\nworld of matter. In order to get over the ethical difficulties presented\nby the naive naturalism of many parts of those Scriptures, in the divine\nauthority of which he firmly believed, Philo borrowed from the Stoics\n(who had been in like straits in respect of Greek mythology), that\ngreat Excalibur which they had forged with infinite pains and skill--the\nmethod of allegorical interpretation. This mighty \"two-handed engine at\nthe door\" of the theologian is warranted to make a speedy end of any\nand every moral or intellectual difficulty, by showing that, taken\nallegorically or, as it is otherwise said, \"poetically\" or, \"in a\nspiritual sense,\" the plainest words mean whatever a pious interpreter\ndesires they should mean. In Biblical phrase, Zeno (who probably had\na strain of Semitic blood in him) was the \"father of all such as\nreconcile.\" No doubt Philo and his followers were eminently religious\nmen; but they did endless injury to the cause of religion by laying the\nfoundations of a new theology, while equipping the defenders of it\nwith the subtlest of all weapons of offence and defence, and with an\ninexhaustible store of sophistical arguments of the most plausible\naspect.\n\nThe question of the real bearing upon theology of the influence exerted\nby the teaching of Philo's contemporary, Jesus of Nazareth, is one upon\nwhich it is not germane to my present purpose to enter. I take it simply\nas an unquestionable fact that his immediate disciples, known to their\ncountrymen as \"Nazarenes,\" were regarded as, and considered themselves\nto be, perfectly orthodox Jews, belonging to the puritanic or pharisaic\nsection of their people, and differing from the rest only in their\nbelief that the Messiah had already come. Christianity, it is said,\nfirst became clearly differentiated at Antioch, and it separated\nitself from orthodox Judaism by denying the obligation of the rite\nof circumcision and of the food prohibitions, prescribed by the law.\nHenceforward theology became relatively stationary among the Jews, [34]\nand the history of its rapid progress in a new course of evolution is\nthe history of the Christian Churches, orthodox and heterodox. The\nsteps in this evolution are obvious. The first is the birth of a new\ntheological scheme arising out of the union of elements derived from\nGreek philosophy with elements derived from Israelitic theology. In\nthe fourth Gospel, the Logos, raised to a somewhat higher degree of\npersonification than in the Alexandrian theosophy, is identified with\nJesus of Nazareth. In the Epistles, especially the later of those\nattributed to Paul, the Israelitic ideas of the Messiah and of\nsacrificial atonement coalesce with one another and with the embodiment\nof the Logos in Jesus, until the apotheosis of the Son of man is almost,\nor quite, effected. The history of Christian dogma, from Justin to\nAthanasius, is a record of continual progress in the same direction,\nuntil the fair body of religion, revealed in almost naked purity by the\nprophets, is once more hidden under a new accumulation of dogmas and of\nritual practices of which the primitive Nazarene knew nothing; and which\nhe would probably have regarded as blasphemous if he could have been\nmade to understand them.\n\nAs, century after century, the ages roll on, polytheism comes back under\nthe disguise of Mariolatry and the adoration of saints; image-worship\nbecomes as rampant as in old Egypt; adoration of relics takes the place\nof the old fetish-worship; the virtues of the ephod pale before those of\nholy coats and handkerchiefs; shrines and calvaries make up for the\nloss of the ark and of the high places; and even the lustral fluid of\npaganism is replaced by holy water at the porches of the temples. A\ntouching ceremony--the common meal originally eaten in pious memory of\na loved teacher--becomes metamorphosed into a flesh-and-blood sacrifice,\nsupposed to possess exactly that redeeming virtue which the prophets\ndenied to the flesh-and-blood sacrifices of their day; while the minute\nobservance of ritual is raised to a degree of punctilious refinement\nwhich Levitical legislators might envy. And with the growth of this\ntheology, grew its inevitable concomitant, the belief in evil spirits,\nin possession, in sorcery, in charms and omens, until the Christians of\nthe twelfth century after our era were sunk in more debased and brutal\nsuperstitions than are recorded of the Israelites in the twelfth century\nbefore it.\n\nThe greatest men of the Middle Ages are unable to escape the infection.\nDante's \"Inferno\" would be revolting if it were not so often sublime, so\noften exquisitely tender. The hideous pictures which cover a vast space\non the south wall of the Campo Santo of Pisa convey information, as\nterrible as it is indisputable, of the theological conceptions of\nDante's countrymen in the fourteenth century, whose eyes were addressed\nby the painters of those disgusting scenes, and whose approbation they\nknew how to win. A candid Mexican of the time of Cortez, could he\nhave seen this Christian burial-place, would have taken it for an\nappropriately adorned Teocalli. The professed disciple of the God\nof justice and of mercy might there gloat over the sufferings of his\nfellowmen depicted as undergoing every extremity of atrocious and\nsanguinary torture to all eternity, for theological errors no less than\nfor moral delinquencies; while, in the central figure of Satan, [35]\noccupied in champing up souls in his capacious and well-toothed jaws, to\nvoid them again for the purpose of undergoing fresh suffering, we have\nthe counterpart of the strange Polynesian and Egyptian dogma that there\nwere certain gods who employed themselves in devouring the ghostly flesh\nof the Spirits of the dead. But in justice to the Polynesians, it must\nbe recollected that, after three such operations, they thought the soul\nwas purified and happy. In the view of the Christian theologian the\noperation was only a preparation for new tortures continued for ever and\naye.\n\nWith the growth of civilisation in Europe, and with the revival of\nletters and of science in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the\nethical and intellectual criticism of theology once more recommenced,\nand arrived at a temporary resting-place in the confessions of the\nvarious reformed Protestant sects in the sixteenth century; almost all\nof which, as soon as they were strong enough, began to persecute those\nwho carried criticism beyond their own limit. But the movement was not\narrested by these ecclesiastical barriers, as their constructors fondly\nimagined it would be; it was continued, tacitly or openly, by Galileo,\nby Hobbes, by Descartes, and especially by Spinoza, in the seventeenth\ncentury; by the English Freethinkers, by Rousseau, by the French\nEncyclopaedists, and by the German Rationalists, among whom Lessing\nstands out a head and shoulders taller than the rest, throughout the\neighteenth century; by the historians, the philologers, the Biblical\ncritics, the geologists, and the biologists in the nineteenth century,\nuntil it is obvious to all who can see that the moral sense and\nthe really scientific method of seeking for truth are once more\npredominating over false science. Once more ethics and theology are\nparting company.\n\nIt is my conviction that, with the spread of true scientific culture,\nwhatever may be the medium, historical, philological, philosophical, or\nphysical, through which that culture is conveyed, and with its necessary\nconcomitant, a constant elevation of the standard of veracity, the end\nof the evolution of theology will be like its beginning--it will cease\nto have any relation to ethics. I suppose that, so long as the human\nmind exists, it will not escape its deep-seated instinct to personify\nits intellectual conceptions. The science of the present day is as\nfull of this particular form of intellectual shadow-worship as is the\nnescience of ignorant ages. The difference is that the philosopher who\nis worthy of the name knows that his personified hypotheses, such as\nlaw, and force, and ether, and the like, are merely useful symbols,\nwhile the ignorant and the careless take them for adequate expressions\nof reality. So, it may be, that the majority of mankind may find the\npractice of morality made easier by the use of theological symbols. And\nunless these are converted from symbols into idols, I do not see\nthat science has anything to say to the practice, except to give an\noccasional warning of its dangers. But, when such symbols are dealt with\nas real existences, I think the highest duty which is laid upon men of\nscience is to show that these dogmatic idols have no greater value than\nthe fabrications of men's hands, the stocks and the stones, which they\nhave replaced.\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 1: Even the most sturdy believers in the popular theory that the proper\nor titular names attached to the books of the Bible are those of their\nauthors will hardly be prepared to maintain that Jephthah, Gideon, and\ntheir colleagues wrote the book of Judges. Nor is it easily admissible\nthat Samuel wrote the two books which pass under his name, one of which\ndeals entirely with events which took place after his death. In fact, no\none knows who wrote either Judges or Samuel, nor when, within the range\nof 100 years, their present form was given to these books.]\n\n[Footnote 2: My citations are taken from the Revised Version, but for Lord and\nGod I have substituted Jahveh and Elohim.]\n\n[Footnote 3: I need hardly say that I depend upon authoritative Biblical critics,\nwhenever a question of interpretation of the text arises. As Reuss\nappears to me to be one of the most learned, acute, and fair-minded of\nthose whose works I have studied, I have made most use of the commentary\nand dissertations in his splendid French edition of the Bible. But\nI have also had recourse to the works of Dillman, Kalisch, Kuenen,\nThenius, Tuch, and others, in cases in which another opinion seemed\ndesirable.]\n\n[Footnote 4: See \"Divination,\" by Hazoral, _Journal of Anthropology,_ Bombay,\nvol. i. No. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 5: See, for example, the message of Jephthah to the King of the\nAmmonites: \"So now Jahveh, the Elohim of Israel, hath dispossessed the\nAmorites from before his people Israel, and shouldest thou possess them?\nWilt not thou possess that which Chemosh, thy Elohim, giveth thee to\npossess?\" (Jud. xi. 23, 24). For Jephthah, Chemosh is obviously as real\na personage as Jahveh.]\n\n[Footnote 6: For example: \"My oblation, my food for my offerings made by fire,\nof a sweet savour to me, shall ye observe to offer unto me in their due\nseason\" (Num. xxviii. 2).]\n\n[Footnote 7: In 2 Samuel xv. 27 David says to Zadok the priest, \"Art thou not a\nseer?\" and Gad is called David's seer.]\n\n[Footnote 8: This would at first appear to be inconsistent with the use of the\nword \"prophetess\" for Deborah. But it does not follow because the writer\nof Judges applies the name to Deborah that it was used in her day.]\n\n[Footnote 9: Samuel tells the cook, \"Bring the potion which I gave thee, of which\nI said to thee, Set it by thee.\" It was therefore Samuel's to give. \"And\nthe cook took up the thigh (or shoulder) and that which was upon it and\nset it before Saul.\" But, in the Levitical regulations, it is the thigh\n(or shoulder) which becomes the priest's own property. \"And the\nright thigh (or shoulder) shall ye give unto the priest for an\nheave-offering,\" which is given along with the wave breast \"unto Aaron\nthe priest and unto his sons as a due for ever from the children of\nIsrael\" (Lev. vii. 31-34). Reuss writes on this passage: \"La cuisse\nn'est point agitee, mais simplement _prelevee_ sur ce que les convives\nmangeront.\"]\n\n[Footnote 10: See, for example, Elkanah's sacrifice, 1 Sam. i. 3-9.]\n\n[Footnote 11: The ghost was not supposed to be capable of devouring the gross\nmaterial substance of the offering; but his vaporous body appropriated\nthe smoke of the burnt sacrifice, the visible and odorous exhalations of\nother offerings. The blood of the victim was particularly useful because\nit was thought to be the special seat of its soul or life. A West\nAfrican negro replied to an European sceptic: \"Of course, the spirit\ncannot eat corporeal food, but he extracts its spiritual part, and, as\nwe see, leaves the material part behind\" (Lippert, _Seelencult,_ p. 16).]\n\n[Footnote 12: It is further well worth consideration whether indications of\nformer ancestor-worship are not to be found in the singular weight\nattached to the veneration of parents in the fourth commandment. It is\nthe only positive commandment, in addition to those respecting the Deity\nand that concerning the Sabbath, and the penalties for infringing it\nwere of the same character. In China, a corresponding reverence for\nparents is part and parcel of ancestor-worship; so in ancient Rome and\nin Greece (where parents were even called [secondary and earthly]).\nThe fifth commandment, as it stands, would be an excellent compromise\nbetween ancestor-worship and monotheism. The larger hereditary share\nallotted by Israelitic law to the eldest son reminds one of the\nprivileges attached to primogeniture in ancient Rome, which were closely\nconnected with ancestor-worship. There is a good deal to be said in\nfavour of the speculation that the ark of the covenant may have been a\nrelic of ancestor-worship; but that topic is too large to be dealt with\nincidentally in this place]\n\n[Footnote 13: \"The Scientific Aspects of Positivism,\" _Fortnightly Review,_ 1869,\nrepublished in _Lay Sermons._]\n\n[Footnote 14: OEuvres de Bossuet, ed. 1808, t. xxxv. p. 282.]\n\n[Footnote 15: I should like further to add the expression of my indebtedness to\ntwo works by Herr Julius Lippert, _Der Seelencult in seinen Beziehungen\nzur alt-hebraischen Religion_ and _Die Religionen der europaischen\nCulturvolker,_ both pubished in 1881. I have found them full of valuable\nsuggestions.]\n\n[Footnote 16: See among others the remarkable work of Fustel de Coulanges,\n_La Cite antique,_ in which the social importance of the old Roman\nancestor-worship is brought out with great clearness.]\n\n[Footnote 17: Supposed to be \"the finer or more aeriform part of the body,\"\nstanding in \"the same relation to the body as the perfume and the\nmore essential qualities of a flower do to the more solid substances\"\n(Mariner, vol. ii. p. 127).]\n\n[Footnote 18: A kind of \"clients\" in the Roman sense.]\n\n[Footnote 19: It is worthy of remark that [Greek] among the Greeks, and _Deus_\namong the Romans, had the same wide signification. The _dii manes_ were\nghosts of ancestors=Atuas of the family.]\n\n[Footnote 20: _Voyages aux iles du Grand Ocean,_ t. i. p. 482.]\n\n[Footnote 21: _Te Ika a Maui: New Zealand and its Inhabitants,_ p. 72.]\n\n[Footnote 22: Compare: \"And Samuel said unto Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me?\"\n(I Sam. xxviii. l5)]\n\n[Footnote 23: Turner, _Nineteen Years in Polynesia,_ p. 238.]\n\n[Footnote 24: See Lippert's excellent remarks on this subject, _Der Seelencult,_\np. 89.]\n\n[Footnote 25: _Sciography_ has the authority of Cudworth, _Intellectual System,_\nvol. ii. p. 836. Sciomancy [Greek], which, in the sense of divination\nby ghosts, may be found in Bailey's _Dictionary_ (1751: also furnishes a\nprecedent for my coinage.]\n\n[Footnote 26: \"Kami\" is used in the sense of Elohim; and is also, like our word\n\"Lord,\" employed as a title of respect among men, as indeed Elohim was.]\n\n[Footnote 27: [The Assyrians thus raised Assur to a position of pre-eminence.]]\n\n[Footnote 28: I refer those who wish to know the reasons which lead me to take up\nthis position to the works of Reuss and Wellhausen, [and especially to\nStade's _Geschichte des Volkes Israel._]]\n\n[Footnote 29: Bunsen. _Egypt's Place,_ vol. v. p.129, note.]\n\n[Footnote 30: See Birch, in _Egypt's Place,_ vol. v; and Brugsch, _History of\nEgypt._]\n\n[Footnote 31: Even by Graetz, who, though a fair enough historian, cannot be\naccused of any desire to over-estimate the importance of Egyptian\ninfluence upon his people.]\n\n[Footnote 32: Graetz, _Geschichte der Juden,_ Bd. i. p. 370.]\n\n[Footnote 33: See the careful analsyis of the work of the Alexandrian philosopher\nand theologian (who, it should be remembered, was a most devout Jew,\nheld in the highest esteem by his countrymen) in Siegfried's _Philo von\nAlexandrien,_ 1875. (Also Dr. J. Drummond's _Philo Judaeus,_ 1888.)]\n\n[Footnote 34: I am not unaware of the existence of many and widely divergent\nsects and schools among the Jews at all periods of their history, since\nthe dispersion. But I imagine that orthodox Judaism is now pretty much\nwhat it was in Philo's time; while Peter and Paul, if they could return\nto life, would certainly have to learn the catechism of either the\nRoman, Greek, or Anglican Churches, if they desired to be considered\northodox Christians.]\n\n[Footnote 35: Dante's description of Lucifer engaged in the eternal mastication\nof Brutus, Cassius, and Judas Iscariot--\n\n   \"Da ogni bocca dirompea co' denti\n      Un peccatore, a guisa di maciulla,\n      Si che tre ne facea cos\u00ec dolenti.\n    A quel dinanzi il mordere era nulla,\n      Verso 'l graffiar, che tal volta la schiena\n      Rimanea della pelle tutta brulla\"--\n\nis quite in harmony with the Pisan picture and perfectly Polynesian in\nconception.]","title":"The Evolution of Theology: an Anthropological Study: Essay #8 from \"Science and Hebrew Tradition\"","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":22138}