{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_38100/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_38100","id":"gutenberg_38100","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38100","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Ancient","Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Religions"],"text":"Produced by David Widger\n\n\n\n\n\n\nANCIENT FAITHS AND MODERN:\n\nA Dissertation upon Worships, Legends and Divinities\n\nIn Central And Western Asia, Europe, And Elsewhere, Before The Christian\nEra. Showing Their Relations To Religious Customs As They Now Exist.\n\nBy Thomas Inman, M.D.\n\nAuthor Of \"Ancient Faiths Embodied In Ancient Names,\" Etc., Etc.\nConsulting Physician To The Royal Infirmary, Liverpool; Lecturer,\nSuccessively, On Botany, Medical Jurisprudence, Therapeutics, Materia\nMedica, And The Principles And Practice Ok Medicine, Etc., In The\nLiverpool School Ok Medicine. Etc.\n\n1876\n\nTO THOSE\n\nWHO THIRST AFTER KNOWLEDGE,\n\nAND ARE NOT DETERRED FROM SEEKING IT\n\nBY THE FEAR OF IMAGINARY DANGERS,\n\nTHIS VOLUME IS INSCRIBED, WITH GREAT RESPECT,\n\nBy\n\nTHE AUTHOR\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\nSome thirty years ago, after a period of laborious study, I became the\nHouse Surgeon of a large Infirmary. In that institution I was enabled to\nsee the practice of seven different doctors, and to compare the results\nwhich followed from their various plans of treatment. I soon found\nthat the number of cures was nearly equal amongst them all, and became\ncertain that recovery was little influenced by the medicine given. The\nconclusion drawn was that the physician could do harm, but that his\npower for good was limited. This induced me to investigate the laws of\nhealth and of disease, with an especial desire to discover some sure\nground on which the healing art might safely stand. The inquiry was a\nlong one, and to myself satisfactory. The conclusions to which I came\nwere extremely simple--amounting almost to truisms; and I was surprised\nthat it had required long and sustained labour to find out such very\nhomely truths as those which I seemed to have unearthed.\n\nYet, with this discovery came the assurance that, if I could induce my\nmedical brethren to adopt my views, they would deprive themselves of the\nmeans of living. Men, like horses or tigers, monkeys and codfish, can do\nwithout doctors. Here and there, it is true, that the art and skill of\nthe physician or surgeon can relieve pain, avert danger from accidents,\nand ward off death for a time; but, in the generality of cases, doctors\nare powerless. It is the business of such men, however, to magnify their\noffice to the utmost. They get their money ostensibly by curing the\nsick; but it is clear, that the shorter the illness the fewer will be\nthe fees, and the more protracted the attendance the larger must be the\n\"honorarium.\" There is, then, good reason why the medical profession\nshould discourage too close an investigation into truth.\n\nBut, outside of this fraternity, there are many men desirous of\nunderstanding the principles of the healing art Many of these have begun\nby noticing the style of the doctor's education. They find that he is\ntaught in \"halls,\" \"colleges,\" and \"schools,\" for a certain period of\ntime; and then, at about the age of two-and-twenty, he is examined by\nsome experienced men, and, if considered \"competent,\" he pays certain\nfees, and is then licensed to practise as physician. As all regular\ndoctors go through this course, it is natural that all should think and\nact in a common way, and style their doctrines \"orthodox.\" It is equally\ncertain that to such opinion the majority adhere through life. But\nit has always happened, that many men and women have aspired to the\nposition of medical professors, without going through the usual career;\nor, having done so, they have struck out a novel plan of practice, which\nthey designate a new method of cure. These have always been opposed\nby the \"orthodox,\" and the contest is carried on with varying success,\nuntil the general public give their verdict on one side or the other.\nInto the motives which sway the respective combatants we will not enter;\nour chief desire being to show that each set is upheld by those who\nare designated \"laymen,\" whose education has not been medical The most\nintelligent on the heterodox side have been clergymen; and many have\nbeen the complaints of \"orthodox\" doctors, that \"the parsons\" should\npatronize, so energetically as they do, medical \"dissenters.\"\n\nAs the \"clerk\" takes pleasure in examining the therapeutical doctrines\nof his physician, so the medical professor frequently inquires closely\ninto his clergyman's theological views and feels himself at liberty\nto accept or oppose them, as the \"clerk\" adopts or attacks him and his\ntheory and practice. It would, indeed, be disrespectful in the listener\nnot to pay intelligent heed to the discourses which emanate from\nthe pulpit. I have myself listened to the preaching of hundreds of\nuniversity graduates, and of men who never took a degree, and have\nnoticed that the same diversity of style exists amongst them, as is to\nbe found in medical men. Some order a certain plan of treatment for a\nsoul, which they assert to be grievously affected, and give no reason\nfor what they say or do. Others give their motives for everything which\nthey affirm, and for the plan which they prescribe for cure. Under the\nministry of one of the last I sat for many years. Conspicuous for sound\njudgment, and for a peculiarly clear oratory, his sermons were to me an\nintellectual treat. From the exordium, forwards, I followed his words\nclosely, and lost none of his arguments. But I soon became conscious\nthat he never once carried his reasoning to its logical conclusion.\nStill further, it was manifest that certain things were by him taken for\ngranted; and it was held to be culpable to inquire into the reality of\nthose assumptions. In fine, it was evident, that there was a Bluebeard's\ncloset in the house of God, into which, in the preacher's opinion, it\nwas death to pry!\n\nWith the idea which was gradually forced upon my mind, that there was\na systematic suppression of the truth in the pulpit, I very carefully\nsearched the Bible, with which I have been familiar from infancy, and\nupon which, it is asserted, all our faith is founded. At this time, too,\na casual inquiry into some ancient cognomens, which have descended to\nus from remote antiquity, induced me to examine into ancient faiths\ngenerally. With this became associated an examination of all religions,\nand their influence upon mankind.\n\nI found that in every nation there have been, and still are, good men\nand bad, gentle and brutal, thoughtful and ignorant. That the best men\nof Paganism--Buddha, for example--did not lose, by comparison, with the\nbrightest light of Christianity; and that such large cities as London\nand Paris, have as much vice within them as ancient Rome or modern\nCalcutta. I found, moreover, that there is a culpable colouring in the\naccounts given by Christian travellers of Pagan countries. The clerical\npen rests invariably and strongly upon the bad points of every heathen\ncult, and contrasts them with the best elements of Christianity. I\ndo not know that it has ever instituted a fair comparison between\ncorresponding characters in each faith. As an illustration of my\nmeaning, let us regard the stern virtue of the Roman Lucretia, who\ncommitted suicide, her body having been forcibly defiled by the embraces\nof another than her husband, even though the ravisher was a prince. She\nhad heard nothing of the Jewish law or Christian gospel, nevertheless\nshe was far better than the wives of the nobles in the courts of Louis\nthe XIV. and XV., who gladly sold themselves and their daughters to the\nroyal lechers. These, unlike the Italian woman, were instructed both in\nthe law and the gospel; they attended one place or another of Christian\nworship daily or weekly. Nay, if report be true, \"the eldest son of the\nChurch,\" when he visited the \"parc aux cerfs,\" made each fresh virgin,\nvictim of his passion, duly say her prayers before she assisted him to\ncommit adultery, and herself permitted fornication! We sympathize with\nPaul and the early Christian fathers in their denunciations of the\nRomans and Greeks for obscenities practised in honour of their gods;\nbut, at the same time, we feel sure that, had those apostles and\nteachers lived in the middle ages, they would have denounced, with\ngreater warmth, the murders which were constantly being perpetrated in\nhonour of Jesus.\n\nIn like manner, we may greatly regret, with the writer of Psalm xiv.,\nthat amongst \"the children of men, there is none that doeth good; no,\nnot one;\" but we must equally bow before the statement of Ezekiel\n(ch. xxii. 30), that there was no more propriety amongst the so-called\n\"chosen people of God,\" than amongst the Gentile Canaanites and\nBabylonians.\n\nAgain, we feel pain when we find the great ones of the earth--aye, and\nmany small ones too--seeking out for villains, \"willing to commit\nmurder for a mede,\" and lament that lawgivers should secretly encourage\nlawlessness; but we cannot forget that Jesus of Nazareth is represented,\nin John vi. 70, to have selected a devil to bring about certain\nends--see also John xiii. 26, 27, in which the agency is well marked.\n\nModern divines tell us that war, tumult, hatred, malice, quarrels of all\nkinds, and murder come from the devil, and are the direct result of our\nfallen nature; nevertheless, we remember that Jesus is reported to have\nsaid--\"I came not to send peace, but a sword; I am come to set a man at\nvariance against his father, and the daughter against the mother,\" &c.\n(Matt. x. 34, 35). When we institute comparisons like these, the\nbalance is not uneven. I found, moreover, that the sharply defined line,\ncommonly drawn between Paganism and Christianity, is worthless--the\ndoctrines of the latter being, in many respects, identical with, or\ndeduced from, the former.\n\nIt seemed necessary, therefore, to ascertain whether, in religion,\nany other line than the one in vogue in Europe, could be drawn with\ncertainty.\n\nThe result of my observations showed a wonderful similarity to exist\nbetween the clerical and medical profession; and I feel that, if my\nviews about the cure of souls and bodies were generally adopted,\nthere would be no need either for parson or for doctor. Instead of\ndiscovering, as I had hoped to do, which of all the rival sects of\nChristendom is the best one, I found that all were unnecessary, that\nmany are degraded in doctrine and bad in practice; and that, if any\nmust exist, the one which effects the least mischief should be the one\nselected for general adoption. It required much courage to allow myself\nto believe that doctors have, taking everything into consideration,\ndone more harm in the world than good, and still more to announce my\nconviction that Christianity was even more culpable than medicine. The\nphysician, when professing to cure, has too often assisted disease to\nkill; and he who has had the cure of souls, has invented plans to\nmake believers in his doctrine miserable. The first fills his coffers\nproportionally to the extent to which he can protract recovery;\nthe second becomes rich in proportion to the success with which he\nmultiplies mental terrors, and then sells repose. The one enfeebles the\nbody, the other cripples the intellect, and aggravates envy, hatred, and\nmalice. Both are equally influential in preventing man from being such\nas we believe that the Almighty designed him to be.\n\nThough we oppose the old plan of medication of body and mind, we are\nfar from asserting that there is no value in an honest doctor, either of\ndivinity or medicine. On the contrary, I have a stronger faith in my own\nprofession, as it has been reformed, than ever I had ere the light of\ngood sense had shone upon it; and I have a far more confident trust\nin the religion propounded by F. W. Newman, in _Theism_, than in that\ncurrent amongst Christians in general But in such schemes of physic\nand faith, very few \"ministers\" are necessary, shams find no place, and\nemoluments are small A man who communes with his God requires no priest,\nmediator, middle-man, or saint--whether virgin, martyr, or both--to\nintercede for him.\n\nHolding such opinions as these, it is not probable that I shall find\nmany followers. I do not seek them. My aim has been to set good sterling\nstuff before the world, so that any one, whose self-reliance is great,\nmay receive strength. There are many who would rather die with a\nphysician close beside them when they are ill, than live without a\ndoctor; and there are few who would not rather enjoy the fear of hell\nwith the orthodox, than be with heretics free from such terrors--\"For\nsure, the pleasure is as great in being cheated, as to cheat.\" To all\nsuch our writings are _caviare_. Yet, even to them, we would say that we\nhave warrant for our belief in statements, to which the orthodox\ncannot reasonably object--viz., \"If thou doest well, shalt thou not\nbe accepted?\" (Gen. iv. 7); \"In every nation, he that feareth God, and\nworketh righteousness, is accepted with him\" (Acts x. 35); \"He that\ndoeth righteousness, is righteous\" (1 John iii. 7).\n\nLet me contrast my own views with those generally current amongst us. I\nbelieve that God did not make men, any more than the beasts, to damn the\nlargest number of them throughout eternity. I believe that all who aver\nthat they have been selected by the Creator from all the world besides\nas the only recipients of salvation are wrong, and deceivers of the\npeople. In fine, I believe that God's \"tender mercies are over all his\nworks.\" The common opinion that the Almighty so revels in cruelty, that\nHe makes creatures to torture them, is a horrible one to me--fit only\nto come from impotent Pagan priests. That Jehovah selected about one\nmillion of bad men, out of about four hundred other millions equally\nbad, solely because their progenitor, Abraham, consented to murder and\nburn his son, is to me a frightful blasphemy; and, lastly, that God has\nno tender mercies for nine-tenths of the human race, is to convert our\nconception of the Author of all good into the conventional \"Devil.\" The\ncomparison may be summed up thus: I believe in God, the Father of all\nthings; the so-called orthodox believe in the God Satan. I do not know\nanything in all my studies which excited my attention more painfully\nthan the result of the analysis of Jehovah's character, as given in our\nBible. Kind to those who are said to please Him, He is a fearful demon\nto all who are said to oppose Him.\n\nHow can any reasonable man hold the opinion that the Devil instigated\nall atrocities of the Syrians, Chaldees, Assyrians, Romans, Turks,\nTartars, Saracens, Affghans, Mahometans, and Hindoos, and believe that\nthe good God drowned the whole world, and nearly every single thing that\nhad life; that He ordered the extermination, not only of Midianites and\nAmalekites, but slaughtered, in one way or another, all the people whom\nhe led out of Egypt--except two--merely because they had a natural fear\nof war. What was the massacre at Cawnpore to that in Jericho and other\nCanaanite cities? I say it with sober seriousness--in sorrow, not in\nanger--as a thinking man, and not as an advocate for, or against, any\nreligious view, that it is an awful thing for any nation to permit\na book to circulate, as a sacred one, in which God and the Devil are\npainted in the same colours.\n\nInto this analysis of religion I was led to enter from the observation\nof a friend, who challenged me to find, in any non-Hebraic or\nnon-Christian country, a faith or practice equal to that current amongst\nthe followers of Moses and Jesus, or to discover any spot in the wide\nworld where there is, or has been, a civilization equal to that which\nexisted in Judea, and the parts inhabited by Christians. In consequence\nof this defiance, it became more than ever necessary for me to study the\nnature of the current faith and practice of Christendom, and to inquire\nhow far the latter was dependent upon the former--that is to say,\nwhether the practices of civilization are due to our religion, or have\ngradually grown up in spite of it. The next point was to pay similar\nheed to the doctrines and manner of life common amongst those to whom\nour Bible has been wholly unknown.\n\nMany of the conclusions to which I came have already appeared in the\nsecond volume of _Ancient Faiths_, under the heads of \"Religion,\"\n\"Theology,\" &c.; but others came upon me when that book had been\ncompleted, and the present supplement is designed with the idea of\nexpressing, still further, the extent of my views, and the evidence upon\nwhich they are founded--with special reference to the differential value\nof Christian and unchristian faith and practice.\n\nAs was natural, this involved the question constantly before my mind in\nthe preceding volumes--viz., \"Is there in reality anything in the Hebrew\nand the Christian theology essentially different from that promulgated\nby the leaders of divinity in other countries?\" This point has\nrepeatedly been discussed, and amongst the orthodox there is no\ndifficulty in allowing the existence of a strong similarity in all\nsystems of religion; but the value of the fact is supposed to be reduced\nto ridicule by the monstrous assertion, that Moses and Jesus taught\nall the world. Amongst the books which came under my notice, whilst\nprosecuting my search, was a very remarkable one, called _The Modern\nBuddhist_, now _The Wheel of the Law_, which is an account of the\nreligious thoughts of a Siamese monarch, with a statement of his\nconversations with Christian missionaries. In this the British churchman\nand non-conformist can see themselves as others see them; and the\nAsiatic has quite as great, perhaps even a superior, right to call the\nEuropean \"poor and benighted,\" as the Christian has to call the Buddhist\n\"a miserable Pagan.\"\n\nNotwithstanding my endeavours to be perfectly \"judicial,\" and to give\nwhat I believe to be an impartial account of the subjects which I\ndescribe, I have been, by certain critics, accused of special pleading.\nIt is, perhaps, unnecessary to deny the charge, for each reader must\njudge of my fairness, or otherwise, for himself. But, on the other hand,\nI retort most strongly, by averring that I have not met, in the whole\ncourse of my reading, a religious work by an orthodox divine, which does\nnot \"bear false witness against its neighbours.\"\n\nThere is in all both a _suppressio veri_ and a _suggestio falsi_,\nwhich makes the honest inquirer almost entirely reject their books.\nIn addition to this, there is in them a recklessness of statement and\nassertion which is unequalled, except in the fierce controversies of\nancient doctors. The perfect contempt which certain puny divines, who\nhave endeavoured to throw dirt upon the present Bishop of Natal, show\nfor the laws of evidence, and the systematic way in which they avoid\nevery real point at issue, are marvellous to those who know that such\npeople have had an university education, have studied logic, and\nprofess an unlimited respect for truth. In future years the theological\nwritings, generally, of our time will be as much objurgated by\nenlightened, earnest, and thoughtful readers, as Protestants of to-day\nabuse the theology and prurience of Sanchez, Thomas Aquinas, and Peter\nDens.\n\nIn conclusion, I would wish to add, that I am conscious, from the amount\nof correspondence which I have had on the subject in hand, that there\nis not only a wide, but a constantly extending dissatisfaction\nwith the current theology taught by the ministers of all\ndenominations--excepting, as a body, the Unitarians, and such\nindividuals as Bishop Colenso, Bishop Hinds, Mr Voysey, and others. The\nlaity are awaking to the fact that priests are strenuously endeavouring\nto quench the light of reason in the fogs of faith. Unless the\nProtestantism, of which Great Britain was once so proud, decides to\ndrift into Papism--the only legitimate harbour for those who reject\nreason for a guide--it must thoroughly reform itself, and ruthlessly\nreject, as \"necessary to salvation,\" every article of belief which is\nnot only nonsensical or absurd, but which has unquestionably descended\nfrom a grovelling Paganism. To this end we hope that our essays will\ncontribute.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTORY\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\n     A recapitulation. Destruction of an old edifice precedes the\n     building of another on the same site. Chichester Cathedral.\n     Difficulties of reconstruction. Innovators are regarded as\n     enemies. The Old Testament appraised. The Jews and their\n     pretensions. Hebraic idea of Jehovah. The sun and moon. God\n     and goddess. Importance of sexual perfection in a Hebrew\n     male. Women are prizes given to the faithful Jews. Almost\n     everything Jewish came from Pagan sources, except the\n     Sabbath. Inquiry into the New Testament necessarily follows\n     upon an investigation of the Old. Thoughts upon the history\n     of Christianity. Malignancy of its professors. Life of\n     Jesus, by various authors. The ground preoccupied.    The\n     plan proposed.\n\nIn commencing another volume of a series, and one to a great extent\nindependent of the other two, it is advisable to pause and recapitulate\nthe points advanced, and the positions attained. This is the more\nnecessary when the present inquiry is a natural result of a preceding\none, and when an attempt is made to collect and arrange the scattered\nmaterials into an harmonious and consistent edifice. Our volumes on the\nsubject of \"Ancient Faiths in Ancient Names\" were, to a great extent,\ndestructive. They struck heavy blows in all directions, wherever a false\nidol was to be recognized, and they destroyed many a cherished delusion,\nwhich was to many as dear as the apple of their eye. But, throughout\nthe whole process of destruction, the idea of the necessity for a\nreconstruction was present to the mind of the author.\n\nIt may, indeed, be propounded as an interesting question, whether any\niconoclast ever destroys the idols which his fellow-beings cherish,\nwithout entertaining the belief that he has something superior to offer\nin their place. When the fanatic Spaniards upset, fractured, and ground\nto powder the stone monsters venerated by the Mexicans, they offered to\nthe natives the image of a lovely virgin and her gentle son to replace\nthem; and when the enthusiastic Scotchmen destroyed the marble saints\nand gaudy figures of the Popish churches throughout their own country,\nthey eagerly set forth the superiority of adoring the invisible creator\nin spirit and imagination, which afforded scope for the most entrancing\nmental delineations, and was far superior to reverencing an ugly effigy,\nwhich no one with any correct taste could admire. In like manner, when\nthe Mahometan Caliph destroyed the library of Alexandria, he offered to\nthe mourners in its place the book of the Prophet Mahomet, which was, in\nhis eyes, a pearl of so great price as to be equivalent in value to all\nthe world besides.\n\nThere can be no doubt, however, that the process of destruction is far\nmore easy than the task of reconstruction. The engineer who is called\nupon to remove a bridge, on account of the badness of its foundation,\nmay admire the extraordinary firmness with which every stone has been\ndovetailed together, and, with the means at his command, may be unable\nto construct another having a similar appearance of stability; yet,\nafter all, an arch which is secure and stable is preferable to one which\nis good only in appearance. A very few years have elapsed since it was\nfound that the tower and spire of the Cathedral at Chichester had been\nso built that there was imminent danger of the whole falling down. This\npart of the edifice resembled certain faiths which have been raised with\ngreat art to a vast height, with very slender and inadequate material.\nSo long as they were not assailed by any storm, or tested by the changes\nwhich time produces, they seemed firm and unshakable; but, when they\nwere really tried, they began to undergo a process similar to that which\nobtained in the Cathedral named--the admirers of the edifice attempted\nto prop up the failing tower; with iron and timber they shored up its\nbulging sides; they erected strong scaffolds to ease the mighty strain\nupon the crumbling walls; but all in vain--the lovely spire, built upon\na foundation as rotten as the Mormon faith, came tumbling down, and\nthe tall emblem pointing to the sky returned once more to earth. Before\nthere could be any reconstruction attempted, it was necessary to procure\nall the material necessary; and when, with great labour, this was\naccumulated, a fresh erection was made, which was far stronger than the\nfirst, for every stone was duly examined, and solid masonry replaced\nthe ancient rubble. So it has been with many a faith. Christianity has\nreplaced the crumbling Judaism which existed at the beginning of our\nera, and the Reformed Church has since then, in many countries, replaced\nthe gigantic sham of Popery. But the metaphor is one which we cannot\nwholly adopt, inasmuch as we believe that no faith of ancient times has\never wholly fallen like the spire and tower of Chichester, nor has any\nnew system of belief the solidity of that new edifice which has replaced\nthe old.\n\nThe difficulties connected with reconstruction are greatly increased by\nthe propensity which is so common in the human mind to make the best\nof that which is in actual existence and familiar to the vulgar, rather\nthan to adopt something entirely new. The child who dislikes to go to\nbed at night equally dislikes to get up in the morning, and we have\nknown elderly people who have systematically preferred an old lumbering\nstage-coach to a first-class compartment in a railway carriage. In every\nwalk of life an innovator is regarded as an enemy by the majority, and\nespecially by those whose practice or whose theories his discoveries\nsupersede.\n\nYet, great as is the contest which any new truth has to sustain, there\nis no doubt whatever that the first part of the fight--the preliminaries\nessential to conquest, are the investigation of the ground to be\noccupied; the real value of the defences; the superiority of the armour;\nand the temper, strength, and tenacity of the offensive weapons. The\nengineer to whom is confided the attack or the defence of a town will\nabandon or destroy everything which would harbour an enemy or facilitate\nhis operations. The fighting commodore, ere he carries his ship into\naction, sacrifices readily all the gewgaws of luxury; and in like manner\nthe ecclesiastic ought never to endanger his position by spending his\nenergies in the defence of a useless outwork or a tinsel ornament.\nEntertaining these views ourselves, our first effort has been to\nclear the ground, and to remove every object which we consider to be\ndetrimental to the spread of truth.\n\nWe have demonstrated, as far as such a matter is capable of\ndemonstration, that the Old Testament, which has descended to us from\nthe Jews, is not the mine of truth which it has been supposed by so many\nto be: that not only it is not a revelation given by God to man, but\nthat it is founded upon ideas of the Almighty which are contradicted\nby the whole of animate and inanimate nature. We showed, that its\ncomposition was wholly of human origin, and that its authors had a very\nmean and degrading notion of the Lord of Heaven and Earth. We proved,\nwhat indeed Colenso and a host of German critics have demonstrated in\nanother fashion, that its historical portions are not to be depended\nupon; that its stories are of no more real value than so many fairy\ntales or national legends; that its myths can now be readily traced\nto Grecian, Babylonian, and Persian sources; that its miracles are as\napocryphal as those told of Vishnu, Siva, and other deities; and its\nprophecies absolutely worthless. We proved, moreover, that the remote\nantiquity of its authorship has been greatly exaggerated; that the\nstories of the creation, of the flood, of Abraham, of Jacob, of the\ndescent into, and the exodus from, Egypt, of the career of Moses and the\nJews in the desert, of Joshua and his soldiers, of the judges and their\nclients, are all apocryphal, and were fabricated at a late period of\nJewish history, with the design of inspiriting the Hebrews at a period\nwhen their depression of spirit from foreign conquest was extreme; that\nthe so-called Mosaic laws were not known until long after the time of\nDavid, and that some of the enactments--that about the Jubilee, for\nexample--were never promulgated at all. We showed that the Jewish\nconception of the Almighty, and of His heavenly host, did not materially\ndiffer from the Greek idea of Jupiter and his inferior deities; that\nthe Hebrews regarded Jehovah as having human passions and very human\nfailings--as loving, revengeful, stern, merry, and vacillating--as\n\"everything by turns and nothing long\"--as forming a resolution, and\nthen contriving how He might, as it were, overreach Himself. We pointed\nout that the Jews did, in reality, paint God and the Devil or Satan, as\nthe same individual, being the former to His friends, and the latter to\nHis enemies. Indeed, anyone who compares 2 Sam. xxiv. 1 with 1 Chron.\nxxi. 1 will see this most clearly demonstrated. We called attention to\nthe apparently utter ignorance of the Jews that certain laws of nature\nexisted, and of their consequent belief that defeat, disease, famine,\nslaughter, pestilence, and the like, were direct punishments of\nceremonial or other guilt; while victory, wealth, virility, and old age\nwere special and decided proofs of the Divine favour. We showed that\nthe Jews were, in general, an abject but a very boastful race, and\nthat their spiritual guides--the so-called prophets--were constantly\npromising, but always vainly, a striking manifestation of the Almighty's\npower in favour of the Hebrews when they were in the depths of misery,\nthat histories were fabricated to give colour to these statements, and\nthat these, like modern miracles of saints, were narrated as occurring\na long time ago, and in a locality which could not be visited, e.g., in\nSamaria and Egypt; we showed, moreover, that the race was imitative, and\nreadily adopted the religious ideas and practices of those who conquered\nthem. Still further, we proved that the Jews had no idea whatever of a\nfuture state, and were in utter ignorance of heaven or hell; that they\nregarded the Almighty as punishing crime or rewarding goodness in\nthis world alone, and, consequently, we inferred either--(1) that\nthe conversation said to have been held between Jehovah and certain\napocryphal men did not really occur; or (2) that God did not think\nthe existence of a future world a matter of sufficient consequence to\ncommunicate to His friends; or (3) that Elohim had not then created\neither a habitation for the blessed, or a future prison-house for the\ndamned; and we pointed out that the opinions of the Pharisees about\nangels, spirits, and futurity were not based upon the writings of Moses\nand the prophets, but upon Persian fantasies. In fine, we showed, that\nthe Hebrews could not sustain the claim they made to be the especial\npeople of God, and that their writings are of no more value, as records\nof absolute truth, or of Divine revelation, than the books of the\nGreeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hindoos, Chinese, or the more modern\nMahometans.\n\nWith all this we indicated that there was, throughout the nations known\nas Shemitic, a general belief in the existence of an Almighty Being,\nCreator, Director and Governor of the heaven, the earth, and the\nsea; that He was considered to be One, yet that He was, nevertheless,\nrepresented by a multiplicity of names, and as having many and opposite\nattributes.\n\nWe also showed, that this sublime conception was very thickly coated\nwith human ideas, often of a debased and grovelling type, and darkened\nby legends, which were invented by priests with the design of clothing\nthemselves, and those of their order, with a portion of the garments\nwhich they had assigned to the Inscrutable. We showed, how the sun\nand moon, the stars and planets, became interwoven with the idea of a\nCelestial Being, and how they were described in turn as His ministers,\nHis residence, His army, and sometimes even as Himself. We showed,\nmoreover, that the Almighty was depicted by some as a male, having the\nattributes and passions of men, by others as a female, or celestial\ngoddess, and by others as androgyne--not exactly a bifrons, like Janus,\nbut masculine and feminine, Elohim, Baalim, Ashtaroth; that in the\ndevelopment of this idea, everything which has reference to the\nphenomena of mundane creation was closely studied, and introduced into\none religious system or another. As a result of this, it followed, that\nthere were some sects and temples consecrated to the adoration of the\nCreator as masculine, others as feminine, and others as both combined.\nWe showed still farther, that each sect adopted certain emblems, which\nwere intended to represent the distinctive mark of the sex under which\nit worshipped the Omnipotent, and that the emblems became multiplied\nas different nations came into contact with each other, learned foreign\ntheology, and advanced in their knowledge of natural history. To such an\nextent was this symbolism, to which we refer, carried, that the sexual\nidea of the Creator at last pervaded, to a greater or less degree, all\nforms of worship, and gradually degraded them deeper and deeper, in\nconsequence of the emblems of the deity being mistaken for the deity\nitself, much in the same way as the vulgar, amongst the Roman Catholics,\nregard a statuette or picture of the Virgin, or an Ashantee a particular\nform of idol fetish. As an example of such development, we pointed out\nthat the Assyrians represented the Godhead as four-fold, consisting of\nthe triple male and the single female element in mundane creation, and\nthat the idea of the trinity in unity, which is a doctrine recognized\nas far back amongst all nations as history will carry us, was originally\nfounded solely upon the well-known fact that the characteristic of the\nmale is a triad, of which all the parts are really, and in no mysterious\nmanner, \"co-eternal together and co-equal.\" We also showed that the\nfeminine idea of the Creator has, from time immemorial, been associated,\nin one form or another, with that of a lovely virgin holding a child in\nher arms, which is generally very young, and mostly receiving food from\na maternal bosom, the reason of which we hinted at.\n\nWe showed that the myths of Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarai, Esau and\nJacob, were incorporations of the idea that the trinity and the unity,\nor, to use the very words of the Athanasian creed, \"the trinity in\nunity,\" were the founders of the race of living beings, and, as such,\nworthy of worship and honour throughout all ages. This union was spoken\nof as \"the four,\" and was symbolized as a square or a cross of four\npoints, or a cross of eight points. We showed, still farther, that\nthe male Creator was identified with the sun, and the female with the\ncrescent moon, and also with the earth; and that one of the symbols of\nthis celestial union of the sexes was the sun lying within the moon's\ncrescent.\n\nWe also demonstrated, that a very large part of Pagan worship\nconsisted in the performance of rites and ceremonies, whose end was the\nglorification of the deity under one or other of the selected symbols,\nand that a number of feasts were appointed to be held at certain\nastronomical periods, in which the assistants were encouraged to indulge\nin every form of sensuality (Deut. xiv. 26). We pointed out, that the\nJewish people were largely tainted by this vicious form of worship prior\nto the Babylonian captivity, and that a very large portion of their\nnomenclature was based upon sexual ideas of the Creator. We also showed,\nthat the Jewish writings encouraged certain forms of sensuality in a\nconspicuous manner; that the condition of the male organ was represented\nas being of such importance as to be the ground work of the covenant\nbetween God and the Hebrews, it being declared (Gen. xvii. 14), as if by\nthe word of the Lord, that no man was to be allowed to live whose organ\nhad not been improved in a definite manner, i.e., by circumcision or\nexcision of the prepuce, and that no man was to be admitted into the\ncongregation of the faithful whose characteristic male organs had in\nany way been injured or removed. Deuteronomy xxiii. 1 is conclusive upon\nthis point, and there is no ambiguity in the words of the decree. We\npointed out, also, that not only was abundance of offspring promised to\nthe faithful as a proof of God's regard to them, but that the laws, said\nto be delivered by Jehovah to Moses, positively provided (see Deut. xxi.\n10-14) the means by which the harems of the wealthy could be stocked in\ntimes of war, and by which even the poor might also be indulged, in or\nabout the precincts of the temple, where slave and foreign women were\nkept for the purpose (Numb. xxxi. 40). We pointed out that the\nnatural result of this licensed debauchery was a great increase in the\npopulation, which was so much in excess of the capacity of the land to\nsustain them, that it was necessary to check the number of adult mouths\nby conniving at infanticide, as was done in Rajpootana up to a recent\nperiod, and is said to be done in China now. It is clear, from the\ndenunciations by the prophets of the vileness of the Jews of Jerusalem,\nand the impotent laws which were introduced into the so-called Mosaic\ncode, that the Hebrew family was to the full as bad and vile as were the\nnations around them.\n\nWe further showed that there was a marked difference in the thoughts,\nthe doctrines, the laws, the knowledge, the writings, and the form\nof worship amongst the Jews after they had come into contact with the\nBabylonians, Persians, and Greeks; and we adverted to the fact that the\nlaws of the Persians, and those of him, whom we would designate\n\"the fictitious Moses,\" were remarkably similar; and we showed\nthat everything in the Old Testament, which is, by the majority of\nChristians, deemed to be of Divine origin, had been derived from or\nthrough one or other of the sources which we have named, and which we\ncall Pagan. From this we deduced the important corollary, either that\nthe so-called revelation of the Old Testament is a sham, a priestly\nfabrication, and what is known as \"a pious fraud,\" or that it was not\nmade originally to the Hebrews. In neither case can the Jews establish a\ntitle to be the \"chosen people of God\" in any sense of the words. If the\nBible is true, the Gentiles have spiritual precedence over the Hebrews,\nand the Pagans have the _pas_ of the Christians.\n\nThis deduction enabled us to recognize the importance of an extended\ninquiry into the faith, religion, and practice of other nations, before\nwe assume ourselves to be in a position to appreciate the claims\nwhich one human being, or any body of men, might make to be the\nrepresentatives of the Almighty, the sole recipients of His commands,\nand the only medium by which prayers can be forwarded to Him. Again, the\nhistory of the past, and a study of the present, enabled us to see that\nthe foundation of a new religion, or the modification of an old one, did\nnot destroy ancient practices, though it transferred priestly power to\na new set of men, who, while they introduced new gods and new dogmas,\nendeavoured to incorporate the older ideas with new, so as to seduce or\ncheat the vulgar, whom it was not judicious to slaughter, into adopting\nthe new faith. Consequently, we are able to understand how indecent\nideas, sexual emblems, and Pagan festivals, with many of the licentious\npractices associated therewith, have been handed down from a remote\nidolatry to a modern and comparatively enlightened Christianity. The\nsymbols of the objectionable still remain, but the things symbolized\nhave been altered, and the original ideas suppressed. The male triad is\na holy trinity; the monad is no longer the emblem of womankind, but of\nthe so-called Mother of God, or, as the Romanists say, of the\n_Mater Creatoris_. But with this knowledge comes the very important\nconsideration, how far Christian ideas, which are founded upon Pagan\nfancies, can be regarded as Divine. This, again, involves the question,\nhow far Jesus, who had not penetration enough to discover the true\nnature of the writings to which he trusted, can be considered as an\nincarnation of Divine knowledge, or of unbounded wisdom. Still further,\nit became clear, after our arguments, that if the stories of the\ncreation of man, the fall of Adam, the life of Noah, of Abraham, of\nMoses, the tale of Sinai, and the supremacy of Judah, are mythical--if\nthe prophetic writings are as worthless as the oracles of Dodona and of\nDelphi--then all theories, dogmas, and doctrines founded upon them must\nbe equally valueless.\n\nIn pursuance of my subject, I pointed out that there was not a nation\nknown to history which had not its god or gods, a sacred priesthood, a\nset of prophets, either located in one spot, or appearing as independent\nvaticinators, a number of holy festivals, of hallowed shrines, of\nmysterious temples, and an inner and recondite arcanum into which the\nprofane were not permitted to enter. I showed that other nations besides\nthe Jews had a sacred ark which was an emblem of a divinity; that the\nuse of sacrifices was common to every nation of antiquity; and that such\nthings had existed in Hindostan from time immemorial. I pointed out,\nthat there was no single precept or order contained in the Jewish\nRitual which could not be found amongst all other people, with the sole\nexception of the Sabbath; and that the respect for this very strange law\nwas due to the ignorance of the Hebrews, who regarded Saturn as the most\nhigh amongst the gods--information gained from the Babylonians.\n\nThus, an investigation into the nature and importance of Ancient Faiths\nbecomes a necessary prelude to, or, rather, is unavoidably followed\nby, an inquiry into the beliefs, doctrines, and practices current in\nChristendom generally, and in Great Britain particularly. Yet, though\nI was insensibly driven forwards to complete the task which I began,\nwithout having any definite notion of the amount of labour I should\nhave to undergo, I passively resisted for a long time the conclusions to\nwhich I was drawn, feeling myself unwilling, almost, indeed, unable, to\nundertake an examination which might shake my faith in the New Testament\nas it had been shaken in the Old. Like many others of a thoughtful turn\nof mind, I could see, without very strong regret, the Jewish writings\nconsigned to their appropriate niche in the library of the world; but\nI shunned the effort required to take down the books of the Gospels\nand Epistles and weigh them in the impartial balance of critical\ntruth. Nevertheless, as my work on Ancient Faiths progressed, I became\npainfully conscious that I must plead guilty to the charge of mental\ncowardice if I shirked the duty of examining the New, as I had\ninvestigated the Old, Testament. But when the resolution to investigate\nmodern faith was at length formed, the difficulties surrounding the\nsubject became apparent. The history of modern faith is, to a great\nextent, the history of Christianity, and the history of Christianity\nmust start from a history of Jesus and his apostles--Paul, Peter, James,\nJohn, and Jude, as given in the Epistles and Gospels included in the\ncanon of the New Testament. To cope with any one of these histories as\nthey deserve to be handled would involve the work of a lifetime, and for\none man to exhaust the whole seemed to me an impossibility. There\nwas, in addition to this, another consideration which complicated\nmy difficulty still farther, viz., the fact that there were already,\nwritten histories of the nature of those alluded to, and that it would\nbe useless to multiply them. It is a thankless task to pursue the\ncurrent of the Christian religion through the dark scenes which shrouded\nit, from the time when it was adopted by a few \"unlearned and ignorant\nmen,\" until it emerged as a power able to shake empires--from the period\nwherein its professors were burned and otherwise tortured to death,\nto the days when their own Christian successors racked, roasted, and\ntormented their opponents, with a malignancy and cruelty as great as\nthat which they themselves had execrated when practised upon their\npredecessors. From the moment that Christianity became a political\npower, its history resembled that of any tyrant or other ruler, and it\nis filled with misrepresentation, lying, fraud, the records of fighting\nand slaughter, of brutal passions, frightful laws, and horrible\npunishments; in fact, the record of political Christianity is that of a\nDevil in sheep's clothing. Even Calvin, one of our cherished reformers,\nburnt another Protestant almost in the same year as the Papists burnt\nRidley and Latimer. The English Episcopalians in Scotland, and the\nCromwellian Puritans in Ireland, showed more of the ravening wolf in\ntheir actions than of the amiable shepherd, who \"gently leads\" the weak\nones of his flock. In fact, the more loud the proclamation of a pure\nChristianity, the more devilish is the practice of its heralds.\n\nWhen I turned to the consideration of the life of Jesus, it was clear\nthat the ground was already fully occupied. In 1799 a Mr Houston\npublished a work entitled _Ecce Homo; or, a Critical Inquiry into the\nHistory of Jesus Christ: being an Analysis of the Gospels_, a second\nedition of which was made public fourteen years afterwards, and, as\na result, its publisher (D. J. Eaton) was prosecuted, and such of the\nimpressions as could be collected were publicly burned in St. George's\nFields, London, by the common hangman, whose business it was to strangle\ntruth as well as murderers. This book, which is little known to modern\nreaders, is strictly what it professes to be--a critical inquiry\ninto the history of Jesus Christ, and it may, to a great extent, be\nconsidered as the progenitor of more modern treatises. It does not\nmaterially differ from the _Ecce Homo_ of to-day, or from the other\nworks which we shall name, except in its style and composition. Having\nbeen written when all were in the habit of expressing their views in\nstrong language, and when opponents were abused in terms of coarse\ninvective, the author has expressed himself in a manner calculated to\noffend rather than to convince, and to stir up anger rather than\nto encourage thought. Yet his arguments are unanswerable, and his\ndeductions unimpeachable, by those who know the value of evidence and\nexercise their power of ratiocination. I have been unable to find that\nany work was written in refutation of the author's views, and the\nonly opposition to it was from the usual agent of the weak-minded, but\nstrong-bodied--persecution.\n\nIn more recent times, and within a very short period of each\nother--so short, indeed, that we may say that the books were composed\nsimultaneously in Hindostan, Germany, France, and England--there have\nappeared _A Voice from the Ganges,_ Strauss' _New Life of Jesus_,\nKenan's _Life of Jesus_, The English _Life of Jesus_, by Mr Thomas\nScott, of Norwood, a second _Ecce Homo_, from a modern Professor, and\n_The Prophet of Nazareth_, by Owen Meredith.* In these volumes, the\nhistorical value of the Gospel narratives closely and critically\nexamined, and a just appreciation of the character, preaching, and\npractice of the Prophet of Nazareth are honestly sought after, and,\nin the opinion of impartial readers, they must be held to have been\nattained. Throughout the series which we have mentioned nothing that is\ncapable of demonstration, or of approximate proof, is taken for granted.\nThe scholarship of the critical philosopher everywhere overbears the\nprejudice of the Christian bigot. Since the appearance of these another\nauthor has treated upon the same subject, but only cursorily, and as\nbearing upon other matters, in a work entitled _The Book of God; or, The\nApocalypse of Adam Oannes_, which was published anonymously, 1868.\n\n     * Whilst this sheet was in the printer's hands, a most\n     remarkable book was published anonymously, entitled,\n     _Supernatural Religion_, in two volumes. In it there is a\n     most scholarly account of the origin of the New Testament\n     writings, one which every thoughtful person should peruse.\n\nBetween the publication of the first _Ecce Homo_ and the second, viz.,\nin 1836, there was printed, for private circulation, a very remarkable\nwork, entitled _Anacalypsis; or, an Attempt to draw aside the Veil of\nthe Saitic Isis_, by Godfrey Higgins. His two volumes are replete with\nlearning, and with deductions more startling than any which had appeared\nprior to his own time; but the subject matter is so badly arranged,\nthat it is with very great difficulty that the trains of thought which\noccupied the author's mind can be dis-. covered. His main idea is,\nthat very nearly everything in religion which appears to be mythical or\nmysterious enfolds certain astronomical facts--such as the precession\nof equinoxes, the duration of cycles of time--such as are necessary\nto reproduce exactly a concordance between certain terrestrial and\ncelestial phenomena. With this theory he interweaves an amazing number\nof facts which seem to favour the opinion enunciated in the book of\nEcclesiastes--i.e., that there is nothing new under the sun. He shows\nthat the idea of \"incarnations,\" the birth of a heavenly child from a\npure virgin, and a variety of so-called Christian dogmas, have existed\nin every age of which we have historical accounts.\n\nHe gives a vivid sketch of the nature of Christianity and its progress\nfrom century to century, and he expresses himself respecting its modern\ndevelopments much in the same strain, though in a far more gentlemanlike\nstyle, as did his contemporary, the Rev. R. Taylor, to whom was given,\nor who assumed for himself, the title of the Devil's chaplain.\n\nIn the estimation of some of these writers, Jesus, the son of Mary, is\nquite as mythical a being as Hercules, the son of Alcmena. This view has\nbeen more recently adopted by some freethinkers of the present day. The\nmain support on which such individuals rely is the fact that there is no\nmention of Jesus by any contemporary historian; and that, although\nthere are extant Jewish records of current history, at the time in which\nChrist is said to have lived, they make no mention of him who is now\ncalled the Saviour and of his wonderful history. It is pointed out that\nthe histories of the Gospels came out with marvellous rapidity, from\nAlexandria, about the end of the first century, at a time when all\ncontemporaries of Jesus were dead.\n\nTo this work of Higgins it is probable that we shall have repeatedly\nto refer, for his language is frequently so forcible that it cannot\nbe improved, and, moreover, he very often quotes from books, copies of\nwhich I have been unable to obtain.\n\nWhen I found that the ground which I intended to occupy had already\nbeen so well and so ably cultivated, it occurred to me that it would be\nadvisable to take a wider flight than was originally contemplated, and,\ninstead of examining the Christian faith alone, to associate with it an\naccount of the faiths of those nations of whom we have some knowledge.\nBy this means it appeared to me, that we should be enabled to see\nclearly, how far the current belief and practice of Christendom differs\nfrom the doctrines and practices of those to whom Christianity could\nnever, by any possibility, have come, and we can examine, incidentally,\ninto the teachings of Jesus, and compare them with that of his\npredecessor, Sakya Muni, or Buddha. We may also investigate impartially\nsuch doctrines as the immaculate conception, and the existence of\nangels.\n\nWhen treating, however, a subject like the religions of the ancient and\nmodern world, it is difficult to frame the history so as to bring out\nthe salient points, in a manner satisfactory to the reader or to\nthe writer. The latter is tempted to begin, as he believes, at the\nbeginning, and to trace the development of religious thought from\nits simplest expression up to its highest aspiration. This temptation\nbecomes all the stronger if, in the course of his study, he has\ninvestigated the animal and vegetable creations. In those vast kingdoms\nhe sees that the philosopher is able to lead his disciples onwards\nfrom the minute monad, or the simplest mass of matter, to the gigantic\nmastodon, without any very conspicuous flaw or break in continuity; but,\non closely observing his method of proceeding, the student finds that\nlinks which connect genera or species together are found in countries so\nwide apart, that no direct communication can be supposed between the one\ntype and the other. Thus the gap between mammals and birds is said to\nbe filled by the \"ornithorhynchus paradoxus,\" an animal living in a\nvast island, in which scarcely one quadruped mammalian is known to\nhave existed, and where the aboriginal birds form a class peculiar to\nAustralia, and have no resemblance to the creature referred to.\n\nYet, though the temptation is great, and although we feel justified in\nreasoning from the known to the unknown, and in supplying missing links\nfrom analogy, or from our own imagination, still, we consider that it\nwill be our best plan to confine ourselves, as far as possible, to\nthat which is written, and to describe first, the religious ideas and\npractices of some so-called savages; secondly, the ideas and practices\nof some ancient races, whose histories, more or less perfect, have\ncome down to us, with a view to ascertain whether there is anything\nessentially good in modern Christianity, either in faith or practice,\nwhich is peculiar to that form of religion, or whether almost the same\nstyle of teaching may not be found to have been common in the remote\nEast, at a period some centuries prior to the birth of Jesus.\n\nAs we have investigated the subjects of Sin, Salvation, Prayer,\nInspiration, &c., it is unnecessary to refer to them again.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\n     Travellers' tales not to be trusted. Prejudice perverts\n     facts. The Esquimaux. Cause of reverence for parents. The\n     Red Indian in the presence of immigration is a moral\n     murderer. Inquiry into Indian religion. O. KEE. PA. Indian\n     reverence for phenomena of nature. Ruins of a past\n     civilization in America. Cairns and human sacrifices.\n     Manufactured goods. Bronze in Yucatan. Resemblance between\n     the ancient American people and certain Orientals. Abbe\n     Domenech's travels. Sacrifice at obsequies, idea involved\n     thereby. Scythian proceedings. Mexico and its theology. Two\n     different conceptions of deity. The Unity subdivided by\n     Mexicans, Jews, and Christians. The God of war and the Lord\n     of Hosts. The God of air a deity in Mexico, a devil in Judea\n     or Ephesus. Mexican baptismal regeneration. Resemblances\n     between the Occidental and Oriental people in many curious\n     doctrines. Particulars. Mexican Heaven, Hell, and Limbo.\n     Mexican baptism and prayers. Priests and their duties. A\n     parallel. Romanists and Mexicans. Confession. Expiation.\n     Human sacrifice to obtain pardon of sin. A comparison\n     suggested. Mexican education. Purity of life in the Mexican\n     priestesses. Father Acosta's opinion thereon. Tartary, Rome,\n     and Mexico have something common in culture. Education of\n     youth. Policy of the priesthood. Reflections thereupon.\n     Teocallis or houses of God. Worship. Festivals. Human\n     sacrifice. No sexual deities or rites. Question of\n     credibility--God and the Devil act alike! Aztecs and\n     Europeans compared. Christians have offered human sacrifice\n     from the time of Peter downwards. Transubstantiation is a\n     cannibal doctrine. Christian gods in Mexico as bad as the\n     Aztec deities. History of Peru. The policy of its rulers.\n     Roads and magazines. Nature of its government Governors were\n     instructed in their duties. Civil service examination.\n     Inauguration of youths into honourable manhood. Travelling\n     compulsory in rulers. Postal system--division of the people\n     --local magistrates--law speedy. Code of law. Punishment\n     without torture. Peruvians and inquisitors. Reports required\n     of lands and families. Register of births, &c. Rapidity of\n     communication. Plunder not permitted. Peace the motive for\n     war. The vanquished incorporated with the victors. A\n     paternal government. Peruvian religion. Difference between\n     political institutions and priestcraft. Peruvian sun god. An\n     invisible God recognised. Priests. Eternal life.      Heaven\n     and  Hell.     Temple of the sun magnificent. Golden\n     ornaments. Huge urns of silver. Number of priests.\n     Festivals. Cannibalism not permitted. Fire made from rays of\n     sun and concave mirror, or by friction. Virgins of the sun.\n     Concubines of the Inca. Matrimony.    Reflexions.\n\nWhen the philosopher reads over the histories which adventurous\ntravellers, or Christian missionaries, have given of the religions of\nthe savage, or uncivilized, people whom they have visited, he feels\npainfully conscious that the accounts are not implicitly to be relied\nupon. In some he recognizes the fact that communications only take place\nbetween the one party and the other by signs, which not only may be, but\nvery generally are, misinterpreted on both sides; in others he is able\nto see, or, at least, he comes to the conclusion, that the untaught\nbarbarians have not a single idea which is not connected with eating\nand drinking, war, revenge, and love;--that such, indeed, resemble brute\nbeasts, who have no more conception of hell or heaven, God and the soul,\nthan an elephant has of aerostation, or a crow of theology. In other\nnarratives the observer notices, that the individuals who interrogate\nthe savages are themselves enthusiasts of a high order, who ask leading\nquestions, and are content to receive, as a satisfactory answer,\nanything which can be considered as a reply. By this means very\nerroneous ideas have crept in amongst ourselves, and writers have built\narguments upon a foundation as flimsy as a shifting sand. For example,\nI have repeatedly heard it alleged that every known tribe, in every part\nof the world which has yet been visited, has a tradition respecting an\nuniversal deluge, and the salvation of their progenitors by a\nfloating vessel; and on this has been founded the hypothesis that all\narchitecture, and even written characters, have an ark for their type.\nThis development has been very ingeniously supported by J. P. Lesley, in\n_Man's Origin and Destiny_ (Trubner, London, 1868), a work replete with\nlearning, and bold, but somewhat unsound, deductions. This assumed fact\nhas also been used in support of the Biblical story of Noah, his ark,\nand the universal deluge--a myth so palpably extravagant, that everyone\nwho professes to credit it is compelled to object to some detail, and\nto lean upon some frail reed, with the hope that he may thus be pardoned\nfor his credulity. Since the above was written, it has been ascertained\nthat the tale of Noah and his deluge is adapted from an Assyrian or\nBabylonian legend, written apparently with a view to make a story\nfitting to the sign of the Zodiac called Aquarius, one to the full as\nfabulous as that of the birth of Bacchus, and the amours of Zeus.\n\nIn some instances, moreover, and palpably in those cases where the\naccount of the religion of barbarous nations is given by fanatics, such\nas the Roman Catholic invaders of America, or by such conquerors as\nCaesar and others, who have themselves very hazy notions of their\nown faith, the philosopher feels that the savage is intentionally\nmisrepresented; consequently, in these, as in all other instances, it\nbehoves the philosopher to examine the evidence at his command with\ncritical acumen, rather than accept the statements made by more or less\ncareless observers. Endeavouring, therefore, to avoid these difficulties\nas far as possible, let us summarize the result of our reading, and\nrecord the impressions left upon our mind respecting the faith, ritual,\nand practice of certain modern and ancient barbarians.\n\nBeginning with the vast American continent, we find that the Esquimaux\nappear to have no conception whatever of a Creator, of a future state,\nof a mundane theocracy, or of any unseen agency but good or bad\n\"luck.\" But they, nevertheless, put a certain amount of faith in\nconjurers--cunning men or women who profess to be able to insure them a\ngood supply of seals or walrus, and protection from Arctic dangers. For\nsuch a people as this the wants of the day form the chief, if not the\nonly, object of thought; and they resemble lions or eagles, who are now\nall but famished in the hunt for food, and now gorged to repletion with\nthe result of their quest. To such a nation, Heaven, as described in the\nBible, with its sea of glass, its harpists and singers, would afford no\ntemptation, and, unless it was furnished with abundance of oily food, an\nEsquimaux would not visit it; nor would the fires and heat of Hell have\nany terrors for one whose torments on earth are connected with miserable\ncold. In practice, the Esquimaux are very much what they are made by\ntheir neighbours and visitors: they are very decently behaved to those\nwho treat them well, and cruel, barbarous, and revengeful to strangers\nafter they have themselves been worried by invaders. Alternately\ngluttons and starving they obey the necessities of their existence--they\neat to keep themselves warm, and they must be anchorets as rigid as any\nTheban hermit whilst they are seeking their prey. With a temperature\nbelow zero, and winter huts constructed of ice, chastity is almost\na necessary virtue, and adultery cannot possibly be frequent. Where\neverything of value is rare, covetousness is not common; but if the\nholder of the coveted prize be always alert, it is quite natural that\nmurder shall be attempted, either by the thief or his victim. The\nreverence of parents here, as elsewhere, is a necessary accompaniment of\nsavage life, and is quite independent of any knowledge of the decalogue.\nTo prevent reiteration of this observation, let us consider for a\nmoment, the chief if not the main cause, of the reverence given to the\nfather, and, more rarely, to the mother in the economy of human life. We\nsee that the Almighty has implanted an instinct in one or both parents,\nthroughout the larger part of the animal creation, to nourish, guide,\nand teach their young. The duck leads her brood to a pond; the hen keeps\nher chicks from water, but teaches them to pick up seeds, grubs, and\nworms; whilst the cock keeps order amongst the family, The weasel\nteaches its offspring how to attack its prey most advantageously, and\nthe eagle instructs her young ones to fly. In like manner, man is at the\nhead of his own household; he is the first power to which the young ones\nbow; they know the weight of his arm, and dread his anger, knowing that\nthey will suffer from it when it is stirred up. We all know, as a rule,\nthat a habit contracted in childhood adheres to us throughout life,\nconsequently, the dread of the father which exists in the youth becomes,\nvery generally, filial reverence in the man. But we also know that\nalmost throughout the animal creation, the young and sturdy males\nwill, as they grow up to maturity, fight for supremacy, even with their\nparents. So long as the latter retain the mastery they are respected;\nbut as soon as age and its accompanying weakness have made them succumb,\nall filial respect vanishes. If, therefore, a parent, when old, is\nunable to make himself feared by his prowess, revered for his good sense\nor knowledge, or beloved for some faculty which makes him pleasing to\nhis family or the tribe, he is neglected, and often sacrificed, so\nthat the young shall have only themselves to provide food for. Even in\nChristian England, where filial regard is cultivated as an essential\npart of our religion, we too frequently find that parents are wholly\nneglected by their adult offspring, as soon as they become, from\nsickness, age, or other infirmity, useless members of the family.\n\nWithout having ever heard of a law, or set of laws, given in a desert\nfrom Mount Sinai, the Esquimaux are as moral as modern Christians, and\nmore so than the ancient Jews: they certainly have not more gods than\none, and do not worship any graven image. Amongst them blasphemy is\nunknown. Parents are honoured; chastity is general; murder is very\nrare; theft only exists when strangers come amongst them with valuable\nmatters, such as cutting weapons. Amongst such a primitive people false\nwitness is unknown, and covetousness only exists in the presence of\ntravellers who have well-stocked ships or sledges. But the Esquimaux do\nnot keep a Sabbath of rest every seventh day; how, indeed, could they,\nwhen many of their days have a duration of six weeks--according to the\nHebrew computation, which measures the day by sunsets. It is clear,\nthen, that what many persons designate Christian virtues do not\nnecessarily depend upon a knowledge of Jehovah, of Jesus, or of both.\n\nThe North American Indian appears to have been, when first discovered,\nwholly without any distinct religious faith. It is true that some\nauthors have described him as reverencing his manitou, or great spirit,\nand speaking of some happy hunting ground to which his soul will pass\nafter death; but I am unable to find any reliable testimony in support\nof this poetic notion. To me it seems that the Red Indian is nothing\nmore than one of a ferocious tribe of men, who, having to subsist by the\nchase alone, bestows all his thoughts upon getting meat, and driving off\nhis neighbours from interfering in his lands. To such an one a teeming\npopulation is equivalent to a diminution in the supply of game, and\nthis, again, involves starvation. With him, therefore, the murder of his\nneighbours becomes a matter of necessity, one which may be regarded by\nhim as an absolute virtue, a matter of public policy, and essentially\na moral duty; and as he is little superior to a tiger or a cat, he does\nnot scruple to add cruelty to homicide. He who has seen a carnivorous\nbeast seize its living prey, disable, without killing it, and then lie\nby and watch its victim, rising now and again to give it a shake, or\na pat with its claw, can well understand how a Blackfoot Indian might\ngloat over a dying Delaware, or a Mandan torture an Iroquois when he had\nthe chance, each regarding the other as men consider wasps and hornets.\nYet, though without religion, the Indian is not without fear. He is\nterrified by strange noises, and by weird sights; there is a being whom\nhe dreads; and there is in every tribe a \"medicine man,\" who is supposed\nto have supernatural power, and to be able to attract good or to banish\nevil fortune from the chief and his people. Practically, the Red Indian\nis as superstitious about lucky and unlucky days as was the Hebrew David\nand the Persian Haman, and, prior to the starting of an expedition, the\ndiviner is consulted, who may, possibly, answer in the words of the Lord\n(?) of Judah, \"let it be when thou hearest the sound of a going in the\ntops of the mulberry trees, then thou shalt bestir thyself, for then\nshall the Lord go out before thee to smite the host of the Philistines\"\n(2 Sam. v. 24).\n\nBut though without religion, in the usual acceptation of the word, the\nIndians were not, when first the white man knew them, wholly without\nritual, or what has been designated a sacred ceremony. The celebration\nto which we refer occurred every year, was conducted by a definite set\nof actors, and was attended to with wonderful reverence. A full account\nof such ceremony is given by G. Catlin, in a work entitled, O Kee Pa\n(Truebner, London, 1867). In it figures a mystic messenger, who comes to\ndemand the initiation of the young men of the tribe who have attained\na fighting age; tents are then prepared, and men and women are duly\npainted and otherwise disguised to represent buffaloes and bugbears,\nthe bad spirit, etc.; the main intention of the whole being to test the\ncourage, strength, and endurance of the young men by frightful tortures,\nwhich are too disgusting for description here. At the end of the trial,\nhowever, each votary sacrifices a joint of the little finger of one hand\nto the bad spirit. At this feast-some doll-like effigies are used to\nmark the \"mystery\" tent.\n\nAmongst barbarians like these are, it will readily be imagined that\nsuch virtues as chastity and charity have no existence,--that successful\ntheft ennobles the robber, and that the slaughter of an enemy, either by\ntreachery or in fair fight, is regarded as a proof of courage, much as\nit was amongst the Spartan Greeks. Polygamy is simply a matter of wealth\nand arrangement, and women are purchased and treated like slaves. It is\nthe man's business to hunt and fight, it is the woman's duty to make the\nbest or the most of the spoils of the chase.\n\nYet, with this general absence of all religion, there appears to\nbe, here and there, a reverence for certain strange phenomena of\nnature--such as hot or bubbling fountains, sulphur springs, steaming\ngeysers, and curious rocks, like the celebrated pipe-stone rock in the\nSioux territory. From this all pipes ought to be made, there being as\nmuch of orthodoxy in such bowls amongst the Indians as there is in an\n\"Agnus Dei\" amongst Christian papists. There is, too, a reverence for\nthe dead occasionally to be met with, but it cannot be said to amount\nto worship. In some instances, but I do not find that the custom is\ngeneral, a man is interred with his horse, weapons, and medicine bag,\nas if it was expected that he would live beyond the tomb, and require in\nhis other state of existence that which he wanted in this.\n\nWhat we have said of the North American aborigines applies with equal,\nif not with greater, force to those of the South.\n\nFrom what the savage redskins are, and have been, during the last two or\nthree centuries, a transition to what they have been in the past is very\nnatural; and, whilst making the step, the philosopher will be reminded\nof the observation made by some profound observer, to the effect---\"go\nwhere you will, no matter how savage the nation, you will be sure to\nfind the remains of a previous empire, nation, or civilization.\" Vast\nforests, scarcely yet fully explored, cover ancient cities in Ceylon\nand Central America alike, and men, who toiled to build vast temples,\ntowers, palaces, and fortresses, are replaced by wild animals. In\nthe Bashan of Palestine, primeval houses of stone still stand, where\nscarcely a resident is to be found, and the present inhabitants are far\ninferior to the ancient race that built these enduring dwellings. Thus\nthe Abbe Domenech writes (_Seven Years Residence in the Great Deserts of\nNorth America_, London, Longman, 1860), vol. I., p. 353--\"From Florida\nto Canada, from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean, the American soil\nis strewn with gigantic ruins of temples, tumuli, entrenched camps,\nfortifications, towers, villages, towers of observation, gardens, wells,\nartificial meadows, and high roads of the most remote antiquity.\"\n\nWithout entering closely into the nature of the antiquities discovered,\nwe may state that they comprise pyramids, cones, obelisks, hills\nsurrounded by a deep vallum, like that adjoining Salisbury, and earthen\nconstructions analogous to that at Avebury. There is evidence that\nthe artificial erections, which were so built as to be visible from an\nenormous distance, were designed, possibly, as cairns, or memorials of\nthe dead, but also as spots for sacrificial offerings, resembling those\ncalled high places in Ancient Palestine, the tumulus over Patroclus, and\nthe Scythian mounds in the Crimea. The altars which have been discovered\nare made of baked clay or stone, and have the shape of large basins,\nvarying in length from nineteen inches to seventeen yards, but generally\nabout two yards and a-half. Under and around the altars calcined human\nbones were found, and sometimes a whole skeleton was met with in the\ntumulus, as if a sacrifice of men attended the funeral rites, as we\nlearn from Homer that it did, before Troy, when Achilles directed the\nobsequies of his friend Patroclus. Cremation, as well as sepulture, was\nadopted, and with the dead, ornaments, arms, and other objects, which\nbelonged in life to the departed, were buried; amongst these are to be\nreckoned trinkets of silver and of brass, as well as of stone and bone.\nAs a proof of the advanced knowledge of the people referred to, I may\nhere quote, from memory, a note from Stevens' _Central America_, to the\neffect that the bronze tools found in Yucatan, &c., amongst the quarries\nwhence the stone for the ancient temples was procured, are nearly as\nhard as steel, and that a similar bronze is only known to have existed\nin some of the ancient tombs and quarries of Egypt, an observation\nwhich receives additional value from Domenech's remark, vol. I., p.\n364--\"These works of art (arms, idols, and medals, found in New Granada\ntombs) are acknowledged, by the archaeologists of Panama, to possess the\ncharacteristics of both Chinese and Egyptian art.\" Here, again, I would\ncall my readers' attention to the facts, that in very modern times\nChinese have migrated to California, Australia, Singapore, and other\ndistant localities, and that Fortune found Egyptian curiosities in\n_virtu_, shops in China, whilst Egyptologists have discovered Chinese\nmanufactures in Egyptian tombs. The subject of the extent of travel in\nancient times does not enter into my present plan; but as I am desirous\nto make the mind of my readers expansive enough to receive everything\nwhich bears upon the history of man upon the earth, I may be allowed to\nsow seed by the way-side, some of which may blossom as \"a garden flower\ngrown wild.\" Domenech, in p. 408, vol. I., figures a remarkable stone,\nby many persons supposed to be a hoax or forgery, which was found at the\nbase of one of the largest mounds in North America, situated in Western\nVirginia. It lay in a sepulchral chamber, thirty-five feet from the\nsurface, was elliptic in shape, two inches and a-half long, two wide,\nand about half an inch thick, and the material was of a dark colour, and\nvery hard. The following is a copy from Domenech's work, and, without\ndwelling upon it, we may call attention to the similarity of some of\nthe letters with those known to, or used by the Phoenicians, Ancient\nGreco-Italians, and Carthaginians. Like the Newton Stone, in Scotland,\nand some Gnostic gems, it may be said to be learned \"gibberish,\" which\n\"the spirits\" can read but no one else.\n\n[Illustration: 056]\n\nThere is, indeed, much more evidence than is generally supposed to\nconnect the ancient mound-builders in America with the inhabitants\nof the Eastern Hemisphere, particularly in their modes of burial, the\nnature of their earthworks, and the style of such ornaments and figures\nas have been found. For example, there is one enclosure described, in\nthe centre of which is erected a mound and pillar, precisely resembling\nthe linga yoni of the East. In addition to these, carved stones have\nbeen found, which unite together such Oriental emblems as the sun and\nmoon, the Tau, T and the egg, O which together make the well-known\nEgyptian symbol A. Again, Domenech figures some male and female human\neffigies, of whom American savans write that they represent idols of\nsexual design, similar to those exposed in the _Mysteries of Eleusis_,\none of them being a badly finished image of Priapus. Domenech still\nfarther states, on the authority of Cortez, that a form of worship,\nrecalling the Egyptian mysteries of Isis and Osiris, was established in\nAmerica.\n\nRespecting the nature of the religion of the mound builders the Abbe\nwrites--\"The government of these nations appears to have been theocratic\nor sacerdotal, like that of the Jews, and the religious administrative\nand military power was, probably, vested in one and the same person.\nThis is clearly evinced by the taboo, or sacred monuments, being\ncombined with those of a purely military character,\" p. 366. Without\nstraining doubtful points too far, we may content ourselves with\naffirming that the researches of Davis and Squire, of Stephens, and of\nDomenech, show that the mound builders of America raised high places\nfor sacrificial fires; that they built huge piles of earth over dead\nwarriors; and, that during the funeral rites which were observed at the\nobsequies, they immolated certain human victims.\n\nLet us now pause for a moment and consider how much is involved in the\npractice of making a sacrifice by fire, or otherwise, at the burial of\nany deceased chieftain or honoured man. With what idea could the living\nwife join her husband on the funeral pyre in India, or the ancient\nTartars have slain the horse, slaves, wives, and chief officers of a\ndefunct king, burying them all in a vast grave, unless they entertained\nthe belief that there was a life beyond the grave? The faith may have\nbeen of the crudest form, yet the practice evidenced the belief that\nthose who died, and were buried together, would arise and live at the\nsame time and place, and in the same relative positions which they had\nduring life. If this be granted, it demonstrates that the early dwellers\nin America had a higher conception of immortality than had the ancient\nJews, even although the latter assumed, and pertinaciously persisted in\nthe assertion, that they, and they only of all the nations of the\nworld, were taught of God--a boast to which a vast number of thoughtless\nChristians give a profound reverence, and most implicit belief.\n\nWithout speculating upon the probable connexion between the\nmound-builders and the inhabitants of ancient Mexico, we will endeavour,\nwith the aid of Prescott, and other writers, to ascertain something\nof the faith professed by Montezuma and his subjects. Derived from two\nsources, there were two distinct elements in the Mexican religion; one\nof these was gentle and mild as the teaching of Christ, and the other,\nferocious and cruel, like the practice of such of his followers as\nthe sensual Crusaders, the persecuting Popes of Italy, and the brutal,\nmoney-grubbing Spaniards. The former gradually dried up, like primitive\nChristianity, and the harmlessness of the dove was replaced by the\nferocity of the wolf. It is in strict accordance with human nature,\nthat virtues are harder to maintain than vices, hence malignancy swelled\nitself up and became dominant. The priests of the sanguinary class\ncontrived as burdensome a ceremonial as ever existed in Judea,\nGreece, Spain, or Modern Rome, and they surrounded their deities with\nconceptions as grotesque as those which are clustered round the Hindoo\ngods of to-day, the divinities of the Greeks and Romans, and the\ninnumerable virgins, saints, and martys of mediaeval and modern papal\nChristianity. The power and the inclination to make fetish is certainly\nnot confined to African negroes. The Mexicans recognized a supreme\nCreator as the God by whom we live, one who was, for them, omnipresent\nand omniscient--the giver of all good things, \"without whom man is as\nnothing.\" He was said to be \"invisible, incorporeal, a being of absolute\nperfection and perfect purity,\" \"under whose wings men may find repose\nand a sure defence.\" But this deity, though single, was subdivided\nby the Mexican theologians, much in the same way as Jehovah became\nseparated into an innumerable host of angels, archangels, and devils,\nand as Zeus was split up into an equally numerous army of gods,\ngoddesses, and demigods. The Mexicans had thirteen major, and about two\nhundred minor, divinities, to one or other of whom each day was devoted,\nmuch in the same way as certain modern Christians believe in one\nCreator, four persons, three of whom are male and the other female,\nseven archangels, and some hundreds of saints, virgins, or martyrs, to\neach of whom one day of the year is consecrated. There are more gods and\ngoddesses in the Papal calendar than in that of Ancient Mexico, Greece,\nor even Rome.\n\nAt the head of the celestial army was \"the god of war,\" \"the patron of\nthe kingdom,\" whose temples were more noble in their barbaric majesty\nthan any other, and to whom human beings were sacrificed in abundance.\nThey were the noblest creatures that could be found, and in truth, there\nwere very few other animals to offer in their place.\n\nThis great Mexican divinity was essentially the same as the _Jehovah\nTsebaoth_ of the Hebrew Scriptures; the Lord of Hosts of whom we read in\nExod. xv. 3, \"The Lord (Jehovah) is a man of war, the Lord (Jehovah) is\nHis name;\" and in Ps. xxiv. 8, \"Who is this King of glory?--the Lord,\nstrong and mighty; the Lord, mighty in battle;\" and again, the same idea\nappears in verse 10 of the same Psalm; see also 1 Chron. xvii. 24, \"The\nLord of Hosts is the God of Israel.\" Indeed, we should weary the reader\nif we were to quote all the texts to be found in the Old Testament,\nwhich prove that the Hebrew Jehovah was as much a god of war as was the\nchief deity of the Mexicans. Modern civilization may frame the belief\nthat God is not \"the author of confusion, but of peace\" (1 Cor. xiv.\n33); but the Hebrews in the East, and the Mexicans in the West, held a\ndifferent opinion. Besides the god of war there was a god of the air,\nwho once lived on earth, and taught metallurgy, agriculture, and the\nart of government. He was essentially a human benefactor, who caused the\nearth to teem with fruit and flowers, without the trouble of laborious\ncultivation--his reign was analogous to the golden age of the Greeks and\nRomans. But he was not wholly satisfactory, and was banished; yet he is\nto have a second coming, like Elias, and a modern deity of the Eastern\nworld. His portrait is identical, apparently, with the commonly received\nlikeness of Jesus. In Christian mythology (see Eph. ii. 2), \"the prince\nof the power of the air\" is regarded as \"the adversary,\" or a devil.\nNo other deities are described in detail by Prescott, but he says that\nevery household had its \"penates,\" or household gods. On turning\nto Higgins, who quotes entirely from Lord Kingsborough's _Mexican\nAntiquities_, we find that the Mexicans baptized their children with\nwhat they called \"water of regeneration.\" Their king also danced before\nhis god, as David did, to his chaste wife's disgust, and was consecrated\nand anointed by the high priest with a holy unction as Saul and the\nson of Jesse were. On one day of the year all the fires in the Mexican\nkingdom were extinguished and lighted again from one sacred hearth in\nthe temple, which again reminds us of the Vestal Virgins, whose business\nwas to keep up a holy fire in Rome, and of the lamp which was to burn\nperpetually in the Jewish temple (Exod. xxvii. 20). At the end of October\nthe Mexicans had a feast resembling our \"All Souls,\" or \"Saints,\" day,\nwhich was called \"the festival of advocates,\" because each human being\nhad an advocate in the heaven above to plead for him, which again\nreminds us of Jesus' dictum, that children have guardian angels, who are\nalways in God's presence (Matt, xviii. 10)\n\nThe same people had a forty-days' fast, in honour of a god who was\ntempted forty days upon a mountain, and thus resembled the Prophet of\nNazareth. He was called the morning star, and thus is to be identified\nwith Lucifer as well as Jesus (Isa. xiv. 12, Rev. xxii. 16), and carried\na reed for an emblem (see Eev. xxi. 15). The Mexicans honoured a cross,\nand the god of air was represented sometimes as nailed to one, and even\noccasionally between two other individuals.*\n\n     * As we cannot imagine that the Mexicans were aware of the\n     manner in which modern Christians depict Jesus on the cross,\n     we most, I think, seek for some idea which was common to\n     both the East and West. In Payne Knight's work, so often\n     referred to by us, there is a picture which represents a\n     cock with a lingam instead of a head and beak; on its\n     pediment there is in Greek the words, soteer kosmou, \"the\n     saviour of the world.\" This is also an epithet of Siva, and\n     he is sometimes represented as a phallus. In this he is the\n     Asher or Bel of the Assyrian triad, erected higher than the\n     other two. In Christian history the outsiders are said to be\n     thieves, but it was not so in Mexico.    The three crosses\n     are simply emblems of the \"trinity.\"\n\nA virgin and child were also adored, as they were in Babylonia, Assyria,\nEgypt, and Hindostan, and as they are in a great part of Europe at the\npresent time. The people believed in vast cycles of years, at the end\nof each of which there was to be a general destruction of life, and a\nperfect regeneration, an idea which Higgins has shown to have existed\namongst Persians, Romans, and Jews alike. The Mexicans still further\nbelieved in a threefold future state--a heaven for the brave, and those\nwho were sacrificed, there being, so far as I can discover, no abstract\nidea of what we call \"virtue\"; a hell for the wicked; and a sort of\nquiet limbo for those who were in no way distinguished. Heaven was\nlocated in the sun, and the blessed were permitted to revel amongst\nlovely clouds and singing birds, enjoying, unharmed, all the charms of\nnature: a conception which is to the full as poetical, and, probably,\nquite as near the truth, as that given in \"Revelation.\" When a man died\nhe was burned, and, if rich, his slaves were sacrificed with him, the\nMexicans, in this respect, resembling the ancient Scythians, with whom\nthey had much in common. When the ceremony of giving a name to children\nwas gone through, their lips and bosom were sprinkled with water, and\nthe Lord was implored to permit the holy drops to wash away the sin that\nwas given to the child before the foundation of the world, so that the\ninfant might be born anew, or, in modern terms, regenerated (Prescott,\nch. 3). Amongst their prayers, or invocations, were the formulas, \"Wilt\nThou blot us out, O Lord, for ever? Is this punishment intended, not for\nour reformation, but for our destruction?\" again, \"Impart to us, out of\nThy great mercy, Thy gifts which we are not worthy to receive through\nour own merits;\" \"Keep peace with all;\" \"Bear injuries with humility,\nGod who sees will avenge you;\" \"He who looks too curiously on a woman\ncommits adultery with eyes.\" These Mexican maxims so closely resemble\nthose to be found in the Bible, that it is difficult to believe that the\nSpaniards really told the truth respecting them. The sacerdotal order\namongst the Mexicans was a numerous one, well arranged and powerful. The\npriests used musical choirs in their worship, arranged the calendar, and\nappointed the time for festivals. They superintended the education of\nyouth, and wrote up the traditions, like the \"recorders\" of the Jews,\nPersians, other Orientals, and Christian monks, and looked to the\nconservancy of the hieroglyphic paintings. There were two high priests,\nwho alone had to undertake the duty of offering human sacrifices,\nand these were elected by the king and nobles, quite irrespective\nof previous rank, and, when elected, they were inferior only to the\nsovereign. When reading this, anyone who is familiar with biblical\nhistory will bethink him of Luke iii. 3, \"Annas and Caiaphas being the\nhigh priests,\" the plural, not the singular, number being used, and of\nthe dictum of Caiaphas, John xi. 50, \"It is expedient for us that one\nman should die for the people, that the whole nation perish not.\" We\nmay put what construction we please upon these facts, but, whatever\ninterpretation we may adopt, we must acknowledge that the Hebrews, at\nthe time when our era commences, had two high priests who were concerned\nin human sacrifice.\n\nThe priests, in general, were devoted to the service of some particular\ndeity, and, during the time of their attendance, lived in the temple,\ncelibate; but, when not on duty, they resided with their wives and\nfamilies. Thrice during the day, and once at some period of the night,\nthey were called to prayer, much like all the varieties of Christian\nmonks and nuns. They were frequent in their ablutions, in which habit\nthey may be contrasted with those saintly hermits, who regarded dirt as\na divine ordinance, and never washed; and they mortified the flesh by\nlong vigils, fasting, and cruel penance, drawing blood from their bodies\nby flagellation, or by piercing them with the thorns of the aloe. The\nresemblance of the Mexican sacerdotalism with Jewish and Christian\ncustoms is thus shown to be wonderful and striking, so much so, that\nthe Spaniards started the idea that they had been taught by some\nstray apostle of Jesus. The great cities of Mexico were divided into\ndistricts, each of which was placed under the charge of a sort of\nparochial clergy, who regulated every act of religion within their\nprecincts, and who administered the rites of confession and absolution.\nThe secrets of the confessional were held inviolable, and penances were\nimposed, of much the same kind as those enjoined by the Roman Catholic\nChurch upon her votaries.\n\nIt was a tenet of Mexican faith, that a sin once atoned for, was, if\nrepeated, inexpiable a second time; consequently, confession was only\nonce resorted to, and that late in life; a good plan, upon the whole,\nfor it enabled a man whose days were numbered to get pardon \"for good\nand aye.\" It was also held that sacerdotal absolution was equivalent\nto magisterial punishment. The formula of absolution contained this,\namongst other things, \"O merciful Lord, Thou who knowest the secrets of\nall hearts, let Thy forgiveness and favour descend, like the pure waters\nof heaven, to wash away the stains from the soul. Thou knowest that this\npoor man has sinned, not from his own free will, but from the influence\nof the sign under which he was born.\" This idea may well be compared\nwith the current doctrine of the phrenologists, many of whom assert that\na man acts according to the configuration of his brain and cranium, and\nis, therefore, only partially culpable for the commission of certain\ncrimes. After a copious exhortation to the penitent, in which he was\nenjoined to undergo a variety of mortifications, and to perform minute\nceremonies, by way of penance, he was particularly urged to procure,\nwith the smallest possible delay, a slave, who was to be utilized in\nsacrifice to the Deity; the priest then concluded with inculcating\ncharity to the poor--\"Clothe the naked, and feed the hungry, whatever\nprivations it may cost thee, for remember their flesh is like thine.\"\n\nThe necessity of sacrifice, as an atonement for sin, forms an essential,\nthough bloody, part of both the Hebrew and the Christian faiths, and\nhistory has long taught us that the slaughter of a man, woman, or child,\nformed, in the estimation of the Ancient Greeks, and other nations, one\nof the most acceptable of the forms of homage paid by a human being to\nthe Creator. This idea is at the very basis of the Christian theology.\nIt has been held, from the time of the apostle Paul to the present day,\nthat Jehovah would not look favourably upon mankind until He had been\npropitiated, not by the sacrifice of an ordinary individual, but by the\nmurder, in the crudest of modes, of a being whom He personally begat,\nfor the purpose of killing him when arrived at maturity. In Hebrews\nx. 12, we find this doctrine very distinctly enunciated, in the words,\n\"this man, after he had offered one sacrifice of sins for ever, sat down\non the right hand of God,\" and subsequently, v. 14, \"by one offering he\nhath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.\" Again, in Heb. ix.\n26, \"once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by\nthe sacrifice of himself;\" and in Heb. x. 10, \"we are sanctified through\nthe offering of the body of Jesus Christ;\" and in ix. 28, \"Christ\nwas once offered to bear the sins of many.\" The philosopher may doubt\nwhether the God whom the Christians have made for their own adoration,\nis in any way different to that of King Mesha, who offered up his own\nson in sacrifice, or to the Mexican one, who was contented with the\nblood of a slave.*\n\n     * It is doubtful whether any Christian has ever paid real\n     attention to the doctrines which are familiar to his ear, or\n     to the hymns which an most frequently on his tongue. In the\n     usual fashion which is prevalent amongst ministers and\n     hearers, everything which is told by missionaries of heathen\n     deities is taken as true. Thus it has become the general\n     belief that the Mexican theology, which required an annual\n     sacrifice of human beings, whose hearts were cut out, and\n     offered warm, palpitating and full of blood, to a God who\n     was supposed to be present in a sacred stone statue, was\n     beyond measure atrocious. But in what consists the horror,\n     unless in the fact that the sacrifice was seen by the\n     worshippers? In Christendom people are never called upon to\n     see a man killed by nailing him to a cross. If they were\n     condemned to this penance, very little would any of them\n     talk of blood. As it is, the minds of the majority are\n     lulled to sleep by the substitution of words for facts, and\n     texts of Scripture for ideas; and those who are unable to\n     look upon a cut finger without fainting, and would not for\n     worlds go to see a man decapitated, talk in the serenest\n     manner on most sanguinary topics. A reference to a few hymns\n     which are general favourites will illustrate what I mean. In\n     \"Rock of Ages,\" for example, we have the lines--\n\n     \"Let the water and the blood\n     From thy riven side that flowed,\n     Cleanse from sin and make me pure.\"\n\n     Another equally popular hymn begins\n\n     \"From Calv'ry's cross a fountain flows\n     Of water and of blood,\n     More healing than Bethesda's pool,\n     Redeeming Lord, thy precious blood\n     Shall never lose its power...\" and again--\n\n     \"There is a fountain filled with blood,\n     Drawn from Immanuels veins,\n     And sinners plunged beneath that flood\n     Lose all their guilty stains.\"\n\n     No congregation of Christian, or any other men, would\n     tolerate for a moment the introduction into divine worship\n     of a bath of blood, into which all those should plunge who\n     desired salvation. Not one would endeavour to wash his sins\n     away in a sanguine stream, drawn from any source whatever.\n     The horror which would be produced by the doctrine that such\n     things are necessary to appease our God, would make every\n     thinking being detest it. Yet, when we only play with the\n     idea, we can talk of such matters with holy complacency. If\n     any Christian wants to test his faith, let me advise him to\n     get a basinful of blood and place it in his bed-room, and\n     say twice a day, when looking on it, that's the stuff which\n     propitiates my God! It would not be long ere he saw the\n     absurdity of his theological tenets, and the coarseness of\n     the hierarchy which invented so frightful an idea of the\n     Omnipotent.\n\nFor the education of the youth of Mexico a part of the temples was\nallotted, where the boys and girls of the middle and higher classes were\nplaced at an early period--the girls to be taught by the priestesses,\nthe boys by priests; and from a note in Prescott's corrected edition,\n1866, p. 22, we learn that the former were even more generally pure\nin life than, we have reason to believe, the Egyptian priestesses and\nChristian nuns proved themselves to be, Father Acosto saying, \"In truth,\nit is very strange to see that this false opinion of religion hath so\ngreat force amongst these young men and maidens of Mexico, that they\nwill serve the Devil with so great vigour and austerity, which many\nof us do not in the service of the most high God, the which is a great\nshame and confusion.\" It is curious to notice how the Christian priest\nconsiders that chastity may be a snare of the Devil, as well as an\nordinance of Jehovah. The boys, in these scholastic parts of the sacred\ntemples, were taught the routine of monastic discipline--to decorate the\nshrines of the gods with flowers, to feed the sacred fires, and to chant\nin worship and at festivals. The Abbe Hue, in an account of his travels\nin Thibet and Tartary, has told us repeatedly of the similarity between\nthe rites, practices, and ceremonies of the Romish Church and those in\nuse amongst the followers of the Great Lama. It is equally marvellous to\ndiscover that the Mexican ritual resembles both. The Papalist endeavours\nto explain this, by the monstrous assumption that both Tartary and\nMexico were evangelized by two different Christian Apostles. But it\nseems to us more probable that the Romanists, who are known to have\nadopted almost every ancient ceremony, symbol, doctrine, and the like,\nhave unknowingly copied from travelled Orientals, than that the cult of\nthe people of Thibet has travelled into America, as well as into Europe.\nInto the identity of the Tartars with the Red Indians it is not my\nintention to enter. The higher Mexicans were taught traditionary lore,\nthe mysteries of hieroglyphics, the principles of government, and\nsuch astronomical and scientific knowledge as the priests would, or,\nprobably, could, impart. The girls learned to weave and embroider\ncoverings for the altars of the gods. Great attention was paid to\nmorality, and offences were punished with extreme rigour, even with\ndeath itself. Youths were taught to eschew, vice and cleave to virtue,\nto abstain from wrath, to offer violence or do wrong to no man, and to\ndo good where possible.\n\nWhen of an age to marry, the pupils were dismissed from the convent, and\nthe recommendation of the principal thereof often introduced those\nwhom he regarded as the most competent of the students, to responsible\nsituations in public life. Such was the policy of the Mexican priests,\nwho were thus enabled to mould the mind of the young, and to train it\nearly to the necessity of giving reverence to religion, and especially\nto its ministers--a reverence which maintained its hold on the warrior\nlong after every other vestige of education had been effaced. In this\nmatter America showed an astuteness equal to that exhibited by Papal\nhierarchs in Rome.\n\nTo each of the principal temples, lands were annexed, for the\nmaintenance of the priests, and these glebes were augmented by\nsuccessive princes, until, under Montezuma, they were of enormous\nextent, and covered every district of the* empire. The priests took the\nmanagement of their property into their own hands, and treated their\ntenants with liberality and indulgence. In addition to this source of\nincome, they had \"first fruits,\" and other offerings, dictated by piety\nor superstition. The surplus was distributed in alms amongst the poor,\na duty strenuously prescribed by their moral code. Thus we find, adds\nPrescott, whom we are closely, and almost verbatim, following, the\nsame religion inculcating lessons of pure philanthropy and of merciless\nextermination--an inconsistency not incredible to those familiar with\nthe history of the Roman Catholic Church in the early ages of the\nInquisition.\n\nIn the course of a not very long life, I have heard, upon many\noccasions, the argument that the persistency of the Roman Catholic\nChurch, in spite of its abominable corruptions, its utter contempt for\ntruth, its outrageous cruelty, its glaring superstition, its intolerable\narrogance, and its rapacious covetousness, proves that it is, and must\never be regarded as a divine institution. But this argument loses all\nits weight when we find that the religion of the Mexicans, which the\nSpaniards declared to have sprung from the Devil, had the virtues, as\nwell as many vices, of the Roman faith. If one came from Heaven, the\nother could not have come from Hell. The simple truth seems to be, that\ncrafty and designing men are always able to find dupes, and that red men\nand black, the haughty Italian and the lively Frenchman, the stolid boor\nand the polished orator, may all suffer alike from an education which\nhas taught them, in youth, to believe in the reality of a revelation\ngiven to a class of human beings who, by its means, assume to be divine.\n\nThe Mexican temples--_teocallis_, or \"houses of God \"--were very\nnumerous, indeed there were several hundreds in each of the principal\ncities of the kingdom; but we need not describe them more minutely than\nto say that they were truncated pyramids terminating in a level surface,\nupon which blazed the sacred fire. All religious services were public,\nas in Roman Catholic countries. There were long processions of priests,\nand numerous festivals of unusual sacredness, as well as monthly and\ndaily appropriate celebrations of worship, so that it is difficult to\nconceive how the ordinary business of life was carried on. The sun was\nan universal object of reverence. At a period not long prior (about 200\nyears) to the Spanish conquest, human sacrifices were adopted for the\nfirst time, and they speedily became common, both as regards repetition\nand the numbers of victims slaughtered. In some instances the oblations\nterminated with cannibalism. The burnt offering was roasted, not\nincinerated, and, like the Paschal lamb, was devoutly devoured. Sexual\nrites, symbols, or worship, appear to have been very rare, for I can\nonly find one or two doubtful references to them. In this matter the\nMexicans were far superior to all the old Shemitic and Egyptian, as well\nas the Hindoo, races. So far Prescott.\n\nWhilst writing the foregoing, it has required some determination not to\ncomment very extensively upon the facts recorded, for they do, indeed,\nset the thoughtful mind on fire. Amongst the questions which they\nprovoke, the first is, \"how far the accounts given to us are to be\ndepended upon?\" In answering this query, we readily recognize that our\nauthorities can only have been Spaniards, who were, to a great extent,\nimplacable enemies of the Mexicans, to a great extent ignorant of their\nlanguage, and bitterly hostile to them in matters of religion. But this\nrecognition leads us to trust the accounts which they give, for, if the\ninvaders had been able to treat the natives as unmitigated savages,\nthey would have had the more excuse for pillaging their sacred stores,\ntemples, and palaces, and exterminating the pagan worshippers. Again, if\nthe picture thus painted were a fancy one, having no real existence save\nin the mind of the writer, we should be able readily to recognize its\ncounterpart in the Spanish history of the Peruvians, just as we are able\nto ascertain the identity of the authorship of certain anonymous works\nby Lord Lytton, by the existence therein of his marked peculiarity of\nstyle. The best testimony, however, to the substantial truth of the\naccounts given of the nature of the Mexican faith, is to be found in\nvarious minute episodes of their general history, in the behaviour of\nthe Aztecs with each other, and towards their invaders, and the general\ncustoms which are recorded. That the Spanish writers had a real belief\nin the account of which Prescott has given us so admirable a resume, we\nmay feel assured, for one of them introduced the naive remark, \"that the\nDevil had positively taught to the Mexicans the same things which God\nhad taught to Christendom.\"\n\nWhen once we have satisfied ourselves of the truth of the Spanish\naccounts of the ancient Mexican institutions, we find ourselves in the\npresence of some very striking religious and political facts. We see\nbefore us a nation who had attained to as distinct a conception of the\nAlmighty as we have ourselves; who had discovered a heaven, a hell,\nand an intermediate place, without the assistance of Jew or Greek,\nBabylonian or Persian; who had instituted a sacerdotal class, and made\nprovision for their subsistence, without any assistance from Melchizedek\nor Moses; who had adopted a principle of national education long before\nsuch a thing was thought of in England, or in Europe. In fine, the Aztec\nfaith and policy were, at least, as praiseworthy, if not far nearer to\nperfection, than the faith and policy which obtained in Christian Italy,\nFrance, and Spain, during the dark and the middle ages. There is not,\nindeed, any one point in which the contrast is not favourable to the\nAztecs, except in the single point of human sacrifice. Christianity can,\napparently, make a heavy accusation against the Aztec religion on this\npoint, and may fairly seem to reproach it for that frequency of human\nsacrifice, and even cannibalism, which formed, at the time of the\nSpanish conquest, an essential part of the Mexican faith.\n\nYet, when we dive below the surface, and examine this matter with\nphilosophic care, we readily see that the charge is deprived of much of\nits weight. Who, for example, can compare the practice of the people\nof Montezuma with that of Spaniards under the sway of Ferdinand and\nIsabella, without seeing that in Spain there were human sacrifices,\nwhich were conducted with far more cruelty than those in Mexico. We\nfind, in the first place, that the custom of sacrificing human\nbeings was no more an essential part of the Aztec, than it was of the\nChristian, faith; it was only in existence two hundred years before the\nSpanish invasion, and many centuries, bloodless of human offerings, had\npassed away ere the period of what we may term brutality arrived. Just\nso it was with the religion of Jesus; for centuries it was unstained by\nblood, and comparatively meek and humble, yet, when its priesthood rose\nto power, they indulged in human holocausts on a most extended scale.\nThe Spaniards give accounts of thousands of victims offered up at once\nto the Mexican god of war; but what are these in comparison to the\nvictims of Paris, sacrificed by Papists on the eve and day of St.\nBartholomew, and those at Beziers.\n\nIt may be doubted by the philosopher whether the Christian religion\nwas not, from its very commencement, as intolerant of opposition and as\npersecuting as it became hereafter.\n\nThe story of Jesus cursing a fig tree, which did not bear fruit out\nof its season (Mark xi. 13, 14, 21), shows that even he, whom the\nChristians take for an example, was quite capable of that pettiness,\nwhich visits upon the innocent the vexation felt by one's self. But when\nwe read the story in Acts, v., about Ananias and Sapphira, we see, in\nall its naked horror, a fearful Christian persecution. The victims were\ndone to death for deceiving an apostle. But why should we be surprised\nat the followers of \"the Son\" doing that which \"the Father\" ordained? Is\nthere any human king who ever promulgated a more bloody order than did\nJehovah Sabaoth, the God which, amongst the Hebrews, corresponded to the\nMexican god of war, when he commissioned Samuel to say to Saul (1 Sam.\nxv. 3), \"Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they\nhave; slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel\nand ass!\" After such a destruction of the Midianites as is narrated\nin Numb, xxxi., the fearful slaughter, effected by Crusaders, of Jews,\nTurks, and heretics is scarcely worth mentioning.\n\nThere was a teacher who remarked, \"he who is without sin among you,\nlet him first cast a stone\" at the culprit; and surely, when our Bible,\nwhich is treasured by so many as the only rule of faith amongst us,\ndetails such horrible religious slaughters as are to be found in its\npages, and abounds with persecuting precepts, we had better not talk too\nmuch about Mexican sacrifice. Was there any Aztec minister so brutal in\nhis religious fury as Samuel was (1 Sam. xv. 33), who hewed Agag into\npieces? The Mexican was merciful to his victim; the Hebrew was like\na modern Chinese executioner, who kills the criminal by degrees. His\ncruelty has been emulated in Christian France, and under the reign of\ntwo of her kings, we have seen a Ravaillac and Damiens tortured slowly\nto death, by means too horrible to dwell upon.\n\nThe writers upon Mexico tell us of a lovely youth, who was educated for\na whole year to become a victim, and how, at the end of that time, he\nwas feted, adorned, and even worshipped; how four of the most charming\nmaidens of Mexico were selected as his wives, and how he remained in the\nenjoyment of the highest honour until the time of his sacrifice arrived,\nand we feel due horror at the recital. Yet, what is it compared with the\naccounts we read of miserable men and women racked, in hideous dungeons,\nby the most horrible tortures which an enlightened Christian ingenuity\ncould devise, and who then, with limbs whose loosened fibres could\nscarcely sustain their bruised and mangled bodies, were led, or driven\nat the sword's point, to a stake fixed in the ground, there to be tied\nand burned, whilst devout Christian multitudes stood around, rejoicing,\nlike demons, over the hellish scene.\n\nNo one can gloat over the imaginary torments of Hell without being a\npersecuting devil at heart.\n\nSurely the Christians have too much sin amongst themselves to cast a\nstone at the inhabitants of Mexico.\n\nWe find a strong offset to the horror of Aztec cruelty in the very\nBible, which we regard as the mainstay of our religious world. What,\nfor example, is the essential difference between a Mexican monarch\nsacrificing one or ten thousand men taken in battle, and Moses\ncommanding the extermination of the inhabitants of Canaan, and only\nsaving, out of Midian, thirty-two thousand virgins, that they might\nminister to the lust of his Hebrew followers? What, again, are we to say\nof David's God, who would not turn away his anger from Judah until\nseven sons of the preceding king had been offered up as victims? And\nlastly--thought still more awful! what must we say of the fundamental\ndoctrines of Christianity, that Jehovah Himself sacrificed His own Son\nby a cruel death; and not only so, but that He had intercourse with\nan earthly woman, and had thus a son by her, for the sole purpose of\nbringing about his murder? Can we object to religious cannibalism in the\nAztec, when Jesus of Nazareth is said to have urged his followers to eat\nhis body and to drink his blood; and when hundreds of priests have shed\nthe blood of millions of men, who, disbelieving the power of any man\nto convert bread and wine into flesh and blood, have refused to profane\ntheir lips by a cannibal feast?\n\nHaving now examined the nature of the Aztec faith, let us, for a while,\nlinger upon the fruits which it produced. Who can read the mournful\nstory of the fall of Mexico without contrasting, in his own mind, the\nrespective characters of the conquerors and the conquered? In every\nso-called Christian virtue Montezuma proved himself to be superior\nto the lying, unscrupulous, rapacious and covetous Cortez. Even the\ngreatest fire-eater who ever lived cannot fail to see that the Spaniard\nwould not have been victorious over the Mexican, if the latter had been\nequally well equipped with arms, armour, and horses, as the former was.\nWe can only tell vaguely what was the condition of Anahuac prior to\nthe invasion of Cortez; but, from the testimony given by Prescott, we\nbelieve that there were annual wars between adjoining tribes, who met\nsolely to obtain from their enemies victims for sacrifice, the battles\nalways ending with the day, and never being resumed for conquest, or for\nthe plunder of maidens to be an indulgence of a victor's lust. What the\ncondition of the same country under Christian rule has been, and still\nis, every reader of modern and contemporary history knows; and he sees,\nwith regret, that Jehovah Sabaoth, Jesus of Nazareth, and the Holy\nSpirit, with an army of saints, angels, virgins, and martyrs, as well as\nancient gods of the Eastern Hemisphere are, if they are to be judged by\nthe acts of their worshippers, as cruel, revengeful, and malignant, as\nwere the deities of the Mexican kingdom.\n\nThe followers of the cross will appear to be quite as despicable when\nwe contrast them with the Peruvians, as they were when compared with the\ninhabitants of Anahuac.\n\nThere is something very fascinating in the history of Peru, as recorded\nby the Spanish authors, and rendered into the English language by\nPrescott. There is no account of ancient or modern people extant which\nhas interested me so much as those of the realm of Manco Capac. To hear\nof a nation, separated by an ocean, we may, indeed, say two, and a vast\ncontinent, from the civilized portions of Asia, Europe, and Africa,\nlocated in a mountainous tract, where soil and water were scanty, and\nlocomotion was rendered difficult from the configuration of the land;\nwhose country was surrounded by strong natural enemies of all kinds;\nwhose people were unable to use such agents as steel and gunpowder, and\nwho were yet enabled to construct vast cities and temples, to quarry,\nremove, and use in buildings, fragments of rock thirty-eight feet long,\neighteen feet broad, and six feet thick, and to transport these to\ndistances varying from 12 to 45 miles, to form good roads along the\nmountain tops, for an extent of nearly two thousand miles, necessitating\nthe filling up chasms of enormous depth, and the making of suspension\nbridges over rivers whose stream was too furious to bridge in the\nordinary European fashion, is perfectly astonishing.\n\nThe far-sighted Incas, to make these roads still more useful,\naccompanied them by the erection of large residences, like modern\nEuropean bungalows in India, fit for the reception of a monarch with\nhis army, and by vast magazines of provisions, sufficient to supply\nthe wants of a warlike expedition, or of a population starving from an\naccidental failure of crops. The Peruvians, moreover, surrounded their\nchief towns with strong walls, in comparison with which the Cyclopean\nconstructions of the old world seem small, stunted, and almost\ncontemptible. It appears, in addition, that they knew how to form\nlong tunnels, either for the passage of troops, for the benefit of\ntravellers, or for the conveyance of water. All these, I say, are enough\nto fire the imagination of the dullest reader of history, and to shake\nthe belief that civilization cannot be developed in the midst of what we\nhave been accustomed to call savage life, and can only be brought to\na moderate perfection by the influence of the Hebrew and Christian\nwritings.\n\nOur wonder is not, however, bounded by the physical results produced by\nthe industrious population of Peru, it is still farther exercised by\nthe descriptions which are given of their wonderful domestic and foreign\npolicy. It would be difficult to conceive, and still more difficult\nto carry into execution for many generations, a plan of government so\neminently fitted to give the greatest happiness to the greatest number,\nas that which the Incas elaborated. The rulers were specially educated\nto fulfil their duties in every respect, and were not permitted, as\nmodern princes are, to enter into the ranks of chivalry until they had\nundergone a public examination, which was conducted by the oldest and\nthe most illustrious chiefs. The trial included tests of every warlike\nand manly quality. It lasted thirty days, during which time every\ncompetitor fared alike, living on the bare ground, and wearing a mean\nattire. Those who passed the ordeal honourably were admitted formally\ninto the knightly order, the ceremony including an investiture of the\nyouth with sandals put on by the most venerable noble, equivalent to\nthe donning of the _toga virilis_ in Ancient Rome, and having the ear\npierced with a golden bodkin by the reigning monarch. To take off the\nshoe was a ceremony exacted from all those who came into the Inca's\npresence, to have it put on by a grandee was great honour.\n\nThat the rulers might understand the condition of the kingdom, they\nsystematically travelled, much in the same way as James V. of Scotland,\nand the Caliph Haroun Alraschid, are said to have done. The Incas, in\naddition to their other plans for good government, inaugurated a\npostal system: divided their peoples into tens, fifties, hundreds, five\nhundreds, thousands, and ten thousands, much in the same way as the\nSaxon King Alfred is said to have done, whose plan is, in many respects,\nconserved to the present day; and the head man of each division was in\nall respects its ruler, to repress crime, to announce to his superior\nofficer all unusual occurrences, and to report, generally, the actual\nstate of his division to the chief above him. All legal trials,\nor appeals, were decided in less than five days, and a code was\nestablished, which all might readily know, a thing only attained by the\nFrench under the first Napoleon, and long desired by England, but in\nvain. Punishments were never attended with torture, or unnecessary\ncruelty. In this respect the Peruvians differed from every other\ncivilized nation of which I have yet read. The Chinaman methodically\ninflicts painful punishments which have only been surpassed by the\nfollowers of the \"gentle Jesus.\" The Persians and Turks have, certainly,\nshown their capacity for giving pain to those who are brought before\ntheir ministers of justice, and the Red Indians, during their day,\nreduced the art of tormenting themselves, but, still more, their\nprisoners, almost to perfection. The Babylonians had discovered that a\ndeath of agony could be accomplished by means of myriads of ants. It was\nreserved to Christians, eager to uphold the faith promulgated by a God\nof mercy, to find out the most exquisite of torments. Even Frenchmen,\nwho have for centuries assumed the position of leaders of civilization,\nwere, until the great Revolution beat down their kings and prelates,\nmore ruthlessly cruel than the most fierce redskin. The Inquisition,\nwhich arrogated to itself the power to keep the Christian religion pure,\nwas distinguished by the atrocity with which it gave anguish to its\nvictims, and it held its head high until it was put down, we may hope\nfor ever, by fiery republican enthusiasts, whom priestly demons, baulked\nof their prey, declared to be devils incarnate. More modern hierarchs\nare obliged to content themselves with making a hell for their\nenemies--with foretelling a variety of punishments to be inflicted\nhereafter, which cannot be enforced here.\n\nThe Incas exacted an annual report of the lands possessed by\nindividuals, with their condition as regards culture; and also of every\nfamily. A register of births, marriages, and deaths was regularly kept,\nso that the government might always know the real condition of the\nnation, soil, and people.\n\nAs far as possible, families remained constant to their business, thus\nforming a sort of trade caste, but not a rigid one. The registers were\nalways submitted to the perusal of the Inca, and, subsequently, kept in\nthe capital.\n\nBy the arrangement of \"posts,\" and roads, an insurrection or invasion\nwas readily discovered, and it was speedily announced at the capital\ncity. The march of troops to suppress it, under these circumstances, was\neasy and immediate, for every requisite for war was always at hand. In\nall circumstances, plundering by the soldiery, whether at home or in an\nenemy's country, was severely punished, and war was undertaken solely\nwith a view to peace. If a neighbour was turbulent, he was conquered,\nand absorbed into the old state, and if a province was rebellious, its\nworst inhabitants were carried away to some other locality, where their\npower for mischief would be curtailed; a plan which, we are told, was\npursued by the Assyrian Shalmaneser (2 Kings xvii. 6), indicated by\nSennacherib (2 Kings xviii. 32), and carried out by Nebuzaradan (2 Kings\nxxv. 11.). In fine, we may repeat, that it would be difficult for a\nmodern philosopher to conceive a better model of a really paternal\ngovernment than that which, it is asserted, was found by the Spaniards\nwhen they invaded the kingdom of the Incas. Of the respective value of\nChristian Spanish government, and of the so-called Pagan Inca rule, none\ncan doubt, who reads the present by the light of the past. The Peruvians\nkept up their roads, protected their subjects, respected life, and\nfostered everything which tended to increase the general happiness\nand prosperity of the kingdom--all these objects, have been for a long\nperiod neglected, and Peru, which was under the Spanish rule, one of\nthe blots on the face of civilization and Christianity, is only\njust emerging from a long night, under the influence of Republican\ninstitutions.\n\nOur next step will be to ascertain the religion of the people whose\npolitical condition contrasts so favourably with that of every other\nnation of whom travel and history have informed us. But we may, in the\nfirst place, remark, that there is no absolute or necessary connection\nbetween the happiness, or otherwise, of a nation and its dominant\nreligion, as Buckle has already shown in his _History of Civilization_.\nThe writer of to-day can find abundant evidence in recent history to\nillustrate the proposition here advanced. He can point to France,\nand its condition under a sacerdotal rule, prior to the time of the\nRevolution, and contrast it with its state since its rulers have\ntried to make the people prosperous and happy, independently of their\nreligious faith. He can point to Austria and Spain, when they were laid\nat the feet of the Pope of Rome, and everything was made subservient to\nthe demands of a powerful hierarchy, and to the same states now, when\nreligion is subordinate to the material welfare of the majority. Who,\nthat has read the story of modern Italy, or heard of the atrocities\ncommitted under the priest-led Ferdinand of Naples--better known in\nEngland by the sobriquet of Bomba; who, that knew anything of his\nbrigand-rearing towns and cities, and has visited them since they have\nbeen ruled constitutionally, and with the priestly power curbed by a\nstrong hand, can doubt which set of directors are the best? Christian\nRome was never so happy under her Popes as she is now, when the\nso-called head of the church is subordinate to the chief of the state.\nBut of all priest-ridden countries, one which would never have borne the\npopish sway as she has done, if her chieftains had been sensible and\nher people thoughtful, Ireland deserves our commiseration the most.\nHibernian hierarchs of the Roman faith designate their country as a\nland of saints. So, perhaps, it is, if by the word is meant admirers of\nlaziness and filth, who consider that attention to religion justifies\nmurder, and every brutal crime against purse, person, and property.\n\nAs a rule, admitting of no exceptions, civil government has preceded\nsacerdotal rule, and a nation is generally in a weakly and fallen\ncondition as soon as its affairs are directed by the priestly class.\nWhen first the Aryans invaded Hindostan, the hierarchy was second to the\nwarrior caste; but as the first aggrandized their power, the second lost\ntheir supremacy, and under Brahminic rule the foundation was laid for\npusillanimous and indolent luxury in the warrior. The power to plan,\nand the nerve to enforce laws, for the benefit of all classes of the\ncommunity, is very different to that which is requisite to exalt and\nenrich the priestly order; and the well-being of a state depends far\nmore upon the exercise of the first than of the second. Whenever,\ntherefore, the executive government is entirely independent of the\ninfluence of the hierarchy, or is itself the head of that caste, it can\nproduce good results for the nation, no matter what may be the dogmas of\nthe priesthood, or the nature of the gods which are reverenced.\n\nStill following Prescott as our guide, we find that the sun was the\ngreat god of the Peruvians, and that the Incas assumed the title of his\ntrue children. To that luminary a vast temple was built in Cuzco, more\nradiant with gold than that of Solomon at Jerusalem. To Cuzco, as to the\ncapital of Judea, the name of Holy City was given, and to it pilgrims\nresorted from every part of the empire. Blasphemy against the sun was\nconsidered as bad as treason against the Inca, and both were punished\nwith death. A province, or city, rebellious against the sun was laid\nwaste, and its people exterminated. When conquest over a new tribe\nsubjugated it to Peru, the people were compelled to worship the sun,\ntemples to whose honour were erected in their territory. To these was\nattached a body of priests, to instruct the people in the proper form\nof adoration, which consisted in a rich and stately ceremonial. The\ndivinities of the conquered people were removed to Cuzco and established\nin one of the temples, where they took order amongst the inferior\ndeities of the Peruvians.\n\nBut, though the sun was unquestionably worshipped, Prescott observes,\nch. iii, \"it is a remarkable fact that many, if not most, of the rude\ntribes inhabiting the vast American continent had attained to the\nsublime conception of one Great Spirit, the Creator of the universe,\nwho, immaterial in his own nature, ought not to be dishonoured by an\nattempt at a visible representation, and who, pervading all space, was\nnot to be circumscribed within the walls of any building, however grand\nor rich.\"\n\nAs civilization progressed, we are told that a separate order of men,\nwith a liberal provision for their subsistence, was set apart for\nreligious service, and a minute and magnificent ceremonial contrived,\nwhich challenged comparison with that of the most polished nations of\nChristendom. This was the case with the natives of Quita, Bogota, and\nothers inhabiting the highlands of South America, but especially with\nthe Peruvians, who claimed a divine origin for the founders of their\nempire, whose laws rested on a divine sanction, and whose domestic\ninstitutions and foreign wars were directed to preserve and to propagate\ntheir faiths. Religion was the basis of their polity, the condition of\ntheir social existence. The government of the Incas was essentially a\nlay theocracy.\n\nThe Peruvians believed in the future existence of the soul and the\nresurrection of the body. They had faith in a Hell, located in the\nearth's centre, and a Heaven, in which the good would revel in a life\nof luxury, tranquillity, and ease. The wicked, however, were not to be\nhopelessly damned and tormented for everlasting, but were to expiate\ntheir crimes by ages of wearisome labour. They believed, also, in an\nevil principle or spirit, called Cupay, to whom, however, they paid no\nmore attention than an ordinary Christian does to the Devil.\n\nThe great men were entombed after death, and were commonly buried with\nthe chief things which they required on earth. Sometimes a chieftain was\nburied, not only with his treasures, but with his wives and domestics.\nFrequently, over the dead, vast mounds were raised, which were\nhoneycombed, subsequently, with cells for the burial of others. Cairns\nwere as common in that part of the New World as they have been in the\nOld, and the majority of buildings found at the present day in Peru have\nbeen connected with funereal pomp.\n\nThe supreme Being in Peru was named Pachacamac, \"he who gives life to\nthe universe,\" and Viracocha, of which the only translation given is\n\"foam of the sea.\" To him one temple only was raised, which is said to\nhave been built prior to the accession of the Incas, and largely visited\nby vast numbers of distant Indians. The sun, as we have noticed, was\nchiefly venerated, and to him a temple was erected in every city and\nlarge village, and to him burnt offerings were made in abundance. The\nmoon was also venerated, being connected with the sun as his wife--and\nVenus, called by the name of Chasca, \"the youth with the long and\ncurling locks\"--was also regarded reverentially as the page of the sun.\nTemples were dedicated to thunder and to lightning as God's ministers,\nand the rainbow was regarded as an emanation from the great luminary.\nIn addition to these, the elements, the winds, the earth, the air, the\ngreat mountains and rivers, were considered as inferior deities, to\nwhich were added the gods of the conquered races. The chief temple of\nthe sun was extraordinarily gorgeous. It was constructed of stone, and\nwas so finely executed, that a Spaniard declared that only two edifices\nin Spain could, in the stone work, be at all compared with it like\nItalian and other churches, it contained many small chapels and\nsubordinate buildings, and the interior was dazzling with gold. On its\nwestern wall the deity was emblazoned as a human face surrounded with\nrays of light, just as the sun is personified amongst ourselves.\nThe figure was engraved on a massy gold plate, thickly powdered with\nemeralds and precious stones. This was so situated in front of the\ngreat eastern portal, that the rays of the morning sun, falling upon it,\nlighted up the whole temple with a wondrous sheen; but every part of\nthe inner walls blazed with gold. The roof was, however, \"thatch\" alone.\nAdjoining the temple of the sun were fanes of smaller dimensions, for\nthe worship of the moon, stars, thunder, lightning, and the rainbow.\n\n\"All the plate, ornaments, and utensils of every description\nappropriated to the uses of religion, were of gold or silver. Twelve\nimmense vases of silver (said to be as high as a good lance, and so\nlarge that two men could barely encircle them with outstretched arms)\nstood on the floor of the great saloon, filled with Indian corn. The\ncensers for the perfumes, the ewers which held the water for sacrifice,\nthe pipes which conducted it through subterraneous channels into\nthe buildings, the reservoir that received it, even the agricultural\nimplements used in the gardens of the temple, were all of the same\nrich material. The gardens, like those belonging to the royal palaces,\nsparkled with gold and silver, and various imitations of the vegetable\nkingdom. Animals, also, were to be found there, amongst which the llama,\nwith its golden fleece, was most conspicuous, executed in the same\nstyle, and with a degree of skill which, in this instance, probably did\nnot surpass the excellence of the material\" The reader of Prescott will\nfind that he has not adopted this account without carefully estimating\nthe value of his authorities, and I believe that he may be fairly\ntrusted. The various reports, given by Spanish writers, of priests of\nthe grand temple, seem also to have been carefully estimated by the\nhistorian, and the number which they amounted to is put down at four\nthousand at the least.\n\nThe high priest was second in dignity only to the Inca, and he was\ngenerally closely related to this ruler. The monarch appointed this\nPeruvian pope, who held office for life. He had the appointment of\ninferior priests, but all must be from the sacred race of Incas. The\nhigh priests of the provinces were always of the blood royal. The\nhierarchy wore no peculiar badge or dress, nor was it the sole\ndepositary of learning, and it had not to superintend education, or to\ndo parochial work. These duties were performed by others of the Inca\nclass, all of whom were holy, though not, so to speak, in \"holy orders.\"\nThe priest's business was to minister in the temple; his science was\nconfined to a knowledge of the fasts and festivals to be observed in\nconnection with religion, for these were very numerous, and demanded\nseparate rituals. The four principal festivals were solar, i.e., at the\nequinoxes and solstices, that of Midsummer being the grandest, on which\noccasion every one who could find time and money enough to do so visited\nthe capital city. The feast was preceded by a three days' fast, and no\nfires were to be lighted during that period.\n\nWhen the day arrived a vast array of people, dressed in their handsomest\napparel, crowded the streets and squares, waiting for the rising of the\nsun. When it appeared shouts of joy, heightened by instrumental music,\nwere raised in swelling tones, until the whole orb had ascended above\nthe horizon, after which a libation was poured of fermented liquor,\nand all the nobles and the king repaired to the great temple, each\nindividual, except members of the royal family, removing their sandals\nas they entered. After prayer came sacrifice, animals, grain, flowers,\nand sweet-scented gums being the prescribed offerings; sometimes a\nchild or lovely maiden was also immolated, generally to commemorate a\ncoronation, the birth of a royal heir, or a great victory. Cannibalism\nnever followed the sacrifice; and it may be added, parenthetically,\nthat when the Incas conquered and annexed man-sacrificing and man-eating\ntribes, they always abrogated the custom, and with far more decision\nand firmness than Britain has shown in abolishing self-immolation of\nJuggernaut pilgrims in her Indian Empire, and the burning of widows\nwith their dead spouses. Some may doubt whether a conqueror ought to\ninterfere with the religious customs of the vanquished, but few would\nplead for the continuance of such customs as human sacrifice and\ncannibalism.\n\nThe animal usually sacrificed by the Peruvians was the llama, and\nthe priest who officiated drew auguries from the appearance of the\nintestines. To effect the oblation a sacred fire was now kindled by a\nconcave mirror which acted as \"a burning glass,\" precisely as was done\nby Numa in the days of Ancient Rome. If the sky was clouded, and no rays\ncould be collected, fire was produced by friction. When lighted, the\nfire was committed to the care of the virgins of the sun, who were\nbound to keep it up for the ensuing year. After the single sacrifice\nwas completed, great numbers of other animals were slaughtered, and a\nregular carousal began, attended with music, dancing, and drinking,\nthat lasted for many days, during which period all the lower orders kept\nholiday. In the distribution of bread and wine at this high festival,\nthe invading Spaniards saw a striking resemblance to the Christian\ncommunion, and they recognised a similar likeness in the Peruvian\npractices of confession and penance. The virgins of the sun were called\n\"the elect,\" and were young maidens taken from their homes at an early\nage, and introduced into convents, where they were placed under the care\nof elderly matrons, who taught them their religious duties, and how to\nspin and weave, embroider and adorn hangings for the temples, and to\nframe garments for the Incas. Their work was such, that it was found to\nbe superior to any which the Spaniards had ever seen, or were themselves\nable to produce. The virgins were separated wholly, not simply, from the\nworld in general, but also from their own relations and friends--none\nbut the king and queen could enter into their convent. The closest\nattention was paid to the morals of these maidens, and visitors were\nsent every year to inspect the institutions, and to report on the\nstate of their discipline; a plan similar to which has been repeatedly\nproposed in Christian England, yet never sanctioned by the parliament!\nIf a virgin was discovered in an intrigue she was buried alive, her\nlover was strangled, and the town or village to which he belonged was\nrazed to the ground, and sowed with stones, to efface even the memory\nof its site. These solar attendants were all of royal blood, and were\nestimated to number fifteen hundred; but to provincial convents the\ninferior nobility were allowed to send their daughters, and sometimes\na peculiarly lovely peasant girl was admitted. The convents were all\nsumptuously furnished. But, though virgins of the sun, they were brides\nof the Incas, and we cannot fail, when we read of the vast harem of the\nPeruvian monarch, to think of the female establishments of the Jewish\nSolomon, of the Persian Ahasuerus, and that of Louis XV. of Christian\nFrance. If at any time the Inca reduced his harem, the superfluous\nconcubines were restored to their homes, swelling with the importance\nwhich they had gained by their familiarity with the monarch.\n\nPolygamy was permitted. Matrimony was effected by the Inca, or other\nchief man, joining the hands of the parties. The king usually espoused\nhis own sister, but no other person was allowed to do so. No marriage\nwas valid without the consent of parents. As a general rule, all unions\nwere effected on the same day of the year, and thus the wedding of\ncouples was followed by general rejoicing.\n\nThe genius of the Peruvian government penetrated into the most private\nrecesses of domestic life, allowing no man to act for himself, even in\nthose personal matters in which none but himself, or his family, could\nbe interested. No Peruvian was too low for the fostering vigilance\nof the government; none was so high that he was not made to feel his\ndependence upon it in every act of his life. The government of the Incas\nwas the mildest, but the most searching and beneficent, of despotisms.\n\nWe now, but with great reluctance, leave our friendly guide, the\naccomplished Prescott, and ask ourselves, once more, the lessons which\nwe have learned from the departed races of the vast American continent.\nCan anyone doubt that one of the most conspicuous results obtained\nis, that Christian rule, and the Christian doctrine, have not proved\nthemselves, in any respect, superior to the Incas' government and their\nsolar religion? Who can read of the civilization, the theology, and the\npractice of the Peruvians, without believing one of two things--the one,\nthat Jewish ritualism, and the majority of Christian teaching, is of\nhuman invention; the other, that the Almighty has revealed His will in\nthe Western as well as in the Eastern Hemisphere? Can any thoughtful\nman believe that the brutal, covetous, lying Spaniards, who broke,\nwith impunity, every commandment promulgated in those Gospels, to whose\nauthority they professed allegiance, and upon which their faith is\nfounded, were better men, or more favoured by the Lord, \"who loveth\nrighteousness and hateth iniquity,\" than were the gentle Peruvians, who\nfell before them as lambs and sheep before wolves and tigers? Surely the\nstory of the Incas should make Christians, in all ages, blush for their\ninferiority to those, amongst whom neither Moses, Samuel, and other\nso-called prophets, Jesus, nor any of his apostles, preached; and more\nstrongly should it convince us that the wish to do good on a large scale\ncan come otherwise than by the Gospel. If grace, and peace, and love\ncame by the Nazarene alone, how is it--and let us ponder over the\nquestion deeply--that all Christian countries have been, and that some\nare still, conspicuous for the brutality of their political and priestly\ngovernments, for the frequency with which they make war, for their\nferocity in the destruction of religious enemies, and for the intense\nhatred evinced against rival sects, by those who call themselves the\nrepresentatives of the Prince of Peace; whilst, on the other hand,\na nation who never heard of the son of Joseph or of Mary, should be\nconspicuous for the virtues which ought to adorn the soldiers of the\ncross, but do not? Surely, if the saying be true, \"by their fruit ye\nshall know them,\" the denizens of the old world must be children of the\nDevil, who do the work, of their father, whilst certain of the nations\nof the new world, as it is called, were really children of the light,\nabounding in love, charity, and goodwill towards all men.\n\nTo me it is astonishing how thoughtful men, who have read accounts of\nthe Mexicans and the Peruvians, can continue to believe that the Bible\nis the book of God, written by holy men, whose thoughts and diction were\nessentially those of the third person in the Trinity. Who can assert\nthat Abraham and Jacob, Moses and Aaron, were taught of God, and that to\nthe Hebrews alone has the Creator revealed His will? Who can see, in\nthe sensual king David, a man after God's heart, and applaud the brutal\nmurder of Agag, the destruction of the priests of Baal, by the orders\nof Elijah, and the extermination of the Baalites in Israel by Jehu?\nCompared with such wretches as these the Incas were angels. They had not\nleft to them the bloody legacy which has come to the Christian world by\nmeans of the Old Testament: they had not been taught to believe that the\nAlmighty revelled in the blood of human beings: they never had, amongst\ntheir sacred songs, verses like the following--\"that thy foot may be\ndipped in the blood of enemies, and the tongue of thy dogs in the same\"\n(Ps. lxviii. 23).\n\nAh, it is time for civilized men to cease their admiration for a book\nwhich has produced such frightful fruits, and which has converted\nmillions of human beings into incarnate fiends.\n\nThe Vedas and the Shasters--the writings of the Buddhists, and those of\nthe Parsees and the Chinese, contain, nowhere, such a justification\nof wholesale murder, as do the Scriptures of the Jews and of the\nChristians.* From these have been drawn the power to persecute, and, if\npossible, to exterminate those who worship God in a different fashion\nto those in power. Calvin was as bad as Torquemada; and, even at the\npresent time, it is only public opinion that prevents fanatics, like the\nearly New Englanders, from reducing their Christian hate to practical\ntorture. Everywhere the professed followers of Jesus assume the power\nto torment their opponents, whenever they can do so without breaking the\ncivil law, and there are few pulpits from which the voice of revilement,\ncontumely, and denunciation is not repeatedly heard. The Romans abuse\nthe Anglicans; the Establishment sneers at Dissent; Nonconformists\ncensure all churches; and all libel those whom they call Free Thinkers\nand Atheists. To find \"toleration\" in matters of religion, one must seek\namongst the Deists, or amongst those who refuse to see in the Bible the\nrevealed will of God to man.\n\n     * See Matthew x. 34, 85; Luke xii. 49, 51, 52, 53.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\n     Can civilization grow out of barbarism? Dislike of progress,\n     especially if mental. Rediscovery of ancient knowledge.\n     Advance and retrogression. China and Japan--influence of\n     strangers. Decadence of nations--followed by a rise. The\n     Shemitic and Negro races. Varied religious ideas. The Negro\n     Fetish and Obi. Jewish, Arab, and Christian communication\n     with the dead. Australian idea about white men. Ideas of a\n     soul and futurity amongst the Aryans and Egyptians. Their\n     priesthood. The Aryans Monotheiste. An Aryan hymn. Max\n     Mueller and Talboys Wheeler. Aryan conceptions compared with\n     Psalm civ. 1-4. Monotheism of the Egyptians.   Shemitic\n     religions.\n\nAt one period of my life I entertained the idea that civilization never\nhad grown, nor ever could grow, out of barbarism. Perhaps I have not yet\nwholly abandoned it. The considerations which the question involves are\nall but infinite. It is doubtful whether we can reduce them into shape\nwithout writing an extensive treatise. We will, however, attempt to do\nso, and present the subject to our readers to the best of our ability.\n\nAs far as our own personal and historic experience goes, we find that\nman has no natural propensity to learn beyond that which he has received\nsimply as an animal. With him school is a hateful place, and education\nis a painful process, even in the midst of the highest civilization we\nsee individuals who cast from them all the luxuries of life, and descend\nvoluntarily to a level scarcely superior to that of the brute creation.\nBut those who take kindly to education, and consent to try and learn\neverything which the teacher presents to their notice, are bounded by\nthe amount of knowledge possessed by the instructor, who cannot impart\nto others information in matters of which all are ignorant. It is true\nthat I once read a question propounded by his schoolmaster to one of my\nsons, which ran--\"Enumerate upon paper all the capes, bays, and rivers\nof England that you don't know by name, and describe the seas which you\nhave never heard of.\" Without dwelling upon the anecdote farther than\nto say, that it points out the absurdity of the idea that education\nof itself advances knowledge, we may pass on to remark, that even in\nnations, whose intellect is highly cultivated, the propensity to advance\nin knowledge is singularly small. Throughout the old world an inventor\nis usually regarded as a visionary, or a lunatic, and flouted by all his\ncontemporaries.* From the time of Aristotle and Hippocrates, scarcely\nany advance was made in philosophy, and, throughout Europe, the\nfourteenth century was as barbarous, if not indeed more so, than the\nfirst of our era; and to such a dark age there is a strong clerical\nparty in Great Britain which desires us to return.\n\n     * A man who had travelled much once said to me,--\"I will\n     tell you the main difference between a Yankee and an\n     Englishman. If you inform the latter of some new discovery--\n     or propose the use of some recent invention for his own\n     benefit--he will tell you either that the thing is old, or\n     worthless. On the other hand, if you recount to the former\n     what you have told the latter of, his rejoinder will be, I\n     can improve upon that.\" This is true, and we are now\n     repeatedly adopting from the United States discoveries of\n     various kinds, which we rejected when offered to us in the\n     first place.\n\nYet, notwithstanding the propensity of cultivated nations to remain\nquiescent, there do appear, from time to time, individuals who,\nbeing discontented with things as they are, endeavour to bring about\nimprovements in the arts, the sciences, and the general conditions of\nlife. The recognition of a want, is an incentive to a thoughtful mind\nto supply the exigency. Whenever an individual endeavours to attain\na definite end, he exercises his mind, not only in what he has been\nalready taught, but what he can observe beyond that; he rakes up, if\npossible, the experience of others, studies their proceedings, and\nexperiments with a definite object, and ponders upon the affinities,\nnature, and the like, of every substance which he surmises may be of\nservice to him. When, by these means, he has obtained his purpose,\nhe will repeatedly find that he has done no more than rediscover a\nsomething which was known thousands of years before his time. Without\na doubt, much of the philosophy, science, art, religion, &c., of the\npresent day, is due to a close observation and an attainment to the\nknowledge possessed by our predecessors. \"Is there any thing whereof it\nmay be said, see this is new?--it hath been already of old time, which\nwas before us\" (Eccles. i. 10).\n\nIf this be true, even though it may only be so to a partial extent, it\nis clearly more philosophical to believe that some primeval men were\ncreated with a considerable amount of knowledge, rather than that all\nwere savage, barely, if at all, superior to monkeys, and that one or\nmore of these, gradually elevated their race, by degrees so slow, as to\nbe imperceptible in less time than many thousand years.\n\nThis side of the argument receives corroboration when we study the\nhistory of such semi-civilized countries as China, and such barbarous\nregions as those of Africa and Australia. In none of these parts do\nwe see any general propensity to advance. In the first we see a\nretrogression; there is now no effort to repair ancient roads which\nhave been worn away by centuries of traffic, to restore the old temples,\ntowers, and landmarks, erected when time was younger, or even to keep\nup the teachings of Confucius. A similar apathy existed amongst the\nJapanese--yet no sooner do the civilized nations of Europe show the\nrulers of China and Japan that it is necessary for them to improve, if\nthey desire to retain their power, than they attempt to learn the arts\nwhich have enabled their rivals to overcome them. In both cases, the\nprogress is recognized as due to the interference of a nation, superior\nfor the time being, to that whose education has been faulty. Advance,\nthen, in such countries, is clearly due to foreign influence, rather\nthan to an innate propensity to general, mental, scientific, or\npractical development.\n\nBut, on the other side, it may be alleged that the African has been in\nexistence from time immemorial--that he has been in contact with the\ncivilization of ancient and modern Egypt--with Christianity--with the\nancient Tyrians and Carthaginians--with the Arabs--with the Spaniards,\nPortuguese, and British, and yet the African tribes remain almost as\nsavage now as when they first were known. Similar remarks apply to\nthe inhabitants of the Andaman Isles, of the vast islands of Borneo,\nCelebez, Papua, New Guinea, and others.\n\nYet in many places, now considered barbarous, we see the remains of\nprevious empires--and when we are able to find some comparatively\nauthentic history which tells of the overthrow of a powerful kingdom,\nit is clear that the civilized people have usually been destroyed by the\nbarbarian. The wealth of Rome tempted the hordes from the inhospitable\nnorth, just as the gold of Mexico and Peru were the causes of their\ndecadence under the Spaniards, whose people were in themselves scarcely\nsuperior to the troops led by Alaric, Genseric, and other so called\nbarbarians. Yet we know, as in the case of Spain herself, that decadence\nfrom civilization to comparative barbarism may be due to causes inherent\nin the people and its governors, wholly independent of foreign conquest.\nThis decadence is due to the bestial propensities of man being allowed\nto dominate over the intellectual, and the result is the same, whether\nthe animal passions be cultivated by a debased and degrading policy of\nmonarch and priest, or by the indolence of each individual.\n\nBy developing the train of thought thus indicated, we imagine that the\nphilosophical reader will conclude that amongst men, some race, family,\nor tribe, has been created with intelligence, as much above the rest of\ntheir kind as the elephant is superior to the hippopotamus, and the dog\nto the cat, and that others are generically as low as is the Australian\n\"dingo\" in the canine race. Those once perfect may deteriorate, yet\ncarry with them the power of rising again--whilst those originally low\nnever rise at all, no matter what example may be set them, unless force\nis used to make them learn. To these we must add a third set, specially\nto include the American, for we have no evidence whatever that the\ncivilization of the Aztec and Peruvian was anything more than a\nrestoration of the scientific knowledge of a more ancient people,\npossibly of an Aryan stock. Who that is acquainted with the Shemitic\nrace can fail to see in its people the type of an ancient condition\nwhich has decayed, until, like a fallen gentleman, it can only show what\nonce it was, by conserving and exhibiting a few ornaments of no value,\nsave from their age, but whose sons may yet become princes in their\npaternal domains? Who that studies the negro in Africa, America, and St.\nDomingo, can fail to see that he is, or, at any rate has hitherto shown\nhimself, almost wholly incapable of development as a philosophic man?\nAnd who can read the pages of Prescott without recognizing the fact that\nsome of the ancient inhabitants of America inaugurated--unassisted, as\nwe judge by any example from others--a style of religion and government\nof which the world has hardly, if at all, seen an equal? Yet it is\nremarkable, that both the Mexican and Peruvian traced their laws and\ninstitutions to strangers who came amongst them, as Oannes did to the\nBabylonians, and who taught them what arts, religion, and science they\nthemselves had. The subject of centres of human life into which our\nconsiderations have drawn us, is by far too vast for discussion here.\nIt involves the study of geology, of anthropology, of glossology,\nof navigation, of physical geography, of climate, of the laws of\nreproduction, of the influences of climate over animals, and of diet\nupon man. Into all these we dare not enter: we shall confine ourselves\nrather to considering the religious ideas of the lowest of the known\nraces of mankind; and then proceed to those which have been held by what\nwe may call the oscillating people, i.e., those vibrating repeatedly\nbetween a state of empire and one of slavery, like the people of\nHindostan, Babylon, Judea, Greece, Italy, Spain, and Egypt.\n\nWhen we endeavour to ascertain the religion of the negro, by which term\nwe include all the black native tribes of Africa, we find ourselves\nalmost in the position of a modern chemist seeking for the philosopher's\nstone. In no single book, and I have read very many, can I find any\ntrustworthy evidence of the negro having any religion at all. It is true\nthat travellers in Abyssinia, and those who are now returned from their\nsuccessful expedition against Magdala, tell us that in Abyssinia there\nis a form of religion which is evidently a corrupt form of Christianity,\nbut with this exception, the blacks seem to have no idea of that\ncongeries of fact and fiction, dogma, ritual, and practice, which passes\ncurrent for religion in more civilized countries. Yet though they have\nno definite idea of a Creator, and the way in which He works throughout\nthe universe, they have a dread of some unseen power, and, like a number\nof frightened children, dread the effects of \"fetish,\" and the power of\nthe Obi or Obeah man. When the mind is predisposed to fear, and it is so\namongst the lower animals as well as in man, it is astonishing at what\ncontemptible objects one may stand aghast. I can vividly remember being\nsent, whilst a very young child, with a message from an aunt, at whose\nhome I was staying, to the maid, who was washing in an outhouse, but ere\nI reached the door of the latter, I was terrified at a head which seemed\nto be rising from the ground, Such was my horror that I ran away, too\nproud to scream, yet almost fainting with horror. To me that ancient\nbattered barber's doll was \"fetish,\" and if my friends had determined to\ncultivate the timidity which I then showed, it is quite possible that to\nthis day I might have a dread not dissimilar to that of the African.\nAs it was, my aunt told me that what had scared me, was only a piece of\ncarved and painted wood, and so put me upon my mettle, that I delivered\nmy message and gave the image a kick in the face; yet my valour was\nshort lived, and during the rest of my sojourn I dared not venture\nwithin sight of the bugbear. To all intents and purposes that human head\nwas, in my estimation, the guardian of the garden--its presence made all\nwithin its influence under taboo--had I ventured to tell a lie, or to\nhave been naughty, I cannot conceive that any punishment would have been\ngreater than being doomed to sit in the presence of the weird image.\nHence I can easily understand the abject terror of the African at\n\"fetish,\" and his dread of the Obeah man, who asserts that he can direct\nupon whom he will the power of the unknown god. So great is the fear of\nthis negro magician, and so common is that fear to man in general, that\nwe sometimes find the white man as full of it as the black. I have had,\nfor example, under my own care, an Englishman of good education, who,\nwhilst superintendent of a Jamaica plantation, became so cowed by \"Obi,\"\nthat he was obliged to give up his position and return to England,\nliterally insane upon the subject of \"fetish\" and \"Obeah,\" and wholly\nunfitted for any work whatever.\n\nThe objects to which the name of \"fetish\" is given are very numerous--a\nrock, a stone, a tree, a pool, a dried monkey, an alligator, man, or\nskull--anything will suit the purpose. One which is said to be very\npopular amongst chieftains is prepared somewhat in the following\nmanner:--The head of a father is removed after death, and so placed,\nthat as the brain decays and softens, it may fall into a receptacle\nalready half filled with palm oil or other grease. The material so\nformed, consisting to a great extent of the thoughtful organ of the\nsire, is then supposed to give his spirit to the son, whenever the\nlatter smears himself with it, or takes it as a potent medicinal spell.\nThe head thus placed becomes the royal \"fetish,\" and the king goes to\ntake counsel from it just as ancient priests inquired, or pretended to\ninquire, from the god or lord of some shrine or oracle. I cannot charge\nmy memory with everything that has been at one time or another regarded\nas an object of wonder, worship, or \"fetish,\" but I have an indistinct\nrecollection that a musical box has been venerated by Africans, as much\nas the Ancilia, the Palladium, the Diana which fell down from Jupiter,\nthe Caaba or black stone of Mecca, the ark of the covenant, the brazen\nserpent, the wood of the true cross, the nails which pierced Jesus,\nand the handkerchief which was used to wipe the face of the suffering\nNazarite, all of which have been sacred amongst civilized nations, and\nare still adored by some. It would be difficult for a philosopher to\ndraw a distinction between an African \"fetish\" and a Papal relic. There\nis no virtue which the Romanist has attributed to old bones, old nails,\nold shoes, old coats, old houses, old staircases, old bits of wood, old\nlinks of chains, old hairs, old statues, &c., that has not been equally\nattributed by negroes to some absurd fetish in Ashantee, Dahomey, or\nelsewhere.\n\nIn some parts of the vast African continent, however, there seems to be\nan indistinct idea of a life after death, and when a great man dies,\nor is killed, his wives, and many of his slaves, are sacrificed for his\nfuture use, and vast human sacrifices are made annually in his honour,\nthat the departed may hear, from time to time, of the welfare of those\nwhom he has left behind. Feeling indisposed to regard this practice\nas the offspring of religious faith, I would compare it with the crude\nconceptions of some of the lowest class in Europe and America, aye, of\nsome cultivated intellects as well, who profess to be able, by means\nof _media_, to communicate with the dead, or who send messages to\ntheir departed relatives by friends that are dying. The most remarkable\ndevelopment of this idea which I have yet met with has recently occurred\nin France, where a young man attempted to murder a beautiful young\nwoman, to whom he was a total stranger, the reason he assigned being,\nthat he intended to commit suicide immediately after the murder, so that\nhe might enter the future world with a pleasant companion.\n\nWe can scarcely regard the persons figuring in the following true story\nas being very much superior to the King of Dahomey. In a well-cared\nfor English village a poor woman was about to die in the full odour of\nProtestant sanctity. In youth she had lost one leg, and now had disease\nin the other. To her came an old woman and said,--\"I hear thou's goin'\nto dee Betty, and that thou's goin' to heaven--at least parson says\nso--when thou's got there, willee tell my owd man that I've just bought\nthat field as he set his heart on.\" \"Oh dear,\" said the dying woman,\n\"how can I go stumping all about heaven with my legs in the state\nthey're in.\" \"Well, you can tell him at anyrate if you happen to see him\ngo by!\"\n\nPassing from the African, let us now say a word or two about the\nAustralian. It is, I think, Mitchell, who states, in an account of his\ntravels in that country, that the white men were used in a manner so\nconsiderate, in some instances, indeed, so kindly, that he was induced\nto inquire into the cause. He found that these friendly tribes were\nin the habit of eating their defunct relatives--being always short of\nprovisions, they used man meat, as do other starving creatures when they\ndevour their like--and they cooked the body much in the same way as we\ndo dead pig. By scalding the carcass, the cuticle and the black layer,\ncalled _rete mucosum_, was removed, and the corpse became white. This\ngave the people the notion that Europeans were their own dead relatives\nreturned from the spirit world. Sir G. Gray also, in his account of an\nexpedition to the north-west coasts of the same vast island, describes\nhow all the people with whom he came into contact believed in the\npower of sorcery or witchcraft. Without extending our inquiry into the\nundeveloped religious ideas of other barbarians, we may affirm, from the\npreceding examples, that there is, even amongst the lowest human beings,\nsome idea of a future state, and of the existence of some unseen power,\nwhich may work mischief upon themselves or their friends. Beyond these\nvague notions the savage who has neither been taught, nor inherited the\npower or propensity to learn, rarely, if ever, passes.\n\nIf, then, the surmise to which we gave utterance awhile ago is founded\nin truth, we may fairly endeavour to ascertain what is the race, or\nthe people, which have been born with a higher religious development, a\ngreater capacity for learning, and a higher appreciation of the value of\nagriculture and civilization than the rest of the world's inhabitants.\n\nWe now find ourselves on the threshold of a question which has, for many\nyears past, divided the scientific world, viz., Was there originally one\nhuman couple only, or were there many intellectual centres? Into this\nmatter it would be unprofitable to enter, for to give an account of the\nChinese, Egyptian, Aryan, American, and Shemitic races, would require\nmany huge volumes. It will, probably, be permitted to me to omit from\nthe inquiry all but Aryans and Egyptians. I select these because I\nhave, in the preceding volumes, descanted largely upon the faith of the\nBabylonians, Assyrians, Tyrians, and others, and because I believe that\nthese ancients have done very much to modify the faith of Europe. If\ntime and opportunity permitted, I fancy that anyone might make a\nmost interesting analysis of that which Europe owes to the Shemites,\nEgyptians, and Aryans respectively; but it is beyond our powers at\npresent to go into the whole subject. The volumes which have recently\nbeen published about the Ancient Hindoo religion may be counted by\ndozens, and the writings of Egyptologists are almost equally numerous.\nWe must, therefore, content ourselves with a reference to a few main\npoints.\n\nIt seems to be an undoubted fact, that both the Egyptians and Aryans\nrecognized the existence of a soul in human beings, and believed that it\nsurvived the dissolution of the body in some state, whose position and\nphysical condition were unknown. They held, moreover, that the locality\nand condition of the spiritual part of man after death depended upon\nthe actions of the individual during life. Both people believed in the\ninfluence of prayer, of sacrifices, of a maceration, or torturing of the\nfleshy body, and they had, moreover, each of them, a priestly race,\nwho regulated festivals, ordained ceremonies, and prescribed everything\nwhich those who regarded their spiritual welfare should do. I believe\nthat the Egyptians were, in reality, monotheistic; but my authority for\nthe idea has escaped me. It is certain that the ancient Aryans were so,\nand I cannot do better than refer my readers to the _History of Sanscrit\nLiterature_, by Max Mueller, and the first vol. of the _History of\nIndia_, by Talboys Wheeler. Yet, as the first is out of print, and the\nsecond a volume of considerable size, it will, perhaps, be judicious if\nI quote some passages from both. The following hymn, translated by M.\nM., p. 559 sq., is, to my own ideas, far more grand in conception than\nany other which I have read, and shows a depth or sublimity of thought\nthat could only be attained by a profoundly intelligent intellect.\nModerns might equal it, none could surpass it. Speaking of the\nbeginning, the words run, \"Nothing that is, was then; even what is not,\ndid not exist then.\" The poet then proceeds to deny the existence of\nthe sky, and of the firmament, and yet, unable to bear the idea of an\nunlimited nothing, he exclaims, \"What was it that hid or covered the\nexisting? what was the refuge of what? was water the deep abyss, the\nchaos which swallowed up everything?\" Then his mind, turning away from\nnature, dwells upon man, and the problem of human life. \"There was no\ndeath, therefore there was nothing immortal There was no space, no life,\nand lastly, there was no time--no difference between day and night--no\nsolar torch by which morning might have been told from evening. That One\nbreathed breathless by itself, other than it, nothing since has been.\nThat One breathed and lived; it enjoyed more than mere existence; yet\nits life was not dependent upon anything else, as our life depends upon\nthe air we breathe. It breathed, breathless. Darkness there was, and all\nat first was veiled in gloom, profound as ocean without life.\" Mueller\nthen rather describes what the poet means than gives his words; I will,\ntherefore, adopt now, for the rest of the hymn, the metrical version,\nwhich he gives at p. 564:--\n\n     \"The germ that still lay covered in the husk\n     Burst forth, one nature, from the fervent heat.\n     Then first came Love upon it, the new spring\n     Of mind; yea, poets in their hearts discerned,\n     Pondering this bond between created things And uncreated.\n     Comes this spark from earth,\n     Piercing and all-pervading, or from heaven?\n     These seeds were sown, and mighty power arose,\n     Nature below, and Power and Will above.\n     Who knows the secret? who proclaimed it here?\n     Whence, whence this manifold creation sprang?\n     The gods themselves came later into being.\n     Who knows from whence this great creation sprang?\n     He, from whom all this great creation came.\n     Whether His will created or was mute,\n     The Most High seer, that is in highest heaven,\n     He knows it; or, perchance, e'en He knows not\"\n\nOne more hymn is even more distinct in its monotheism, p. 569. \"In the\nbeginning there arose the source of golden light. He was the only born\nLord of all that is. He established the earth and this sky. Who is the\nGod to whom we shall offer our sacrifice? He who gives life. He who\ngives strength; whose blessing all the bright gods desire; whose shadow\nis immortality; whose shadow is death.... He who, through His power, is\nthe only King of the breathing and the awakening world. He who governs\nall--man and beast.... He whose power these snowy mountains, whose power\nthe sea proclaims, with the distant river. He whose these regions are,\nas it were, His two arms.... He through whom the sky is bright, and the\nearth firm. He through whom the heaven was 'stablished, nay, the highest\nheaven. He who measured out the light in the air.... He to whom heaven\nand earth, standing firm by His will, look up, trembling inwardly.\nHe over whom the rising sun shines forth.... Where-ever the mighty\nwater-clouds went, where they placed the seed, and lit the fire, thence\narose He who is the only life of the bright gods.... He who, by\nHis might, looked even over the water-clouds, the clouds which gave\nstrength, and lit the sacrifice. He _who is God above all gods_.... May\nHe not destroy us. He, the creator of the earth; or He, the righteous,\nwho created the heaven. He who also created the bright and mighty\nwaters.\" In this hymn I have only omitted the repeated question--Who is\nthe God to whom we shall offer our sacrifice?\n\nOf the high antiquity of these productions no competent scholar\nentertains a doubt. It is not certain how many years before our era it\nwas composed, but it is considered that it was prior to B. C. 2000, long\nbefore the time when the ideal Moses is said to have written, and _a\nfortiori_ anterior, by at least a thousand years, to the authors of the\nBook of Psalms.\n\nTalboys Wheeler remarks, p. 27--\"Having thus sketched generally the\nindividual character of the leading deities of the Aryans as they appear\nin the Rig Veda, it may be advisable to glance at that conception of One\nSupreme Being, as in all and above all, which finds full expression in\nthe Vedic hymns. Upon this point the following passages will be found\nvery significant:--'Who has seen the primeval being at the time of His\nbeing born? what is that endowed with substance that the unsubstantial\nsustains? from earth are the breath and blood, but where is the\nsoul--who may repair to the sage to ask this? What is that One alone,\nwho has upheld these six spheres in the form of an unborn?'\" Then\nfollows the hymn just quoted from M. Mueller.\n\nI may add that the so-called gods Indra, Agni, Surya, the Maruts, &c.,\nare only personifications of the abstract powers of nature, the sky,\nfire, the sun, the winds, &c. These are the same conceptions as are\nreferred to in Ps. civ. 1-4--they are not deities, but ministers.\n\nIt will probably be said by the orthodox that these descriptions of the\ncreation and the Creator are mere efforts of the human mind, and not the\nproducts of \"revelation.\" We grant it at once, and answer, why, then,\nshould the comparatively miserable conceptions of one or more Hebrews,\nwho knew nothing of a soul or a future life till they had learned it\nfrom the Chaldeans or the Persians, be regarded differently? Was the\nJewish ignorance the result of Divine \"inspiration?\" Did the Devil give\nto the heathen the knowledge of Satan's origin and power? If so, why did\nthe Jews, and why do Christians, adopt it?\n\nI have already mentioned that the Aryans believed in the efficacy\nof prayer to their gods: they offered to them, much as we do now,\nsupplications for rain, abundant harvests, prolific cattle, bodily\nvigour, long life, numerous progeny, &c., just as did, very rarely, the\nseed of Abraham.\n\nWe may now make some quotations from the Egyptian Ritual for the Dead\n(Bunsen's _Egypt_, Vol. V.). \"O soul, greatest of things created\" (p.\n165); \"I am the Great God, creating himself\" (p. 172); \"Oh Lord of the\ngreat abode, Chief of the gods\" (p. 177). Throughout this invocation,\nhowever, the lord of the universe seems to be spoken of as the sun under\nvarious titles. There is frequent reference to the danger of the soul\nfalling into the power of some malignant deity, and orthodoxy is secured\nby addressing every good god by his or her proper title. There is no\ngrand conception anywhere, and the endless repetitions disgust the\nordinary reader. I must add that the sun, Osiris, and the male organ,\nare spoken of as emblematic of each other.\n\nIf we next turn to the Shemitic religions, we have to contend with the\ndifficulty produced by the paucity of written records, and the doubts\nwhich exist about certain epithets that relate to the gods. As far as I\ncan discover, there was an idea of a Supreme Being, whose name was Jeho.\nIo. Iou., or the like, and Il or El. His ministers were the sun, moon,\nplanets, constellations, and stars. His emblems were the sexual organs,\nand worship was, to a great degree, licentious. There was no conception\nof a spiritual life after death, or of a state of future rewards and\npunishments. Sacrifice was thought much of, but I doubt whether there\nwas anything like what we know as prayer. At any rate, in all those\nparts of the Bible which seem to be the oldest, there is a singular\nabsence of any formula or command for supplication. Solomon's prayer\nis comparatively of modern date. Indeed, this vacuity is implied in the\nexpression of one of Jesus' disciples, \"Teach us to pray, as John\nalso taught his disciples\" (Luke xi. 1), thus showing clearly that the\npractice of prayer was not a Judaic, i.e., Mosaic one.*\n\n     * As a friend, who has been kind enough to assist me to\n     correct these sheets in their passage through the press,\n     considers that I ought to give some reasons for the\n     assertion made in the text, the following information is\n     appended:--\n\n     I.   There are, in all, about a score of different words in\n     Hebrew which have been translated, \"prayer,\" \"I pray,\"\n     \"praying,\" &c. These are--(1) ahnah or ahna, (2) begah, (3)\n     ghalah, (4) ghanan, (5) loo, (6) lahgash, (7) na, (8)\n     gathar, (9) pagag, (10) pahlal, (11) tztlah, (12) seeagh,\n     (13) shoal, (14) tephilah.    The rest are different forms\n     of the same roots.\n\n     II.  These words do not, except in a few instances, really\n     bear the signification of \"prayer\" or \"intercession,\" which\n     is given to them in the Authorised English Version of the\n     Bible; as any one may convince himself by consulting\n     Wigram's Hebrew concordance.\n\n     Thus, No. 1, in three instances, is translated in the A. V.\n     by the interjection \"or,(OL)\" No. 2, in the A. V. is once\n     used as \"praying,\" but in other parts as \"seeking\" for\n     persons, \"desiring\" or \"requesting,\" and \"making.\" No. 8 is\n     translated in various parts of the A. V.    \"I am weak\" \"I\n     fell sick,\" \"was not grieved,\" \"a parturient woman crying,\"\n     \"to put one's self to pain,\" \"is grievous,\" \"hath laid,\" \"is\n     my infirmity,\" and these meanings are far more common than\n     the signification of \"prayer.\" No. 4 is only used twice, and\n     is in one place translated  \"by showing mercy,\" and in the\n     other by \"making supplication.\" No. 5 is translated \"O\n     that,\" \"peradventure,\" \"would God that,\" \"if,\" \"if haply,\"\n     \"though,\" and only once \"I pray thee.\" No. 6 is translated\n     \"enchantment,\" \"orator,\" \"earrings,\" \"charmed,\" and once\n     only \"prayer,\" with the marginal reading \"secret speech.\"\n     No. 7 is in one place \"now,\" in another \"Oh,\" \"go to,\" as\n     well as \"I pray,\" and this in the same sense as we should\n     use the words to a child \"I wish you would be quiet\" No. 8\n     is generally used in the sense of \"intreaty\" or \"prayer,\"\n     but it once is found as \"earnest,\" and \"multiplying words,\"\n     as in a Litany. No. 9 is used to signify \"he came,\"\n     \"reached,\" \"thou shalt meet,\" \"fall upon,\" or \"kill,\"  \"he\n     lighted\" on a certain place,  \"they met together,\" and in\n     the 53d chapter of Isaiah the same word is used in verse 6,\n     \"for the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all,\" and\n     in verse 12, for \"and made intercession for the\n     transgressors!\" No. 10 is used almost exclusively for\n     prayer, but it is only found six times in the whole\n     Pentateuch, in one of which it is read \"I had no  thought\"\n     in the A. V. No. 11 is only found twice, once in Ezra and\n     once in Daniel, and signifies \"prayer\" in both. No. 12 has\n     many interpretations in the A. V., viz., \"meditation,\"\n     \"speaking,\" \"talking,\" \"complaining,\" \"declaring,\" in one\n     instance only is it translated \"pray,\" and that in the\n     apparently important text Ps. lv. 17, \"Evening and morning\n     and at noon will I pray.\"   As a substantive the word is\n     rendered as \"complaint,\" \"talking, meditation,\"\n     \"babbling,\" and only once \"prayer,\" and that in Ps. lv. 2,\n     \"Hear my voice, O God, in my prayer.\" No. 13 is generally\n     translated \"ask,\" as we should remark, \"well, if he asks me\n     what must I say?\" \"beg,\" as \"he shall beg in harvest;\"\n     \"consulted,\" in the text \"he consulted with images,\"\n     \"salute,\" \"to salute him of peace;\" \"enquired,\" \"Saul\n     enquired of the Lord;\" \"wished,\" \"and wished in himself to\n     die;\" \"lent,\" \"I have lent him to the Lord,\" \"so that they\n     lent unto them.\" No. 14 is used exclusively for prayer, but\n     the word is not to be found in the whole of the Pentateuch.\n     III. There is reason to believe that the most important of\n     these words have come from the Persian, a language allied to\n     the Sanscrit;  and if so, it is clear that the idea of\n     prayer was adopted by the Jews after they were patronised by\n     the conquerors of Babylon.    Some of the other words are\n     Aramaic, and probably even more modern than the rest.    For\n     example, No. 10 is compared by Furst in his Hebrew and\n     Chaldee Lexicon, to the Sanscrit phal, and No. 8 may also be\n     derived from the Persian, and a Sanscrit root gad,  which\n     signifies \"to speak to,\" or \"call upon,\"    Anahf No.  1, is\n     Aramaic.\n\nI think that it was Mons. Weill, in his remarkable book called Moise et\nle Talmud, who first drew attention to the influence of the Talmudists\nupon the Jewish Scriptures. He pointed out that in the Mosaic law there\nwas no idea of prayer, intercession, or pardon; everything was based\nupon the \"lex talionis,\" an eye was to be paid for with an eye, murder\nwas to be avenged by murder, and ecclesiastical, ceremonial, and other\ntransgressions were to be atoned, i.e., satisfaction was to be given by\nsacrifice and payments to the priest or tabernacle. But when the Jews,\nafter their contact with the Chaldeans, Medea, Persians, Greeks, and\nRomans, began to study theology, two sects arose--the Talmudists, who\nexplained away the older Scriptures, interpolated narratives, or simply\ntexts therein, so as to suit their purposes; and the Sadducees, who\nrefused to adopt as matters of faith anything which was not taught by\nMoses. The first was the strongest sect, and composed the majority in\nthe Sanhedrim. They thus had power over the sacred canon, and could\nreject manuscripts or adopt them according as the purposes which were\naimed at were served. The Talmudic interpolations are supposed to b\"\nrecognised chiefly in the more modern parts of the Old Testament,\nin Ezra, Nehemiah, the second Isaiah and Jeremiah, in the books of\nZechariah and Malachi, in the Chronicles, Daniel, in many Psalms, more\nsparsely in the older histories, but very largely in the Pentateuch.\nFrom these considerations, from the absence of any order in the Mosaic\nlaw for the priests to offer any supplication, and from, the general\nabsence of prayer from the sacrifices of all nations, we may conclude\nthat \"intercession\" formed no part in the Jewish religion in the early\ndays of its existence.\n\nWhen working upon this subject I endeavoured to examine the curious\nIguvian tables, on which Aufrecht, Eircher, and Newman have bestowed\nsuch pains. These are, I believe, the only tables extant which give\ndirections to the old Umbrian, or any other ancient priests, how to\nconduct public sacrifices and the ensuing feasts. In them there are\ndirections for invocations, but no formula for prayers, unless one can\ncall invocations by that name. I fancy, that in some parts of the\ntables there are words which may be rendered \"speak,\" or \"mutter,\" or\n\"meditate,\" or \"pray silently.\"\n\nThe fact that a Hebrew historian has composed a prayer, and put it into\nthe mouth of King Solomon, rather than into that of a high priest, shows\nthat supplication for the people was not a strictly sacerdotal duty.\nEven now, with all our liberality of thought, we take our prayers from\nthe Archbishops, and not from the crown.\n\nBut what we have said points to another important consideration, viz.,\nhow far our Authorized Version can be trusted as a foundation upon which\nto build a theory respecting the use of prayer, when we find that the\nwords given in English do not correspond with the words in the original\nHebrew.\n\nWe have noticed in the text that both John and Jesus taught their\ndisciples to pray; we may now call attention to the idea which the\nlatter had of \"prayer.\" In a parable, which was evidently intended to\nrepresent what was common enough in his day, he says, \"Two men went up\ninto the temple to pray, the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican;\nthe Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself--God, I thank Thee that\nI am not as other men are,\" &c (Luke xviii. 10-13). Surely one cannot\ncall a boastful enumeration of one's virtues either \"supplication,\"\n\"prayer,\" or \"entreaty;\" but we understand readily that what we should\ncall \"meditation\" was once included under the name \"prayer.\" This\nanecdote unquestionably seems to prove that there was nothing like\npublic prayer in the temple ritual. The idea of the Ancients was to\nobtain what they wanted by costly sacrifice; the idea of the Moderns is\nto obtain their desires by the expenditure of words only. We know that\nPagans used long litanies, and that Christians do so too. In Jezebel's\ntime \"0 Baal, hear us\" resounded on Mount Carmel in sonorous monotony.\nWe have replaced that heathen chant by another, and our cathedrals\nreverberate constantly with the musical rogation, \"We beseech Thee to\nhear us, good Lord,\" uttered more than a score of times. Our orthodoxy\nconsists in our using English instead Phoenician words, and in calling\nBaal by a word more familiar to us; and as the highest commendation\nwhich we can give to others is to imitate them, so we praise the Ancient\nheathen highly, who thought that they would be heard from their \"much\nspeaking.\" It is ever easier to change our words than our practice. Like\nthe Pharisee, Christians boast that they are not as other men are; but\nby their proceedings they show that they are like the Jews, of whose\npaternity Jesus had not an exalted opinion. (See John viii. 44).\n\nIn further illustration of the absence of a set form of prayer in the\ntemple worship in Jerusalem, and of the independence of all devout\nsolicitors of priestly aid, I may point to Matthew vi. 5 to 8, wherein\nwe find that hypocrites offered their supplications, not only in the\ntemple, but at the corners of the streets. It is just possible that in\nthe former locality there might have been some public worship going on,\nin which the saintly could join, but certainly there was no such ritual\nat street corners. But if there had really been divine service in the\ntemple, it follows that those who joined in it would not have been\nconspicuous, or deserving the name of hypocrites. The fault of these\nwhich is mentioned by Jesus is ostentatious public prayer, i.e.9 the\ndoing of that which had not been prescribed by Moses.\n\nAs I have, in a preceding volume, spoken at some length concerning the\nmorals and manners of ancient races, and shown how, as a rule, their\nconduct has been the same as that of modern Christians, and as,\nmoreover, the subject has been treated of in an essay by Lecky (_History\nof European Morals_), I will not pursue this part of my subject further\nthan to remark, that we have scarcely two articles of faith--if, indeed\nwe have more than one--i.e., respect for one day in seven--which we have\nnot received, directly or indirectly, from Pagans. Even our Christianity\nis but a modified Buddhism, as I shall endeavour, in my next chapter, to\nshow.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\n     Christianity and Buddhism. The new and old world. An\n     impartial judge is said to be a partisan. Works on the\n     subject. Sakya Muni's birth, B.c. 620 (about), position in\n     life, original views. Parallels between Brahmin-ism,\n     Buddhism, Hebraism, and Christianity. History of Sakya Muni\n     --that of Jesus corresponds with it marvellously. Sakya\n     receives a commission from an angel--is henceforth a\n     saviour. History of Jesus follows that of Sakya. Siddartha\n     neither dictated nor wrote. A favourite garden. Sakya and\n     the Brahmins. Buddha and Christ equally persecuted. Spread\n     of Buddhism after Siddartha's death. Asoka a royal convert\n     Buddhist missionaries, b.c. 307. Their wonderful successes.\n     Different development of Buddhism and Christianity.\n     Persecution a Christian practice, Buddha tempted by the\n     Devil, and by women, like St Anthony. Buddha's life reduced\n     to writing, at least B.c. 90. Hardy on Buddhist miracles.\n     His remarks criticised. Necessity for miracles is doubtful.\n     Sakya and a future life. Resurrection from the dead. Jesus\n     not the first fruits of them that slept. Paul's argument\n     worthless. Buddhists in advance of Christians. Priestcraft\n     at time of Buddha and Jesus. Both did away with ceremonial.\n     Sakya's doctrine--compared with Christian teaching. Another\n     parallel between Buddha and Jesus. Commandments of Tathagata\n     (Buddha), or the Great Sramana. Rules for his saintly\n     friends--for outsiders. Definition of terms. The Sra-mana's\n     opinion of miracles--a comparison. The history of Jesus told\n     without miracles. Buddhistic confession--remarks on in\n     modern times. Filial respect. Public confession, murder\n     absolved thereby. Asoka, about B.c. 263, sent out\n     missionaries. Objections made against Buddhism. Ideas\n     respecting God. Salvation. Buddha and Jesus. Nirvana. Heaven\n     and Hell--Christian ideas. Apocalypse. The heaven of John\n     and Mahomet compared with that of Buddha. Prayer not a\n     Buddhist institution--nor originally a Christian one. Nature\n     of prayer. The developments of Buddhism, particulars--\n     comparison between the Eastern ancient and Western modern\n     practice. Abbe Hue. No sexual element in Buddhism and\n     Christianity at first--it has crept into both in later\n     times. Inquiry into the probable introduction of Buddhism\n     into the West. Asceticism peculiar to Buddhism and\n     Christianity. The Essenes, their faith and practice--\n     resemblance to Buddhism. John and Jesus probably Essenes.\n     If Jesus was inspired, so was Siddartha.    Differences\n     between Sakya and Jesus. Jesus 'believed in an immediate\n     destruction of the world. Idea of preexistence in Jesus and\n     Sakya adopted by their followers. The basis of the two\n     faiths is morality--but an unsound one. Nature of the\n     unsoundness. Morality has a reference to a life on earth\n     only. The decalogue superfluous. Ideas of future rewards and\n     punishments. Dives and Lazarus. The world can exist without\n     a knowledge of a future life. God thought so when He taught\n     the Jews. Dogma versus morality. See how these Christians\n     live! There are a few good men amongst Christians.\n     Supplementary remarks.\n\nFrom the Peruvian and Aztec religious systems in what we designate the\nNew World, a phrase which involves the idea that its existence was for\nages wholly unknown to the historians of the Eastern Hemisphere, we turn\nto another form of faith, which demands even greater attention. Buddhism\nhas, probably, done more to influence the minds of men in Asia than\nany other religion in any part of the globe, and its history is so\nremarkable, that it deserves the attention of every philosophical\nstudent of mankind. To the Christian it ought to be especially\ninteresting, inasmuch as there is strong reason to believe that the\nfaith current amongst ourselves is to be traced to the teaching of\nSakya Muni, whose original name, we may notice, in passing, was no more\n\"Buddha\" than \"Christ\" was the cognomen of the son of Mary.\n\nAn ingenious author on one occasion wrote a charming essay \"upon the\nart of putting things,\" and I cannot read any treatise upon Buddhism,\nwritten by a Christian, without thinking how completely \"the advocate\"\nis to be seen throughout them all Ecclesiastical writers, who are\nProtestant preachers, endeavour laboriously to prove that the teaching\nof Sakya Muni could not have been inspired, and was certainly false;\nwhilst other writers, who have no particular leaning towards Jesus,\nextol the author of Buddhism beyond that of Christianity. Truly, in such\na matter it is extremely difficult not to appear as a partisan, however\ncarefully the scales may be held. The very fact of endeavouring \"to see\nourselves as others see us\" involves the necessity of \"putting things\"\nin a different light to that which is most common or familiar to us. A\nbumptious Briton thinks more of his own Islands than a Yankee thinks of\nthem, and one who endeavours to describe \"the wheel of the law\" as an\nastute Buddhist would do, and who, at the same time, compares it with\nthe teachings of the son of Mary, must seem to those who, without\nknowing its nature, despise the former, and yet implicitly believe in\nthe latter, to be a partisan. Acting upon this belief, we shall not\nscruple to appear as an advocate, for we believe that \"an opposition\"\nis as good in religion as in politics, and that it behoves us all to\nexamine every important question in all its bearings.\n\nIn the following essay I shall not attempt to go into every detail about\nthe life of Sakya Muni, for to do so would weary the reader. Anyone\nwho wishes for such information may be referred to _Le Bouddha et sa\nReligion_, par J. Barthelemy Saint Hilaire, Paris, 1860, a book which\nmay be fairly designated as exhaustive. The English reader may also\nconsult _The Legends and Theories of the Buddhists_, by Rev. R. Spence\nHardy, London, 1866, which, though very prejudiced, is extremely\nsuggestive. Hardy's _Eastern Monachism_ and _Manual of Buddhists_ are\nabout the same. _The Mahawanso_ translated by Tumour, is also a very\nvaluable work of reference.\n\nThere appears to be little doubt that Sakya Muni was born about 622\nyears before our era, and that he died when about eighty years of age,\ni.e.f B.C. 542. He was thus a contemporary of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and\nother Jewish prophets. Though of royal birth, and of the warrior or\nkingly caste, he does not appear to have been instructed in general\nhistory, if, indeed, any such was in existence in Hindostan at that or\nany other period; and we cannot find a tittle of evidence that he\never heard of any other religion than Brahminism, the dominant faith,\napparently, of the Aryan invaders of India. In that he was taught\nassiduously, and some of its tenets he most firmly believed. Amongst\nothers, he held that men lived in a future world, in which each one was\nrewarded or punished according to his doings when in a human form. His\nteaching was founded upon the belief which the Brahmins inculcated,\nthat all men endure misery in this world for their conduct in a previous\nstate of existence, and that they would once again suffer after death,\nunless they conducted themselves, in this life, in a manner pleasing\nto the Almighty. In this creed is clearly involved, if not distinctly\nenunciated, a full acknowledgment of the existence and power of God, of\nthe certainty of a future life, and a desire to escape from penalties\nto be inflicted therein by a supreme celestial Judge, for immorality or\nimpropriety committed in the present state. For these points of doctrine\nSakya did not contend, he merely laid down a different system to the\nBrahmins as to the method by which salvation was to be attained, and the\npenal consequences of a sinful life were to be avoided.\n\nWe may now, halting here for a moment, examine these matters for\nourselves, and inquire in what way such faith differs from our own.\nThe Brahmin taught that man suffers pain, misery, and death for certain\ncrimes committed in a previous state of existence; the Christian teaches\nthat each one suffers for a fault committed by ancestors who lived\nthousands of years ago. Neither the one nor the other regard pain,\nsorrow, suffering, and death as the normal accompaniments of life, but\nboth attribute them to the wrath of an offended deity, who can be, in\nsome way, cheated, cajoled, appeased, or propitiated. Both assert that\nmen are debtors to God, and that miseries are \"duns\" used to make men\npay their obligations to heaven. The Brahmin taught that this could be\neffected by prayer, sacrifice, and sundry ceremonies to be performed\nby some man who had been specially appointed for the purpose. A due\nattention to morality was also inculcated, but it was apparently\nconsidered as of less importance than ritualistic observances.\n\nThe Jew, whom so many amongst us believe to have been especially taught\nby God, propounded a belief essentially similar to that of the Brahmin,\nwith the single exception that he had no faith in a future existence,\nbut thought that sacrifice and offerings, through a priesthood, were\nnecessary to obtain comfort in this life.\n\nThe Christian teaches that the horrors of eternity can only be escaped\nby believing on the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts xvi. 30, 31), and by being\nmoral in addition.\n\nThe \"belief\" here referred to is somewhat amplified in other parts of\nthe Bible, and notably in John iii. 15-17, 36; vi. 39, 40; ix. 35; xi.\n15; and Acts viii. 37; from which we learn that an item in the faith was\na firm hold upon the idea that Jesus was the son, the only begotten son,\nof God. This dogma is still further extended in the \"Apostles' Creed,\"\nwherein the Christians express, as articles of faith, their belief, that\nJesus Christ was the only son of God, conceived by the Holy Ghost, and\nborn of the Virgin Mary, &c. This tenet is somewhat varied in the Nicene\nCreed, which expresses the Christian belief to be, that the Lord Jesus\nChrist is the only begotten son of God--begotten of his Father before\nall worlds--being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things\nwere made, &c.\n\nThe fundamental teaching of Sakya was, that man can only escape the\ntortures of the damned, by a strict propriety of conduct in this\nworld, and a persistent endeavour to renounce and think nothing of the\ngratifications which make life pleasant. The modern Buddhist adds to\nthis a belief in the absolute divinity of the founder of his faith, not\nsimply that he was a son of God, but a visible embodiment of a portion\nof the Creative Unity. Brahmins and Buddhists believe in transmigration\nof souls: the Christian does the like, only, instead of being converted\ninto a beast, he imagines that he will become either an angel or a\ndevil.\n\nWithin certain limits, we may, therefore, say that the Brahminic, the\nJewish, the Buddhist, and the Christian religions are essentially\nalike, differing only upon minor points, such as the absolute value of\nmorality, of ceremonial, of doctrine, of asceticism, the nature of a\nhypothetical antecedent, and an equally uncertain future existence, and\nthe best means of escaping the penalties attached, in the second state,\nto impropriety of conduct in the first. If we deride the Brahmin\nand the Buddhist for the faith which they entertain, our laugh must\nnecessarily recoil on ourselves, for we have no more unequivocal grounds\nfor our belief than they have for theirs. We point in vain to what we\ncall \"Revelation,\" for they can do the same, and if priority in such\nmatters is good for anything, the Brahminic must take precedence of the\nJewish, and the Buddhist of the Christian code. Nor can we call miracles\nto our exclusive aid, for the religious books of the Hindoo are as full\nof them as are those of the Jew and Christian, and the stories told\nin the one can be readily paralleled in impossibility, incapacity,\nfrivolity, and absurdity by the others.\n\nWe must remember, then, when speaking of the teaching of Sakya, that it\nwas constructed upon the supposed fundamental truths of Brahminism, just\nas the doctrines of Jesus were built upon those of Judaism. By adopting\nthese, respectively, the two preachers have demonstrated their belief in\nthem, but neither the one nor the other have advanced our knowledge\nas to the reality of the earliest faith, nor demonstrated the truth of\ntheir subsequent assumptions.\n\nIf we now endeavour, for the sake of comparison, to place the Eastern\nand the Western points of belief in parallel columns, we shall be better\nable to see the points of resemblance and of difference than by any\nother plan.\n\n[Illustration: 114]\n\n[Illustration: 115]\n\nThese are only a few of the leading points of resemblance and\ndifference, and might be almost indefinitely multiplied.\n\nAfter this preface, we may proceed to notice that Siddartha--another\nname for Buddha--was of royal birth, and born in wedlock: his mother was\ncalled Maya Devi, and was herself the daughter of a king. His father was\nof the warrior caste, and, according to ancient usage, Sakya, like Jesus\nsome centuries later, was presented in the temple of the God of his\nparents, and recognized by a Brahmin, whom we may designate as a\npredecessor, by some hundreds of years, of the Jewish Simeon (Luke ii\n25, seq.)f as having the marks of a great man upon him. As Sakya grew up\nto man's estate he was found to be peculiarly clever, and soon distanced\nhis masters, as Jesus was and did, when, at twelve years, he went into\nthe temple and astonished the doctors. He was always thoughtful, and\nfrequently remained alone. Once he wandered into a forest, (compare\nMatthew iv. 1-11), in which he was found lost in thought. When obliged\nto exhibit his talents, Siddartha was found to have every conceivable\nexcellence, bodily and mental He was, by parental desire, married to a\nparagon of a wife, who showed her good sense by rejecting the use of a\nveil. In this Sakya differs from Mary's son, who never married, being,\nmost probably, of the tribe of the Essenes. In later life Siddartha\ndiscouraged wedlock and every form of love. But, during all his outward\nhappiness; Siddartha's thoughts ran upon the misery which he saw on\nevery side to be common in the world, and he entertained a hope that\nhe would be able to show man the road to a happy immortality. In these\nideas the teacher was encouraged by a god, who appeared to him by night,\nand told him that the appointed time for the deliverer had come. This\ncomforter also recommended him to leave his wife, his wealth, his\nfather's house, and give up all he had, so as to be able to seek,\nunencumbered, the way of salvation. Compare here the passage, Mark x.\n20-30, wherein Jesus gives the same kind of advice as the angel gave\nto Sakya Muni. Having become satisfied of his mission from God, he\nresolutely abandoned everything, and, being really a scion of royalty,\nhe had much to renounce. Siddartha thus became a mendicant, dependent\nupon others for food and raiment, and resembled that son of Mary, of\nwhom we read that he had not a residence wherein to lay his head (Matt.\nviii. 20; Luke ix. 58). He was about twenty-nine years of age when he\nthus became poor for the sake of mankind. Compare what is said of\nJesus, Luke iii. 23. Though Siddartha was opposed to the Brahmins, he\nnevertheless studied their doctrines, as Mary's son did that of the\nHebrew theologians, thoroughly, under one of the wisest of them, for\nmany years. Then, leaving this teacher, he went about preaching and\ndoing good. So much were men impressed with his beauty, his piety, and\nhis doctrines, that they flocked in crowds to see him, and he taught\nthem whilst sitting on the brow of Mount Pandava--even kings came to\nhear him. Compare here what is said of the Nazarene, Matt. iv. 23 to\nMatt. viii. 1. Sakya was persecuted for a long time by a relative, who\nultimately became one of his most ardent disciples. Compare Matt. xvi.\n22 and John xxi. 15, et seq. Siddartha's austerities and mortifications\nof himself, in every conceivable way, were excessive during the next six\nyears, and these have been represented as a combat with the Devil, whose\nkingdom he destroyed. At the end of this probation, Sakya Muni, finding\nfasting and pain not profitable for eternal salvation, resumed the\nordinary human habits of eating, &c. This disgusted many of his\ndisciples, and \"they walked no more with him.\" He was partly supported\nby a slave woman, and was content to clothe himself with vestments taken\nfrom the dead. Finally, this wonderful son of Maya heard within him a\nvoice, which told him that he was divine, the saviour of the world, and\nthe incarnation of the wisdom of God--Buddha, \"the word\" itself. Compare\nJohn i. 1, et seq. This was confirmed by a miracle, and thus, at the\nage of thirty-six, and at the foot of a fig tree, Sakya Muni received\na divine commission, \"and the word was made flesh.\" But, though thus\ndivinely inspired, the saviour doubted his power to convert mankind, and\nat the first he only preached his new doctrines to a few. Even in this\nrespect it is marvellous to see how closely the Christian story of Jesus\nfollows that of his predecessor Siddartha. Some opposed Sakya, but these\nwere soon converted by his majesty, and the glory with which he spake\nthe words--\"Yes,\" he said, \"I have come to see clearly both immortality\nand the way to attain it; I am Buddha--I know all--I see all--I have\nblotted out my faults, and am above all law.\" Recognizing in Siddartha\nthe teacher of mankind, the common people heard him gladly, and gave\nhim homage, and he, in return, taught them his full doctrine. The Indian\nsaviour then proceeded to the holy city, Benares, and taught there.\nBut though he spoke much, he neither dictated nor wrote--like Jesus,\nsubsequently, he made no provision by which his doctrines might be\nperpetuated. From Benares he went to other places, some of which were\nespecially dear to him, and thus became sacred. In like manner Bethany\nwas sanctified by Jesus. Amongst others was a garden, given to him,\nwith a mansion, by a wealthy disciple, which a lively fancy might call a\nHindoo Gethsemane. In this garden Buddha made many disciples, and in\nit the first council of his followers was held after his death. Another\nfavourite retreat was a plantation of mango trees, and this, like every\nother spot that Siddartha is known to have visited, has been adorned by\nthe faithful with ornamental architecture in commemoration of him.\n\nAs may be supposed, Sakya, when he assailed the Brahmins, was in turn\nopposed by them with persevering malevolence; the former was outspoken\nand said what he thought of the priests--he called them hypocrites,\ncheats, impostors, and the like--and they were apparently conscious that\nthey deserved such titles.\n\nHere, again, we notice a singular parallel between the Hindoo saviour\nand the Jewish one, who followed him after a long interval. Not that\nthere is anything wonderful in the founder of a new faith reviling the\nministers of one more ancient--nor in the priests of an established\nchurch endeavouring to suppress, by punishments, the professors who\ninterfere with their repose. We know how the Christian fathers abused\nand lampooned the faith of those whose practices they detested--how\nLuther and his followers lashed the vices of the Papists, and how these\nin their turn burned the new preachers--when they had a chance; how the\nNonconformists censured the Establishment, and how the Episcopal Church\nhas harried Independents and Presbyterians. But it is strange to\nfind both Sakya and Jesus inaugurating a religion of peace by fierce\ninvectives. We have not particulars respecting the choice of language\nmade use of by the Indian, but we can scarcely imagine that it could be\nmore to the purpose than the vituperation employed by the Hebrew. Jesus\nsays,--\"Ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is\nmade ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves,\"--\"Ye\nare like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward,\nbut are within full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness\" (Matt,\nxxiii. 15-27). One cannot wonder that the Brahmins and the Pharisees,\nwho were objurgated as hypocrites, should retort upon their accusers,\nprosecute the one and crucify the other.\n\nAs Sakya's influence increased, the power of the old priesthood\ndiminished, and there are accounts of many contests between the old\ndispensers of Brahma's religion and the new saviour, which were held\nbefore kings and people. In consequence of these disputes Buddha's life\nwas repeatedly in danger. But though often threatened, Siddartha died\npeacefully when about eighty years old, beloved by many, respected by\nmore, worshipped as a divinity by his immediate disciples and intimate\nfriends, and venerated by all who had listened to his discourses.\n\nThere are a great many legends existent, and of very respectable\nantiquity too, which tell of miracles performed by this very remarkable\nIndian teacher; but the judicious historian, upon whose authority I am\nat present relying (St. Hilaire), does not intermingle these with the\nnarrative of Siddartha's life. In this respect he shows greater judgment\nthan the scribes who first compiled the stories of Buddha and of Jesus,\nboth of whom conceived that human beings could not be converted to a new\nstyle of belief without thaumaturgy.\n\nThe account of Sakya Muni and his religion would be incomplete did we\nnot add that he left behind him enthusiastic disciples who were eager\nand successful in spreading his views. But many years, how many we do\nnot know with absolute certainty, elapsed ere any account was written\neither of his life or of his teaching. Nor ought we to wonder at this,\nfor until time has been given to mankind, it cannot fairly estimate the\nvalue of anything new; and when men do at length form, what they believe\nto be, a perfect judgment of the importance of the doctrine which has\nbecome deeply rooted, they are more eager to promulgate it in the world\nthan to record it by writing in the closet.\n\nThe new religion certainly spread extensively all over the vast\ncontinent of Hindustan, and in the course of about three hundred years,\nfound an enthusiastic and powerful convert in the person of a king\ncalled Asoka, who was reigning when the third convocation of Buddhists\nwas called, b.c. 307. This ruler was imbued with a missionary spirit,\nand under his influence, preachers full of energy went not only\nthroughout India, but into China, Japan, Ceylon, and apparently into\nevery country to which ships, caravans, and the flow of commerce gave\nthem access, including Persia, Babylonia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and\nthe very populous and important emporium Alexandria. We may judge of the\nfanaticism of these religious envoys by their success, and we may, as\nis often done by Christian missionaries, test the real value of their\ndoctrine by its endurance, and its adaptability to the religious\nwants of the human animal. If missionary success is a test of truth in\nreligion, Buddhism must be superior to Christianity. Buddah--for his\nname is spelled variously--has more followers, according to competent\nauthorities, than Jesus, and if the depth and earnestness shown by the\nconverts to the two men could be weighed in impartial scales, we believe\nthat the preponderance would be in favour of the followers of the Indian\nsaviour.\n\nWe readily allow that Buddhism has not developed in many matters like\nChristianity has done. The Buddhism of to-day does not essentially\ndiffer from that in the early ages of the faith; the followers of\nSiddartha have not adopted the doctrines of the nations amongst which\nthey have settled. The Christianity of to-day, on the other hand, is so\nwidely different from that current in the first century of our era, that\nit has been remarked, with great pungency, that if Jesus revisited us\nnow, he would be denounced as a heretic, and abused as a nonconformist.\nHis followers soon introduced politics into religion, and adopted the\nfables and the doctrines of the Pagans amongst whom they dwelt, merely\nchanging certain names, and ascribing virtues and miracles to saints,\nwhich the heathen attributed to Apollo, Mars, or Venus. Jesus, though a\nJew, never sacrificed, nor did his apostles, but his followers thought\nprudent to filch the practice from the heathen; and, to smooth their\ndifficulty, they profess to turn bread and wine into flesh and blood,\nand offer it up as an oblation upon their ecclesiastical altar. Jesus\nknew nothing of purgatory; with him the rich man went direct to hell,\nand Lazarus to Abraham's bosom. Modern Christians are wiser than their\nteacher; for he disdained the learning of Egypt, his followers took\ntheir purgatory and trinity therefrom. All this shows, that the faith\nof Christians in their teacher has not been equal to the unbounded trust\nfelt by the Buddhist in his master's wisdom. Buddhism, moreover, has\nneither taught nor sanctioned any system of persecution. Sakya, it is\ntrue, encouraged men to make themselves miserable upon earth that they\nmight attain future immunity from woe, but he never ordered them to use\nthe sword or dragonnades to force other people to do so. The followers\nof Jesus, on the other hand, have but too often founded their claim to\na happy immortality on making other men, whom they called heretics,\nmiserable, as during the period of the crusades against the Saracens,\nthe Albigenses, the Lollards, and the Waldenses. The Christians in many\nages seemed to argue thus:--As the painful death of Mary's son saved the\nworld, so I, by torturing a heretic, may save myself. This is an idea\nof vicarious atonement which, though prevalent for centuries, has never\nbeen committed to writing by those who hold it. We do not mean to allege\nthat the opinion referred to cannot be found in history, for it is from\nsuch a source that our assertion comes. A belief, such as we refer to,\nwas promulgated amongst the Crusaders, and was fostered by the founders\nof the Inquisition. Such an idea, too, is embodied in the word--\"The\ntime cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God\nservice\" (John xvi. 2).\n\nWe may, however, trace the idea of persecution in the early Christian\nScriptures. Paul, for example, when writing to the Corinthians (1\nEpistle v. 3-5) gives such encouragement as he can to those who punish\nan erring brother Christian, by delivering him over to Satan for the\ndestruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the\nLord Jesus, and in (1st Tim. i. 20), the same author declares,--\"I have\ndelivered Hymenseus and Alexander unto Satan that they may learn not to\nblaspheme.\" The idea being, that by thus acting, both the Corinthians\nand Paul were improving their own ecclesiastical condition.\n\nAs I may not have another available opportunity for introducing one or\ntwo striking parallels between Sakya Muni and Jesus, I may mention\nhere that the former is represented as being tempted by and having\nconversation with an evil spirit called Mara, Evil one, Destroyer,\nDevil, or Papiyan. In one of these confabulations Buddah says,--\"I will\nsoon triumph over you--'desires' are your chief soldiers, then come\nidleness, hunger and thirst, passions, sleepy indolence, fears, doubts,\nangers, hypocrisy, ambition, the desire to be respected, and to have\nrenown, praise of yourself and blame for others--these are your black\nallies, the soldiers of the burning demon. Your soldiers subjugate gods\nand men, but not me, I shall crush them by wisdom, then what will you\ndo?\" (Hilaire, p. 61). The sage is then, not unlike the so-called St.\nAnthony, tempted by lovely woman, thirty-two lovely demons (Apsaras)\ndeploying all their charms. Then follows a third trial, and Mara says\nto Siddartha,--\"I am the lord of desire, I am the master of the entire\nworld, the gods, the crowd of Davanas (spirits), men and beasts have\nbeen subjugated by me and are in my power. Like them enter my domains,\nrise up and speak like them.\" Buddha replied,--\"If you are the lord of\ndesire you are not the lord of light. Look at me, I am the lord of the\nlaw, you are powerless, and in your very sight I shall obtain supreme\nintelligence,\" (p. 64, op. cit.). The demon makes one more effort, and\nis again conquered, and then retires, tracing with an arrow these words\nupon the ground--\"My empire has passed away.\" It may be imagined that\nthe French author whom I quote is a partisan of the Indian sage; far\nfrom it, he records such tales with regret, for he sees how strong an\ninfluence they must have upon the perfect or imperfect authenticity\nof the New Testament and the story of Jesus. The similarity of the two\nhistories is heightened by the legend before noticed, that Buddha went\nto Heaven to convert his mother, whilst Jesus is said to have gone down\nto Hades to preach to the spirits in prison, with the implied intention\nof converting them to the faith which he preached.\n\nIt will doubtless have occurred to anyone reading the preceding pages,\nif he be but familiar with the New Testament, that either the Christian\nhistories called Gospels have been largely influenced by Buddhist's\nlegends, or that the story of Siddartha has been moulded upon that\nof Jesus. The subject is one which demands and deserves the greatest\nattention, for if our religion be traceable to Buddhism, as the later\nJewish faith is to the doctrines of Babylonians, Medes, and Persians,\nwe must modify materially our notions of \"inspiration\" and \"revelation.\"\nInto this inquiry St. Hilaire goes as far as documentary evidence allows\nhim, and Hardy in _Legends and Theories of the Buddhists_ also enters\nupon it in an almost impartial manner. From their conclusions there can\nbe no reasonable doubt that the story of the life of Sakya Muni, such as\nwe have described it, certainly existed in writing ninety years before\nthe birth of Jesus; consequently, if the one life seems to be a copy of\nthe other, the gospel writers must be regarded as the plagiarists.\n\nIn the story of Buddha, we have eliminated the miraculous part, and\nexhibited him simply as a remarkable man. Nevertheless, in the writings\nof his followers, miracles in abundance are assigned to him. Whether\nthese existed in the original history Hardy doubts, and his remarks\nare so apposite that we reproduce them (op. cit. p. xxviii). \"Upon\nthe circumstances of this first rehearsal (of the life and doctrine of\nSiddartha), most important consequences depend. If the miracles ascribed\nto Buddha can be proved to have been recorded of him at the time of his\ndeath, this would go far towards proving that the authority to which\nhe laid claim was his rightful prerogative. They were of too public\ncharacter to have been ascribed to him then if they had not taken place;\nso that if it was openly declared by his contemporaries, by those who\nhad lived with him in the same monastery, that he had been repeatedly\nvisited by Sekra and other Deivas; and that he had walked through the\nair and visited the heavenly world in the presence of many thousands,\nand those the very persons whom they addressed, we ought to render to\nhim the homage awarded to him by even his most devoted followers. But\nthe legend of the early rehearsal has nothing to support it beyond\nthe assertion of authors who lived at a period long subsequent. The\ntestimony of contemporaneous history presents no record of any event\nthat quadrates with the wonderful powers attributed to the 'rahals,'\nwhich would undoubtedly not have been wanting if these events had really\ntaken place.\"\n\nThe reader of this extract will now naturally turn his attention to the\nChristian gospels, and inquire into the time when they were written, and\nwhether the arguments used by Hardy, for disbelieving the miracles\nof Buddha, do not equally disprove the authenticity of the miracles\nattributed to Jesus. We can find nowhere, in contemporary history--and\nthere is an adequate account thereof, both Jewish and Roman--any records\nof the wonders said to have been done in Judea by the son of Mary.\nThough he was noticed by a certain writer in the Talmud, under the name\nof Ben Panther, that book contains no account of the marvellous works\nrecorded in the gospels, nor any reference to his miraculous power. The\nRomans who dwelt in Jerusalem knew nothing of any real miracle, though\nHerod is reported to have noticed some gossiping accounts of John's\nsuccessor. We do not find a single reference to any of the wonderful\nevents told in the gospels in any epistle written by those who\n\"companied with Jesus\"--except the assertion that he had risen from the\ndead, to be found in 1 Corinthians xv. and elsewhere--whose value is\nproblematical Still farther, we have tolerably good evidence to show\nthat the Gospels were written at a time when they could not be tested\nby those people in whose presence the wonders were said to have been\nwrought. The narrative of John, for example, is, by scholars, supposed\nto have been written more than a century, probably one hundred and fifty\nyears, after the crucifixion, and the others seem to have been composed\nfor the benefit of those who did not live in, or know Jerusalem and\nJudea intimately. They resemble, in almost every respect, the stories\ntold of such Roman saints as Francis of Assisi, Bernard, Carlo Borromeo,\nand Ignatius Loyola, which were always composed long after the death,\nand out of the presence of every one of those who could deny or\ncontrovert them. However much, or little, we may credit the biographies\nof Buddha and Jesus, we cannot for a moment doubt, that the two\nindividuals were instrumental in founding forms of religion, which,\nby the aid of missionaries, spread over a vast extent of the habitable\nglobe. Unlike that of Mahomet, the faiths referred to were promulgated\nby peaceful persuasion rather than by the sword, and by the power\nof eloquence, example, and precept, rather than by the influence of\nmiracles. If, for the sake of argument, we grant that every specimen\nof thaumaturgy which his followers attribute to Jesus is correctly\nreported, we must allow also that his power of making converts by\nteaching, preaching, and wonder working, was inferior to that of his\nfollowers, who taught, preached, and proselytized without performing\nmany, if any miracles. If we assert that miraculous powers are necessary\nfor the establishment and propagation of a new religion, then we must,\nto be consistent with ourselves, believe in the thaumaturgy of the\nBuddhists, and the divine mission of Sakya Muni. If, on the other hand,\nwe deny that Siddartha was an incarnate god or saviour, was not divinely\ninspired, and performed no real miracle, then it is clear that the\nmiracles, which Jesus is said to have achieved, were wholly unnecessary,\nand not required in any way to upset an old religion, to found a new, or\nto spread it when established.\n\nThe philosopher may pause here, with profit to himself, and inquire\nwhether there is, or there are, any new form or forms of religion which\nhas or have sprung up within his own observation, and if so, whether\nit or they has or have been based upon thaumaturgy--and, if one or more\nhave been so founded, whether one shows evidence of stability.\n\nFew can deny that Mormonism is a form of belief which has a considerable\nnumber of adherents, a body of earnest missionaries, and a laity whose\nfaith and practice have been sorely tested by hardship. Yet there has\nnot been a single miracle performed by its prophets. It is reported\nthat its founder announced that he would perform one in the sight of\nall Israel and of the sun, but when the time came he said, that if the\nspectators believed that he could do what was promised, that was quite\nenough!\n\nSpiritualism, on the other hand, is a new sort of theosophy, ostensibly\nfounded and supported wholly by thaumaturgy; its disciples have induced\nthemselves to believe, against their original ideas, that we are not\nonly surrounded by the spirits of the departed, but that these can be\nbrought into connection with us by means of certain individuals, called\nmediators or mediums--that these have such power, over the invisible\nbeings hovering in the air, that the souls of the dead may be made to\nshake the tables of the living, and lift up their sofas to the ceiling.\nThe miracles are believed in by many, but Spiritualism lags far behind\nthe Mormon theology, and probably always will do.\n\nWe may regard this part of our subject in yet another light. Let us,\nfor example, suppose that the Buddhists and the Christians succeed in\npersuading each other of the incorrectness of the miraculous element\nin their respective books, does it therefore follow, that any essential\npart of the creed of either one or other must be altered? The doctrines\nof Siddartha would not be valueless even if his followers disbelieved\nin his power to fly as a bird, or cross a river on the surface of the\nwater--nor would those of Mary's son be proved to be worthless if it\nwere certain that he never marched over a billowy sea, and that he was\nnot really killed by crucifixion. The disciples of Sakya Muni believed\nin a resurrection of the dead, without having had the advantage of\na real or imaginary reappearance of their master after his supposed\ndecease. The Etruscans, Greeks, and Romans, had all an Elysium to which\nthe good folk went. The Red Indian believes in a future life and happy\nhunting grounds (so we are told), although he has never heard of Judea.\nThe rude Northmen and Danes had also their Valhalla to go to after\ndeath, long ere they were Christians. Still farther, it is to be\nnoticed, by the close observer, that the Jews at the time of Jesus, and\nsome of the Greeks about the same period, were divided in their opinions\nrespecting the existence of men in a future state. The Sadducees,\nholding fast to the books of Moses and the Prophets, denied the\nexistence of a resurrection, of angels or of spirits. The Pharisees,\non the other hand, influenced apparently by Babylonian and Persian\ntheology, had faith in all three. That this belief in a future life was\nnot commonly held by the poor folk in Judea, we infer from Mark ix. 10,\nwherein we are told that Peter, James, and John were \"questioning\nwith one another what the rising from the dead should mean.\" That the\nAthenians were equally careless about what is now called \"heaven and\nhell,\" we judge from Acts xvii. 18, wherein we are told that Paul's\npreaching about \"Jesus and the resurrection\" was a strange affair, and\nfrom the thirty-second verse of the same chapter, wherein it is said\nthat the doctrine of the resurrection of Jesus was received with\nderision.\n\nI am quite aware that it may be objected to these remarks that the doubt\nabout the rising from the dead does not point to a general resurrection,\nbut simply to the return to life of one particular individual. This,\nhowever, only removes the difficulty to a short distance, for Greek\nstory tells us of the annual return of Proserpine from the realms\nof Pluto to the light of day, and Adonis was yearly resuscitated, in\nmythical narrative. For the Hebrew, the rising from the dead ought not\nto be a wonderful matter. Was it not told in their Scriptures how, when\ncertain persons were burying a man, the bearers in a fright threw the\ncorpse into the sepulchre of Elijah, whose bones had such efficacy that\nthey revived the dead man, who stood on his feet (2 Kings xiii. 21). We\nfind also, from Mark vi. 16, Luke ix. 9, that Herod had a full belief in\nthe power of John to rise again from the death to which that monarch had\nconsigned him. The sceptic may doubt the ability of the two evangelists\nto read what was passing through the royal mind when Jesus and his works\nwere brought before its notice, but he cannot doubt that the writer was\naware that in Herod's time there was a belief in the resurrection of\nindividuals. Indeed, we find in the verse following that which tells\nof the Apostle's bewilderment, Mark ix. 11, a question, \"why say the\nscribes that Elias must first come?\" To which the reply is that the\nprophet has come. We are constrained, therefore, to believe that\nJesus was not the first who rose from the dead; nay, even he himself\ncommissioned his disciples to \"cleanse the lepers, and raise the dead\"\n(Matth. x. 8). What, then, is the value of the arguments that Paul\nbuilds upon the assertion that Christ is \"the first fruits of them that\nslept.\"\n\nThis being so, we may fairly ask, whence did Mary's son derive the ideas\nwhich he promulgated of a resurrection, and of salvation, and why had\na sophistical writer like Paul to adopt the clumsy contrivance of\nasserting that Jesus not only had risen, but that he was the first\nindividual who had done so, to demonstrate that the dead really did\nreturn again to life? Paul's argument, indeed, shows how little he\nknew or had thought upon the subject, for he distinctly preaches a\nresurrection of the body, not of the soul, a belief adopted into the\nApostles' creed. Yet, at the very period when the minds of Christians\nwere thus unformed, the disciples of Buddha, to a man, believed in a\nfuture \"Nirvana,\" in which \"there should be no more sorrow nor crying,\nneither should there be any more pain, and where all earthly things\nshould have passed away\" (see Rev. xxi. 4). We are not yet in the\nposition to prove that Mary's son and certain of his followers received\ntheir inspiration from disciples of Siddartha, but there is certainly\na strong presumption in favour of the possibility, much evidence of its\nprobability, and nothing whatever to disprove it. To this, however, we\nwill return by and by.\n\nEre we proceed to examine into the nature of the doctrines of Sakya Muni\nand of Jesus, we may cast a glance over the condition of the men whom\nthey converted. In both instances, it is not too much to say that\nthey all were \"priest-ridden\" in the fullest meaning of the term. The\nresidents in Modern India and Papal Rome, until a short time ago, well\nunderstood what the term signifies; day by day, and almost hour by hour,\nthere is, or was in these places, some ceremony to be attended, some\nprayer to be uttered, some confession to be made, some contribution\nto be given to monastery, church, or priest. Penances are, and were\ninflicted of the most painful, sometimes of the most disgusting kind.\nThe last I heard of was in Wales, where a man was ordered to lie down\nat the church door as a mat, upon which the faithful were to wipe their\nfeet. Both in India and Italy, men, women, and children alike are, or\nwere, taught to regard themselves as the servants, and even slaves of\nthe hierarchy, and their money is, or was, alienated from wives and\nchildren to swell the coffers of spiritual tyrants. Perpetual terrors of\nhell are sounded, until those hearers, whose hearts are impressionable,\nare habitually haunted by imaginary horrors, each one of which has to be\nbought off by a sort of hush-money paid to the priest, who has invented,\nadopted, or described them.\n\nSuch was the condition of England and France prior to the Reformation\nand the Revolution.\n\nSo long as men are debased by their guides, and allow themselves,\nwith the docility of a well-trained dog, to be ruled, and so long as\ntyrannical flamens can wring an ever increasing tax from the people,\nthere is probably nothing more in the breast of each than a vague\nfeeling of dislike, or regret, at the existence of such things, which\nrarely receives utterance for fear of punishment. But as soon as a\nman, more bold than his neighbours, raises a standard of revolt, whose\nsuccess appears to be secure, the bulk of the oppressed first sympathize\nwith, yet fear to join him, then, after watching eagerly the course of\nevents, and admiring the boldness of men more resolute than themselves,\nthey timidly make common cause with the reformer, and, if circumstances\nfavour them, they become enthusiastic. As the news of the mental revolt\nswells, the people, tired of oppression, rise in their might and sweep\naway the hierarchy, or compel it to abandon its pretensions. Buddha and\nChrist were such leaders as we here describe, and such was the course\ngone through by their followers. The timid Peter denying Jesus, and yet\nafterwards boldly preaching him up, is an example almost too well known\nto be quoted.\n\nWe are now in a position to inquire into the nature of Siddartha's\nteaching.\n\nPremising that his doctrines were collected at least 200 years B. C.,\nthe first which we notice is one that he not only inculcated by language\nbut enforced by his abiding example. He taught that the comforts and\npleasures of this life act as fetters, to chain man's spirit to earth;\nthat day by day they necessitate the cultivation of propensities\nand passions more or less bestial in their nature; and that as these\nstrengthen, so the individual who possessed them would be born again,\nafter his death, to some form of misery and woe in which he would have\nto atone for the human infirmities which he had not conquered. To escape\nfrom the possibility of such an event, Sakya counselled his disciples\nto wean themselves, as far as possible, from every sensual passion; to\nmortify the body by fasting, so as to make it more readily separable\nfrom the inner man; to renounce all comfort except that of doing good;\nand believing in a state of perfect future salvation.\n\nA man, he taught, must abandon everything as valueless compared with the\nattainment of salvation or _nirvana_; he must be wholly dependent upon\nothers for food and raiment; he must take no thought for the morrow, and\nlive like a bird or lily, laying up no store; for certainly a disciple\nof Sakya ought not to undertake any trade or other means of gaining a\nlivelihood, lest it should ensnare his spirit and tie it down to the\ngrovelling things of earth.\n\nThis was the rule for the very faithful, the infirm believers had a more\nlenient code.\n\nIf we now turn to the doctrine said to have been taught by Jesus and\nhis disciples, we shall find a close parallel between it and that of the\nIndian teacher. For example, John says (1 Epis. ii. 15,16) \"Love not\nthe world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love\nthe world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the\nworld, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eye, and the pride of\nlife, is not of the Father but is of the world.\" Paul says (Rom. xii. 2)\n\"Be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing\nof your mind, that ye may prove what is that good and acceptable and\nperfect will of God.\" James also says (ch. iv. 4) \"Know ye not that the\nfriendship of the world is enmity with God; whosoever, therefore,\nwill be a friend of the world, is the enemy of God.\" Again, we find in\nMatthew xix., Mark x., and Luke xii., the story of a young man who was\npossessed of wealth, probably scarcely less than that of Sakya Muni,\nand whose life had been conscientiously conducted, according to the\ncommandments which he knew, and who having heard of Jesus, came to ask\nhim if there were a more certain way of salvation than the one he was\nin. To him the reply is,--\"If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that\nthou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven,\nand come and follow me.\" In the verses, moreover, which follow, there is\na remark from the same teacher to the effect, that \"every one that hath\nforsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife,\nor children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundred\nfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.\"\n\nOnce again, we find an exact counterpart of Buddha's teaching in the\nsermon on the Mount, which is recorded in Matth. vi. 25-34--\"I say unto\nyou, take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat or what ye shall\ndrink, nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more\nthan meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air, for\nthey sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns, yet your\nheavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?... Why\ntake ye thought for raiment, consider the lilies of the field... if God\nso clothe the grass... shall he not much more clothe you? Therefore\ntake no thought, saying, what shall we eat, or what shall we drink, or\nwherewithal shall we be clothed?... Take therefore no thought for the\nmorrow... sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.\" Other similar\npassages might readily be given, but the above suffice to demonstrate\nthe Buddhistic teaching of the prophet of Nazareth.\n\nBoth start from the idea that death, disease, pain, and misery is the\nresult of sin--and both imagine that sin consists in living and acting\nupon the natural wants, necessities, and propensities of human kind.\nBoth imagine that to be natural is to be vile, and that salvation is to\nbe attained by resisting every impulse which is common to mankind Man\ndesires to eat when hungry--this is a weakness to be combated; a mother\nloves her babe--this must not be tolerated; a youth covets a damsel in\nmarriage--this is a snare to draw both down to hell; celibacy must be\nenforced. The argument runs thus,--If any one enjoys life he is sure to\nfear death, and will certainly pay for his pleasures; but if any one has\nthe resolution to pass his years on earth in misery like that of hell,\nhe will be glad to die, and fearless of any place of torment; use has\nbred a habit in him and no torture can come amiss.\n\nSome Christian author has ventured to assert \"religion never was\ndesigned to make our pleasures less,\" but he was a conspicuous heretic.\nBuddha's doctrine was founded upon the assertion that life is always\nshort, and that it is not worth a man's while to buy a few years of\nenjoyment with myriads of years of agony. Jesus preached that the Jews'\ntime was short, for they, and most probably all the world besides, were\nto be burned up any day within the duration of the generation--what then\nwas the use of laying up stores of grain, of buying fine clothes, and\nkeeping wine to get mellow?\n\nBoth preachers were equally short sighted and absurd in their teaching,\nfor if their disciples were to live upon alms, and all repented and\nadopted the doctrine, it is clear that all would starve together, and\nself immolation by hunger was repugnant to both prophets. If no one made\nclothes all must go naked, and indecency was forbidden. If no one was\nto lay up money, there would be no one to pay for work, yet toil was\nconsidered to be a duty. If every one was to live from hand to mouth,\nwho would keep a calf until it became a heifer, or a lamb to become a\nsheep?\n\nIt is difficult to conceive that two individuals could have worked out\nsuch a scheme of salvation independently, and the minuteness of the\nresemblances induces me to believe that Jesus, possibly without knowing\nit, first adopted and then promulgated in Judea the doctrines of the\nIndian sage.\n\nFollowing, again, the lead of St. Hilaire (_Le Bouddha, &c_, 1860, pp.\n81, et seq.), we find that Siddartha taught 600 years B. C., that death\nand all the miseries of mankind were due to the passions, desires, and\nsins of man; that all this misery would cease in Nirvana (of which we\nshall speak by and by), and that the means to attain to this salvation\nis to keep the true faith; to have a correct judgment; to be truthful in\nall things, and to hold every false thing in abhorrence; always to act\nand to think with a pure and honest mind; to adopt a religious life,\ni.e., one that is in no respect worldly, not owing even subsistence\nto anything which might be tainted with sin; to practise a careful\nand earnest study of the law; to cultivate a good memory, so that all\nmistakes in conduct may be remembered if they have occurred, and be\navoided in the future; and frequent meditation, i.e., an abstraction\nof the mind from self consciousness, a thinking of nothing, so as\nto approximate the soul to Nirvana. These were Buddha's fundamental\nverities. It is put more shortly thus,--\"Practising no evil, advancing\nin the exercise of every virtue, purifying one's self in mind and will,\nthis is indeed the doctrine of all the Buddhas.\" _Journal of Royal\nAsiatic Society_, vol. xix. p. 473.\n\nWe may once more stop to compare the teaching of Siddartha with that\nfamiliar to Christians. Paul says, for example (Rom. v. 12) \"As by one\nman sin entered into the world, and death by sin; so death passed upon\nall men, for that all have sinned;\" again, in chap, vi. 23, \"the wages of\nsin is death;\" again, in chap. vii. 5, \"when we were in the flesh the\nmotions of sins... did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto\ndeath;\" and again, chap. viii. 6, \"to be carnally minded is death; but\nto be spiritually minded is life and peace.\" We may next refer to what\nsome call the fundamental teaching of Jesus, as enunciated in answer\nto the question of the young man \"What shall I do that I may inherit\neternal life?\" Matthew xix., Mark x., \"If thou wilt enter into life,\nkeep the commandments. Thou shalt do no murder, thou shalt not commit\nadultery, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness,\nhonour thy father and thy mother, and thou shalt love thy neighbour as\nthyself.\" And when the young man asserted that he had done so, all\nthat he was told to do in addition, was to sell his property, give the\nproceeds to the poor, and become a follower of Jesus, who had not where\nto lay his head, and to live upon the charity of other people. I must,\nhowever, notice in passing, that the teaching of Jesus is not by\nany means so uniform as that of Sakya, for we find the former here\ninstructing a young man to do no murder, but at a subsequent period,\nthat of the last supper, Jesus exhorts his disciples, and through them,\npossibly, the very man to whom he rehearsed the commandments, thus \"He\nthat hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one,\" (Luke xxii\n36). Certainly a direct encouragement to homicide.\n\nFor the benefit of the Buddhists a short formula of faith has been\nframed, which is to this effect--\"Tathagata (another name of Sakya\nMuni), in the proper condition, has explained that our present state\nis produced by antecedent causes, and the great Sramana, or Ascetic\n(another cognomen of Siddartha), has told us how to avoid the effects of\nsin. The effects are pain and actual existence, having for their cause\npast sins; the cause is the production of suffering: the cessation of\nthese effects is Nirvana, the teaching of Tathagata, or of the great\nSramana, is the way which leads to Nirvana.\" The Christian formula runs,\n\"As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.\" To this\nwe may compare a Nepaulese saying, \"Arise, leave your possession, take\nup the law of Buddha, and break asunder the power of death.\"\n\nIn addition to the fundamental maxim given on the preceding page, Sakya\nMuni added many others, amongst them, \"Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt\nnot steal, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not lie, thou\nshalt not get drunk;\" others are of lighter consequence--\"thou shalt\nnot eat out of due season, thou shalt not watch dances or theatrical\nrepresentations, or listen to songs or music, thou shalt abstain from\nall ornamentation of dress, &c., and from perfume; thou shalt not have\na large bed, nor ever take gold or silver; thou shalt remain inflexibly\nchaste.\"\n\nTo those who desired to become disciples and personal friends of Buddha,\nit was ordained that (a) They should only be clothed with rags taken\nfrom the cemeteries, or from heaps of refuse, or found on the high road.\n(b) That there should only be three of these vestments, and that each\nshould be stitched by the wearer, and that they should be covered with\na cloak of yellow wool (c) That the food should be as simple as\npossible--a rule adopted by Christian saints, but not by Bishops.\n(d) That all should live upon alms and offerings, which should be begged\nfor, in perfect silence, from house to house, and placed in a vessel\nmade of wood--a plan adopted by certain Christian mendicant friars.\n(e) That only one meal should be taken during the day--a rule to be found in\nsome Christian monasteries. (f) That no aliments, even the most simple,\nshould be taken after noon, the rest of the day after this period should\nbe devoted to teaching and meditation. (g) The faithful should live in\nthe wilderness or forest, and not in towns or villages. Hence Christian\nhermits lived in the deserts of the Thebaid. (h) They should only\nshelter themselves under the boughs and leaves of trees. (i) They should\nsit with the back supported only by the trunk chosen for refuge.\n(j) They should sleep sitting, and not lying down. (k) They should never\nchange their sitting mat from the place where it was put first. (l) The\ndisciples should unite together, at least upon one night in the month,\nto meditate amongst the tombs upon the instability of human things.\nMendicity, chastity, and asceticism were essential parts of Sakya Muni's\npractice, and St. Hilaire (op. cit., p. 87) naively remarks that these\ncertainly are not the means for making good citizens, though they may\nproduce good saints.\n\nWe may notice, in passing, that the pious followers of Sramana (the one\nwho mastered his passions) were very much more proper, in our eyes, than\nsome of the Brahmins, from whom they seceded, inasmuch as the former\nwore sufficient garments to cover themselves decently, whilst the\nlatter, whom the Greeks called \"Gymnosophists,\" went without any more\nclothing than the horse or ass. It is also to be noticed that Siddartha\nprovided a sort of code of laws to be observed by those who wished to\nadopt his method of salvation, without becoming altogether \"religious.\"\nThese consisted in the enforcement of chastity, purity, patience,\ncourage, contemplation, and knowledge--these were, it was asserted, the\ntranscendent virtues which would pass man across the river of death.\nThey would not land him there in life, but whilst these were adopted as\nthe rule of life, the aspirant was in the right way to attain \"Nirvana.\"\n\nThe charity which Sakya Muni ordained was universal, extending even\nto what we call the lower animals, and one example is given in which a\ndisciple cast himself into the sea to save a boat's crew in danger of\ndeath from a storm, whilst another tells of Buddha giving himself as\nfood to a tigress, who had not sufficient milk for her young ones.\n\nAgain, the precept against \"lying\" included false witness, and all that\nwe call \"bad language,\" as well as trifling chat, called \"badinage,\"\n\"wit,\" and the like. Persons were not only to avoid wrong, but they\nwere to cultivate every good habit, or what we designate each \"Christian\ngrace.\" It was inculcated, that beauty of language, or eloquence,\npleasantness of voice, and a due respect to cadence should be studied,\nso as to make their teaching popular, a precept not much regarded\namongst ordinary Christian divines. Beyond other things, humility was\ninculcated, not that which exists on the lips only, and is apparently\ncompatible with the determined endeavour to exercise unlimited power,\nwhich has been conspicuous in the Papacy for a millennium at least, but\nthat which conceals greatness and demonstrates littleness. Thus there\nis a legend of Buddha refusing, at the request of a king, to exhibit any\nmiracle to convince his opponents, his answer being, \"Great king, I do\nnot teach the law to my hearers by saying to them, 'Go, oh you religious\nmen! and before Brahmins and house-holders perform, by means of a\nsupernatural power, miraculous things, which no other men can effect,'\nbut I say to them, in teaching them the law, 'Live, oh ye pious ones, so as\nto conceal your good works, and to let your sins be seen.'\"\n\nAt this point we pause once more to draw a parallel between Siddartha\nand Jesus, though, in the delineation of the doctrine of the latter,\nwe shall see a discrepancy which appears to indicate two distinct\nauthorships in the recorded story. We refer, in the first place, to Luke\nvi, wherein we find, v. 27, et seq., \"Love your enemies, do good to\nthem which hate you, bless them that curse you, and pray for them which\ndespitefully use you, and to him that smiteth thee on the one cheek\noffer also the other\" (compare Matt. v. 39, 40). Again, Matt. vi. 3,\n\"When thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand\ndoeth,\" and in v. 6, \"When thou prayest, enter into thy closet,\" &c.;\nv. 16, \"When ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance.\"\nSide by side with this we may place the directions given in Matt, x.,\nwhere we find that Jesus called his disciples unto him, and gave them\n\"power against unclean spirits to cast them out, and to heal all manner\nof sickness and all manner of disease \"--they were, moreover, \"to\ncleanse the lepers and raise the dead,\" i.e.t the disciples were to\nperform miracles; but if they, in their wanderings and teachings, should\nbe rejected, despised, or affronted, the apostles were to shake off the\ndust of their feet against the persecutors, being certain that condign\npunishment would fall upon the offenders.\n\nIt is curious that in the histories of the Indian and the Jew, there\nshould be analogous discrepancies between records of their sayings and\ndoings. Siddartha and Jesus are represented, each of them, as declining\nto perform miracles when asked or expected to do so. Nevertheless, in\nthe same histories we find marvellous accounts of the wonders which they\nperformed. We have seen the clashing reports of Buddha, the following\nreports of the son of Mary are equally discordant. To make the\ndissonance more striking, we place the passages in parallel columns.\n\n[Illustration: 141]\n\nAt what time after the death of Jesus the miracles recorded of him were\nfabricated we can scarcely tell. If, with most critical scholars, we\nbelieve that John's Gospel was written by some Neoplatonic Greek, at\nleast a century and a-half after the period alluded to, we must also\nbelieve, either that all the legends about the casting out of devils by\nthe son of Mary were invented after the time when \"John\" lived, or else,\nwhich is probable, that the last evangelist gave no credit to them, if\nthey did already exist; and if the good sense and superior knowledge of\n\"John\" led him to discredit the tale about the legion of devils, which\nleft one man* to enter into about two thousand pigs, I do not see that\nother Christians are obliged to believe the legend. From considerations\nwhich we advanced in the articles Prophets, Prophecy, &c., in _Ancient\nFaiths_ (Vol. II., p. 515), and especially in the history of Barcochab,\nwho was supposed to be the Messiah by some Jews in A.D. 131-5, we argued\nthat new matter was certainly introduced into the story of Jesus told by\nMatthew, Mark, and John, as late as the era of that enthusiastic Hebrew\nleader. We noticed the doubts that existed in the minds of many early\nChristians as to whether this redoubtable warrior was not \"the man\"\nof whom the prophets spake. We may now still further notice that\nhe professed to perform miracles, which appear to be thoroughly\ncontemptible when weighed against those of the gospels. To our mind\nit is inconceivable that the followers of Mary's son could have been\nacquainted with the marvellous works attributed to Jesus in the gospels,\nand, yet be shaken by such a man as Barcochab. We notice, also, that not\none \"Epistle\" writer refers to them--consequently, we believe that\nall the wondrous tales told of the prophet of Nazareth, must have been\nintroduced after the time of Hadrian (in whose reign Barcochab was\ndestroyed), and were fabricated by pious Christians, to prove that the\nMessiah, in whom they believed, was infinitely superior to that warrior\nwhom others had for a time trusted. Both, to be sure, had been killed by\nthe Romans, and thus both might seem upon a par, but if history could\nbe cooked--and there is probably no single history existing which is\nstrictly true--to show that the first performed a hundred times the\nwonderful works of the second, he would thus become greatly exalted. See\nespecially Matt. xxiv. 24, in confirmation of this view. Be this as it\nmay, there is, I understand, solid foundation for the assertion that\nthe New Testament, such as we have it now, might have been composed,\naltered, curtailed, added to, remodelled, or otherwise fashioned, at\nany period between the years a.d. 50 and 300, after which change was\ndifficult, though we cannot say impossible. A corresponding statement is\ntrue of the books which record the life and doctrines of Buddha.\n\n     * In Matthew viii. 30-32, we are told that there were two\n     men who were possessed with the devils which subsequently\n     entered the herd of swine;--in Mark v. 11-13, the spirits\n     are represented as being concentrated in one person, and in\n     Luke viii. 32-33, the tale appears in the same guise as in\n     Mark--only the man is made to call himself \"Legion,\" on\n     account of the multitude of devils living inside him. In\n     cases of this kind one need not be rigidly particular, for\n     it signifies little whether the spirits were one thousand in\n     one man or two thousand in two--the wonder is that spirits\n     could talk--fly away from man to pig, or commit suicide in\n     the bodies of the swine when they might have done the same\n     thing in one or two men. It is clear from the miracle that\n     certain devils change their habits when they take up their\n     habitation in porcine instead of human beings.\n\nAt this period of our parallel we may profitably examine the New\nTestament, and ascertain whether we cannot extract from it a tolerably\nfair account of the life and teaching of Jesus, without including\ntherein a single act of thaumaturgy. We fearlessly assert, not only that\nwe can, but that the miracles are not an essential part of his doctrine.\nFor example, we learn that Jesus was the son of a woman betrothed to a\ncarpenter, who became pregnant ere yet the ceremony of marriage was gone\nthrough. Her affianced husband did not make her frailty an excuse for\nannulling the contract, possibly for a good, and to him a sufficient\nreason. He married the already fruitful Mary, and her child passed\namongst the neighbours as being the son of Joseph. This we learn from\nMatt. xiii. 55, where we find the people saying, \"Is not this the\ncarpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren James,\nand Joses, and Simon, and Judas, and his sisters, are they not all\nwith us?\" a statement repeated in similar terms, Mark vi. 3. This short\naccount is important, since it completely destroys the papal doctrine\nthat Mary was \"ever virgin,\" for she bore at least four other sons\nthan her first born, and two daughters. At no period was Jesus regarded\neither by the family or by the neighbours as illegitimate, nor is there\nany reason to believe that Joseph looked upon him otherwise than as his\nown son. Indeed, in Luke ii. 42-48, the carpenter distinctly appears to\nact as if he recognized Jesus as his own offspring--in verse 48, Mary\nsays, \"Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold thy father and I\nhave sought thee sorrowing,\" asserting as plainly as words could speak,\nthat Joseph had begotten Jesus. It is true that the youth replied, \"Wist\nye not that I must be about my father's business?\" but the story adds\nthe important information, that the couple did not understand the\nsaying.\n\nIt is clear to us, that if the legend of the impregnation of Mary by the\nHoly Ghost, after that event had been previously announced to her, and\nif, as we are told in Matt. i. 20, Joseph had been informed by \"the\nangel of the Lord\" that the foetus in Mary's womb was begotten by the\nHoly Ghost, it would not have been possible for Joseph and his wife\nto have misunderstood the words of Jesus. The very wonder which they\nexpressed demonstrates the belief of the parents that there was nothing\nunusual in the conception. The father Joseph knew that he had borne his\nshare in the event, and Mary knew that she had not conversed with any\nother man; consequently, for her son to indicate another father than\nJoseph, naturally mystified her. We therefore cannot allow the assertion\nto pass, that the conception and birth of Jesus was in itself a miracle.\nBut as we shall revert to the subject in a separate chapter, we will say\nno more about it here.\n\nAfter living and working with his parents for some years, Jesus was\nattracted by the preaching of his cousin John, whose doctrines were\nessentially Buddhistic and Essenian. Like the Hindoos, he used water as\nan emblem of purification, and urged his hearers to repentance and good\nconduct. What motives urged John to become \"the voice of one crying in\nthe wilderness,\" we have no means of judging, but the gospel narratives\ntell us that he, like Jesus, believed in the almost immediate\ndestruction of the world. His text was, \"Repent, for the kingdom of\nheaven is at hand.\" Jesus adopted the view, and promulgated it more\nextensively. His text was the same as that of his cousin, but more\nexpanded. \"The kingdom of heaven means glory to the righteous, and\neverlasting life; misery and everlasting destruction to the wicked.\nThe time is near, hasten to escape from the coming vengeance.\"\nThe earnestness of Jesus, his acquaintance with the prophets, his\nself-denial and his constant kindness, endeared him to the common\npeople. The same virtues had a like effect in the case of Buddha.\nAmongst villagers and poverty-stricken fishermen he soon won his way,\nand every one had some story to tell of him, which increased in wonder\nas it passed from mouth to ears, and from these to the tongue of the\nlisteners. Those who know how an ordinary circumstance may gradually\nbecome described as miraculous, even in England, can well imagine how\nthe miracles of Jesus and Siddartha were produced.\n\nIn time Jesus endeavoured to induce the magnates of Jerusalem to adopt\nhis doctrine, and to trust in repentance for salvation rather than in\nsacrifice, but the enthusiast could not overcome the ritualists, and\nthey at once began to weigh their power against the influence of\nJesus upon the multitude. After a time the priests were convinced that\nsupremacy rested with them, and the man who preached a religion of the\nheart, was sacrificed by the adherents of ceremonial. Such a fight is\ncommon, as we see around us. The Evangelicals and the Ritualists of\nto-day, resemble the followers of Jesus and of Moses. When the latter\nappeared in the guise of powerful Romanist rulers, they put down the\nformer, but now when the former are the strongest, they endeavour to\ndepress the latter.\n\nAfter the death, or the withdrawal of Jesus from public life--for we\nhave no belief in the legends of his resurrection--considering that\nhis apparent decease was a prolonged fainting fit, for had he been dead\nblood would not have followed a spear wound as it did--the disciples of\nJesus spread his fame largely. Whilst Jesus was with them they clung\nto him; when he was no more, each man became a preacher, and then\nChristianity spread until it met with Buddhism in Egypt, and thus became\ndeveloped in a peculiar direction. Then came the gospels, which made\nJesus a second Sakya. Although we can readily conceive that Jesus, like\nhis paltry successor, Joe Smith, the Mormon, captivated the minds of\nhundreds without performing any supernatural deed, and that his \"elders\"\nvastly increased the number of those who believed in him, yet it is\nclear, that ancient and modern theologians were and are anxious to\nestablish the reality of the thaumaturgy attributed to Jesus, that\nthey may appeal to it to demonstrate that he was the son of God, an\nincarnation of a portion of the creative mind--\"the word,\" or _logos_,\nhaving the same relationship to Jehovah, the \"I Am,\" the Self-Existent\nOne, as Buddha, \"the understanding\" had to \"Brahma,\" The Supreme One.\n\nAccepting this issue for the sake of argument, we affirm once again\nthat, as the miracles of Sakya and of the son of Mary are equally\nunreliable, or equally true, Buddha was as much a true son of God as\nChrist was, or that Jesus was no more an incarnation of Jehovah, than\nSiddartha was of Brahma. Jehovah and Brahma being merely different names\nfor the same great Being. That miracles are not necessary to the spread\nof a new faith, the history of modern Presbyterianism and Mormonism\ndistinctly proves. For further remarks, we refer the reader to\nthe article Miracle in the preceding volume. We will postpone to a\nsubsequent page what we have to say respecting the asceticism of the\nBuddhists, and that which was prevalent in the early Christian church.\nFor the present, we resume our account of Sakya Muni's teaching as\ndescribed by St. Hilaire.\n\nFounded upon his doctrine of absolute humility, he established the\ncustom of confession amongst his apostles or disciples, and amongst\nthose who venerated his teaching, though they did not' become his\nimmediate followers. This confession was not that simply auricular one\nenforced by Ritualists, but it was made twice a month, at the new and\nthe full moon, before the great Sramana and the congregation, in a clear\nvoice. Powerful kings are reported to have followed this practice.\n\nIt will not require more than a minute's reflection to see that the\nBuddhistic system of confession was far superior--as regards the end\nin view--than that which has been adopted by Romanists and Ritualists.\nSakya and James (ch. v. 16) advised the practice in question, that\nthe sinner might be humiliated in his own eyes, and deterred from the\nnecessity of having again to acknowledge a fall from virtue before a\ncongregation of the faithful. Popes and Protestant Ritualists, on the\ncontrary, use confession for the purpose of inquiring into the character\nof every penitent, and the practice is adopted by the sinner, not with\nthe view of repentance, but to wipe out periodically a sin which is\nhabitually renewed.\n\nIf confessions were made before a congregation, instead of to a priest\nin a closet, or some other secret spot, there would not then be current\nso many scandalous stories as there are--too true, alas, in many\ninstances--respecting women who have been debauched under the guise\nof religion, and priests who have prostituted the ordinances of their\nchurch, until they have made them pander to vice, and act as seeds to\nproduce immorality.\n\nThough personally Tathagata preached celibacy, he had not, like some of\nthe so-called saints of Christianity, any feeling of disrespect towards\nfamily ties. He always spoke affectionately of his mother, though he\nnever knew her, and the legends say that he endeavoured to convert her\nin heaven. His command that all his followers should honour their father\nand mother was repeatedly enforced, that being only second to the duty\nof learning, venerating, and keeping the law. It even went so high as to\ninclude endeavours to teach the parents if they were ignorant.\n\nOne of the main duties of every teacher appointed by Siddartha, was to\ngo about preaching the law, and exhorting his hearers to learn and to\nobey it. But no one, on any account, was to introduce the persecuting\nelement. No respect whatever was to be paid to caste, all being alike\nhuman before God. Buddha himself is described as a very striking\npreacher, charming his hearers by his clear and eloquent diction,\nastonishing them by his supernatural power, sometimes instructing the\ncommon folk with ingenious parables, and inciting them to emulation by\ntelling what others had done. He referred to the sins which had been\ncommitted in former days by an ancient people, and how severely punished\nthose who had committed them had been, or still were, and he even\nrecorded his own faults, that others might learn to avoid them. He urged\nall his hearers to cultivate truth and reason, which is certainly not a\nChristian practice, and not blindly to obey their spiritual guides, as\nthe modern faithful are taught to do. By making the practice of every\nvirtue the sole means for attaining eternal salvation, he practically\ndiscouraged vice, but it does not appear that he endeavoured actively\nto denounce immorality, sin, or sinners. He did not, like many modern\npersons, \"compound for sins they are inclined to, by damning those they\nhave no mind to.\" It is distinctly declared that it was not necessary\nfor ordinary followers of Buddha to become what is called \"religious,\"\nor \"to enter into religion,\" as friars, monks, &c. To those who\npreferred an ordinary mode of life, instructions were given, that they\nshould cultivate charity, purity, patience, courage, contemplation, and\nknowledge. Indeed, we may assert that the precepts of Jesus, as\nrecorded in Matthew v., vi, and viii, and in Luke iii. 7 to 14, are not\nessentially different from those propounded by Sakya Muni Neither the\none nor the other ordered or even recommended all men to be celibate,\nall men to become poor, all soldiers to leave their profession--but\nboth urged upon every one who wished for salvation, to be kind, pure,\npatient, courageous, thoughtful and eager after all knowledge. It would\nbe well if those calling themselves Christians would endeavour more\nfully to understand that cultivating science is the same as advancing in\nthe knowledge of God.\n\nSome of the remarkable parables found in Buddhist books are very\nprobably the original ones of Sakya; they are certainly ingeniously\nframed to illustrate his doctrine. Nor is there wanting, indeed, one\nin which there is an episode resembling the story of the thief upon\nthe cross. It is of a lovely courtesan who falls deeply in love with\na jeweller, young, and a devoted follower of Buddha, and solicits his\ncompany. To every message she sends him, he returns the answer \"it\nis not time for you to see me.\" At length she commits a crime, and is\nsentenced to have ears, nose, hands, and feet cut off, and to be carried\nto the graveyard to die, leaving the cut off members at her ankles. At\nthis period the young man visits her, to see the true nature of those\njoys which drown men in perdition; then he consoles the poor creature by\nteaching her the law; his discourse brings calm into her breast, and she\ndies in professing Buddhism with a certainty that she will rise again\namongst the good.\n\nWe may mention, in passing, that there were female Buddhists as well as\nmales, both being on the same footing. The law, as announced by Sakya,\nequally concerned and affected the two sexes.\n\nAnother and very interesting parable tells of a king who came before\na Buddhist priest and his assembled hearers, to the number of 350, to\nconfess his crimes, amongst others murder, and his resolution to avoid\nall faults in future, and Bhagavat (the teacher's name) at once remits,\nin conformity with the law, the faults of the king, which have thus\nbeen expiated before a numerous assembly of the faithful, a remarkable\ninstance of remorse, repentance, confession, and remission of sin--some\ncenturies before Jesus was born.\n\nAt length a powerful king, Asoka, was converted to the new faith, or\ncame to the throne already a Buddhist, in the year b.c. 263, and reigned\nthirty-seven years, during which time he devoted himself to spreading\nthe religion of his choice. He sent out a cloud of earnest missionaries\nwho spread themselves over Hindostan, Ceylon, China, Japan, and Thibet.\nIndeed, they seem to have gone wherever there was means of locomotion,\nor a knowledge of the existence of a people. As the Greeks were\nthen certainly trading with India, both by land and sea, it would be\nsurprising if the Buddhist missionaries had not accompanied the merchant\nships, or the overland convoys to Alexandria. But this subject, it is\nconvenient for the present to postpone.\n\nThere are two points connected with the teaching of Sakya Muni to\nwhich many Christian writers have especially addressed their remarks,\napparently with the view of rendering Buddha more or less contemptible,\nor at least of degrading him far below Jesus of Nazareth. It is asserted\nthat Siddartha did not believe in a god, and that his Nirvana was\nnothing more than absolute annihilation. To these I am disposed to\nadd, that the Buddhists were not taught to pray, nor did their founder\npractise the custom.\n\nTo my own mind, the assertion that Sakya did not believe in God is\nwholly unsupported. Nay, his whole scheme is built upon the belief that\nthere are powers above which are capable of punishing mankind for their\nsins. It is true that these \"gods\" were not called Elohim, nor Jah,\nnor Jahveh, nor Jehovah, nor Adonai, nor Eliieh (I am), nor Baalim,\nnor Ashtoreth--yet, for \"the son of Suddhodana\" (another name for Sakya\nMuni, for he has almost as many, if not more than the western god),\nthere was a supreme being called Brahma, or some other name representing\nthe same idea as we entertain of the Omnipotent. Still further, in the\nlife of Buddha, quoted by St. Hilaire (p. 9) we find the following as\npart of the thoughts of the young Siddartha--\"The three worlds, the\nworld of the gods, the world of the assours (the benighted ones, or, as\nwe should call them, 'the devils ), and that of men, are all plagued\nby the occurrence of old age and disease.\" We do not, for we dare not\nassert that this opinion is identical with ours; but we are equally\nindisposed to say that the opinions current amongst ourselves are\nabsolutely true.\n\nMen living in future days, and whose minds are educated, will probably\ndeclare, \"that the Christians of Europe and elsewhere, for nearly two\nthousand years, had no god but the devil They said he was good, but\nthey painted him as one who rejoiced in pain, lamentation, mourning, and\nwoe.\" Buddha preached that man suffered from the effects of his\nsins, and that unless he attained salvation, he would be punished\neverlastingly. The son of Mary, and all his followers, taught, and\nChristians still entertain the belief, that man suffers from the sin of\na progenitor (assumed to be the parent of all mankind), and that each\nperson will be tortured throughout eternity unless he is able to mollify\nhis maker, who is also his judge. Both teachers had necessarily an idea\nof a power able to make laws for the conduct of human life, to ordain\nrewards for good behaviour, and to apportion punishment for offences,\nand yet who was sufficiently forgiving to cease from requital, \"for a\nconsideration,\" the bribe being invariably a bloody one. Jesus called\nthis power \"my Father,\" Siddartha called him Brahma, the Supreme one.\n\nJesus and his followers have asserted that the power of the son with\n\"the Father\" is so great, that the latter will conform to the former,\nnay, he even asserts his identity with the Supreme in the words \"I and\nmy father are one,\" (John x. 30). See also Acts iv. 12, and 1 Thess. v.\n9, in which it is distinctly affirmed that Jesus is the sole means by\nwhich man can attain salvation, or, in other words, turn away the\nwrath of God and change it into love. But Jesus could only rise to the\nposition of equal or prime favourite by a very sanguinary process, as we\nfind from Heb. ix. 22, that there could be no remission of sin without\nshedding of blood. From the following verses, and from Heb. x. 19, we\nlearn that it is by the sacrifice of himself that Jesus entered into his\nheavenly powers.\n\nCan any one who depicts the gods of savages, of Grecians and others\nto whom human beings were immolated in hundreds, call such deities\n\"devils,\" and then assert that the Jehovah, whom he extols as above all\ngods, is not painted by men in the same colours. Siddartha's god was\nnot a sanguinary one, nor did Buddha always talk of shedding blood, or\nprofess to give his disciples his own flesh to eat, and his blood to\nthem, that they might all drink of it.\n\nThe way in which this Supreme One, Brahma, was painted at his time was\naccepted by Sakya as he found it. He no more questioned the accepted\ntruths of Hindooism, than Jesus doubted about the absolute truth of\nthe Hebrew scriptures. But, in his own mind, after he had contemplated\ndeeply on the subject, he believed that the discovery which he had made\nof the way to Nirvana, universal knowledge, or whatever else Nirvana\nwas, had raised him above Sakra Brahma, Mahesvara, and all the gods of\nthe pantheon.\n\nInstead of breaking into expressions respecting the insanity or the\nblasphemy of such an idea, let us school ourselves into calmness, and\nturn to our own New Testament and read over Philippians, chap, ii. vv.\n5-11, \"Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who being\nin the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but\nmade himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant,\nand was made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a\nman, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death\nof the cross: wherefore God hath highly exalted him, and given him a\nname which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee\nshould bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth and things under\nthe earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is\nLord to the glory of God the Father.\"\n\nStill further, I have repeatedly heard Protestant Christian divines\nassert that Jesus was really \"Lord of the world above,\" and I cannot see\nany greater insanity or blasphemy in the son of Suddodana believing that\nhe was at least equal with God, than in the son of Mary asserting \"I and\nmy Father are one\" (John x. 30), and when reproached for making himself\nthus equal with God, he is reported to have remonstrated with his\nauditors who accused him of blasphemy because he asserted himself to be\nthe son of God. The creeds of the Anglican and Roman churches repeatedly\ndeclare the identity of Jesus with Jehovah, e.g., \"equal to the Father\nas touching his godhead.\"\n\nThe natural rejoinder to this representation is the assertion by the\nChristian that he knows that Jesus of Nazareth really was what he\nrepresented himself, and he is sure that Sakya Muni was not; but, on\nthe other hand, the Buddhist may say just the reverse with equal\npertinacity. This argument, if such a name it really deserves, is so\ncommon amongst all careless religionists, that it deserves a few words\nin reply. It is based upon the very natural notion, \"what I believe,\nmust be true,\" and to an objector, the only answer is the question, \"you\ndon't fancy that I can be wrong, do you?\" When two such persons as\na Christian and a Mahometan met in days gone by, these were the only\narguments used by each, and they were first of all enforced by such\nrevilings as come naturally to the faithful--\"hound of a Moslem\"--\"dog\nof a Christian,\" \"you are a serpent\"--\"you are a viper,\" and the like;\nfrom words they came to blows, and the strongest arm was supposed to\ndemonstrate the correctness of the victor's faith. If, instead of\ntaking physical strength as a test of truth, we assume that a numerical\npreponderance on one side or another proves the correctness of the\nbelief held by the greatest number, we come to the absurd conclusion\nthat what is right to-day may be wrong to-morrow. Babylonians were once\nfar more numerous than Jews, and Jews than Christians, to-day the\nlast exceed vastly both the others. Now, there are more Buddhists\nin existence than true followers of Jesus, in the next century the\nproportion may be reversed.\n\nTruth does not so fluctuate, and a philosopher who uses his reason will\ntake up a different stand entirely, and affirm that a man cannot become\nGod by meditation, fancy or assertion, nor yet by the consent or vote of\nmillions of his fellow-men, and that the assumption that any individual\nmust be, and is the begotten son of God, is on a par with the folly of\nthe potentates who call themselves brothers of the sun and moon. Such\nabsurdity and blasphemy are very common, nevertheless, and men believe\nthat Jesus is God, because they have elected him to that elevated\nposition by a general vote--or European plebiscite.\n\nWe now address ourselves to another important statement made by some\nwriters upon the religion of Sakya Muni, to the effect that he taught\nannihilation to be the end most desirable for good men who have learned\nand practised the law. This view is held by St. Hilaire, who, in almost\nevery other respect, has shown himself an historian rather favourable\nto Siddartha than otherwise, and who speaks with some regret of the\nconclusion which he feels obliged to draw. But he is opposed upon this\npoint by a very great English or German authority, viz., Max Mueller,\nwho, in a lecture delivered before the general Meeting of the\nAssociation of German Philologists at Kiel, and which is to be found\ntranslated in Trubner's _American and Oriental Literary Record_, Oct.\n16, 1869, distinctly declares his belief that the nihilism attributed to\nBuddha's teaching forms no part of his doctrine, and that it is wholly\nwrong to suppose that Nirvana signified annihilation.\n\nWhen two such earnest inquirers differ, it is instructive to notice\nthe reason why. This is to be found in the fact that the etymological\nsignification of the word does signify \"nothingness,\" or \"extinction,\"\nbut not, as Mueller contends, annihilation of the individual, but a\ncomplete cessation of all pain and misery. The last quoted author shows\nthat Siddartha used Nirvana as synonymous with Moksha, Nirvritti, and\nother words, all designating the highest state of spiritual liberty and\nbliss, but not annihilation. It seems to be perfectly clear that what\nwas meant by Sakya is, that to the good who have embraced the means of\nsalvation preached by him, the future world would be a haven of rest,\nin which all sorrow, suffering, and sin should be annihilated. But\nthe teacher does not go beyond this, and descant upon the opposite\nconditions, and promise joys ineffable and full of glory. His followers\nbelieve that they will attain to immortality, and that they will be free\nfrom all such horrors as life brings with it. But the pleasures which\nthey expect are negative.\n\nBefore we either pity or despise Siddartha for not giving his followers\nany idea of what we call Heaven, it would be well to endeavour to\ndiscover the true teaching of Jesus of Nazareth upon this point, and the\nideas of his followers. We must also say a few words about his ideas of\nHell. He clearly believed that there was a place in which those whose\nlives had been wicked would be punished after death by the devil and his\nangels--the place was one of outer darkness, where shall be weeping and\nwailing, and gnashing of teeth (Matt. viii. 12). In Matt. xiii. 42 this\nplace of outer darkness is described as \"a furnace of fire,\" and in Mark\nix. 43-44 this fire is described as one that never shall be quenched,\nand in which there lives a worm. In Luke xvi. 23-24 there is an\nexpression of the belief that the body lives after death in its usual\nform, and has eyes, a tongue, the power of speech, &c.; yet in Matt. x.\n28 the doctrine is inculcated that both body and soul are destroyed\nin Hell. In Jude 7 and 13 Hell is again described as a place of\nunquenchable fire, and yet one occupied by the blackness of darkness;\nwhilst in Revelation xix. 20 and xx. 10 we are told that the fire is\na lake of burning brimstone. Of the absolute locality of this horrible\nspot not a word is said.\n\nOn the other hand, Heaven is described (Matt xiii. 43) as a place where\nthe righteous shall shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of God. In\nLuke xvi. 22 the pleasure of Heaven is made to consist of a simple\nrepose in the bosom of Abraham; but though we are there led to believe\nthat the blessed can see the torments of the damned, it does not appear\nthat either \"the father of the faithful,\" or the poor beggar Lazarus,\ntake any pleasure in contemplating them, as some few divines of the\nchurch of England believe that they will do, when they have arrived at\nthe abode of bliss, and see their enemies in the burning lake. Paul,\nwhen writing to the Corinthians, (1 Ep. xv.) gives his idea of the\nresurrection of the just as one in which each man will be a spiritual\nedition of his former terrestrial self, but beyond the statement in 1\nThess. iv. 17, that the redeemed will, when in heaven, dwell for\never with the Lord, he expresses no opinion of the occupation of\nthe glorified ones. In John's gospel (xiv. 2) Jesus is reported as\nsaying,--\"In my Father's house are many mansions or houses--I go to\nprepare a place for you,\" but there is nothing like any account of what\nis to be done in those abodes.\n\nAgain, we find, Ps. xvi. 11, in a verse which has been largely adapted\nto Christianity, an idea of Heaven given thus--\"in thy presence is\nfulness of joy, at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.\"\nWhat David's pleasures were we may judge from his life, and we may\nfairly imagine that the writer of the passage had an idea something like\nthat of Mahomet--that there were houris in Heaven for the delectation of\nthe faithful. But in Isaiah lxiv. 4, and I Cor. ii. 9 everything about\nHeaven is declared to be vague--a something which the eye has not seen,\nthe ear heard, or the heart conceived.\n\nIn the book called _The Revelation of St. John the Divine_, we have a\nfar more detailed account of what was believed by some about heaven,\nthan in any other, and there is no doubt that to it a large number of\nChristians appeal, for it is, indeed, almost the only foundation\non which they can build. Yet the Apocalypse was for a long time an\nuncanonical book, and its truth and value were, and still are, doubted\nby many of the faithful. In the part referred to, heaven is described\nas a place incalculably rich in gold and precious stones, in music and\npleasant odours, and its joys are pour-trayed as consisting in constant\ncontact with the evidences of wealth, and in eternally singing a certain\nrefrain, an hour of which would be a great trial to human ears. To this\nis added the absence of pain, sorrow, and suffering. The New Jerusalem,\ndescribed in chapter xxi. is nothing more than a palace similar to that\nof Aladdin, which is described in _The Arabian Nights?_ fabulously\nadorned with gems, lighted by other means than a burning sun or a cold\nmoon, cooled or refreshed with a river of clear water, and furnished\nwith trees bearing different kinds of fruit, but all delicious--thus\ninvolving the certainty that the singing referred to, must have been\nsuspended whilst the palate was regaled--and having leaves said to be\n_for the healing of the nations_. The words thus italicised seem to show\nthe indefiniteness of the _idea_, we dare not say of the _knowledge_ of\nJohn, for the existence of this new Jerusalem involves the absence of\nany disease which required healing; and every person who was not already\nassigned to the brimstone lake, was a resident on the margin of the\ncrystal river. Such discrepancies are common in visionary writings, and\nought to make us distrust them; but instead of that, wild theories are\nfounded upon these absurdities, and the builders thence attempt to prove\ntheir own superior knowledge. Well, in this new Jerusalem, every man\nis to be a ruler, for we are told, that in it the servants of the Lamb\n(chap. xxii. 3 sq.) shall serve him, and see his face, that his name\nshall be written upon their foreheads, and they shall _reign_ for ever\nand ever. The word italicised, very naturally recalls to us an earlier\npassage in the same book (chap, i. 6) wherein the writer expresses the\nbelief that Jesus Christ has made his followers \"kings and priests.\"\nIt is then clear that John had the notion that in heaven every denizen\nwould be a king. But king over whom? or over what? if every one in\nnew Jerusalem is a ruler, what is he a ruler of? It is, to the critic,\nmoderately certain, that all which the words are intended to convey is,\nthat every inhabitant of the New Jerusalem or Heaven will be as rich and\nhappy as a mundane sovereign. This, again, involves the belief that the\nauthor of the Apocalypse had an essentially sensual idea of Heaven,\nand that he pourtrayed it as a man would do, who, pining in misery,\nsuffering from disease, pinched with want, obliged to serve as the slave\nof wealth, and to contribute much, out of his little, to the king's\ntaxes, saw daily, and envied deeply, the high position and great wealth\nof a tyrant, with whom, his faith induced him to believe, that he would\nchange places hereafter.\n\nThat the descriptions of Heaven in Revelation can be considered as\nreliable, by any thoughtful Christian, I marvel, for they are bound up\nwith an assurance which the lapse of time has fully demonstrated to be\nfalse. In chap, xxii., v. 12 and 20, the one who is described as the\nLord of the New Jerusalem, the Christian Heaven, asserts that he is\ncoming quickly, and that his reward is with him. Yet in no sense of the\nwords is this true, nor has it ever been so.\n\nTested, then, by every available means, we assert that the Heaven\ndescribed by Jesus of Nazareth and his immediate followers is quite as\nvague, indistinct, and unreliable as the Buddhist Nirvana; or, if the\naffirmative be preferred, we say that the Christian Heaven is quite as\nuncertain or indefinite a prize for Jesus' disciples as the Nirvana\nof Sakya. Both teachers seem to have been equally confident of the\nexistence of a Hell, and equally cautious in expressing their ideas\nabout a Heaven. And we, who have had the advantage of many centuries of\ncivilization and thought, dare no more frame or promulgate a scheme of\nElysium than the Romans did--we really know nothing whatever about a\nfuture state.\n\nThere is this, however, to be said in favour of Siddartha--he did not,\nlike Mahomet and John, preach a Paradise, in which all the pleasures are\nworldly, sensuous, or sensual--John promising music and fruit, Mahomet\nfeasting and women. All the Indian's teaching pointed to a future world,\nin which human passions, frailties, and propensities would find no\nplace, for the purified being would cast off, with his earthly body,\nevery carnal appetite. In fact, there is reason to believe that Buddha's\nidea was, that after death each essence would become reincorporated with\nthe Great Spirit, of whom his soul had originally formed a part. It\nis doubtful whether any of us could tell him a more perfect way to the\ntruth about the matter.\n\nYet, although neither Sakya nor Jesus gave any distinct account of\nHeaven, it is certain that some of their followers have done so, and\nit is remarkable to see how they have developed their ideas in the same\nway. Compare, for example, the account given by John, Apocalypse chaps,\nxxi., xxii., with the following account, which I copy from the\n_Kusa Iatakya_, a Buddhistic legend of Ceylon, by T. Steele, p. 195.\n\"_Swarga_, or the heaven occupied by Indra, is described as the most\nsplendid the human mind can conceive (Percival's _Land of the Vedas_,\np. 160). Its palaces are composed of pure gold, resplendent diamonds,\njasper, sapphire, emerald, and other precious stones, whose brilliance\nexceeds that of a thousand suns! Its streets are of crystal, fringed\nwith gold. The most beautiful and fragrant flowers adorn its forests,\nwhose trees diffuse the sweetest odours. Refreshing breezes, canopies\nof fleecy clouds, thrones of the most dazzling brightness, birds of the\nsweetest melodies, and songs of the most delightful harmony, are heard\nin the enchanting pleasaunces, which are ever fragrant, ever robed in\nsummer green.\" The author whom I am quoting follows these remarks with\nlines from Bernard de Morley's hymn, _Jerusalem the Golden_, clearly\nshowing how greatly he has been struck with the parallelism between the\nBuddhist and Christian idea.\n\nSo far as I can find, there appears to be a certainty that Sakya Muni\ndid not teach to his followers the necessity for prayer. That Jesus did\nso teach his disciples is the common belief of Christians. Yet, in the\nparallel which we are thus drawing, we are perfectly justified in the\nassertion that the son of Mary did not teach it from his own spontaneous\njudgment, as John the Evangelist had done before him. Jesus certainly\ndid not originate prayer; indeed, it appears that the subject was forced\nupon him, and that unless he had been urged to it, he would neither\nhave taught to others the necessity for prayer, nor have dictated the\nsupplication which still passes by his name. The following passage in\nLuke xi. 1 seems to be decisive upon this point:--\"And it came to pass,\nas he was praying in a certain place, one of his disciples said unto\nhim, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.\" We\nsee, then, in the first place, that Jesus did not hold, as a fundamental\ndoctrine, that prayer was part of the duty of man, but that he took it\nup as a necessary part of his Jewish education, and adopted it amongst\nthe subjects of his discourses, following the example of John. When\nwe try to penetrate into the mind of Jesus, as shown in \"the Lord's\nPrayer,\" and ascertain what he regarded as the fittest objects for\norison, we find that they are almost exclusively worldly. There is,\nin the first place, an ascription of praise, or of reverence, then an\nexpression of a desire that the world should become good; that each man\nshould have a daily meal; that all offences should be condoned, and none\nothers committed; and that no harm should happen to any who used the\nentreaty. Compared with the composition attributed to Solomon, and said\nto have been uttered by him at the dedication of the temple, that which\nis said to have been given by Jesus is meagre in the extreme. It\ndoes not contain a single supplication for spiritual blessing, or for\nsalvation.\n\nIn the mind of a philosopher there is a doubt whether the general\nheathen notion about prayer, or the apparent Buddhist prayerlessness, is\nto be the most commended. Yet, ere we discuss the point, I must remark\nthat although Buddha does not appear to have taught the duty of prayer\nto his disciples, they practise it nevertheless, and have long litanies,\nchantings, and mechanical contrivances quite as efficacious, and not\nmore absurd, than the senseless repetitions which pass current amongst\nus for supplications to the Most High. Now, if we require from ourselves\na distinct answer to the question, what is prayer? we can frame no\nother than this--\"it is the expression of a desire on our part that\nthe Creator will modify the laws of nature in our favour, in favour of\nothers, or in His own favour!\" The idea that He will do this is plainly\nbuilded upon the supposition that the Creator is like a man, and can be\ninduced to change His mind--that a creature thinks He is harsh or wrong,\nand must be set right. When put thus clearly, the most obtuse can see\nthat prayer must necessarily be inefficacious, and must always proceed\nfrom a selfishness so intense as to cloak the blasphemy from view.\n\nIf, instead of the above definition, we designate prayer as the uttering\nof a fervent hope or desire for the benefit of an individual, we can\nunderstand that it is quite as useful as any other ejaculation. Nothing\nis more common than for an angry man to curse with all the energy of\nexasperation; nothing more common than for a punished hound to yelp, and\nfor a child, when pained, to cry or roar. Still further I will say, from\npersonal experience, that the utterance of cries or groans enables an\nindividual to bear pain with less effect upon his nervous system than\nwould be felt if they were suppressed. Vociferations are as natural,\nand, to some, as necessary as indulging the appetite for hunger. In like\nmanner, when the mind of man, especially of one only partially educated,\nis dominated by intense fear, or by any form of anxiety or present\nsuffering, there is an instinctive propensity to seek aid from any\nsource, certain or uncertain, and the enunciation of hopes with an\naudible voice is as much necessary to some as roaring is to a lion,\nor bleating to a sheep. In this sense prayer is a comfort--it helps to\nsoothe feelings which, if pent up, would become, probably, too great for\nendurance; and, knowing this, I would no more deride prayer than I would\nlaugh at a baby who cried for his absent mother.\n\nI do not doubt, in the smallest possible degree, that prayer is a\ncomfort under certain circumstances. For example, my child may be\nseriously ill, and I may do everything which my medical knowledge\nenables me to do; but day by day drags wearily along, the fever seems to\nintensify, and it is clear that there is a struggle between the living\nforce, and the agent which interferes with it. As hour after hour\npasses, and anxiety deepens into fear, I am like a hardy fellow under\nthe lash: at first the stripes are borne with firmness, but as another\nand another falls, not only does-the pain seem keener, but the mental\npower which gives courage to bear the cutting agony diminishes, and the\npent-up feelings are vented in a roar of anguish, or a groan of despair.\nJust so in the depth of my misery I may utter a prayer--a wish that in\none way or another my torn and lacerated feelings as a father might be\nhealed, and I may expect to receive solace thereby, no matter whether I\naddress Jehovah, Brahma, Ishtar, or the Virgin Mary. To hear the sound\nof one's own voice, even the task of having to compose an intelligible\nsentence, relieves, for a time, the poignancy of grief, and thus helps\none to bear it more patiently. That supplication thus brings relief I\ndo not for a moment doubt, but that it has any influence in the result I\ndeny.\n\nEntertaining this view, I cannot regard prayer as a duty. It seems to me\nto be a deliberate insult to the Almighty to be constantly urging Him to\nalter the course of nature--or as we may otherwise put it \"to change His\nmind.\" To trust that prayer will obviate the necessity for action seems\nto me the height of folly. If a man uttered the words \"Give me this day\nmy daily bread\" a hundred times over, and yet never sought to obtain it,\nwe should regard him as a lunatic. Equally silly should we be if, when\npraying \"Defend us in all assaults of our enemies,\" we did not prepare\nfor battle--or if, after ejaculating \"defend us from all perils and\ndangers of this night,\" we were to go to bed without seeing that our\npremises were as secure as forethought could make them. However much\nthe theologian may believe in prayer, he cannot deny that it is less\nefficacious than action. Now Buddha preached action whilst Christ\npreached inaction, e.g., \"take no thought for the morrow,\" &c. (Matt.\nvi. 25-34), consequently we are more disposed to give the palm for\ncorrect judgment to the Indian than to the Jew.\n\nWe must, in the next place, notice that many followers of the son of\nSuddodana and the son of Mary have both acted, and do still act, upon\nthe belief, not only that prayer is a duty, but that every supplication\nhas positive power in the world above--consequently the more extended\nthe utterances the greater their influence. In point of fact, prayers\nare spoken of as if they were equivalent to sacrifice, alms-giving, or\nany other supposed virtue. For this there seems to be some foundation\nin Acts x. 4, where Cornelius is told that his prayers and his alms have\ncome up before God; in James v. vv. 15, 16, we are told that \"the prayer\nof faith shall save the sick;\" and that \"the effectual, fervent prayer\nof a righteous man availeth much.\" In Revelation v. 8, we are told that\nthe prayers of the saints are kept in golden vials in heaven, and used\nas odours. In chapter viii. 3, we find they are offered with incense\nupon the celestial altar, and that the two conjointly come before the\npresence of God. This being so, there is a desire to accumulate prayers\non the creditor side of the heavenly books, just as in the days when\nsacrifices were trusted in, there was an attempt to increase their\ninfluence by augmenting the number of the creatures slaughtered. This\npropensity to multiply orisons was distinctly rebuked by Jesus, who\nordered his followers not to make vain repetitions, for that the custom\nwas heathenish and to be avoided; a prohibition which had been made by\nSiddartha to his followers some centuries before.\n\nTo me, I confess, that a life of perpetual prayer without action\nindicates a belief that God can be \"pestered\" into doing something that\nHe did not intend; and that it is infinitely worse than a life of\naction such as Sakya Muni inculcated. I can see no sense in praying for\nsomething that I do not want, or that I cannot have without personal\nexertion. It seems to me sheer nonsense for anyone to pray that he may\nnot grow older, and equally foolish to supplicate that he may live to be\na king. In like manner it would be silly in me to petition for power to\nread Assyrian writing, and yet never study its characters. If, then,\nby diligent and steady plodding a man can attain his desire, it appears\nwholly useless in him to pray for it. We may say the same of one who\nwishes to curb his passions--he can do so to a great extent by assiduous\nself-control; but he cannot do so any more completely by a lifetime\npassed in prayer. From this point of view, therefore, we must again side\nwith Siddartha rather than with Jesus.\n\nIt now remains to us to make some observations upon the developments of\nBuddhism after the death of Sakya Muni, but we need not linger over them\nlong. His doctrine of self-denial, of patient suffering, of celibacy, of\nfasting, of preaching and of meditation, gradually produced a system in\nwhich asceticism, solitude, and penance were the prevalent duties.\nMen and women desirous of being saintly and of attaining to eternal\nhappiness, selected some den, cave, or tree in which they could live\na life devoted to contemplation, or else they banded themselves into\ncompanies where they could practise the Buddhistic virtues in each\nother's presence, and one could encourage or correct another. Buddhist\nmonkeries and nunneries are almost as common, and certainly more ancient\nthan Roman Catholic monasteries, and they had very nearly the same\nnumerous accessories in worship, which we are familiar with in papal\ncountries. It is almost impossible to read the accounts given by the\nAbbe Hue, and other Eastern travellers, of Buddhism in China, Thibet,\nand Japan, without seeing the close resemblance of the Roman Church to\nthat founded by Siddartha. Indeed, the Abbe was sorely tried by what\nhe saw; and it is rumoured that he was punished by some ecclesiastical\nauthority, and his book suppressed. Pure Buddhism, moreover, was, like\npure Christianity, a very painful religion in practice, consequently\nboth the one and the other have degenerated, and have gradually become\naltered much in the same way--both having amalgamated themselves with\nother systems, and having gradually eliminated those proceedings which\nare most repulsive to human nature. In both there is now, apparently,\nthe idea that the ascetic life may be lived, as it were, by deputy.\nIn Buddhism, certain men obtain their living by fasting, meditating,\nmacerating their flesh, and praying instead of other people, being, of\ncourse, adequately paid for their endurance of privation. In a branch\nof the Church founded by Jesus the same notion has obtained, and men who\nhave wallowed in filth, starved themselves, and spent their days in\na miserable round of penance and prayer, are dignified by the name of\nSaints, and are supposed to be able to hand over--for a consideration\nin money--the benefit of their sufferings to people who wish to live\ncomfortably as well as piously.\n\nWithout burdening this chapter with a dissertation upon the Romish\ndoctrine of works of supererogation, I will quote a few extracts from\nthe Roman Missal, in use in England, to show that works done by another\ncan be made available for the use of any particular individual. On\nJanuary 16, the day of Saint Marcellus, the people are told to pray\n\"that we may be aided by the merits of blessed Marcellus, Thy martyr and\nbishop, in whose sufferings we rejoice.\" On January 29, the day of\nSaint Francis of Sales, we find in the prayer to be used by the people,\n\"mercifully grant that we may by the aid of his merits, attain unto the\njoys of life everlasting.\" Again, on February 8, the day of Saint John\nof Matha, we find in the prescribed prayer, \"mercifully grant that by his\nmerits pleading for us, we may be,\" &c.--and, lastly, we notice on March\n19, on Saint Joseph's day, \"vouchsafe, O Lord, that we may be helped by\nthe merits of Thy most holy mother's spouse,\" &c. The practice of the\nBuddhists is then essentially followed by the Roman Christians.\n\nPure Buddhism was wholly free from the sexual element so common in other\nreligions of antiquity, and so was the religion of Jesus. Yet in Thibet\nthe first became intermingled therewith and Vajrasatta or Dorjesempa the\nThibetan \"God above all,\" is represented in _Schlayintweit's Atlas\nof Plates_ as a male conjoined with a female; but so ingenious is\nthe contrivance that the many might see the drawings without noticing\nanything particular, for the trinity and the unity are both hidden from\nview; and in Europe the latter has introduced St. Foutin and St. Cosmo\ninto her calendar, and has founded her worship of a trinity and a virgin\nupon the pagan reverence given to the creative organs in both sexes.\nVeneration for a triune God and his female consort is no more a portion\nof the teaching of the son of Mary than it was the doctrine of the child\nof Maya Devi, Buddha's mother.\n\nIt will probably be quite as difficult for the reader of the preceding\npages, as it has been for the writer of them, to avoid putting the\nquestion to himself, \"Was Jesus of Nazareth a Buddhist disciple?\" In\nanswer to this question I reply that we have no direct proof either on\none side or the other, but there is much circumstantial evidence to show\nthat he was. We may marshal it thus:--\n\n1. There is very strong reason for belief that the intercourse\nbetween the inhabitants of India and the successors of Alexander was\nconsiderable. For example, we find before the time of the Maccabees,\nb.c. 280, or perhaps somewhat later, that Antiochus, the king of Syria,\nhad 120 elephants--things which had never before been seen in Syria,\nPalestine, or Egypt, and which took their local name from the Phoenician\n_aleph_, a bull--the Jews supposing that they were a new kind of cattle.\nFrom the accounts given us we infer that these were Indian, and were\ntrained either by Hindoo mahouts or by Greeks taught in Hindustan.\nAnimals of this size may have come by land or by water. In either\ncase we have evidence of traffic. We have already seen that the great\nmissionary effort of Buddhism took place in the time of Asoka about\nB.C. 307, and it is not likely that the West would be neglected when the\nEastern countries received such attention as they did. The Greeks had by\nthis time found their way by sea to India, and thus it is certain that\nthe route was known. There is then presumptive evidence that Buddhism\nwas taught amongst the people frequenting the kingdom of Antiochus the\nSecond, B.C. 261. At this period and subsequently, this king and his\nsubjects came much into contact with the Jews, so that it is equally\neasy to believe that the Hebrews were found out by the Hindoo\nmissionaries as that the Alexandrian Greeks were.\n\n2. I have been unable to find in the Jewish law, in Grecian story, in\nthe accounts of old Babylonians, Carthaginians, Romans, Egyptians, or\nin any other history except that of India, testimony which shows that\nasceticism was an essential part of religion. It is true that we do find\nfasting to be occasionally mentioned in the Old Testament as a sign of\ngrief or of abasement,* but never as a means of gaining salvation in a\nfuture life--whose very existence was unknown to Moses and the Jews. The\nobservation of a period of hunger formed no part of the Mosaic law. On\nthe contrary, ancient European religions, and those of Egypt and Western\nAsia were associated with feasting and jollification (see Deut. xiv.\n26.) The Jews were encouraged to indulge in a plurality of wives; but\nthey were nowhere directed or recommended to live on alms. Again,\nwe find nowhere any orders to the priests or Levites to go about the\ncountry expounding or teaching the law. Consequently, when we notice\nthe rise of asceticism, preaching, and celibacy, between the time of\nAntiochus and that of Jesus, we are justified in the belief that they\nwere introduced from without, and by those of the only religion which\ninculcated them as articles of faith and practice.\n\n     * In Lev. xvi. 30; xxiii. 27, 28; and Numb. xxix. 7, there\n     are directions given to the Jews, that on a certain day they\n     are \"to afflict their souls,\" and a threat is added, that\n     \"whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that\n     self same day, he shall be cut off from amongst his people.\"\n     There is no specific direction as to the method of\n     afflicting the soul; but it is to be associated with\n     absolute laziness, for whatever soul doeth any work on that\n     day shall be destroyed (Lev. xxiii. 28-31). The law is\n     evidently a very modern one, as we do not find it referred\n     to in the Ancient Jewish records, and the idea of atonement\n     was introduced by the Talmudic Pharisees.\n\n3. The Hebrews always showed during the Old Testament times a great\naptitude to adopt the faith of outsiders--and as the Jewish people were\nin great abasement and misery at the period when it is probable that the\nBuddhist missionaries came into Syria, they would be prepared for the\ndoctrine that they were suffering for bygone sins. The idea that men\nin the present were sometimes punished for sins done in the past was a\nHebrew as well as a Hindoo idea, else Saul's sons would not have\nbeen hanged for their father's misdeeds, or the Amalekites have been\nslaughtered by Samuel, because their forefathers had some centuries\nbefore fought with Israel and been conquered by Moses and Joshua.\n\n4. That after the Persian reign it is certain, that three Jewish sects\nexisted,--the Pharisees, the Essenes, and the Sadducees--the last alone\nbeing purely Mosaic, and the two first being very like the Buddhists.\n\nTo strengthen the links of evidence, we may now say a few words about\nthe remarkable sect of the Essenes, premising our belief that it was\nfounded by missionaries of the faith of Sakya Muni, whose doctrines and\npractice became, subsequently, modified by Mosaism, just as Christianity\nwas considerably remoulded by Talmudism, or, to use an example nearer\nour own times, as the Christianity preached by European missionaries to\nthe New Zealanders has been altered by the natives, in accordance with\ntheir ancient ideas. To them the Old Testament is the Bible, the New\nTestament is of no value.\n\nThe Essenes are described by the Rev. Dr Ginsburg, whose authority I\nfollow (_The Essenes_. Longmans, London, 1864), as a Jewish sect of\nsingular piety. They did not sacrifice animals, but endeavoured to make\ntheir own minds holy--fit for an acceptable offering to Jehovah. They\nprovided themselves with just enough for the necessities of life, and\nheld such goods as they possessed, e.g., clothes and cloaks, in common.\nThey only allowed themselves to converse on such parts of philosophy\nas concern God and man. They abhorred slavery, but each served his\nneighbour. They respected the Sabbath. Their fundamental laws were, to\nlove God, to love virtue, and to love mankind. They affected to despise\nmoney, fame, pleasures, professed the most strict chastity, or, rather,\ncontinence, and they practised endurance as a duty. They also cultivated\nsimplicity, cheerfulness, modesty, and order. They lived together in\nthe same houses and villages, and sustained the poor, the sick, and the\naged. When they earned wages the money was paid to a common stock. They\ndid not marry, or have children; but if any of their body chose to wed,\nthere was nothing in the regulations to prevent their doing so, only\nthey then had to enter another class of the brotherhood. When possible,\nthey worked all day. They were highly respected by those who knew them,\nand were frequently receiving additions to their number. They seem to\nhave resembled, in their habits and customs, a fraternity of monks of\na working, rather than a mendicant, order. Pleasure they regarded as\nan evil, having a tendency to enchain man to earthly enjoyments, a\npeculiarly Buddhist tenet. Still further, they considered the use of\nointment as defiling, which was certainly not a Hebraic doctrine; but\nthey dressed decently. They prayed devoutly before sunrise; but until\nthe orb had risen they never spoke of worldly matters. They gave thanks,\nand prayed before and after eating; and ere they entered the refectory\nbathed in pure water. The food provided was just sufficient to keep\nthem alive. When a person wished to enter the community, he underwent\na period of trial, and, if approved, he proceeded to take an oath--\"to\nfear God; to be just towards all men; never to wrong anyone; to detest\nthe wicked, and love the righteous; to keep faith with all men; not to\nbe proud; not to try and outshine his neighbours in any matter; to love\ntruth, and to try and reclaim all liars; never to steal or to cajole;\nnever to conceal anything from the brotherhood, and to be reticent with\noutsiders.\" The Essenes reverenced Moses, and so great was their respect\nfor the Sabbath, that they would not ease nature on that day. They bore\nall tortures with perfect equanimity, and fully believed in a future\nstate of existence, in which the soul, liberated from the body,\nrejoices, and mounts upwards to a paradise, where there are no storms,\nno cold, and no intense heat, and where all are constantly refreshed by\ngentle ocean breezes. Josephus compares this sect with the Pythagoreans;\nand I think this fact is worth noticing, for there was, in old times,\na strong opinion that the founder of that sect brought his peculiar\nopinions from Hindostan. Pliny, in writing of the Essenes, remarks that\ntheir usages differ from those of all other nations--which we may\ntake as a demonstration that they did not copy their constitution from\nGreeks, Romans, or Jews. Respecting the origin of this sect nothing\ncertain is known, beyond that they were in existence at the time of the\nMaccabees. Critics decline to see in them any direct relations to the\nPythagoreans, and some imagine that the order sprung naturally out of a\nspiritual reading of the Mosaic law, modified, probably, by Persian or\nChaldee notions.\n\nIt seems to me, however, that the tenets and practice of the Essenes\nindicate rather a Buddhist than a Mosaic origin, for celibacy is\neverywhere in the Old Testament spoken of as a misfortune, and abundance\nof wives as a proof of God's favour; and I imagine that some devout\nIndian missionary persuaded many pious Jews to listen to his doctrine,\nbut that he was unable to convert them sufficiently to induce them\nto give up the law of Moses for that of Siddartha. I conceive still\nfurther, that John the Evangelist, and, subsequently, Jesus of Nazareth,\nwere perfectly cognizant of the doctrines of the Essenes, if they were\nnot members of the sect, and that there is nothing incredible in\nthe idea that both these preachers were instructed by some Buddhist\nmissionary, although neither was ever induced to give up his belief\nin the absolute truth of those Jewish writings, which both had been\naccustomed to regard as absolutely true and sacred.\n\nWe readily allow that our theory may be called a wild one, but we assert\nthat, in reality, it is far otherwise. Of course a critic may say that\nJohn, and his follower, Jesus, were just as likely to have struck out a\nnew theory of salvation as Sakya Muni was; or, if exceedingly orthodox,\nhe may assume that the preaching of Jesus was the pure result of\ninspiration, not such as was given to the prophets by Jehovah, but\nemanating from himself as a source of absolute truth. But we demur to\nboth assertions. The profound reverence that Mary's son showed, in the\nearly part of his career, for the law and for the prophets, would have\nprevented his doing anything to upset the former in so marked a manner\nas he did, in respect to the Sabbath day and other matters (see Matthew\nv. 31, 32, 33, 34, 38, 39, 43, 44), unless there had been some strong\ninfluence, from without, brought to bear upon his mind, and to cast it\nin a different mould to that of Pharisee or Sadducee. Nor can we\nbelieve Jesus to have been inspired, unless we extend the same belief to\nBuddha's teaching, and believe that he also was a fountain of light and\nrighteousness, which we certainly are not disposed to do.\n\nOur hypothesis respecting a connection between the teaching of the\nIndian and the Hebrew, appears to be strengthened when we contemplate\nthe distinction between the doctrines of the Jewish and the Hindoo\nsage. We have seen how they agree as regards the morality which they\ninculcate, the celibacy and poverty that they enjoin, the firm belief\nin preexistent, or original, sin, and in a future state of rewards or\npunishments. They differ in the veneration paid to antecedent authority.\nSakya Muni believed in his own inspiration, and rejected the writings\nwhich were reverenced by his parents and Mends. Jesus seems to have\nbelieved that he was himself supplemental to Moses and the prophets.\nHe did not want to destroy or to supersede them absolutely, as we learn\nfrom Matthew v. 17, and xxiii. 23. He had, apparently, an unbounded\nconfidence in their truth, and, with an assurance in their sanctity, he\nspoke of their writings as the very words of God, and we shall see\nthat the main, if not the only, points in which Jesus diverges from\nthe Hindoo prophet were the products of the Hebrew's full belief in the\nsacred truth of the Jewish Scriptures.\n\nThe son of Mary taught, as the most important part of his doctrine, that\nthe world would shortly come to an end, and that he was sent to\nshow mankind, or, rather, the Jews, how to escape from the terrible\ncatastrophe. I do not think it possible for anyone to read the words\nattributed to Jesus, and not recognize that this was the turning point\nupon which everything in his preaching hinged. Sakya Muni spoke of the\nfuture misery of all those who did not adopt his method of salvation;\nJesus treated of the impending destruction of the whole world, of an\nimmediate judgment of mankind, and of the certain punishment of the\nmajority. That we are not uttering vague assertions we may show by\nreference to Matt. xxiv. 3, wherein we find certain disciples asking,\n\"What shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?\"\nAfter a long preamble, telling of troubles and misery, we have the reply\nof Jesus in vv. 29 et seq.:--\"Immediately after the tribulation of those\ndays shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,\nand the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens\nshall be shaken: and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in\nheaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall\nsee the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great\nglory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and\nthey shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end\nof heaven to another.... Verily I say unto you, This generation shall\nnot pass, till all these things be fulfilled.\" This is substantially,\nand almost literally, repeated in Mark xiii. 26-30, and in Luke xxi. 32.*\n\n     * I have heard the words of this preceding quotation handled\n     by a great variety of divines, asserting themselves to be\n     orthodox, and who hold the position of Christian ministers.\n     All, without exception, profess to regard the expressions\n     about the sun being darkened and the stars falling, as\n     figurative or metaphorical, and each, according to his\n     prevalent ideas, or to the pet theory of the day, explain\n     the imagery as having a reference to some emperor, king,\n     queen, general of armies, and I know not what besides. But,\n     to anyone who examines the phraseology closely, it will be\n     seen that the words are to be taken in their most literal\n     sense. Jesus had, as we have shown, a firm belief in the\n     immediate destruction of the world, and upon that theme he\n     descants and dilates. Taking the Mosaic account of creation\n     as strictly true to the letter, Jesus regarded the sun,\n     moon, and stars as apanages of our earth, and very naturally\n     drew the inference, that when the world was burned up, there\n     would be no necessity for the celestial luminaries--the sun\n     would cease to shine, the moon would be dark, and the stars\n     fall from the sky under the influence of the same power that\n     produced the mundane destruction. These defunct bodies would\n     be replaced by a vast apparition, whose glory would exceed\n     that of the ancient rulers of the day and night, and he who\n     now stood on earth as a man of sorrows and acquainted with\n     grief would be seen and recognized as the arbiter of the\n     destinies of every man. The passages referred to in the text\n     bear no other meaning than the one here assigned to them;\n     nor would anyone, however wild \"a divine\" he might be, ever\n     see, or endeavour to discover, in the words referred to, a\n     hidden meaning, unless the solemn assertion of Jesus of his\n     immediate advent in the clouds of heaven had been such a\n     signal failure as time has proved it to be. We have always\n     protested against those theologians who pronounce passages\n     in the Bible to be metaphorical or literal as it suits the\n     event, and we do so now. Why such men should insist upon it\n     that everything in the Koran and Buddhistic books must be\n     taken au pied de la lettre and that everything in the Bible\n     may be allegorised, is a matter beyond my comprehension.\n     They surely forget the dictum--\"with what measure ye mete it\n     shall be measured to you again\" (Matt, vii. 2).\n\nIn Matthew x. we find Jesus sending out his disciples as missionaries,\nsaying to them (v. 7), \"as ye go, preach, saying, the kingdom of heaven\nis at hand,\" a doctrine previously proclaimed by John (Matt iii. 2), and\nbased upon some words of Isaiah and the more precise presages in Daniel\nSee also Matt iv. 14-17; Luke ix. 2, and x. 9. We find a yet more\nimportant reference in Matt. xi. 14, in which Jesus is reported to have\nsaid, when speaking of John, \"If ye will receive it, this is Elias,\nwhich was for to come.\" The observation here made plainly refers to\nan utterance of the Jewish Malachi, who, in his last two chapters,\nforeshadows the advent of a messenger, who should immediately precede\nthe coming of the Lord to judge the world. There is yet another passage,\nof almost equal force, in Matt. xvi. 27, 28--\"For the Son of man shall\ncome in the glory of the Father with his angels, and then shall he\nreward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, there be\nsome standing here which shall not taste of death till they see the Son\nof man coming in his kingdom.\" In Matt. xix. 28 we read, \"Jesus said\nunto them, Verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed me, in the\nregeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory,\nye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of\nIsrael,\" &c. Again, we see in Matt, xxv., after a parable intended\nto show the possibility of a sudden occurrence, the words, \"Watch,\ntherefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of\nman cometh.\" That this belief was due to the Jewish writings we judge\nfrom the frequent references made to them; and we may especially notice\none which is attributed to Jesus after his resurrection, viz., \"all\nthings must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and\nin the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me.\" So firmly was the\nbelief of an immediate judgment impressed upon the minds of Christians,\nthat we find Paul affirming respecting it (1 Cor. xv.), \"We shall not\nall sleep, but we shall all be changed... at the last trump\" (vv. 31,\n52). This is more decidedly enunciated in 1 Thess. iv. 15-17--\"For this\nwe say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive, and\nremain unto the coming of the Lord, shall not prevent them that are\nasleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout,\nwith the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God, and the dead\nin Christ shall rise first. Then we which are alive and remain shall be\ncaught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air,\nand so shall we ever be with the Lord.\" Compare with this 2 Peter iii.\n1-4, in which there is a repetition of the same leading idea, and with\nActs i. 11, and ii. 16-36.\n\nFrom these passages, it is unquestionable that Jesus preached that a\ndestruction of the whole creation was imminent, and we, who have the\nlight of history to guide us, can readily understand the powerful\ninfluence of the doctrine. We have read of panics, even in London, where\nsome enthusiast has propounded the statement, that the world was to\nbe destroyed upon a certain day, and can well believe, how a similar\nassertion would frighten ignorant, and, probably, learned Hebrew men.\nBut, as time advanced, and generation after generation passed away, the\noriginal doctrine required to be modified. Yet it has never been quite\ngiven up, and to this day, a part of the system of Christianity is, to\nput faith in a second coming of Jesus, to judge the world. The\n\"second coming\" here referred to, frequently passes by the name of the\nMillennium, and earnest pietists believe that the son of Mary will come\nin the clouds of heaven with power and great glory, to punish all who\ndo not believe in him; and to elevate the existing, and all other past\nsaints, to be kings and priests in a new Jerusalem, wherein all will\nenjoy perfect happiness for a thousand years.\n\nThere is another point in connection between Buddha and Jesus, to which\nthe biblical student should not fail to pay attention. The followers\nof the former had a perfect belief that each of them had lived in a\nprevious state of existence. Upon this point not a doubt disturbed\nthem. The disciples of the latter, however, had no such ideas, nor when\npropounded to them, did they apparently understand it. As far as we can\njudge from the first three Gospels, Jesus did not assert that he had\never existed prior to the time of his birth at Bethlehem. But in the\nfourth Gospel, written as almost every scholar believes, about A.D.\n150, a claim is repeatedly made by Jesus, of having lived for an untold\nperiod, in the spirit world in company with the Father.\n\nWe will not enter here upon the grossness of thought, which is mingled\nwith the better ideas of the writer of John's Gospel--a notion that\ninvolves the necessity for a celestial spouse of God; for if the son\nexisted--\"begotten by the father before all worlds,\" it could only be by\nsome union--for the word \"son\" implies the necessity of a father and a\nmother--more especially when it is declared, that he was \"begotten.\"\nOur chief business, however, is not with this point, but with the\npreexistence of Jesus.\n\nThe assertions by which the claim to a preexistence is recognized, may\nbe found in the well known words in the beginning of John, also in the\n10th verse--\"The world was made by him.\" In these parts, the evangelist\ndeclares that Jesus was coeval with his father, which no son can be. In\nchap. iii. 13, we find, \"no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he\nthat came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven,\"--a\nstrange text indeed, which totally ignores the ascension of Enoch and\nElijah--or which demonstrates that they lived in heaven before they were\nborn on earth, and which still further makes Jesus say, that he was in\nheaven at the time when he was talking to Nicodemus! In chap, vi. 62,\nthere is a similar idea, \"and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up\nwhere he was before.\" In chap. viii. 14 to 23, 38, and 56, a similar\nidea is propounded; and in v. 58, Jesus is made to assert positively,\n\"before Abraham was, I am.\" In chap, xvi. 28, again, we read, \"I came\nforth from the Father,\" and in chap. xvii. 5, we see, \"and now, O\nFather, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had\nwith thee before the world was.\"\n\nWe do not believe that the son of Mary made these assertions himself,\nnor did the son of Maya. But Sakya Muni had not long been dead, before\nhis disciples promulgated the doctrine that he was, in reality, a part\nof the Supreme, who had existed for everlasting, and had been manifested\nin the flesh to become a teacher; what his followers did for Buddha, it\nwas natural that others should do for Christ. It may be that the latter\nwere stimulated to do so by noticing the former, but it is quite as\nprobable that the idea of glorification came spontaneously to both sets\nof men. Whichever view of the case we may take, one thing is certain,\nviz., that both Buddhists and Christians, have, from the death of their\nrespective masters, done everything in their power, century by century,\nto augment the claims of each, until indeed, individuals are found, who\nregard Sakya Muni as the Supreme, and Jesus the All in All. The learned\nhistorian may trace in the East, the rise of Buddha's influence in some\nspots, and its decadence in others; and, when he looks nearer home,\nhe may see the gradual fall of Jesus, and the rise of Mary amongst the\nPapists, whilst amongst the Protestants, the son has been raised even\nabove the Father. Not many months have passed, since a clever preacher\nand thoughtful man, told me that he was determined to see nothing in the\nworld but Christ--for whatever was done, he felt a certain confidence\nthat it was done by him, and for his glory.\n\nWe see then, that both Buddhism and Christianity have been founded\non the assertion that mankind suffers pain, misery, and death, in\nconsequence of antecedent criminality before \"The Great Master\"--that\nmen will be punished after death for certain sins committed in this\nlife; and that they can attain to salvation by adopting the precepts\nand practice laid down by Buddha and by Christ. Those who preach these\ndoctrines are sure of the facts that misery exists, and that man desires\nto escape it. According, then, to the painting of the one, and the\nearnest promise of the other, all teachers of the two sects have a\nstrong hold upon the imagination of their followers. I assert, without\nfear of contradiction from any thoughtful man, that the main\ninducements held out by our divines to persuade their hearers to embrace\nChristianity, are an awful painting of the horrors of hell, and\nan assurance not only of escaping it, but of gaining a place quite\ndifferent to the Devil's kingdom, provided only that the plan adopted\nby the theologian is followed to the letter. Neither Buddhists nor\nChristians seem ever to have studied the laws of nature, or the works of\nthe Supreme, with any largeness of mind or understanding. Had they done\nso, they would alter their views respecting sin entirely, and they would\nattribute the miseries of life to their proper cause.\n\nIt will be interesting to the reader, if we now endeavour to remove from\nthe two religious systems, of which we treat, all those parts, which are\nto my mind, clearly imaginary; and examine what is left behind. There\nis nothing beyond a skeleton of morality, pure and simple. But even the\nmorality is not based upon common sense. It is tainted by what every\nthinker must regard as absurdities. For example, when Siddartha\ninstructed his disciples to become ascetics, and live upon alms, he did\nrecognize the fact, that, if all men adopted his law, they must starve;\nfor not one would have anything to give. In like manner, when Jesus\nof Nazareth sent off his disciples without any provision for their\nsubsistence; and when he preached, \"take no thought for the morrow,\"\nhe did not appear to take in the idea, that if all the world became\nconverted to his doctrine, all would suffer, and die of hunger. It is,\ntherefore, quite as necessary for a modern philosopher, to correct some\nof the better parts of the doctrines of the sons of Maya Devi, and\nMary, as it is to emendate their worst features. If such an one were\nto pretend--or to believe, that he was \"inspired\" to rectify the\ndispensation of Siddartha and Jesus, as the latter thought himself\ncommissioned to improve upon, or to fulfil the law of Moses--it is\nprobable that he would be regarded as a prophet; but if he should only\ntry to coax men to think, rather than drive them to believe, he would be\nunheeded by the majority. Nor after all, does it much signify. Sheep are\ntolerably comfortable whoever the shepherd may be, and if there should\nbe a fight between rivals for the ownership of a flock, the quadrupeds\ndo not care, so long as they are not trained to fight, to fast, or to\nlive on an animal diet.\n\nWhen any one speaks of the morality, pure and simple, inculcated by\nSakya Muni and Jesus, it is a fair question to ask whether asceticism\nis included therein. In other words, is there anything of the nature of\nabsolute goodness in the attempt to make oneself miserable? Or, to vary\nthe question still further--granting, for the sake of argument, that it\nis intrinsically right in the sight of God to abstain from such of our\npropensities as induce us to marry, to eat, drink, and sleep heartily,\nto fight a duel with a rival, to steal, to lie, to covet, and the\nlike,--granting, too, that every such abstinence is entered as \"an\nasset\" on the creditor side of the books of Heaven--is it an equally\navailable item to abstain from brotherly love and comfort generally?\nThe logician sees clearly that there is no distinction in kind between\ncontrolling one set of animal passions and another, and is forced to\nallow that if it be a commendable thing to avoid indulging in one carnal\nappetite, it is still more commendable to endeavour to counteract them\nall Consequently, by granting the premisses, we find ourselves landed in\na difficulty. If universal asceticism were to prevail, it is clear that\nman would be opposing himself to the manifest designs of the Creator,\nas shown in the world at large; and we cannot conceive, that direct\ndisobedience to instincts, implanted in us by our Maker, can be anything\nbut an item on the debtor side in the books, which Jewish writers\nhave said that He keeps. Thus we are driven to investigate the very\nassertions which in the commencement of our inquiry we took for granted,\nand to ask ourselves, is there really any intrinsic value in morality\nin the sight of God? Can a most virtuous life command for the individual\nwho has practised it an eternity of bliss? Jesus answers this tolerably\ndistinctly in the words reported in Luke xvii. 10, \"When ye shall have\ndone all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable\nservants: we have done that which it was our duty to do.\" But we doubt\nwhether this dictum enunciates sufficiently clearly the abstract value\nof morality. To ascertain this we must endeavour to read the book of\nnature on other pages than those which treat of man.\n\nThere can be no doubt in the mind of a thoughtful observer that man and\nthe lower animals have much in common--that; all have been framed with a\npurpose, and are ruled by natural laws. Some creatures excel in cunning,\nsome in reason, some in activity, some in sloth--all have certain\nproclivities. In some, instinct leads them to eat grass, boughs,\nleaves, and fruits; in others, it teaches them to seek insects or\nother creatures for their food. All have, more or less, periodically a\npropensity to propagate;--which is attended in some by a pairing off\nof male and female, who consort for the purpose of having offspring and\nassisting each other in rearing them. In others, either where there\nis naturally an equality of the sexes or a preponderance of males, the\nlatter instinctively fight with each other for a single mate, or for a\nnumber of females. Again, in the case of animals actuated by hunger, or\nby other motives, there are frequent battles, and the conquered is not\nonly killed, but eaten. Or where two or more sets of animals are living,\nthe one on land, the other in the air, we may find that one will rob the\nother. Nothing, for example, is much more common than for rats and crows\nto steal eggs, or for tigers to commit murder. Nature, then, being such\nas we find it, we cannot assert--reasonably--that a young stag when he\ncovets a neighbour's wife and fights her present consort, for property\nin her, commits a crime against the Almighty,--nor can we say that a fox\nwhich steals a goose will be sent to hell. On the other hand, we should\nnever think of commending a hungry lion for abstaining from killing a\nharmless lamb, nor of declaring that he has done a good action in the\nsight of heaven. In like manner, a writer in proverbs tells us that\n\"men do not despise a thief if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is\nhungry,\"--and the general consent of mankind refuses to see the crime of\nmurder in the slaughter of one, out of a miserable boat's crew, who\nis killed and eaten that the survivors may escape death from hunger.\nSociety, too, is somewhat lenient when two men fight for the love\nof such a woman as Helen. But we readily recognise the fact that a\ncommunity, or even a family, would be weakened and disorganized if theft\nwas encouraged, and every pretty female was the cause of close fighting\nbetween man and man. Hence we see that, in reality, that which is called\n\"the moral law,\" is a code which is intended to influence social life in\nthis world, and not the position of human beings in the next.\n\nHowever much we might desire to think the contrary, we are driven to the\nbelief that the moral precepts inculcated on the Jews, the Buddhists,\nand the Christians, had a human, and, we may add, a political origin.\nTaking the Bible even as being what many believe it to be--the inspired\nword of God--we must nevertheless allow that such a code as that book\ncontains in Exodus and elsewhere, existed in Egypt long before the\ndeparture of the Jews from that country. Had not murder been prohibited\non the Nile bank, Moses would not have run away to escape the penalty\nfor homicide. Because the Mizraim punished killing, were they taught of\nGod?\n\nThe natural answer to this query when it is addressed to a bibliolater\nis that the Egyptians were taught by God to punish murder with death\nthrough the intervention of their forefather, Ham, who heard the command\ngiven by God to Noah, \"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his\nblood be shed,\" Gen. ix. 6. But if the Egyptians thus knew the law, so\nthe descendants of Shem must have learned it also; and if so, what need\nwas there to repeat it amongst the thunders of Sinai. It is plain from\nthe romantic legend of Joseph and Potiphar's wife: first, that the\nHebrew slave feared to commit adultery, as it was a great wickedness\nand a sin against God, Gen. xxxix. 9; and, secondly, that the Egyptian\nconsidered it a crime in anyone to violate the wife of another. But\nneither Joseph nor Potiphar could by any possibility have heard of the\nlaws enunciated on Sinai. So, if we could inquire farther, we should\nmost assuredly learn that the Mizraim venerated their parents, punished\ntheft, and took means to prevent and to punish perjury. If, then,\nthe Egyptians had, long before they ever heard of a Jew, the same\ncommandments amongst them which were subsequently enunciated in the\nwilderness, we can only come to the conclusion that the Hebrew writer\nwho told the story of Sinai, gave the god whom he described, a great\ndeal of unnecessary work. Can we for a moment suppose that the Jews when\nin Egypt had their wives in common?--and if each man had his mate, and\neach woman her husband, it is almost self-evident that adultery would\nnot be tolerated amongst them. As there were therefore distinct moral\nlaws long before the Exodus, the decalogue was entirely superfluous.\n\nThe morality inculcated by teachers is nothing more than instructions\nfor mankind how to attain the greatest harmony amongst their fellows.\nIt is very natural for a thoughtless man to assert that one who wilfully\ndisturbs the general comfort of the human family during his life-time,\nshall be tormented eternally after his death; and, on the other hand,\nto proclaim that he who does everything in his power to increase the\nhappiness of his fellow-men shall be rewarded in a heaven above, with\neverlasting music, or other delights; yet we may fairly doubt the\naverments, for both are founded entirely upon human ideas of right and\nwrong, justice and injustice. The prevalent idea is, that everything\nwhich to some man seems to be wrong on earth, will be righted in another\nsphere--Even Jesus appears to have adopted this view, for he talks (Luke\nxvi) of a Dives and Lazarus--the one, a rich man who fared sumptuously\nevery day, and the other a beggar, full of sores, who longed for the\ncrumbs from wealth's table. After the deaths of these two people, we\nare told that the rich man went to Hell, and the poor one to Heaven,\nnot--apparently--because one was bad and the other good; but simply\nbecause misery in the present is sure to be changed into luxury for the\nfuture, and _vice versa_. We see this doctrine distinctly enunciated by\nthe imaginary Abraham, in whose bosom Lazarus lay, for he remarks (Luke\nxvi. 25), \"Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good\nthings, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and\nthou art tormented.\" We nowhere find that his position was a reward to\nthe beggar for virtue or morality. There is also a current doctrine that\nhe whom we call a vile man--one who indulges his brutal desires, shall\nin another world become more brutalized--meeting with, and being beaten\nby, powers whose mischievous propensities are superior to his own;\nwhilst, on the other hand, he whom we call a saint, one who endeavours\nto subdue the affections of the flesh in this world, shall be able to\nindulge in any desire that he may have, in the next, unlimitedly. In\nshort, each individual makes a Heaven for himself, and a Hell for his\nneighbours. I have heard, in days gone by, a Southern States lady say\nshe would not go to heaven, willingly, if she knew that she should meet\nnegroes there on terms of equality.\n\nIn rejoinder to these considerations, the question is put, \"Could the\nworld be habitable by men, without the existence amongst them of a\nbelief in a future state, in which rewards and punishments shall be\nmeted out for supposed misdeeds committed in the present?\" It is well\nfor us to look the matter in the face boldly, and ask ourselves whether\nfierce tigers, angry bulls, combative stags, kindred devouring rats,\noffspring eating alligators, infanticidal birds and pigs have succeeded\nin extirpating their race? There are herds, without number, of\ngraminivorous animals in Africa, and thousands of carnivorous creatures\nwho could not exist without murdering some of the former; yet the\nslaughter committed by scores of lions does not annihilate antelopes. In\nlike manner there are many folks who have lived in sundry islands of\nthe Pacific without an idea, so far as we can learn, of an eternity,\nwho sometimes spend their leisure time in fighting with and eating each\nother, and occasionally unite to kill a shark: each individual lives and\ndies like any other animal, but the race remains. Even the systematic\n\"hellishness\" of persecution indulged in by the followers of Jesus in\nthe middle ages did not extirpate the Jews; and if organized murders,\nsuch as were, in days gone by, sanctioned by individuals wielding the\nsceptre of powerful governments, could not cut off from existence a\ncomparatively feeble race, surely we may conclude that a nation can\ncontinue populous even if any individual, in a fit of passion, should\nrise against his fellow and smite him to the dust. But we need not go to\nNew Zealand, China, and Japan to prove that men can live in a community\nwithout an idea of eternity, for we have only to refer to the Jews, the\nso-called people of God. To them no knowledge of eternal life was given,\nconsequently we infer that Jehovah knew that they would get along in the\nworld very well without it. What Elohim thought was unnecessary, it is\nnot for man to propound as important.\n\nWhen the modern Christian philosopher--and there really are a few who\ndeserve the term--finds that the morality of Jesus did not materially\ndiffer from that of Sakya Muni, he endeavours to show that the doctrine\nof \"faith in the son of God\" is of more value than simple propriety,\nand that even the most virtuous life will not enable a man to attain to\nparadise unless he holds the Catholic faith. When the \"Catholic faith,\"\nas it is termed, is placed in such a position, we are bound to examine\nits pretensions, and inquire in what way doctrines or dogmas are better\nthan morality, and whether they are in any way superior to what the\northodox call \"irreligion.\" To my mind the best method of solving\nthe question is an appeal to history. If, as it is contended by the\northodox, the teaching of Christianity is far above that of any other\nreligion, then it must follow that all those who believe in it, or even\nprofess it, must be paragons amongst men as citizens and rulers. To\nwhat extent many theologians believe in this axiom may be judged by the\nfrequency with which we hear, from the pulpit, an old anecdote to\nthe effect, that the expression, \"see how these Christians love one\nanother,\" was, in olden time, nearly equal to the most powerful sermon\nin favour of the religion of Jesus. Without pointing a sneer, by\nrequesting my readers to substitute the word Buddhists for Christians,\nlet me lay the very heavy charge against the leaders of the faith, that\nthe words in question are the heaviest condemnation possible against the\nsupposed value of the doctrines of the son of Mary, as formerly and at\npresent expounded. \"See how these Christians love!\" Aye, see how they\nlove--read their own histories of the past, and their newspapers in\nthe present; attend their meetings; listen to their speeches; and\neven follow them into private life. In every position \"see how these\nChristians love one another\" is the damning sentence which tells of the\nreal value of the doctrine attributed to the son of Mary. Whilst I\nwrite (Jan. 7, 1870), a council, called OEcumenical, consisting of Roman\nCatholic Christian bishops, summoned to the capital of ancient Italy\nfrom all parts of the world, is sitting, and one of the subjects of its\ndeliberation is, whether a certain individual, elected by men to assume\nthe direction of a community of men holding a particular faith in\ncommon, shall be regarded, by those who join such branch of the church,\nas absolutely infallible in every statement of opinion which he makes as\na high priest. Men positively have met to clothe, and now have invested,\na man with an attribute of God, and millions of Christians will, by\nthose men, be compelled to consider themselves bound by the decision!\n\"See how these Christians love!\" they are persecuted by the world at\nfirst, then they persecute their oppressors, and massacre each other;\neducated by Jesus, they gradually encourage ignorance until they reach\na superstition as crass as the darkness of a dense fog in a moonless\nnight. They oppose the advancement of knowledge and science, then, by\ndegrees, endeavour to exalt each other, until, by common consent, they\ndeify the chieftain of the order. There is not a known crime of which\nthe leaders of the Christian church, as it is called, have not been\nguilty, both as men and ecclesiastical rulers. \"See how these Christians\nlove!\" Yet these very men endeavour to deride, and affect to despise,\nthose whom they call the godless. The latter, taking their stand upon\nmorality and common sense, aver that all affairs between man and his\nmaker ought to be referred to the arbitrement of Heaven. The Christian\nhierarchs, on the contrary, declare that they are the earthly agents of\nheaven, and that they, and the secular arm--a very mundane court--can\nact just as well, perhaps better, than the Supreme Judge. We will\nnot say whether it was a pleasant pastime for the Spanish, and other\nInquisitors, to torture individuals who were thought to be inimical to\nthe true faith, inasmuch as we do not know their inmost mind; but\nwe asseverate that all Europe, except those who had the power of\npersecution, and used it, rejoiced greatly when the enthusiastic armies,\nof what was designated atheistic France, annihilated the so-called Holy\nInquisition.\n\nI speak with sober earnestness when I say, that after forty years'\nexperience amongst those who profess Christianity, and those who\nproclaim, more or less quietly, their disagreement with it, I have\nnoticed more sterling virtue and morality amongst the last than the\nfirst. Though I thus express myself, I must also acknowledge my belief\nin the dictum, \"that many men are better than their creeds would\nmake them,\" and, consequently, that all men are not to be taken as\ncharacteristic of their system of belief. I know, personally, many\npious, sterling, good Christian people, whom I honour, admire, and,\nperhaps, would be glad to emulate or to equal; but they deserve the\neulogy thus passed on them in consequence of their good sense having\nignored the doctrine of faith to a great degree, and having cultivated\nthe practice of good works. They have picked out the best bits of the\nBible, and rejected the worst. In my judgment the most praiseworthy\nChristians whom I know are modified Buddhists, though, probably, not one\nof them ever heard of Siddartha. I would gladly trace their character,\nbut I forbear, as I think they would be horrified at the thought of\nmy comparing them with those whom they have been taught to regard as\nfollowers of a false prophet, or something worse. Let it suffice to say\nthat I honour consistent reasonable Christians everywhere, and that\nwhatever remarks I make which seem to be opposed to this, are directed\nagainst those whose doctrines, morality, and conduct, ostensibly built\nupon the Bible, are irrational and bad.\n\nSince the preceding remarks were written, there have appeared three very\nremarkable works upon Buddhism in addition to those which I have already\nnoticed--and they have the advantage for general readers, of being\nclothed in an English dress. The first which I will notice, is _Travels\nof Fah-Hian and Sung-Yun: Buddhist Pilgrims from China to India_ (408\nA.D., and 518 a.d.; London, Truebner, 1869, small 8vo. pp. 208.) This\nwork is remarkable as illustrating the fact, that there has been the\nidea, even in China, of sending men, or of devout persons spontaneously\ngoing, to distant places, to endeavour to seek for more perfect\nreligious knowledge, than they believe themselves and their teachers to\npossess where they are. With such an example before us, we can give\nmore easy credence to the stories told of Pythagoras, of Solon, and\nHerodotus; how they visited distant countries to learn the way of God\nand man more perfectly. Nor must we pass by the proof, which the journey\nof the Chinese travellers affords, that, what may be called missionary\nzeal is not an apanage of Christianity alone. An account of their\ntravels will be found in the next chapter. The second publication\nto which we refer, is _Buddhaghosa's Parables_, translated from the\nBurmese, by Capt. T. Rogers; with an introduction containing _Buddha's\nDhammapada_, or _Path of Virtue_, translated from the Pali, by Max\nMueller; London, Trubner & Co., 1870, 8vo. pp. 374. This work is of such\nimportance to all students of the Science of Religion, that we shall\nnotice it in a separate essay. The third contribution, is _The Modern\nBuddhist_, being the views of a Siamese Minister of State, on his own\nand other religions, translated, with remarks, by Henry Alabaster,\ninterpreter of H. B. M., consulate-general in Siam; London, Triibner &\nCo., 1870, small 8vo. pp. 91. This has now arrived at a second edition,\nand is called _The Wheel of the Law_.\n\nThis last book is, perhaps, the most interesting of the three, inasmuch\nas it enables us to compare the modern development of the religion of\nBuddha, and that of Christ. It enables us, moreover, to see ourselves\nand modern Christian doctrines as others see them, and to discover the\nessential points at issue, between the followers of the son of Maya\nDevi, and of Mary.\n\nThe first point to which we would call attention, is the statement that\nthe Siamese are nowhere excelled in the sincerity of their belief,\nand the liberality with which they support their religion. \"In Bangkok\nalone, there are more than a hundred monasteries, and ten thousand monks\nand novices. More than this, every male Siamese, sometime during his\nlife, and generally in the prime of it, takes orders as a monk, and\nretires for some months or years, to practise abstinence and meditation\nin a monastery.\" Against this, or side by side with it, what can Great\nBritain, or any other Christian country show? We have, it is true,\nplenty of monasteries in Christendom, and in the majority of western\nkingdoms, there are colleges and universities for the education of\nyouth, and there is, in some such institutions, a pretence of meditation\nand of abstinence. Yet the finger of scandal points, and has pointed,\nfor many hundred years, to the disreputable conduct pursued in almost\nthe whole of such Christian institutions; whereas, not even its enemies\ncan find evidence to convict Buddhist ascetics of indulging in sensual\ngratifications of any kind whatever.\n\nWe learn, from Mr Alabaster's preface, that the late king of Siam,\nthough \"eminent amongst monks for his knowledge of the Buddhist\nscriptures, boldly preached against the canonicity of those of them,\nwhose relations were opposed to his reason, and his knowledge of modern\nscience.\" \"His powers as a linguist were considerable, and enabled him\nto use an English library with facility.\" They are his views--which royal\netiquette prevented him from writing, that inspired his prime minister.\nWhat have we here? Surely it is an example that British rulers, and\nespecially divines, should follow. Yet with all our boasted skill,\nscience, and powers of thought, our theologians prefer to preach, and to\nuphold, doctrines which they know to be repugnant, both to reason and to\nscience, rather than abandon that which was propounded when reason and\nknowledge were almost in their infancy. Certainly, in this respect,\nthe believers in Sakya Muni show themselves more sensible than those in\nJesus.\n\nAgain, let us quote the following paragraph--pointing out the analogy we\nwish to draw, by using a literary contrivance--and calling attention to\nthe fact, that no Roman Catholic authority in Christian Europe, has yet\ndared to say, what a Buddhist ruler does.\n\n\"Our {Siamese \\ Papal} literature is not only scanty, but nonsensical,\nfull of stories of {genii \\ saints} stealing {women \\ relics} and {men\n\\ saints} fighting with {genii \\ devils} and {extraordinary persons\\\nElijah and Philip} who could fly through the air, and bring dead\npeople to life. And, even those works, which profess to teach anything,\ngenerally teach it wrong; so that there is not the least profit, though\none studies them from morning to night\" (p. 7).\n\nThe following observation is equally powerful--Chaya. Phya.\nPraklang--the name of the Siamese author, might, \"as a Buddhist, believe\nin the existence of a God, sublimed above all human qualities and\nattributes--a perfect God, above love, and hatred, and jealousy, calmly\nresting in a quiet happiness that nothing could disturb; and of such a\nGod he would speak no disparagement, not from a desire to please Him,\nor fear to offend Him, but from natural veneration. But he cannot\nunderstand a God with the attributes and qualities of men, a God who\nloves and hates, and shows anger, a Deity, who, whether described to him\nby Christian Missionaries, or by Mahometans, Brahmins, or Jews, falls\nbelow his standard of even an ordinary good man\" (p. 25).\n\nAfter the passages which we have quoted, the translator gives many\npages of accounts of conversation between missionaries and the Siamese\nminister, which well repay a perusal. They are too long for quotation\nentire, but there are three paragraphs that deserve commemoration, as\nthey show us the reasoning powers of the Buddhist in favourable contrast\nto the bigotry of his would-be instructor. \"I said, 'then you consider\nthat even a stone in the bladder is created by God?' He replied, 'Yes,\neverything, God creates everything.' 'Then,' answered I, if that is\nso, God creates in man that which will cause his death, and you medical\nmissionaries remove it, and restore his health! Are you not opposing\nGod by so doing? Are you not offending Him in curing those whom He would\nkill?' When I had said this the missionary became angry, and saying 'I\nwas hard to teach,' left me\" (p. 29). Again, when he and Dr Gutzlaff\nwere discussing the story of the creation and \"the fall,\" as taught in\nthe Christian and Jewish Bible, and the Buddhist has clearly the best of\nthe argument, the missionary told him, that if any spoke as the minister\nhad been doing in European countries, he would be put in prison--and\nChaya Phya adds, \"I invite particular attention to this statement\" (p.\n34). Thus, not only in other parts of his work, but here also, he points\nout how that which Christian emissaries say is \"a religion of peace\non earth and good will to men\" is, in reality, one of intolerance and\npersecution, even on the showing of its own ministers. In the third\nexample to which I refer, Gutzlaff is again talking with Chaya upon the\ncurse of man, and the Siamese speaks thus--\"Besides, the Bible says, by\nbelief in Christ, man shall escape the consequences of Eve's sin; yet\nI cannot see that men do so escape in any degree, but suffer just as\nothers do.\" The missionary answered, \"It is waste of time to converse\nwith evil men, who will not be taught, and so he left me\" (p. 35). When\nmen like Gutzlaff, who is really eminent in his way, can be so readily\nsilenced and put to flight by a native of Siam, whose mind is not\nfamiliar with the science and logical training of European thinkers, it\nis by no means surprising that cultivated Englishmen should refuse\nto believe in the childish stories and foolish doctrines that are\npromulgated by Christians at home, as being an inspired and infallible\nrevelation from the Almighty. Alas, for our country and her people!\nthey have much to unlearn as well as to learn before they can lay a fair\nclaim to the position which they assume to hold.\n\nWe may next quote the following, as being useful to missionary societies\nhere. After having described the religion of Papists, Protestants, and\nMormons, Chaya says, \"All these three sects worship the same God and\nChrist, why, then, should they blame each other, and charge each other\nwith believing wrongfully, and say to each other, 'You are wrong, and\nwill go to Hell; we are right, and shall go to Heaven?' You make us\nthink that it is one religion which Christians hold, yet how can we join\nit when each party threatens us with Hell if we agree with another sect,\nand there is none to decide between them? I beg comparison of this with\nthe teaching of the Lord Buddha, that whoever endeavours to keep the\ncommandments, and is charitable, and walks virtuously, must attain to\nHeaven\" (p. 43). The commandments referred to are--\n\n1st. Thou shalt not destroy nor cause the destruction of any living\nthing.\n\n2d. Thou shalt not, either by fraud or violence, obtain or keep that\nwhich belongs to another.\n\n3d. Thou shall not lie carnally with any but proper objects for thy\nlust.\n\n4th. Thou shalt not attempt, either by word or action, to lead others to\nbelieve that which is not true.\n\n5th. Thou shalt not become intoxicated.\n\nWe much fear, that if the commandments which nominal Christians observe\nare contrasted with those kept by the Buddhists, that the former must be\nregarded as much lower in the scale of religious civilization than the\nlatter.\n\nThe Siamese author next discusses the question, \"how shall a man select\nthat religion which he can trust to for his future happiness?\" His\nanswer is, \"He must reflect, and apply his mind to ascertain which\ncomes nearest to truth.\" Then follow a few very true remarks about the\ndifficulty of shaking off any faith once adopted--about the causes\nwhich determine men to change their belief, and, in illustration of the\ndifficulties, the author quotes a sermon by Buddha to those who were\nin doubt, and desired to select a right religion. \"And the Lord Buddha\nanswered, You are right to doubt, for it was a doubtful matter. I say\nunto all of you, do not believe in what ye have heard, that is, when you\nhave heard anyone say this is especially good or extremely bad; do not\nreason with yourselves, that if it had not been true it would not\nhave been asserted, and so believe in its truth. Neither have faith in\ntraditions, because they have been handed down for many generations, and\nin many places.\n\n\"Do not believe in anything because it is rumoured and spoken of by\nmany; do not think that is a proof of its truth.\n\n\"Do not believe merely because the written statement of some old sage is\nproduced; do not be sure that the writing has ever been revised by the\nsaid sage, or can be relied on. Do not believe in what you have fancied,\nthinking that, because an idea is extraordinary, it must have been\nimplanted by a Deva, or some wonderful being.\n\n\"Do not believe in guesses, that is, assuming something at haphazard, as\na starting point, and then drawing conclusions from it--reckoning your\ntwo and your three and your four before you have fixed your number one.\n\n\"Do not believe because you think there is an analogy, that is, a\nsuitability in things and occurrences--such as believing that there must\nbe walls of the world because you see water in a basin, or that Mount\nMeru must exist because you have seen the reflection of trees, or that\nthere must be a creating god because houses and towers have builders.\n\n\"Do not believe in the truth of that to which you have become attached\nby habit, as every nation believes in the superiority of its own dress,\nand ornaments, and language.\n\n\"Do not believe because your informant appears to be a credible person,\nas, for instance, when you see anyone having a very sharp appearance,\nconclude that he must be clever and trustworthy: or, when you see anyone\nwho has powers and abilities beyond what men generally possess, believe\nin what he tells; or think that a great nobleman is to be believed, as\nhe would not be raised by the king to high station unless he were a good\nman.\n\n\"Do not believe merely on the authority of your teachers and masters,\nor believe and practise merely because they believe and practise.\n\n\"I tell you all, you must of yourselves know, that 'this is evil, this\nis punishable, this is censured by wise men, belief in this will bring\nno advantage to anyone, but will cause sorrow;' and when you know this,\nthen eschew it\" (pp. 45-47). Then follows a long account of the examples\nwhich Buddha gave to his disciples, examining them by questions, whose\nanswer is obvious; but these, though wonderfully to the point, are too\nlong for quotation, and we must refer our readers to the book itself.\nNor do we act thus, reluctantly, for we believe that every honest\ninquirer will thank us for the introduction. We should rejoice if\nsome of our divines became acquainted with it. They might draw as\nmany valuable texts from the discourses attributed to Buddha, herein\ndescribed, as they do now from Jesus' sermon on the mount. We may add,\nin passing, that, in the conversation of Sakya Muni, he says, \"it is\nbetter to believe in a future life, in which happiness or misery can\nbe felt, for if the heart believes therein, it will abandon sin and act\nvirtuously; and even if there is no resurrection, such a life will bring\na good name and the regard of men. But those who believe in extinction\nat death, will not fail to commit any sin that they may choose, because\nof their disbelief in a future; and if there should happen to be a\nfuture after all, they will be at a disadvantage--they will be like\ntravellers without provisions\" (p. 54).\n\nThe following exposition of modern Buddhist belief well deserves\nattention.\n\n\"Buddhists believe that every act, word, or thought, has its\nconsequence, which will appear sooner or later in the present, or in\nsome future state. Evil acts will produce evil consequences, i.e., may\ncause a man misfortune in this world, or an evil birth in hell, or as\nan animal in some future existence. Good acts, etc., will produce good\nconsequences; prosperity in this world, or birth in heaven, or in a high\nposition in the world in some future state\" (p. 57).\n\nWe will only add, that if the value of Buddhism, like Christianity, is\nto be known by its fruits, it is clear, that the former, as practised\ngenerally in Siam, is decidedly superior to the latter as practised in\nGreat Britain, America, and Christendom, generally.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\n     Priority of Buddhism to Christianity. Strange assumptions.\n     When was India first known to Christians? Thomas the\n     Apostle, When Asceticism was introduced into Christianity.\n     Results of inquiry into the introduction of Christianity\n     into India. Tarshish and Ceylon. Peacocks known as the\n     Persian birds to the Greeks, temp. Aristophanes. Indian\n     elephants in army of Darius. Roman traffic with India, b.c.\n     30. Buddhist missionaries. The gift of tongues. Rise of\n     Asceticism in Western Asia. Essenes again. Collection of\n     Buddhist writings, 450 b.c. Degeneracy of original Faith.\n     Missionaries from China to Hindostan in search of Buddhist\n     works and knowledge. Travels of Fah Hian, their experience\n     and remarks. Quotations from their writings. Footprints of\n     Buddha and Peter. Immaculate conception of Sakya. Old\n     Simeon--a repetition. Wise men from the East. St. Ursula.\n     Three Buddhist councils to compile scriptures. Buddhism\n     lapsed into image-worship and processions. Progress of the\n     pilgrims. Return by sea. Deductions. Developments of\n     Christianity and Asceticism. Observations about travelling.\n     Conclusions.\n\nWith the usual pertinacity of Englishmen, there are many devout\nindividuals who, on finding that Buddhism and Christianity very closely\nresemble each other, asseverate, with all the vehemence of an assumed\northodoxy, that the first has proceeded from the second. Nor can the\nabsurdity of attempting to prove that the future must precede the past\ndeter them from declaring that Buddhism was promulgated originally\nby Christian missionaries from Judea, and then became deteriorated by\nBrahminical and other fancies! It is really difficult, sometimes, to\ndiscover what are the real tenets of the obstinate orthodox to whom\nwe refer; but, so far as we can learn from the character of their\nopposition, it would appear that they do not deny the existence of such\na man as Sakya Muni, to whom his followers gave the name of Buddha. Just\nin the same way, we may add, as his followers gave the name of Jesus\nChrist to Ben Panther. Whilst allowing that Siddartha founded a new\nreligion, the orthodox assert that all its bad parts are human, whilst\nall its good parts consist of doctrines tacked on to the original, after\nChristianity had been introduced into India, by one or more of Jesus'\napostles or disciples.\n\nIf, for the sake of argument, we accord to such cavillers the position\nof reasonable beings, and ask them to give us some proof of the\nassertion, that early Christian people went to Hindostan and preached\nthe gospel there; or even to point out, in history, valid proofs that\nIndia was known to a single apostle, we find that they have nothing to\nsay beyond the vaguest gossip.\n\nWhat the testimony is we may find by turning to the article Thomas,\nin Kitto's _Cyclopoedia of Biblical Literature_, which was written by\na learned professor of Gottingen. Therein we see, and the statement\nis amply vouched by quotation from authorities, that the Apostle in\nquestion is said to have preached the gospel in Parthia and in Persia,\nand to have been buried in Edessa; and that, according to a later\ntradition, Thomas went to India, and suffered martyrdom there. Then\nfollows a statement that this account has been assailed, &c. Similar\ntraditions are mentioned by Dean Stanley in Smith's \"_Dictionary of the\nBible_\" with the addition that it is now believed that the Thomas of\nMalabar Christian fame was a Nestorian missionary.\n\nEusebius writes, book v., ch. 10, speaking of Pantaenus, about\na.d. 190--\"He is said to have displayed such ardour... that he was\nconstituted a herald of the gospel of Christ to the nations of the East,\nand advanced even as far as India; and the report is, that he there\nfound his own arrival anticipated by some who were acquainted with\nthe gospel of Matthew, to whom Bartholomew, one of the Apostles, had\npreached, and had left them the gospel of Matthew in the Hebrew, which\nwas also preserved unto this time. Pantaenus became finally the head of\nthe Alexandrian school.\" Such a piece of gossip no historian can trust\nfor a moment.\n\nSocrates, in his _Ecclesiastical History_, about a.d. 420, writes,\n\"We must now mention by what means the profession of Christianity\nwas extended in Constantine's reign, for it was in his time that the\nnations, both of the Indians in the interior, and the Iberians, first\nembraced the Christian faith. But it may be needful briefly to explain\nwhy the expression in the interior is appended. When the apostles went\nforth by lot amongst the nations, Thomas received the apostleship of the\nParthians. Matthew was allotted Ethiopia, and Bartholomew the part of\nIndia contiguous to that country; but the interior of India, which was\ninhabited by many barbarous nations, using different languages, was not\nenlightened by Christian doctrine before the time of Constantine,\" about\n320 A.D. Then follows a story of a Tynan philosopher, who, with two\nyouths, took ship, and arrived somewhere in India, just after the\nviolation of a treaty between that country and the Romans. Everyone in\nthe ship was killed but the two lads, who, being young, were sent as a\npresent to the Indian king. One became a cupbearer, the other the royal\nrecorder. The king died, freeing the youths, and the queen, left with a\nyoung son, made the strangers his tutors, or regents. One, who was the\nhighest, then began to inquire whether, amongst the Roman merchants\ntrafficking with that country, there were any Christians to be found.\nHaving discovered some, he induced them to select a place for worship,\nand he subsequently built a church, into which he admitted some Indians,\nafter previous instruction. The other youth comes back to Tyre, and then\nthe regent comes to Alexandria, talks to Athanasius, and begs him to\nsend a bishop and clergy to the place he has left, to which no name is\ngiven. To the latter youth Frumentius, ordination is given, and he\nreturns to India to preach, to perform miracles, and build oratories,\n[--Greek--]. The historian, adds Rufinus, assures us that he heard these\nfacts from the former king's cupbearer, Edesius, who was afterwards\ninducted into the sacred office at Tyre.\n\nWe may next quote the _Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of\nPhilostorgius_ (who wrote about A.D. 425), compiled by Photius,\nPatriarch of Constantinople. Therein we may observe how completely the\nfirst contradicts Socrates as before quoted, and may also infer\nthe reason why. In book ii., ch. 6, the words run, \"The impious\nPhilostorgius relates, that the Christians in Central India, who were\nconverted to the faith of Christ by the preaching of St. Bartholomew,\nbelieve that the son is not of the same substance with the father.\" He\nadds that \"Theophilus, the Indian who had embraced this opinion, came to\nthem and delivered it to them as a doctrine; and also that these Indians\nare now called Homeritae, instead of their old name, Sabaeans, which they\nreceived from the city of Saba, the chief city of the whole nation.\"\nThis leads me to doubt very strongly whether the ecclesiastical writers\nin early days did not group, under the name of India, the southern parts\nof Arabia, Persia, and Beloochistan.\n\nSozomen, writing about the period of 325 A.D., says, book ii, ch. 24,\n\"We have heard that about this period some of the most distant of the\nnations that we call Indian, to whom the preaching of Bartholomew was\nunknown, were converted to Christianity by Frumentius, a priest.\" Then\nfollows an enlarged edition of the legend told by Socrates, and the\nwords, \"it is said that Frumentius discharged his priestly functions so\nadmirably that he became an object of universal admiration.\" Theodoret,\nwriting about 420 A.D., places the conversion of the Indians about 328\nA.D., and gives substantially the same account as the preceding writers\nwhom we have quoted.\n\nWe will not, however, content ourselves with this short notice, but\nwill first inquire whether, if the accounts of the earlier reporters,\nEusebius, Socrates, Clement, and Rufinus, who wrote about a.d. 320,\n390, 190, and 370, are not to be trusted, we can believe the stories of\nGregory Nazianzen, Ambrose, Jerome, Nicephorus, and Abdias, who wrote\nabout a.d. 380, 380, 400, 815, and 910 respectively. If we believe one\nset of Christian \"fathers,\" that Thomas the apostle died in Syria, we\ncannot credit a set of Christian \"sons,\" who affirm that he was martyred\nin India. But--and the point is an important one--we can see reason why\nthe children should invent an account of which the parents saw not the\nnecessity. About the period of Gregory Nazianzen arose that asceticism\nwhich sent Simeon Stylites upon the top of his pillar in a.d. 394, and\nkept him there for the rest of his life, and that peopled the Thebaid\nwith hermits of the most approved Buddhist order--celibates shunning\nluxury, and cultivating filthiness of the outer to cleanse the inner\nman. The way in which the original faith, preached by Jesus and modified\nby Paul, was distorted during the first few centuries in Egypt can only\nbe rationally accounted for by a spread of Buddhist doctrines by Indian\nmissionaries, or promulgated by Christian merchants, who had travelled\nto the Indies, and modified their original faith by what they saw and\nheard from the followers of the great Sramana; and it was natural for\nthe Alexandrian Christians to adopt the modifications referred to, and\nto stamp the innovations with the assertion that they were\napostolic reflections--rays of divine light falling from \"the sun of\nrighteousness\" upon the mind of the blessed Saint Somebody, Thomas, for\nthis purpose, being a name which answered as well as any other. There is\npositively no evidence whatever--except some apocryphal Jesuit stories\nabout certain disciples of Jesus, found by Papal missionaries at\nMalabar--that any disciple of Mary's son ever proceeded to Hindostan to\npreach the gospel during the first centuries of our era. Those who\nknow the history of the \"Decretals,\" and of Prester John, can readily\nestimate the value of tales told by Jesuits in India, where there was\nnot at the time anyone to test their veracity.\n\nBeing myself desirous of ascertaining what evidence really exists--or\nexisted in the times of ancient authors, whose works have come down to\nus--of the knowledge of India by Europeans in days gone by, I instituted\nan inquiry, with the determination to be impartial. The results obtained\nwere the following:--\n\nThe only reason for believing that Hindostan and Ceylon were known to\nthe Phoenicians is a short passage in the Biblical History of Solomon,\nin which we are told that after a three years' absence, Hiram's Tyrian\nsailors returned from Tarshish, bringing what our translators call\nivory, apes, and peacocks. The words in the Hebrew original are said\nby Tennant to be all but identical with those in use in Ceylon at\nthe present date. For a full account of the probable identity of the\nTarshish in the passage alluded to and Galle, see Emerson Tennant's\n_History of Ceylon_.\n\nYet, if we grant that the Tyrian shipmen traded to India, we are bound\nto confess that the knowledge which they acquired died with them;\nnor did their successors, the Greeks, know anything distinctly about\nHindostan prior to the time of Alexander the Great. In the Biblical\nstory of Esther we are told, i. 1, viii. 9, that a Persian king reigned\nfrom India to Ethiopia, the Hebrew word for the former being _Hodoo_,\nsupposed to be a form of _handoo_, or _hindoo_; Pehlevi, _hendo_; Zend,\n_heando_; Sanscrit, _Sindhu_ (Fuerst, s.v.), equivalent to the Greek\n_Indikee_, or the country of the Indus. We find reason to believe that\nthe India of Artaxerxes was a portion of Hindostan--first, because the\nPersian monarch had Indian soldiers in his army, and elephants, when\nhe fought with Alexander; and secondly, because the peacock, a bird of\nCeylon, was known to the Greeks, in the time of Aristophanes, as \"the\nPersian bird.\" That the Persians traded with Northern India we infer,\nfrom the account which Appian gives us of the advance eastward of\nAlexander, after his victory at Arbela. But the whole story of the\nGrecian warrior's advance into the Punjaub and down the Indus, contains,\nin itself, tolerably clear proof that Hindostan was very little known to\nthe Greeks. Of a subsequent invasion of India by Alexander's successor,\nSeleucus Nicator; of the mission of Megasthenes to Sandracottus, the\ngrandfather of Asoka, the Buddhist Constantine; of the navigation of the\nGrecian ship down the Indus, and the subsequent traffic by land and\nsea between the Greeks and the Hindoos, we need not say more than that\nAugustus, b.c. 30, regulated the trade to Hindostan, _via_ Alexandria,\nand that, at the time of Pliny the elder, about A.D. _60_, voyages were\nbeing made to India every year, companies of archers being carried on\nboard the vessels to protect them from pirates. We learn also that a\ntwelvemonth did not elapse without a drain upon the Roman Empire of\nabout one million and a-half sterling for India, in exchange for Hindoo\nwares (book vi., ch. 26).\n\nAt the period Pliny refers to, and for a long time previously, there\ncan be no pretence that any of Jesus' apostles accompanied traders to\nHindostan, for every one of them were employed nearer home. On the other\nhand, we may inquire into the possibility and the reasonableness of\nBuddhist missionaries travelling westward in the course of Alexandrian\ntraffic, or of the caravans which, we have grounds for believing, came\nthrough Persia to the Roman Empire.\n\nOn turning to Oriental literature, we find that the often-mentioned King\nAsoka adopted Buddhism as the religion of his empire about b.c. 250, and\nthat, in his time, missionaries carried that faith successfully to the\nuttermost parts of Hindostan--to Burmah, to Ceylon, to Japan, to Thibet,\nand to China. The envoys carried with them, in some instances, written\nbooks, in others, their guide was oral tradition. Wherever they went\nthey bore a biography of Sakya--or Buddha--accounts of miracles that he\nhad performed, and a summary, more or less extended, of his preaching or\ndoctrines. This dispersion of Hindoo envoys was about fifty years later\nthan the mission of the Greek Megasthenes to the court of Asoka's\ngrandfather, and it is quite as probable that Buddhist preachers went to\nenlighten what they imagined to be the benighted, and what they knew\nto be the then defeated Grecians, as that they went over frightful\nmountains and stormy seas to Thibet, China, and Japan.\n\nWe may profitably pause for a moment here, to contemplate that which\nI at one time believed to be the most wonderful of all the miracles\nrecorded in the New Testament, viz., \"the gift of tongues.\" The\nreferences to this which we meet with in the epistles of the apostle\nPaul might lead to the supposition, that some who had this \"gift\" spoke\nmere gibberish--something which was not, either in intention or in\nreality, an utterance in a foreign language; but the story of the\noriginal imparting of power to speak in a previously unknown tongue\ninvolves the idea, that the disciples had, on the occasion referred\nto, a faculty given to them, by which they knew the languages used\nby various nationalities, without the trouble of learning them. Many\ndivines have held that such ability was absolutely necessary to those\nwho had to go forth to teach all nations the doctrines of the gospel I\nam quite aware that, however earnest I might be to propagate truth,\nI could not go, with advantage, to preach in Russia, because I know\nnothing of its language.\n\nDoubt in the reality of the miracle recorded in Acts ii. was not born\nuntil I found that Buddhist missionaries went out into distant lands,\nwhere their own tongue was unknown, and yet made converts. When once I\nfelt dubious as regards the veracity of the historian, I began to notice\nwhat the apostles generally did when they went to a new country or town.\nTheir practice seems to have been to have visited synagogues of the Jews\nliving on the spot--and able, if they chose, to be interpreters--or,\nwhere there were such establishments, \"the schools\" were visited, where\nthe students and the masters understood Greek. In the time of Paul the\nlanguage of the Hellenes was spoken by Romans of high position, much as\nFrench was spoken at the court of Frederic the Great of Prussia, and\nas German is at St. Petersburg. The Apostle seems to have spoken Greek\nreadily, and when he could use that tongue or the Hebrew he was fluent.\nI have sought in vain for evidence that either Paul or any of the\nApostles ever addressed a foreign mob, whose language was neither Greek\nnor Hebrew. A study of the nineteenth chapter of the Acts will show\nthis--especially, we must notice the end of the tenth verse, where we\nare told \"that all who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both\n_Jews and Greeks_.\" When disturbance occurred in the theatre, Paul was\nnot the orator put forward to appease the people--he probably could not\nspeak their patois. Yet he tells us, 1 Cor. xiv. 18, that he spoke with\ntongues more than his fellows.*\n\n     * There is much difference amongst ecclesiastical writers\n     respecting what is called the \"gift of tongues.\" The\n     difficulty arises mainly from the desire to reconcile \"the\n     true\" with \"the absurd.\" Starting from the point that all\n     \"scripture\" is written by \"inspiration of God,\" the orthodox\n     are obliged to receive the account narrated in Acts ii. as\n     being literally correct.\n\nIn plain language, the story runs thus:--The Apostles, twelve in number,\nwere sitting in a room. Whilst there, a noise was heard, and something\nlike fiery tongues, more or less split, appeared, and one settled upon\neach of the company. These all, at once, began to speak in languages\nwhich were strange to all.\n\nFrom the noise made, neighbours had their attention called, and from one\nmouth to another the tidings of the ranting ran, until it reached the\nears of devout men, who, from every nation under heaven, were then\nassembled in Jerusalem. Whether these foreigners were Hebrews, or\nwhether they, being strangers, had the gift of understanding the reports\ncouched in Aramaic, we do not know. But it is narrated that, in the\ncourse of a few minutes--possibly an hour or two--the devout strangers\ncame to listen to the Apostles, either speaking singly or at once.\n\nAs these foreigners noticed what was said, they recognized words\nin their own respective dialects, and then the Parthian said to the\nMede--the Elamite to the Mesopotamian--the Phrygian to the Pamphyliaji,\n&c., \"What does all this mean?\" So to interchange a question involves\nthat the interlocutors, like the Apostles, had suddenly received the\ngift of speaking, and understanding, other tongues than their own. When\nthe listeners had convinced themselves about the marvel, each began to\ntalk in his own language, and the Jews understood them to say, \"What\nmeaneth this?\" the Hebrews, like the rest, having also the gift of\nknowing what was said in a strange language.\n\nSome, however, had not this power of interpretation, and remarked, \"the\nfellows are drunk!\" For a moment we pause to inquire how many people\nthere were in one room of one house. The Apostles were twelve;\nthen there were, at least three, Parthians, Medes, &c., in all about\nforty-five more, and in addition, there were \"the mockers.\" To all\nthese Peter preached, and the wonders of the day were crowned by the\nconversion of three thousand people!\n\nIt seems, therefore, to be clear, from the account of this extraordinary\nmiracle, that the Apostles then gathered together acquired the power of\nexpressing their thoughts in languages which they had never learned, the\njudges of the feat being those whose dialects were spoken.\n\nIf we now proceed in biblical order to examine into the ideas connected\nwith this strange faculty, we find, in Acts x. 44-46, that the\ncircumcised Jews alone were satisfied, in the plenitude of their own\nignorance, that Cornelius and his company could \"speak with tongues.\"\nAgain, in Acts xix. 6, we learn that certain Ephesians, after baptism,\nand imposition of hands, \"spake with tongues \"--no judge of the fact\nbeing quoted.\n\nIn 1 Cor. xii. 10, we discover that amongst the gifts of the Holy Spirit\nare \"kinds of tongues,\" and the interpretation thereof which will,\nprobably, remind the lover of Shakespeare of Act iv. Scenes 1 and 3,\nin \"All's well that ends well,\" wherein there is a nonsensical jargon\nspoken by one person which another interprets to the satisfaction of the\nsilly Parolles. In vv 28, 30, we see strong indications that the gift\nof tongues and interpretation may be compared to some things now heard\nof in spiritualistic or other conjuring seances.\n\nThis notion of \"speaking with other tongues\" reaches its climax,\napparently, in 1 Cor. xiii. 1, wherein Paul indicates, but does not\npositively assert, that he can \"speak with the tongues of men and\nangels,\" a boast which 2 Cor. xii. 4 leads us to take literally. But how\nany one on earth could test the reality of assertion it is difficult to\nconceive.\n\nIn 1 Cor. xiv. we see indications that \"speaking with tongues\" is little\nmore or less than a sort of hysterical utterance of gibberish, which\nwe may compare to the once celebrated chorus of\n\n     Lilli-bullero-lero-lero-Lillibullero bullen a la.\n\nOne may now ask, \"Why did people think that it was part of the\nChristian's privileges or powers to speak with tongues?\" The only answer\nwhich I can discover is indicated in Acts ii. 18, wherein we find it\ngiven as the opinion of Peter, that a certain vaticination in Joel\napplied to the followers of Jesus. The philosopher may wonder at the\nignorance--possibly at the knowledge--which confounded \"prophesying\"\nwith the utterance of unintelligible rubbish; but the philologist should\nbe led to investigate more strictly the real signification of words,\nand to inquire into the theories which are traceable to false\ninterpretations.\n\nConsiderations such as these, which might be multiplied indefinitely,\nI have come to the belief that the Apostles of Jesus were no better, as\nregards their knowledge of foreign tongues, than their predecessors,\nthe missionaries sent by Asoka, or than the modern envoys sent out by a\nLondon Society.\n\nWhat renders it probable that Buddhist ascetics found their way,\nprobably amongst the camp followers of Antiochus the Great, and\nendeavoured to promulgate their doctrines in western Asia, is the fact\nthat a sect sprang up amongst the Jews after the Grecian conquest of\nPalestine--called \"The Essenes,\" to which we have before referred,\namongst whose tenets Buddhism and Judaism were closely mingled The\nasceticism practised by this sect was, so far as we know, different to\nanything known at that time in Greece or Western Asia, and as it came\ninto fashion at the same time in Palestine as Indian elephants and\nHindoo Mahouts, there is some reason for the belief that it was brought\nby disciples of Siddartha. Without dwelling upon this again, we return\nto the well ascertained fact that Buddhism was promulgated most widely\nin Eastern and Northern Asia about 250 b.c., that a collection of\nreligious books was made about two hundred years prior to that date, and\nthat these were revised again during Asoka's reign. But, however earnest\nwere the teachers and the taught, the scriptures which they respected\nwere so voluminous and the facilities for multiplying them were so\nsmall, that it happened, as it did amongst early Christians, that many a\nchurch had no written book of the law. As a consequence of this, one\npart or another of Sakya's doctrines became exalted unduly in one\nlocality, whilst in another a portion was left out of sight. Stories,\nalso, of miracles became varied, just as we find that they have been by\nthe writers in the New Testament, the tendency being, as in the history\nof the blind man near Jericho, to exaggerate the wonder--for example,\nMark and Luke, chap. x. and xviii, give an account of one man being\ncured of blindness, whilst Matthew, chap, xx., tells us that there were\ntwo. The narrators under such circumstances act as if they thought that\nit is as easy for a divinity to heal two or two thousand as to cure one,\nand we who tolerate the practice in a Christian evangelist must not\nridicule it in Buddhist disciples.\n\nWhen we contemplate the confusion that existed in the Christian\nchurch--the gradual deterioration of the faith taught by Jesus, and more\nespecially by Paul, and the steady absorption of Pagan rites into the\nworship inaugurated by Peter and the other apostles, we can readily\nunderstand that in the course of six or seven hundred years there would\nbe reason in countries distant from the home of Siddartha to deplore\nthe gradual decadence of Buddhism, and a desire amongst the devout for\ntuition at the fountain-head. In modern times we have read of hierarchs\ncoming from the uttermost parts of the earth to consult the Roman\nPontiff upon points of discipline affecting the church, and we therefore\nsee without surprise that, about A.D. 400, six hundred years after it\nhad been planted, the congregation of Buddhists in China had within\nit men who determined to go to India, and bring back to their\nfellow-worshippers what they hoped would be a purer doctrine than that\nwhich they were accustomed to, and, if possible, to secure authentic\nbooks. Pilgrimage, with this object, cannot be regarded as being so\nabsurd as that which has in modern days taken numbers of Christians to\nLourdes, in the Pyrenees, or to St. Paray-le-Monial.\n\nEre we describe this Chinese search after truth, let us imagine a\nChristian from Central Russia determining to seek for enlightenment at\nAntioch about a.d. 640, and subsequently at the seven churches named\nin the Apocalypse--and afterwards writing his experience. We should be\ncertain to find him bewailing the fall of Christianity and the rise\nof Islam. We may indeed affirm that if such a history was now to be\ndiscovered undated, we should regard it as having been written before\nor after the date named, according as \"the churches\" were described as\nbeing the seat of Mahommedism or of Christianity. Still further, if in\nevery place which this traveller visited, he found a general belief in\nthe stories told of Jesus and in the efficacy of his doctrine, we should\nconsider this as proof that the people remained faithful to their early\nteaching. If, on the other hand, the wanderer found himself proscribed\nin any locality as a benighted heathen, without knowledge of the way\nof salvation--he would naturally think that a teacher had given to its\ninhabitants instruction different from that which was familiar to him.\nI do not exaggerate when I say that a genuine account of the travels in\nsearch of sound Christian doctrine through every part of Europe in the\nfifth century of our era, would be invaluable as an indication of the\ntenure of certain doctrines, not only in various localities, but as\nto the existence or the reverse of dogmas now regarded as of supreme\nimportance.\n\nSuch a manuscript, which, however, relates to Buddhism and not to\nChristianity, exists in China, and it has lately been translated into\nEnglish _Travels of Fah-Hian and Sung-Yun, Buddhist Pilgrims from China\nto India_, 400 a.d. and 518 a.d., translated from the Chinese by Samuel\nBea. (Truebner & Co., London, 1869.) It tells us, in a singularly terse\nstyle, how a large portion of China was traversed by these pilgrims;--of\nthe terrible journey over the mountains to the north of Hindustan; of a\nvisit to the birth-place of Siddartha; to Benares, to Calcutta, and to\nCeylon;--with an account of the return voyage in a good-sized ship back\nagain to China. Everywhere, with one single exception, they find the law\nof Buddha prevailing. The place referred to as exceptional is Yopoti,\nJava, of which it is said: \"In this country, heretics and Brahmins\nflourish; but the law of Buddha is not much known\" (p. 168). In every\nother spot which they visit the Chinese wanderers speak applaudingly of\nthe hold which the religion of Siddartha has upon the people, and the\nexemplary conduct of the faithful. From the beginning of the journey\nto the end, the enquirers appear always to have found the same form of\nfaith which had been preached in their own country six hundred years\nbefore. The most careful investigator fails to find a shadow of those\ndoctrines in which the teaching of Jesus differs from that of Sakya.\nThere is not any allusion made to an impending dissolution of the world,\nto baptism, or to any sacrament; every remark relates to the essentials\nof Buddhism as known in each place where Europeans have been able to\nperuse the authorized Buddhist scriptures.\n\nWe may now quote some passages bearing on important points. About the\nsources of the Indus: \"All the priests asked Fah-Hian what he knew as\nto the time when the law of Buddha began to spread eastward from their\ncountry.\" Hian replied, \"On enquiry, men of those lands agreed in saying\nthat, according to an ancient tradition, Shamans from India began to\ncarry the sacred books of Buddha beyond the river, from the time when\nthe image of Maitreya Bodhisatwa was set up.\" This image was set up\nthree hundred years or so after the Nirvana of Buddha (about B.C.\n243--or, according to some estimates, B.C. 177), which corresponds with\nthe time of Pingwang of the Chan family (b.c. 770--the Chinese date of\nBuddha's Nirvana being different from that which is usually received in\nIndia.) Hence it may be said that the diffusion of the great doctrine\ncan be attributed to the influence of this image. For, apart from the\npower of the divine teacher Mait-reya, who followed in the footsteps\nof Sakya, who would have been sufficient to cause the knowledge of the\nthree precious ones to be spread so far, that even men on the outskirts\nof the world acquired that knowledge? We may conclude, therefore, with\ncertainty, that the origin of this diffusion of the law of Buddha was no\nhuman work, but sprung from the same cause as the dream of Ming Ti\n(pp. 23-25). The three precious ones above referred to, are the Buddhist\ntrinity, everywhere acknowledged, Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha--or, as\nsome say, Buddha--the law and the church. The dream of Ming Ti resembles\nthat which we know as the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary, and foretells\nthe coming of \"the Saviour,\" one of the names given to Siddartha. The\nvision of a divine being, 70 feet high, with a body like gold, and\nhis head glorious as the sun--one who is fanciful may here discern a\nlikeness to the individual described in Rev. i. 13, seq.--induced the\nking to send to India to seek after the law of Fo, or Buddha. Some one\nspeaking of two great towers adorned with all the precious substances,\nwhich had been erected at a certain town--the Taxila of the Greeks--to\ncommemorate episodes in the life of Buddha, makes the remark \"The kings,\nministers, and people of all the surrounding countries vie with each\nother in making religious offerings at these places, in scattering\nflowers and burning incense continually\" (p. 33).\n\n\"In the city of Hilo is the Vitiara containing the relic of the\nskull-bone of Buddha. This Vitiara is entirely covered with plates of\ngold, and decorated with the seven precious substances (gold, silver,\nlapis lazuli, crystal, cornelian, coral, and ruby.) The king of the\ncountry reverences in a high degree this sacred relic.\" As this example\nshows well the Buddhist veneration for memorials of the dead, I will not\nquote more. It is clear that old bones were regarded with religious\nawe in Hindostan before they were enshrined in Christendom. In the case\nabove recorded, \"extraordinary pains are taken to preserve the relic\nfrom theft or substitution, and the king offers flowers and incense\nin front of it daily, then bends his head to the ground before it\nin adoration, and departs.\" In another place Buddha's robe is kept,\nalthough we may fairly doubt whether he ever possessed one, but\ndoubtless it is quite as authentic as \"the holy coat\" of Treves, or the\nVirgin Mary's milk. There is another relic of Sakya not yet copied by\nChristian pagans, viz., the shadow of the great teacher--which lives\nin a cave, and can only be seen by the faithful (p. 45, 46). We commend\nthis to thaumaturgical Gallican divines, such as those who describe how\ncertain it is that Mary of Judea came to show herself at Lourdes, and to\ntalk French.\n\nOn arriving at the Punjaub the record states, \"The law of Buddha is\nprosperous and flourishing here...\" On seeing disciples from China\ncoming among them they were much affected, and spoke thus: \"How\nwonderful to think that men from the ends of the earth should know the\ncharacter of this religion, and should come thus far to seek the law\nof Buddha. We received from them all that we required, and were treated\naccording to the provisions of the law\" (p. 51,52). \"All the kingdoms\nbeyond the sandy deserts are spoken of as belonging to Western India.\nThe kings of all these countries firmly believe in the law of Buddha\"\n(pp. 53, 54).\n\nIn the following, we may see the prototype of monasteries, \"From the\ntime of Buddha's Nirvana, the kings and nobles of all these countries\nbegan to erect viharas for the priesthood, and to endow them with lands,\ngardens, houses, and also men and oxen to cultivate them. The records\nof these endowments being engraved on sheets of copper, have been handed\ndown from one king to another, so that no one has dared to deprive\nthem of possession, and they continue to this day to enjoy their proper\nrevenues. All the resident priests have chambers, beds, coverlets, food,\ndrink, and clothes provided for them without stint or reserve. Thus it\nis in all places. The priests, on the other hand, continually employ\nthemselves in reciting their scriptures, in works of benevolence, or in\nprofound meditation\" (pp. 55, 56).\n\nIt is very important that we should notice, although it is unnecessary\nto dwell upon the fact, that the pilgrims visited the spot whence Buddha\nwent up to heaven to preach his law to his mother Maya, who died when\nher child was seven days old, and, consequently, long before he became\n\"the Saviour.\" The son remained with his parent three months (p. 62.)\nJesus, it will be remembered, only preached to the spirits in prison\nduring a day and a-half--which, by common consent, passes amongst\nChristians for three days. I may also notice that there is mentioned (p.\n66), an idea that three Buddhas existed before the advent of Sakya Muni,\nand that the following are their precepts, translated from the\nChinese copy of a Buddhist book:--1. The heart carefully avoiding idle\ndissipation, diligently applying itself to religion, forsaking all lust\nand consequent disappointment, fixed and immovable, attains Nirvana\n(rest.) 2. Practising no vice, advancing in the exercise of virtue, and\npurifying the mind from evil; this is the doctrine of all the Buddhas.\n3. To keep one's tongue, to cleanse one's mind, to do no ill--this\nis the way to purify oneself throughout, and to attain this state of\ndiscipline is the doctrine of all the great sages (p. 66).\n\nThe Buddhists also preserve impressions of Siddartha's feet and show\nthem to pilgrims, just as certain papal priests show the impressions of\nSt. Peter's feet at a church a little outside Rome, on the Appian\nway. The pilgrims \"visit Kapilavastu, now a desert, but once the royal\nresidence of Suddhodana. There are here a congregation of priests and\nten families of lay people. In the ruined palace there is a picture of\nthe Prince Apparent and his mother (supposed to be) taken at the time\nof his miraculous conception. The prince is represented as descending\ntowards his mother riding on a white elephant.\" This elephant came from\nthe Tusita heaven surrounded by light like the sun, and entered the\nleft side of the mother. As the elephant is the strongest of known\nterrestrial animals, it certainly represented \"The power of the Highest\"\n(see Luke i. 35), and we may draw one of two inferences--either that the\nsons of Maya and Mary were conceived equally miraculously, or that the\nstory of one is just as true or as incredible as that of the other.\nCertainly the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was known in India\nlong before it was enunciated by a Christian Pope in Rome. Perhaps, had\nPio Nono known that he was copying a Buddhistic story, he would have\nwavered long before he assimilated his religion to that of Siddartha.\nAt the same locality a tower is raised to mark the spot where the Rishi\n(Saint or Prophet) Asita calculated the horoscope of Sakya, and declared\nthat he would become a supreme Buddha--a legend which is very similar\nto that told of old Simeon and the infant Jesus (Luke ii. 25, seq.). The\npilgrims were also shown the garden--not a stable--in which Maya brought\nforth her son, and wherein immediately afterwards the infant walked. Two\ndragon kings--perhaps wise men from the East--washed the infant's body,\nand this spot afterwards became a sacred well (p. 88).\n\nWe must pass by an account of a miracle, to the full as wonderful and\nquite as incredible as that of Saint Ursula and the eleven thousand\nvirgins, who left their bones at Cologne because it has no distinct\nreference to Buddha. (P. 97)--But I may mention that the Chinese writer\nstates after the end of the story, that a certain violation of the law\noccurred one hundred years after Sakya's death, and upon this record Mr\nBeal has the following important note--\"This refers to the second great\ncouncil of the Buddhist church. According to Singhalese authorities\n(Mahawanso) there were three great convocations or councils--1st,\nimmediately after Buddha's death to compile the authorised scriptures;\n2d, to refute certain errors that had crept into the church; 3d, under\nthe great Asoka,\" (p. 99). We may doubt the value of the Mahawanso, but\nat the same time we may express a wish that early Christians had even a\ntradition of a council to compile authorised scriptures about the son\nof Mary ere time sufficient had elapsed to allow \"the marvellous\" to\ndevelop itself into \"the incredible.\"\n\nIn like manner I must omit the description of a procession of images,\namongst which that of Buddha is conspicuous; the fete is held at Patna,\nsupposed to be the ancient Palimbothra where Asoka reigned. It resembles\nin almost all its details the grand processions of the Papists on\ncertain occasions,--lamps, lights, games, riot, and religious offerings\nare mingled together for the healthy and for the sick, and wonderful\ncures are provided as far as possible. To this account is to be\nappended a very significant, perhaps I might say satirical, note by the\ntranslator of the pilgrims' manuscript. \"From the whole of this account\n(of the procession of images), it would seem that the Buddhist worship\nhad already begun to degenerate from its primitive simplicity and\nseverity. Plays and music and concerts, are strictly forbidden by the\nrules of the order; we can begin to see how Buddhism lapsed into Sivite\nworship, and sank finally into the horrors of Jaganath\" (p. 107). To\nthe thoughtful reader of our christian history, this note upon Buddhist\nprocessions of images is painfully pregnant. It reminds us that the\nfollowers of Maya's son and Mary's alike lapsed into paganism, and\nalmost by the same stages. We cannot accuse the Hindoos of copying the\norgies of the Christian saturnalia or carnival, nor do we think that the\nEuropeans cared to imitate the Hindoos; but what we do believe is that\nboth parties have fallen lower and lower from their pristine purity in\nconsequence of the gradually increasing feeling that the generality of\nhuman beings can only be brought under priestly power by an appeal to\ntheir animal propensities.\n\nSome affirm, with great show of argumentation, that it is man's bestial\npropensities which lead his race to hell. It may be so, but then, on the\nother hand, it is certain that ecclesiastics endeavour to chain us to\ntheir chariots by pandering to, managing, exciting, or otherwise playing\nupon those propensities, which man has in common with the sheep, the ox,\nthe tiger, the serpent, and the elephant. Every form of religion, yet\npromulgated, that appeals to sound sense, thought, and reason, has\nfailed from the want of followers capable of dominating their passions.\nThan a pure religion based upon thoughts such as Sakya Muni and the son\nof Mary gave utterance to, nothing seems grander, but such is its nature\nthat it can only be fully embraced by a few. If all are poor, none can\nlive upon alms--if all sell their worldly goods to purchase Heaven,\nno buyers will be found in the market. The Buddhist and the Christian\nanchorite may, for a time, live on charity, yet each succeeding\ngeneration of ascetics will more and more dislike the plan of winning\nfood by misery. We have seen how kings made grand provision for the\ncomfort of the priestly followers of the son of Maya; and in later\ntimes, we have seen how the followers of the son of Mary have, by\nartfulness, provided many similar homes for themselves. Yet, with all\nthis, there are both Buddhists and Christians who have protested,\nby their actions, against religious luxury of every kind. Each of my\nreaders may judge of what spirit he is, by asking himself whether he\nregards such individuals as wise or foolish.\n\nThe pilgrims pass on to the place where five hundred saints assembled\nafter Sakya's death to arrange the collection of sacred books (p.\n118)--thence to the spot where Siddartha bathed, and the Deva or Angel\nheld out the branch of a tree to assist him in coming out of the water\n(p. 121)--thence to the spot where Buddha was tempted by three daughters\nof Maka as courtesans, a more severe temptation than befel the Christian\nAnthony--and by Mara himself with a vast army; but all uselessly, for\nSakya was as impregnable as Jesus. And we find that in the same spot he\nsubsequently underwent mortification, not for forty days only, but for\nsix years. All of these localities are marked by towers, which must,\naccording to ecclesiastical reasoning, demonstrate the truth of the\nlegends.\n\nAfter a very long search--for the purpose of Fah Hian was to seek for\ncopies of the _Vinaya Pitaka_--he found his exertions to find a copy of\nthe sacred work were useless, because, throughout the whole of Northern\nIndia, the various masters trusted to tradition only for their knowledge\nof the precepts, and had no written codes. The pilgrims, however, when\nthey arrived in Middle India, found a copy, \"which was that used by the\nfirst great assembly of priests convened during Buddha's lifetime\" (p.\n142); this appears to have been generally regarded as the most correct\nand complete (p. 144). Fah Hian also obtained \"one copy of Precepts, in\nmanuscript, comprising about 7000 gathas (verses or stanzas). This\nwas the same as that generally used in China. In this place also an\nimperfect copy of the Abhidharma was obtained, containing 6000 gathas;\nalso, an abreviated form of Sutras, or Precepts, containing 2500 verses\nin an abreviated form; also, another expanded Sutra, with 5000 verses,\nand a second copy of the Abhidharma,\" according to the school of the\nMaha Sanghihas (the greater vehicle). \"On this account Fah Hian abode in\nthe place (Patma, the ancient Palibothra) for the space of three years,\nengaged in learning to read the Sanscrit books, to converse in that\nlanguage, and to copy the Precepts. Here his companion, To Ching,\nremained; but Fah Hian, desiring with his whole heart to spread the\nknowledge of the Precepts throughout China, returned alone\" (p. 146).\nThis pilgrim then goes to the kingdom of Champa, where he stopped two\nyears, to copy out sacred Sutras, and to take impressions of the figures\nused in worship. Here the law of Buddha was generally respected. He\nthen sailed in a great merchant vessel for Ceylon (p. 148). From this\nexpression we presume that he entered a seaport, and, as such, one\nlikely to have been reached by some Christian missionary, if any had\never visited India, as Paul attained Asia Minor, Italy, &c. All that we\nlearn about it, however, is in a translator's note, which tells us that\nthe place was mentioned by another China man, Hiouen Thsang, who spoke\nof the number of heretical sects who were mixed together here--Buddhism\nbeing here corrupted at an early period by local superstitions. In\nCeylon Fah Hian remained two years, and, continuing his search for the\nsacred books, obtained a copy of the Vinaya Pitaka, of the great Agama,\nand the miscellaneous Agama (books of elementary doctrine), also a\nvolume of miscellaneous collections from the Pitakas, all of which were\nhitherto entirely unknown in China. Having obtained these works in the\noriginal language (Pali), he forthwith shipped himself on board a great\nmerchant vessel, which carried about 200 men, and started for his native\nland (p. 166). \"After Fah Hian left home, he was five years in arriving\nat Mid India. He resided there during six years, and was three more ere\nhe arrived again in China. He had successively passed through thirty\ndifferent countries.\" In all the countries of India, after passing the\nsandy desert (of Gobi), the dignified carriage of the priesthood, and\nthe surprising influence of religion (amongst the people), cannot be\nadequately described... \"Having been preserved by Divine power (by\nthe influences of the Three honourable Ones), and brought through all\ndangers safely, he was induced to commit to writing the record of his\ntravels, desirous that the virtuous of all ages may be informed of them\nas well as himself\" (p. 173).\n\nAfter reading this account, we think that no thoughtful man can\nreasonably assert that Christianity was taught in India at an early\nperiod, was widely adopted, and became the parent of Buddhism. If, in\nrejoinder, we are told that no writers have asserted that there were\nChristians in India in olden times, except in Malabar, the answer is,\nthat these were described by those who first met with their successors\nas totally distinct from the Hindoos, and, consequently, neither\nBuddhists nor Brahmins. Moreover, we are told that they were regarded\nby the Holy Inquisition of Europe as heretics, and were, consequently,\npersecuted by the Christians (see Gibbon's _Roman Empire_, vol. viii,\n355).\n\nRosse, in his book of dates (London, 1858), speaks of an Indian embassy\nto Constantine the Great, a.d. 334, and another sent to Constantius the\nSecond, but received by Julian, A.D. 362. I cannot, however, as yet,\nfind his authority. But Socrates, in his _Ecclesiastical History_,\nbook i, ch. 19, about A.D. 331, speaks of a treaty which had been in\nexistence a short time before, between the Romans and the Indians, but\nwhich had been recently violated. He also, in the same chapter, states\nthat there were Christians amongst the Roman merchants in India--no\ntown or locality being given, however, so that we cannot test his\nassertion--but that they did not then unite to worship. We find also,\nfrom the same chapter, that up to that period there were no Christian\nIndians known.\n\nCoupling the foregoing fragments of history together, we may safely\nassert that India, generally, was Buddhist in A.D. 400, and that,\naccording to Pliny, the Romans, or, rather, the Alexandrians, had been\nin yearly communication with the country, for at least three centuries,\nat the time of Constantine. As it appears that there were Roman\nmerchants in India, so we presume that there were Hindoo traders\nresident in Egypt. The presumption is, that these were Buddhists, and\nthat they were attended, or followed, by missionary Buddhist priests.\nAbsolute proof of this there is none.\n\nWe now turn to Gibbon's history, and inquire into the period when\nmonastic asceticism first began to prevail in Egypt, the necessary\nresidence of our presumed Hindoo traffickers. We find (see _Decline and\nFall_, chapter 37) that Anthony, an Egyptian, and unable to write in\nGreek, living in the lower parts of Thebais, distributed his patrimony,\ndeserted his family and native home, lived amongst tombs, or in a ruined\ntower, then in the desert, and then in some lonely spot, near the Red\nSea, where he found shade and water. It certainly seems clear that he\ntook the son of Maya, rather than the child of Mary, as his exemplar.\nAt and after this time, the rage for asceticism spread amongst the\ninhabitants of Eastern Africa as conspicuously as it had done in\nOriental Asia at the time of Asoka. It is difficult to read the chapter\nof Gibbon's history to which we refer, and a history of Buddhism,\nwithout regarding Egypt, and her miserable ascetics, in the same light\nas we look upon the folks of Hindustan and Thibet. If Jesus of Nazareth\nhad dictated such a life, surely his early followers would have been\nmore conspicuous in their habitual mortifications than their later\ndisciples were. The son of man--the child of Mary--\"came eating and\ndrinking,\" and was called \"a gluttonous man and a wine bibber, a friend\nof publicans and sinners\" (Luke vii. 34; Matt, xi. 19). Not so the\nson of Maya. The Apostles of Jesus had power to lead about a wife or a\nsister, and they did so. Neither Paul nor Peter shunned woman's society,\nnor did they practise poverty; nay, they worked with their own hands,\nlest they should have to live on alms (2 Thess. iii. 8), and they\ncollected money for poor saints from the wealthier brethren. There was\nno asceticism here, nor can we find, in any part of the New Testament, a\ntext upon which a system of austerity can be founded.\n\nWe might, perhaps, think comparatively little of the parallel which we\nhave drawn between Buddhism, and Christianity, did we not recognize the\nfact, that almost everyone of the later developments of the latter had,\nfor centuries before, found a place in the former, even including, as we\nhave mentioned, the dogma of the immaculate conception.\n\nTo the preceding considerations we may add another, which, as Ivanhoe\nsaid of himself, \"is of lesser renown and lower rank, and assumed into\nthe honourable company less to aid their enterprise than to make up\ntheir number.\" Standing alone it may have small power, but as a link\nin a chain it is important. We refer to the abundant testimony which\nwe possess of the strength of Grecian influence upon the tenets of\nChristianity. Without laying any stress upon the fact that the whole\nof the New Testament extant is written in Greek, we may advert to the\ncurrent belief amongst thoughtful scholars, that the so-called Gospel of\nSt. John was written by some Alexandrian Greek about 150 A.D., or by one\nwho was imbued with the philosophy of Plato. Sharpe has distinctly shown\nthat the doctrine of the trinity was held in Ancient Egypt, and first\nadopted, then promulgated, by the Egyptian or Alexandrian divines. The\ninfluence of Greek ideas upon Philo Judaeus is very conspicuous.\n\nWe may now turn our attention to one statement about the Athenians,\nviz., \"that they and the strangers which were there spent their time\nin nothing else than to tell and to hear some new thing,\" and that they\nwere so particular--in this respect resembling the Ancient Peruvians--in\nadopting foreign gods, that they had an altar to the Unknown Deity (Acts\nxvii). To this we must add what Sozomen says of them (_Ecclesiastical\nHistory_, book ii. chap. 24)--that the most celebrated philosophers\namongst the Greeks took pleasure in exploring unknown cities and\nregions. Plato, the friend of Socrates, dwelt for a time amongst the\nEgyptians, in order to acquaint himself with their manners and customs.\nHe likewise sailed to Sicily, to examine its craters.... These craters\nwere likewise explored by Empedocles. Democritus of Coos relates that he\nvisited many cities, and countries, and nations, and that eighty years\nof his life were spent in travelling in foreign lands. Besides these\nphilosophers, thousands of wise men amongst the Greeks, ancient and\nmodern, habituated themselves to travel. Solon, it is well known,\ntravelled to the court of Croesus, and it is affirmed that Pythagoras\nvisited India. Sozomen makes the above statement to explain how it was\nthat Merope of Tyre, with two young relatives, visited India, the two\nlatter becoming its first two bishops.\n\nNothing is more probable than that Greeks, who had resided for a time\nin India, on their return, believing that as they had recognized\nin Hindostan an earnest form of Christianity, differing from the\nAlexandrian standard only in a few minor points, thought it right to\nintroduce into western religion Buddhist practices--first into Egypt,\n_via_ Alexandria, and thence into Europe. We certainly cannot prove\nthat they did it, but there is a very good reason for believing so.\nThe doctrines of Jesus emanated, we believe, from some early Asoka's\nmissionaries; whilst the doctrines of the Alexandrians and the Ascetics,\ncame from subsequent Buddhists, who placed their stamp on Christianity\nonce more.\n\nThus we have been led, by a strict inquiry into every extant testimony\nknown, to believe that the faith taught by Siddartha, was held for at\nleast 250--and most probably, 500 years, before our era. Still further,\nwe have been led to believe, from the extraordinary energy and success\nof Buddhist missionaries in the three centuries before Christ--a success\nbefore which all Christian missionary enterprise pales--that emissaries\nfrom Asoka's colleges of priests, penetrated westward with the Greeks as\nfar as the eastern shores of the Mediterranean, and forced some devout\nJews to modify their belief. But, though it is probable that the Hindoo\nteachers introduced the morality inculcated by Sakya Muni, it seems\ncertain that they could not induce their Hebrew disciples to abandon\ntheir implicit trust in those writings which they had been induced\nto think were absolutely inspired or written by direct command of\nthe Almighty--consequently, Christianity must be regarded not as pure\nBuddhism, but a form of it modified by Jewish traditions. But when those\nwho embraced the religion of Jesus, had learned to distrust the literal\ntruth of the Old Testament, and had the certainty that the prophesies\nabout the immediate destruction of the world were false, they came again\ninto contact with Buddhist teaching, and were content to forego\nJudaism. They did not, however, give up Jesus as the Saviour. Instead of\nbelieving with Sakya, that man suffered for his own sin, they clung to\nthe legend of Adam and Eve, and affirmed that suffering was introduced\ninto the whole world by this very original couple. Instead of Nirvana,\ntheir heaven was Ouranos--the sky above them. Instead of an abode where\nall the senses were at rest, they adopted the idea of a golden city,\nwith a river of crystal running through it; brilliant with jewels, and\nguarded by gates and walls in which all the good should spend their time\nin singing and music. The Christians adopted all the Asceticism, dirt,\nand love of vermin, that the disciples of Sakya, and even Siddartha\nhimself, delighted in--but they nevertheless clung to the idea that the\nworld was sure to be destroyed, and that Jesus would come again. It\nis indeed, difficult to reconcile the belief, that he who washed his\ndisciples' feet, and praised a woman for cleaning and anointing his own,\nsanctioned an idea which, throughout centuries, urged religionists to be\nfilthy; yet we must do so if we are orthodox. We have, indeed, similar\nanomalies now. Devout Christians tell us that this world ought to be\nmade a preparation for another; and that the main joy of heaven will\nbe an indefinite increase of knowledge. Yet these same people\naffirm, sometimes in distinct terms, that an extension of scientific\nattainments, and a constant inquiry into the will of God, as expressed\nin the works of His hands, are snares of the Devil, and so to be avoided\nby all good people. The Orthodox as a rule believe--though few venture\nto affirm it, that Jehovah loves the fools the best, and that ignorance\nis godliness.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\n     Estimation of the Bible. The Dhammapada and Hebrew (sacred)\n     books. Certain important dates. Jews were never\n     missionaries. Precepts of Buddha. Contrasts. How to overcome\n     undesirable thoughts. Knowledge beats prayer. Sunday\n     proverbs. New birth. Divines preach brotherly love in the\n     pulpit, and provoke hate when out of it. Buddhist precept is\n     \"do as I do,\" not \"do as I say.\" The narrow way of the\n     Gospel finds an origin in Buddhism. One law broken all law\n     broken--a Buddhist maxim. Sakya taught about a future world.\n     Parallel passages. Effect of Buddhist and Christian\n     teaching. Parallel passages about truth and almsgiving.\n     Ignorance a Buddhist vice and a Christian virtue.\n     _Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi_ in the pulpit Classes in\n     the religious world. Why ignorance is cherished. Ignorance\n     often more profitable than knowledge. Examples. Charlatans\n     live by the fools. Honest doctors and parsons must be poor.\n     Poverty an essential part of Buddhism. Hierarchs are quite\n     unnecessary to the enlightened man. Parallel passages again.\n     Unphilosophical dicta in Buddhism and Bible. Prosperity not\n     a proof of propriety, and misery not always a reward of\n     badness. Lions and lambs. Design in creation. Right and\n     wrong--do they exist before the Creator. False analogies.\n     Persecution a Christian but not a Buddhist practice. Popgun\n     thunders from the Vatican. Age not equivalent to wisdom.\n     Siddartha did not prophesy, and so made no mistake about\n     that which was to follow. More negatives and positives.\n     Another contrast No obscene stories in Buddhist as in Jewish\n     scriptures--no legend of Lot and his daughters, David and\n     Bathsheba, of Onan, Judah and Tamar, Zimri, Cozbi, and\n     Phinehas, and a host of others. A good deal of nonsense in\n     all ancient writings. The foolish stories and prophecies of\n     the Bible--if abstracted, little remains. The little might\n     be improved by extracts from Plato, Epictetus, and Buddhist\n     scriptures, and even from those of Confucius.\n\nFrom the earliest times which I can remember, I have heard the English\nBible spoken of with the utmost reverence, as the undoubted word of God,\nas a revelation of the will, ways, and even the thoughts of the Supreme\nBeing. Everything which it contains has been regarded as infallibly\ntrue, and the wisdom, goodness, mercy, and justice of its doctrines\nand laws have been judged to be unimpeachable. From the pulpit of many\nearnest divines I have heard innumerable sermons whose burden has\nbeen praise of, and admiration for, the morality of the Old and\nNew Testaments, the sublimity of the language therein used, and the\nloftiness of the thoughts embodied. From those same teachers, and from\na still greater number of laymen, I have heard the assertion repeatedly\nmade that the Bible must be divinely inspired, because no other set of\nmen, except those who composed its books, could write so powerfully; and\ndepict so graphically, the wants, the woes, the pleasures, the passions,\nthe aspirations, and the doubts of the human mind. By a great majority,\nif not by the whole of our imperfectly educated ministers and people,\nthe assertion to which we here refer is raised to the position of an\nargument; and any opponent who ventures to question the truth of the\nassumption, is challenged to show a book of divinity equal or superior\nto the Bible.\n\nThe worthlessness of the argument might be readily shown to any one\naccustomed to use his reason, by pointing out that the religious books\nof the Ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Medea, Persians, and\nEtruscans, are lost to us. We may compare the assertion with that which\nEnglishmen might have made, to the effect that the British breed of\nhorses was superior to any other, for no one could show them a better;\nyet as soon as our Crusaders became acquainted with the Arabian steed,\nthe value of the assumption was destroyed. Yet such a remark would be\nwholly inoperative on the mind of every bigot whose judgment of evidence\nis always bribed by his prejudice. Consequently, to make any serious\nimpression upon the mind of the Bibliolater, it is desirable, if\npossible, to make copies of the holy images worshipped by other nations,\nunder the name of sacred books, and to place these side by side with\nthat grotesque production, which, for our purposes, may be compared to\nDiana of the Ephesians--the thing which fell down from Jupiter.\n\nYet even when we do bring from distant countries, to which in our\ncomplacency we give the name of \"heathen,\" copies of their deified\nbooks, and show their equality with, or superiority to that which we\nare told was arranged by the disposition of angels (Acts vii. 53)--the\nscriptures that Paul (2 Tim. iii. 16) affirms were entirely given by\ninspiration of God [--Greek--], see also 1 Pet. i. 11, 12,--we are met\nby the assertion, if the equality is allowed, that the Pagan writings\nhave been copied from, or are traceable to, the writers in the Old or in\nthe New Testament.\n\nWhenever a thoughtless theologian asserts that such a thing _must_ be\nso, he is not by any means particular as to the facts upon which he\nbases his belief. This weakness of his is so conspicuous to the logical\nobserver, that he sometimes feels pity at having to wound a mind so\nearnest as to be unable to use its reason. He almost regards himself as\na man fighting a child or a weak woman. Yet men will, in their power and\nknowledge, deprive a baby of a bon-bon, which it is sucking eagerly, if\nthey know that it is poisonous, and will lay violent hands upon a tender\ngirl who, in a whirlwind of passion, is about to throw herself before a\nrailway train. After the event both the individuals may learn to thank\nthe roughness which saved them; and I feel sure that many an earnest\nreligionist, who now thinks that the philosophers are treating him\ncruelly, by trying to deprive him of a cherished faith, will ultimately\nbe grateful for having been induced to cease grovelling in the dust of a\ncoarse antiquity.\n\nIf we endeavour to ascertain the basis of the belief that everything\nwhich is good _must_ have come from the Bible, we find that it exists in\nthe assertion that the Jews were the chosen people of God, selected by\nHim to receive a record of His past doings and His future desires. Hence\nit is argued, that all who have not been taught by the Jews, or through\ntheir influence, are without God in the world--poor, benighted pagans.\nTo support assumptions so monstrous as this, there is not a tittle of\nevidence beyond the existence of certain stories in some books, said to\ncontain a truthful record of facts. But although the theologian heaps up\nprotestation upon asseveration until the mass attains an imposing size,\nthe whole is not of more substantial value than a huge bubble blown by\nan energetic school boy. If millions could be brought to believe that\nsuch a hollow sphere was a solid, painted with the most resplendent\ncolours obtained from the celestial mansions, it would not make it other\nthan a film of soap and water filled with air.\n\nYet though the unanimous consent of myriads cannot convert foam into a\nsolid substance, a mass of froth may be treated as if it were something\nbetter, so long as all agree not to test its qualities; and any book\nmay in like manner be regarded as of divine origin, so long as everybody\ndetermines not to test the reality of the opinion. We can easily imagine\nthat those who have been educated to believe in the absolute density\nof a bubble, must be greatly distressed when it bursts. Indeed in every\nmercantile community we see frequent illustrations of this. Designing\nmen weave a plausible story, and by inflated words induce a number of\nthoughtless people to believe their statements, adopt their promises,\nand act upon their recommendation. Whilst all seems to be prosperous,\nevery dupe repels with indignation the statement that the whole of his\nconfraternity are deceived. If faith in the stability of a banking house\ncould have upheld it, Overend & Gurnets would never have broken. If\nthen faith, the most complete and child-like trust in the truth of\nanything,--say particularly in a certain book--will not make it valuable\nif it be in reality worthless, then all those who wish to feel beneath\nthem the everlasting arms of truth, should inquire into current beliefs\nrather than take everything for granted.\n\nAt the time when the wealth, power, and stability of the Bank above\nreferred to were implicitly believed in by the many, and especially\ntrusted by its shareholders, there were, outside of its pale, many\nindividuals who felt sure that the establishment was very shaky, and a\nfew who were aware that it was toppling to its fall. If then, at that\ntime, any customer or proprietor, feeling a doubt about its safety,\nshould have endeavoured to investigate the rumours which were adverse to\nit; and should have acted as reason dictated, after he had weighed the\nalleged facts on both sides, he might have came to a safe decision\nand saved his money. What is true in this case may be applied to the\nBible--the Bank upon which so many draw large drafts, and in whose\nstability they have unbounded confidence. The thoughtless may, and\ndoubtless will, continue to trust it implicitly--the thoughtful will\nprobably consult, not only the Bibliolaters, but those who put no faith\nwhatever in the volume, and judge for themselves.\n\nThe fear which many men have of biblical inquiry, has for a long period\nstruck me as being inexplicable, inasmuch as it is at variance with the\nassertion of these very same people, that an examination of the book\nmust prove it to be infallibly true. But investigation into a supposed\ntruth can only end by confirming it fully, and thus making the truth\nmore useful; or by demonstrating that the belief entertained is\nuntenable. It has been the dread--nay the certainty, of the latter\nresult, which has deterred many great minds from investigating the\nmatter. Amongst these the late Professor Faraday was conspicuous, for we\nlearn from a letter in the Athenaeum of Jan. 7, 1870, written by one of\nhis own personal friends, that he--perhaps the most accomplished seeker\nafter physical truth in his time, declined firmly to search into the\nvalue of the commonly received notions respecting \"the scriptures,\" as\nhe felt sure that his faith in them would thereby be shaken. Yet he was\nillogical enough to use them as a basis for his theological teaching.\nHe preached to others from texts in which he had no confidence; and\nsupported his doctrines by quotations from a book which, in his secret\nheart, he felt was valueless as an exponent of historical truth, or\northodox teaching.\n\nBefore we proceed to the comparison between the \"Dhammapada\" and the\nBible, it will be judicious to place fairly before the reader the points\nwhich we hope to elucidate. We wish to show, by a collation of dates and\ndoctrines, that the two are wholly independent of each other, and as we\nhave elsewhere remarked, that if there has been any relationship between\nBuddhist and Christian writings, the first have had more than two\ncenturies' precedence over the last. We wish to compare the morality\ntaught by Buddha, with that promulgated in the Old and New Testaments.\nWe desire impartially to examine into the question, whether the claim\nfor inspiration can be allowed in either one case or the other, or in\nboth together--whether, indeed, it is possible to believe the Hebrew\nscriptures to be dictated by God, without giving a similar confidence\nto the teachings of Sakya Muni--or, assuming that there is to be found a\ncode of pure morality or ethics which we may suppose to be of universal\napplication, we shall endeavour to ascertain whether the Hebrews and the\nfollowers of Mary, or the disciples of the son of Maya Deva, have made\nthe nearest approach to its discovery and establishment. Collaterally\nwe shall examine whether Jesus has a greater claim than Buddha to be the\nSon of God. The Dhammapada which has recently (Truebner & Co., London,\n1870*) been translated by Max Muelller from the Pali, is one of the many\nbooks which profess to give, as our Gospels and Epistles do of Christ,\nthe teachings or precepts of Buddha. These were for some two or three\ncenturies traditional only; but about the period, B.C. 300, many, if not\nmost of them, were committed to writing. As far as can be ascertained,\nthe year b.c. 246 was the period of the first Buddhist council under\nAsok, and shortly after this, Mahuida, a priestly son of Asoka, went as\na missionary to Ceylon; other emissaries went to Burmah, China, Japan,\nand it is believed elsewhere. The oral promulgation of the Dhammapada\nwould probably begin about b.c. 560--twenty years or thereabouts before\nthe death of Siddartha. If we turn to contemporary history in the west\nof Asia, we find that at this period Jerusalem was in ruins, and the\nJews were captives in Babylonia--no copies of any Hebrew sacred book\nwere known to be in existence (2 Esdras xiv. 21; 2 Maccabees ii.\n1-13--see also 1 Maccabees i. 21-23), and, so far as we could\nlearn, India was a country wholly unknown to the Shemitic race. The\nacquaintanceship between Hindustan and Europe seems to have been made in\nthe time when the Greek monarch, Alexander, overthrew Darius of Persia.\nAlexander invaded India about b.c. 327, consequently we infer that there\nwas no possibility of Buddha being influenced by western notions in b.c.\n560.\n\n     * _Buddhaghosa's Parables_, translated from Burmese, by Capt\n     T. Rogers; with an introduction, containing Buddha's\n     Dhammapada, or \"Path of Virtue,\" by Max Mueller.   Truebner &\n     Co., London, 1870.\n\nTo these considerations we must add the fact that the Jews have\nnever been, from the earliest to the latest times, a missionary\nnation,--indeed, their laws and precepts forced them to be so peculiarly\nreserved, that even if they had known about India they would not have\nsent their emissaries there, inasmuch as the Mosaic law obliged them to\npresent themselves at the Temple at Jerusalem thrice a-year, which was\nwholly incompatible with distant travel. Moreover, there are many extant\nhistories to show that intelligent westerns went to India for knowledge\nand religion, and never seemed to think of carrying their own faith\nthither. The whole course of history points to religion and civilization\ncoming westerly from India or Central Asia.\n\nThe dates above given will clearly show that Sakya Muni could not have\nderived his ideas from the teaching of Jesus, or of the Talmudists,\nneither of whom were in existence when he flourished. Whatever\nsimilarity, therefore, we find in the doctrines, &c., of the two, cannot\nbe accounted for by supposing that Christian missionaries carried the\nNew Testament to India. The reverse is far more probable, as we have\ndemonstrated in a preceding chapter.\n\nSome inquirers into the history of the sons of Maya Deva and of Mary are\nso convinced of the priority of the first, and of the close resemblance\nof the incidents in the lives and in the teaching of the two, that\nthey have found themselves forced, reluctantly, to consider the\nquestion--whether Christianity is not Buddhism altered in some respects\nby Judaism. This point having been elsewhere spoken of, we will not\npursue it. But a far more important, and, for many Christians, a more\nmomentous inquiry, is, whether we can speak of the Son of Mary as the\noffspring of Jehovah, and yet affirm that the child of Maya Deva\nwas nothing but a common man. So deeply have some been moved by this\nconsideration, that I have positively heard the opinion broached, that\nthe Indian sage was the very same as he who subsequently was put to\ndeath in Jerusalem. Wild though the allegation is, there is quite as\ngreat an amount of probability in it as in the assertion that Jesus went\nand preached unto those spirits which were sometime disobedient, i.e.,\nin the time of Noah (1 Pet. iii. 19, 20), and were, consequently, then in\nprison, or that Buddha went to his dead mother, and converted her to\nhis own faith. About supernatural births we shall treat in a succeeding\npart.\n\nWithout incumbering our pages with all the precepts of the Dhammapada,\nwe will copy a few in detail to show the reader their style, and then\nwe will only quote those which are most appropriate to our subject. The\nopening paragraphs singularly resemble those in Bacon's _Novum Organon_,\nand run thus--\"All that we are, is the result of what we have thought:\nit is founded on our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts with an evil\nthought, pain follows him, as the wheel follows the foot of him who\ndraws the carriage (lv.).\"\n\n2. \"All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded\non our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts\nwith a pure thought, happiness follows him, like a shadow that never\nleaves him\" (lvi. et. seq.).\n\n3. \"He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me--hatred in\nthose who harbour such thoughts will never cease.\"**\n\n4. \"He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me--hatred in\nthose who do not harbour such thoughts will cease.\"\n\n5. \"For hatred does not cease by hatred at any time; hatred ceases by\nlove\"--this is an old rule.\n\n     * The figures refer to the separate precepts, which are\n     given in numerical order.\n\n     ** With this and the following saying we may compare the\n     words of the Psalms--\"Do not I hate those, O Lord, that hate\n     thee? and am I not grieved with those that rise up against\n     thee? I hate them with a perfect hatred; I count them mine\n     enemies\" (Ps. cxxxix. 21, 22). The words of David, said to\n     be a man after God's own heart, are equally opposed to the\n     law of love, viz., \"Thou hast given me the necks of my\n     enemies, that I might destroy them that hate me\" (2 Sam.\n     xxii. 41; Ps. xviii. 40); I shall see my desire on them that\n     hate me\" (Ps. cxviii. 7). In Deuteronomy we find, moreover,\n     that indulgence in hatred is attributed to the Almighty,\n     \"who repayeth them that hate Him to their face to destroy\n     them: He (God) will not be slack to him that hateth Him, he\n     will repay him to his face\" (chap. vii. 10). Hatred of their\n     enemies is, indeed, everywhere encouraged in the Jewish\n     Scriptures, called sacred, and the Hebrew Jehovah is\n     described as one with whom the power to hate and revenge\n     Himself is a favourite luxury.\n\n6. \"And some do not know that we must come to an end here; but others\nknow it, and hence their quarrels cease.\"\n\n7. \"He who lives looking for pleasures only, his senses uncontrolled,\nimmoderate in his enjoyments, idle and weak, Mara (the Tempter, the\nAdversary, or Satan) will certainly overcome him, as the wind throws\ndown a weak tree.\"\n\n8. \"He who lives without looking for pleasures, his senses well\ncontrolled, in his enjoyments moderate, faithful and strong, Mara will\ncertainly not overcome him, any more than the wind throws down a rocky\nmountain.\"\n\n11. \"They who imagine truth in untruth, and see untruth in truth, never\narrive at truth, but follow vain desires.\"\n\n15. \"The evildoer mourns in this world, and he mourns in the next, he\nmourns in both.\"....\n\n16. \"The virtuous man delights in this world, and he delights in the\nnext; he delights in both.\"\n\nWe may pause here, and ask ourselves whether, throughout the whole of\nthe Old Testament, we can find a single passage which so distinctly\npoints to a future state as does this Buddhistic teaching. Yet\nbibliolaters assert that the effusions of Jewish writers were inspired\nby God! Mortal men cannot tell what takes place after their bodies have\nbecome dissipated into various chemical compounds; consequently, they\ncannot decide, with certainty, which deserves the greater credit for\naccuracy--the Dhammapada, or the Hebrew Scriptures; but all those who\nbelieve in the teaching of Jesus are bound to acknowledge that the\nIndian sage was inspired by a power superior to that which is said to\nhave dictated to the Israelite.\n\nHow profitably, again, might the following observations be enunciated\nfrom our pulpits, instead of the vapid and superficial divinity, which\ndisgraces both the utterer and the listener:--\n\n21. \"Reflection is the path of immortality, thoughtlessness the path of\ndeath. Those who reflect do not die; those who are thoughtless are as if\ndead already.\"\n\n25. \"By rousing himself, by reflection, by restraint and control, the\nwise man may make for himself an island, which no flood can overwhelm.\"\n\n27. \"Follow not after vanity, nor after the enjoyment of love and lust.\nHe who reflects and meditates obtains ample joy\"\n\nWe dare not affirm that the writer of the first epistle of John was\nfamiliar with the Dhammapada, but his words (chap. ii, v. 15), \"Love not\nthe world, neither the things that are in the world,\" &c., are as purely\nBuddhistic as if he had known the doctrine of the Indian sage.\n\nWe doubt whether, in the whole Bible, a parallel passage to the\nfollowing can be found:--\n\n36. \"Let the wise man guard his thoughts, for they are difficult to\nperceive, very artful, and they rush wherever they list: thoughts well\nguarded bring happiness.\"\n\nIt is true that in the Psalms, and elsewhere, there is a full\nrecognition of the power of God to know, and even to punish man for,\nbad thoughts, but there is no precept recommending man to cultivate his\nmental powers for the pleasure which the task will bring. The following\nobservation is equally to be commended:--\n\n40. \"Knowing that this body is (fragile) like a jar, and making this\nthought firm like a fortress, one should attack Mara (the tempter, or\nSatan, the adversary) with the weapon of knowledge, one should watch him\nwhen conquered, and never cease from the fight.\"\n\nA few moments' consideration here, will show the reader that there is\na fundamental distinction between the theology of the East and West\nin reference to the management of \"the thoughts of the heart.\" Jew\nand Christian teachers alike encourage their disciples to combat evil\nthoughts by prayer and by fasting, but they never once allude to the\nvalue of \"knowledge\" as a weapon. Yet, of its power, relatively to\nsupplication, none can have a doubt. It it probable that no man or woman\ncan attain to adult age without being aware of the intrusion, into their\nminds, of thoughts, whose presence greatly distresses the individual,\nand the worst of these is, that they take so complete a possession,\nas not to be driven away by any simple wrestling with them. In this\nemergency the devout Christian has recourse to prayer, which serves to\nnail the intruder even more closely to his seat. The philosopher, on\nthe other hand, turns his mind to think actively upon some other subject\nthan that which has intruded upon him, and as soon as he has fixed his\nattention upon the second, the first immediately withdraws. Smarting,\nfor example, under a sense of ridicule from some accident which has\nhappened to himself in a ball-room, or other assembly, a man may retire\nto his pillow, yet find thereupon no rest. He sees, every minute, the\nmerry faces which laughed when he put the sprig of lavender, that his\nlovely partner gave him for a keepsake, behind his ear, as if it were\na pen, and grinds his teeth with rage or shame. Yet, if he now betakes\nhimself to go through the preparations which ought to be made to enable\nobservers to notice accurately the transit of Venus, and then the means\nby which they can approximately ascertain the mean distance of the sun\nfrom the earth, he will find at once a pleasant refuge from his trouble,\nand fall asleep whilst extracting a square root. Those young men, and\nothers, who, like the old saints are said to have done, often suffer\nmuch from what may be called \"presumptuous desires of the flesh,\" will\nfind the acquisition of knowledge is a powerful agent in subduing\nthe cravings of lust, and hard thinking curbs our passions far more\neffectually than the scourge of the ascetic, or the prayers of the\nhermit. Mental activity, although it does not entirely remove it,\ndoes much to repress inordinate desire, and we consequently prefer the\nteaching of the son of Maya to that of any son of Abraham.\n\nOf the estimate of a well-regulated mind we have the following:--\n\n42. \"Whatever a hater may do to a hater, or an enemy to an enemy, a\nwrongly-directed mind will do us greater mischief.\"\n\n43. \"Not a mother, not a father, nor any other relative, will do so much\nthat a well-directed mind will not do us greater service.\" To this we\ncan find no parallel in the Hebrew scriptures.\n\nSome of the following are equal to any of those proverbs attributed to\nSolomon:--\n\n76. \"If you see an intelligent man who tells you where true treasures\nare to be found, who shows you what is to be avoided, and who\nadministers reproofs, follow that wise man: it will be better, not\nworse, for those who follow him.\"\n\n78. \"Do not have evildoers for friends, do not have low people; have\nvirtuous people for friends, have for friends the best of men.\"\n\n80. \"Well-makers lead the water wherever they like, fletchers bend the\narrow, carpenters bend a log of wood, wise people fashion themselves.\"\n\n81. \"As a solid rock is not shaken by the wind, wise people falter not\namidst blame and praise.\"\n\n94. \"The gods even envy him whose senses have been subdued, like horses\nwell broken in by the driver, who is free from pride and free from\nfrailty.\"\n\n97. \"The man who is free from credulity, but knows the uncreated, who\nhas cut all ties, removed all temptations renounced all desires, he is\nthe greatest of men.\" A saying which is almost identical with \"He that\nis slow to anger is better than the mighty, and he that ruleth his\nspirit better than he that taketh a city\" (Prov. xvi. 32). Those\nChristians who believe in works of supererogation, and trust to stores\nof merit laid up by certain saints, who have lashed their bodies and\notherwise injured themselves, may read the following opinion with\nprofit:--\n\n108. \"Whatever a man sacrifices in this world as an offering or as an\noblation for a whole year in order to gain merit, the whole of it is not\nworth a quarter; reverence shown to the righteous is better.\"\n\nRespecting evil, we find the following:--\n\n116. \"If a man would hasten towards the good, he should keep his thought\naway from evil; if a man does what is good slothfully, his mind delights\nin evil.\"\n\n117. \"If a man commits a sin, let him not do it again, let him not\ndelight in sin; pain is the outcome of evil.\"\n\n118. \"If a man does what is good let him do it again, let him delight in\nit; happiness is the outcome of good.\"\n\n126. \"Some people are born again; evil-doers go to Hell, righteous\npeople go to Heaven; those who are free from all worldly desires enter\nNirvana.\"\n\nIt is therefore clear that Jesus of Nazareth did not inaugurate the idea\nof a new birth.\n\nIn precept 133 we have another sentiment parallel with a passage in\nProverbs: \"Do not speak harshly to anybody; those who are spoken to will\nanswer thee in the same way. Angry speech is painful blows, for blows\nwill touch thee;\" or, as our Bible has it, \"A soft answer turneth away\nwrath, but grievous words stir up anger\" (Prov. xv. 1).\n\nThe following is a reproach to a vast number of individuals who are\ncalled Christian preachers, and teach doctrines of brotherly love, but\nact as if religious hatred of dissenters of every class were a duty:--\n\n159. \"Let each man make himself as he teaches others to be; he who is\nwell subdued may subdue others; one's own self is difficult to subdue.\"\n\n166. \"Let no one neglect his own duty for the sake of another's,\nhowever great: let a man, after he has discerned his own duty, be always\nattentive to his duty.\"\n\nThe following might have served as the original of the epistles of\nJohn:--\n\n167. \"Do not follow the evil law! Do not live on in thoughtlessness! Do\nnot follow false doctrine! Be not a friend of the world.\"\n\n168. 9. \"Rouse thyself! do not be idle, follow the law of virtue--do not\nfollow that of sin. The virtuous lives happily in this world and in the\nnext.\"\n\n170, 1, 2, 3, & 4. \"Look upon the world as a bubble; the foolish are\nimmersed in it, but the wise do not cling to it. He who formerly was\nreckless, and afterwards became sober, and he whose evil deeds are\ncovered by good deeds, brighten up this world like the moon when freed\nfrom clouds.\"\n\n174. \"This world is dark--few only can be here; a few only go to heaven\nlike birds escaped from the net.\" A statement repeated by Jesus in\ndifferent words,--\"Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which\nleadeth unto life, and few there be that find it\" (Matt. vii. 14). There\nmay likewise be a comparison instituted between the following:--\n\n176. \"If a man has transgressed one law, and speaks lies and scoffs at\nanother world, there is no evil he will not do.\" \"Whosoever shall keep\nthe whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all\" (Jas.\nii. 10).\n\nI quote this and the next saying to corroborate the assertion that\nBuddha taught the existence of a future world:--\n\n177. \"The uncharitable do not go to the world of the gods; fools only do\nnot praise liberality; a wise man rejoices in liberality, and through\nit becomes blessed in the other world.\"\n\nCompare 1 Tim. vi. 17, 18,19, \"Charge them that are rich in this\nworld.... that they be--ready to distribute, willing to communicate,\nlaying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to\ncome, that they may lay hold on eternal life.\"\n\nSee again (306), \"He who says what is not, goes to hell; he also who,\nhaving done a thing, says I have not done it. After death both are\nequal, they are men with evil deeds in the next world.\"\n\n309. \"Four things does a reckless man gain who covets his neighbour's\nwife--a bad reputation, an uncomfortable bed--thirdly, punishment, and,\nlastly, hell.\"\n\n310. \"There is bad reputation, and the evil way (to hell).\"\n\n311. \"As a grass blade if badly grasped cuts the arm, badly practised\nasceticism leads to hell.\"\n\n178. \"Better than sovereignty over the earth, better than going to\nheaven, better than lordship over all worlds, is the reward of the first\nstep in holiness.\"\n\n\"What is a man profited if he shall gain the whole world and lose his\nown soul?\" or, \"What shall a man give in exchange for his soul?\" (Matt,\nxvi. 26).\n\nIt would be difficult to find any doctrine enunciated in the Bible more\nsimple than the following:--\n\n183. \"Not to commit any sin, to do good, and to purify one's mind, that\nis the teaching of the Awakened.\"\n\n184. \"The Awakened call patience the highest penance, long-suffering the\nhighest Nirvana, for he is not an anchorite who strikes others, he is\nnot an ascetic who insults others.\"\n\n185. \"Not to blame, not to strike, to live restrained under the law,\nto be moderate in eating, to sleep and eat alone, and to dwell on the\nhighest thoughts, this is the teaching of the Awakened.\"\n\nEqually difficult would it be to find in the Old Testament such precepts\nas--\n\n197. \"Let us live happily, then, not hating those who hate us; let us\ndwell free from hatred among men who hate.\" \"Let us live free from greed\namong men who are greedy.\"\n\n200. \"Let us live happily though we can call nothing our own.\"\n\n204. \"Health is the greatest of gifts, contentedness the best riches;\ntrust is the best of relatives, Nirvana the highest happiness.\"\n\nThe following quotations deserve the close attention of the Christian\ninquirer, for they not only contain sentiments almost identically the\nsame as those found in the New Testament, but they are couched in the\nsame language, as closely as the circumstances of the case allow. Both\nenunciate the opinion that it is injudicious to cultivate or even to\npermit the existence of those affections which we have in common with\nthe lower animals, and that to attain perfection love and hatred must be\ntrampled under foot. We give the Buddhist teaching priority, as it was\npromulgated first:--\n\n210. \"Let no man ever look for what is pleasant or what is unpleasant.\nNot to see what is pleasant is pain, and it is pain to see what is\nunpleasant.\"\n\n211. \"Let, therefore, no man love anything; loss of the beloved is evil.\nThose who love nothing and hate nothing have no fetters.\"\n\n212. \"From pleasure comes grief, from pleasure comes fear, he who is\nfree from pleasure knows neither grief nor fear.\"\n\n213-6. \"From affection comes grief and fear, from lust comes grief and\nfear, from love comes grief and fear, from greed comes grief and fear.\"\n\"He who is free from affection, lust, love, and greed, knows neither\ngrief nor fear.\" \"He that loveth either father or mother more than me is\nnot worthy of me, and he that loveth son or daughter better than me is\nnot worthy of me, and he that taketh not his cross and followeth after\nme is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it, and he\nthat loseth his life for my sake shall find it\" (Matt. x. 37-39). \"Love\nnot the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love\nthe world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the\nworld, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of\nlife, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth\naway and the lust thereof, but he that doeth the will of God abideth for\never\" (1 John ii. 15-17).\n\n\"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let\nhim deny himself, and take up his cross and follow me. For whosoever\nwill save his life shall lose it, and whosoever will lose his life for\nmy sake shall find it; for what is a man profited if he shall gain the\nwhole world and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange\nfor his soul?\" (Matt, xvi. 24). See also Mark viii. 34, x. 21, and Luke\nix. 23-25, in the last verse of which the saying is varied by the words\nbeing used \"what is a man advantaged if he gain the whole world and lose\nhimself, or be cast away?\" We are by habit more familiar with the style\nin which the Grecians wrote, than with that adopted by Sanscrit\nauthors. But in both sets of writers the main idea is made strikingly\napparent--viz., that to love anybody or anything on earth is prejudicial\nto our spiritual welfare, and that to act piously, it is necessary for\nthe saint to free himself wholly from those instinctive affections which\nGod has implanted in almost every one of his creatures. It is\nstrange that any two ministers could have excogitated so monstrous a\nproposition, and that both should be called \"Divine.\"\n\nThe effect of the teaching of Buddha and of Jesus was to draw many from\ntheir hearth whose duty, in our estimation, was clearly to remain at\nhome, and endeavour to cherish and support their family. I enter my\nstrong protest as an Englishman, as well as individual Christian,\nagainst the idea that a man who believes himself a disciple of the son\nof Mary must go abroad to teach and preach, or become an ascetic, a\nhermit, or a monk, and leave his wife and children to be cared for by\nhis friends or the parish. I believe most strongly that our affections\nare implanted in us by our Maker, just as a mother's love exists alike\nin the tigress and the eagle, and that any religion which teaches us\nthat we must overcome these propensities, is a false one. It is strange,\nto say the least of it, that both the son of Maya and of Mary should\nhave promulgated such a doctrine--i.e., that religion is designed to\nmake our pleasures less, and our miseries greater. It is perhaps too\nmuch to assert that no other form of faith, besides those which have\nsprung from Buddha and from Jesus, possesses such a tenet as that to\nwhich we refer; but we can safely affirm that we do not know of any\nin which the natural affections existing between parents and children,\nhusband and wife, brothers and sisters, have not been cultivated as a\nportion of the duties to be fulfilled by the faithful.\n\nIt is scarcely necessary to call attention to the resemblance which the\ndoctrine in question bears to that which was promulgated by the Grecian\n\"Stoics\"; and the similitude is still farther increased by such a\nsentence as the following in the Dhammapada:--\n\n221. \"Let a man leave anger, let him forsake pride, let him overcome all\nbondage! No sufferings befall the man who is not attached to either body\nor soul, and who calls nothing his own.\"\n\nOnce more we see a close resemblance between Buddhism and the Bible in\n\n223. \"Let a man overcome anger by love, let him overcome evil by good,\nlet him overcome the greedy by liberality, the liar by truth.\" \"If thine\nenemy be hungry give him bread to eat, and if he be thirsty give him\nwater to drink,\" (Prov. xxv. 21). But the motive for this recommendation\nto the Jews is a vindictive one, for he is told that by so doing he will\nheap coals of fire upon his enemy's head, whilst the Lord will take care\nto reward the deed to the doer. In the epistle to the Romans this saying\nof the Proverbs is endorsed, and to it is added \"Be not overcome with\nevil, but overcome evil with good\" (Rom. xii. 20, 21).\n\n224. \"Speak the truth, do not yield to anger; give, if thou art asked,\nfrom the little thou hast--by those steps thou wilt go near the gods.\"\n\"Let not mercy and truth forsake thee, bind them about thy neck; write\nthem upon the table of thine heart; so shalt thou find favour and good\nunderstanding in the sight of God and man\" (Prov. iii. 3-4); \"Wherefore,\nputting away lying, let every man speak the truth with his neighbour\"\n(Eph. iv. 25). We scarcely can find, in the Old Testament, a strict\nparallel with the Buddhist precept, \"do not yield to anger,\" for the\nJewish scriptures, without exception, depict their God as giving way\nhabitually to wrath, anger, and revenge--e.g., in Ps. vii. 11, we find\nit stated that Elohim is angry with the wicked every day. Again, in\nIsaiah v. 25, we read, \"for all this, God's anger is not turned away,\nbut his hand is stretched out still;\" Job iv. 9, By God's anger they are\nconsumed; \"To pour out upon them my fierce anger,\" (Zeph. iii. 8). There\nare, however, a few passages which inculcate upon men the propriety of\na command over their temper. In Ps. xxxvii. 8, for example, we read,\n\"Cease from anger, and forsake wrath,\" and in Proverbs xxvii. 4, \"Wrath\nis cruel, and anger is outrageous,\" whilst \"the Preacher\" says, Eccles.\nvii. 9, \"Anger resteth in the bosom of fools,\" and in xi. 10, \"remove\nanger or sorrow from thy heart.\" In the Gospel we have a somewhat\ndivided teaching. For example, we find, from Mark iii. 5, that Jesus\nhimself indulged in anger, when he was vexed at what he thought the\nhardness of his hearers' hearts; and from his saying, in Matt. v. 22,\n\"Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger\nof the judgment,\" it is clear that the son of Mary approved of anger\nwhich had a cause. Again, we find, in Eph. iv. 26, \"Be ye angry and sin\nnot, let not the sun go down upon your wrath,\" as if anger were not a\nculpable weakness, or passion, if only indulged in during the daylight.\nYet, in the thirty-first verse of the same chapter we read, \"Let all\nbitterness, and wrath, and anger.... be put away from you,\" and in Col.\niii. 8, the putting away of anger is spoken of as an evidence of being\nregenerated.\n\nOf the duty of almsgiving we find much in the Bible, but we will content\nourselves with the following passages:--\"Charge them who are rich in\nthis world that they be ready to give, and glad to distribute, laying up\nin store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come,\nthat they may attain eternal life\" (1 Tim. vi. 17-19). Quoted from the\nCommunion Service in the Prayer-book--\"To do good, and to distribute,\nforget not; for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.\" \"Be merciful\nafter thy power. If thou hast much, give plenteously; if thou hast\nlittle, do thy diligence gladly to give of that little, for so gatherest\nthou thyself a good reward in the day of necessity\" (Prayer-book version\nof certain precepts in Tobit, chap. iv. 8, 9). If our readers will take\nthe trouble to consult the entire chapter in Tobit, they will readily\nconceive that it was written by a Buddhist sage, instead of an ordinary\nJew.\n\nOnce more we turn to the Dhammapada, and find--\n\n231, 234. \"Beware of bodily anger, and control thy body. Leave the sins\nof the body, and with thy body practise virtue; control thy tongue;\nleave the sins of the tongue, and practise virtue with thy tongue; leave\nthe sins of the mind, and practise virtue with thy mind.\"\n\nThis reference to the sins of the tongue, and the necessity for its\ncontrol, recals to our mind the opinion expressed in the epistle of\nJames, \"If any one bridleth not his tongue, this man's religion is vain\"\n(chap, i. 26); \"The tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity,\" &c.; \"the\ntongue can no man tame,\" &c. (chap. iii. w. 5-10); and the verse, \"I\nsaid, I will take heed io my ways, that I sin not with my tongue; I will\nkeep my mouth with a bridle while the wicked is before me\" (Ps. xxxix.\n1).\n\nThe next maxim to which I would direct attention is one which should be\npondered deeply by all those who desire to become thoroughly civilized.\nSo far as I know, its like cannot be found in any part of the Bible. It\nruns thus--\n\n243. \"There is a taint worse than all taints, ignorance is the greatest\ntaint.\"\n\nIf we search our own scriptures for a parallel passage, we can only\nfind that ignorance is inculcated, and with the express intention\nof preventing the mind from departing from the old into some new\ntrack--see, for example, Dent. xii. 30, where the Jews are enjoined not\nto inquire after the gods of other nations, lest they should adopt them:\nagain, in Deut. iv. 19, the Hebrews are enjoined not to study or gain\nany information respecting the sun, moon, and stars, lest they should\nworship them. But Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles, is even a more\nconspicuous advocate of ignorance, when he asserts that God hath chosen\nthe foolish things [--Greek--] of the world to confound the wise (1\nCor. i. vv. 19-28). \"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy\ntrust, avoiding.... oppositions of science falsely so called, which some\nprofessing have erred concerning the faith\" (1 Tim. vi. 20, 21). Many,\nindeed, who call themselves civilized Christians, aver that, where\nignorance is bliss 'tis folly to be wise, a tenet held strongly by\nMahometans, Papists, and Ritualists.\n\nThat the dictum of Paul in the text last quoted has had a a most\ndisastrous effect upon civilization, no one who is conversant with\nhistory can fairly deny. Neither can it be shown that any known\nreligion, except Buddhism, has opposed itself to ignorance. In every\nnation the rulers in general, and the priesthood in particular, have,\non the other hand, encouraged indolence of mind, lest the people should\nlearn wisdom and shake off their thraldom. We have seen, in our own\ntimes, hierarchs of every denomination oppose the spread of science, not\nfalsely so called, with the avowed intention of endeavouring to bolster\nup doctrines, dogmas, and assertions, which they feel sure true\nscience will destroy, although the same people declare their tenets\nindestructible, and founded on truth. Nay, we may go still further, and\nassert that sciolism in religious matters is fostered by the clergy of\nall denominations, both by the suppression of what they believe to be\ngenuine, and by the promulgation of what they know to be false. In the\nplace of knowledge they inculcate blind faith.\n\nAs one not wholly unknown to be an earnest and honest inquirer, I\nhave had extensive correspondence and personal intercourse with many\npreachers, and with others whose opportunities for learning \"the\nclerical mind\" are more extensive than my own, and I may divide the\nbody of religious ministers, and the laity as well, into the following\nclasses:--1, Those who refuse to inquire, examine, and think about\nreligious subjects, except in a certain prescribed way; 2, Those who\nwill investigate into the grounds of their belief, as they would into\nany doubtful assertion, or into any science; 3, Those who individually\nabandon the old faith and yet continue to preach it, and profess to\nadhere to it as strongly as they did at first; 4, Those who venture\ntimidly to insinuate doubts into the minds of others, whilst professing\nto be orthodox themselves; 5, Those who are too noble to be hypocrites,\nand boldly affirm that which their advance of knowledge has induced\nthem to adopt as a belief. Yet these very men, distinguished above\ntheir fellows for earnestness, for science, for honesty of purpose, a\nreligiously ignorant priesthood persecutes; and Englishmen, who wish to\nbe regarded as peculiarly \"enlightened,\" stand by almost unmoved, or, as\nhappens too frequently, applauding.\n\nWhen we endeavour to ascertain the reason why ignorance is so greatly\ncherished amongst mankind, we can readily discover it in indolence on\nthe part of one group of men, and cupidity on the part of others. There\nare many positions in life wherein Sciolism seems to be more profitable\nthan knowledge. We may mention a few. A \"solicitor\" who has an imperfect\nacquaintance with the law, may induce his clients to bring cases before\nvarious legal courts, in which they are certain to lose their cause and\nmoney, but this solicitor gains large fees for his trouble. A physician\nwho does not know how to cure certain diseases may yet treat them for\nmonths, pass for a devoted doctor and a clever friend, and receive a\nlarge honorarium, which is far beyond his merit, though the patient may\nthink it far too small. The man, on the other hand, who can cure such\ncomplaints readily, has to be content with a very slender fee, as his\nattendance is only required for a few days. The schemers, who live upon\nthe ignorance of dupes, bear the name of legion. We see one of the body\nas a promoter of all sorts of bubble companies, and as secretary to such\nsocieties as banks, trade unions, burial clubs, assurances, &c. Anon he\ntakes the form of an adulterator of provisions, of various drinkables,\nof cloth, silk, linen, &c. If Sciolism were not common, such charlatans\nas \"spiritualists,\" \"clairvoyants,\" \"mesmerists,\" and the like, could\nnot thrive as they do, nor quacks of all kinds flourish famously. One\nmedical pretender is indeed reported to have said to a \"regular\" doctor,\nwho lived in the same street with him, but whose clients were few\ncompared with those of the charlatan--\"the reason why you have so small,\nand I have so large, a number of patients is, that the fools come to me,\nthe knowing ones to you.\"\n\nWhat is true in the case of other professions is preeminently so in the\nclerical In religion, such as it is professed in Christendom, Sciolism,\nor imperfect knowledge, alone is lucrative. Real understanding, diffused\namongst the people, would render every hierophant a beggar, and thorough\nenlightenment amongst the priesthood would force them to allow that\nsuch should be their normal position. For example, if every layman, in\ncountries owning the spiritual headship of the Pope of Rome, knew that\nall the stories of Heaven, Purgatory, Hell, Angels, Saints, Confessors,\nHermits, and the like, were absolutely baseless--if he knew that man has\nno power in the court of the Almighty to influence His will in favour\nof a congener, and that nothing whatever is known respecting the world\nbeyond the grave--he would not order masses, whether high or low, and a\nhost of other ceremonies, each of which has to be paid for. Or, if each\nProtestant knew, that every tenet preached to him from the pulpit is\nfounded upon absolute ignorance of the Almighty's operations, that every\ndoctrine, every prayer, and every ritual, is based upon fantastic, half\nsavage, or semicivilized human ideas, he would recognize at once the\ntotal uselessness of the parson. \"They that are whole need not\nthe physician, but they that are sick.\" The doctor, knowing this,\nendeavours, when he has a chance, to induce a client to believe himself\nill, and that he and no other man can cure him--or, if he should really\nbe disordered, these ideas will be kept up as long as possible. So it is\nin \"religion,\" it is only the culprit that wants the Saviour, but when\nhe has a chance, the _soi disant_ saviour tries to persuade those who\nconsult him, that they are sinners, yet that he can make them saints;\nand having once implanted this belief, he endeavours to sustain it. To\ndoctors and priests such as we here describe, the ignorant credulity of\ntheir clients is a source of wealth. So long as there are dupes\nthere will be sharpers, and so long as men are human, there will be,\nunconsciously very likely to themselves, abundance of both fools and\nknaves.\n\nFrom what has been already said, our readers will have probably drawn\nthe conclusion that we deny the existence of a thoroughly educated\nand honest hierarch, who has become wealthy by the exercise of\nhis profession in a perfectly conscientious manner. Exceptional\ncircumstances prevent us saying exactly the same of a doctor, but\ninto these we need not enter, as they have not their counterparts in\ndivinity. Such being our belief, we recognize the fact that poverty and\nknowledge must, in an earnest priesthood, be ever associated. But the\nclergy of every denomination are loath to agree to this, and endeavour,\nby hook or by crook, to acquire the means of living well.\n\nHence Buddha, who was thoroughly honest himself, and did not become a\npreacher for the sake of emolument or a livelihood, adopted, as part\nof his plan, a systematic estrangement from every luxury of whatever\nsort,--or, in other words, the adoption of a poverty as great as exists\nin the lower animals. He enjoined that the saintly teacher, having food\nand raiment of the most homely kind, ought therewith to be content. This\nwas Paul's view also--see 1 Tim. vi. 8. In this teaching the son of Mary\nconcurred; like the son of Maya, he \"had not where to lay his head,\" he\nhad not even such a home as a fox or a bird (Matt, viii. 20), and when\nhe sent out his disciples to preach, his direction to them was, \"Take\nnothing for your journey\" (Luke ix. 3, see also Matt, vi. 25-28). To sum\nup our remarks upon this particular command of Buddha to avoid the\ntaint of ignorance, we may frame an axiom in political economy,\nthus--\"Ignorance in the many ensures wealth in a few,\" or, \"A diffusion\nof sound knowledge amongst the ruled, reduces the power and the\nemoluments of the rulers, and compels them to work hard if they wish to\nretain their position.\" To apply this idea still further, I would add\nthat a thoroughly educated people, each one of whom feels that he\nmust \"work out his own salvation\" (Phil ii. 12), does not require a\npriesthood. Consequently hierarchs, whose sole business in this world\nseems to be to instil terror into young minds, and to make rules for\nthem to break, that priests may be paid for showing how the imaginary\nresults may be escaped, would have no place if men were wise and\nthoughtful. It is a curious, though a certain fact, that the depth of\nsavagery and the height of civilization alike ignore the necessity of a\nhierarchy. The first does so because it never thinks of God--the second,\nbecause its conceptions of the Almighty are such that it cannot believe\nHim to be influenced by individuals who assume to be His earthly\nvicegerents, or are elected to that pretentious situation by their\nfellow-men. The God of the Bible can only be adored by individuals whose\nminds are not emancipated wholly from the thraldom of barbarism, and\nwho regard Jehovah as a man, and not a good one either, or, as we have\nbefore remarked--a devil. We may once more extract some sentences for\ncomparison, to show, either that no inspiration was necessary to pen the\nBible, or that the Dhammapada has equal claims with the Old Testament--\n\n244. \"Life is easy to live for a man who is without shame, a crow hero,\na mischief maker, an insulting, bold, and wretched fellow. But life is\nhard to live for a modest man, who always looks for what is pure, who is\ndisinterested, quiet, spotless, and intelligent. O man, know this, that\nthe unrestrained are in a bad state; take care that greediness and vice\ndo not bring thee to grief for a long time.\"\n\nCompare this with the Psalmist's expression--\"I was envious at the\nfoolish when I saw the prosperity of the wicked, for there are no bands\nin their death, but their strength is firm; they are not in trouble\nas other men, neither are they plagued like other men; therefore pride\ncompasseth them about as a chain, violence covereth them as a garment,\ntheir eyes stand out with fatness, they have more than heart could\nwish.... these are the ungodly who prosper in the world, they increase\nin riches.... Surely thou didst set them in slippery places: thou\ncastedst them down into destruction. How are they brought into\ndesolation, as in a moment! they are utterly consumed with terrors\" (Ps.\nlxxiii. 3-19.) \"I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading\nhimself like a green tree that groweth in his own soil, yet he passed\naway, and lo! he was not, yea, I sought him, but he could not be found.\nMark the perfect man, and behold the upright, for the end of that man is\npeace. But the transgressors shall be destroyed together, the end of\nthe wicked shall be cut off.\" \"Fret not thyself because of evil-doers,\nneither be thou envious against the workers of iniquity, for they shall\nsoon be cut down like the grass, and wither as the green herb. Trust in\nthe Lord and do good, so shalt thou dwell in the land, and, verily, thou\nshalt be fed\" (Ps. xxxvii. 35-38--1-3). The class of sentiments is the\nsame in both, only they seem to differ because we are very familiar with\nthe phraseology of the Bible, and the reverse with translations from the\nSanskrit.\n\nAt this point the philosopher may judiciously pause to inquire, whether\nthe sentiments expressed in the preceding biblical quotations are not\nincorrect, and consequently whether they can be regarded as inspired;\nand whether the Buddhistic solution of the difficulty, which points to\na future state, is not superior to the Jewish one which treats of this\nworld only. Experience abundantly shows that individuals practising what\nis called \"goodness\" find it no safeguard against misery, starvation,\ntortures, and death. Jesus of Nazareth, his disciples, and vast numbers\nof his followers, have experienced from the dominant party in those\nstates wherein they dwelled contumely, reproach, and hours of lingering\ntorment. Louis the XIV. of France, and the New Englanders of America,\nalike persecuted \"Protestants\" and \"Quakers.\" In Spain \"the reformers\"\nwere successfully opposed by fire and sword, and Papal Italy once\nextirpated from her midst the disciples of Luther and Calvin. Yet the\nso-called wrong-doers flourished, and the unfortunate \"good people\" were\nrun down or dragooned with a sudden and swift destruction. If the dictum\nof the Psalmist is right, then Admiral Coligny, who was killed in\nthe Bartholomew massacre, at Paris, must have been a bad man put in a\nslippery place that he might fall, for his destruction came suddenly, in\nan instant. But all history shows him to have been a worthy fellow,\nwho was punished for his virtues. The observer of nature is driven to\nbelieve that the co-existence of powerful and bad men, with feeble, yet\ngood men, is a rule in creation for which no adequate explanation can\nbe found. He sees that in the domain of the air there are hawks and\npigeons, eagles and ostriches, cuckoos and hedge-sparrows, that on the\nland there are tigers and sheep, lions and buffaloes, wolves and deer,\nthat in the water there are perch and minnows, pike and trout, sharks\nand whales--in other words, there is throughout the world a division of\nliving creatures into those who live by destroying vegetables, and those\nwho subsist by the destruction of animals. The cow, sheep, and deer are\nquite as ruthless, in their noxiousness to the ornaments of the meadow,\nas are foxes in a hen-roost to the beauties of the barn-door; both alike\nmar the graceful features of creation. Yet it is clear that both the\ngraminivora and the carnivora were made to effect this apparent\nwrong. Still further, we see throughout creation, that in almost every\ncommunity of animals, the strong ones dominate over the weak, and\nendeavour, far too frequently, to deprive them of such pleasures as they\nand their females possess. See, for example, a cock with a bevy of hens:\nhe will allow no other chanticleer to strut besides him on the dunghill\nof the yard; he will not permit a rival to make love to anyone of his\nharem, nor to feed upon any dainty morsel, until his wives and himself\nhave had enough. The same may be said of stags, of bulls, of rams, of\nhorses, and many other creatures whose habits are known. The leader of\na herd is a despot, and when he is at length conquered by another, those\nwho are ruled have merely changed their masters. Young and weak cocks\nwill never attain to power, and must ever submit to be bullied.\n\nWe notice, at the same time, that each tyrant must in the end succumb;\nwith age comes infirmity and loss of strength, in the last battle\nthe old is beaten by the young. Just so it is with mankind; in its\ncomparative infancy monarchs rule, and are at length deposed by others.\nThe Babylonians conquered Palestine, the Medes and Persians vanquished\nthe Babylonians, the Greeks subjugated the Persians, the Romans overcame\nthe Greeks, and the Goths destroyed the Roman power; yet under every\nregime the powerful could torment the weak. The result in every case\nwas brought about by the conqueror being strong and brutal--not by the\nimmorality of the victims.\n\nWhen a philosopher sees such things, he very naturally endeavours to\nascertain whether any design can be discovered in the events of the\nworld, and to this end he may be diligent in collecting facts, or he\nmay at once frame some theory, and then cease to think about the matter.\n\"Oh,\" such an one may say, \"all that is wrong here will be righted in\nanother world.\" Another, who ponders more deeply, may doubt whether it\nis proper to divide the phenomena of nature into \"right\" and \"wrong.\"\n\"If,\" he will say, \"I believe with the Jew that God is in the heavens,\nand does whatsoever He pleases\" (Ps. cxv. 3), or that \"the Lord hath\nmade all for Himself; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil\" (Prov.\nxvi. 4) I must allow that everything which emanates from the Creator\nmust be right. Speaking individually, I prefer rather to examine into\nthe ways of Providence--i.e., of the Almighty, without framing any\ntheory of right and wrong, than to dogmatize upon what He _must_ intend\nby this or that. \"Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord (Jehovah),\nor being his counsellor hath taught him?\" (Is. xl. 13)--see also the\nPauline version of this sentiment, Rom. xi. 33, 34.\n\nIt is very questionable whether any human analogy will enable us,\neven approximately, to fathom what are designated \"the designs of\nProvidence.\" Every example that I can at the present remember given by\ntheologians is bad. Take, for example, the most common one which draws\na comparison between God and a father, Ps. ciii. 13, \"like as a father\npiti-eth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him;\" Prov.\niii. 12, \"Whom the Lord loveth he correcteth, even as a father the\nson in whom he delighteth;\" Heb. xii. 6, 7, \"Whom the Lord loveth\nhe chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.\" \"If ye be\nwithout chastisement, whereof all men (are) partakers, then are ye\nbastards and not sons.\" These enunciate the idea that God, being the\nuniversal father, treats mankind as a judicious parent treats his\noffspring, and that as a child cannot at all times know why he is\npunished until many years have passed over his head, so human beings\ncannot tell, until they reach another world, why they were punished\nin this. To assist this assertion the text is quoted \"What I do thou\nknowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter\" (John xiii. 7.) If there\nbe any truth in the analogy, it must follow that all who in this world\n\"endure grief, suffering wrongfully\" (1 Pet. ii. 19), are children of\nGod, whom he is educating for a better world. If that, again, be\nso, then--when Christians persecuted Mahometans, Romanists burned\nProtestants, and Spaniards slaughtered Mexicans and Peruvians--it\nfollows that the vanquished, and not the conquerors, were the elect of\nthe Father. But this deduction directly opposes those promises said to\nbe made to the Jews by Jehovah, viz., that victory should be the reward\nof their piety. As it is a poor system which declares that two opposite\nresults come from the same cause, we must refuse to believe that both\nvictory and defeat are proofs of a Father's love. I am quite aware that\nsome reader may retort that a kind parent may punish one child at the\nsame time that he rewards another. I grant it at once, but that only\ndemonstrates, if it proves anything, that all creatures must be regarded\nalike as the offspring of the Creator, and that none are favoured\npeculiarly on the one hand, or are outcasts on the other.\n\nAs it is undesirable to mix political up with religious events, I\nrefrain from drawing from history such illustrations as have frequently\nbeen supposed to indicate the will of the Almighty. The fall from power\nof Egypt, Tyre, Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, Greece, Carthage, Rome,\nSpain, are all supposed to have been caused by some special providential\ndesign. In like manner theologians draw certain deductions from the\ndiscovery of the New World, and the slaughter of the majority of its\naboriginal inhabitants; from the Crusades; from the influx of the Turks\ninto Christendom; and of the Moors into Spain. Some, whose imaginative\npowers overwhelm their reasoning faculties, see in the wars of recent\ntimes that final shaking of the nations, which some _soi-disant_ prophet\ndeclares must precede the millennium, and the battle of Armageddon;\nvaccinators, and interpreters are as abundant and irrepressible now as\never they were. Their fundamental assumption is that God has acted as\nthey would have done in His place. Now He is a sort of Irish landlord, a\nportion of whose property is overrun with pauper farmers, and He clears\nthem away to make room for more sensible and wealthier tenants, as\nthe Canaanites were removed to give place to the Hebrews. Now, He is\nrepresented as a parent, who hearing that a son has engaged in fight and\nbeen conquered, merely remarks \"serves him right!\"--the kind of\ncomfort given to the Jews after they had been harried by the Edomite\nconfederacy, and subsequently by the Chaldeans. Again, the same mighty\nJehovah is represented as a Stoic, who remarks, when some mischance\nhappens to those who are said to be his children, \"Never mind, accidents\nwill happen--through much tribulation you must enter into my rest, or\nthe kingdom of heaven.\"\n\nI entirely decline to adopt the profession of prophet and interpreter,\ncontenting myself with increasing what knowledge I may have, rather\nthan endeavouring to deduce from it theories whose weakness an hour may\ndemonstrate; nor do I put faith in any one who adopts such a business.\n\nFor example, let us assume that two savage tribes, having gods\nof different names and shapes, go to war on the bidding of their\npriests--one is conquered and the other is victorious. The one\nattributes his reverse to the anger of his own deity, not to the power\nof the god of his enemy. The other imagines that he owes success to the\ninfluence of his protector and his superiority over his foe's fetish.\nA civilized on-looker, who believes that all the deities are devils and\npowerless, attributes victory and defeat to perfectly natural causes,\ne.g., superiority in weapons, tactics, numbers, or strength. It is\nclear that neither the deductions of the first nor second men are right;\nneither has read the mind of his fetish. So it is with the half educated\ntheologians of our own day, who think and talk as glibly of God and\nSatan, as if they were personal acquaintances, who make no secret either\nof their deeds or their motives of action.\n\nOnce more we return to the Dhammapada and find,\n\n248. \"O, man, know this, that the unrestrained are in a bad state; take\ncare that greediness and vice do not bring thee to grief for a long\ntime.\" We do not here seek to find any parallel passage in the\nbible, but we turn to history, remote and collateral, and compare the\npriesthood of Buddha with that of Jesus. Does travel tell us of any set\nof teachers more self-denying than the individuals who devote themselves\nas religious Buddhists? Can history, on the other hand, tell us of any\nhierarchy more greedy and vicious than the Christian priesthood in the\nmiddle ages, and down to a comparatively recent period? We will not\naccuse them of vice, but even now is there in the whole world a more\ngrasping set of men than those who have received what they term \"holy\norders\" from the descendants of Jesus or of Peter? I trow not. If,\ntherefore, a doctrine is to be known by its fruits, in one respect at\nleast Buddhism is superior to that which we call Christianity, by which\nterm I do not mean the exceptional practice of a few, but the general\nhabits of the majority of the bishops, priests, &c., of Christendom.\nOnce more let us contrast the doctrine of Buddha with the practice of\nChristians. He says--\n\nDa. 256, 7. \"A man is not a just judge if he carries a matter by\nviolence; no, he who distinguishes both right and wrong, who is learned,\nand leads others, not by violence, but by law and equity, he who is a\nguardian of the law and equity, he who is a guardian of the law, and\nintelligent, he is called just.\" Our histories tell us of Christians\npersecuting Christians; Trinitarians endeavouring to extirpate Arians;\nFranciscans torturing Dominicans; of Jews slaughtered by those\nwhose master said, \"Father, forgive them;\" we see brutal Spaniards\nexterminating, under the shadow of the cross, whole nations in the new\nworld who had never harmed them, and in the old world we find Crusaders,\nunder the guise of piety, murdering and robbing the dwellers in\nPalestine. There is scarcely a large town in Europe which has not\nwitnessed the ferocious violence of Papal, yea, and Protestant,\nhierarchs. Even in recent times we have seen bishops and their\ncongeners, in our so-called civilized nation, oppose violence, and\nthe popgun thunder of excommunication, to a learned prelate, and to an\nhumble priest. Judged by the standard of Buddha, our divines are unjust\nand unrighteous. I cannot discover any standard by which they can be\nregarded as \"praiseworthy,\" except that embodied in the two sayings,\n\"Get what you can, and what you get hold;\" \"Where ignorance is bliss,\n'tis folly to be wise.\" We may say of such persecutors, in the words of\nthe Dhammapada--\n\n260. \"A man is not an elder because his head is grey; his age may be\nripe, but he is called old in vain,\" and many would at once be able, if\nthey tried, to remember the names of some who, in a Christian community,\nhave abandoned their principles, or their learning, as soon as they\nbecame bishops or elders of the church. I have no doubt Popes have done\nso. There is a saying, that however clever a man is, you make a fool of\nhim by placing a mitre upon his head.\n\nThe following is, perhaps, more curious than our previous quotations, as\nit tells of the pre-Christian antiquity of a common Romish custom:--\n\n264. \"Not by tonsure does an undisciplined man, who speaks falsehood,\nbecome a Sramana; can a man be a Sra-mana who is still held captive\nby desire and greediness?\" The Sramana is a word equivalent to our\n\"priest,\" literally, \"a man who performs hard penances\" (see Dhammapada,\nNote 265, p. cxxxii.).\n\nWithout copying any other texts from the Dhammapada, we may next inquire\nwhat there is to be found in the Bible that is not to be found in the\nteaching of Buddha. We notice that the element of so-called prophecy is\nwholly wanting in the sayings of the Indian sage. I cannot remember that\neither Sakya Muni or any of his followers assumed the power to foretell\nthe future. There is, it is true, a vague threat of future misery to the\nwicked, which was founded upon the prevalent idea of metempsychosis; but\nthere is no endeavour to pourtray the occurrences that are supposed to\nbe impending over one or more sections of the human race. There is not\nany attempt to induce individuals to join themselves to the son of Maya,\nby declarations that the world, and all that it contains, is about to be\ndestroyed, and that all who do not become disciples of the teacher,\nand shelter themselves under his mantle, will be miserably punished\nthroughout eternity.\n\nThere is not any Buddhist description in detail, either of Hell, or\nHeaven, or Nirvana; there is no story of \"worms,\" \"fires,\" \"devils,\"\n\"death,\" and the like, in the first. The second is not depicted, by\nthe preacher himself, as a sort of palace, made gorgeous with gold and\nprecious stones, resounding in barbaric music, and discordant chants,\nwhere animals dwell, and where horses are kept stabled, to go throughout\nthe world with messengers upon their backs (see Zechariah i. 8, 10;\nvi. 2, 7; Rev. iv. 6, 7; vi. 2, 4, 8). There are no denunciations of\nvengeance upon heretics, nor is the god of Buddha like the one described\nby Hebrew writers, who \"winks\" during times of ignorance upon earth\n(Acts xvii. 30), who requires to be reminded by prayer of the wants of\nmen (Exod. iii. 7), and who comes down to earth to inquire if matters\nare according to the accounts which have reached his dwelling-place\n(Gen. xviii. 21).\n\nIn Siddartha's teaching there is, as we have seen, an absence of the\nelement of prayer. According to his view, each man is regarded, to a\ncertain extent, as the author of his own destiny. Man, in his opinion,\nmust ever be influenced by the actions of other men--he may, for example\neither be caressed or tormented, yet, under both circumstances, he\nis instructed to retain equanimity of mind. He is not to pray for\nprosperity, nor to supplicate that trials may be removed. He is to face\nand overcome every trial by his resolute will, and not to waste time in\npraying not to be led into temptation.\n\nAgain, in Buddha's writings, and in those of his followers, there is an\nabsence of those obscene tales with which the Old Testament abounds. We\nseek in vain for counterparts of the story of Lot and his daughters, of\nOnan, of Joseph and the wife of Potiphar, of Judah and Tamar, David and\nBathsheba, Amnon and his sister, Zimri Cozbi and Phinehas, and the\nlike. It is true, that in some Buddhist writings, there is a cosmogony\nintroduced more preposterous than that in the Bible; but there are no\nparallels to the tales of Noah, of Moses, and of Israel in Egypt, the\ndesert, and Palestine. Indeed, when we remember that Sakya Muni was\nan Oriental, accustomed to inflated language, we are struck by the\nplainness of his speech.\n\nIf we now ask ourselves, as earnest practical Christians--that is, as\nmen, anxious and eager to attain to religious truth, and desirous of\nteaching only those things which would tend towards sound edification\nand to a pure morality--what parts of the Bible most offend sense of\npropriety, we should answer, that they are its untenable cosmogony; its\npreposterous accounts of the longevity of the men reported as being the\nearliest formed; the legend of the flood; the origin of the rainbow;\nthe tales of Moses, Pharaoh, the plagues of Egypt, the sojourn in the\ndesert, the capture of Canaan, the miraculous battles, in which each man\nof Israel put a thousand enemies to flight. We would wholly expunge\nthe fabulous account of Elijah and Elisha; the ravings after vengeance\nuttered by the prophets; the apocryphal episodes described in the books\nof Jonah and Daniel, every obscene story, and disgusting speech and\nwriting, whether uttered as a threat against Israel or his enemies.\nIn like manner we would wish to expunge, from the teaching of\nJesus, everything relating to the immediate destruction of the\nworld--everything connected with community of goods, the advantages of\nbeggary, and the potency of faith and prayer. We would suppress every\nmiracle, and say nothing of a resurrection of the dead Jesus. We\nwould equally abandon any attempt to describe Heaven or Hell, or any\nintermediate state.\n\nWhen all these were removed from the Bible, we positively should have\nvery little left, except a certain amount of morality which is sound,\nand a large portion which is radically bad. To make such an emendated\nbook as perfect as possible, we might, with great advantage, correct\nit from the teaching of Buddha or from the sayings of Socrates, Plato,\nEpic-tetus, and even of Confucius; and when all was completed, it would\nbe found that all men, everywhere, have had instinctive notions, more\nor less definite, of morality, but have allowed their animal passions\nto overcome their better feelings. Far too many of us know the good, but\nyet the bad pursue.\n\nThis investigation would most distinctly disprove the assertion, that\nGod has selected a very small percentage of His creatures for objects\nof His care, and those who have charity towards all men would greatly\nrejoice thereat. Individually we cannot bear to eat, however hungry\nwe may be, whilst we see others near us without food--our pleasure is\nheightened when we divide our luxuries with others; just so we believe\nit should be in religion--none should rejoice at the idea that he is one\nof the few that are to be saved, nor should anyone repine, as Jonah did,\nwhen he finds that the tender mercies of God are over all his works.\n\nTo simplify the matter as far as possible, I have drawn up the following\nparallel between Buddhism and Christianity:--\n\n[Illustration: 263]\n\n[Illustration: 264]\n\n[Illustration: 265]\n\n[Illustration: 266]\n\n[Illustration: 267]\n\nIn the next chapter I propose to examine, as far as authorities will\npermit, the religion of the Persians--a nation intervening, to a great\ndegree, between the old Aryan and the Shemitic races.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nThe Medo-Persians and Parsees. Artfulness of theologians. They\nsystematically break the ninth commandment. Frauds in orthodoxy. A man\nmay use false weights innocently, but is punished, nevertheless. In\ntheology ignorance does not justify deceit. Case in trade. Professional\nblindness. A law for punishing adulteration of truth is wanted. Mosaism\nand Zoroaster. Parsees and Christians. Moses and Zoroaster. The ancient\nmagi. The Persians. Conflicting ideas of God in Bible. The source of the\nBiblical theology. Cyrus. Inquiry into the authenticity of the Avesta.\nThe book condemned. Account of the Medo-Persian faith from Herodotus.\nPeriod of introduction of the Devil to the Bible. Summary. Comparison\nand contrast. Introduction to next chapter.\n\nIn every ancient, and, indeed, in every modern, faith which I have\nyet examined, I have been shocked with the manner in which it has been\nrepresented by interested opponents. Whether they are Romanists or\nProtestants, Evangelicals or Ritualists, Orthodox or Non-conformists,\nall our divines endeavour to prove their own tenets to be the best, by\nblazoning everything which is good, and veiling from sight everything\nwhich is doubtful. This being so, it is not at all surprising that\nChristians generally should try to exalt the religion professed\nby themselves over that propounded by others, whom they designate\n\"heathens.\" But though it is not strange that very human partisans\nshould act thus, it is marvellous to find that all the ardent disciples\nof Jesus, without an exception, that I know of, should, in their\ndealings with mankind, systematically break the ninth of those\ncommandments which they assert were given by God to man, upon Mount\nSinai All of them bear false witness against their neighbour, and give\nincorrect accounts of themselves in addition. They resemble, indeed,\nthose Dutch merchants whom Washington Irving describes, so pleasantly,\nin his history of New York, who had two sets of weights, a heavy lot by\nwhich to purchase, and a light set by which to sell Such traders we call\n\"fraudulent;\" and I assert that every so-called orthodox polemic whose\nbooks I have read deserves the same epithet. Their fraud is shown by the\nmisrepresentations that they make, both of the creed which they uphold\nand the one which they oppose. The heterodox and the so-called atheist\nmay be trusted, at least, to tell the truth.\n\nIn saying this, I do not assert that everyone gives false witness\nknowingly, any more than I would blame a tradesman for using false\nscales, or weights, if he could demonstrate that he had purchased them\nas true, and could show that he had never tampered with them. Yet the\nlaw would punish such a man for their use, arguing that he ought to\nhave made inquiry. In one of the large towns of Great Britain, on one\noccasion, a merchant, believed to be both religious and honest, sold to\na broker a cargo of stuff which had no existence, and, when the delivery\nhad to be made, the first destroyed himself, and the second was adjudged\nto be a culpable bankrupt, because he had taken the existence of the oil\nfor granted, without investigation. Just so it is with ordinary divines;\nthey assume certain statements in their own religious book to be\ntrue--they are taught to shut their eyes to the absurdities in the same\nvolume, and to explain away, in one manner or another, everything which\nmilitates against common sense. By this plan they contrive to sell,\nas sterling stuff, something which is made of base material, without\nknowingly being parties to a fraud. In the same way a shopman may, on\nthe word of the manufacturer, dispose of a piece of goods as wholly\nsilk, although he has a shrewd presumption that the fabric contains a\nlarge proportion of cotton. For such individuals we have the proverb,\n\"there are none so blind as those who will not see.\" But these very\ntheologians of whom we are speaking, when they are dealing with the\nsacred books, ordinary customs, ritual, and the like, of other\npeople, having a different religion to their own, are exact, in the\nextreme--every absurdity is exhibited ruthlessly; every legend is\nridiculed; every discrepancy is magnified; and everything which betrays\nignorance, or want of scientific knowledge, is paraded with inglorious\nceremony. On the other hand, everything good which is to be found\ntherein is, if possible, suppressed. A book, which was, for a long time,\na standard one amongst our divines, entitled, _Christ and Many Masters_,\nis particularly open to this charge. In it there is throughout a\n_suppressio veri_, a _suggestio falsi_, and scarcely a page that\ndoes not bear false witness. If there were a law to punish those who\nadulterate or falsify \"truth,\" our magistrates would be kept extremely\nbusy.\n\nAs an inquiry into the realities of Buddhism has led us to the belief\nthat the origin of Christianity may be found in the doctrines of the\nson of Maya, which were adopted with certain Judaic modifications by the\nsons of Elizabeth and Mary--so it is highly probable that what is called\nMosaism has been built upon the teachings of the Persian or Median\ntheology, said to have been founded by Zoroaster. Perhaps it would\nbe difficult to find any modern evidence of the likelihood of this\nhypothesis more powerful than the fact that at the present day the Jews\nand the Parsees fraternize almost like brothers. The latter in England,\nand, I understand, elsewhere, select, when they can, the house of a\nHebrew wherein to lodge, rather than that of any man of another nation.\nTo this testimony, such as it is, we must add another which is very\ntelling, viz., that almost every modern orthodox writer who has\ntreated of Zoroaster, has declared that the prophet of Persia drew his\ninspiration from the lawgiver of Israel The priority of the latter being\nasserted, and the second place having been given to the former, the\nmatter was supposed to be proved, and the Persian, after having been\nregarded as a copy of the Hebrew, was consigned to oblivion.\n\nThere can be little doubt, however, that the teachings of Zoroaster had\nmore life in them than those either of the Jew or the Christian, for\nthe Parsee always and even to the present day, and in every position of\nlife, may lay claim to the title of nature's gentleman, which very\nfew of the disciples of Jesus or of Moses could pretend to until very\nrecently. The morality of these religionists is excellent. In every\nrelation of life they endeavour to be, to do, and to think that which is\nright--and though there may be black sheep amongst them, the proportion\nof these to the main body is small In no period of their history, so\nfar as I can learn it, have the Zoroastrians been as brutal as the\nChristians were so long as they had the power--nor have they ever\nintroduced into their worship figures of men, women, or children with\nthe apparent intention of honouring or adoring them, or the assertion\nthat such things assisted their devotions. Being strictly monotheists,\nthey have not split up the Godhead into three males influenced by\na female who is the spouse of one and mother of a second; nor have\nasserted that the one great Creator is compounded of a father, a\nson, and a pigeon, with a woman for an intercessor with her celestial\nconsort. Nor do the Parsees build vast temples for the Almighty to\ndwell in, neither do they reduce any portion of the Omnipotent to the\nnecessity of residing in a bit of bread shut up for many a long day in\na box. On the contrary, the modern followers of Zoroaster worship \"the\nfather\" in spirit and in truth--not with eye service as men-pleasers,\nbut with singleness of heart, fearing God (Col. iii. 22.), thus being, as\nwe are told, the very men whom the Almighty seeketh (John iv. 23, 24).\n\nThe first resemblance between the Persian and the Jewish lawgiver to\nwhich we would call attention, is the mythical nature of both. The\nHebrew who believes in Moses can show no other ground for his faith\nthan a number of books which tell of Moses, his genealogy, his acts,\nhis laws, his character, and his death. Yet when an independent inquirer\nsubjects these books, and the accounts which they contain, to a rigid\nexamination, he finds evidence that the writings are fabrications of a\nperiod at least a full thousand years after the era of their supposed\nepoch--probably more; and that all collateral testimony and all internal\nevidence drawn from the books themselves disprove the actual existence\nof Moses. To the scholar, the Hebrew lawgiver is as apocryphal or\nfictitious a being as Hercules, Romulus, and our own king Arthur. Nor is\nthis belief of the critic shaken when he finds that the history of Moses\nis interwoven with miraculous legends--credit them he cannot; but he may\npause before he determines to see in them evidence of fabrication. He\ncannot fairly deny the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, because many\nmarvellous stories were told of him, nor would a similar cause alone\nlead him to assert that Francis of Assisi was a mythical individual.\nBut whichever way the careful philosophical inquirer may decide the\nquestions at issue, he will remember that many strange stories are told\nof the conception, birth, and life of Zoroaster, and that the critic\nmust mete out equal justice, both to the Jew and to the Persian. Again,\nimpartial inquirers find themselves unable to determine, with anything\napproaching to accuracy, either by internal evidence or contemporary\nremains--the positive epoch when the tale about Moses was originated. It\nis true that the Bible seems to afford foundation for a chronology in\na few parts, as, for example, in the historical books; but these are\nso completely contradicted by genealogies in other parts that we cannot\ntrust them. After stripping away every doubtful scrap from Jewish\nhistory, all we can find is, that Moses was first talked of, familiarly,\nafter what maybe called the Grecian Captivity of Jerusalem (see\n_Obadiah, Ancient Faiths, &c._t Vol. ii.), and that he was said to\nbe the author of the ceremonial, moral, and political laws which were\nframed for the Jewish nation, and which were assiduously taught to the\nHebrews after the Babylonish captivity.\n\nThe followers of Zoroaster are equally ignorant of the real history of\ntheir prophet, and are equally unable to demonstrate the claim of the\nZend Avesta to be a true account of the teaching of the Persian sage, as\nare the Jews to prove the antiquity of their laws and nation. Putting\non one side all those which may be regarded as modern fancies, the first\nmention made of the Prophet is in the first Alcibiades of Plato, which\nwe may imagine was written shortly after B.c. 412, in which year that\ndistinguished Greek citizen negociated a treaty between Athens and\nPersia. Plato, when speaking of the education of the sons of the kings\nof Persia, says (_Bohn's_ edition, Vol. iv., p. 344), \"At fourteen years\nof age, they who are called the royal preceptors, take the boy under\ntheir care. Now these are chosen out from those who are deemed most\nexcellent of the Persians, men in the prime of life, four in number,\nexcelling (severally) in wisdom, justice, temperance, and fortitude.\nThe first of these instructs the youth in the learning of the Magi,\naccording to Zoroaster, the son of Oromazes--now by this learning\nis meant the worship of the gods--and likewise in the art of kingly\ngovernment.\" But Herodotus, writing about B.c. 450, when giving, in Book\ni, c. 131, an account of the religion of the Persians, makes not only\nno mention of Zoroaster, but attributes to that nation a form of worship\ndiffering from what is supposed to be pure Zoroastrianism;* but he\nmentions--and it seems to be a significant fact, that it is not lawful\nfor a Persian to sacrifice unless one of the Magi is present, who\nsings an ode concerning the original of the gods which, they say, is an\nincantation.\n\n     * There is strong constructive evidence, from the nature of\n     the Aryan Mythology, from the pages of the Vedas, from the\n     anthropological resemblances between Persians, Caucasians,\n     Greeks, Latins, Germans, British, and others; from the\n     linguistic alliances between what have been called the Indo-\n     Germanic races; and from a variety of other sources, each\n     small in itself, but strong in the aggregate, for the belief\n     that the origin of the Aryan mythology, or the Vedic\n     religion as it is otherwise called, may be traced to Bactria\n     or to Ancient Persia. Persia is spoken of by Plato as if her\n     people carried the dynasties of their kings far back into\n     eternity. (First Alcibiades, Bohn's edition, vol. iv., p.\n     343). Herodotus again (Book i., c. 131) tells us that the\n     Persians from the earliest times have sacrificed to the sun\n     and moon, to the earth, fire, water, and the winds, that\n     they sacrifice on high places, have no divine statues, nor\n     do they build temples. Now this is almost entirely a\n     description of the old Aryan religion. The sun, for example,\n     is Surya, Aryama, Mitra, Vivaswat, Martunda, Savitor, Sura,\n     Ravi, Varuna, Indra Yama, Vishnu, and Krishna (Moor's Hindoo\n     Paillhcon, p. 287). The moon is Chandra and Soma, and the\n     origin of these words is to be found in the Persian as well\n     as in the Sanscrit writings (Moor's H. P., p. 284-5). The\n     Earth is Prit'hivi, 11a, Lakshmi, and Vasta. Fire is the\n     powerful Agni. The water is Nara, or Narayana (Moor's JET.\n     P., 74), from which all things came (see Water in Ancient\n     Faiths), and the Winds are Maruts and Vaya. To these\n     deities, individually or collectively, the modern Hindoo\n     offers prayer and praise; and the hymns of the Rig Veda,\n     such as we have them edited by Max Muller and Wilson, are\n     copies probably of the same chants which accompanied the\n     sacrifices of the Ancient Persians.\n\n\nThis seems to indicate that the Persian religion was then undergoing\nsome supervision by rulers who had a different faith to that held at a\nlater period. When we next turn to Herodotus, Book L, c. 101, we find\nthat the Magi were one of the six tribes which composed the Medes;\nand we notice that Phraortes, the son of Deioces, reduced the Persian\nkingdom under the dominion of the Medes about B.c. 650. If, then, we\nregard Zoroaster as being the founder of the Magi, we must throw back\nhis epoch considerably further than this date. But even if we accept\nthis conquest as the era of the Parsee prophet, we find that Zoroaster\npreceded the first public promulgation of the Mosaic law amongst the\nJews.*\n\n     * Time of Zoroaster.--Dr. Hang, who is no mean authority in\n     everything which concerns Zoroastrianism, states in an able\n     resume of the evidence, that we cannot assign a later date\n     to the prophet than 2300 years before Christ. He quotes from\n     Diogenes Laertius who affirms that Xanthos of Lydia, b.c.\n     600-450, states, that Zoroaster lived 6000 years before\n     Xerxes invaded Greece; from Pliny who, on the authority of\n     Aristotle, says that the teacher preceded Plato by 6000\n     years; from Hermippus of Smyrna, who studied Magism B.c.\n     250, and averred that the founder of that sect lived 5000\n     years before the Trojan war; and from Pliny, to show the\n     general belief of ancient Greek authors that Zoroaster lived\n     many thousand years before Moses. Dr. Haug says (I am\n     quoting from \"A Lecture on an Original Speech of Zoroaster,\n     with Remarks on his Age, by Dr Haug\" London: Triibner & Co.,\n     1865), that the traditional books of the Parsees say\n     Zerdosht (another form of the more familiar Greek name)\n     lived 300 years before Alexander invaded Persia. Our author\n     adds that Hermippus, in 250 b.c., speaks of two millions of\n     verses of Zoroastrian origin, and infers that these would\n     require 1000 years for their growth. He then points out the\n     relationship between the Iranian and the Yedic religion, and\n     Zoroaster's antagonism to the latter, and argues that this\n     must have happened ere the Aryans invaded the Punjaub, 2000\n     years B.c. Dr. Haug then inquires into the probable source\n     whence the Greeks drew their ideas respecting the antiquity\n     of Zerdosht, and argues, with great show of reason, that\n     they consulted the chronology of the Babylonian priests. He\n     shows that a trustworthy record was kept which went back to\n     2284 b.c., this he concludes, from data given by Berosus,\n     was the year when Babylon was conquered by the Medes;--and\n     from Synkellos he shows that the founder of the dynasty of\n     the eight Median tyrants over Babylon was called Zoroaster.\n     But this word, Zarathustra, in the original, signifies a\n     high priest, and to distinguish him from other hierarchs\n     the prophet is called Zarathustra Spitama, in the Zend\n     Avesta--hence this king is supposed not to be the prophet\n     him\" self, but a descendant from him, and a priest in the\n     order which was founded by the original Zerdosht. This again\n     points to the fact that the Babylonians could only know\n     anything about the founder of Magism from the Medes\n     themselves, and they might, from want of any accurate\n     chronology, assign to Zoroaster any date they liked--just\n     as, with many a semi-civilized nation 'a long time may be\n     converted into ten, a hundred, a thousand, or a million\n     years.' Haug does not endeavour to assign any particular\n     date to the era of Zoroaster beyond expressing the opinion\n     that he might have lived one or two hundred years before the\n     Median conquest of Babylon, and that this occurrence was\n     probably one of the results of the ferment which his\n     doctrines caused. \"He preached, like Moses, war and\n     destruction to all idolaters and wicked men, and said that\n     he was commissioned by God to spread the religion of Ahura\n     Mazda. Daring his life-time, and shortly after his death,\n     his followers seem to have engaged in incessant wars with\n     their religious antagonists, the Vedic Indians, which\n     struggle is well known in the Sanscrit writings as that\n     between the Asuras (Ahura) and Devas (the Hindu gods). But\n     afterwards they spread westward and invaded the countries of\n     other idol worshippers in order to uproot idolatry, and\n     establish everywhere the good Mazdayan religion. They really\n     appear to have changed the order of things in Babylon when\n     they conquered it, and spread a new creed, for they are\n     spoken of by Berosus as tyrants.\" Zoroaster was the first\n     prophet of truth who appeared in the world, and kindled a\n     fire which thousands of years could not entirely\n     extinguish.\"\n\nWhen Moses was first talked about we know not, but at the time of\nSamuel, David, and Josiah he was unknown. We have no reason to believe\nthat the Hebrews ever came into contact with, or ever heard of the\nPersians, until after the Babylonish conquest, followed by that of\nCyrus; consequently, if the Jewish law first propounded contained\nnothing akin to the doctrines and laws of Zoroaster, and subsequent\npublications did so, we should naturally conclude that the last were\ncopied. It is unnecessary to tell the student of biblical history that\nthe Jews were for many years under the dominion of the Persians and\nMedes, and that Nehemiah, one of their great men, after the Babylonian\ncaptivity, was a personal, though humble, friend, of the king of\nPersia--i.e., if we take his account of himself for true.\n\nOf the fact of there being two distinct doctrines respecting the\nAlmighty in the Old Testament no scholar has a doubt. In the one, God\nis represented as the sole Being who rules and influences the world:\nwhatsoever was done He was regarded as the doer of it. He had no\npowerful enemy who could thwart His will, no adversary who could\nwithstand Him successfully. In the other the existence of two rival\npowers is distinctly recognised--Jehovah and Satan--the Aryan Mara,\nthe tempter, who plot and counterplot against each other, and even\ncondescend to personal wrangling. The most conspicuous example which\nwe can give of these two doctrines is to be found in 2 Sam. xxiv. 1, in\nwhich we are told that Jehovah moved David to number Israel, whereas\nin 1 Chron. xxi. 1, evidently written by a modern scribe, we find that\nSatan, the adversary, was he who incited the king to perform this deed.\nWe see the duality of persons conspicuously put forward in the first and\nsecond chapters of Job, in which Satan is represented as being at large,\nnot being even under the surveillance of Jehovah. See also 1 Kings xxii.\n20-23, wherein we find Jehovah at a loss how to bring about a certain\nresult, and assisted out of a dilemma by a lying spirit--who can do what\nthe Lord could not effect! We may say that the story is a fiction, but\nno Hebrew dare have spoken thus of Jehovah had he ever heard of Moses\nand his laws.\n\nAs we cannot imagine that a revelation from God to the Hebrews would be\nthus changeable, we can come to no other conclusion than that the Jewish\nwritings were of human origin, and their first doctrines modified by\nthose of other nations to whom the Hebrews were subjects or enslaved. To\nthis consideration we may add, that when the Israelites came in contact\nwith the Medes and Persians, they were merely a 'posse' of slaves,\na crowd of prisoners removed from their own land without a shadow\nof power, or any influence, and only anxious to induce those who had\nconquered their late masters, the Babylonians, to have pity on their\nmisery, and restore them to beggared Jerusalem. The idea of the Hebrews\ngaining friends by endeavouring to induce the Persian Magi to change\ntheir faith and embrace that of the poor and probably despised Jew\nis preposterous. On the other hand, there would be every possible\ninducement for the Hebrews to study the faith of that people whose God\nhad given them victory over the Chaldeans. See in corroboration of this\nPs. cxxxvii., especially the two last verses.\n\nWe may regard the question before us in yet another light, If we are\nto allow that the words of Isaiah are correct, which describe Cyrus as\nGod's shepherd (ch. xliv. 28), and as anointed by Jehovah Himself, we\ncannot conceive that the religion which he professed was opposed to\nthat entertained by the Hebrew prophet. As it is morally impossible\nthat Cyrus and his hierarchy were taught their religion by any Jew, it\nfollows that the Persian faith can lay the same claim to inspiration as\nthe Hebrew, if the latter were not indeed almost identical with it.\nIf, then, we insist upon the latter being \"a true revelation,\" we must\nconcede the same to the former, or if we pronounce the Persian religion\nto be of human invention, we must pass a similar verdict upon the\nJewish.\n\nWhen we are upon the horns of such a great dilemma we may well pause.\nIt is indeed almost impossible for orthodox divines to make a selection\nwhich prong of the fork is the worst. If we elect to say our belief\nis, that the primitive teaching of the Hebrew was God-given and a true\nrevelation, we cannot put faith in those scriptures which tell us of a\ndevil who fights with Jehovah, and is generally victorious. If, on the\nother hand, we hold that the Christian notions of the Creator and Satan\nare true, we must regard the Zoroastrian teaching as inspired; and\nthe early Jewish writings as unworthy of credit--of human invention\nand heterodox. Theologians will probably elect to remain in a state of\nuncertainty on this subject. Philosophers, on the contrary, will escape\nfrom it at once by asserting their conviction that both the Hebrew and\nthe Magian religion are wholly of human invention.*\n\n     * When commencing this chapter, it was my intention to\n     amplify what I have already said in Vol. II. respecting the\n     Magian religion, by giving an analysis of the celebrated\n     Zend Avesta, a translation of which into French, by Anquetil\n     du Perron, I had recently procured for the purpose.\n\n     As I was aware that Dr Haug, a learned scholar, believed the\n     original to be trust-worthy, I read the translation in good\n     faith, but I soon began to doubt whether the book was what\n     it professed to be, for to my mind it bore internal evidence\n     of having been fabricated at a comparatively recent period\n     by some one who was familiar both with the Aryan and the\n     Mosaic, if not the Christian, doctrines and literature. I\n     felt that I should not be acting honestly unless I took such\n     steps as lay in my power to satisfy myself upon this point\n     The essay was therefore laid aside for a considerable time,\n     until, indeed, every available source of information had\n     been searched. After my inquiry was over the text was\n     resumed as above.\n\nBut in the middle, or perhaps we might say upon the threshold of our\ninquiry, we must pause to examine into the amount of confidence which\ncan be given to those under whose guidance we are invited to place\nourselves. Such investigations are too frequently omitted. Those who\nhave faith in the Bible usually decline to search into the grounds\nof their belief, and, in like manner, those who have always heard\nthe author of the Zend Avesta quoted as trustworthy are apt to take\neverything which it may say as correct. To avoid this error, I have\nconsulted all the volumes of the transactions of the Royal Asiatic\nSociety of London, and have found therein sufficient to throw the\ngravest doubts upon the great antiquity of the Parsee religion. It will\nbe an useful task if I attempt to classify the evidence on each side,\nand to draw an inference therefrom. Our knowledge respecting the\nMagian religion which the Bactrian* prophet founded, is built, with the\nexception of the notices in Greek and Latin authors, already quoted,\nupon the work known as the Avesta. This is written in a language called\nZand,** and there are within it parts, which are written in another\ntongue, to which the name of Pahlavi has been given, and from these the\nsacred books of the Parsees have been translated into French by Anquetil\ndu Perron, into German by Spiegel, and into English by Haug. All these\nwriters assume that the language referred to is Ancient Persian, and\nclosely allied to the Sanscrit, and Haug especially endeavours to\ndemonstrate that the Avesta, and the origin of the religion of the\nParsees, must be as old as the time of the Vedas, inasmuch as the same\nsort of legends, the same names, and, to a certain extent, the same\ngenii, are to be found in both. There is not absolute identity, however,\nfor those which are spoken of as good by the Vedas are treated as bad in\nthe Avesta. Viewed from this point, Haug assigns to the Zand volumes\nan age of about four thousand years, and he supports his belief by a\nreference to the length of time which would be required to make up the\ntwo million verses attributed to Zoroaster by some Greek author. In the\nconclusion that both the Zand and the Pahlavi are very ancient Persian\ntongues, it is stated that the majority of German and French critics\nagree.\n\n     * Zoroaster is said by many early writers to have been a\n     king in Bactria.--Smith's Dictionary, s.v.\n\n     ** The word \"Zend\" is more familiar to many than the form\n     \"Zand;\" but I have adopted the latter, as also the spelling\n     of Pahlavi, from an essay by Mr Romer, with an introduction\n     by Professor Wilson, in Vol. IV., Royal Asiatic Society's\n     Journal.\n\nBut on the other hand, such orientalists as Sir William Jones, Colonel\nVans Kennedy, Mr Thomas, and Mr Romer, and indeed all British oriental\nscholars, regard both the Zand and the Pahlavi as bastard languages,\nnever spoken, and wholly fabricated by a comparatively modern\npriesthood, for the express purpose of making the holy books which they\nwrote comprehensible only by themselves. Such scholars show that the\nZand and Pahlavi are built upon a Sanscrit, Arabic, and modern Persian\nmodel, and that the Parsee Pahlavi is very different to the Pehlevi of\nthe Sassanian coins, and, in Vol. IV., Transactions of Royal Asiatic\nSociety, Mr Romer supports this conclusion by a number of passages in\nthe various languages referred to. It is also asserted that many words\nin the Avesta have been borrowed from the Arabic, and others from the\nSanscrit tongues, possibly, also, from the Greek. Being unable, from my\ncomparative ignorance of Eastern language, to form a decided opinion on\nindependent grounds, all that I can say is, that it does really seem to\nbe proved that the religious books of the Par-sees are not so ancient as\nthey have been by many supposed to be.\n\nThe question which next arises for our consideration is, whether such\nvolumes represent the tenets of an ancient faith, or whether they\nare the fabrication of men who have, possibly in the wreck of an old\nworship, brought about by war or other calamity, endeavoured to create a\nnew religion out of the relics of one or more old ones. In favour of the\nantiquity of the Avesta are the facts that the great god, Ahura Mazdao,\nseems to be almost identical with the Aura Mazda of the Persepolitan\ninscription of Darius. But in proof of its untruthfulness as a\nrepresentative of pure Persian tradition, we find the book introducing\nDevs and Ahuras,--the counterpart of the Devas and Asuras of the Vedas,\nonly reversing their character--we also see Indra mentioned as a devil,\nwhilst Siva and Mitra are introduced as Sharva and Miltra. (Haug's\n_Essays on the Parsee_, Bombay, p. 230, 1862). If, therefore, we allow\nthat there is some of the old Zoroastrian doctrine to be found in the\nAvesta, we must equally grant that such teaching has been modified by\nhatred of a rival faith. Yet herein is another question, viz., Was\nthe antagonism between the doctrines of the Avesta and of the Vedas\ncontemporary with the origin of the two systems, or was the teaching of\nthe Avesta the result of its author's coming into hostile conflict with\nVedic teachers, as they possibly might have done after Alexander had\nopened a highway for intercourse between Persia and Hindostan?\n\nOn weighing the subject as impartially as I can, it seems to me that the\nAvesta contains a great deal of the Ancient Persian faith, but that it\nwill be the safest plan for us to describe what is known of the Persian\nand Median faith from other sources, rather than take our information\nmainly from this doubtful source. Herodotus tells us of his own\nknowledge (B. i, c. 131, seq.), that the Persians, about b.c. 450, did\nnot erect statues, temples, or altars--that they sacrificed on lofty\nhills to high heaven, the sun, moon, fire, water, and the winds, and\nthat this had been a custom from time immemorial Sacrifice was attended\nby a priest or magus, and prayer and praise were offered, not for\nthemselves alone, but for all the Persians, and especially for the king.\n\nIn about the year 521 B.c., Darius, king of the Medes, caused be\nmade, in three languages, upon a rock at Behistun, an inscription of\nconsiderable length. The one which is in the Persian tongue has been\ntranslated by Rawlinson (_Royal Asiatic Society Journal_, vol 10). In\nit, the king acknowledges Auramazda as his god, and speaks of him as the\nJews did of Jehovah. This epithet is explained by two Sanscrit roots (Op\ncit., vol. x., p. 68), and may be paraphrased as \"The Lord or giver of\nlife,\" \"The great Creator,\" or \"The Eternal,\" and the king in a doubtful\npassage refers to \"the evil one\" (?), who by lies deceived the rulers\nof certain states, inducing them to rebel, and then left them to be\nconquered by the Ormazd-governed Darius. In the Babylonian copy \"lies\"\nare as it were personified. Whilst in the Scythian version, translated\nby Mr Norris (Op cit. vol. xv., p. 144), we find the account run thus:\n\"These are the provinces which became rebellious, 'the god of lies'\nmade them rebel that they would subvert the state, afterwards Ormaza\ndelivered them into my hand.\" The \"lies,\" or the god of lies, we very\nnaturally associate with the being whom we call in our time the devil,\nwho is spoken of (John viii. 44) as a liar, and the father of falsehood,\nwho was so from the beginning [--Greek--], and consequently regarded as\ncoeval with the \"father of light.\"\n\nWe next turn to such evidence as is given us in the book of Job. We\nselect this ancient writing in consequence of the strong internal\nevidence there is, that it was written by some one about the period of\nthe Achaemenian dynasty living in Persia (see Rawlinson in _Journal of\nB. A. Soc_., vol. 1, new series, p. 230). In Job we find two distinct\npowers spoken of, the one being the Good God, and the other Satan the\nopposer. The last is regularly described as if he had the power to cause\nwar, devastation, tempest, disease, and death, for ch. ii., v. 6, lets\nus infer that he might have killed Job had he been so minded and God\nallowed the bargain, and in verse 19 of the same chapter we find\nhim killing all the sons and daughters of the patriarch. Job\nclearly recognised the necessity of sacrifice for purification, for\nsanctification, and he seems not to have offered this upon any altar, in\nany temple, or with the intervention of any priest. It is clear that Job\nhad never heard of Moses or the writings assigned to him. The persecuted\npatriarch and his friends all believe that punishment in this life is\nthe result of offences committed against the Good God, but all seem\nto be singularly free from the idea that Satan is the cause of Job's\nsufferings either directly or indirectly. There is throughout the book\nno reference made to a preceding or a succeeding condition of man,\nsuch as obtained amongst the Brahmins, and it is doubtful whether the\nPersians believed in heaven or hell. When man died he was supposed to\nperish. Hence we conclude that the doctrine of the resurrection was not\nprevalent at the time the story was written, and in the country where\nthe writer of the book of Job resided. Equally unknown to that author,\nwhoever he was, were the ideas about angels, ministers of God, or\ndisembodied spirits. These were of Babylonian origin. We must now, to\ncarry on the thread of the argument, recal to mind the fact that Babylon\nwas taken by the Medes and Persians, that the rulers of the united\npeople often made that city their residence, that Herodotus tells us\n(B. 1, c. 135) that \"the Persians are of all nations most ready to adopt\nforeign customs,\" and I may notice, in passing, that the same authority\nstates that the two nations were scrupulously truthful, ceremoniously\ncleanly, and intolerant to leprosy. It is well known, moreover, that\neven after the commencement of our era Babylon was the chief seat of\nBabbinic and Talmudic lore.\n\nWhen we examine into the religion of the Babylonians we find that\nthey believed in the existence of angels--minis-, ters of the\nSupreme--intelligences,--unseen by man, yet powerful to act in his\nfavour, or against him. If we rightly interpret many of the engraved\ngems which were executed by the Chaldees, we can only come to the\nconclusion that they believed in a Devil, a Typhon, or spirit of\ndestruction.\n\nWe next must call attention to the fact that the Jews were conquered by\nthe Babylonians, and enslaved in Mesopotamia for very many years--that\nthey were subsequently emancipated by the Medo-Persians, and that the\nlatter, whom from the inscription of Darius we believe to have been\ndevout, permitted and even encouraged the Israelites to entertain the\nfaith which they then held, and even assisted them to rebuild their\ntemple. This permission, and the friendliness of Nehemiah with the\nMedian monarch, seem to show a great similarity, if not an identity,\nbetween the Persian and the Jewish creeds.\n\nIf, then, we could frame any definite idea of the tenets held by the\nJews before they came into contact with the Babylonians, and those which\nthey professed afterwards, we might form a conception of what they got\nfrom the Chaldees, the Medes, and the Persians respectively. Without\ngoing very deeply into the matter, we may say that Hebrew scholars\ngenerally allow that the ideas of Satan--a power opposed to that of God,\nand of angels or spirits, were introduced between the captivity and\nthe period when the scriptures were translated into Greek, and that the\nnotion of a future life and the resurrection of the dead, was developed\nafter the time of the Septuagint, about b.c. 277.\n\nFrom the preceding considerations we draw the inference that the idea of\nthe resurrection of the dead, of a future state of existence, in which\neach will be punished or rewarded for what had been done by him in his\nmortal condition, was not a portion of the original Median, Persian,\nBabylonian, or Jewish religion. A mass of circumstantial evidence has\nled me to believe that the idea of a Heaven for the good and a\nHell for the bad, came from those who professed what we will call the\nVedic or the Buddhist faith. If, in reply to this, it is alleged that\nit may have come from the Greeks directly, the rejoinder is simply\nthis--that the Grecians, as Aryan colonists, brought with them only\na rude notion of a futurity, which they were the medium of improving,\nwhen, through the influence of their arts and arms, they opened a\nhighway to India both by sea and land. Those who could import into their\narmies such huge beasts as elephants, could far more readily import a\nnew article of faith, if it pleased the priests.\n\nIf our reasoning is sound, we cannot, I think, regard the Avesta as\na trustworthy exposition of the ancient teaching of Zoroaster. On the\nother hand, we must, in my opinion, consider it as a book fabricated to\nserve a particular purpose. In this respect it resembles our own Bible,\nwhich was composed for the glorification of the Hebrews when smarting\nunder a series of ignominious defeats and enslavements; and then\nenlarged, contracted, or altered, to suit emergencies.\n\nThe following table will assist the reader to compare or contrast\nthe religion of the Medo-Persians with that of the Hebrews in some\nmatters:--\n\n[Illustration: 285]\n\n[Illustration: 286]\n\nThe Hebrews first worshipped a calf, and then a box; they believed that\ntheir God taught them to build a tabernacle first, then a temple, and\nto It is not the practice of the Perform altars for sacrifice. The\nHebrews sians to erect statues, or temples, also believed that Elohim\nhad one or or altars, and they charge with folly more human forms--see\nGen. xviii. 1, those that do. They do not think 2, and the following\nchap. xix. 1--see the gods have human forms, also Gen. xxxii. 1 and\n24-80, also Josh. v. 13, 14, 15, Jud. ii. 1-5.\n\nThe anthropomorphism of the Jewish Scriptures has already been referred\nto in Vol. I. of Ancient Faiths.\n\nThe Persians are accustomed to ascend the highest parts of the\nmountains, and offer sacrifice to Jupiter, calling the whole circle of\nthe heavens by that name.\n\nThe Persians sacrificed to the son and moon, to the earth, fire, water,\nand the winds.\n\nAmongst the Persians, sacrifices were attended by invocations and\nprayers, and were always offered up by a priest.\n\nThe Persians, next to bravery in battle, considered the greatest proof\nof manliness was to be able to exhibit many children.\n\nWhoever has the leprosy or scrofula is not permitted to stay within a\ntown, nor have communication with other Persians; and it is supposed\nthat the infliction is caused by some offence against the deity (sun\ngod). Herodotus, book I., chaps. 131,138.\n\nThe eldest son of the Persian king was instructed during youth in the\nlearning of the Magi according to Zoroaster the son of Oromazes--by this\nlearning is meant the worship of the gods--and likewise in the art of\nkingly government. Plato, in Alcibiades.\n\nThe Hebrews sacrificed on high places for a long period. Sacrifice in an\nenclosed place seems to have been adopted from the Phoenicians by David\nand Solomon, but not to have been popular for some centuries.\n\nThe Jewish people sacrificed to sun, moon, and some planets--had a\nsacred fire in the temple, and regarded clouds and wind as the ministers\nof God. The God that answered by fire was the one adopted by Elyah. The\nso-called orthodox Jews only acknowledged one God, and subsequently one\ndevil.\n\nThe Jews neither offered invocation nor prayer at their sacrifices, and\nprophets and kings offered victims without priestly assistance. In later\ntimes every sacrifice was offered by a priest.\n\nThe Hebrews regarded a large family as a gift from Jehovah.\n\nThe Hebrews had the same practice; and, as we learn in the book of Job,\nand Deuter. xxviii, notably in the 27th verse, they deemed that botch,\nscab, itch, and emerods were punishments sent by Jehovah.\n\nThe royal families of Judah received no instruction, either in political\nmatters or in religion, and were allowed to grow up and do much as they\nliked in regard to worship. The only power which influenced them was\nthat assumed by some man who professed to be divinely inspired.\n\nIn a chapter of ancient faiths and notice an allegation which has that\nParseeism or Zoroastriamsm has been borrowed from Jews and Christians.\nTo this we wholly demur. Nowhere in the Avesta do we find a reference to\nthe imminent destruction of the world, the resurrection of a dead man,\nhis subjugating all the powers of evil, and reigning for a thousand\nyears with his followers as kings and saints. Nowhere in the Avesta do\nwe discover such immoral notions of God as prevailed amongst the ancient\nJewish writers. Take these away from Judaism and Christianity, and\nthen the two resemble the religions which are held everywhere by the\nthoughtful and the good. If there has really been any copying at all,\nwe do not see the imitators in Central Asia but on the shores of\nthe Mediterranean. The Jews copied from Tyre, Babylon, and\nGreece--Christians have taken as models Egyptians, Grecians, Romans, and\neven barbarians, and they have denied a once pure faith by covering it\nover with the ordures of heathenism. Yet we talk of others imitating us!\n\nI propose now to examine at some length into such of the developments as\nhave taken place in certain religious systems, for by so doing we shall\nbe better able to judge what are those doctrines which Christians hold,\nin common with what they call Pagan nations, and how far those matters\nwhich are regarded as fundamental points of doctrine are in reality\ntrustworthy. We must ever bear in mind that if we find the same set of\nideas entertained amongst peoples who by no possibility can have had any\ncommunication with each other, it is only rational to believe that each\nrace possesses those notions in virtue of their being human. Or, if\ndesirous of avoiding this admission, the orthodox declares that\nevery asserted fact is a copy of a precedent one, then we ask them to\nreconcile the legend of Hercules being begotten by Jupiter, and Jesus by\nthe Holy Ghost, for unquestionably the story of Alcmena's son preceded\nthat told of Mary's.\n\nIn the following chapter I shall avoid as far as possible any reference\nto the tales told of the conception of Jesus, for no man, however\nsubtle he may be, can prove that the Son of Man had a certain mundane\nindividual called Joseph for a father; all that I desire to show is,\nthat in every nation whose history has come down to us there have been\npersons whose mothers have declared themselves to have been pure virgins\nuntil adopted by some god as a temporal and temporary spouse, or who,\nbeing wives, have asserted that a son who has distinguished himself\nin the world has been of divine procreation--an affirmation, be it\nobserved, that can only be made in case the spouse has been manifestly\nunfaithful, or by some fulsome historian desirous of exalting his hero\nto celestial rank. There is scarcely a barbaric dynasty known, indeed,\nwhich does not claim an origin from some heavenly father, mother, or\nboth.\n\nThere have been many hierarchs who, having felt conscious of the\nabsurdity of making, by miraculous agency, all wonderful beings come\nfrom woman only, have consequently invented legends in which men have\nproduced offspring without a consort. Some may be disposed to deride\nthese tales, who can readily credit the stories of virgin mothers; but\nin reality there is no difference between the two sets of legends, in\nprobability, wherever \"miracles\" are assumed. It would have been quite\nas easy for the writer of Genesis to have made Isaac come from old\nAbraham's bosom as from the womb of his hoary-headed wife. But the\nJewish writers have never proved themselves as subtle as the Hindoos and\nGreeks. Instead of asserting that a man, without a woman's assistance,\nhas borne a son--a matter capable of proof--they have declared that a\nwoman has conceived, without the assistance of a man; an asseveration\nfor which there cannot be any proof whatever, no not even physical,\nfor accoucheurs know that many a female conceives by her lover's\ninstrumentality, and bears a child, at whose birth, or rather when\nparturition is imminent, that part which is called \"the Hymen,\" and is\nthe Mosaical test of virginity, is not only unbroken, but so small\nin aperture, and strong in flesh, as to require operative or surgical\ninterference before the child can come into the world. According to\nMosaism these must be regarded as absolutely virgin mothers.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nSupernatural generation. What is meant by the term. Examples. Children\ngiven by the gods. Anecdote. Frequency of god-begotten children in\nAncient Greece. Their general fate. The stories not credited by the\ngrandfathers of children, nor apparently by the mothers. The babies,\nhow treated. Foundlings and Hospitals. Antiope. Leucothoee. Divinely\nconceived persons not necessarily great or good. Babylonian idea that\na god came down to enjoy human women. Tale from Herodotus. Jehovah as a\nman. Grecian idea attached to the expression Son of God. Homer. Hebrew\nideas. Roman notions. Romulus, son of Mars and a Vestal Augustus, son\nof Apollo. Modern ideas respecting Incubi. Prevalence of the belief.\nIts suppression. Causes of its origin. Bible made to pander to priestly\nlust. Dictionnaire Infernal. History of incubi therefrom. Stories.\nStrange idea that the Gods who made men out of nothing cannot as easily\nmake babies. Divine Androgynes. Strange stories of single gods having\noffspring. Narayana and the Spirit of God of Genesis. Chaos. Hindoo\nmythos of Brahma. Birth from churning a dead man's left arm, and again\nhis right. Ayonyesvara, his strange history. Similar ones referred\nto. History of Carticeya. Christian parallels. Immaculate conception a\nHindoo myth. The dove in India and Christendom. Agni and cloven fiery\ntongues. Penance and its powers. Miraculous conception by means' of a\ndove. Other myths from various sources.\n\nIt is a question which should, in my opinion, be asked by every\nindividual in a rational community, whether it is advisable to continue,\nas a matter of faith, a doctrine which must be repudiated, as a matter\nof fact. To this we may join, as a rider, can anyone who puts his\ncredence in a legend because it is old, claim to be superior to those\nwho originally invented the tale, in the darkness of antiquity? When\nmoderns smile at the stories told by the classic Varro, how certain\nmares in Lusitania were impregnated by the wind on a certain mountain,\nwithout any access to a horse, and at the credence given to similar\naccounts by Virgil, Pliny, and even the Christian bishop Augustine; and\nby some old Scotch authority how a young woman became a mother through\nthe intervention of the ashes of the dead: and when they pity the\nbenighted Greeks who gave to Hercules, Jupiter for a father; and to\nMars, Juno for a mother, without intercourse with her celestial spouse,\nit behoves them to inquire whether each may not be addressed in the\nsentence, \"Mutato nomine, de te fabula narratur\"--i.e., change but the\nname of the believers from Greeks and Romans to modern Christians, and\nit will be found that Popes, priests, and peoples believe as firmly\nnow in supernatural generation as the most crass pagan of which history\ntreats.\n\nOur classical reading tells us abundance of marvellous stories--how\nJupiter seduced Danae in the form of a golden shower, and yet had a\ncommon son by her, who was not an aureous coin; how Leda received Zeus\nas a swan, and bore therefrom a couple of eggs; how Europa was tempted\nby him as a bull, and yet did not bear a calf; and how Callisto, a\nmaiden of Diana, was debauched by the same god under the guise of her\nmistress, and yet that from two maidens a boy was formed.\n\nOf the amours of Apollo with a dozen and a half damsels, and of the very\nnumerous disguises which he assumed, we find abundant details in our\nclassical dictionaries. Mars, though not so frequently adopted by\nhuman females as a lover, had many children of whom he was the putative\nfather.\n\nJupiter had Bacchus and Minerva without Juno's aid, and Juno retaliated\nby bearing Ares without conversation with her consort. We deride these\ntales, and yet think, that because we laugh at a hundred such we shall\nbe pardoned for believing one. How little we are justified in acting\nthus a few philosophical considerations will demonstrate.\n\nThere are few things in mythology that are more curious than the subject\nof the miraculous formation of certain individuals. Some of these have\nbeen regarded as the offspring of a celestial father and a mother of\nearthly mould; others again, as for example AEneas, were said to be\nthe result of a union between a heavenly mother and a terrestrial\nfather--e.g., AEneas was the son of Anchises, a handsome man, and Venus,\ngoddess of beauty and love. Some, though these are few, are said to be\nchildren of a virgin or deserted wife, who has produced them without any\nextraneous assistance,* and others are declared to be descended from a\nfather whom no consort could ever claim. One individual, indeed, called\nOrion, is represented as having been wholly independent of both father\nand mother, and the result of a strange form of development, the like of\nwhich Darwin never dreamed of as he came from a bladder into which three\ngods had micturated. His name, we are gravely assured, came _ab urina_.\n\n     * The following is a good case in corroboration of what is\n     said in the text. In the _Dictionnaire Infernal_, to which\n     more particular reference will be made shortly, there is, s.\n     v. Fecondite, a report of a trial before the Parliament of\n     Grenoble, in which the question was, whether a certain\n     infant could be declared legitimate which was born after the\n     husband had been absent from his wife four full years. The\n     wife asserted that the baby was the offspring of a dream, in\n     which she had a vivid idea that her wandering spouse had\n     returned to love and duty. Midwives and physicians were\n     consulted, and reported on the subject. As a result, the\n     Parliament ordained that the infant should be adjudged\n     legitimate, and that its mother should be regarded as a true\n     and honourable wife.   The judgment bears date 13th February\n     1537.\n\nThe quaint ideas associated in mythology with the supernatural\ngeneration here referred to have been various. In some instances they\nhave been wholly poetical, as when we are told that \"the Supreme\" by his\nunion with law and order (Themis) produced \"Justice,\" \"the Hours,\" \"Good\nLaws,\" and \"Peace\" (Hesiod Theogony, 900), and as when Europa is said to\nhave tempted Jupiter to leave Phoenicia, and travel westward to Crete\nas the first step towards the colonization of an unknown continent. In\nother instances, the ideas have been framed upon the very natural belief\nthat anyone--whether existent in story only, or in reality--who has\ngreatly surpassed his fellows, must have had a large element of the\nDeity in his constitution. In other instances, the notion has been\nassociated with the once prevalent belief, that the Creator had a sex,\nto which we shall refer by and by; and in other cases, the fancy has\nclearly been mingled with the fact, that many an unmarried woman has\nattributed to some god, a pregnancy, or baby, which has been due, in\nreality, to a very mortal man. Here we may notice that the fecundity\nwhich damsels of old were wont to refer to a god or some inferior, but\nyet beneficent, deity, more modern christian girls have associated with\na demon. Jupiter and Apollo being replaced by a special class of imps\nwho were named \"incubi,\" and of the particulars of whose embraces the\nstrangest stories are told. This small truth seems to be sufficient to\ndemonstrate that the Greeks were not familiar with the being to whom\nwe give the name of \"Satan\" and the \"Devil,\" and that their belief\ncoincided in one respect with that of the older Jews, who considered\nthat whatever occurrence happened in the world, whether apparently for\ngood or evil, was done by Jehovah, or as the Hellenic damsels reported\nby Jupiter, Apollo, or Mars.\n\nHere, too, I may be permitted to introduce a remark suggested by a\nnarrative, told to me by a lady of high British rank. She had been\nbrought up in a foreign country under the eye of a sensible and pious,\nwe may add prudish, mother, who endeavoured to shield her daughter from\nall contact with external vicious influences, and to prevent her ears\nor her mind from ever coming to the knowledge of those matters which\nare associated with love, marriage, and offspring. When the young lady\nnaturally inquired of mamma where the infants sprang from which came\ninto the world and grew up around her, she was told, \"from God,\" and she\nwas referred to Psalm cxxvii. 3, which declares that \"children are an\nheritage of the Lord, and the fruit of the womb is His reward.\" After\nhaving attained adult age, and being wholly imbued with this belief,\nshe, on one occasion, expressed her opinion that Mademoiselle--who had\nrecently been confined--must have been a peculiarly virtuous maiden, to\nhave received so great a present as a baby from the beneficent Creator.\nThis speech fell like a bombshell amongst a mixed company, but she knew\nnot why. It was not until her marriage some time subsequently, that she\nlearned that infants were said to come from God or the Devil according\nto circumstances, but that in reality they were always due to men and\nwomen.\n\nThe anecdote given above, naturally enables us to call attention to\nthe remarkable fact that though the Grecian poets repeatedly spoke of\nmaidens being fertilized by a divinity, yet Greek fathers never paid\nany heed to the power of that god, whom their daughters asserted to have\noperated upon their femininity; but always treated the earthly love of\nthe alleged celestial spouse, as if the latter was wholly powerless to\npunish the hard-hearted parent, who had no scruples to turn his daughter\nfrom his door, so that she might hide her shame in distant lands. In\nthose classic times, procreation by a god upon a human being was the\nattempted cover for bastardy. Moreover, even the woman herself, to whom\nJupiter or Apollo was alleged to have descended from heaven to honour,\nfelt herself so much injured by the visit, that she either tried to\ndestroy the resulting offspring with her own hands, or exposed it upon\na mountain to the tender mercies of dogs and vultures. Much in the\nsame way many a modern maiden places her shame-covered infant in\nthe turn-table of a foundling institution. Antiope, for example, the\ndaughter of a king of Thebes, was, according to her version, beloved by\n\nJupiter, who visited her in the form of a satyr and implanted twins.\nWhen she discovered the coming event, which casts its shadow before, she\nleft the paternal mansion, to avoid her father's anger, and fled to a\nmountain, on which she left her hapless offspring. They were found by\nshepherds and brought up.\n\nThe story of fair Leucothoee is still more to the point. She was\nsufficiently beautiful to attract Apollo, who seduced her under the form\nof her own mother--not a very likely story it is true, but the two lived\nhappily together until a rival told the loved one's father of the amour.\nThe incensed paterfamilias ordered his daughter to be buried alive, and\nyet the god who could change her body after death into the frankincense\ntree, and himself into a matronly looking woman and yet retain his sex,\ncould not prevent his earthly spouse from dying a cruel death. In other\nwords, Orchamus, the parent of the damsel, wholly disbelieved in the\nexistence of a divine \"spark,\" and felt assured that his daughter had\ndisgraced herself with a man far below her in earthly rank.\n\nFrom these, and a number of other Grecian anecdotes, we can draw no\nother conclusions than that the sires in those days were as jealous of\nthe honour of their daughters as we are of our own now; that when that\nhonour was in danger of being tarnished, a god was alleged by the\ndamsel to be the offender; that the story was not believed; and that the\ndaughter fled, was punished, or was pardoned, according to the sternness\nor credulity of the parents. The idea that individuals who were the\nsons or daughters of a god, must necessarily be great and good, does not\nappear to have prevailed amongst the ancient Greeks. Nay, we may even\ndoubt whether any of them really believed that Jupiter, Apollo, or\nNeptune, could, or had ever become incarnate, for the sole purpose\nof impregnating a human female. That such an idea, however, prevailed\namongst the Babylonians we learn from Herodotus, who informs us, book i.\nc. 181, that Belus comes into a chamber at the summit of a sacred tower\nto meet therein a native woman, chosen by the god from the whole nation;\nand in the succeeding chapter he indicates that a similar occurrence\ntakes place in Egyptian Thebes, and in Lycian Patarae. Yet even whilst\nwriting the tales, the historian expresses his own incredulity of their\nvalue, and we may well suppose that the thoughtful generally, would only\ngive such credence to the statements of the temple priests, as was given\nto certain Christian stories by a philosopher, who said he believed them\nbecause they were impossible. Even if the common people credited the\nassertion that \"The Supreme\" did elect a woman with whom to converse, we\nmust not despise them too lightly, for we are distinctly told in our own\nscriptures that Jehovah appeared as a man, and as such, ate, drank, and\ntalked with Abraham (Gen. ch. xviii.); that Elohim was in the habit of\nconversing face to face with Moses (Exod. xxxiii. 11); and that the\nsame God wrestled with Jacob as a man, and could not prevail against the\npatriarch until he had lamed him. We must also notice that myriads of\nChristians have believed, and many still do so, that He in a certain\nform had commerce with a Hebrew maiden (Luke i. 34, 35), and had by her\na begotten son.\n\nWhen civilization spread over Greece, there seems to have been a\nchange of expression--which being at the first wholly metaphorical,\nsubsequently became realistic. Thus, any man peculiarly characteristic\namongst his fellows for strength, knowledge, or power, was designated\n\"a son of God.\" Thus, as Grote remarks (12 vol. edition), vol. ii. p. 132,\nnote 1. \"Even Aristotle ascribed to Homer a divine parentage; a damsel\nof the isle of Ios, pregnant by some god, was carried off by pirates to\nSmyrna at the time of the Ionic emigration, and there gave birth to the\npoet\" (Aristotle ap. Plutarch Vit. Homer, p. 1059). Plato, also by\nsome, called \"the divine,\" was said by Seusippus to be a son of Apollo\n(_Smith's Dictionary_, 8. v.) The Hebrews had a similar metaphorical\nexpression, and gave to everything supereminently good, an epithet which\nwe may paraphrase as \"divine.\" Some few writers used the title, \"sons\nof God,\" as for example, Job i. 6, and xxxviii. 7, and Hosea i. 10; an\nepithet adopted by John i. 12, Rom. viii. 14, 19, Phil ii. 15, 1 John iii\n1, 2, as if the same were applicable to all who are virtuous and good\nto an especial degree. The Hebrews even seem to have adopted the belief\nthat Elohim, like the Grecian Zeus, had many children, could, and\ndid really, associate with human beings, for we can in no other way\nreasonably interpret the strange narrative in Genesis vi, wherein we are\ntold that the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, who became\nthe sires of mighty men of great renown.\n\nAmongst the Romans, similar ideas to those which we find amongst the\nGreeks prevailed. For example, Romulus was said to be the son of Mars\nand a Vestal virgin; but so little did her relatives believe in the\npossibility of the occurrence, or the divine nature of the maiden's\noffspring, that the mother was buried alive, and the twins which she\nbare were exposed, much in the same way as modern \"foundlings\" are. In\nthis case, as in many others, it is probable that little notice would\nhave been taken of such supernatural generation had the mother been of\nlow origin--but when a god inveigles a king's daughter from her duty,\nboth the one and the other must be punished; the one in her person, the\nother in his child. Yet these very writers who told of the punishment of\nthe Vestal Hia for her intrigue with Mars, took advantage of the story,\nand spread a report that Romulus, the offspring of the two, was, after\nhis death, taken up to heaven to dwell there as a god. At a subsequent\nperiod, Augustus Caesar announced, on his mother's authority, that he\nwas the son of Apollo, and claimed to be treated as a veritable scion of\nthat venerable deity.\n\nThe account of the conception and birth of Servius Tullius is curious\nfrom its circumstantiality. Ovid tells us, _Fasti_, vi., 625-659, Bonn's\ntranslation: \"Vulcan was the father of Tullius; Ocrisia was his mother,\na woman of Corniculum, remarkable for her beauty. Her, Tanaquil, having\nduly performed the sacred rites, ordered, in company with herself, to\npour some wine on the decorated altar. Here amongst the ashes, either\nwas, or seemed to be, a form of obscene shape; but such it really was.\nBeing ordered to do so, the captive (Ocrisia was a slave), submits to\nits embraces; conceived by her, Servius had the origin of his birth from\nheaven. His father afforded a proof, at the time when he touched his\nhead with the gleaming fire, and a flame rising to a point, blazed upon\nhis locks.\" In some earlier lines, the poet tells us that the goddess,\nFortune, was enamoured of this same Roman king, and visited him\nnightly--much as Venus came to converse with Anchises.\n\nIn this story, we have an unusual ingredient, inasmuch as there is a\nwitness to that which we may call the immaculate conception, and after\nbirth, a proof of the child's divine origin! Of course there are many\nirreverent people who declare that the story is untrue--that it is far\nmore likely that the real father was Tarquin, who, finding his consort's\nbeautiful servant to be with child, contrived a plan by which she would\nescape the vindictiveness of the mistress--one which, if devotionally\ninclined, she was bound to give credence to. Nor can devout Christians\naltogether range themselves amongst the unbelievers in the miracle, for\nthe founder of their religion was borne by a woman of low condition, and\nis said to have been begotten by an overshadowing spirit. He assumed to\nbe a king; but the son of Ocrisia became one in reality, and instituted\ngames in honour of his divine progenitor.\n\nFor some more modern poetical fictions of the same nature, we may refer\nour readers to Scott's _Lady of the Lake_, where, in the account of the\nHighland seer, Brian, they will find a parallel to the story promulgated\nby Alexander the false prophet, respecting his birth, described by\nLucian.\n\nThe same ideas, with which we are all of us so familiar in Christendom,\nthat they form a portion of the creeds which the orthodox weekly\nrehearse, have obtained in far Ceylon. Thus, for example, we read in a\nBuddhistic legend (_Kusa Iatakaya_, translated by T. Steele, Truebner,\nLondon, 1871, small 8vo., pp. 260):--\n\n     \"As Sakra*, with his thousand eyes gazed over every land,\n     The hapless queen, with heart distraught, he saw dejected stand;\n     His godlike eye revealed to him that to her blessed womb\n     Two radiant gods illustrious from Heaven's high town should come.\n\n     Then entering first the Bodisat's blest skyey palace fair,\n     And next unto another god's, did Sakra straight repair:\n     Benign he said:--Go to the world of men, that distant scene,\n     And there be born from out the womb of yon delightful queen.\n\n     The saying of the king of gods unto their hearts they took;\n     Then bathed they in his feet's bright rays that shone as shines a brook:\n     'Let us be so conceived,' they said, when they the order heard,\n     'Within the womb of yonder queen, even as the Lord declared.'\"\n\n     --Stanzas 129-131.\n\n     * Indra, \"The Supreme.\"\n\nBut the two children do not appear as twins, like Romulus and Remus, for\nwe find in stanza 155--\n\n\"Now when the darling little child, the wisdom-gifted one, Began to lift\nhis tiny foot, and learn to walk alone, Another god from Heaven's high\ntown flashed down the sky serene, And was conceived within the womb of\nthat delightful queen.\"\n\nI may notice in passing, that the lady was married, but had always been\nbarren with her husband.\n\nIn the instances to which we have referred above, there has been no very\nmarked departure from the ordinary course of nature. In all, an union\nbetween a father and mother has occurred--in all, the relation between\neach to the offspring has been maintained, and the ordinary progress of\ngestation observed. The main discrepancies which are to be noticed are,\nthat a divine is substituted for a human father, or, as in the case of\nAEneas, the sire has been a man, and the mother a \"celestial.\" But after\nbirth, instead of the child being cared for by its parents, it very\nfrequently happens that a goat, wolf, or other animal, performs\nthe mother's duty as a nurse. The reader whose antiquarian lore is\nconsiderable, will probably remember that Christians in Italy, France,\nand I dare not say in how many other Catholic countries, were implicit\nbelievers in the idea that spirits from the invisible world could assume\na human form, and under that, have intercourse with youths of either\nsex. The literature upon this subject was at one time very great, but\nsuch pains have been taken to destroy it, in order that so great a blot\nupon the infallibility of Papal rulers should no longer be found, that\nthere are few books to which I can refer inquirers. The first time I\nmet with the subject was in a Latin treatise by Cardan, a.d. 1444-1524,*\nbeing commentaries upon Hippocrates. In this, many chapters are devoted\nto the possibility of intercourse between women and embodied spirits.\nThe Mediaeval virgins, unlike the Greeks, always attributed their\npregnancy to demons and not to gods, although on some occasions maidens\nwere foolish enough, like those of ancient Babylon, to believe that they\nwere embraced, by a divine being or angel. Into this matter the Italian\ndoctor enters folly, and endeavours to establish some distinction how\na woman could distinguish an \"incubus\" from a human being, and if she\nbecame pregnant and brought forth, how the devil's offspring could\nbe told from an ordinary baby. The particulars which are given to the\nlearned in Latin, will not bear to be reproduced in the vernacular,\nsuffice it to say, that they are such as would be given by silly women\nmore or less conscious of having been guilty of impropriety, and who\nwere goaded by sanctimonious but ribald divines to enter into every\ndetail of the devil's doings and the females' sensations.\n\n     * It is more than thirty years since I read the book in\n     question, and I have long ago parted with it. As I am unable\n     now to lay my hands upon a copy I am not sure whether the\n     author was Facio Cardan, who flourished at the period given\n     in the text, or the more celebrated Jerome Cardan who lived\n     A.D. 1601-1576.\n\nBefore saying more of the \"incubi,\" we may bestow a passing glance upon\nthe foundation of the idea of their existence. In mediaeval times, a\nlarge portion of the New Testament was taken to be literally true, and\nthe people were instructed to believe that the devil went about like a\nroaring lion seeking whom he could devour. The papal priests encouraged\nthe idea, for by frightening the ignorant, they induced them to purchase\nsacerdotal insurance by paying for masses to protect themselves from the\nsnares of Satan. For hierarchs who were obliged to live without wives,\nit was easy in the first place to imbue the mind of a superstitious\nmaiden with a horror of Apollyon's power, and then to take advantage of\nher fears by personifying the fiend. In this manner the bible suggested\nthe sin to the priest and made the maiden passive.\n\nIt would not be profitable to write a catalogue in detail of the\nauthorities upon which I found these statements. I will rather give a\nshort resume of an article upon \"Incubi,\" which is to be found in a most\ncurious book entitled _Dictionnaire Infernal ou Bibliotheque universelle\nsur les etres, les personnages, les livres, les faits et les choses\nqui tiennent aux apparitions, a la magie, au commerce de Venfer, aux\ndivinations, aux sciences secretes,... aux erreurs et aux prejuges,...\ngeneralment a toutes les croyances mer-veilleuses, surprenantes\nmysterieuses et surnaturelles.--Par M. Colin de Plancy. Deuxieme\nedition entierement refondue _; Paris, 1826. The book is rare, but most\ninteresting to the philosopher who concerns himself about matters\nof \"faith,\" for it shows, clearly, that there is no depth of human\ndegradation into which people who are guided by blind trust in some\nfellow mortal, unchecked by the exercise of reason, will not enter, and\nthere reside permanently, until stirred up by those whom they assert on\nthe first blush to be \"infidels.\"\n\nAfter a few preliminary remarks, we are told that the French incubi did\nnot attack virgins, but in the next paragraph is an account of a maiden\nwho was seduced by a demon in the form of her betrothed. This was in\nSardinia. An English fiend acted in a similar way, and from the congress\nfollowed a frightful disease of which the poor girl died in three days.\nThis story is told by Thomas Walsingham, b. A.D. 1410. A Scotch lass\nis the next victim reported, and to her the unclean spirit came nightly\nunder the guise of a fine young man. She became pregnant, and avowed\nall. The parents then kept watch, and saw the devil near her in a\nmonstrous unhuman form. He would not go away till a priest came, then\nthe incubus made a frightful noise, burned the furniture, and went off\nupwards, carrying the roof with him. Three days after a queer form was\nborn, more horrible than had ever been seen, so bad indeed, that the\nmidwives strangled it. For the credulous, what fact could be more\nstrongly attested than this? The reporter is Hector Boetius, b. 1470.\n\nThe next tale, having a locale in Bonn, occurred at a time when priests\nmarried and had a family. The daughter of one who was closely watched\nand locked up when left by herself, was found out by a demon, who took\nupon him the form of a fine young man. Such an occurrence was thought\nnothing uncommon then, inasmuch as Paul had told the Corinthians that\nSatan himself is transformed into an angel of light (2 Cor. xi. 14). The\npoor victim became enceinte and confessed the whole to her father, who,\nfearing the devil, and anxious not to make a scandal, sent the daughter\naway from home. The impudent fiend came to remonstrate, and killed the\nwretched sire with a blow of his fist.--Quoted from _Caesarii Heistere\nmirac_., lib. iii., c. 8. The next case occurs at Schinin, wherein\nwe are told (Hauppius _Biblioth portai, pract._, p. 454) that a woman\nproduced a baby without head or feet, with a mouth in the chest near to\nthe left shoulder, and an ear near the right one; instead of fingers it\nhad webs like frog's feet, it was liver coloured, and shaky as jelly, it\ncried when the mother wanted to wash it, but somebody stifled and then\nburied it. The mother, however, wanted it be exhumed and burned, for\nit was the offspring of a fiend who had counterfeited her husband. The\nthing was taken up and given to the hangman for cremation, but he could\nneither burn it nor the rags which enwrapped it until the day after the\nfeast of Ascension.\n\nThe following story is laid near Nantes:--Therein a young girl baulked\nof her lover, mutters something like a modern order to him to go to\nthe foul fiend, and remarks to herself that a demon would be a better\nfriend. She is betrayed in the usual manner, and finds, when too late,\nthat she is embracing a hairy incubus which has a long tail. She exclaims\nfearfully. The \"affreet\" blows in her face and leaves her. She is found\nfrightfully disfigured, and is brought to bed seven days after of a\nblack cat. The remaining histories are of a similar nature, all alike\nshowing how completely the so-called Christian people of Modern Europe\nbelieved that disembodied spirits could assume human form with such\ncompleteness as to be the father of offspring. We may fairly compare\nthese tales with that told by heathen Greeks about Jupiter and Alcmena,\nbut when we place them side by side, the ancients show a far superior\nfancy in their fables than do the comparative moderns. I find from\n_Reville's History of the Devil_, p. 54 (London: Williams & Norgate,\n1871), that so late as a.d. 1756, at Landshut, in Bavaria, a young girl\nof thirteen years of age, was convicted of impure intercourse with the\ndevil, and put to death. It is a pity that no account of the trial is\nappended.\n\nTalboys Wheeler, in his _History of India_, vol. IL, p. 515, indicates\nthat there is to this day, in India, a belief in _incubi_. Speaking\nof Paisacha marriages, in which a woman is united to a man without her\nknowledge or consent, he remarks:--\"The origin of the name is somewhat\ncurious. The Paisachas were evil spirits or ghosts (see \"_Lilith\"\nand \"Satyr\" Ancient Faiths_, vol. ii.) who were supposed to haunt the\nearth.... If, therefore, a damsel found herself likely to become a\nmother without her being able to furnish a satisfactory reason for her\nmaternity, she would naturally plead that she had been victimized by a\nPaisach.... In modern times, however, the belief is still very general\nthroughout the rural districts of India, that wives, as well as maidens,\nmay be occasionally victimized by such ghostly admirers.\"\n\nEvery mythologist who has invented such stories as that of Jupiter and\nAlcmena, and every woman who has ever attributed her pregnancy to a\ndivine being, call him what she may, seems completely to ignore the idea\nthat a god who deserves the name, does not require human aid to produce\na man or woman. Surely every profound thinker would say to himself,\nThe Supreme, who could by a word create full-grown creatures \"in the\nbeginning,\" has not lost the power now; surely He, who could make Adam\nout of dust, and Eve out of a bone of man, can produce in later days\nsimilar images of the godhead, as we are told in Genesis i. 26,\nwithout accoupling with a descendant of the rib. The mythological\nidea, therefore, of a divine child coming from a celestial father and a\nterrestrial mother, has nothing profound therein, for it is essentially\na bungling contrivance of some stupid man. On the other hand, such a\nnotion could only be entertained where a grovelling or anthropomorphic\nidea has prevailed, or is cherished amongst a credulous people. To put\nthe subject into the fewest words possible, a god has never--so far as\nthoughtful men can judge--been said to be the father in the flesh of a\nhuman being, except by frail women, or vain, foolish, or designing men.\n\nWe are fortified in this conclusion by the method in which nations or\nsects who have each their own favourite \"son of God,\" treat each\nother. None endeavour to prove that the mother of their own hero had\nno commerce with man, for that is impossible--all, on the other hand,\nridicule the idea of there being a child without a human father, and\ninsist that no woman's word countervails the laws of nature. But this\nargument is only used against opposing religionists--it has no weight\nagainst their own divine leader. The cases which we have described are\nwholly different from those mythological stories, in which the union\nof the sexes is absolutely or relatively ignored. They differ also\nfrom those in which the Creator is represented as androgynous, or being\noriginally without sex, becomes, by an effort of will, a bisexual being,\nso as to bring about the creation of man and of the world. For example,\nwhen we find in the Orphic Hymns (Cory's _Ancient Fragments_, pp. 290,\nseq.), \"Zeus is male, Immortal Zeus is female,\" it is clear that there\nwas in the writer an idea of an union of the sexes being necessary to\ncreation. But when we find Chaos alone being the progenitor of Erebus\nand Black Night, from which again were born Ether and Bay, and Earth the\nparent of Heaven and the Sea (Hesiod, Theogony, 116-130), there is a\ntotal absence of a sexual notion. This idea, however, appears in the\nsubsequent lines which represent Earth wedding with Heaven. The same\nsexual notion, appears in another fragment from _Aristophanes_, (Cory,\nA. R, p. 293), which tells us that \"Night with the black wings first\nproduced an aerial egg, which in its time gave rise to love, whence\nsprung all creation.\" Yet the egg necessarily presupposes a being which\nformed it, and another that fructified it, so that the mythos is not\nwholly free from the intermixture of the sexual element.\n\nWhen mythologists have been peculiarly anxious to shake off the somewhat\ngrotesque doctrine that the celestial Creator must be independent of any\nother power, in the genesis of the world and heaven, there has been a\ngreat variety of attempts to show how this has been brought about. In\none curious Hindoo legend, Vishnu is represented sleeping on the bosom\nof Devi, at the bottom of the ocean which covered the world. Suddenly a\nlotus sprung from his navel, and grew till it reached the surface of the\nflood. From this wonderful flower Brahma sprang, and, seeing nothing but\nwater, imagined himself the first-born of all creatures. But ere he felt\nsure, he descended the stalk and found Vishnu at its root; and then the\ntwo contested their respective claims, but Mahadeva interposed, and, by\na curious contrivance, stopped the quarrel, demonstrating that before\neither came into existence there reigned an everlasting lingam.\n\nAnother myth closely resembles one which is indicated in the Hebrew\nScriptures, viz., that Narayana, or the spirit of God, a self-existent\nentity, moved over the waters, and made them bring forth all things\nliving. This Narayana is identical with the _yomer elohim_--\"the spirit\nof God\" of the Hebrew Genesis i. 2; the [--Greek--]--the spirit of God,\nor Holy Ghost of the Greeks. It is the same as the breezes of thick air\nwhich hovered over chaos in the legend assigned to Sanchoniathon (Cory's\nFragments, p. 1), and produced the slimy matter from which all beings\nsprung. Narayana is again the same as the Night of the Orphic fragment\nwhich hovered with her black wings over immensity--the same as the\n_chakemah_, or \"wisdom\" of Proverbs viii.; the Greek _sophia_ and the\n_logos_--\"the word\" of John i. 1. The Buddha--or Brahma of the Hindoo.\nFrom this mysterious source matter was formed into shape and all\ncreatures sprang into life.\n\nAnother Indian mythos (Moor's _Hindoo Pantheon_, p. 78), attributes even\nmore than this to Brahma. He is said to have produced four beings who\nproved refractory, and grieved their maker. To comfort him, Siva issued\nfrom a fold in his forehead--then strengthened by Siva, he produced\nBhrigu and the seven Rishis, and after that, Narada, from his thigh,\nKardama from his shadow, and Dacsha from the forefinger of his right\nhand. He had, apparently, without a consort, sixty daughters, and from\nthese last proceeded all things divine, human, animal, vegetable, and\nmineral.\n\nThis is not altogether dissimilar from the Hebrew idea of Jehovah\ncreating all things except woman from the dust,* and forming her\nmysteriously from a rib of the only existing man. We may also compare\nit with the birth of Minerva from Jupiter's brain, and Bacchus from\nhis thigh. But the Greek myth differs from the Hindoo, inasmuch as the\ndeities referred to were originally conceived by human women, and did\nnot grow from The Thunderer's body like branches from a tree.\n\n     * In Mythology, things ever repeat themselves, with very\n     little alteration. For example, Mahadeva is represented as\n     fighting with Dacsha, and producing heroes from the dost by\n     striking the ground with his hair. (See Moor's H. P., p.\n     107).\n\nThere is amongst the Hindoos a goddess called Prit'hvi, who is said to\npersonify the Earth; she had many names which we need not describe, and\nshe was also furnished with a consort, whose birth is thus described\n(Moor, H. P., p. 111.)--\"Vena being an impious and tyrannical prince,\nwas cursed by the Brahmans, and, in consequence, died without issue. To\nremedy this, his left arm was opened, and churned with a stick till it\nproduced a son, who, proving as wicked as his father, was set aside; and\nthe right arm* was in like manner churned, which also produced a boy,\nwho proved to be a form of Vishnu, under the name of Prit'hu.\" We may\nadd that Prit'hvi treated him badly, and he had to beat and tear her\nbefore she would be comfortable with him. Hence the necessity for\nploughing and digging before crops of cereals, &c., will abound. We can\nunderstand the last part of the legend better than the first. In the\nVedic Mythology, we may say generally, that the means of producing\noffspring are curiously numerous; for example, we find in Goldstucker's\n_Sanscrit and English Dictionary_, page 20, under the word _angiras_--a\nstatement that an individual bearing this cognomen, is named in the\nVaidik legends, as one of the 'Prajapatis', or progenitors of mankind,\nengendered, according to some, by Manu; according to others, by Brahma\nhimself, either with the female half of his body, _or from his mouth, or\nfrom the space \"between his eyebrows._\"\n\n     * As these legends generally are based upon something which\n     Europeans would designate a vile pun, I turned to the\n     Sanscrit Lexicon (Monier Williams), first to ascertain the\n     names of \"the arm;\" and, secondly, if there were any words\n     allied to it, however remotely, which had a certain meaning.\n     Amongst others, I find that _buja_ signifies \"an arm,\" and\n     _bhaga_ is a name of Siva--one of whose epithets, _bhagan-\n     dara_ = \"rending the vulva.\" _Dosha_ also means \"the arm\"\n     and \"night.\" Another word having the same meaning, is\n     _praveshta_, and this not only signifies the arm, but one\n     \"who covers over.\" We can then, I think, see why the device\n     of the churning, referred to in the text, made a process\n     available for the production of a child. The legend is a\n     clumsy one, but not more so than that in Exodus xxxiii. 23,\n     wherein we are told that Jehovah showed to Moses \"His back\n     parts,\"--Vulgate, _posteriora mea_--inasmuch as no one could\n     see His face and live!\n\nA still more curious story is related in the same dictionary, p. 451,\nunder the word _ayonijeswara_. This appellative is one belonging to a\nsacred place of pilgrimage sacred to _Ayonija_, whose miraculous birth\nwas thus brought about. A very learned Muni, though making a commendable\nuse of the proper nasal way of reading sacred scripture in his own\nperson, yet associated with individuals who did not give the orthodox\ntwang.* The good man remained, in consequence of this, in a sonless\ncondition, but the legend does not condescend to explain why toleration\nof tones in religious ceremony should make a husband infertile and\nhis wife barren. At any rate, the Muni, named Vidyananda, feeling the\npunishment a great one, travelled, apparently alone, from one holy\nplace to another without being nearer paternity. At length he met with\na _yogin_ or male anchoret, hermit, devotee, or saint, corresponding\nto the _yoginis_, who are represented by Moor (H. P., p. 235) as being\nsometimes very lovely and alluring; and he, taking pity upon the Muni,\ngave him a wonderful fruit, which, he informed him, if eaten by his\nwife, would have the effect of procuring for Vidyananda the birth of a\nson. But the Muni, like many another character in mythological and fairy\ntales, seems suddenly to have lost his sense of hope deferred and a\ncertain prospect of relief, for instead of hurrying home he sought\nrepose under a tree on a river's brink, and whilst there ate the fruit\nhimself. He at once became pregnant. When the new state of things\nwas evident, he confessed all that had happened to the Yogin, and the\nlatter, by means of his supernatural power, introduced a stick into the\nbody of Yidyananda, and relieved him of the infant. The creature was a\nbeautiful boy, radiant like the disc of the sun, and endowed with divine\nlustre, and on account of the mode in which he was born his father\ncalled him _Ayonija_, which signifies, \"not born from the womb.\" The\naccount then goes on to state that this miraculous infant became a\nwonderfully good, learned, pious, religious, and fanatic man; that the\ngod, delighted with his piety, gave him sons and grandsons, and after\nhis death received him into his heaven. Any persons coming now to\nbake at the spot where these favours from Siva were granted, and\nduly performing the various duties of a pious pilgrim, are rewarded,\naccording to their piety, &c., with progeny, worldly happiness, freedom\nfrom transmigration, and eternal bliss.\n\n     * This reminds me of an anecdote which I once read of a\n     devout Scotch mother, who, on hearing her son read the Bible\n     in an ordinary tone of voice, cuffed him violently because\n     he presumed to read that Holy Book without the customary\n     religious drawl.\n\nUnder the word _Ayonija_, Goldstucker gives the following examples\nof individuals \"not born from the _yoni_\" viz.:--\"_Drona_, the son\nof Bharadwaja, who was born in a bucket\" \"_Suyya_, whose origin was\nunknown.\" \"_Draupadi_, who at a sacrifice of her father Drupada, arose\nout of the sacrificial ground.\" \"_Sita_, who sprang into existence in\nthe same manner as Draupadi\" The same is also an epithet of Vishnu or\nKrishna.\n\nThese stories pale in interest before that of the origin of Carticeya\n(see Moor's H. P., p. 51, 89), and I give an account of this legend,\nfoolish though many conceive it to be, for everything which is\nconnected with a Hindoo mythos is remarkable, whenever it is found to be\nantecedently parallel with Christian surroundings of a somewhat similar\nnarrative. We notice, for example, in the following tale, that the\nIndian idea of the power of \"penance\" and \"asceticism,\" is, that these\ndoings or actions are so great, that by their means alone man may compel\nthe Creator to do things against His design, whilst in the Papal\ntales of certain monks and nuns, we find the doctrine asserted that by\npreeminent fastings, scourgings and prayers, people have acquired the\npower to sell salvation to their fellow men, in a manner different to\nthat which is appointed. Again, the god when forced to obey the power of\nthe devotee, is represented as inventing a method by which he could,\nas it were, cheat himself, just as Jehovah or Elohim is said to have\ncontrived a plan by which He could circumvent Himself for the vow which\nHe had made to destroy all the men upon the earth by a flood of water.\nAgain, as the arrogance of the ascetic threatened to destroy the world\nand the heaven, a deliverer or a saviour was promised, who should be\nbegotten by an incarnate god upon a goddess equally incarnate, and save\nmankind from a terrible devil This is a counterpart of the Papal theory,\nwhich makes it appear that a portion of the godhead became incorporated\nwith a dove, and had union with a woman, herself an immaculate\nmanifestation of another portion of \"The Supreme.\" Yet still more\nstriking than this, is the part which the dove plays in the Indian\nmythos of the birth of the Hindoo Saviour. In almost every mediaeval\npainting or etching of the miraculous conception of the Virgin Mary, the\ndove takes the position of the divine father of Jesus. Nay, so distinct\nis the idea intended to be conveyed in one instance, that a dove,\nsurrounded by a galaxy of angelic heads, darts a ray from his body on\nhigh, into the very part of the virgin, proper to receive it. The design\nof the artist is still farther heightened by the _vesica piscis_, the\nemblem of woman being marked upon the appropriate part of the dress, and\na figure of an infant within it, points unmistakeably to the belief that\nthe Holy Ghost, like a dove, absolutely begot the Jewish saviour as he\ndid the Hindoo deliverer of gods and men. (_See Ancient Faiths_, vol IL,\np. 648, fig. 48).\n\nBut the parallel may even be carried farther, for in the Indian history\nit is Agni, the embodiment of fire or the fire or sun god, who\nbecomes the dove; whilst in the Christian history, fire is one of the\nmanifestations of the Holy Ghost (Acts ii. 3). We conclude this from the\nfact, that all devout churchmen believe that the Holy Ghost descended\nupon the day of Pentecost with the sound of a rushing mighty wind, as\na multitude of cloven fiery tongues, which again suggests to the\nrecollection of those familiar with the Vedic story, that the\nMaruts--rushing, mighty, stormy winds--were frequent attendants upon\nAgni For example, in one of the Hymns (p. 39) of the Rig Veda Sanhita\n(translated by Max Mueller), the burden or chorus of every verse is,\n\"with the Maruts come hither, O Agni.\" Here, however, the parallel\nbetween the two myths ceases, for in the Indian tale the saviour has no\nearthly mother. We may really affirm that he has no mother at all, being\nthe offspring of the father alone, whilst in the Christian history, the\ndeliverer is represented as having no human sire. The one story is just\nas likely to be true as the other, or just as unlikely. As a reasonable\nbeing I cannot believe the one without crediting the other, or reject\nonly one of the two.\n\nWith this preface, we may proceed to relate the legend as recorded\nby Moor. A certain devil or Daitya--for it must be remarked that the\nHindoos regard the devil as being composed of many individualities,\nmuch in the same way as Christians do--was extremely ambitious and\noppressive, as Satan is said to have been in heaven.* To force Brahma\nto promise him any boon he should require, the ascetic went through the\nfollowing penances, persisting in each for a hundred years. (1) He stood\non one foot, holding the other, and both hands upwards, and fixed his\neyes on the sun. (2) He stood on one great toe. (3) He lived upon water\nalone. (4) He lived on air. (5) He immersed himself in water. (6) He\nburied himself in the earth, and yet continued as before in incessant\nadoration. (7) He then did the same in fire. (8) Then he stood upon his\nhead with his feet upwards. (9) He then stood upon one hand. (10) He\nhung by his hands from a tree. (11) He hung on a tree with his head\ndownwards.\n\n     * I call attention to these parallels, for they compel as\n     either to accept the Hindoo stories as true, because they\n     coincide with that which Christians regard as \"revealed\n     truth,\" or they oblige as to distrust our current ideas as\n     to the inspired verity of some biblical stories, founded as\n     they are upon the same, or a similar, basis to those of the\n     Brahmins. The Hindoo tale being founded in the Sinpurana,\n     there can be no reasonable doubt that its fabrication\n     preceded that of the Hebrew or Christian mythos.\n\nThe effect of these austerities alarmed all the gods, and they went to\nBrahma for consolation. He answered that though he was bound to grant\nthe boon desired by a man who became powerful by his austerities, he\nwould devise a method of rendering it inoffensive to the heavenly host.\nTarika, the name borne by the Daitya, asked for the gift of unrivalled\nstrength, and that no hand should slay him except a son of Mahadeva.\nThis being acquired, he plundered all the minor gods--the sun, dreading\nhim, gave no heat; and the moon, in terror, remained always at the\nfull--in short, the devil, Tarika, usurped the entire management of the\nuniverse. Nareda--the personification of Reason--Wisdom, the Logos, or\n\"word,\" now prophesied that the destined deliverer, or saviour of the\nworld, would come from the union of Mahadeva and Parvati. But the\nfirst was indisposed to marry, and only consented to do so after being\nmollified by ardent devotions and great austerities enacted by the\nsecond. To the horror, however, of the discomfited world, Parvati was\nbarren; and the gods deputed Agni to try to produce the son whom all\nso earnestly desired. He took the form of \"a dove,\" and arrived in the\npresence of Mahadeva just as he had risen from the arms of Parvati,\nand received from him, in a manner not easy or necessary to describe\nminutely, the germ of Carticeya; but, unable to retain it, the bird let\nit fall from his bill into the Ganges. On the banks of this river arose,\ntherefrom, a boy, beautiful as the moon, and bright as the sun. This was\n\"The Saviour\" promised by the prophet. When he attained to manhood, he\nfought the devil in a terrific combat which lasted ten whole days; but\nCarticeya came off the conqueror, and delivered the world. I may notice\nin passing that as Carticeya is represented to be the son of his\nfather, Mahadeva alone--so Ganesa, who was born after the marriage\nabove referred to, is said to be solely the son of his mother, Parvati;\nMahadeva not having anything to do with him. It is still farther stated\nin the _Sin purana_ that the husband was jealous, and displeased at\nthis assumption of independent power by his spouse, punished her in the\nperson of this mysterious son (Moor, H. P., page 171-2).\n\nThere is another Hindoo story in which a father alone becomes the\nprogenitor of twins--and it is remarkable, not only for this, but for\nthe dread which a deity is said to feel from the austerities of a man.\nWheeler (_History of India_, vol. i, p. 78; Williams' _Sanscrit Lexicon,\ns. v. Kripa_), regards this tale as Brahmanical, and, accepting his\nauthority, we can see that the asceticism which is introduced into the\nstory is intended to exalt the claims of that section of the priesthood\nwho torture themselves. It runs thus:--Saradvat, by the magnitude of his\npenances, frightened Indra, who sent a celestial nymph to tempt him.\nHe resisted all her wiles, and refused all commerce with her; but his\nexcited imagination produced one of its common effects, and from that\nwhich was \"spilled upon the ground\" a boy and girl arose, Drona and\nKripa. In Wheeler's sketch of the story, two such miraculous events\noccur, for a precisely similar occurrence took place with a certain\nRaja--and the males sprung from this supernatural form of generation,\nDrona and Drupada, became cronies, and were educated together. In\nWheeler's account Kripa becomes the wife of Drona, and not his twin\nsister. She is represented to have been born from a Brahmin named\nGautama, in the same fashion as Drona was. Certes, the scribes who wrote\nthe gospels, and doubled wonders to make them more miraculous, are far\nbehind the Hindoos in the unblushing effrontery of their conceptions.\n\nA story somewhat analogous to that of the origin of Carticeya--Drona\nand Drupada, is to be found in Grecian mythology. Therein we read\n(see Lempriere's _Classical Dictionary, 8.V_., Minerva), that\nJupiter promised to his daughter, Minerva, that she should never be\nmarried--since that was her especial desire. But, unfortunately, the\nThunderer had not a good memory, and was unable to foresee the future;\nhe therefore promised to Vulcan that he would--in return for a perfect\nsuit of armour--give him whatsoever boon he asked. The distorted god,\nbeing a great admirer of the personification of wisdom, demanded Minerva\nin marriage. Zeus then granted his petition and gave Minerva to him for\na bride, so that \"arts and arms\" should thenceforth be wedded together.\nBut the goddess disliked Vulcan, just as much as science and philosophy\nshun war and physical weapons. Jupiter then privately counselled his\ndaughter to submit, apparently, but to contend, actually, whenever her\nhusband should endeavour to caress her. This advice the goddess very\nartfully and determinately carried out. But Vulcan's impetuosity was\nextreme, and the contest between the spouses was prolonged. Though the\npromised wife was in the end victorious, and retained her virginity, the\nscene of the strife, like many another battle-field, required cleansing.\nThe material employed by the goddess in the process was thrown down\nto earth, and from this stuff sprung Ericthonius, as the son of Vulcan\nalone, who, on attaining man's estate, became the fourth king of Athens.\n\nA somewhat similar story is told of Jupiter (Arnobius, _adv. Gentes_, B.\nv.), who is represented as enamoured of Themis, who, when lying on the\nrock Agdus, in Phrygia, and there surprised by the god, resisted his\ndesires, as Minerva had done those of Vulcan, and with a somewhat\nsimilar result. But in this instance, that which the author calls in\nanother passage of his work, the _vis Lucilii_, fell upon the hard rock.\nThis conceived, and, after ten months, the stony soil brought forth a\nson, called, from his maternal parent, Agdistis. His character, and even\nhis appearance, were frightful and rugged in the extreme. His strength,\nrecklessness, and audacity frightened all the gods. In their dilemma,\nBacchus offered to give his aid, and proceeded first to make the man\ndrunk by substituting wine for the water of the fountain from which he\nhabitually drank. Then, by a curious contrivance, he made the fierce\nhunter emasculate himself. The earth swallows up the sanguinary ruins\nof his manhood, and in their place comes up a pomegranate tree in full\nbearing. This being seen by Nana, a king's daughter, she plucks some of\nthe fruit, and lays it in her bosom. By this she becomes pregnant, and,\nher story being disbelieved, her father attempts to starve her. But the\nmother of the gods sustains her with apples (see Canticles ii. 5),\nand berries, or other food. Her baby, when born, is exposed as being\nillegitimate, but found by a goatherd and brought up--becoming the all\nbut deified Atys.\n\nIn this legend, we see one son born without a human mother, and a second\nwithout any other father than Rimmon, or a pomegranate.*\n\n     * Agdus, Agdistis, &c--I am frequently tempted, after\n     reading a story like the preceding, to search in the\n     Sanscrit lexicon to ascertain if there can be any esoteric\n     signification in the legend that can be explained by that\n     ancient language. Arnobius opens the story with a statement\n     of the remote antiquity of the tale, and how it is connected\n     with the Great Mother. He then tells of a wild district in\n     Phrygia, called Agdus. Stoaes taken from it, as Themis had\n     enjoined, were used by Deucalion and Pyrrha to repeople the\n     world which had been destroyed by a flood. The great mother\n     was fashioned amongst the rest, and animated by the deity;\n     then follows the story given in the text. Now, in the\n     Sanscrit, Agadha signifies a \"hole or chasm,\" and such\n     things have from the earliest times typified the Celestial\n     Mother. Agdistis I take to be a Greek form of Agasti--son\n     both of Mitra and Varuna by Urvasi, said to have been born\n     in a water-jar, to have swallowed the ocean, and compelled\n     the Vindhya mountains to prostrate themselves before him,\n     &c. (Monier Williams' Sanskrit English Lexicon, pp. 4, 6).\n     Themis may be a corruption of Dhamas--the moon, an epithet\n     of Vishnu, Yama, and Brahma; also the Supreme Spirit (M. W.\n     op. cit., p. 448). Deucalion seems readily to be resolved\n     into the dyu or div--holy, and Kalam, semen virile (M. W.,\n     p. 211). Pyrrha may apparently be derived from bdra--an\n     opening or aperture (M. W.); also bhdra--bearing, carrying,\n     cherishing, supporting (M. W., p. 700). Atys, described as\n     of surpassing beauty, may fairly be associated with atisi\n     and atisaya--to surpass, excel, exceed; and pre-eminence,\n     superiority (M. W., op. cit., p. 15). Liber, again, who is\n     clever enough to outwit and conquer Agdistis, may, without\n     too strong a stretch of imagination, come from Idbha--\n     obtaining, gaining, getting; capture, conquest; the rootword\n     is labh--to seize, to take hold of, gain, recover, regain,\n     fcc. (M. W., p. 861, 2). Nana, the mother of Atys the\n     beautiful, has probably come from nanda--happiness,\n     pleasure, joy, felicity, delight (M. W., op. cit. p. 467).\n     In the previous volumes I have referred to the pomegranate--\n     Hebrew, Rimmon--as an emblem. In the legend which makes Nana\n     conceive by eating this fruit, there are, I fancy, two\n     ideas--one, that the pomegranate is filled with seeds and\n     pulp of a red colour; the other, that in the Greek its name\n     is rota, or roa, which has a close resemblance in sound with\n     reo--to flow or gush. Of the word Midas--the name of him who\n     sought to bring about the union of the opposite sexes by\n     marrying his daughter Nana to Attis or Atys, the most\n     appropriate etymon which I can find in the Sanscrit is in\n     the root math, which signifies to strike fire by rubbing\n     wood together, to churn or produce by churning.\n\nIf we allow that there is truth in these derivations, we can then see\nhow completely Arnobius has been deceived by taking the legend au pied\nde la lettre. He sees nothing but the exoteric side of the fable; the\nmore instructed philosopher sees in it nothing beyond an attempt to\nweave a story to account for ordinary men and women existing. The Earth,\nfrom her deep womb produces stones which become male and female (compare\nPsalm cxxzix. 15--\"When I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in\nthe lowest parts of the earth.\" But mycologists were not always content\nwith giving precedence in creation to the \"Great Mother,\" consequently\nthe \"Father of all\" comes upon the scene from no one knows where.\nRefusing to share with him her supremacy, he, like the Hindoo Mahadeva,\nbecomes a father in spite of her. Like his parent, the son becomes\nraging mad, like an elephant or a horse in spring. He is tamed by\ncastration, but the parts he loses still bear a fructifying power,\nand once more, a maiden--type of the celestial virgin, has offspring.\nWithout going further into the tale, the story teller endeavours again\nto introduce marriage, but on the threshold arrests himself, apparently\nunder the idea that the wedded state takes away the pleasure of freedom\nfrom fine young men. Beyond this point it would be unprofitable to go,\nsince few of us can realize Greek ideas on certain matters.\n\nThe origin of Venus is told by Hesiod in such a manner as to lead his\nreaders to believe that, not only was she the daughter of a father\nalone, but of that particular part of his body which has been deified\nas a Trinity. After speaking (_Theogmy_, 170-200), of the cruelty of\nOuranos, and how his wife inspirited Cronos to punish his father by\nmeans of a sickle made of white iron extracted from her body (t.&, the\nearth), we read--\"Then came vast Heaven, Ouranos, bringing Night with\nhim, and eager for love, brooded around Earth (_Ge_) and lay stretched,\nI wot, on all sides; but his son from out his ambush grasped at him with\nhis left hand, whilst in his right he took the huge sickle, long and\njagged-toothed, and hastily mowed off the genitals of his sire, and\nthrew them, to be carried away, behind him. These fell into the sea,\nand kept drifting a long time up and down the deep, and all around kept\nrising a white foam from the immortal flesh; and in it a maiden was\nnourished. First, she drew nigh divine Cythera, and thence came next to\nwave-washed Cyprus. Then forth stepped an awful, beauteous goddess; and\nbeneath her delicate feet the verdure throve around; her, gods and men\nname Aphrodite the foam-sprung goddess,\" &c. (Bonn's Translation, p.\n11,12).\n\nStill further, we find in the Grecian mythology that Minerva was the\noffspring of Jupiter without a mother being in the case--unless we\nput faith in the tale, that the god impregnated Metis, or wisdom, and\nafterwards ate her up. In this case the goddess ought, however, to have\nemerged from the abdomen, and not from the head of her father. Vulcan,\nmoreover, is said to have been the son of Juno alone, \"who in this\nwished to imitate Jupiter, who had produced Minerva from his brains\"--a\nmythos which does not tally with the statement that Zeus ordered Vulcan\nto cleave his head open, not the part corresponding to the yoni The\ntales certainly lack that evidence which the philosopher is bound to\nseek for; but for those orthodox believers who are bound to credit every\nextraordinary event which is recorded in the books of the faithful,\nno testimony is required. Those who feel assured that a serpent, ox,\ndonkey, tree, bush, and other things have spoken rationally, can readily\nextend their trust and assure themselves that a female has had a child\nwithout a male, and _vice versa_--especially when the individuals were\ndivine.\n\nAs we have before remarked, there is nothing in the mythological stories\nwhich we have just recounted that is either more or less miraculous than\nconception, &c., by a virgin without the intervention of a human\nspouse. There is, whenever a miraculous agency is presumed, no greater\ndifficulty in believing that children may be produced without mothers,\nthan that they should be formed without the intervention of a father.\nEre a tree can rise in the soil of a field, a germ, seed, or cutting is\nas necessary as the existence of a moist mould, or other ground. There\nbeing then no greater probability that a crop will spring from a moist\nplain without seed, than that an abundant harvest will come from dry\nseed alone, we are necessarily thrown back upon testimony, when we are\nasked to believe in the paternity of man and the maternity of woman\nwithout any association of the one with the other.\n\nThe mythologists who conceived, or who recorded the fabulous history of\nOrion, evidently had some idea in their minds of the necessity of two\nelements in the formation and growth of a child, when they told the\ntale of the generation of that giant; and the myth connected with this\nindividual is so curiously like one recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures,\nthat it deserves full notice. In Genesis the narrative informs us that\nthere was an old couple, both beyond the age at which there is any\nprobability of either party performing the part necessary for the\nproduction of offspring (Gen. xviii. 12), both were desirous of having\nat least one son, but though they had been long united in marriage,\ntheir aspirations had been vain. To this couple, or rather to the\nhusband, Jehovah is said to have appeared with two companions (Gen.\nxviii. 1, 2), and as the man was hospitably disposed, he ordered his\nwife to make some cakes, whilst he went to fetch and kill a calf for his\nservant to dress and cook. The visitors then partook, alone, of the good\ncheer, and when they had made the repast they promised the husband that\nhis long cherished desire should be fulfilled, and that he should have a\nson. There does not, however, appear to be anything supernatural in the\ngeneration of the infant, except the mere facts that the father had been\neffete for some time, and the mother had always been barren even when\nyoung, so that conception was more surely miraculous by reason of her\nadvanced age. The probability of pregnancy at Sarah's time of life was\ncertainly small, but she was reminded that nothing was too hard for\nJehovah to effect. Had not He already made man out of dust and woman out\nof man? and surely after that it was easy to cause a man and woman to\nact their respective parts. The reader must specially bear in mind this\nobservation of the Lord's when he reads the Greek story following. (See\nOvid's _Fasti_, book 5).\n\n\"Jupiter, his brother Neptune, and Mercury, were on their travels; the\nday was far spent and evening approached. They were spied by a venerable\nman, an humble farmer, who stood in the doorway of his small abode. He\naccosts them with the words, 'long is the road and but little of the day\nremains, my door too is ever open to the stranger,' and so earnest is\nhis look of entreaty, that the gods accept his invitation.\"\n\nJupiter and the others, however, conceal their divine nature, and\neat and drink like common men. But after a draught of wine, Neptune\ninadvertently names Jupiter, and the poor man who has thus entertained\nangels unawares, is frightened at their presence. After a few moments of\nnatural embarrassment, he goes to his field and kills his only ox--the\ndrawer of his plough--then he cuts up the animal, roasts it well,\nproduces his best wine, and lays the feast, when ready, before his\naugust guests. Then Jove, delighted with his hospitality and piety, says\nto the farmer, 'If thy inclination leads thee to desire anything, wish\nfor it, and thou shalt receive it.' To which the old man answers, 'I\nonce had a dear wife, known as the choice of my early youth, yet she is\nnow gone from me and an urn contains her ashes.\n\nTo her I vowed, calling upon you my lord gods as witnesses to the oath,\nthat I would never wed me more. I swore and will keep my word. She and\nI longed for a son, yet none came to bless our declining years. I yearn\nfor one now, but will not endeavour to procure one, I wish to be a\nfather, yet refuse to be a husband or enact his part.' To deities like\nJupiter, such a request was by no means a difficult one to grant, the\ngods could as readily form a boy as they could fabricate Pandora--a\nlovely woman--and send her to Prometheus, with all the ills which flesh\nis heir to, confined in an ark, chest, or coffer. Yet the process of\nwhat may be designated conception was a strange one. The three simply\nrelieved themselves of the wine which they had drunk, using the skin of\nthe slaughtered ox instead of a more commodious vessel. The man was then\nordered to bury the whole in the ground, and wait according to the time\nof life. The gestation of the earth was completed in ten months, and\nat the end of that period the venerable farmer possessed a fine lad who\ngrew up and became famous. If, now, we substitute for the Grecian name,\nHyrieus, the Hebrew title Abraham; if for Jupiter, Neptune, and Mercury,\nwe read, Jehovah and two angels; if for the phrase, \"they were on their\ntravels,\" we read, \"they were going down to Sodom to see if it was as\nbad a place as it was reported to be\" (see Gen. xviii. 21); if for the\nox which was roasted, we place, \"a calf tender and good,\" we see a\nwonderful resemblance between the stories of the conception of Orion and\nIsaac. But there is this difference that in the Hebrew tale the divine\ngift is brought about by a transient restoration of power to Abraham\nand Sarah; whilst in the Grecian mythos, the old man is faithful to\nthe memory of a beloved spouse, and refuses to renew with another the\npleasure which he had in her company. We conceive that the exigency of\nthe Jewish account, made it necessary that the son of Abraham should be\nof his father begotten, as well as a child of promise; whereas no one\ncan call Orion the son of any one, although he was as surely a child of\npromise granted by the gods, as Isaac was, who was given by Elohim (or\nthe gods) of the Hebrews.\n\nWe may enter now, for a short time, into a speculation whether the\nGrecian story was borrowed from the Hebrew or the contrary. We are\ndisposed to believe that the tale was adopted by the Jews after they\nbecame acquainted with the Greeks. The following are our reasons:--The\nconception of a godhead composed of three persons, is foreign to the\nHebrew thoughts of the Almighty. Still further was it from Jewish\nbelief to think, that Jehovah would come down upon earth to acquire\ninformation, and when there, eat and drink and talk like any ordinary\nman. Amongst the Israelites it was generally held that no one could see\nthe face of God and live, On the other hand, the Greeks were familiar\nwith tales which told of gods coming down to earth in the guise of men.\nAs an illustration of this, we may point to Acts xiv. 11-13, wherein\nwe find that the people of Lycaonia imagined that the gods Jupiter and\nMercurius had come down to them in the likeness of men, and prepared\nto sacrifice to them. Yet after all, Paul had simply cured a single\nparalytic. On the other hand, the Jews regarded as rank blasphemy, and\na crime worthy of death, that Jesus should assert himself to be a son of\nGod, even although the miracles alleged in support of the assertion were\nas stupendous as they were numerous.\n\nStill, further, we cannot imagine that the degrading story of Jehovah's\nfeasting with Abraham could have been composed, except when the Jews\nwere no better than an untaught and grossly superstitious race. We\nhave already, in _Ancient Faiths, &c._, expressed our opinion that the\nIsraelites were at the very lowest period of their history at the time\nwhen Isaiah began his exhortations. There had been a confederacy between\nthe men of Edom, of Moab, Gebal, Amnion, Amalek, Tyre, Philistia, and\nAssyria, the Ismaelites and the Hagarenes, which had attacked Jerusalem\nand Judea, and captured all the inhabitants, many of whom they sold to\nthe Grecians (see Joel iii. 5-7). At, and shortly after this time,\nthe Jews were in a condition of abject misery (see Isaiah i. 4-9), and\ncapable of believing any story told to them, and would just as easily\ncredit the mythology which the Grecian captives told, or their Grecian\nmasters taught, as their successors do those which at a subsequent\nperiod filled the Hebrew Scriptures.\n\nWhilst then, on the one hand, there is a probability of the Hebrews\nhaving borrowed the fable from Hellenistic sources, there is, on the\nother, the strongest objection to the supposition that the Greeks\nshould have borrowed from the Jews. Everything which the latter say of\nthemselves, indicates that they were exclusive to an inordinate\ndegree, refusing to have intercourse on equal terms with any of their\nneighbours, that they never sought to make their history, laws, and\ncustoms, known to Gentiles, and especially those outside of Judea, and\nthat their writings never assumed a Grecian dress until the time of\nPtolemy Philadelphus, who ordered the Septuagint translation to be made\nabout B.c. 285, with the direct view of making the Hebrew Scriptures\nknown to the Greeks.\n\nMoreover, we know from everything which was said of the Jews by\nthe Gentiles, that the latter treated the former with contempt and\ncontumely, and would no more dream of imitating any of their writings,\n&c., than we should care to adopt the myths of Abyssinian negroes as an\nintegral part of Christianity.\n\nIt will now be profitable if we examine the story of Sanchoniathon and\nthe statements of the Orphic Hymns.\n\nWe have, in the course of this chapter and elsewhere, so\" often referred\nto the Grecian story of the Creation as given by Sanchoniathon and in\nthe Orphic hymns, that I think my readers are entitled to receive\nsome further account of them; so I reproduce passages which bear upon\nsupernatural generation, and especially that of the world and its\ninhabitants--my main authority being _Ancient Fragments, &c._, by J. P.\nCory (London, 1832).\n\nOf Sanchoniathon we know little; our information may be summed up by\nsaying that he is mentioned eulogistically by Eusebius (a.d. 270-338),\nan historian whose veracity cannot be entirely depended on. He says that\nSanchoniathon had, ere his time, been translated by a certain writer\ncalled Philon Byblius, and it seems that Porphyry is credited with\nhaving copied a great part of this translation into Greek from the\nPhoenician. Nothing, however, is actually known of the historian in\nquestion, except from Eusebius (_Smith's Dictionary_, p. 308, vol.III.,\ns. v., Philon.) We may then assume, according to our inclination, either\nthat the story is really a compendium of Tyrian legendary lore, or\nsimply a representation of what the Greeks imagined. The way, however,\nin which the generation of beings is described, well deserves attention\nfrom its similarity, and its contrasts with the biblical story. First,\nthere was a breeze of thick air and Chaos. These united and produced\nPothos. This again united with the wind, and Mot was the result, also\ncalled Ilus; from this sprung the seed of Creation. And there were\ncertain animals without sensation, from which intelligent animals were\nproduced.* After this follows a quantity of stuff that is traceable to\nHesiod, and a part of which may be considered a paraphrase of Genesis.\nThen mention is made of Elioun, called Hypsistus (the most High),\nand his wife Beruth--as being the contemporaries of others; but no\nindication is given from whence they came. These produced Ouranos\n(Heaven) and Ge (Earth). Their father was killed by wild beasts! Then\nOuranos married Ge, and had offspring by her. But he had other women,\nand Ge was jealous. Ouranos, however, came to her when he listed and\nattempted to kill her children. He had a son, Cronus, who drove him from\nhis kingdom. This son turns out to be the original being called Ilus,\nand he contrived to emasculate his father, and from the blood which\nflowed sprang rivers and fountains. The remainder of this story scarcely\ndeserves notice.\n\n     * The author of the tale evidently had something in common\n     with our modern Darwin.\n\nEre we turn our attention to the compositions known as the Orphic Hymns,\nit will be interesting to inquire whether the preceding account of\nCreation had a Phoenician origin, or may more fairly be traced to an\nIndian source flowing through a Greek channel After a diligent search in\nthe Hebrew Lexicon--and it is to be noticed that the Hebrew is all but\nidentical with the Tyrian and Carthaginian, I cannot find any words\nor roots from which the proper names in the opening paragraph of\nSanchoniathon can by any ingenuity be derived. Nor can I discover in the\nGreek anything which explains the esoteric signification of the story.\n\nBut, on reference to the Sanscrit, there is a curious identity apparent\nbetween the second verse in Genesis and a Hindoo idea. The former\nruns:--\"The earth was without form and void (_tohu ve bohu_), and\ndarkness was upon the face of the deep, and the spirit of God moved\non the face of the waters.\" The Indian interpretation of the myth is\nthis:--\"Air in motion, _vahu_, ruffled the inexplicable, or empty space,\n_ka, has_, or _Icha, Icham_, a word also signifying 'nothing.' Thence\nproceeded the earth, _Ua, or Mot_ (Sans); _Math_ (Sans) making fire\nby rubbing sticks (coitus?) _Mada, mdda, and moda_, pleasure, delight,\ngladness=love, Eros.\" This is almost the same idea that Hesiod\npropounds.\n\nIn the Orphic Hymns we find much more clearly than in any other writing\namongst the ancient Greeks the early Hellenic notion of the generation\nof the worlds and of mankind. Respecting the value of the fragments\nthere may be some difference of opinion. The curious and doubtful may\nbe referred to _Smith's Dictionary_ (s.v. Orpheus); for me it will\nbe sufficient to state that both Aristophanes and Plato refer to the\npresumed author as a religious teacher and a preacher against murder,\nand Euripides frequently mentions him. This will place Orpheus at least\nbefore b.c. 480. If, however, we consider him as identical with the\noft-sung husband of Eurydice, we must place him B.c. 650 (Smith, s.v.).\n\nIn quoting from Cory's translation, I shall not scruple to make the\nsense of more importance than literality: \"Zeus is the first--he, the\nthunderer, is the last; he is the head and the middle, he fabricated all\nthings. Zeus is male; he, the immortal, is also female; he founded the\nearth and the starry heaven; he is the breath of all things, the rushing\nof indefatigable fire. Zeus is the root of the sea, the sun and moon,\nthe king, the author of universal life; one power, one demon, the\nmighty prince of all things; one kingly frame, in which this universe\nrevolves--fire and water, earth and ether, night and day, and Metis\n(counsel); the primeval father and all delightful Eros (love). All these\nthings are united in the vast body of Zeus. Would you behold his head\nand his fair face? It is the resplendent heaven, round which his golden\nlocks of glittering stars are beautifully exalted in the air. On each\nside are the two golden taurine horns, the risings and settings, the\ntracks of the celestial gods: his eyes are the sun and opposing moon;\nhis unfallacious mind the royal incorruptible Ether.\"\n\nThe next fragment has been filched by the author of _Sanchoniathon_, and\nwe must not quote it. After a recapitulation about Chaos, Cronos, Ether,\nand Eros, he proceeds:--\"I have sung the illustrious father of night\nexisting from eternity, whom men call Phanes, for he first appeared. I\nhave sung the birth of powerful Brimo (Hecate), and the unhallowed deeds\nof the earth-born giants who showered down from heaven their blood--the\nlamentable seed of generation, from whence sprung the race of mortals\nwho inhabit the boundless earth for ever.\"\n\n\"Chaos was generated first, and then the wide-bosomed Earth--the ever\nstable seat of all the Immortals that inhabit the snowy peaks of Olympus\nand the dark dim Tartarus in the depths of the broad-wayed earth, and\nEros--the fairest of the immortal gods, that relaxes the strength of\nall, both gods and men, and subjugates the mind and the sage will in\ntheir breasts. From Chaos were generated Erebus and black Night; and\nfrom Night again were generated Ether and day, whom she brought forth,\nhaving conceived from the embrace of Erebus; and Earth first produced\nthe starry heaven, equal to herself, that it might inclose all things\naround herself.\"\n\nThe preceding is given by Hesiod (900 B.c.). The following is the\nversion given by Aristophanes:--\"First were Chaos and Night, and black\nErebus and vast Tartarus; and there was neither Earth nor Air nor\nHeaven: but in the boundless bosoms of Erebus, Night with her black\nwings first produced an aerial egg, from which at the completed time\nsprang forth the lovely Eros, glittering with golden wings upon his back\nlike the swift whirlwinds. But embracing the dark-winged Chaos in the\nvast Tartarus he begot our race (the birds). The race of the Immortals\nwas not till Eros mingled all things together; but when the elements\nwere mixed one with another, Heaven was produced, and Ocean and Earth\nand the imperishable race of all the blessed gods.\"\n\n\"Maia, supreme of gods, Immortal Night, tell me, &c.\" The next\ninvocation is to the double-natured Protogonus--the bull coming from\nthe egg, the renowned light, the ineffable strength, Priapus the king,\n&c.--\"Metis (wisdom) bearing the seed of the gods, whom the blessed\ninhabitants of Olympus call Phanes Protogonus.\" \"Metis the first father\nand all-delightful Eros.\" Again, in allusion to Phanes,--\n\n\"Therefore the first god bears with himself the heads of animals--many\nand single--of a bull, of a serpent, and of a fierce lion, and\nthey sprung from the primeval egg in which the animal is seminally\ncontained.\" \"The theologist places around him the heads of a ram, a\nbull, a lion, and a dragon, and assigns him first both the male and\nfemale sex.\" \"Female and Father is the mighty god Ericapeus; to him also\nthe wings are first given.\"\n\nThe Japanese account of the creation is of sufficient interest to\nbe noticed here. I quote it from a translation of the _Annals of the\nEmperors of Japan_, by Mons. Titsingh, assisted by interpreters of the\nDutch Factory at Nagasaki, and rendered into French, after being duly\ncompared with the original by M. J. Klapworth--(printed for the Oriental\nTranslation Fund of Great Britain and Ireland; London, 1834). In the\naccount of the seven generations of the heavenly bodies, we are told\nthat \"anciently the heaven and the earth were not distinct, nor was the\nfemale principle then separated from the male. The chaos, having the\nform of an egg, moved about like the waves of an agitated sea. The germs\nof everything were there, and these ultimately divided, the pure and\ntransparent ones going upward to form heaven, whilst the dull and opaque\nones coagulated and formed the earth. Between the two a divine being\nsprang up; he was followed by two others in succession.\" All these were\npure males, and engendered without consorts. After them came a male and\na female deity, but they had no intercourse with each other. These and\nthree other divine couples, who followed them, reproduced their like by\nmutual contemplation. The last couple directed the \"celestial spear\nmade of a red precious stone\"--said by Japanese commentators to be\nthe phallus--into the world below, and stirred it up to the bottom. On\nwithdrawing the lance some drops fell from it and produced an island,\nupon which the celestial couple descended. Each one then began to walk\nin opposite directions around the isle, and when they met the feminine\nspirit sang joyously--\"I am delighted to find so handsome a young man.\"\nBut this vexed the male spirit, who, being a man, asserted that he ought\nto have been allowed to speak the first. So they parted once more on\ntheir solitary walk; and when they met the second time, the woman waited\nto be spoken to. Then followed a conversation somewhat too coarse for\nrepetition, which was followed by corporeal union. From the intercourse\nof these divine beings all creation sprang. But, after a time, the\npartners reflected that there was still wanting a governor for the\nworld which they had engendered. So they again accoupled, and produced\na daughter so lovely, that her parents thought her too good for earth;\ngave her the name of \"the precious wisdom of the heavenly sun,\" and sent\nher to heaven, there to assume the universal government of all things.\nThe parents once again united, and produced the moon, who was sent to\nheaven to assist her sister. A terrible fellow was then born from them,\nwho represents the Devil, or those tempests which seem to oppose the\nbeneficent action of the sun upon the soil. The parents returned to\nheaven, and there are constant contentions between the brother and\nsister. The former is described as being furious under attempts at\ncontrol; generally, he was quiet, and always had tears in his eyes (dew\nand rain), but sometimes, when provoked, he broke every thing, uprooted\ntrees, and set the mountain forests on fire. We need not pursue\nthe story further than to say that the celestial beings created a\nterrestrial couple, whose children bear considerable resemblance to the\nGreek Jupiter, Apollo, Neptune, and others, and from them came the first\nEmperors of Japan. In the matter of evidence upon such a point as the\nconception of a man without a woman, or a woman without a man, it is\nclear that unsupported assertion is wholly valueless.\n\nFor example, I may for a time absent myself from general society, and\nreturn to it again after a certain interval, having with me a child,\nwhom I assert to be my very own, produced by my own inherent power, just\nas a tree produces a leaf which grows, matures, and falls. I may frame\na romantic account of a dream, in which I was told that if I planted\nmyself in the central bed of a certain garden, and contrived an\napparatus for daily watering my buried legs, that a child would sprout\nfrom my right side, who should be to me as a daughter. Yet, however\ningenious my tale, there is not any one possessing sound sense and\nknowledge who would believe me. In like manner, if a woman should tell a\nstory analogous, though not identical, she is certain to be discredited;\neven the assertion of the existence of a divine father would not, if the\nwoman were unmated, save her character from a stain.\n\nWe may next refer to the legend of Prometheus, inasmuch as in many\npoints it resembles the Hebrew mythos so greatly, that we must imagine\nthey both have a common origin, or that the one is a copy--though\nan indifferent one, of the other. Prometheus, or forethought, was\nrepresented to be the first who made an ordinary man--he formed him\nof clay, and then animated him with fire from heaven. The Jewish tale\nasserts that it was Jehovah who made the first man. That man was first\nformed like a statue out of clay or dust, and had no life until breath\nwas infused into his nostrils. In both stories man alone is formed\nfirst. In the Grecian fable Prometheus does not make a consort for his\nman; nay, he refuses to receive one for himself when the gods send\nto him Pandora--a paragon of loveliness. Instead of this he gives the\ndamsel to Epimetheus--or after-thought--who takes her carelessly, and\nfinds that even a charming woman is not a guarantee against cares and\nwoes. Some accounts, however, say that Prometheus made both man and\nwoman out of clay.\n\nThe discrepancy does not signify much, for we see the same in Genesis,\nwherein we are told in one place that man and woman were made together,\nwhilst in another the story runs that Adam preceded Eve, and that,\ninstead of being formed of dust or clay, the latter was formed of bone.\n\nWe may now refer to the story of Apollonius Tyaneus, whose history has\ninterest for us, inasmuch as it illustrates three important points, upon\nwhich much stress has been, and may still be, laid by inquiring minds.\nThe most conspicuous is the propensity of historians, or, to speak\nmore correctly, of a biographer, to record wonderful things about an\nextraordinary man; next the ridicule cast upon the tale by those who\nhave circulated stories equally improbable, and the indication that\ntravel to Hindostan was apparently common, prior to and during his time.\nIn sketching the life of the philosopher, I quote something from\n_Le Dictionnaire Infernal_, and the rest from Smith's _Biographical\nDictionary_. The philosopher in question was born about 4 years B.C. His\nhistory was written by Philostratus, about 100 years after the hero's\ndeath, and is ostensibly founded upon memoirs left by his secretary,\nDamis, an Assyrian, who accompanied Apollonius during his travels, and\nrecorded his discourses and prophecies, and acted much as Luke did with\nPaul.\n\nAmongst the proofs which Damis gives of his veracity, he tells us that\nwhen he and his master traversed the Caucasus, they saw the chains which\nbound Prometheus, still fixed to the rocks. This bit of verification\nis now derided, but in my school-days I recollect having an account put\ninto my hands, written by some author, stating that the remains of the\nark were still to be seen upon Mount Ararat.*\n\n     * On the day before this was written there appeared in _The\n     Telegraph_ a paragraph, to the effect that an Assyrian slab\n     had been translated by Mr. Smith of the British Museum. The\n     record is said to give an account of \"the deluge,\" and it\n     tallies nearly with that given by Berosus, recorded in my\n     second volume.    It adds, however, that the ark was at that\n     period in existence, and its wood and bitumen used as\n     amulets. Singularly enough, the tale is supposed to confirm\n     the bible legend, the writer of the paragraph never dreaming\n     that it more certainly confirms the Babylonian or Assyrian\n     origin of the book of Genesis. The other parts of this slab,\n     which were wanting, have more recently been found. But there\n     is no necessity for me to change the wording of the note.\n\nThere was also current a \"Joe Miller\" about some old woman, who would\nnot believe in flying-fish, which her sailor-boy had seen, but who\nreadily believed his tale of hooking up a chariot wheel on an anchor\nfluke from the bottom of the Red Sea!\n\nDr. Smith, or Mr. Jowett, the author of the article, very judiciously\nsays--\"We have purposely omitted the wonders with which Philostratus has\ngarnished his narrative.... _Many of these are curiously coincident with\nthe Christian miracles_--(the italics are our own). The proclamation of\nthe birth of Apollonius to his mother by Proteus, and the incarnation of\nProteus himself; the chorus of swans which sung for joy on the occasion,\nthe casting out of devils, the raising the dead and healing the\nsick, the sudden disappearances and reappearances of Apollonius; his\nadventures in the cave of Trophonius, and the sacred voice which called\nhim at his death--to which may be added his claim as a teacher, having\nauthority to reform the world--cannot fail to suggest the parallel\npassages in the Gospel history.\" We learn, moreover, that the biographer\nwas high in favour with Alexander Severus, and that Eusebius of Caesarea\nnaively allows the truth of Philostratus' narrative in the main, with\nthe exception of what is miraculous. None of the authors quoted seem\nto think of the adage--\"Change but the names, and the same classes of\nwonders are a matter of faith to you.\" Surely it is as easy to credit\nthe strange deeds of Proteus as those of Gabriel.\n\nWhether we choose to adopt the hypothesis that Apollonius was a rival\nof Jesus, that the Nazarene and Tyanean were independent of each other,\nthat the evangelists took a hint from Damis, or Philostratus imitated\nLuke in more ways than one, we have still the fact that two different\nbiographers, giving a history of the life of two contemporary\nindividuals, assert that the birth of their respective heroes was\nannounced by a divine being, who himself brought about the conception\nof the infant that, on arriving at maturity, was held to be divine.\nIn writing thus, it will be distinctly understood that we draw no\ncomparison between Jesus and Apollonius, but only between the authors\nwho have undertaken their respective biography.\n\nLeaving this curious point, the next noteworthy one is that Philostratus\nrecords, that the Tyanean went through Assyria, Babylonia, and Bactria,\nto India, \"where he met Jarchus, the chief of the Brahmins, and disputed\nwith Indian gymnosophists _already versed in Alexandrian philosophy_.\"\nI have placed these last words in italics, to call attention to the\napparent belief of the historian, that prior to his day there had been\nextensive religious communication between India and Greece--a point on\nwhich I have much insisted in a previous chapter. The Tyanean is said to\nhave been five years upon his eastern journey. We have no idea where the\nNazarene was during his youth and before he began his public career, and\nwe cannot help regarding the omission to notice this part of his life as\nbeing blameworthy in the evangelists. Those who knew so much of Jesus at\nhis conception, and about his birth and infancy, could surely, if they\nwould, have informed us of his adult years.\n\nNor, _a propos_ to this short account of the biography of Apollonius, by\nDamis and Philostratus, must we omit to notice the conceits of those\nwho have assumed that the Tyanean was set up as a counterfoil to, or an\nimitator of, Jesus of Nazareth; for, just as the Christians may, with\nsome show of reason, affirm that the miracles recorded in their writings\nhave been filched by others; so may the Buddhist, with still greater\nplausibility, declare that the greatest part of the life of the\nNazarene, as given in the Gospels, has been copied almost verbatim from\nthe biographers or evangelists of the Indian saga For myself, I consider\nthat the miraculous parts of the history of all the three conspicuous\nmen which have been named are equally true or--false.\n\nThe idea of attributing to the Supreme God the birth, or, rather, the\nprocreation, of an extraordinary man, seems, so far as we can judge, to\nhave existed in the Western Hemisphere as well as in the Eastern. For\nexample, in an interesting book, entitled _New Tracks in North America_,\nby W. A. Bell, M.A., M.B., Cantab; London, 1869, we find the following\nlegend respecting Montezuma, the most popular ruler of the ancient\nMexicans. The legend is intended to explain the occurrence of vast ruins\namongst the Pima Indians, of which other history is silent, and runs\nthus: \"Long ago a woman of exquisite beauty ruled over the valleys and\nthe region south of them. Many suitors came from far to woo her, and\nbrought presents innumerable of corn, skins, and cattle to lay at her\nfeet. Her virtue and determination to continue unmarried remained alike\nunshaken, and her store of worldly possessions so greatly increased,\nthat, when drought and desolation came upon her land, she fed her people\nout of her great abundance, and did not miss it, there was so much left.\nOne night, as she lay asleep, her garment was blown from off her breast,\nand a dew drop from the Great Spirit fell upon her bosom, entered her\nblood, and caused her to conceive. In time she bore a child, who was\nnone other than Montezuma, who built the large 'Casas,' and all the\nother ruins which are scattered through the land\" (vol. i. p. 199).\n\nIt is allowable for the reader to doubt whether there ever was a Mexican\nQueen whose renown was spread far and wide, who preferred celibacy to\nmarriage, and who, being rich, was not plundered by the chiefs whose\nalliance was rejected. We may equally doubt the efficacy of a drop\nof water, even though it came from the Great Celestial Spirit; but,\nnotwithstanding every objection which the most sceptical can advance,\nthe legend is quite as probable as those current amongst the ancient\nGreeks, the religious Hindoos, and a large portion of modern Christians.\nA miracle, always improbable, is not necessarily true because it is said\nto have occurred in the old world, or indubitably false because it is\nreported to have happened in the new. Nor can one who regards faith as\nsuperior to reason, refuse to believe or to question the truth of\nany supernatural story simply because he was not told it during his\nchildhood or youth.\n\nWhen the philosophical inquirer finds that in every country, with whose\nliterature we are familiar, there are, not only abundance of tales\nabout supernatural generation before the world was formed, but from\nthe earliest periods of history to our own day, he may well pause\nand inquire into the intrinsic value of a religion or a faith that is\nfounded mainly, if not wholly, upon the assertion that a certain person\nwas the son of the Supreme Creator, and being so, has the qualities of\nhis sire as well as those of his human mother. The orthodox in Britain\ndo not believe in Cristna, Krishna, or Vishnu, because the Hindoo sacred\nbooks declare that he has appeared repeatedly as an incarnation of\nthe Creator--nor do they credit the tales told of the supernatural\ngeneration of Bacchus or Hercules--yet, when they are asked what\nstronger evidence they have for the truth of their own story, they are\nunable to give more than affirmations, strong, perhaps, but not more so\nthan those of ancient Hellenic priests.\n\nIt is out of my province, now, to enter into every thing connected\nwith the doctrine held by those who are known as Trinitarians. My\nmain endeavour in this part of my subject is to clear the way for\n\"reconstruction.\" It is my desire to give to those who have not the\nleisure, or, perhaps, the inclination, to wade through the dull tomes of\ntheological, mythological, and similar books, an account of what is and\nhas been entertained as religious belief by others, with whom, or with\nwhose opinions, they have not come in contact. I have no special wish to\nprove that my opinions are right and the prevailing ones wrong; my chief\naim is to give data by which others may form a judgment for themselves.\nWith this view I have systematically endeavoured to satisfy myself of\nthe trustworthiness of the witnesses whom I call upon to testify to\nfacts; to my knowledge, nothing has been suppressed which seems to me to\nbear upon my subject, nor is aught set down in malice.\n\nIn my next chapter I shall institute an inquiry into another important\ndoctrine, held by Christians from their first existence until the\npresent day, namely, the Existence and Ministration of Angels. Since the\nchapter was originally written, Dr. Kalisch has published an essay upon\nthe same subject in the second part of his commentary upon Leviticus.\nI shall probably take the liberty of quoting from his pages; but, as\nwe treat the matter from different points of view, I do not feel called\nupon to suppress my own work because he has preceded me. It gives me\npleasure to feel and to know that fellow-workers in the same toilsome\ntask, not only may help each other, but rejoice in the opportunity of so\ndoing.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\n     Angels. The ideas associated therewith. Why winged. Wishing-\n     caps. Jehovah and His Angels made to walk by the historian.\n     The belief in Angels incompatible with that of an\n     omnipresent and omniscient God. Pictorial representations.\n     Absurd conceptions of angelic wings. Angela want birds'\n     tails. Men have tried to fly. Difference between birds and\n     men. Arms and wings. A writer at fault about this world is\n     not to be trusted in his accounts of another. Bats and\n     similar mammals. The Devil better winged than Michael--Yet\n     Satan, a roaring lion, goes about as a bull with bat's\n     wings. Angels and beetles. Harmony in creation. Strange idea\n     of spirits. Spiritualism. Varieties of angelic forms. Not\n     the products of lunacy. Angels and demigods. Egyptian ideas.\n     Assyrian notions. Christian fancies. Birds and Men united in\n     human celestialism. Persian Angels. Mithra winged. Angels in\n     Persia twelve in number. Job, the work of a Persian Jew.\n     Angels referred to therein. Darius had a consecrated table.\n     Babylonian belief. Daniel. Greece and Rome. Gods, Demigods,\n     Angels, and Saints. Christian demigods. Angels' duties.\n     Book-keeping, clerks of wind and weather;--police-agents.\n     The inventor of Heaven admired centralization. Babylonian\n     tutelary Angels. Christian ones. Christian saintly imagery.\n     The bleeding heart of Mary. A funny Chaldean goddess to\n     match. Popish saints have an aureole, but no wings. Francis\n     of Assisi could make stigmata but could not change his arms\n     into pinions. Babylonian and Papal emblems identical\n     Development of Angels amongst the Jews in Babylon. Angelic\n     mythology founded upon Astronomy and Astrology. Planets are\n     Archangels. Angels and Devils mentioned on bowls found in\n     Mesopotamia by Layard. The probable meaning of their names.\n     Hebrews adopted Chaldee beliefs: evidence. Juvenal. Jews and\n     Chaldeans. Sadducees and Pharisees. Sadducees and our\n     Reformers compared. A legal anecdote. Angels in Ancient\n     Italy. Our angelic forms are of Etruscan origin. Some such\n     beings had three pairs of wings. Etruscans had guardian\n     angels for infants and children. Angels carry various\n     matters. Angels of marriage. Angels for heirs of salvation.\n     Etruscan angel of marriage. Jewish match-maker. Raphael.\n     Description of an Etruscan painting in tomb of Tarquin. The\n     angel of death. The Greek theology. The Greeks taught the\n     Jews. The Jews never taught other nations. Greeks had a\n     supreme god and a host of inferior deities. War in heaven.\n     Titans--giants. Children of the sons of God and daughters of\n     men. Greek origin of Christian and Miltonian angelic\n     mythology. The begotten Son of God (Hercules born to Jupiter\n     by Alcmena). Restores the kingdom to his father. Greek ideas\n     of demons. Hebrew and Christian ideas of good and bad\n     spirits. The recording angel. Demigods and archangels. Greek\n     deities not winged except Mercury. Some minor gods have\n     pinions.--Pegasus has wings. Hymen, the angel of the\n     covenant of marriage. Genius loci and cherubim. Alcmena and\n     Mary. Jupiter and \"the power of the Highest\" Roman\n     mythology. Romans adopted the Etruscan form of angels.\n     Christians adopted it from Romans. The Christian crozier is\n     the Etruscan and Roman _lituus_, or \"divining staff.\" Rome\n     and London both avid of religious novelty. Instability in\n     religion a proof of infidelity in the old. Hence a desire\n     for infallibility, to crush doubt. Angelic mythology of the\n     Bible. Christians use words in parrot fashion. Words ought\n     not to stand for ideas. Prayer-cylinder in Thibet.\n     Contradictions. Figures and metaphors are theologian cities\n     of refuge. Prophet who says that he converses with an angel-\n     -is he to be credited? A spirit without flesh and bones,\n     cannot move his tongue to utter words. Drunkards see \"blue\n     devils\"--they are unreal If the appearance of a man in a\n     dream is an illusion, his words are so too. Absurd ideas\n     about phantoms. Notice of the deeds of a few Hebrew angels.\n     A resume of their history. Inspiration did not reveal\n     angels. Human fancy did. Conspiracy in Heaven! The Genesis\n     of Hell. What sort of a place it is supposed to be. God made\n     the Devil, so man must multiply his imps! Lucifer taught\n     Elohim! Old Testament less knowing than the New. The Devil\n     not a fallen angel. The book of Enoch. Deductions drawn.\n\nThere is scarcely a single article in our current belief which does not\nprove, on examination, to have descended to us from Pagan sources, or to\nbe identical with heathen beliefs older than the Hebrew. The idea of a\npersonal God dwelling in some locality, vaguely described as \"Heaven,\"\nin which He reigns, and rules, like a modern emperor, has been found to\nexist in almost every nation whose language we know, and whose history\nhas descended to us. Human weakness makes it so. Such a ruler has been\ncalled Brahma, Siva, Vishnu, Mahadeva, Bel or Baal, Melech or Moloch,\nOrmazd, Elohim, Jah, Jehovah, Jupiter, Yahu, God, and a variety of other\nnames; but He has always been hailed as king, and lord of all creation,\nhaving a throne beside which attend a number of servitors, standing\nbefore and around him, all ready to do his bidding and to go wherever\nthey are sent. As a potentate rules on earth over provinces far distant\nfrom the central government, so the heavenly monarch was, and is yet,\nsupposed to have \"viceroys,\" \"lieutenants,\" or \"vicars,\" who have\nauthority delegated to them, and exercise it under his superintendence.\n\nA scheme such as we have described does not seem to have existed from\nthe first amongst the Jews; for, when men of reasoning powers conceived\nthe idea of a Creator, He was regarded as omnipotent, omniscient, and\nomnipresent. It became gradually interwoven with theology; for when men\nof limited capacity thought of such a vast empire as the universe, they,\nunder the influence of a grovelling anthropomorphism, recognized, as\nthey imagined, the necessity of furnishing it with a system of acquiring\nintelligence, and promulgating decrees which should be far superior to\nany postal plan devised by human kings. Amongst the Kaffirs, men with\nmissives race against time, and by means of relays, messages are sent\nto vast distances in a comparatively short period. By means of horses,\nskilfully engaged beforehand, an ancient Persian tyrant could make his\ncommands known all over his vast empire in the course of a few days,\nand moderns, by means of railways and the electric wire, can forward\ninformation at a still more rapid rate.\n\nYet, to old theologians, and even to observant men of the present day,\nall these means of communication between God and his subjects seemed to\nbe slow. We may, for example, notice a fly buzzing round the head of\nthe running Kaffir, or the ears of the fleetest of Persian steeds, and\na swallow on the wing outstrips a railway express. The velocity of the\ncarrier-pigeon has long been known. All these were, therefore, regarded\nas swift-winged creatures, and fit for message bearers. As then, it was\nobserved, that of all beings who could move, the bird is the swiftest\nin its movement from place to place, it was very natural that dogmatists\nshould represent the messengers of the great king with powerful pinions,\nlike those of the eagle or the albatross. In this manner the addition\nof wings to any mythological character sufficed to show that he who bore\nthem was a celestial being; one who stood before the supreme ruler,\nand received from him delegated power--either as vicar, viceroy, or\nmessenger. Thus the Greeks depicted Mercury with wings on his legs\nand elsewhere, and the Hebrews gave large pinions to their\nseraphim--sometimes as many as six being used by each (Isa. vi. 2.)\nThe Etruscans pictured their angels with two wings only, and we have\nfollowed, implicitly, their lead. But the Hindoos did not in early times\nadopt ideas such as this. They noticed the speed of the sunbeam, the\nvelocity of the hurricane, and the rapidity of thought; and since they\nsaw many birds borne away by the wind, they imagined that celestial\nmessengers must travel in a corresponding fashion. For one who rode upon\nthe clouds of the typhoon, pinions were useless. I have in my possession\na plate,* in which the celestial attendants on the god are all wingless,\nbut have sex. The name given to the attendants referred to is \"Apsaras,\"\nwho are described as having been produced in myriads when the ocean was\nchurned. They are said to reside between the waters above the firmament\nand those below it, and are represented as being of consummate beauty\nand elegance of form, their business being to attend upon the gods and\ngive them pleasure, by singing, music, dancing, and in every possible\nway. They are sometimes represented as being of both sexes, all having\nthe power to change their gender. Generally, they are described as\nfemales, and take the business of Venus in the Greek heaven, and of the\nHouris in that provided by Mahomet and his followers. The Hindoos have\nin their theology an abode of bliss, in which the pleasures are wholly\nsensual. In this they do not differ from the Christians, except that the\nlatter only expect to indulge in music and a sanctified vengeance.\n\n     * Plate x., vol. 1, \"Recherches sur l'origine, &c., des Arts\n     de la Grece,\" D'Harcanville, London, 1785. The author states\n     that the plate is copied from Le Voyage de Niebuhr, T. 1,\n     Tab. vi.\n\nWith great ingenuity the Hebrews conceived that the will of God must\nbe equivalent to His wish--that His wish must be the same as a command,\nand, consequently, that He could send His messenger from one spot\nto another in an instant; or, if He chose, He could go Himself and\ncommunicate personally, as He did with Abraham, Jacob, and Moses, and\nJoshua. For such a Being even light would be too slow (see Psalm xviii.\n10; civ. 3, 4).\n\nFrom a similar thought arose the stories which have found their way into\nour fairy mythology of \"wishing caps\" which would enable the bearer to\npass in an instant of time, and wholly invisibly, from one part of the\nworld to another. In oriental countries, a carpet or a coat was the\ncarrying agent, whilst amongst the more clumsy story-tellers of Europe,\na pair of boots was furnished, whose wearer could cover twenty miles at\na stride.\n\nIn the plenitude of our prejudice we may smile at the caprice which\ninvented the \"wishing cap;\" but if we reflect calmly upon the matter,\nwe discover more depth of thought in this than has been shown in the\nformation of tales in which winged angels are introduced. The contrast\nwill readily be recognized if we take a scene from \"Fortunatus,\" and\nanother from the Old Testament The former, by putting on a cap, could\ntransport himself in a moment from Formosa to Great Britain. Whereas\nwe learn, from Genesis xviii, that three angelic men took \"a walk\" from\nsomewhere to Sodom, that they might see what sort of a place it really\nwas. The hero in the fairy tale was not fatigued; the angels of the\nHebrew mythology were glad to wash their feet, and to eat and drink, so\nas to recruit their energies (v. 8; Ps. lxxviii. 25.) A mythical\ntale like this demonstrates incontestably the mean condition of the\nstory-teller, who does not furnish Jehovah even with a mule or ass, but\nmakes Him go afoot.\n\nWe must, therefore, regard the theological contrivance which furnished\nangels with wings, as being a clumsy one; indicating superficiality,\nrather than profound thought, and emanating from human infirmity rather\nthan divine inspiration or direct revelation. We shall see this more\ndistinctly if we inquire into the ideas necessarily associated with\nwings.\n\nThe theologians who have furnished their ideal messengers with wings\nshow, in the first place, that they have the idea of an air upon which\nthe sails can strike--of muscular structures to move the pinions, and\nof the necessity for food to enable the motive power to be kept up. The\nidea of a winged angel, therefore, necessarily implies a belief in the\npresence of a solid material body moving through an aeriform fluid,\nresembling the atmosphere just above the earth's surface. That there\nreally was this belief associated with celestial messengers we find\nin the Jewish scriptures, wherein it is stated, as if it were a common\noccurrence, that angels came to talk familiarly with men; as, for\nexample, Gen. xviii, xix., xxxii.; and Judges i., where we are told\nthat an angel came from Gilgal to Bochim, to deliver a statement, to the\nHebrews, such as a silly girl at Lourdes asserted the Virgin Mary had\ncome from Heaven to make to her; see also Judges xiii., and the book of\nTobit.\n\nThat angels were, moreover, supposed to possess thews and sinews, we\nfind from Gen. xxxii. 24-30, wherein we are told that some celestial\nbeing wrestled with Jacob, but could not prevail against him. In a\nprevious chapter, although it is only in a dream, Jacob saw them mount\nand descend a ladder as if their wings--if they then had them--were\nuseless.\n\nWe shall not now be far from the truth, if we affirm that winged\nmessengers, envoys, or angels, can only be supposed to exist by\nindividuals whose god is nothing more than a man without universal power\nand knowledge. To any one who believes God to be omnipresent, the idea\nof His having ambassadors, or vicars upon earth, is blasphemous.\n\nThe comparative coarseness of those minds which fabricated the notion\nof winged men, as celestial messengers, will be the more certainly\nrecognised, if we examine into the pictorial conception which they have\npermitted, and still allow, to pass, for the embodiment of their idea.\nLet me, for example, invite the reader to cast his mental eye over the\nwinged men-like bulls, &c., of Assyria and Babylonia; the winged genii\nof the ancient Egyptians; the winged soul and angel of Death of the\nEtruscans; the angels of ancient and modern Christian painters; and the\npinioned heads which came from the walls to listen to the music of Saint\nCecilia--according to Papal legends--and then to try to discover the\nlocality of the muscular organs which are necessary to give movement to\nthe wings. Everybody who has ever carved, at his dinner-table, a grouse,\npartridge, pheasant, duck, or other fowl, must be aware of the enormous\nmass of flesh which is associated with the wings. If we bare the breast\nand remove the pinion bones from any bird which flies--(it is necessary\nto make this proviso, for such as the dodo, the apteryx, the ostrich,\nemu, and others, have wings which are only rudimentary, and not used for\nflight)--we find but a very meagre body remaining behind. Hence we see\nthe necessity of furnishing an imaginary angel which has wings with\nmuscles that will enable the pinions to be used; but in no pictorial\nrepresentation of an angelic messenger do we ever find the ordinary\nfigure of a man departed from, or any provision made for muscles to\nmove the feathered organs. And we must notice, in passing, that it is\nmonstrous to suppose that a man must become, in part, a bird ere he can\nbe useful to a god!\n\nAgain, we recognize in the conventional form of angels a total absence\nof knowledge of natural history, of gravity, of force, &c. Let us, for\nexample, imagine for a moment that the metaphorical wings are real ones\nused in flight. We see directly that they will only raise the individual\nperpendicularly into the air. The angelic human creature, even if his\nwings were--as they ought to do--to replace his arms, would still lack\na tail, to use as a rudder to direct his flight. It is clear, then, that\nno one has seen an angel, and that those who have pretended to have done\nso, were deeply ignorant men. To make our observations upon this point\nsomewhat more comprehensible, we may just refer to the fact that many\nindividuals, misled apparently by the mass of ideal celestial men--or\nangels--which are to be seen in almost every cathedral or parish church\nin Europe, have conceived the idea that they could fly, if only they\ncould contrive the necessary apparatus to append to their arms, legs,\nor both; in other words, many men have fancied that they could do better\nfor themselves than nature has done for them. But a few minutes' calm\nthought would teach any one familiar with the composition of forces,\nthat an attempt at the imitation of a bird's flight must be a failure in\nman. Let me show this by a simple observation: A bird extends its wings,\nand by a strong stroke towards its own body, rises into the air, though\nneither solid nor rigid, both wings and air have apparently been so. In\nimitation of this bird, we will now suppose that a man places himself,\nwith arms outspread, like the letter T between two uprights, forming\nsomething like the letter U.\n\nThe individual would then be represented thus [J]--unlike the bird,\nhis _point d' appui_ would be solid, and his arms would be far more\nunyielding than feathers. Yet not one athlete in a million could spring\nupwards, so as to stand upon the summit of the U. Man's \"pectoral\nmuscles\"--as physiologists call the mass of flesh below the collar bone\nand above the nipple--are intended to move the arm; the bird's pectoral\nmuscles are intended to move the body. Cut off a man's arms and\npectorals--the counterpart of the bird's wings and fleshy breast--and he\nhas barely lost a tenth part of his weight; on the other hand, cut off\nthe corresponding parts of a bird, i.e.t the pinions and the muscles\nwhich move them, and not a tenth part of the original weight is left\nbehind. Speaking coarsely, we may then affirm that man's body is\nrelatively about a hundred times heavier--air being the standard--than\nthat of a bird, and his pectoral muscles, relatively to his body, a\nhundred times less in bulk. Consequently, even if a human being could,\nby muscular action, develop the bulk of his \"pectorals,\" so that they\nshould be relatively to the rest of his frame, equal to those of a\nbird, still his bulk would be so much more solid than that of the bird's\nbones, flesh, and feathers, that his power of flight would be a hundred\ntimes less. A man, with the exception of his lungs, is in health, solid\nor fluid, in every part of him; a bird's bones, on the contrary, are\neverywhere permeated by air cavities, which make them as light as pith\nor cotton wool. A pound of lead and a pound of feathers are certainly\nequal in weight, yet, if both are allowed to drop from a balloon, the\nfirst will reach the ground a long time before the second. In like\nmanner, by contrivance, I could with my breath sustain an ounce of\neiderdown in the air, although I am quite powerless to sustain, by like\nmeans, the same quantity of solid meat. I say nothing of the relative\nposition of the shoulder-joint in man and birds--although the point is\nphysiologically important.\n\nAgain, we may assert that the originators of the angelic mythology were\nabsolutely ignorant of that which is called comparative anatomy. We\nhave already expressed our belief that no one has a right to expect that\npeople will believe in the reality of a man's knowledge respecting\nthe unseen world, so long as he is palpably at fault in his notions\nrespecting the visible creation. Consequently we assert that one who\nis careless as regards actual phenomena and ignorant of common truths,\ncannot be trusted in metaphorical, mythological, or divine lore.\n\nA comparatively small amount of observation proves to us that amongst\nthe highest classes of animal life, the wing is the counterpart of the\narm or of the fore-leg. In the creature called the \"flying squirrel,\"\nthere is no pinion as there is in the \"condor,\"--there is simply an\nunusual development of skin which unites the fore and hind limbs much in\nthe same way as the web unites together the toes of the goose or duck.\nIn the bat, which, though a mammal, is allied, as regards its power of\nflight, to the birds, we find that the fore-leg is developed so as to\nmake a bony frame on which a thin skin may be stretched, which is still\nfarther strengthened by being attached to the hind leg. In the ordinary\nbird, the skin which we see in the bat and flying squirrel is replaced\nby feathers, which are longer, broader, and lighter than a fold of skin.\nThe ordinary method, therefore, in which angelic beings are depicted\ndoes not associate them with the highest classes of animal life.\nOur modern artists are much more skilful in depicting Satan than in\npourtraying Raphael, Gabriel, or Michael.\n\nOur last remarks would be comparatively unimportant, were it not that\nthe close observation which the moderns have given, to every thing\nconnected with natural history, has shown us that there is a harmony\nthroughout creation. No animals have noses on their backs, nor eyes in\ntheir hind legs. No insect--so far as I can remember--has a thick neck;\nnor has any mammal or bird a thin one, like the wasp, bee, or fly. As we\nimagine that it is proper to extend our knowledge rather by the lights\nwhich we have already attained, than by silly or hap-hazard guessing, so\nwe think that it is better to investigate the subject of angelic forms\nby comparative anatomy, than by the dreams of divines, who probably have\nnever studied any other subject than the best means of gaining influence\nover their fellow-mortals. We assert that there is not in all the\ncreation, known to man, any creature with arms and legs--or their\nequivalents, legs and wings, or fore-legs and hind legs--which has, in\naddition, wings upon arms, legs, head, or back. In such a combination\nthere is something monstrous. I confess that I could, if satisfactory\nevidence were given, credit the occurrence of a devil with a tail--of a\ncentaur with a horse's body and a human head--but I could not possibly\nbelieve that Satan went about as a roaring lion, seeking whom he could\ndevour in the dress of a bull with bat-like wings, as well as horns and\nhoofs; or that an angel of God approaches us in a form nearer to the\nscarabseus of Egypt than to the human form divine. Yet when we say that\na pictorial angel approaches nearer to a beetle that revels in\nfilth, than to an etherial essence which ought to be very close upon\nperfection, we are still far from precision. Ladybirds, cockchafers, and\nothers of the class allied to the scarabseus that was almost deified\nin Egypt, have six legs, two wings, and two wing cases--ten means of\nlocomotion in all. Butterflies, moths, and the like, have six legs and\ntwo wings. Consequently, if there be any design in creation, and angels\nhave been created, they can only be regarded as the connecting link\nbetween the highest and the lowest classes of animal life.\n\nIf then, there be such a thing as harmony of design in Creation--if the\nCreator be not the author of confusion (1 Cor. xiv. 33)--if matter be\nmaterial, and imponderable forces cannot be weighed or made otherwise\nrecognisable by the senses, except by their effects--if the Almighty be\nomnipresent and omniscient, it is absolutely impossible for a thoughtful\nmind to believe in the existence of angels in any shape--whether\nmaterial, immaterial, or essential. But this consideration forces us\nstill further, and we feel compelled to ask ourselves, whether, with\nour minds constituted as they are, we can believe in, or understand\nany thing wholly immaterial? Whether we can imagine the existence, for,\nexample, of \"force\" without matter?--a shape which is formless?--a form\nvisible to the eye, yet wholly immaterial?\n\nIt seems to me to be desirable, at the present day, to call attention to\nthis point in a particular manner, inasmuch as there are vast numbers,\nboth in Europe and America, who believe in what is called Spiritualism,\nand are, in reality, as greatly the dupes of charlatans as were the\ndisciples of Alexander the false prophet, whose history we gave in vol.\nII. The jargon of these pretenders is based upon the assertion in the\nBible that there are spirits--the accounts of certain of these returning\nto the earth which they have quitted, or conversing with human beings in\ndreams, or in reality. But both they and their victims fail to see that\na spirit, being without a material existence, cannot put matter into\nmotion--it cannot produce the waves in the ether that cause those\nimpressions on eye and ear which give the idea of sight and sound.\nWe may best give our reader a glimpse of our meaning, if we compare a\nspirit to a picture projected on a sheet by a magic lantern. It is true\nthat we can see it--yet we know that it is powerless to hear, to speak,\nto move; it cannot of itself even vanish. Yet there are many onlookers\nwho, by a ventriloquist, can be made to believe that the picture speaks.\n\nAfter prolonged observation, I believe that spirits, angels, demons, &c.,\nhave no reality except in the delusions of individuals whose diseased\nbrains induce them to believe that they see apparitions and hear them\nspeak. To this matter we shall probably return by and by.\n\nWe may now revert to a subject which we mentioned incidentally a few\npages back--viz., the ideas which induced priestly inventors to depict\nthe angels of their imagination in a particular form. Those who are\nfamiliar with the Bible, and not with any other book, and who decline to\nexamine into the ways of God in the universe generally, will naturally\nreply to our strictures that the angels of the Jews were described in\na particular fashion, because they were seen \"in the visions of Elohim\"\n(Ezek. i. 1; Dan. x. 5, 6; and Rev. i. 10-20). But this observation\ninvolves the idea that the angels which have appeared are so various\nin shape, that an individual who had seen and described one, could not\nenable another man to recognize a similar messenger when seen under\nanother form. In Genesis xviii, xix., xxxii., and Judges xiii, angels\nassume the form of men; in Isaiah vi. they have six wings--one pair being\nused to cover the face, another to cover the feet, and another to\nfly with. To this it may be objected that what Isaiah described were\nseraphim; yet verse 6 shows that one of these, at least, was a messenger\nor envoy. In Ezekiel i. we find an apparent description of angels, or an\nenvoy, which is so involved that it is most difficult to understand it.\nIn Daniel x. an archangel is described as a brilliant man whose body was\nlike the beryl--_tarshish_--a stone of a sea-green colour probably; or,\npossibly, a topaz, \"whose eyes were like lightning, and whose arms and\nfeet were like polished brass, and whose loins were girded with fine\ngold\"--as if to conceal his sex--a characteristic which we find, from\nMatt. xxii. 30, angels do not possess. The writer's description must,\ntherefore, be classed with that of afreets, genii, and the like, in the\n_Arabian Nights_ tales. In Zechariah, again, we find an angel or envoys\ndescribed (ch. i.)--(a), \"as a man riding upon a red horse,\" having\nbehind him \"red horses, speckled and white\" (v. 8); (6), as \"four horns\"\n(vv. 18,19); (c), as \"four carpenters\" (w. 20, 21.) Again, in chap, v.,\nwe find an angel in \"a flying roll;\" another in \"an ephah;\" another in\na big piece of lead, and another in a woman, and still another in two\nbeings of the same nature.\n\nWe can readily understand that some who are unacquainted with lunatics,\nwould describe these portraitures as the result of insanity or\nhallucination; but those who are more conversant with persons of unsound\nmind will doubt whether any ordinary insane persons ever see or describe\nthings which they have never met with. One or two, certainly, have\nwonderful flights of imagination, but these have been highly educated\nmen of extensive reading, &c. In mania, when visions are seen, some\nperson or other whose description has been read by the lunatic, or who\nhas really been observed, appears--or something which the individual has\nseen depicted, or otherwise been told of, presents itself, or there is\na strange jumble of reality and possibility--just as in dreams,\ncomical, grotesque, or horrible combinations are common, and cause us no\nsurprise. There is, however, too much consistency in the method in which\nangels are depicted, to enable us to believe that their form was decided\nby any lunatic or dreamer.\n\nWe scarcely can form an idea whether the Egyptians had a definite belief\nin angels, as the word is understood by moderns. With them, as it was\nwith the Greeks, it is most probable that all beings which Jews\nand Christians alike would call angels, were designated \"gods\" or\n\"demigods.\" Be this as it may, we find that the Mizraim had deities who\nwore wings. A round disc, apparently intended to represent the sun, two\nerected serpents to support it, and a long broad pinion on each side of\nthe body, was symbolic of \"the Supreme.\" The same may be said to be true\nof Assyria and Persia--only that in the symbolism of the two last,\nthe serpents did not, generally, appear. In plate 30a, of Wilkinson's\n_Ancient Egyptians, 2d series_, a human figure is represented as winged,\nand before him is a five-rayed star. In plate 35 of the same book, Isis\nis represented as a nude woman, winged; the position of one pinion being\nsuch that it serves to conceal the body from the waist almost to\nthe knees. In plate 36, \"Athor\" is depicted as being attended by a\nhuman-headed bird. On the other hand, in plate 39, where the gods are\ninstructing the king in the use of the bow, the former are bird-headed\nmen without wings. Whilst in plate 44, the soul of a dying man is\nrepresented as a human-headed bird with wings, arms, and legs. In plates\n52, 53 of the same work, we notice specimens of winged serpents. In\nplate 63, Isis again appears as a wing bearer, and in this figure we\nfind, as we ought to do, that the feathers of the pinions are attached\nto the arms of the goddess.\n\nIn Assyria, we may gather from the sculptures which have been preserved,\nthat there was not any idea of angels being essentially different to\ngods. Indeed, it is very difficult wherever there is a polytheism in any\nform, to understand the distinction between a god and an angel Even in\nthe religion which passes current as \"the Christian,\" which acknowledges\nthree gods as \"coeternal together and coequal,\" we are distinctly\ntold that one of the three \"proceeds\" from the father and the son\n(_Athanasian Creed_). The New Testament, again, repeatedly informs\nus that the son was \"sent\" into this world by his father to effect a\nspecial purpose--e.g.t \"God sent his only begotten son into the world,\nthat we might live through him\" (1 John iv. 9; see also John iii. 16, 17;\nMatt. xxi. 37; Mark xii. 4; John v. 38; vi. 29; vii. 28, 29; and compare\nwith John i. 33 and Mal.iii. 1-3). If, therefore, we regard the bearer\nof a message or an order from the supreme king as an \"angel,\" Jesus of\nNazareth was certainly one, inasmuch as he said that he was sent hither\nby the father of all; and the Holy Ghost was another, for we find John\n(xv. 26) stating that Jesus would send him to the earth--an assertion\nrepeated in chap, xvi. 7--whilst in the fourteenth chapter of the same\nbook we observe that the father was to send this comforter, who was\nto abide in this world for ever (v. 16). Indeed, the presumed\nidentification of Jesus with the promised Messiah, \"the prince\" of Dan.\nix. 25, shows the belief that he was one who was as much appointed to\ndo a certain duty as was that \"angel of death\" which went out to destroy\nthe Assyrian army (2 Kin. xix. 35).\n\nWith such indicated reservation, we notice that the angel which the gods\nsent to watch over various Assyrian kings is depicted almost invariably\nwith wings. Now he is an archer, standing in a disc representing the\nsun, having wings below him; now he stands in front of the circle, the\npinions and sometimes his body terminating in feathers resembling a\nbird's expanded tail. Then, again, the minor divinities bear wings, some\nof them no less than four (Bonomi's _Nineveh_, 2d ed. p. 157). It would\nbe superfluous to linger over a description of the winged bulls with\nhuman heads, and the winged men with eagle or hawks' faces, which are\nso familiar to us in consequence of the researches of Layard and others.\nAll alike bear testimony to the connection, in human celestialism,\nbetween birds and men. Nor can we reasonably doubt, that the idea\nintended to be conveyed by the inventor of the Assyrian composition\nwhich we refer to was, that the being, thus symbolized, was famous for\nstrength like the bull; for rapidity of movement, like the eagle; and\nfor wisdom, like a man.\n\nThere is to be found amongst the relics of the ancient Persians a symbol\nof an angel who was supposed specially to guard the king. This somewhat\nresembles that used at Nineveh. There are, however, many forms of it.\nFor example, we find in Hyde's _De Religione veterum Persarum_ (Table\n6) a figure of a Persepolitan king, above whom, in the air, and quite\ndistinct from the sun, stands a venerable man fully draped, standing\nupon what seems to be a large pine cone reversed, which is surrounded\nby clouds instead of being furnished with wings. The man thus depicted\nextends the forefinger of one hand to the sun, whilst with the other\nhe holds a ring. In Table 6 Mithra is represented as winged, after the\nmodern fashion of angels.\n\nHyde assures us, in chapter twelve, that twelve angels were recognized\nby the ancient Persians, in addition to those who presided over the\nmonths and days. One of these appears to be the same as the Greek\nRhadamanthus, who sat as supreme judge in the invisible world, and\napportioned to the dead their rewards or punishments. A second was\nequivalent to Neptune and ruled the sea, but he had also under his\ncharge everything which related to generation, or production generally.\nThe third was much the same as the more modern Lares and Penates, and\nsuperintended dwelling-houses and families. The fourth had a somewhat\nsimilar and subordinate office. The fifth was named after the stars, and\nhad his kingdom in the south heavens. The sixth the learned author does\nnot describe. The seventh really seems to be a sort of duplicate angel,\ncalled Haruts and Maruts, who were two naughty ones that rebelled, and\nare, according to some, imprisoned still in Babylon, being hung up by\nthe heels. The eighth, Hyde is himself doubtful about, and does not\ndescribe. The ninth is the same as the German \"storm-king.\" The tenth\nmay fairly be styled the \"angel of the victualling department.\" The\neleventh is the giver of life, the opponent of Azrael, the minister of\ndeath; and the twelfth angel is one which we may call either by the name\nof \"conscience\" or \"judgment\" for he it is who approves or reprobates\nthe works of man.\n\nThough I quote from Hyde, I am somewhat doubtful of the value of his\nauthority. He relies to a considerable extent upon the work known as the\n\"Zend Avesta,\" and supposed to represent the tenets of Zoroaster and his\nfollowers. This book is, as I have mentioned, generally believed to be\na genuine relic of antiquity by Continental scholars, though it is\nmistrusted by British orientalists, who regard it as a modern production\nfounded upon Aryanism, Christianity, and Maho-metanism. In my judgment,\nmy compatriots are right; and if it be proper to trust such a man as\nSir H. Rawlinson in the matter of the \"Avesta,\" one may be pardoned for\nbelieving with him that the book of Job was written by a Persian Jew, or\ntranslated by a Hebrew from a work in the time of Darius, or some other\nof the Achoemenidae.\n\nIn Job angels are only once mentioned--viz., in chap. iv. 18, and then\nthey are spoken of in such a way, that we are doubtful whether or not\nto regard the verse simply as a poetic metaphor. The idea which runs\nthrough the part of the chapter in which the passage occurs is this:\n\"Job, you are suffering; the innocent do not perish; the righteous are\nnot cut off; you have been very proper; man has nothing to say against\nyou; but you are not right in accusing God of injustice; you doubtless\nhave done some wrong, for even God's servants are not wholly trusted;\nthey sometimes misbehave unknowingly, and his own angels are called\nperverse by him (Job iv. 18); you cannot expect to be better than they,\nand it is no shame to you to be in the same category as they are.\"\n\nBut it must be allowed that the words of the story--\"There was a day\nwhen the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and\nSatan came also among them; and the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest\nthou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in\nthe earth, and from walking up and down in it\"--do really intimate\na full belief in good angels and bad, who were not so much angels,\nmessengers, or envoys, as subordinate powers resembling the barons of\nancient England, the Paladins of Charlemagne, or the kings created by\nBuonaparte; amongst whom all were, so to speak, \"good angels,\" except\nBernadotte, of Sweden, who rebelled against the imperial thraldom, and\nbecame to his late master a modern satan. In whichever way we regard the\nsubject of angels, amongst the Persians there is little doubt that\nthe Iranian conception of God was wholly anthropomorphic, and that\nthe Medians and their magi, as well as their Persian neighbours,\nacknowledged a \"father of lies,\" who was antagonistic to the deity.*\n\n     * Quintus Curtius informs us (_Life of Alexander the Great_,\n     b. v. a ii.) that Darius had in Babylon a consecrated table,\n     from which he used to eat; that Alexander began to be\n     ashamed of his sacrilege in treading upon it--(it had been\n     placed as a footstool for his imperial chair)--the sacrilege\n     being against the gods presiding over hospitality, carved\n     upon the table. These may be regarded as angels or\n     otherwise, according to fancy.\n\nOur knowledge of the angelic mythology of Babylonia is comparatively\nslight. The main thing which shrouds the subject in darkness is the\ndifficulty which exists to distinguish between god, gods, and angels. If\nwe could put any confidence in the book of Daniel, we should recognize\ntherefrom that his \"Nebuchadnezzar\" most distinctly believed in the\nexistence of angels, for in chap. iii. 25 he believes that he sees the\nson of God (_bar elohim_), and in verse 28 of the same chap. he remarks\nthat \"God hath sent his angel (_malachah_), and delivered his servants\nthat trusted in him.\" Again, in the fourth chapter, in which he recounts\na dream, he declares that he saw \"a watcher and a holy one\" (_geer and\nkadesk_) come down from heaven with a message to him. But Daniel is not\nan adequate authority upon ancient Babylonian beliefs. We are, in the\nabsence of direct testimony upon this subject\" driven to such evidence\nas is drawn from sculptured or other remains in ruins and on gems, and\nto cuneiform and other writings. George Rawlinson sums up his account\nthus--(_Ancient Monarchies_, vol. I, ch. vii., pp. 138, 9): \"Various\ndeities, whom it was not considered at all necessary to trace to a\nsingle stock, divided the allegiance of the people, and even of the\nkings, who regarded with equal respect, and glorified with exalted\nepithets, some fifteen or sixteen personages. Next to these principal\ngods were a far more numerous assemblage of inferior or secondary\ndivinities, less often mentioned, and regarded as less worthy of honour,\nbut still recognized generally through the country. Finally, the\nPantheon contained a host of mere local gods or genii, every town and\nalmost every village in Babylonia being under the protection of its own\nparticular divinity.\"\n\nThe passage above quoted, which represents very fairly our existent\nknowledge, suggests to the thoughtful mind a comparison with other\nreligions. In Greece there were many great gods and goddesses, and\nother divinities of less renown. In Rome there were gods for almost\neverything. But what these nations called \"gods\" the Hebrews called\n\"angels,\" as we shall see shortly. In Christendom angels and gods have,\nas a general rule, been deposed, and \"saints\" have taken their\nplaces. Not only has every town a cathedral which is dedicated to some\nparticular name--said to have been borne by a holy man or woman, whose\naid in heaven is thus secured by his votaries upon earth--but every\nchurch in every parish, and every chapel in every church is set apart to\na particular \"saint.\" Still farther, every trade and every position in\nlife has its tutelary patron in heaven, and secondary gods are as\ncommon in Papal districts as they were in the land of the Chaldeans. The\nphilosopher cannot find a valid distinction between Ishtar, Venus, and\nMary, Dionysus and Denis, and a host of other gods, saints, or angels.\n\nAssuming that the minor gods of Greece and Rome, and those essences\ngenerally called \"angels\" are substantially the same order of beings,\nwe find that the Babylonians had a great number of celestial envoys,\nviceroys, or messengers who ruled over the land and sea,\nthe sky and storms, the thunder and the rain, crops, men, war,\nbuildings--everything, indeed, was superintended by some one on behalf\nof the Supreme Ruler.\n\nWe might pause here to speculate upon the question whether there is any\ndifference in kind between such a kingdom as Babylonia or Russia and the\nheaven believed in by the ancient Jews and the modern Christians. In\nall there is an autocratic sovereign who has a prime minister and\nsecretaries of state, who keep his books and perform his will according\nto his bidding; under these again there are private clerks, who\nsuperintend wind and weather, rain and hail, snow and frost; governors\nof provinces, mayors, or prefects of cities; police, and so large a host\nof subordinates, that nothing, great or small, can be done which escapes\nthe notice of one of the imperial envoys or ministers. The inventor\nof heaven, such as we know it, was certainly an admirer of\n'centralization'. Those who desire to see the description of the unseen\nworld modified are those who are opposed to an absolute monarchy, and\nwho see in everything, everybody, and in all the world a proof of the\npresence of a supreme, omniscient, omnipresent, Creator, Ruler, or\nGovernor.\n\nWithout going into an account of the Chaldean mythology, we may say that\nthere is strong reason to believe, both from the nomenclature which has\nsurvived, and from such gems as are preserved from destruction, that\nevery Babylonian, whether bond or free, was called after some deity, who\nwas supposed ever afterwards to be his tutelary angel In modern times\nRoman Catholics hold a similar belief, and each parent imagines that by\nmaking selection, for his offspring, of the name of a particular saint,\nthe latter can be induced to take the child under its special care.\n\nThe learned in papal mythology know that every saint is depicted in\nsuch a manner that none shall be mistaken. To such an extent indeed is\npictorial contrivance carried, that the art of recognising a particular\nsaint demands a special study. It is all but certain that the same\ncustom prevailed in Babylon; but, as all the professors which taught the\nmeans of identification have passed away, we can only guess at the\nname or nature of the angel. Let us imagine, for example, what an\narchaeologist could make of the figure of Mary--of the bleeding or\nburning heart, two thousand years after all history of the mother of\nJesus has passed away, like that of Ishtar has done. A curious figure,\ncalled heart-shaped, but really not so, is found placed on the central\npart of a woman's breast; from it flames appear to arise and blood\nto drop, and through it is a dagger, and this mass of imagery is put\noutside the body, and the dress is held open to enable any one to see\nit.\n\nWithout a key to the enigma, this is a mystery; but when the key is\ngiven, and the inquirer hears the explanation, he finds it so absurd\nthat it is difficult to believe it. In like manner, when I see upon a\nBabylonian gem, copied as a vignette on the title-page of Landseer's\n_Sabean Researches_, a woman who has a beard, a necklace, two small\nbreasts, from each of which she squeezes apparently a river of milk;\nover whose breastbone there is one large globe and two small ones,\nplaced perpendicularly; who has a spider waist, and wears a skirt\ncovered with pistol-shaped ornaments, I, not knowing whether the\nChaldeans adored \"our lady of the flowing bosom,\" cannot frame an idea\nas to the name of the saint, angel, virgin, or martyr which is depicted,\nor what may have been her peculiar duties, who she was, and what trade\nshe patronised.\n\nWhatever idea the Papal Church entertains respecting her canonised\nsaints, one thing is remarkable, viz., that they are not portrayed as\nhaving wings. Each has an aureole of some sort round his or her head--a\npainter's contrivance for saying \"This individual, who seems like a man\nor woman, is not a common but a divine creature.\" Francis of Assisi is,\nin addition, depicted with stigmata, or marks on his hands, feet, and\nside, which, though they resemble those made with nails in the case of\nJesus of Nazareth, were doubtless, in the case of the \"saint,\" made with\nthe strong caustic called \"spirit of salt\" or other escharotic. We\nmight speculate upon the state of mind which sees in the assumption\nof \"stigmata\" a greater evidence of faith than would be offered by the\nconversion of the arms into the pinions of Michael the archangel; but,\nas it is so much easier for even the most potent saint to make breaches\nin his skin, than to persuade feathers to grow on his arms, we do not\nthink the task worthy of our care.\n\nThe Babylonians in this respect were predecessors of papal pagans. It is\na rare thing to find on any of their gems a winged angel or genius. One\nsuch is depicted on the frontispiece of Landseer's _Sabean Researches_,\nwhich is birdlike both as regards the head and pinions; and four other\nwinged creatures are given in Lajard's _Culte de Venus_. In two the\nfigures are human headed, and combined with the body of a quadruped.\nAt a later period of Babylonian mythology \"grotesques\" were introduced,\napparently from Egypt.\n\nIt is not to be lightly passed by, that the symbol which represented the\npresence of the deity--which, if we may adopt a phrase, we should call\n\"the angel of his presence\" (see Exod. xxxiii. 14,15; Isa, lxiii. 9), is\nalmost identical in the Chaldean and the papal religions, viz., a circle\ncontaining a cross, an emblem as common in our churchyards as in the\ncapital of Nebuchadnezzar.\n\nThe resemblance between papal and Chaldean emblems and doctrines have\nrepeatedly attracted the attention of theologians; and I am not far\nwrong in asserting that Protestants generally have identified \"the\nwoman\" of Revelation xvii., spoken of as \"Mystery, Babylon the Great,\nthe mother of harlots and abominations of the earth,\" with Rome under\nthe popes. For myself I do not care to express any opinion on the point,\nbeyond a general dissent from the popular estimation of the dictum and\nits interpretation. At the same time I must declare that every year,\nover which my inquiries have extended, has imbued me more and more with\nwonder at the similarity between the ancient Babylonian and the modern\npapal religion. The two resemble children of the same parents, only that\none is older than the other; and it requires but little penetration in\nan observer to trace in both, the lineaments of a grovelling\nsuperstition, united with a base priestly cunning.\n\nIn our own estimation the strongest evidence in favour of a belief in\nangels, of every degree, amongst the Chaldeans and Babylonians is the\nenormous development of angelic mythology amongst the Jews, who lived\nin the city of Nebuchadnezzar, and in those who migrated thence into\nPalestine subsequent to the period of the captivity. From indications,\nwhich are necessarily imperfect, we have formed the opinion that the\nBabylonians were astronomical students of great proficiency, from a very\nremote antiquity; that many of these professors turned their attention\nto what is called judicial astrology--i.e., they attempted to judge\nof future events by certain phenomena occurring in the heavens, and\nespecially in the relationship between different planets and the various\nconstellations.\n\nAs the planets wander through the sky, naturally they were regarded as\nthe messengers of El--\"the Supreme,\" who sent them to investigate the\ncondition of groups of stars, many of which formed a sort of community\nthat was unvisited by the Great King, for months together, and, in\nmany instances, not at all.As the heliacal rising of one star seemed\ngenerally to be followed by good weather, and the corresponding rise\nof another intimated the reverse, it was natural that one should be\nregarded as an angel of happiness, the other as a harbinger of misery\nor death. So strongly rooted is this belief amongst some, that it even\n\"holds its own\" in educated England. The astronomer Royal is often asked\nto cast a nativity; and a living merchant of Liverpool does so yet,\nhaving confidence that his deductions suffice to prove their value.\n\nThe formula is \"_Astra regunt homines, sed regit astra Deus_\"--\"The\nstars rule men, but God rules the stars.\" A guardian star, then, that is\nto say, the particular planet or other conspicuous celestial body which\nwas \"in the ascendant\" at the period of the birth of each individual,\nwas regarded in the same light as Christians esteem protective angels\nand Romanists estimate patron saints. There can be, we think, little\ndoubt that the seven archangels are the seven planets known to the\nancients, each of which had a day dedicated to it, and who thus\noriginated the week of seven days. These amongst the Phoenicians were\ncalled the Cabeiri, or the powerful ones. In the conclusion at which we\nhave arrived we are greatly strengthened by the discovery in Babylonian\nruins of certain bowls; facsimiles and descriptions of which are given\nin Layard's Nineveh and Babylon, pp. 510-526. The inscriptions which\nhave been translated appear to be forms of exorcism, or amulets, by\nwhich evil spirits are to be driven away; and reference is made in these\nwritings to the devil, for example, under the name _shida_; and to\nSatan under the cognomen _Satanah_, evidently the same as the Satanas\nhabitually used in the New Testament; also to Nirich, probably from\na root like the Hebrew _narag_, \"a noise maker or screamer.\" This\ncreature, as I think, is the same as the \"Satyr\" of Isaiah xiii. 21,\nand xxxiv. 14, and represents or personifies those unseen but howling\nmaniacs who wandered about at night (see _Lilith and Satyr_ in my second\nvolume). Another demon is called _Zachiah_, a cognomen which I cannot\nsatisfactorily explain unless it is allied to _Zachar,_ and indicates\nthe power which, as the French would say, \"can tie a knot in the needle\"\n(nouer l'aiguilette) or \"a levin brand.\" Another of the devils is called\n\"Abitur of the Mountain,\" whose name resembling, as it does, the Jewish\n_Abiathar_, is more likely to belong to the good than the bad angels.\nLilith is another demon still feared by the Jews, who employ charms\nagainst her to this day. She is supposed to be a sort of spiritual\nvampyre, and to suck the life out of infants and young people. These\nnames of angels occur in the first inscription given by Layard; in\nthe second we find Satan, associated with idolatry, curses, vows,\nwhisperings, witchcraft, and _Zevatta_--a concealer, rider, or enchanter\nfrom root like this and answering to the fairy which steals away.\n\n     \"It was between the night and day\n     When the fairy king has power,\n     That I sank down in a sinful fray,\n     And 'twixt life and death was snatcht away\n     To the joyless Elfin bower.\"\n\n     --Lady of the Lake, canto iv., stanza xv.\n\nAnother is named _Nidra_, which I take to signify vows made by supposed\nsorcerers. This demon is associated in the same line with _Zevatta_\nabove described. _Patiki_ is another bad influence, probably now, \"a\nsword,\" for the charm has reference to freedom from captivity. Another\ndevil is called _Isarta_, which I take to be a leader of banditti or\nmarauders, from the Assyrian word (Furst's lexicon s.v. _asar_),\n\"a leader, head or commander,\" and a word from a root like _ta_, \"to\ndrive,\" \"to push forward,\" \"to sweep away.\" We should call such an one\n\"the demon of destruction.\"\n\nIn this same inscription two good angels are named, Batiel or Bethiail,\nprobably a variant of Bethuel, \"the residence of El,\" and Katuel or\nKathuail, the executioner or sword of El, from _katal_, to kill; compare\nthis with the expression, \"Or if I bring a sword upon that land, and\nsay, sword, go through that land, so that I put off man and beast\nfrom it\" (Ezek. xiv. 17). In addition to these two angels another\nis mentioned who has eleven names, not one of which is written in\nfull--e.g. SS. BB. CCC.\n\nIn a third inscription a devil is named \"Abdi,\" which may be derived\nfrom the root _abad_, and be regarded as the same as the New Testament\nAbaddon (Rev. ix. 10)--the king of the slaughterers, bucaneers, rovers,\n&c. We can fancy that Negroes who are captured and sold in droves\nto foreigners, might imagine that Abdi was the devil which ruled the\nAfrican slave drivers and Christian purchasers. This demon is associated\nwith Levatta,--with tribulations, the machinations of the Assyrians,\nmisery, treachery, rebellion; Nidra, with sorrows generally; and _Shoq_,\nwhich I take to be from a root like _shuq, or shaqaq_--i.e., \"enemies\nthirsting for booty, rangers, bands of robbers.\" Compare--\"And the\nspoilers came out of the camp of the Philistines in three companies\"\n(1 Sam. xiii. 17). See also--He \"delivered them into the hand of the\nspoilers\" (Jud. ii. 14; 2 Kin. xvii. 20). Amongst the devils must, I\nthink, also be classed _Asdarta_, which is clearly the same as the\ngoddess Astarte, and she is closely associated with \"the machinations of\nthe Assyrians.\"\n\nThe good angels of this inscription are Barakiel, Ramiel, Raamiel,\nNahabiel, and Sharmiel, over whose names we will not now linger, except\nto notice that the devils have names compounded with _jah_, whilst the\ngood ones are derived from EL.\n\nIn the fifth inscription, amongst the bad things are mentioned evil\nspirits, both male and female, the evil eye, sorcery, and enchantments\nboth from men and women, along with Nidra and Levatta. The good angels\nare called Babnaa, Ninikia, and Umanel, which I take to be intended\nfor Wu, _banahel_=El builds, or \"the strong one who establishes us;\"\n_nachaghel_. El is powerful, or the Angel of Strength; and amanel, or\n\"the fostering angel.\"\n\nIn some fragments the names of good angels found have been Nadkiel,\nRamiel, Damael, Hachael, and Sharmiel, which we shall probably notice\nagain subsequently.\n\nWe do not lay any particular stress upon the fact of the bowls, on which\nthese inscriptions were found, having been dug up amongst Babylonian\nruins; nor do we care to prove either that they were of Jewish or\nChaldean origin. What we here desire to show is, that there existed in\nBabylon a full belief in the existence of evil and good influences which\nwere invisible; that some individuals had, or were thought to possess,\nsupernatural powers for harm, which could be counteracted by those\nwho placed themselves under the protection of potencies supposed to be\nholier, wiser, or stronger than the evil genii From the method in which\neverything connected with witchcraft, magic, astrology, and the like, is\nspoken of in the Old Testament, and from the fact that slaves are much\nmore likely to imitate their masters than conquerors to become pupils of\nthe vanquished, we conclude that it was not the Hebrews who taught the\nChaldees, but that the contrary was the case.\n\nIn the view thus enunciated we are confirmed by the manner in which old\nJewish writers spoke of the nation that enslaved them--e.g., \"Babylon,\nthe beauty of the Chaldees' excellency\" (Isa. xiii. 19); \"All of them\nprinces to look at after the manner of the Babylonians of Chaldea.\"...\nAnd \"she (Jerusalem) doted upon them, and sent messengers unto them into\nChaldea; and... she was polluted with them, and her mind was alienated\nfrom (or by) them\" (Ezek. xxiii. 15-17); \"It is a mighty nation, it is\nan ancient nation, a nation whose language thou knowest not\" (Jerem.\nv. 15)--Jeremiah knew more about the people than Isaiah (see Isa.\nxxiii. 13). Habakkuk, again, speaking of the same people, says (chap,\ni. 6-10)--\"The Chaldeans, that bitter and hasty nation... terrible and\ndreadful:... they shall scoff at the kings, and the princes shall be a\nscorn unto them.\" Such being the estimation of the Babylonians by Hebrew\nprophets, it is morally certain that the Jews would regard them with\nrespect, admire, study, and copy them. To what extent the imitation went\nit is difficult to say.\n\nWhen, therefore, we find that the descendants of Abraham, a patriarch\nwhom a veneration for the ancient Babylonians induced the Israelite\nmythologists to represent as being a Chaldee; and those who were taught\non the banks of the Euphrates, were spoken of in Rome about the time of\nour era, and shortly afterwards, as being almost synonymous epithets\nfor sorcerers, astrologers, charmers, &c., we must conclude that the\nMesopotamian was the master, the Palestinian the pupil. That the\ntwo were regarded as relatives we infer from Juvenal (sat. vi.\n544-552)--\"For a small piece of money the Jews sell whatever dreams you\nmay choose, but an Armenian or Commagenian soothsayer promises a tender\nlove;... but her (i.e., the lady who consults such folk) confidence in\nChaldeans will be the greater.\"\n\nBut, ere we leave this portion of our Essay, we must notice one other\npiece of evidence of considerable value which is drawn from the New\nTestament. We find, for example, in Acts xxiii. 8, \"The Sadducees\nsay that there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit, but\nthe Pharisees confess both.\" If we inquire into the origin of these\nsects--and we shall be greatly assisted in doing so by two very\nelaborate articles by the erudite Dr. Ginsburg, in Kitto's _Cyclopaedia\nof Biblical Knowledge_--we shall see reason to believe that the\nSadducees were a sect who considered that they were not bound to believe\nany tenet as necessary unless they could find it distinctly enunciated\nin the Pentateuch. They resolutely declined, therefore, to accept\nas revelation such stories as had been adopted by the Hebrews from\nBabylonians, Persians, Greeks, and possibly from the Romans.\n\nWe might institute a comparison between the Sadducees and those whom\nwe know as \"reformers.\" The first acknowledged the authority of\nMoses alone, such as they found it in \"the five books;\" the second\nacknowledged the authority of Jesus and his apostles, such as they found\nit in the New Testament: the first rejected the commentaries of Rabbis;\nthe second those of \"the fathers.\" Both appealed to antiquity, and both\ntraced to what we may designate paganism, heathenism, or foreign sources\ngenerally, a large portion of the current faith which they saw around\nthem. The Sadducees regarded the doctrine of seraphic interference,\nand all the angelic mythology common in their time, as the fond fancy of\nthose who desired to harmonize Judaism with Gentilism. The Reformers, in\ntheir turn, rejected all the fables of Papal anchorites, &c.; denied the\npower of any martyr to influence the condition of the living after their\ndeath; and generally opposed the saintly, as the Sadducees opposed the\nangelic, hierarchy. Individuals who sympathize with Luther, Calvin,\nand those of a similar way of thinking, may readily understand the\nSadducees, whereas, those of what is called the \"High Church,\" will give\ntheir interest to the Pharisees, who upheld the then mediaeval customs,\n&c.\n\nIt is probable that some will say, that Jesus of Nazareth, being the\nson of God, a deity incarnate, and consequently familiar with everything\nwhich goes on in the court of heaven; having adopted the angelic\nmythology; having conversed familiarly with the devil; having sent, at\nleast, two thousand devils out of one man into a herd of swine; having\ngone down to hell, wherever that may be; and having preached to the\nspirits imprisoned there, whoever they may be or have been; having,\nstill further, had an angel to comfort him; having had a conference with\nMoses and Elijah on a certain hill; having asserted that he had only to\npray to his father to obtain the assistance of twelve legions of angels;\nand having also told us that every child has an angel who stands before\nthe face of God--seeing these things, I say, one can imagine persons\nasseverating that all our current notions of angels, which are built\nupon the New Testament, must be true.\n\nTo this we rejoin, that these assertions beg the question. The\nphilosopher affirms that the idea of angels is incompatible with that\nof an omnipresent God--that the belief of Jesus in an angelic mythology\nproves him to have had an anthropomorphic notion of \"the Supreme,\" and,\nas a consequence, it follows that Jesus was nothing more than a Jew,\nalthough very superior to the generality of his countrymen, having\npossibly been taught by some Buddhist.* The bigot, on the other hand,\ncan only scream out the formularies which the so-called orthodox provide\nfor him. Johanna Southcote once made some folks believe that she was\npregnant with a Messiah, and she had most enthusiastic followers; but\nneither argument nor rhetoric sufficed to beget the promised baby and,\nin like manner, no amount of declamation can convert an assumption into\na fact. But of this truth most of our theologians appear to be ignorant,\nand, like the heathen with their litanies, they think that they will\nobtain their will by \"much speaking.\"\n\n     * It will be noticed by the reader, that the remarks in the\n     text have reference to the supernatural stories which were\n     interwoven into the biography of Jesus by those whom we call\n     Evangelists. The bibliolaters must, however, stand or fall\n     by the many legendary tales which pass current for truth. If\n     Jesus, as an ordinary Jew, believed in angels--just as our\n     king, James I., believed in the existence of modern witches\n     --we cannot use his evidence to prove the existence of angels\n     and devils, any more than the Christian laws against\n     witchcraft demonstrate that old women and men sold their\n     souls and bodies to Satan. If, on the other hand, we allow\n     that the spiritual mythology of the New Testament is due to\n     Pharasaic influence, all the testimony propounded in favour\n     of the assertion, that Jesus was, in reality, \"a son of\n     Jehovah,\" crumbles away.\n\nWhen summoned, a long time ago, to give evidence in a court of justice,\nthe question was put to me--\"Now, doctor, you have heard the symptoms\nfrom which the deceased suffered; do you believe that they were produced\nby arsenic?\" Being doubtful about the propriety of the query in a court\nof law so prudish as ours is, I remained silent, and in an instant the\njudge, Baron Alderson, said--\"I won't allow that question to be put or\nanswered; you want the witness to take the place of the jury, and it\nshall not be done. You may ask the doctor, if you will, what are the\nsymptoms produced by arsenic, when taken in a poisonous dose, and then\nit is the business of the jury to compare those, with such as have\nalready been sworn to as occurring in the man before he died.\" This\nanecdote is frequently in my mind when I am composing an essay like the\npresent. If I wish to convince the jury who reads my papers of the truth\nof a particular conclusion to which I have arrived, it is not enough for\nme to express my own opinions. I may assert, in the matter in question,\nthat I am a skilled witness, and have closely investigated the subject,\nbut it is open to any one to doubt my industry and to distrust my\njudgment; consequently, it is necessary for me to adduce evidence, as\nwell as to draw deductions therefrom.\n\nThe hypothesis which I have formed, after a pretty extensive reading,\nis, that the belief in the mythology of angels which is current amongst\nChristians at the present time, and which is based upon a series of\npretended revelations, said to have been made exclusively to Jews of\nancient times, is, in reality, founded upon fancies of pagan priests or\npoets; and, as a corollary, I infer, either that our celestial mythology\nmust be given up to oblivion, as being heathenish, or that we must\nabandon those claims to an exclusive inspiration which have been made\nfor, and accorded by many to, the Bible. I have already described the\nideas associated with angels in some ancient peoples, and I now propose\nto examine those of other nations with whom the Jews and Christians,\ndirectly or indirectly, came in contact.\n\nThe reader of ancient Roman history cannot doubt that the city on the\nTiber was indebted to the Etruscans for all, or nearly all, of its early\nknowledge. It is probable that the original gods and goddesses of Rome\nwere those of their northern neighbours, and everything which the Romans\nknew of augury was due to the priests of Etruria; consequently it is not\nunprofitable to inquire, as far as we can, whether these had any idea\nof beings such as we call angels. As we have not many available written\nremains of the remarkable people to whom we refer, we are obliged to be\nsatisfied with pictorial and other relics which have survived until our\ndays. Some of the scenes depicted on urns, vases, and walls, in tombs\nand elsewhere, are sufficiently explanatory of the subjects which\nthe artist has desired to pourtray; others, on the contrary, can be\ninterpreted in a variety of ways. Paying no attention to the latter,\nwe may safely affirm, that the Etruscans had ideas upon the subject of\nangels very similar to our own. The form which their artists gave to\nthem is precisely that which is current at the present day, except\nthat, unlike the Christian, the Etruscan angels were of different sexes.\nSometimes both males and females were draped from the neck to the\nfeet, in other drawings they were partially or wholly nude. In the vast\nmajority of cases each one possessed two wings that were attached to the\nback, behind the arms, precisely as they are in modern pictures; but in\none very remarkable instance (plate 7, _Description de quelques Vases\nEtrusques_, par H. D. de Luynes--folio, Paris, 1840) the beings to\nwhom we refer had each three pairs of pinions, the one attached to the\nshoulder blades, a second to the loins, and a third to the calves of the\nlegs. These creatures correspond to our demons or imps of Satan, or the\ndevils of the New Testament which were sent into a herd of swine.\n\nSome of the winged Etruscan demons must be regarded as \"angels\nof death,\" for they are represented as hovering in the air over\nindividuals, such as Cassandra and Polynices, who are about to be\nsacrificed. One angel, who, as usual, Diaitized bv is spoken of by the\nChristian describer thereof as a goddess, is designated \"Cunina.\" Her\nbusiness was to look after and take charge of infants in their cradle.\nA being such as this, by whatever name we may designate her, cannot fail\nto remind us of the expression in the New Testament--\"Take heed that ye\ndespise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you that in heaven\ntheir angels do always behold the face of my father which is in heaven\"\n(Matt, xviii. 10). In another Etruscan painting we find two angelic\nbeings, fully draped, carrying a nude corpse apparently to the future\nor invisible state. These naturally remind us of the passage in Rev.\nxx. 1--\"I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of\nthe bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.\" In some Etruscan\npaintings we have scenes which are supposed to indicate the preparation\nof a bride for the wedding ceremony. In these there are diminutive\nangels introduced, which are sometimes hovering in the air and sometimes\nseated on the edge of the bath; these are by the learned supposed to\nrepresent Cupid, Eros, Hymen, or Love, and they indicate the devout\nfeeling, that an angel watches over those who contract marriage in an\northodox manner.*\n\n     * Whether the Romans obtained all their inferior deities\n     from the Etruscans, or whether the priests of the Eternal\n     City in ancient times improved upon the mythology which came\n     to them from their predecessors, just as the priests of\n     modern Rome have expanded, without improving, the\n     Christianised paganism which came to them, is a matter\n     difficult to decide. But it is certain that the old Romans\n     multiplied their \"gods,\" as the modern ones have multiplied\n     their \"saints.\" Amongst the former were many curious\n     deities, who presided at the wedding of young people, some at\n     the public ceremony, and others at the private rites.\n     \"PRema\" was the angel of quietness, whose business it was to\n     see \"ne subacta virgo se ultra modum commovens semen a vulva\n     ejiceret.\" \"Subigus\" was another angel or demigod, whose\n     duty it was to see that the consummation should take place\n     in an appropriate manner--lovingly, pleasantly, and\n     peacefully. There was another--Pertunda--of whom Augustine\n     (Civ. Dei, vol. 9) remarks--\"Si adest dea Prema ut subacta se\n     non commoveat quum prematur, dea Pertunda quid ea facit?\" In\n     modern times the Papal saints, Cosmo, Damian, Foutin, and\n     sundry others, have had the special duty assigned to them to\n     make the husband fit for his marital duties.\n\nThat the absence of such a spirit was looked upon as unlucky we gather\nfrom an expression in Propertius (b. v. el. 3) in which a wife, whose\nhusband has been obliged to leave her, and go to a distant war, when\nbewailing her destiny, amongst other references says--\"I wedded without\na god to accompany me.\" This calls to memory the statement in Hebrews\ni. 14, wherein, after speaking of angels, the writer asks--\"Are they not\nall ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be\nheirs of salvation?\"--a sentence which implies the idea that those who\nare not heirs of salvation have not angels which minister for them. The\ndoctrine was certainly not exclusively Christian. Of this any one may\nassure himself by referring to Eccles. v. 6--\"Neither say thou before\nthe angel that it was an error; wherefore... should God destroy the\nworks of thine hands?\"\n\nAgain, we find an angel seated between two young folk of opposite sexes,\nand archaeologists tell us that the winged creature thus figured is\na nuptial god--one whose business is to induce appropriate couples to\nmeet, to love, and to marry. Such a celestial match-maker was the Jewish\nRaphael, who, though \"one of the seven holy angels, which present the\nprayers of the saints, and which go in and out before the glory of the\nHoly One\" (Tobit xii. 15)--yet condescended to conduct Tobias a long way\nto meet Sara, and instructed him how he could marry her with safety, and\ndefeat a devil.\n\nAmongst other individuals, in the Etruscan mythological paintings who\nare winged, are the following, which are named thus by the authors who\ndescribe the vases, &c., whether rightly or wrongly it is not necessary\nfor me to prove:--Janus; Furina, the goddess of thieves; Mercury, the\nmessenger of Jupiter and the patron of robbers; Vacuna, or Desideria,\nor Venus, the goddess of indolence, desire, or love; Hymen, the angel\nor god of marriage; Cupid, the god of love; Victory, Bacchus, Silenus,\nDryads, Calliope, Tempest, Fame, Proserpine; Iibitina, the goddess of\nfunerals; Venus, infera, Nemesis, or fate; Death, life, Charybdis, The\nFuries, Geryon, Justice, Peace, Iris, and Diana. On such a subject the\nreader may consult with advantage Augustine (_de Civitate Dei_, b. vl.\nc. 9); Arnobius (_Adversus Gentes_, b. iv. c. 7); and Tertullian (_Ad\nNationes_, b. ii. c. 11).\n\nWe may now refer to a remarkable series of drawings, representing the\nfuneral of Patroclus, described by Homer, which were discovered in the\nEtruscan sepulchre of the Tarquinii near what once was Vulci and is now\n\"Ponte della Badia,\" in the year 1857, and which is described in _Noel\ndes Vergers L'Etrurie et les Etrusques_, and in _Corpus Inscriptionum\nItalicarum_ (Turin 1867), the latter of which I use as my authority. In\none of the scenes we find depicted the sacrifice of the Trojan youths\nat the grave of Patroclus. The artist has not left to the fancy of the\nobserver the identification of his figures, but has written in Etruscan\nletters the modified names of the actors. Beginning from the right hand,\nwe find Ajax Oileus, and next to him a naked Trojan youth, whose hands\nare bound behind his back, and who is guarded by Telamonian Ajax. Behind\nand besides him is Charon, and in front of the latter is another Trojan\nyouth, nude, seated on the ground, and receiving his death-wound from\nAchilles. Behind the latter stands a winged, draped, tall female figure,\nwhom at one time I took to be the glorified soul of Patroclus; but,\nhaving seen a similar figure on other Etruscan designs depicting human\nsacrifice or death, and finding over the head of this one the word\n_fanth, vanth, or fano_--according to the value which we assign to the\ndigamma or F and O--which is, I think, equivalent to the Latin _Fatum_,\nfate, &c., we must regard the figure as resembling Azrael--\"the angel\nof death.\" Besides and behind her stands a draped man unarmed, having a\nfixed countenance of settled melancholy, and regarding without a shade\nof exultation the death of the young Trojan whom Achilles slaughters.\nOver his head are the words _hinthial patrucles_, which is believed\nto signify \"the shade of Patroclus.\" The last figure in the group is\nAgamemnon.\n\nThis and the other sculptures in the tomb are extremely interesting\nto the archaeologists, firstly, because they bear evidence of a very\nsuperior style of art; secondly, because they testify to the antiquity\nof Homer's _Iliad_, and its popularity in other nations than the Greek.\nThey show, moreover, that the wealthy men amongst the Etrurians were not\nignorant of the Grecian language, or rather literature, although they\nhad difficulty in adapting the Hellenic words to their own alphabet;\nlastly, they ought to be especially valuable to us inasmuch as\nthey demonstrate the existence of a belief in ancient Italy of the\nresurrection of the body, and of the existence of angels precisely the\nsame in shape as those which pious Christians delight to see in their\nchurches, and in their manuals of devotion. It is worthy of notice\nthat upon some Etruscan vases in the museum at Munich there are angelic\nwarriors covered with armour--a winged female carrying a caduceus, and\nwinged horses--like Pegasus, and probably like those seen by Zechariah,\nthe Hebrew vaticinator.\n\nWe consider it best to omit making any remarks respecting the ideas\nentertained about angels by the Phoenicians, for we have scarcely any\ninformation about their mythology beyond the names of certain gods and\ngoddesses. It will be more profitable to pass on to the Greeks, and\ninquire into the general system of their theological belief. This is,\nwe think, a matter of some importance, for this people, as victors and\nmasters, came into contact with the Jews in the time of Joel, about b.c.\n800; and if any captive Hebrews came back from Grecia (see Joel iii. 6),\nwe believe that they would naturally bring back with them much of the\nHellenic lore of their conquerors. The reader must not be carried away\nhere with the once popular notion that everything which was found\nin heathendom, which resembled something biblical or Jewish, came of\nnecessity from scriptural or Israelitish sources. The reverse is\nmuch more likely, for the Hebrews in old times are described by their\nhistorians and preachers as hankering after novelty--\"going whoring\nafter other gods,\" as the Bible has it. They, on the other hand, were\nencouraged to keep themselves aloof from others, and were never a\nmissionary nation; nor, had they been so, were they sufficiently\nhonourable or wealthy, as a race, ever to command respect. They were,\nindeed, generally despised by the people round about them, who would\nno more think of adopting Jewish fables than we should care to learn\ntheology and cosmogony from African negroes.\n\nIf we endeavour to reduce Grecian mythology to its simplest expression,\nwe find that it consisted of a belief in a creator--grand beyond\nconception, and one whom the mind could not conceive, nor pencil nor\nthe chisel depict. Under him there was thought to be a host of minor\ndeities, who agreed, more or less, amongst themselves, each having\na particular department of creation to preside over, or a definite\nfunction to perform. Jupiter, for example, had the air and the heavens\ngenerally under his management; Neptune superintended the sea; Rhea, or\nGaia, or Gee, was the goddess of the surface of the earth; and Pluto had\nthe management of the interior of the globe and of those who were buried\ntherein. If corpses were unburied, they did not come under his immediate\ncognizance. Then, as it was quite possible that one deity might be\ncounteracting another, as, indeed, they are represented to have done\nduring the Trojan war, another god was necessary to be a medium of\ncommunication between the others, and Mercury became the messenger, or\ngo-between.\n\nBelow the major gods was an infinity of smaller ones, who presided\nover physical and moral matters. There were, for example, wood and\ntree nymphs; Dryads and hamadryads--gods of rivers, such as Simois\nand Scamander. Pan presided over husbandmen; Hermes, over thieves, &c.\nOthers, like Eros, fulfilled the duty of bringing the sexes together.\nHymen secured them in marriage, and Venus had the duty of insuring\nconnubial happiness, whilst Lucina's business was to bring the offspring\nof the marriage into the world--with as little pain or danger as\npossible. Then, again, Fortune brought good luck. The \"furies\" brought\nevil, and the \"fates\" ruled the destiny of mortals.\n\nAgainst some of these gods others rebelled. For example, there were the\nTitans, the sons of Heaven and Earth (Caelus et Terra), who were all of\ngigantic stature, and may be said to be identical with the giants spoken\nof in Gen. vi. 2-4, as being the offspring of the sons of God and the\ndaughters of men. These Titans were much disliked by their father, and\nconfined in the bowels of the earth, or, as we should say, in Hell; but\ntheir mother relieved them, and they in turn revenged themselves upon\ntheir progenitor. When Jupiter succeeded to Cronos or Saturn, the\ngiants, the sons of Tartarus and Terra, or Hell and Earth, united with\ntheir half-brothers, the Titans, and attacked Olympus, and its gods, in\ndismay, assumed disguises and fled into Egypt--a rare spot, whence also\ncame as history tells us, the founder of Christianity and the doctrine\nof the Trinity. To regain his position, Jupiter found a man--a son of\nhis own--whom he had begotten by lying three nights in the heart of\nthe earth, or, as the fable has it, in the arms of Alcmena--Hercules by\nname, to attack the allied monsters, and thus with the aid of a mortal\nthe gods became victorious. Just as in more modern days the divine\nmission and position of Jesus of Nazareth and Mahomet of Mecca, have\nbeen determined by the arms of human warriors. The power of men in\nheaven is wonderful, considering how great is their weakness upon earth!\nIt is probable, that to the Greeks, Milton owed his ideas of _Paradise\nLost_.\n\nAccording to the ordinary ideas of angels, the gods, demigods,\ngoddesses, genii, and the like, were essentially the same amongst the\nHebrews as the archangels and inferior hierarchy are in modern christian\nmythology. We shall the more readily see this if we inquire into the\nideas of the Greeks respecting _demons_. \"The latter were regarded as\nspirits which presided over the actions of mankind, and watched over\ntheir secret intentions.\" Many Greek theologians thought that each\nman had two, the one good, the other bad. These sprites could change\nthemselves into any form, and at death the individual was delivered up\nto judgment by these companions, who testified to his actions during\nlife. Socrates often spoke of his own peculiar \"spirit.\" Not only were\nthese creatures supposed to influence men, but they were also believed\nto guard places, and a genius loci was the same as the God of Ekron, or\nany other locality.\n\nIt is almost impossible for a thoughtful man not to compare with the\nGreek ideas those held by moderns. We hear in familiar discourse, and\nread in popular books, about a good angel and a bad one. God is said to\nuse both (see Ps. lxxviii. 49, and 1 Kings xxii. 21, 22.) Many, too, of\nthe readers of Sterne will remember the remarks which he makes about a\nrecording angel who was obliged to register an oath, but who contrived\nto blot out the entry with a tear (com. Mal. iii. 16.) As we have already\nadverted to the belief of Jesus that every child had an angel, who\nis always in the presence of. God, we need not remark again upon the\nmatter.\n\nBut though the Grecian gods and demigods were the counterparts of the\narchangels and lesser powers of the Jews and Christians, they were not\npictorially depicted, as they were in other places, like winged men or\nother creatures.\n\nArnobius, for example, in _Advenus genies_, when writing about the\ndivinities of the heathen, remarks, that they are so like ordinary men\nand women, that the artist has to resort to some contrivance to show\nthat any offspring of his brush, or of his chisel, is a god or goddess.\nA painter, he observes, will select the finest young women he can\ndiscover--or the handsomest prostitute in his country, and from one\nmaiden, or from the collective charms of many, will paint a lovely woman\nand style her Venus; yet she is only a courtezan after all. His remark is\na certainly true one. Jupiter is never represented otherwise than as a\nman, nor does Minerva ever figure except as a woman. None of the greater\ngods of Hellas are winged like the tutelar gods of the Assyrians and\nPersians were. Even Hermes, though he does bear pinions, does not carry\nthem in the usual form. Instead of having powerful wings behind his\narms, like the Gabriel or Michael of Christian mythology, he has little\nnippers attached to each side of a cap, of a pair of socks, and of a\ncuriously-shaped wand--all of which he can put off when he pleases,\nor don when he is sent with a message. Jupiter's thunders bear similar\nwings. But such minor deities, or devils, as Eros or love; Hymen or\nmarriage; Fame, or victory; Aurora, or day-break; the winds, the Genii,\nthe Gorgons, the Furies, the Harpies, Iris, Isis, Hebe, Psyche, and even\nPegasus--a wondrous horse, are winged with pinions which resemble those\nof the eagle.\n\nIf we now pause for a moment to compare one thing with another, we\nreadily see that Hymen may fairly be described as the angel of the\ncovenant of marriage, and that Mercury is identical with Raphael. The\n\"genius loci,\" the \"dryad\" or \"hamadryad,\" is the counterpart of the\ncherubim guarding the ark and the mercyseat of the Jewish temple. Apollo\nis the angel in the sun (Rev. xix. 17.) Neptune is \"the angel of the\nwaters\" (Rev. xvi. 5.) Nay, we may--indeed we must go further, and affirm\nthat either the angel Gabriel, or \"the power of the Highest,\" which,\nwe are told in Luke i. 26, 35, overshadowed Mary, the espoused wife\nof Joseph, is a perfect counterpart of the Hellenic Jupiter who\novershadowed Alcmena.\n\nBoth produced a being equally celebrated--for we may fairly assert that\nHercules was believed in by as many individuals as have faith in Jesus.\nFor ourselves, we do not credit the myth of the Hellenists; of the very\nexistence of a Hercules we are profoundly incredulous. Yet we do not\ndoubt for a moment that Jesus of Nazareth lived as a man upon this\nearth, and founded, with the subsequent assistance of Paul, the religion\nwhich is called Christian. But of the supernatural conception of Mary\nand of her impregnation by a deity we are intensely sceptical.\n\nOf the theology of the Romans in the times prior to, and somewhat\nsubsequent to, our era, we need say little. It resembled both the\nEtruscan and the Greek at the first, and subsequently it was modified by\nthe Egyptian and by the Persian. But it was in Rome, whilst pagan, that\nthe present pictorial type of angels was perfected (see Plates ix. to\nxiii, Lajard's _Culte de Venus_), in which allegorical figures, from old\nRoman bas-reliefs, precisely like modern angels, are represented killing\nthe Mithraic bull. I may also add, in passing, that the crozier borne by\nRomanist bishops is a reproduction of the Etruscan _lituus_, the augurs'\nor diviners' staff of office.\n\nThe Roman nation, like the Papist and Peruvian religions, was\nomnivorous, and not only venerated the old gods of the soil, but adopted\nnew divinities eagerly. Whoever chose to import a new deity, and a novel\nstyle of worship was hailed, patronized and enriched, much in the same\nway as at London during recent times, Mesmerists, \"spirit rappers,\"\n\"cord-conjurors,\" clairvoyants, male and female, spiritualists like\nHome, very High Churchmen, and many other classes of a similar stamp\nhave been encouraged. As in Athens, we are told that \"the Athenians and\nstrangers which were there spent their time in nothing else but either\nto tell or to hear some new thing\" (Acts xvii), no matter whether the\nnovelty was religious or otherwise, so it has been elsewhere. London\nreally, and Rome metaphorically are constantly adopting new ideas, some\nhighly commendable and philosophical, others quite the reverse. Amongst\nthe latter, we may mention that which professes that a certain man\ncan, like Jesus is said to have done, heal by a touch. This assertion,\nhowever, is only sparsely credited on the Thames. Far more general is\nthe belief which professes, that an Ecumenical Council can by a vote\nmake one man and his official successors \"infallible.\"\n\nWe cannot pass by this subject without remarking that instability in\nreligion is evidence of infidelity; and the adoption of new tenets is a\nproof of the low estimation in which old ones have been held. Even the\nnew, or Christian dispensation, as it is called, is founded upon the\ninsufficiency of the old or Jewish covenant, which, by those who adopt\nthe one, is a confession that they believe the other was imperfect and\ntherefore not of God. Consequently, when we find a \"church,\" like the\nRoman, habitually patching its old clothes, we conclude that its leaders\nare dissatisfied with them and desire better. A lover who finds his\nmistress perfect neither seeks nor wishes to change her for another; nor\nendeavours to induce her to modify her attire until he is dissatisfied\ntherewith. When he insists upon an alteration it is because his ardent\nlove has faded. The philosopher may see clearly why certain prelates\ndesire to have some infallible man to appeal to--for it is easier\nto find out the opinion of one individual than to harmonize the\ncontradictory hypotheses of fifty dogmatical or authoritative writers.\nYet the same man will not fail to see that such a proceeding, whilst it\nstrengthens the hold of the church upon the weak-minded, cuts it adrift\nfrom the strong. The policy is not altogether bad, for it seeks to bind\ncloser those who, whilst wearing the chains of captivity, regard them\nas ornaments. But all those who adopt such tactics ought, boldly and\nunequivocally, to withdraw from the rank of truth-seekers, and of envoys\nof that God who is not \"the author of confusion but of peace.\"\n\nWe may now proceed to the consideration of the angelic mythology of the\nOld and New Testaments. In our inquiry we shall endeavour to arrive\nat the ideas contained in the words which are used, and not content\nourselves with simple quotation. There is strong reason to believe that\nChristians in general rarely examine into the real signification of\nwords which they are taught to use, or which, from some fancy or other,\nthey commit to memory. They imagine--if they think on the subject at\nall--that to repeat a text or a creed is to perform an act of faith,\nwhich, in itself, is praiseworthy and a good work. Such do not, in any\nappreciable degree, differ from the Thibetans, described by the Abbe\nHue, who perform their devotions by turning round upon their axles\ncertain cylinders, upon which some prayers are engraved. Not only these\nAsiatics, but Europeans of large mental calibre are often contented with\nvague ideas; and when they are challenged to support \"the faith which\nis in them,\" show that they have never yet examined it. If, for example,\nthey are asked how they can believe in the truth of such passages,\n\"I have seen God (Kohim) face to face\" (Gen. xxxii. 30); \"The Lord\n(Jehovah) spake unto Moses face to face as a man speaketh unto his\nfriend\" (Exod. xxxiii. 11); \"Moses whom the Lord knew face to face\"\n(Deut. xxxiv. 10), and the opposite one, \"Thou canst not see my face,\nfor there shall no man see me and live\" (Exod. xxxiii. 20)--the sole\nreply rendered is that the first passages are figurative, passing by\nentirely the comparison in the second, which asserts that God talked\nwith Moses as one friend with another.\n\nAs a farther illustration of my meaning, I may point to the glibness\nwith which Christians talk, sing, and listen to discourses about blood.\nIf people really gave heed to what they chant, and to the words of their\nministers, they would really be puzzled to find a distinction between\nthe god whom they worship and that idol deity of Mexico, which called\nconstantly for the hearts and the blood of his worshippers. \"Without\nshedding of blood is no remission\" (Heb. ix. 22) is a dogma that puts\nthe Europeans' God on the same level as the deities worshipped in pagan\nAfrica, New Zealand, and by the Anthropophagi generally.\n\nIn like manner, if ordinary people are asked to reconcile such passages\nas the following--\"Who maketh his angels spirits;\" \"A spirit hath not\nflesh and bones as ye see me have\" (Luke xxiv. 39)--with a host of\nothers, in which angels are said to have appeared, talked, and acted\nlike men, they allege that \"much of the phraseology of the Bible is\nmetaphorical.\" But if it be granted that the language is metaphorical,\nmust we not equally believe that the facts referred to are mythical; and\nif so, how much of the so-called inspired book can we trust? If metaphor\nand figure-imagery are cities of refuge for theologians, those who fly\nto them must remember, that there they must remain and live therein all\ntheir days; they cannot be citizens of the world, and yet never leave\ntheir asylum: if, for them, facts are fictions, by parity of reason\nfictions are facts.\n\nIf, when an individual, said to be a prophet, and, as such, the\nmouthpiece of the Holy Ghost or of Jehovah, tells us that he saw and\ntalked with an angel, who imparted to him such and such information,\nwe are bound either to believe the whole statement or to reject it as\nvalueless, _quoad_ revelation. If the man did see an angel, and that\nangel spoke, it must have been material; and if material, it could not\nbe a spirit, and if not a spirit, it was not an angel.* If to this it be\nanswered that individuals do see what they deem to be spirits--just\nas many a drunken man avers that he sees \"blue devils,\" we grant it at\nonce. We go still farther, and state that we know individuals in full\npossession, apparently, of all their senses, who see, occasionally, men,\nwomen, horses, dogs, and other things, which have no more existence\nthan the figures which appear to us in dreams. Such men not only see\nimaginary beings, but they hear conversations or speeches which have no\nreality in them. But we cannot for a moment allow that such delusions of\nthe senses are sterling, and such utterances, messages from the Almighty\ndelivered by angels. To be logical, therefore, the theologian must\neither accept the stories told in the Bible about angelic beings as\nliterally true, to the exclusion of all metaphor, or believe that\nevery thing tainted by such celestial mythology is entirely of human\ninvention.\n\n     * The authority for this is Ps. civ. 4; Heb. L 7, 14,--\"Who\n     maketh his angels spirits;\" \"Are they not all ministering\n     spirits?\"\n\nAs an illustration, let us consider two episodes in the history of\nElisha. We find in 2 Kings ii. 11, that a chariot of fire and horses of\nfire, appeared to this prophet, and parted him from Elijah, with whom\nhe was walking, and carried the latter away into heaven; and we see in\n2 Kings vi. 17, that Elisha's servant could really see a multitude\nof chariots and horses of fire round about his master. We must also\nremember that \"the chariots of the Lord are thousands of angels\"\n(Ps. lxviii. 17; see also Ps. xxxiv. 7.) Now these were, or were not,\nrealities--if the chariots and horsemen existed, then we infer that some\nsort of stables and ostlers exist in heaven; if none such exist, then\nthe chariots and horses could neither have been seen, nor have separated\nthe two prophets.\n\nIt may be urged that supernatural beings do exist for those who can\nsee them, and for no other; just as the angel was seen by Balaam's ass\nthrice (see Numbers xxii. 22-33) before he was recognized by her master.\nBut this observation is worthless, for it amounts to nothing more than\nthis--viz., that the persons seen in dreams exist for the dreamers and\nfor no one else; but it in no way proves the reality of the asserted\napparition.\n\nIt would be as useless to discuss, at this point, the actuality of what\nare called \"spectres,\" as of other things named fairies, pixies, gnomes,\nor sprites. Of the existence of such there is abundance of evidence; and\nfor hundreds of years there was not a human being who did not believe in\nthem. But there was even stronger proof that the world stood still, and\nthe sun went round it, and during untold centuries all who thought on\nthe matter believed the statement. Yet in these days all the testimony\nis regarded as worthless in the presence of the stern facts of science;\nand ghosts are only believed in by such as write treatises upon squaring\nthe circle, perpetual motion, and the plane figure of the earth. We\nshall take up the subject at length in our next chapter.\n\nIf we were to follow the bent of our inclination, we should now\nendeavour to prove that the Jews had no idea of an angelic mythology\nprior to the Babylonian captivity, and that they had no distinct\nliterature prior to the Grecian and Edomite captivity referred to in\nJoel, Amos, Obadiah, and Micah, except possibly such records and written\nlaws as may be styled \"annals\" or \"year-books;\" and, as a consequence,\nthat all parts of the Old Testament in which angelic beings figure are\ncomparatively modern, having been fabricated after the long sojourn of\nthe Jews in Babylon. But to carry out this intention would require a\ntreatise rather than an essay, and I must content myself with saying\nthat I believe it to be affirmed by all Hebrew scholars, that up to the\ntime of Nebuchadnezzar--or Hezekiah--the sole unseen power recognized\nby the Jews was Jehovah alone. They did not believe either in angel or\ndevil What their ideas were we may shortly describe*:--\n\n     * Long after the remark in the text was written, and long\n     before it was in type, Dr. Kalisch, in his second part of a\n     commentary on Leviticus, published his views upon the point\n     referred to. When I can refer my readers to so masterly a\n     composition as his essay upon Angels in the Jewish theology,\n     it is seedless for me to say much on the subject. I may also\n     refer those who are interested in the matter to a work\n     entitled _The Devil: his Origin, Greatness, and Decadence_\n     (Williams & Norgate, London, 1871--small 8vo., pp. 72). My\n     essay supplements these, and in no way clash therewith.\n\n1. Angels were spirits, being also ministers (Heb. L 7.) They were a\nflaming fire (Ps. civ. 4); compare Jud. xiii. 20, and Acts vii. 35--that\nis, spirits are made of a combustible material which is, however,\nincombustible!\n\n2. They could assume the form of men, and were identical with God (see\nGen. xviii. 19; Tobit, and Luke i.): that is to say, they were masters,\nyet servants--the sender and the sent at the same time!\n\n3. Their faces were terrible (Jud. xiii. 6); but they also shone (Acts\nvi. 15) and yet they were so good-looking and handsome that the Sodomites\nfell in love with them as Jupiter did with Ganymede (Gen. xix).\n\n4 One was the superintendent of destruction, and was visible on one\noccasion to David (2 Sam. xxiv. 16, 17), to Oman, his sons, and to the\nelders of Israel (1 Chron. xxi. 16-20.) His weapon was a sword (_ibid._)\nHe certainly must have had flesh and bones. It would be an interesting\nmatter to inquire whether the sword was as spiritual as the angel was.\n\n5. One angel was outwitted by a donkey (see Numb. xxii. 22-33.) Yet\nthis angel was God (comp. Numb. xxii. 35, and xxiv. 4, 15,16). It is\nmarvellous to me how any one can read this history of Balaam and his\nass, and notice how the animal turned God from His purpose (see chap,\nxxii. 33), and yet believe the story to be of _divine_ origin!\n\n6. They are made of light (Luke ii. 9), yet can talk the vernacular, and\ncan be counterfeited by Satan (2 Cor. xi. 14); but how he manages it, and\nwhether he then ceases to be a roaring lion or a fallen angel \"reserved\nin everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day\"\n(Jude 6), is a matter for surmise.\n\n7. One of them fought with the Devil, and kept his temper (Jude 9.) Of\nthe language used in the disputation we do not know; nor can we tell how\nthe two recognized each other.\n\n8. Some of them are guilty of folly (Job. iv. 18), and some sinned--how,\none does not know--and were cast down to hell, and delivered into chains\nof darkness. It is fitting that beings who have no flesh and bones\nshould be bound by fetters that have no reality (2 Peter ii. 4).\n\n9. Some were discontented with their home and were punished (Jude 6);\nbut where their original habitation was, or why it was regarded as so\nmiserable that another place was desired, is a mystery.\n\n10. They have food provided for them (Ps. lxxviii. 25), and they eat like\nmen (Gen. xviii. 8; and xix. 3), consequently angels must have flesh,\nblood, and a stomach to digest victuals. Sometimes instead of eating\nfood they order it to be burned, and the smoke from the viands serves as\na vehicle to heaven (Jud. xiii. 19, 20).\n\n11. Their number is twenty thousand (Ps. lxviii. 17).\n\n12. They are chariots (_ibid_), yet they walk and get their feet dusty\n(Gen. xviii. and xix. 2; compare Jud. ii. 1; vi. 12); the chariots are of\nfire, and so are the horses (2 Kings vi. 17); but they are also clouds\n(Ps. civ. 3).\n\n13. They are taught military discipline and arranged in \"legions\" (Matt\nxxvi. 53).\n\n14. They are sexless (Mark xii. 25), yet were men when they appeared to\nAbraham, Sarah, and the Sodomites (Gen. xviii, xix.).\n\n15. They are liable to do wrong, and will be judged by men, some time or\nother (1 Oor. vi. 2, 3). As in this passage the angels are put below the\nsaints, and in Gen. xviii. and xix., it is clear that Elohim and Jehovah\nwere angels, it follows that holy men, when raised, will be superior to\nthe power that gave them heaven!\n\n16. Though sexless, the angels, or sons of God, may be captivated by the\nbeauty of woman, and engender giants with them in a very human fashion\n(Gen. vi).\n\n17. They are very sensitive respecting the hair of women, and require\nit to be covered in worship--at other times they probably are not so\nparticular. Although they minister upon those who are heirs of salvation\n(Heb. i. 14), they might be tempted from their business, if they were to\nsee a pretty snood in golden tresses hid (1 Cor. xi. 10).\n\n18. Every child has an angel, or rather angels, to look after it (Matt,\nxviii. 10), which leads to the belief that the number of angels has\nincreased since the sixty-eighth Psalm was written, when there were only\n20,000, and perhaps a few more.*\n\n     * The words of the christian father, Tertullian, upon this\n     subject are so very apposite to our subject of angels, that\n     I am tempted to quote them--Clark's edition, vol. i. p. 487-\n     8.\n\n     Speaking to the heathens, he says--\"And you are not content\n     to assert the divinity of such as were once known to you,\n     whom you heard and handled, and whose portraits have been\n     painted, and actions recounted, and memory retained amongst\n     you; but men insist upon consecrating with a heavenly life,\n     i.e.t they insist on deifying, I know not what incorporeal\n     inanimate shadows and the names of things, dividing man's\n     entire existence amongst separate powers, even from his\n     conception in the womb, so that there is a god (read\n     _angel_) Consevius, to preside over concubital generation,\n     and Fluviona to preserve the infant in the womb; after these\n     come Vitumnus and Sentinus through whom the babe begins to\n     have life and its earliest sensation; then Diespiter, by\n     whose office the child accomplishes its birth. But when\n     women begin their parturition Candelifera also comes in aid,\n     since child-bearing requires the light of the candle; and\n     other goddesses there are (such as Lucina, Partula, Nona,\n     Decima, and Alemona) who get their names from the parts they\n     bear in the stages of travail There were two Carmentas\n     likewise, according to the general view.   To one of them,\n     called Postverta, belonged the function of assisting the\n     birth of the malpresented child; whilst the other, Prosa or\n     Prorso, executed the like office for the rightly born. The\n     god Farinus was so called from his inspiring the first\n     utterance, whilst others believed in Locutius from his gift\n     of speech. Cunina is present as the protector of the child's\n     deep slumber, and supplies to it refreshing rest. To lift\n     them when fallen there is Levana, and along with her Rumina\n     (from the old word _ruma_, a teat). It is a wonderful\n     oversight that no gods were appointed for clearing up the\n     filth of children. Then to preside over their first pap and\n     earliest drink you have Potina and Edula; to teach the child\n     to stand erect is the work of Statina (or Statilinus),\n     whilst Adeona helps him to come to dear mamma-, and Abeona\n     to toddle back again. Then there is Domiduca, to bring home\n     the bride, and the goddess Mens, to influence the mind to\n     either good or evil. They have likewise Volumnus and Voleta,\n     to control the will; Paventina, the goddess of fear;\n     Venilia, of hope; Volnpia, of pleasure; Praastitia, of\n     beauty. Then, again, they give his name to Peragenor, from\n     his teaching men to go through their work; to Consus, from\n     his suggesting to them counsel. Juventa is their guide on\n     assuming the manly gown, and 'bearded Fortune,' when they\n     come to full manhood. If I must touch on their nuptial\n     duties, there is Afferenda, whose appointed function is to\n     see to the offering of the dower. But fie on you--you have\n     your Mutunus, and Tutunus, and Pertunda, and Subigus, and\n     the goddess Prema, and likewise Perfica. O spare yourselves,\n     ye impudent gods.\"\n\n19. Some angels are evil, but are much the same as the good (Ps. lxxviii\n49), in their power of doing mischief.\n\n20. Every heir of salvation has an angel to minister to him in some way\nor other (Heb. i. 14); so have Roman babies--see note.\n\n21. The angels are only a trifle superior to men (Ps. viii. 5), and in\nthe invisible world will be inferior to them if the latter be saints (1\nCor. vi. 3; Heb. ii. 5).\n\n22. They can speak all sorts of languages (1 Cor. xiii. 1); that which\nMichael and the devil used (Jude 9) has not been revealed to us.\n\n23. They use a trumpet, probably as immaterial as themselves, and make a\ngreat noise thereby (Matt xxiv. 31); and horses (Zech. i. and Rev. vi).\n\n24. They have wings and can fly (Rev. viii. 13; xiv. 6), although they\nare chariots.\n\n25. When on earth they are clothed with a long white garment, have a\nface like lightning, and one can appear to be two, or not appear at all\nto some, though very distinctly seen by others (see Matt xxviii. 2, 3;\nMark xvi. 5; Luke xxiv. 4; John xx. 12).\n\nOf all the angels mentioned in the Apocalypse we need not write. One\nof the best accounts I have met with of the angelic mythology of\nthe Hebrews is in Coheleth, or The Book of Ecclesiastes, by Rev. Dr.\nGinsburg (Longman, London, 1861). It is written in explanation of Ch. v.\n5, wherein is the expression, \"Do not say before the angel that it was\nerror\" (page 340), and the following remarks are condensed therefrom:--\n\"The angels occupy different rank and offices--seven of them as the\nhighest functionaries; princes or archangels surround the throne of God\nand form the cabinet--(1) Michael, the prime minister, the guardian\nof the Jewish nation, the opponent of Satan (Zech. iii. 1, 2), of the\nprince of Persia (Dan. x. 13, 20), the conservator of the corpse of\nMoses (Jude 9), and the dragon (Rev. xii); (2) Raphael, who presides\nover the sanitary affairs (Tobit iii. 17, xii. 15)--'When God would cure\nany sick person,' says St. Jerome, 'he sends the archangel Raphael, one\nof the seven spirits before his throne, to accomplish the cure.' There\ncan be little doubt that this was the angel who went down at certain\nseasons to move the waters of the pool to cure the impotent people (John\nv. 4); (3) Gabriel, the messenger to announce or to effect deliverance,\nalso a presence angel (Luke i. 11-20, 26-35); (4) Uriel, mentioned\nin Esdras (2 b., ch. iv., w. 1 and 20). In Targums these four are\nrepresented as surrounding the throne of the divine majesty, but all do\nnot agree; Jonathan's arrangement is--Michael at the right, Uriel at the\nleft, Gabriel before, and Raphael behind.* The fifth, sixth, and seventh\narchangels are Phaniel, Raguel, and Sarakiel.\"\n\n     * An observation such as this distinctly shows how\n     completely the ideas of angels are associated with gross\n     anthropomorphism.\n\n\"Next to the cabinet comes the privy council, composed of four and\ntwenty crowned elders (1 Kings xxii. 19; Rev. iv. 4; vii. 13; viii. 3), who\nsurround the throne, before whom Christ will confess those who\nconfessed him. Then comes the council, consisting of the seventy angel\nprinces--the provincial governors presiding over the affairs of the\nseventy nations into which the human family is divided.\" Hence the\nTargumic paraphrase on Gen. xi. 7, 8--\"_The Lord said to the seventy\npresence angels, Come now and let us go down, and there let us confound\ntheir language, so that one may not understand the language of the\nother. And the Lord manifested himself against that city, and with him\nwere the seventy angels according to the seventy nations_.\" Hence the\nSeptuagint translation of Deut xxxii. 8--\"When the Most High divided\nthe nations... he set the boundaries... according to the number of the\nangels.\" The doctor also notices the four angels mentioned in Zech. vi,\nwho seem to have the management of four great monarchies, but he\ndoes not advert to the angels of the seven churches spoken of in the\nApocalypse. He then proceeds--\"Then comes the innumerable company of\npresence angels, since every individual has a guardian angel as well\nas every nation\"... St Jerome, remarking upon Matt, xviii. 10,\nsays,--\"_Great is the dignity of these little ones, for every one of\nthem has from his very birth an angel dedicated to guard him_.\"* When\nSt. Peter was chained in his prison, his angel released him (Acts xiii.\n7,11), and the damsel who opened a house door for him was told that he\nwho was knocking was Peter's angel.\n\n     * We have never been able to see the force of this remark,\n     unless the idea of children having guardian angels was\n     associated with the belief that these beings left them when\n     they grew up. If the adults standing round Jesus had each an\n     individual warden, there would be nothing peculiar in the\n     warning given in the verse referred to. It is, however, just\n     possible that the notion existed that it was to adults only\n     that tutelary spirits were assigned, and that the prophet of\n     Nazareth declared that each infant had a protecting genius\n     as well as every man.\n\nThen there are angels who preside over all the phenomena of nature.\nOne presides over the sun (Eev. xix. 17); angels guard the storm and\nlightning (Ps. civ. 4); four angels have charge over the four winds\n(Rev. vii. 1, 2); an angel presides over the waters (Rev. xvi. 5); and\nanother over the temple altar (Rev. xiv. 18).\n\nWe need not pursue this subject further; enough has been said to show\nthat the Hebrew ideas of angels differ in no essential respect from\nthose of other nations, who, if not older than the Jews, were certainly\nnever influenced by the Hebrews. From the evidence before us, we are\nconstrained to believe that the knowledge which we assume to possess of\nthe celestial court has descended to us from heathen or pagan sources,\nand that the pictorial designs which pass current for likenesses of\nangels or archangels have descended from Egyptians, Assyrians, Persians,\nGrecians, Etruscans, and Romans, and cannot pretend to anything\napproaching to a revelation from God.\n\nWe have already remarked that the Hebrew notions of the heavenly\nhierarchy are evidence of a gross anthropomorphism; they indicate a\nbelief in the existence of a monarch having a face and back, a right\nhand and a left, ears and a mouth, and a wherewithal for sitting upon a\nthrone--the part which was shown, as we are told, to Moses; they tell of\na theology that recognizes places in the universe where God is not, and\nof which He has no cognizance save through messengers. If this be so,\nwhat shall we say of the hagiology which tells us that there was on one\noccasion a conspiracy amongst the courtiers of the celestial ruler, a\ndiscovery of treason, and a punishment of the offenders as dire as the\nmost malignant man could invent? We have often thought that no human\nbeing, unless he were vile, brutal, sensual, clever, disappointed, and\nrevengeful, could have invented the idea of hell, and that none would\never have believed in it unless he was both timid, thoughtless, and\nmalignant The dormant hate of the orthodox against opponents is an\nawful quantity. The expression of \"fallen angels\" is a pregnant text; it\nrecalls to our mind the passage--\"Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom\nI trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against\nme\" (Ps. xli. 9). It reminds us of David, Absalom and Ahitophel, of\nSolomon and Jeroboam, of Joram and Jehu, Benhadad and Hazael, Louis\nXVIII. and Marshal Ney. We feel sure that an individual who could\nwrite the words--\"If we sin wilfully after that we have received the\nknowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but\na certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which\nshall devour the adversaries\" (Heb. x. 26, 27), could readily have\ninvented a hell, if he had not found one already made to his hand. The\nsentence just quoted bears evidence of intense theological spitefulness,\nand a petty meanness that neither Sakya nor Jesus would have shown. Such\nthoughts are womanish, not manly, although apostolic.\n\nWe can fancy it having been penned by James or John, who once asked\nJesus whether they should not call down fire from heaven to consume\nthe Samaritans, simply because the latter were not polite to the\nmaster--\"because he seemed to be going to Jerusalem\" (Luke ix. 53, 54).\nBut if so, those disciples must have forgotten the rebuke of Jesus--\"Ye\nknow not what manner of spirit ye are of.\"\n\nHere we must pause awhile, and consider the idea of various peoples\nabout Hell.\n\nSome, perhaps we ought to say, many, earthly potentates have encouraged\nthe belief that there is a place in which evildoers, who have escaped\npunishment for crime in this world will, after their death here, receive\ntheir deserts. A place of torment which no man has seen, or can see\nin life, and which, consequently, anyone can describe, is a wonderful\nsupplement to imperfect police arrangements, and as such, has been\nfabricated or adopted in various nations. But in all the nations of\nantiquity, and those which we call pagan, Hell has been assigned to\nthose who have committed crimes upon earth, such as murder, theft, and\nthe like, and whose evil deeds have outnumbered their good ones. The\nidea of a torture vault for heretics has, so far as I can learn, been\nreserved for Christian times, and for nations who punish ecclesiastical\noffences more severely than the most atrocious crimes. The papal church,\nwherever she has had power, has punished rejection of her communion far\nmore cruelly than she has dealt with rape, robbery, and murder; and all,\nwho think with her, draw their arguments for so doing from what is said\nto be God's method of dealing with His rebellious angels. Surely, the\nidea runs, if the Almighty, who cannot do wrong, has punished with fire\nand everlasting torment the ministers who stood in His presence and\naround His throne, simply because they kept not their position, or did\nnot watch over their principality--for both meanings may be assigned\nto the original words--surely man must treat his heretic fellow on\na similar plan. God, runs the argument, made the Devil, and man must\nmultiply his imps. It is true, according to Hebrew and Christian\nmythology, that the idea of a Devil was not originally in the mind of\nJehovah. But when Satan rebelled he was immediately invested with power!\nIn other words, Lucifer taught Elohim, and thoughtful Christians believe\nthis!!\n\nIf we now attempt to frame a history of the modern Hell, its rulers,\nits angels, or its devils, we find, in the first place, that the Old\nTestament contains no idea whatever of Satan being an angel originally\nbright and fair, but subsequently disobedient, rebellious, conquered,\nand punished. Nor is the New Testament much more communicative--we\nfind the arch-fiend described as a murderer and as a liar; he also is\nassociated with angels, as in the words, \"the Devil and his angels.\"\nHe is described as \"the Prince of the power of the air,\"--as \"a roaring\nlion, seeking whom he may devour.\" He is \"the spirit which worketh in\nthe children of disobedience.\" He is also represented as telling Jesus,\nthat he is able to dispose of all the kingdoms of the globe, and to give\ntheir glory to whom he will. Yet nowhere is a hint breathed that he\nwas once an angel in heaven. The only verse in the whole Bible which is\nsupposed to bear upon this matter, shows that the devil and his imps\nare not identical with the fallen angels, for Jude distinctly declares\n(verse 6) that the latter are \"reserved in everlasting chains, under\ndarkness, unto the judgment of the great day,\" a condition quite\nincompatible with their identity with Satan, who is represented as\ntelling God that he had been going to and fro through the earth, and\nwalking up and down in it (Job ch. i., v. 7). A conversation then\nfollows the question, which must have been quite impossible had God\nrecognized him as an escaped convict.\n\nAgain, if we turn to the book of Enoch (an apocryphal production,\nsupposed for ages to have been lost, but discovered at the close of the\nlast century in Abyssinia, now first translated from an Ethiopian MS. in\nthe Bodleian Library, by Richard Laurence, LL.D., Archbishop of Cashel;\n3d edition, 8vo. Oxford, 1838),--which is, and I think justly, believed\nto be the authority quoted by Jude, we find a full confirmation of our\nview of the independence of the Devil or Satan, and the fallen angels.\nThe foundation of the work is the story-told in the sixth chapter of\nGenesis. In that work, the angels which kept not their first estate are\ndescribed as those who preferred intercourse with human females to\na celestial celibacy, for in those days there were sons of God and\ndaughters of men. Nay, in one verse (chap, liii. 6) it is distinctly\ndeclared that one cause why the wrath of God came upon them was that\n\"they became ministers of Satan, and seduced those who dwell upon the\nearth.\" In many places a reference is made to the close imprisonment of\nthe angels who had \"been polluted with women;\" one such will suffice,\n(chap, xxi. 6), where, on seeing a terrific place, Enoch is told by Uriel\n\"this is the prison of the angels, and here are they kept for ever.\"\nIt is not even Satan who tempts the angels, for chapter lxviii. tells us\nthat it was Yekun and Kesabel, two of themselves, who gave evil counsel,\nand induced their fellows to corrupt their bodies by generating mankind.\nIt is clear that such a writer does not conceive the possible existence\nof angelic women.\n\nThe nearest approach to evidence of identification is the statement made\nin the same chapter (w. 6, 7), that Gradrel was the name of one of the\nleaders of the fallen, and that he seduced Eve. But this testimony is\nwholly worthless in the face of the fact that he, like all his company,\nare kept chained up, which Satan certainly is not.\n\nFrom the foregoing facts and considerations, we can come to no other\nconclusion than that there is no truth in the angelic mythology current\namongst ourselves--for which Milton and his _Paradise Lost_ are mainly\nresponsible. We may, indeed, affirm that a belief in angelic mythology\nis wholly incompatible with an enlightened religion. If we regard the\nAlmighty as omnipresent and omniscient, we cannot imagine that He can\nrequire messengers, or organize an \"intelligence department\" in Heaven.\nA man who is present with his family requires no servant to tell him\nwhat each is doing, or to deliver his orders to one or other. So, if God\nbe always with us, it is downright blasphemy to say that He requires a\ngo-between to let Him know what we are doing, or what He wishes us to\ndo.\n\nIn our next chapter we shall enter upon the consideration of a subject\nclosely allied to that of Angels--namely, that of Ghosts, Apparitions,\nDisembodied Spirits, or by whatever name they are called. These mainly\ndiffer from the beings of whom we have treated in the fact that, whereas\nan angel is a messenger--one sent to do certain duties--a ghost is a\nbeing who comes upon the scene, which he or she has quitted, to do or to\npersuade somebody else to perform something that has been omitted to be\ndone during the life-time of the deceased. In nine-tenths of the stories\nwhich we read of \"revenans,\" the returned one is not sent as a\nmessenger, nor does he come for any definite purpose. A man or woman\nbarbarously murdered is painted as haunting the scene where the violence\nwas committed, as flies flit over a carcase. Misers come to brood over\ntheir hoards, not to use them. In no case which I can remember do the\ntales represent the ghosts as being sent from either of the two\npowers--God and Satan; and to fancy that a deceased man or woman is a\nfree agent after death is, to say the least of it, a proof that the\nbelievers in the doctrine do not believe the biblical text--\"As the tree\nfalleth so it must lie.\"\n\nThe ideas of Angels and of Ghosts have their origin in what may be\ncalled a superstitious education; and credence in the latter is an\nalmost necessary pendant to a belief in the former. Indeed, if we put\nourselves into the position of Manoah's wife, Zacharias (Luke i), and\nMary, we feel sure that we should not have known whether the being who\nappeared was an angel or a ghost.\n\nNote.--The reader interested in the subject of this chapter, will find\nadditional information thereupon in Records of the Past (Bag-ster,\nLondon, 1873-74; vol. i. 131-135, and vol. iii.139-154). The volumes\nare inexpensive, and extremely valuable to the student of Assyrian,\nBabylonian, and Egyptian mythology.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\n     The inexorable logic of facts. Saul and the witch of Endor.\n     Influence of Elisha's bones. The widow's son. Ideas about\n     ghosts--about their power. Papal belief in ghosts. Ritual\n     for exorcisms. St. Dunstan and St. Anthony. The Bible and\n     ghosts. Scriptural ghosts. Ghosts independent of Judaism and\n     Christianity. Japanese story. Buddhist priests, like\n     Papalists, exorcise ghosts professionally. Ancient Grecian\n     ghosts. Stories from Homer, Herodotus, Iamblichus. Modern\n     French ghosts. Latin ghosts. Ghosts and lunacy. Ghosts and\n     spiritualism. Mistakes of clairvoyantes.\n\nIt is not until we systematically inquire into certain tenets of our\nown belief, and compare or contrast them with those of other people far\nremoved from us, that we are able to form an opinion about how much we\nowe to what we call \"our peculiar religion,\" and how much we hold in\ncommon with other distant members of the human family.\n\nIt is probable that there is scarcely a \"Bible Christian\" in Great\nBritain who is not impressed with the truth of the statement made in 2\nTim. i. 10--_viz_., that Christ abolished death, and brought life and\nimmortality to light by the Gospel. But the inexorable logic of facts\nproves to us that the idea of a life after death existed even amongst\nsome ancient Jews--a people to whom it was certainly not revealed by\nGod--and amongst nations who have not to this day become acquainted with\nJesus, or what we call the Gospel, and who are mainly influenced by the\ndoctrines of Buddha.\n\nTo give examples: no one can read the very fabulous story of the Witch\nof Endor and Saul without recognizing the fact, that both the one and\nthe other are represented by the historian to have believed, that,\nthough the body of the prophet Samuel had been rotting for a long period\nin its tomb, the spirit of the man was yet existent. Nor does a Bible\nChristian see anything peculiar in the miracle of the restoration of the\ndead man mentioned in 2 Kings xiii. 21, who, when he touched the mouldy\nbones of Elisha, which represented all that was left, on earth, of that\ndistinguished wonder-worker, at once revived, and stood upon his feet.\nBut the story forces us to believe that the Hebrew writer, who had no\nrevelation from Jehovah about a future life, was, from some cause or\nother, obliged to allow that the prophet had some sort of existence\nafter his decease. A similar remark may be made respecting the story of\nthe widow's son, given in 1 Kings xvii. 17-23, in which it is clear that\nboth the mother of the child and the prophet believed it to be dead,\nalthough the latter acted as if there was yet its living spirit existing\nsomewhere, and capable of being recalled. No simple figure of speech\nwill explain away the doctrine referred to, for there is reference\ndistinctly made to the idea of a life independent of that of the body.\n\nIt may well be supposed, that the very extraordinary tales spoken of\nwere introduced into the ancient books by modern Pharisees, as proofs\nof their faith being superior to that of the Sadducees--it is, indeed,\nprobable that they were so; but into this point we will not enter. We\npass by, in like manner, the real signification of the English word\n\"ghost,\" and make no reference to the idea of there being a Holy, in\ncontradistinction to a profane, vulgar, and unholy, ghost We may also\nomit anything more than a bare allusion to the fact that the third\nmember of the Trinity, as it is called, appeared in forms recognizable\nby the eye; and that when it assumed an overshadowing condition (Luke\ni. 35), it acted as a male human body would have done, and impregnated\nMary, as Jupiter did Leda. It is rather my desire to call attention to\nthe ideas actually existing, probably in all Christendom, and certainly\nin Great Britain, respecting \"ghosts.\" They may be thus described.\n\nIt is believed by many that certain individuals have, during their\nlifetime, a power of determining that some immaterial part of their\nliving body shall, after death, assume the figure and proportions\npossessed by the person during life, as well as his clothes, &c., and\nact as if this second self had a real existence, recognizable by men,\nanimals, and even candles,* and a definite worldly purpose. In other\ncases it is assumed, that the defunct has not had any particular desire\nto return to life until after his death has taken place; but that his\nspirit, having as much power to think without its brains as with them,\nmakes itself apparent with a distinct object, formed, not in the living\nbody, but in the corpse. The purposes generally attributed to ghosts\nare, to give information about murder or money, to compel religious\nrites over their dead body, or to punish a relentless oppressor with\ndaily horror. Still further, some suppose that ghosts are doomed for\na certain time to walk the earth, and suffer during the day in fires\nperpetual, till, in some unknown way, the sins of their bodies have been\npurged away, or until some one, living, has made an atonement for\nsins committed and unpardoned during the lifetime of the \"revenant\"\n(Shakespeare in Hamlet). The so-called disembodied spirits are supposed\nto be able to operate upon matter, to throw our atmosphere into waves,\nproducing vision and hearing, and to move from one spot to another. They\nhave, still farther, the power of making and emitting light, and are so\npartial to using the faculty, that they prefer appearing by night, and\nin darkness.\n\n     * \"And the lights in the chamber burnt blue.\"\n\n     --Alonzo the Brave.--Lewis.\n\nOf the real existence of such ghostly beings no devout Romanist can fail\nto convince himself; for his Church, which claims to be infallible, has\nprovided special services for combating them, and a Papal priest has,\nmany a time, claimed, and attempted to exercise, the power to drive what\nthe French call \"revenans,\" from the earth into the Red Sea. The saintly\nannals of the Church of Rome are filled with stories of angels, gods,\nand devils, who have appeared to holy men of old, either to applaud\ntheir conduct, or to try their faith The legends about Saint Dunstan\nand Saint Anthony are too well known to require repetition here, and\nit would be idle to refer to some particularly good ghost story, when\neverybody knows so many.\n\nThe general credit obtained by the tales referred to has been attributed\nby many to the teaching of the Bible. The apparition of Samuel to Saul;\nthe intercourse between the angel Raphael and Tobit; the manifestation\nof some celestial beings to Zacharias (Luke i. 11); to Mary (v. 28);\nto certain shepherds (Luke ii. 9); the statement that some men have\nentertained angels unawares (Heb. xiii. 2); the transfiguration scene,\ndescribed in Matt, xvii. and Mark ix., in which Moses and Elias are said\nto have returned from heaven to earth, with the design of comforting\nJesus; and the story of Peter and the angel, told in Acts xii. 6-15--all\nindicate a firm belief in the existence of ghosts, and form the\nChristian's warrant for believing in them.\n\nBut an extended knowledge of the belief entertained by people other\nthan the followers of Jesus shows that the idea in question is wholly\nindependent of both Judaism and Christianity. A credence in ghosts is\nprofound in Japan, and it resembles, in every respect, that which has\nbeen so long current in Europe. If any one, for example, will read a\nstory in A B. Mitford's _Tales of Old Japan_ (Macmillan; London, 1871),\nentitled, \"The Ghost of Sakura,\" a village, he will scarcely be able to\ndivest himself of the idea that the legend is of British origin. Without\ngoing into the reasons which have convinced me that the writer has\nfairly given a purely Japanese tale, and one wholly untainted by Popish\nlegends, I may shortly indicate the main points in the narrative, which\npurports to be a true one. A certain lord behaved very badly to his\ntenants, increasing the imposts upon them until life became a burden. By\nordinary petitions he was unmoved, and it was necessary to have recourse\nto unusual means. The adoption of a promising plan was, in the mind of\nits proposer, a positive passport to a cruel death, by crucifixion. In a\ntouching leave-taking of his wife, he ends his speech with the words--\"I\ngive my life to allay the misery of the people of this estate\" (vol. ii,\np. 12). His proceedings save the poor peasants, for whom he sacrifices\nhimself, from utter ruin--every grievance which they have is redressed;\nbut their saviour is condemned to be crucified, in which punishment\nhis wife is included, and his sons are to be beheaded before his face.\nUnable to save the man, his nearest male friends become priests, and\nend their days praying and making offerings on behalf of their friends'\nsouls, and those of the wife and offspring (p. 25), and they collect\nmoney enough to erect six bronze memorial Buddhas. \"Thus,\" the tale goes\non to say, \"did these men, for the sake of Sogoro and his family, give\nthemselves up to works of devotion; and the other villagers also brought\nfood to soothe the spirits of the dead, and prayed for their entry into\nParadise; and, as litanies were repeated without intermission, there\ncan be no doubt that Sogoro attained salvation.\" The next sentence is a\nBuddhist text, viz.:--\n\n\"In Paradise, where the blessings of God are distributed without\nfavour, the soul learns its faults by the measure of the rewards given.\nThe lusts of the flesh are abandoned, and the soul, purified, attains\nto the glory of Buddha.\" I scarcely need mention, to those interested\nin Buddhism, that this conception of Paradise is very different to that\nwhich many persons uphold to be \"nothingness.\" The Japanese \"Nirvana\" is\nevidently not annihilation.\n\nWhen Sogoro was to die, the friendly priests entreated the authorities\nthat they might have his body, so as to be able to bury it decently;\nbut the request was only granted after the corpse had been exposed three\ndays and three nights.\n\nAt the time appointed, Sogoro and his wife are tied to two crosses, and\ntheir children brought out for decapitation. The utterance of the eldest\nson (aet. 13) is very touching--\"Oh my father and mother, I am going\nbefore you to Paradise, that happy country, to wait for you. My little\nbrothers and I will be on the banks of the river Sandzu,* and stretch\nout our hands, and help you across. Farewell, all you who have come\nto see us die; and now, please cut off my head at once.\" With this he\nstretched out his neck, murmuring a last prayer (p. 28).\n\n     * The Buddhist Styx, which separates Paradise from Hell,\n     across which the dead are ferried by an old woman, for whom\n     a small piece of money is buried with them. I may add that\n     such a custom obtains amongst the lower orders in Ireland to\n     this day.\n\nAt length it is the parents turn to die, and thus speaks the\nwife--\"Remember, my husband, that from the first you had made up your\nmind to this fate. What though our bodies be disgracefully exposed on\nthese crosses? (compare Gal. iii. 13). We have the promises of the Gods\nbefore us; therefore, mourn not. Let us fix our minds upon death; we are\ndrawing near to Paradise, and shall soon be with the saints. Be calm, my\nhusband. Let us cheerfully lay down our lives for the good of many. Man\nlives but for one generation, his name for many. A good name is more to\nbe prized than life.\" \"Well said wife; what though we are punished for\nthe many? our petition was successful, and there is nothing left to wish\nfor..... For myself, I care not; but that my wife and children should\nbe punished also is too much.... Let my lord fence himself in with iron\nwalls, yet shall my spirit burst through them, and crush his bones, as a\nreturn for this deed.\" As he said this, he looked like the demon Razetsu\n(p. 30). The execution is completed by thrusting a spear into the side\nuntil it comes out at the opposite shoulder, and as it is withdrawn, the\nblood streams out like a fountain. Ere Sogoro dies, he again threatens\nhis lord to revenge himself upon him in a manner never to be forgotten,\nand adds--\"As a sign, when I am dead, my head shall turn and face\ntowards the castle. When you see this, doubt not that my words shall\ncome true\" (p. 31). As Sogoro laid down his life for a noble cause, he\nwas canonized, and became a tutelar deity of his lord's family. After\nthe execution, those subordinates of the lord of the land were dismissed\nfrom their office, who, by their culpable and vile conduct, had made\nsuch a catastrophe necessary--a retribution that reminds the reader of\nthat which is said to have fallen on the Jews, because of a death by\ncrucifixion which they brought about. The Japanese historian then goes\non (p. 34)--\"In the history of the world, from the dark ages down to the\npresent time, there are few instances of one man laying down his life\nfor the many, as Sogoro did; noble and peasant praise him alike.\"\n\nFour years after this the ghosts of Sogoro and of his wife and family\nbegin to torment their late cruel lord. His lady is gradually frightened\nto death; the crucified couple appear to her and to her husband in a far\nmore fearful form than Jesus is said to have appeared to Constantine.\nThey threaten both with the pains of Hell, and declare that they have\ncome to take them there; and with them come other ghosts, who hoot,\nyell, laugh, and come and go at pleasure. No one, not even priests,\ncould quiet the frightful sounds, or get rid of the horrible sights.\nViolence was wholly unavailing; mystic rites, incantations, and\nprayers were alike useless. The visions appeared at first by day, but\nsubsequently by night. They were visible to everybody. But, after a long\nconsultation, the once brutal, but now humbled, nobleman agrees to erect\na shrine to the crucified man, and to pay him divine honours. This was\ndone: Sogoro became a saint, under the name of Sogo Daimiyo, and the\nghosts appeared no more. But terrible misfortunes fall upon the Lord\nKotsuke, and he \"began to feel that the death of his wife, and his own\npresent misfortunes, were a just retribution for the death of Sogoro and\nhis wife and children, and he was as one awakened from a dream. Then,\nnight and morning, in his repentance, he offered up prayers to the\nsainted spirit of the dead farmer, acknowledged and bewailed his\ncrime, vowing that, if his own family were spared from ruin, and\nre-established, intercession should be made at the court of the Mikado\non behalf of the spirit of Sogoro, so that, being worshipped with even\ngreater honours than before, his name should be handed down to all\ngenerations\" (p. 43). In a foot note we learn that the Mikado of Japan\ncould, like the Pope of Rome, confer posthumous divine honours upon whom\nhe pleased. The tale tells us that, by the means just before alluded\nto, the spirit of Sogoro was appeased, and then positively became his\nquondam enemy's patron saint, and was universally respected in all that\npart of the country. His shrine was made beautiful as a gem, and night\nand day the devout worshipped at it Mitford adds (p. 47)--\"The belief in\nghosts appears to be as universal as that of the immortality of the soul\nupon which it depends. Both in China and Japan the departed spirit is\ninvested with the power of revisiting the earth, and, in a visible form,\ntormenting its enemies, and haunting those places where the perishable\npart of it mourned and suffered. Haunted houses are slow to find\ntenants, for ghosts almost always come with revengeful intent; indeed,\nthe owners of such houses will almost pay men to live in them, such is\nthe dread which they inspire, and the anxiety to blot out the stigma.\"\n\nThe parallel between an episode in Palestine, and that herein described\nas having occurred in Japan, will be completed if the reader remembers\nthe passage in the Epistle to the Romans, wherein Paul, after speaking\nof the fall of the Jews, subsequent to the death of Jesus--who gave\nhis life for others--remarks, \"if the casting away of them be the\nreconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be but life\nfrom the dead\" (Rom. xi. 15).\n\nIn addition to the ghost story above described, many others are detailed\nby Mr Mitford that are exact counterparts of some of those most\nfirmly believed by orthodox Christians, and most commonly met with in\nnovelettes and magazines. We give a digest of them--\n\nA paterfamilias is thrown into prison for gambling. After being confined\nsome time, he returns home one night pale and thin, and, after receiving\ncongratulations, he tells the friends assembled that he is permitted\nto leave the prison that evening by the jailers, for that he is to be\nreturned to them the next day publicly. When the time arrives, they are\nsummoned to remove his corpse--he had died the night before, and it was\nhis ghost which had appeared. Compare Acts v. 19, and xii. 7-14.\n\nThe next runs thus--A cruel policeman had a housemaid, who broke one of\nten plates which he valued--she confessed the accident to the mistress.\nWhen the master came to hear of the loss, he tied the girl to a\ncupboard, and cut off one of her fingers daily. She managed to escape,\nand drowned herself in the garden well. Every night afterwards there\nwas a noise from the well, counting up to nine, and then came a burst\nof grief. All the retainers left the place; the magistrate could not\nperform his duties, and was dismissed. The ghost was ultimately laid by\na priest.\n\nAfter recounting this story, Mitford remarks--\"The laying of disturbed\nspirits appears to form one of the regular functions of the Buddhist\npriests; at least, we find them playing a conspicuous part in every\nghost story\" (p. 50).\n\nThe next tale is one of a haunted house. No paying tenant will live\nthere, but a poor fencing master takes it for nothing. He first hears\na terrific noise in the garden pond, and, on looking, sees a dark cloud\nenshrining a bald head. He inquires, and discovers that a former tenant,\nten years ago, murdered a money-lender, and threw his head into the\nwater. The actual tenant now drains the pond, finds the skull, takes it\nfor burial to a temple, causing prayers to be offered up for the repose\nof the murdered man's soul. Thus the ghost was laid, and appeared no\nmore. This tale serves as an additional means of recognizing the descent\nof Papism from Buddhism.\n\nReturning once again to Europe, we find that the ancient Greeks had not\nonly an idea of the resurrection of the dead, and life after death, but\nthat departed spirits could be summoned to appear by the living. For\nexample, at the opening of the eleventh book of the Odyssey, Ulysses\nrecounts how-he offered a certain sacrifice, and tells us that, after\nit, the souls of the perished dead came forth from Erebus--betrothed\ngirls and youths--much enduring old men, and tender virgins having\na newly grieved mind--and many Mars-renowned men, wounded with\nbrass-tipped spears, possessing gore-smeared arms, who in great numbers\nwere wandering about the trench, on different sides, with a divine\nclamour, and pale fear seized upon me.... At first the soul of my\ncompanion, Elpenor, came, for he was not yet buried.... The shade\naddressed the hero, and, after telling the manner of his own death,\nentreats to have his corpse burned, and a tomb to be placed over it\nAfter this shade, appears Ulysses' mother, then Theban Tiresias, having\na golden sceptre (Bohn's translation, pp. 147, 8). The rest of the\nbook is made up of a number of dialogues between the traveller and the\nillustrious dead.\n\nThe following, from Herodotus (vi. 68, 69), might have been introduced\ninto chapter viii, for it is not only an example of a ghost, but of\nsupernatural generation--but it is most appropriate here. Demaratus,\nhaving been twitted by certain persons that he was not the son of his\nputative father, who was known to be impotent, and that he was begotten\nby a mean man--a feeder of asses--adjures his mother, by a most solemn\noath, to tell the truth. She replies--When Ariston had taken me to\nhis own house, on the third night from the first a spectre, resembling\nAriston, came to me, and having lain with me, put on me a crown that it\nhad, it departed, and afterwards Ariston came; but when he saw me with\nthe crown, he asked who it was that gave it me. I said, he did; but he\nwould not admit it.... Ariston, seeing that I affirmed with an oath,\ndiscovered that the event was superhuman; and, in the first place, the\ncrown proved to have come from the shrine... situate near the palace\ngates, which they call Astrabacus's; and, in the next place, the seers\npronounced that it was the hero himself. We need not dwell upon the\nmiracle, being only desirous to show that, in the time of Herodotus,\nideas of the return of departed spirits to earth were common--had it not\nbeen so, the story would not have been conceived. See also _Herod_ iv.\n14, 15; _AEsch Theb_. 710; _cf. Porson on Eur_. Or. 401; _AEsch Ag_. 415.\n\nPerhaps the most striking example of a phantom is given in Herodotus\nviii. 84, where a spectre, in a woman's form, appeared, and cheered the\nGreeks on shipboard to a battle, saying, so that all the warriors heard\nher--\"Dastards, how long will you back water?\"\n\nIn more recent times, Iamblicus (on the _Mysteries_, section ii, chap,\niv.), speaking of different celestial and ordinarily invisible\npowers, observes--\"In the motions of the heroic phasmata (or\napparitions--phantoms or ghosts) a certain magnificence presents itself\nto the view.\" In the phasmata of the Archons the first energies appear\nto be most excellent and authoritative, and the phasmata of souls are\nseen to be the more moveable, yet are more imbecile, than those of\nheroes.... The magnitude of the epiphanies (or manifestations) in the\ngods, indeed, is so great, as sometimes to conceal all heaven.1' Then\nthe author describes how this brilliancy is less in each inferior order\nof spirits, and is smallest in those souls below the grade of heroes\n(Taylor's translation, pp. 89, 90). In sect iii., chap, iii., the same\nwriter remarks--\"The soul has a twofold life, one being in conjunction\nwith the body, the other being separated from all body.\" Again, in\nchap. xxxi.--\"Still worse is the explanation of sacred operations, which\nassigns, as the cause of divination, a certain genus of daemons, which\nis naturally fraudulent, omniform, and various, and which assumes the\nappearance of gods and daemons, and the souls of the deceased\" (Taylor's\ned., p. 199). _Le Dictionnaire Infernal_, which I have previously\ndescribed, gives two very modern-like histories from the Greeks, under\nthe names Philinnion and Polycritus; but, as I cannot verify them by\nreference, I shall say no more of them.\n\nWhen we come to speak about the Romans, the first history which occurs\nto my mind is the well-known statement, that the ghost of Caesar appeared\nto Brutus before the battle in which the latter met with his death. The\nnarrator of the story dwells somewhat upon the coolness with which the\nliving hero encounters the shade of the dead, as if it were strange for\npeople, when they saw ghosts, not to be terrified. I think that we may\nbelieve in the Etruscans having an idea of invisible spirits becoming\noccasionally apparent, inasmuch as in a sepulchral painting, in the tomb\nof the Tarquinii, the shade of Patroclus is represented as standing over\nAchilles as he kills the Trojan captives in sacrifice.\n\nIn later times, Otho declared that Galba's ghost had appeared to him,\nand had tumbled him out of bed (Suetonius' _Lives of the Caesars_, Otho,\nvii).\n\nWe may take our next illustration from Cicero upon the nature of the\ngods. In book 2, ch. ii.,--\"Who now,\" he makes Lucilius say, \"believes\nin Hippocentaurs and Chimeras? or what old woman is now to be found so\nweak and ignorant as to stand in fear of those infernal monsters which\nonce so terrified mankind? For time destroys the fictions of error and\nopinion, whilst it confirms the determinations of nature and truth. And\ntherefore it is that, both amongst us and amongst other nations, sacred\ninstitutions and the divine worship of the gods have been strengthened\nand improved from time to time; and this is not to be imputed to chance\nalone, but to the frequent appearance of the gods themselves. In the war\nwith the Latins... Castor and Pollux were seen fighting with our army\non horseback... and as P. Vatienus... was coming in the night to Rome...\ntwo young men on white horses appeared to him, and told him that king\nPerses was that day taken prisoner.\" He told the news and was imprisoned\nas a liar; but further information confirmed the ghost's story, and he\nwas liberated and rewarded.\"... The voices of the Fauns have been often\nheard, and deities have appeared in forms so visible that they have\ncompelled everyone, who is not senseless or hardened in impiety, to\nconfess the presence of the gods\" (Bohn's translation, p. 46). In page\n186 of the same edition, two remarkable instances are given wherein\nsupernatural voices told of approaching trouble, and how it was to be\navoided. No notice was taken of the warning, and the misfortunes which\nhad been foretold occurred. The second miracle very closely resembled\nthe modern voice of the Virgin at Lourdes.\n\nWhilst I was writing the preceding remarks, my attention was called by\na friend to the following remarks in _The Examiner_, which seem to me so\nappropriate to this chapter and the preceding one, that I gladly\nquote them:--\"If there is anything more striking than the thoughtless\ncredulity with which men accept statements agreeing with their\npreconceptions, it is the stubborn incredulity with which they receive\nstatements at variance with those preconceptions. The devotees of each\nreligion, and even of each sect into which a religion is so commonly\nsplit up, accept and even adore the absurdities of their own belief,\nwhile they scan, with a sceptical severity that cannot be surpassed, the\nnot greater follies of other systems of belief. In no respect is this\nfact more glaring than in the case of miracles. Each Church has its\nown special miracles, devoutly believed in, but repels with contempt\nor horror the alleged miracles of other religions. Happy that it is so.\nWere superstition not in its essence and nature a dividing folly, could\nit but muster in one herd all its votaries, common sense and truth would\nhave a hard battle for existence.\"\n\nAt this point of my subject, I feel the natural inclination of a\nphysician to enter upon those changes in the nervous centres which\ninduce individuals to hear, feel, and see, noises, sensations, and\nspectra, which have no real existence. But with the majority of\nexperienced medical men, the matter is so well known that it would be\nidle for me to dwell upon it, further than to say, that it is a matter\nof fact that many an individual who hears and sees words and beings\nwhich are illusions, acts upon them as if they were real. Many an\nassault upon some quiet citizen, many an instance of wilful mischief,\nand even of murder, is due to a communication made, apparently by a\nsupernatural visitor, to a person who has fully believed it. To a man\nin his perfect senses the delusive character of a spectre, or a message\ngiven in an audible voice may be readily recognized; but when an\nindividual has a diseased brain, all delusions seem real, and it is a\npart of the affection that they are not only recognized, but acted on.\n\nThe question has often suggested itself to my own mind, \"How much\nhas insanity of mind had to do with religion?\" In modern times, the\npsychologist can readily see how far Swedenborg, Johanna Southcote, and\nmany others, were influenced by a diseased condition of the brain; he\ncan also see indications of lunacy in Ezekiel and the author of Daniel.\nBut he is unable to prosecute the subject far without discovering that\nmental weakness is often bolstered up by fraud. Nothing is more easy\nthan for an intelligent physician to understand the physical causes of\nsuch visions as certain religionists have talked of. But when a\nspurious miracle, like that of the apparition of a talking,\nimmaculately-conceived Virgin at Lourdes, is traded on, the occurrence\nleaves the region of folly, and enters that of fraud. Into that it is\ninjudicious to enter here.\n\nI may, however, advert to the current belief that certain individuals\nin the same family have, for many succeeding generations, their death\nforetold by some \"wraith\" or \"phantom\" appearing to them. This story is\nprobably founded upon the fact that hereditary brain disease exists in\nthe constitution of all such persons, and that its occurrence in each\nvictim is marked by an ocular, and, perhaps, some aural delusion. The\napparition may seem real to the diseased nervous system, though it has\nno absolute existence.\n\nWe are then constrained to believe that the idea of ghosts has not\narisen, in the first place, from any peculiar form of religious belief,\nbut from the fact that in all inhabitants of the world there has existed\nthat form of insanity which consists in the victim believing that he\nhears and sees individuals, inaudible and unseen by others. It is not,\nhowever, necessary that there shall be insanity with the hallucinations\nreferred to; for I am personally acquainted with many individuals who\nhave both seen and heard, as they imagine, persons and voices, but of\nwhose sanity I have no doubt. Such delusions often come from overstudy,\nor too great mental emotion; and the medical worker in his closet and\nthe Roman general in his tent may equally see a spirit.\n\nBut it must be understood that to all classes the hallucination has the\neffect of reality, until, by the exercise of an active will, inquiry\nproves that both sounds and sights thus noticed are illusions. If,\ntherefore, persons who have visions, &c., have not intellects which are\ncultivated, the spectres will pass for realities, and, as such, will be\ndescribed.\n\nIf we endeavour to apply this observation to certain cases, we shall\nsee how far the deductions are _vraisemblable_. Of all the causes which\nproduce atrocious crimes, insanity of mind is the most common. But this\ncause is rarely recognized at the time, even in a country like our own.\nMurder, rape, arson, and a host of other atrocities are often the first\nevidence of a diseased brain. The doctor is assured of this long before\nan ignorant public, and he traces without surprise the course of a\nmalady which is not seen by the vulgar, until its culmination in some\nbetter known form of lunacy. These mental sufferers are exactly those\nto whom visions are most common, and who are most unable to test the\nreality of their hallucinations. If, then, they are integers of a people\nto whom insanity is unknown, it is natural that their narratives will be\nlistened to with awe. The Japanese tyrant, whose case we have given,\nwas probably brutal from impending brain disease, and the visions which\nappeared to him were caused by an increase of his malady.\n\nShakespeare has evidently taken this view of the question, for, in\n_Macbeth_, he makes that hero (act ii., scene 1), soliloquise with a\ndagger which he sees, but cannot clutch--\"Art thou not, fatal vision,\nsensible to feeling, as to sight, or art thou but a dagger of the mind;\na false creation, proceeding from the heat-oppressed brain?\" Conscious\nof the illusion, Macbeth recognizes the probable cause; but, at a\nlater period, when the diseased brain is worse than it was before, the\nunfortunate man is quite unable to reason, and we find him in act iii.,\nscene 4, affrighted by the ghost of Banquo--whose appearance he believes\nto be real, even although his wife recalls to his mind the dagger scene,\nand reasons upon his weakness.\n\nI do not think that we shall be far wrong if we assume that many\nnations, who were not far advanced in mental speculation, obtained their\nfirst ideas of the resurrection of the body from the hallucinations\nof approaching or actual insanity. Christian divines unquestionably\nendeavour to demonstrate the truth of the dogma referred to, by the\nfrequent appearance of Jesus to his disciples after his crucifixion.\n\nBut the manifestation of Jesus differed wholly from that of Moses\nand Elias who once came to talk to him. He takes particular pains to\ndemonstrate to Thomas that he has flesh and blood and a hole in his\nside, as well as in his hands and feet. This indicates that Jesus did\nnot die upon the cross, but that he fainted and came back to life.\n\nTo insist for a moment upon the lessons taught by the narrative in the\ngospels, let us inquire what is the value of the argument which proves\nthe resurrection of the body, either by the appearance to some one of a\ndeparted friend or enemy, or the visits of Jesus to his disciples. If it\nis demonstrated thus that the body is eternal and will rise again, it is\nequally certain that its garments, whether cloth, linen, or calico, will\nbe resuscitated also!\n\nThe subject, however, is not yet exhausted, for we have now to remark,\nthat no one has ever been known to see a spectre which does not\nrepresent some one whom he has seen, or whose picture he has noticed;\nnor does he ever hear a voice in a tongue unknown to himself.\nConsequently, when we find individuals recognizing some one whose\nportrait they have seen, but who talks in the mother tongue of the\nvisionary, we are forced to conclude that the matter is unreal. If a\nFrench girl--or several of them, see the Virgin Mary, and hear her\ntalk French, it is evident to every thinking mind, either that there\nis mental disorder or priestly craft. In like manner, when individuals,\ncalling themselves \"mediums,\" declare their power to call before them\nthe ghosts of Homer and Hero, Leander and Alexander, and assert that\nthey can distinguish Plato from Socrates, and Seneca from Xenophon, and\ncan converse with all in pure English, it is clear that such people are\nnot insane, and that their pretended skill has no existence. That which\ngoes by the names of clairvoyance and spiritualism is based solely upon\nan unreasoning credulity.\n\nIn speaking of a belief in \"spiritualism\" as being analogous to implicit\ncredence in ghosts--and both as being founded upon imperfection in\njudgment, it is right that I should give some reasons for what I say.\n\nMore than thirty years have elapsed since I attended my first seance\nwith a clairvoyant. She had then been in Liverpool some time, and not\nonly came to us from America with a wonderful renown, but soon attached\nto her triumphal car some of the most conspicuous of our local savans.\nHaving read much upon the subject of Mesmerism--the Od or Odyllic\nforce, animal magnetism, &c., I was desirous of gaining some personal\nexperience, and gladly accepted an invitation to see the lady referred\nto, at the house of a near relative. There were many present, and before\nthe meeting formally began, I obtained permission to take notes in\nwriting of what passed. The first undertaking was that we should be told\nwhat two of our number were doing in a dark room below stairs. I was one\nof the two, and we stood with one hand upon the other's shoulder, and\nthe loose hands were held out horizontally. One leg of each was resting\non the tabla The lady reported us as sitting together on a sofa. Her\nhusband explained away the failure by saying that there was a mirror in\nthe room! As there was a looking-glass in every apartment in the house,\nmy friend and I took our position on the stairs; and on this occasion\nwe lay down at full length heads downwards. The clairvoyant said that we\nwere arm in arm talking. After this second failure, I was asked to take\nthe lady's hand in mine, and think deeply of some place which she would\nthen describe to me.\n\nI must here pause to notice the condition referred to. My mind was to be\nabsorbed in what I required to be described--if I allowed my thoughts to\nwander, I was told that the woman would be confused, and her performance\na failure. This involved the idea that I was not to criticise, as the\naffair proceeded, but to make one thing \"square\" with another, if I\ncould. My part was carefully pointed out, but nothing came of it. I then\ngave a possible clue, which was followed up, and with some surprise\nI found the woman describe what I was really thinking about. But the\nrepetition of a phrase struck upon my ear--it was this, \"I see a lot of\nthings going back and for'rads,\" and I found that I had interpreted this\nas men, women, schoolboys, horses, palisades, trees, cloisters, houses,\nand coaches!\n\nAfter my retirement an elderly man grasped the hand, and I with pencil\ntook down the words the woman used, with the intention of asking certain\noutsiders next day if the terms conveyed to them any distinct idea. I\nfound the favourite sentence referred to came so often, that I merely\nleft for the words a space with t. b. f., to show where the phrase\noccurred. There were far more spaces in my manuscript than words. But\nthe old gentleman was satisfied, and so was his son who was present. It\nhad been agreed between them that the clairvoyant was to describe \"their\nhouse\"--both were satisfied that she had; but one was thinking of the\ntown and the other of the country house!\n\nDuring the talk, the woman, every time she uttered a sentence, said,\n\"Am I right?\" and when told that she was wrong, she adroitly changed her\nstatement. Every experiment that night was a failure, and to some of us\nwho were sceptics our host remarked--\"How is it that when you expect the\nmost, everything goes wrong?\" To this my reply was--\"When doubters\nare present you scan evidence closer than when you are all believers\ntogether.\"\n\nWhen once I was known as a pyrrhonist, I was invited to see everybody\nwho was regarded by others as extraordinarily perfect in clairvoyance;\nand was astonished to find out how ignorant the believers were of the\nlaws of evidence.\n\nAfter a time clairvoyance was replaced by spiritualism, and I was\nagain challenged to test the virtue of mediums. As my avocations wholly\nprevented my personal attendance, I challenged certain of the faithful\nto describe my library, saying that I should not be content with being\ntold that there were windows and a door, a fireplace and a chair, a\ntable and an inkstand, &c., but that I had something very peculiar in\nit, the like of which I had never seen before--if this were described,\nI should fancy that the spirits knew something. But I added, so long as\n\"spirits\" only did things which conjurors, prestidigitateurs, \"et\nhoc genus omne,\" did, I should decline to believe that spirits were\ncorporeal, and that Grecian statesmen, Latin orators, and Sanscrit\ntheologians were familiar with the English language.\n\nIt must be emphatically stated that a man must not attribute everything,\nof which he knows little, to a power of which he knows less. No one\ncan tell why an ordinary tree grows upwards, whilst a few peculiar ones\ngrow, after a certain period of their life, downwards; and if any one\nwere to declare that the first were influenced by the spirit of an\nunicorn, and the second by the spirit of a cow's tail, he would be\nregarded as a fool. Not much wiser would he be, who, when he heard a\nknock of some kind or other, asserted or believed that it came from the\nangel of night--the well-known Nox. The untutored savage, when first he\nsees a watch, cannot tell how it goes--if he says that he is ignorant,\nwe may respect him; but if he declares that a spirit moves it, we\ndespise his credulity. The polite circles of civilized cities who\nattribute the absurd capers of tambourines, concertinas, tables, and\nthe like to the vivacity of the ghosts of defunct philosophers, and\nwho think that it requires the shade of Venus to tell us, that feminine\nwomen are more graceful than masculine hoydens, are not much superior to\nthe natural savage.\n\nThese remarks may be supplemented by the experiences imparted to me by\nseveral personal friends; for, as it seems to me, each one has his\nown way in looking at things, and has, so to speak, an idiosyncrasy in\nbelief and scepticism. One man, for example, inquires \"How is it that\nif I propound to a spiritualist, to an artist with 'planchette,' or any\nother person who professes clairvoyance--a question, through a friend\nwho does not know the answer, I never get a correct reply; but if I\npropound the same question the response is always right?\" In this case\nit is clear that the inquirer answers himself--not wittingly, it is\ntrue; but, by means of a slight hesitation under certain circumstances,\nhe gives to the adroit professor the needful clue. How far this is\ntrue has been repeatedly proved by those who have made the spirits say\nanything--\"Where is my sister?\" such an one asks, and by the alphabet\nand raps he hears that she is in Munich; but as the inquirer never had a\nsister, the spirits have clearly been duped.\n\nOne of my friends, ordinarily a thorough sceptic, was converted to the\nbelief that one of his hands was positively and the other negatively\nmagnetic, and he showed me how he turned, by their means, a book\nsuspended between us upon a door key finely tied within the leaves.\nBut when I showed him that this was done by a movement of the body, and\ncould not be done if both hands employed were fixed upon anything--he\nwas convinced that what seemed due to one thing depended, in reality,\nupon another. Yet that man was an acute and able chemical analyst.\nHow the late Dr Faraday convinced \"table turners\" that they did,\nunconsciously, that which they wished, but determined not to do, will\nlong be remembered as a marvel of philosophical induction. We all have\nnot the faculty of analyzing evidence, and it would be well if those who\nare deficient in that power would be less bigoted than they are. We can\nscarcely expect it, however, for ignorance and arrogance usually walk\ntogether; and no man is more convinced of his knowledge than the one\nwho takes it at second hand, and believes what he is told. The faithful\nswallow \"squid,\" and become a mass of blubber; the sceptics feed on\nsolid flesh, and are thin as tigers.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\n     Reconstructive. Faith and reason. Result of previous\n     investigations. Value of morality. Morality and Romanism.\n     Vice encouraged by priests--end in view. Submission to\n     priests more valuable than virtue. Vice better than\n     scepticism. Theological false witness. Compulsory faith.\n     Supply without demand--in theology. Correctness of doctrine\n     proved by the sword. Church and state in modern times.\n     \"Nerve\" required to change a belief. Moral courage. What is\n     faith? Absurd definition given by Paul. Faith must be\n     uncompromising. Why faith signifies blind confidence. Faith\n     and folly go hand in hand. Faith makes fools. Jesuits and\n     faith. Popery and faith. Faith persecutes reason. All\n     religious teachers uphold faith--the reason why. Quiet after\n     activity. The one who partly abjures faith resembles a\n     mariner at sea. Faith and reason incompatible. The author's\n     personal belief: Negative--positive. Opinions on various\n     received dogmas. Laws of Nature. Providence. The Book of God\n     in the universe. Sin--the ideas connected with children and\n     whelps. Human and animal instincts. Religious laws against\n     God's. Pious murder. When crimes are praiseworthy. Human\n     laws and ecclesiastical. Effect on common law of priestly\n     legislation. Ecclesiastical laws generally bad ones. The\n     Church makes sins; so does society. A case supposed. Society\n     contravenes the laws of Nature. The proper basis of\n     legislation. Personal impressions. Duty the guide of\n     conduct. Conclusions.\n\nImportance of them. Reason gives peace of mind. Fears of the orthodox.\nReason may regenerate the world; Faith does not. Another way of treating\nthe subject Mr Gladstone upon education. Opposes \"dread of results\" to\n\"desire of learning.\" Gladstone and Strauss. Various oracles. Oxford\ngraduates rarely philosophic. Lord Bacon's aphorisms. Science obstructed\nby human weaknesses. Progress of science barred by ecclesiastics.\nReligion and despotism. The man who scouts induction is a bigot.\nRevelation requires exposition. Three sets of expounders--all differ.\nWhich must the faithful follow? Popish miracles claim credence from the\nfaithful. He who argues must be logical. Can a bigot be a liberal? If\nlearning is valuable, it must have free scope. Choice proposed--faith or\nreason? Men of mark who shun religious inquiry. Faraday and Gladstone.\nInfluence of faith, or reason, on the clergy. Examples. An objection\nnoticed. Reason useless in matters of faith--its absurdity demonstrated.\n\nIt is now time to enter upon what has, throughout the composition of\nthe preceding essays, been constantly present to my mind, viz.,\n\"reconstruction.\" In the two larger volumes, and in this small one,\nit has been my aim to clear away the foul rags which have, for many\nthousand years, been heaped upon the lovely figure of truth--to\nendeavour to remove the meretricious, or rubbishy, constructions that\ndesigning men have builded round the magnificent structure of God's\nuniverse. I have, in my own opinion, demonstrated that the Jews have\nno real claim to be regarded as Jehovah's chosen people, and that their\nwritings present no marks of having been inspired or revealed--that,\non the contrary, there are proofs to show that a large portion of their\nScriptures are worthless fabrications, contrived by imperfectly educated\nmen, for a political purpose, or to foster vanity.\n\nIn our examination into the character of the Hebrew God, and of those\nindividuals said to be his special friends and messengers, as given\nin the Bible, we found evidence to show that the historians were a\nsemi-civilized, sensual, and malignant race, whose ignorance was only\nsurpassed by their arrogance. It has been further shown, that every\nportion of the Jewish Scriptures which modern Christians have adopted\ninto their own religion, came to the so-called \"chosen people\" from\nthose whom they, and many amongst ourselves, designate \"heathen.\" We\nhave, still further, shown the almost absolute identity between the\ncurrent Christian faith and that originated by Sakya Muni, which still\nreigns in Thibet, Tartary, China, Ceylon, Japan, and elsewhere. We have\ndemonstrated that a high grade of civilization, and a form of government\nmore paternal and provident than any which the old world knew, existed\nin Peru, without the smallest evidence of Christianity or Mosaism having\never existed there.\n\nWe have, in addition, shown that the miraculous conception of the Virgin\nMary is not, by any means, as great a marvel as it is generally supposed\nto be, such an occurrence being as common to-day as it was from the\nbeginning, and as it probably ever will be. By a similar inquiry we\ncould readily have proved that the ascension of Jesus was not at all\nunique, inasmuch as great men of old were in the habit of rising after\ntheir decease, and making their dwelling in the heaven above--e.g.,\nRomulus.\n\nWe have, still further, demonstrated that the modern belief in an\nangelic host has nothing in it peculiar to Bible Christians and\nmodern Jews, and that our notion of a resurrection of the body is not\nexclusively a portion of the Christian's creed, but that it was held,\nin one form or another, more or less distinct, by the ancient Greeks and\nRomans, and the distant Japanese. In fine, we have done much to sweep\naway the major part of the religious doctrines and dogmas which are\nprevalent in the Christian world.. Our writing hitherto has been\nessentially iconoclastic.\n\nBut, amongst all the idols which we have attempted to throw down, we\nhave not, in any instance, threatened morality. We take no credit for\nforbearance, but we point to the fact, inasmuch as whenever opposite\nreligionists contend about their tenets, they never lay violent hands\nupon morality. They may abuse the practice of their opponents, and hold\nup the imaginary vices of their enemy to execration, but real goodness\nin the work of life is ever respected.*\n\n     * I am, however, somewhat in doubt whether the Roman Church\n     deserves the eulogy here given to other bodies. In my\n     reading of history, especially in what are called the \"Dark\n     Ages\" of Christianity, the Papal authorities winked at\n     crimes against morality, so long as the sinners paid due\n     deference to ecclesiastical authority, and bled freely, by\n     pouring lands, treasures, and wealth of all kinds into the\n     priestly treasury. The history of the Popes is written\n     almost everywhere in blood. Murder, assassination, and\n     spoliation were common weapons in their hands, and rape and\n     robbery were condoned easily to those who were powerful and\n     active slaves of the Church.\n\nAs soon as the Popes of Rome were free from persecution and danger,\nthey, in their turn, used the arts of the tyrants of old, and sought for\npolitical supremacy by pandering to all the passions of kings and great\nmen--if, by that means, they could make them friendly. Up to within a\nvery short period there has not been a Christian despot, or a Pope, who\nhas not punished political crimes more severely than offences against\nmorality.\n\nYet, with all the fearful practices adopted by Romanists, they have ever\nhad in their months exhortations to propriety and personal purity--their\nwords have been peaceful, whilst war of the most malignant type has been\nin their hearts. What they have practised, however, they have accused\ntheir adversaries of having preached.\n\nIt may also be objected that some small sects in modern days have really\npreached the doctrines of \"free love,\" and license in sensuality; but\nof these it would be unprofitable to discourse. The people who join in\npromulgating such doctrines are below contempt.\n\nWhen controversialists find that they have one subject upon which they\ncan all of them cordially unite, the philosopher would expect that\nthey would study to develope it, and, for that purpose, place it in the\nforeground. But this is far from their practice. The ministers of every\ndenomination, on the contrary, place morality far behind doctrine--those\nof the Protestant sect, for example, declare \"good works\" to be\nessentially valueless without \"faith,\" and our pulpits teem with\ndiscourses which demonstrate the enormous superiority of a blind belief,\nin doctrine and dogma, over an intelligent morality, irrespective of\ncreed.\n\nIn this propensity our preachers do not stand alone, for, in every\ninstance where history has led us to inquire into this point, we find\nthat submission to priestly rule has been regarded as more praiseworthy\nthan virtue. When Israel slew the Midianites there was no apparent\ndifference between the morals of the two people. Both were equally bad\nor good; but such as they were, their deeds were sanctioned by different\ngods; and whilst the Jews were right, their opponents were wrong. When\nthe Crusaders attacked the Saracens, there can be little, if any, doubt\nthat the worth of the latter far exceeded that of the former; but as\ntheir faith differed, the practice was of no consequence in the eyes of\nthe invaders, and he who died in fighting for his country was execrated\nby the robbers, who desired to steal it.\n\nIf, from a comparatively distant past, we approach nearer to our own\ntimes, there is abundance of testimony to prove that the excellence of\nthe French Protestants was superior to that of the Papal priests and\ntheir followers in the time of Louis XIV.; but this was of no avail--the\ngood were persecuted by the bad, because they were good only in deeds\nand not in doctrine--the last being upheld by the bigots who persecuted\nthem.\n\nWe may all see precisely the same phenomenon in our own day. Those who\nare called Unitarians, and the vast majority of those who are designated\natheists are, in proportion to their numbers, far more moral than those\nwho are generically described as \"Christians;\" but their integrity\nin every relation of life does not prevent their being abused and\npersecuted, by parsons in \"the establishment,\" by every means available\nin a free country, and amongst the weapons used, the most common are\nslander and false witness.\n\nOn inquiry into its origin, we find at the root of this aversion to\nrecognize probity as the most important item of religion, the undoubted\nfact that the upright, thoughtful man requires no other person to help\nhim as a priest or a mediator between him and the Creator.\n\nTo possess a doctrine there must be some one to teach it, and the demand\nbegets a supply. But though the last aphorism is true in commerce, it\nis not by any means universally so, for many an inventor of goods has\nto force a supply, ere any demand for his article can arise. It is\ncertainly so in Ethics. The Jews made no request to Moses for a new\nreligion when he offered to lead them; they soon became weary of him,\nand wanted to go back to Egypt. Jesus constrained his first followers\nto accept a salvation of which they did not feel the need, and Mahomet\ncompelled, at the sword's point, his victims to accept that which they\ndetested. In these instances there was no want to be met, except on the\npart of individuals who desired to obtain personal influence.\n\nIn religion the laws of supply and demand have only exceptional sway,\nfor each individual priest or minister may, according as he pleases,\nelect to provide for known desires, or to inaugurate a new set of\nrequirements. But whether he does one or the other he is clearly an\nopponent to, and frequently disliked by, any one who refuses all manner\nof traffic in spiritual affairs. He is then practically in the same\ncondition as the English government was in when the Chinamen refused to\ntake the opium which they had been receiving for many years before; and,\nlike it, he must endeavour to enforce his wishes by war. But the parson\ndoes not fight with cannon and gunpowder, for he assumes the power to\nwield weapons of far greater importance--viz., the power to torture\nafter death all his adversaries. \"Believe me,\" run his words, \"and\nyou shall be saved from hell fire; reject my message, and you shall be\nburned in everlasting flames!\"\n\nWhen belligerent kings go to battle, they do not go alone and fight\nsingle-handed for their cause; on the contrary, they enlist upon their\nside every man whom they can influence or compel; nor do they care,\nso long as the troops obey orders, what their private thoughts are;\nprobably few Chinese who fought the British were not opium consumers,\nand few English cared for the drug at all. In like manner, when priests\ndiffer among themselves, they do not meet in wordy tournaments, but\nthey enlist on their respective sides everybody whom similarity in\nsuperstition, interest, or any other motive induces to join their\nstandard. When an issue is joined, the result is governed by force of\narms, arts, or numbers, as the case maybe.\n\nThus, in the last resort, the correctness of a doctrine is, as we have\nfrequently remarked in previous pages, proved by thews and sinews--not\nby brains. So long as the Pagans were numerically superior to\nChristians, the latter were heretics and victims; but when the disciples\nof Jesus were actually the strongest, they became suddenly \"the\northodox,\" and the poor Pagans \"the damned.\" In later times\nProtestantism asserted its faith by the prowess of Cromwell's\n\"ironsides\" in England and Ireland; in like manner the Covenanters of\nScotland proved, by the might of their swords, Presbyterianism to be\nsuperior to Episcopal government. By dint of Saxon might, Ireland was\nlong politically at one with Great Britain; now by her numbers she is\nallied to the Vatican.\n\nThe well-read politician will see that a contest similar to those thus\nindicated is going on almost all over Europe. In Great Britain and\nIreland, in France, Prussia, Austria, and Italy--even in the once\nbigoted Spain, priestly parties are striving for supremacy over the\nparty of rational order and philosophical government. The question at\nissue is by no means doubtful--it is one which has been agitated for\nthousands of years, but that has never assumed large proportions in\nconsequence of general ignorance and consequent apathy. In England,\nFrance, and Germany, innumerable champions on the one side have risen,\nfought, and died, overpowered by the numbers-ranged against them; but,\nas persecution is said to be the seed of orthodoxy, so these men and\ntheir writings have, by dissemination through the press, and the effect\nof increased education in the languages of Europe, gradually raised so\nlarge a party, as to be able to contend with some chances of success.\n\nIt will be seen that the question to which I refer is this--\"Shall men\nand states be governed by faith?\" in other words, \"by the hierarchy of\nthe most numerous section of the community--or by reason--i.e., by the\ngood sense of the majority?\" In Austria and in Italy this issue has\nclearly been tried, and in both instances the priesthood has been\nobliged to accept a secondary position. In Prussia the same momentous\npoint is being tried with every chance of the sacerdotal party being\nworsted. In the British kingdom religion has long been regarded as\nsubordinate to state policy; nevertheless there is yet a strong party\nwho desires to reduce her inhabitants to clerical bondage. If all the\nindividuals composing this section of the community were united, they\nwould prevail by their numbers; but, as the aggressive army is composed\nof troops who bear an almost deadly hate against each other, small\ndanger is to be anticipated from them. The Ritualist and Roman Catholic\nmight unite together; but these would not stand shoulder to shoulder\nwith the Wesleyan, Baptist, and Low Churchman. Although all equally\ndetest those who say \"parsons are not wanted,\" sects will not ally\nthemselves, lest, if every one were to be compelled to select a form of\nfaith, the compulsory decree might augment the numbers following some\nadversary.\n\nWe have thus placed before our readers what we believe is the first\narticle which has to be considered in Reconstruction. We have to ask\nourselves whether we should enlist ourselves under the banner of faith,\nand endeavour to add one form of religion to those already existing;\nor, whether we should join the banner of reason, and repudiate all\ndoctrines, dogmas, credences, and the like, which are offensive to\ncommon sense. We may fairly parody the words of the mythical Elisha, and\nsay to ourselves--\"Choose ye this day whom ye will serve; if faith suits\nyour indolence, then hug your chains; if you prefer reason, gird up the\nloins of your mind, and metaphorically kill the priests of Rite.\"\n\nEre, however, we can reasonably expect those who have hitherto been\ninconsiderate to make their selection of standard bearers, it is\ndesirable to say something of the two. _In limine_ we must observe that\nwe do not believe that the choice will be determined by the head\nalone, for there are many whose arms are, so to speak, paralyzed by\na constitutional peculiarity. A hero in his study has often proved a\npoltroon in the field of battle. I may point the moral by quoting from\nmemory a story in Addison's _Spectator_--\"A B is a hen-pecked husband;\nhe knows it, and bewails his thraldom; he consults C D, who sympathises\nwith his case, increases his detestation for the home tyranny, and tells\nhim how to break the chains. A B, full of resolution, tries the plan\nrecommended, but breaks down at once.\" The moral is, that those who are\nborn to serve, or are too weak-minded to assert their independence, had\nbetter submit to be ruled--even if the tyrant be a woman, than try to\ngain peace by conflict. Into this story I fully enter, for I know, from\nexperience, how much \"nerve\" is required for any one to change his or\nher relative position. The moral courage of which I speak, is one that\ndominates over constitutional shyness and fear; it differs from the\nboldness of a soldier, and the dash of the beast of prey; it is not a\nsimple mental assent; but it is a motive which, after being once placed,\nbecomes a mainspring of life. To adopt Faith as a guide, is to go\nthrough life easily--so long as \"thought\" can be sent to sleep. To adopt\nReason, is to prevent thought ever slumbering, and to live the happier\nthe more steadily that the mind is watchful In few words, Faith is \"a\nquack doctor,\" Reason \"a physician.\" The first will always have the most\nadmirers.\n\nWithout further preface, let us inquire \"what Faith really is?\" This is\na question with which I have been familiar since my childhood, and the\nanswer offered to me for adoption was--\"It is the substance of things\nhoped for, the evidence of things not seen\" (Heb. xi. 1). This reply\nhas never suggested any distinct idea to me, and I am confident that the\nauthor of \"Hebrews\" had not a definite meaning in his own mind when he\nwrote the words. The context shows that the word [--Greek--] is used\nto signify distinct states of mind, and one example, which is given\nfrequently, indicates a different signification from another that\nprecedes or follows. For example, in v. 5 we are told that Enoch was\ntranslated by \"faith;\" but the only evidence for this is, that \"he\npleased God;\" whereas, in verse 11, we are told that Sarah, who laughed\nat the idea of having offspring, and disbelieved the promise which said\nthat she should have a son, conceived \"through faith.\" Still further,\nthe false history of the chapter disgusted me--e.g., we read in w. 24,\n25, 27, that Moses by faith elected to bear affliction with the people\nof God, and from the same cause forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of\nthe king, &c.--both of which statements are untrue, for he ran away both\nfrom the afflictions of the Hebrews and the wrath of the monarch, and\nrequired \"pressing\" before he would leave his retreat in Midian. I\nregard the chapter thus referred to as one of the great stumbling blocks\nof Christianity. Its logic is contemptible; yet it must pass for truth,\nbecause Paul is thought to have written it. Being now thrown back\nupon our own resources for a definition of \"faith,\" we affirm that it\nsignifies \"_uncompromising_ belief in what one is told.\" Every religious\nbook which occupies itself with this subject illustrates the word in\nquestion by affirming that it resembles the motive which actuates a\nchild who, at a father's bidding; leaps from a height upon the promise\nthat papa will catch him in his arms.\n\nThough, as a rule, I am disinclined to use adjectives, I have added the\nword in italics, because it is a material part of the definition, and\ninvolves more than at first sight appears. Peter tried to walk upon the\nwater--he doubted, and began to sink. He has been imitated by others;\nthey have all failed. \"Doctor,\" a man may say, \"can I swallow this\nwithout being choked?\" \"Yes, if you think you can.\" He tries to swallow\nthe morsel, and is choked. The result in every case is attributed to a\nwant of faith. In other words, hesitation cannot effect what confidence\ncan. Consequently we are justified in asserting that faith and doubt\nare absolutely incompatible. Faith implies an absolute and perfect\nconfidence. This faith may be compulsory--as when a shipmaster is\nobliged by local law to give up the management of his ship to a pilot;\nor it may be spontaneous, as when a patient trusts himself to a surgeon.\nFor a man only to give a half confidence, is to cripple to that extent\nthe capacity of the one who is responsible.\n\nReligious faith, then, involves the necessity of an absolute and blind\nconfidence in the priestly pilot selected as a conductor through life\nto eternity; it precludes inquiry, discourages thought upon the most\nimportant matter which every man has to consider, and makes of a\nrational being an intellectual slave. In few words, it reduces its\nvotary to the position of a tool, and renders him, so far as religion is\nconcerned, mentally blind.\n\nWe recognize the accuracy of our deductions when we find that the aim of\nthe Roman church has been to reduce men to the condition here described,\nand then to use them as carpenters do planes, chisels, and axes. It is\nprobable that there never existed in the world an order of men who have\nso completely reduced themselves, and voluntarily too, it must be borne\nin mind, to the position of a machine, as the Jesuits have done. They\nare an instrument in the hands of their superiors, and they blindly\nobey. Whether the order exists for good or harm, it is not my purpose to\ndiscuss.\n\nNext in order to the society of Jesus comes the gigantic society known\nas the Papacy, or Roman Catholicism. I place this as second to Jesuitry,\nbecause, for a long period, there was a certain freedom of opinion\nallowed to the superior clergy. But now, when it has become a tenet\nof the church of Rome, that its head is absolutely infallible in all\nmatters of dogma and doctrine, it is probable that the demand of faith\nfrom the laity may equal, if not exceed, that made upon professed\nJesuits.\n\nIn religion, the only place in which uncompromising faith finds\nits home, is the Papal. That demands unlimited belief in everything\necclesiastically promulgated, hatred of everything dogmatically\ncondemned, and acquiescence in every sacerdotal command. Amongst that\nsect, doubting is an offence, and opposition is a crime.\n\nWe have seen this illustrated in the person of the learned Bishop\nDoellinger, who has been excommunicated simply because he refused to\naccept the new fangled notions of an almost effete old pope. He cannot\nsee anything in a modern council to supersede apostolic traditions; he\ndoubts; therefore the Papalists do everything in their power to damn\nhim. In like manner, although prior in time to the declaration of\nthe Pope's infallibility, we have seen the present king of Italy\nexcommunicated; because he, as the head of his own dominions, ordered\na decree to be carried into effect which, whilst it was good for the\npeople generally, was regarded as hostile to the church.\n\nThe observer need not, however, go far from home in search of\nillustrations, for every year sees one or another Protestant minister\nleaving the Anglican for the Roman communion, on the sole ground that\nin the latter there is no room for doctrinal doubts and contests. To the\nlaity, the very repose of the religious mind is held out as a bait by\nPapal missionaries, and it is probably one of the most successful which\n\"the fishers of men\" employ. I once heard a brother physician express\nhis opinion on this point. Conversation had turned upon a confrere who\nhad been in religious matters \"everything by turns, and nothing long.\"\n\"Ah,\" said the Romanist, \"he'll be tired of roaming some day, and find\nrepose at last in the bosom of the church; his soul will then be at\nrest, and will wander no more.\"\n\nThe possibility of Protestants entertaining a doubt upon the power of\n\"the Church\" to demand unlimited belief and obedience from the faithful,\nis a sore thorn in the side of many dignitaries of the national creed.\nAs this propensity to inquiry is an essential part of the legacy\nbequeathed to Englishmen by the reformation, this last movement has been\nexecrated by some of our High Churchmen. It is asserted, that, as the\ntaking of the Bible for the sole rule of faith has been followed by\na great splitting up of the so-called \"Church of Christ,\" so it is\nadvisable to change the standard, and to adopt that of \"Ecclesiastics\"\npersonally or collectively. In any case, such advocates desire to\nre-establish the reign of faith. What the Reign of Faith has been in\nEurope, it would be idle to describe.\n\nAs soon as the mind of an individual revolts from giving implicit faith\nto any creed, doctrine, or dogma, he must be regarded as a mariner who,\nbeing not quite contented with his own country, endeavours to find a\nbetter. In his voyage he first leaves the shore as a fledgling does the\nnest--he goes a short excursion, and returns; after a time he becomes\nmore brave, and puts off more boldly. At first he probably finds\na number of other barques as venturous as his own, and he becomes\nemboldened; it may be his arms are strong, his head clear, and his boat\ngood; and he steers into the offing. No sooner does he leave the herd,\nhowever, than he is chased, and if he refuses to put back, curses follow\nhim; and the friends whom once he had are condoled with. Such is the\nposition of a Protestant who departs seriously from the religion of the\nmajority. With or amongst the Romanists to leave the shore is an act of\ndisbelief which must be atoned for by penance or punishment.\n\nIt is clear that every such individual who, like a chick, leaves the\nshelter of the maternal wings, must be more or less at sea. He or she\nmay have no idea of going very far, yet may be compelled to sail on\nuntil he has reached the other side of Doubting Straits, and has landed\nin the realm of Reason. We can well conceive the waters to be covered\nby small \"craft,\" which keep together for company's sake, or who boldly\nsail out and solicit followers--some cluster, it may be, round a stately\ngalleon, others sail with a dashing cruiser, some come into collision\nor hostile contact with their neighbours, and try to damage each others'\nbarques. But all are at sea--driven hither and thither by breezes which\nspring up, no one knows how, and drop down again as swiftly as they\nrose. The mariners, however, seem to enjoy the excitement, and refuse to\nreturn to their own land.\n\nThe individuals whom we here describe are the ordinary Protestant sects\n(not including the Unitarians, who have long reached a comparatively\nstable ground). These, by whatever name they are called, refuse to give\nimplicit faith to the Pope; they will, however, accord, in some degree,\nto some pet parson, the management of their conscience; they dread what\nis called \"free-thinking,\" as a mariner does a lee shore. They put up\nwith every accident which arises from mingling faith with reason, and\nare, on the whole, contented, as long as too much pressure is not put\nupon them, to steer in a definite direction. Of these it may be said,\n\"Thou art neither cold nor hot; I would thou wert cold or hot. So then,\nbecause thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee\nout. of my mouth\" (Rev. iii. 15,16). The endeavour to make reason\nsubservient to faith, must ever be a failure as complete as would be\nthe endeavour to weld iron with water, or to heat an anchor shaft by\nsurrounding it with cold coals and wood, then blowing a blast of air\nupon the whole. He who is determined to use reason, must drop faith; and\nhe who clings to faith, must drop reason. The conclusions drawn by all\nwho attempt the combination will always be lame and impotent.\n\nIf, in the stead of faith, an individual takes reason for his guide\nthrough this world to the next, he incurs the wrath and malignancy of\nthe many, and the respect of the few. He comes in for far harder names\nthan Pagans gave to Christians, and Papalists gave to Huguenots. If,\nunfortunately, he should live in a country where priests rule, he may be\nburned, as Savonarola was at Florence, Latimer and Ridley at Oxford, and\nServetus at Geneva. Luther was said to be a devil--a so-called Atheist\nis believed to be something worse.\n\nYet, notwithstanding all the obloquy thrown upon Freethinkers by the\northodox, they steadily have increased in numbers, ever since the spread\nof education and the cheapness of books have enabled men to study in\nretirement When there was little instruction and few books, people\ngained what knowledge they had from their spiritual guides. This power\nof the pulpit enabled the hierarchy to set up and substantiate any\nclaims which they chose. But, since the power of the printing press has\nrisen, the influence of the priesthood has diminished. With all this\ntendency to so-called Atheism, there has been no loss of propriety; on\nthe contrary, the probity of the few exceeds that of the many, and in\nall there is a great improvement. The present times in Italy are far\nsuperior to those when the Borgias and their religion were supreme.\n\nWhen we inquire what the Freethinkers, or Rationalists, are, it is\nreadily seen that they have been maligned by \"the faithful.\" There is\nlittle difficulty in summing up their tenets: it is \"Reverence, without\nservility.\" They draw their views from the book of creation, and hold it\ninfamous to fight for supremacy where facts and logic can decide. This,\nhowever, is by far too meagre to satisfy either a friend, an inquirer,\nor an opponent; it is, therefore, desirable to go into the matter more\nfully. In doing so, I make no pretence to be the mouthpiece of a party,\nnor even to give a digested account of what those who have written and\npublished before me have enunciated; my sole aim is to give, in as plain\nterms as I can command, the opinions which inquiry has forced upon my\nmind.\n\nMy first confession of faith must be negative, for, until the ground has\nbeen cleared, it is not advisable either to plant or construct:\n\n1. I do not believe in the authority of any written book as being an\ninspired production, or as containing a revelation from God to man. In\nmy estimation, the Bible is not in any way superior to the Koran, to\nthe Dhammapada, the Puranas, the Main-yo-Khard, the Avesta, or any other\ncollection of scriptures held sacred.\n\n2. I do not believe the story given in Genesis of the creation, of\nthe formation of human beings, and what is ordinarily called \"the\ntemptation\" and \"the fall\".\n\n3. I do not believe in the existence of what is technically designated\n\"original sin,\" nor that the human race is \"a fallen one;\" consequently,\nI do not believe in the necessity for \"salvation.\" I do not believe that\ndeath came into the world by sin.\n\n4 I do not believe in the existence of \"sin,\" in the ordinary\nacceptation of the word; nor do I believe that man requires the\nintervention of any fellow mortal, either to reconcile or embroil him\nwith an unseen power.\n\n5. I do not believe in the existence of a Devil, or of any other power\nin the whole universe, than that of the Supreme Maker of all.\n\n6. I do not believe in any description which has yet been given of Hell\nor Heaven.\n\n7. I do not believe that God has ever directly spoken to man.\n\n8. I do not believe that God has ever become incarnate, or that he has a\ncelestial spouse, or a son.\n\n9. I do not believe in the existence of truth-speaking prophets, in the\nexistence of angels, or ghosts, or in the supernatural birth of any one.\n\n10. I do not believe that God has now, or ever has had, a separate and\nchosen people, peculiarly \"His own,\" and, consequently, that there are\nnone to whom the term \"the elect\" can apply.\n\n11. I do not believe that what is generally designated religion is\nnecessary to the existence of law and order in a state or in a family.\n\n12. I do not believe that God requires the assistance of man, here\nor elsewhere, to enable Him to find, or to keep, or to punish, His\nsubjects.\n\nThese negatives might be multiplied, but I doubt whether profitably so,\ninasmuch as the more we dilute important points, the less readily are\nthey recognized. We may now proceed to affirmations:--\n\n1. I do believe in the existence of a distinct Power in creation--great\nbeyond conception, which pervades all space--which is everywhere present\nin the earth, the sea, the air, and in every conceivable part of the\nUniverse--which made all things, and gave to them properties, powers,\nand laws. A power to which it were blasphemy to assign ears, eyes,\nhands, or human parts, and an evidence of a grovelling mind to suppose\nit capable of human passions, such as love, hate, jealousy, and\nmerriment, and to describe it as ignorant, vacillating, and grieved at\nits own work. That Power I cannot conceive as having either an origin or\nan end. Into the designs of such a power, man cannot enter, nor can he\neven seem to approach them, except by noticing the works of creation,\nand studying the laws which apparently govern it By the term, \"laws of\nnature,\" I understand \"the laws of the power of which I speak.\" I cannot\nconceive how man can form an idea of a state of spiritual existence of\nwhich he can neither see, observe, or notice anything.\n\nIt is, in my opinion, unnecessary here to enter into the vexed question\nof the continued interference of this Power with its works, for where we\nhave only human analogies to guide us, it is undesirable to argue\nupon them in the attempt to discover the superhuman. As we shall have\noccasion shortly to indicate our views upon a matter analogous to this,\nwe will postpone anything which we may have to say.\n\nI believe that the Power has never made, nor can ever make, a mistake;\nthat all its works are perfect, and that where they seem to us to be\notherwise, it is from our ignorance of their design.\n\nIt seems to me that lions and lambs, sharks and gudgeons, that hawks and\nchickens, form a portion of a grand scheme: that the distinct classes\nof animals were originally perfect; that they may deteriorate, yet never\nadvance beyond perfection. I do not believe that a lion could become,\nunder any circumstances, a bull; a bear a camel, or a pig an elephant.\n\n2. The belief that the Creator made each creature originally perfect,\nand with certain well defined propensities, involves the further\nconfidence that the indulgence in those propensities is a necessary part\nof the scheme of creation; consequently, I believe that the tiger eats\nflesh because it is a law of his existence, and that in doing so he\ncommits no sin. I believe, still further, that a close observation of\nnature gives us some apparent insight into the plan of creation For\nexample, I think the existence of gills in a fish leads us fairly to the\nconclusion that it was intended to live in the water; that the existence\nof teeth implies that they were to be used in eating, wings in flying,\nlegs in walking. Still further, when we notice that vegetables can\nassimilate mineral matter, which animals, as a rule, cannot, I believe\nthat the vegetable kingdom has its special place in the world; and when,\nmoreover, we find creatures who can eat and digest vegetables, and have\na special apparatus for the purpose, it is fair to conclude that they\ntoo have their station assigned. A corresponding remark applies to the\ncarnivora. Once again,--when an extended observation shows us that the\nbeasts and birds of prey select for their victims the young of animals\nwhich their parents are unable to protect, the aged, who are too infirm\nto fight for themselves, or the sickly, which are quite unfit to live:\nwhen, moreover, we find these carnivorous creatures die when age or\naccident deprives them of the power of getting food; nay, when we see\nlarge numbers of all animals die from want of food, of air, of warmth,\nor from accidents--I believe that we are justified in deducing the idea\nthat it is a design of the Power, that those which cannot live shall\ndie; I believe that death is as essential a necessity to every creature\nas is its birth, and that its many forms have a definite purpose.\n\nLet us now, for a moment, turn our attention to the very commencement\nof life. If from any cause the new being is seriously malformed or\ndiseased, it is a common thing for the dam to miscarry. If a mother, say\na pig, rat, or bird, brings forth a larger brood than she can nourish,\nshe commonly kills the smallest, and allows only those to survive which\nshe can find food for--the bird that lays more eggs than her nest will\nhold, turns the overplus out; and if, when the fledglings grow up, they\nare too bulky, one of them will be discarded. The cuckoo's chick has a\nspecial provision made for helping it to turn out the young of another\nbird, and its mother has also a special instinct to lay its eggs in the\nnest of the hedge-sparrow. The life of one involves the death of three\nor more. Again, in the aquatic world, one fish makes no scruple to feed\non its own young ones or those of its neighbours, and the old crocodile\nseeks out its offspring as a favourite luxury. We find, moreover,\nthat where these creatures abound there may often be found a small\nanimal--the ichneumon--whose instinct teaches it to seek for and destroy\nthe eggs of the saurian. In like manner crows, rats, cuckoos, and\nprobably many other creatures, have a propensity to feed upon the eggs\nof various birds. In few words, we recognize throughout creation an\napparent design to prevent a superabundance of life.\n\nThis remarkable provision, working, as it does, through laws which seem\nto be fixed and established, prevents our belief in the interference of\nthe Creator. When an animal has reached the period of nearly adult age,\nthere is in many instances a considerable amount of instruction given\nto it, sometimes by the sire, but mostly by the dam. When that has been\nimparted, parents and offspring seem to be like strangers to each other.\n\nIt is probable that, if we could observe all animals, we should find\nsome system of training of the family. As it is, we can only speak of\ndomestic fowls, and notice the order which the hen keeps up amongst her\nbrood of chickens; they are taught to live peaceably. Her punishments\nare never lenient; they are, indeed, necessarily severe.\n\nWe may next proceed to inquire into the animal instincts which exist\nin adult life, at a period when every creature is supposed to be in its\nperfection. At a certain time of the year there is a propensity for\nthe male and female to unite. There is not anything in creation which\naffords a more attractive study than this, for every class of creatures\nhas a practice peculiar to itself. One might fancy that in an act so\nnecessary and so simple there would be little cause for interest; yet,\nin reality, \"the prodigality of design\"--a term which we hope to explain\nfully hereafter--is more largely shown in this process than in any\nother. It is, however, a subject upon which one cannot descant before\nthe general public.\n\nSo far as we are able to observe animals, we find that at this period\nthere is, amongst a great number of classes, a power amongst the males\nto discover the most perfect amongst the females, and to fight for them.\nBy this means the young are certain to be the offspring of perfection of\ngrace and beauty in the dam, and strength and size in the sire. We can\nreadily understand that, if the loveliest hind were to pair with the\nweakliest stag, the breed would degenerate, and probably die out. But\nthe conqueror can hold his place only so long as he has vigour; when age\nhas weakened him, the youthful successor practically prevents the old\nbuck from being a father. In some exceptional cases (apparently so at\nleast) the number of males exceeds that of the females, and, as a result\nof the instinct before alluded to, the fight ends in the majority of the\nmales being destroyed. The survivor then has one spouse only, and not a\nseraglio. This is said to obtain amongst rats and lions.\n\nAs yet, there is not a sufficient amount of observation available to\nenable us to affirm what is the general cause of exit from life, when\nno death by violence occurs. We do not know the end of old buffaloes,\nelephants, rhinoceroses, hippopotami, whales, and other monsters. Tales\nare told of decrepit lions being occasionally seen tottering to their\nfall; and gossip says that ancient cats know when they are about to die,\nand retire to some secluded nook, where they give up the ghost quietly.\nI cannot charge my memory with a single anecdote in which the youthful\nanimal endeavours to sustain the old one, by feeding it during its\ndecrepitude. Throughout creation parental affection signifies solicitude\nfor offspring. We do not anywhere discover a love towards a parent after\nthe younger creature has reached adult age.\n\nIn all the cases to which I have referred, and, were I a naturalist,\nthey might be greatly multiplied, there is no pretence, even amongst\nthe orthodox, that any of the creatures have committed \"sin\" against\nthe Almighty, or against the community of which they form a part. On the\ncontrary, what is done, even though it amounts to murder, is regarded\nas a necessity; and we admire the laws of nature which bring about such\nresults. We do not stop to inquire whether any contrivance would prevent\nbirds from laying too many eggs, and cuckoos from dropping theirs into\nthe nests of other birds; we content ourselves with saying, \"such is the\nwill of Providence.\" It is easy to come to such a conclusion as regards\nwhat we are pleased to call \"the lower animals,\" but as soon as we\ninquire \"whether similar laws or instincts are implanted in us,\" we are\ngenerally met with a howl of repugnance.\n\nBut I believe that we shall never understand our true position in life\nand in nature until we deliberately investigate that which we have\nin common with other animals, and wherein we are different--probably\nsuperior. I use the word _probably_, because, in the estimation of\nhigher beings than ourselves--if such there be--the horse and the\nelephant may be regarded as being far above us in the scale which those\nbeings have framed for themselves.\n\nI have never yet seen any deliberate attempt to work out the problem\nreferred to. Every one, or nearly so, who if orthodox, assumes that it\nis absolutely wicked to compare the beasts which perish, to man who has\na soul As I have, in a previous volume, shown that the evidence for the\nimmortality of the horse is equal to that for the human race, I will not\nstay to point out the absurdity of building an important argument upon a\nbaseless assumption, but simply express my belief that man has very much\nin common with other mammals; but that he is in possession of something\nsuperadded, which, at first sight--though not in reality--takes him\nout of the trammels of the ordinary laws of nature that operate in the\nbrutes.\n\nNo one can doubt that man has as strong a propensity to unite with\nwoman, as bulls and stags have with the females of their kind. He has,\neven in civilized societies, a propensity to fight with one or more of\nhis fellows for a female of surpassing beauty. Men will combat about\na disputed field or country as fiercely as dogs over a bone, or hermit\ncrabs over a shell. As a rule, man detests to be taught, quite as much\nas does the whelp; yet, when he has gained an art, he is as proud of it\nas a highly trained spaniel. Men are gregarious as horses in a field,\nand quite as intolerant as they, of an interloper. Like the wild wolves,\nmen will unite together to capture and prey upon creatures of each\nof whom individually he stands in fear. Like a set of wild bulls or\nbuffaloes, men will, for a time, agree to obey a leader, and, when the\nobject is gained, break loose. Like a cat, man will steal, when he can,\nhis neighbours' goods, like a crow, he will pay no attention to his\nparents, nor to a Sunday.\n\nWithout entering into farther particulars, we may affirm that some\nhighly trained elephants, dogs, and horses, are superior to many human\nbeings in every point upon which an impartial judge can determine.\n\nIt is my belief that, for a man to obey an instinct which is implanted\nin his nature, is not \"a sin\" against God.\n\nTo see this in a fair light, let us assume, as we have a right to do,\nthat it is an instinct in the nature of all known creatures, to\nincrease and multiply their like. To avoid doing so intentionally, is a\ncontravention of one of the Creator's laws. If this be so, then celibacy\nis a sin, as great, indeed, as if one were to refrain from food of all\nkinds; and no one can be considered as worthy of the name of good,\nwho remains unpaired without just cause. In like manner, it is not an\noffence against the laws of God for any man and woman to unite, for it\nis as much a law of nature that they shall do so, as that they must eat\nand drink. The plea of \"religion\" cannot make that wrong, which is by\nnature right.\n\nIn like manner, if in a limited community--say upon an island, the\nnumber of men exceeds that of the women, I believe that a fight amongst\nthe males for the possession of mates, would not be \"sin\" against the\nOmnipotent even though many combatants died during the contest.\n\nNay, so common upon many points is the agreement; amongst even the most\northodox, that none would say that a man commits a crime when he steals\nthe store of honey laid up by bees, kills animals for food or for their\nfur, or covets and appropriates the prairies hitherto occupied by herds\nof deer and bison. Even the commandments said to be delivered by\nGod Himself are held not to be literally binding upon man, except in\nrelation to his friends. He may, for example, by the laws of war, murder\nhis enemies, fornicate with their wives, steal their property, and\ndeceive them in every way. Abraham, the so-called friend of God,\nmurdered many Orientals, and plundered them; not because he had any\nquarrel with them, but simply because they had murdered and plundered\nsome of his friends. David again, a man after God's own heart, with his\ndying breath, gave his son instructions to put individuals to death in\ncold blood, superseding the law of Sinai, by a heritage of hate. When,\ntherefore, common consent takes certain actions out of the list of\ncrimes or sins, provided that the deeds are done against enemies, we\nhave to seek for the origin of those ideas which make murder, theft,\nrobbery, rape, and false-witness crimes in the abstract.\n\nTo understand this point, we have really to start from the bestial\nbasis, and aver that what is not sin in them, is not sin in savage man.\nNo one of any intelligence would say that a Briton would be justified in\nshooting an Ashantee because the latter had killed and eaten an enemy,\nor an aged parent; nor would any one of us sentence a Hindoo to death\nbecause he had killed a dozen Thugs. Even in comparatively civilized\nAmerican backwoods, a person who has killed a bully has been thought\na public benefactor. Again, when we cast our eyes upon Australia, and\nlearn the brutal way in which the black native virgins are violently\ncarried away from their relatives and married, and how again they\nare repeatedly carried off as wives by other men, we feel ourselves\njustified in leaving the ravishers without punishment, for there is\nno violation of law, or, if there be, Englishmen have no right to\ninterfere.\n\nBut what we tolerate in uncivilized lands, even where we are ostensibly\nrulers, we will not suffer in our own. The reason of this is, that we\nhave banded ourselves into a society in which \"the laws,\" once settled\nand determined by the majority, supersede, in certain cases, individual\naction.\n\nTo make our meaning clear, let us imagine that amongst some nation or\npeople there is one man more astute and powerful than his fellows;\nstill further, we assume that he has fought, or is desirous to fight, a\nneighbour of nearly equal force. It is clear that if his people murder\neach other from any cause he will lose warriors; consequently, he will\nlet his tribe understand that he will punish homicide, on a plan which\nhe thinks will be deterrent. Still further, as he requires soldiers of\nstrong limbs and sturdy constitution, he declares that no woman shall\nmany without his consent, so that he may prevent any one selling\nherself, or being sold, to a weak or old man for mere pelf. As, in a\nsavage state, most possessions are those which are useful in war, he\nwould prohibit theft. As a consequence, he, and all who respected his\npower to punish, would regard murder, theft, rape, and unauthorized\nwife-selling as crimes--offences, that is to say, against the ruler of\nthe state, and not against the Creator of mankind.\n\nIt signifies little to my argument, whether society is governed, as the\nearly Aryans were, by warriors, or, as the later ones were, by Brahmans.\nIn either case the leaders make laws, and declare a violation of them to\nbe punishable.\n\nWhen communities are small in size, and extend over a small area, few\nrules of life are necessary; but when a nation increases in size,\nand especially when it consiste of many tribes or class which have\nvoluntarily united together, legislation is far more complicated,\ninasmuch as the ideas of right and wrong in each section may, from long\ncustom, vary from each other. For example, in most of the United States\nof America bigamy, or the possession of two wives at a time, is a crime;\nwhereas, in Salt Lake city, its rulers have twenty, and its men a dozen,\nif they like, and yet are esteemed saints, and really conduct themselves\nas if they had a clear claim to the title.\n\nThe greatest complication is when the laws of a community have been\nframed, partly by soldiers, partly by ecclesiastics, and partly by\nmercantile men, for each party has a different creed. The first makes\nno scruple to fight at the command of the second, whilst the third\nendeavours to prevent all war whatever. The second set intrigue to have\nthe supreme power; the first and third often endeavour to suppress the\nsecond, knowing its aggressiveness and lust of supremacy.\n\nWhen a nation is under what is grandiloquently called a Theocracy, every\noffence against a command given _ex cathedra_ is regarded as a sin; not\nsimply a disregard of the law, but a defiance of the God who is said to\nhave ordained it. Thus, according to what is known as the Mosaic law,\nit was a crime punishable by a lingering death to gather sticks on a\nSabbath day (Num. xv. 32-36); but it was no crime to kill all the\nmales and women of a whole nation, and retain the maidens for private\nprostitution and for the use of the priest (Num. xxxi. 17, 18, 40,\n41). In such a nation it was no crime to commit forgery--and of all the\nbearers of false witness, none exceeded in ancient times the Jewish\nwriters in the Bible--but in mercantile England, the former has been at\none time punished with death, and the latter by ignominious penalties.\n\nIn modern Theocracies, such as once existed in Austria, Spain, Italy,\nEngland, and elsewhere, it was considered criminal to think differently,\nupon any religious point, from the authorized standard. In those\nkingdoms many a person was doomed to die a painful death, and thereafter\nsent--as it was supposed, to Hell--whom we now regard as a virtuous,\nbrave, and noble individual.\n\nThe common sense of mankind induces all citizens to buy what they have\nneed of, at the smallest possible price; but a mercantile government\nsays to its people--\"You shall not buy anything from anybody who has not\nfirst paid us for the privilege of trading, and something more for every\nware which he offers for sale, and every one contravening this order\nshall be seriously punished.\" Here, again, an artificial offence is\nmanufactured that has no origin in nature.\n\nWhen a people has succeeded in throwing off publicly the trammels of\nEcclesiastical legislation, as England, Italy, Spain, France, Austria,\nBelgium, and other nations have done, they by no means shake off their\nprivate shackles. The only difference between Spain, Austria, and other\nplaces, now and formerly, is, that the priesthood are seeking to attain\nby subtlety what they could previously command by their state power. At\none period in the history of modern Rome, it was a crime not to kneel\non the bare ground when certain priests passed with a bit of wafer\nsurrounded by gorgeous trappings. This is a crime no longer against the\nstate, but for all who believe the Papal hierarchy it is yet a sin.\n\nAt one time in England, it was a crime not to go to church on Sunday;\nit was equally punishable to carry on any business. The laws respecting\nthese matters have not yet been repealed, and they have been put\nrecently into operation, although the good sense of the majority has\nmade them practically obsolete. Yet, though this is the case, and the\nlaw no longer punishes Sabbath-breaking, the priestly body continue to\nlaunch their thunders against all who regard every day alike. It is,\nindeed, doubtful if, in the eyes of our parsons, there is any sin so\ngreat as enjoying one's self on a Sunday. The law of our country does\nnot make it a crime for a woman to prostitute her body, or for a man\nto have a concubine of greater or less permanency, but the hierarchs\ndenounce the arrangement as criminal in the sight of God.\n\nWe need not multiply our illustrations farther. Sufficient has been\nadvanced to show that there are two distinct classes of sins--one, those\nmade by Ecclesiastics, or by those legislators passing under the name\n\"Society;\" the other, those which are against the laws of nature--e.g.,\nan enforced celibacy, such as that to which Romish priests are doomed.\nIn saying this, we readily allow that what is right, according to the\nlaws of God, as set forth in the universe, is wrong according to the\ncode made by the legally constituted authorities of the state in which\nan individual lives. We grant, moreover, that, if a government is strong\nenough, the laws of man should be enforced by human means. But we do not\nbelieve that mortals should be compelled to carry out that which priests\ntell them is the justice of the Immortal, of which they know absolutely\nnothing. I hold that no state can fairly claim to take cognizance of, or\nto punish, thoughts, or any private indulgence which creates no public\nscandal.\n\nIf we endeavour to reduce our views to a still clearer issue, the\ndifference between divine and human laws will be the more readily\nunderstood. Let us assume that Miss Kallistee is the most perfect\nwoman in a district. For her contend with their natural weapons Messrs.\nDunamis, Kratos, Kalos, Sophos, and Mathesis; and the conqueror, having\nkilled his adversaries, takes the lady to wife. The law of man or of\nsociety now steps in and kills off the survivor; or, if it should know\nbeforehand of the coming contest, will prevent it. As a consequence,\nthe lady must be contended for peaceably, and may become the bride of\nimpotent old age or wealthy disease. As a result, the healthy offspring,\nwhich nature would have reared, are either absent, sickly, diseased,\nor idiotic. Here, then, I affirm that a law of society is a sin against\nGod.\n\nI would wish my readers to ponder over this matter, which gives much\nfood for thought. I do not think that such contests as I have described\ncan be tolerated in any society of civilized beings, for, in proportion\nto our emergence from barbarism, we do not seek mere strength and beauty\nof form in our population. We desire to cultivate the intellectual\nrather than the animal in man. But experience has shown that, as a rule,\nthe further man departs from the latter, and the nearer he approaches to\nthe former, the more does his progeny deteriorate physically.\n\nIt is a problem whether, by any available contrivance short of that\nwhich was adopted by the Incas of Peru, man can uniformly develope\nupwards. The physiologist can readily see how the matter might be\neffected, but in republican or constitutional kingdoms, the means will\nnever be adopted.\n\nWe have now come to a point when it is necessary for me, as an\nindividual, to express an opinion as to the selection which a\nphilosopher, living in a comparatively civilized community, should make\nbetween a promulgation of the so-called laws of God--an instruction\nrespecting the laws of nature--or an utterance of the laws of society,\nwith the enforcement of them. Ere forming a decision, let us endeavour\nto ascertain what each alternative involves.\n\nIf a state, acting through its executive government, decides to make\nwhat are called the laws of God the basis of legislation, it must first\ndecide what those laws are. In the endeavour to do so, every thoughtful\nman will recognize the impossibility of verifying a single one. The\nwhole must, therefore, be promulgated on assumption; and if so, the\nlegislators will be conscious that they have no valid authority. If, on\nthe other hand, they assume the laws of nature to be a safe guide, they\nmust allow proceedings which are opposed to the feelings of the majority\nof civilized mortals. Being, then, averse to elect either of these codes\nas a sole basis, the statesman will endeavour, as far as in him lies, to\nmake or adapt laws for the society in which he lives.\n\nWhen the well-being of the community becomes the basis of its\nlegislation, the idea of sin vanishes from the statute book, and the\nstern realities of life have to be envisaged with firmness and decision.\nSo also when religion has merged into common sense, and facts are\nappealed to rather than fancies, policy takes the place of dogma, and\nthe voice of a majority overcomes that of any priesthood.\n\nInto political economy, however, it is not my desire to enter, further\nthan may be necessary to illustrate my own opinions upon religion.\n\nHaving emancipated myself from the thraldom of bibliolatry and\npriestcraft generally, it is my aim to examine what seems to be my duty\nas a man and an integer of society. I conceive that, although I have\nno certain knowledge thereof, I am one of the myriads of instruments\nby which the Almighty works out His designs. My appreciation may be\nimperfect, but still it seems to me a duty, always to be a good husband,\nfather, friend, and citizen--to act ever towards others as I should\ndesire myself to be treated under the same circumstances--to improve\nsuch talents as I am conscious of possessing; and, in a general way, to\ndo as much good as I can during my lifetime--taking care, if possible,\nto leave after my death no mischievous agency set on foot by me. In\nfew words, I believe that the only true religion consists in a constant\nsteady performance of duty--a duty discovered and determined by the\nindividual, and not one prescribed by any set of men.\n\nThe conclusion thus arrived at, appears at first sight, to be meagre\nin the extreme, but when it is fully examined, it is found to involve\nimportant consequences. The faithful, for example, or, as they style\nthemselves, \"the orthodox,\" live, when they pay any attention to such\nmatters, in a state of perpetual fear of God and eternity; some, indeed\nwe may say many, go mad from the oppression which they feel from having\ncommitted an unpardonable sin; some pass through life weighted by the\ndread of not being finally \"saved\"; all, with rare exceptions, have a\nhorror of death and of the results of \"the judgment.\" Feeling assured\nthat few will be saved, and the many will be damned, they have a\ndreadful feeling of certainty that either they or some of their dearest\nrelatives or friends will be amongst the majority. Some go through life\nsinning and repenting--\"in dust and ashes,\" as the technical phrase\nruns--until they are ashamed of their own vacillation, or go on sinning,\nwithout any qualms of conscience, until it is too late to mend; and\nthey recognize before them \"a fearful looking for of judgment and fiery\nindignation.\" These fantastic terrors are far more deeply rooted in the\nProtestants than in the Papists, who have so completely become imbued\nwith the belief that their priests have almost unlimited power in the\nunseen world, that the dying folk become easy in their minds, by a\nfull assurance of hope that friends, hierarchs, and \"masses\" will make\npurgatory bearable and heaven certain. Of fear about eternity I know\nnothing; feeling confident that the God who made me--directly or\nindirectly it would be a waste of time to discuss--had some work for\nme to do here. I am quite content with whatever may be assigned to me\nhereafter by the same Power. Of a future state I am wholly ignorant.\nAs an integer, I feel a sort of instinct that death is not absolute\nannihilation; but beyond that I do not now seek to know, for every\nsource of intelligence is absent.\n\nTo some inconsiderate enthusiasts this may seem a cold belief, but in\nreality it is anything but that, for my days and nights are freed from\nthat wet blanket of vague dread which makes so many mentally shiver; and\nmy time is passed pleasantly in the alternate labour required by duty,\nand the repose necessary to recruit one's energies.\n\nLet us, for a moment, consider what would be the condition of the world,\nif each individual conducted himself according to the dictates of a pure\nand enlightened morality, instead of according to the direction of a\nbody of Ecclesiastics.\n\nWe may, I think, fearlessly assert that there would be no wars, no\nmurders, thefts, adulteries, libels, violations of female purity; in\nshort, every one would do as he wished to be done by. In such a people\npersecution would find no place, ignorance would not be permitted, and\nlaw would be unnecessary. Other desirable things would also take place,\nto which it is unnecessary to refer at large.\n\nWhen all are strictly proper in every relation of life, I cannot believe\nthat anything more would be wanting to make the human family as happy\nas it can be here. What, let us ask, would the orthodox declare was\namissing? The reply is, to my mind, awful: There would be, first, the\nwant of hatred and malice; then would be added the want of Hell-to which\nenemies could be sent, and of a Heaven, in which the faithful could feed\ntheir malignancy by watching the tortures of those whom they detested on\nearth.\n\nIn fine, I beg to express my own deliberate opinion, which has been\ngrowing stronger monthly since I first began to collect materials for\nthis work, that those who can find nerve to sweep from their minds the\ntrammels which have been woven around them by hundreds of generations of\nhierarchs, and adopt the simple faith which I have above indicated, will\nbe far happier and better than ever they were before. No man will stand\nbetween them and God, and they will find Him infinitely more good and\nmerciful than any of those who profess to be His agents.\n\nThere is yet another way by which the subject of \"faith and reason\" may\nbe approached, and their antagonism tested. This is by considering how\nfar the former is essentially human, and the latter divine--by which\nwe mean, superior to the propensity which all mankind has in common. We\nrecognize the importance of the inquiry, when we find Mr Gladstone,\na Prime Minister of England, discouraging the action resulting from\nphilosophical thought, because a man named Paul, some 1800 years ago,\nrecommended his friends to hold fast that which he, and they, under\nhis teaching, believed to be good. The speech of the Premier, which\nwas delivered at a large Liverpool School, and was written with unusual\ncare, held up, to a lot of schoolboys, the propositions of Strauss as\nsomething which were so bad, that the enunciation of them carried with\nit their refutation. Yet, at the same time, the speaker allowed that the\nGerman thinker was conspicuous for intellectual attainments, powers of\nthought beyond the ordinary run of mortals, sobriety in mental culture,\nand boldness in the enunciation of the conclusions to which his reason\ncompelled him. In Mr Gladstone's opinion, such a man's doctrines\ndeserved to be withered; not because they were opposed to reason, to\nlogic, to the stern reality of facts, but because they opposed the\nprejudices of certain persons educated in a different style of faith.\n\nIf we inquire in what way the German philosopher and the English bigot\ndiffer, we can come to no other conclusion than that the one has used\nhis intellect upon the dogmas which have been presented to his mind,\nfrom his infancy upwards, until they have been mistaken for fundamental\ntruths, whilst the other has exercised his mental powers upon something\nbeyond the doctrinal grounds on which his early education has been\nframed. The then English Premier, who had to direct the state, allowed\nhimself to be guided by defunct men, precisely in the same way as\nPyrrhus, Croesus, and others, were governed by the pretended oracles at\nDelphi, Dodona, and elsewhere. The man, in other words, who once wielded\nthe might of England, and is conspicuous for his classical acquirements,\nis as much the slave of superstition as any ancient Egyptian or Grecian\nmonarch, only his oracles are not the same as theirs.\n\nIt is clear, that when the speech, to which reference has been made, was\ncomposed, Mr Gladstone was under the influence of the belief, that what\nhe had been taught, and had adopted, must necessarily be the only truth\nwhich can be relied on, at least, in its fundamental points. It is this\nvery presumption, this lazy habit of mind, that was long ago pointed out\nby Bacon as being the most fertile cause of the retardation of science,\nand it is remarkable that Oxford, as an University, and most of its\nalumni, are still victims to the weakness referred to. It naturally\nfollows in the train of what is called classical learning, when the mind\nis taught to remember rather than to think; and one easily believes that\nhe can recognize in the late Premier the gradual development of thought,\nand can tell the epochs when cherished idols have been thrown aside,\nwith the energy of one who is suddenly roused to exercise a powerful\nmind in an independent manner.\n\nIt would be useless to copy all the aphorisms by which Lord Bacon\nattempted to destroy the old philosophy, which, in his time, was most\nuniversally adopted, and to build up a new state of things, in which\nscience should advance, but a few of them are of such value that they\ndeserve recording. In _Novum Organum_, aph. 23 we read--\"There is no\nsmall difference between the fancies [--Greek--] of the human mind and\nthe ideas of the divine mind--that is, between certain notions that\nplease us, and the real stamp and impression made by created objects as\nthey are found in nature.\" That is to say, man commonly imagines things\nto be what he fancies they ought to be, and neglects what they really\nare. The learned aphorist then points out certain peculiarities of men,\nby which they are induced to cleave to the bad, and neglect the good.\n\nAph. 46---\"The human understanding, when any proposition has once\nbeen laid down (either from general admission and belief, or from the\npleasure which it affords), forces everything to add to it support and\nconfirmation. But this evil insinuates itself still more craftily in\nphilosophy and in the sciences, in which a settled maxim vitiates and\ngoverns every other circumstance, although the latter be much more\nworthy of confidence.\" Aph. 47--\"The human understanding is most excited\nby that which strikes and enters the mind at once and suddenly, and\nby which the imagination is immediately filled and inflated. It then\nbegins, almost imperceptibly, to conceive and suppose that everything\nis similar to the few objects which have taken possession of the mind,\nwhilst it is very slow and unfit for the transition to the remote and\nheterogeneous instances by which axioms are tried, as by fire, unless\nthe office be imposed upon it by severe regulations, and a powerful\nauthority.\"\n\nWe may paraphrase the preceding axiom thus:--Those who, from personal\npreaching, or by parental influence, have adopted a certain belief in\nthe truth of that which has been taught to them as a \"revelation,\" no\nmatter who the individuals are, or may have been, who propound it, are\nloth, ever, to inquire into the real nature of the matter. Hence it is\nthat \"clairvoyance\" and \"spiritualism\" have so many staunch adherents.\n\nAph. 56--\"Some dispositions evince an unbounded admiration of antiquity,\nothers eagerly embrace novelty, and but few can preserve the just\nmedium, so as neither to bear up what the ancients have correctly laid\ndown, nor to despise the just innovations of the moderns. This is very\nprejudicial to the sciences and philosophy, and, instead of a correct\njudgment, we have but the factions of the ancients and the moderns.\"\n\nThere are other aphorisms following, which point out the mischief of\nfollowing certain theories, simply because they have been long accepted,\nand are generally supposed to be correct.\n\nAt the period when Bacon wrote, there was the same conservatism in\nscience and philosophy as there had been in the Roman Church for ages,\nand very few, if any, had ventured to suggest the necessity for a\nradical change. In England the reformation of church and state preceded\nthe reformation of philosophy; yet, there are many amongst us yet who\nregard all such changes as a mistake. We constantly find individuals who\nhanker after a despotic rule, by king or emperor, who cannot endure a\nchurch in which there is no tyrannical head, nor a science which only\nprofesses to advance, and refuses to be stationary.\n\nYet the thoughtful know how much the world would have lost, had it yet\nbeen prostrate at the feet of Aristotle and of barbaric Popes; and there\nis not a Christian who does not rejoice that Jesus prevented mankind\nfrom worshipping Moses, and adhering to Hebraic notions.\n\nWhen, therefore, an individual, professing to be learned, scouts the\npropositions of a careful inductive and rigidly reasoning philosopher,\nsimply because they violate generally believed notions; and when,\nin addition, he appeals to the ignorance and impressionability of\nschoolboys rather than to the mature judgment of adults, he proclaims\nhimself, in that respect, at least, a bigot--of a dye as deep as those\nfanatics who urged on their fellows to suppress the discoveries of\nGalileo. But the matter does not end here. We recognize the necessity\nfor a public man, who has once proclaimed his adherence to the doctrines\nof Revelation, and has preached the necessity for \"faith,\" and its\nsuperiority over reason--however calm and rigid, to go further, and\nto proclaim that which he regards as Revelation, and who are the\nindividuals he will receive as the interpreters of that so-called\ncommunication from God to man.\n\nIt is clear that the words which have been uttered by man require a\nhuman expounder; equally clear is it that, if the original sayings are\nregarded as being inspired, but, nevertheless, of doubtful meaning,\nthey can only be cleared up by other men, who are, like the original\noracles--\"inspired.\" But, as a matter of fact, there are in our own\ntimes three distinct sets of individuals who lay claim to the faculty of\ninterpretation; and these differ so amongst themselves, that certainly,\nat least, two, and very probably all, are wrong.\n\nThe man, then, who is disposed to make faith his guide must, in so far\nas Christianity is concerned, join himself either to the Greek or Roman\nChurch, whose pretensions to a divine presence in their midst have been\nof the longest; or to the Protestant Church, which endeavours to oust\nthe other two upon the plea that they cannot be under divine teaching,\nbecause they have become corrupt; and then, on the plea of having\ndiscovered the alleged faults, it assumes to have the authority which\nits predecessors have forfeited.\n\nThus, as we have frequently remarked before, man sits in judgment upon\nHim whom he calls his maker. The Protestant Churches, however, are the\nonly ones who do not formally lay claim to having the divine presence\namongst them in a conspicuous degree; they do not pretend to the\nperformance of miracles, and they scout the idea that any modern\nrepresentative of Jesus can do any wonders like those that teacher did.\nThe Roman Church proves to the satisfaction of its votaries that \"the\nLord\" is still with them, inasmuch as the presence of the Virgin, in\na visible form, occurs to cheer her servants that trust in her\nintercession, and even pictures of her become instinct with life.\n\nIf, then, an individual is resolved to walk by faith alone in matters of\nreligion, he is bound to join himself to that church wherein the divine\nfounder is habitually and visibly present; to whose saints the saviour\nhas appeared, and given stigmata like those which were produced in the\noriginal by the barbarous nails and spear of the Roman soldiers. For the\nvotaries of faith--pure and unadulterated belief in things divine--the\nonly legitimate home is the bosom of the Papal Church. Why, then, do\nnot men, like Mr Gladstone, join it? Simply because their faith is not\na pure and confiding one. It is tainted by the doubt whether the\npretensions of the Roman See are sustainable, or by the certainty that\nPopish miracles are contemptible shams. They believe that Francis\nof Assisi made the stigmata, which he professed to receive from his\n\"crucified Saviour,\" by burning his hands, feet, and side, with some\nstrong caustic, or by a heated iron.\n\nBy these doubts, or certainties, individuals demonstrate that they are\nnot in the list of the faithful; for doubt implies unbelief, and both\nare incompatible with faith pure and simple.\n\nWhenever, then, a person confesses, by his words or actions, that he\ndoes examine into the grounds of his belief, he is logically bound to\ncontinue those inquiries into everything wherein there is a possibility\nof human error creeping.\n\nWhen we pursue our observations further, and inquire into the reasons\nwhy a Papist believes certain things which a Protestant rejects, and\nvice versa, we find that, in the first place, each believes what he has\nbeen taught; he--to speak figuratively--imbibes his dogmas and belief\nwith his mother's milk; and when he advances in age, is taught and\nimagines that he has mastered the stock arguments which are relied\nupon by the opposite parties. There is, therefore, on first sight, a\nreasoning power exercised by each; but it is not so, for the arguments\nthemselves, and their force, are regarded as matters of faith--as\nweapons with which a warfare may be waged, but which, in no sense, are\nto be tested by those who use them.\n\nAs far as the common run of religionists are concerned, they are all in\nthis \"fool's paradise;\" they fancy that they are secure, invincible, and\nmighty, because they take their own prowess and their opponents weakness\nas matters of faith. But when one of these comes into collision with\nanother whose reason is exercised upon facts and the deductions to be\ndrawn from them, the questions occur, possibly for the first time, Are\nthe grounds of my belief tenable? am I justified in using my reason only\nin one direction? if I profess to argue, am I not bound to be logical?\nand if what has been given to me as sound meat, is rotten in reality, am\nI bound to eat it? can it do me good in any way? When a thoughtful man\nhas arrived at this point, he has to elect between Faith and Reason.\nThen, if, like Mr Gladstone, he foresees to what his inquiries will\nprobably lead, and is disinclined to pull down a cherished edifice,\neven to erect a better, he will naturally cling to the old belief,\nsaying--\"With all thy faults, I love thee still.\" With his eyes wide\nopen he hails the banner of bigotry, no matter what may be the scutcheon\nwhich it bears.\n\nThen come the important questions--\"What right has any religious bigot\nto profess himself a liberal?\" and, \"With what face can a man, who\nrefuses to exercise his understanding upon what he calls the most\nimportant part of life, i.e., the preparation for eternity, proclaim\nhimself a friend of education?\"\n\nTo insist upon the value of \"learning\" in forming the mind, and then\nto set the example of recoiling from the knowledge which intellectual\nefforts bring, is, in a statesman, a mean vacillation. Mr Gladstone\nought either to proclaim that his ideas are those of the Jesuits, or\nto pronounce in favour of education, to whatever goal it legitimately\ntends. To say to boys--or men--you must learn to think; but you must\nonly come to the same conclusions as myself, would disgrace a statesman\nof a free country, though such a proclamation would seem natural to a\npope, or any other tyrant I do not, for a moment, assert that the then\nPremier of England did, in a written, and, therefore, a deliberate\nspeech, to a large and influential school of boys, utter the words\nwhich I have used; on the contrary, he employed his rhetorical powers\nto express the idea, without either clearly understanding it himself, or\ngiving the lads a clue to it. Had the meaning of the discourse been put\ninto a few pregnant sentences, it may be doubted whether it would ever\nhave been uttered.\n\nIf Mr Gladstone, like the mythical Elijah, had placed before his\nauditors, in naked words, the proposition--\"Choose ye this day whom ye\nwill serve, Faith or Reason,\" his discourse would have been clear. Even\nhis own mind could not have painted the two as being the same thing; nor\nwould a school-boy have failed to see that, in the future, he must\nelect between indefinitely expanding his intelligence, and materially\ncontracting his intellect to the narrow limits prescribed by the faith\nof his parents.\n\nTo my mind it is sad to witness men of great general capacity, like the\nlate Dr Faraday, and the past Prime Minister of Great Britain, shunning,\nin every way, an inquiry into the basis of their belief. We cannot\nregard this as a result of simple intellectual indolence, or ignorance.\nThe only cause to which we can attribute it, is that weakness which,\nby most people, is called moral cowardice; a fear, not so much of Mrs\nGrundy--the world and its dread laugh--but the fear of some unseen,\nunknown, incomprehensible danger to themselves--of dangers that have no\nreality, except in an imagination which has been moulded long before the\nmind was capable of thought, but whose hold upon the individual is\nsuch, that he shrinks from the mental effort necessary to efface its\nimpressions.\n\nThere is yet another phase of faith, which deserves a passing mention.\nIt is that which declines to see or to hear a proof or an argument, lest\nit should be convinced against its will. There are many men amongst us\nwho, in Scripture phrase, refuse to hear the voice of the charmer, charm\nhe never so wisely. This obstinacy, stupidity, dogged-ness, or firmness,\nis quite compatible with a partially cultivated intellect, and is in\nitself a measure of intellectual capacity. I have heard, for example, a\nlearned divine, but one whose writings are often so bemuddled, that the\nideas which they contain are as difficult to discover \"as a needle in\na bottle of hay,\" declare that he would no more listen to an argument\nagainst the existence of \"the trinity,\" than he would open his ears to\nhear evidence that his wife or mother was adulterous.\n\nSuch strong asseverations we may sympathize with, and even admire; but\nthey prove nothing beyond the impracticability of an individual mind,\nor what, in some cases, takes its place--viz., the injudiciousness of\nacknowledging a truth, when the enunciation of a belief in it would be\nfollowed by unpleasant consequences.\n\nAgain, I know of another divine, who has steadily refused to inquire\ninto the value of what are called \"the Christian evidences,\" his reason\nbeing, that he is conscious that inquiry would shake his confidence in\nthe doctrines which he teaches. He clings to what he feels to be a sham,\nlest others should, by his means, regard it in its proper light.\n\nAnother divine, who has not feared to be an inquirer, is incessantly\npersecuted by his brethren, not because he has asserted his intellectual\nfreedom, but because, by having done so, he has, by implication, cast\na sort of odium upon those who hug their mental darkness. His argument\nis--Can a man who hates the light be worthy to speak of the \"Sun of\nRighteousness?\" Their reasoning is based upon the assertion, that those\nwho live in darkness, and like it, need not be told about a luminary.\nIf people chose to believe that the moon is made of green cheese, it is\nmore profitable to talk to them about its connection with the milky\nway, than to say that the notion is absurd. Faith teaches that, where\nignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise; whilst reason only impels one\nto habitual thought or mental worry.\n\nOther divines of my acquaintance have used their reason in a twofold\nway: they have ceased to hold their first faith, yet they hold their\n\"livings,\" as they have no other means of subsistence; whilst a few\nhave, with their advancement in knowledge, paid for their knowledge by\nembracing poverty.\n\nThe world treats those who walk upon the ground with a far greater\ninjustice than it treats those who lie beneath its surface. For a man\nwho disturbs us in our fool's paradise, more feet than hands are used;\nbut to him who only disturbed the father's complacency, and taught the\nson in youth, we erect memorial statues. Jesus was crucified when he was\nalive, and deified when dead. His apostles were persecuted when living;\nnow that they are deceased, they are called saints. Savonarola was burnt\nalive at Florence; now his memory is cherished, and his worth fully\nknown. Luther was detested when he was able to thunder in men's ears;\nnow he is regarded as a son of light. The present Pope, Pio Nono,\nhas found an obsequious council, whose voices have declared him to be\ninfallible--a god upon earth; the time will come when that Pope, and\nthat council, will be regarded as the personification of blasphemy\nand folly. The days of Faith will be everlasting; but her power to act\nwickedly will be curtailed more and more. The reign of Reason advances\nevery year, for it is allied to thought and knowledge; and we may fairly\nhope that the old adage will be true--_Magna est Veritas et praevalebit_.\n\nIt may be said that, in the preceding parts of this essay, I have wholly\nlost sight of, or, at least, have not referred to the argument--or\nthe statement, made by the upholders of faith, as a rule of life--that\nreason has nothing to do with things divine, and that where God has made\na direct revelation of His will to man, no human being has a right to\ncriticise or object to it.\n\nThis kind of remark is in the mouth of every preacher, and each minister\nwho utters it imagines that he deals a blow so very heavy that nothing\ncan stand against it. But in reality it is only a big bubble, which\ncollapses when it is touched. \"How,\" for example, we may ask, \"can\nanything be recognized as divine, unless human judgment is passed upon\nit? or, How can any revelation be accepted, unless the mind has examined\nthe messenger and the message?\" Who would believe the ravings of a\nlunatic, even though he told us that God had sent him with a message\nto man? Why do Christians, as a body, reject the revelation made to\nMahomet, and the frequent inspirations which give laws to the latter-day\nsaints? To these queries the reply is--\"Because we know that God does\nnot speak to man now, and that when the bible was closed all revelation\nceased.\" But when we inquire into the reason for this belief we can\nfind not one. Every theologian must allow that the God who spoke once to\nMoses spoke again; that He supplanted one dispensation by a second, and\nhas promised a third.\n\nThus we see, that by their own books, the orthodox are bound to believe\nthat supplementary communications must be made to the human race;\nconsequently, when any one asserts that he is a divine prophet, his\npretensions are examined. The faithful Christian disbelieved in Mahomet;\nthe trusting Arabs believed in his mission, and fought for their creed.\nThey, like orthodox divines of to-day, refused to use their reason\nin things divine, and to cavil at a revelation, Unable to agree, the\nfollowers of Jesus, and those of Mohammed, fought, the latter almost\nannihilating the former for a time, thus proving the value of their\nfaith. Both parties had a firm belief--the one in the prophet of\nNazareth, the other in the prophet of Arabia; and no reasoning could\nhave convinced either that his trust was misplaced; nor, to this day,\nhas reason convinced the Mahometans that Jesus was superior to Mahomet,\nor the Christian that the Arab sectarian was a prophet at all; and it\nis singular that both parties call in reason in attestation of their\nrespective creeds.\n\nIs, then, the sturdy English theologian to be content to leave the\nfollowers of Islam alone, because they have faith? or, must he still\nendeavour to convert them by the use of reason? Can the Christian adopt\nthe belief that Mahometan and Mormon are both orthodox because they have\nfaith? and that the Jew must still be dear to Jehovah, inasmuch as he\nstill clings closely by faith to the revelation given to Moses and the\nprophets? If this cannot be done, how can the follower of Jesus hope to\nconvert others to his belief, unless by the use of reason? If, then, the\ntheologian uses reason as a weapon against heterodoxy, upon what ground\ncan he object to its being employed by another? Latter-day saints have\nmade many proselytes in Christendom, and a Mahometan floored in debate\nthe late pious Missionary, Henry Martyn, whose propositions were met\nby counter ones, and every one of whose arguments was taken up and\nretorted, the names only of the persons spoken of being changed. \"I\nknow,\" said the one, \"that God spoke to us by Christ Jesus\"--\"I know,\"\nsaid the other, \"that Allah spoke to us by Mahomet\" \"You are wrong, my\nfriend,\" said one, \"Allah has not spoken to man since the last Apostle\ndied.\" \"You are wrong,\" said the other, \"God has spoken to us long after\nthat. You may call Mahomet an apostle, if you like; we call him a\nprophet of Allah, and know that he was one.\" And so controversy goes on\nnow where there is faith without reason.\n\nIt is clear, then, that truth cannot be established by any number of\npeople thundering out \"I believe it,\" and by their victoriously fighting\nfor it. The argument, therefore, which I may be accused of omitting, is\nof no value at all; it is sheer nonsense--a windbag, or, perhaps, it may\nbest be compared to a boomerang, which, when badly used, recoils upon\nthe person of him who threw it. Of such arguments theology is builded\nup.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\n     Honesty.   A question propounded.   Are \"divines\" honest?\n     Meaning of the word.    Learners and teachers--their\n     relations to each other.    Honesty expected in a professor.\n     Teachers of religion are trusted--they are bound to be\n     faithful.   Political rights of men in respect of the clergy\n     of the Established Church.    Right to see that religion is\n     not adulterated. Man's right to truth.   What truth is not.\n     Assertions required at \"ordination.\"  Canonical Scriptures.\n     Verbal inspiration.   Doubts of laity.   Two schools--those\n     who will and those who will not inquire.     Rev.   Dr\n     Colenso.   Rev. Dr Browne.   Precious stones and \"paste.\"\n     How should a doubt be tackled--by inquiry,  or  by ignoring\n     it?    An   analogy. Compass and bible.    If compass wrong,\n     why steer by it?   Passenger and captain--one appeals to\n     stars, the other to his owners and the seamen under him.\n     Precision of Colenso--his words falsified so as to be\n     confuted: this is not honesty.    Is Bishop Browne honest in\n     controversy? Tabernacle, temple, doors, &c.   The _Speaker's\n     Commentary_ not an honest book.    Papal falsehoods; false\n     decretals; false letter from Prester John. Pious frauds.\n     Influence of dishonest teaching on education.    The point\n     involved in sectarian discussions.   Lying miracles--are\n     they promulgated honestly?   Is it honest in religion to\n     promulgate that which we knew to be wrong, or which we dare\n     not inquire into for fear of consequences?    Do Papal\n     authorities believe in the annual miracle at Naples?  The\n     Protestant Church judged by a ruler of Siam.    Bigotry, by\n     not inquiring, does not establish truth.    Each man who is\n     deceived has a propensity to deceive others.   The masses\n     agree to be deceived.    Mr Gladstone on education. His\n     proposition that inquiry is bad if it leads to change of\n     religious opinions.   Anecdotes of stupidity.   Sailing in\n     search of truth.    Captains who avoid the right course.\n     The condition of society when the schoolmaster overrides the\n     ecclesiastic.    Reason and education ought to precede\n     faith. Result of honesty.   Divines recoil from the honest\n     truth.    Parsons in their pulpit preach what their week-day\n     precepts oppose.   Honesty in ecclesiastical matters is not\n     the best policy.    Divines and the silversmiths of Ephesus.\n     Examples.    An honest parson is persecuted by his fellows:\n     this insures mediocrity and bigotry.   If an author cannot\n     be persecuted he is avoided.    Ecclesiastics persecute\n     their colleagues, but do not prove them wrong.\n     Excommunication easier than refutation.   What an honest\n     merchant and divine should do when they discover a diamond\n     to be paste. Ought the divine to be less honest than the\n     merchant?   The Author's challenge.   Conclusion.\n\nI am now about to propound a question which I have heard mooted in quiet\nby many, but for which publicity seems to be dreaded by all--_viz_., \"Is\nthere honesty amongst Christians, and especially amongst the hierarchy\nof the Churches of England and Rome?\"\n\nNo one can doubt the importance of the subject; there is not a\nthoughtful person who does not, in words at least, scorn to build up his\neverlasting belief upon a fable, and who does not affect to be disgusted\nwith everyone who is deliberately untruthful I speak not now of those\ntime-servers who regard every artifice to be fair in love, war, and\ntheology; but only of those earnest minds who are anxious to seek out\nand to hold fast that which is true, and who, under all circumstances,\nresolve to be honest with themselves. That there may be no doubt as to\nthe sense in which I use the word, the following may be regarded as,\nin my opinion, the synonyms which are properly given in _Webster's\nDictionary_--\"Integrity, probity, uprightness, trustiness,\nfaithfulness, honour, justice, equity, fairness, candour, plain dealing,\nveracity.\" To this may be added--\"not bearing false witness.\"\n\nPresuming that English scholars agree in this definition, let me now\ninquire whether \"we\"--by which term I mean the non-theological class by\nprofession--have a right to expect \"honesty\" amongst our teachers--be\nthey Roman, Anglican, Hibernian, Scottish, Unitarian, Wesleyan, or of\nany other body? and, in the next place, whether we get that to which\nwe are entitled? Presuming that it is necessary to begin with the\nfoundation, let us first inquire into \"our rights,\" and whence they are\nsupposed to be derived.\n\nThe positions of a learner and a teacher--or a disciple and a\nmaster--are, in some cases, different to what they are in others; for\nexample, I need not, unless I think it desirable, learn astronomy,\nchemistry, the art of telegraphing, or that of ship-building; but if I\ndo elect to learn any of these matters, and engage a man to instruct\nme, I have a legal claim upon him for his services. There is, indeed, a\ncontract between us--he engaging to teach me, and I agreeing to pay him\nfor his labour. In my selection of a professor, it is quite possible\nthat I have not chosen the best; nay, seeing that I require to be\ntaught, it is nearly certain that I cannot assume the position of a\njudge as regards the superiority of one teacher over another. But when\nthe agreement is once entered into, each of the parties is bound to\nperform his part of the contract to the best of his ability. If, for\nexample, I bargain with a master to teach me Spanish, and I, being\nwholly ignorant thereof, am instructed in Portuguese, I have a definite\nlegal claim for redress.\n\nIf, on the other hand, the law, or the custom of the country, compels\nme to take a certain class of teachers, whether they are competent or\nworthless, I, as one of the community, am justified in investigating the\nintellectual power of the professors, individually and collectively, in\nevery way in my power.\n\nAt one period, when autocracy, or tyranny, was supreme, this right was\ndenied, and the legislators made it a criminal matter for any one to\ncall in question the nature of the instruction which was given to the\npeople in matters of politics, religion, and other things, wherein the\ngovernment was concerned. At the present time there are few, if any,\nstates whose ruling powers demand from the people such an abject\nsubmission.\n\nBut, although a republic may allow unlimited latitude of opinion in\nmatters of political economy, there may be a religious section within\nit, which consists of those who consent to be led, in matters of faith,\nby certain individuals, who, on their parts, are declared to be, by\nsome power that the laity are disposed to submit to, the only persons\ncompetent to conduct persons to a happy eternity.\n\nEvery individual in such a family is associated with the rest by\nvoluntary ties. He may, if he chooses, inquire into the capacity of his\nguide; he is at perfect liberty to analyse his arguments, to inquire\ninto his allegations, and, speaking generally, to test his truth. If, as\na result of the investigation, any one is satisfied that the teacher is\nincompetent, the two are perfectly clear to make new engagements. There\nhas been no definite contract, nor can there be any legal claim for a\npresumed breach thereof.\n\nWhen, on the other hand, there is a State Religion, supported by\nParliamentary authority, and to which, in one way or another, the\nmajority of the people must subscribe, each man has as perfect a right\nto see that he gets what he pays for, as he has to see that the member\nof parliament for whom he votes, does not neglect the interests of the\ntown which he represents.\n\nAs an Englishman, I have no right to call in question the power of the\nPope of Rome, the Patriarch of the Greek Church, the Elder of the Mormon\nCommunion, the Arch-Pneuma of the Spiritualists, or any other religious\nhead, to teach his followers any doctrine that he may please. I may\nlaugh at the \"false decretals\" of the papacy, and the charlatanerie of\nthe clairvoyants; but no political right supports me in my calling them\nto account for their stewardship.\n\nOn the other hand, when I know that the bishops of the Church of England\nare parties to the formation of our laws, and I find myself called upon\nto pay tithes or dues to individuals of the same establishment, I have\na political right to ascertain, that the persons actually do what they\nprofess to do for their money or position. If, for example, I live in a\nsparsely populated district, I and all my family are dependent upon the\nparson of the parish for instruction how to get to heaven; or, as an\nalternative, if I do not agree with his doctrine, I may abstain from\nbeing instructed at all. If, on the contrary, I inhabit a large town,\nstill I am dependent for religious teaching upon the state clergyman,\nunless I elect to do without him, and any one else of the same\npersuasion, or select some non-conformist preacher who is to me no less\noffensive than the parliamentary parson.\n\nWhen a confraternity has obtained, no matter how, or by what means, a\ndefinite prescriptive right to sell a certain material to the community\nat large, the latter have certainly a legal power to see that the stuff\ngiven is according to contract. If a company of millers engage, for\ncertain privileges, to sell good wheat flour to all comers, the last can\ndeprive them of their exclusive right, provided that it can be proved\neither that the flour is bad, or that it comes from barley, rye, oats,\nor potatoes, or is adulterated with gypsum, &c.\n\nPresuming that this argument is tenable, our next inquiry is into that\nwhich our national church professes to sell, or to impart, in return for\nits privileges. In the fewest possible words we may say, that its duty\nis to impart \"truth,\" or to teach what is, in its learned and educated\nopinion, the true religion for life and eternity.\n\nThe word truth is one which lies at the root of our question respecting\nhonesty. Pilate is reported to have said--\"What is truth?\" We may put\nthe same question now.\n\nWithout saying what \"truth\" is, we can readily declare what is\n\"untruth.\" It is not truth if we, in argument, misrepresent an\nadversary; affirm that he made a certain statement, and then oppose--not\nthe thing said--but some other matter which was not spoken of at all,\nand then assert that we have confuted him.\n\nIt is not truth to affirm, that observations recently made have been\noftentimes presented before, and always successfully refuted, when\nthe remarks in question are novel, never have been controverted, and\napparently, are not capable of being disproved.\n\nIt is not truth to affirm, that human \"authority,\" which, has been long\nacknowledged, can falsify \"a fact,\" or make an unfounded assertion equal\nto a reality; or to declare, that one religion is good and another bad,\nsimply because the speaker believes the matter to be so.\n\nIt is not truth to assert, that a certain book, and every part of it,\nis the revealed word of God, when it is known to be contradicted by\nscience--i.e.t by a knowledge of the laws imposed on creation by its\nMaker, to be inconsistent with itself, and to contain internal evidence\nthat it was composed by men of small knowledge and of grovelling\ndisposition.\n\nIt is not truth to affirm, that if God's world proves what is called\nGod's Book to be wrong, science must be neglected and the Bible upheld.\n\nIt is not truth to affirm that God spoke exclusively to one people, when\nit is known that the race in question drew nearly, if not quite, all\ntheir religious beliefs, from the neighbours amongst whom they were\nthrown.\n\nIt is not honest to propound in the pulpit the propriety of examining\nthe Scriptures daily, and yet to persecute any one who by doing so\nbecomes convinced of their human origin.\n\nIt would be honest, and prove the existence of a love of truth, if every\npreacher of every denomination spent as much time in trying the value of\nhis text-book, as he does now in expounding it and explaining it away.\n\nWe should imagine that a minister loved truth, if he were first to ask\nhimself how he treats the Vedas and Puranas, the Avesta, the Koran, the\nApocryphal Gospels, the Apocrypha, the Book of Mormon, the visions and\nprophecies of \"Latter-day saints,\" \"Friends,\" Roman visionaries, and\nthe oracles delivered at Delphi and elsewhere, and then to treat his own\nbook with the same measure as he used with the others.\n\nOn the other hand, we should regard him as untruthful and dishonest,\nif he weighed the books and belief of others with weights and scales\ndifferent to those with which he tried his own.\n\nFrom each minister of religion the people have a right to demand an\nimpartial inquiry into the absolute value of the doctrines which he\nteaches, and an investigation into the foundation, as well as the\nsuperstructure; and they may require, still further, that he, like\nGreat-heart in Bunyan's story, shall do battle with assailants. When\nsuch a leader professes to fight, but always avoids the shock of\nbattle, he cannot be regarded either as honest, or as comparable with\nValiant-for-truth in the _Pilgrim's Progress_.\n\nWe are then, as laymen, justified in requiring that our spiritual\nleaders shall take a conspicuous part in examining the grounds of the\nfaith which they teach, and that the leaders of the Established Church\nshall seek to establish its doctrine upon as firm basis as it is\npossible to obtain.\n\nThis certainly involves inquiry and discussion upon those points which\nmodern criticism has prominently advanced.\n\nWhen we turn to the \"Prayer Book,\" we find that Deacons are required to\nsay, that they unfeignedly believe all the Canonical Scriptures. Priests\nare obliged to affirm that the Holy Scriptures contain sufficiently all\ndoctrine required of necessity for eternal salvation, through faith in\nJesus Christ, &c. In the consecration of bishops the same, or nearly the\nsame, formula is gone through. Thus, at the outset of their career, the\nministers of the Church of England commit themselves to, or are required\nby law to make, a declaration which will preclude inquiry into the value\nof the book on which their teaching is founded; their first step in the\nministry puts it out of their power to be honest, if experience should\nteach them more than they knew when young. The bishops and priests,\nhowever, when they subscribe to the opinion that the Bible contains all\nthings necessary for salvation, do not pledge themselves to the belief\nthat every sentence, part, division, book, or arrangement of the\nCanonical Scriptures is, and must of necessity be, true. Even in the\ndawn of ecclesiastical information in England, there was not a belief in\nthe verbal inspiration of the Bible.\n\nOf late years, when habits of thought and the art of printing have\nincreased, the knowledge, and consequently, the power of the laity\ndisproportionally to the advance made by clerics--a strong propensity\nto accumulate facts, and to argue thereupon has been very generally\ndeveloped, and the increased information obtained has induced steadily\nincreasing numbers to doubt, not only the verbal inspiration, but even\nthe historical truth of the Scriptures. When this difficulty occurred,\nor rather, when it became recognized, scholars, no matter whether\nthey were professional or amateur ecclesiastics, divided themselves\ninvoluntarily (we may fairly say, unknowingly, inasmuch as each\nindividual worked quite independently, in the first place, of another)\ninto those who believed that, if the Holy Spirit dictated the\nScriptures, he must have seen that his amanuensis wrote correctly; those\nwho imagined that the Bible was to be taken \"in the lump;\" and those\nwho considered that the Scriptures are entirely of human origin, and\nabsolutely valueless as a guide of faith. Consequently, three schools\nhave arisen, two of which are essentially ecclesiastic. Of these,\none regards all inquiry into the accepted text as improper, the other\nconsiders that everything should be done to verify the value of the\nso-called original Scripture.\n\nAmongst the latter, Dr Colenso, Bishop of Natal, stands out\nconspicuously. Of the highest intellectual attainments, trained to close\nand scientific inquiry; able, far better than men of meaner capacity, to\nweigh the value of \"evidence,\" whether \"ancient or modern,\" he has drawn\nthe conclusion that the Bible is not what it is generally supposed to\nbe; in other words, that its historical portions are not trustworthy,\nand that there is grave reason to believe its writings to have been\nproduced for a purpose, which involved dishonesty in the scribe, and in\nthe promulgator of his writings. The learned doctor was honest in his\ninvestigation, and fearless in announcing his conclusions.\n\nAs an upright man, the Bishop of Natal is as completely justified in his\ninquiry into the validity or importance of an ancient book, alleged to\nbe a pearl of great price, a gem or diamond of the first water, as the\nofficial curator of a museum would be, in determining whether a certain\nruby, given into his charge, were real or artificial. Of the necessity\nof such an inquiry, the following anecdote, which was told me by the\ngentleman concerned, will convince the reader:--\n\nA wealthy lady, of high position in life, sent to a museum, for\nexhibition, a number of \"precious stones.\" If they were really what they\nwere supposed and stated to be, their value would have been reckoned by\nthousands of pounds sterling. If accepted as genuine, and found, upon\ntheir restoration to the depositor, to be imitation jewels, the curator\nwould be liable, not only for their value, but his character for honesty\nwould be gone; consequently, ere he gave a receipt for the lot, he\ntested each. Not one was real!\n\nThis man was in the position which Dr Colenso occupies now. The owner of\nthe jewels was indignant at the idea that the stones were false, and the\napparent insinuation that imitations were being foisted on the public as\nrealities; but her fury did not alter the fact. If she were artful, her\nplan was detected; if she had been deceived, her anger, though useless,\nwas justified.\n\nOn the other hand, there are many Bishops who uphold the verbal\ninspiration of the Bible, and will not inquire if the gem be real, or\nonly test it by plans known to be valueless for the purpose. Some do not\ngo altogether so far as this, They consider it obligatory upon them to\nexamine just a little bit, but not to go too deeply, lest they should be\nforced to believe that there never was such a man as Moses--a man who\nis commonly reported to have written certain books at a distant period.\nSome persons seem to think that their hope of happiness in this, as well\nas in another world, and not only their own, but that of everybody who\nis under their instruction, depends upon their feeling sure that Israel\nwas once in Egypt--that Abraham begat Isaac, and became the progenitor\nof an innumerable offspring, exceeding in number the Indians of\nHindostan, the Assyrians of Mesopotamia, the Egyptians of the Nile, and\nthe Romans of Italy. Between these two inquirers, if the latter class\ncan fairly be called such, the issue is distinct. There can be no\ndifficulty amongst scholars as to the means by which the question ought\nto be settled.\n\nAn appeal to hard and dry facts is the plan adopted by philosophers. For\nmen, who have a single eye to discover the truth, it matters little in\nwhat direction their inquiries lead them. Metaphorically speaking, they\nmay begin a series of investigations, expecting that everything will\nlead them northwards, and they end by reaching the south; just as many\nan enthusiastic, but little instructed, man has accumulated \"pyrites,\"\nunder the impression that it was an ore of gold, and found, on inquiry,\nthat the material was a sulphuret of iron, and of small commercial\nvalue.\n\nBut it is this very possibility of research bringing them to an\nundesirable goal, which deters so many of our divines from making any\ninquiry. Outwardly, they allow that it is their duty, as leaders, to\nexamine, not only the condition of their own forces, but the position\nand power of those who assail the army which they profess to guide.\nInwardly they find reasons for remaining quiet, and excuse themselves to\ntheir followers in some plausible fashion.\n\nWhy, however, should any goal be undesirable which leads us nearer to\ntruth? Why should any body of professedly learned-men run the risk\nof being considered wanting in honesty, or candour, by avoiding their\nopponents, whom they are in honour bound to encounter?\n\nThe reply to these questions generally runs thus:--\"We, as ministers\nof the Established Church of England, are bound to be faithful to the\nBible, and to it we must adhere, whatever our own private judgment\nmay be. We did not make the law; we simply take it as we find it, and,\nhaving sworn to obey it, we do so.\" This answer would be exhaustive, if\nit were the fact that the laity made the law for the theologians. But,\nas we know, that the ecclesiastics have, in the last resort always made\nlaws for themselves, the rejoinder is not conclusive History tells us\nhow ministers of religion have instructed the people, and how these,\nagain, have legislated under the tuition of their advisers. When\nPaganism was supplanted by Christianity, the change was effected by\npreachers, who taught the populace to believe the new doctrine, and who\ninfluenced the minds of the lawmakers. In like manner, when Popery in\nEngland was put down by the Protestants, each party was headed by its\npriests. Many a minister, at that period, felt bound to follow what he\nbelieved to be truth, rather than to abide by a vow made in youth;\nand they who had upheld the authenticity of Popish miracles, and of\nApocryphal Scriptures, ceased to give credence to them, or to use them\nas authorities in matters of religion. These men were honest.\n\nThat which has been done by men aforetime, may be done or imitated in\nour own day; and our divines have as great a power to examine into the\nvalue of the Bible now, as they had at the Reformation. If they refuse\nto make the inquest suggested--in what way, may we ask, do they differ\nfrom the Romanists in the time of Luther, who would not inquire into the\ntruth of his arguments lest they should be convinced? Can any one who\nprofesses to be a Protestant--a child of the Reformation--honestly\nrefuse to investigate the grounds of the faith which is in him, and\nshelter himself, as Bonner and others did, under the pretext of a\ndeclaration or vow made at ordination?\n\nIf those who make the excuse just referred to, are honest, they are\nbound to reject every doctrine which they, or their predecessors, have\nreceived from Romish priests, who propounded in adult life, doctrines\ndifferent to those which they professed when yet almost children.\n\nTo illustrate the tendency of our remarks still further, let us, for a\nmoment, suppose that the captain of a ship has, from any cause whatever,\nadopted a particular \"compass\" by which he directs his course, and which\nperhaps he calls by the name of Faith. All in the vessel are, to a great\nextent, dependent upon him for a successful voyage, and a safe arrival\nat the desired haven. Seeing how the master-mariner honours the magnetic\nneedle, every thoughtful passenger will probably consult it in like\nmanner. One more advanced in knowledge than the rest may desire to test\nthe instrument by the position of the pole star, and thinking that he\ncould recognize the latter, might infer that the magnet did not point\ntruly. This doubt, we will imagine still further, he imparts to the\ncaptain, who, disinclined to distrust his compass, endeavours to\ndemonstrate that the position of the pole star is doubtful.\n\nIn the place of the mariners' compass let us read the \"Bible,\" and,\ninstead of the pole star, let us substitute \"science.\" We shall then\nrecognize the position of such men as the Bishop of Winchester and Dr\nColenso--the latter endeavours to test the value of the instrument which\nis most used by churchmen by certain well-known means; the former,\non the contrary, aims to demonstrate that what he regards as a true\nindicator is so in spite of all which the planets prove to the contrary.\n\nTo carry on our metaphor a point further, let us imagine that the\ncaptain and the doubting passenger appeal to the seamen and the other\npeople on board the barque--the latter telling in simple terms the\ngrounds of his belief, whilst the former appeals to the passions of\nthose who have long trusted him, and only notices the arguments of his\nopponent to misrepresent them. This is what was done by the Papists, in\nevery country, at the time of the Reformation, and which more recently\nhas been done by the Bishops and Archbishops of the Church of England,\nwhen in controversy with the Bishop of Natal Dr Colenso has in\nvoluminous works, and with a precision which every scholar must admire,\nshown that the Old Testament--the \"compass\" of churchmen--is not what it\nis supposed to be. Against his views a new \"Bible commentary\" has been\nissued, with the sanction of the highest ecclesiastical dignitaries; and\nin it the authors stoop to misrepresentation! If there were no pretence\nof joint authorship, one might imagine that each writer was responsible\nonly for his own shortcomings; but when there is a parade of great\nnames, which is intended to demonstrate the almost infallible truth of\neverything (except typographical errors), one is bound to treat the\ncontributors as being on a level with each other, and all hierarchical\ncoadjutors. How can any one, with a tendency towards fair dealing,\ncharacterize but with the epithet \"contemptible dishonesty,\" a\ndeliberate quotation from Dr Colenso, which is falsified, that the\nfabrication may be refuted? The Bishop of Natal's argument is a just\none, and, although it is only contained in a note and not in the text\nitself, is of great weight. It runs thus (Part v., p. 97)--\"Of course\nthe fact that the tabernacle at Shiloh had _doors_ (1 Sam. iii. 15)--\nthat the lamp was allowed regularly to _go out_ in it (1 Sam. iii. 3),\nand that Samuel _slept_ in it, and apparently Eli also (1 Sam. iii. 2,\n3), are sufficient to show that this could not have been the 'Mosaic\nTabernacle.'\" This is a fair and scholarly statement; the layman\nrecognizes it as such, and looks to his ecclesiastical superior for an\nhonest opinion on its value. What does he find? Simply this--Bishop\nBrowne answers: \"The objection (Colenso, Part v., p. 97) that the\nTabernacle (at Shiloh) could not be the tabernacle, in the wilderness,\nbecause it had a 'door' (1 Sam. ii. 22) is rather singular, if we\nobserve that the words in Samuel, on which the objection is founded--\n'The women that assembled at the door of the tabernacle of the\ncongregation'--are literally a quotation from Exod. xxxviii. 8--'The\nwomen assembling, which assembled at the door of the tabernacle of\ncongregation.' Of course the word door, fine _pethah_, is as applicable\nto a tent door as to a house door, and is constantly used of the door of\nthe Tabernacle in the Pentateuch.\"\n\nIn this observation of the Bishop of Winchester a false issue is\ndeliberately raised; the quotation given by Colenso is not touched, and\nfor it another, wide of the mark, is substituted! In the verse referred\nto by the Bishop of Natal the words are--\"And Samuel lay until the\nmorning, and opened the doors of the house of the Lord,\" &c.--\"doors\"\nbeing in the original, _dalethoth_--a different word altogether to\n_pethah_, and certainly in the plural number. In other language, we may\nsay that in the _Speaker's Bible_, almost every argument and criticism\nof Colenso and his German authorities are left unnoticed and unanswered;\nand this, almost the only quotation made, is not a true one! Is this\nhonest? So gross, in my opinion, is the want of candour shown in this\ncase, that I, for one, cannot trust a single assertion of the Bishop\nof Ely, now translated to Winchester, even when he quotes chapter and\nverse, until I have verified the extract.\n\nBut the flagrancy of the proceeding is, if it can be, heightened by a\nreference to the subject Dr Colenso was endeavouring to show, by those\nundesigned coincidences, that hierarchs profess to love so much, and\nwhich they parade with great earnestness when it suits their purpose,\nthat the tabernacle at Shiloh was not that described in the Pentateuch.\nIt was perfectly open to Dr Browne to adduce evidence that it was the\nsame. This he does not do--the scholar can well understand the reason\nwhy, viz., that a close inquiry supports the Bishop of Natal's view. For\nexample, in 1 Sam. L 9, we find that Eli is sitting \"upon a seat by\na post of the temple of the Lord.\" This sentence is significant in\nEnglish, it is much more so in Hebrew. The words \"post\" and \"temple\"\ncertainly are quite incompatible with a tent or tabernacle. In the\nHebrew, the tabernacle is generally spoken of as _ohel_, whilst \"temple\"\nis _heckal_. Still further, the expression, \"post of the temple,\" is\npeculiar, because a corresponding one is found only once in the Old\nTestament--viz., in Ezek. xli. 21, where the English version has \"the\nposts of the temple,\" whilst the marginal reading has \"post\" The word\n_heckal_ is in constant use throughout the later Jewish books, but does\nnot occur once in the Pentateuch; and it is a significant fact that, in\n1 Kings xxi. 1, 2 Kings xx. 18, Ps. xlv. 8, cxliv. 12, Pro. xxx. 28, Is.\nxiii. 22, xxxix. 7, Dan. i. 4, the word in question is translated in our\nauthorized version _palace_.\n\nAs the idea of a palace--a royal residence, is totally distinct from a\ntent or tabernacle, it is clear that the narrative about Eli, Hannah,\nand Samuel, was written by some one to whom the story told in\nthe Pentateuch was quite unknown. The dishonesty--we speak thus,\ncontroversially--of the bishops concerned in the new commentary is not\nonly shown in the _suggestio falsi_, but in the _suppressio veri_; and\nno amount of skill in argument or of book-learning can, amongst those\nwho are aware of the fraud, get over the effect which is produced by\nthe cheat. It is evident, that the questions which the Bishops ask\nthemselves are--\"Since there are so many who are wholly ignorant of this\nmatter, shall we not do more to uphold current ideas by fraud than by\ntruth?\" and, \"Is it not right for us to risk our own souls in support of\na faith which we do not, but which the people do, believe?\"\n\nIn a time when all men are ignorant enough not to understand what is\nhistory and what pure fable; when they are so careless as not to examine\nquotations, made from \"authorities,\" in confirmation of opinions, or\nso credulous as to believe anything which a churchman, and,\n_par-excellence_, a Bishop, may affirm, it may be regarded by\necclesiastical writers as a pardonable sin, if not, indeed, a tactical\nmaster stroke, to misrepresent an adversary. But in the present day,\nwhen all educated Englishmen have heard of the false decretals on which\nthe Popes have founded their claims to superiority, and the astute\nlegend of Prester John, it is bad policy for a Bishop to found an\nargument upon a wrong quotation, or to imagine that a glaring untruth\ncan by any possibility support his position. For myself, I confess that\nI began to read the _Speaker's Commentary_ with interest, inasmuch as\nit purported to be an exposition and refutation of the arguments against\nthe authenticity of certain Biblical writings; but when I found an\nEnglish hierarch could so forget his duty to \"the truth\" as to misquote\nsuch a man as his episcopal brother, the Bishop of Natal, I abstained\nfrom a farther perusal, for I found the necessity of verifying\nquotations involved more time than I could afford. Dr Colenso has,\nhowever, sufficiently shown the viciousness of the new commentary, and\nthere is no necessity for a second investigator.\n\nFrom what has been said, we have shown that the members of the Church\nof England, and all Protestant dissenters, have a right to expect from\ntheir teachers an opinion, founded upon learned inquiry, \"whether the\nobjections made by scholarly critics against the inspiration of the\nBible are well founded,\" and that ministers of all denominations, as a\nbody, not only shirk the duty, but persecute such of their fraternity as\nventure to do so.\n\nWhen an individual in the community accepts a trust and does not fulfil\nit, he is amenable to the law; and if it can be proved that there has\nbeen wilful negligence, the trustee may be punished. This does not,\nhowever, apply directly to the clergy, for the trust which is confided\nto them is to preach and teach from the Bible. That, certainly, is\nwhat they engage to do before the law, but the very essence of their\nexistence as ministers of religion is, that they shall instruct men\nin the way of salvation. This trust, which is never put into legal\nphraseology, is proclaimed to be in existence by every preacher; and\neach minister, by implication or assertion, declares that he is desirous\nof exercising this trust to the best of his ability. If, then, the\nreal value of his leadership is challenged, he ought, as a champion,\nto defend it. He does so in every point, except that which is most\nessential He will discuss circumcision with a Jew, infant christening\nwith a baptist, purgatory with a popish priest, bishops with a\npresbyterian, confession with a ritualist, and the like. There must,\nthen, be some cause why Revelation should not be treated of.\n\nIf we consult human nature, the only causes to which we can assign this\nreticence are, conscientious cowardice and dishonesty. The first is,\nby many persons, regarded as a duty--they are taught that it is sin to\ndoubt; the second is not called by its right name. Yet, as we have said\nelsewhere, our religious societies are founded upon the principle of\nsowing doubt broadcast; and we denounce the pious frauds which invented\nwinking virgins and bleeding nuns. Surely, if there be any truth in the\nline--\"An honest man's the noblest work of God,\" it is most essential\nthat they, who style themselves His ministers, ought to be conspicuously\nhonourable, candid, and thoroughly trustworthy in matters of doctrine as\nwell as of morality.\n\nThe subject on which we are now treating has ramifications so wide, that\nit is difficult to see the end of the branches. Amongst the most obvious\nis the influence which it has upon the matter of public education--one\nwhich occupies a large portion of the interest of our nation at the\npresent time.\n\nIn our preceding vol. II., p. 113, we have a note to the effect that\nthere is much doubt upon the subject whether faith ought to be drilled\ninto the minds of our youth prior to an acquisition of, or the power of\nusing, their reasoning faculty, and we remarked that the question is far\ntoo extended to be treated in a casual note.\n\nThe matter was shortly afterwards discussed in parliament, but not one\nof the orators ventured to touch upon the point involved. If we ask\nourselves \"the reason why,\" it is probable that the answer would\nrun--because all the interlocutors did not venture to be honest; by\nwhich I mean, did not wish to utter, in distinct language, the\nopinions that they held, and the end which they sought. There are\nsome legislators who regard moral cowardice as a virtue, and political\ndishonesty as a desirable kingcraft.\n\nIf an observer of the parliamentary debates, to which we refer, was also\na diligent and thoughtful reader of orations made in country towns and\nmetropolitan districts, by preachers and teachers of all our various\nreligious denominations, he would readily come to the conclusion that\nthere was something underlying every speech, which was never allowed to\ncome to the surface--a something which each was perfectly cognizant of,\nbut which it would be unmannerly to name, or even to hint at strongly.\nIt is not, in public meetings, or in parliament, permitted to any\nspeaker to accuse an adversary of falsehood or dishonesty.\n\nYet, what an orator may not judiciously say of particular individuals,\na writer may assert of a class, or of a single person, if he is a\nrepresentative of a body. I may, for example, accuse the Pope of\ndishonesty in misrepresenting certain well-known facts. I may equally\ncharge controversial writers with fraud, when they falsify the words or\narguments of an opponent. Whoever frames such an indictment is, however,\nbound to take into consideration the possibility of there being an\nunintentional error. It may, for example, be true that Popes never see\nnewspapers which tell the truth, and that divines may quote without\never reading the book which they profess to criticise. In both cases\nthe critic acquits them of malice, but only to convict them of culpable\nignorance.\n\nWhen we investigate how this bears upon education, we ask ourselves--\"Do\nwe, as historians, or in our capacity of reading men, know that the\npretensions of the Church of Rome are founded upon, or are bolstered\nup by, assertions which every learned man knows, or ought to know, are\nunworthy of belief?\"\n\nTo be more particular, let us propound the question--Does any Papal\nhierarch believe that Francis of Assisi received certain bodily marks on\nhis hands and feet direct from Jesus? or that any portion of the blood\nof a man has been preserved for ages in the Cathedral of Naples, as\nhaving once belonged to a person who is called by the same name as\nthe first month in our year? We might readily increase our queries by\nremarking about St. Dennis, St. George, St Fou-tin, and a variety of\nothers who appear in the Roman heaven. Our purpose, however, will be\nanswered if we ask, whether the thoughtful amongst us do not object to\nthe Papal faith, because those who proclaim it are not to be trusted?\n\nIf we listen to energetic Protestant divines, we hear much of \"lying\nwonders,\" wrought by Antichrist, which are calculated even to deceive\nthe very elect. These men frequently quote such passages as the\nfollowing:--\"Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the\nLord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, are these\" (Jer.\nvii. 4); \"They have committed villany in Israel, and have spoken lying\nwords in my name, which I have not commanded them\" (Jer. xxix. 23);\n\"Have ye not spoken a lying divination,\" &c. (Ezek. xiii. 7, 8, 9); \"Then\nshall that Wicked be revealed, whose coming is with lying wonders, and\nwith all deceivableness of unrighteousness; and for this cause God shall\nsend them strong delusions, that they should believe a lie,\" &c. (2\nThess. ii. 8-12). Indeed, the main objection to the Roman Church, amongst\nall those who are acquainted with its secret history, is that it is\nfounded, and still exists, upon a foundation of fraud.\n\nThere are many who consider that the Churches of England and of Scotland\nhave not a better basis; but both have so many friends in Great\nBritain, that the sins of neither are closely examined, except by their\nadversaries.\n\nEach sectarian is fully alive to the want of good faith shown by every\nother division of the Church of Christ; and not only so, but we have\nseen, in our own times, a ruler in Siam who knows about them too (see\n_Wheel of the Law_, by H. Alabaster; Triibner & Co., London, 1871), and\nis perfectly alive to the fact that we deceive ourselves.\n\nIt is a part of human nature that each individual has a propensity to\ndeceive himself or herself. A child, who has been told that Old Bogy\nlives in a certain cupboard, will not go and look therein; a man who\nadores a lovely wife will not believe in her frailty; and a fond woman\nwill not credit even her father, when he tells her that her admirer is a\nworthless scoundrel.\n\nWe grant this readily, but we add the proviso, that we only allow\nourselves to be deceived by our own friends. It would be, to all of us,\na frightful infliction if our sons or daughters were to tell us that\nwe were under strong delusions, and believing in lies. Consequently,\neveryone desires that his family shall have a similar faith with his\nown.\n\nAt the present time, however, more conspicuously than at any other since\nprinting was invented, there is, in society, a vast number of men who\nbelieve, from their critical inquiries, that all religionists trust\nin lying vanities which do not profit. These individuals have become\nsceptics, in consequence of education having led them to think for\nthemselves. Being opposed to all, they are friendly with none; and\nalthough they are not aggressive, as a rule, they are vigorously\nattacked by every sect which steadily refuses to come to the light.\n\nUnder these circumstances every hierarch argues: \"The education which\nfrees the mind from all the shackles of superstition is prejudicial to\nus, who earn our living hy making fetters, fixing them, and relaxing\nthem when duly paid to do so. A sound teaching--a style of instruction\nthat will induce the rising generation to examine into our pretensions\nwill cut the ground from under our feet. We must, therefore, endeavour\nto limit, in some considerable degree, our tuition.\" Like the Jesuits in\nAustria and of to-day, they will cram the memory, but not exercise\nthe understanding; they will crowd the mind with lying statements,\nand prohibit all inquiry. Sectarians, therefore, as a rule, object to\neducation, unless it has a religious element in it. They agree in this\npoint, but differ as to the style of faith which is to be taught Hence\nall the difference of opinion, for as the sectarians cannot decide upon\nwhat faith is to be taught, they object to all instruction whatever. Are\nthey honest?\n\nIf, instead of nursing a private idea, each legislator were boldly to\nsay what he desired to obtain and to avoid, there might be some chance\nof united action. But when all pretend to work in common, yet not one is\nabsolutely in earnest, and all, more or less, play at \"make believe,\" no\nvaluable end will be obtained.\n\nOne politician, whose memory is tenacious, and his temerity great,\ncannot bear the idea that the British mind should approximate to that of\nthe Germans; and, whilst he eulogizes education, he denounces Strauss.\nNot because the latter is not a man of profound learning, but because\nthe cultivation of his intellect has led him to certain conclusions\nwhich are distasteful to an English politician. This is not honesty.\n\nAgain, our bishops and the priesthood generally say, \"Education is a\ndesirable thing; it is wrong for man, who has a soul to be saved, not\nto seek out the way of salvation.\" But if, in the course of inquiry, a\nscholar imagines that their way is incorrect, he is anathematized, and\nhis fellows are instructed to believe that no one can find comfort for\nthe soul except in the way patronized by the Church. This, again, is\nnot honest. But--and the word is of mighty import--if, instead of saying\nthis distinctly, a few individuals of high standing in the Protestant\ncommunity deliberately, and with the intention to deceive--or to retain\npeople in the bonds which astute predecessors have thrown around the\nlaity, state, as their belief, that which their critical knowledge tells\nthem is untrue, or withhold knowledge of importance, because they deem\nits publication detrimental to ecclesiastical institutions, they are not\nsimply dishonest--they are culpable, and guilty of spiritual murder.\n\nMy meaning may be illustrated by one or two pertinent anecdotes: The\ncaptain of a man-of-war was doubtful of the existence of a rock laid\ndown upon a chart. One day at dinner he announced to his company the\ndisbelief which he had, adding, that if the spot were truly described,\nthe ship would strike directly. It did so, and few survivors were left\nto tell the tale. The commander judiciously elected to perish with his\nvessel. Had he told his officers, and the distinguished passengers whom\nhe was carrying, what he was doing, it is certain that the danger would\nhave been avoided.\n\nAnother ship captain was addressed by a civilian who was on board,\nand told that a hurricane was approaching, which might be avoided by\nsteering in a certain direction; but, metaphorically speaking, the\nbishop would not listen to the layman. The typhoon came, the vessel was\npartially dismasted; then the passenger was consulted, and by his aid\nthe ship got out of the danger.\n\nThe civilian was well read, not in ancient books, but in modern science;\nthe master mariner knew only his log-book, compass, and \"the rule of\nthumb.\"\n\nA person who loses his ship because he is too stupid to believe a chart,\nor the rules of a science, which every scholar may test, deserves the\nname of an imbecile, and our Board of Trade would deprive him of the\npower to do any more mischief as a captain; but bishops and priests may\npilot their vessel wrongly, for none have any jurisdiction over them,\nprovided always that they steer in the old channels. It matters not\nhow far the way may be shifted, all is supposed to be right, if the old\nlandmarks are still used.\n\nTo make our meaning still more clear, let us imagine ourselves a\nnation of mariners, and of ocean-travellers. We go to school, and learn\nastronomy, trigonometry, geography, physics, and the like; yet, when\nwe are at sea in any ship whatever, we must neglect our knowledge, and\ntrust implicitly to the captain of our ship. We know that we are, in\nreality, going southwards, when our proper destination lies to the\nnorth: for us it is easy to read the stars, and thus to test both the\nchronometer and the compass; must we, then, be quiet because we have\nembarked in a vessel belonging to a certain \"line,\" which is commanded\nby a master appointed by the \"firm\" or \"company\" to which the barque\nbelongs. What is the value of education unless it enables us, when\nnecessary, to find whether we are in the right way or not?\n\nLet us, still further, suppose that we remonstrate with the captain, and\nthat he, in place of arguing the matter fairly, endeavours to override\nour objections by quoting from ancient geographers, to demonstrate that\nwhat we believe to be the wrong is, in reality, the only true way to go;\nwe may be silenced, probably until we accidently discover in the ship's\nlibrary, a dissertation proving that the old traveller's charts are\nworthless. When we find out that, what will be our opinion of the\ncaptain? Can we believe him to be honest?\n\nIf we now were to remonstrate with our naval dictator, and he were to\nrejoin--\"My worthy brothers, I know that you are right, and that I\nhave been wrong. I have, indeed, known it from the time I began to\nbe commander, but my living depends upon my belief in old charts and\nancient compasses. I dare not change my plan, for my masters would\ndismiss me. They know--at least I feel convinced that they are aware,\nthat the old sailing directions are wrong; but they have not the courage\nto say so, or to alter them--and if I do so, they will cashier me.\"\n\nIs the \"firm\" or \"company\" honest? and if we are to mete out degrees of\nculpability, to whom must the severest punishment be awarded? Surely,\nin the case of the Church of England, to her Bishops, who, knowing, as\nscholars, that their compass and charts are incorrect, yet oblige those\nunder their command to steer by them--thus compelling the men who ought\nto be standard-bearers in the forefront of intellectual work, either to\nbe silent, or to fight at a disadvantage.\n\nIt is the knowledge of the duplicity of a vast number of intelligent\ndivines, which has induced laymen to take the business of education out\nof the hands of the clergy as a body. The Protestant believes that a\nJesuit will not teach correct history; the Romanist feels certain\nthat, even in biography, evangelical narratives cannot be trusted; and\nNonconformists generally feel that they cannot rely upon the instruction\ngiven by those of a different sect.\n\nIt is desirable to sketch, if possible, what would be the condition of\nsociety if, in the place of the clergy, there was a set of men trained\nto the office of instructor, and that all individuals in the kingdom\nwere compelled to attend school for a definite period in their youth. In\nthe first place, nothing would be taught which is not known to be true.\nAfter having mastered the rudiments of knowledge, the art of reading,\nwriting, and ciphering, the students would be taught to train their\nminds in drawing inferences from facts, and the art of passing from\nimperfect knowledge to certainty. They would be schooled into habits of\nexactness, and the necessity for careful inquiry before they believed an\nassertion to have the same power as a fact Those whose inclination led\nthem to study one or more of the arts or sciences, drawing, painting,\nsculpture, designing, weaving, chemistry, engineering, building, and\na host of others, would learn that in every one of them knowledge and\nprecision are required to ensure success.\n\nWhen the instructor found that his pupils were sufficiently trained to\nthe exercise of reasoning, he would then proceed to explain the ideas\nwhich have been entertained by various people about the existence of\nbeings, other than those which can be recognized by the senses. He would\nlead his class through the geological history of our planet, and point\nout the sequence of events from the latest formation, to the primary\nrocks; on his way he would linger on the nature of ancient plants and\nanimals; from our earth he would lead them to a study of the stars, and\nthen point out how very natural is the opinion that all the universe had\na designer.\n\nThen, after giving a history of the belief in ancient times, he\nwould gradually descend to our own. He would critically examine the\npretensions of any person who had, in former ages, asserted, or who\nproclaimed now, that he or she knew all about this presumed Creator, and\nwas charged to communicate that knowledge to mankind. After\nexplaining the critical test by which such an assumed mission might be\nexamined--viz., by accurate knowledge of the earth and of mankind, he\nwould apply this trial to all known pretenders to inspiration.\n\nAs a result, his pupils might prefer one to another, or refuse\nto believe in all which have hitherto appeared. In any case, each\nindividual would enter upon the form of faith which he selected with\nfull knowledge of the facts in favour of it. He would, therefore, be\na disciple worth having. If, on the other hand, he disbelieved all\npretenders to inspiration, his condition would be the result of\ndeliberate reasoning upon ascertained facts, and not built, as\nall religion now is, upon parrot lore, taught in childhood, ere\nthoughtfulness has begun to grow.\n\nAssuming that men were thus trained by honest and able instructors,\nall those people who live upon the weaknesses and the ignorance of the\nmultitude would cease their endeavours to prey upon mankind, and to get\na living by playing upon the fears which so many persons have of the\nunknown. There would then be no religious wars or contests--no popes,\nprelates, priests, nor deacons. Quackery of all kinds would cease, and\nstatesmen would all agree in endeavouring to procure for mankind the\ngreatest amount of available happiness. This would be the result of\nhonesty. But from such a picture many men absolutely recoil As the\neffect of training has been to make them believe that unsubstantial\nthings are of sovereign importance, they cannot endure the idea of man\nbeing wholly rational; and they insist, as does the late Premier of\nEngland, that, if scientific schooling of the mind leads men to neglect\nwhat some call Revelation, the plan must be radically bad and worthless.\nBut to eulogise education and to deprecate its results is dishonest.\nThis political tenet or practice resembles that of many a parson, who\ntells his hearers from the pulpit that they are to \"take no thought for\nthe morrow, for the morrow will take thought for the things of itself;\"\n\"they are not to take thought for life, for food, for raiment; nor to\nlay up for themselves treasures upon earth\" (Matt vi. 19, 25, 34), and on\nthe week-day urges them to lay by a store against the time of sickness\nor old age. Such double-dealing is dishonest, and is unworthy of a\nthoughtful man. If Jesus was right, why not enforce his teaching? if he\nwas wrong, why not say so?\n\nIs it possible that any minister in politics, or religion, can believe\nthat \"Honesty is the best policy,\" and yet act with double-dealing? Can\nany person, who has power to think, believe that he will be respected\nwhen he, on a Sunday, preaches improvidence as being taught by the\nAlmighty, and on a Monday proclaims that men are wicked who do not make\na provision for the future? If such people were honest with themselves,\nthey would soon discover that the doctrine propounded from the pulpit is\na Buddhistic one, acted upon by all the early disciples of Sakya Muni,\nand in a conspicuous manner by himself. Yet, if a parson were to be\ncandid thus far to himself, he would probably say--\"I cannot afford\nto be honest in this matter openly, and I must keep this knowledge to\nmyself.\" Interest, unfortunately, determines the actions, even of our\ndivines, more than a rigid uprightness.\n\nWe are thus at the foundation of those causes which are in operation\nto make the thoughtful laity distrustful of the clergy--it is, that\nthe latter are not honourable or strictly veracious--they preach\none doctrine, and act upon another. Honesty is on their lips, but\nself-interest in their hearts. From the Pope to the humblest deacon,\nthere is a conscious reticence in every mind--an inner belief that their\npretensions are not tenable, yet an outward determination to proclaim\nthem at all hazards; like the silversmiths of Ephesus, they all unite in\nthe belief that \"their craft is in danger\" when the apostles of reason\nappear.\n\nFar be it from me to assert that all the clergy are dishonest in\nthe full meaning of the word. I believe that many of them have such\nundeveloped minds, or such mean intellectual capacities, that they are\nabsolutely unable to think upon any subject which has not been drilled\ninto them when their brains were childish and ductile. Others, again,\nhave been schooled into the belief that \"doubt\" and \"the devil\" are\nidentical, and who pray to be defended from both--with them, \"to\ninquire\" is a temptation of Satan, and so is to be manfully resisted;\nothers, again, say to themselves, and sometimes even to their\nfriends--\"I know what will follow if I go into 'the evidences'--I dare\nnot do it, and prefer to remain in my present condition.\" Others, again,\nsay to their conscience--I am paid to expound a certain book, in a\ncertain way; I cannot afford to give up my position; consequently I will\nneither hear of nor argue upon either the volume or the doctrine. There\nare, again, some few religionists who, by constantly encouraging a blind\nfaith, and repressing all intellectual doubts, come at length to believe\ntheir position impregnable, and who trust it because it is, as it\nwere, always kept under a glass-case. Some such I know, or have known,\npersonally; and have heard from their own lips how their very accurate\nknowledge of the Bible has made them doubt its inspiration, and\nhow \"they have wrestled with God in prayer\"--to use their own\nexpression--until the temptation to distrust has been changed into a\nchildlike confidence. Men like these are not dishonest to the world,\nthey are only so to themselves.\n\nThe career of one of my acquaintances has been so striking, that\nit deserves a record. The man of whom I speak was one of powerful\nintellect, and of an inquiring turn of mind; but he was in holy orders,\nand had schooled himself never to investigate the Bible's claim to\ninspiration, or anything connected with religion. He faithfully did the\nordinary duties of a minister according to his lights; but throughout\nhis ministrations, in the composition and delivery of every sermon,\nthere was a powerful undercurrent of the mind which was constantly\nsaying, without using words--\"You know that you are not honest.\" Prayer\ndid not subdue this mental conflict, and day by day the undercurrent\ngrew stronger. It was, however, resolutely opposed, and an outward\northodoxy rigidly kept up. Of the throes of such a man, when he was\nquietly alone, few but those who have felt them can have an idea. Under\ntheir influence the brain gave way, and insanity was the reward of\na resolute determination to be orthodox against personal conviction.\nSimilar cases are not uncommon, when faith opposes reason.\n\nIt is very doubtful whether ordinary laymen have an adequate idea of the\nextent of clerical dishonesty existing amongst us, not only in the seats\nof learning, but in our towns, cities, and villages. As I have had much\ncorrespondence and conversation with many ministers of religion, I have\nformed the opinion that parsons of all denominations regard themselves\nmuch in the same light as trade unionists and non-union men, the two\nparties look upon each other as hostile. The former, who call themselves\nthe orthodox, keep up a sort of spy system upon those whose opinions\nthey fear, because they are not in the union. Such men, if they had a\nchance, would not scruple to \"ratten\" an adversary. They judge of a man\nby the books which they chance to see in his library, book-cases, or\nupon his table; and, without the manliness to confront, they have the\nweakness to backbite those whose mind is more robust than their own.\n\nAs a physician, I have been consulted by a Church of England minister,\nwho was suspected by the rest of the ministers in his town of being a\nnon-union man. Of strong mind, he did not preach the usual jargon which\nthe pulpit delights in. Irons upon _Prophecy_ and Inman's _Ancient\nFaiths_ had been seen in his study, and he spoke approvingly of Colenso.\nAs a consequence, he was watched in the pulpit and in the street. He was\nfollowed to the homes of poverty, and sick folk were visited, that the\nnature of his ministrations might be searched out. He was visited by\npersons of all classes, who, taking their cue from the New Testament,\nstrove to entangle him in his talk. Being married, and having a family,\nand no means of subsistence, save his church living, this trade union\npersecution made him miserable, and seriously injured his health. But he\nwas resolute not to be dishonest, and held on his way. I was, he assured\nme, the only person whom he knew that could appreciate his condition,\nand he was most thankful for my sympathy and advice. He left my house\nalready improved in health; and the feeling that he had a friend to whom\nhe might always apply, enabled him to bear his persecution manfully.\nHe still retains his position, notwithstanding all the wiles and\n\"picketings\" of the trade unionists.\n\nThis spy system, mentioned in the above example, is associated with an\nattempt to discover and apply backstairs influence--those who have\nthe power of making appointments in the church, the chapel, or the\nmeeting-house, are studied, and their opportunities to remove a\nnon-unionist taken advantage of by clerical \"By-ends,\" who endeavour to\nshape their judgment according to that of their patrons.\n\nThis dishonesty reacts upon itself. Men who preach habitually one set of\ndoctrines to a congregation, tie themselves and their understanding down\nto the low level of the majority of mediocrities; and as this level has,\nunder such circumstances, a tendency to lower itself, the clergy have\nbeen compelled to fall, with their patrons, far down in the intellectual\nscale, and the intelligence and educational status of ministers of all\ndenominations sinks annually lower. The proprieties of society prevent\nme from repeating what has come to my ears from the lips or pens of\ndistinguished clerics. It will be enough if I utter my belief that one\nor more outspoken laymen will do more good to religion, and advance the\ninterests of society more, than all ecclesiastical unionists. In this\nand the preceding volumes it has been my aim to be thoroughly honest. In\nsome things of small moment, such as Greek accents, Hebrew points, &c.,\nit is probable I have been faulty. I will even allow, willingly, that a\nmore perfect Hebrew scholar than myself may esteem my etymons fanciful\nand incorrect. My work having been done in the midst of constant\ninterruptions, I concede that, to accomplished bookworms, it must appear\ndisjointed. But, with all its faults, it is honest; and, being so, I\nclaim the right to challenge any one who chooses to enter the lists, and\nencounter me honourably, to a knightly combat. I am sure that my aim has\nbeen, and is yet, to elicit truth. To me vituperation, because I have\nrun foul of what are called established doctrines, has no more influence\nthan it had upon the prime movers of any revolution. A foul blow, such\nas iniquitous misrepresentation, would probably anger me for a moment,\nyet it would nerve me, in the course of a few hours, to make an\nonslaught more furious than ever. With a literary rascal one cannot\nobserve the strict laws of knighthood, except indeed, those which govern\nthe relations of the noble and the varlet.\n\nI make this challenge the more boldly, because the so-called orthodox\ncannot persecute me by those meannesses which they employ against each\nother. Having no ecclesiastical status, I have no penalty to dread from\nfrightened bishops or malignant priests. In the face of such a defiance\nthe clerical party must fight fairly, or slink away as cravens. One\ncondition, however, I must make with any one who enters the lists--viz.,\nthat any misrepresentation, such as that made about Bishop Colenso by\nDr Browne of the See of Winchester, shall be regarded as _ipso facto_--a\nsignal of defeat.\n\nTo return to the idea which is enunciated at the early part of this\nessay, let us contemplate what would be, or rather, what ought to be,\nthe duty of an honest man, whose aim is to defend the faith which he\nprofesses, and to prove that the book which he reveres is deserving of\nhis confidence.\n\nIt is probable that, if a merchant had in his possession a bill,\nor promissory note, which some person had examined carefully, and\npronounced to be a forgery, he would never think of parading it before\nhis customers as a valid \"asset.\" Yet, as I write the sentence, memory\nrecalls to my mind that traders have done this very thing, and have\ncounted what they ought to have known were bad debts, or fraudulent\nbills of exchange, amongst their securities for money; and that, when\nthe parties so acting have become bankrupt, their proceedings have been\nseverely punished by the authorities, as being dishonest and fraudulent.\n\nThe analogy is an useful one, inasmuch as it enables me to ask the\nquestion--\"Ought the morality of a 'divine' to be inferior to that\npractised by a merchant or banker?\" Still further, let us inquire\nwhether we should have a high opinion of a trader, who endeavoured\nto palm off upon us, as a genuine diamond, an article which had been\npublicly declared to be a bit of \"paste,\" and whether we should be\nsatisfied with his excuse--\"I believe everything is a gem that goes by\nthe name of a precious stone.\"\n\nIn the course of this and our preceding volumes we have, as plainly as\nwords could express our meaning, enunciated our conclusions upon certain\nBiblical difficulties. We have, at least, endeavoured to be honest; we\nhave not misrepresented those with whose opinions we differ, nor have\nwe tried to shirk any question, however difficult it may have been. We\nclaim a corresponding degree of honesty from those who profess to be\nauthorised guides--and certainly are in the position at present of\nnational leaders in religion.\n\nWe are not like an unfortunate clerk in \"holy orders,\" who can be\nsilenced by law. We are, on the contrary, a stranger knight who comes to\na tourney, and claims the right to combat with the most redoubtable of\nthe champions of their court and kingdom. Still further, we assume the\npower to write those down as cowards who, upon any pretence whatever,\ndecline to compete in the lists with us.\n\nIn the days of chivalry there was not a knight who would not have been\nregarded as \"craven,\" if he declined a combat because his challenger\ndid not speak or write French correctly, or had a speck of rust on his\narmour, a dint in his shield, or a hole in his breastplate. Yet, in\nthese degenerate days, we see that poltroons refuse to entertain the\narguments of a writer who, from any cause whatever, appears to be\ninaccurate in Hebrew points, or consonants, or Greek accents, or\ntransliteration. For ourselves, we regard every excuse which is framed\nto avoid meeting a fairly stated argument as a proof of weakness, and\nwhen it is uttered by a professional champion, as an act of cowardice.\nWhen such champions are paid by a state to uphold the honour of their\ncountry, to avoid a challenge by evasion is dishonesty. There was,\nhowever, in knightly days, some established law of chivalry that no\nchampion need fight a \"squire\" or \"varlet;\" but, on the other hand, no\nnobleman could refuse to enter the lists on the plea that his challenger\nhad a different faith to his own. Combats between Christians and Paynim\nwere common. Consequently, we cannot regard a bishop justified in\ndeclining a fair challenge, because he is invited to enter the lists by\nan \"Infidel.\"\n\nConsidering myself as an university graduate and an English gentleman,\nentitled to give a literary challenge, I make no scruple to enter the\nlists, and invite champions to break a lance with me in favour of their\npatron saint or lady.\n\nI assert that their tutelary saints--Adam, Abraham, David, Moses,\nSolomon, and the prophets, are imaginary beings, or, where real, were\nnot as worthy as they are supposed to have been. I defy scholars to\nprove that the Israelites were ever, as a body, in Egypt; that they\nwere delivered therefrom by Moses; that the people wandered during forty\nyears in \"the desert;\" received a code of laws from Jehovah on Sinai;\nand were, in any sense whatever of the words, \"the chosen people of\nGod.\"\n\nI assert that the whole history of the Old Testament is untrue, with the\nexception of a few parts which tell of unimportant events--e.g., it is\nprobable that the Jews fought with their neighbours, as the Swiss have\ndone in modern days--but I do not believe the tale about Samson any more\nthan that of William Tell.\n\nI assert that there is not a single true prophecy in the whole Bible,\nwhich can be proved to have been written before the event to which it\nis assumed to point, or which is superior, in any way, to the \"oracles\"\ndelivered in various ancient lands.\n\nI assert that the whole of what, is called the Mosaic law had\nno existence in the days of David, Solomon, and the early Hebrew\nchieftains--or kings--if they are thought to deserve the title.\n\nHere there is no room for evasion--the issue is clear; the cause to be\nadjudged by combat is unmistakable. As the weapons on both sides\nmust necessarily be literary--the pen, and not lance or spear, it is\nadvisable to say a few words thereupon. In argument I do not recognize\nthat style of logic which considers that the words \"it may be\" are equal\nto \"it is.\"\n\nI am induced to make this remark, because in theological works, the two\nforms are constantly used as if they were identical. Many years ago, a\nnear relative, staying in my house, was preparing for ordination in the\nChurch of England, and amongst other hooks, had a certain work of the\nlate Cardinal Wiseman, for perusal--with the intention of collecting\nmaterials for refuting it. He told me that the Papal Archbishop was too\nstrong for him, and requested my aid. As a result, I became familiar,\nnot only with many dogmatic writings of the Roman, but also of the\nAnglican, Church. All of them had, in my estimation, the same logical\nfault. Their authors imagined that any given point is proved when it\ncan be shown that the occurrence in question _may_ have happened. At\na subsequent period I discovered that this was the prevalent argument\namongst writers in my own profession. It has, indeed, been supposed\ngenerally, that success in proving an opponent to be wrong, is the same\nas demonstrating your own propositions to be right.\n\nThe writers in the _Speaker's Commentary_ upon the Bible have not\nadvanced beyond this. A thousand such commonplaces as fill its pages,\nare worthless to the philosophical inquirer, and I no more regard them,\nthan a knight would a targe and lance made of barley-sugar.\n\nMy challenge, however, is not confined to the subject of the Old\nTestament; I affirm that the New Testament is equally untrue--although\nnot to the same degree. Yet, as in the latter, there are not so many\nasserted facts, there cannot be so many points for cavil. To be more\nspecific: I assert that the history of Jesus was framed upon that of\nSakya Muni, and very probably at Alexandria, long after the death of\nthe son of Mary. I do not deny the existence of Jesus; but I assert that\nevery miracle which is told respecting him--and the narrative of his\nmiraculous conception, and of the marvels occurring at his birth, have\nno foundation in fact.\n\nIt is unnecessary to repeat what I have already said upon such points as\n\"original sin,\" \"the fall of man,\" and \"the need of a Saviour.\"\n\nIn what I now say or write, I am perfectly honest. I have not been paid\nto preach a certain doctrine, whether my understanding assents to it\nor not I affirm, moreover, that the comfort in which I live, is wholly\nunbroken by any fears for the future; and that I look back upon the\nperiod when my days and nights were made wretched by superstition, and\nrejoice that I am emancipated from the shackles of Ecclesiastics. \"The\nChurch,\" and every sect of it, which is known in Christendom, is, in my\nopinion, unfit to be trusted by thoughtful human beings. Its votaries\nare only happy in proportion to their power of forgetting its doctrines,\nor explaining them away. Yet all, as I said in the first chapter of\nmy second volume, agree \"to make believe,\" and by dint of persistently\ndoing so, end in persuading themselves that they are clothed with lovely\ngarments--which have no existence, save in the opinion of the wearer.\n\nMy whole life has been passed amongst religionists of more or less\npiety. I have known them in public and in private, in their connection\nwith the world, and their relations with wife, children, and servants. I\nam also familiar with some who are avowed free-thinkers. As an impartial\njudge, and certainly having the desire to be an honest one, I declare\nthat the so-called irreligion or infidelity of the latter makes them\nbetter citizens of the world, better fathers of a family, and\nbetter priests to those who are struggling with misfortune, than the\nreligion--orthodox or non-conformist--of the former induces them to\nbecome.\n\nIf there were in reality, as there was once in fable, a domain in which\nevery one was constrained to speak the truth; and if, still farther, one\ncould carry thereto every religionist, and inquire into his belief, I\nfeel sure that those whom the professed Christians affect to despise as\ninfidels, would be the only ones who would be found faithful in private,\nto the principles which they profess in public. If, for an example,\nthe question were put to both \"What is honesty?\" the answer of the\nfree-thinkers would be--\"Doing to others, in every position of life,\nthat which you would wish others to do to you;\" the reply of the\ndogmatic would be the same, with the important addition--\"Except in\nmatters of faith.\"\n\nMy readers must not imagine that I am hasty or unscrupulous in what is\npassing from my mind to my pen. There never was a time in which I\nhave felt more deeply that my duty, as an independent man, is to speak\nplainly. On the other hand, there is not one single religionist of my\nacquaintance, to whom the words--\"Ye know not what manner of spirit ye\nare of\" (Luke ix. 55)--do not apply.\n\nOn the shelves of my library are books written by almost all classes of\nauthors, and in many different languages. It has been a self-enforced\nduty to compare their contents, and to endeavour, still further, to\nelicit from those who are not writers, information which may assist me\nin forming a correct idea upon any particular point. Up to the present\ntime I have not found one single work, which has relation to the\nreligion of opponents, and is written by a parson, thoroughly\ntrustworthy or honest Everyone is guilty, either of the _suppressio\nveri_ or _suggestio falsi_--generally of both. A book emanating from a\npriest is bad, that from a bishop is worse. Colenso, whom I regard as\nthe only thoroughly truthful member of the episcopal hierarchy, is the\none who is more foully treated by religionists than any other minister\nhas ever been--\"Tis true, 'tis pity, and pity 'tis, 'tis true.\"\n\nWe may be pardoned, if we close this chapter by the expression of our\nviews as to the religion which will prevail when men have thought as\nmuch upon their future life as upon their present, and are honest with\nthemselves:\n\n1. They will try to form some distinct idea of what would be to them\na heaven; but, as they will be wholly unsuccessful, they will cease to\nspeculate upon it.\n\n2. They will cease to fear a hell, knowing that, if there be any\nimmortal part of man, it must be immaterial; they will not believe that\nit can be tormented by material fires, forks, and furies.\n\n3. They will cease to pay any attention to men who call themselves\nprophets, divine messengers, or vicars of God on earth, whether they use\nlying wonders or not.\n\n4. Instead of constantly cogitating how much they can sin against, and\nyet get pardon from, some unknown deity, they will recognize the laws\nof nature for their guide, and live in communities as their reason\ndictates. The future will be left wholly in the power of the Creator.\n\n5. There will be no belief in a trinity, in a virgin mother of God, in\nintercessors of any kind whatever between human beings and the invisible\nGod; each man and woman will be independent and alone in the presence of\nthe Supreme.\n\n6. Man will no longer try to usurp the place of God, and persecute his\nfellow mortal on religious grounds.\n\n7. There will be no priests or ministers of religion; but there will be\ninstructors in science, in the laws of life, and moral order; there will\nbe magistrates to enforce social propriety, and establishments where the\ninsane and the criminal can be secluded.\n\n8. There will be no strife about religion, for each will attend to his\nown personal concerns.\n\n9. The laws of nature will be studied as regards marriage and family;\nthe infected will not be allowed to perpetuate a feeble race, nor the\ndiseased infant be pampered, that it may live to a sickly and useless\nmaturity.*\n\n     * We may add, that there will then be neither silly women\n     nor crotchety men, who will encourage free trade in\n     fornication, and the diffusion of loathsome diseases, and\n     endeavour to promote unnecessary suffering by their\n     opposition to the methods of avoidance.\n\n10. No law will be made but that which is drawn from a study of the ways\nof the Creator, and the proper requirements of His creatures.\n\n11. Every pretender to revelation, or inspiration, will be incarcerated\nas a rogue or a lunatic.\n\n12. The aim of all will be individual and general comfort, and as much\nhappiness as is compatible with humanity.\n\nWhen each does to others as he would be done by, the millennium, so much\ntalked of, will have come.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\n27th March, 1875.\n\nDear Dr Inman,\n\nAt pp. 11 and 81 of your new volume, the proof-sheets of which you were\ngood enough to show me, you intimate that an earlier origin can be found\nfor all Hebrew feasts and observances excepting the Sabbath. It would\nappear, from discoveries made and works published since you began to\nwrite, that you need not make even this exception. There are, I think,\nplain indications of a Sabbath among the Egyptians, and proofs of its\nobservance by the Assyrians.\n\nDr G. G. Zerffi, in a note appended to Mr Tyssen's _Origin of the Week_*\nsays--\"Judging from the Egyptian mythology, we are justified in assuming\nthat they had some correct notions of the division of time. Their eight\ngods of the first order point to an incarnation of the cosmical forces,\nor the planetary system. The twelve gods of the second order undoubtedly\npresided over the twelve months of the year; whilst the seven gods of\nthe third order were to watch over the seven days of the week..... The\nTeutons have inherited the division, not only of the week in seven\ndays, but also the names by which these days are called, from the\nIndians.....\" (Bohlen's _Das alte Indien_; _Toth_, by Dr Uhlemann;\nand Bunsen's _Egypt's Place in History_; Tacitus, Suidas, Pliny, and\nAmosis).\n\n     * The Origin of the Week Explained, by A. D. Tyasen, B.C.L.,\n     M.A.; Williams & Noigate, 1875.\n\nThese, perhaps, are only what I have called them, indications of a\nSabbath, since it is conceivable that a week of seven days might exist\nwithout one day being more sacred than another. A plainer indication may\nbe found in the Hymn to Amen-Ka, which exists upon a hieratic papyrus,\njudged to be of the fourteenth century, B.C., and purporting to be only\na copy of an earlier writing. I quote four lines, and call attention to\nthe fourth:--\n\n     O! Ra adored in Aptu [Thebes]:\n     High-crowned in the house of the obelisk [Heliopolis]:\n     King (Ani) Lord of the New-moon festival:\n     To whom the sixth and seventh days are sacred.*\n\nWhen we leave Egypt for Assyria, we pass from indication to proof. At p.\n12 of George Smith's _Assyrian Discoveries_,** the author says--\"In the\nyear 1869 I discovered, among other things, a curious religious calendar\nof the Assyrians, in which every month is divided into four weeks, and\nthe seventh days, or 'Sabbaths' are marked out as days on which no work\nshould be undertaken.\" More precise information as to these Sabbath-days\nis given by Rev. A. H Sayce, M.A., in _Records of the Past_, vol. I., p.\n164, where the following words occur:--\"The Babylonian year was divided\ninto twelve months of thirty days each, with an intercalary month every\nsix years.... According to the lunar division, the seventh, fourteenth,\nnineteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-eighth days were days of 'rest' on\nwhich certain works were forbidden.\"\n\n     * Translated by C. W. Goodwin, M.A., in Records of the Past,\n     vol. II Bagster & Sons.\n\n     ** Sampson Low, & Co., 1875.\n\nThe Assyrian legends tell of seven evil spirits who rebelled against\nthe gods; of the goddess Ishtar descending to Hades, and passing through\nseven gates; of a deluge, the duration of which was seven days, &c., &c.\nMr H. F. Talbot, F.R.S., speaks of the great degree of holiness which\nthe Assyrians attributed to the number seven, and where that number was\nsacred, the seventh day could scarcely escape special honours. _Why_ the\nnumber seven was sacred, or whether the Babylonian Sabbath was at first\nany more than an unlucky day, like the sailor's Friday, when it was\nsowing for the whirlwind to begin any enterprise, are other questions.\n\nI am, yours faithfully,\n\nGEORGE ST. CLAIR.\n\n\nThese observations of Mr St Clair deserve attention, for they show that,\nfrom an ancient period, a sixth and seventh day were holy in Egypt,\nalthough we cannot discover from the context whether they were reckoned\nafter the first day of a year, a month, or a week. But this is of\nsmall importance, as I do not find evidence that the Jews borrowed any\nEgyptian ideas, even if they ever knew any. It is far more important to\nknow, that in the Assyrian calendar the seventh, fourteenth, nineteenth,\ntwenty-first, and twenty-eighth days of the month were days of \"rest,\"\nfor all Biblical testimony points to the adoption of the Jewish Sabbath\nin the time of the second Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel--i.e., not very\nlong after the Assyrians made their power felt in Palestine. When we\nconsider the propensity which the Hebrews had to copy parts of the\nreligion of those who conquered them, it is highly probable that some\nastute priest of the Jews adopted the idea of consecrating a seventh\nday, as their Mesopotamian adversaries had done, to the most high\ngod Saturn; and as it was desirable to have some pretence for the\nintroduction of the Sabbath, it was natural that it should be put under\nthe same head as the new moon, and that stories should be invented, and\ngradually circulated, of the vast antiquity of the new institution. It\nis clear, from the Jewish history, that the Sabbath was not generally\nknown amongst the common people until long after the return from\nBabylon. Had it been so, Ezra would not have thundered so energetically\nin its favour. The same remark applies to Nehemiah. I have elsewhere\nremarked that the Sabbath was unknown to David and Solomon, and may now\nadd that any one who will read the episode in the history of Elijah,\nrecorded 1 Kings xix. 7, 8, will see that this prophet could have known\nnothing, and the angel who spoke to him could have known no more, of the\nMosaic Sabbath, inasmuch as the latter directs, and the former obeys,\nan order which must have involved a breaking of the \"rest\" of at least\nfive, and possibly six, Sabbaths. The whole life, indeed, of Elijah\nshows a perfect ignorance of this so-called Mosaic institution.","title":"Ancient Faiths And Modern: A Dissertation upon Worships, Legends and Divinities in Central and Western Asia, Europe, and Elsewhere, Before the Christian Era. Showing Their Relations to Religious Customs as They Now Exist.","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":165010}