{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_64748/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_64748","id":"gutenberg_64748","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/64748","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Religions"],"text":"Transcriber's Notes\n\nObvious typographical errors have been silently corrected. The\nmany variations in the transcriptions from the Chinese have been\nstandardised on the basis of the most frequent occurrence. Variations\nin hyphenation and accents have also been standardised but all other\nspelling and punctuation remains unchanged.\n\nIn the quotation:\n \"If then this man says, 'Try to make friends with an old woman and\n inquire of her; if then this girl does 'not' make friends with an old\n woman, and inquire of her, and this old woman brings Baga, or Sha\u00eata,\n or Ghn\u00e2na, or Fra\u00e7p\u00e2ta, or any of the vegetable purgatives, saying,\n 'Try to kill this child;' if then the girl does try to kill the child,\n then the girl, the man, and the old woman are equally criminal.\"\nthe 'not' destroys the sense of the passage and has been removed.\n\nItalics are indicated thus _italics_ and superscripts thus ^character.\n\nFootnotes are placed at the end of the book.\n\n\n\n\n                              AN ANALYSIS\n                                  OF\n                           RELIGIOUS BELIEF.\n\n                                  BY\n                          VISCOUNT AMBERLEY.\n\n    \"_Ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall make you Free._\"\n\n                From the late London Edition. Complete.\n\n                            D. M. BENNETT:\n               LIBERAL AND SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHING HOUSE.\n                     141 EIGHTH STREET, NEW YORK.\n                                 1877.\n\n\n\n\n                     AMERICAN PUBLISHER'S PREFACE.\n\n\nThe appearance, a few months ago, of THE ANALYSIS OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF\ncaused not a little excitement in England, and its introduction into\nour country had much the same effect here. While many were more or less\nshocked by the Viscount's boldness of language in examining the sources\nof the religious creeds of the world, and at the freedom with which he\nremoved the sacred mask from many antique myths and superstitions, the\nthoughtful and the enquiring were furnished with a fund of material for\nnew thought, and largely-increased facilities for investigating and\ncomparing the creeds and dogmas which have made up the ruling religious\nfaiths of mankind.\n\nWhen the Viscount's high birth is remembered; that he was the son of\nLord John Russell, one of the first and oldest Peers of England; that\nhe was thus closely connected with the aristocracy of that country;\nthat he had been carefully nurtured within the fold of the Christian\nChurch; that he had received the instruction of a pious Christian\nmother, from the days of his early childhood, that the influence of\nhis parents and his early companions was to draw him under the control\nof the popular system of religion which rules in his country, it is\nnot a little remarkable that he had the independence and moral bravery\nto come out in opposition to all his near friends, and to avow his\nunbelief in a code of ethics and opinions unlike those taught him in\nhis childhood and youth, an unusual interest attaches to the work which\nhe produced.\n\nWhen it is borne in mind that his amiable and sympathetic wife toiled\nwith him and rendered him essential service in collecting and arranging\nthe matter for his two volumes; that she was taken from him by the hand\nof death before his work was completed; that he also sank under the\nhand of disease and passed away while his work was still in the hands\nof the printer, it is indeed invested with peculiar interest.\n\nWhen it is remembered that after his death urgent efforts were made\u2014and\nfrom high sources too\u2014to suppress his work; that the powerful Duke\nof Bedford, backed by Lord John Russell himself, tried to buy up the\nentire edition issued; it is enough to make every sympathetic and\nenquiring person anxious to read the results of his labor of years.\n\nIf some of the advanced thinkers of the day find that Viscount\nAmberly\u2014as evinced in some of the later chapters of this volume\u2014had not\nin all respects evolved in the line of Free-thought so far as they have\ndone they should remember that he had at least made rapid progress for\nthe time he had devoted to the pursuit of truth. He was still a young\nman at the time of his death, and had it been his lot to have scored\na greater number of years, with the advantage of the experience which\nthey give, it is very possible his views might have undergone other\nmodifications.\n\nThe London edition was issued in two volumes, 8vo and was necessarily\nsold at a large price. This American edition contains the entire work\nin one volume and is presented to the public at about one-fifth the\nprice at which the English edition was sold. It is hoped this feature\nwill be duly appreciated by the American public.\n\n                                                              D. M. B.\n NEW YORK, March 20th, 1877.\n\n\n\n\n                        ADDRESS TO THE READER.\n\n\nEre the pages now given to the public had left the press, the hand that\nhad written them was cold, the heart\u2014of which few could know the loving\ndepth\u2014had ceased to beat, the far-ranging mind was forever still, the\nfervent spirit was at rest.\n\nLet this be remembered by those who read, and add solemnity to the\nsolemn purpose of the book.\n\nMay those who find in it their most cherished beliefs questioned or\ncontemned, their surest consolations set at naught, remember that he\nhad not shrunk from pain and anguish to himself, as one by one he\nparted with portions of that faith which in boyhood and early youth had\nbeen the mainspring of his life.\n\nLet them remember that, however many the years granted to him on earth\nmight have been, his search after truth would have ended only with his\nexistence; that he would have been the first to call for unsparing\nexamination of his own opinions, arguments, and conclusions; the first\nto welcome any new lights thrown by other workers in the same field on\nthe mysteries of our being and of the universe.\n\nLet them remember that while he assails much which they reckon\nunassailable, he does so in what to him is the cause of goodness,\nnobleness, love, truth, and of the mental progress of mankind.\n\nLet them remember that the utterance of that which, after earnest and\nlaborious thought he deemed to be the truth, was to him a sacred duty;\nand may they feel, as he would have felt, the justness of these words\nof a good man and unswerving Christian lately passed away: \"A man's\ncharity to those who differ from him upon great and difficult questions\nwill be in the ratio of his own knowledge of them: the more knowledge,\nthe more charity.\"\n                                                                F. R.\n\n\n\n\n                             _INSCRIBED,_\n\n\n_With all reverence and all affection, to the memory of the\never-lamented wife whose hearty interest in this book was, during\nmany years of preparatory toil, my best support; whose judgment as to\nits merits or its faults would have been my most trusted guide; whose\nsympathy my truest encouragement; whose joyous welcome of the completed\nwork I had long looked forward to as my one great reward: whose nature,\ncombining in rare union scientific dearness with spiritual depth, may\nin some slight degree have left its impress on the page, though far too\nfaintly to convey an adequate conception of one whose religious zeal in\nthe cause of truth was rivaled only by the ardor of her humanity and\nthe abundance of her love._\n\n  RAVENSCROFT,\n  _November 1875_.\n\n\n\n\n                          TABLE OF CONTENTS.\n\n\n                                                                   PAGE.\n  GENERAL INTRODUCTION                                                19\n\n\n                               _BOOK I._\n\n                 EXTERNAL MANIFESTATIONS OF RELIGIOUS\n                              SENTIMENT.\n\n  INTRODUCTION TO BOOK I.                                             27\n\n\n                              FIRST PART.\n\n                    MEANS OF COMMUNICATION UPWARDS.\n\n  CHAP.\n  I. CONSECRATED ACTIONS                                              31\n  II. CONSECRATED PLACES                                              82\n  III. CONSECRATED OBJECTS                                            84\n  IV. CONSECRATED PERSONS                                             88\n  V. CONSECRATED MEDIATORS                                            99\n\n\n                             SECOND PART.\n\n                   MEANS OF COMMUNICATION DOWNWARDS.\n\n  CLASSIFICATION                                                     104\n  I. HOLY EVENTS                                                     106\n  II. HOLY PLACES                                                    126\n  III. HOLY OBJECTS                                                  132\n  IV. HOLY ORDERS                                                    136\n  V. HOLY PERSONS OR PROPHETS                                        154\n    SECT. 1. Confucius                                               157\n      \"   2. La\u00f2-ts\u00e9                                                 168\n      \"   3. Gautama Buddha                                          170\n        SUBDIVISION 1. The Historical Buddha                         170\n             \"      2. The Mythical Buddha                           175\n      \"   4. Zarathustra                                             182\n      \"   5. Mahomet                                                 186\n      \"   6. Jesus Christ                                            199\n        SUBDIV'N 1. The Historical Jesus                             201\n             \"   2. The Mythical Jesus                               216\n             \"   3. The Ideal Jesus                                  277\n             \"   4. What did the Jews think of him?                  287\n             \"   5. What did he think of himself?                    316\n             \"   6. What did his Disciples think of him?             326\n             \"   7. What are we to think of him?                     329\n\n  VI. HOLY BOOKS, OR BIBLES                                          369\n    SECT. 1. The Thirteen King                                       390\n        SUBDIVISION 1. The Lun Yu                                    392\n             \"      2. The Ta H\u00ebo                                    393\n             \"      3. The Chung Yung                                394\n             \"      4. The Works of M\u0103ng-tsze                        396\n             \"      5. The Shoo King                                 403\n             \"      6. The She King                                  407\n             \"      7. The Ch'un Ts'\u00ebw                               410\n      \"   2. Ta\u00f2-t\u0115-K\u012bng                                             413\n             APPENDIX.\u2014Translations of the Ta\u00f2-t\u0115-K\u012bng, Chapter XXV  423\n      \"   3. The Veda                                                425\n        SUBDIVISION 1. The Sanhit\u00e2                                   430\n             \"      2. The Br\u00e2hmanas                                 443\n\n    SECT. 4. The Tripitaka                                           448\n        SUBDIVISION 1. The Vinaya-Pitaka                             451\n             \"      2. The S\u00fbtra-Pitaka                              467\n             \"      3. The Abhidharma-Pitaka                         473\n             \"      4. Theology and Ethics of the Tripitaka          476\n      \"   5. The Zend-Avesta                                         482\n        SUBDIVISION 1. The Five G\u00e2th\u00e2s                               484\n             \"      2. The Ya\u00e7na of Seven Chapters                   488\n             \"      3. Ya\u00e7na, Chapter XII                            490\n             \"      4. The Younger Ya\u00e7na, and Vispored               491\n             \"      5. Vendidad                                      496\n             \"      6. The Khorda-Avesta, with the Homa Yasht        502\n      \"   6. The Koran                                               510\n      \"   7. The Old Testament                                       518\n        SUBDIVISION 1. The Historical Books                          530\n             \"      2. Job, Psalms, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes       563\n             \"      3. The Song of Solomon                           569\n             \"      4. The Prophets                                  569\n             \"      5. The God of Israel                             590\n      \"   8. The New Testament                                       604\n        SUBDIVISION 1. The Acts of the Apostles                      604\n             \"      2. The Epistles                                  617\n             \"      3. The Apocalypse                                634\n             \"      4. The God of Christendom                        636\n\n\n                    THE RELIGIOUS SENTIMENT ITSELF.\n\n  VII. THE ULTIMATE ELEMENTS                                         643\n\n  VIII. THE OBJECTIVE ELEMENT                                        649\n\n  IX. THE SUBJECTIVE ELEMENT                                         684\n\n  X. THE RELATION OF THE OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE ELEMENTS           695\n\n  INDEX                                                              729\n\n\n\n\n                     EXPLANATION OF SHORT TITLES.\n\n\nIn order to avoid encumbering the pages with notes containing the names\nof books, many of which would require to be frequently repeated, I\nhave adopted, in referring to the under-mentioned works, the following\nabbreviations:\u2014\n\n A. B....The Aitareya Br\u00e2hmanam of the Rig-Veda. Edited, translated,\n and explained by MARTIN HAUG, Ph.D. Vol. i. Sanscrit text. Vol. ii.\n Translation, with notes. Bombay, 1863.\n\n A. I. C....An Account of the Island of Ceylon, by ROBERT PERCIVAL,\n Esq., of His Majesty's 19th Regiment of Foot. London, 1803.\n\n A. M....Antiquities of Mexico (LORD KINGSBOROUGH'S), comprising fac\n similes of Ancient Mexican paintings and hieroglyphics. Together with\n the Monuments of New Spain, by MONS. DUPAIX; with their respective\n scales of measurement and accompanying descriptions. The whole\n illustrated by many valuable inedited manuscripts, by AUGUSTINE AGLIO.\n In 9 vols. London, 1831-48.\n\n A. N. L....Ante-Nicene Christian Library; translations of the\n Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. Edinburgh: T. & T. CLARK,\n 1870, &c.\n\n A. R....Algic Researches, comprising inquiries respecting the mental\n characteristics of the North American Indians. First Series. Indian\n Tales and Legends. In 2 vols. By HENRY ROWE SCHOOLCRAFT. New York,\n 1839.\n\n Asha....Ashantee and the Gold Coast, by JOHN BEECHAM. London, 1841.\n\n A. S. L....History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, by MAX M\u00dcLLER.\n London, 1859.\n\n As. Re....Researches of the Asiatic Society in Bengal. Calcutta,\n 1788-1839.\n\n Av....Avesta, die Heiligen Schriften der Parsen. Aus dem Grundtexte\n \u00fcbersetzt, mit steter R\u00fccksicht auf die Tradition. Von Dr. FRIED.\n SPIEGEL. Erster Band. Der Vendidad Leipzig, 1852. Zweiter Band.\n Vispered und Ya\u00e7na. Leipzig, 1859. Dritter Band. Khorda-Avesta.\n Leipzig, 1863.\n\n B. A. U....Bibliotheca Indica. Vol. ii. part iii. The Brihad \u00c2ranyaka\n Upanishad, with the Commentary of S\u00e1nkara A'cha'rya. Translated from\n the Original Sanskrit by Dr. E. ROER. Calcutta, 1856.\n\n Bergeron....Voyages faits principalement en Asie, dans les XII^e,\n XIII^e, XIV^e, et XV^e si\u00e8cles, par Benjamin de Tud\u00e8le, Jean du\n Plan-Carpin, N. Ascelin, Guil. de Rubruquis, Marc-Paul, Haiton, Jean\n de Mandeville et Ambroise Contarini; accompagn\u00e9s de l'Histoire des\n Sarrazins et des Tartares, par P. Bergeron. A la Haye, 1735.\n\n Bernard....Recueil des Voyages au Nord. Amsterdam, chez JEAN FR\u00c9D\u00c9RIC\n BERNARD, 1727.\n\n Bh. G.....The Bhagavat-G\u00edta; or a Discourse between Krishna and Arjuna\n on Divine Matters. A Sanskrit Philosophical Poem; translated, with\n copious notes, an Introduction on Sanskrit Philosophy, and other\n matters, by J. COCKBURN THOMSON. Hertford, 1855.\n\n Bib....APOLLODORI Bibliotheca.\n\n B. T....Buddhism in Tibet, by EMIL SCHLAGINTWEIT, LL.D. Leipzig and\n London, 1863.\n\n C. B. A....A Catena of Buddhist Scriptures from the Chinese, by SAM'L\n BEAL. London, 1871.\n\n C. C....The Chinese Classics, with a translation, critical and\n exegetical notes, prolegomena, and copious indexes, by JAMES LEGGE,\n D.D. In 7 vols. Vol. i. Confucian Analects, the Great Learning, and\n the Doctrine of the Mean. Vol. ii. Works of Mencius. Vol. iii. 2\n parts, The Shoo King. Vol. iv. 2 parts, The She King. Vol. v. the\n Ch'un Ts'\u00ebw. London, 1861, &c. (In course of publication.)\n\n Ceylon....Ceylon, an Account of the Island, physical, historical,\n and topographical, with notices of its natural history, antiquities,\n and productions, by Sir JAMES EMERSON TENNENT, K.C.S., LL.D., &c.\n London, 1859.\n\n C. G....A new and accurate Description of the Coast of Guinea,\n divided into the Gold, the Slave, and the Ivory Coasts. Written\n originally in Dutch, by WILLIAM BOSMAN. The 2d edition. London, 1721.\n\n Chan. Up....Bibliotheca Indica, Nos. 78 and 181. The Ch\u00e1ndogya\n Upanishad of the S\u0103ma Veda, with extracts from the Commentary of\n S\u00e1kara A'cha'rya. Translated from the original Sanskrit by R\u00c1JENDR\u00c1LA\n MITRA. Calcutta. 1862.\n\n Chinese....The Chinese: a general Description of China and its\n Inhabitants, by JOHN FRANCIS DAVIS, Esq., F.R.S. A new edition.\n London, 1844.\n\n Chips....Chips from a German Workshop, by MAX M\u00dcLLER, M.A. 4 vols.\n London, 1867-75.\n\n C. N. E....Historia General de las Cosas de Nueva Espa\u00f1a, que en doce\n libros y dos volumes escribi\u00f3 el R. P. FR. BERNARDINO DE SAHAGUN, de\n la Observancia de San Francisco, y uno de los primeros predicadores\n del Santo Evangelio en aquellas regiones. Dala a luz con notas y\n supplementos, CARLOS MARIA DE BUSTAMANTE. Mexico, 1829.\n\n C. O.....China Opened, by the Rev. CHARLES G\u00dcTZLAFF, revised by the\n Rev. ANDREW REID, D.D. In 2 vols. London, 1838.\n\n C. R....Primera Parte de los \"Commentaries Reales, que tratan del\n Origen de los Yncas,\" Reyes que fueron del Peru, de su idolatria,\n leyes, y govierno en paz y en guerra; de sus vidas y conquistas, y de\n toto lo que fue aquel Imperio y su Republica, antes que los Espa\u00f1oles\n passan a el. Escrito por el Ynca GARCILASSO DE LA VEGA, natural del\n Cozco, y Capitan de su Magestad. Lisbon, 1609.\n\n Dervishes...The Dervishes; or Oriental Spiritualism, by JOHN P.\n BROWN. London, 1868.\n\n E. M....Eastern Monachism, by ROBERT SPENCE HARDY. London, 1850.\n\n E. Y....Eleven Years in Ceylon, by Major FORBES, 78th Highlanders.\n London, 1840.\n\n F. G....Die f\u00fcnf G\u00e2th\u00e2's, oder Sammlungen von Liedern und Spr\u00fcchen\n ZARATHUSTRA'S, seiner J\u00fcnger und Nachfolger. Herausgegeben, \u00fcbersetzt\n und erkl\u00e4rt von Dr. MARTIN HAUG. Erste Abtheilung. Die erste Sammlung\n (G\u00e2th\u00e2 ahunavaiti) enthaltend. Leipzig, 1858. Zweite Abtheilung. Die\n vier \u00fcbrigen Sammlungen enthaltend. Nebst einer Schlussabhandlung.\n Leipzig, 1860.\n\n Gaudama....The Life, or Legend of Gaudama, the Buddha of the Burmese,\n with annotations. The ways to Neibban, and notice on the Phongyies, or\n Burmese Monks, by the Rt. Rev. P. BIGANDET. Rangoon, 1866.\n\n G. d. M....C. G. A. OLDENDORP'S Geschichte der Mission der\n evangelischen Br\u00fcder auf den Caraibischen Inseln St. Thomas, St.\n Croix, und St. Jean. Barby, 1777.\n\n H. B. I....Introduction a l'Histoire du Buddhisme Indien, par E.\n BURNOUF. Tome premier. Paris, 1844.\n\n H. G....DAVID CRANZ. Histoire von Gr\u00f6nland. N\u00fcrnberg und Leipzig,\n 1782.\n\n H. I....Historia natural y moral de las Indias, en que se tratan las\n cosas notables del ciclo, y elementos, metales, plantas, y animales\n dellas; y los ritos, y ceremonias, leyes, y govierno, y guerras de los\n Indios. Compuesta por el Pardre JOSEPH DE ACOSTA, Religioso de la\n Compa\u00f1ia de Jesus. Madrid, 1608.\n\n H. N. S....Histoire naturelle et politique du Royaume de Siam, par\n NICHOLAS GERVAISE. Paris, 1688.\n\n H. R. C....An Historical Relation of the Island of Ceylon in the East\n Indies, together with an account of the detaining in captivity the\n Author and divers other Englishmen now living there, and of the\n Author's miraculous escape, by ROBERT KNOX, a captive there nearly\n twenty years. London, 1681.\n\n Ic. Ch....Iconographie Chr\u00e9tienne. Histoire de Diau, par M. DIDRON.\n Paris, 1843.\n\n K.....The Koran, translated from the Arabic, the Suras arranged in\n chronological order; with notes and index, by the Rev. J. M. RODWELL,\n M.A. London and Edinburgh, 1871.\n\n Kamtschatka....GEORGE WILHELM STELLER'S Beschreibung von dem Lande\n Kamtschatka, dessen Einwohnern, deren Sitten, Namen, Lebensart und\n verchiedenen Gewohnheiten. Frankfurt und Leipzig, 1774.\n\n K. N....The Kafirs of Natal, by J. SHOOTER. London and Guildford,\n 1857.\n\n L. L. M....Das Leben und die Lehre des Mohammad, nach bisher\n gr\u00f6sstentheils unbenutzten Quellen. Bearbeitet von A. SPRENGER. 3\n vols. Berlin, 1869.\n\n Lotos....Le Lotus de la Bonne Loi, traduit du Sanskrit, accompagn\u00e9\n d'un commentaire, et de vingt-et-un m\u00e9moires relatifs au Buddhisme,\n par M. E. BURNOUF. Paris, 1852.\n\n L. T....LA\u00d2-TS\u00c9 Ta\u00f2-t\u0115-K\u012bng. Der Weg zur Tugend. Aus dem Chinesischen\n \u00fcbersetzt und erkl\u00e4rt von REINHOLD VON PL\u00c4NCKNER. Leipzig, 1870.\n\n Manu....Institutes of Hindu Law, or the Ordinances of MENU, according\n to the Gloss of CULL\u00daCA. Comprising the Indian system of duties,\n religious and civil. Verbally translated from the original, with\n a preface, by Sir WILLIAM JONES. A new edition, collated with the\n Sanskrit text, by GRAVES CHAMNEY HAUGHTON, M.A., F.R.S., &c. London,\n 1825.\n\n M. B....Manual of Buddhism, by R. SPENCE HARDY. London, 1860.\n\n M. d'O....Les Moines d'Occident depuis Saint Benoit jusqu'a Saint\n Bernard. Par le Comte de MONTALEMBERT. In 5 vols. Paris et Lyon, 1868.\n\n Misc. Essays....Miscellaneous Essays, by H. T. COLEBROOKE. 2 vols.\n London, 1837. (The only complete edition, however, is the one\n published in 3 vols., London, 1873.)\n\n M. N. W....The Myths of the New World; a Treatise on the Symbolism\n and Mythology of the red race of America, by DANIEL G. BRINTON, A.M.,\n M.D. New York, 1868.\n\n N. A....An Account of the Native Africans in the neighborhood of\n Sierra Leone, by THOMAS WINTERBOTTOM. 2 vols. London, 1803.\n\n N. F....Histoire et Description g\u00e9n\u00e9rale de la Nouvelle France,\n avec le journal historique d'un voyage fait par ordre du Roi dans\n l'Am\u00e9rique Septentrionale. Par le P. DE CHARLEVOIX, de la Compagnie de\n J\u00e9sus 3 Vols. Paris, 1744.\n\n N. M. E....A Narrative of Missionary Enterprises in the South Sea\n Islands, with remarks upon the natural history of the Islands, origin,\n languages, traditions, and usages of the inhabitants, by the Rev. JOHN\n WILLIAMS. London. 1837.\n\n N. S. W....An account of the English Colony in New South Wales,\n from its first settlement in January, 1788, to August, 1801, by\n Lieutenant-Colonel COLLINS, of the Royal Marines. London, 1804.\n\n N. Y....Nineteen years in Polynesia: Missionary Life, Travels, and\n Researches in the Islands of the Pacific, by the Rev. GEORGE TURNER.\n London, 1861.\n\n N. Z....New Zealand and its Aborigines, by WILLIAM BROWN. London,\n 1845.\n\n O-kee-pa.... O-kee-pa: A Religious Ceremony; and other customs of the\n Mandans, by GEORGE CATLIN. London, 1867.\n\n O. P....The Speculations on Metaphysics, Polity, and Morality of\n \"the Old Philosopher,\" LAU-TSZE, translated from the Chinese, with an\n Introduction, by JOHN CHALMERS, A. M. London, 1868.\n\n O. S. T....Original Sanskrit Texts on the origin and history of\n the people of India, their Religion and Institutions. Collected,\n translated, and illustrated by J. MUIR, D.C.L., LL.D. Volume First.\n Mythical and Legendary Accounts of the Origin of Caste, with an\n inquiry into its existence in the Vedic age. 2d edition. London, 1868.\n Volume Second. Inquiry whether the Hindus are of Trans-Himalayan\n Origin, and akin to the Western branches of the Indo-European Race.\n 2d edition. London, 1871. Volume Third. The Vedas: opinions of their\n authors and of later Indian writers on their origin, inspiration, and\n authority. 2d edition. London, 1868. Volume Fourth. Comparison of the\n Vedic with the later representations of the principal Indian deities.\n 2d edition. London, 1873. Volume Fifth. Contributions to a Cosmogony,\n Mythology, Religious Ideas, Life and Manners of the Indians in the\n Vedic age. London, 1870.\n\n P. A....An Examination of the Pali Buddhistical Annals, by the\n Honorable GEORGE TURNOUR, of the Ceylon Civil Service. [From the\n Journal of the Asiatic Society for July 1837.]\n\n P. A. B....Die Propheten des Alten Bundes, erkl\u00e4rt von HEINRICH\n EWALD. Zweite Ausgabe in drei B\u00e4nden. Erster Band. Jesaja mit den\n \u00fcbrigen \u00e4lteren Propheten. G\u00f6ttingen, 1867. Zweiter Band. Jermja und\n Hezequiel mit ihren Zeitgenossen. G\u00f6ttingen, 1868. Dritter Band. Die\n j\u00fcngsten Propheten des Alten Bundes mit den B\u00fcchern Barukh und Daniel.\n G\u00f6ttingen, 1868.\n\n Parsees....Essays on the Sacred Language, Writings, and Religion of\n the Parsees, by MARTIN HAUG, Ph.D. Bombay, 1862.\n\n Picard....The Ceremonies and Religious Customs of the various Nations\n of the known World, by Mr. BERNARD PICARD. Faithfully translated into\n English by a gentleman. London, 1733.\n\n Popol Vuh....Popol Vuh.\u2014Le Livre Sacr\u00e9 et les Mythes de l'Antiquit\u00e9\n Am\u00e9ricaine, avec les livres h\u00e9roiques et historiques des Quich\u00e9s.\n Texte Quich\u00e9 et traduction Fran\u00e7aise en regard &c., &c. Compos\u00e9 sur\n des documents originaux et in\u00e9dits, par l'Abb\u00e9 BRASSEUR DE BOURBOURG.\n Paris, 1861.\n\n R. B....Die Religion des Buddha und ihre Entstehung, von KARL\n FRIEDRICH K\u00d6PPON. Erster Band. Die Religion des Buddha und ihre\n Entstehung. Berlin, 1857. Zweiter Band. Die Lamaische Hierarchie und\n Kirche. Berlin, 1859.\n\n Rel. of Jews....The Book of the Religion, Ceremonies, and Prayers\n of the Jews, as practiced in their synagogues and Families on all\n Occasions; on their Sabbath and other Holidays throughout the year.\n Translated immediately from the Hebrew, by GAMALIEL BEN PEDAZUR, Gent.\n London, 1738.\n\n R. I....Die Religi\u00f6sen, Politischen, und Socialen Ideen der\n Asiatischen Culturv\u00f6lker und der Aegypter, in ihrer historischen\n Entwickelung, dargestellt von CARL TWESTEN. Herausgegeben von Prof.\n Dr. M. LAZARUS. 2 vols. Berlin, 1872.\n\n Roer....Bibliotheca Indica, Nos. 1 to 4. The first two Lectures of\n the Rig-Veda-Sanhit\u00e2. Edited by Dr. E. ROER. Calcutta, 1848.\n\n R. S. A....The Religious System of the Amazulu, by the Rev. Canon\n CALLAWAY, M.D. Part i. Unkulunkulu; or the Tradition of Creation\n as existing among the Amazulu and other tribes of South Africa, in\n their own words, with a translation into English, and notes. Part\n ii. Amatongo, or Ancestor-Worship. Part iii. Izinyanga Zokubula, or\n Divination. Natal, &c., 1868-70.\n\n R. T. R. P....Rgya Teh\u00e9r Rol Pa, ou D\u00e9veloppement des Jeux, contenant\n l'histoire du Bouddha Cakya-Mouni, traduit sur la version Tib\u00e9taine du\n Bkah Hgyour, et revu sur l'original Sanscrit (Lalitavistara) par PH.\n ED. FOUCAUX. Premi\u00e8re Partie. Texte Tib\u00e9tain. Paris, 1847. Deuxi\u00e8me\n Partie. Traduction Fran\u00e7aise. Paris, 1848.\n\n R. V. S....Rig-Veda-Sanhit\u00e2. The Sacred Hymns of the Brahmans,\n translated and explained by F. MAX M\u00dcLLER, M.A., LL.D. Vol. i. Hymns\n to the Maruts or the Storm-Gods. London, 1869.\n\n S. A....Savage Africa; the Narrative of a Tour in Equatorial,\n South-Western, and North-Western Africa, by W. WINWOOD READE. London,\n 1863.\n\n Sale....The Koran, commonly called the Alcoran of MOHAMMED;\n translated into English immediately from the original Arabic. With\n explanatory notes, taken from the most approved Commentators. To which\n is prefixed a preliminary discourse, by GEORGE SALE, Gent. A new\n edition, with a memoir of the translator, and with various readings\n and illustrative notes from Savary's version of the Koran. London,\n 1867.\n\n S. L....A Voyage to the River Sierra Leone, on the Coast of Africa.\n by JOHN MATTHEWS, Lieutenant in the Royal Navy; during his residence\n in that country in the years 1785, 1786, and 1787. London, 1791.\n\n S. L. A....Savage Life and Scenes in Australia and New Zealand, by\n GEORGE FRENCH ANGAS. London, 1847.\n\n Ssabismus....Die Ssabier und der Ssabismus, von Dr D. CHWOLSOHN.\n Band I. Die Entwickelung der Begriffe Ssabier und Ssabismus und die\n Geschichte der harr\u00e2nischen Ssabier, oder der Syro-hellenistischen\n Heiden im n\u00f6rdlichen Mesopotamien und in Bagd\u00e2d, zur Zeit des\n Chalifats. Band II. Orientalische Quellen zur Geschichte der Ssabier\n und des Ssabismus. St. Petersburg, 1856.\n\n S. V....Die Hymen des S\u00e2ma-Veda, herausgegeben, \u00fcbersetzt und mit\n Glossar versehen, von THEODORE BENFEY. Leipzig, 1848.\n\n T. R. A. S....Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great\n Britain and Ireland. London, 1827-35.\n\n T. T. K....La\u00f2-ts\u00e9's Ta\u00f2 T\u0115 K\u012bng. Aus dem Chinesischen ins Deutsche\n \u00fcbersetzt, eingeleitet und commentirt, von VICTOR VON STRAUSS.\n Leipzig, 1870.\n\n V. G....Voyage du Chevalier DES MARCHAIS en Guin\u00e9e, Isles voisines,\n et \u00e0 Cayenne, fait en 1725.\n\n Viti....Viti: An Account of a Government Mission to the Vitian or\n Fijian Islands in the years 1860-61, by BERTHOLD SEEMANN, Ph.D.,\n F.L.S., F.R.G.S. Cambridge, 1862.\n\n Wassiljew....Der Buddhismus, seine Dogmen, Geschichte und Litteratur,\n von W. WASSILJEW. Erster Theil. Allgemeine Uebersicht. Aus dem\n Russischen \u00fcbersetzt. St. Petersburg 1860.\n\n W. E....The World Encompassed, by Sir FRANCIS DRAKE, 1577-80.\n Written by FRANCIS FLETCHER; collated with an unpublished MS. Edited\n with Appendices and Introduction by W. S. W. VAUX. 8vo, map. London,\n Hakluyt Society, 1855.\n\n Wheel....The Wheel of the Law. Buddhism illustrated from Siamese\n sources by the Modern Buddhist, a Life of Buddha, and an account of\n the Phrabat, by HENRY ALABASTER, Esq. London, 1871.\n\n Wilson....Rig-Veda-Sanhit\u00e2. Translated from the original Sanskrit,\n by H. H. WILSON, M.A., F.R.S. Vol. i. The first Ashtaka, or Book, of\n the Rig-Veda. 2d edition. London, 1866. Vol. ii. The second Ashtaka.\n London, 1854. Vol, iii. The third and fourth Ashtakas. London, 1857.\n Vol. iv. The fifth Ashtaka. Edited by E. B. COWELL, M. A. London, 1866.\n\n W. u. T....Der Weise und der Thor. Aus dem Tibetischen \u00fcbersetzt und\n mit dem Originaltexte herausgegeben von I. J. SCHMIDT. St. Petersburg,\n 1843.\n\n W. W....Works by the Late HORACE HAYMAN WILSON, 12 vols. London,\n 1862-71.\n\n Y....Commentaire sur le Ya\u00e7na, l'un des Livres Religieux des Parses;\n ouvrage contenant le texte Zend expliqu\u00e9 pour la premi\u00e8re fois; les\n variantes des quatre manuscrits de la Biblioth\u00e8que Royale; et la\n version Sanscrite in\u00e9dite de N\u00e9riosengh, par EUG\u00c8NE BURNOUF. Tome i.\n Paris, 1833. Tome ii. Paris, 1835.\n\n Z. A....Zend Avesta, Ouvrage de Zoroastre, traduit en Fran\u00e7ois sur\n l'original Zend, avec des remarques; et accompagn\u00e9 de plusieurs\n trait\u00e9s propres a \u00e9claircir les mati\u00e8res qui en sont l'objet, par M.\n ANQUETIL DU PERRON. 3 vols. Paris, 1771.\n\n\n\n\n                   AN ANALYSIS OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF.\n\n\n\n\n                        _GENERAL INTRODUCTION._\n\n\nHuman nature, among all the phenomena it offers to the curious\ninquiries of the student, presents none of more transcendent interest\nthan the phenomenon of Religion. Pervading the whole history of mankind\nfrom the very earliest ages of which we have any authentic knowledge up\nto the present day; exercising on the wild and wandering tribes, which\nseem to have divided the earth among them in those primitive times, an\ninfluence scarcely less profound than it has ever exercised on the most\npolite and cultivated nations of the modern world; leading now to peace\nand now to war; now to the firmest of alliances, now to the bitterest\nenmities; uniting some in the bonds of a love so enduring as to outlast\nand put to shame the fleeting unions of earthly passion; separating\nothers, even when every motive of interest and natural affection\nconspired to unite them, so completely as to impel them to deliver\neach other up to the ghastliest tortures; Religion deserves a foremost\nplace\u2014if not the foremost place of all\u2014among the emotions which have in\ntheir several ways affected, modified, and controlled the current of\nhuman events.\n\nForming, as it does, so large an element in the constitution of our\ncomplex nature; and playing so vast a part in guiding our actions,\nReligion must well deserve to be made the subject of philosophical\ninquiry. If we can by any scientific means discover its origin, lay\nbare its true character to the gaze of students, and estimate the\nvalue of its pretensions to be in possession of truths of equal, if\nnot superior, authority to those of either natural or moral science,\nwe shall have performed a task which may not be wholly useless or\naltogether uninstructive.\n\nOur first business, in such an inquiry as this, should be to\ndetermine the method on which it ought to be conducted. In analyzing\nthe religious systems of the world, the question of method is\nall-important. Indeed, it will be abundantly evident in the course of\nthe ensuing investigations that the conclusions reached by those who\nhave cultivated this field of knowledge have often been unsound, simply\nbecause they have failed to pursue the only proper method. Nothing\ncan be easier, for instance, than to construct elaborate systems of\nreligious philosophy, the several parts of which hang so well together\nthat we find it; difficult to urge any solid objection against them,\nwhile yet the whole edifice rests upon so insecure a foundation that\nat the least touch of its lowest stones it will fall in ruins to the\nground. This too common mistake arises from the fact that the first\nprinciples of the system are assumed without adequate warrant, and will\nnot bear examination. Half, if not many more than half, the common\nerrors of believers in the various current creeds are due to a similar\ncause. These persons start from some principle which they conceive to\nbe indisputable, and proceed to draw inferences from it with the most\ncomplete confidence. An extreme instance of this is mentioned by Dr.\nSprenger, who was asked by a Musselman how he could disbelieve the\nreligion of Islam, seeing that Mahomet's name was written on the gates\nof paradise. In a less palpable form, the same mode of reasoning is\nconstantly adopted among ourselves. Either we do not take the trouble\nto submit the evidence of the facts upon which we erect our arguments\nto a sufficiently rigorous scrutiny, or we fail to perceive that the\naxioms we take for granted are in reality neither self-evident, as our\nsystem requires, nor capable of any satisfactory demonstration.\n\nAnother and perhaps scarcely a less common kind of error arising\nfrom defective method is a failure to distinguish between adequate\nand inadequate evidence of religious truth. A sound and exhaustive\nmethod would not fail to disclose, if not what kind of evidence is\nsufficient, at least what kind of evidence is insufficient, to prove\nour doctrines. It is plain that if we should find arguments of the\nsame character used by the adherents of different creeds to prove\ncontradictory propositions, we should be forced to dismiss such\narguments as of comparatively little value. Supposing, for example,\nthat a Hebrew, desirous of proving the pre\u00ebminence of the Jews over\nthe Gentiles, should rely for his justification on the miraculous\ndeliverance of the ancient Israelites from the Egyptians, and on their\nsubsequent special protection by the Deity, his argument, however\napparently conclusive, would be considerably weakened if it were found\nthat the annals of other nations contained similar tales evincing a\nsimilar exclusive care for their welfare on the part of their local\ndivinities. Or if we should claim for our own school the advantage\nof being supported by the authority of a long succession of able,\nwise, and virtuous men, fully competent to judge of its truth, yet if\nour adversaries can produce an equally imposing list of authorities\nagainst us, we shall have gained but little by our mode of reasoning.\nThese one-sided ways of proving the exclusive claims of a particular\ncreed are as if a person should maintain the vast superiority of\nhis countrymen over foreigners by a reference to the battles they\nhad won, the territory they had conquered, and the bravery they had\ndisplayed; forgetful to inquire whether there were not other nations\nwhich had gained victories equally transcendent, made conquests equally\nextensive, and evinced a heroism equally admirable.\n\nThese blunders, it may be objected, do not arise exclusively from a\nfaulty method. It is true that they have a deeper source, yet, if a\ncorrect method were pursued they would be avoided. Hence the paramount\nimportance of fixing upon one which shall not be likely to lead us\nastray.\n\nNow, the method which in the natural sciences, and in the science of\nlanguage, has led to such vast results, may be, and ought to be pursued\nhere. This method is that of comparison.\n\nWhen the philologist is desirous of discovering what elements, if\nany, a group of languages possesses in common, and what therefore may\nbe considered as its fundamental stock, or essence, he compares them\nwith one another. When the naturalist wishes to arrive at an accurate\nknowledge of the conformation, habits, or character of any class of\nanimals, he can only do so by a comparison of different members of that\nclass. How misleading our conclusions frequently are in matters like\nthese when they are not based upon a sufficiently wide comparison, will\nbe familiar to all. And though the analogy between these sciences and\nreligion is far from precise, yet no good reason can be assigned why\na method, which has been so successful in one case, should be totally\nneglected in the latter. Nor is it enough to say that this method is\ncapable of application to the subject in hand. Religion, owing to\ncertain characteristics which will now be explained, lends itself with\npeculiar facility to an inquiry thus conducted.\n\nA merely superficial and passing glance at the phenomena presented to\nus by the history and actual condition of the world brings clearly to\nlight two facts:\n\n1. The absolute, or all but absolute universality of some kind of\nreligious perception or religious feeling.\n\n2. The countless variety of forms under which that feeling has made its\nappearance.\n\nHistory and the works of travelers, amply prove that no considerable\nnation has ever been without religion, and that if it has ever been\nwanting, it has only been among the rudest savages, whose mental and\nmoral condition was too low to be capable of any but the most obvious\nimpressions of sense. Equally indubitable is the second proposition. We\nare acquainted with no period in which each country did not possess its\nown special variety of religious doctrine; we are acquainted with none\nin which there were not many and wide divergences within the bosom of\neach country among individuals, among sects, and among churches.\n\nIn this universality of a certain sentiment, accompanied by this\nvariety of modes, we have at least a possible distinction between\nthe Substance and the Form, between the universal emotion known as\nReligion, and the local or temporary coloring it may happen to assume.\n\nIt will be convenient if we call the substance by the name of FAITH,\nand the form by that of BELIEF. The use of these terms in these senses\nis no doubt slightly arbitrary, yet the shade of difference in their\nordinary meaning is sufficient to justify it. Faith is a term of large\nand general signification, referring rather to the feelings than the\nreason; whereas Belief generally implies the intellectual adoption of\nsome definite proposition, capable of distinct statement in words.\n\nThe importance of the comparative method in the process of sifting,\nclassifying, and ordering the elements of these respective spheres\nwill now be apparent. For it is only by a comparison of the varieties\nof Belief that we can hope to arrive at an acquaintance with Faith.\nSetting one system beside another, carefully observing wherein they\ndiffer and wherein they agree, we may at length hope to discover what\nelements, if any, are to be set down to the account of Faith, and what\nother elements to that of Belief. Even after a full comparison there\nwill still be considerable danger that we may mistake tenets which are\nwidely held, but not universal, for primordial conceptions of the human\nmind. Without such a comparison, we should most undoubtedly do so, for\nwe are ever unwilling to recognize how wide are the limits of variation\nof which the opinions and sentiments of men are capable.\n\nShould we, however, succeed in eliminating by our analysis all that is\nlocal, and all that is temporary, we shall possess, in what remains to\nus after this process, a universal truth of human nature. Observe that\nI speak here of a truth of human nature as distinguished from a truth\nof external nature. The one does not of necessity imply the other, for\nit is conceivable that men might universally entertain certain hopes,\nfears, aspirations, or convictions which were wholly groundless; the\nsupposed objects of which had no existence whatever beyond the mind\nthat entertained them. In the present case, then, all that the most\nexhaustive comparison could do would be to lead us up to the scientific\nfact, that there is in human beings an irresistible tendency towards\ncertain sentiments of a spiritual kind. Whether those sentiments can be\nthe foundation of any rational conviction it is unable to tell us.\n\nThis question, however, is fully as important as the other, and I do\nnot propose to pass it over in silence. It will be one object of our\ninvestigation to discover how far we are entitled to treat truths of\nhuman nature as identical with objective truths. If we are obliged to\nconfess that no inference can be drawn from the one to the other,\nthen it will be plain that Faith, however profoundly implanted in our\nhearts, does not convey to us any assurance of a single religious\ntruth; for the impressions which we call our Faith may be as purely\nillusory as the fancies of delirium, or the images of our dreams.\nIf, on the other hand, an internal sentiment may be accepted, not so\nmuch as a basis for truth, but as itself true; as leading, and not\nmisleading us; then we must further examine what are the truths which\nare in a manner contained in Faith, and of which Faith is the warrant.\n\nThe first Book, therefore, will deal mainly with Belief. Its object\nwill be, by a comparison of some of the various creeds that are, or\nhave been, accepted by men, to discover the general characteristics of\nBelief, and to separate these from the more special and distinctive\nelements peculiar to given times, districts, and races. These general\ncharacteristics will, however, belong exclusively to the region of\nBelief, and not to that of Faith. In other words, they will have no\ntitle to a place in a Universal Religion.\n\nIn the second Book we shall proceed to investigate the nature of Faith.\nWe shall endeavor to lay bare the foundation of the vast superstructure\nof Theology and Ritual erected by the piety of the human race. We\nshall seek to discover, if that be possible, the element of unity amid\nso much variety, of permanence amid so much change. And should we be\nsuccessful in the search, we shall be in a position, if not absolutely\nto solve, at least to attempt the solution of the great problem which\never has interested, and ever must interest mankind: Is there any such\nthing as positive truth in the sphere of Religion? And if so, what\nis it? Or are the human faculties strictly limited to that species\nof knowledge which is acquired through the medium of the senses, and\ndoomed, in all spiritual things, to be the victims of endless longings\nfor which there is no satisfaction, and of perpetual questionings to\nwhich there is no response?\n\n\n\n\n                             INTRODUCTION.\n\n\nReligious Feeling, like all other human emotions, makes itself\nobjectively known to us by its manifestations. With its subjective\ncharacter we are not concerned, our business in the present book being\nto treat it merely as an objective phenomenon. Thus regarded, its\nmanifestations appear extremely various, but on closer examination they\nwill be found to spring from a common principle. This principle is the\ndesire felt by the human race in general to establish a relationship\nbetween itself and those superhuman or supernatural powers upon whose\nwill it supposes the course of nature and the well-being of men to be\ndependent. Were it not for this desire, the Religious Idea\u2014if I may\nventure by this term to denominate the original sentiment which is\nthe beginning of positive religion\u2014might remain locked up for ever\nin the breast of each individual who felt it. But there is innate in\nhuman beings\u2014arriving like wanderers in the midst of a world they\ncannot understand\u2014an overpowering wish to enter into some sort of\ncommunication with the mysterious agencies of whose extraordinary force\nthey are continually conscious, but which appear to be hidden from\ntheir observation in impenetrable darkness.\n\nAny man who seems able to give information as to the nature of these\nagencies; who can declare their wishes with regard to the conduct of\nmen; who can assert, with apparent authority, their determination to\nreward certain kinds of actions, and to punish others, is listened to\nwith avidity; and if he is believed to speak truly his counsels are\nfollowed. Any tradition which is held to make known the proper manner\nof approaching these great powers is devoutly conserved, and becomes\nthe foundation of the conduct of many generations. Any writing which is\nconsecrated by popular belief as either emanating directly from these\npowers, or as having been composed under their authority and at their\ndictation, is regarded with profound reverence; and no one is allowed\nto question either its statements of fact or its injunctions. What are\nthe particular characteristics which enable either men, traditions, or\nwritings to acquire so extraordinary an authority, it is difficult, if\nnot impossible, to say. Some approach to a reply may be made in the\ncourse of the inquiry, but much will still remain unaccounted for: one\nof those ultimate secrets of our nature which admit of no complete\ndiscovery. Certain it is, however, that this passionate longing\nto enter into some kind of relation with the unknown receives its\nsatisfaction in the earliest stages of human society.\n\nMan, isolated, fearful, struck with wonder at his own existence, craves\nto become acquainted with the Divine will, to hear the accents of the\nDivine voice, to offer up his petitions to those higher beings who are\nable to grant them, and to offer them up in such a manner that they may\nbe willing as well as able. Impelled by this craving, the Religious\nIdea passes out of its condition of vague emotion into that of positive\nopinion. It becomes manifest, or, if I may use an appropriate image,\nincarnate.\n\nThe means by which the wished-for intercourse between man and the\nhigher powers is effected are obviously twofold: such as convey\ninformation from the worshipers to their deities, and such as convey it\nfrom the deities back to their worshipers. In other words they might\nbe described as serving for communication upwards, or communication\ndownwards; from mankind to God, or from God to mankind. In the former\ncase human beings are the agents; in the latter the patients. In\nthe former, they consciously and intentionally place themselves, or\nendeavor to place themselves, in correspondence with the unseen powers;\nin the latter, they simply receive the injunctions, reproofs, or other\nintimations with which those powers may think fit to favor them.\n\nThe methods by which this correspondence is sought to be effected are\nvery various. Let us take first those which carry the thoughts of men's\nhearts upwards.\n\n1. The earliest, simplest, and most universal method is the performance\nof certain solemnities of a regularly recurrent kind, which, as\nexpressive of their object, I will term _consecrated actions_. Such\nactions are prayer, praise, sacrifice, ceremonies and rites, offerings,\nand, in short, all the numerous external acts comprehended under the\nterm Worship.\n\n2. The second is the consecration of distinct places for the purpose\nof carrying on such worship, or otherwise approaching the Deity more\nclosely and solemnly than can be done on common and unsanctified\nground. These I term _consecrated places_.\n\n3. Thirdly, we have a large class of objects dedicated expressly to\nreligious purposes. Such are votive offerings of all kinds; pictures,\nstatues, vestments, gifts bestowed on the priesthood for employment in\nDivine worship, or whatever else the piety of the devotees of any deity\nmay induce them to withdraw from their own consumption, and set apart\nfor his service. These are _consecrated objects_.\n\n4. Devoutly disposed persons seek to enter into a more than commonly\ndirect relation with their god by dedication of their own persons to\nhim, such dedication being signified by some special characteristics\nin their mode of life. Such are ascetics of all descriptions, whether\nthey be known as Essenes, Nazarites, Bonzes, monks, or any other term.\nI describe them henceforward as _consecrated persons_.\n\n5. Lastly, we have a class of men who are also consecrated, but who\ndiffer from the preceding in that the object of their consecration\nis not personal but social. They are devoted to the service of the\ndeity not in order that they individually may enter into more intimate\nrelations with him, but that they may carry on the needful intercourse\nbetween the community at large and its gods. To emphasize this\ndistinction, I call them _consecrated mediators_.\n\nThe second great division of our subject is that which treats of the\nseveral modes by which divine ideas are carried downwards. And here we\nwill follow a classification corresponding as nearly as possible to\nthat adopted in the preceding section.\n\n1. First, then, the Deity conveys his will or his intention through\nevents; such as omens, auguries, miracles, dreams, and many other\nphenomena. All these may be termed _holy events_.\n\n2. Secondly, there are certain spots which are either favorable to the\nreception of supernatural communications, or have on some occasion\nbeen the scene of such a communication, which we will call _holy\nplaces_.\n\n3. Thirdly, certain objects are held to possess mysterious powers, as\nthat of healing disease. Relics, articles that have been used by holy\nmen, and such like remains, come within this category. They may be\ndescribed as _holy objects_.\n\n4. All communities above the very lowest employ professional persons\nfor the express object of conveying to them the will of their Deity, or\ndiscovering his intentions as to the future. The most usual name for\nsuch functionaries is that of Priest, and for the sake of embracing all\necclesiastical or quasi-ecclesiastical classes under one designation I\nshall call them _holy orders_.\n\n5. The possession of a professional character distinguishes them from\nthe next class, who serve as the fifth channel between God and man, but\nwho differ from the fourth in the circumstance of being self-appointed.\nProphets (for it is of these I am speaking) receive no regular\nconsecration; nevertheless the part they have played in the religious\nhistory of mankind has been of such transcendent importance that they\ndeserve to be placed in a class apart under the title of _holy persons_.\n\n6. Sixthly, there remains a mode of communication from God to man to\nwhich there is nothing corresponding on our side; it is that of written\ndocuments. Man has never (so far as I am aware) imagined himself\ncapable of sending a letter or written composition of any kind to God;\nbut God is supposed, through the medium of human instruments, to have\nembodied his thoughts in writing for the benefit of the human race. The\nresult is the very important category of _holy books_.\n\n\n\n\n            EXTERNAL MANIFESTATIONS OF RELIGIOUS SENTIMENT.\n\n\n\n\n                              FIRST PART.\n\n                   _MEANS OF COMMUNICATION UPWARDS._\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER I.\n\n                         CONSECRATED ACTIONS.\n\n\nAdoration, or worship, is a direct result of one of the most universal\nof human instincts. After the instincts which impel us to provide for\nthe necessities of the body, and to satisfy the passion of love, there\nis perhaps none more potent or more general. Men are driven to pray by\nan irresistible impulse. Differing widely as to the object of worship;\ndiffering not less widely as to its mode; differing in a minor degree\nas to the blessings it secures; they are agreed as to the fundamental\nideas which it involves. In the first place it presupposes a power\nsuperior to, or at any rate different from, the power of man; in the\nsecond place it assumes a belief that this superhuman or non-human\npower can be approached by his worshipers; can be induced to listen to\ntheir desires, and to grant their petitions.\n\nOf the first of the two elements thus implied in prayer, this is\nnot the appropriate place to speak at length. In a very early and\nprimitive stage of man's existence, he begins to feel his dependence\nupon powers invisible to his mortal eyes, whose mode of action he\ncan but imperfectly comprehend. His way of conceiving these beings\nwill depend upon his mental elevation, upon historical influences,\nupon local conditions, and other causes. Among very rude nations,\nthe commonest and apparently most unimpressive objects will serve as\nfetishes, or incarnations of the mysterious force. Pieces of wood,\nstones, ornaments worn on the person, or almost anything, may under\nsome circumstances do duty in this capacity. It is a further stage of\nprogress when the more conspicuous objects of nature, lofty mountains,\nrivers, trees, fountains, and so forth, are deified, to the exclusion\nof more insignificant things. Still higher is the adoration of bodies\nwhich do not belong to this earth at all, and whose nature is,\ntherefore, more mysterious\u2014the sun, the moon, the planets or the stars,\nthe clouds and tempests, the winds, and similar imposing phenomena.\nAnd this stage passes naturally into one where the gods, at first\nmerely forces of nature personified, lose their character of forces,\nand become exclusively persons. They are then conceived as beings in\nhuman form, but endowed with much more than human faculties. Actual\npersons, especially the ancestors of the living generation, are also\nthe frequent recipients of religious adoration. By other races, or\nby the same races at a later period, the numerous gods of polytheism\nare merged in one supreme god, to whom the others are subordinated as\nagents of his will, or before whose grandeur they disappear altogether;\nwhile this worship of powers conceived as beneficent is very frequently\naccompanied, more or less avowedly, by a parallel worship of powers\nconceived as malevolent, and whom, by reason of that very malevolence,\nit is occasionally deemed the more needful to conciliate.\n\nThe second element\u2014the conviction that these deities are accessible to\nhuman requests\u2014is shown both by the fact of worship being offered and\nby the mode in which it is conducted. In the first place, it is plain\nthat prayer would not be offered at all but for the belief that it\nexercises some influence on the beings prayed to. But the theory does\nnot require that they should be equally amenable to it at all times,\nfrom all persons, or in whatever way it is uttered. On the contrary,\naccessibility to prayer implies in these who receive it an inclination\nto listen with attention to the language in which they are addressed,\nand to be more or less moved by it according to its nature.\n\nReasoning from the authorities of earth whom he knows, to those of\nheaven whom he does not know, the primitive man concludes that the best\nway of obtaining the satisfaction of his wishes from the latter will\nbe to address them in a tone of humble supplication, intermingled with\nsuch laudatory epithets as he deems most suitable to the deity invoked,\nor most likely to be agreeable to his ear. Hence we have the two\ndevotional acts of prayer and praise, which in all religions constantly\naccompany one another, and constitute the simplest, most natural,\nand most ancient expression on the part of human beings of their\nconsciousness of an overruling power, and of their desire to enter into\nrelations with that dreaded and venerated agency.\n\nPrayer in its original form is simply a request for some personal\nadvantage addressed by the worshipers to their god. Whatever loftier\nassociations it may afterwards acquire, its intention at the outset\nis unquestionably this, as may be proved by reference to innumerable\ninstances, quoted by travelers or scholars, of savage prayer, where\nthe benefit expected from the deity is demanded in the most barefaced\nmanner. But even after men have long ceased to be savages, the primary\nobject of prayer may easily be discerned; sometimes plainly avowed by\nthe persons praying, sometimes cloaked under complimentary phrases or\ndevotional utterances. However disguised, the fact remains, that prayer\nwas originally designed, and to a large extent is designed still, to\nobtain certain advantages for ourselves, either as individuals, or as a\ncommunity. Private prayer, partaking to some extent of the character of\na meditation, may, and no doubt often does, form an exception to this\nrule; but even this very frequently falls under it, and of the prayer\noffered by tribes or nations it always holds good.\n\nTwo excellent specimens of primitive prayer are given by Brinton in his\n\"Myths of the New World.\" According to that writer, the Nootka Indian,\non preparing for war, thus expresses his wishes:\u2014\"Great Quahootzee, let\nme live, not be sick, find the enemy, not fear him, find him asleep,\nand kill a great many of him.\"\n\nThe next instance, quoted by him from Father Breboeuf, is equally\napposite. It is the prayer of a Huron:\u2014\"Oki, thou who livest in this\nspot, I offer thee tobacco. Help us, save us from shipwreck, defend\nus from our enemies, give us a good trade, and bring us back safe and\nsound to our villages\" (M. N. W., p. 297).\n\nThe Kafirs, according to Shooter, address the \"spirits\" whom they\nworship in the following style: \"Take care of me, take care of my\nchildren, take care of my wives, take care of all my people. Remove the\nsickness, and let my child recover. Give me plenty of children\u2014many\nboys and a few girls. Give me abundance of food and cattle. Make right\nall my people\" (K. N., p. 163).\n\nOf the negroes on the Caribbean Islands, Oldendorp says, \"Their\nconcerns which they lay before God in their prayers, even on their\nknees, have reference only to the body, to health, fine weather, a good\nharvest, victory over their enemies, and so forth\" (G. d. M., p. 325).\n\nThe Samoans, on taking their evening \"cup of ava,\" would thus express\ntheir petitions to the gods: \"Here is ava for you, O gods! Look kindly\ntowards this family: let it prosper and increase; and let us all be\nkept in health. Let our plantations be productive, let fruit grow, and\nmay there be abundance of food for us, your creatures. Here is ava for\nyou, our war-gods! Let there be a strong and numerous people for you in\nthis land. Here is ava for you, O sailing gods! Do not come on shore\nat this place; but be pleased to depart along the ocean to some other\nland\" (N. Y., p. 200).\n\nMr. Turner, to whom I am indebted for the above prayer, remarks that\nin Tanna, another of the Polynesian islands, the chief of a village\nrepeats a short prayer at the evening meal, \"asking health, long life,\ngood crops, and success in battle\" (Ibid., p. 85).\n\nThe authors of the Vedic hymns, though standing on a far higher level\nof civilization, do not differ essentially from these rude people in\nthe character of the objects for which they pray. The several deities\nare continually invoked to grant health, wealth, prosperity, posterity,\nand other temporal blessings. Thus (to quote one instance among\nmany) in Mandala 1, S\u00fbkta 64, translated by Max M\u00fcller, the Maruts\nare requested to grant \"strength, glorious, invincible in battle,\nbrilliant, wealth-conferring, praiseworthy, known to all men;\" and\nagain, \"wealth, durable, rich in men, defying all onslaughts; wealth\na hundred and a thousandfold, always increasing\" (R. V. S., i. 64, 14,\n15,\u2014Vol. i. p. 93). The liturgies of the Zend-Avesta, while sometimes\nassuming a loftier strain, frequently move upon the same level. The\nsame tone is to be observed in the Hebrew Scriptures. Solomon's\nprayer, for instance, at the dedication of the temple, may be taken as\nan enumeration of the objects commonly prayed for among the ancient\nHebrews. It specifies among the objects to be obtained at the hands of\nJehovah, the prevention of famine, of pestilence, blasting, mildew,\nlocust or caterpillar, plague or sickness (1 Kings viii. 37). Christian\nliturgies contain the same universal elements, though intermingled with\nmany others, and not in general put forward with the same crudity of\nlanguage.\n\nBesides these general objects, there are others of an ephemeral and\nspecial kind which are generally drawn within the sphere of prayer.\nRain is a common object of prayer, and other changes of weather are\nequally prayed for if they are held to be important. Callaway, for\nexample, was informed by a \"very old man\" in South Africa that \"if it\ndoes not rain, the heads of villages and petty chiefs assemble and go\nto a black chief; they converse and pray for rain\" (R. S. A., vol.\ni. p. 59). Another native described the mode of supplication more\nparticularly. A certain chieftain named Utshaka \"came and made his\nprayers greater than those who preceded him.\" When he desired rain,\nhe sang the following song, which \"consists of musical sounds merely,\nwithout any meaning:\"\u2014\n\n\"_One Part_\u2014I ya wu; a wu; o ye i ye.\"\n\n\"_Second Part or Response_\u2014I ya wo.\"\n\nAnd this prayer, so touching in its simplicity, was as successful as\nthe most elaborate composition of Jewish prophet or Christian bishop;\nfor the narrator states that Utshaka \"Sang a song and prayed to the\nLord of heaven; and asked his forefathers to pray for rain to the Lord\nof heaven. _And it rained_\" (R. S. A., vol. i. p. 92). The efficacy of\nprayer is plainly independent of the creed of him who offers it.\n\nThe Mexicans held an important annual festival in the month of May,\nof which the main purpose was to entreat for water from the sky, this\nbeing the season at which there was the greatest need of rain (H. I.,\nb. v. ch. 28). They used to address an elaborate prayer to a god named\nTlaloc, the king of the terrestrial paradise, to obtain deliverance\nfrom drought. They entreated him not to visit the offenses they had\ncommitted with such severity as to continue the privation under which\nthey were laboring.[1] The Tannese, when put to much inconvenience by\nthe dust falling from a certain volcano, \"were in the habit of praying\nto their gods for a change of wind\" (N. Y., p. 75). Certain other South\nSea Islanders used to pray to their gods to avert the supposed calamity\nof a lunar eclipse. \"As the eclipse passes off, they think it is all\nowing to their prayers,\" a mode of reasoning which presents an exact\nparallel to that employed by many Christians.\n\nSir John Davis gives a very interesting specimen of a prayer for rain\nemployed by Taou-Ku\u00e2ng, the Emperor of China, in 1832, on the occasion\nof a long drought in that country (Chinese, vol. ii. p. 75). As may\nbe expected from so civilized a people, this prayer rises far above\nthe outspoken begging of savage petitions, yet it has in substance\nprecisely the same end. The emperor describes himself as \"scorched\nwith grief,\" and pathetically inquires whether he has been remiss in\nsacrifice, has been proud or prodigal, irreverent, unjust, or wanting\nin discretion in the exercise of patronage. Here we see the intrusion\nof the theological idea that calamities are sent as punishments for\nsin, which plays no small part in Christian theology; but this only\nserves to veil, without effacing, the essential character of the\nprayer. The very same notion, that sin is visited by unfavorable\nweather, is found in the prayer of Solomon, whose mind upon this\nquestion seems to have been in the same stage of thought as that\nattained by the Chinese emperor. \"When heaven is shut up, and there\nis no rain, because they have sinned against thee\" (1 Kings viii.\n35), is the language of Solomon: \"My sins are so numerous that it is\nhopeless to escape their consequences,\" so runs the penitent confession\nof Taou-Ku\u00e2ng. But whatever may be the cause to which the drought\nis attributed, the prayer, whether uttered by Chinaman, Jew, or\nChristian, is still simply the petition to the Amazulu, the South Sea\nIslander, or the native American\u2014a request that God will so influence\nthe phenomena of the skies as to suit our convenience. The notion that\nthis object may sometimes be attained by our prayers is not extinct\neven among ourselves.\n\nOther special occasions are sometimes held to call for prayer. Such are\nnational calamities; as a pestilence among men or cattle, the illness\nof some eminent person, and other similar misfortunes. A good harvest\nis very generally prayed for; so is victory in time of war. The ancient\nAryans, who composed the Vedic hymns one thousand years or more before\nChrist, continually prayed for this last blessing; and we ourselves,\nwhen engaged in warfare, piously continue the same custom.\n\nVery frequently the notion of a bargain between the god and his\nworshiper appears in prayer. The worshiper claims to have rendered some\nservice for which the god ought in equity to reward him; or he holds\nout the discontinuance of his former devotion as a motive to induce\nthe concession of his desires. The constant conjunction of praise with\nprayer is explicable on this principle of a reciprocity of benefits. If\nthe worshiper gains much from the god, yet the god gains something from\nhim, being addressed in a strain of unbounded eulogy. His power, his\ngreatness, his goodness, his excellences of all kinds are vaunted in\nglowing terms, no doubt sincerely used by the worshiper, but repeated\nand accumulated to satiety from an impression that they are pleasing to\ntheir object, and may dispose him to beneficence. Titles thus bestowed\nupon their deities are aptly described by the Amazulus as \"laud-giving\nnames\" (R. S. A., vol. i. p. 72, and vol. ii. p. 149). In the Vedic\nhymns and in the Psalms, the deities spoken of are constantly addressed\nby such complimentary epithets. One of the hymns to the Maruts begins\nby announcing the poet's intention to praise \"their ancient greatness.\"\nAnd at the conclusion, after he has done so, he says, \"May this praise,\nO Maruts, ... approach you (asking) for offspring to our body, together\nwith food. May we find food, and a camp with running water\" (R. V. S.,\nvol. i. pp. 197, 201). The Psalmists were never weary of exalting the\nextraordinary might and majesty of Jehovah, mingling petitions with\npanegyric; and a large portion of the worship of Christians consists\nin expressions of pious admiration at the extraordinary goodness of\ntheir God, especially for his redemption of the world which he had\nhimself condemned. All these extravagant eulogies betray a latent\nimpression that the Deity is, after all, a very arbitrary personage,\nand may be moved to more merciful conduct than he would otherwise\npursue by large doses of flattery.\n\nStill more clearly does the idea of a commercial relationship with\nthe gods make its appearance in a poet who stands on a higher\nintellectual and moral level than the writers of the Hebrew Psalms,\nnamely Aischylos. In the Seven against Thebes, Eteokles implores Zeus,\nthe Earth, and the tutelar deities of the city to protect Thebes; and\nsubjoins as a motive for compliance, \"And I trust that what I say is\nour common interest; for a prosperous city honors the gods\" (Aisch.\nSept. c. Th. 76, 77\u2014Dindorf). And there is a similar appeal to the\ndivine selfishness further on in the same play, where the chorus\ninquires of the gods what better plain they can expect to obtain in\nexchange for this one, if they shall suffer it to pass into the enemy's\nhands (Aisch., Sept. c. Th. 304).\n\nIn the Choephor\u00e6, Zeus is distinctly asked in the prayer of Agamemnon's\nchildren whence he can expect to obtain the sacrifice and honors which\nhave been paid him by Orestes and Electra if he should suffer them to\nperish (Aisch., Choeph., 255). While in the Electra of Sophocles the\nconverse motive of gratitude is appealed to: the god Apollon being\ndesired to remember not what he may get, but what he already has got,\nfrom the piety of his supplicant (Soph. El., 1376\u2014Schneidewin). And\nJacob, who was a good hand at a bargain, makes his terms with Jehovah\nin a thoroughly business-like spirit. \"_If_ God will be with me, and\nwill keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat and\nraiment to put on, so that I come again to my father's house in peace;\n_then_ shall the Lord be my God: and this stone, which I have set up\nfor a pillar, shall be God's house: and of all that thou shalt give me\nI will surely give the tenth unto thee.\" The adoption of Jehovah as\nJacob's God being thus entirely dependent on the performance by that\nDeity of his share in the contract (Gen. xxviii. 20-22).\n\nSometimes it is quaintly suggested that were the worshiper in the\nplace of the god, _he_ would not neglect the interests of his devotee.\nThus, the author of a hymn in the Rig-Veda-Sanhit\u00e2, addressing the Gods\nof Tempest, exclaims: \"If you, sons of Prisni, were mortals, and your\nworshiper an immortal, then never should your praiser be unwelcome,\nlike a deer in pasture grass, nor should he go on the path of Yama\"\n(R. V. S., vol. i. p. 65). Another unsophisticated poet gives the\nfollowing hint to the god Indra, the Hindu Jupiter: \"Were I, Indra,\nlike thee, the sole lord of wealth, the singer of my praises should be\nrich in cattle\" (S. V., i. 2. i. 3. p. 218). And the same god is asked\nelsewhere in the Veda: \"When wilt thou make us happy? for it is just\nthis that is desired\" (S. V., i. 5. i. 3. p. 233). With equal plainness\nis the expectation of a _quid pro quo_ enunciated in one of the most\nancient hymns, contained in the sacred books of the Parsees:\u2014\"Every\nadoration, O True One, consists in actions whereby one may obtain good\npossessions, full of security, and happiness round about\" (F. G. vol.\nii. p. 54.\u2014Yama 51. i).\n\nMore emphatically still is this conception of a reciprocity of benefits\nexpressed in another consecrated action, that of Sacrifice. Sacrifice\nholds a most important place in all religions. It originates in a\nstage of the human mind which, if not quite as primitive as that which\ngives rise to prayer, is nevertheless so early as to be practicably\ninseparable from it. Wherever we find prayer, we find sacrifice; but\nas the latter is generally found organized under definite forms,\nand confined to certain specified objects, we may conclude that in\nthe state in which we recognize it, it implies a certain degree of\nregulation and forethought on the part of religious authorities which\nwe do not meet with in the simplest types of prayer. Prayer is often\nthe mere natural outpouring of our wants before a power which is\nconsidered capable of fulfilling them: sacrifice, though doubtless\nin the first instance an equally artless offering of gifts to beings\nwho are regarded with veneration and gratitude, is soon converted\ninto a formal presentation of acknowledged dues, performed under\necclesiastical supervision. No doubt prayer also tends to assume this\nformal character; but we have hitherto considered it in its uncorrupted\naspect; its treatment in its later developments belongs to another\nportion of this chapter.\n\nThe idea which presides over sacrifice is obvious. The sacrificer\nargues that if he can make acceptable presents to the gods, they will\nsmile upon him and be disposed to promote his ends; whereas if he keeps\nthe whole of his possessions for worldly purposes, they will regard him\nwith indignation, and refuse him their assistance when he may happen\nto stand in need of it. There is also involved in sacrifice a sense of\ngratitude: the gods having given us the fruits of the earth, behooves\nus to make some acknowledgment of their bounty.\n\nSuch notions, once propounded, were certain to be fertile. Every motive\nof piety and of interest would combine to support them. The piety\nof the worshipers, coupled with their hopes of advantage, would be\nstimulated by the self-interest of the priests, who generally share\nin the sacrifices offered. If any piece of good fortune occurred to\none who was devout and liberal in sacrificing, it would be attributed\nto the satisfaction felt by the gods at his exemplary conduct. If ill\nfortune befell those who had neglected to sacrifice, this would be\nan equally manifest indication of their high displeasure. As soon,\ntherefore, as the step was taken\u2014and it was one of the earliest in\nthe religious history of man\u2014of instituting sacrifices to idols or to\ndeities, the worshipers vied with one another in the liberality of\ntheir offerings. Adopted as a mode of propitiating the celestial beings\nby spontaneous gifts, it became, among all nations whose religious\nbelief had arrived at a state of flexity and consolidation, a positive\nduty; much as monarchs have frequently exacted large and burdensome\ncontributions under the guise of voluntary presents.\n\nIllustrations of this conception, that sacrifice is a sort of payment\nfor services rendered or to be rendered, might be found abundantly in\nmany quarters. Perhaps it is seldom more quaintly expressed than by\nthe Amazulus, who, when going to battle, sacrifice to the Amatongo, or\nmanes of their ancestors, in order that these, in their own language,\n\"may have no cause of complaint, because they have made amends to them,\nand made them bright.\" On reaching the enemy, they say, \"Can it be,\nsince we have made amends to the Amadhlozi, that they will say we have\nwronged them by anything?\" And when it comes to fighting, they are\nfilled with valor, observing that \"the Amatongo will turn their backs\non us without cause\" (R. S. A., vol. ii. p. 133).\n\nThe objects of sacrifice are very various, but it is noticeable that\nthey are almost invariably things held in esteem among men, and either\npossessing a considerable value as commodities, or capable by their\nproperties of ministering to their pleasure. All sacrifices of meat and\ncorn or other edibles belong to the former class; those of flowers to\nthe latter, for these, though of little value in the market yet give\ngreat pleasure, and are much esteemed. An exception is indeed presented\nby the wild hordes in Kamtschatka, who, according to Steller, offer\nnothing to their gods but what is valueless to themselves (Kamtschatka,\np. 265). If this statement does not originate in a misunderstanding of\nthe traveler, the fact must be due to the singularly low religiosity of\nthose people, who seem to have little reverence for the very objects of\ntheir worship.\n\nThe most valuable sacrifice that can possibly be made\u2014that of human\nbeings\u2014has always been common among savage or uncivilized nations.\nThus, in some of the South Sea Islands, human sacrifices were\n\"fearfully common\" (N. M. E., p. 547). They prevailed among some of the\nnegro tribes known to the missionary Oldendorp (G. d. M., p. 329).\n\nIn Mexico, where the natives had arrived at a far higher condition,\nhuman sacrifices still prevailed, though the original brutality of the\nrite was modified by the fact of the victims being enemies. Indeed,\nMontezuma, when at the height of his power, expressly refused to\nconquer a certain province which he might easily have added to his\ndominions; assigning as his first reason, that he desired to keep the\nMexican youth in practice; as his second and principal one, that he\nmight reserve a province for the supply of victims to sacrifice to the\ngods (H. I., b. v. ch. 20).\n\nAt the great Mexican festival of the Jubilee, however, it was not an\nenemy, but a slave, who was offered. This slave had represented the\nidol during the period of a year, and had received the greatest honor\nduring his term of office, at the end of which his head was severed\nfrom his body by the priest, who then held it as high as he could, and\nshowed it to the Sun and to the idol (H. I., b. v. ch. 28).\n\nNext in value to the human race are cattle, and these too are\nfrequently immolated in honor of the gods. Thus among the Kafirs, \"the\nanimals offered are exclusively cattle and goats. The largest ox in\na herd is specially reserved for sacrifices on important occasions;\nit is called the Ox of the Spirits, and is never sold except in cases\nof extreme necessity\" (Kafirs, p. 165). Here we find it expressly\nstated that it is the best ox, in other words, the most valuable\nportion of the sacrificer's property, which is devoted to the gods.\nAnd the principle which leads in Natal to this reservation of the best\nwill be found predominating over sacrifice throughout the world. The\nSoosoos, a people inhabiting the west coast of Africa, are so careful\nto propitiate their deity, that they \"never undertake any affair of\nimportance until they have sacrificed to him a bullock\" (N. A., vol. i.\np. 230).\n\nOther domestic and edible animals, being of great importance to\nmankind, are held worthy of the honor of sacrifice. The same writer\nto whom I owe the last quotation tells us of the Western Africans,\nthat \"before they begin to sow their plantations, they sacrifice a\nsheep, goat, fowl, or fish to the ay-min, to beg that their crop may\nabound; for were this neglected, they are persuaded that nothing would\ngrow there\" (Ibid., vol. i. p. 223). Oldendorp, who was particularly\nfamiliar with the Caribbean Islands, describes the sacrifices of the\nnegroes as consisting of \"oxen, cows, sheep, goats, hens, palm-oil,\nbrandy, yams, &c.\" (G. d. M., p. 329).\n\nBesides porcelain collars, tobacco, maize, and skins, the American\nIndians used to offer \"entire animals, especially dogs, on the borders\nof difficult or dangerous roads or rocks, or by the side of rapids.\"\nThese offerings were made to the spirits who presided in these places.\nThe great value attached by the natives of America to the dog is well\nknown, and it is deserving of remark that the dog was the commonest\nvictim, and that at the war-festival, which was a sort of sacrifice, it\nwas always dogs that were offered.\n\nIn China, the animals slain are \"bullocks, heifers, sheep, and\npigs,\" which are duly purified for a certain period beforehand (C.\nO., vol. ii. p. 192). Among the Jews, pigs, whose flesh was regarded\nas impure, were not offered; bullocks, goats, and sheep were the\nchief sacrificial animals; and extreme care was taken in their law\nthat they should be entirely without blemish; that is, that, like\nthe ox of the Kafirs, they should be the best obtainable (Lev. xxii.\n17-25). This is a remarkable illustration of the tendency to offer\nonly articles of value in human estimation to God; for here that\nwhich would be good enough for men is treated as unfit for Jehovah.\nAnimals of lesser magnitude are sometimes offered; as, for instance,\nthe quails which the Mexicans used to sacrifice (H. I., b. v. ch.\n18). Birds are not unfrequently chosen as fitting objects to present\nto the gods. Among the Ibos, a negro tribe, it is the custom for\nwomen, six weeks after childbirth, to present a pair of hens as an\noffering, which, however, are not killed, but liberated after certain\nceremonies. In like manner the Hebrew woman after her delivery was\nenjoined to bring a lamb and a pigeon or turtle-dove; or, if she\nwere unable to bring the lamb, two young pigeons or two turtle-doves\n(Lev. xii. 6-8). In addition to animals, a considerable variety of\nobjects is sacrificed, generally the fruits of the earth or flowers.\nThere is, however, no limit to the number of things which may be held\nsuitable for presentation to the gods. Thus, in Samoa (in Polynesia),\nthe offerings were \"principally cooked food\" (N. Y. p. 241). In other\nIslands \"the first fruits are presented to the gods\" (Ibid., p. 327),\na practice which corresponds, as the missionary who records it justly\nremarks, to that of the ancient Israelites. The Red Indians used to\noffer to their spirits \"petun, tobacco, or birds.\" In honor of the\nSun, and even of subordinate spirits, they would throw into the fire\neverything they were in the habit of using, and which they acknowledged\nas received from them (N. F., vol. iii. pp. 347, 348). Acosta divides\nthe sacrifices of the Mexicans and Peruvians into three classes: the\nfirst, of inanimate objects; the second, of animals; the third, of\nmen. In the first class are included cocoa, maize, colored feathers,\nseashells, gold and silver, and fine linen (H. I., b. v. ch. 18). Among\nthe sacrifices offered by the Incas to the sun, the most esteemed,\naccording to Garcilasso de la Vega, were lambs, then sheep, then barren\newes. Besides these, they sacrificed tame rabbits, all _edible_ birds\n(remark the limitation), and fat of beasts, as well as all the grains\nand vegetables up to cocoa, and the finest linen (observe again the\ncare that it should be fine) (C. R., b. ii. ch. 8). At a certain\nHindu festival described by Wilson, a goddess named Varad\u00e1 Chaturthi\n\"is worshipped with offerings of flowers, of incense, or of lights,\nwith platters of sugar and ginger, or milk or salt, with scarlet or\nsaffron-tinted strings and golden bracelets\" (W. W., vol. ii. pp.\n184, 185). Among the Parsees the sacrifices consist of little loaves\nof bread, and of Haoma, the sacred plant. The Indian Parsees send\nfrom time to time to Kirman to obtain Haoma-branches from this holy\nterritory (Z. A., vol. ii. p. 535). The Parsees also offer flowers,\nfruits, rice, odoriferous grains, perfumes, milk, roots of certain\ntrees, and meat. The Jews, like them, offered the productions of the\nsoil in sacrifice.\n\nBeauty, and even utility, when not accompanied by considerable value in\nexchange, do not suffice to constitute fitness for religious sacrifice.\nCommon plants and shrubs, branches of trees, wild birds or insects,\nare some of them among the most beautiful productions of nature; yet\nthey are not sacrificed. Stones and wood are both useful, but they\nare obtained, as a rule, at little cost; and they are not sacrificed.\nFlowers, which certainly have no high value, were sometimes offered to\nidols in the form of wreaths and garlands: they scarcely constitute an\nexception to the rule, for they are prized as ornaments by men, and the\nprocess of plucking and weaving them into appropriate shapes imposes\ntrouble\u2014the equivalent of cost\u2014on the devotee. It is plainly not owing\nto any accidental circumstance that highly valuable objects have been\nselected by all the nations of the earth as alone appropriate for\nreligious sacrifice. Two reasons may be assigned for this selection. In\nthe first place, the general assimilation of deities to mankind goes\nfar to account for it. Everywhere, and at all times\u2014as we shall have\noccasion frequently to observe in this work\u2014men have reasoned as to the\ndivine nature from their knowledge of their own. A noteworthy instance\nof this is to be seen in Malachi, who does not scruple to tell the Jews\nthat their God feels the same kind of offense at the poverty of their\nofferings as a human governor would do. \"And if,\" says that prophet,\n\"ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if ye offer\nthe lame and sick, is it not evil? _offer it now unto thy governor_;\nwill he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person? saith the Lord of\nhosts.\" A few verses later he recurs to the sorrow felt by Jehovah at\nsuch insults. \"And ye bring that which is robbed, and the lame, and the\nsick; thus ye bring an offering: should I accept this of your hand?\nsaith the Lord. But cursed be the deceiver, which hath in his flock a\nmale, and voweth and sacrificeth unto the Lord a bad female.\" It would\nbe difficult to find the theory of God's resemblance to man expressed\nin a cruder form. Even as a governor will show the greatest favor to\nthose who approach him with the costliest gifts, so the mouthpiece of\nthe Hebrew deity declares in his name that he must have the pick of his\nservant's flocks\u2014the males, not the females, the sound and the perfect,\nnot the sickly or the maimed. In a precisely similar spirit, it is\nenjoined in one of the sacred books of the Buddhists that no spoilt\nvictuals or drinks may be used in sacrifice (Wassiljew, p. 211).\n\nMen's notion of their god was often derived, like Malachi's, not\nonly from human nature, but from those who were by no means the best\nspecimens of human nature,\u2014the rulers. The religious emotion, imbued\nwith this conception of its deities, shrank through a sense of piety\nfrom the irreverent, and, as it seemed, sacrilegious act of presenting\nthem with anything but the best. But there was another reason which,\ndoubtless, had its weight. Not only must the offering be of a kind\nacceptable to the god to whom it was given; it must also impose some\ncost upon the worshiper. Religious sentiment imperatively required\nthat there should be an actual sacrifice of something which the owner\nvalued, and the surrender of which imposed a burden upon him. This\nseemed to be involved in the very notion of sacrifice. Its sense and\npurpose was, that the devotee, coming to his god, and desiring to\nobtain some favor from him, should show the high importance he attached\nto it by parting with some portion of his possessions. And plainly\nthis portion must be such as to indicate by its character the esteem\nand reverence felt by the worshiper for the being whom he worshiped.\nTo indicate this, it must be something which he would unwillingly\nresign but for his religious feelings. Hence a special part of the\nfruits of the soil would be an appropriate offering. It would involve\na real diminution in the wealth of the worshiper, a real surrender\nof something useful and valuable to mankind. To these two reasons may\nbe added a third, which, no doubt, must have had its weight. In many\ncases, a portion of the sacrifices was the property of the priests.\nAs will be more fully shown hereafter, the priesthood frequently\ncontrived to transfer to themselves the piety which was felt towards\nthe gods. Hence the sacrifices, originally given to the divine beings,\nwere in part appropriated by their ministers; and it was obviously of\nimportance to them that the thing sacrificed should be such as they\ncould profit by and enjoy.\n\nIt sometimes happens that the sacrifice, or a portion of it, is\nconsumed either by the worshipers in general, or by their priests. A\ncase of the former kind is mentioned by Oldendorp. When the young men\namong the Tembus (negroes) are going to battle, the old men offer sheep\nand hens to their god Zioo for their success; the blood and bowels they\nbestow upon Zioo, and the flesh they eat themselves (G. d. M., p. 330).\nSometimes the thing sacrificed is itself regarded as an idol or god,\nand is eaten religiously, under a belief that it is a food of peculiar\nefficacy. Such is the case with the Christian sacrament; and such was\nthe case, too, with the remarkable custom observed among the Mexicans\nat the feast of Vitziliputzli, where an idol composed of corn and honey\nused to be solemnly consecrated, and afterwards distributed to be eaten\nby the people, who received it with extreme reverence, awe, and tears,\nas the flesh and bones of the god himself (H. I., b. v. ch. 24). It\nis an exception, however, when the laity partake in the consumption\nof the sacrifices; they are generally reserved for the priests. Among\nthe Jews, it was the privilege of the priests to eat certain portions\nof the animals brought for sacrifice; and in like manner the Parsee\npriest, or Zaota, eats the bread and drinks the Haoma (Av., vol. ii. p.\nlxxii). And it deserves especial mention, that the Haoma, a plant of\nwhich the juice is thus drunk in certain rites both in the Indian and\nthe Parsee religions, is in both considered a god as well as a plant;\njust as the wine of the Christian sacrament is both the juice of the\ngrape and the blood of the Redeemer (Av., vol. i. p. 8).\n\nIn the above cases, food consecrated to the gods is eaten by men. The\nconverse practice, that of bestowing a portion of the ordinary food\nof men upon the gods, is also common. The habit of the ancients of\nmaking libations is well known. But the same practice has prevailed,\nor prevails still, in many distinct parts of the world. A traveler\nwho visited Tartary in the thirteenth century states that it was the\ncustom of the Tartar chiefs of one thousand or one hundred men, before\nthey ate or drank anything, to offer some of it to an idol which they\nalways kept in the middle of their dwelling place (Bergeron, Voyage de\nCarpin, art. iii., p. 30). In Samoa, when a family feast was held in\nhonor of the household gods, \"a cup of their intoxicating ava draught\nwas poured out as a drink-offering\" (N. Y., p. 239). Among the Soosoos,\non the west coast of Africa, a custom prevails \"which resembles the\nancient practice of pouring out a libation: they seldom or never drink\nspirits, wine, etc., without spilling a little of it upon the ground,\nand wetting the gree-gree or fetish hung round the neck: at the same\ntime they mutter a kind of short prayer\" (N. A., p. 123). Again, in\nSierra Leone, \"when they want to render their devil propitious to any\nundertaking, they generally provide liquor: a very small libation is\nmade to him, and the rest they drink before his altar\" (S. L., p. 66).\nWhile in Thibet, \"the execution by a Lama is not required for the\nusual libations to the personal genii, nor to those of the house, the\ncountry, etc., in whose honor it is the custom to pour out upon the\nground some drink or food, and to fill one of the offering vessels\nranged before their images before eating or drinking one's self\" (B.\nT., p. 247).\n\nGreat importance is in all religions attached to sacrifice. It is\nuniversally supposed to conciliate, to soften, or to appease the\ndeity in whose honor it is offered. Sometimes it is even conceived\nto have an actual material power of its own, the spirits deriving a\npositive benefit from the food presented to them. Spiegel states that\nthe subordinate genii in the Parsee hierarchy of angels derive from\nthe sacrifices strength and vigor to fulfil their duties (Av., vol.\nii. p. lxiii). Generally, however, the conception of the influence\nof sacrifice is less materialistic. The Amazulus naively express the\ngeneral sentiment by saying, that, in prospect of a battle, they\nsacrifice to their ancestors in order that they \"may have no cause\nof complaint.\" Much more mystical were the views entertained on this\npoint by the ancient Hindus, among whom the theory of sacrifice\nwas probably more highly elaborated than in any other nation. Of a\ncertain sacrificial ceremony it is stated, that the gods, after having\nperformed it, \"gained the celestial world. Likewise a sacrificer,\nafter having done the same, gains the celestial world\" (A. B., vol.\nii. p. 22). And it is added, that the sacrificer who performs this\nrite \"succeeds in both worlds, and obtains a firm footing in both\nworlds\" (A. B., vol. ii. p. 25). While to another rite the following\npromise is attached: \"He who, knowing this, sacrifices according to\nthis rite, is born (anew) from the womb of Agni and the offerings,\nand participates in the nature of the Rik, Yajus, and S\u00e2man, the Veda\n(sacred knowledge), the Brahma (sacred element), and immortality, and\nis absorbed in the deity\" (A. B., vol. ii. p. 51). Often it is the\nforgiveness of some offense that is sought to be obtained by pacifying\nthe indignant deity with a gift. In the Jewish law a large portion of\nthe sacrifices enjoined have this object. They are termed sin-offerings\nor trespass-offerings.\n\nThe general idea which leads to sacrifice is in all religions the\nsame. Respect is intended to be shown to the deity in whose honor the\nsacrifice is made by depriving ourselves of some valuable possession,\nand bestowing it on him. The pleasure supposed to be felt by God\non receiving such presents is somewhat coarsely but emphatically\nexpressed in the Hebrew Bible by the statement that when Aaron had\nmade a sacrifice in the wilderness there came a fire from the Lord and\nconsumed the meat which had been laid upon the altar (Lev. ix. 24).\n\nChristianity offers only an apparent exception to the rule of the\nuniversal predominance of this idea. We do not, indeed, find among\nChristians the periodical and stated offerings, either of animals or\nof the products of the soil, which exist elsewhere. Nevertheless, the\nidea of sacrifice subsists among them in all its force. Indeed, it is\nthe fundamental conception of the Christian religion itself, in which\nthe sacrifice of the founder upon the cross embodies all those notions\nwhich are held to legitimate the custom of sacrificing among heathen\nnations. We have first the notion of an angry and exacting deity, who\ncan only be rendered placable towards mankind by the surrender to him\nof some valuable thing; we have, consequently, the sacrifice of the\nmost valuable thing that can possibly be offered, namely, the life of\na human being; we have, lastly, the belief that this sacrifice was\naccepted, and that promises of mercy were in consequence held out to\nthe human race. By a peculiar exaltation of the idea, the life thus\ngiven up is declared to be that of his own son\u2014a conception by which\nthe value of the sacrifice, and consequently the advantages it is\ncapable of procuring, are indefinitely heightened.\n\nThus the idea of sacrifice is carried to its extreme limits in the\nreligion of Christendom. Had it not been for the absolute necessity\nof some sacrifice being offered to God, there would\u2014according to the\ntheory of the Christian faith\u2014have been absolutely no reason for the\nexecution of Christ. He might have taught every doctrine associated\nwith his name, performed every miracle related in the Gospels, have\ndrawn to himself every disciple named in them, and yet have died, like\nthe Buddha, in the calm of a venerated and untroubled old age. He was\nobliged to undergo this painful and melancholy death, if we accept the\ngeneral belief of Christendom, solely because God required a sacrifice,\nand because without that sacrifice he could not forgive the offenses of\nmankind.\n\nSimple prayer and sacrifice are, then, the most primitive and most\ngeneral methods by which man approaches those whom his nature impels\nhim to worship. But as these acts are repeated from time to time,\nand as their frequent repetition is supposed to be highly agreeable\nto their objects, it naturally happens that some particular mode of\nperforming them comes to be preferred to others. By and by, the mode of\nworship usually adopted will become habitual; and a habit once formed\nwill be strengthened by every repetition of the acts in question. Not\nonly will certain forms of prayer, certain ways of sacrificing, certain\npostures, certain gestures, and a certain order of proceeding become\nestablished as usual and regular, but they will be regarded as the only\nappropriate and respectful forms, every attempt to depart from them\nbeing treated as a sacrilegious innovation. The form will be deemed no\nless essential than the substance.\n\nHence Ritual, which we do not find in the most primitive religions,\nbut which is discovered in all of those that have advanced to\na higher type. Even in the earliest Vedic hymns\u2014those of the\nRig-Veda-Sanhit\u00e2\u2014we perceive clear traces of an established ritual\nfrom the manner in which the sacrifices are spoken of as having been\nduly offered. In the Zend-Avesta, elaborate ritualistic directions\nare given for certain specified purposes, especially for that of\npurification after any defilement. The oldest books of the Jewish\nBible are in like manner full of instructions for the due observance\nof ritual. Both the Buddhists, who broke off from Brahminism, and the\nChristians, who made a schism from Judaism, established a ritual of\ntheir own; and this ritual was soon regarded as no less sacred than\nthat which they had abandoned. Everywhere, when religion has passed\nout of its first unsettled condition, we find a fixed ritual, and its\nfixity is one of its most striking features. Dogmas, in spite of the\nefforts of sacerdotal orders, inevitably change. If the words in which\nthey are expressed remain unaltered, yet the meaning attached to them\ncontinually varies. But ritual does not change, or changes only when\nsome great convulsion uproots the settled institutions of the country.\nFrom age to age the same forms and the same prayers remain, sometimes\nlong after their original meaning has been forgotten.\n\nThus prayer, ceasing to be spontaneous and irregular, becomes formal,\nceremonial, and regular. And as there are many occasions besides\nsacrifice on which men desire to pray, so there will be many besides\nthis on which the craving for order, and the readiness to believe that\nGod is better pleased with one form of devotion than another, will lead\nto the establishment of ritual.\n\nRites may be performed daily, weekly, or at any other interval.\nSometimes, indeed, they are still more frequent, haunting the every-day\nlife of the devotee, and intruding upon his commonest actions. Thus\nthe Parsees are required to repeat certain prayers on rising, before\nand after eating, on going to bed, on cutting their nails or their\nhair, and on several other natural occasions, besides praying to the\nsun three times a day (Z. A., vol. ii. p. 564-567). The Jews are\nencompassed with obligations which, if less minute, are of a like\nburdensome character. A devout Jew has to repeat a certain prayer on\nrising; he has to wear garments of a particular kind, and to wash and\ndress in a particular order (Rel. of Jews, p. 1-8). Mussulmans are\ncommanded to pray five times a day, turning their faces towards Mecca\n(Sale, prel. discourse, pp. 76, 77).\n\nRitual, however, is not always of this purely personal nature, but\nis generally performed by a congregation to whose needs it refers,\nor by priests on their behalf. And in this case, again, a longer or\nshorter interval may elapse between the recurrence of the rites. In\nthe Mexican temples, for instance, the ministering priests were in\nthe habit of performing a service before their idols four times a day\n(H. I., b. v. ch. p. 14). \"The perpetual exercise of the priests,\"\nsays Acosta, speaking of these temples, \"is to offer incense to the\nidols.\" The ritual of the Catholic Church, like that of the ancient\nMexicans, is repeated every day. The morning and evening services of\nthe Church of England were framed with the same intention; and the\nRitualistic clergy, rightly conceiving the teaching of their Church,\nhave introduced the practice of so employing them. Weekly or bi-monthly\nobservances prevail among Hindus, Singhalese, Jews, and Christians.\nWith the Hindus, the seventh lunar day, both during the fortnight of\nthe moon's waxing and during that of her waning, is a festival, the\nfirst seventh day in the month being peculiarly holy, and observed with\nvery special rites. More than this, the weekly period is known to them;\nfor, according to Wilson, \"a sort of sanctity is, or was, attached even\nto Sunday, and fasting on it was considered obligatory or meritorious\"\n(W. W., vol. ii. p. 199). In Ceylon the people attend divine service\ntwice a week, on Wednesdays and Saturdays; besides which, there are\nin each month four days devoted to religious acts\u2014the 8th, 15th, 23d,\nand 30th (A. I. C., pp. 222, 223; H. R. C., p. 76). The Jewish ritual\ndiffers on the Sabbath-day from that used on week-days; and such is\nthe solemnity attached to this festival, that a quasi-personality\nis attributed to the day itself, which is exalted in the service\nfor Friday evening as the bride of God, and which the congregation\nis invited to go in quest of, and to meet (Rel. of Jews, p. 128). A\nsimilar sanctity is considered by many Christians to pertain to the\nSunday, while all of them observe it as an important festival, and\nmark it by peculiar rites. Friday, too, is regarded by the majority of\nChristians as a day to be observed with distinctive rites, of which\nfasting is the principal.\n\nWhen the interval observed between the performance of certain rites\nexceeds some very short period\u2014as a day or week\u2014it is generally a year.\nIn this case, the time, whether it be a month, a week, a few days, or\nany other period, set apart for their performance assumes the character\nof a Festival. Under the general term Festival I include any annually\nrecurrent season, whether it be one of mourning or rejoicing, of\nfasting or feasting, which is consecrated by the observance of special\nceremonies of a religious order. In all religions above the lowest\nstage such festivals occur. The time of their occurrence is generally\nmarked out by the seasons of the year. Mid-winter, or the season of\nsowing; spring, or the time when the seed is in the ground or beginning\nto spring up; and autumn, when the harvest has been gathered in,\u2014are\nthe most natural seasons for festivals; and it is at these that they\nusually take place. For instance, Oldendorp states that nearly all\nthe Guinea nations have an annual harvest-festival, at which solemn\nthank-offerings are presented to the Gods (G. d. M., p. 332). In China,\nthis reference to the seasons is obvious. \"At every new moon, and\nthe change of the season, there are festivals.\" Of these, \"the most\nimposing\" is \"the emperor's plowing the sacred field. This takes place\nwhen the sun enters the fifteenth degree of Aquarius.\" But the precise\nday is determined by astrologers. This is the winter festival, or that\nof sowing. The \"Leih-chun, at the commencement of the spring, continues\nfor ten days.\" And in autumn the feast of harvest is celebrated with\ngreat merriment (C. O., vol. ii. p. 195-199). The Parsees have numerous\nfestivals, which it would be tedious to enumerate in detail (Z. A.,\nvol. ii. p. 574-581.). After the Gahanbars, which refer to creation,\nthe two principal ones are the No rouz and the Meherdjan, and of\nthese Anquetil du Perron expressly states that the first originally\ncorresponded to spring, and the second to Autumn (Ibid., vol. ii. p.\n603). Of the Hindu festivals described by Wilson, by far the greatest\nare the Pongol, at the beginning of the year, and the Holi, in the\nmiddle of March (W. W., vol. ii. p. 151). Compared with these, the\nrest are insignificant; and these plainly refer to the processes of\nnature. That the great festivals of the Jews had the same reference,\nneeds no proof; for the passover took place in spring, and the feast\nof Pentecost, as well as the feast of tabernacles, after harvest. Our\nChristmas and Easter correspond to the Pongol and Holi of the Hindus\nin point of time; and even the observances usual at Christmas have, as\nWilson has pointed out, much resemblance to those of the Pongol.\n\nThere are in Ceylon five annual festivals, of which one, occurring at\nthe commencement of the year (in April), is marked by the singular\ncircumstance that \"before New Year's day every individual procures from\nan astrologer a writing, fixing the fortunate hours of the approaching\nyear on which to commence duties or ceremonies.\" Of the five festivals\nthe most important was the Paraherra, which lasted from the new moon to\nthe full moon in July, and consisted mainly in a series of religious\nprocessions, concluding with one in which the casket containing the\nDalada, or tooth of Buddha, was borne upon an elephant. The fifth\nfestival, called that of \"New Rice,\" was held at the commencement of\nthe great harvest, and was the occasion of offerings made with a view\nto good crops (E. Y., vol. i. p. 314-318).\n\nThe consecrated actions by which men seek to recommend themselves\nto their gods at these special seasons are very various. It would\nbe useless to attempt to enumerate them at length. Of the manner in\nwhich New Year's day is observed among the Chinese (C. O., vol. ii.\npp. 194, 195), the commencement of the year among Hindus (W. W., vol.\nii. p. 158 ff.), and Christmas among ourselves, it will be unnecessary\nto speak at all, for there is little of a religious character in\nthese festivals. Indeed, New Year's day in China seems to be a merely\nsecular festival; while the Christmas season in European countries,\nthough varnished over with a religious gloss, is in reality palpably\none of popular rejoicing, handed down from our pagan ancestors, and\nplaced in a legendary relation to the birth of Christ. The religious\nrites which may accompany this festival have therefore a secondary\nimportance. Those observed at other times bear reference either\nto the frame of mind induced by the season, or to the particular\nlegend commemorated; or they may be purely arbitrary and enjoined by\necclesiastical authority. An example of the first kind is the Jewish\nfeast of tabernacles, when the harvest had been gathered in, and the\nJews were enjoined to carry boughs of trees and rejoice seven days\n(Lev. xxiii. 40). Examples of the second class are common. Legends are\nfrequently related in order to account for festivals, while sometimes\nfestivals may be instituted in consequence of a legend. Thus, the\nextraordinary story of the manifestation of Siva as an interminable\nLinga, is told by the Hindus to account for their worship of that organ\non the twenty-seventh of February (W. W., vol. ii. p. 211). In this\ncase, the rites have reference to the legend; the setting up a Linga in\ntheir houses, consecrating, and offering to it, are ceremonies which\nrefer to the event present in the minds of the worshipers; but it is\nmore natural to suppose that the existence of the rites led to the\ninvention of the legend, than that the legend induced the establishment\nof the rites. \"The three essential observances,\" says Wilson, \"are\nfasting during the whole Tithi, or lunar day, and holding a vigil and\nworshiping the Linga during the night; but the ritual is loaded with a\nvast number of directions, not only for the presentation of offerings\nof various kinds to the Linga, but for gesticulations to be employed,\nand prayers to be addressed to various subordinate divinities connected\nwith Siva, and to Siva himself in a variety of forms\" (Ibid., vol.\nii. p. 212). At another of the Hindu festivals, the effigy of Kama\nis burnt, to commemorate the fact of that god having been reduced to\nashes by flames from Siva, and having been subsequently restored to\nlife at the intercession of Siva's bride (W. W., vol. ii. p. 231). In\nlike manner the jesting of the Greek woman at the Thesmophoria was\nexplained by reference to the laughter of Demeter (Bib., i. 5. 1.). The\nJewish passover was eaten with rites which were symbolical of the state\nof the nation just before its escape from Egypt, the time to which\ntheir tradition assigned the original passover; and the ritual in use\namong Christians at Easter bears reference to the story of Christ's\nresurrection, which in this case no doubt preceded the institution of\nthe festival. The third class of rites\u2014those which are purely arbitrary\nor have a merely theological significance\u2014are the most usual of all.\nThese, as will be obvious at once, may vary indefinitely. Fasting is\none of the most usual of such observances. It is practiced by the\nHindus at many of their festivals, by Mussulmans during the month of\nRamadan, and by Christians in Lent. Bathing is also a common religious\npractice of the Hindus at their festivals. The use of holy water by\nCatholics on entering their churches is a ceremony of a similar kind,\nand no doubt having the same intention, that of purification. The Jews\nwere to sacrifice at all their festivals, and on one of them to afflict\ntheir souls (Lev. xxiii. 27). Christians, among whom there are very\nnumerous festivals, vary their ritual according to the character of the\nday.\n\nOne or two specimens of the rites observed on festival days will\nsuffice as an illustration. The Peruvians, in their pagan days, used\nto have festivals every month: the greatest of these was that of the\nTrinity, celebrated in December. \"In this feast,\" says Acosta, \"they\nsacrificed a great number of sheep and lambs, and they burnt them with\nworked and odoriferous wood; and some sheep carried gold and silver,\nand they placed on them the three statues of the Sun, and the three\nof Thunder; father, brother, and son, whom they said that the Sun and\nThunder had. In this feast they dedicated the Inca children, and placed\nthe Guacas, or ensigns on them, and the old men whipped them with\nslings, and anointed their faces with blood, all in token that they\nshould be loyal knights of the Inca. No stranger might remain during\nthis month and feast at Cuzco, and at the end all those from without\nentered; and they gave them those pieces of maize with the blood of the\nsacrifice, which they eat, in token of confederation with the Inca\"\n(H. I., b. 5. ch. 27). Equally curious are the rites prescribed by\nthe Catholic Church for Holy Saturday. They are much too long to be\ndescribed in full, but the following extract will convey a notion of\ntheir character: \"At a proper hour the altars are covered over, and the\nhours are said, the candles being extinguished on the altar until the\nbeginning of mass. In the meanwhile, fire is struck from a stone at\nthe church-door, and coals kindled with it. The none being said, the\npriest, putting on his amice, alb, girdle, stole, and violet pluvial,\nor without his capsula, the attendants standing by him with the cross,\nwith the blessed water and incense, before the gate of the church, if\nconvenient, or in the porch of the church, he blesses the new fire,\nsaying, The Lord be with you; and the attendants reply, And with thy\nspirit.\" Prayers follow. \"Then he blesses five grains of incense to be\nplaced on the wax, saying his prayer.\" After the prayer, incense is put\nin the censer, and sprinkled with water. \"Meanwhile, all the lights of\nthe church are extinguished, that they may be afterwards kindled from\nthe blessed fire.\" The candles are lighted with many ceremonies. The\nincense having been previously blessed, \"the deacon fixes five grains\nof the blessed incense on the wax in the form of a cross.\" This wax is\nthen lighted. When \"the blessing of the wax taper\" is finished, the\nprophets are read, and the catechumens during the reading are prepared\nfor baptism.[2] These proceedings, in which the notion of the sanctity\nof fire\u2014a notion shared by Roman Catholics with Parsees and others\u2014is\napparent, are particularly interesting, as showing the community\nof sentiment and of rites between the Church of Rome and her pagan\npredecessors.\n\nIn the instances hitherto given, the consecrated actions have been\nperformed by the whole body of believers for the benefit of all.\nThey are means by which their religious union among each other is\nstrengthened, as well as their relation to the deity they worship\nsolemnly expressed. But there is another class of consecrated actions\nwhich benefit, not the congregation or sect at large, but a particular\nindividual for whose advantage they are performed. There are certain\nmoments in the life of the individual at which he seems peculiarly\nto need the protection of God. Were these moments suffered to pass\nunobserved in a single case, it would appear as if he whose life had\nbeen thus untouched by religion stood outside the pale of the common\nfaith, unhallowed and unblessed. And a total neglect of all these\nperiods, even among savages, is, if not altogether unknown, at least so\nrare as to demand no special notice in a general analysis of religious\nsystems. With extraordinary unanimity, those systems have pitched upon\nfour epochs as demanding consecration by the observance of special\nrites. Two of them are thus consecrated wherever a definite religion\nexists at all. The other two are generally consecrated, though in\ntheir case exceptions more frequently occur. The four moments, or\nperiods of life to which I refer, are\n\n  1. Birth.\n  2. Puberty.\n  3. Matrimony.\n  4. Death.\n\nOf these, the first and fourth are never suffered to pass without\nreligious observances, or at least, observances which, by their\nsolemnity and indispensable obligation, approach to a religious\ncharacter. The second is usually marked by some kind of rite in\nthe case of males; in that of females it is often suffered to pass\nunobserved. The third is always placed under a religious sanction,\nexcept among savages of a very low order.\n\nLet us proceed to illustrate these propositions in the case of\nbirth. The ceremonies attendant upon this event need not take place\nimmediately after it; they may be deferred some days, weeks, or\nmonths; they will still fall under the same category, as designed to\nmark the child's entry into the world. Their form will naturally vary\naccording to the state of civilization of the nation observing them;\nbut notwithstanding this there is a strange similarity among them. In\nSamoa, for instance, \"if the little stranger was a boy, the umbilicus\nwas cut on a club, that he might grow up to be brave in war. If of\nthe other sex, it was done on the board on which they beat out the\nbark of which they make their native cloth. Cloth-making is the work\nof women; and their wish was, that the little girl should grow up and\nprove useful to the family in her proper occupation\" (N. Y., p. 175).\nI have added Mr. Turner's observation to render the nature of this\nceremony plainer. It appears hardly religious; yet when we consider\nthe symbolical means by which the end is sought to be attained, and\nthat among savages so rude as those of Polynesia religion would have\nno higher practical aims than to make the boys good warriors, and the\nwomen industrious cloth-makers, we may admit that even this elementary\nrite has in it something of a religious consecration. When secular\nobjects are attained by mystical ceremonials, which have no direct\ntendency to produce the desired result, we may generally conclude that\nreligious belief is at the bottom of them. In the present instance\nthis conclusion is still further strengthened by the description\ngiven by the same author of a similar ceremony in another island\nof the Polynesian group. There, when a boy is born, \"a priest cuts\nthe umbilicus on a particular stone from Lifu, that the youth may\nbe _stone_-hearted in battle. The priest, too, at the moment of the\noperation, must have a vessel of water before him, dyed black as\nink, that the boy when he grows up, may be courageous to go anywhere\nto battle on a pitch-dark night, and thus, from his very birth, the\nlittle fellow is consecrated to war\" (N. Y., pp. 423, 424). Here the\nreligious nature of the operation is explicitly proved by the presence\nof the priest, the inevitable agent in such communications between\nGod and man. Another missionary to the same race\u2014the Polynesian\nislanders\u2014informs us that among these people mothers dedicated their\noffspring to various deities, but principally to Hiro, the god of\nthieves, and Oro, the god of war. \"Most parents, however, were anxious\nthat their children should become brave and renowned warriors,\" and\nwith this end they dedicated them, by means of ceremonies beginning\nbefore parturition, and ending after it, to the god Oro. The principal\nceremony after birth consisted in the priest catching the spirit of the\ngod, by a peculiar process, and imparting it to the child. Here again\nthe presence of the priest, and the formal dedication to a god\u2014even\nthough he be a god of questionable morality\u2014render the religious\nelement in the natal ceremonies of these very primitive savages\nabundantly plain (N. M. E., p. 543).\n\nBaptism, or washing at birth, is a common process, and is found in\ncountries the most widely separated on the face of the earth, and the\nmost unconnected in religious genealogy. Asia, America, and Europe\nalike present us with examples of this rite. It seems to be a rude form\nof it which prevails in Fantee in Africa, where the father, on the\neighth day after birth, after thanking the gods for the birth of his\nchild, squirts some ardent spirits upon him from his mouth, and then\npronounces his name, at the same time praying for his future welfare,\nand \"that he may live to be old, and become a stay and support to his\nfamily,\" and if his namesake be living, that he may prove worthy of the\nname he has received (Asha, p. 226). A rite of baptism at birth, says\nBrinton, \"was of immemorial antiquity among the Cherokees, Aztecs,\nMayas, and Peruvians,\" and this rite was \"connected with the imposing\nof a name, done avowedly for the purpose of freeing from inherent sin,\nbelieved to produce a spiritual regeneration, nay, in more than one\ninstance, called by an indigenous word signifying 'to be born again'\"\n(M. N. W., p. 128). Mexico possessed elaborate rites to consecrate\nnativity. When the Mexican infant was four days old it was carried\nnaked by the midwife into the court of the mother's house. Here it\nwas bathed in a vessel prepared for the purpose, and three boys, who\nwere engaged in eating a special food, were desired by the midwife\nto pronounce its name aloud, this name being prescribed to them by\nher. The infant, if a boy, carried with it the symbol of its father's\nprofession; if a girl, a spinning-wheel and distaff, with a small\nbasket and a handful of brooms, to indicate its future occupation. The\numbilical cord was then offered with the symbols; and in case of a male\ninfant, these objects were buried in the place where war was likely to\noccur; in case of a female infant, beneath the stone where meal was\nground.[3] The above statements rest on the authority of Mendoza's\ncollection. A still more complete narrative of these baptismal\nceremonies is given by Bernardino de Sahagun, who records the terms\nof the prayers habitually employed by the officiating midwife. Their\nextreme interest to the study of comparative religion will justify me\nin extracting some of them, the more so as they have never (so far as I\nam aware) been published in English.[4]\n\nSuppose that the infant to be baptized was a boy. After the symbolical\nmilitary apparatus had been prepared, and all the relatives assembled\nin the court of the parents' house, the midwife placed it with the head\nto the East, and prayed for a blessing from the god Quetzalcoatl and\nthe goddess of the water, Chalchivitlycue. She then gave it water to\ntaste by moistening the fingers, and spoke as follows: \"Take, receive;\nthou seest here that with which thou hast to live on earth, that thou\nmayest grow and flourish: this it is to which we owe the necessaries of\nlife, that we may live on earth: receive it.\" Hereupon, having touched\nits breast with the fingers dipped in water, she continued: \"Omictomx!\nO my child! receive the water of the Lord of the world, which is our\nlife, and by which our body grows and flourishes: it is to wash and\nto purify; may this sky-blue and light-blue water enter thy body and\nthere live. May it destroy and separate from thee all the evil that was\nbeginning in thee before the beginning of the world, since all of us\nmen are subject to its power, for our mother is Chalchivitlycue.\" After\nthis she washed the child's whole body with water, and proceeded to\nrequest all things that might injure him to depart from him, \"that now\nhe may live again, and be born again: now a second time he is purified\nand cleansed, and a second time our mother Chalchivitlycue forms and\nbegets him.\" Then lifting the child in both hands towards the sky, she\nsaid: \"O Lord, thou seest here thy child whom thou hast sent to this\nworld of pain, affliction, and penitence: give him, O Lord, thy gifts\nand thy inspiration, for thou art the great God, and great is the\ngoddess also.\" After this she deposited the infant on the ground, and\nthen raising it a second time towards the sky, implored the \"mother of\nheaven\" to endow it with her virtue. Next, having again laid it down,\nand a third time lifted it up, she offered this prayer: \"O Lords, the\ngods of heaven! here is this child; be pleased to inspire him with\nyour grace and your spirit, that he may live on earth.\" After a final\ndepositing she raised him a fourth time towards the sky, and in a\nprayer, addressed to the sun, solemnly placed him under the protection\nof that deity. Taking the weapons she proceeded further to implore\nthe sun on his behalf for military virtues: \"Grant him the gift that\nthou art wont to give thy soldiers, that he may go full of joy to thy\nhouse, where valiant soldiers who die in war rest and are happy.\" While\nall this was going on, a large torch of candlewood was kept burning;\nand on conclusion of the prayers the midwife gave the infant some\nancestral name. Let it be Yautl (which means _valiant man_): then she\naddressed him thus: \"Yautl! take thou the shield! take the dart! for\nthose are thy recreation, and the joys of the sun.\" The completion of\nthe religious office was signalized by the youths of the village coming\nin a body to the house and seizing the food prepared for them, which\nthey called \"the child's umbilicus.\" As they went along with this food\nthey shouted out a sort of military exhortation to the new-born boy,\nand called upon the soldiers to come and eat the (so-called) umbilicus.\nAll being over, the infant was carried back to the house, preceded\nby the blazing torch. Much the same was the process of baptizing a\ngirl, except that the clothes and implements were suited to her sex.\nIn her case, certain formularies were muttered by the midwife during\nthe washing, in a low, inaudible tone, to the several parts of her\nbody: thus she charged the hands not to steal, the secret parts not to\nbe carnal, and so forth with each member as she washed it. Moreover,\na prayer to the cradle, which seems in a manner to personify the\nuniversal mother earth, was introduced in the baptism of females (C. N.\nE. b. 6, chs. 37, 38).\n\nIf from heathen America we turn to Asia, we find that in the vast\ndomain of the Buddhist faith the birth of children is regularly the\noccasion of a ceremony at which the priest is present (R. B. vol. i. p.\n584,) and that in Mongolia and Thibet this ceremony assumes the special\nform of baptism. Candles burn, and incense is offered on the domestic\naltar; the priest reads the prescribed prayers, dips the child three\ntimes, and imposes on it a name (R. B. vol. ii. p. 320). A species\nof baptism prevails also among the Parsees, and was even enjoined by\nthe Parsee Leviticus, the Vendidad. This very ancient code required\nthat the child's hands should be washed first, and then its whole body\n(Av. vol. ii. p. xix\u2014Vendidad, xvi. 18-20). The modern practice goes\nfurther. Before putting it to the breast, the Parsee mother sends to a\nMobed (or priest), to obtain some Haoma juice; she steeps some cotton\nin it, and presses this into the child's mouth. After this, it must\nbe washed three times in cow's urine, and once in water, the reason\nassigned being that it is impure. If the washing be omitted, it is the\nparents, not the child, who bear the sin (Z. A., vol. ii. p. 551).\n\nSlightly different in form, but altogether similar in essence, is the\nrite administered by the Christian Church to its new-born members. Like\nthose which have been just described, it consists in baptism; but it\noffers a more remarkable instance than any of them of the tenacity with\nwhich the human mind, under the influence of religious belief, insists\nupon the performance of some kind of ceremony immediately after, or,\nat the most, at no great interval after birth. Christian baptism was\nnot originally intended to be administered to unconscious infants,\nbut to persons in full possession of their faculties, and responsible\nfor their actions. Moreover, it was performed, as is well known, not\nby merely sprinkling the forehead, but by causing the candidate to\ndescend naked into the water, the priest joining him there, and pouring\nthe water over his head. The catechumen could not receive baptism\nuntil after he understood something of the nature of the faith he was\nembracing, and was prepared to assume its obligations. A rite more\ntotally unfitted for administration to infants could hardly have been\nfound. Yet such was the need that was felt for a solemn recognition\nby religion of the entrance of the child into the world, that this\nrite, in course of time, completely lost its original nature. Infancy\ntook the place of maturity; sprinkling of immersion. But while the\nage and manner of baptism were altered, the ritual remained under the\ninfluence of the primitive idea with which it had been instituted. The\nobligations could no longer be undertaken by the persons baptized;\nhence they must be undertaken for them. Thus was the Christian Church\nlanded in the absurdity\u2014unparalleled, I believe, in any other natal\nceremony\u2014of requiring the most solemn promises to be made, not by those\nwho were thereafter to fulfil them, but by others in their name; these\nothers having no power to enforce their fulfillment, and neither those\nactually assuming the engagement, nor those on whose behalf it was\nassumed, being morally responsible in case it should be broken. Yet\nthis strange incongruity was forced upon the Church by an imperious\nwant of human nature itself; and the insignificant sects who have\nadopted the baptism of adults have failed, in their zeal for historical\nconsistency, to recognize a sentiment whose roots lie far deeper than\nthe chronological foundation of Christian rites, and stretch far wider\nthan the geographical boundaries of the Christian faith.\n\nThe intention of all these forms of baptism\u2014that of Ashantee perhaps\nexcepted\u2014is identical. Water, as the natural means of physical\ncleansing, is the universal symbol of spiritual purification. Hence\nimmersion, or washing, or sprinkling, implies the deliverance of the\ninfant from the stain of original sin. The Mexican and Christian\nrituals are perfectly clear on this head. In both, the avowed intention\nis to wash away the sinful nature common to humanity; in both the\ninfant is declared to be born again by the agency of water.\n\nAnother ceremony very frequently practised at the birth of children\nis circumcision. The wide-spread existence of this rite is one of\nthe most remarkable facts in comparative religious history. We know\nfrom Herodotus, that it was practised by the Colchians, Egyptians,\nEthiopians, and Ph\u0153nicians (Herod., ii. 104). It has been found in\nmodern times, not only in many parts of Africa\u2014to which it may have\ncome from Egypt\u2014but in the South Sea Islands and on the American\ncontinent. Thus, according to Beecham, there are \"some people,\" among\nthe Gold Coast Africans, who circumcise their children (Asha, p. 225),\nthough what proportion these circumcisers bear to the rest of the\npopulation, he does not inform us. Another traveler describes the mode\nof circumcising infants in the Negro kingdom of Fida or Juda, a country\nto which he believes that Islamism has not penetrated (V. G. vol. ii.\np. 159). The operation is very simple, and appears to be done without\nany religious ceremony; but the natives, when pressed as to the reason\nof the custom, can only reply that their ancestors observed it\u2014an\nanswer which would properly apply to a rite of religious origin whose\nmeaning has been forgotten. Acosta, in his account of Mexican baptism,\nadds that a ceremony which in some sort imitated the circumcision of\nthe Jews, was occasionally performed by the Mexicans in their baptism,\nprincipally on the children of kings and noblemen. It consisted in\ncutting the ears and private members of male infants (H. I., b. 5, ch.\n26 No. 2). That the Jews circumcise their male children on the eighth\nday I need not state. The rite is performed with much solemnity, and\nis connected, as is common in these ceremonies, with the bestowal of\na name on the child, the name being given by the father after the\noperation is over. Although circumcision is a ceremony which usually\napplies only to boys, and although it sometimes happens that the birth\nof girls is not marked like that of boys by any religious rite, yet the\nJews do not omit to consecrate their female children as well as those\nof the stronger sex, though with less solemnity. \"The first Saturday\nafter the end of the month\" of the mother's lying-in, she goes to the\nsynagogue with her friends, where \"the father of the girl is called\nup to the law on the altar, and there after a chapter hath been read\nto him as usual on the Sabbath morning, he orders the reader to say a\nMee-Shabeyrach,\" or a prayer for a blessing (Rel. of Jews, p. 27 1st\npart).\n\nIt is unnecessary, after these instances, to describe the various\nmodes of consecrating the commencement of life which are in use in\nother countries. Enough has been said to show how general, if not how\nuniversal, such consecrating usages are; how religion, supported by\nthe sentiment of mankind, seizes upon the life of the individual from\nthe first moments of his existence; and demands, as one of the very\nearliest actions to be performed on his behalf, a solemn recognition of\nthe fact that he stands under the influence, and needs the protection,\nof an invisible and superhuman power.\n\nAfter birth, the next marked epoch in life is the arrival at manhood or\nat womanhood. The transition from infancy to maturity, from dependence\non others to self-dependence, from an unsexual to a sexual physical and\nmental condition, has, like the actual entrance upon life and departure\nfrom it, been appropriated by religion with a view to its consecration\nby fitting rites. Since there is no precise time at which the boy can\nbe said to become a youth, or the girl a maiden, the age at which the\nceremonies attending puberty are performed varies very considerably in\ndifferent countries. The range of variation is from eight to sixteen,\nthough there are exceptional cases both of earlier and later initiation\ninto the new stage of existence. Generally speaking, however, these\nages are the limits within which the religious solemnities of puberty\nare confined.\n\nMore clearly, perhaps, than any of those occurring at the other crises\nof our lives, these solemnities are pervaded by common characteristics.\nPrimitive man in Australia, in America, and in Africa, marks the advent\nof puberty in a manner which is essentially the same. When we rise\nto the higher class of religions, we find ceremonies of a different\nkind from which the ruder symbolism of the savage creeds is absent.\nBut from the uniformity of the types of initiation into manhood among\nuncivilized people, it is highly probable that the progenitors of\nthe Aryan and Semitic races also, at some period of their history,\nemployed similar methods of rendering this epoch in life impressive\nand remarkable. Two distinguishing features characterize the rites of\npuberty\u2014cruelty and mystery. There is always some painful ordeal to be\nundergone by the young men or boys who have attained the requisite age;\nand this ordeal is to be passed through in extreme secrecy as regards\nthe opposite sex, and with a ceremonial of an unknown character, which\nis hidden from all but the initiated performers. Sometimes the puberty\nof women is also sanctified by religious ceremonies, and these follow\nthe same rules, except that the female sex are not required to undergo\nsuch severe suffering as is often inflicted upon men. While, however,\nthe cruelty is less, the mystery is the same. Men are not admitted\nto witness the performances gone through, and these are conducted in\nsecluded places to which no access is allowed.\n\nThe meaning of these two features of the rites of puberty is not\ndifficult to divine. Young men enter at that age on a period of their\nlives in which they are expected to display courage in danger and\nfirmness under pain. Hence the infliction of some kind of suffering\nis an appropriate symbolical preparation for their future careers.\nMoreover, the manner in which they endure their agony serves as a test\nof their fortitude, and may influence the position to be assigned to\nthem in the warlike expeditions of the tribe. But the primary motive,\nno doubt, is the apparent fitness of the infliction of pain at an age\nwhen the necessary pains of manhood are about to begin.\n\nThe explanation of the secrecy observed is equally simple. A mysterious\nchange takes place in the physical condition at puberty, the generative\nfunctions, which are to play so large a part in the life of the\nindividual, making their appearance then. It is this natural process to\nwhich the religious process bears reference. Without doubt the rites\nperformed stand in symbolical relation to the new class of actions\nof which their subject is, or will be, capable. It is this allusion\nto the sexual instinct\u2014a subject always tending to be shrouded in\nmystery\u2014which is the origin of the jealous exclusion of women from the\nrites undergone by men, and of men from those undergone by women. The\nmembers of each sex are, so to speak, prepared alone for the pleasures\nthey are afterwards to enjoy together. Religion, ever ready to seize on\nthe more solemn moments of our existence, seeks to consecrate the time\nat which the two sexes are ready to enter towards one another on a new\nand deeply important relationship.\n\nBearing these characteristics in mind, we may proceed to notice a few\nof the ceremonies performed at puberty. Let us begin with the most\nbarbarous of all, those witnessed by Mr. Catlin among the Mandans, a\ntribe of North American Indians now happily extinct. The usual secrecy\nwas observed about the \"O-kee-pa,\" as this great Mandan ceremony\nis termed, and it was only by a favor, never before accorded to a\nstranger, that Mr. Catlin was enabled to be present in the \"Medicine\nLodge,\" where the operations were conducted. In the first place a\nmysterious personage, supposed to represent a white man, appeared from\nthe west and opened the lodge. At his approach all women and children\nwere ordered to retire within their wigwams. Next day the young men\nwho had arrived at maturity during the last year were summoned to come\nforth, the rest of the villagers remaining shut up. After committing\nthe conduct of the ceremonies to a \"medicine man,\" this personage\nreturned to the west with the same mystery with which he had come.\nThe young men were now kept without food, drink, or sleep, for four\ndays and four nights. In the middle of the fourth day two men began\nto operate upon them, the one making incisions with a knife in their\nflesh, and the other passing splints through the wounds, from which\nthe blood trickled over their naked, but painted bodies. The parts\nthrough which the knife was passed were on each arm, above and below\nthe elbow; on each leg, above and below the knee; on each breast, and\neach shoulder. The young men not only did not wince, but smiled at\ntheir civilized observer during this process. \"When these incisions\nwere all made, and the splints passed through, a cord of raw hide was\nlowered down through the top of the wigwam, and fastened to the splints\non the breasts or shoulders, by which the young man was to be raised up\nand suspended, by men placed on the top of the lodge for the purpose.\nThese cords having been attached to the splints on the breast or the\nshoulders, each one had his shield hung to some one of the splints:\nhis _medicine bag_ was held in his left hand, and a dried buffalo\nskull was attached to the splint of each lower leg and each lower\narm, that its weight might prevent him from struggling.\" At a signal,\nthe men were drawn up three or four feet above the ground, and turned\nround with gradually increasing velocity, by a man with a pole, until\nthey fainted. Although they had never groaned before, they uttered a\nheart-rending cry, a sort of prayer to the Great Spirit, during the\nturning. Having ceased to cry, they were let down apparently dead. Left\nentirely to themselves, they in time were able \"_partly_ to rise,\" and\nno sooner could they do thus much than they moved to another part of\nthe lodge, where the little finger of the left hand was cut off with a\nhatchet. But their tortures were not over. The rest of them took place\nin public, and were perhaps more frightful than any. The victims were\ntaken out of the lodge, and, being each placed between two athletic\nmen, were dragged along, the men holding them with thongs and running\nwith them as fast as they could, until all the buffalo skulls and\nweights hanging to the splints were left behind. These weights must\nbe dragged out through the flesh, the candidates having the option\nof running in the race described, or of wandering about the prairies\nwithout food until suppuration took place, and the weights came off by\ndecay of the flesh. These horrors concluded, the young men were left\nalone to recover as best they might. Mr. Catlin could only hear of\none who had died \"in the extreme part of this ceremony,\" and his fate\nwas considered rather a happy one: \"the Great Spirit had so willed it\nfor some especial purpose, and no doubt for the young man's benefit\"\n(O-kee-pa, p. 9-32).\n\nNor were the Mandans alone on the American continent in marking the\nentrance upon manhood by distinctive observances. On the contrary, a\nwriter of the highest authority on Red Indian subjects, states that\nno young man among the native tribes was considered fit to begin the\ncareer of life until he had accomplished his great fast. Seven days\nwere considered the maximum time during which a young man could fast,\nand the success of the devotee was inferred from the length of his\nabstinence. These fasts, says Mr. Schoolcraft, \"are awaited with\ninterest, prepared for with solemnity, and endured with a self-devotion\nbordering on the heroic.... It is at this period that the young men and\nyoung women 'see visions and dream dreams,' and fortune or misfortune\nis predicted from the guardian spirit chosen during this, to them,\nreligious ordeal. The hallucinations of the mind are taken for divine\ninspiration. The effect is deeply felt and strongly impressed on the\nmind; too deeply, indeed, ever to be obliterated in after life.\" It\nappears that they always in after life trust to, and meditate on, the\nguardian spirit whom they have chosen at this critical moment; but that\n\"the _name_ is never uttered, and every circumstance connected with\nits selection, and the devotion paid to it, are most studiously and\nprofessedly concealed, even from their nearest friends\" (A. R., vol. i.\npp. 149, 150). Mystery is certainly pushed to its highest point, when\nthe name of the spirit chosen at puberty, and the very circumstances of\nthe choice, are preserved as an inviolable secret within the breast of\nthe devotee.\n\nNew South Wales is distinguished by a ceremony which, though far less\nsevere than that of the Mandans, is nevertheless sufficiently painful.\n\"Between the ages of eight and sixteen the males and females undergo\nthe operation which they term Gnanoong; viz., that of having the septum\nof the nose bored to receive a bone or reed.... Between the same years,\nalso, the males receive the qualifications which are given to them by\nlosing one front tooth.\" The loss of a tooth is not in itself a very\nserious matter, but the intention of the extraction being religious,\nthe natives contrive to get rid of it in the most barbarous mode. The\nfinal event is led up to by a series of performances of a more or less\nemblematic nature. One of them, for instance, is supposed to give\npower over the dog; another refers to the hunting of the kangaroo.\nThere is the usual mystery about some part of the proceedings. When\nthe boys were being arranged for the removal of the tooth \"the author\n[Collins] was not permitted to witness this part of the business,\nabout which they appeared to observe a greater degree of mystery and\npreparation than he had noticed in either of the preceding ceremonies.\"\nAfter this, some of the performers in the rite went through a number\nof extraordinary motions, and made strange noises. \"A particular\nname, _boo-roo-moo-roong_, was given to this scene; but of its import\nvery little could be learned. To the inquiries made respecting it no\nanswer could be obtained, but that it was very good; that the boys\nwould now become brave men; that they would see well and fight well.\"\nWhen the tooth was to be taken out, the gum was first prepared by a\nsharply-pointed bone; and a throwing-stick, cut for the purpose with\n\"much ceremony,\" was then applied to the tooth, and knocked against\nit by means of a stone in the hand of the operator. The tooth was\nthus struck out of the gum, the operation taking ten minutes in the\ncase of the first boy on whom the author witnessed this process being\nperformed. After the tooth was gone, \"the gum was closed by his\nfriends, who now equipped him in the style that he was to appear in\nfor some days. A girdle was tied round his waist, in which was stuck a\nwooden sword; a ligature was bound round his head, in which were stuck\nslips of the grass-gum tree.\" The boy \"was on no account to speak, and\nfor that day he was not to eat.\" The sufferers in this ceremonial did\nnot long remain quiescent. In the evening they had fresh duties to\ndischarge. \"Suddenly, on a signal being given, they all started up, and\nrushed into the town, driving before them men, women, and children,\nwho were glad to get out of their way. They were now received into the\nclass of men; were privileged to wield the sword and the club, and to\noppose their persons in combat; and might now seize such females as\nthey chose for wives.\" The sexual import of the ceremony is clearly\nbrought into view by the last words of the writer. He adds that, having\nexpressed a wish to possess some of the teeth, they were given him by\ntwo men with extreme secrecy, and injunctions not to betray them (N. S.\nW., p. 364-374).\n\nAnother observer has described the same rite as performed in a somewhat\ndifferent manner, \"by the tribes of the Macquarrie district\" farther\nnorth. When these tribes assemble \"to celebrate the mysteries of\nKebarrah,\" as it is termed, all hostility which may exist at the time\nis laid aside for the nonce. \"When the cooi or cowack sounds the note\nof preparation, the women and children in haste make their way towards\nthe ravines and gulleys, and there remain concealed.\" The dentistry\nof these tribes is less scientific than that of New South Wales. The\ntooth is knocked out \"by boring a hole in a tree, and inserting into\nit a small hard twig; the tooth is then brought into contact with the\nend, and one individual holds the candidate's head in a firm position\nagainst it, whilst another, exerting all his strength, pushes the\nboy's head forwards; the concussion causes the tooth, with frequently\na portion of the gum adhering to it, to fall out.\" But this is not\nall the poor boy has to endure, for while \"some men stand over him,\nbrandishing their waddies, menacing him with instant death if he utters\nany complaint,\" others cut his back in stripes, and make incisions\non his shoulders with flints. It is an interesting part of these\nceremonies, that the least groan or indication of pain is summarily\npunished by the utterance, on the part of the operators, of three yells\nto proclaim the fact, and by the transfer of the boy to the care of the\nwomen, who are summoned to receive him. If he does not shrink, \"he is\nadmitted to the rank of a huntsman and a warrior\" (S. L. A., vol. ii.\np. 216-224).\n\nIn other parts of Australia, different ceremonies prevail. Thus, in one\nof the districts visited by Mr. Angas, when boys arrive at the age of\nfourteen or sixteen, they are \"selected and caught by stealth,\" and the\nhairs of their body are plucked out, and green gum-bushes are placed\n\"under the arm-pits and over the _os pubis_.\" Among the privileges\nconferred on those who have undergone this treatment, is that of\nwearing \"two kangaroo teeth, and a bunch of emu feathers in their\nhair.\" More significant still is the permission to \"possess themselves\nof wives,\" which the young men now obtain. The \"scrub-natives\" vary\nthe initiation again. Among them the boy, brought by an old man, is\nlaid upon his back in the midst of five fires which are lighted around\nhim. An instrument, called a _wittoo wittoo_, is whirled round over the\nfires, with the intention of keeping off evil spirits. Lastly, \"with a\nsharp flint, the old man cuts off the foreskin, and places it on the\nthird finger of the boy's left hand, who then gets up, and with another\nnative, selected for the purpose, goes away into the hills to avoid the\nsight of women for some time. No women are allowed to be present at\nthis rite\" (S. L. A., vol. i. pp. 98, 99).\n\nElsewhere on the same continent, there are three stages to be passed\non the road from boyhood to manhood. At the age of twelve or fifteen\nthe boys are removed to a place apart from the women, whom they are not\npermitted to see, and then blindfolded. Among some other ceremonies\ntheir faces are blackened, and they are told to whisper, an injunction\npeculiarly characteristic of the mysteriousness which is so constant\na feature of the rites of puberty. For several months this whispering\ncontinues, and it is noteworthy, as a sign of the sexual nature of\nthese proceedings, that the place where the whispers have been \"is\ncarefully avoided by the women and children.\" In the second ceremony,\nwhich occurs two or three years later, \"the _glans penis_ is slit open\nunderneath, from the extremity to the scrotum, and circumcision is also\nperformed.\" After this second stage, the _Partnapas_, as the youths are\nnow styled, \"are permitted to take a wife.\" In the third ceremony each\nman has a sponsor, by whom he is tatooed with a sharp quartz. These\nsponsors, moreover, bestow on each lad a new name, which he retains\nduring the remainder of his life. Certain other performances are gone\nthrough, such as putting an instrument termed a _witarna_ round the\nlads' necks, and then \"the ceremony concludes by the men all clustering\nround the initiated ones, enjoining them again to whisper for some\nmonths, and bestowing upon them their advice as regards hunting,\nfighting, and contempt of pain. All these ceremonies are carefully kept\nfrom the sight of the women and the children; who, when they hear the\nsound of the _witarna_, hide their heads and exhibit every outward sign\nof terror\" (S. L. A., vol. i. p. 113-116).\n\nLeaving Australia, let us pass to Africa, and call Mr. Reade as a\nwitness to some of the rites of puberty existing among the savages\nof that continent. The following extract is doubly interesting, as\nfurnishing some account of the application to girls of the general\nprinciples involved in these rites, and also as supplying, in the\nauthor's opinion, that they are of a Phallic nature, a confirmation of\nthe conclusions we had reached from a survey of the evidence as a whole:\n\n\"Before they are permitted to wear clothes, marry, and rank in\nsociety as men and women, the young have to be initiated into certain\nmysteries. I received some information upon this head from Mongilomba,\nafter he had made me promise that I would not put it into a book:\na promise which I am compelled to break by the stern duties of my\nvocation. He told me that he was taken into a fetich-house, stripped,\nseverely flogged, and plastered with goat-dung; this ceremony, like\nthose of Masonry, being conducted to the sound of music. Afterwards\nthere came from behind a kind of screen or shrine uncouth and terrible\nsounds such as he had never heard before. These, he was told, emanated\nfrom a spirit called _Ukuk_. He afterwards brought to me the instrument\nwith which the fetich-man makes this noise. It is a kind of whistle\nmade of hollowed mangrove wood, about two inches in length, and covered\nat one end with a scrap of bat's wing. For a period of five days after\ninitiation the novice wears an apron of dry palm leaves, which I have\nfrequently seen.\n\n\"The initiation of the girls is performed by elderly females who call\nthemselves _Ngembi_. They go into the forest, clear a place, sweep the\nground carefully, come back to the town, and build a sacred hut which\nno male may enter. They return to the clearing in the forest, taking\nwith them the _Igonji_, or novice. It is necessary that she should have\nnever been to that place before, and that she fast during the whole\nof the ceremony, which lasts three days. All this time a fire is kept\nburning in the wood. From morning to night, and from night to morning,\na _Ngembi_ sits beside it and feeds it, singing, with a cracked voice,\n_The fire will never die out!_ The third night is passed in the sacred\nhut; the _Igonji_ is rubbed with black, red, and white paints, and as\nthe men beat drums outside, she cries, _Okanda, yo! yo! yo!_ which\nreminds one of the _Evohe!_ of the ancient Bacchantes. The ceremonies\nwhich are performed in the hut and in the wood are kept secret from\nthe men, and I can say but little of them. Mongilomba had evidently\nbeen playing the spy, but was very reserved upon the subject. Should it\nbe known, he said, that he had told me what he had missing, the women\nwould drag him into a fetich-house, and would flog him, perhaps till he\nwas dead.\n\n\"It is pretty certain, however, that these rites, like those of the\nBona Dea, are essentially of a Phallic nature; for Mongilomba once\nconfessed, that having peeped through the chinks of the hut, he saw a\nceremony like that which is described in Petronius Arbiter....\n\n\"During the novitiate which succeeds initiation, the girls are taught\nreligious dances\u2014the men are instructed in science of fetich\" (S. A.,\np. 245-247).\n\nThe Suzees and the Mandingoes, tribes of Western Africa, are\ndistinguished by a rite which, so far as I know, is peculiar\u2014the\ncircumcision of women. Both sexes, indeed, are circumcised on reaching\npuberty, and in the case of the girls it is done \"by cutting off the\nexterior part of the clitoris.\" With a view to this ceremony, \"the\ngirls of each town who are judged marriageable are collected together,\nand in the night preceding the day on which the ceremony takes place,\nare conducted by the women of the village into the inmost recesses of a\nwood.\" Surrounded by charms to guard every approach to the \"consecrated\nspot,\" they are kept here in entire seclusion for a month and a day,\nvisited only by the old woman who performs the operation. During this\nclose confinement they are instructed in the religion of their country,\nwhich hitherto they have not been thought fit to learn. A most singular\nscene is enacted at its close. They return to their homes by night,\n\"where they are received by all the women of the village, young and\nold, quite naked.\" In this condition they go about till morning, with\nmusic playing; and should any man be indiscreet enough to imitate\nPeeping Tom, he is punished by death or the forfeiture of a slave.\nAfter another month of parading and marching in procession (no longer\nnude) the women are given to their destined husbands;\u2014another plain\nindication of the nature of these rites. In such veneration is this\nceremony held among the women of the country, that those who have come\nfrom other parts, and are already in years, frequently submit to it\nto avoid the reproaches to which uncircumcision exposes them. Indeed,\n\"the most vilifying term they can possibly use\" is applied by the\ncircumcised female population to those who do not enjoy their religious\nprivileges (S. L., p. 70-83).\n\nPuberty is recognized in much the same way among the South Sea\nIslanders. Thus, in Tanna \"circumcision is regularly practised about\nthe seventh year\" (N. Y., p. 87). In Samoa \"a modified form of\ncircumcision prevailed,\" which boys of their own accord, would get\nperformed upon themselves about the eighth or tenth year (Ib., p.\n177). It may be a faint beginning of the religious ceremonies of\nthis period of life that, in the same island, when girls are entering\ninto womanhood, their parents invite all the unmarried women of the\nsettlement to a feast, at which presents are distributed among them.\nAt least it is worthy of remark that \"none but females are present\" on\nthese occasions (Ib., p. 184).\n\nWhen we rise higher in the scale of culture, we no longer find the\npainful rites by which savage nations mark the appearance of the sexual\ninstinct. The sacred ceremony of investiture with the thread, which\ndistinguished the twice-born classes among the Hindus, was performed at\nthis age. The code of Manu is explicit on the subject. \"In the eighth\nyear from the conception of a Brahman, in the eleventh from that of\nKshatriya, and in the twelfth from that of a Vaisya, let the father\ninvest the child with the mark of his class.\" In the case of children\nwho desire to advance more rapidly than usual in their vocation,\n\"the investiture may be made in the fifth, sixth, or eighth years\nrespectively. The ceremony of investiture hallowed by the gayatri must\nnot be delayed, in the case of a priest, beyond the sixteenth year;\nnor in that of a soldier beyond the twenty-second; nor in that of a\nmerchant beyond the twenty-fourth.\" Further postponement would render\nthose who were guilty of it outcasts, impure, and unfit to associate\nwith Brahmans (Manu, ii. 36-40).\n\nMembers of the kindred Parsee religion become responsible human beings\nafter they have been girt with the kosti, or sacred girdle. The age at\nwhich this took place was formerly fifteen; and after they had once put\nthem on, the Parsees might not remove their girdles, except in bed,\nwithout incurring serious guilt. This regulation applied equally to\nboth sexes. Modern usage has advanced the investiture with the kosti to\na much earlier period. It takes place in India at seven, and in Kirman\nat nine. In India, the child is held responsible in the eighth or tenth\nyear for one half of its sins, the parents bearing the burden of the\nother half (Av., vol. i. p. 9; vol. ii. pp. 21, 22).\n\nThe young Jew \"is looked upon as a man\" at the age of thirteen, and is\nthen bound \"to observe all the commandments of the law.\" At this age he\nbecomes \"Bar-mizva,\" or a son of the law; that is, he enters on his\nspiritual majority (Picard, vol. i. ch. x. p. 82). Christian nations\nsignalize the advent of the corresponding epoch by admitting those who\nattain it to the Sacrament of the Lord's supper, and to confirmation.\nAt puberty they are considered, like the young Parsees, responsible for\nthe sins which at their birth their sponsors took upon themselves, and\nat puberty they are admitted, like the Jews, to the full privileges\nof their faith, by being allowed to partake in the mystic benefits\nconferred by the celebration of the death of Christ in the Holy\nCommunion.\n\nAfter puberty the two sexes enter on a new relation towards one\nanother; and though the instinct by which this relation is established\nis extremely apt to break loose from the control of religion, yet the\nlatter always attempts more or less energetically to bring it within\nits grasp. This it does by confining the irregular indulgences to which\nthe sexual passion is prone within the legalized forms of matrimony. To\nmatrimony, and matrimony alone, it gives its sanction; and accordingly\nit confers a peculiar sacredness upon this form of cohabitation, by\nthe performance of ceremonies at its outset. Such ceremonies are not\nindeed equally universal with those of birth and puberty. Among savage\nand slightly civilized communities we do not find them. But in all the\ngreat religions of the world they are firmly established.\n\nLittle of a distinctively religious character is perceptible in Major\nForbes's account of marriage rites in the island of Ceylon. Yet it is\nplain that Singhalese marriages do stand under a religious sanction,\nfor in the first place an astrologer must examine the horoscopes of the\ntwo parties, to discover whether they correspond, and then the same\nfunctionary is called upon to name an auspicious time for the wedding.\nOn the day of its occurrence a feast is given at the bride's house, and\n\"on the astrologer notifying that the appointed moment is approaching,\na half-ripe cocoa-nut, previously placed near the board with some\nmystical ceremonies, is cloven in two at one blow\" (E. Y., vol. i. p.\n326-332).\n\nTurning from southern to northern Buddhism, we find K\u00f6ppen asserting\nthat in Thibet and the surrounding countries, marriage consists solely\nin the private contract, yet adding that none the less the lamaist\nclergy find business to do in regard to engagements and weddings.\nThe priests alone know whether the nativity of the bride stands in\na favorable relation to that of the bridegroom, and if not, by what\nceremonies and sacrifices misfortune may be averted; they alone know\nthe day that is most suitable and propitious for the wedding; they give\nthe bond its consecration and its blessing by burning incense and by\nprayer (R. B., vol. ii. p. 321).\n\nThe Code of Manu is not very clear as to the sort of marriages\nsanctioned by religion; some irregular connections apparently receiving\na formal recognition, though regarded with moral disapprobation. The\nsystem of caste, moreover, introduces a confusing element, since the\nnuptial rites are permitted, by some authorities, to become less and\nless solemn as the grade of the contracting parties becomes lower. This\nopinion having been mentioned, however, the legislator adds, that \"in\nthis Code, three of the five last [forms of marriage] are held legal,\nand two illegal: the ceremonies of Pisachas and Asuras must never\nbe performed.\" Of the two prohibited forms, the first is merely an\nembrace when the damsel is asleep, drunk, or of disordered intellect;\nthe second is when the bride's family, and the bride herself, have\nbeen enriched by large gifts on the part of the bridegroom. Strangely\nenough, this regulation does not exclude the marriage called Gandharva,\nwhich is \"the reciprocal connection of a youth and a damsel, with\nmutual desire,\" and is \"contracted for the purpose of amorous embraces,\nand proceeding from sexual inclination.\" Nor does it forbid forcible\ncapture. But a little further on, the code encourages the more regular\nmodes of marrying by promising intelligent, beautiful, and virtuous\nsons to those who observe them; and threatening those who do not with\nbad and cruel sons. It is then stated that \"the ceremony of joining\nhands is appointed for those who marry women of their own class, but\nwith women of a different class\" certain ceremonies, enumerated in\nthe Code, are to be performed (Manu, iii. i. 44). It is probable that\nthis Code was never actually the law of any part of India; but it is\nnone the less interesting to see the legislator striving to bring the\nlawless passions with which he is dealing under the supervision of\nreligion.\n\nAn elaborate blessing and exhortation, beginning with the words \"In\nthe name of God,\" is appointed in the Zend-Avesta for the nuptial\nceremonial. While marriages among Jews and Christians are, as is well\nknown, inaugurated by solemn religious rites, and all unions not thus\nconsecrated are, at least by the formal judgment of their respective\ncreeds, pronounced unholy, sinful, and impure.\n\nDeath, like marriage, is held among all religions but the lowest to\ncall for the performance of befitting rites. In these it is usually\nnoticeable that much regard is paid to the manner in which the\ndeceased is placed in the grave, this circumstance indicating as a\ngeneral rule some form of the belief in his continued existence. Thus,\nLieut.-Colonel Collins, describing the burial of a boy in New South\nWales, observes that \"on laying the body in the grave, great care was\ntaken so to place it that the sun might look at it as it passed, the\nnatives cutting down for that purpose every shrub that could obstruct\nthe view. He was placed on his right side, with his head to the N. W.\"\n(N. S. W., p. 387-390).\n\nIf there is little trace among the rude population of this colony of a\nreligious ceremony at the interment, we find the position of religion\ndistinctly recognized by the natives of some parts of Africa. Oldendorp\ntells us of the tribes with which he was acquainted, that the funeral\nrites are performed by the priests, who are richly rewarded for the\nservice. Not only are animals sacrificed at the graves, but in the\ncase of men of rank their wives and servants are (as is well known)\nslaughtered to attend them (G. d. M., p. 313-317). In Sierra Leone,\nwhere \"every town or village, which has been long inhabited, has a\ncommon burial-place,\" there is the usual attention to position in the\ngrave. \"The head of the corpse, if a man, lies either east or west;\nif a woman, it is turned either to the north or south. An occasional\nprayer is pronounced over the grave, importing a wish that God may\nreceive the deceased, and that no harm may happen to him.\" Moreover,\nthere is a ceremony which appears to be a sort of sacrifice to the\nmanes. \"A fowl is fastened by the leg upon the grave, and a little rice\nplaced near it; if it refuse to eat the rice, it is not killed; but if\nit eat, the head is cut off, and the blood sprinkled upon the grave;\nafter which it is cooked, and a part placed on the grave, the remainder\nbeing eaten by the attendants.\" A tribe called the Soosoos \"bury their\ndead with their faces to the west\" (S. L., vol. i. pp. 238, 239).\n\nSometimes we meet with the opinion that the entire removal of the\ndeceased from his accustomed place of abode on earth depends upon\ndue attention to the rites of interment. A primitive form of this\nwide-spread belief\u2014which lingers as a survival even in Christendom\u2014is\nobservable in Polynesia. In Samoa, \"in order to secure the admission of\na departed spirit to future joys, the corpse was dressed in the best\nattire the relatives could provide, the head was wreathed with flowers,\nand other decorations were added. A pig was then baked whole, and\nplaced upon the body of the deceased, surrounded by a pile of vegetable\nfood.\" The corpse is then addressed by a near relation, who desires it\nwith the property thus bestowed to make its way into \"the palace of\nTiki,\" and not to return to alarm the survivors. If nothing happened\nwithin a few days, the deceased was supposed to have got in; but a\ncricket being heard on the premises was taken as an ill omen, and led\nto the repetition of the offering.\n\nElsewhere in the same group of islands \"more costly sacrifices\"\nwere presented to the gods of the celestial regions. At least at\nthe interment of a chief it was customary for his wives to sit down\nseverally near his body, to be strangled, and then buried along with\nhim. \"The reasons assigned for this are, that the spirit of the chief\nmay not be lonely in its passage to the invisible world, and that by\nsuch an offering its happiness may be at once secured\" (N. M. E., pp.\n145, 146).\n\nFuneral ceremonies in Mexico were performed by priests and monks, and\nvaried in splendor according to the rank of the deceased. Offices were\nchanted at the graves, and at the burial of persons of quality slaves\nwere killed to serve them in the next world. Moreover, so sensible were\nthe Mexicans to the importance of religion in all states of being, that\neven the domestic chaplain was not omitted; a priest being slaughtered\nto accompany his lord in that capacity (H. I., b. v. ch. viii).\n\nIn Ceylon, a dying relative is taken to a detached apartment, where\nhe is placed with his head towards the East. After death the body is\nturned with the head towards the West, and in the grave this position\nis preserved. Bodies of priests, and persons of the highest rank, are\nburned, and during the process of cremation the officiating priest\n\"repeats certain forms of prayer.\" The same functionary returns to\ndeliver \"some moral admonitions\" after seven days, when the friends\nrevisit the pyre to collect the ashes (E. Y., pp. 334, 335).\n\nNotwithstanding the fact that in countries professing the lamaistic\nform of Buddhism dead bodies are unceremoniously exposed to the open\nair, and left as a prey to birds or dogs, the mortality of the laity\n\"forms, with their sicknesses, the richest source of income for\nthe priests.\" A great deal, says the author from whom we draw this\ninformation, depends on the separation of soul and body taking place\naccording to rule; and it is important that the spirit should not\ninjure those who are left, and should meet with a happy re-birth. The\nLama therefore attends the death-bed, takes care to place the deceased\nin the correct position, and observes the hour of departure. An\noperation is then performed on the skin of the head, which is supposed\nto liberate the soul. What rites are now to be performed, how the body\nis to be disposed of, towards what quarter it is to be turned, and\nvarious other details, depend on astrological combinations known only\nto the clergy. But their most important and profitable business is the\nrepetition of masses, for the dead, which are designed to pacify the\navenging deities, and to help the soul towards as favorable a career as\nis possible for it. The length of time during which these masses are\nsaid varies with the wealth of the survivors; poor people obtaining\nthem for a few days only; the richer classes for seven weeks; and\nprinces being able to assist the spirits of their relations for a whole\nyear (R. B., vol. ii. p. 323-325).\n\nAmong the Parsees the cemeteries consist of desolate, open places, on\nwhich the corpses are deposited and left exposed to the air. These\nplaces are called Dakhmas, and are carefully consecrated by the priests\nwith an elaborate ceremonial. The position of the dead in the Dakhmas\nis fixed by the religious law. Their dying moments and those that\nsucceed upon death are watched over by the Parsee faith, which has\ndetermined the prayers to be repeated during the last hour of life;\nbefore the body is placed upon the bier; when it is carried out;\non the way to the Dakhma, and at the Dakhma itself. The ceremonies\nrequired on these occasions must be performed by the Maubads, or\npriests. But the due disposal of the body by no means concludes the\nduties of relations towards the dead. The welfare of the soul also\ndemands numerous prayers. Being supposed to linger for three days in\nthe immediate neighborhood of the corpse, it is the object during that\ntime of especial attention, and the rites then performed may be of use\nto it in the judgment which takes place on the fourth day. Prayers are\nto be recited, and offerings made on the 30th and 31st day after death,\nand even then the ceremonies attending the close of mortal existence\nare not concluded, for it is necessary after the lapse of a year again\nto celebrate the memory of the departed. Moreover, the 26th chapter\nof the Yasna, a hymn of praise and blessing, is to be said every day\nduring the year before eating (Av. vol. ii. p. xxxii-xlii).\n\nMasses for the dead are no less common in Christian countries (save\nwhere the Protestant faith is professed), than among Buddhists and\nParsees. Their object also is precisely the same; namely, the welfare\nof the soul which has quitted its earthly home to enter on a new form\nof being. And although no such prayers are repeated in Protestant\ncommunities, yet there can be no doubt that interment in due form, and\nwith due solemnity, is held by the people, even in England, to benefit\nthe soul in some undefined way. Nor is any portion of the ritual of the\nEnglish Church more impressive than that passage in the Burial Service\nwhere the officiating priest consigns \"earth to earth, ashes to ashes,\ndust to dust, in sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal\nlife, through our Lord Jesus Christ.\"\n\nBut it is not only the due performance of these last rites which\npopular opinion associates with the prospect of salvation in the world\nto come. As in other religions, so in that of our own country, the\nposition of the body in the tomb is deemed to be of vast importance.\nThe head must be westward and the feet eastward, the nominal reason\nbeing that the dead person should rise from his temporary abode with\nhis face to the east, whence Christ will come; the real reason being\nin all probability the survival of a much older custom, in which\nthat venerable divinity, the Sun, stood in the place of the Savior of\nmankind.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER II.\n\n                          CONSECRATED PLACES.\n\n\nConsecrated actions of various kinds being the primary method of\napproaching the beings in whose honor they are performed, there remain\nvarious secondary methods; sometimes tending to heighten the effect of\nthe primary method, sometimes supplementing it. These secondary means\nof giving effect to the religious sentiment may be divided into three\nclasses:\u2014the consecration of places, of things, and of persons; while\nthe last of these falls into two subdivisions: the self-dedication of\ncertain individuals to their deity, and the dedication of a certain\nclass to the more special performance of religious services on behalf\nof the community.\n\nConsecration of places evidently confers on the actions performed\nwithin them a higher sanctity. Prayer offered in a place which has been\ndevoted to the service of God is more likely to be successful. Praise\nfrom within its walls will be more acceptable. Wedlock contracted under\nits influence will be more solemn, and will possess a more binding\ncharacter. Children may most fitly enter upon life by a profession of\nfaith made in their behalf in a consecrated temple. And the bodies of\nthe dead will rest more peacefully in consecrated earth.\n\nIt is scarcely needful to offer evidence of the fact that in various\nlands, and by many kinds of belief, the performance of certain\nceremonies is held to consecrate places to the purpose of communication\nbetween man and the higher powers. From the savage in Sierra Leone,\nwhere \"a small shed of dry leaves\" presents perhaps the rudest form\nof temple to be found on earth (S. L., p. 65), to the European who\nworships his God in St. Peter's or Westminster Abbey, the same opinion\nprevails. Everywhere the consecration of places is conceived to render\nthem fitter for the celebration of religious rites, and unfit for all\nprofaner uses.\n\nOf the state of feeling with which such localities are endowed by the\nordinary worshiper, an excellent example is offered in Solomon's speech\nat the dedication of the temple. He specially requests Jehovah that\nwhen prayers are made to him in this place, or toward this place, he\nwill hear such prayers: that is, he expects that the sanctity he will\nconfer upon the temple, by devoting it to Jehovah, will add something\nto the efficacy of petitions in which it is in some way concerned. The\nmanner in which he dedicates the temple may serve, too, as a type of\nthis kind of ceremony. \"Solomon,\" we are told, \"offered a sacrifice\nof peace-offerings, which he offered unto the Lord, two-and-twenty\nthousand oxen, and an hundred and twenty thousand sheep.\" With this\nbarbaric magnificence he \"dedicated the house of the Lord,\" and he\nsubsequently hallowed the middle of the court by \"burnt-offerings, and\nmeat-offerings, and the fat of the peace-offerings\" (1 Kings viii). How\ngreat was the respect attached to this temple by the Israelites, and\nhow anxiously they sought to guard it against such profanation as it\nreceived at the hands of Pompey, is well known.\n\nThe lavish splendor with which Solomon adorned his temple is a common\nfeature of consecrated places. Like the ancient Hebrews, the Mexicans\nand Peruvians had buildings in honor of their gods, of extreme\nmagnificence. The temple of Pachacamac, or the Creator, in Peru, was\na very large and ancient building, richly decorated, which was found\nto contain an immense wealth of gold and silver vessels (H. I., b. v.,\nchs. iii., xii). The boundless munificence with which pious Christians\nhave sought to beautify their places of worship needs no description.\nAlong with the more formal consecration given to such sanctuaries of\nthe Most High by special rites, they have sought to render them more\nworthy of his habitation by the liberality displayed in their erection\nand embellishment.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER III.\n\n                         CONSECRATED OBJECTS.\n\n\nBesides consecration of places to religious uses, material things\nmay be consecrated to the deity worshiped by those who thus apply\nthem. These things may be of the most varied description, from common\nobjects of the most trifling value, to those of the utmost possible\nestimation. Among consecrated objects are the furniture of temples or\nchurches, which is reserved for divine service; the garments worn by\npriests in their liturgical functions; the votive tablets in which men\nrecord their gratitude for preservation in danger; pictures, statues,\nendowments of land for monasteries or the support of ecclesiastical\noffices; and anything else which the owners may part with from pious\nmotives, and with the view of bestowing it entirely on their god or his\nvicegerents on earth.\n\nSuch consecrated objects were seen in abundance by Lieutenant Matthews\nin Sierra Leone, where the natives devoted them to the idols who\nreigned in the small sheds of dry leaves mentioned in the preceding\nchapter. The offerings made by the natives to these superhuman beings\nconsisted of \"bits of cloth, pieces of broken cups, plates, mugs, or\nglass bottles, brass rings, beads, and such articles.\" But a still more\nprecious object was bestowed upon these gods by the people when they\nwished to render them particularly complaisant. Then \"they generally\nprovide liquor,\" of which they make a very small libation to the object\nof their petitions and drink the rest. Moreover, they have also little\ngenii, or household gods, consisting of images of wood from eight to\ntwelve inches long, to whom they consecrate certain things. These might\nbe of a very miscellaneous order. There might be seen, for instance,\n\"a brass pan fastened to the stump of a tree by driving a country axe\nthrough it\u2014a glass bottle set up on the stump of a tree\u2014a broken bottle\nplaced upon the ground with two or three beads in it, covered with a\nbit of cloth, and surrounded with stones\u2014a rag laid upon small sticks\nand covered with a broken calabash,\" and so forth. As in more civilized\ncountries, the sanctity conferred upon the objects by religion places\nthem under the special protection of the law. \"To remove one of them\neven unknowingly,\" continues the author, \"is a great offense, and\nsubjects the aggressor to a _palaver_, or action in their courts of\nlaw\" (S. L., p. 65-67). The Tartar chiefs, as described by the traveler\nCarpin, kept idols in their places of abode, to whom they offered not\nonly the first milk of their ewes and mares, and something of all they\nate, but to whom they even consecrated horses. After this dedication to\nthe idol no one might mount these horses (Bergeron, Voyage de Carpin,\np. 30). Among the Singhalese a curious mode prevails of consecrating\nfruit to some demon, in order to prevent its being stolen. \"A band of\nleaves\" is to be seen fastened around the stem of a fruit-tree, and\nit is supposed that no thief will be so sacrilegious as to touch the\nfruit that has been thus hallowed. \"Occasionally,\" says Sir Emerson\nTennent, \"these dedications are made to the temples of Buddha, and even\nto the Roman Catholic altars, as to that of St. Anne of Calpentyn. This\nceremony is called Gokbandeema, 'the tying of the tender leaf,' and\nits operation is to prevent the fruit from pillage, till ripe enough\nto be plucked and sent as an offering to the divinity to whom it has\nthus been consecrated.\" He adds, that a few only of the finest are\noffered, the rest being kept by the owner (Ceylon, vol. i. p. 540, 3d\ned.). Another author, describing the same custom, says, \"To prevent\nfruit being stolen, the people hang up certain grotesque figures around\nthe orchards and dedicate it to the devils, after which none of the\nnative Ceylonese will dare even to touch the fruit on any account.\nEven the owner will not venture to use it, till it be first liberated\nfrom the dedication. For this purpose, they carry some of it to the\npagoda, where the priests, after receiving a certain proportion for\nthemselves, remove the incantations with which it was dedicated\" (A. I.\nC., p. 198). Here the consecration, contrary to the usual rule, is made\nwith an interested motive, and is of the nature of a direct bargain\nfor temporal advantages. Of the common form of consecration among the\nsame people, another visitor gives evidence; their temples are, he\nsays, \"adorned with such things as the people's ability and poverty\ncan afford; accounting it the highest point of devotion, bountifully\nto dedicate such things unto their gods, which in their estimation are\nmost precious\" (A. R. C., p. 73).\n\nSometimes consecration is held to confer special powers, not otherwise\npossessed, upon the objects on which it is performed. Thus, among\nthe rude Mongolians, the consecrating rites to which sacred writings\nand images of Buddha are subjected are described by a word meaning\nto _animate_, which is held by a learned Orientalist to express\ntheir sense of the communication of living power, of which the\nreligious ceremony is the vehicle (G. O. M., p. 330). Thus, too, among\nChristians, the consecration of bread and wine by a priest is regarded\nas the means of a still more extraordinary communication of living\npower to those lifeless elements. And the writer has been present at\nthe Vatican when a vast number of rosaries, and other such trinkets,\nwere held up by a crowd of devotees to receive the Papal blessing,\nwhich was evidently considered, by their owners, to confer upon them\nsome kind of virtue that was otherwise lacking.\n\nNaturally it follows from the theory of consecration\u2014which is that\nof a gift from men to God\u2014that the more valuable the objects given,\nthe more pleasing will they be. Hence, men generally endeavor to\nconsecrate valuable objects, though instances to the contrary may be\nfound. The horses bestowed by the Tartars were, no doubt, among their\nmost precious possessions. And the large endowments of land devoted in\nperpetuity to the Church during the middle ages, were gifts of the most\npermanent and most coveted form of property.\n\nConsecration differs from sacrifice, in that the objects of sacrifice\nare intended for the immediate gratification of the deity, those of\nconsecration for his continued use. Hence, things sacrificed are\nconsumed upon the spot; things consecrated are preserved as long as\ntheir nature permits of it. So strong is the sense of permanence\nattaching to consecration, that there are probably even now persons\namong us, who would regard it as a sort of crime for the State to\nassume the ownership of lands once devoted to religious purposes, or\nto divert the proceeds to some other employment. A like sentiment, no\ndoubt, prevails with regard to the material and the furniture of places\nof worship. With regard to sacrifice the case is different. Animals,\nfruits, or other articles intended for sacrifice, are given to the god\nor his representative for the single occasion, and as a requisite in\nthe performance of some momentary rite. If a homely comparison may be\npermitted on so sacred a subject, it might be not inaptly said, that\nthings sacrificed are like the meat and drink placed before a guest\nwho is invited to dinner, while things consecrated rather resemble the\npresent which he carries away to his own residence, and keeps for the\nremainder of his life.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER IV.\n\n                         CONSECRATED PERSONS.\n\n\nWe have seen the religious instinct leading to the consecration of\nactions, to the consecration of places, and to the consecration of\nthings. We are now to follow it in a yet more striking exhibition of\nits power, the consecration by human beings of their own lives and\ntheir own persons (or sometimes of the lives and persons of their\nchildren). Not only is such self-dedication to the service of religion\ncommon; it is well-nigh universal. There is no phenomenon more\nconstant, none more uniform, than this. Differing in minor details, the\ngrand features of self-consecration are everywhere the same, whether\nwe look to the saintly Rishis of ancient India; to the wearers of the\nyellow robe in China or Ceylon; to the Essenes among the Jews; to the\ndevotees of Vitziliputzli in pagan Mexico; or to the monks and nuns\nof Christian times in Africa, in Asia, and in Europe. Throughout the\nvarious creeds of these distant lands there runs the same unconquerable\nimpulse, producing the same remarkable effects. This is not the place\nto attempt a psychological explanation of asceticism as a tendency of\nhuman nature. We have now only to notice some of its most conspicuous\nmanifestations, and thus to assign to it its proper place in a history\nof the mode in which man endeavors to approach and to propitiate his\ngod.\n\nGenerally speaking, we may premise that the consecration of individuals\nto a life in which religion is the predominating element, means the\nabandonment of the ordinary pleasures of the world. This is of the\nvery essence of self-devotion. Sanctity, and the enjoyment of all\nthose things in which the body is largely concerned, have always\nbeen regarded as inconsistent and opposite. Hence, in the first line\nof things prohibited to consecrated persons, we always discover\nthe pleasures of sex. To indulge in these is usually considered the\nmost flagrant outrage against their rules. Next to sexual delights,\nor equally with them, the luxuries of choice food, rich clothing,\ncomfortable beds, well-furnished rooms, and similar ministrations to\nphysical ease are withheld from the votaries. They are very frequently\nvoluntary paupers or mendicants; or where this is not the case, they\nusually depend on some endowment derived from the liberality of others.\nWhere their numbers are large, they are placed under rules, and bound\nto the strictest obedience to their superiors in the same line of\nlife. Moreover, mere abstinence from ordinary pleasures is not enough\nto prove their devotion; they are called on to undergo extraordinary\npains. These vary with the rule of the order, or their own fervor.\nSometimes they are obliged to live in rooms which, in the coldest\nweather, no fire is permitted to cheer; sometimes their sleep is broken\nby rising at unseasonable hours to worship their deity; sometimes the\ngarment they wear is too thick in summer, and too scanty in winter;\nand sometimes they tear their own flesh by scourging and flagellation.\nFasting, too, is often imposed at certain times. And the zeal of\nindividuals always outruns the compulsory hardships of their position.\nThey will show the intensity of their devotion by fasting more\nrigorously than others, sleeping on harder couches, bearing greater\ninflictions. Self-consecration continually tends towards greater and\ngreater self-denial; but the actual degrees of self-denial vary from\nthe mere observance of some simple rules to the extremest possibility\nof self-torture. Confining ourselves, however, to the general marks\nwhich characterize this devotion of persons to religion, we may say\nthat it involves principally two things: chastity and poverty.\n\nWhen the Spaniards had established themselves in Mexico and Peru, they\nwere astonished to find, in the religious customs and practices of the\nnew world they had invaded, so much that resembled those of the old\nworld they had left behind. Especially was this the case with regard to\nmonastic institutions, in respect of which it seemed that the Christian\nmissionaries had little to teach their heathen brothers. \"Certainly it\nis a matter of surprise,\" says the Reverend Father Acosta, \"that false\nreligious opinion should have so much power with those young men and\nyoung women of Mexico, that they should do with such austerity in the\nservice of Satan that which many of us do not do in the service of the\nmost high God. Which is a great confusion to those who are very proud\nand very well satisfied with some trifling penance which they perform\"\n(H. I., b. 5, ch. 16, sub fine). In describing more particularly the\nmanner in which the devil had contrived to be served in Mexico, he\nstates that around the great temple there were two monasteries, one\nof young women and the other of young men, whom they called monks\n(religiosos). Those young men who served in the temple of Vitziliputzli\nlived in poverty, chastity, and obedience; ministered like Levites to\nthe priests and dignitaries of the temple, and had manual labor to do.\nBesides these were others who performed menial services, and carried\nthe offerings that were made when their superiors went in quest of\nalms. All these had persons who took charge of them, and when they\nwent abroad they held their heads low and their eyes on the ground,\nnot daring to raise them to look at the women they might come across.\nShould they not receive enough by way of alms, they had the right of\ngoing to the sown fields, and plucking the ears of corn of which they\nhad need. They practised penance, rising at midnight, and also cutting\nthemselves so as to draw blood; but this exercise and penance did not\nlast more than a year (H. I., b. 5, ch. 16).\n\nBoth in Mexico and in Peru young girls were consecrated to a religious\nlife, but this consecration was sometimes only temporary; a certain\nproportion of the Peruvian nuns being drafted off into the harem of\nthe Inca. Acosta, describing this consecration of virgins, is again\nimpressed with the abilities of the devil. Since, he observes, the\nreligious life is so pleasing in the eyes of God, the father of lies\nhas contrived, not only to imitate it, but to cause his ministers to\nbe distinguished in austerity and regularity. Thus in Peru there were\nmany convents for girls, who were placed under the tuition of old women\nwhom they called Mamaconas. Indoctrinated by the Mamaconas in \"various\nthings necessary for human life, and in the rites and ceremonies of\ntheir gods,\" they were removed, after they had attained fourteen years,\neither to the sanctuaries where they preserved a perpetual virginity,\nor to be sacrificed in some religious ceremonial, or to become wives\nand mistresses of the Inca and his friends. The consecration of these\ndamsels was not, as usual in such cases, voluntary on their part, but\nthe same idea of merit inspired the gift on the part of those who made\nit. For, while the surrender of female children to the monastery was\ncompulsory when demanded by an officer named the \"Appopanaca,\" yet\n\"many offered their girls of their own free will, it appearing to them\nthat they gained great merit, inasmuch as they were sacrificed for the\nInca.\" If any of the older nuns, who presided over the children, had\nsinned against her honor, she was invariably buried alive or subjected\nto some other cruel death.\n\n\"In Mexico,\" continues the pious Jesuit, \"the devil also found his own\nkind of nuns, although the profession did not last more than one year.\"\nAs has been said, there were two houses, one for men and another for\nwomen. Like the monks, the nuns also wore a distinctive costume, and\ndressed their hair in a distinctive fashion. Like them, they had manual\nlabor to perform; like them, they rose at midnight for matins. They had\ntheir abbesses, who occupied them in making robes for the adornment of\nthe idols. They also had their penance, in which they cut themselves in\nthe points of the ears. They lived with honor and circumspection, and\nany delinquency, even the smallest, was punished with death; for they\nsaid that the sinner had violated the honor of their god (H. I., b. 5,\nch. 15).\n\nAnother author, describing the religious orders of Peru, states that\nfathers, anxious that their children's lives should be preserved, used\nto dedicate them in infancy to some form of monastic establishment,\nto which they were actually committed at the age of fifteen. If, for\ninstance, they were promised to the house of Calmecac, it was that\nthey might perform penance, and serve the gods, and live in purity\nand humility and chastity, and be altogether preserved from carnal\nvices. A Christian parent could have desired no more. \"And if it were\na woman, she was a servant of the temple called Civatlamacazqui; she\nhad to be subject to the women who governed that order; she had to\nlive in chastity, and abstain from every carnal act, and to live with\nthe virgins who were called _the sisters_,\" who were shut up in the\nconvent. A feast was made when the child was dedicated by its parents,\nand the head of the order took it in his arms in token that it was his\nsubject till it was married; the consecration not being perpetual.\nIts reception was accompanied by a solemn ceremonial, in which the\nfollowing prayer was offered to their god: \"O Lord, most merciful,\nprotector of all, here stand thy handmaidens, who bring thee a new\nhandmaid, whose father and mother promise and offer her, that she\nmay serve thee. And well thou knowest that the poor thing is thine:\nvouchsafe to receive her, that for a few days she may sweep and adorn\nthy house, which is a house of penance and weeping, where the daughters\nof the nobles place their hand on thy riches, praying and weeping to\nthee with tears and great devotion, and where they demand with prayers\nthy words and thy power. Vouchsafe, O Lord, to show her grace, and to\nreceive her: place her, O Lord, in the company of the virgins who are\ncalled Tlamacazque, who do penance and serve in the temple, and wear\ntheir hair short. O Lord, most merciful, protector of all, vouchsafe\nto do with her whatever is thy holy will, showing her the grace which\nthou knowest to be suited to her.\" If then the girl was of age, she was\nmarked in the ribs and breast, in evidence of her being a nun; and if\nshe was still a child, a string of beads was put round her neck, which\nshe wore until she could fulfil the vow of her parents (A. M., vol. v.\np. 484-486).\n\nBut in addition to these temporary nuns, Peru had others, whose vows\nwere perpetual. Vega relates in his Commentaries, that besides the\nwomen who entered into monasteries to profess perpetual virginity,\nthere were many women of the blood-royal who lived in their own houses,\nsubject to a vow of virginity, though not in \"clausura.\" They went\nout to visit their relations on various occasions. They were held in\nthe greatest respect for their chastity and purity, which was by no\nmeans feigned, but altogether genuine. Any failure to observe their\nvow was punished by burning or drowning. The writer knew one of these\nwomen when advanced in life, and occasionally saw her when she visited\nhis mother, whose great-aunt she was. He bears witness himself to the\nprofound veneration with which this old lady was everywhere received,\nthe place of honor being always assigned to her, as well by his mother\nas by her other acquaintances (C. R., b. 4, ch. 7). Thus we find\ncelibacy, as a mark of piety, in full force in the new world at the\ntime of its discovery, no less than in the old; and religious chastity\nas much respected by the idolatrous Mexicans and Peruvians as by their\nCatholic invaders.\n\nMonasticism, in countries where Buddhism reigns supreme, is a vast\nand powerful institution. In the early times of Buddhistic fervor, it\nwould almost seem from the language of the legends, that to embrace\nthe faith of Sakyamuni and to become an ascetic were one and the same\nthing. At least every convert who aspired to be not only a hearer, but\na doer of the word, is described as instantly assuming the tonsure and\nthe yellow robe. At the same time the distinction between Bhikshus,\nmendicants, and Up\u00e2sakas, laymen, is no doubt an early one; and we\nmust assume, that as soon as the religion of the gentle ascetic began\nto spread among the people at large, those whose circumstances did not\npermit them to be monks or nuns were received on easier terms. \"What,\"\nasked a disciple, \"must be done in the condition of a mendicant?\"\u2014\"The\nrules of chastity must be observed during the whole of life.\" \"That\nis impossible; is there no other way?\"\u2014\"There is another, friend; it\nis to be a pious man (Up\u00e2saka).\" \"What is there to be done in this\ncondition?\"\u2014\"It is necessary to abstain during the whole of life\nfrom murder, theft, pleasure (the illicit pleasures of sex must be\nunderstood), lying, and the use of intoxicating liquors\" (H. B. I., p.\n281). To these five commandments, binding on every Buddhist, the rule\nimposed upon the mendicants adds five more, to say nothing of many\nmore special obligations and regulations to which they are subject.\nMurder, theft, unchastity, lying, and drinking, are forbidden to them\nas to all others; the sixth commandment prohibits eating after mid-day;\nthe seventh singing, dancing, and playing musical instruments; the\neighth adorning the person with flowers and bands, or using perfume\nand ointment; the ninth sleeping on a high and large bed; the tenth\naccepting gold and silver. These several prohibitions aim, as is\nevident, at precisely the same objects which the founders of Christian\norders have always had in view; that, namely, of weaning their\ndisciples from the world by keeping from them the enjoyment of its\nluxuries, and preventing the acquisition of personal property.\n\nThe obligation to observe these rules commenced with the novitiate;\na condition which, in Buddhist as in Catholic communities, precedes\nthat of complete ordination. The novices are termed Sramanera, a word\nmeaning little Sramanas, while the monks themselves are either Sramana\nor Bhikshu. Both these designations serve to express the nature of\ntheir vocation; Sramana being \"an ascetic who subdues his senses,\" and\nBhikshu \"one who lives by alms\" (H. B. I., pp. 275, 276). The sisters\nare called Bhikshun\u00ee, and they are said to owe their origin to Maha\nPrajapati, the aunt of the great Sramana Gautama, who obtained from her\nnephew, through the intercession of the beloved disciple Ananda, the\npermission for her sex to follow their brothers in the way of salvation\nby poverty and chastity (Ibid., p. 278).\n\nThere can be no question that, according to the original practice\nof the mendicant orders, the vow was taken for life; and this is, I\nbelieve, still the custom in most of the lands where Buddhism is in the\nascendant. But in Siam, the monastic vow can at any time be cancelled\nby the superior of the monastery; and this rule, which involves a\ngross abuse of the original institution, renders temporary asceticism\nuniversal in that country (Wheel, p. 45). Another kind of degeneracy\nhas occurred in Nepaul, where the ministers of religion, who elsewhere\nmust be monks, are permitted to be married (Hodgson, T.R.A.S., vol. ii.\np. 245).\n\nThe objects proposed to themselves by Buddhists, in embracing an\nascetic life, are precisely the same as those proposed to themselves\nby Christians. By denying themselves the pleasures of this world, they\nhope to obtain a higher reward than other mortals; whether in the shape\nof birth in a happier condition, or in that of complete emancipation\nfrom all birth whatsoever, which is the supreme goal of their religion.\nThe means they pursue to attain these ends are also similar. The\nPr\u00e2timoksha S\u00fbtra, or S\u00fbtra of Emancipation, which forms the universal\n_regula_ in all their monasteries, is worthy of a St. Benedict or a\nSt. Francis. It lays down with the minutest elaboration, not only all\nthe moral precepts that must be obeyed by the monk or nun, but all\nthe little observances in regard to dress, eating, walking, social\nintercourse, and so forth, to which he must attend. It contains two\nhundred and fifty rules, and the breach of any of these is attended\nwith its appropriate penance, according to the magnitude of the offense.\n\nAsceticism was deeply rooted in the native land of Buddhism long\nbefore the appearance of the reformer who gave it, by the foundation\nof communities, an organization and a purpose. Just as in Egypt there\nwere many solitary saints before the time of Pachomius and Antony, so\nin India there were holy men who had subdued their senses before the\ngospel of deliverance was preached by Gautama Buddha. Some of these\ndispensed altogether with clothing, a custom which was frowned upon\nby Buddhism and put down wherever its influence was paramount. Others\nlived in lonely places, exposed to every sort of hardship and avoiding\nevery form of carnal pleasure. The popular mind combined the practice\nof austerity with the acquisition of extraordinary powers over nature.\nHence, no doubt, an additional motive for its exercise. The R\u00e2m\u00e2yana\nabounds with descriptions of holy hermits, living on roots in the\nforests, and practising the utmost austerity. Visvamitra, for example,\nthe very type of an ascetic, was a monarch, who determined to obtain\nfrom the gods the title of \"Brahman saint,\" the highest to which he,\nnot by birth a Brahman, could aspire. This was the manner in which he\nwent to work:\u2014\n\n    \"His arms upraised, without a rest,\n    With but one foot, the earth he pressed;\n    The air his food, the hermit stood\n    Still as a pillar hewn from wood.\n    Around him in the summer days\n    Five mighty fires combined to blaze.\n    In floods of rain no veil was spread,\n    Save clouds, to canopy his head.\n    In the dark dews both night and day\n    Couched in the stream the hermit lay.\"[5]\n\nTwice did the gods, alarmed at the power he was likely to acquire,\ndirect their efforts against his chastity. The first time the perfect\nnymph deputed on this errand, seen by him while bathing herself naked\nin the stream, caused him to forget his vow and dally with her for\nten years. The second time the saint perceived the plot, but allowed\nhimself to burst forth in words of unholy rage against the damsel\nwho was trying to seduce him, and thus lost the merit of his former\npenance. After this he resolved never to speak a word, and persisted\nin his resolution, until the gods, in a body, addressed him in the\nlong-desired form: \"Hail, Brahman Saint\" (Griffith, The Ramayan, vol.\ni. p. 274).\n\nVisvamitra is of course a mythical character, and his penance\nimaginary; but the ascetic life he is described as leading was taken\nfrom models which the writers had before their eyes. All the marvels of\nthe Thebaid in Christian times were, in fact, anticipated in India by\nat least one thousand years.\n\nHow deeply the ascetic tendency is implanted in human nature is\nstrikingly shown in the case of the Essenes, the Nazarites, and the\nTherapeut\u00e6, who sprang from a religion whose ostensible precepts are\neminently opposed to all such courses, that of the Jews. Judaism\npowerfully encouraged all those inclinations to which monasticism is\nfatal: the propagation of the species, the acquisition of property, the\nmaintenance of family ties, and the enjoyment of the good things which\nthis world has to offer. Yet from the bosom of this sober faith sprang\nbodies of men who neither ate flesh, nor drank wine, nor cohabited\nwith women. It may be that the Jewish ascetics were not very numerous;\nbut it is clear, too, that they were not so few as to be deemed by\ncontemporary observers altogether unimportant. And the fascination\nwhich John the Baptist, pre-eminently an ascetic, exercised over his\ncountrymen in the first century, is a sign that this mode of living\nwas conducive among the Jews to that spiritual supremacy which is so\nconstantly received at the hands of Christians.\n\nThat Christianity should encourage a disposition which even Judaism\ncould not check was no more than might be expected from the language\nand conduct of its founder and his earliest disciples. Christ was\nnever married, and probably lived in complete chastity. Paul goes so\nfar as to compare marriage unfavorably with celibacy. James upholds\npoverty as preferable to riches in the eyes of God. The whole of the\nNew Testament abounds with passages in which present misery is declared\nto be the forerunner of future happiness, and present prosperity of\nfuture suffering. This is the very spirit of monasticism, and it is not\nsurprising that from such a root such fruits have sprung. From a very\nearly age devout Christians have felt that in renouncing individual\nproperty, marriage, personal freedom, and the various other joys\nwhich life in the world offers, they were fulfilling the dictates of\ntheir religion and preparing themselves for heaven. To illustrate\nthis proposition effectually would be to write the history of the\nmonastic orders. Beginning in the deserts of Egypt, these have extended\nthroughout Europe, and have exercised a vast and potent influence on\nthe extension of the Christian faith. Monks have been missionaries,\npreachers, martyrs, persecutors, bishops and popes. The greatest names\nwho have ranged themselves under the banner of the Catholic Church have\nbelonged to one or other of the several orders. And alongside of the\nmonks, living by the same rule, helping them in their several tasks,\nthe nuns have ever been forward in undergoing their share of austerity\nand undertaking their share of labor.\n\nVery various have been the immediate motives that have led such large\nnumbers of Christians to betake themselves to the monastery or the\nconvent. Some have fled from riches and luxury; others from poverty and\nwretchedness. Some have been sick of earthly pleasures; others have\nsought to avoid the temptation of ever knowing them. Many have been\ndrawn by the irresistible spell of asceticism to flee from opposing\nparents and unsympathizing friends in order to embrace it; others have\nbeen destined from their infancy, like the Mexican and Peruvian youth,\nto wear the cowl or to take the veil. But throughout the history of\nevery order there has been the same fundamental idea sustaining its\nexistence; the idea, namely, that in becoming an ascetic, the person\nwas consecrated to God, and became by that consecration purer, holier,\nand better than those who continued to pursue the ordinary avocations\nof secular life.\n\nThis consecration is not given without due solemnity. It is only after\na novitiate, in which he has full experience of the privations to be\nundergone, that the candidate can be received into the order of which\nhe desires to be a member. Should his resolution be unshaken after his\nyear's trial as a novice, he may take the irrevocable vow of obedience,\nunder which those of poverty and chastity are comprehended. He is now a\nconsecrated person. He has sacrificed himself completely to his divine\nMaster, and whatever reward he may hope to receive must be given by\nthat Master in a future state.\n\nIt is one of the principal weaknesses of Protestantism that it has\nomitted to provide for the ascetic instinct. It has lost thereby the\nmighty hold which the Catholic Church must ever possess over those\nwho feel themselves moved to crucify the flesh and devote themselves\nwholly to spiritual things. Strange to say, this remarkable instinct\nhas nevertheless broken out afresh within the bosom of Protestantism\nin recent times. The Shakers are but a somewhat novel species of monks\nand nuns. They abstain from marriage though the two sexes live together\nin one community. Their chastity is said to be perfect. They give up\nall individual property for the common good. They wear a peculiar dress\nand are subject to peculiar rules. Lastly, they believe that they stand\nunder the special guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER V.\n\n                        CONSECRATED MEDIATORS.\n\n\nHaving seen the manner in which individuals devote themselves to the\nspecial service of their deities, we have now to observe the further\nfact that a whole class of men is devoted to this service by the\ndemands of society. This class is the priesthood. They differ from\nthe persons last treated of, inasmuch as the consecration of ascetics\nhas reference exclusively to their own personal salvation, while the\nconsecration of priests has reference exclusively to the salvation\nof others. A monk or a nun becomes by the act of profession a holier\nbeing; less occupied with the world; mentally nearer to God; better\nfitted to communicate with him than ordinary unchaste mortals. A\npriest becomes by the act of ordination a being endowed with special\npowers; better entitled to offer up the public prayers than others;\nmore likely to be heard when he does so; more eligible as a channel of\ncommunication between men and God than unordained mortals. In other\nwords, his functions are of a public, those of the monk of a private,\nkind.\n\nWe must not be confused by the fact that among Buddhists and among\nCatholics the two species of consecration are no longer completely\ndistinct, the monks in both of those great religions being at the\nsame time priests. The early writings of Buddhism sufficiently evince\nthe fact that no kind of public ministry was at first connected with\nthe profession of a mendicant. He had simply to observe the precepts\nof his order, and to aim at such perfection as should ensure the\ndeliverance of his soul. Priestly duties are now indeed performed by\nmonks in Buddhist countries, but this is an addition to their regular\nvocation, not a necessary part of it; while in Catholic countries,\nthe ecclesiastical character which the monks at present enjoy in no\nway belonged to them when the monastic orders were first established.\nThe monks, as Montalembert observes, were at first an intermediate\nbody between laity and clergy, in whom the latter were to see an ideal\nwhich it was not possible for all to attain. Technically, however, the\nmonks formed a part of the laity, and the steps by which they came\nto be considered as the \"regular clergy\" are, according to the same\nhigh authority, difficult to follow (M. d'O., vol. i. p. 288; vol. ii.\np. 57). Self-consecration, and consecration to ecclesiastical duties\nwere therefore two very different things, and the distinction between\nregular and secular clergy shows that, though somewhat obliterated in\nappearance, the two ideas are still kept apart.\n\nIn all religions that have risen above the rudest stage, those who\ndesire to become priests are initiated by certain fixed ceremonies.\nThus is the consecration given which fits them to convey to God the\nwishes of mortals, and to mortals the will of God. To take an example\nfrom a very primitive form of faith, the \"Angekoks,\" or priests\nof the Greenlanders, receive their commission only after long and\nexhausting rites, in which a familiar spirit is supposed to appear\nto them, and to accompany them to heaven and hell. Should they fail\nten times in obtaining the assistance of such a spirit, they are\ncompelled to lay down their offices. The spirit, when he comes,\nholds a conversation with the Angekok, who is thus installed in his\nprofession by supernatural means (H. G., p. 253-256). So also, among\nthe American tribes in New France, we are told that the \"Jongleurs\"\nby profession never obtained this character till after they had been\nprepared for it by fasts, which they carried to a great extent, and\nduring which they beat the drum, cried, shouted, sung and smoked. Their\ninstallation was subsequently accomplished in a sort of Bacchanalia,\nwith ceremonies of a highly extravagant nature (N. F., vol. iii. p.\n363). Among a certain tribe of negroes, the priests are taken from a\nclass of men termed \"living sacrifices\" (G. d. M., p. 328), who live\nat the expense of others, taking whatever they require, and who wear\ntheir hair, like the Nazarites, unshorn. Here their consecration is\nmarked by these peculiar characteristics, and appears to be impressed\nupon them by some dedication made without their own consent. In another\nnegro nation, there is a priestess of a certain snake, who is marked\nin a peculiar way over the whole body, and held in great esteem. Every\nyear some young girls are seized by force and taken to this priestess,\nwho marks them artistically, initiates them in religious songs and\ndances, marries them in a manner to the snake, and consecrates them\nas priestesses of that divinity. With others again the priesthood is\nhereditary, the consecration in this case being imprinted once for all\non certain families, and not imparted, as in the instances given above,\nby rites affecting only the individual who undergoes them. A peculiar\nmodification of the hereditary principle is where the preference\nis given to him, among several sons, who dares to pull certain\ngrains (which have been previously put in) out of the teeth of his\ndeceased father, and place them in the mouth of the corpse. Here the\nconsecration is partly inherited, partly personal. Elsewhere a priest\nor fetich-maker is made \"by all sorts of silly ceremonies at a meal,\"\nand a string with consecrated objects is hung round his neck in token\nof his condition (G. d. M., p. 328).\n\nBoth principles, the hereditary and the personal, were known in Mexico.\nThe priests of Vitziliputzli succeeded by right of birth; the priests\nof other idols by election or by an offering made in their infancy.\nPriests were consecrated to their holy office by an unction which, as\nFather Acosta justly observes, resembled that of the Catholic Church.\nThey were anointed from head to foot, and the hair was left to hang\ndown in tresses moist from the application of the ointment. But when\nthey were going to perform the offices of their sacred calling on\nmountains, or in dark caves, they were anointed with an altogether\ndifferent substance, compounded by a peculiar process from certain\nvenomous reptiles. This was supposed to give them courage (H. I., b. 5,\nch. 26).\n\nThe consecration of the Levitical priesthood, originally personal,\ndescended from father to son, and was moreover confined to the members\nof this single tribe. It could not be repeated after its first\nperformance. Hence we have in this case an interesting example, not\nonly of an hereditary priesthood, but also of the manner in which its\nexclusive sanctity was supposed to have been originally established.\nMoses, who derived his appointment directly from Jehovah, was employed\nto consecrate Aaron and his sons by means of an elaborate and imposing\nritual communicated to him by that deity himself. The means thus taken\n(in Jehovah's own words) \"to hallow them, to minister unto me in the\npriest's office,\" were effectual for all time; the descendants of Aaron\nafter that being priests by nature. How great was the value of the\nconsecration thus given, may be seen by the fact that Moses was ordered\nto threaten the penalty of death against any one who should dare to\nmanufacture oil similar to that used in anointing Aaron and his sons\n(Exod. xxviii. 29; xxx. 30-33).\n\nPriestly power among Christian nations is communicated in a solemn\nceremonial, and is conferred only upon the individual recipient. It\ndoes not descend in his family, but it is capable of being imparted\nby bishops, who have themselves received a higher grade of priestly\nconsecration. By some it is actually supposed that a mysterious virtue,\nderived directly from Christ through the apostles, is conveyed to the\nrecipient of holy orders. But whether the apostolical succession be\nconveyed or not in the Ordination Service of the Church of England,\nit is certain that a high authority is held to be given to the priest\nby the laying on of the hands of the Bishop and of the other priests\npresent at the time.\n\nThe rights which he receives are thus expressed:\u2014\n\n\"Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a priest in the\nChurch of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands.\nWhose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven; and whose sins thou\ndost retain, they are retained, and be thou a faithful dispenser of the\nWord of God, and of his holy sacraments. In the name of the Father and\nof the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.\"\n\nAfter this the Bishop delivers the Bible to each of the candidates,\nsaying:\u2014\n\n\"Take thou authority to preach the Word of God, and to minister the\nholy sacraments in the congregation where thou shalt be lawfully\nappointed thereunto.\"\n\nHere it may be observed that there are three powers conveyed by this\nordination: the power of preaching, the power of administering the\nsacraments, and the power of forgiving and retaining sins. Since\nthe salvation of Christians depends upon their admission to the\nsacraments, and upon the forgiveness of their sins, it is obvious that\nthe priest who may debar them from the one, and refuse the other,\nreceives in his consecration the keys of the kingdom of heaven. In\ntheir communications to the Almighty through the mediation of such\npriests, men are in possession of an instrument of the very highest\nefficacy.\n\nThe terrible reality which the belief in the ecclesiastical privilege\nof forgiving sins may sometimes have, is graphically exhibited in M.\nde Lamartine's touching poem entitled \"Jocelyn.\" Therein a bishop,\ntaken prisoner and condemned to death in the French Revolution, sends\nfor a young deacon who was living in concealment in the Alps with a\nmaiden who loved him deeply, and whom (since the irrevocable vows of a\npriest were not yet taken) he intended to marry. Regardless of all his\npleading the Bishop, under the threat of his dying anathema, forces\nthe unhappy youth to receive priestly orders at his hands, solely in\norder that he may then listen to the episcopal confession and forgive\nthe episcopal sins. Marriage was now rendered impossible by the vow he\nhad taken; and thus two lives were consigned to enduring misery that a\nbishop might die in peace. Surely the morality which could lead to such\na consummation is self-condemned!\n\n\n\n\n            EXTERNAL MANIFESTATIONS OF RELIGIOUS SENTIMENT.\n\n                             SECOND PART.\n\n                  _MEANS OF COMMUNICATION DOWNWARDS._\n\n\n\n\n                            CLASSIFICATION.\n\n\nWe proceed now from the several methods by which men, in all ages and\nin all countries, have sought to convey their wishes, aspirations, and\nemotions upwards, to those by which their several deities have in their\nopinion conveyed their commands, decisions, and intentions downwards.\nThe classification will follow as closely as the subject permits that\nof the preceding part. Consecration, the quality pertaining to man's\ninstruments of communication with God, will be replaced by holiness,\nthe quality pertaining to God's instruments of communication with man.\nThus, corresponding to the consecrated actions of prayer, sacrifice,\nand praise, we shall have the holy events of omens, signs, miracles,\nand so forth. Corresponding to the consecrated places where men pay\ntheir devotions, we shall find the holy places which some higher\nbeing has blessed with tokens of his presence. Corresponding to the\nconsecrated objects bestowed by the creature on the Creator, we shall\ndiscover holy objects through which some peculiar grace is conveyed by\nthe Creator to the creature. To consecrated men will correspond holy\nmen, who speak to their fellows with an authority higher than their\nown; and these holy men will fall into two classes, those whose regular\nwork it is to represent the deity on earth and those who are sent on\nsome special occasion for some special purpose. Lastly, a separate\ndivision (having no correlative among means of communication upwards)\nmust be given to holy books, for a most important place in the history\nof religions is occupied by treatises written by the gods for the use\nof men. To these then the final chapter of this portion of the work\nmust be devoted. Pass we now to holy events.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER I.\n\n                             HOLY EVENTS.\n\n\nManifold beyond the possibility of complete computation are the signs\nand intimations vouchsafed to the ignorance and weakness of man by the\ncelestial powers. They speak to him through the ordinary phenomena\nof nature; they instruct him through her rare and more striking\nexhibitions; they guide his footsteps through prodigies and marvels.\nSometimes addressing him spontaneously, without any attempt on his\npart to elicit their intentions, they open their views or announce the\nfuture; sometimes replying to his anxious inquiries, they point out\nthe truth and relieve his perplexity. Consider first the former class\nof divine manifestations, in which the human being is a merely passive\nrecipient of the communication granted.\n\nDreams are an excellent example of this class of events. The belief\nthat they are of supernatural origin is both wide-spread and ancient.\nPossibly there is no country in which it has not been held to a greater\nor less extent, even though it may not have formed an article in the\nestablished creed. Among the Africans in and about Sierra Leone, for\nexample, a dream is received as judicial evidence of witchcraft, and\nthe prisoner accused on this slender testimony \"frequently acknowledges\nthe charge and submits to his sentence without repining\" (N. A., vol.\ni. p. 260). On the American continent, where dreams (says Charlevoix)\n\"are regarded as true oracles and notices from heaven\" (H. N. F., vol.\niii. p. 348), it is plain that the like faith in their intimations\nprevails. Although explained in a variety of ways, now as the rational\nsoul going abroad, while the sensitive soul remained behind, now as\nadvice from the familiar spirits, now as a visit from the soul of the\nobject dream pt of, the dream is always regarded as a sacred thing.\nIt was thought to be the most usual way taken by the gods of making\ntheir wills known to men. Hence they took care to obey the intimations\ngiven in dreams; a savage who had dreamt that his little finger was\ncut off actually submitting to that operation; and another, who had\nfound himself in his dream a prisoner among enemies, getting himself\ntied to a stake and burnt in various parts of the body (H. N. F., vol.\niii. pp. 353, 354). The Jews have in their ritual a singular ceremony\nfor removing the influence of bad dreams. The person who has dreamt\nsomething which seems to portend evil, is said to choose three friends,\nand standing before them as they sit, to repeat seven times: \"A good\ndream have I seen.\" To which they reply: \"A good dream thou hast seen;\nit is good and shall be good; the compassionate God, who is good, make\nit good.\" And the conversation between the dreamer and the interpreters\ncontinues for some time, the general effect being to convey God's\nblessing to the former and convert his trouble into gladness. At the\nend the interpreters say: \"Go eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy\nwine with a cheerful heart, for God now accepteth thy works. And\npenitence and prayers and righteousness will set aside the evil that\nhath been doomed, and peace be unto us and unto all Israel, Amen.\" To\nthis the author of the book appends the remark that \"the Jews believe\nthat all dreams come to pass according to the interpretation that is\nmade of them,\" for which reason they relate their dreams to none but\nfriends (Rel. of Jews, p. 71-74). But that they can believe it to be in\nthe power of their friends to _change_ the meaning of the dream by an\narbitrary interpretation seems scarcely possible. It may, therefore, be\nthe meaning of this passage that an unfavorable interpretation is in\nitself ominous of misfortune, or that they are desirous not to hear the\nworst construction that can be put upon a dream.\n\nBelief in the prophetic signification of dreams is not only not\ndiscountenanced by the Christian religion, but is explicitly taught\nby it. If in the present age this belief has fallen somewhat out of\nrepute, this is not because there can be any doubt that the inspired\nwriters of the Christian Scriptures firmly held it, but is a feature\nof the general relaxation of the bonds of dogma which characterizes\nthe modern mind. To take a few instances: when Abraham had called Sarah\nhis sister, and thus permitted the king of Gerar to appropriate her,\nGod himself came to Abimelech by night in a dream, and told him that\nshe was a married woman (Gen. xx. 3). Highly important information as\nto the future of his race was given to Jacob in a dream (Gen. xxviii.\n11-15). His son Joseph enjoyed an extraordinary faculty, not only of\ndreaming true dreams himself, but also of interpreting the dreams of\nothers. It was his own prophetic dreams which led to his sale into the\nhands of the traders by his brothers, and it was his power of correct\ninterpretation which both freed him from his prison in Egypt, and led\nto his promotion to the high office he afterwards held at the Egyptian\ncourt (Gen. xxxvii., 5-11; Gen. xl., xli). Moreover, Joseph, who must\nbe considered an authority on the subject, expressly informed Pharaoh,\nwhen that monarch had related his dreams that God had showed him what\nhe was about to do (Gen. xli. 25-28). A most important dream was\ngranted to Solomon, to whom \"the Lord appeared in a dream by night,\"\nand told him to ask whatever favor he might wish: on which occasion\nthe king preferred his celebrated request for wisdom (1 Kings iii.,\n5-15). Another ruler, Nebuchadnezzar, was also visited by a prophetic\ndream, the nature of which was revealed to the interpreter, Daniel, \"in\na night vision,\" by God himself, who thus admitted that it was he who\nhad sent it. A further communication was made to Nebuchadnezzar, in the\ndream which he himself has recorded in the proclamation which bears\nwitness at the same time to the fulfillment of its warning (Daniel ii.,\niv). But of all the dreams handed down to us by the Scriptural writers,\nby far the most material, as evidence of their Divine character, is\nthat on which the mystery of the Incarnation mainly rests. Take away\nthe dream in which Joseph was informed that the Holy Ghost was the\nparent of Mary's first-born child (Matt. i. 20), and that mystery\nwill depend exclusively on a story of an angel's visit, of necessity\nrelated by Mary herself (Luke i. 35); for obvious reasons not the most\ntrustworthy witness on so delicate a point. But this is not all; for\nit was by a dream that the Magi, after their adoration, were warned\nto escape the vengeance of Herod (Matt. ii. 12); and by a dream that\nthe life of the infant Christ was preserved in the massacre of the\ninnocents (Matt. ii. 13). Christianity, therefore, may be said to owe\nits very existence to the celestial intimations conveyed in dreams,\nand Christians cannot consistently embrace any theory which would lead\nto a denial of their holy and prophetic character. Since, moreover,\nwe have numerous instances in the Bible of such dreams being granted\nto heathens and idolaters it is plain that the Christian deity does\nnot confine his nocturnal visitations to orthodox believers. If the\nchief butler, the chief baker, Pharaoh, and Nebuchadnezzar dreamt\nprophetically, so may any of us at any time according to this teaching.\nOn the other hand, this power may be due to a special outpouring of\nthe Holy Spirit, as implied in the prediction of Joel that \"your sons\nand your daughters shall prophecy, your old men shall dream dreams,\nyour young men shall see visions\" (Joel ii. 28). So that we may\ncompletely endorse the conclusion of the Rev. Principal Barry, who\ndiscusses this subject with much solemnity in Smith's \"Dictionary of\nthe Bible,\" \"that the Scripture claims the dream, as it does every\nother action of the human mind, as a medium through which God may speak\nto man, either directly, that is, as we call it, 'providentially,' or\nindirectly, in virtue of a general influence upon all his thoughts;\nbut whether there is anything to be said in support of the further\ninference that 'revelation by dreams' may be expected to pass away, is\nnot equally clear.\" Assuredly no passage can be produced which, even by\nimplication, states that this method of communication was temporary or\ntransient; and considering that it continued in operation from the days\nof Abraham to those of Jesus, it is hard to see how the Bible can be\nmade to support the notion that it is to cease entirely at any period\nof human history. On the contrary, the Scriptural writers, both old and\nnew, would practically have agreed with Homer: \"The dream also is from\nZeus\" (Iliad, i. 63). Indeed, the passage in which that deity sends the\npersonified Dream to bear a message to Agamemnon (Ibid., ii. 8-15),\ndiffers only in its mythological coloring from the representations in\nthe Bible of dreams in which God comes or appears to the sleeper, or\nin which he charges an angel to convey to him his purpose or his will.\nAnd the discrimination commanded to be exercised between prophecies\nor dreams deserving attention, and prophecies or dreams contrived\nmerely to test the fidelity of the Israelites, and therefore not to\nbe received as true, fully corresponds to the distinction drawn in\nthe Odyssey between dreams passing through the iron gate, and dreams\npassing through the ivory gate. Those that came through the horn gate\nbrought true intimations; but those that came through the ivory gate\nwere sent to deceive (Od. xix. 560-568).\n\nAnother involuntary action through which God communicates with man is\nsneezing. From the lowest savages to the most educated nation on the\nface of the earth, this simple physical event is viewed as an omen. A\npeculiarity attending this particular kind of manifestation is, that\nit is usual for those present when it occurs to notice it by saying\nsomething of favorable augury. In Samoa, one of the Polynesian islands,\nit was common to say, \"Life to you!\" (N. Y., p. 347.) an exclamation\nwhich in sense corresponds almost exactly to the German \"Gesundheit!\"\n(health) to the Italian \"Salute!\" and to our own \"God bless you!\" on\nthe same occasion. South African savages have the same sentiment of\nthe religious nature of the omen involved in sneezing. Thus, among the\nKafirs we learn that \"it used always to be said when a man sneezed,\n'May Utikxo [God] ever regard me with favor.'\" Canon Callaway, who\nhas acutely noticed the parallelism among various nations in respect\nof the feeling associated with this action, further informs us that\n\"among the Amazulu, if a child sneeze, it is regarded as a good sign;\nand if it be ill, they believe it will recover. On such an occasion\nthey exclaim, 'Tutuka,' Grow. When a grown up person sneezes, he says,\n'Bakiti, ngi hambe kade,' Spirits of our people, grant me a long life.\nAs he believes that at the time of sneezing the spirit of his house is\nin some especial proximity to him, he believes it is a time especially\nfavorable to prayer, and that whatever he asks for will be given; hence\nhe may say, 'Bakwiti, inkomo,' Spirits of our people, give me cattle,\nor 'Bakwiti, abntwana,' Spirits of our people, give me children.\nDiviners among the natives are very apt to sneeze, which they regard\nas an indication of the presence of the spirits; the diviner adores\nby saying, 'Makosi,' Lords, or Masters\" (R. S. A., part i. p. 64). A\nsimilar belief prevails among the Parsees, who consider a sneeze as a\nmark of victory obtained over the evil spirits who besiege the interior\nof the body by the fire which animates man, and who accordingly render\nthanks to Ahuramazda when this event happens (Z. A., vol. ii. p. 598).\n\nClassical antiquity presents us with an example of a famous sneeze.\nAt a critical moment in the expedition of the Ten Thousand against\nArtaxerxes, when they were left in a hostile country surrounded with\nperplexities and perils, Xenophon encouraged them by an address in\nwhich he urged that if they would take a certain course, they had with\nthe favor of the gods, many and good hopes of safety. Just at these\nwords, \"somebody sneezes,\" and immediately the drooping hearts of the\nsoldiery were comforted by this assurance of divine protection. With\none impulse they worshipped the god; and Xenophon remarked that since,\nwhen they were in the very act of speaking of safety, this favorable\naugury of Zeus the Savior had appeared, it seemed proper to him that\nthey should vow thank-offerings to this deity, to be presented on\ntheir first arrival in a friendly country, and also that they should\nmake a vow to sacrifice to the other gods according to their ability\n(Xen. Anab. iii. 2. 9). Not only is it customary in Germany to welcome\na sneeze with the above-mentioned exclamation of \"Gesundheit!\" but\na notion is stated to prevail that should one person be thinking of\nsomething in the future, and another sneeze at the moment he is thus\nengaged, the thing thought of will come to pass. So that the commonest\ncharacter ascribed to sneezing is that of an auspicious omen.\n\nOther phenomena may serve as omens, and such phenomena may be either\nnatural or preternatural. In the first case their prophetic or\nsignificant character is entirely due to the interpretation put upon\nthem by men; in the second, it is inherent in their very nature, which\nat once renders them conspicuous as exceptions to the usual course.\nThose of the first class have thus a dual function; contemplated on the\nother side, they are merely events belonging to the regular sequence\nof causes and effects; contemplated on the other, they are especially\ncontrived as indications of the divine purposes. Hence, to one observer\nthey may bear the appearance of ordinary phenomena; to another, better\ninformed, they may convey important intimations of the future. Tacitus\nmentions, for example, the favorable augury that was granted to the\nRomans on the eve of a battle with the Germans by the flight of eight\neagles who sought the woods (Tac. Ann., ii. 17. 2). The same author\ninforms us of a melancholy omen which occurred to Paetus when he and\nhis army were crossing the Euphrates. Without apparent cause, the horse\nwhich bore the consular insignia turned backwards (Ibid., xv. 7. 3).\nEach of these signs was of course followed by its appropriate events.\nA belief which is thus found in a civilized nation naturally has its\nprototype among the uncivilized. The Kafirs believe that the spirits\nsend them omens. Thus a wild animal entering a kraal is \"regarded as\na messenger from the spirit to remind the people that they have done\nsomething wrong.\" Another omen which is considered very terrible is the\nbleating of a sheep while it is being slaughtered. A councilor, to whom\nit occurred to hear this sign, was told by a prophet that it \"foreboded\nhis death.\" Strange to say, his chief soon after sent soldiers to kill\nhim, and the man only averted his threatened fate by escaping to Natal.\nAmong other natural events which are omens to the Kafirs are, \"a child\nborn dead; a woman two days in parturition; a man burnt while sitting\nby the fire, unless he were asleep or drunk\" (K. N. pp. 162, 163). \"An\nunexpected whirlwind will suggest to\" the Chinese \"the contest of evil\nspirits; and the flying of a crow in a peculiar direction fill them\nwith consternation. In such a deplorable state,\" gravely observes the\nmissionary who records these facts, \"is the heathen mind\" (C. O., vol.\nii. p. 208). Perhaps he did not consider that there were many in more\nenlightened countries who would be alarmed at the omen implied by a\ndinner-party of thirteen, and who would regard it as of evil augury to\nbegin a journey on Friday. In such a deplorable state is the Christian\nmind.\n\nCeylon appears to be remarkable for the faith placed by its inhabitants\nin omens, which are even said to regulate their whole conduct and to\nintimate their destiny from birth onwards. Children, of whose future\nthe astrologers predict evil, are sometimes destroyed in order to\navoid their pre-determined misery. On going out in the morning, the\nSinghalese anxiously remark the object they encounter first, in order\nto deduce from it a favorable or unfavorable augury for the business of\nthe day. \"I, as a European,\" says the author who tells us these facts,\n\"was always a glad sight to them;\" for \"a white man or a woman with\nchild\" were good omens; but beggars and deformed persons so unlucky,\nas even to stop these hapless folk from proceeding in the work they\nwere about during the day on which these boding signs were the first\nthings to meet their gaze (A. I. C., p. 194). Another phenomenon of a\nsomewhat less ordinary kind serves as an omen to the Singhalese, though\napparently only in reference to a single fact. There is visible in\nCeylon \"a peculiar and beautiful meteor,\" termed \"Buddha rays,\" which\n\"is supposed by the natives only to appear over a temple or tomb of\nBuddha's relics, and from thence to emanate.\" The appearance of these\nrays is taken by believers as a sign that the Buddhist faith will\nlast for the destined span of five thousand years from its founder's\ndeath (E. Y., vol. i. p. 337); much as the rainbow is held by Jews\nand Christians to be the token of a promise that God will never again\npunish the world by a universal deluge.\n\nThe next class of omens need not consist of phenomena which are\nabsolutely beyond the range of physical law, provided they be\nsufficiently rare to strike the imagination of observers as marvelous\noccurrences. For example, an eclipse of the sun may be an omen to\nsavage or very uninstructed people; a comet, being more unusual,\nwill seem ominous to nations standing on a much higher grade of\nculture. Advancing still higher, extraordinary and inexplicable\nsights in the heavens or on earth will stand for portents to all but\nthe scientifically minded. An example of the latter class is found\nin the temporary withering of the Ruminal tree, which had sheltered\nthe infancy of Romulus and Remus 840 years before (Tac. Ann., xiii.\n58). At the time at which Tacitus begins his history, there were, he\nsays, prodigies in the sky and on earth, warnings of lightnings and\npresages of future things (Tac. Hist., i. 3. 2). Popular imagination,\nbesides converting natural, but rare, phenomena into omens, invents\nothers which are altogether supernatural. In the disturbed days of\nOtho and Vitellius, it was rumored that a form of larger than human\ndimensions had issued from the shrine of Juno; that a statue of Julius\non the Tiberine island had turned round from west to east without any\nperceptible agency; that an ox in Etruria had spoken; that animals had\nbrought forth strange progeny; and that other alarming exceptions to\nthe laws of nature had been observed (Ibid., i. 86. 1). The supposed\ncontraction of a man's shadow is thought in South Africa to portend his\ndeath (R. S. A., pt. i. p. 126). The Irish Banshee is a being who does\nnot belong to any species recognized by science, and who, moreover,\nis heard to scream only before a death in the family to which she is\nattached. The ticking sound produced by a small insect in the wooden\nfurniture of a room is termed in Scotland the death-watch, and has\nthe same ominous significance. To one family, a drummer heard to drum\noutside the castle is significant of death; in another, it may be that\na particular ghost, seen by a casual visitor who knows nothing of its\nmeaning, conveys a similar intimation. The birth of great men is often\nsupposed to be marked by extraordinary signs. \"At my nativity,\" says\nOwen Glendower,\n\n    \"The front of heaven was full of fiery shapes,\n    Of burning cressets; and at my birth,\n    The frame and huge foundation of the earth\n    Shak'd like a coward.\"\n\nAnd again:\u2014\n\n    \"The goats ran from the mountains, and the herds\n    Were strangely clamorous to the frighted fields.\n    These signs have marked me extraordinary;\n    And all the courses of my life do show\n    I am not in the roll of common men.\"[6]\n\nFrom signs which the bounty of nature supplies without effort on the\npart of human beings, we proceed to those which are granted only\nin reply to solicitations on the part of some person or persons in\nquest of supernatural information. Of these, a leading place must be\nassigned to those which are obtained through the medium of diviners.\nDivination is in many parts of the world a highly-developed and\nlucrative art. The natives of South Africa, being in any perplexity,\nresort to the professional diviner to help them out of it. Should\ncattle be lost, should a goat be too long in giving birth to its kids,\nshould a relation be ill, the diviner is asked to inform those who\nconsult him, both what it is that has happened, and what they are to\ndo. Sometimes his replies are assisted by sticks held by the people,\nwho beat them vehemently on the ground when he divines correctly, and\ngently when he divines incorrectly; sometimes he himself makes use of\nsmall sticks or bones, which indicate by their movements the thing\ndesired to be known; sometimes again mysterious voices, supposed to\nbe those of spirits, are heard to speak. In a case related by one of\nCanon Callaway's informants (who was quite sceptical as to that class\nof diviners who required the people to strike the ground), a correct\nanswer was given by a diviner who employed bones as his professional\ninstruments. He had gone to inquire about a goat of his brother's,\nwhich had been yeaning some days, and had not brought forth. The\ndiviner discovered from his bones what was the matter; he declared that\nthe she-goat had been made ill by sorcerers, and told them that when\nthey reached home it would have given birth to two kids. The prediction\nwas fulfilled. On reaching home there were two kids, a white and a grey\none; the very colors the diviner had seen in his inspired vision. \"I\nwas at once satisfied,\" observes the narrator (R. S. A., pt. iii. p.\n334-336). Another mode of divining is by the aid of \"familiar spirits,\"\nwho address the consulting party without being themselves visible. A\nnative relates that his adopted father went to inquire of a diviner\nby spirits (named Umancele) concerning his wife's illness. When the\nrelations of the sick woman entered to salute, some heard the spirits\nsaluting them, saying, \"Good-day, So and So.\" The person thus addressed\nstarted, and exclaimed, \"Oh, whence does the voice come? I was saluting\nUmancele yonder.\" The divination in this case was not successful,\nand the narrator pathetically regrets that a bullock was given to\nthe diviner for his false information. In another case a woman, who\nlikewise divined by means of spirits, was perfectly correct in all she\nsaid. Some members of a family in which a little boy suffered from\nconvulsions went to consult her; and she discovered, or rather the\nspirits discovered for her, what was the matter with him; what was the\nrelationship of those who had come; and what were their circumstances.\nShe prescribed a remedy, and predicted a complete recovery. The cause\nof the illness was, according to her, the displeasure of ancestral\nspirits. A sacrifice was to be offered to them; and the village was to\nbe removed to another place. These things done, she declared that the\nboy would have no more of the convulsions from which he suffered. If he\ndid, they might take back their money. All turned out as she had said,\nto the very letter (R. S. A., pt. iii. p. 361-374).\n\nThe priests of the North American tribes have a peculiar method of\ndivination. Having received a handful of tobacco as a fee, they will\nsummon a spirit to answer the inquiries of their visitors. This they do\nby enclosing themselves in lodges, in which they utter incantations. As\nmay be supposed, the spirits who obey the summons of the Indian priest\nare not much more useful as guides to action than those who figure at\nthe seance of his civilized competitor, the medium. Their replies,\n\"though usually clear and correct, are usually of that profoundly\nambiguous purport which leaves the anxious inquirer little wiser than\nhe was before\" (M. N. W., p. 268). Brinton, however, having stated\nthis, proceeds to speak of cases, apparently well attested, in which\nthe diviners have foreseen coming events with unaccountable clearness.\nFor instance, when Captain Jonathan Carver, in 1767, was among the\nKillistenoes, and that tribe was suffering from want of food, the chief\npriest consulted the divinities, and predicted with perfect accuracy\nthe hour on the following day when a canoe would arrive. Brinton adds,\non the authority of John Mason Brown, that when Mr. Brown and two\ncompanions were pursuing an \"apparently hopeless quest\" for a band of\nIndians, they were met by some warriors of that very band, who declared\nthat the appearance of the white man had been exactly described by the\nmedicine-man who had sent them. And what renders the story remarkable\nis, that \"the description was repeated to Mr. Brown by the warriors\nbefore they saw his two companions.\" The priest was unable to explain\nwhat he had done, except by saying that \"he saw them coming, and heard\nthem talk on their journey\" (M. N. W., pp. 270, 271).\n\nAmong the Ostiacks in former days, the priests, when they intended\nto divine, caused themselves to be bound, threw themselves on the\nground, and made all sorts of grimaces and contortions till they felt\nthemselves inspired with a reply to the question that had been put to\nthe idol. Those who had come to consult the oracle, sighed and moaned\nand struck upon certain vessels so as to make a noise, till they saw a\nbluish vapor, which they conceived to be the spirit of prophecy, and\nwhich, while spreading over all the spectators, seized the diviner and\ncaused him to fall into convulsions (Bernard, vol. viii. p. 412).\n\nIn ancient China, \"the instruments of divination were the shell of the\ntortoise and the stalks of a certain grass or reed\" (C. C., vol. iii.\nProleg. p. 196). These are frequently spoken of in the sacred books as\nthe \"tortoise and milfoil,\" and there are historical examples of their\nemployment. The following rules for divination are given by a speaker\nin the Shoo King:\u2014\n\n\"Having chosen and appointed officers for divining by the tortoise\nand by the milfoil, they are to be charged _on occasion_ to perform\ntheir duties. _In doing this_, they will find _the appearances_ of\nrain, clearing up, cloudiness, want of connection, and crossing; and\n_the symbols_, solidity and repentance. In all, _the indications_ are\nseven;\u2014five given by the tortoise, and two by the milfoil, by which\nthe errors of _affairs_ may be traced out. These officers having been\nappointed, when the operations with the tortoise and milfoil are\nproceeded with, three men are to obtain and interpret the indications\nand symbols, and the consenting words of two of them are to be\nfollowed\" (C. C., vol. iii. p. 335).\n\nFurther instructions are then given in case the Emperor, nobles,\nofficers, or people, and any or all of these, should disagree with the\ntortoise and milfoil; the greater weight being given to the latter\n(Ibid., p. 327).\n\nOf modern divination in China, Dr. Legge recounts the following story:\u2014\n\n\"I once saw a father and son divining after one of the fashions of\nthe present day. They tossed the bamboo roots, which came down in the\nunlucky positions for a dozen times in succession. At last a lucky\ncast was made. They looked into each other's faces, laughed heartily,\nand rose up, delighted, from their knees. The divination was now\nsuccessful, and they dared not repeat it!\" (Ibid., Proleg. p. 197).\n\nHere it seems that heaven was merely called in to give its sanction to\na foregone conclusion.\n\nThe Singhalese have a curious method of discovering, by a species of\ndivination, what god it is who has caused the illness of a patient.\n\"With any little stick,\" says Knox, \"they make a bow, and on the string\nthereof they hang a thing they have to cut betel-nuts, somewhat like\na pair of scissors; then holding the stick or bow by both ends, they\nrepeat the names of all, both god and devils: and when they come to him\nwho hath afflicted them, then the iron or the bowstring will swing\" (H.\nR. C., p. 76).\n\nDivination, as is well known, was regularly practiced by the ancients,\nwho read the will of the gods in the entrails of animals, and who\nemployed, as a help in foreseeing the future and guiding their conduct,\nthe class of professional diviners known as augurs.\n\nAnother method, by which it has often been supposed that God entered\ninto communication with man, is that of the movements of the stars\nand planets. Hence the pseudo-science of astrology, which was so much\ncultivated in the middle ages before its supersession by astronomy. In\nIndia, observes Karl Twesten, the stars were very early consulted as\noracles. Manu excludes astrologers from the sacrifices; and in later\ntimes astrology became very general. According to Twesten, there is\nan astrologer in almost every Hindu community, who is much consulted,\nand determines the favorable moment for every important undertaking\n(R. I., p. 285). Antiquity, wide extension, and great persistency may\nall be pleaded on behalf of the notion that terrestrial events are\nforeshadowed by a system of celestial signals. There is a touch of\nastrological belief in the evangelical narrative that the birth of\nChrist was intimated to the Magi by a star in the east.\n\nSometimes, when it was desirable not to ascertain future events, but\nto decide between guilt and innocence, truth and falsehood, the divine\nBeing himself was called in as umpire, and was supposed to convey his\njudgment by the turn of events in a pre-arranged case. This is the\ntheory of those communications from God to man which are made by\nordeals. Ordeals were of various kinds, according to the nature of\nthe issue to be tried. Did one man charge another with some kind of\ndisgraceful conduct, the accuser was summoned to put his words to the\ntest of a single combat, in which truth was held to lie on the side of\nthe victor; was an old woman suspected of witchcraft, she was thrown\ninto the nearest pond, with thumbs and toes tied together, where her\nfloating was regarded as certain evidence of her guilt. Innocence of\nlegal crime, or in the case of women, of adultery, has very frequently\nbeen established by the method of ordeals. Several authors have noticed\nthe ordeals in use among the natives on the west coast of Africa. One\nof them, writing of Sierra Leone, informs us that if an accused person\ncan find a chief to patronize him, he is permitted to clear himself by\nsubmitting either to have a hot iron applied to his skin, or to dip his\nhand in boiling oil to pull out some object put into it, or to have his\ntongue stroked with a red-hot copper ring. Since his being burnt is\nconsidered as a proof of guilt, it would not appear that the chances\nof escape were great. \"Upon the Gold Coast, the ordeal consists in\nchewing the bark of a tree, with a prayer that it may cause his death\nif he be not innocent.\" In the neighborhood of Sierra Leone, a very\npeculiar ordeal is practiced, that, namely, of drinking water prepared\nfrom the bark of a certain tree, and termed \"red water.\" Before\ntaking it, the drinker repeats a prayer containing an imprecation\non himself if guilty. Should this decoction cause purging or pains\nin the bowels, it is a proof of guilt; should it, on the contrary,\nexcite vomiting, and produce no effect on the bowels for twenty-four\nhours, an acquittal ensues, and the person who has thus successfully\nundergone the trial is held in higher esteem than he enjoyed before\n(N. A., vol. i. p. 129-133). Sometimes this singular mode of trial\nis employed in cases where a corpse is supposed to have accused some\nperson of causing the death of its former owner (S. L., p. 124-127). On\nthe Gold Coast, \"every person entering into any obligation is obliged\nto drink the swearing liquor.\" Thus, should one nation intend to assist\nanother, \"all the chief ones are obliged to drink this liquor, with an\nimprecation that their _fetiche_ may punish them with death if they do\nnot assist them with utmost vigor to extirpate their enemy.\" Since,\nhowever, a dispensing power over such oaths has been exercised by the\npriests, some negroes observe the precaution, before taking oaths, of\ncausing the priest to swear first, and then drink the red water, with\nan imprecation that the fetich may punish him if he absolves any one\nwithout the consent of all the parties interested in the contract (D.\nC. G., pp. 124, 125).\n\nThe sanction of Scripture is given to an ordeal of precisely this\nnature is the case of women charged with adultery; and it is curious\nto find the very same mode of testing the fidelity of wives employed\nboth by the ancient Hebrews and modern negroes. The law of Moses was,\nthat if a man suspected his wife of unfaithfulness, and the \"spirit\nof jealousy\" came upon him, he might take her to the priest (with an\noffering, of course), and leave him to deal with her in the following\nmanner: Taking holy water in an earthen vessel, the priest was to mix\nin it some of the dust of the floor of the tabernacle, and set the\nwoman with her head uncovered, and the jealousy offering in her hands,\n\"before the Lord.\" He was then to \"charge her with an oath,\" saying,\nthat if she was pure, she was to be free from the bitter water that\ncaused the curse, but if not, the Lord was to make her a curse and an\noath among her people, causing her hips (or thighs) to disappear and\nher belly to swell. The water was to go into her bowels to produce\nthese effects. Hereupon the woman was to say, \"Amen, amen.\" According\nto the effects of the bitter water upon her constitution, was her guilt\nor her innocence adjudged to be (Num. v. 11-31).\n\nNow the procedure of the negroes, in similar cases, is almost an\nexact reproduction (it can scarcely be an imitation) of that enjoined\nby Jehovah. \"Red water\" is administered, instead of \"bitter water;\"\nbut with this exception, precisely the same method is pursued, and\nprecisely the same doctrine underlies the use of the ordeal. God is\nexpected, both by Jews and negroes, to manifest the truth where human\nskill is incompetent to discover it. The negroes, according to Bosman,\nbelieve that where the red water is drunk by one who makes a false\ndeclaration, he will either \"be swelled by that liquor till he bursts,\"\nor will \"shortly die of a languishing sickness; the first punishment\nthey imagine more peculiar to women, who take this draught to acquit\nthem of any accusation of adultery:\" a belief which curiously reminds\nus of the old Jewish superstition, that the hips will fall away and the\nbelly swell in the case of the adulterous wife who has taken the bitter\nwater on a false pretence. Bosman himself has correctly observed on the\nremarkable similarity of the two procedures (D. C. G., p. 125).\n\nA slightly different mode of trying suspected adultresses by ordeal\nprevails among the Ostiacks (in Northern Asia). Should an Ostiack\nentertain doubts of his wife's fidelity, he cuts off a handful of hair\nfrom a bear's skin, and takes it to her. If innocent, she receives\nit without hesitation; but if guilty, she does not venture to touch\nit, and is accordingly repudiated. The conviction reigns among these\npeople, that were a woman to lie under these circumstances, the bear to\nwhom the hair belonged would revive in three days and come to devour\nher (Bernard, vol. viii. pp. 44, 45).\n\nMore important, however, and more universal than any of the above\nmeans of communication from God to man, is the method of communication\nby miracles. There is probably no great religion in the world, the\nestablishment of which has been altogether dissociated from miracles.\nThey form the most striking, most indisputable, most intelligible\nproof of the divine will. Not indeed that there is any close logical\nconnection between the performance of a wonder, and the truth of the\nwonder-worker's doctrines; but popular imagination jumps readily to\nthe conclusion that a man, whom rumor or tradition has invested with\nsupernatural powers over nature, must also be in possession of correct\nopinions, or even of superhuman knowledge, on the mysterious questions\nwith which religion deals. Hence ecclesiastical historians, of all ages\nand countries, have sought to show that those from whom they deduced\nthe systems in which they wished their readers to believe, were either\nthemselves gifted with thaumaturgic faculties, or were the subjects of\nspecial marvels worked upon them. Such miracles have always served as\ntheir credentials, indicating their high character, and entitling them\nto demand the obedience of mankind to the commands they brought.\n\nThe establishment of Buddhism, for example, was attended by the\nperformance of extraordinary miracles. Not only did the Buddha himself\nfrequently perform supernatural feats; not only did his disciples,\nwhen they attained a certain grade of sanctity, receive the faculty of\nflying and doing other wonderful things; but he actually proved the\nsuperiority of his claims over those of others by a pitched battle in\nthaumaturgy. Certain Tirthyas, or heretical teachers, had the audacity\nto challenge him to contend with them in working miracles, and the\ntrial of skill ended, of course, in their ignominious defeat (H. B.\nI., p. 162-189). Much in the same way did Moses enter into a rivalry\nwith Pharaoh's magicians, who were overcome by his superior miracles\nas the Tirthyas were by those of Gautama Buddha. As Jewish prophets\nand Christian saints received by spiritual inheritance the power of\nperforming miracles, so also did the Fathers of Buddhism. Of one of\nthe greatest of these, named Nagardjuna, it is related that a Brahman\nwho had entered into a dispute with him produced a magical pond, in\nthe middle of which was a lotus with a thousand leaves, but that\nNagardjuna produced a magical elephant which destroyed the magical\npond (Wassiljew, p. 231). This again may remind us of the serpent of\nMoses, which swallowed up the serpents of the magicians; or of the\nfire brought down from heaven by Elijah in his controversy with the\nprophets of Baal. Another eminent Buddhist, Asvagosha, was remarkable\nas a preacher. The officials at the court of a certain king reproached\nhim with holding this holy man in too high esteem. The king thereupon\ntook seven horses, kept them six days without food, and then led them\nto the place where Asvagosha was preaching to be fed. The horses would\nnot touch the food that was offered, but shed tears at the words of the\npreacher (Wassiljew, p. 232).\n\nThe history of the Mongols records some equally wonderful performances\non the part of a Lama (or priest) named Bogda. When some messengers\ncame to meet him, he raised his hand in a threatening way against a\nriver, the waters of which immediately began to run upwards instead of\ndownwards; \"by which miracle,\" observes the historian, \"an unshakeable\nfaith was established in all minds.\" No wonder. The division of the Red\nSea and the Jordan were child's play to this. The same man caused many\nothers to believe by suddenly producing a spring in a dry place. In\nanother country which he visited, he subdued all the dragons and other\nbaneful creatures to his will (G. O. M., p. 227).\n\nIf the founder of the Mussulman religion did not claim any direct power\nof performing miracles, yet the communication to him of the Suras which\ncompose the Koran was a standing miracle. He professed to fall into an\necstatic condition, in which he received the direct instructions of his\nGod; and his care, when entering the sick-room of a friend, to avoid\ntreading on the angels' wings which he saw extended in all directions,\nindicates a pretension to more than human faculties. The present\nvotaries of the Mohammedan faith believe in the power of their saints\nto work miracles, for we read of the sick being taken to their Sheik to\nbe cured by the imposition of his feet (Dervishes, p. 347).\n\nThat the Christian religion was largely indebted to miracles for its\nsuccess during its early years need hardly be remarked. Not only did\nChrist himself perform miracles of the most extraordinary kind, but\nthe power was, if not wholly, yet to some extent, transmitted to his\napostles, and was frequently exercised by the saints and Fathers of the\nearly Church. Jesus himself, according to tradition, relied largely on\nhis miracles as proofs of his divine mission; for when John the Baptist\nsent disciples to inquire who he was, he replied by telling them to\nreport to their master that the blind received sight, the lame walked,\nthe lepers were cleansed, the deaf heard, the dead were raised up,\nand the poor had the gospel preached to them. So that the possession\nof this unusual gift of healing and re-animating, was regarded by him\n(or, more accurately, by his biographers) as a sufficient answer to\nthe doubt entertained by John whether he were really the Messiah, or\nwhether another were to come.\n\nHow great was the importance attached to the possession of miraculous\npowers by the early Christian Church, may be gathered from a passage\nin which Iren\u00e6us endeavors to cover certain heretics with confusion,\nby asserting that they are unable to do the things that are commonly\ndone by the adherents of the true faith. \"For they can neither confer\nsight on the blind, nor hearing on the deaf, nor chase away all sorts\nof demons\u2014[none, indeed], except those that are sent into others by\nthemselves, if they can even do so much as this. Nor can they cure\nthe weak, or the lame, or the paralytic, or those who are distressed\nin any other part of the body, as has often been done in regard to\nbodily infirmity. Nor can they furnish effective remedies for those\nexternal accidents which may occur. And so far are they from being\nable to raise the dead, as the Lord raised them, and the apostles did\nby means of prayer, and as has been frequently done in the brotherhood\non account of some necessity\u2014the entire Church in that particular\nlocality entreating [the boon] with much fasting and prayer, the\nspirit of the dead man has returned, and he has been bestowed in\nanswer to the prayers of the saints\u2014that they do not even believe this\ncan possibly be done, [and hold] that the resurrection from the dead\nis simply an acquaintance with that truth which they proclaim.\"[7]\nThus, the cure of infirmities and diseases by supernatural means were\nevery-day achievements of the early Christians; and even the dead\nwere sometimes restored to life, when sufficient pains were taken to\nobtain the favorable attention of the Almighty. \"It is not possible,\"\nobserves the same author in another place, \"to name the number of the\ngifts which the Church [scattered] throughout the whole world has\nreceived from God, in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under\nPontius Pilate, and which she exerts day by day for the benefit of the\nGentiles.\"[8]\n\nHence the Mormons, who claim to possess at the present day the powers\nwhich have departed from Christians in general, are perfectly in\naccordance with Iren\u00e6us in holding that signs like these are invariably\nattendant on the kingdom of God. Revelations, visions, the powers of\nprophecy, of healing, of speaking with tongues, of casting out devils,\nand working other miracles, are (they contend) the prerogatives of\nthose who belong to this kingdom. History, in relating first the\nmiracles of the Jewish patriarchs and prophets, then those of the\nChristian Fathers, powerfully supports this theory. Scripture in\nseveral unambiguous passages entirely confirms it. And the daily\nexperience of the Latter-day Saints, if we accept their statements,\nbears witness to its truth, by presenting abundant examples of the\nactual exercise of such supernatural gifts within their own society.\nThus, one person is cured of blindness; another of dislocation of the\nthigh; another has his fractured backbone restored; in the fourth case\nit is a rupture that is healed; in the fifth convulsive fits that\nare stopped.[9] I have myself been present at a Mormon meeting for\npublic worship, and have heard the saints who were gathered together\nnarrate, with perfect solemnity and apparent good faith, the miraculous\ncures which they themselves experienced, or which they had personally\nwitnessed. One after another rose to bear his testimony to some case\nof the kind which had fallen within his immediate knowledge. To\nthese uncultivated and fanatical people, holy events still were what\nthey have long ceased to be to the ordinary Christian world\u2014living\nrealities; and we may still study in them the mental condition of\nthose who could accept as phenomena occurring in their own day the\nrestoration of sight, hearing, or speech; the expulsion of devils; and\nthe resurrection of the dead.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER II.\n\n                             HOLY PLACES.\n\n\n\"Draw not nigh hither,\" said the occupant of the burning bush to\nMoses; \"put off thy shoes from off thy feet; for the place whereon\nthou standest is holy ground\" (Exod. iii. 5). This verse embodies\nthe universal theory of holy places. They are spots occupied in a\nspecial and peculiar manner by the deity or his representative; and\nwhere he finds it easier to communicate with mankind than it is\nelsewhere. Hence, those who hope or desire to receive some celestial\nintimation, resort to such holy places. The oracles of the ancient\nworld, and the temple at Jerusalem, are instances of holy places\nwhere the respective gods worshiped by those who frequented them gave\nresponses, or manifested their presence. Holy places are not always\nconsecrated places. Sometimes\u2014as in the case of the Delphian oracle\u2014the\nconsecration is the work of nature; the divinity intimates in some\nunmistakable way his presence in the sanctuary which he has himself\nselected; and human beings have nothing to do but humbly to receive\nsuch communications as he may desire to make. Frequently, however, holy\nplaces have only become holy by the act of consecration; the local\ngod has not occupied them until they have been duly prepared for him\nby human labor. On the other hand, consecrated places are always holy\nplaces. Not indeed that there are always conspicuous intimations of the\ndivine presence; but it is nevertheless vaguely supposed to haunt the\nbuildings where worship is offered, and rites are performed, more than\nit does the outer world.\n\nTo begin with a few instances of holy places which have not undergone\nconsecration. On the coast of Guinea \"almost every village hath a small\nappropriated grove.\" Offerings are made in these groves, and they\nare regarded as so sacred that no one ventures to injure the trees by\nplucking, cutting, or breaking their branches. \"Universal malediction\"\nwould be one of the consequences of such misconduct (D. C. G., p.\n128). Mr. Turner states that \"as of old in Canaan, sacred _groves_ for\nheathen worship, with and without temples, were quite common in the\nislands of the Pacific\" (N. Y., p. 329). These are instances of the\nsacredness so frequently attached to woods and forests by primitive\nnations.\n\n    \"The groves were God's first temples. Ere man learned\n    To hew the shaft, and lay the architrave,\n    And spread the roof above them; ere he framed\n    The lofty vault, to gather and roll back\n    The sound of anthems,\u2014in the darkling wood,\n    Amidst the cool and silence he knelt down.\n    And offered to the Mightiest solemn thanks\n    And supplication.\"[10]\n\nNatural characteristics in the same manner determine the quality of\nholiness attributed to certain spots by the natives of Africa. Holy\nplaces among them are those where a god dwells either visibly or\ninvisibly; particular buildings, huts, or hills; or trees which are\nremarkable for age, size, and strength. They have also sacred groves\ninto which no negro, not being a priest ventures to intrude. One of the\ntribes asserts that their god has his dwelling-place in the cavern of a\nrock that is situated in the bushes (G. d. M., p. 326).\n\nA singular example of a holy place in a more advanced religion is the\nneighborhood of the Bo tree, or Bogaha tree, in Ceylon, under whose\nshade the people worship at the great festival. This tree derives its\nsanctity from the circumstance of its having sheltered Buddha at an\neventful crisis of his life. Near it ninety kings are interred; huts\nare erected around it for the use of the devotees who repair to it;\nand as \"every sort of uncleanness and dust must be removed from the\nsacred spot,\" the approaches are continually swept by persons appointed\nfor the purpose. Besides the Bo tree, and the pagodas\u2014or public\ntemples\u2014many of the Singhalese have private holy places in their own\nhouses. They \"build in their yards _private_ chapels, which are little\nhouses like to closets,\" and in these they place an image of the Buddha\nwhich they worship (H. R. C., p. 73).\n\nGraves of the dead whom we have loved are apt to become holy places\nto us all; and in some religious creeds, such as those of Islam and\nChristianity, this veneration is extended to the tombs of persons who\nhave been distinguished by their sanctity. Mussulmans \"pray at the\ntomb of those they repute saints;\" and expect by offering vows at\nsuch places, to obtain \"relief, through their saintly intercession,\nfrom sickness, misfortune. sterility, &c.\" Miracles take place at\nthese tombs, and supernatural lights float over them (Dervishes, pp.\n79, 80). It is believed, too, that \"the merits of the deceased will\ninsure a favorable reception of the prayers which they offer up in such\nconsecrated places\" (Dervishes, p. 272).\n\nSometimes, again, the place where some striking event in the history of\nreligion has occurred, acquires a holiness of its own. Thus the Scala\nSanta at Rome enjoys a pre\u00ebminent holiness possessing the merit of\nprocuring a considerable remission of punishment for those who perform\nthe task of ascending it on their knees.\n\nThe oracle of Clarius Apollo at Colophon, mentioned by Tacitus, is an\nexample of a large and important class of holy places which were not\nconsecrated places. Here it was not a woman, as at Delphi (observes\nTacitus), who gave the responses; but a priest, who descended into a\ncavern, and drank water from a secret fountain (Tac. Ann., ii. 54). In\nJewish history we meet with a remarkable instance of a place originally\nhallowed by the actual appearance of God, in the case of Bethel, \"the\nhouse of God,\" where Jacob was favored with his remarkable dream. \"How\ndreadful is this place!\" exclaimed the patriarch on waking; \"this\nis none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven\"\n(Gen. xxviii. 17). In the spot whose holiness had thus been rendered\nmanifest, Jacob proceeded to perform consecrating rites; but, contrary\nto the usual order, the holiness preceded and induced the consecration.\n\nMore generally, consecration forms a sort of invitation to the deity to\ninhabit the place which has thus been rendered suited to his abode.\nOf the holy places which are also consecrated, a conspicuous place is\ndue to Solomon's temple; in the dedication of which the theory just\nstated is clearly embodied. Solomon, or his historians, perceived the\ndifficulty of causing a being so transcendently powerful as Jehovah to\ndwell within local limits. The monarch, in his consecrating prayer,\nexplains that he is well aware that even the heaven of heavens cannot\ncontain him; much less this house that he has built. Nevertheless,\nhe cannot give up the notion that this house may, in some degree, be\npeculiarly favored by having his especial attention directed towards\nit. His eyes at least may be open towards it, and if he cannot be\nthere himself, his name may. Moreover, when prayers are offered in\nthe temple, he may listen to them more graciously than to other\nsupplications; and when the asseverations of contending parties are\nconfirmed by oaths taken before the altar it contains, he may take\nunusual pains to execute justice between them. Jehovah fully approves\nof his servant's proposals. He emphatically declares in reply that he\nhas hallowed this house which he has built, to put his name there for\never; and that his eyes and his heart shall be there perpetually (Kings\nviii. 22-ix. 3).\n\nVery primitive peoples hold similar views of the relation of their\ndeities to their temples. Just as there was \"an oracle\" in the Jewish\ntemple, where \"the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord, as\nit had filled the corresponding place in the tabernacle, so in most\nof the Fijian temples there is a shrine, where the god is supposed\nto descend when holding communication with the priests; and there is\nalso a long piece of native cloth hung at one end of the building, and\nfrom the very ceiling, which is also connected with the arrival and\ndeparture of the god invoked\" (Viti, p. 393). It seems to have been\na general rule in the temples of these islands to have some object\nspecially connected with the deity, and through which he might manifest\nhis presence in the place. Thus, in one of them there was a conch\nshell, which \"the god was supposed to blow when he wished the people\nto rise to war\" (N. Y., p. 240). Nay, there was even an altar erected\nto Jehovah and Jesus Christ in one of the islands, \"to which persons\nafflicted with all manner of diseases were brought to be healed;\nand so great was the reputation which this mar\u00e6 obtained, that the\npower of Jehovah and Jesus Christ became great in the estimation of\nthe people\" (N. M. E., p. 28). Here an altar, erected of course by a\nman not yet converted to Christianity, received a blessing no less\nconspicuous than that granted in ancient times to Solomon's temple.\n\nThe Mexicans and Peruvians entertained a precisely similar belief to\nthat which we have observed among the Fijians and the Hebrews. Father\nAcosta describes the ruins of a very large building in Peru which had\nbeen a place of worship, where immense plunder had been carried off by\nthe Christians. In this temple there was a sure tradition that \"the\ndevil\" had spoken, and given responses in his oracle. The fact of the\ndevil speaking and answering in these false sanctuaries is, according\nto the learned father, a very common thing in America; but the father\nof lies has become silent since the sign of the cross has been raised\nin those regions of his previous power (H. I., b. v. ch. 12). Not only\nwere the temples holy in Peru, but the whole of the imperial city of\nCozco, the residence of the Incas, enjoyed an exceptional holiness.\nSo much was this the case, that if two natives of equal rank met one\nanother on the road, the one coming from Cozco, and the other going to\nit, the one coming from it received respect and reverence from the one\ngoing to it, which was enhanced to a higher degree if he were a native\nof Cozco (C. R., b. iii. ch. 20). In approaching the great temple at\nCozco, there were certain limits where all who passed were obliged to\ntake off their shoes: the very same sign of regard for holy places\nwhich Moses was commanded to observe at the burning bush; which is\npracticed by Parsee priests when ministering in their temples, and by\nMussulmans in reference to their mosques (Ibid., b. iii. ch. 23).\n\nProhibition to all but holy persons to enter holy places is not\nuncommon. The holy of holies in the Jewish temple might be entered by\nno one but the high priest, and the utmost horror was felt by the Jews\nat the violation of their sanctuary by Pompey. A European traveler in\nAfrica, finding a grove with a mat hung before it, wished to enter;\nbut was entreated not to do so by the negroes, who informed him that\na great spirit, who might kill him if displeased, dwelt within. He,\nhowever, went in, and found a delightful place; this being one of\nthose to which only priests were admitted (G. d. M., p. 326). Similarly\namong the Parsees, the Atesch-g\u00e2h, or holy place where worship is\nperformed, may be entered only by the priests, except under special\ncircumstances, when laymen may enter it after due observance of\npreparatory rites, and with the face covered. Such a case would occur\nif there were no priest to keep up the sacred fire (Z. A., vol. ii. p.\n569). In Mexico, where there were two important holy places\u2014the Cu,\nor great temple of Vitziliputzli, and the temple of Tezcatlipuca\u2014the\npriests alone had the right of entry to this last (H. I., b. 5, ch. 13).\n\nWe thus find, among the several nations of the world, a consistent and\nall-pervading theory of holy places. These are not always the scenes\nof divine revelations, or of striking events produced by the divine\nagency; but they are much more likely to be so favored than other\nplaces, and if communications are distinctly sought, it must generally\nbe by resorting to such local sanctuaries as are commonly reputed to\nbe fitted for the purpose. Where no revelation is either given or\nexpected, the holy place is yet the abiding home of the deity whose\nworship is celebrated within its enclosure. And although Christians may\nconsider their God as present everywhere, yet they are conscious on\nentering a church, of coming, in a peculiar sense, into his presence;\nand they indicate that consciousness by removing their hats, if men,\nand keeping the head covered, if women. For such is the outward\nindication of respect which the Christian God is supposed to require of\nthose who set their feet within his holy places.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER III.\n\n                             HOLY OBJECTS.\n\n\nWhile a highly-exalted conception of the First cause of nature would\nsee him equally in everything, and believe the whole world to be alike\nnatural and divine, no actual religion, believed by any considerable\nnumber of persons, has ever reached so abstract an idea. To all of them\nsome things are more sacred than others; in the more primitive forms\nof faith these things are either a species of divinities themselves,\nor they are the abode of some divinity; in the more advanced types,\nthey are held to be sanctified by the power of God, or to be the\nearthly representatives of his invisible majesty. To the class of holy\nobjects belong all charms, amulets, fetishes, sacred animals, and other\nthings of whatever kind, which are believed in any country to possess\na different order of powers from those which scientific investigation\ndiscovers in them.\n\nThe theory underlying the use of such objects among the negroes\u2014and\nit is practically the same as that of more civilized nations\u2014is well\nexplained by a German missionary. \"Fetishes, or Shambu,\" according to\nhim, \"are holy things, which are supposed to have received a particular\npower from God, both to drive away evil spirits, as also to be useful\nin all illnesses and dangers, especially against sorcery.\" They cover\nboth themselves and their gods with fetishes. These descend from father\nto son, and are preserved with the greatest care. Some are kept in\nsanctuaries of their own. There exists among these negroes (the Mavu)\na class of professional fetish-makers, who are mostly old women, and\nwho wear a peculiar dress. A man, who had fetishes at the bottom of\nhis staircase, informed the writer that their use was to keep the\ndevil from getting into his house. Another tribe of negroes prefer to\ntake things which have been struck by lightning for their fetishes:\nthe lightning-stroke being, as the missionary justly concludes, an\nindication that a divine power has united itself to these objects (G.\nd. M., pp. 322, 323).\n\nThe natives of Sierra Leone are described as placing unlimited faith in\n\"griggories,\" or charms. These are made of goats' skin; texts of the\nKoran are written upon them, and they are worn upon various parts of\nthe person. They have distinct functions, each one being designed to\npreserve the wearer from a certain kind of evil or danger (S. L., p.\n132).\n\nNumerous objects were holy in Peru. Rivers, fountains, large stones,\nhills, the tops of mountains, are mentioned by Acosta as having been\nadored by the Peruvians; indeed, he says that they adored whatever\nnatural object appeared very different from the rest, recognizing\ntherein some peculiar deity.\n\nA certain tree, for instance, which was cut down by the Spaniards,\nhad long been an object of adoration to the Indians, on account of\nits antiquity and size (H. I., b. 5, ch. 5). In another part of the\nAmerican continent, the neighborhood of Acadia, a traveler tells us of\na venerable tree which was likewise holy. Many marvels were recounted\nof it, and it was always loaded with offerings. The sea having washed\nthe soil from about its roots, it maintained itself a long time \"almost\nin the air,\" which confirmed the savages in their notion that it was\n\"the seat of some great spirit;\" and even after it had fallen, its\nbranches, so long as they were visible above the surface of the water,\ncontinued to receive the worship of the people (N. F., vol. iii. p.\n349).\n\nNot unfrequently the holy object is an animal, and then it may be\nregarded either as itself a god, or as sacred to some god, who\neither makes it in some sense his abode, or regards it with favor\nand takes it under his care. Among animals, there is none more\nfrequently worshiped than the serpent; and it has been supposed, with\nsome plausibility, that the Hebrew legend of the fall was directed\nagainst serpent-worship. However this may be, that worship is clearly\ndiscernible in the story of the brazen serpent which healed the\nsickness of the Israelites in the wilderness (Num. xxi. 8). This would\nseem to be a dim tradition of a time at which the adoration of the\nserpent was still practiced by the people of Jehovah. Many other\ncountries afford examples of the same worship. To take a single case;\nthe Chevalier des Marchais, who traveled in the last century, relates\nthat serpents of a certain kind were worshiped in Guinea. There was\none, however, which was called the father of these gods, and was\nreputed to be of prodigious size. It was kept in a place of its own,\nwhere it had \"secret apartments,\" and none but the chief sacrificer was\npermitted to enter this holy of holies. The king himself might only see\nit once, when, three months after his coronation, he went to present\nhis offerings (V. G., vol. ii. p. 169).\n\nEven Christianity did not entirely put an end to the worship of the\nserpent; for an early Christian writer, in a treatise against all\nheresies, makes mention of a sect of Ophites who (he says) \"magnify the\nserpent to such a degree, that they prefer him even to Christ himself;\nfor it was he, they say, who gave us the origin of the knowledge of\ngood and evil. His power and majesty (they say) Moses perceiving, set\nup the brazen serpent; and whoever gazed upon him obtained health.\nChrist himself (they say further) imitates Moses' serpent's sacred\npower in saying: 'And as Moses upreared the serpent in the desert, so\nit behoveth the Son of man to be upreared.' Him they introduce to bless\ntheir eucharistic [elements]\" (Adv. omn. haereses., II.\u2014A. N. L., vol.\n18, p. 262).\n\nHoly objects are very often connected with some eminent man, from\nwhose relation to them they derive their sanctity. Such are all the\ninnumerable relics of saints to which so much importance is attached\nin Catholic countries. Such is that pre-eminently sacred relic, the\ntooth of Buddha, so carefully preserved and guarded in Ceylon. When\nMajor Forbes witnessed the tooth festival at Kandy, fifty-three years\nhad passed since the last exhibition of this deeply revered member of\nthe founder of the faith. It was kept in its temple within six cases;\nof which the three larger ones having been first removed, the three\ninner ones, containing it, were placed \"on the back of an elephant\nrichly caparisoned.\" It was shown to the people on a temporary altar,\nsurrounded with rich hangings; the festival being attended by crowds of\npious worshipers, who thought that the privilege of seeing the tooth,\nso rarely exhibited to the public, was a sufficient proof of the\nmerits they had obtained in former lives (E. Y, vol. i. p. 290-293).\n\nMussulmans have their holy objects, consisting of verses of the Koran,\nsuspended or written on their dwellings, which are supposed to insure\ntheir protection. Such verses, or short Suras, are sometimes carried on\nthe person engraved on stones (Dervishes, p. 313).\n\nConspicuous among holy objects for the extraordinary virtues ascribed\nto them, are the bread and wine of the Lord's supper. These are\nbelieved by Christians either to be or to represent (according to\ntheir several doctrines) the actual flesh and blood of Jesus; and the\nmere fact of eating and drinking them, in faith, is held to exercise\na mystic efficacy over the life of the communicant. A more singular\ninstance of the holiness attributed by an act of the imagination to\nmaterial things can scarcely be produced. Another curious case of the\nsame notion is the belief in holy water; which enjoys so great a power,\nthat some drops of it dashed upon an infant's forehead contribute to\nensure its eternal happiness; while it has also the gift of conferring\nsome kind of advantage upon the worshipers who, on entering a church,\nsprinkle it upon their persons.\n\nImages of the gods or saints worshiped in a country form a large and\nimportant class of holy objects. Such were the \"teraphim\" or \"gods\"\nstolen by Rachel from her father, and which she concealed in the\nfurniture of her camel (Gen. xxxi. 19, 30-35). Similar images are\nemployed by the Tartars, who place them at the heads and feet of their\nbeds in certain fixed positions, and who carry them about with them\nwherever they go (Bergeron, Voyage de Rubruquis, ch. 3, p. 9).\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER IV.\n\n                             HOLY ORDERS.\n\n\nRites, acts of worship and sacrifices, originally performed by each\nindividual at his own discretion, or by each household in its own way,\nfall (as we have seen) with advancing development into the hands of\nprofessional persons consecrated for this especial purpose. Very great\nimportance attaches to these consecrated persons. The place they occupy\nin all societies above the level of barbarism is one of peculiar honor;\nand their influence on the course of human history has in all ages\nwith which that history is acquainted been conspicuous and profound.\nOnce devoted to their religious duties, they become the authorized\nrepresentatives of deity on earth. In treating of their consecration,\nwe consider them as channels of communication from earth to heaven; we\nhave now to consider them as channels of communication from heaven to\nearth.\n\nEndowed by the general wish of all human society with a special right\nto convey their petitions to the divine beings whom they worship, they\ndo not fail to claim for themselves the correlative right of conveying\nto men the commands, the intentions, the reproofs, and the desires of\nthese divine beings. It is the priests alone who can pretend to know\ntheir minds. It is the priests alone who can correctly interpret their\noften enigmatic language. It is the priests alone through whom they\ngenerally deign to converse with mortals.\n\nSuch is the ecclesiastical theory throughout the world; and it is as\na general rule accepted by the communities for whose guidance it is\nconstructed. Exceptions do indeed present themselves, above all in\nthe case of the remarkable men whose careers we shall deal with in\nthe ensuing chapter, who have founded new religions independently\nof, or even in spite of, very powerful existing priesthoods. And,\nspeaking generally, the holy class is not always co\u00ebxtensive with\nthe consecrated class. We shall notice further on an important order\namong the Jews who were universally received as holy, without being\nconsecrated. Moreover, there has often existed a species of men who,\nwithout regular consecration, have nevertheless served as a channel\nof communication from God or from inferior spirits to man. Such were\nmagicians, astrologers, \"et hoc genus omne,\" in ancient times; such are\nthe so-called mediums in the present day. Conversely, consecration,\nthough by its very nature implying holiness as its correlative, implies\nit less and less as we rise in the scale of culture. Thus, in the\nmore advanced forms of Protestantism, such as the Presbyterian or the\nUnitarian, the minister is scarcely more than a mere teacher; he has\nlittle or no more power to convey commands or intimations from God\nthan any member of his congregation. So that we should have a rough\napproximation to the truth were we to say that in the lower grades of\nreligious culture we have holy orders without consecration; while in\nthe higher grades we have consecrated orders without holiness.\n\nBetween these extremes there lies the great body of regular and\nqualified priests, appointed to communicate upwards, and entitled\nto communicate downwards. Invasions of their authority by irregular\npretenders are the exceptions, not the rule. It is the usual order of\nthings, that the decisions of priests on matters pertaining to religion\nshould be accepted in submissive faith, by the societies to which\nthey belong. Where, as in the case of Jesus of Nazareth, some bold\nindividual brushes aside successfully the pretentions of ecclesiastical\ncastes, the theory is only modified to suit the individual instance.\nEcclesiastical castes, deriving their title from the innovator himself,\nspring up again at once; and differ only in so far as the God whose\nwill they expound is either another God, or a new modification of the\nsame God.\n\nNumerous privileges are generally accorded to priests. Sometimes they\nenjoy exemptions from the operation of the ordinary laws; sometimes\nthey are permitted a disproportionate share in the government of their\ncountry; sometimes, without possessing recognized legislative powers,\nthey control the destinies of nations by the expression of their\nviews. Often, the whole physical force of the government is at their\ndisposal, for the propagation and support of the system they uphold;\noccasionally, when their authority has reached its highest point,\nthe mere solemn declaration of their commands is enough to ensure\nthe acquiescence of monarchs and the obedience of their subjects.\nCorresponding to these considerable rights, they perform a considerable\nvariety of functions, which are regarded by the societies who employ\nthem as not only useful, but indispensable. We find them in all\nprimitive communities acting as the recognized doctors of the people,\ntreating their diseases by the method of supernatural inspiration.\nRising a little higher, they predict that class of events which is\nso interesting to each individual, namely, the prospects of his or\nher life. In other words, they become fortune-tellers, astrologers,\nor (by whatever means) readers of the future. Or they control the\nweather, calling down from heaven the needful rain. They are inspired\nby the deity in whose service they are enrolled, and they announce\nhis will. In his name they threaten evil-doers with punishment, and\npromise rewards to the faithful and obedient. Benefits from on high are\ndeclared to be the lot of those who pay them honor. They proclaim the\nfact that their presence is essential to the performance of important\nrites, and that their assistance at these must be duly rewarded.\nSometimes they are in possession of knowledge which is only permitted\nto be imparted to their own caste. They are at all times the authorized\nexpositors of theological dogma, and the authorized guardians of public\nritual.\n\nLet us enter on a more detailed account of these several\ncharacteristics of the priestly order.\n\nFirst, it has to be noted that the differentiation of this order from\nthe rest of society is in primitive communities very incomplete.\nFathers of families, or any venerable and respected men, act as\npriests, and perform the requirements of divine worship according to\ntheir own notions of propriety. Thus in Samoa, Mr. Turner tells us\nthat \"the father of the family was _the high-priest_, and usually\noffered a short prayer at the evening meal, that they might all be\nkept from fines, sickness, war, and death.\" He also directed on what\noccasions religious festivals should be held, and it was supposed\nthat the god sometimes spoke through the father or another member of\nthe family (N. Y., p. 239). So in the early period of the history of\nthe Israelites, there was no formal and regular priesthood, and no\nestablished ritual. The Levites were not devoted to the functions they\nsubsequently discharged, until, in the course of the Exodus, they had\nproved their qualification by the holy zeal with which they slaughtered\ntheir brethren. It was for the perpetration of this massacre that they\nwere promised by Moses the blessing of God (Exod. xxxii. 25-29). With\nadvancing culture, the necessity for separating priests from laymen is\nalways felt. The ministrations of unskilled hands are not held to be\nsufficient. Ritual grows fixed; and for a fixed ritual there must be a\nspecial apprenticeship. Ceremonies multiply; and the original family\nprayer having grown into a more elaborate system of worship, takes more\ntime, and demands the attention of a class who make this, and kindred\nmatters, their exclusive occupation.\n\nWhile, however, the ministers of the gods are thus differentiated from\nthe people at large, they are not differentiated until a later stage\nfrom the ministers of the human body. Medicine and priestcraft are\nfor a long time united arts. On this connection, Brinton very justly\nremarks, that \"when sickness is looked upon as the effect of the anger\nof a god, or as the malicious infliction of a sorcerer, it is natural\nto seek help from those who assume to control the unseen world, and\ninfluence the fiats of the Almighty\" (M. N. W., p. 264). Thus in\nAmerica the native priests were called by the European colonists,\n\"medicine men.\" The New Zealand priests were \"expert jugglers,\" and\nwhen called in to the sick would ascribe some diseases to a piece\nof wood lodged in the stomach; this they pretended to extract, and\nproduced it in evidence of their assertion. An acquaintance of\nthe author from whom I borrow this fact, saw one of these doctors\ntear open the leg of a rheumatic patient, and (apparently) take\nout of it a knotted piece of wood (N. Z., p. 80). In the Fiji\nislands they occasionally use their medical powers malevolently,\ninstead of benevolently. In Tanna, there was a class of men termed\n\"disease-makers,\" and greatly dreaded by the people, who thought that\nthese men could exercise the power of life and death, the calamity of\ndeath being the result of burning rubbish belonging to the sufferer.\nWhen a Tannese was ill, he believed that the disease-maker was burning\nhis rubbish, and would send large presents to induce him to stop;\nfor if it were all burned he would die (N. Y. p. 89-91). The Samoans\nbelieved disease to be the result of divine wrath, and sought its\nremedy at the hands of the high-priest of the village. Whatever he\nmight demand was given; in some cases, however, he did not ask for\nanything, but merely commanded the family of the patient to \"confess,\nand throw out.\" Confessing, and throwing out, consisted of a statement\nby each member of the family of the crimes he had committed, or of the\nevil he had invoked on the patient or his connections, accompanied by\nthe ceremony of spurting out water from the mouth towards him (N. Y.,\np. 224). Like the Fijians, the natives of Australia employ priests\nto cure their illnesses. Their ecclesiastical practitioners \"perform\nincantations over the sick,\" and also pretend to suck out the disease,\nproducing a piece of bone which they assert to be its cause (S. L. A.,\np. 226). The Africans have an exactly similar belief in the influence\nof fetish over disease. Reade observes that epileptic attacks are (as\nis natural from their mysterious character) ascribed to demoniacal\npossession, and that fetish-men are called in to cure them. This they\nattempt to accomplish by elaborate dances and festivities, \"at the\nexpense of the next of kin,\" which sometimes end in driving the patient\ninto the bush in a state of complete insanity. When cured, he \"builds\na little fetish-house, avoids certain kinds of food, and performs\ncertain duties\" (S. A., p. 251). The negroes on the coast of Guinea,\nwhen ill, apply to their priest, who informs them what offerings are\nrequired to ensure their recovery (D. C. G., p. 213). When an Amazulu\nis troubled by bad dreams, he applies to a diviner, who recommends\ncertain ceremonies by which the spirit causing the dreams is supposed\nto be banished. Should he be ill, his friends apply to the diviner, who\ndiscovers the source of the illness, and probably demands the sacrifice\nof a bullock. A remarkable sensitiveness about the shoulders indicates\nthe spiritual character of the doctor. If he fail to remove disease,\nhe is said to have no \"Itongo,\" or spirit, in him (R. S. A., pt. ii.\npp. 159, 160, 172). The Fida negroes sent to consult their divine\nsnake through a priest when ill, and the priest (unless he announced\nthat the disease would be fatal) received a reward for indicating the\nremedies to be used. Moreover, the priests were the physicians of the\nnegroes. Two theories prevailed among the people as to the origin of\nillnesses. Some tribes held them to be due to evil spirits, who were\naccordingly driven away by a prescribed system of armed pursuit. But\nthe priests in other places regarded them as a consequence of discord\nbetween spirit and soul, and required the patient in the first instance\nto confess his sins. This being done, they obtain from their deity an\nindication of the offerings to be made, or the vows to be fulfilled,\nto restore mental harmony. They then undertook the treatment of the\nbody by physical means (G. d. M., pp. 335, 336). In Sierra Leone, as\nin other parts of Africa, \"the practice of medicine, and the art of\nmaking greegrees and fetishes, in other words, amulets ... is generally\nthe province of the same person.\" Those who practice medicine are\nlooked upon as witches, and believed not only to converse with evil\nspirits, but to exercise control over them (N. A., vol. i. p. 251).\nIn New France, in the eighteenth century, the principal occupation of\nthe native priests was medicine (N. F. vol. iii. p. 364). In Mexico,\nthe people came from all parts to the priests to be anointed with the\npeculiar unguent used in the special consecration mentioned above\n(_Supra_, p. 116). This they termed a \"divine physic,\" and considered\nas a cure for their diseases (H. I., b. 5, ch. 26).\n\nSuch rude notions as these, implying a supernatural as opposed to a\nnatural theory of the physical conditions of the body, are not wholly\nextinct even among ourselves. They exist, like so many of the crude\nconceptions of the savage, in the form of respected survivals wholly\ninconsistent with our practical habits. True, we do not call in the\nclergyman to assist or to direct at the sick-bed. But we do ask him to\nput up prayers for the recovery of the sick; and in the case of royal\nprinces, the clergy throughout the land are set to work to induce\nthe divine Being to give their illnesses a favorable turn. Now, this\nproceeding, however disguised under refined and imposing forms, is\npractically on a level with that of the Amazulu, who seeks to pacify\nthe offended spirit that has attacked him with pain by the sacrifice\nof a bullock; or with that of the Fijian who, when his friend is ill,\nblows a shell for hours as a call to the disease-maker to stop burning\nthe sick man's rubbish, and as a sign that presents will speedily reach\nhis hands. Nay, the very missionary who relates this Fiji custom gives\nat least one proof of his fitness to understand the native mind, in a\npassage showing that in reference to beliefs like these his own was\nalmost on a par with it. A war, of which the missionaries disapproved,\nhad been going on for four months, \"and the end of it was, the war\nwas raised against ourselves. After they had been fighting for months\namong themselves, contrary to all our entreaties, God commenced to\npunish them with a deadly epidemic in the form of dysentery.\" Now,\nthe conviction that diseases are punishments sent by some god, or at\nany rate direct results of an intention on the part of some god to\nharm the sufferer, is at the root of the priestly, as opposed to the\nscientific, treatment. For if God punishes with a deadly epidemic, it\nis an obvious inference that the mode of cure and of prevention is\nnot to take physical remedies, and observe physical precautions, but\nto avoid the sin for which the punishment is given. And this is the\ncommon conclusion of the savage and the Christian, though the superior\ninformation of the Christian renders his conduct self-contradictory and\nconfused, where that of the savage is logical and simple.\n\nNearly related to the supposed influence of priests over physical\nsuffering, is their supposed power to foretell the future. Here,\nhowever, a number of unauthorized and schismatic priesthoods often\nenter into competition with those sanctioned by the state. Technically,\nthey would not be termed priests at all; but tested by the true mark\nof priesthood, the gift, alleged by themselves and admitted by others,\nof forming channels of communication from the celestial powers to man,\nthey are entitled to that name, and this although they may perhaps\nreceive no regular consecration to their office. The Roman Senate\nduring the Empire came into frequent collision with these irregular\npriests. It endeavored from time to time to combat the growing belief\nin the unorthodox practices of astrologers and magi, by decreeing their\nexpulsion from Italy, and occasionally by visiting some of them with\nseverer penalties; but such endeavors to stem the tide of popular\nsuperstition are naturally useless (Tac. Ann., ii. 32; xii. 52). Magic\nof some description is universal. In New Zealand the priest \"seems\nto unite in his person the offices of priest, sorcerer, juggler, and\nphysician.\" He predicts the life or death of members of his tribe (N.\nZ., p. 80). By the Kafirs the prophet is consulted on all kinds of\ndomestic occasions, and (while the people beat the ground in assent to\nwhat he says) he is held to see in a vision the event which has led to\nthe consultation (K. N., p. 167 ff). The inhabitants of Sierra Leone\nhave other methods of divining. Their diviners make dots and lines in\nsand spread upon a goat's skin, which dots and lines they afterwards\ndecipher; or they place palm-nuts in heaps upon a goat's skin, and by\nshifting them about suppose that an answer is obtained (N. A., vol. i.\np. 134). The heathen Mexican had the habit, on the birth of a child,\nof consulting a diviner in order to ascertain its future. The diviner,\nhaving learnt from the child's parents the hour at which it was born,\nturned over his books to discover the sign under which its nativity\nhad occurred. Should that sign prove to be favorable, he would say\nto the parents: \"Your child has been born under a good sign; it will\nbe a senor, or senator, or rich, or brave,\" or will have some other\ndistinction. In the opposite case he would say: \"The child has not been\nborn under a good sign; it has been born under a disastrous sign.\" In\nsome circumstances there was hope that the evil might be remedied; but\nif the sign were altogether bad, they would predict that it would be\nvicious, carnal, and a thief; or that it would be dull and lazy; or\npossibly that it would be a great drunkard; or that its life would be\nshort. A third alternative was when the sign was indifferent, and the\nexpected fortune was therefore partly good and partly bad. The diviner,\nin this case and in that of a bad, but not hopelessly bad, sign,\nassisted the parents by pointing out an auspicious day for the baptism\nof the infant (A. M., vol. v. pp. 479, 480).\n\nPrediction of coming events was practiced by the priests in North\nAmerica, as it was elsewhere. They persuaded the multitude, says\nCharlevoix, that they suffered from ecstatic transports. During\nthese conditions, they said that their spirits gave them a large\nacquaintance with remote things, and with the future (N. F., vol.\niii. p. 347). Moreover, they practiced magic, and with such effect\nthat Charlevoix felt himself compelled to ascribe their performances\nto their alliance with the devil. They even pretended to be born in a\nsupernatural manner, and found believers ready to think that only by\nsome sort of enchantment and illusion had they formerly imagined that\nthey had come into the world like other people. When they went into\nthe state of ecstasy, they resembled the Pythoness on the tripod; they\nassumed tones of voice and performed actions which seemed beyond human\ncapacity. On these occasions they suffered so much that it was hard\nto induce them, even by handsome payment, thus to yield themselves to\nthe spirit. So often did they prophesy truly, that Charlevoix can only\nresort again to his hypothesis of a real intercourse between them and\nthe \"father of seduction and of lies,\" who manifested his connection\nwith them by telling them the truth. Thus, a lady named Madame de\nMarson, by no means an \"esprit faible,\" was anxious about her husband,\nwho was commanding at a French outpost in Acadia, and who had stayed\naway beyond the time fixed for his return. A native woman, having\nascertained the reason of her trouble, told her not to be distressed,\nfor that her husband would return on a certain day at a certain hour,\nwearing a grey hat. Seeing that the lady did not believe in her, she\nreturned on the day and at the hour named, and asked her if she would\nnot come to meet her husband. After much pressing, she induced the\nlady to accompany her to the bank of the river. Scarcely had they\narrived, when M. de Marson appeared in a canoe, wearing a grey hat upon\nhis head. The writer was informed of this fact by Madame de Marson's\nson-in-law, at that time Governor-General of the French dominions in\nAmerica, who had heard it from herself (N. F., vol. iii. p. 359-363).\nThe priests of the Tartars are also their diviners. They predict\neclipses, and announce lucky and unlucky days for all sorts of business\n(Bergeron, Voyage de Rubruquis, ch. 47).\n\nAmong the Buddhist priesthood of Thibet, there is a class of Lamas\nwho are astrologers, distinguished by a peculiar dress, and making it\ntheir business to tell fortunes, exorcise evil spirits, and so forth.\nThe astrologers \"are considered to have intercourse with Sadag,\" a\nspirit who is supposed to be \"lord of the ground,\" in which bodies are\ninterred, and who, along with other spirits, requires to be pacified\nby charms and rites known only to these priests. To prevent them from\ninjuring the dead, the relations offer a price in cattle or money to\nSadag; and the astrologers, when satisfied with the amount, undertake\nthe necessary conjuration (B. T., pp. 156, 271).\n\nIn the Old Testament, this class of unofficial priests is mentioned\nwith the reprobation inspired by rivalry. The Hebrew legislator is at\none with the Roman Senate in his desire to expel them from the land.\n\"There shall not be found among you any one that ... useth divination,\nor an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or\na consultor with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For\nall that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord: and because\nof these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before\nthee\" (Deut. xviii. 10-12). The very prohibition evinces the existence\nof the objects against whom it is aimed; and proves that, along with\nthe recognized worship of Jehovah, there existed an unrecognized resort\nto practices which the sterner adherents of that worship would not\npermit.\n\nIn addition to their claim to be in possession of special means of\nascertaining the occult causes of phenomena (as in illness), and of\nspecial contrivances for penetrating the future (as in astrology or\nfortune-telling), priesthoods pretend to a more direct inspiration from\non high, qualifying them either to announce the will of their god on\nexceptional occasions, or to intimate his purpose in matters of more\nordinary occurrence. This inspiration was granted to the native North\nAmerican priests at the critical age of puberty, \"It was revealed to\nits possessor by the character of the visions he perceived at the\nordeal he passed through on arriving at puberty; and by the northern\nnations was said to be the manifestation of a more potent personal\nspirit than ordinary. It was not a faculty, but an inspiration; not an\ninborn strength, but a spiritual gift\" (M. N. W., p. 279). So in India;\namong the several meanings of the word Brahman, is that of a person\n\"elected by special divine favor to receive the gift of inspiration\"\n(O. S. T., vol. i. p. 259). The missionary Turner, who has an eye\nfor parallels, observes, among other just reflections, that \"the way\nin which the Samoan priests declared that the gods spoke by them,\nstrikingly reminds us of the mode by which God of old made known his\nwill to man by the Hebrew prophets\" (N. Y., p. 349). Although the\nLevites were said to be the Lord's, and to have been hallowed by him\ninstead of all the first-born of Israel, yet it does not appear that\nthey were in general endowed with any high order of inspiration. The\nhigh-priest no doubt received communications from God by the Urim\nand Thummim. Priests were also the judges whom the Lord chose, and\nwhose sentence in court was to be obeyed on penalty of death; but the\ninspiration that was fitted to guide the Israelites was supplied not so\nmuch by them as by the prophets, a kind of supplementary priesthood of\nwhich the members, sometimes priests, sometimes consecrated by other\nprophets, were as a rule unconsecrated, deriving their appointment\ndirectly from Jehovah. While, therefore, it was attained in a somewhat\nunusual way, the general need of an inspired order was supplied no\nless perfectly among the Israelites than elsewhere. Christian priests\nenjoy two kinds of inspiration. In the first place, they are inspired\nspecially when assembled in general councils, to declare the truth\nin matters of doctrine, or in other words, to issue supplementary\nrevelations; in the second place, they are inspired generally to remit\nor retain offenses, their sentence being\u2014according to the common\ndoctrine of Catholics and Episcopalian Protestants\u2014always ratified in\nthe Court above.\n\nConsistently with this exalted conception of their authority, priestly\norders threaten punishment to offenders, and announce the future\ndestiny of souls. Thus the Mexican priests warned their penitents after\nconfession not to fall again into sin, holding out the prospect of the\ntorments of hell if they should neglect the admonition (A. M., vol.\nv, p. 370). The priests in some parts of Africa know the fate of each\nsoul after death, and can say whether it has gone to God or to the evil\nspirit (G. d. M., p. 335).\n\nSometimes the priests are held to be protected against injury by the\nespecial care of heaven. To take away a Brahman's wife is an offense\ninvolving terrible calamities, while kings who restore her to the\nBrahman enjoy \"the abundance of the earth\" (0. S. T., vol. i. p. 257).\nA king who should eat a Brahman's cow is warned in solemn language\nof the dreadful consequences of such conduct, both in this world and\nthe next (Ibid., vol. i. p. 285). The sacred volumes declare that\n\"whenever a king, fancying himself mighty, seeks to devour a Brahman,\nthat kingdom is broken up, in which a Brahman is oppressed\" (Ibid.,\nvol. i. p. 287). \"No one who has eaten a Brahman's cow continues to\nwatch (_i.e._, to rule) over a country.\" The Indian gods, moreover,\n\"do not eat the food offered by a king who has no ... Purohita,\" or\ndomestic chaplain (A. B., p. 528). The murder of a king who had honored\nand enriched the Buddhist priesthood, is said to have entailed the\ndestruction of the power and strength of the kingdom of Thibet, and\nto have extinguished the happiness and welfare of its people (G. O.\nM., p. 362). And Jewish history affords abundant instances of the\nmanner in which the success or glory of the rulers was connected, by\nthe sacerdotal class, with the respect shown towards themselves as the\nministers of Jehovah, and with the rigor evinced in persecuting or\nputting down the ministers of every other creed. That the same bias has\nbeen betrayed by the Christian priesthood and their adherents in the\ninterpretation of history needs no proof.\n\nThe presence of a priest or priests at important rites is held to be\nindispensable by all religions. With the negroes visited by Oldendorp,\nthe priest was in requisition at burials; for he only could help\nthe soul to get to God, and keep off the evil spirit who would seek\nto obtain possession of it (G. d. M., p. 327). \"For most of the\nceremonies\" (in Thibet) \"the performance by a Lama is considered\nindispensable to its due effect; and even where this is not so, the\nefficacy of the rite is increased by the Lama's assistance\" (B. T., p.\n247). Much the same thing may be said here. For certain ceremonies,\nsuch as confirmation, the administration of the sacrament, the conduct\nof divine service on Sundays, the priest is a necessary official. For\nothers, such as marriage, the majority of the people prefer to employ\nhim, and no doubt believe that \"the efficacy of the rite is increased\"\nby the fact that he reads the words of the service. Nor is this\nsurprising when we consider that, until within very recent times, no\nlegitimate child could be produced in England without the assistance of\na priest.\n\nNot only is the ecclesiastical caste required to render religious rites\nacceptable to the deity, but they are often endowed with the attribute\nof ability to modify the course of nature. Tanna, one of the Fiji\ngroup, \"there are rain-makers and thunder-makers, and fly and musquito\nmakers, and a host of other 'sacred men;'\" and in another island \"there\nis a rain-making class of priests\" (N. Y., pp. 89, 428). In Christian\ncountries all priests are rain-makers, the reading of prayers for fine\nor wet weather being a portion of their established duties.\n\nNaturally, the members of a class whose functions are of this high\nvalue to the community enjoy great power, are regarded as extremely\nsacred, and above all, are well rewarded. First, as to the power\nthey enjoy. This is accorded to them alike by savage tribes and by\ncultivated Europeans. According to Brinton, all North American tribes\n\"appear to have been controlled\" by secret societies of priests.\n\"Withal,\" says the same authority, \"there was no class of persons who\nso widely and deeply influenced the culture, and shaped the destiny\nof the Indian tribes, as their priests\" (M. N. W., p. 285). Over the\nnegroes of the Caribbean Islands the priests and priestesses exercised\nan almost unlimited dominion, being regarded with the greatest\nreverence. No negro would have ventured to transgress the arrangements\nmade by a priest (G. d. M., p. 327). On the coast of Guinea there\nexists, or existed, an institution by which certain women became\npriestesses; and such women, even though slaves before, enjoyed, on\nreceiving this dignity, a high position and even exercised absolute\nauthority precisely in the quarter where it must have been sweetest to\ntheir minds, namely, over their husbands (D. C. G., p. 363). Writing of\nthe Talapoins in Siam, Gervaise says, that they are exempted from all\npublic charges; they salute nobody, while everybody prostrates himself\nbefore them; they are maintained at the public expense, and so forth\n(H. N. S., troisi\u00e8me partie, chs. 5, 6). Of the enormous power wielded\nby the clerical order in Europe, especially during the Middle Ages,\nit is unnecessary to speak. The humiliation of Theodosius by Ambrose\nwas one of the most conspicuous, as it was one of the most beneficent,\nexercises of their extensive rights.\n\nSecondly, the sanctity attached to their persons is usually\nconsiderable, and may often, to ambitious minds, afford a large\ncompensation for the loss (if such be required) of some kinds of\nsecular enjoyment. The African priestesses just mentioned are \"as much\nrespected as the priest, or rather more,\" and call themselves by the\nappellation of \"God's children.\" When certain Buddhist ecclesiastics\nwere executed for rebellion in Ceylon, the utmost astonishment was\nexpressed by the people at the temerity of the king in so treating\n\"such holy and reverend persons. And none heretofore,\" adds the\nreporter of the fact, \"have been so served; being reputed and called\n_sons of Boddon_\" (H. R. C., p. 75), or Buddha; a title exactly\ncorresponding to that of God's children bestowed upon the priestesses.\nIn Siam the \"Talapoins,\" or priests, are of two kinds: secular, living\nin the world; and regular, living in the forest without intercourse\nwith men. There is no limit to the veneration given by the Siamese\nto these last, whom they look upon as demigods (H. N. S., troisi\u00e8me\npartie, p. 184). \"The Brahman caste,\" according to the sacred books of\nthe Hindus, \"is sprung from the gods\" (O. S. T., vol. i. p. 21); and\nthe exceptional honor always accorded to them is in harmony with this\ntheory of their origin. The title \"Reverend,\" man to be revered, given\nto the clergy in Europe, implies the existence, at least originally, of\na similar sentiment of respect.\n\nLastly, the services of priests are generally well rewarded, and they\nthemselves take every care to encourage liberality towards their order.\nPayment is made to them either in the shape of direct remuneration, or\nin that of exceptional pecuniary privileges, or in that of exemptions\nfrom burdens. Direct remuneration may be, and often is, given in the\nshape of a fixed portion abstracted from the property of the laity\nfor the benefit of the clergy. Such are the tithes bestowed by law\nupon the latter among the Jews, the Parsees, and the Christians. Or,\ndirect remuneration may consist in fees for services rendered, and in\nvoluntary gifts. Such fees and gifts are always represented by the\npriesthood as highly advantageous to the givers. If the relatives of a\ndeceased Parsee do not give the priest who officiates at the funeral\nfour new robes, the dead will appear naked before the throne of God at\nthe resurrection, and will be put to shame before the whole assembly\n(Av., vol. ii. p. xli.; iii. p. xliv). Moreover, those Parsees who\nwish to live happily, and have children who will do them honor, must\npay four priests, who during three days and three nights perform the\nYasna for them (Z. A., vol. ii. p. 564). In Thibet there is great merit\nin consecrating a domestic animal to a certain god, the animal being\nafter a certain time \"delivered to the Lamas, who may eat it\" (B. T.,\np. 158). Giving alms to the monks is a duty most sedulously inculcated\nby Buddhism, and the Buddhist writings abound in illustrations of the\nadvantages derived from the practice. Similar benefits accrue to the\nclergy from the custom, prevailing in Ceylon, of making offerings\nin the temples for recovery from sickness; for when the Singhalese\nhave left their gift on the altar, \"the priest presents it with all\ndue ceremony to the god; and after its purpose is thus served, very\nprudently converts it to his own use\" (A I. C., p. 205). Of the Levites\nit is solemnly declared in Deuteronomy that they have \"no part nor\ninheritance with Israel,\" and that \"the Lord is their inheritance.\" But\n\"the Lord\" is soon seen to be a very substantial inheritance indeed.\nFrom those that offer an ox or a sheep the priests are to receive \"the\nshoulder, the two cheeks, and the maw;\" while the first-fruits of corn,\nwine, and oil, and the first of the sheep's fleeces are to be given to\nthem (Deut. xviii. 1-5). Moreover, giving to the priest is declared to\nbe the same thing as giving to the Lord (Num. v. 8). A similar notion,\nalways fostered by ecclesiastical influence, has led to the vast\nendowments bestowed by pious monarchs and wealthy individuals upon the\nChristian clergy.\n\nOccasionally, the priests enjoy exemptions from the taxes, or other\nburdens levied upon ordinary people. A singular instance of this is\nfound in the privilege of the Parsee priests, of not paying their\ndoctors (J. A., vol. ii. p. 555). Large immunities used to be enjoyed\nby ecclesiastics among ourselves, especially that of exemption from the\njurisdiction of the ordinary courts of law.\n\nWhile the life of a priest often entails certain privations, he is\nnevertheless frequently sustained by the thought that there is merit in\nthe sacrifices he makes. Thus, it is held by a Buddhist authority, that\nthe merit obtained by entering the spiritual order is very great; and\nthat his merit is immeasurable who either permits a son, a daughter, or\na slave, to enter it, or enters it himself (W. u. T., p. 107).\n\nPriesthoods may either be hereditary or selected. The Brahmins in\nIndia, and the Levites in Jud\u00e6a, are remarkable types of hereditary,\nthe Buddhist and the Christian clergy of selected, sacerdotal orders.\nCurious modifications of the hereditary principle were found among the\nAmerican Indians. Thus, \"among the Nez Perc\u00e9s of Oregon,\" the priestly\noffice \"was transmitted in one family from father to son and daughter,\nbut, always with the proviso that the children at the proper age\nreported dreams of a satisfactory character.\" The Shawnees \"confined it\nto one _totem_:\" but just as the Hebrew prophets need not be Levites,\n\"the greatest of their prophets ... was not a member of this clan.\"\nThe Cherokees \"had one family set apart for the priestly office,\" and\nwhen they \"abused their birthright\" and were all massacred, another\nfamily took their places. With another tribe, the Choctaws, the\noffice of high-priest remained in one family, passing from father\nto son; \"and the very influential piaches of the Carib tribes very\ngenerally transmitted their rank and position to their children.\" A\nmore important case of hereditary priesthood is that of the Incas of\nPeru, who monopolized the highest offices both in Church and State.\n\"In ancient Anahuac\" there existed a double system of inheritance and\nselection. The priests of Huitzilopochtli, \"and perhaps a few other\ngods,\" were hereditary; and the high-priest of that god, towards\nwhom the whole order was required to observe implicit obedience, was\nthe \"hereditary pontifex maximus.\" But the rest were dedicated to\necclesiastical life from early childhood, and were carefully educated\nfor the profession (M. N. W., p. 281-291).\n\nChristianity entirely abandoned the hereditary principle prevalent\namong its spiritual ancestors, the Jews, and selected for its ministers\nof religion those who felt, or professed to feel, an internal vocation\nfor this career. Doubtless this is the most effectual plan for securing\na powerful priesthood. Those who belong to it have their heart far more\nthoroughly in their work than can possibly be the case when it falls to\nthem by right of birth. Just the most priestly-minded of the community\nbecome priests; and a far greater air of zeal and of sanctity attaches\nto an order thus maintained, than to one of which many of the members\npossess no qualification but that of family, tribe, or caste.\n\nNothing can be more irrational than the denunciation of priests\nand priestcraft which is often indulged in by Liberal writers and\npoliticians. If it be true that priests have shown considerable\ncunning, it is also true that the people have fostered that cunning by\ncredulity. And if the clergy have put forth very large pretensions to\ninspiration, divine authority, and hidden knowledge, it is equally the\nfact that the laity have demanded such qualifications at their hands.\nAn order can scarcely be blamed if it seeks to satisfy the claims which\nthe popular religion makes upon it. Enlightenment from heaven has in\nall ages and countries been positively demanded. Sacrifices have always\nhad to be made; and when it was found more convenient to delegate\nthe function of offering them to a class apart, that class naturally\nestablished ritualistic rules of their own, and as naturally asserted\n(and no doubt believed) that all sacrifices not offered according to\nthese rules were displeasing to God. And they could not profess the\ninspiration which they were expected to manifest without also requiring\nobedience to divine commands. Priests are, in fact, the mere outcome\nof religious belief as it commonly exists; and partly minister to that\nbelief by deliberate trickery, partly share it themselves, and honestly\naccept the accredited view of their own lofty commission.\n\nDivine inspiration leads by a very logical process to infallibility.\nA Church founded on revelation needs living teachers to preserve\nthe correct interpretation of that revelation. Without such living\nteachers, revealed truth itself becomes (as it always has done among\nProtestants) an occasion of discord and of schism. But the interpreters\nof revelation in their turn must be able to appeal to some sole and\nsupreme authority, as the arbiter between varying opinions, and the\nguide to be followed through all the intricacies of dogma. Nowhere\ncan such an arbiter and such a guide be found more naturally than\nin the head of the Church himself. If God speaks to mankind through\nhis Church, it is only a logical conclusion that within that Church\nthere must be one through whom he speaks with absolute certainty, and\nwhose prophetic voice must therefore be infallible. There cannot be a\nmore consistent application of the general theory of priesthood; and\nthere is no more fatal sign for the prospects of Christianity than the\ninability of many of its supporters to accept so useful a doctrine,\nand the thoughtless indignation of some among them against the single\nChurch which has had the wisdom to proclaim it.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER V.\n\n                             HOLY PERSONS.\n\n\nAlthough for the ordinary and regular communications from the divine\nBeing to man the established priesthoods might suffice, yet occasions\narise when there is need of a plenipotentiary with higher authority\nand more extensive powers. What is required of these exceptional\nambassadors is not merely to repeat the doctrines of the old religion,\nbut to establish a new one. In other words, they are the original\nfounders of the great religions of the world. Of such founders there is\nbut a very limited number.\n\nBeginning with China, and proceeding from East to West, we find six:\u2014\n\n  1. CONFUCIUS, or KHUNG-FU-TSZE, the founder of Confucianism.\n  2. LA\u00d2-TS\u00c9, the founder of Taouism.\n  3. SAKYAMUNI, or GAUTAMA BUDDHA, the founder of Buddhism.\n  4. ZARATHUSTRA, or ZOROASTER, the founder of Parseeism.\n  5. MOHAMMED, or MAHOMET, the founder of Islamism.\n  6. JESUS CHRIST, the founder of Christianity.\n\nAll these men, whom for convenience sake I propose to call _prophets_,\noccupy an entirely exceptional position in the history of the human\nrace. The characteristics, or marks, by which they may be distinguished\nfrom other great men, are partly external, belonging to the views of\nothers about them; partly internal, belonging to their own view about\nthemselves.\n\n1. The first external mark by which they are distinguished is, that\nwithin his own religion each of these is recognized as the highest\nknown authority. They alone are thought of as having the right to\nchange what is established. While all other teachers appeal to them\nfor the sanction of their doctrines, there is no appeal from them\nto any one beyond. What they have said is final. They are in perfect\npossession of the truth. Others are in possession of it only in so\nfar as they agree with them. No doubt, the sacred books are equally\ninfallible with the prophets; but the sacred books of religions founded\nby prophets derive their authority in the last resort from them, and\nare always held to be only a written statement of their teaching. Thus,\nthe sacred books of China are partly of direct Confucian authorship;\npartly by others who recognize him as their head. The only sacred\nbook of the Tao-ts\u00e9 is by their founder himself. The sacred books\nof the Buddhists are supposed discourses of the Buddha. The Avesta\nis the reputed work of Zarathustra. The Koran is the actual work of\nMahomet. And lastly, the New Testament is all of it written in express\nsubordination to the authority of Christ, to which it constantly\nappeals. These books, then, are infallible, because they contain the\ndoctrines of their founders.\n\nThe same thing is true where there is an infallible Church. The Church\nnever claims the same absolute authority as it concedes to its prophet.\nIts infallibility consists in its power to interpret correctly the\nmind of him by whom it was established. He it is who brought the\nmessage from above which no human power could have discovered. It is\nthe Church's function to explain that message to the world; and, where\nneeded, to deduce such inferences therefrom as by its supernatural\ninspiration it perceives to be just. Beyond this, the power of the\nChurch does not extend.\n\nA second external mark, closely related to the first, is, that the\nprophet of each religion is, within the limits of that religion, the\nobject of a more or less mythical delineation of his personality. His\nhistorical form is, to some extent, superseded by the form bestowed\nupon him by a dogmatic legend. According to that legend there was\nsomething about his nature that was more than human. He was in some\nway extraordinary. The myths related vary from a mere exaltation\nof the common features of humanity, to the invention of completely\nsupernatural attributes. But their object is the same: to represent\ntheir prophet as more highly endowed than other mortals. Even where\nthere is little of absolute myth, the representation we receive is\none-sided; we know nothing of the prophet's faults, except in so far as\nwe may discover them against the will of the biographers. To them he\nappears all-virtuous. These remarks will be abundantly illustrated when\nwe come to consider the life of Jesus, and to compare it with that of\nhis compeers.\n\n2. The internal mark corresponds to the first external mark, of which\nit is indeed the subjective counterpart. These prophets conceive\nthemselves deputed to teach a faith, and they virtually recognize in\nthe performance of this mission no human authority superior to their\nown. In words, perhaps, they do acknowledge some established authority;\nbut in fact they set it aside. No Church or priesthood has the smallest\nweight with them, as opposed to that intense internal conviction which\nappears to them an inspiration. Hence it was observed of Jesus, that\nhe taught with authority, and not as the scribes. Without being able\nthemselves to give any explanation of the fact, they feel themselves\nendowed with plenary power to reform. And it is not, like other\nreformers, in the name of another that they do this; they reform in\ntheir own right, and with no other title than their own profound\nconsciousness of being not only permitted, but charged to do it.\n\nNevertheless, it must not be imagined that the prophets sweep away\neverything they find in the existing religion. On the contrary, it\nwill be found on examination that they always retain some important\nelement or elements of the older faith. Without this, they would have\nno hold on the popular mind of their country, from which they would\nbe too far removed to make themselves understood. Thus, Allah was\nalready recognized as God by the Arabians in the time of Mahomet,\nwhose reform consisted in teaching that he was the only God. Thus, the\nMessiah was already expected by the Jews in the time of Jesus, whose\nreform consisted in applying the expectation to himself. Prophets\ntake advantage of a faith already in existence, and making that the\nfoundation of a new religion, erect upon it the more special truths\nthey are inspired to proclaim.\n\nNo prophet can construct a religion entirely from his own brain.\nWere he to do so, he would be unable to show any reason why it\nshould be accepted. There would be no feeling in the minds of his\nhearers to which he could appeal. A religion to be accepted by any\nbut an insignificant fraction, must find a response not only in the\nintellects, but in the emotions of those for whom it is designed.\n\nThis, it appears to me, is the weak point of Positivism. Auguste Comte,\nhaving abolished all that in the general mind constitutes religion\nat all, attempted to compose a faith for his disciples by the merely\narbitrary exercise of his own ingenuity. He perhaps did not consider\nthat in all history there is no example of a religion being invented by\nan individual thinker. It is like attempting to sell a commodity for\nwhich there is no demand. Even if his philosophical principles should\nbe accepted by the whole of Europe, there can be no reason why the\nspecial observances he recommends should be adopted, or the special\nsaints whom he places in the calendar be adored. Those who receive\nhis philosophy will have no need for his ceremonies. While even if\nceremonies cannot be entirely dispensed with, it is not the mere fact\nof a solitary thinker planning it in his own mind that can ever ensure\nthe adoption of a ritual.\n\nVery different has been the procedure of the prophets of whom we are\nnow to speak. Intellectually, they were no doubt far inferior to\nthe founder of the Positive Philosophy. But emotionally, they were\nfitted for the part which he unsuccessfully endeavored to play. They\nentered into the religious feelings of their countrymen, and gave\nthose feelings a higher expression than had yet been found for them.\nInstinctively fixing on some conspicuous part of the old religion,\nthey made that the starting-point for the development of the new. They\nreformed, but the reformation linked itself to some conviction that was\nalready deeply rooted in the nature of their converts. They assumed\nboundless authority; but it was authority to proclaim a pre-existing\ntruth, not to spin out of their purely personal ideas of fitness a\nsystem altogether disconnected from the past evolution of religion, and\nto impose that system upon the remainder of mankind.\n\n\n                       SECTION I.\u2014CONFUCIUS.[11]\n\nThe life of the prophet of China is not eventful. It has neither the\ncharm of philosophic placidity and retirement from the world which\nbelongs to that of La\u00f2-ts\u00e9, nor the romantic interest of the more\nvaried careers of Sakyamuni, Christ, or Mahomet. For Confucius, though\na philosopher, did not object, indeed rather desired, to take some\nshare in the government of his country, but his wishes received very\nlittle gratification. Rulers refused to acquiesce in his principles\nof administration, and he was compelled to rely for their propagation\nmainly on the oral instruction imparted to his disciples. His life,\ntherefore, bears to some extent the aspect of a failure, though for\nthis appearance he himself is not to blame. Another cause, which\nsomewhat diminishes the interest we might otherwise take in him, is his\nexcessive attention to proprieties, ceremonies, and rites. We cannot\nbut feel that a truly great man, even in China, would have emancipated\nhimself from the bondage of such trifles. Nevertheless, after all\ndeductions are made, enough remains to render the career and character\nof Confucius deserving of attention, and in many respects of admiration.\n\nDescended from a family which had formerly been powerful and noble,\nbut was now in comparatively modest circumstances, he was born in\nB.C. 551, his father's name being Shuh-leang Heih, and his mother's\nChing-Tsae. The legends related of his nativity I pass over for the\npresent. His father, who was an old man when he was born, died when\nthe child was in his third year; and his mother in B.C. 528. At\nnineteen, Confucius was married; and at twenty-one he came forward\nas a teacher. Disciples attached themselves to him, and during his\nlong career as a philosopher, we find him constantly attended by some\nfaithful friends, who receive all he says with unbounded deference,\nand propose questions for his decision as to an authority against whom\nthere can be no appeal. The maxims of Confucius did not refer solely to\nethics or to religion; they bore largely upon the art of government,\nand he was desirous if possible of putting them in actual practice\nin the administration of public affairs. China, however, was in a\nstate of great confusion in his days; there were rebellions and wars\nin progress: and the character of the rulers from whom he might have\nobtained employment was such, that he could not, consistently with the\nhigh standard of honor on which he always acted, accept favors at their\nhands. One of them proposed to grant him a town with its revenues; but\nConfucius said: \"A superior man will only receive reward for services\nwhich he has done. I have given advice to the duke Ting (see below),\nbut he has not obeyed it, and now he would endow me with this place!\nvery far is he from understanding me\" (C. C., vol. i., Prolegomena, p.\n68). In the year 500 the means were at length put within his reach of\ncarrying his views into practice. He was made \"chief magistrate of a\ntown\" in the state of Loo; and this first appointment was followed by\nthat of \"assistant-superintendent of works,\" and subsequently by that\nof \"minister of crime.\" In this office he is said to have put an end to\ncrime altogether; but Dr. Legge rightly warns us against confiding in\nthe \"indiscriminating eulogies\" of his disciples. A more substantial\nservice attributed to him is that of procuring the dismantlement of two\nfortified towns which were the refuge of dangerous and warlike chiefs.\nBut his reforming government was brought to an end after a few years\nby the weakness of his sovereign, duke Ting, who was captivated by a\npresent of eighty beautiful and accomplished girls, and one hundred and\ntwenty horses, from a neighboring State. Engrossed by this present, the\nduke neglected public affairs, and the philosopher felt bound to resign.\n\nWe need not follow him during the long wanderings through various parts\nof China which followed upon this disappointment. After traveling from\nState to State for many years, he returned in his sixty-ninth year to\nLoo, but not to office. In the year 478 his sad and troubled life was\nclosed by death.\n\nOur information respecting the character of Confucius is ample. From\nthe book which Dr. Legge has entitled the \"Confucian Analects,\" a\ncollection of his sayings made (as he believes) by the disciples of\nhis disciples, we obtain the most minute particulars both as to his\npersonal habits and as to the nature of his teaching. The impression\nderived from these accounts is that of a gentle, virtuous, benevolent,\nand eminently honorable man; a man who, like Socrates, was indifferent\nto the reward received for his tuition, though not refusing payment\naltogether; who would never sacrifice a single principle for the\nsake of his individual advantage; yet who was anxious, if possible,\nto benefit the kingdom by the establishment of an administration\npenetrated with those ethical maxims which he conceived to be\nall-important. Yet, irreproachable as his moral character was, there is\nabout him a deficiency of that bold originality which has characterized\nthe greatest prophets of other nations. Sakyamuni revolted against\nthe restrictions of caste which dominated all minds in India. Jesus\nboldly claimed for moral conduct a rank far superior to that of every\nceremonial obligation, even those which were held the most sacred by\nhis countrymen. Mahomet, morally far below the Chinese sage, evinced\na far more independent genius by his attack on the prevalent idolatry\nof Mecca. Confucius did nothing of this kind. His was a mind which\nlooked back longingly to antiquity, and imagined that it discovered\nin the ancient rulers and the ancient modes of action, the models of\nperfection which all later times should strive to follow. Nor was\nthis all. He was so profoundly under the influence of Chinese ways of\nthinking, as to attach an almost ludicrous importance to a precise\nconformity to certain rules of propriety, and to regard the exactitude\nwith which ceremonies were performed as matter of the highest concern.\nIn fact, he could not emancipate himself from the traditions of his\ncountry; and his principles would have resulted rather in making his\nfollowers perfect Chinamen than perfect men.\n\nA far more serious charge is indeed brought against him by Dr.\nLegge\u2014that of insincerity (C. C., vol. i.\u2014Prolegomena\u2014 p. 101). I\nhesitate to impugn the opinion of so competent a scholar; yet the\nevidence he has produced does not seem to me sufficient to sustain the\nindictment. Granting that he gave an unwelcome visitor the excuse of\nsickness, which was untrue, still, as we are ignorant of the reasons\nwhich led him to decline seeing the person in question, we cannot\nestimate the force of the motives that induced him to put forward a\nplea in conformity with the polite customs of his country. It does not\nappear, moreover, that he practiced an intentional deceit. And though\non one occasion he may have violated an oath extorted by rebels who\nhad him in their power, therein acting wrongly (as I think), it is\nalways an open question how far promises made under such circumstances\nare binding on the conscience. Whatever failings, however, it may be\nnecessary to admit, there can be no question of the pre\u00ebminent purity\nalike of his life and doctrine. His is a character which, be its\nimperfections what they may, we cannot help loving; and there have been\nfew, indeed, who would not have been benefited by the attempt to reach\neven that standard of virtue which he held up to the admiration of his\ndisciples.\n\nA few quotations from the works in which his words and actions are\npreserved, will illustrate these remarks. In the tenth Book of the\nAnalects (C. C., vol. i. p. 91-100), his manners, his garments,\nhis mode of behavior under various circumstances, are elaborately\ndescribed. There are not many personages in history of whom we have so\nminute a knowledge. We learn that \"in his village\" he \"looked simple\nand sincere, and as if he were not able to speak.\" His reverence\nfor his superiors seems to have been profound. \"When the prince was\npresent, his manner displayed respectful uneasiness; it was grave,\nbut self-possessed.\" When going to an audience of the prince, \"he\nascended the dais, holding up his robe with both his hands, and his\nbody bent; holding in his breath also, as if he dared not breathe.\nWhen he came out _from the audience_ (the italics, here and elsewhere,\nare in Legge), as soon as he had descended one step, he began to relax\nhis countenance, and had a satisfied look. When he had got to the\nbottom of the steps, he advanced rapidly to his place, _with his arms_\nlike wings, and on occupying it, his manner _still_ showed respectful\nuneasiness.\" He was rather particular about his food, rejecting meat\nunless \"cut properly,\" and with \"its proper sauce.\"\n\nWhatever he might be eating, however, \"he would offer a little of it\nin sacrifice.\" \"When any of his friends died, if the deceased had\nno relations who could be depended on for the necessary offices, he\nwould say, 'I will bury him.'\" \"In bed, he did not lie like a corpse.\"\nAnd it is satisfactory to learn of one who was such a respecter of\nformalities, that \"at home he did not put on any formal deportment.\"\nNotwithstanding this, he does not appear to have been on very intimate\nterms with his son, to whom he is reported to have said that unless\nhe learned \"the odes\" he would not be fit to converse with; and that\nunless he learned \"the rules of propriety\" his character could not be\nestablished. The disciple, who was informed by the son himself that\nhe had never heard from his father any other special doctrine, was\nprobably right in concluding that \"the superior man maintains a distant\nreserve towards his son\" (Lun Yu, xvi. 13).\n\nBut with his beloved disciples Confucius was on terms of affectionate\nintimacy which does not seem to have been marred by \"the rules of\npropriety.\" For the death of one of them at least he mourned so\nbitterly as to draw down upon himself the expostulation of those who\nremained (Ibid., xi. 9). The picture of the Master, accompanied at all\ntimes by his faithful friends, who hang upon his lips, and eagerly\ngather up his every utterance, is on the whole a pleasant one. \"Do you\nthink, my disciples,\" he asks, \"that I have any concealments? I conceal\nnothing from you. There is nothing that I do which is not shown to you,\nmy disciples;\u2014that is my way\" (Ibid., vii. 23). And with all the homage\nhe is constantly receiving, Confucius is never arrogant. He never\nspeaks like a man who wishes to enforce his views in an authoritative\nstyle on others; never threatens punishment either here or hereafter to\nthose who dissent from him.\n\n\"There were four things,\" his disciples tell us, \"from which the\nMaster was entirely free. He had no foregone conclusions, no arbitrary\npredeterminations, no obstinacy, and no egoism\" (Lun Yu, ix. 4). And\nhis conduct is entirely in harmony with this statement. It is as a\nlearner, rather than a teacher, that he regards himself. \"The Master\nsaid, 'When I walk along with two others, they may serve me as my\nteachers. I will select their good qualities, and follow them; their\nbad qualities, and avoid them'\" (Ibid., vii. 21). Or again: \"The sage\nand the man of perfect virtue, how dare I _rank myself with them_? It\nmay simply be said of me, that I strive to become such without satiety,\nand teach others without weariness\" (Ibid., vii. 33). \"In letters I am\nperhaps equal to other men, but _the character_ of the superior man,\ncarrying out in his conduct what he professes, is what I have not yet\nattained to\" (Ibid., vii. 32).\n\nNotwithstanding this modesty, there are traces\u2014few indeed, but not\nobscure\u2014of that conviction of a peculiar mission which all great\nprophets have entertained, and without which even Confucius would\nscarcely have been ranked among them. The most distinct of these is\nthe following passage:\u2014\"The Master was put in fear in K'wang. He\nsaid, 'After the death of king Wan, was not the cause of truth lodged\nhere _in me_? If Heaven had wished to let this cause of truth perish,\nthen I, a future mortal, should not have got such a relation to that\ncause. While Heaven does not let the cause of truth perish, what can\nthe people of K'wang do to me?'\" (Lun Yu, ix. 5). These remarkable\nwords would be conclusive, if they stood alone. But they do not stand\nalone. In another place we find him thus lamenting the pain of being\ngenerally misunderstood, which is apt to be so keenly felt by exalted\nand sensitive natures. \"The Master said, 'Alas! there is no one that\nknows me.' Tse-kung said, 'What do you mean by thus saying\u2014that no\none knows you?' The Master replied, 'I do not murmur against Heaven.\nI do not grumble against men. My studies lie low, and my penetration\nrises high. But there is Heaven;\u2014that knows me!'\" (Ibid., xiv. 37). Men\nmight reject his labors and despise his teaching, but he would complain\nneither against Heaven nor against them. If he was not known by men,\nhe was known by Heaven, and that was enough. On another occasion, \"the\nMaster said, 'Heaven produced the virtue that is in me, Hwan T'uy\u2014what\ncan he do to me?'\"[12]\n\nThese passages are the more remarkable, because Confucius was not in\nthe ordinary sense a believer in God. That is, he never, throughout his\ninstructions, says a single word implying acknowledgment of a personal\nDeity; a Creator of the world; a Being whom we are bound to worship\nas the author of our lives and the ruler of our destinies. He has\neven been suspected of omitting from his edition of the Shoo-king and\nthe She-king everything that could support the comparatively theistic\ndoctrine of his contemporary, La\u00f2-ts\u00e9 (By V. von Strauss, T. T. K.,\np. xxxviii). That his high respect for antiquity would have permitted\nsuch a procedure is, to say the least, very improbable; and Dr. Legge\nis no doubt right in acquitting him of any willful suppression of,\nor addition to, the ancient articles of Chinese faith (C. C., vol.\ni. Prolegomena, p. 99). For our present purpose it is enough to note\nthat he avoided all discussion on the higher problems of religion;\nand contented himself with speaking, and that but rarely, of a vague,\nand hardly personal Being which he called Heaven. Thus, in a book\nattributed (perhaps erroneously) to his grandson, he is reported as\nsaying, \"Sincerity is the very way of Heaven\" (Chung Yung, xx. 18).\nOf king Woo and the duke of Chow, two ancient worthies, he says: \"By\nthe ceremonies of the sacrifices to Heaven and Earth they served God\"\n(where he seems to distinguish between Heaven and God, whom I believe\nhe never mentions but here); \"and by the ceremonies of the ancestral\ntemple they sacrificed to their ancestors. He who understands the\nceremonies of the sacrifices to Heaven and Earth, and the meaning of\nthe several sacrifices to ancestors, would find the government of a\nkingdom as easy as to look into his palm\" (Ibid., xix. 6). Elsewhere,\nhe remarks that \"he who is greatly virtuous will be sure to receive\nthe appointment of heaven\" (Ibid., xvii. 5). Again: \"Heaven, in the\nproduction of things, is surely bountiful to them, according to their\nqualities\" (Ibid., xvii. 3). Nothing very definite can be gathered\nfrom these passages, as to his opinions concerning the nature of the\npower of which he spoke thus obscurely. Yet it would be rash to find\nfault with him on that account. His language may have been, and in all\nprobability was, the correct expression of his feelings. His mind was\nnot of the dogmatic type; and if he does not teach his disciples any\nvery intelligible principles concerning spiritual matters, it is simply\nbecause he is honestly conscious of having none to teach.\n\nThere are, indeed, indications which might be taken to imply the\nexistence of an esoteric doctrine. \"To those,\" he says, \"whose\ntalents are above mediocrity, the highest subjects may be announced.\nTo those who are below mediocrity, the highest subjects may not be\nannounced\" (Lun Yu, vi. 19). We are further told that Tsze-kung said,\n\"the Master's _personal_ displays _of his principles_, and _ordinary_\ndescriptions of them may be heard. His discourses about _man's_ nature,\nand the way of Heaven, cannot be heard\" (Ibid., v. 12). This last\npassage appears to mean that they were not open to the indiscriminate\nmultitude, nor perhaps to all of the disciples. But we may reasonably\nsuppose that the intimate friends who recorded his sayings were\nconsidered by him to be above mediocrity, and were the depositaries of\nall he had to tell them on religious matters.\n\nYet this, little as it was, may not always have been rightly\nunderstood. Once, for example, he says to a disciple, \"Sin, my doctrine\nis that of an all-pervading unity.\" This is interpreted by the disciple\n(in the Master's absence) to mean only that his doctrine is \"to be\ntrue to the principles of our nature, and the benevolent exercise of\nthem to others\" (Ibid., iv. 15). I can hardly believe that Confucius\nwould have taught so simple a lesson under so obscure a figure; and it\nis possible that the reserve that he habitually practiced with regard\nto his religious faith may have prevented a fuller explanation. \"The\nsubjects on which the Master did not talk were\u2014extraordinary things,\nfeats of strength, disorder, and spiritual beings\" (Lun Yu, vii. 20).\nAnd although, in the Doctrine of the Mean (a work which is perhaps\nless authentic than the Analects) we find him discoursing freely on\nspiritual beings, which, he says, \"abundantly display the powers that\nbelong to them\" (Chung Yung, 16), there are portions of the Analects\nwhich confirm the impression that he did not readily venture into\nthese extra-mundane regions. Heaven itself, he once pointed out to an\nover-curious disciple, preserves an unbroken silence (Lun Yu, xvii.\n19). Interrogated \"about serving the spirits of the dead,\" he gave this\nstriking answer: \"While you are not able to serve men, how can you\nserve their spirits?\" And when \"Ke Loo added, 'I venture to ask about\ndeath?' he was answered, 'While you do not know life, how can you know\nabout death?'\" (Ibid., xi. 11). Another instance of a similar reticence\nis presented by his conduct during an illness. \"The Master being very\nsick, Tsze-Loo asked leave to pray for him. He said, 'May such a thing\nbe done?' Tsze-Loo replied, 'It may. In the prayers it is said, Prayer\nhas been made to the spirits of the upper and lower worlds.' The Master\nsaid, 'My praying has been for a long time'\" (Ibid., vii. 34). I am\nunable to see \"the satisfaction of Confucius with himself,\" which Dr.\nLegge discovers in this reply. To me it appears simply to indicate the\ndevout attitude of his mind, which is evinced by many other passages in\nhis conversation. In short, though we may complain of the indefinite\ncharacter of the faith he taught, and wish that he had expressed\nhimself more fully, there can scarcely be a doubt that Confucius had a\ndeeply religious mind; and that he looked with awe and reverence upon\nthat power which he called by the name of \"Heaven,\" which controlled\nthe progress of events, and would not suffer the cause of truth to\nperish altogether.\n\nIt is true, however, that he confined himself chiefly, and indeed\nalmost entirely, to moral teaching. His main object undoubtedly was\nto inculcate upon his friends, and if possible to introduce among the\npeople at large, those great principles of ethics which he thought\nwould restore the virtue and well-being of ancient times. Those\nprinciples are aptly summarized in the following verse: \"The duties\nof universal obligation are five, and the virtues wherewith they\nare practiced are three. The duties are those between sovereign and\nminister, between father and son, between husband and wife, between\nelder brother and younger, and those belonging to the intercourse of\nfriends. Those five are the duties of universal obligation. Knowledge,\nmagnanimity, and energy, these three are the virtues universally\nbinding; and the means by which they carry the duties into practice is\nsingleness\" (Chung Yung, xx. 7). In the Analects, \"Gravity, generosity\nof soul, sincerity, earnestness, and kindness,\" are said to constitute\nperfect virtue (Lun Yu, xvii. 6).\n\nIt is as an earnest and devoted teacher, both by example and by\nprecept, of these and other virtues, that Confucius must be judged.\nAnd in order to assist the formation of such a judgment, let us take\nhis doctrine of Reciprocity, to which I shall return in another place.\n\"Tsze-kung asked, saying, 'Is there one word which may serve as a rule\nof practice for all one's life?' The Master said, 'Is not Reciprocity\nsuch a word? What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to\nothers'\" (Lun Yu, xv. 23). On a kindred topic he thus delivered his\nopinion: \"Some one said, 'What do you say concerning the principle\nthat injury should be recompensed with kindness?' The Master said,\n'With what, then, will you recompense kindness? Recompense injury with\njustice, and recompense kindness with kindness'\" (Ibid., xiv. 26).\n\nIf in the above sentence he may be thought to fall short of the highest\nelevation, there are some among his apothegms, the point and excellence\nof which have, perhaps, never been surpassed. Take for instance\nthese:\u2014\"The superior man is catholic and no partizan. The mean man is\na partizan and not catholic.\" \"Learning without thought is labor lost;\nthought without learning is perilous\" (Ibid., ii. 14, 15). Or these:\u2014\"I\nwill not be afflicted at men's not knowing me; I will be afflicted that\nI do not know men\" (Ibid., i. 16). \"A scholar, whose mind is set on\ntruth, and who is ashamed of bad clothes and bad food, is not fit to\nbe discoursed with\" (Ibid., iv. 9). \"The superior man is affable, but\nnot adulatory; the mean is adulatory, but not affable\" (Ibid., xiii.\n23). \"Where the solid qualities are in excess of accomplishments, we\nhave rusticity; where the accomplishments are in excess of the solid\nqualities, we have the manners of a clerk. When the accomplishments and\nsolid qualities are equally blended, we then have the man of complete\nvirtue\" (Lun Yu, vi. 16). Lastly, I will quote one which, with a slight\nchange of terms, might have emanated from the pen of Thomas Carlyle:\n\"There are three things of which the superior man stands in awe:\u2014He\nstands in awe of the ordinances of heaven; he stands in awe of great\nmen; he stands in awe of the words of sages. The mean man does not know\nthe ordinances of heaven, and _consequently_ does not stand in awe of\nthem. He is disrespectful to great men. He makes sport of the words of\nsages\" (Ibid., xvi. 8).\n\nThese, and various other recorded sayings, go far to explain, if\nnot to justify, the unbounded admiration of his faithful follower,\nTsze-kung: \"Our Master cannot be attained to, just in the same way as\nthe heavens cannot be gone up to by the steps of a stair. Were our\nMaster in the position of the prince of a State, or the chief of a\nfamily, we should find verified the description _which has been given\nof a sage's rule_:\u2014he would plant the people, and forthwith they would\nbe established; he would lead them on, and forthwith they would follow\nhim; he would make them happy, and forthwith _multitudes_ would resort\nto _his dominions_; he would stimulate them, and forthwith they would\nbe harmonious. While he lived, he would be glorious. When he died, he\nwould be bitterly lamented. How is it possible for him to be attained\nto?\" (Ibid., xix. 25.)\n\n\n                       SECTION II.\u2014LA\u00d2-TS\u00c9.[13]\n\nConcerning the life of La\u00f2-ts\u00e9, the founder of the smallest of the\nthree sects of China (Confucians, Buddhists, and Taouists), we have\nonly the most meagre information. Scarcely anything is known either of\nhis personal character or of his doctrine, except through his book. His\nbirth-year is unknown to us, and can only be approximately determined\nby means of the date assigned to his famous interview with his great\ncontemporary, Confucius. This occurred in B. C. 517, when La\u00f2-ts\u00e9\nwas very old. He may, therefore, have been born about the year B. C.\n600.[14] All we can say of his career is, that he held an office in\nthe State of Tseheu, that of \"writer (or historian) of the archives.\"\nWhen visited by Confucius, who was the master of a rival school, he is\nsaid to have addressed him in these terms:\u2014\"Those whom you talk about\nare dead, and their bones are mouldered to dust; only their words\nremain. When the superior man gets his time, he mounts aloft; but when\nthe time is against him, he moves as if his feet were entangled. I\nhave heard that a good merchant, though he has rich treasures deeply\nstored, appears as if he were poor; and that the superior man, whose\nvirtue is complete, is yet to outward seeming stupid. Put away your\nproud air and many desires; your insinuating habit and wild will.\nThese are of no advantage to you. This is all which I have to tell\nyou.\" After this interview, Confucius thus expressed his opinion of\nthe older philosopher to his disciples:\u2014\"I know how birds can fly, how\nfishes can swim, and how animals can run. But the runner may be snared,\nthe swimmer may be hooked, and the flyer may be shot by the arrow. But\nthere is the dragon. I cannot tell how he mounts on the wind through\nthe clouds and rises to heaven. To-day I have seen La\u00f2-ts\u00e9, and can\nonly compare him to the dragon\" (C. C., vol. i. Proleg. p. 65.\u2014T. T.\nK., p. liii.\u2014L. T.., p. iv).\n\nTroubles in the State in which he held office induced him to retire,\nand to seek the frontier. Here the officer in command requested him\nto write a book, the result of which request was the Ta\u00f2-t\u0115-K\u012bng. \"No\none knows,\" says the Chinese historian, \"where he died. La\u00f2-ts\u00e9 was a\nhidden sage\" (T. T. K., p. lvi).\n\nTo this very scanty historical information we may add such indications\nas La\u00f2-ts\u00e9 himself has given us of his personality. One of these is\ncontained in the twentieth chapter of his work, in which he tells\nus that while other men are radiant with pleasure, he is calm, like\na child that does not yet smile. He wavers to and fro, as one who\nknows not where to turn. Other men have abundance; he is as it were\ndeprived of all. He is like a stupid fellow, so confused does he feel.\nOrdinary men are enlightened; he is obscure and troubled in mind. Like\nthe sea he is forgotten, and driven about like one who has no certain\nresting-place. All other men are of use; he alone is clownish like a\npeasant. He alone is unlike other men, but he honors the nursing mother\n(T. T. K., ch. xx).\n\nIt is obvious that an estimate so depreciatory is not to be taken\nliterally. To understand its full significance, it should be compared\nto the magnificent description in Plato's The\u00e6tetus of the outward\nappearance presented by the philosopher, who, in presence of practical\nmen, is the jest alike of \"Thracian handmaids,\" and of the \"general\nherd;\" who is \"unacquainted with his next-door neighbor;\" who is\n\"ignorant of what is before him, and always at a loss;\" and who is\nso awkward and useless when called on to perform some menial office,\nsuch as \"packing up a bag, or flavoring a sauce, or fawning speech.\"\nYet this philosopher, like La\u00f2-ts\u00e9, \"honors his nursing Mother;\" he\nmoves in a sphere of thought where men of the world cannot follow\nhim, and where they in their turn are lost (The\u00e6tetus, 174-176). Just\nsuch a character as that drawn by Plato, La\u00f2-ts\u00e9 seems to have been.\nLiving in retirement, and devoted to philosophy, he appeared to his\ncontemporaries an eccentric and incompetent person. Yet he says that\nthey called him great (Ch. lxvii), which seems to imply that his\nreputation was already founded in his life-time.\n\nOne other reference to himself must not be omitted, for it evinces the\nsense he had of the nature of his work in the world. \"My words,\" so he\nwrites in his paradoxical manner, \"are very easy to understand, very\neasy to follow,\u2014no one in the world is able to understand them, no\none is able to follow them. The words have an author, the works have\none who enjoins them; but he is not understood, therefore I am not\nunderstood\" (Ch. lxx). On this Stanislas Julien observes, \"There is not\na word of La\u00f2-ts\u00e9's that has not a solid foundation. In fact, they have\nfor their origin and basis Tao and Virtue\" (L. V. V. p. 269, n. 2).\nThese expressions, then, suffice to show that La\u00f2-ts\u00e9 was not destitute\nof that sense of inspiration of which other great prophets have been so\nprofoundly conscious.\n\n\n                   SECTION III.\u2014GAUTAMA BUDDHA.[15]\n\n\n                SUBDIVISION 1. _The Historical Buddha._\n\nWere we to write the history of the Buddha according to the fashion of\nBuddhist historians, we should have to begin our story several ages\nbefore his birth. For the theory of his disciples is, that during many\nmillions of years, through an almost innumerable series of different\nlives, he had been preparing himself for the great office of the\nsavior of humanity which he at length assumed. Only by the practice\nof incredible self-denial, and unbounded virtue, during all the long\nline of human births he was destined to undergo, could he become fitted\nfor that consummate duty, the performance of which at last released\nhim forever from the bonds of existence. For the total extinction of\nconscious life, not its continuation in a better sphere, is, or at any\nrate was, the goal of the pious Buddhist. And it was the crowning merit\nof the Buddha, that he not only sought this reward for himself, but\nqualified himself by ages of endurance to enlighten others as to the\nway in which it might be earned.\n\nBut we will not encumber ourselves with the pre-historic Buddha,\nthe tales of whose deeds are palpable fictions, but will endeavor\nto unravel the thread of genuine fact which probably runs through\nthe accepted life of Sakyamuni in his final appearance upon earth.\nAnd here we are met with a preliminary difficulty. That life is not\nguaranteed by any trustworthy authority. It cannot be traced back to\nany known disciple of Buddha. It cannot be shown to have been written\nwithin a century after his death, and it may have been written later.\nAncient, however, it undoubtedly is. For the separation of northern\nfrom southern Buddhism occurred at an early period in the history\nof the Church, probably about two hundred years after the death of\nits founder; and this life is the common property of all sections of\nBuddhists. It was consequently current before that separation. But\nits antiquity does not make it trustworthy. On the contrary, it is\nconstructed in accordance with an evident design. Every incident has a\ndefinite dogmatic value, and stands in well-marked dogmatic relations\nto the rest. There is nothing natural or spontaneous about them.\nEverything has its proper place, and its distinct purpose. And it is\nuseless to attempt to deal with such a life on the rationalistic plan\nof sifting the historical from the fabulous; the natural and possible\nfrom the miraculous and impossible elements. The close intermixture of\nthe two renders any such process hopeless. We are, in fact, with regard\nto the life of Gautama Buddha, much in the position that we should\nbe in with regard to the life of Jesus Christ, had we no records to\nconsult but the apocryphal gospels.\n\nNevertheless, while holding that his biography can never now be\nwritten, it is by no means my intention to imply that it is impossible\nto know anything about him. On the contrary, a picture not wholly\nimaginary may unquestionably be drawn of the character and doctrines\nof the great teacher of the Asiatic continent. Let us venture on the\nattempt.\n\nAn imposing array of scholars agrees in fixing the date of his death\nin B.C. 543, and as he is said to have lived eighty years, he would\nthus have been born in B.C. 623. Without entering now into the grounds\nof their inference, I venture to believe that they have thrown him\nback to a too distant date. I am more inclined to agree with K\u00f6ppen,\nwho would place his death from B.C. 480 to 460, or about two centuries\nbefore the accession of the great Buddhist king Asoka. Westergaard,\nit is true, would fix this event much later, namely about B.C. 370.\nSupposing the former writer to be correct in his conclusions, the\nactive portion of the Buddha's life would fall to the earlier years of\nthe fifth century B.C., and possibly to the conclusion of the sixth.\nHis birth, about B.C. 560-540, occurred in a small kingdom of the north\nof India, entitled Kapilavastu. Of what rank his parents may have\nbeen, the accounts before us do not enable us to say. The tradition\naccording to which they were the king and queen of the country, I\nregard with Wassiljew as in all probability an invention intended to\nshed additional glory upon him. The boy is said to have been named\nSiddhartha, though possibly this also was one of the many titles\nbestowed on him by subsequent piety. At an early age he felt\u2014as so many\nyoung men of lofty character have always done\u2014the hollowness of worldly\npleasures, and withdrew himself from men to lead a solitary and ascetic\nlife. After he had satisfied the craving for self-torture, and subdued\nthe lusts of the flesh, he came forth, full of zeal for the redemption\nof mankind, to proclaim a new and startling gospel. India was at\nthat time, as always, dominated by the system of caste. The Buddha,\nboldly breaking through the deepest prejudices of his countrymen,\nsurrounded himself with a society in which caste was nothing. Let but\na man or even a woman (for it is stated that at his sister's request\nhe admitted women) become his disciple, agree to renounce the world,\nand lead the life of an ascetic, and he or she at once lost either the\nprivileges of a high caste, or the degradations of a low one. Rank\ndepended henceforth exclusively upon capacity for the reception of\nspiritual truth; and the humblest individual might, by attending to\nand practicing the teacher's lessons, rise to the highest places in\nthe hierarchy. \"Since the doctrine which I teach,\" he is represented\nas saying in one of the Canonical Books, \"is completely pure, it makes\nno distinction between noble and commoner, between rich and poor. It\nis, for example, like water, which washes both noblemen and common\npeople, both rich and poor, both good and bad, and purifies all without\ndistinction. It may, to take another illustration, be compared to\nfire, which consumes mountains, rocks, and all great and small objects\nbetween heaven and earth without distinction. Again, my doctrine is\nlike heaven, inasmuch as there is room within it, without exception,\nfor whomsoever it may be; for men and women, for boys and girls, for\nrich and poor\" (W. u. T., p. 282). This was the practical side of\nSakyamuni's great reform. Its theoretical side was this. Life was\nregarded by Indian devotees, not as a blessing, but as an unspeakable\nmisery. Deliverance from existence altogether, not merely transposition\nto a happier mode of existence, was the object of their ardent longing.\nThe Buddha did not seek to oppose this craving for annihilation, but to\nsatisfy it. He addressed himself to the problem, How is pain produced,\nand how can it be extinguished? And his meditations led him to what\nare termed \"the four truths\"\u2014the cardinal dogma of Buddhism in all its\nforms. The four truths are stated as follows:\u2014\n\n  1. The existence of pain.\n  2. The production of pain.\n  3. The annihilation of pain.\n  4. The way to the annihilation of pain.\n\nThe meaning of the truths is this:\u2014Pain exists; that is, all living\nbeings are subject to it; its production is the result of the existence\nof such beings; its annihilation is possible; and lastly, the way to\nattain that annihilation is to enter on the paths opened to mankind by\nGautama Buddha. In other words, the way to avoid that awful series of\nsucceeding births to which the Indian believed himself subject, was\nto adopt the monastic life; to practice all virtues, more especially\ncharity; to acquire a profound knowledge of spiritual truths; and, in\nfine, to follow the teaching of the Buddha. Renounce the world, and\nyou will\u2014sooner or later, according to your degree of merit\u2014be freed\nfrom the curse of existence; this seems to sum up, in brief, the gospel\nproclaimed with all the fervor of a great discovery by the new teacher.\nAfter about forty-five years of public life devoted to mankind, he died\nat the age of eighty, at Kusinagara, deeply mourned by a few faithful\ndisciples who had clustered around him, and no doubt regretted by\nmany who had found repose and comfort in his doctrines, and had been\nstrengthened by his example. The names of his principal disciples\nbecome almost as familiar to a reader of Buddhist books as those of\nPeter, James, and John, to a Christian. Maudgaly\u00e2yana and Sariputtra,\nthe eminent evangelists, and Ananda, the beloved disciple, the close\nfriend and servant of the Buddha, are among the most prominent of this\nlittle group. With them rested propagation of the faith, and the vast\nresults, which in two centuries followed their exertions, prove that\nthey were not remiss. The stories of the thousands who embraced the\nproffered salvation in the life-time of the Buddha are pious fancies.\nIt was the apostles and Fathers of the Church who, while developing his\ndoctrines and largely adding to their complexity and number, almost\nsucceeded in rendering his religion the dominant creed of India.\n\nSuch is, in my opinion, the sum total of our positive knowledge with\nregard to the life lived, and the truths taught, by this great figure\nin human history. The two points to which I have adverted\u2014namely, the\nformation of a society apart from the world in which caste was nothing,\nand the hope held out of annihilation by the practice of virtues and\nasceticism\u2014are too fundamental and too ancient to be derived from\nany but the founder. After all, ecclesiastical biographers, while\nthey adorn their heroes with fictitious trappings, do not invent\nthem altogether. A man from whose tuition great results have flowed,\ncannot be a small man; something of those results must needs be due\nto the impulse he has given. And if the Buddha must have taught\nsomething, must have inaugurated some reform, what is he more likely\nto have taught, than the way to the annihilation of pain? what reform\nmore likely to have inaugurated than the creation of a society held\ntogether by purely spiritual ties? Both are absolutely essential to\nBuddhism as we know it. Both are closely connected. For Buddhism\nwould have had nothing to offer without the hope of extinction; and\nthis hope, while leading to the practice of an austere and religious\nlife, can itself be fulfilled only by that life; implying as it does a\ndetachment from the bonds of carnality which hold us to this scene of\nsuffering. Thus, these corner-stones of Buddhism\u2014flowing as they must\nhave done from a master-mind\u2014may, with the highest probability, be\nassigned to its author.\n\nOn one other point there is no reason to call in question the testimony\nof the legend. We need not doubt he really was the pure, gentle,\nbenevolent, and blameless man which that legend depicts him to have\nbeen. Even his enemies have not attempted (I believe) to malign his\ncharacter. He stands before us as one of the few great leaders of\nhumanity who seem endowed with every virtue, and free from every fault.\n\n\n                 SUBDIVISION 2. _The Mythical Buddha._\n\nBuddhistic authorities divide the life of their founder into twelve\ngreat periods, under which it will be convenient to treat of it:\u2014\n\n  1. His descent from heaven.\n  2. His incarnation.\n  3. His birth.\n  4. His display of various accomplishments.\n  5. His marriage, and enjoyment of domestic life.\n  6. His departure from home, and assumption of the monastic character.\n  7. His penances.\n  8. His triumph over the devil.\n  9. His attainment of the Buddhaship.\n  10. His turning the Wheel of the Law.\n  11. His death.\n  12. His cremation, and the division of his relics.\n\n1. Following, then, the guidance of the accepted legend, we must begin\nwith his resolution to be born on earth for the salvation of the\nworld. After thousands of preparatory births, he was residing in a\ncertain heaven called Tushita, that being one of the numerous stages\nin the ascending series of the abodes of the blessed. At length, the\nend of his sojourn in this heaven arrived. He determined to quit the\ngods who were his companions there, and to be born on earth. Careful\nconsideration convinced him that the monarch Suddhodana, and his\nqueen, Maya Devi, alone possessed these pre\u00ebminent qualifications\nwhich entitled them to become the parents of a Buddha. Suddhodana\nlived in the town of Kapila, and belonged to the royal family of the\nSakyas, the only family which the Bodhisattva (or destined Buddha) had\ndiscovered by his examination to be free from faults by which it would\nhave been disqualified to receive him as one of its members. His wife,\nin addition to the most consummate beauty, was distinguished for every\nconjugal and feminine virtue. Here, then, was a couple worthy of the\nhonor about to be conferred upon their house.\n\n2. At this critical moment Maya had demanded, and obtained, the\npermission of the king to devote herself for a season to the practice\nof fasting and penance. While engaged in these austerities, she dreamt\nthat a beautiful white elephant approached her, penetrated her side,\nand entered her womb. At this very time, Bodhisattva actually descended\nin the shape of a white elephant, and took up his abode within her\nbody. On waking, she related the dream to her husband, who called upon\nthe official Brahmins to interpret it. They declared it to be of good\naugury. The queen, they said, carried in her womb a being who would\neither be a \"Wheel King,\" or Sovereign of the whole world; or if he\ntook to a monastic career, would become a Buddha. All things went well\nduring Maya's pregnancy. According to all accounts she underwent none\nof the discomforts incidental to that state. One writer states that\n\"her soul enjoyed a perfect calm, the sweetest happiness; fatigue and\nweariness never affected her unimpaired health.\" Another remarks that\nshe enjoyed \"the most perfect health, and was free from fainting fits.\"\nAn additional gratification lay in the fact, that she was able to see\nthe infant Bodhisattva sitting calmly in his place within her person.\n\n3. Ten months having passed (a Buddha always takes ten), the queen\nexpressed a desire to walk in a beautiful garden called Lumbini;\nand, with the king's ready permission, proceeded thither with her\nattendants. In this garden the hour of her delivery came on. Standing\nunder a tree (the _ficus religiosa_), which courteously lowered its\nbranches that she might hold on by them during labor, she gave birth to\nthe child who was afterwards to be the first of humankind. Gods from\nheaven received him when born, and he himself at once took several\nsteps forward, and exclaimed: \"This is my last birth\u2014there shall be\nto me no other state of existence: I am the greatest of all beings.\"\nAnanda, his cousin, and afterwards his disciple, was born at the same\nmoment. Maya, notwithstanding her excellent health, died seven days\nafter her child's birth. This was not from any physical infirmity,\nbut because it is the invariable rule that the mother of a Buddha\nshould die at that exact time. The reason of this, according to the\nLalitavistara, is, that when the Buddha became a wandering monk her\nheart would break. Other respectable authorities assert, that the womb\nin which a Bodhisattva has lain is like a sanctuary where a relic is\nenshrined. \"No human being can again occupy it, or use it\" (P. A., No.\nIII. p. 27). Maya was born again in one of the celestial regions, and\nthe infant was confided to her sister, his aunt Prajapati, or Gautami,\nwho was assisted in the care of her charge by thirty-two nurses. He\nwas christened Sarvarthasiddha, usually shortened into Siddhartha. He\nis also known as Gautama Buddha, by which name he is distinguished\nfrom other Buddhas: as Sakyamuni, the hermit of the Sakya race; as\nthe Tath\u00e2gata, he who walks in the footsteps of his predecessors; as\nBhagavat, Lord; and by other honorific titles.\n\nSoon after the birth of the Bodhisattva, he was visited and adored by\na very eminent Rishi, or hermit, known as Asita (or Kapiladevila), who\npredicted his future greatness, but wept at the thought that he himself\nwas too old to see the day when the law of salvation would be taught by\nthe infant whom he had come to contemplate.\n\n4. When the appropriate age for the marriage of the young prince\narrived, a wife, possessing all the perfections requisite for so\nexcellent a husband, was sought. She was found in a maiden named Gopa\n(or Yasodhara), the daughter of Dandapani, one of the Sakya race. An\nunexpected obstacle, however, arose. The father of the lovely Gopa\ncomplained that Siddhartha's education had been grossly neglected, and\nthat he was wanting alike in literary accomplishments and in muscular\nproficiency\u2014things which were invariably demanded of the husbands of\nSakya princesses. It does, indeed, appear that Suddhodana had taken\nlittle pains to cultivate his son's abilities, and that he had mainly\nconfined himself to the care of his personal safety by surrounding him\nwith attendants. Accordingly, he asked the prince whether he thought\nhe could exhibit his skill in those branches of knowledge, the mastery\nof which Dandapani had declared to be a necessary condition of his\nconsent. Siddhartha assured his father that he could; and in a regular\ncompetitive examination, which was thereupon held, he completely\ndefeated the other princes, not only in writing, arithmetic, and such\nmatters, but in wrestling and archery. In the last art, especially, he\ngained a signal victory, by easily wielding a bow which none of the\nothers could manage.\n\n5. Gopa was now won, and conducted by her husband to a magnificent\npalace, where, surrounded by a vast harem of beautiful women, he spent,\nsome years of his life in the enjoyment of excessive luxury. But\nworldly pleasure was not to retain him long in its embrace.\n\n6. A crisis in his life was now approaching. Suddhodana had been warned\nthat Siddhartha would assume the ascetic character if four objects were\nto meet his sight; an old man, a sick man, a corpse, and a recluse.\nSuddhodana, who would have much preferred his son being a universal\nmonarch to his becoming a Buddha, anxiously endeavored to guard him\nfrom coming across these things. But all was in vain. One day, when\ndriving in the town, he perceived a wrinkled, decrepit, and miserable\nold man. Having inquired of the coachman what this strange creature\nwas, and having learnt from him that he was only suffering the general\nfate of humanity, the Bodhisattva was much affected; and, full of\nsad thoughts, ordered his chariot to be turned homewards. Meeting on\ntwo other occasions, likewise when driving, with a man emaciated by\nsickness, and with a corpse, he was led to still further reflections\non the wretchedness of the conditions under which we live. Prepared by\nthese meditations, he yielded completely to the tendencies aroused\nwithin him when, on a fourth excursion, he came across a monk. The\naspect of this man\u2014his calmness, his dignity, his downcast eyes, his\ndecent deportment\u2014filled him with desire to abandon the world like him.\n\nThe die was cast. Nothing could now retain the Bodhisattva, at this\ntime a young man of nine-and-twenty, from the course that approved\nitself to his conscience. In vain did his father cause his palace\nto be surrounded with guards. In vain did the ladies of the harem\n(acting under instructions) deploy their most ravishing arts to\ncaptivate and to amuse him. His resolution was finally fixed by a\nsingular circumstance. The beautiful damsels who ministered to him had\nsought to engage his attention by an exhibition of the most graceful\ndancing, accompanied by music, displaying their forms before his eyes\nas they executed their varied movements. But the Bodhisattva, deep\nin his meditations, was wholly unaffected. He fell asleep; and the\nwomen, baffled in their attempts and wearied out, soon followed his\nexample. But in the course of the night the prince awoke. And then\nthe sight of these girls, slumbering in all sorts of ungainly and\nungraceful postures, utterly disgusted him. Summoning a courtier,\nnamed Chandaka, he ordered him at once to prepare his favorite horse\nKantaka, that he might quit the city of his fathers, and lead the life\nof a humble recluse. But before thus abandoning his home, there was\none painful parting to be gone through. One tie still held him to the\nworld. His wife had just become a mother. Anxious to see his infant\nson, Rahula, before his departure, he gently opened the door of his\nwife's apartment. He found her sleeping with one hand over the head\nof the child. He would fain have taken a last look at his little boy,\nbut fearing that if he withdrew the mother's hand she would awake and\nhinder his departure, he retired without approaching the bed. In the\ndead of night, mounted on Kantaka, and with the one attendant whom he\nhad taken into the secret, he managed to leave Kapilavastu unperceived,\nnever to return to it again till he had attained the full dignity of a\nBuddha.\n\n7. Having sent back Chandaka with the horse, the Bodhisattva commenced,\nalone and unaided, a course of austerities fitted to prepare him\nfor his great duty. He tried Brahminical teachers, but was soon\ndissatisfied with their doctrine. Five of the disciples of one of these\nteachers followed him for six years in the homeless and wandering\nlife he now began. He adopted the most rigid asceticism, reducing his\nbody to the last degree of feebleness and emaciation. But this too\ndiscovered itself to his mind as an error. He took to eating again, and\nregained his strength, whereupon the five disciples left him, viewing\nhim as a man who had weakly abandoned his principles.\n\n8. After this period of gradual approach to the required perfection the\nBodhisattva went to Bodhimanda, the place appointed for his reception\nof the Buddhaship. Here he had to withstand a furious attack by the\ndemon Mara, who first endeavored to annihilate him by his armies, and\nthen to seduce him by the fascination of his three daughters. But\nGautama withstood his male and female adversaries with equal calmness\nand success. Of the latter he had possibly had enough in his princely\npalace.\n\n9. All these trials having been surmounted, he placed himself under the\nBodhi (or Intelligence) tree, and there, engaging in the most intense\nmeditations, gradually reached the intellectual and moral height\ntowards which he had long been climbing. He was now in possession\nof Bodhi, or that complete and perfect knowledge which constitutes\na Buddha. He was thus fit to teach the law of salvation, but the\nLalitavistra represents him as still doubting for a moment whether\nhe should engage in a task which he feared would be thankless and\nunavailing. Men, he thought, would be incapable of receiving so sublime\na doctrine, and he would incur fatigue and make exertions in vain.\nSilence and solitude recommended themselves at this moment to his\nspirit. But from a resolution so disastrous he was turned aside by the\nintercession of the god Brahma.\n\n10. He proceeded accordingly to \"turn the Wheel of the Law,\" or to\npreach to others, during the forty-five remaining years of his long\nlife, the truths he had arrived at himself. The current lives speak, in\ntheir exaggerated manner, of his magnificent receptions by the kings\nwhose countries he visited, and of the thousands of converts whom he\nmade by his preaching, or who, in technical language, obtained Nirv\u00e2na\nthrough him. His father and other members of his family were among\nhis followers. But among the first-fruits of his teaching were the\nfive Brahmins who had abandoned him when he had relaxed in his ascetic\nhabits. These, on first perceiving him, spoke of him with contempt as\na glutton and a luxurious fellow spoilt by softness. But his personal\npresence filled them with admiration, and they at once acknowledged\nhis perfect wisdom. During this time the two orders of monks and nuns,\nwith their strict regulations enforcing continence and temperance, were\nfounded. Gautama's aunt and nurse, Prajapati, was the first abbess;\nthe Buddha, who had intended to exclude women from his order, having\nconsented to admit them at her request. Rahula, his son, received the\ntonsure.\n\n11. After he had firmly established his law in the hearts of many\ndevoted disciples, the Buddha \"entered Nirv\u00e2na\" at the age of eighty,\nat Kusinagara. That his death was deeply mourned by the friends who had\nhung upon his lips, and drawn their knowledge of religious truth from\nhim, need not be related.\n\n12. A pompous account is given of his funeral rites, of which it will\nbe sufficient to mention here that his body was laid upon a pyre,\nand burnt after the manner of burning in use for Chakravartins, or\nUniversal Monarchs. The princes of Kusinagara wished to keep his relics\nto themselves; but seven kings, each of whom demanded a share, made\nthreatening demonstrations against them, and after some quarrelling it\nwas agreed to distribute the relics among the whole number. They were\ntherefore divided into eight portions, the royal family of each country\ntaking one. A dagoba, or monument, was erected over them in each of the\ncapitals governed by these royal Buddhists.\n\nOf the numerous stories that are told with regard to the effects of\nthe Buddha's preaching, of the amazing miracles he is said to have\nperformed, and of the wonders reported to have happened at his death\nand his cremation, there will be an opportunity of speaking in another\nplace. For the present, it is enough to relate the legend of his life\nin its main features, according to the version piously believed by the\nmillions of human beings who\u2014in China, Tartary, Mongolia, Siam, Burmah,\nThibet, and Ceylon\u2014look to him as their law-giver and their savior.\n\n\n                     SECTION IV.\u2014ZARATHUSTRA.[16]\n\nSlaves, condemned to make bricks without straw, would hardly have\na more hopeless task than he who attempts to construct, from the\nmaterials now before him, a life of Zarathustra. Eminent as we know\nthis great prophet to have been, the details of his biography have been\nlost forever. His name and his doctrines, with a few scattered hints in\nthe G\u00e2th\u00e2s, are all that remain on record concerning the personality of\na man who was the teacher of one great branch of the Aryan race, and\nwhose religion, proclaimed many centuries, possibly even a thousand\nyears, before Christ taught in Galilee, was a great and powerful faith\nin the days when Marathon was fought, and is not even now extinct. We\nwill gather from these fragmentary sources what knowledge we can of the\nIranian prophet, but we will refuse to fill up the void created by the\nabsence of historical documents with ingenious hypotheses or subtle\nspeculations.\n\nSomething approaching to a bit of biography is to be found in the\nopening verses of the fifth G\u00e2th\u00e2, which are to this effect:\u2014\n\n\"It is reported that Zarathustra Spitama possessed the best good; for\nAhura Mazda granted him all that may be obtained by means of a sincere\nworship, forever, all that promotes the good life, and he gives the\nsame to all those who keep the words and perform the actions enjoined\nby the good religion.\n\n\"Thus may Kava Vistaspa, Zarathustra's companion, and the most holy\nFrashaostra, who prepare the right paths for the faith which He who\nLiveth gave unto the priests of fire, faithfully honor and adore Mazda\naccording to his (Zarathustra's) mind, with his words and his works!\n\n\"Pourutschista, the Hetchataspadin, the most holy one, the most\ndistinguished of the daughters of Zarathustra, formed the doctrine, as\na reflection of the good mind, the true and wise one.\"[17]\n\nHere we find an allusion to the interesting fact that the Zarathustra\nhad a daughter who contributed to the formation of the Parsee creed.\nThe phrase, most distinguished of the daughters, probably does not\nmean that the prophet was the father of several daughters, but merely\nthat this one was celebrated as his coadjutor. Spiegel has in vain\nendeavored to discover the name of this lady's husband, but it seems to\nbe doubtful whether anything is known of her matrimonial relations. The\nfact which it concerns us to notice is, that already in these primitive\nages we have a female saint appearing on the scene. In addition to St.\nPourutschista, mention is made of two disciples, who were evidently\nleaders in the apostolic band. The evangelic ardor of Frashaostra is\ntouched upon in the preceding G\u00e2th\u00e2, where it is stated that \"he wished\nto visit my Highlands (_i. e._, Bactria) to propagate there the good\nreligion,\" and Ahura Mazda is implored to bless his undertaking. Rava\nVistaspa is celebrated in the same place as having obtained knowledge\nwhich the living Wise One himself had discovered (Yaspa li. 16, 17.\nParsees, p. 161). The names of both are well known, being frequently\nmentioned in the G\u00e2th\u00e2s. They appear to have been intimate associates\nof the prophet. Thus a supposed inquiry is addressed to Zarathustra,\n\"Who is thy true friend in the great work? who will publicly proclaim\nit?\" and the answer is, \"Kava Vistaspa is the man who will do this\"\n(Yasna, xlvi. 14). And Frashaostra is spoken of as having received from\nGod, in company with the speaker (probably the prophet himself), \"the\ndistinguished creation of truth\" (Ibid., xlix. 8). It is added, \"for\nall time we will be thy messengers,\" or in other words, Evangelists.\n\nNot only do we obtain from the G\u00e2th\u00e2s a glimpse of Zarathustra attended\nby zealous disciples, eager to proclaim the good tidings he brought:\nwe learn something also of the opposition he encountered from the\nadherents of the older faith. And since he actually names himself in\nthe course of one of these compositions, which bears every appearance\nof genuineness and antiquity, we need not doubt the authenticity\nof the picture therein given of his relations to these opponents.\nThey were the adherents of the old Devas, the gods whom Zarathustra\ndethroned;\u2014polytheists, averse to this unheard-of introduction of\nmonotheism into their midst. And they formed, at least during a part\nof the prophet's life-time possibly during the whole of it, by far the\nstronger party, for he refers to them in these terms:\u2014\n\n\"To what country shall I go? where shall I take refuge? what country\ngives shelter to the master (Zarathustra) and his companion? None of\nthe servants pay reverence to me, nor do the wicked rulers of the\ncountry. How shall I worship thee further, living Wise One?\n\n\"I know that I am helpless. Look at me being amongst few men, for I\nhave few men (I have lost my followers or they have left me); I implore\nthee weeping, thou living God who grantest happiness as a friend gives\n_a present_ to his friend. The good of the good mind is in thy own\npossession, thou True One!...\n\n\"The sway is given into the hands of the priests and prophets of idols,\nwho, by their _atrocious_ actions, endeavor to destroy the life of\nman....\n\n\"To him who makes this very life increase by means of truth to the\nutmost for me, who am Zarathustra myself, to such an one the first\n(earthly) and the other (spiritual) life will be granted as a reward\ntogether with all good things to be had on the imperishable earth.\nThou, living Wise One, art the very owner of all these things to the\ngreatest extent; thou, who art my friend, O Wise One!\" (Yasna. xlv. 1,\n2, 11, 19.)\n\nAnd elsewhere we come across this exclamation: \"What help did\nZarathustra receive, when he proclaimed the truths? What did he obtain\nthrough the good mind?\" (Ibid., xlix. 12.)\n\nAnd the piteous question is put to Ahura Mazda: \"Why has the truthful\none so few adherents, while all the mighty, who are unbelievers, follow\nthe Liar in great numbers?\" (Ibid., xlvii. 4.)\n\nThese simple and natural verses point to a prophet who was\u2014for a\ntime at least\u2014without honor in his own country. Whereas the later\nrepresentations of his career depict him as the triumphant revealer\nof a new faith, before whose words of power the \"Devas,\" or god\nof polytheism, flee in terror and dismay, we meet with him here\nin the character of a persecuted and lonely man, unsupported by\nthe authorities of his nation, opposed by a powerful majority,\nand imploring, in the distress and desolation of his mind, the\nall-powerful assistance of his God. Such is the reality; how widely\nit differs from the fiction we have already seen. But as is always\nthe case with great prophets, who are rejected in their own days and\nhonored after their death, the reality is forgotten; the fiction is\nuniversally accepted.\n\nLittle need be said of the doctrines taught by Zarathustra. His\nmain principle is belief in the one great God, Ahura Mazda, whom he\nsubstitutes for the many gods of the ancient Aryans. He was in fact the\nauthor of a monotheistic reformation. The worshipers of these deities\nare often referred to in opprobrious terms, more especially as \"liars,\"\nor \"adherents of lies,\" while the devotees of Ahura are spoken of as\nthe good, or as those who are in possession of the truth. It is only\nthrough the spirit of lying that the godless seek to do harm; through\nthe true and wise God they cannot do it (Yasna, xlvii. 4). This God,\nthe friend of the prophet, is honored in language of deep and simple\nadoration; not with the mere vapid epithets of praise which become\ncommon in the later sections of the Zend-Avesta. Zarathustra feels\nhimself entirely under his protection, and describes himself ready to\npreach whatever truths this great Spirit may instruct him to declare.\n\nBeyond this great central dogma\u2014which he announces with all the fervor\nof a discoverer\u2014there is nothing of a very distinctive kind in his\ntheology. The doctrine of a separate evil spirit opposed to Ahura Mazda\ndoes not hold in the G\u00e2th\u00e2s that place which it afterwards obtained\nin the sacred literature of the Parsee. Dr. Haug considers that\nZarathustra held merely a philosophical dualism, the two principles\nof existence\u2014bad and good\u2014being united in the supreme nature of the\nultimate Deity. From this great and all-wise Being every good thing\nemanates. He is the inspirer of his prophet; the teacher of his people;\nthe counselor in the many perplexing questions that harass the minds of\nhis worshipers. To him the pious souls resort in trouble; by him both\nearthly possessions and spiritual life are granted to those who rightly\nseek him. Ahura Mazda is the true God; and there is no other God but\nAhura Mazda.\n\n\n                        SECTION V.\u2014MAHOMET.[18]\n\nThe last man who has obtained the rank of a prophet is Mohammed,\nor Mahomet, the son of Abdallah and Amina. Since his time none has\nsucceeded in founding a great, and at the same time an independent\nreligion. Many have wrought changes in pre\u00ebxisting materials; but no\none has built from the foundation upwards. The religion of Mahomet,\nthough compounded of heathen, Judaic, and Christian elements, is not a\nmere reformation of any of the faiths in which these constituents were\nfound. It depends for its original sanction upon none of these, but\nderives its _raison d'etre_ exclusively from the direct inspiration of\nits author.\n\nThis prophet was born at Mecca in 571, and was the posthumous child of\nAbdallah, by his wife Amina. His mother died when he was six years old,\nand he was then taken charge of by his grandfather Abd-al-Mottalib,\nwho, dying in two years, left the child to the care of his son\nAbu Talib. Mahomet was poor, and had to work for his living in a\nvery humble occupation. In process of time, however, he obtained a\ncomfortable employment in the service of a rich widow, named Khadija,\nwho was engaged in business, and whom he served in the capacity of a\ncommercial traveler; or at first perhaps in a lower situation. His\nmercenary relation to her was soon superseded by a tenderer bond. He\nmarried her in 595, she being then thirty-eight or thirty-nine years of\nage, and fifteen years older than himself. She was evidently a woman of\nstrong character, and retained an unbroken hold upon the affection of\nMahomet until her death in 619. He subsequently married many wives, of\nwhom Ayisha was the most intimate with him; but none of them appears to\nhave exercised so much influence upon his character as Khadija.\n\nShe it was who was the first to believe in the divine inspiration which\nher husband began to disclose in the year 612, at the mature age of\nforty; and she it was who encouraged and comforted the rising prophet\nduring his early years of trouble and persecution. His first revelation\nwas received by him in 612. It purported to be dictated by the angel\nGabriel, who was Mahomet's authority for the whole of the Koran.\n\n\"Recite thou,\" thus spoke his heavenly instructor, \"in the name of thy\nLord who created;\u2014created man from clots of blood:\u2014Recite thou! For thy\nLord is the most beneficent, who hath taught the use of the pen;\u2014hath\ntaught man that which he knoweth not\" (K., p. 1.\u2014Sura xcvi).\n\nAfter this first reception of the word of God, Mahomet passed through\nthat period of extreme depression and gloom which appears to be the\nuniversal lot of thoughtful characters, and which Mr. Carlyle has\ndesignated \"the Everlasting No.\" For many months he received no more\nrevelations, and in his despondency he entertained a wish to throw\nhimself down from high mountains, but was prevented by the appearance\nof the angel Gabriel. In time another communication came to strengthen\nhim in his work; and revelations now began to pour down abundantly. His\nearliest disciples, besides his wife and his daughters, were his cousin\nAli, and the slave Zayd, whom he had adopted as a son. By and by he\nobtained other important converts, among whom were Abu Bakr, Zobayr,\nand Othman, afterwards the Chalif.\n\nHis earliest revelations were inoffensive to the Meccans; and it\nwas only when he began to preach distinctly the unity of God, the\nresurrection, and responsibility to the Deity, that opposition was\naroused. Persecution followed upon disapproval. Some of Mahomet's\nfollowers were compelled to take refuge in Abyssinia, and he himself\ntold the Meccans instructive legends of nations whom God had destroyed\nfor their wickedness in rejecting the prophets who had been sent\nto them. In 616, however, Mahomet was guilty of a relapse, for he\npublished a revelation recognizing three Meccan idols, Lat, Ozza, and\nManah, as intercessors with Allah. In consequence of this concession to\ntheir faith, the Korayschites\u2014his own tribe\u2014fell down on their faces\nin adoration of Allah, and the exiles in Abyssinia returned to their\nnative land. But the prophet was soon ashamed of the weakness by which\nhe had purchased public support. The verse was struck out of the Koran,\nand the passing recognition of idolatry attributed to the suggestion\nof the devil. Tradition assigns to this occasion the following verses:\n\n\"We have not sent any apostle or prophet before thee, among whose\ndesires Satan injected not some wrong desire; but God shall bring\nto nought that which Satan had suggested. Thus shall God affirm his\nrevelations, for God is Knowing-Wise! That he may make that which Satan\nhath injected, a trial to those in whose hearts is a disease, and whose\nhearts are hardened\" (K. p. 593\u2014Sura xxii. 51, 52).\n\nAfter his renewed profession of Monotheism, Mahomet and his followers\nwere naturally subjected to renewed persecutions. Conversions, however,\ndid not cease; and that of Omar, in 617, was of great importance to\nthe nascent community. Yet matters were at last pushed to extremities\nby the unbelievers. Mahomet's family, the Haschimites, were excluded\nfrom all commercial and social intercourse by the other Korayschites,\nand compelled to withdraw into their own quarter. This state of\nquarantine probably lasted from the autumn of 617 to that of 619. At\nits conclusion Mahomet lost his wife Khadija, and his uncle Abu Talib,\nwho had given him protection.\n\nHe was now exposed to many insults and much annoyance. The insecurity\nin which he lived at Mecca forced him to seek supporters elsewhere. Now\nthe Caaba or holy stone at Mecca was the scene of an annual pilgrimage\nfrom the surrounding country. Mahomet made use of the advent of the\npilgrims in 621 to enlist in his cause six inhabitants of Medina, who\nare reported to have bound themselves to him by the following vow:\u2014Not\nto consider any one equal to Allah; not to steal; not to be unchaste;\nnot to kill their children; not willfully to calumniate; to obey the\nprophet's orders in equitable matters. Paradise was to be the guerdon\nof the strict observance of this vow, which from the place where it was\ntaken was called the first Akaba. In the following year, 622, Mahomet\nmet seventy-two men of Medina by night at the same ravine, and the oath\nnow taken was the second Akaba. The believers swore to receive the\nprophet and to expend their property and their blood in his defense.\nTwelve of the seventy-two disciples were selected as elders, the\nprophet following therein the example of Christ.\n\nA place of refuge from the hostility of their countrymen was now open\nto the rising sect. All the Moslems who were able and willing gradually\nfound their way to Medina. At length none of the intending emigrants\nremained at Mecca but the prophet himself and his two friends Abu Bakr,\nand Ali. The designs of the Korayschites against Mahomet's life failed,\nand he effected his escape to a cave at some little distance from\nMecca, and in the opposite direction from Medina. Here he remained in\nconcealment with Abu Bakr for three days, the daughter of the latter\nbringing food for both. After this time a guide brought three camels\nwith which they proceeded in safety to Medina. The prophet reached\nKoba, a village just outside it, on the 14th of September 622. He\nremained here three days, and received the visits of his adherents in\nMedina every day. This was the celebrated Hegira, or flight, from which\nthe Mussulman era is dated.\n\nIn the course of a year, the majority of the inhabitants of Medina had\nadopted Islam, and a little later those who remained heathens were\neither compelled or persuaded to embrace, or at least to submit to,\nthe new creed and its apostle. The Jews alone retained their ancient\nreligion. But while Mahomet was thus successful with Medina, he was\nstill exposed to the bitter hostility of Mecca. War between the two\ncities was the result of the hospitality accorded to him by the former.\nMahomet, who now united in his person the temporal and spiritual\nsupremacy in his adopted home, did not shrink from the contest, but\ncarried it on with vigor and success. In the year 624, having gone\nin pursuit of a Meccan caravan, he met the army of the Korayschites\nat Badr, and defeated them; although he had not much more than three\nhundred men, while they commanded from nine hundred to one thousand. In\nthe following year indeed the Moslems were defeated in the battle of\nOhod; but in 627 the siege of Medina, undertaken by Abu Sofy\u00e2n at the\nhead of ten thousand men, was raised after three weeks without serious\nloss on either side.\n\nNotwithstanding the enmity of its inhabitants, Mecca still retained\nin the eyes of Mahomet and his disciples its ancient prerogative of\nsanctity. The Kibla, or point towards which the Moslem was to turn\nin prayer, had for a time been Jerusalem; but Mahomet had restored\nthis privilege to his native town two years after the Hegira. There\ntoo was the sacred stone, no less venerated by the pious worshiper of\nAllah than by the adherents of Lat, Ozza and Manah; and thither it was\nthat the religious pilgrimage had to be performed, for Mahomet had\nno intention of giving up this part of his ancestral faith. He was\ndesirous in the spring of 628 of performing the pilgrimage to Mecca.\nThe Koreish, however, came out to meet him with an army, determined to\npreclude his entrance to the city. The design was therefore abandoned;\nbut an important treaty was concluded between Mahomet and Sohayl, who\nacted as envoy from Mecca. By this compact both parties agreed to\nabstain from all hostilities for ten years; Mahomet was to surrender\nfugitives from Mecca, but the Meccans were not to surrender fugitives\nfrom him; no robbery was to be practiced; it was open to any one to\nmake an alliance with either party; Mahomet and his followers were\nto be permitted to enter Mecca for three days in the following year\nfor the festival. After making this agreement Mahomet, yielding to\ncircumstances, performed the ceremonies of the festival at Hodaybiya\nnear Mecca and then withdrew.\n\nThe treaty caused great dissatisfaction among the Moslems, as well it\nmight; and the humiliation was heightened when the prophet, shortly\nafter making it, was compelled to fulfil its provisions by giving up\ncertain proselytes who had fled to him, from Mecca. Nevertheless his\npower continued to grow, and a tribe residing near Mecca took advantage\nof the treaty to conclude an alliance with him.\n\nMahomet now began to place himself on a level with crowned heads. In\n628 he had a seal made with the inscription upon it: \"Mahomet the\nmessenger of God.\" Furnished with this official seal, he despatched\nsix messengers with letters to the Emperor Heraclius; to the King of\nAbyssinia; to the Shah of Persia; to Mokawkas, lord of Alexandria;\nto Harith the Ghassanite chief; and to Hawda in Yamama, a province\nof Arabia. The purport of all these missives was an exhortation to\nthe various sovereigns and chiefs to embrace the new religion, and a\npromise that God would reward them if they did, with a warning that\nthey would bear the guilt of their subjects if they did not.\n\nIn the same year Mahomet besieged the town of Chaybar, whose\ninhabitants were Jews. Many of them were killed; the rest were\npermitted to withdraw with their families. Kinana, their chief, was\nexecuted; and his wife Cafyya was added to the already numerous harem\nof the victor.\n\nThe following year, 629, witnessed the performance by the Moslems\nof the pilgrimage to Mecca for the first time since the Hegira. The\nprophet summoned those who had accompanied him to Hodaybiya the year\nbefore to go with him now. The Koreish, according to the stipulations\nof the treaty, left the city; the Moslems entered it, performed their\ndevotions, and retired after three days. This year was also marked by\na signal victory over a Ghassanite chief, who had executed a Mussulman\nenvoy.\n\nIn January, 630, taking advantage of the invitation of an allied tribe\nwho had quarreled with Mecca, Mahomet quitted Medina with a large army\nfor the purpose of taking that city. The exploit was facilitated by\nthe desertion of the general of the Koreish, Abu Sofy\u00e2n, who privately\nescaped to the Moslem camp and made his confession of faith. Next day\nthe forces of the prophet entered Mecca with scarcely any resistance.\nIn the following year he laid down the terms upon which the conquered\ncity was to be dealt with. Abu Bakr, accompanied by 300 Moslems, was\nsent to Mecca as leader of the pilgrims. Ali was charged to make the\nproclamation to the people which is found in the 9th Sura of the Koran.\n\n\"An Immunity from God and his Apostle to those with whom ye are in\nleague, among the Polytheist Arabs! (those who join gods with God).\nGo ye, therefore, at large in the land four months: but know that God\nye shall not weaken; and that those who believe not, God will put to\nshame\u2014And a proclamation on the part of God and his Apostle to the\npeople on the day of the greater pilgrimage, that God is free from any\nengagement with the votaries of other gods with God as is his Apostle!\nIf therefore ye turn to God it will be better for you; but if ye turn\nback then know that ye shall not weaken God: and to those who believe\nnot, announce thou a grievous punishment. But this concerneth not those\nPolytheists with whom ye are in league, and who shall have afterwards\nin no way have failed you, nor aided any one against you. Observe,\ntherefore, engagement with them through the whole time of their treaty:\nfor God loveth those who fear him. And when the sacred months are\npassed, kill those who join other gods with God wherever ye shall find\nthem; and seize them, besiege them, and lay wait for them with every\nkind of ambush: but if they shall convert, and observe prayer, and pay\nthe obligatory alms, then let them go their way, for God is gracious,\nmerciful. If any one of those who join gods with God ask an asylum\nof thee, grant him an asylum, that he may hear the Word of God, and\nthen let him reach his place of safety. This, for that they are people\ndevoid of knowledge\" (K., p. 611.\u2014Sura ix. 1-6).\n\nWithout quoting the proclamation at full length, we may observe that in\nsubstance the terms granted were these. Those of the heathen with whom\ntreaties had been made were informed that they should be free for four\nmonths. These are the \"sacred months\" alluded to in the text, and which\nhad always been observed as a time of truce by the heathen Arabs, but\nwhich Mahomet deprived of their privilege. After this period was past\nthe Moslems might kill the heathens or take them prisoners wherever\nthey might find them. With other heathens, with whom there was no\ntreaty in existence, Allah announced that he would have nothing further\nto do. Moreover, the heathen were excluded by this proclamation from\napproaching the holy places of Mecca in future. \"O believers!\"\u2014such are\nthe words of this last decree\u2014\"only they who join gods with God are\nunclean! Let them not, therefore, after this year, come near the sacred\nTemple\" (K., p. 615.\u2014Sura ix. 28).\n\nThe prophet was now at the climax of his power. All Arabia was his;\nboth materially and spiritually subdued beneath his authority. The city\nof his birth, which had spurned him as one of her humble citizens, was\nnow compelled to receive him as her lord. No triumph could be more\ncomplete; and it is a rare, if not a unique, example of a new religion\nbeing persecuted, imperilled, well-nigh crushed, rescued, strengthened,\ncontending for supremacy, and supreme, within the life-time of its\nfounder. But that life-time was now approaching its end. Mahomet in\n632 celebrated the last festival he was destined to witness with the\nutmost pomp. He went with all his wives to Mecca, and thousands of\nbelievers assembled around him there. He preached to them from his\ncamel. He sacrificed one hundred camels. On the 8th of June, 632, he\nexpired in the hut of Ayischa of a remittent fever from which he had\nbeen suffering a short time.\n\nThe character of the prophet Mahomet is an open question. Between the\nglowing admiration bestowed upon him by Carlyle, and the sneering\ndepreciation of Sprenger, there lie numerous intermediate possibilities\nof opinion. His sincerity, his veracity, his humanity, his originality,\nare all topics of discussion admitting of varied treatment. The old\nand simple method of treating Mahomet as an impostor scarcely merits\nnotice. Among serious students of his life it may be pronounced\nextinct. But between positive imposture and a degree of truthfulness\nequal to that which all would concede to Confucius, or to Jesus,\nthere are many degrees, and a man may be more or less sincere in\nmany particulars which do not involve the fundamental honesty of his\nconduct. It is in such particulars that the character of Mahomet is\nmost open to suspicion. Few, I believe, would be able to read the\nearlier Meccan Suras, instinct as they are with a spirit of glowing\ndevotion to a new idea, without entire conviction of the sincerity\nof their author. Nor can we reasonably doubt that he himself fully\nbelieved in the inspiration he professed to receive. The Koran is\nwritten precisely in that loose, rambling, and irregular style, which\nwould indicate that its author was above the laws of human composition.\nIf (as is said by some) there is beauty in the original Arabic, that\nbeauty entirely evaporates in translation. The man whose work it is\ngave utterance to the thoughts of the moment as they were borne in\nupon him, in his opinion by an external power. But while he no doubt\nconceived himself as the instrument of the divine being, it is also\nexceedingly probable that in his later life he abused the weapon\nwhich he had thus got into his possession. That is to say, instead of\nwaiting patiently for the revelation, and allowing Allah to take his\nown time, he in all likelihood put forth as revealed whatever happened\nto suit the political purpose of the day, and that at whatever moment\nwas convenient to himself. In other words, he may have become less\nof a passive, and more of an active agent in the composition of the\nKoran. Take, for example, the two following Suras, belonging to his\nearliest period, as specimens of the inspired poetic style:\u2014\"Say: O\nye unbelievers! I worship not that which ye worship, and ye do not\nworship that which I worship; I shall never worship that which ye\nworship, neither will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your\nreligion; to me my religion.\" \"Say: He is God alone: God the eternal!\nHe begetteth not, and is not begotten; and there is none like unto him\"\n(K., pp. 12, 13.\u2014Suras cix., cxii).\n\nContrast these fervent exclamations with such a passage as this, from\none of the latest Suras:\u2014\n\n\"This day have I perfected your religion for you, and have filled up\nthe measure of my favors upon you: and it is my pleasure that Islam be\nyour religion; but whoso without willful leanings to wrong shall be\nforced by hunger to transgress, to him, verily, will God be indulgent,\nmerciful. They will ask thee what is made lawful for them. Say: Those\nthings which are good are legalized to you, and the prey of beasts\nof chase which ye have trained like dogs, teaching them as God hath\ntaught you. Eat, therefore, of what they shall catch for you, and make\nmention of the name of God over it, and fear God: Verily, swift is God\nto reckon: This day, things healthful are legalized to you, and the\nmeats of those who have received the Scriptures are allowed to you, as\nyour meats are to them. And you are permitted to marry virtuous women\nof those who have received the Scriptures before you, when you shall\nhave provided them their portions, living chastely with them without\nfornication, and without taking concubines\" (K., p. 632.\u2014Sura v. 5-7).\n\nThe doctrine of direct inspiration, applied to matters like these, is\nalmost a mockery. Yet Mahomet may have continued to think that God\nassisted him in the task of laying down laws for the believers, and we\ncannot accuse him of positive insincerity, even though his revelations\nwere no longer the spontaneous outpourings of an overflowing heart.\n\nA more difficult question is raised when we inquire how much of his\nteaching was borrowed from others, and whether there was any one who\nacted as his prompter in the novel doctrines he announced. Now there is\nevidence enough, some of it supplied by the Koran itself, that Mahomet\nwas preceded by a sect called Hanyfites, who rejected the idolatry\nof their countrymen and held monotheistic doctrines. He spoke of\nhimself as belonging to this sect, of which the patriarch Abraham was\nconsidered the representative and founder. Abraham is referred to in\nthe Koran with the epithet \"Hanyf,\" and as one of those who do not join\ngods with God (_E.g._, Sura iii. 89; vi. 162; xvi. 121). A dozen or so\nof the contemporaries of the prophet renounced idolatry before him,\nand were Hanyfites. Three of these became Christians, and a fourth, by\nname Zayd, professed to be neither Jew nor Christian, but to follow\nthe religion of Abraham. Zayd was acknowledged as his forerunner by\nMahomet himself. But besides these sources of conversion which lay open\nto the prophet, it is plain from the Koran itself that he had had much\nintercourse with a person (or persons) of the Jewish faith. Mahomet was\nnot a scholar, and his continual allusions to events in Jewish history\nplainly indicate a personal source. Moreover, the narratives are given\nin that somewhat perverted form which we should expect to find if\nthey were derived from loose conversation rather than from study. His\nbelief in the unity of God is not therefore a peculiarity which cannot\nbe explained by reference to the circumstances in which his youth was\npassed. What was original with him was not the doctrine so much as the\nintensity with which it took possession of his mind, and the fervor\nwhich allowed him no rest until he had done his best to impart to\nothers the profound conviction he entertained of this great truth.\n\nMahomet in fact began his public career as a simple preacher. The\nresistance he met with at home, and the necessity of relying for\nself-preservation on the swords of the men of Medina, converted him\nfrom a prophet to a potentate. The change was not one which he could\navoid without sacrificing all chances of success; but it does appear\nto have exercised an unfortunate influence upon his character. As\nthe governor of Medina he became tyrannical and even cruel. Among\nthe worst features of his life is his conduct to the Jews after his\nattempts at conciliation had been shown to be fruitless. For instance,\na Jewish tribe, the Banu Kaynoka, with whom a treaty of friendship\nhad been concluded, were expelled from Medina. Another tribe of the\nsame religion, the Banu Nadhyr, were blockaded in their quarter, and\ndriven to capitulate, on condition of being allowed to leave Medina\nwith their movable property. On the very day upon which the siege by\nAbu Sofy\u00e2n in 627 came to an end, Mahomet blockaded the Banu Koraytza,\nalso Jews, and compelled them to surrender at discretion. All the men,\nsix hundred in number, were put to death, and the women were sold as\nslaves; a punishment which, even on the supposition that the tribe\nwas hostile to the prophet, was unpardonably severe. In the ensuing\nyear he marched against Chaybar, a town inhabited by Jews, besieged\nand took it. All the Jews taken in arms were put to death, whereupon\nthe rest surrendered on condition of being permitted to withdraw with\ntheir families and their portable goods, exclusive of weapons and\nthe precious metals. Kinana, their leader, was executed, and it is a\nsuspicious circumstance that Mahomet married his widow Cafyya. Nor\nwere these the worst of the prophet's misdeeds. He even stooped to\nsanction, if not to order, private assassination. Shortly after his\nvictory at Badr, a woman and an old man, both of whom had rendered\nthemselves offensive by their anti-Mussulman verses, were murdered in\nthe night; and in both instances the murderers received the protection\nand countenance of the prophet and his followers.\n\nUnbridled authority had in fact corrupted him. All those who did not\nadhere to his cause committed in his eyes the crime of opposing the\nwill of God. To a man empowered by a special commission like his,\nthe ordinary restraints of morality could not apply. Hence also, if\nhe required a larger number of wives than was permitted to any other\nMoslem, a special revelation was produced to justify the excess. This\nwas one of the weakest points in the prophet's character. Instead of\nsetting an example to the community, he was driven to justify his\nself-indulgence by means which were nothing short of a perversion of\nreligion to his own ends. There would have been nothing reprehensible,\nconsidering his age and country, in his indulgence in polygamy, had he\nobserved any kind of moderation as to its extent. Where he happened\nto take a fancy to a woman, and that woman did not object to him, the\nmoral sense of his countrymen would not have revolted by his taking\nher to wife. But it was revolted by the unrestricted freedom with\nwhich he added wife to wife, and concubine to concubine; a freedom so\ngreat as to degenerate into mere debauchery. He married women whom he\nhad never seen, and who were sometimes already married. Mere beauty\nseems to have justified in his own eyes the addition of a new member\nto his harem, and there could be no pretence of real affection in the\ncase of the women whom, without previous acquaintance, he took to his\nmatrimonial bed. Exclusive of Khadija, the total number of his wives\nwas thirteen, of whom nine survived him. He had also three concubines.\n\nThat his procedure scandalized the faithful is shown by the necessity\nhe felt of defending it by the pliant instrument of revelation. Not\nonly did he obtain from God a special law entitling him to exceed\nthe usual number of wives; other peculiarities in his conduct were\njustified, either by an _ex post facto_ decision applicable to all, or\nby an appeal to his extraordinary rights in his character of prophet.\nHe had, for example conceived a desire to possess Zaynab, the wife of\nhis adopted son Zayd. Zayd obligingly divorced her, and received the\ngreatest favor from the prophet for this friendly conduct. Zaynab made\nit a condition of her compliance that the union with Mahomet should be\nsanctioned by revelation, and this sanction was of course procured.\nMarriage with an adopted son's wife was somewhat shocking, and the\nfollowing reference in the Koran indicates the manner in which the\naffair was regarded:\n\n\"And, remember, when thou saidst to him unto whom God had shown favor\n[_i. e._, to Zayd], and to whom thou also hadst shown favor, 'Keep\nthy wife to thyself, and fear God;' and thou didst hide in thy mind\nwhat God would bring to light, and didst fear man; but more right\nhad it been to fear God. And when Zayd had settled concerning her to\ndivorce her, we married her to thee, that it might not be a crime in\nthe faithful to marry the wives of their adopted sons, when they have\nsettled the affair concerning them. And the behest of God is to be\nperformed. No blame attacheth to the prophet where God hath given him a\npermission\" (K., p. 566.\u2014Sura xxxiii. 38,39).\n\nIn another case he wished to induce a cousin, who was already married,\nthough only to a heathen husband living at Mecca, to become his wife;\nbut she, believer as she was, refused to be untrue to her conjugal\nduties. He permitted himself also to accept the love of women who\nsimply surrendered themselves to him without the sanction of their\nrelations, conduct which placed them in a highly disadvantageous\nposition, since in case of dismissal by her husband, a woman thus\ninformally married was not entitled to the dowry which other married\nwomen would receive, nor could she claim the protection of her family.\n\"Among the heathen Arabs,\" observes Sprenger, \"a man who accepted such\na favor would have been killed by the woman's family\" (L. L. M., vol.\niii. p. 84). But for the case of the cousin and for the case of such\nobliging female devotees the Koran had its suitable provisions:\u2014\n\n\"O Prophet! we allow thee thy wives whom thou hast dowered, and the\nslaves whom thy right hand possesseth out of the booty which God hath\ngranted thee, and the daughters of thy uncle, and of thy paternal and\nmaternal aunts who fled with thee _to Medina_, and any believing woman\nwho hath given herself up to the prophet, if the prophet desired to\nwed her\u2014a privilege for thee above the rest of the faithful.... Thou\nmayest decline for the present whom thou wilt of them, and thou mayest\ntake to thy _bed_ whom thou wilt, and whomsoever thou shalt long for of\nthose thou shalt have before neglected; and this shall not be a crime\nin thee. Thus will it be easier to give them the desire of their eyes,\nand not to put them to grief, and to satisfy them with what thou shalt\naccord to each of them. God knoweth what is in your hearts, and God is\nknowing, gracious.\"\n\nBy a combination of qualities which is not uncommon, he added to an\nunrestricted license in his own favor an equally unrestricted jealousy\nconcerning others. He could not bear the thought that any other man\nmight possibly enjoy one of his wives even after his death. His\nfollowers were told that they \"must not trouble the Apostle of God, nor\nmarry his wives after him, for ever. This would be a grave offense with\nGod.\" In the same paltry spirit he orders them, when they would ask a\ngift of any of his wives, to ask it from behind a veil. \"Purer will\nthis be for your hearts and for their hearts.\" Lest any stranger should\ntrouble this uneasy husband by obtaining a sight of his wives' naked\nfaces, he required them invariably to wear a veil in public, and never\nto expose themselves unveiled except to near male relations, slaves, or\nwomen (K., p. 569.\u2014Sura xxxiii. 51, 53, 55).\n\nTexts like these exhibit the degeneracy of the prophet's character\nin his later days. He wanted the stimulus of adversity to keep him\npure. But he had done his work, and that work was on the whole a good\none. Not indeed that there was anything very original or striking in\nthe doctrines he announced. The Koran rings the changes on the unity\nof God, his power, his mercy, and his other well-known qualities; on\nthe resurrection, with its delights for the faithful and its terrible\njudgments for the wicked; and on the vast importance of belief in\nthe prophet and submission to his decrees. But this religion, though\ncontaining no elements that did not already exist in its two parents,\nJudaism and Christianity, was an improvement on the promiscuous\nidolatry which it superseded. It was less sensual and more abstract;\nand its moral tone was higher. Greater still than the improvement in\nthe creed of the Arabs was the improvement in their material _status_.\nUnity of faith brought with it unity of action. From a number of\nscattered, independent, and often hostile tribes, the Arabs became a\npowerful and conquering nation. Other peoples were in course of time\nconverted, and the religion of Mahomet was in the succeeding centuries\ncarried in triumph over vast districts where the name of Christ had\nhitherto reigned supreme. Districts of heathen Africa have also\naccepted it. Were the prophet able to speak to us now, he would be\nentitled to say that the manifest blessing of Allah had rested upon the\nwork he had begun in obscurity and persisted in through persecution;\nand that the partiality of heaven was evident from the fact that\nChristianity had never succeeded, and had no prospect of succeeding, in\nregaining the vast territory in Europe and in Africa from which Islam\nhas expelled it.\n\n\n                       SECTION VI.\u2014JESUS CHRIST.\n\nWhen we endeavor to write the life of Jesus Christ, the greatest of\nthe prophets, we are beset by peculiar difficulties arising from the\nnature of the materials. While in the case of the Buddha we receive\nfrom authorities a life which, though largely composed of fiction,\nis at least uniform and consistent, in the case of Jesus we have\nbiographies from several sources, all of them partly historical, partly\nlegendary, and each in some respects at issue with all the rest. Hence\nthe labor of sifting fact from fiction, as also that of reproducing\nand classifying the fictitious element itself, is far more difficult.\nIn sifting fact from fiction we have to judge, among two, three, or\nfour versions of an occurrence, which is likely to be the most faithful\nstatement of the truth, and within this statement itself how much we\nmay accept, how much we must reject. And in reproducing and classifying\nthe fictitious element we have not merely to relate a simple story, but\nto combine into our narrative varying, and sometimes conflicting, forms\nof the same fundamental myth.\n\nHence further subdivision will be needed in the case of Jesus than was\nrequisite in treating the lives of any of the other prophets. We may\nin fact discern in the gospels three distinct strata: a stratum of\nfact; a stratum of miracle and marvel; and a stratum (in John) of mere\nimagination _within_ the realm of natural events. Correspondently to\nthese divisions in the sources we will treat Jesus first as historical;\nsecondly, as mythical; thirdly, as ideal. The historical Jesus is the\nactual human figure who remains after abstraction has been made of\nthe miraculous and legendary portions of his biography. The mythical\nJesus, who is found in the three first gospels, is the human subject\nof legendary narratives; the ideal Jesus, who is found in John, is a\ncompletely superhuman conception.\n\nFinally, it may be needful to remark that the names affixed to the\nseveral gospels are merely traditional, and that in using them as\na brief designation for these works, no theory as to their actual\nauthorship is intended to be implied. The gospels (excepting perhaps\nthe fourth) were the work of many authors, though ultimately compiled\nand edited by a single hand. Who this editor was is of little moment;\nand who the original authors were we never can discover. So that the\ngospels are to all intents and purposes anonymous; but it will be\nconvenient, after noting this fact, to continue to describe them by\ntheir current titles.\n\n\n                SUBDIVISION 1.\u2014_The Historical Jesus._\n\nIn attempting to sketch the outline of the actual life of Jesus\u2014and\nanything more than an outline must needs be highly conjectural\u2014there\nare some general principles which it is advisable to follow.\nRecollecting that we have to deal with biographers who have mingled\nin promiscuous confusion the supernatural with the natural,\nimpossibilities with probabilities, fables with facts, it becomes our\nduty to endeavor to separate these heterogeneous elements according to\nsome consistent plan. That this can ever be perfectly accomplished is\nnot to be expected. The figure of Jesus must ever move in twilight, but\nwe may succeed in reducing the degree of unavoidable obscurity.\n\nThe first of the maxims to be observed will be furnished by a little\nconsideration of the kind of thing likely to be the earliest committed\nto writing, as also to be the most accurately handed down by tradition.\nThis, it appears to me, would be sayings, rather than doings. Nothing\nin the life of Jesus is more characteristic and remarkable than his\noral instruction; this would impress itself deeply upon the minds of\nhis hearers, and nothing, we may fairly conjecture, would be so soon\ncommitted to writing either by them or by their followers. Moreover,\nthe records of discourses and parables would be, in the main, more\naccurate than those of events; slight differences in the words\nattributed to a speaker being (except in special cases) less material\nthan divergences in the manner of portraying his actions. Historical\nconfirmation of this hypothesis is not wanting. There is the well-known\nstatement of Papias that Matthew wrote down the \"sayings\" of Christ in\nHebrew [Syro-Chaldaic]. And if we look for internal evidence, we find\nit in the far greater agreement among the synoptical gospels as to the\ndoctrines taught by Jesus than as to the incidents of his career. The\nincidents bear traces of embellishment undergone in passing from mouth\nto mouth from which the doctrines are free. In some cases, moreover,\nthere is concurrence as to the doctrines taught along with divergence\nas to the place where, and the circumstances under which, they were\ndelivered. Added to which considerations there is the all-important\nfact that the events in the life of Christ are often of a supernatural\norder, while his discourses (excepting those in John) present nothing\nirreconcilable with his position in regard either to his epoch, his\npresumable education, or his nationality.\n\nGiving this preference to sayings in general, over doings in general,\nwe may next establish an order of preference among doings themselves.\nOf these, some are natural and probable; others unnatural and\nimprobable; others again supernatural and impossible. The first kind\nwill, of course, be accepted rather than the second; while the third\nkind must be rejected altogether. And as a corollary from this general\nprinciple, it follows that where one narrative gives a simpler version\nthan another of the same event or series of events, the simpler version\nis to be preferred.\n\nA third rule of the utmost importance is that when any statement\nis opposed, either directly or by its implications, to subsequent\ntradition, that statement may be confidently received. For when the\nwhole course of opinion in the Christian Church has run in a given\ndirection, the preservation in one of our Gospels of an alleged or\nimplied fact conflicting with the established view, is an unmistakable\nindication that the truth has been rescued from destruction in a case\nwhere succeeding generations would gladly have suppressed it.\n\nA fourth maxim, which is likely to be useful, is that wherever we can\nperceive traces of faults or blemishes in the character of Christ,\nwe may presume them to have actually existed. For his biographers\nwere deeply interested in making him appear perfect, and they would\nhave been anxious wherever possible to conceal his weaknesses. Where,\ntherefore, they suffer such human frailties to be perceived, their\nunconscious testimony is entitled to great weight. For although they\nthemselves either do not see or do not acknowledge that what they\nrecord is really evidence of faultiness at all, yet it is plain that\ncircumstances conveying such an impression to impartial minds are not\nlikely to have been invented. The conduct ascribed to Jesus might be\ncapable of justification from his peculiar mission or his peculiar\nconception of his duties, but admiring disciples would not wantonly\nburden him with a load not rightly his. Yet this principle, though\nunquestionable in the main, must be tempered with the qualification\nthat there are cases where his followers may have misunderstood and\nmisrepresented him. It must be added that a similar presumption of\ntruth attaches to the record of faults or blunders in the conduct of\nthe disciples, whose characters their disciples were likewise anxious\nto exalt.\n\nIn the fifth place, it is a reasonable supposition that the less\ncomplete the outline of the life of Jesus contained in any Gospel, the\nmore authentic is that Gospel. Gaps in the story told by one writer\nwhich, in another writer, have been filled up, are strong indications\nof actual gaps in the life as known to the first Christians. While it\nis true that the compiler of one Gospel might, from ignorance or from\ndesign, omit some historical fact which the compiler of another would\ninsert, yet it is unlikely that whole years would be passed over in\nsilence, or remarkable events left out, where any genuine knowledge\nof those years or those events was possessed by the biographer. But\nnothing is more natural than that a space, subsequently felt to be\na serious and almost intolerable void, should in process of time be\nremoved by the exercise of the imagination craving to fill the empty\ncanvas with living figures. Nor even where there is no positive blank,\nis it surprising that many actions conformable to the notion formed of\nChrist should be fitted into his career, and made to take their places\nalongside of others of a more unquestionable nature. We shall therefore\nprefer the scantiest account of the life of Jesus to the fullest.\n\nA careful comparison of the first three Gospels\u2014which alone can pretend\nto an historical character\u2014will establish the fact that the second,\nascribed to Mark, is the most trustworthy, or to speak accurately, the\nleast untrustworthy, according to these canons. For in the first place,\nit absolutely omits many of the most noteworthy events comprehended by\nthe other Gospels in the life of Jesus. Secondly, it sometimes gives\na natural version of a circumstance which appears in the others as\nsupernatural; or a comparatively simple version of a circumstance which\nthe others have converted into something mystical. It surpasses the\nothers in statements, and still more in omissions, implying divergence\nfrom well-established subsequent tradition; and in general the far\ngreater scantiness of detail, the failure to fill up blanks as the\nother Evangelists have done, the almost fragmentary character of this\nGospel, are points telling largely in its favor. That, however, we\nhave the earliest, or anything approaching the earliest form of the\nlife of Jesus in Mark it would be a great error to assume. As much as\nMark differs from Matthew and Luke, so much at least did the primitive\nstory differ from his, and in the same direction. Nay, it must have\ndiffered far more, for by the time the second Gospel was committed to\nits present form, a cloud of marvels had already surrounded the person\nof Jesus, and obscured his genuine figure. Through the mist of this\ncloud we must endeavor to discern such of his lineaments as have not\nbeen totally and forever hidden from our scrutinizing gaze.\n\nVery little is known of the parents of Jesus, and even that little\nhas rather to be inferred from casual references than gathered from\ndirect statements. Joseph, his father, was a carpenter or builder,\nbut his status is nowhere clearly defined. He and his family appear,\nhowever, to have been well known in their native country, and he was\nprobably, therefore, not a mere workman, but a tradesman in comfortable\ncircumstances.[19] At any rate, he was the father of a considerable\nfamily, consisting of five sons and of more than one daughter (Mt.\nxiii. 55, and xii. 46; Mk. vi. 3, and iii. 31; Lu. viii. 19). The names\nof the brothers of Jesus,\u2014James, Joses, Simon, and Judas,\u2014have been\npreserved, while those of his sisters are unknown.\n\nWhether there is not some confusion here, may indeed be doubted, for\nwe hear also of another Mary, the mother of James and Joses (Mk. xv.\n40; Mt. xxvii. 56), and it is possible (as M. Renan supposes), that the\nnames of her children have been substituted for those of the genuine\nbrothers of Christ which had been forgotten. Paul certainly mentions\nJames, the Lord's brother (Gal. i. 19), and it would be natural to\ninterpret this literally. But the question does not admit of any\npositive decision. Of the actual existence, however, of both brothers\nand sisters there can be no reasonable doubt; for they are spoken of\nas personages who were familiar to their neighbors, while the very\nfact that they play no part in the subsequent history is a guarantee\nthat they have not been invented for a purpose. Little is known of\nhis mother Mary, her genuine form having been transfigured at a very\nearly period by the Christian legend. The first and third Gospels have\nmade her the subject of a story which would force us\u2014if we accept it\nat all\u2014to consider Jesus as her illegitimate child, born of some other\nfather than Joseph. But there is no adequate ground to ascribe to her\nsuch laxity of conduct. For aught we can discern to the contrary,\nshe seems to have borne a fair reputation among her countrymen, who\nundoubtedly, according to the incidental and therefore unbiased\ntestimony of all four Evangelists, believed Jesus to have been the son\nof Joseph, begotten, like the rest of his family, in wedlock (Mt. xiii.\n55; Mk. vi. 3; Lu. iv. 22; Jo. vi. 42.)\n\nBeyond the fact that Joseph and Mary occupied a respectable position in\nNazareth, we can say little of them. The lineage of both was plainly\nunknown to the compilers of the Gospels, since Joseph has been endowed\nwith two different fathers, while the parentage of Mary has not even\nbeen alluded to. All that we can venture to assert is, that neither of\nthem were reputed to be of the family of David, for Jesus took pains to\nprove that the Messiah need not, as was commonly believed, be descended\nfrom that monarch (Mt. xxii. 41-46; Mk. xii. 35-37; Lu. xx. 41-44).\nThere would have been no occasion for his ingenious suggestion that\nDavid, by calling the Messiah Lord, disproved the theory that this Lord\nmust be his son, unless he had felt that his belonging to a family\nwhich could not claim such a pedigree might be used as an argument\nagainst his Messianic character. We may confidently conclude then that\nhis lineage was obscure.\n\nThat his birth took place at Nazareth is abundantly obvious from the\nvery contrivances resorted to in Matthew and Luke to take his parents\nto Bethlehem for that event. According to either of these narratives\none fact is plain: that the habitual dwelling-place of the family\nwas Nazareth; while Matthew has preserved the valuable information\nthat he was called a Nazarene (Mt. ii. 23), a statement which is\nconfirmed by the manner in which he is alluded to in John, as \"Jesus\nof Nazareth, the son of Joseph\" (Jo. i. 45). Jesus therefore passed in\nhis life-time for a native of Nazareth, and as it does not appear that\nhe ever contradicted the current assumption, as moreover the only two\nauthorities which are at issue with this assumption are also at issue\nwith one another on all but the bare fact of the birth at Bethlehem, we\nneed not hesitate to draw the inference that he was born at Nazareth.\n\nIn his youth the son of Joseph was apprenticed to his father's trade,\nand he may have practiced it for many years before he took to his more\nspecial vocation of a public teacher. He was at any rate known to his\nneighbors as \"the carpenter,\" and his abandonment of that calling\nfor one in which he seemed to pretend to a position of authority\nover others, caused both astonishment and indignation among his old\nacquaintances.\n\nHis public career was closely preceded by that of an illustrious\nprophet, by whom he must have been profoundly influenced\u2014John the\nBaptist. Very little of the doctrine of John has been preserved to us,\nhis fame having been eclipsed by that of his successor. But that little\nis sufficient to evince the great similarity between his teaching and\nthat of Jesus. He was in the habit of baptizing those who resorted to\nhim in the Jordan, and of inculcating repentance, because the kingdom\nof heaven was at hand (Mt. iii. 2). Now precisely the same tone was\nadopted by Jesus after the captivity of John. Repentance was inculcated\non account of the approaching advent of the kingdom of heaven, and\na mode of instruction similar to that of John was practiced. Both\nthese prophets, affected no doubt by the troubled condition of Judea,\nenjoined the simple amendment of the lives of individuals as the means\ntowards a happier state of things. Both attracted crowds around them\nby the force and novelty of their preaching. Jesus, according to a\nprobable interpretation of the narrative, was so much impressed by the\nlessons of his predecessor, and by the baptism received from him, that\nhe for a time retired to a solitary place, living an ascetic life,\nand pondering the stirring questions that must have burnt within him.\nDuring this retirement Jesus could mature his designs for the future,\nand on emerging from it he was able at once to take up the thread of\nJohn the Baptist's discourses. Possibly John himself had perceived\nthe high capacity of the young Nazarene, and had appointed him to\nthe prophetic office. But the story of his baptism by John has been\nunfortunately so surrounded with mythical circumstances, that the true\nrelations between these teachers can no longer be discerned.\n\nMeditating in the wilderness on the words of John the Baptist, and\non the state of his country, the notion may have entered the mind of\nJesus that he himself was the destined Messiah. While the power he\nfelt within him may have given birth to the idea, the idea once born\nwould react upon his nature and increase the power within him. But\nwhether the conception of his own Messiahship arose now or at some\nother period, it is plain that he was animated by it during his public\ncareer, and that it gave to all his teaching its peculiar tone of\nindependent authority. How far he was completely convinced of his own\nclaim to the Messianic title will be considered in another place; it\nis sufficient to say here that he was plainly anxious that this claim\nshould be acknowledged, and the rights it conferred upon him recognized.\n\nOn emerging from his retreat, he began the public promulgation of his\ndoctrines; at first, however, with caution and reserve, and keeping\nwithin the lines marked out by John the Baptist. Attracted by the\nyoung enthusiast, a select band of followers gathered around him, and\nwhile he inspired them with implicit trust, they no doubt inspired him\nin their turn with higher confidence. The reticence which modesty or\nhesitation had produced gradually melted away, and he began boldly to\nput forth pretensions which, while they repelled and scandalized many,\ndrew others into a closer companionship and a more implicit submission.\nSimon and Andrew, James and John, were the first, or among the first,\nof his disciples. Eight others joined him at about the same period\nof his life, their names being Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas,\nJames the son of Alpheus, Thaddeus, Simon the Canaanite, and Judas (Mk.\niii. 14-19; Mt. x. 1-4). While these formed the inner circle, we must\nsuppose that he had many other admirers and followers, who were either\nless intimate with him, or less constant in their attendance. And there\nmay even have been others of equal intimacy with the twelve apostles,\nwhose names have not been handed down to us. For all the apostles\ndid not enjoy an equally close and unreserved friendship with their\nmaster. Three of their number\u2014Simon, James, and John\u2014stood towards him\nin an altogether special and peculiar relationship. They are far more\nprominent than any of the other nine. They were selected to accompany\nJesus when others were left behind. They formed an inmost circle within\nthe circle of his more constant companions. Them alone he is said to\nhave distinguished by names of his own invention. On Simon he conferred\nthe name of Peter. To James and John, the sons of Zebedee, he applied\nthe familiar nickname of Boanerges, or sons of thunder, which seems to\nindicate that they were distinguished by the fervor of their zeal (Mk.\niii. 16, 17).\n\nThe admirers of Jesus were scarcely, if at all, less numerous among\nthe female than among the male sex. Indeed, he seems to have exercised\na very marked fascination over women. When he went to Jerusalem, he\nwas followed by many women from Galilee, who had been accustomed to\ncontribute to his wants, and to give him that personal attention which\nkindly women know so well how to confer. Mary Magdalene whom he had\nhealed of some mental ailment, Mary the mother of James, Salome the\nmother of the sons of thunder, were among the most devoted of these,\nwhile two sisters, Mary and Martha, Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod's\nsteward, and Susanna, are also mentioned (Mk. xv. 40, 41; Lu. viii. 2,\n3, x. 38, 39). If we may believe one of the Evangelists, who stands\nalone in this respect, the homage of women was particularly agreeable\nto Jesus, who received it with words of the highest praise (Lu. vii.\n36-50, x. 38-42). That some among these many female followers were\ndrawn to him by the sentiment of love is, at least, highly probable.\nWhether Jesus entertained any such feeling towards one of them it\nis impossible to guess, for the human side of his nature has been\ncarefully suppressed in the extant legend.\n\nSupported then by adherents of both sexes, Jesus entered upon his\ncareer of a public teacher. His own house was at Capernaum (Mt. iv.\n13), but he wandered from place to place in the exercise of his\nvocation, staying, no doubt, with friends and disciples. It is not\nnecessary to follow him in these peregrinations, of which only the\nvaguest accounts have been preserved by the Evangelists. But two\nremarkable circumstances deserve to be noted; namely, that his own\nfamily rejected his pretensions, and that he met with no success in\nhis own district. Of the former, in addition to the negative evidence\nfurnished by the fact that neither Mary nor the brothers of Jesus\nare mentioned among the believers, we have the positive evidence of\nJohn that his brothers did not believe (Jo. vii. 5), confirmed by\nthe statement in the other Gospels that his family attempted to see\nhim during the earlier part of his career, and that Jesus positively\nrefused to have anything to do with them (Mk. iii. 31-35; Mt. xii.\n46-50; Lu. viii. 19-21). This desire on the part of the family to\nconfer with him, and the manner in which Jesus, disavowing all special\nties, adopts all who \"do the will of God\" as mother, brother and\nsister, admits of but one construction. Mary and her other children\nwere anxious to draw him away from the rash and foolish mode of life\u2014as\nthey deemed it\u2014on which he had entered, and Jesus, understanding their\ndesign, avoided an unpleasant interview by simply declining to be\ntroubled with them. And if, as is highly probable, it was they who\nthought him mad (Mk. iii. 21), we have further proof that neither\nhis mother nor any of the other members of his family can be counted\namong his converts, at any rate during his life-time. The second\ncircumstance, his complete failure in his own neighborhood, is attested\nby a saying of his own, recorded by all four Evangelists. A prophet,\nhe is reported to have said, is without honor in his own country,\namong his own kin, and in his own house (Mk. vi. 4). To which it was\nadded that he was unable to perform any work of power there, beyond\ncuring a few sick people. And these cures evidently did not impress the\nskeptical Nazarenes, for we are told that \"he marveled because of their\nunbelief\" (Mk. vi. 5, 6).\n\nLeaving, therefore, these hard-hearted neighbors, he proceeded to\naddress the people of Galilee and Judea in discourses which excited\ngreat attention; sometimes inculcating moral truths in plain but\neloquent language, sometimes preferring to illustrate them by little\nstories, the application of which he either made himself or left to his\nhearers to discover. Had these stood alone, they would have sufficed\nto give him a high reputation. But he did not depend on words alone\nfor his success among the people. The peculiar condition of Palestine\nat this epoch gave him a favorable opportunity of supplementing\nwords by deeds. The trials and sufferings they had undergone, both\nfrom the Herodian family and the Romans; the constant outrage to\ntheir deepest feelings afforded by the presence of an alien soldiery;\nthe insults, humiliations, and cruelties they endured at the hands\nof their conquerors, had wrought the people up to a state of almost\nunbearable tension and extreme excitement. That under the pressure of\nsuch a state of things nervous disorders should be widely prevalent,\nis not to be wondered at. And these affections, as is well known,\nare peculiarly infectious, easily spreading through a whole village\nand raging in a whole country (See, for example, H\u00e6cker's Epidemics,\n_passim_). Hysteria, moreover, takes many forms. Now it may show\nitself as species of madness; now as the imagination of some positive\ndisease. Here it may be violent and outrageous; there morbid and\ngloomy. Another peculiarity is its tendency to increase the more, the\ngreater the attention paid to it by friends and onlookers. To be an\nobject of interest to those around is enough to inflame the symptoms of\nthe hysterical patient. And when this interest took shape in a belief\nthat he was inhabited by some bad spirit\u2014which was equally the theory\nof the Jews in the time of Christ, and of Christians up to the middle\nages\u2014it was natural that the evil should be magnified to the highest\ndegree. There are, however, some individuals who exercise a peculiar\npower over sufferers of this description. Their looks, their touch,\ntheir words, are all soothing. By addressing the victims of hysteria in\ntones of authority, by taking their hands, or otherwise endeavoring to\ncalm their excited nerves, these physicians of nature may put a stop to\nthe pain, or expel the illusion. In modern days they would be called\nmesmerists, and though the peculiarities of temperament to which they\nowe their mesmeric faculty are not yet understood, their influence is\nwell known to those who have examined into the subject.\n\nAmong the Jews, the subjects of these current maladies were said to\nbe possessed by devils. And it was a common profession to cast out\nthese so-called devils,[20] for we are told that it was practiced by\nthe adherents of the Pharisees. What means they employed we do not\nknow. Probably they were not of the mesmeric order, but consisted in\ncharms and exorcisms which, being believed by the patients to have\nthe power of curing them, actually had it. At any rate, the fact\nremains that Jesus and the Pharisees are reputed to have possessed a\nsimilar influence over the demons, and if we accept the statement as\ntrue in the one case we cannot consistently reject it in the other.\nIt remains to be considered, however, whether the evidence is such\nas to induce us to believe it in either. Now it is quite true that\na great many absurd and impossible miracles are ascribed to Jesus\nin the Gospels. But considering the important place occupied in his\nlife\u2014as it has come down to us\u2014by his cures of sick people; considering\nthe possibility above suggested that many of these might have taken\nplace by known methods; considering too the extremely easy field\nwhich Palestine presented for their application, it would appear more\nlikely that there might be a basis of truth in the numerous accounts\nof sudden recoveries effected by him, than that they were all mere\ninventions. We may then assume, without here entering into details,\nthat a number of unfortunate people, thought to be possessed by devils,\neither met him on his way, or were brought to him by relations, and\nwere restored to health by the authoritative command addressed to the\nevil spirit to depart; mingled with the sympathetic tone and manner\ntowards the tormented subject of possession. Individual examples of\nthese apparently miraculous cures may be open to doubt from the very\ninaccurate character of the records, and for this reason it will be\nbetter for the present to admit the general fact without binding\nourselves to this or that special instance of its occurrence.\n\nPossessing this power himself, and ignorant of its source, Jesus\nattempted to communicate it to his disciples. It is expressly stated\nthat he gave them power to heal sicknesses and cast out devils (Mk.\niii. 15), though it is doubtful whether they met with much success in\nthis vocation. On one occasion, at least, a signal failure is reported,\nand as the fact stated redounds neither to the glory of Christ, who\nhad appointed his disciples to the work, nor of the disciples who\nhad received the appointment, we may believe it to be true (Mk. ix.\n14-29). A parent had brought his little son to the apostles to be\ndelivered from some kind of fits from which he suffered. The apostles\ncould do nothing with him. When Jesus arrived he ordered the spirit\nto depart, and the boy, after a violent attack, was left tranquil.\nWe are not told indeed how long his calmness lasted, nor whether the\nfits were permanently arrested. For the moment, however, a remedy was\neffected, and the disciples naturally inquired why they had not been\nequally successful. The extreme vagueness of the reply of Jesus renders\nit probable that his remedial influence was due to some personal\ncharacteristic which he could not impart to others. This conclusion is\nconfirmed by the noteworthy fact that an unknown person exercised the\nart of casting out devils in the name of Jesus, though not one of his\ncompany (Mk. ix. 38-40). Here the name would be valuable only because\nof its celebrity, the expulsion of the devils being due, as in the\ncase of Jesus himself, to the personal endowments of the exorcist. At\nany rate, we have the broad facts that the Pharisees, Jesus himself,\nand the unknown employer of his name, were all proficient in the art\nof delivering patients from the supposed possession of evil spirits.\nPossibly too the apostles did the same, and it was certainly the\nintention of Jesus that they should.\n\nSuch exhibitions of power, though they might tend to strengthen the\ninfluence of Jesus among the multitude, were not the principal means\non which he depended for acceptance. His sermons and his parables were\nboth more remarkable and more original. In addition to the fact that he\ntaught, in the main, pure and beautiful moral doctrines, he well knew\nhow to exemplify his meaning by telling illustrations. The parables\nby which he enforced his views have become familiar to us all, and\ndeserve to remain among our most precious literary possessions. What\nmore especially distinguished his mode of teaching from that of other\nmasters was the air of spiritual supremacy he assumed, and his total\nindependence of all predecessors but the writers of Scripture. Not\nindeed that he ventured upon any departure from the accepted tradition\nwith regard to the history of his nation, or the authority of the Old\nTestament. On the contrary, he was entirely free from any approach\nto a critical or inquiring attitude. But in so far he did not teach\nlike the scribes, that he boldly put forth his own interpretations of\nScripture and his own views of ethics, without the smallest regard for\nthe established opinions of the schools, and without seeking support\nfrom any authority but his own. In this course he was evidently\nstrengthened by an inward conviction that he was the destined Messiah\nof the Jewish people. Deputed, as he conceived, directly from God, he\ncould afford to slight the restrictions which others might place upon\ntheir conduct. He was not bound by the rules which applied to ordinary\nmen.\n\nThis assumption, with its corresponding behavior, could not fail to\ngive great offense to those by whom his title was not conceded. And\nwe accordingly find that he comes into constant collision with the\nrecognized legal and religious guides of the Jews. Among the first of\nthe shocks he inflicted on their sense of propriety was his claim to\nbe authorized to forgive sins (Mk. ii. 7). To the Jewish mind this\npretension was highly blasphemous; no one, they thought, could forgive\nsins but God, and they did not understand the credentials in virtue\nof which this young man acted as his ambassador. Further scandal was\ncaused by his contempt for the common customs observed on the Sabbath\nday (Mk. ii. 24, and iii. 6), which appeared to him inconsistent\nwith the original purpose of that institution. The language he was\naccustomed to use to his disciples, and to his hearers generally, was\nnot of a nature to soothe their growing animosity. Designating himself\nby the Messianic term of \"the Son of man,\" he announced the approach,\neven during the generation then extant, of a kingdom of heaven wherein\nhe himself was to return clothed with glory, and his followers were to\nbe gathered round him to enjoy his triumph. Along with these promises\nto his friends, there flowed forth indignant denunciation of the\nPharisees and Scribes, who were held up to the scorn of the populace.\n\nHaving thus provoked them to the utmost, he imprudently accepted\nthe honor of a sort of triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the pomp of\nwhich, however, has probably been somewhat exaggerated (Mk. xi. 1-11).\nNor was this all. He proceeded to an act of violence which it was\nimpossible for the authorities to overlook. The current Roman money\nnot being accepted at the temple, the outer court of this building\nwas used by money-changers, who performed the useful and necessary\nservice of receiving from those who came to make their offerings the\nordinary coinage, and giving Jewish money instead of it. Doves being\nalso required by the law to be offered on certain occasions, there\nwere persons outside the temple who sold these birds. Indignant at\nwhat seemed to him a violation of the sanctity of the spot, Jesus\nupset the tables of these traffickers, and described them all as\nthieves. It is added in one account that he interfered to prevent\nvessels being carried through the temple (Mk. xi. 15-17). That, after\nthis, the spiritual rulers should ask him to produce his authority\nfor such conduct, was not unnatural. Nor is it surprising that, after\nhis unsatisfactory reply to their inquiry, they should take steps to\nprevent the repetition of similar scenes.\n\nThe efforts of the chief priests to bring about his destruction are\ndescribed in two of our Gospels as the direct result of his proceedings\nabout the temple, the impression he had made on the multitude being a\nfurther inducement (Mk. xi. 18; Lu. xix. 48). Aware of the indignation\nhe had excited, Jesus soon after these events retired into some\nprivate place, known only to his more intimate friends. So at least I\nunderstand the story of his betrayal. Either Judas never betrayed him\nat all, or he was lurking in concealment somewhere in the neighborhood\nof Jerusalem. That the conduct attributed to Judas should be a pure\ninvention appears to me so improbable, more especially when the\nhistory of the election of a new apostle is taken into account, that\nI am forced to choose the latter alternative. The representation of\nthe Gospels, that Jesus went on teaching in public to the very end\nof his career, and yet that Judas received a bribe for his betrayal,\nis self-contradictory. The facts appear to be that Jesus ate the\npassover at Jerusalem with his disciples, and that immediately after\nit, conscious of his growing danger, he retired to some hidden spot\nwhere he had lived before, and where friends alone were admitted to\nhis company. Judas informed the authorities of the temple where this\nspot was. They thereupon apprehended Jesus, and brought him before the\nSanhedrim for trial.\n\nSo confused and imperfect is the account of this trial given by the\nEvangelists, that we are unable to make out what was the nature of\nthe charge preferred against him, or of the evidence by which it was\nsupported. It is clear, however, that the gravamen of the accusation\nwas that he had put forth blasphemous pretensions to be the Messiah,\n\"the Son of the Blessed One.\" And this was supported by a curious bit\nof evidence. Two witnesses deposed, either that they had heard him\nsay he _would_ destroy this temple made with hands and build another\nmade without hands within three days, or that he _was able_ to destroy\nthe temple, and to rebuild it in three days (Mt. xxvi. 61; Mk. xiv.\n58). The witnesses are called false witnesses, both in Mark and in\nMatthew. But if we turn to John (Jo. ii. 19), we find the probable\nsource of the charge brought against him by these two witnesses, and\nwe find reason also to think that they were not perjurers. There we\nare told that after he had driven the money-changers and traders from\nthe temple, the Jews asked him for a sign that might evince his right\nto do such things. In reply to their demand, Jesus is reported to have\nsaid, \"Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.\"\nConnecting this statement in the one Gospel with the evidence given on\nthe trial according to others, we may form a tolerably clear notion of\nthe actual fact. Pressed by his opponents for some justification of\nhis extraordinary conduct, Jesus had taken refuge in an assertion of\nhis supernatural power. If they destroyed the temple he would be able,\nwith the favor bestowed on him by God, to rebuild it in three days.\nThese words might possibly be misconstrued by some of his hearers into\na threat that he himself would destroy the temple, an outrage which\nwould in their view have been less difficult to imagine after his\nviolence to those engaged in business in its outer court. But whether\nso understood or not, there could be no question about the pretension\nto something like divinity in the promise to rebuild it in three days.\nThere is not a shadow of probability in favor of the interpretation\nput upon the words in the fourth Gospel, that he spoke of the temple\nof his body. And even had that been his secret meaning, the witnesses\nwho appeared against him could have no conception that he was thinking\nof anything but the material temple, to which the whole dialogue\nhad immediate reference. They were therefore simply repeating, to\nthe best of their ability, words which had actually fallen from the\nprisoner. The evidence for the prosecution being concluded, the high\npriest appealed to Jesus to know whether he had nothing to reply. Jesus\nbeing silent, the high priest proceeded to ask him directly whether\nhe was \"Christ, the Son of the Blessed One.\" Jesus answered that he\nwas, and that they would hereafter see him \"sitting on the right hand\nof power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.\" Such an answer was an\nexplicit confession of the very worst that had been alleged against\nhim. After it, there was no option but to convict him, and we read\naccordingly that they all condemned him as worthy of death. But capital\npunishment could not be inflicted except by Roman authority. He was\naccordingly taken before the procurator, Pontius Pilate, charged with\nthe civil crime of claiming to be king of the Jews. Pontius appears to\nhave regarded him as a harmless fanatic, and to have been anxious to\ndischarge him, in accordance with a custom by which one prisoner was\nreleased at the festival which fell at this time. But the Jews clamored\nfor the release of a man named Barabbas, who was in prison on account\nof his participation in an insurrectionary movement in which blood had\nbeen shed. Barabbas accordingly was set at liberty, and Jesus, though\nwith some reluctance on the part of the procurator, was sentenced to\ncrucifixion. The sentence was carried into effect immediately. Unable,\nprobably from exhaustion through his recent sufferings, to carry his\nown cross, Jesus was relieved of the burden by one Simon, on whom\nthe soldiery imposed the duty of bearing it. He was crucified along\nwith two thieves, and an inscription in which he was entitled \"King\nof the Jews\" was placed upon his cross, apparently in mockery of the\nJewish nation much more than of him. His ordinary disciples had fled\nin terror from his melancholy end, but he was followed to the cross by\nsome affectionate women, who had previously attended him in Galilee.\nAnd after he was dead, his body was honorably interred by a well-to-do\nadherent, named Joseph of Arimath\u00e6a.\n\n\n                 SUBDIVISION 2.\u2014_The Mythical Jesus._\n\nThe life of the mythical Jesus is found in the synoptical Gospels,\nbut more especially in the first and third. It is by no means pure\nfiction, but an indistinguishable compound of fact and fiction, in\nwhich the fictitious elements bear so large a proportion that it is\nimpossible to disentangle from them the elements of genuine history.\nPart of this life moreover is wholly mythical, and of this wholly\nmythical portion there are certain sections that are constructed on\na common plan, the biographers in these sections having only fitted\nthe typical incidents in the lives of great men to the special case\nof Jesus, the son of Joseph. Not that this need have been done\nconsciously; the probability is that the circumstances and mode of\nthought which led to the invention of such typical incidents in the\nlives of others, led to it equally in that of Jesus. However this may\nbe, we shall find in the mythical life of Jesus the following three\nclasses of myths: 1. Myths of the typical order, common to a certain\nkind of great men in certain ages, and therefore purely unhistorical;\n2. Myths peculiar to Jesus, in which the miraculous element so\npredominates, that it is impossible to recognize any, or more than the\nvery slightest, admixture of history; 3. Myths, peculiar to Jesus,\nin which there is a more or less considerable admixture of history;\nAnd 4. Statements not of necessity mythical, which may or may not be\nhistorical, but of which the evidence is inadequate.\n\nAt the outset of our task we are met by the assumed genealogy of Jesus,\nwhich has caused some trouble to theologians, and which is mainly\nimportant as an indication of the degree of credit due to writers\nwho could insert such a document. For these awkward pedigrees afford\nan absolute proof of the facility with which the Christians of the\nearliest age supplemented the actual life of Jesus by free invention.\nWe are happily in possession of two conflicting lists of ancestors,\nand happily also they are both of them lists of the ancestors of\nJoseph, who, according to the very writers by whom they are supplied,\nstood in no relation whatever to Christ, the final term of the\ngenealogies. Double discredit thus falls upon the witnesses. In the\nfirst place, both lists cannot be true, though both may be false; one\nof them therefore must be, and each may be, a deliberate fiction. In\nthe second place, both the Gospels bear unconscious testimony to the\nfact that Joseph was originally supposed to be, by the natural course\nof things, the father of Jesus, for otherwise why should the early\nChristians have been at the trouble to furnish the worthy carpenter\nwith a distinguished ancestry? They thus discredit their own story\nthat Jesus was the son of Mary alone. Either then Jesus was the son of\nJoseph, or neither of the two genealogies is his genealogy at all. The\nsolution of these inconsistencies is to be found in the fact that two\nindependent traditions have been blended together by the Evangelists.\nThe one, no doubt the more ancient of the two, considered Jesus as the\nchild of Joseph and Mary, and the ingenuity of his biographers has\nnot succeeded in obliterating the traces of this tradition (Mt. xiii.\n55). Another and much later one, treated him as the offspring of Mary\nwithout the aid of a human father. Those who believed in the first and\nmore authentic story had busied themselves with the discovery of a\nroyal descent for their hero, in order that he might fulfill what they\nconsidered the conditions of the Messiahship. They had naturally traced\nhis ancestry upwards from his father, not from his mother, according to\nthe usual procedure. But the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written\nentirely on the hypothesis that he had no father but God; all necessity\nfor showing that Joseph was of the house of David was therefore gone.\nNevertheless the writers or the editors of these Gospels did not like\nto neglect entirely what seemed to them to strengthen their case,\nand, forgetful of the ridiculous jumble they were making, inserted an\nelaborate pedigree of Joseph along with the statement that Jesus was\nnot his son.\n\nLet us now examine the genealogies in detail, placing them in columns\nparallel to one another. Luke begins a stage earlier than Matthew,\nmaking God his starting-point instead of Abraham. From Abraham to\nDavid the two authorities proceed together. Matthew, who has cut his\ngenealogical tree into three sections of fourteen generations each,\nmakes this his first division. After this the divergence begins:\u2014\n\n         MATTHEW.                   |        LUKE.\n                                    |\n   1. Solomon.                      |   1. Nathan.\n   2. Rehoboam.                     |   2. Mattatha.\n   3. Abia.                         |   3. Menan.\n   4. Asa.                          |   4. Melea.\n   5. Jehoshaphat.                  |   5. Eliakim.\n   6. Joram.                        |   6. Jonan.\n        [_Ahaziah._                 |\n        _Joash._                    |\n        _Amaziah._[21]]             |\n   7. Ozias (or Uzziah).            |   7. Joseph.\n   8. Jotham.                       |   8. Juda.\n   9. Ahaz.                         |   9. Simeon.\n  10. Hezekiah.                     |  10. Levi.\n  11. Manasseh.                     |  11. Matthat.\n  12. Amon.                         |  12. Jorim.\n  13. Josiah. [_Jehoiakim._]        |  13. Eliezer.\n  14. Jeconiah (or Jehoiachin).     |  14. Jose.\n                                    |\n  Here the captivity closes the     |\n  second period. After the captivity|\n  we have\u2014                          |\n                                    |\n  1. Jeconiah.                      |  15. Er.\n  2. Salathiel (or Shealtiel).      |  16. Elmodam.\n  3. Zerubbabel.                    |  17. Cosam.\n  4. Abiud.                         |  18. Addi.\n  5. Eliakim.                       |  19. Melchi.\n  6. Azor.                          |  20. Neri.\n  7. Sadoc.                         |  21. Salathiel.\n  8. Achim.                         |  22. Zorobabel.\n  9. Eliud.                         |  23. Rhesa.\n  10. Eleazar.                      |  24. Joanna.\n  11. Matthan.                      |  25. Juda.\n  12. Jacob.                        |  26. Joseph.\n  13. Joseph.                       |  27. Semei.\n  14. JESUS.                        |  28. Mattathias.\n                                    |  29. Maath.\n                                    |  30. Nagga.\n                                    |  31. Esli.\n                                    |  32. Naum.\n                                    |  33. Amos.\n                                    |  34. Mattathias.\n                                    |  35. Joseph.\n                                    |  36. Janna.\n                                    |  37. Melchi.\n                                    |  38. Levi.\n                                    |  39. Matthat.\n                                    |  40. Heli.\n                                    |  41. Joseph.\n                                    |  42. JESUS.[22]\n\nVarious observations offer themselves on these discrepant genealogies.\nIn the first place it will be observed that Matthew, in his anxiety\nto show that the whole period comprised is divisible into three equal\nparts of fourteen generations each, has actually omitted no less than\nfour generations contained in the authorities he followed. For since he\ntraced the descent of Joseph through the royal line of Judah, we are\nenabled to check his statements by reference to the Book of Chronicles\n(1 Chron. iii.), and thus to convict him of positive bad faith. In the\nfirst instance he omits three kings, representing Uzziah as the son of\nJoram, who was his great great grandfather; in the second he passes\nover Jehoiachim, making Jehoiachin the son instead of the grandson of\nJosiah. In the third period we have no authority by which to verify\nhis statements beyond Zerubbabel, but his determination to carry out\nhis numerical system at all hazards is shown by the double reckoning\nof Jehoiachin, at the close of the second and the beginning of the\nthird division. The latter has in fact but thirteen generations, and\nit was only by this trick\u2014a little concealed by the break effected\nthrough his allusion to the captivity\u2014that the appearance of uniformity\nwas maintained. Luke has adopted a different method. Leaving the line\nof kings, he connects Joseph with David through Nathan instead of\nSolomon. Now beyond the fact that Nathan was the offspring of David and\nBathsheba, nothing whatever is known about him. Indeed it may have been\nhis very obscurity, and the consequent facility of creating descendants\nfor him, that led to his selection in preference to Solomon, though\nunless it were that his name stood next above Solomon's (2 Sam. v.\n14)\u2014there is no obvious reason for his being preferred to several other\nchildren of David. However, he answered the purpose as well as any, and\nafter him it was not a difficult operation to invent a plausible list\nof names to fill up the gap between him and Joseph. The compiler of the\nlist in Matthew had the advantage in so far that he did not require to\ndraw on his imagination except for nine names between Zerubbabel and\nJoseph, while the compiler of the list in Luke had to supply the whole\nperiod from Nathan downwards with forefathers. But the second compiler\nhad the advantage over the first inasmuch as his fraud did not admit of\nthe same easy exposure by reference to its sources, and it was, on the\nwhole, a safer course to desert history altogether than to falsify it\nin favor of an arithmetical fancy.\n\nAnother discrepancy between the two writers remains to be noted; it\nis the enormous disproportion in the number of generations between\nDavid and Joseph. Matthew has twenty-five generations, and Luke forty,\nexcluding Joseph himself. A difference of this magnitude\u2014involving\nsomething like 400-450 years\u2014is not to be surmounted by any process\nof harmonizing. To which it may be added that the two Evangelists, by\nassigning to Joseph different fathers, clearly inform us that his true\nfather was unknown.\n\nWe have here, in short, an excellent instance of the first order of\nmyth, or myth typical. It has been a common practice in all ages, more\nespecially among ignorant and uncultivated nations, to endow those\nwho had risen from obscurity to greatness with illustrious ancestors.\nRoyal connections have always been regarded with especial favor for\nsuch purposes. Thus, the Buddha is represented as the descendant of\nthe great Sakya monarchs. Thus, the ancestors of Zarathustra, in the\ngenealogy provided for him in Parsee authorities, were the ancient\nkings of Persia. Thus, Moslem biographers declare that Mahomet sprang\nfrom the noblest family of the noblest nation, and many historians give\nhim even a princely lineage (L. L. M., vol. i. p. 140). Thus, according\nto Sir John Davis, \"the pedigree or Confucius is traced back in a\nsummary manner to the mythological monarch _Hoang-ty_, who is said to\nhave lived more than two thousand years before Christ\" (Chinese, vol.\nii. p. 45). Thus, the founder of Rome was placed by popular legend in a\nfamily relationship to \u00c6neas.\n\nLeaving these genealogies\u2014which are important only from the light they\nshed on the literary character of their authors and transmitters\u2014we\npass to the first legend directly concerning Jesus himself, that of his\nbirth. Here again the second and fourth Evangelists are silent, leaving\nus to suppose that Jesus was the natural son of Joseph and Mary,\nand certainly never hinting that they entertained any other belief\nthemselves. But the first and third each relate a little fable on this\nsubject, though unhappily for them the fables do not agree. Both had\nto observe two conditions. The first was that Jesus should be born of a\nvirgin mother; the second that he should be born at Bethlehem. Matthew\naccomplishes this end by informing us that Mary, when espoused to\nJoseph, was found to be with child. Joseph, who thereupon contemplated\nthe rupture of his engagement, was informed by an angel in a dream that\nhis bride was with child by no one but the Holy Ghost; that she was\nto bear a son, and that he was to call him Jesus. Being satisfied by\nthis assurance, he married Mary, but respected her virginity until she\nhad brought forth her first-born son, whom in obedience to his dream\nhe named Jesus. The child was born in Bethlehem where it would appear\nfrom this account that Mary lived, and it is only after a journey to\nEgypt that this Gospel brings the parents of Christ to Nazareth where a\ntradition too firm to be shaken placed their residence (Mt. i. 18-25;\nii. 23).\n\nWidely different is the treatment of this subject in Luke. According\nto him there was a priest named Zacharias whose wife Elizabeth was\nbarren. The couple were no longer young, but they were not old enough\nto have lost all hope of progeny, for we are told that when Zacharias\nwas engaged in his duties in the temple, an angel appeared to him\nand informed him that his prayer was heard, and that his wife was to\nhave a son whom he was to call John. Zacharias had therefore been\npraying for offspring, though when the angel\u2014who announced himself\nas Gabriel\u2014appeared, he was troubled with some impious doubts, in\npunishment of which he was struck dumb. After this Elizabeth conceived,\nand went into retirement. From five to six months after the above scene\nGabriel was again despatched from heaven, this time to a virgin named\nMary, living at Nazareth. Arrived at her house, he addressed her thus:\n\"Hail, thou that art highly favored; the Lord is with thee; blessed\nart thou among women.\" Seeing Mary's confusion he reassured her; and\ninformed her that she should have a son called Jesus, who was to\npossess the throne of David, and reign over the house of Jacob forever.\nLike Zacharias, Mary was disposed to raise troublesome questions,\nand she accordingly inquired of Gabriel how she could bear a child,\n\"seeing I know not a man.\" But Gabriel was ready with his answer. The\nHoly Ghost would come upon her; moreover, her cousin Elizabeth had\nconceived (which, however, was not a parallel case), and nothing was\nimpossible with God. Soon after this visit, Mary went to see Elizabeth,\nwho interpreted an ordinary incident of pregnancy as a sign that the\nfruit of Mary's womb was blessed, and that Mary was to be the mother of\nher Lord. The virgin replied in a very elaborate little speech, which\nif uttered must have been carefully prepared for the occasion. In due\ntime the child of Zacharias and Elizabeth was born, and named John\nby his parents' desire. What Joseph thought of his bride's condition\nwe are not told, nor do we know whether she made known to him her\ninterview with the angel Gabriel. At any rate he did not repudiate\nher, for we find him taking her with him, about five months later,\nto Bethlehem, for the purpose of the census which took place when\nQuirinus was governor of Syria, his descent from David requiring him\nto attend at that town. During this census it was that Jesus was born,\nand because of the crowded condition of the inn at this busy time, he\nwas placed in a manger (Lu. i. 1; ii. 7). There let us leave him for\nthe present, while we compare these narratives with others of a like\ndescription.\n\nBirth in some miraculous or unusual manner is a common circumstance in\nthe lives of great persons. We have here therefore another instance of\nthe typical species of myth. Thus, in classical antiquity, Here is said\nto have produced Hephaistos \"without the marriage bed\" (Bib., i. 3-5).\nTurning to a remote part of the globe, there was in the present century\na person living in New Zealand who, according to native tradition, was\n\"begotten by the attua,\" a species of deity, \"his mother being then\nunmarried. The infant was produced at her left arm-pit, but there was\nno visible mark left.... He is held as a great prophet; when he says\nthere will be no rain there will be none\" (N. Z., p. 82). An example\nof the same kind of legend occurs in the ancient history of China.\nThe hero is one How-tseih, who was the founder of the royal house of\nChow. His mother, it appears, was barren, like Elizabeth, for she \"had\npresented a pure offering and sacrificed, that her childlessness might\nbe taken away.\" Her devotion received a fitting reward, for:\u2014\n\n    \"She then trod on a toe-print made by God, and was moved,\n    In the large place where she rested.\n    She became pregnant, she dwelt retired;\n    She gave birth to, and nourished [a son],\n    Who was How-tseih.\"\n\nHis mode of coming into the world was peculiar too:\u2014\n\n    \"When she had fulfilled her months\n    Her first-born son [came forth] like a lamb.\n    There was no bursting, nor rending;\n    No injury, no hurt:\u2014\n    Showing how wonderful he would be.\n    Did not God give her the comfort?\n    Had he not accepted her pure offering and sacrifice,\n    So that thus easily she brought forth her son?\"[23]\n\nThe gestation of the Buddha was in many ways miraculous. He entered\nthe womb of his mother by a voluntary act, resigning his abode in\nheaven for the purpose. At the time of his descent upon earth M\u00e2y\u00e2\nDevi dreamt that a white elephant of singular beauty had entered into\nher, a dream which portended the future greatness of the child (R. T.\nR. P., vol. ii. p. 61). During the time of his remaining in the womb,\nhis body, which was visible both to his mother and to others, had a\nresplendent and glorious appearance.[24] \"M\u00e2y\u00e2 the queen, during the\ntime that Bodhisattva remained in the womb of his mother, did not feel\nher body heavy, but on the contrary light, at ease and in comfort, and\nfelt no pain in her entrails. She was nowise tormented by the desires\nof passion, nor by disgust, nor by trouble, and had no irresolution\nagainst desire, no irresolution against the thought of evil or of\nvice. She suffered the sensation neither of cold, nor of heat, nor of\nhunger, nor of thirst, nor of trouble, nor of passion, nor of fatigue:\nshe saw nothing of which the form, the sound, the smell, the taste\nand the touch did not seem to her agreeable. She had no bad dreams.\nThe tricks of women, their inconstancy, their jealousy, the defects\nof women and their weaknesses, she did not share\" (Ibid., vol. ii.\np. 77). And although it is never expressly stated that the Buddha's\nnominal father had no part in his production, it is remarkable that at\nthe time of her conceiving, M\u00e2y\u00e2 was living in a place apart from him,\nhaving craved permission to retire for a season, to practice fasting\nand penance. During this time she had told the king that she would be\n\"completely delivered from thoughts of stealing, desire and pride,\"\nand that she would not \"yield to one illicit desire\" (R. T. R. P.,\nvol. ii. pp. 54, 55). Some sects of Buddhists are more explicit, and\nmaintain that Bodhisattvas do not pass through the earlier stages of\nf\u0153tal development; namely, those of _Kalalam_, mixing up, the period\nof the first week, when the future body is like milk: _arbudam_, the\nperiod of the second week, where a form rises like something inflated;\npeci, thickening: and _ghana_, hardening, the periods of the third\nand fourth weeks (Wassiljew, p. 260). But all this does not exclude\nthe co\u00f6peration of a human father. Passing to another great religion,\nwe find that even the sober philosopher Confucius did not enter the\nworld, if we may believe Chinese traditions, without premonitory\nsymptoms of his greatness. It is said that one day as his mother was\nascending a hill, \"the leaves of the trees and plants all erected\nthemselves and bent downwards on her return. That night she dreamt the\nBlack _Te_ appeared, and said to her, 'You shall have a son, a sage,\nand you must bring him forth in a hollow mulberry tree.'\" In another\ndream she received a prophecy of the importance of her coming progeny\n(C. C., vol. i. p. 59\u2014Proleg.). Another account states that \"various\nprodigies, as in other instances, were the forerunners of the birth\nof this extraordinary person. On the eve of his appearance on earth,\ntwo dragons encircled the house, and celestial music sounded in the\nears of his mother. When he was born, this inscription appeared on\nhis breast\u2014'The maker of a rule for settling the world'\" (Chinese,\nvol. ii. p. 44). The mother of Mahomet is said to have related of\nher pregnancy, that she felt none of the usual inconveniences of that\nstate; and that she had seen a vision in which she had been told that\nshe bore in her womb the Lord and Prophet of her people. A little\nbefore her delivery the same figure appeared again, and commanded her\nto say, \"I commend the fruit of my body to the One, the Eternal, for\nprotection against the envious\" (L. L. M., vol. i. p. 142).\n\nMiraculously born, it was necessary that Jesus should also be\nmiraculously recognized as a child of no common order. The story would\nhave been incomplete without some one to acknowledge his superhuman\ncharacter even in his cradle. Matthew and Luke again accomplish the\ncommon end by widely different means. Luke's is the simpler narrative,\nand it will be more convenient to begin with. He tells us that there\nwere in the same country, that is, near Bethlehem, shepherds watching\ntheir flocks. An angel appeared to them and said that a Savior, Christ\nthe Lord, was born in the city of David. They were to know him by his\nbeing in a manger wrapped in swaddling clothes. In this humility of his\nexternal circumstances immediately after birth, as in the supernatural\nrecognition which he received, he again resembles the Chinese hero.\nHow-tseih\n\n            \"was placed in a narrow lane,\n    But the sheep and oxen protected him with loving care.\n    He was placed in a wide forest,\n    Where he was met by the woodcutters.\n    He was placed on the cold ice,\n    And a bird screened and supported him with its wings.\"[25]\n\n\"And suddenly,\" the narrative in Luke proceeds, \"there was with the\nangel a multitude of the heavenly host, praising God and saying, 'Glory\nto God in the highest, and on earth the peace of good-will among men'\"\n(Lu. ii. 8-14). Similar demonstrations of celestial delight were not\nwanting at the birth of the Buddha Sakyamuni. He was received by the\ngreatest of the gods, Indra and Brahma. All beings everywhere were\nfull of joy. Musical instruments belonging to men and gods played\nof themselves. Trees became covered with flowers and fruit. There\nfell from the skies a gentle shower of flowers, garments, odoriferous\npowders, and ornaments. Caressing breezes blew. A marvelous light was\nproduced. Evil passions were put a stop to, and illnesses were cured;\nmiseries of all kinds were at an end (R. T. R. P., vol. ii. pp. 90,\n91). So also we read in Moslem authorities that at the birth of Ali,\nMahomet's great disciple, and the chief of one of the two principal\nsects into which Islam is divided, \"a light was distinctly visible,\nresembling a bright column, extending from the earth to the firmament\"\n(Dervishes, p. 372). But let us complete the narrative in Luke.\n\nUrged by the angelic order, the shepherds went to Bethlehem and found\nthe infant Christ, whose nature, as revealed by the angels, they made\nknown to the people with whom they met. Returning, they praised and\nglorified God for all they had heard and seen (Lu. ii. 15-20).\n\nQuite dissimilar is the form in which the same incident appears in\nMatthew. Here, instead of shepherds, we have magi coming from the East\nto discover the King of the Jews. A star in the East had revealed to\nthem the birth of this King of the Jews _de jure_, and in the search\nfor him they run straight into the very jaws of Herod, the king\n_de facto_. The author is obliged to make them take this absurdly\nimprobable course for the sake of introducing Herod, whom he required\nfor a purpose shortly to be explained. How utterly superfluous the\nvisit to Herod was is evinced by the fact that, after that monarch has\nfound out from the chief priests the birthplace of the Messiah, the\nmagi are guided onwards by the star, which had been omitted from the\nstory since its first appearance in order to allow of their journey to\nJerusalem, a mistake for which the star could not be made responsible.\nHowever, after leaving Herod, they were led by that luminary to the\nvery spot where Christ lay. On seeing the infant they worshiped him,\nand offered him magnificent presents, after which a dream informed\nthem\u2014what their waking senses might surely have discovered\u2014that it was\nnot safe to return to Herod after having thus acknowledged a rival\nclaimant to the throne. They accordingly went home another way.\n\nInterwoven with this visit of the magi we have a myth which belongs\nto a common form, and which in the present instance is merely adapted\nto the special circumstances of the age and place. I term it the myth\nof THE DANGEROUS CHILD. Its general outline is this: A child is born\nconcerning whose future greatness some prophetic indications have\nbeen given. But the life of this child is fraught with danger to some\npowerful individual, generally a monarch. In alarm at his threatened\nfate, this person endeavors to take the child's life; but it is\npreserved by the divine care. Escaping the measures directed against\nit, and generally remaining long unknown, it at length fulfills the\nprophecies concerning its career, while the fate which he has vainly\nsought to shun falls upon him who had desired to slay it. There is\na departure here from the ordinary type, inasmuch as Herod does not\nactually die or suffer any calamity through the agency of Jesus.\nBut this failure is due to the fact that Jesus did not fulfill the\nconditions of the Messiahship, according to the Jewish conception which\nMatthew has here in mind. Had he\u2014as was expected of the Messiah\u2014become\nthe actual sovereign of the Jews, he must have dethroned the reigning\ndynasty, whether represented by Herod or his successors. But as his\nsubsequent career belied these expectations, the Evangelist was obliged\nto postpone to a future time his accession to that throne of temporal\ndominion which the incredulity of his countrymen had withheld from him\nduring his earthly life (Mt. xxiv. 30, 31; xxv. 31 ff.; xxvi. 64).\n\nIn other respects the legend before us conforms to its prototypes. The\nmagi, coming to Herod, inquire after the whereabouts of the king of the\nJews, whose star they have seen in the East. Herod summons the chief\npriests and scribes to council, and ascertains of them that Christ was\nto be born at Bethlehem. This done, he is careful to learn from the\nmagi the exact date at which the star had appeared to them. He further\ndesires them to search diligently for the young child, that he also\nmay worship it. They, as previously related, returned home without\nrevisiting Herod, whereupon that monarch, in anger at the deception\npracticed upon him, causes all the children under two years of age,\nin and about Bethlehem, to be slaughtered. All is in vain. Joseph,\nwarned by a dream, had taken his wife and step-son to Egypt, where they\nremained until after the death of Herod, when another dream commanded\nthem to return. When afraid to enter the dominions of Archelaus,\nanother of these useful dreams guided them to Galilee, where they took\nup their quarters at Nazareth (Mt. ii).\n\nHow wide-spread and of what frequent recurrence is this myth of the\nDangerous Child, a few examples may suffice to show. In Grecian\nmythology the king of the gods himself had been a dangerous child.\nThe story of Kronos swallowing his children in order to defeat the\nprophecy that he would be dethroned by his own son; the manner in\nwhich Rhea deceived him by giving him a stone, and Zeus, armed with\nthunder and lightning, deposed him from the government of the world,\nare familiar to all (Bib. 1. 1. 5-7, and 1. 2. 1). If we descend from\ngods to heroes, we find a similar legend related of Perseus, whose\ngrandfather, Akrisios, vainly tried to avert his predicted fate, first\nby scheming to prevent his grandson's birth, and then by seeking to\ndestroy him when born (Ibid., 2. 4. 1. 4.); and of Oidipous, who in\nspite of the attempt to cut short his life in infancy, inevitably\nand unconsciously fulfilled the oracle by slaying his father and\nmarrying his mother. Within historical times, Kyros, the son of\nKambyses is the hero of a similar tale. His grandfather, Astyages,\nhad dreamt certain dreams which were interpreted by the magi to mean\nthat the offspring of his daughter Mandane would expel him from his\nkingdom. Alarmed at the prophecy, he handed the child to his kinsman\nHarpagos to be killed; but this man having entrusted it to a shepherd\nto be exposed, the latter contrived to save it by exhibiting to the\nemissaries of Harpagos the body of a stillborn child of which his own\nwife had just been delivered. Grown to man's estate, Kyros of course\njustified the prediction of the magi by his successful revolt against\nAstyages and assumption of the monarchy (Herodotos, i. 107-130).\nJewish tradition, like that of the Greeks and the Persians, has its\ndangerous child in the person of the national hero Moses, whose death\nPharaoh had endeavored to effect by a massacre of innocents, but who\nhad lived to bring upon that ruler his inevitable fate. From these\nwell-known examples it is interesting to turn to the chronicles of\nthe East-Mongols, and find precisely the same tale repeated there.\nWe read that a certain king of a people called Patsala, had a son\nwhose peculiar appearance led the Brahmins at court to prophesy that\nhe would bring evil upon his father, and to advise his destruction.\nVarious modes of execution having failed, the boy was laid in a copper\nchest and thrown into the Ganges. Rescued by an old peasant who brought\nhim up as his son, he in due time learnt the story of his escape, and\nreturned to seize upon the kingdom destined for him from his birth.\nThis was in B. C. 313 (G. O. M., pp. 21, 23). This universal myth\u2014of\nthe natural origin of which it would lead me too far to speak\u2014was now\nadapted to the special case of Christ, who runs the usual risk and\nescapes it with the usual good fortune of dangerous children.\n\nHaving thus preserved the infant Christ from the dangers that\nthreatened him, Matthew tells us absolutely nothing about him until\nhe has arrived at manhood, and is ready to enter on his public life.\nLuke is much less reticent. True, he knows nothing whatever of the\nstar that appeared in the East; nothing of Herod's inquiries as to\nthe birthplace of Christ; nothing of the massacre of the innocents,\nnor of the flight into Egypt and the return from that country to\nNazareth. On the contrary, his narrative by implication excludes all\nthis, for he makes Joseph and Mary go up to Bethlehem for the census\nonly, and return to Nazareth soon after it; so that Herod could have\nhad no occasion to kill the infants up to the age of two years, for\nChrist could not have been above a few weeks old at most (Lu. ii. 39).\nMoreover, we learn definitely from one verse that his parents went up\n_from Nazareth_ to Jerusalem every year at the passover (Ibid., ii.\n41). But the absence of any statements like those just taken from the\nfirst Gospel is amply compensated in the third by several pleasing\ndetails relating to his infancy and boyhood. In the first place we\nlearn that after eight days he was circumcised, and named Jesus\naccording to the angel's desire (Ibid., ii. 21). Next, we are told\nthat after his mother's purification\u2014which would last thirty-three\ndays after the circumcision\u2014she and his step-father took him to the\ntemple to be presented, and to make the customary offering. There was\nin the temple a man named Simeon who had been promised by the Holy\nGhost that he should not die till he had seen Christ. This man, who\ncame by the Spirit into the temple, took the baby in his arms and gave\nvent to his emotion in the beautiful little hymn known as the _Nunc\nDimittis:_\u2014\"Now, O Lord, thou dost release thy servant according to\nthy word in peace, because mine eyes have seen thy salvation, which\nthou hast prepared before the face of all nations; a light for the\nrevelation of the Gentiles and the glory of thy people Israel\" (Lu. ii.\n29-32).\n\nLess exquisite in its simplicity, but not altogether dissimilar in\ntone, is the prophecy of the Rishi Asita on the infant Buddha. This old\nand eminent ascetic had come to see the child whose marvelous gifts had\nbeen known to him by supernatural signs. Having embraced its feet, and\npredicted its future pre\u00ebminence, he had surprised the king by bursting\ninto tears and heaving long sighs. Questioned about the meaning of\nthis he replied: \"Great king, it is not on account of this child that\nI weep; truly there is not in him the smallest vice. Great king, I am\nold and broken; and this young prince (Literally, Sarvarthasiddha) will\ncertainly clothe himself with the perfect and complete intelligence\nof Buddha, and will cause the wheel of the law that has no superior\nto turn.... After becoming Buddha he will cause hundreds of thousands\nof millions of beings to pass to the other border of the ocean of\nwandering life, and will lead them forever to immortality. And I\u2014I\nshall not see this pearl of Buddhas! Cured of illness, I shall not be\nfreed by him from passion! Great king, that is why I weep, and why in\nmy sadness I heave long sighs\" (R. T. R. P., vol. ii. pp. 106, 107).\n\nSo Abd-al-mottalib, Mahomet's grandfather, on seeing his grandchild\nimmediately after his birth, is reported to have exclaimed: \"Praise be\nto Allah, who has given me this glorious youth, who even in the cradle\nrules over other boys. I commend him to the protection of Allah, the\nLord of the four elements, that he may show him to us when he is well\ngrown up. To his protection I commend him from the evil of the wicked\nspirit\" (L. L. M., vol. i. p. 143).\n\nPrognostications of greatness in infancy are, indeed, among the\nstock incidents in the mythical or semi-mythical lives of eminent\npersons. Not content with Simeon's recognition, Luke introduces an\nold prophetess called Anna, living in the temple, and represents her\nas giving thanks, and speaking of the child to all who looked for\nredemption in Jerusalem (Lu. ii. 36-38).\n\nTwelve years are now suffered to elapse without further account of the\nyoung Jesus than that he grew and strengthened, filled with wisdom,\nand that the grace of God was upon him (Ibid., ii. 40). At twelve\nyears old, the blank is filled by a single event. His parents had gone\nto Jerusalem to keep the passover, taking Jesus with them. On their\nway back they missed him, and having failed to find him among their\ntraveling companions, returned to look for him at Jerusalem. There\nthey found him in the temple sitting among the doctors of the law,\nlistening to them and putting questions. Those who heard him are said\nto have been astonished at his intelligence. Questioned by his mother\nas to this extraordinary conduct, he replied, \"How is it that ye sought\nme? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?\" (Lu. ii.\n41-50.) Were this incident confirmed by other authorities, and did\nit stand in some kind of connection with the events that precede and\nfollow it, we might accept it as a genuine reminiscence of the boyhood\nof Jesus. That a precocious boy, eager for information, should take\nthe opportunity of a visit to the headquarters of Hebraic learning to\nseek from the authorities then most respected a solution of questions\nthat troubled his mind, would not in itself be so very surprising.\nAnd those who are familiar with the kind of inquiries made by clever\nchildren, especially on theological topics, will not think it strange\nthat his youthful wits should occasionally be too much for those of\nprofessed theologians. But the isolation in which this single event\nstands in the first thirty years of Christ's life, and the total\nabsence of confirmation from any other source, compel us to regard it\nas an invention designed to show an early consciousness in Jesus of his\nlater mission, and also to prove the inability of the doctors to cope\nwith him. We must, therefore, reject it along with the other myths of\nthe infancy, of which some are typical myths, others (like this) myths\npeculiar to Jesus, but none in the smallest degree historical.\n\nBefore entering on the later life of Jesus, let us note certain\ndifferences between Matthew and Luke in their treatment of the infancy,\nwhich will confirm the above conclusion. In the first place, it is\nto be observed that they effect the desired end by totally unlike\nmethods. Given the problem of getting the infant Christ born without\nthe assistance of a father, there were various ways in which readers\ncould be assured of the truth of such a miracle. One was to inform\nJoseph in a dream of the coming event; another was to announce it to\nMary by means of an angel. In choosing between these expedients each\nEvangelist is guided by his own idiosyncrasy. Matthew selects the\ndream; Luke the angel; and it is noteworthy that on other occasions\nthey exhibit similar preferences. Matthew gets out of every difficulty\nby a dream. In the course of his two first chapters he uses this\nfavorite contrivance no less than five times; four times for Joseph,\nand once for the magi (Mt. i. 20, and ii. 12, 13, 22). Twice, it is\ntrue, he mentions an angel of the Lord as appearing in the dream,\nbut the angel in his narrative plays a very subordinate part, and\nis, indeed, practically superfluous. With Luke, on the contrary, the\nprincipal agent in the events of the infancy is the angel, who supplies\nthe place of the dream in Matthew. An angel informs Zacharias that his\nwife is to have a son; an angel declares to Mary that she is destined\nto give birth to the Son of God; an angel announces that event to the\nshepherds after its occurrence; and angels appear in crowds above them\nas soon as the announcement has been made (Lu. i. 11, 26, and ii. 9,\n13). Another striking difference is the extreme fondness of Matthew\nfor ancient prophecies, and of Luke for little anthems and for songs\nof praise. The diverse natures of the two writers are well exemplified\nby this distinction; the former being the more penetrated with the\nhistory and literature of the Jewish race; the latter the more flexible\nand the more imbued with the spirit of his age. Hence, Matthew almost\navowedly constructs his narrative in such a manner as to ensure the\nfulfillment of the prophecies. After describing Mary's miraculous\nconception, he says that all this was done to fulfill Isaiah's words:\n\"Behold, a virgin shall conceive\" (more accurately; the maiden has\nconceived), \"and shall bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel\"\n(Mt. i. 23; Isa. vii. 14). And this he quotes, regardless of the fact\nthat Christ never was called Immanuel, and that if the one clause of\nthe prophecy is to be understood literally, so must the other. Thus\nalso he reveals his reason for assigning to Bethlehem the honor of\nbeing Christ's birthplace, when he places in the mouths of the priests\nat the court of Herod a verse from Micah, in which it is asserted that\nfrom Bethlehem Ephratah shall come a man who is to be ruler in Israel\n(Mt. ii. 6; Mic. v. 2). Further, he massacres the innocents in order to\ncorroborate a saying of Jeremiah (Mt. ii. 18; Jer. xxxi. 15), and he\ntakes Joseph and Mary to Egypt to confirm an expression of Hosea (Mt.\nii. 15; Hos. xi. 1). In each case, he perverts the natural sense of\nthe prophets; for in Jeremiah, the children are to return to their own\nland, which the innocents could not do; and in Hosea, the son who is\ncalled out of Egypt is the people of Israel. Lastly, in his exceeding\nlove of quoting the Old Testament, he commits the most singular blunder\nof all in applying to Christ the words spoken of Samson by the angel\nwho announced his birth. If, indeed, the allusion be to this passage\n(and it can scarcely be to any other), the Evangelist is barely honest;\nfor he converts the angelic words, \"he shall _be a Nazarite_,\" into the\nwords \"he shall _be called a Nazarene_\" (Mt. ii. 23; Judg. xiii. 5).\nSo Judaic a writer could hardly be ignorant that a Nazarite was not\nthe same thing as an inhabitant of Nazareth. But from whatever source\nthe quotation may come, its object plainly is to lead to the belief\nthat notwithstanding his birth at Bethlehem, Jesus was called by his\ncontemporaries a Nazarene.\n\nLuke does not trouble himself with the search for ancient oracles,\nbut indulges a far freer and more inventive genius. His personages\ngive utterance to their feelings in highly finished songs, which are\nsometimes very beautiful, but most certainly could never have been\nuttered by the simple people to whom he attributes them. Among these\nare the salutation of Elizabeth to Mary, and the still more elaborate\nanswer of Mary. Zacharias, the very instant he recovers his speech,\nrecites a complete hymn of no inconsiderable length (Lu. i. 68-79).\nAgain, Simeon expresses his joy at the birth of the Savior in a similar\nmanner (Ibid., ii. 29-32); but in his case it may be said that he had\nso long expected to see the Christ that his hymn of thanksgiving might\nwell be ready.\n\nPassing now to the manhood of Jesus, we find the four Evangelists all\nagreed in recording the baptism by John as the earliest known event in\nhis adult career, and it is unquestionably with this consecration by\na great man that his authentic life begins. Mark and John indeed were\nunaware of anything previous to this period, and the former introduces\nit by the words, \"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son\nof God\" (Mk. i. 1), showing that for him at least the history of his\nMaster began at this point. As usual, the myth appears in its simplest\nform in his pages. After applying to John the Baptist a prophecy by\nIsaiah, he states that this prophet was engaged in baptizing in the\nwilderness, and that all Judea and all the Jerusalemites went out\nto him and were baptized, confessing their sins. He declared that a\nmightier than he was coming after him, the latchet of whose shoes he\nwas unworthy to unloose. Jesus, like the rest of the world, went to be\nbaptized, and as he came out of the water he saw the heavens opened,\nand the Spirit descending on him like a dove. There was a voice from\nthe heavens, \"Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased.\"\nMatthew and Luke describe the baptism of John in a similar manner,\nMatthew adding a conversation between Jesus and John. They also mention\nthe baptism of Jesus, the descent of the dove, and the voice, but with\nslight variations. For whereas Mark merely says that _Jesus saw_ the\nheavens opened and the Spirit like a dove descending, and Matthew, in\nsubstantial accordance with him, relates that the heavens were opened\n[to him], and that _he saw_ the Spirit descend as a dove, Luke going\nfurther, pretends that the heavens were opened, and that the spirit did\ndescend in a bodily form like a dove upon him (Mk. i. 1-12; Mt. iii.;\nLu. iii. 1-22). Thus is the subjective fact in the consciousness of\nJesus gradually changed into an objective fact, a transition deserving\nto be noted as illustrative of the trivial changes of language by which\na myth may grow. Several other examples of a like process will meet us\nin the course of this inquiry. The scene at the baptism is described\ndifferently again in the fourth Gospel. There the testimony of John the\nBaptist to Christ is rendered far more emphatic; he receives him with\nthe words, \"Behold the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the\nworld;\" and he explains his knowledge of him by the fact that he has\nreceived a special revelation concerning him. On whomsoever he saw the\nSpirit descend and remain, that was he who was to baptize with the Holy\nGhost. Now he had seen the Spirit descend like a dove on Jesus, and\ntherefore had borne witness that he was the son of God (John i. 6-37).\nOf the opening of the heavens and of the voice nothing is said, and the\nmeaning of the whole story evidently is that this descent of the Spirit\nwas a private sign arranged between God and John the Baptist, but of\nwhich the bystanders either perceived nothing, or understood nothing.\nFor had they known that the Holy Ghost itself was thus bearing witness\nto Jesus, what need was there of the witness of John? It is evident,\nhowever, that even if they saw the dove flying down and alighting upon\nJesus, they were not informed that it represented the Holy Spirit. Thus\nthe whole fact is reduced to a peculiar interpretation given by John\nto a natural occurrence. We have then three versions of the baptismal\nmyth:\u2014in the first certain circumstances are perceived by Jesus; in the\nsecond they are perceived by John; in the third they actually occur.\n\nStrangely inconsistent with this distinct acknowledgment of Christ as\nthe son of God, is the inquiry addressed to him at a subsequent period\nby John the Baptist through his disciples. It appears that on hearing\nof the extraordinary fame of Jesus and of the course he was pursuing,\nJohn sent two disciples from the prison where he was confined to put\nthis question to him, \"Art thou he that should come, or do we expect\nanother?\" in other words, Are you the Messiah? Thus interrogated, Jesus\nreplied, not by appealing to the testimony of the dove at his baptism,\nor the voice from heaven, but by citing the miraculous cures he was\nthen performing. Nor did he in the least resent the doubt implied in\nJohn the Baptist's query. On the contrary, he immediately entered upon\na glowing panegyric of his precursor, describing him as the messenger\nsent before his face to prepare his way, and as the prophet Elias who\nwas expected to come\u2014(Mt. xi. 1-15; Lu. vii. 18-30)\u2014a title which in\nanother Gospel the Baptist had expressly repudiated (Jo. i. 21). This\nremarkable transaction between the two teachers could not easily have\noccurred, if the elder had previously discovered \"him that should\ncome\" in the person of Jesus. For then we must suppose that since\nthe baptism he had seen reason to hesitate as to the correctness of\nhis opinion. And in that case, could he have referred the question\nto Jesus himself for his decision? And could Jesus have employed the\nterms of praise here given, in speaking of one who had lapsed from his\nformer faith into a state of doubt? Plainly not. The Evangelists have\novershot the mark in their narrative of the baptism. Eager to make\nJohn bear witness to Jesus, they have forgotten that it was only at a\nlater period that he was convinced\u2014if he was convinced at all\u2014of the\nMessianic claims of the young man who had passed under his influence,\nand derived from him some of his earliest inspirations. His doubts are\nhistorical; his conviction is mythical.\n\nTemporary retirement into solitude naturally followed upon the\nconsecration administered by John in the baptismal rite. Jesus spent\nsome time wandering in a lonely place, the period of forty days\nassigned to this purpose being naturally suggested by the forty years\nof Israel's troubles in the wilderness. If there mingled among his\nmeditations any lingering feelings of reluctance to follow the course\npointed out by the Baptist, he would have afterwards described such\nfeelings as temptations of the devil. Hence, it may be, the story of\nhis conversations with Satan. These are not alluded to at all in Mark,\nwho simply mentions the fact that he was tempted by Satan. Neither\nis there any reference in Mark to fasting for the whole of the forty\ndays or any part of them. Greatly improving upon this bald version,\nthe other two Synoptics tell us that he ate nothing during all this\ntime, and describe the very words of his dialogues with the tempter.\nSatan had besought him to make bread out of stones; to cast himself\ndown from a high place, and to accept at his hands all the kingdoms\nof earth in return for a single act of worship (Mk. i. 12, 13; Mt.\niv. 1-11; Lu. iv. 1-13). Jesus, like the Buddha at the corresponding\nperiod of his life, emerged triumphant from the trial. It was by no\nmeans equal in severity to that which Sakyamuni underwent. He also\nwas obliged to overcome the devil before he could attain perfection.\n\"M\u00e2r\u00e2, the sinner,\" the Indian Satan, assailed him not only by\nforce of arms, despatching an immense army against him; but finding\nthis onslaught a failure, he tried the subtler mode of attempting\nto corrupt his virtue by the seductions of women. His beautiful\ndaughters were despatched with orders to display all their charms, and\nemploy all their fascinations before the young monk. They faithfully\nexecuted the commission, but all was in vain. Calm and unmoved, the\nBodhisattva regarded them with complete indifference, and emerged from\nthis severest of trials a perfect Buddha (R. T. R. P., vol. ii. p.\n286-327). In like manner Zarathustra was tempted by the Parsee devil,\nAngra-mainyus, who held out a promise of happiness if he would but\ncurse the good law. Like Jesus, Zarathustra repelled the suggestion\nwith indignation: \"I will not curse the good Mazdayasna law, not even\nif limbs, soul, and life were to part from one another\" (Av., vol. i.\np. 244.\u2014Fargard xix. 23-26).\n\nNot long after his return from the desert, Jesus took up his abode at\nthe village of Kapharnaoum, or Capernaum, in Galilee, Nazareth being\nin several ways uncongenial to him (Mk. ii. 1; Mt. iv. 12-16). In the\nfirst place it was the abode of his family, who did not believe in the\npretensions he now began to advance. Moreover, he was well known to\nthe Nazarenes as the carpenter, or the carpenter's son, and it seemed\nan unwarrantable presumption in their young townsman, undistinguished\nby advantages either of birth or education, to claim to become their\nteacher (Mk. vi. 3). His relations also not only discredited him by\ntheir unbelief, but occasionally took active measures to stop his\nproceedings (Mk. iii. 21, 31). From these and perhaps other causes, he\nentirely failed to accomplish any important miracle at Nazareth, and he\nhad to excuse his failure by the remark that a prophet is not without\nhonor except in his own country, among his own relations, and in his\nown house (Ibid., vi. 4). The more natural version\u2014that of Mark\u2014adds\nthat he marvelled because of their unbelief. With less simplicity\nMatthew relates, not that he was unable to do, but that he did not do\nmany mighty works there because of their unbelief (Mt. xiii. 54-58).\nFurther confirmation of the incredulity of the Nazarenes is afforded\nby their reception of a remarkable sermon said to have been delivered\nby Jesus in their synagogue. It seems that after he had preached in\nvarious parts of Galilee, and had been well received, he came to\nNazareth and, having read a Messianic prophecy from Isaiah, proceeded\nto apply it to himself. Having noticed the demand which he expected\nwould be addressed to him, that he should repeat there such works as\nhe was reported to have performed at Capernaum, he proceeded to convey\nby some pointed illustrations from the Old Testament the unflattering\nintimation that Nazareth was to be less favored by God than his adopted\nhome. Hereupon a storm arose in the synagogue, and an effort was made\nby the enraged audience to cast him from the brow of a hill. But he\nescaped in safety to his own residence at Capernaum (Lu. iv. 14-30).\n\nWhether or not any such sermon was preached or any such attempt upon\nhis life was made, the narrative bears further witness to the fact\nof ill success in the town where he had been brought up, and to his\npossession of a house or lodging at Capernaum. Whether he himself\nwas the owner of the abode, or whether it belonged to a disciple who\nreceived him (of which latter there is no evidence), makes little\ndifference; the representation afterwards made that foxes had holes,\nand birds had nests, but the son of man had not where to lay his head\n(Mt. viii. 19, 20; Lu. ix. 57, 58), is equally negatived by either\nsupposition. Mark and John know nothing of this condition of the son\nof man. In John's Gospel, indeed, it is distinctly contradicted by the\nstatement that two of the Baptist's disciples asked him to show them\nwhere he lived; that he did so, and that they staid with him that day\n(Jo. i. 39). Indirect evidence of the same kind is afforded by the\nnotice of an entertainment given by Jesus at his own house, to which\nhe invited a very promiscuous company. Luke, indeed, represents this\nfeast as having been given by Levi, but this is evidently for the sake\nof an artistic connection with the summons to Levi, which in all three\nnarratives immediately precedes it. For the same reason he departs from\nboth other Evangelists in making the scribes at this very feast put the\nquestion why Jesus and his disciples did not fast, which, according to\nthe more trustworthy version, is put by the disciples of the Baptist\n(Mk. ii. 18-22; Mt. ix. 14-17; Lu. v. 33-39). Thus Luke contrives to\nconvert three unconnected stories into a single connected one. That\nJesus received the more degraded classes of his countrymen on equal\nterms, and that his habits were not ascetic, are the important facts\nwhich we have to gather from these several statements.\n\nThe inference from the evidence on the whole is that Jesus was in\ncomfortable, though not opulent circumstances; and even had he been in\nwant, he had friends enough whose devotion would never have allowed him\nto remain without a good lodging and sufficient food.\n\nThese friends he seems to have begun collecting round him as soon as\nhe entered upon his career of preaching in Galilee. Among the earliest\nwere four fishermen, Simon and his brother Andrew, James and his\nbrother John. The first pair of brothers Jesus called away from their\noccupation, saying, \"Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men\"\n(Mk. i. 16-20; Mt. iv. 18-22). So say two Gospels, but a very different\naccount appears in John. There we are told that two of the disciples of\nJohn the Baptist having heard Jesus, left their master to follow him.\nOne of these two was Andrew, Simon's brother, and it was Andrew who\nwent and informed Simon that he had discovered the Messiah. On seeing\nSimon, Jesus addresses him, \"Thou art Simon the son of John; thou\nshalt be called Kephas\" (Jo. i. 38-43). Not a word is said here of the\ncalling of fishermen pursued by these brothers, nor of the remarkable\npromise to make them fishers of men. Moreover it is they who present\nthemselves to Jesus; not he who summons them. The two accounts are\nmutually exclusive.\n\nLuke has a third version, not absolutely irreconcilable with that of\nMark and Matthew, though inconsistent in all its details. According\nto him, Jesus had once been speaking to the people from Simon's boat,\nwhich was lying on the lake of Gennesaret. The address concluded, he\ndesired Simon to launch into the lake and let down the nets. Simon\nreplied that they had toiled all night and caught nothing; yet he\nwould obey. On casting out the net it was found to inclose so great a\nmultitude of fishes that it broke. Simon called to his partners, James\nand John, to come to his assistance, and both vessels were not only\nfilled with fish, but began to sink with the weight. Peter, ascribing\nthis large haul to the presence of Jesus, begged him to depart from\nhim, for he was a sinful man. Jesus told him, as in the other Gospels\nhe tells him and his brother Andrew (who does not appear here), that\nhe shall henceforth catch men. Hereupon all the three forsook all,\nand followed him; from which it must clearly be understood that they\nhad not followed him before. Thus, that which the simpler version\nrepresents as a mere summons, obeyed at once, is here converted into a\nsummons enforced upon the fishermen by a professional success so great\nas to appear to them miraculous, and to lead in their minds to the\ninference that since Jesus had commanded them to let down the nets, and\ntheir obedience had been thus rewarded, he was in some obscure manner\nthe cause of the good fortune which had attended their efforts (Lu. v.\n1-11).\n\nLeaving aside for the present all that is peculiar to John, who alone\nmentions the calling of Philip, there is but one other disciple\nconcerning whom we have any information as to the mode in which he was\nled to join Jesus. This is Levi, or Matthew, the publican. Jesus found\nhim sitting at the receipt of custom, and commanded him to follow him,\nwhich he instantly did (Mk. ii. 14; Mt. ix. 9; Lu. v. 27, 28). But\nwe are not compelled to suppose that from this time forward Levi did\nnothing but accompany Jesus or go through the country preaching the\nnew faith. He may have done so, or he may only have left his business\nfrom time to time to listen to the prophet who had so deeply impressed\nhim. For while three Evangelists mention this circumstance, only one of\nthem, and that the least trustworthy, adds that in following Jesus he\nleft all things.\n\nThe names of the other seven disciples are given with but a single\nvariation in all of the synoptical Gospels (Mk. iii. 14-19; Mt. x.\n1-4; Lu. vi. 12-16). To these twelve their master gave power to heal\ndiseases and to cast out devils, and sent them forth into the world to\npreach the coming of the kingdom of heaven, giving them instructions\nas to the manner in which they should fulfill their mission (Mk. iii.\n14, 15; Mt. x. 5-15; Lu. ix. 1-6). When not thus engaged, they were to\nremain about his person, and form an inner circle of intimate friends,\nto receive his more hidden thoughts, and help him in the work he had\nundertaken.\n\nThe four who were the first to join him seem to have stood towards him\nin a closer relationship than anyone else, and to have been in fact his\nonly thorough disciples during the earliest period of his life. For we\nread that after the cure of a demoniac effected in the synagogue at\nCapernaum (Mk. i. 21-28; Lu. iv. 31-37), he retired into the house\nof Simon and Andrew, with James and John, and there healed Simon's\nmother-in-law of a fever by the touch of his hands, a species of remedy\nwhich requires no miracle to render it effectual (Mk. i. 29-31; Mt.\nviii. 14, 15; Lu. iv. 38, 39). His reputation as a thaumaturgist had\nnow begun to spread, and crowds of people besieged his door, whom he\nrelieved of various diseases, and from whom he expelled many devils\n(Mk. i. 32-34; Mt. viii. 16, 17; Lu. iv. 40, 41). The anxiety of the\ndevils to bear witness to his Messiahship he repressed, on this as on\nother occasions. Mentioning these circumstances, Matthew, ever prone to\nstrengthen his case by the authority of a Hebrew prophet, cites Isaiah,\n\"He himself took our infirmities, and bore our sicknesses.\" Certainly\nnot a very happy application of prophecy; since it nowhere appears that\nJesus bore the diseases he cured, or was possessed by the devils he\nexpelled.\n\nAnxious to escape from the pressure of the people, who clamored for\nmiracles, he retired to a desert place to pray. But here Simon and\nothers followed him and told him that all men were seeking him. He\nreplied that he must carry his message to other villages also, and\nproceeded on a tour through Galilee, preaching and casting out devils\n(Mk. i. 35-39; Lu. iv. 42-44). It was on some occasion during this\nGalilean journey, when crowds, eager to hear his doctrine and see his\nwonders, had pressed around him from every quarter that he delivered\nthe celebrated sermon the scene of which is laid by Matthew on a\nmountain, and by Luke in a plain (Mt. chs. v.-vii., inclusive; Lu.\nvi. 20-49). A part only of this discourse has been preserved to us,\nfor Matthew has evidently collected into one a great number of his\nbest sayings, which were no doubt actually uttered on many different\noccasions and in many different places. Luke, with more sense of\nfitness, has scattered them about his Gospel, assigning to some an\nearlier, to others a later date. Notably is this unlike arrangement\nremarkable in the case of the Lord's prayer, and in nothing is the\nuntrustworthiness of these Gospels, as to all exterior circumstances,\nmore conspicuous than in their assigning to the communication of this\nmost important prayer totally different times, different antecedents,\nand different surroundings. For whereas Matthew brings it within his\nall-comprehensive sermon on the mount, Luke causes it to be taught\nin \"a certain place\" where Jesus was praying. The former makes Jesus\ndeliver it spontaneously; the latter in answer to the request of a\ndisciple; the former to a vast audience; the latter to the disciples\nalone (Mt. vi. 9-13; Lu. xi. 1-4).\n\nDiscrepancies like these evince the hopelessness of attempting to\nfollow with accuracy the footsteps of Christ. We can obtain nothing\nbeyond the most general conception of his movements, if even that; and\nof the order of the several events in his life we can have scarcely\nany notion. Discourses, parables, conversations, miracles, follow one\nanother now in rapid succession. Leaving the consideration of the\ndoctrines taught for another place, we will notice here, without aiming\nat a chronological arrangement, the principal scenes of his life; and,\nbeginning with his miracles, we will take before any others those in\nwhich devils are expelled; or as we should say, maniacs are restored to\nsanity.\n\nA strange miracle of this kind is related of a man in the country of\nthe Gadarenes or Gergasenes. Matthew indeed, according to a common\nhabit of his, has made him into two men, but the other two Evangelists\nagree that there was but one. This man was a raving lunatic, who had\ndefeated every effort to confine him hitherto made, and who lived\namong tombs, crying and cutting himself with stones. Seeing Jesus, he\naddressed him as the Son of the Most High God, and adjured him not to\ntorment him. On being asked his name, he said it was Legion, for they\nwere many. Having been ordered out by Jesus, he begged for leave to\nenter into a herd of swine which was feeding near at hand; this was\ngranted, and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea and\nwere all drowned, their number being about two thousand (Mk. v. 1-20;\nMt. viii. 28-34; Lu. viii. 26-39). After this wanton destruction of\nproperty, it is not surprising that the people \"began to pray him to\ndepart out of their coasts.\" Jesus on this occasion certainly displayed\na singular tenderness towards the devils, and very little consideration\nfor the unfortunate owners of the pigs. Nor did the Legion gain much\nby the bargain; for they lost their new habitation the moment they had\ntaken possession of it.\n\nThe disciples, as we have seen, had received power over devils, but\nit appears from a remarkable story that they were not always able to\nmaster them. For on returning to them after the transfiguration, Jesus\nfound a crowd about them engaged in some disputation. Having demanded\nan explanation, a man told him that he had brought his son, who was\nsubject to violent fits, probably epileptic (Mark alone makes him deaf\nand dumb), and begged the disciples to cure him, which they had been\nunable to do. Hereupon, Jesus, bursting into an angry exclamation\nagainst the \"faithless and perverse generation\" with whom he lived,\ntook the boy and healed him. Luke omits the private conversation with\nthe disciples which followed on this scene. They asked him, it is\nsaid, why they had been thus unsuccessful. The answer is different in\nMatthew and in Mark. In the former Gospel, he assigns a plain reason:\n\"because of your unbelief;\" adding afterwards, \"this kind does not\ncome out except by fasting and prayer.\" In Mark, the latter statement\nconstitutes the whole reply, no allusion being made to the disciples'\nunbelief. It is noticeable, however, that in Mark alone the father is\nrequired to believe before the boy is healed; a singular condition to\nexact, since belief may generally be expected to follow on a miracle\nrather than to precede it (Mk. ix. 14-29; Mt. xvii. 14-21; Lu. ix.\n37-43).\n\nIn the case of the Syro-ph\u0153nician woman, however, there was no need\nto impose it, for her faith, founded on the reputation of Jesus was\nperfect. This woman came to him when he had gone upon an excursion\nto the neighborhood of Tyre and Sidon, and begged him to cast out a\ndevil from her daughter, who was not present. He at first refused on\nthe ground of her being a Gentile, but after a remarkable dialogue,\nconfessed himself convinced by her arguments, and told her that on\nher return she would find the daughter cured, which actually happened\n(Mk. vii. 24-30; Mt. xv. 21-28). Here we have an instance of a remedy\neffected at a distance, which can scarcely be credited at all unless\non the supposition that the daughter knew of her mother's expedition,\nand had equal faith in Jesus. The probability is, however, that her\nrecovery is an invention, though the argument with the woman may\npossibly be historical.\n\nBelief in the production of diseases by demoniacal possession, and\nin the power of exorcism over diseases so produced, is the common\ncondition of mind in barbarous or semi-civilized nations. The phenomena\nwhich occurred in the first century in Judea are reproduced at the\npresent day in more than one quarter of the globe. Take, to begin with,\nthe theory of possession in Abyssinia, which I find quoted by Canon\nCallaway from Stern's \"Wanderings among the Falashes.\" Canon Callaway\nobserves that \"in Abyssinia we meet with the word _Bouda_, applied to\na character more resembling the Abatakadi or wizards of these parts\n[South Africa].... The _Bouda_, or an evil spirit called by the same\nname and acting with him, takes possession of others, giving rise to\nan attack known as 'Bouda symptoms,' which present the characteristics\nof intense hysteria, bordering on insanity. Together with the _Boudas_\nthere is, of course, the exorcist, who has unusual powers, and, like\nthe _inyanga yokubula_, or diviner among the Amazulu, points out\nthose who are _Boudas_, that is, Abatakati\" (R. S. A., part iii. pp.\n280, 281). Describing the diseases of the Polynesian islanders, the\nmissionary Turner says: \"Insanity is occasionally met with. It was\ninvariably traced in former times to the immediate presence of an\nevil spirit\" (N. Y., p. 221). Rising somewhat higher in the scale of\nculture, the Singhalese, as depicted by Knox, present the spectacle\nof patients whose symptoms are an almost exact reproduction of those\nwhich afflicted the objects of the mercy of Jesus. \"I have many times,\"\nhe relates, \"seen men and women of this country strangely possest,\ninsomuch that I could judge it nothing else but the effect of the\ndevil's power upon them, and they themselves do acknowledge as much. In\nthe like condition to which I never saw any that did profess to be a\nworshiper of the holy name of Jesus. They that are thus possest, some\nof them will run mad into the woods, screeching and roaring, but do\nmischief to none; some will be taken so as to be speechless, shaking\nand quaking, and dancing, and will tread upon the fire and not be hurt;\nthey will also talk idle, like distracted folk.\" The author proceeds to\nsay that the friends of these demoniac patients appeal to the devil for\ntheir cure, believing their attacks to proceed from him (H. R. C., p.\n77).\n\nThe striking successes of Jesus with maladies of this order naturally\nbrought him the reputation of ability to deal no less powerfully with\nother diseases. Accordingly, a leper presented himself one day, and\nkneeling to him said that if he wished he could make him clean. He\ndid so, and the leper, though enjoined to keep silence, went about\nproclaiming the power of Jesus, who was consequently besieged by still\nfurther throngs of applicants and of curious spectators (Mk. i. 40-45;\nMt. viii. 1-4; Lu. v. 12-16).\n\nIllustrating the manner in which he was pursued, we find a curious\nstory. Jesus was in his own house at Capernaum, when a paralytic,\nborne upon a couch, was brought to him to be healed. Unable from the\nconcourse about him to penetrate to Jesus, his bearers let him down\nthrough an opening in the roof. After forgiving the man's sins, which\nhe claimed a right to do, he told him to take up his bed and walk.\nThis the paralytic at once did, to the amazement of the bystanders\n(Mk. ii. 1-12; Mt. ix. 1-8; Lu. v. 18-26). Matthew, telling the same\nstory, omits the crowd and the circumstance of letting down the patient\nthrough the roof; and these adjuncts may be fictitious in the special\ncase, but in so far as they bear witness to the thaumaturgic repute of\nJesus, have in them an element of genuine history.\n\nOf various other miracles of healing with which Jesus is credited,\none of the most interesting is the alleged resuscitation of Jairus'\ndaughter. Jairus was a ruler of the synagogue; a personage therefore\nof some note in his district; and his daughter, a little girl of\ntwelve years old, was dangerously ill, and supposed by her friends\nto be at the point of death. At this critical moment Jairus repaired\nto Jesus, and requested him to come and lay his hands on the little\nmaid, that she might live. Jesus consented, but before he could reach\nthe house messengers arrived who informed Jairus that his child was\nalready dead; he need not trouble the master. None the less did Jesus\nproceed to the house, taking with him only the most intimate disciples,\nPeter, James, and John. Here a strange scene awaited him. About, and\nprobably in the sick-room had gathered a crowd of people, relations,\nfriends, and dependants of Jairus, who were engaged in raising a wild\nclamor of grief around the child. Flute-players were performing on\ntheir instruments, while their lugubrious music was accompanied by the\ntumultuous wailing and howling of the mourners. Jesus, having entered\nthe place, declared that the maiden was not dead, but sleeping; or\nas we should say, in a state of insensibility. The people laughed in\nderision at the assertion, but Jesus at once took the very proper and\nsensible measure of turning them all out of the room (which was either\nthe sick-room itself or one close to it), and taking the damsel's\nhand, commanded her to rise. She did so, and Jesus (again exhibiting\nexcellent sense) ordered that she should have something to eat (Mk.\nv. 21-24, and 35-43; Mt. ix. 18, 19, and 23-26; Lu. viii. 40-42,\nand 49-56). In this case we have a peculiarly valuable instance of\nthe manner in which miracles may be manufactured. Analyzed into its\nelements of fact and its elements of inference, we find in it nothing\nwhich cannot be easily understood without supposing either any exercise\nof supernatural power or any deliberate fraud in the narrators. Observe\nfirst, that in two out of the three versions the girl is reported by\nJairus not to be dead, but dying. True, before Jesus can get to her\nit is announced that she is actually dead. But Jesus, having reached\nthe house, and having evidently seen the patient (though this fact\nis only suffered to appear in Luke's version), expressly contradicts\nthis opinion, declaring that she is not dead, but unconscious. On what\nparticular symptom he founded this statement we do not know, but we\ncannot, without accusing Jesus of deliberate untruthfulness, believe\nthat he made it without reason. At any rate, the measures taken by\nhim implied a decided conviction of the accuracy of his observation.\nIf she were, as he asserted, not dead, though dangerously ill, the\nhubbub in the house, if suffered to continue, would very likely have\nrendered her recovery impossible. Quiet was essential; and that having\nbeen obtained, it was perfectly possible that under the soothing touch\nand the care of Jesus she might awake from her trance far better than\nbefore, and to all appearance suddenly restored to health. The crisis\nof her case was over, and it may have been by preventing her foolish\nfriends from treating that crisis as death, that Jesus in reality saved\nher life. And when she awoke, the order to give her food implied a\nstate of debility in which she could be assisted, not by supernatural,\nbut by very commonplace measures. Observe, however, the manner in\nwhich in this case the myth has grown. In two of the Gospels, Mark and\nLuke, Jairus comes to Jesus, not when his daughter is dead, but only\nwhen she is supposed to be at the last gasp. There is no reason from\ntheir accounts to believe that she died at all, her friends' opinion on\nthat point being contradicted by Jesus. But in Matthew the miracle is\nenhanced by the statement of the father to Jesus that she was just dead\n(Mt. ix. 18). Consistently with this account the message afterwards\nsent to him from his house is omitted. Again, while it seems from the\nmanner in which Matthew and Mark relate what happened, that the words\nof Jesus, \"The maiden is not dead, but sleepeth,\" preceded his entry\ninto her room, it is clear from Luke that they succeeded it. And this\nis consistent with the requirements of the case. Some of the mourners\nand attendants must obviously have been by the bedside, and he could\nnot turn them out till he was himself beside it. Then clearing the\nsick-chamber of useless idlers, he could proceed in peace to treat the\npatient; while if we suppose that these people were all outside the\ndoor, there is far less reason for their prompt expulsion. That this\nis the true explanation of the miracle I do not venture to assert; I\nhave only been anxious to show, by a single instance, how easily the\ntale of an astounding prodigy might arise out of a few perfectly simple\ncircumstances.\n\nA curious incident took place on the way to the house of Jairus. A\nwoman who had had an issue of blood for twelve years, came behind Jesus\nand touched his clothes, whereupon she was instantly healed. Jesus,\nturning round, told her that her faith had saved her (Mk. v. 25-34;\nMt. ix. 20-22; Lu. viii. 43-48). Such is the fact as related by the\nfirst Evangelist; but the other two, magnifying the marvel, place Jesus\nin the midst of a throng of people pressing upon him, and make him\nsupernaturally conscious that some one has touched him in such a manner\nas to extract remedial power out of him. Discovered by this instinct,\nthe woman tremblingly confesses her deed.\n\nNeither contact, however, nor even the presence of Jesus on the spot,\nwere essential to a miracle of healing. A centurion, having a paralytic\nservant, either went or sent others to Jesus, requesting that he would\nheal him. Before Jesus could reach the house, he declared that he\nwas unworthy of receiving him within it, but entreated that the word\nmight be spoken, adding that his servant would then be healed. This\nwas done; and Jesus took occasion to point the moral by contrasting\nthe faith of this heathen with that of the Jews, dwelling on the\nsuperior strength of the former (Mt. viii. 5-13; Lu. vii. 1-10). This\nmyth, which appears only in two Gospels, and in them with considerable\nvariations, seems to have been designed to glorify Jesus by making a\nRoman officer acknowledge his powers. This intention is more evident in\nLuke than in Matthew; for in Matthew the centurion comes himself; but\nin Luke he sends \"the elders of the Jews\" to prefer his request, their\nappearance evincing his importance, and therefore increasing the honor\ndone to Jesus by the suppliant attitude in which he stands. When Jesus\nis near his house the officer still does not approach in person, but\nsends friends, distinctly stating that he thought himself unworthy to\ncome himself, and intimating his belief that a mere word will be enough\nto heal his servant. It is impossible to see why this message might\nnot have been sent in the first instance by the elders, and the cure\neffected at once, but the two embassies to Jesus make a better story.\nThus, in this version the centurion, who in the other version gives an\ninteresting account of his official status, and receives the highest\npraise for his faith, never actually sees Jesus at all; and the eulogy\nis spoken not _to_ him, but _of_ him. Here, then, is another example of\nthe way in which tales of this kind grow in passing from mouth to mouth.\n\nSometimes much more materialistic means of healing were adopted. One\nday, by the sea of Galilee, a deaf and dumb man was brought to Jesus.\nIn this case he took the man aside, put his fingers into his ears,\nspat, touched his tongue, looked up to heaven, sighed, and said,\nEphphatha, or, Be opened (Mk. vii. 31-37). When a word was sufficient,\nit was singular to go through all these performances, and the whole\nproceeding has somewhat the air of a piece of jugglery. At Bethsaida\nhe dealt in like manner with a blind man, leading him out of the town,\nspitting upon his eyes, and then putting his hands upon him. Asked\nwhether he saw, the man replied that he saw men as trees walking,\nwhereupon a further application of the hand to his eyes caused him to\nsee clearly (Mk. viii. 22-26). Here the remark presents itself that if\nanything of the sort ever occurred, the man could not have been born\nblind, since he would then have been unable to distinguish either men\nor trees by sight. It must have been a blindness due to accident or\ndisease of the eyes, and might not have been total. But the whole story\nis probably mythical.\n\nTwo more miracles of healing rest on the authority of the third\nGospel alone. By one of them ten lepers, who had asked for mercy,\nwere suddenly cleansed after they had gone away. One only of the ten,\na S\u00e2maritan, turned round to glorify God and to utter his gratitude.\nJesus then observes: \"'Were not the ten cleansed? Where are the nine?\nWere there none found that returned to give glory to God, except this\nstranger?' And he said to him, 'Arise, go; thy faith hath saved thee'\"\n(Lu. xvii. 11-19). Here the intention of exalting the S\u00e2maritan above\nthe Jews is very evident.\n\nAnother prodigy was worked at the town of Nain, where the only son\nof a widow was just dead, and his body was being carried out to the\nburial-place. Jesus touched the bier, and the widow's son rose to life,\nto the terror of the spectators, who declared that a great prophet\nhad been raised up, and that God had looked upon his people (Lu. vii.\n11-17).\n\nThough the miracles of Jesus were principally of a remedial character,\nthere were others which were rather designed to evince his power.\nConspicuous among this class is that of feeding a multitude of five\nthousand people who had followed him into a desert place, and whose\nhunger he satisfied by the supernatural multiplication of five loaves\nand two fishes (Mk. vi. 30-45, and viii. 1-9; Mt. xiv. 14-21, and xv.\n29-38; Lu. ix. 10-17; Jo. vi. 1-15). Of this wonder a double version,\nslightly different in details, has been embodied in the first two\nGospels. It is plainly the same story coming from different sources.\nJohn, whose miracles are seldom identical with those of the synoptics,\nrelates this one nearly in the same way; except that according to him\nit was a lad and not (as in the other Gospels) the disciples, who had\nthe food on which the marvel was operated. The number of persons is\nstated in all four Gospels to be five thousand (and on the second\noccasion in the two first Gospels four thousand); but Matthew alone has\nstriven to enhance the miracle still further by adding to these numbers\nthe words, \"besides women and children.\"\n\nImmediately after this miracle the disciples entered a boat to cross\nthe lake of Galilee, leaving their master on land. A storm overtook\nthem at night, and as they were laboring through it, they saw Jesus\nwalking towards them on the water. Alarmed at such an apparition they\ncried out in fear; but Jesus reassured them, and was received into\ntheir boat, whereupon the wind fell (Mk. vi. 45-52; Mt. xiv. 22-33;\nJo. vi. 16-21). To this Matthew, unlike Mark and John, adds that Peter\nalso attempted the feat of walking on the lake; but being timid, began\nto sink, and had to be rescued by Jesus. John alone adds to the first\nmiracle a further one: namely, that immediately upon his entrance into\nthe ship, they were at the land whither they went.\n\nA somewhat similar performance is that of stilling a violent storm on\nthe lake of Galilee, which seems to have astonished even the disciples\nin the boat, accustomed as they must have been to prodigies. At least\ntheir exclamation, \"What sort of man then is this, that even the wind\nand the sea obey him?\" looks as if all his influence over devils and\ndiseases had failed to convince them of his true character (Mk. iv.\n35-41; Mt. viii. 23-27; Lu. viii. 22-25).\n\nAll doubt upon this score must have been removed in the minds of three\nat least of the disciples by a scene which occurred in their presence.\nPeter, James and John accompanied him one day to a high mountain,\nwhere he was transfigured before them; his raiment becoming white and\nshining. Elijah and Moses were seen with him, and Peter, evidently\nbewildered, proposed to make three tabernacles. A voice came from\nheaven: \"This is my beloved son: hear him.\" Suddenly the apparition\nvanished; Jesus alone remained with the disciples, and on the way\ndown charged them to tell no one of what they had seen till after the\nresurrection (Mk. ix. 2-13; Mt. xvii. 1-13; Lu. ix. 28-36). This is a\nsuspicious circumstance, which means, if it mean anything, that the\ntransfiguration was never thought of till after the death of Jesus,\nand that this order of his was invented to account for the otherwise\nunaccountable silence of the three disciples. For is it to be imagined\nthat Peter, James, and John could keep the secret of this marvelous\nevent, which was so well fitted to confirm the faith of believers, and\nto convince the Jews in general of the Messianic nature of the prophet?\nAnd if they did keep the secret, what weight is to be attached to their\nevidence, given long after the event, and when exalted views of the\ndivinity of the Christ who had risen from death were already current?\n\nSuch are some of the \"mighty works\" for which Jesus claimed, and his\ndisciples yielded, the title of \"son of man,\" or \"son of God,\" and\nassumed the authority of the \"Messiah\" whom the Jewish nation expected.\nBut this claim was recognized neither by the spiritual heads of the\nJews, nor by the great bulk of the people. Indeed he had given great\noffense to their religious sentiment both by putting forward such\npretensions, and by the opinions he had expressed on various topics.\nThe language which had caused their hostility, as belonging to his\nhistorical and not to his mythical personality, will be considered\nelsewhere. But the accounts\u2014semi-mythical, semi-historical\u2014which have\nreached us of the closing scenes of his life, must be passed under\nreview now.\n\nLong before his actual arrest, the Gospels tell us that he had\npredicted to his disciples the sufferings that were to befall him.\nPeter, according to one of the versions, had remonstrated with him on\nthese forebodings, and had received from him in consequence one of the\nsharpest reprimands he had ever given, with the opprobrious epithet\nof \"Satan.\" It is further stated that he prophesied his resurrection,\nand his return to earth in glory with the angels of his Father. To\nthis was added another prediction which proved false, that there were\nsome standing there who should not taste of death till the son of man\ncame in his kingdom. Gloomy expressions as to the necessity of his\nfollowers taking up their crosses and being ready to lose their lives\nalso escaped him (Mk. viii. 31-ix. 1; Mt. xvi. 21-28; Lu. ix. 22-27).\nA little later, he is said to have distinctly given vent to similar\nexpectations as to his approaching end, though without being able to\nmake himself understood by his disciples (Mk. ix. 30-32; Mt. xvii. 22,\n23; Lu. ix. 44, 45). Again, on the way to Jerusalem where he intended\nto celebrate the passover, he took all his twelve disciples aside, and\ndistinctly foretold his execution there, and his resurrection on the\nthird day (Mk. x. 32-34; Mt. xx. 17-19; Lu. xviii. 31-34).\n\nThose portions of his prophecies which related to his death at the\nhands of the Jewish rulers, though not those which related to his\nreturn in glory, were destined to be soon fulfilled. Determined to\ninsist publicly upon his title to the Messianic throne, Jesus resolved\nupon a triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Having sent two disciples from\nthe Mount of Olives to fetch a colt, hitherto unridden, which he\ninformed them the owners would surrender on hearing that the Lord had\nneed of it, he mounted this animal and rode into the city amid the\nshouts and acclamations of his supporters. Many are said to have spread\ntheir garments in his path; others to have cut down branches from\ntrees, and strewed them before him. Those that went before and behind\nhim kept cheering as he rode, exclaiming: \"Hosanna, blessed is he who\ncometh in the name of the Lord; blessed is the coming kingdom of our\nfather David; hosanna in the highest\" (Mk. xi. 1-11; Mt. xxi. 1-11; Lu.\nxix. 29-39; Jo. xii. 12-16).\n\nThis remarkable scene is described in all the Gospels; but while the\nthree first represent Jesus as sending to fetch the colt, or the ass\nand colt, which he in some mysterious manner knows that the man will\ngive up, the fourth makes him take the ass and mount it; not as in\nthe other versions before the triumphal reception, but after it had\nbegun. So that as to these important circumstances the two accounts\nare entirely at issue; that of John being the more natural. That Jesus\nactually entered Jerusalem in this fashion is highly probable, for\nwe find in the Gospels themselves a motive assigned which might well\nhave led him to select it for his approach to the capital. There was\na prophecy in Zechariah with which he was no doubt familiar: \"Rejoice\ngreatly, O daughter of Zion: shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold,\nthy King cometh unto thee, just and victorious is he; lowly, and riding\nupon an ass, and upon a foal, the young of asses\" (Zech. ix. 9). With\nthe views he held as to his Messiahship, Jesus may well have been\nanxious to show that this prophecy was fulfilled in his person.\n\nOn the day after his entry on the ass, on coming from Bethany he was\nhungry, and finding a fig-tree without fruit, he cursed it. Mark says\nthat the disciples found it withered the next day; Matthew increasing\nthe marvelous element, that they saw it wither \"immediately.\" Mark also\nadds that it was not the season for figs, which, if correct, would have\nmade it absurdly irrational in Jesus to expect them (Mk. xi. 12-14,\nand 20-26; Mt. xxi. 18-22). If we accept the more natural supposition\nthat it was the season, but that this individual tree was barren, then\nwe may easily understand that the absence of fruit and the withered\ncondition of the tree were both parts of the same set of phenomena, and\nthat the disciples may have observed them about the same time.\n\nHuman beings were the next victims of the wrath of Jesus. The\nmoney-changers and dove-sellers were turned out of the temple by him;\nthe fourth Gospel alone mentioning a scourge of small cords as the\nweapon employed (Mk. xi. 12-14; Mt. xxxi. 12, 13; Lu. xix, 45, 46;\nJo. ii. 15-18). A question put by the authorities as to his right to\nact thus was met by a counter-question, and finally left unanswered\n(Mk. xi. 27-33; Mt. xxi. 23-27; Lu. xx. 1-8.). The chief priests now\nconsulted together as to the measures to be taken with a view of\nbringing him to trial, but hesitated to do anything on the feast-day\nfor fear of popular disturbances. Matthew tells us, what the other\ntwo do not know, that they assembled at the palace of the high priest\nCaiaphas, and also puts in the mouth of Jesus a distinct prophecy that\nafter two days he will be betrayed to be crucified (Mk. xiv. 1, 2; Mt.\nxxvi. 1-5; Luke xxii. 1, 2.).\n\nA similar foreboding is expressed, according to Matthew, Mark, and\nJohn, in reference to an incident which is variously described by these\nthree Evangelists. Matthew and Mark agree in saying, that on this\noccasion he was taking a repast at the house of Simon the leper, when\na woman came up to him with a box of very precious ointment and poured\nit on his head. Here, according to Mark, \"some,\" according to Matthew,\n\"the disciples,\" were indignant at the waste of the ointment, which\nmight, they said, have been sold \"for much,\" or \"for three hundred\npence,\" and the proceeds given to the poor. But Jesus warmly took up\nthe woman's cause, for, he remarked, \"she has wrought a good work on\nme. For you always have the poor with you, but me ye have not always.\nFor in pouring this ointment on my body she has done it for my burial.\"\nMark now how strangely this simple story has been perverted in the\nfourth Gospel to suit the purposes of the writer. The date he assigns\nto it\u2014six days before the passover\u2014is nearly the same as that given in\nthe second Gospel, where it is placed two days before that festival.\nThe place, Bethany, is also identical. But the other circumstances are\nwidely different. In this Gospel alone is anything known of an intimate\nfriend of Jesus, Lazarus by name. In it alone is there any mention of\none of his most astounding miracles, the restoration of Lazarus to\nlife. Consistently with his peculiar notion of the relations of Jesus\nwith this man's family he says nothing of Simon the leper, but without\ntelling us in whose house Jesus was, mentions that Lazarus was among\nthe guests, and that his sister Martha was serving. Further, he asserts\nthat the woman who brought the ointment was Mary, the other sister.\nInstead of pouring it on his head, she is made to anoint his feet, and\nwipe them with her hair. Instead of the disciples, or some unknown\npeople, being angry at the waste, it is Judas Iscariot in whose mouth\nthe obnoxious comment is placed. The sum he names, three hundred pence,\nis the same as that assigned in Mark as the value of the ointment. But\nin order to cover Judas with still further obloquy, the Evangelist\ncharges him with a desire to obtain this sum, not for the poor, but\nfor himself; he being the bearer of the common purse, and being in the\nhabit of dishonestly appropriating some portion of its contents (Mk.\nxiv. 3-9; Mt. xxvi. 6-13; Jo. xii. 3-8). Of such an accusation not a\ntrace is to be found in the other Gospels, whose writers were assuredly\nnot likely to spare the reputation of Judas if it were open to attack.\nNor does the author of this insinuation offer one particle of evidence\nin its support.\n\nThe steps by which a story grows from an indefinite to a definite,\nfrom a historical to a mythical form, are admirably illustrated in\nthis instance. A tradition is preserved in which, while the main event\nis clear, many of the surrounding circumstances have been suffered\nto escape from memory. Writer after writer takes it up, and finding\nit thus imperfect, adds to it detail after detail until its whole\ncomplexion is altered. Even the main event may not always be exempted\nfrom the transfiguring process; as here, where the feet of Jesus are\nsubstituted for the head, and the interesting picture introduced of\nMary wiping them with her hair, and consequently placing herself in a\nsituation of the deepest humility. And if the central incident is thus\nunsafe, still more so are its adjuncts. First, the woman is unknown,\nas are those who murmur against her. Then, in the second stage, the\nwoman is still unknown, but the murmurers are known generally as the\ndisciples. But no bad motive is as yet assigned for their censure.\nLastly, in the third stage, the woman is known, the murmurer is known\nspecifically as _one_ disciple, and a bad motive is assigned for his\ncensure. Such is the way in which myths grow up.\n\nThe circumstance we have next to deal with is obscure, not because too\nmuch has been added, but because something has been omitted. Jesus had\nnow drawn upon him the mortal hatred of the priests of the temple.\nHe was well aware of his danger, as many of his expressions show. He\nendeavored to avoid it by living in concealment in or near Jerusalem.\nNot that we are told of this in so many words, but that the course of\nthe story renders it a necessary assumption. For all the Gospels inform\nus that one of his disciples, Judas named Iscariot, went to the chief\npriests and betrayed him, receiving a pecuniary reward for the service\nthus rendered (Mk. xiv. 10, 11; Mt. xxvi. 14-16; Lu. xxii. 3-6; Jo.\nxiii. 2, 27). As to this fact there is complete unanimity, and it is\nborne out by the manner of his arrest as subsequently depicted. We\ncannot then treat it as a fiction; but it is plain that had Jesus been\nleading the open and public life described in the Gospels, there would\nhave been no secret to betray, and no reward to be earned. A period,\nmore or less long, of retirement to some spot known only to friends,\nmust therefore be taken for granted. John alludes to something of the\nsort, though not distinctly, when he relates that there was a garden\nacross the brook Cedron, to which he often resorted with his disciples,\nand which was known to Judas. But the Christian tradition did not like\nto acknowledge that Christ, whom it represents as braving death, ever\nlurked in hidden places like a criminal, and at the same time it wished\nto brand the memory of Judas with infamy. Hence the suppression of a\nfact without which the story cannot be understood. The expressions,\n\"he sought how he might conveniently betray him\" (Mk. xiv. 11); or \"he\nsought opportunity to betray him\" (Mt. xxvi. 26), plainly point to the\nsame inference.\n\nThere are some differences in the manner in which the proceedings of\nJudas are related. All the Gospels agree that he received money, but\nMatthew alone knows how much. This Evangelist had in his mind a passage\nin Zechariah, which he erroneously attributes to Jeremiah, and which\nmoreover he misquotes (Mt. xxvii. 9). In the original it runs thus:\n\"And I said unto them [the poor of the flock], If it is good in your\neyes, give me my hire; and if not, forbear. And they weighed for my\nhire thirty pieces of silver.\"[26] Matthew and Mark merely state that\nJudas betrayed his master, giving no reason for his conduct. Luke,\nhowever, represents it as a consequence of Satan having entered into\nhim (Lu. xxii. 3); while John in like manner states that the devil put\nit into his heart, and even knows the very moment when Satan entered\ninto him (Jo. xiii. 2, 27). This Evangelist alone places the first\nsteps taken by Judas after the last supper, instead of before it, and\nstrangely enough so arranges the course of events, that he only acts\nupon the resolution to betray him after a distinct declaration by Jesus\nthat he was about to do so.\n\nSlightly anticipating the course of the narrative, we may mention here\nthe singular myth of the unhappy end of the traitor Judas; a myth\nwhich is of peculiar interest inasmuch as its origin is distinctly\ntraceable to a mistranslation of a verse in Zechariah. The passage\nquoted above continues thus: \"And Jehovah spoke to me: Throw it to the\ntreasure, the costly mantle with which I am honored by them; and I took\nthe thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the temple of Jehovah\nto the treasure.\" But the word here used for the treasure commonly\nsignifies potter, and was hence interpreted \"Throw it to the potter.\"\nOut of this mistake arose the story that Judas, ashamed of his bargain,\nreturned the money to the chief priests, who, deeming it unlawful to\nput it in the treasury, bought therewith the \"potter's field to bury\nstrangers in.\" Thus, observes Matthew, \"was fulfilled that which was\nspoken by Jeremy the prophet.\" Judas, having parted with his ill-gotten\ngain, committed suicide by hanging (Mt. xxvii. 3-10). So at least says\nMatthew; but Luke, making confusion worse confounded, represents Judas\nhimself as purchasing the field \"with the reward of iniquity;\" after\nwhich he fell headlong, and bursting in the middle, his bowels gushed\nout (Acts i. 18, 19). Of this notorious fact, \"known,\" according to the\nActs of the Apostles, \"to all the dwellers at Jerusalem,\" Matthew at\nleast was wholly ignorant. But both versions equally originate in the\ndefective Hebrew of the translators of Zechariah.\n\nIn all the synoptical Gospels, the celebration of the passover by\nJesus and his disciples succeeds the secret arrangement of Judas\nwith the high priests. He kept it in Jerusalem, in the house of a\nman whose name is not mentioned, but who must have been one of his\nadherents. The encounter with this man is represented in two of the\nthree versions as something miraculous. On the first day of unleavened\nbread Jesus told two of his disciples (according to Mark), James and\nJohn (according to Luke), to go into Jerusalem, where they would meet a\nman bearing a pitcher of water. Him they were to follow, and wherever\nhe went in, they were to say to the master of the house, \"Where is the\nguest-chamber, where I may eat the passover with my disciples?\" He\nwould then show them a large furnished upper room, where they were to\nprepare it. Nothing but a perfectly natural version of all this appears\nin Matthew. There Jesus tells his disciples to go into the city to\nSo-and-so (the name therefore having been given), and tell him that he\nwished to keep the passover at his house (Mk. xiv. 12-16; Mt. xxvi.\n17-19; Lu. xxii. 7-13). Here again we see how easily a wondrous tale\nmay originate in a very simple fact.\n\nSupper was accordingly prepared in the man's house, and Jesus ate the\npassover there with his disciples. At this supper, according to all\nthe Gospels, he mentioned the fact that one of them would betray him.\nWhether in so doing he actually named the traitor is uncertain. Mark's\naccount is that when he had predicted that one would betray him, the\ndisciples in sorrow inquired one by one, \"Is it I?\" and that Jesus told\nthem it was the one who dipped with him in the dish. Luke leaves it\nstill more indefinite. There Jesus merely says, \"the hand of him that\nbetrays me is with me on the table,\" and no further inquiry is made\nby any one. Matthew, like Mark, represents each disciple as asking\nwhether he was the one, and Jesus as giving the same indication about\nthe dish. But he adds that Judas himself asked, \"Is it I?\" and that\nJesus answered, \"Thou hast said.\" Quite different is the account in\nJohn. There, instead of all the disciples inquiring whether it was he,\na single disciple, leaning on the breast of Jesus, asks, on a sign\nfrom Peter, who it was to be. Jesus does not reply that it was he who\ndipped in the dish, but he to whom he should give a sop. He then gives\nthe sop to Judas, and tells him to do quickly that which he is about\nto do; words understood by no one present.[27] The improbability of\nany of these stories is obvious. In the three first, Judas is pointed\nout to all the eleven as a man who is about to give up their master to\npunishment, and probable death, yet no step was taken or even suggested\nby any of them either to impede the false disciple in his movements,\nor to save Jesus by flight and concealment. The announcement is taken\nas quietly as if it were an every-day occurrence that was referred to.\nJohn's narrative avoids this difficulty by supposing the intimation\nthat Judas was the man to be conveyed by a private signal understood\nonly by Peter and the disciple next to Jesus. These two may have felt\nit necessary to keep the secret, but why then could they not understand\nthe words of Jesus to Judas, or why not at least inquire whether they\nhad reference to his treachery, which had just before been so plainly\nintimated? That Jesus, with his keen vision, may have divined the\nproceedings of Judas, is quite possible; that he could have spoken of\nthem at the table in this open way without exciting more attention, is\nhardly credible.\n\nIt was at this same passover that Christ, conscious of his approaching\nend, blessed the bread and the cup of wine, and giving them to his\ndisciples, told them that the one was his body, and the other his blood\nin the new testament, or the new testament of his blood (Mk. xiv.\n22-25; Mt. xxvi. 26-29; Lu. xxii. 14-21; I Cor. xi. 23-25). John who\nwas confused about dates in his biography, supposes that this supper\ntook place before the feast of the passover, instead of at it, and,\nconsistently with this view, he says nothing of the institution of the\nEucharist, which had a peculiar reference to the Jewish feast-day.\nInstead thereof, he introduces another ceremony, of which neither the\nother Evangelists nor Paul say a word; that of washing the disciples'\nfeet by Jesus. This was done to make them \"clean every whit\" (though it\nhad no such effect on Judas), and also to set them an example of mutual\nkindness (Jo. xiii. 4-17).\n\nThe passover eaten, Jesus retired with his disciples to the Mount of\nOlives. Being in a prophetic mood, he foretold that all his disciples\nwould forsake him in the hour of danger now approaching, and that\nPeter would deny him. This Peter resented, though it was destined to\nbe soon fulfilled. After this Jesus went to Gethsemane, and taking\nhis three principal disciples apart from the rest, told them that his\nsoul was sorrowful unto death, and begged them to remain and watch\nwhile he prayed. Going a little forward, he prayed earnestly that the\ncoming trial might pass from him, yet with submission to God's will.\nReturning, he found his three friends asleep, and this happened twice\nagain, these devoted men sleeping calmly on until the very moment when\nthe officers of the Sanhedrim came to arrest their Lord. Luke adorns\nthis scene\u2014which he places at the Mount of Olives without mentioning\nthe garden of Gethsemane\u2014with ampler details. Mark and Matthew know\nnothing of the exact distance of Jesus from his disciples; Luke knows\nthat it was about a stone's throw. Moreover, all the number are\npresent, not only Peter, James, and John. Sweat like drops of blood\nfalls from Christ. An angel appears to strengthen him. All this is\nnew; as is the representation that the disciples were sleeping from\nsorrow,\u2014a motive which the Evangelist no doubt felt it needful to\nassign in order to vindicate their honor. The other two biographers,\nwho content themselves with saying that \"Their eyes were heavy,\"\ncertainly keep more within the limits of probability (Mk. xiv. 32-42;\nMt. xxvi. 36-46; Lu. xxii. 39-46).\n\nNo sooner was the prayer concluded than Judas, accompanied by a large\n_posse comitatus_ armed with swords and staves, came from the Jewish\nauthorities. Resistance to the arrest must have been expected, and\nnot wholly without reason; for as soon as the officers, in obedience\nto the preconcerted signal of a kiss from Judas, had seized Jesus, one\nof his party drew a sword and cut off the ear of the high priest's\nservant. This incident is related in various ways in all the Gospels.\nIn Mark, Jesus addresses no rebuke to the disciple who commits this\naction. In Matthew, he tells him to put up his sword, for all who\ntake the sword shall perish by the sword. In Luke, the progress to\ngreater definiteness which has been noted as characterizing these\nsemi-historical myths has begun. In the first place, before going to\nthe Mount of Olives, the disciples provide themselves with two swords;\nand Jesus, on their mentioning the fact, says, \"It is enough.\" Then the\nwriter knows that it was the right ear which was cut off. More than\nthis, he gives artistic finish to the whole by making Jesus touch the\nplace and heal the wound: though whether a new ear grew, or the old\none was put on again, he does not tell us. More definite still is the\nversion in John. This Evangelist, as we saw in another case, is fond of\nsupplying names. Thus, he pretends to know here that it was Peter who\ncut off the ear, and that its owner was called Malchus. Peter is called\nto order in his version, but Malchus is not healed. Plainly it was the\nsense of justice of the third Evangelist that made him shrink from\nleaving an innocent dependent in this mutilated condition, when he knew\nthat Christ might so easily have restored the missing member.\n\nWhile in the synoptical Gospels it is Judas who by a kiss points\nout Jesus, in John it is Jesus himself who comes forward to declare\nhimself. Hereupon the party deputed by the priests go backwards and\nfall to the ground. They soon recover themselves enough to arrest him.\nIn all the versions he suffers himself to be quietly taken, while in\nall but John he resents, with much dignity, the sending of such a force\nagainst him, as though he had been a thief; while in fact he had often\ntaught openly in the temple and had not been stopped. Their master\nonce taken, the courage of the disciples was at an end. They all fled.\nJesus was brought before the Sanhedrim, and evidence, of the tenor\nof which we are not informed, was produced against him. Lastly, two\nwitnesses deposed that they had heard him say, \"I am able to destroy\nthis temple, and in three days to rebuild it;\" or, \"I will destroy this\ntemple made with hands, and will build another not made with hands in\nthree days.\" Mark endeavors to depreciate these witnesses by saying\nthat their evidence did not agree; and he himself is liable to the\nremark that his report of their evidence does not agree with that of\nMatthew, while in neither Gospel does the utterance attributed by these\nmen to Jesus tally exactly with that assigned to him in John, \"Destroy\nthis temple, and in three days I will raise it up\" (Jo. ii. 19). The\nagreement, however, is close enough to render it probable that some\nsuch expression was used, and some such evidence given. Neither Luke\nnor John know anything of witnesses against Jesus. But Luke, in common\nwith the other synoptical Gospels, asserts that he not only admitted,\nbut emphatically confirmed the charge\u2014distinctly put to him by the high\npriest\u2014of being the Son of God. On this confession he was unanimously\nfound guilty of blasphemy.\n\nWholly different is the conduct of the trial in John, whose account,\nmoreover, is confused and ill-written in the extreme. With his usual\nproneness to give names, he says that Jesus was taken first before\nAnnas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas the high priest. Annas sent him\nbound to Caiaphas. The high priest (the council is not alluded to)\ncarried on an informal conversation with Jesus, inquiring about his\ndoctrine and disciples; questions which the latter, on the plea of the\npublicity of his teaching, refused to answer. There is no mention of\nblasphemy; no conviction on any charge; no expression of opinion on the\npart of Caiaphas; though from the fact that he committed the prisoner\nfor trial before the Roman court, it may be inferred that he considered\nhim guilty.[28]\n\nDuring the trial by the Sanhedrim, a singular scene was passing in the\nante-room. There Peter, who alone of the disciples had followed his\nmaster (for the mention of another is peculiar to John), was warming\nhimself among the attendants. Questioned by maids and officers of the\ncourt whether he had not been among the disciples of the accused, he\nvehemently, three several times, repudiated the supposition, though\nhis Galilean accent told heavily against him. According to John, the\nquestion was put on the third occasion by a relative of Malchus, who\nhad seen him in the garden. The other Evangelists are less specific.\nNow Jesus had foretold that Peter would thus deny him, and that his\nfalsehoods would be followed by the crowing of a cock. Immediately\nafter the last denial, this signal occurred; and Peter, according to\nall the Gospels but the fourth, went out and wept over his meanness.[29]\n\nConvicted by the Sanhedrim, the prisoner was now placed at the bar of\nthe civil tribunal. The procurator of Judea at this time was a man\nnamed Pontius Pilatus. His character does not stand high. Neander\nterms him \"an image of the corruption which then prevailed among\ndistinguished Romans\" (Leben Jesu, p. 687). Appointed in the year 23,\nhe was recalled in 37 on account of the slaughter of some S\u00e2maritans\nin a battle. He had insulted the prejudices of the people he governed\nby setting up the standards of the Roman army within the walls of\nJerusalem, and had threatened an armed attack upon the peaceable Jews\nwho went to C\u00e6sarea to remonstrate against this novel measure. On\nanother occasion he had taken some of the revenues of the temple to\nconstruct an aqueduct, and when the work was interrupted by the people,\nhad set disguised soldiers upon them, who killed them without mercy.\n\nSuch a man was not likely to be excessively troubled by scruples about\nthe execution of an innocent victim. On the other hand it is perfectly\npossible that he might, comparing the prisoner with the prosecutors,\nprefer the former. Having no love for the Jewish people, an object\nof their antipathy might become to a certain extent an object of his\nsympathy. But beyond this, it would be absurd to suppose that a man of\nthe character of Jesus would inspire him with any sort of regard, or\nthat he would hesitate to take his life if it suited his purpose. The\nsimplest account of the trial bears out this expectation. Questioned by\nPilate as to the charge preferred against him, of claiming to be the\nking of the Jews, the prisoner answered by an admission of its truth:\n\"Thou sayest it.\" To other accusations urged against him by the priests\nhe made no reply. Pilate wondered at his silence, and endeavored, but\nwithout success, to extract an answer. While the conduct of the accused\nman must have appeared to him not a little strange, Pilate may also\nhave thought that the pretensions to kingship of a peaceable fanatic,\nwith but few and obscure followers, were nowise dangerous to the Roman\ngovernment. It was his custom at this festival to release a prisoner,\nleaving the people, or the Jewish authorities, to decide whom. He now\nproposed to release Jesus, but the suggestion was not accepted, and the\nliberation of a well-known political prisoner, who had been engaged in\nan insurrectionary enterprise, was demanded instead. Pilate naturally\nenough preferred the would-be Messiah to the actual rebel. The Jews as\nnaturally preferred the rebel. They clamored for the crucifixion of\nJesus, and Pilate\u2014afraid perhaps that by too much anxiety to save him\nhe would expose himself to misrepresentation before Tiberius\u2014gave way\nto their demand.\n\nSo far Mark; and as to the charge against Jesus, and the procurator's\ntreatment of it, the other Evangelists are all at one with him. But\neach has adorned the trial with additional incidents after his own\nfashion. Matthew has a ridiculous story of an interference with the\ncourse of justice by Pilate's wife, who on the strength of a dream\nentreated him to have nothing to do with \"that just man.\" Matthew, as\nwe have seen before, was a great believer in dreams. Then he is so\ndesirous of clearing the character of the Roman, that he describes him\nas washing his hands in token of his innocence before the multitude,\nwho cry out that the blood of Jesus is to be on them and their\nchildren. In Luke, there is a new variation. Learning that Jesus was a\nGalilean, Pilate sent him to Herod, who had long been anxious to see\nhim, but who could not now induce him to answer any of his questions.\nHerod, like Pilate, found no fault in him, and sent him back after\ntreating him with ridicule. Pilate's reluctance to convict Jesus is\nmuch magnified in this Gospel. He insists on Herod's inability, as\nwell as his own, to discover any capital offense committed by him,\nand three several times proposes to the prosecution to chastise him\nand then dismiss him. In John, the conversation of Pilate with Jesus\nis wholly different. In the first place, it takes place alone, or at\nany rate in the absence of the accusers, for these had refused to be\ndefiled by entering the court; and Pilate is represented as going out\nto them to inquire into the charge. This is to suit the blunder about\ndates committed in this Gospel, according to which the last supper was\nbefore, and the trial at the very time of, the passover. The Jews,\ntherefore, stand without, and the prisoner is within. The prisoner does\nnot refuse, as in all the other versions, to answer Pilate's questions,\nbut enters at some length into his doctrine, explaining the unworldly\nnature of his kingdom. Pilate places the purple robe and the crown\nof thorns upon him before his condemnation, instead of after it, and\nthen tells the Jews that he finds no fault in him. Yet after this he\ndesires them to crucify him, although he was guiltless. Hereupon the\nJews tell him that he had made himself the Son of God. At this, Pilate\nis frightened, and enters into further conversation with Jesus. After\nhearing him expound another theory, he is still very anxious to release\nhim, but is forced to yield by an intimation that no friend of C\u00e6sar's\nwould protect a rival to the throne (Mk. xv. 1-14; Mt. xxvii. 1, 2,\nand 11-25; Lu. xxiii. 1-23; Jo. xviii. 28-40). Anything more utterly\nimprobable than this scene it is difficult to imagine. The picture\nof the Roman governor of Judea going backwards and forwards between\naccusers and accused; listening to the theological fancies of the\naccused; helpless against the pressure of the accusers; alarmed at the\npretensions to divinity of a young Galilean artisan; are sufficient in\nthemselves to stamp this Gospel with the mark of unveracity.\n\nSentenced to death, Jesus was now scourged; a purple robe was put\nupon him, and a crown of thorns about his head (not upon it as was\nafterwards said): he was saluted in mockery as king of the Jews, and\nsmitten with a reed upon the head. After this cruel ceremony he was led\nout to Golgotha to be crucified, a man named Simon being compelled to\nbear his cross (Mk. xv. 15-21; Mt. xxvii. 26-32; Lu. xxiii. 24-26; Jo.\nxix. 1-16). Luke is singular in the introduction of a large company of\nwomen who follow Jesus to the crucifixion and draw from him a prophecy\nof terrible evils to come upon them and their children; for themselves,\nand not for him, they were to weep (Lu. xxiii. 27-31). The other\nversions say nothing of any friends or followers, male or female, as\nbeing present at this period, though they do mention many women as\nlooking on from a distance during the crucifixion. These, however,\nwere not daughters of Jerusalem (like the women in Luke), but Galilean\nadmirers who had followed him to the capital. His mother was certainly\nnot among them, or she could not fail to have been mentioned in the\nsynoptical Gospels; whereas the only names we meet with are those of\nMary Magdalene; Mary, mother of James and Joses; and Salome, apparently\nthe same person as the mother of Zebedee's children (Mk. xv. 40, 41;\nMt. xxvii. 55, 56).\n\nThese were among the spectators of the melancholy end of him who had\nbeen their teacher and their friend. He was crucified between two\ncriminals, with an inscription on his cross which is differently\nreported in every Gospel, but of which the substance was that he was\nthe king of the Jews. A stupifying drink which Matthew (in accordance\nwith a supposed prophecy) (Ps. lxix. 21) calls vinegar and gall, was\noffered him by the executioners; not as Luke supposes, in mockery,\nbut with the humane intention of allaying the pain. His clothes were\ndivided among the party of soldiers; a circumstance in which the\nEvangelists as usual endeavor to see the fulfillment of prophecy. In\nPsalm xxii. 18, we read: \"They part my garments among them, and cast\nlots upon my vesture.\" The Synoptics content themselves here with\nstating that the soldiers drew lots for his clothing, but John anxious\nto fulfill this prophecy in the most literal manner possible, pretends\nthat they divided the articles of his apparel into four parts, but\nfinding the coat without seam, agreed not to tear it, but to apportion\nit by lot. Luke is the sole reporter of a saying of Jesus uttered in\nhis last moments: \"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they\ndo\" (Mk. xv. 23-28; Mt. xxvii. 34-38; Lu. xxiii. 32-34, 36; Jo. xix.\n17-24).\n\nThe pangs of death must have been greatly embittered to Jesus if\nit be true that not only the priests and passers by, but the very\ncriminals who were crucified with him, ridiculed his claim to be king\nof Israel, and suggested that he should prove it to demonstration by\nsaving himself from the cross. All the synoptical Gospels agree in\nthis account, with the single exception that Luke includes only one\nof the malefactors among the scorners. According to this Gospel, the\nother rebuked his fellow-convict for his misbehavior, and addressed\nto him a few moral remarks; which, however, were perhaps not quite\ndisinterested, for at its close he requested Jesus to remember him in\nhis kingdom, and received an ample reward in the shape of a promise\nfrom the latter that he should be with him that day in Paradise. But\nwhere was the impenitent criminal to be? About his fate there is an\nominous obscurity, and it evidently did not occur to the writer that\nthe forgiveness which Jesus had just been praying his Father to grant\nhis enemies, he might himself have extended to this miserable man (Mk.\nxv. 29-32; Mt. xxvii. 39-44; Lu. xxiii. 35-43).\n\nAnother incident of the closing hours of Jesus is known to the fourth\nEvangelist alone. According to the others, the women who watched him\nexpire were standing far off. But according to John, his mother Mary,\nher sister, and Magdalene were all at the foot of the cross. There also\nwas the disciple whom Jesus loved, and who in the three other Gospels\nhad run away. Before he died, Jesus committed his mother to the care\nof this disciple as to a son, and he afterwards took her home. The\ndogmatic purpose of this story is evident. Mary had not been converted\nby her son during his life-time, and it was important to bring her to\nthe foot of the cross at his death, and to place her in this close\nconnection with one of his principal disciples (Jo. xix. 25-27).\n\nAs to the last words of Jesus, there is an amount of divergence which\nshows that no account can be regarded as trustworthy. Mark and Matthew\nboth relate that he called out, \"Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?\" an\nexclamation which he may really have uttered, or which, as coming\nfrom a prophetic Psalm, may have seemed to them appropriate. Hereupon\na sponge of vinegar was offered him under the impression that he was\ncalling Elias, and with a loud cry he gave up the ghost. In Luke he\ncries loudly, and then says, \"Father, into thy hands I commend my\nspirit.\" With these words (also from one of the Psalms) upon his lips,\nhe dies. In John he says, \"I am thirsty:\" and after receiving some\nvinegar, adds, \"It is finished;\" and bowing his head, gives up the\nghost (Mk. xv. 34-37; Mt. xxvii. 46-50; Lu. xxiii. 46; Jo. xix. 28-30).\n\nWith the death of Christ, and indeed immediately before it, we pass\nfrom the region of mixed history and mythology into that of pure\nmythology. With the exception of his burial, all that follows has been\ndeliberately invented. The wonders attendant upon his closing hours\nbelong in part to the typical order of myths, and in part to an order\npeculiar to himself. The darkness from the sixth to the ninth hour, the\nrending of the temple veil, the earthquake, the rending of the rocks,\nare altogether like the prodigies attending the decease of other great\nmen. The centurion's exclamation, \"Truly this man was just,\" or \"Truly\nthis man was the son of God\" (it is differently reported), is a myth\nbelonging peculiarly to Christ, and designed to exhibit the enforced\nconfession of his greatness by an incredulous Roman. In Matthew, where\nthe more modest narratives of Mark and Luke are greatly improved upon\nby additional details, it is further added that many bodies of saints\narose, and after the resurrection appeared to many in Jerusalem (Mk.\nxv. 33-39; Mt. xxvii. 45, and 51-54; Lu. xxiii. 44-47).\n\nJohn, who knows nothing whatever of the darkness, the accident to the\ntemple veil, the revival of the saints, or the centurion's exclamation,\nhas a myth of his own constructed for the especial purpose of\nfulfilling certain prophecies. The next day being a festival, the Jews,\nhe says, were anxious that the bodies should not remain on the crosses.\nThey therefore requested Pilate to break their legs and remove them. He\nordered this to be done, and the legs of the two criminals were broken,\nbut not those of Jesus, who was already dead; one of the soldiers,\nhowever, pierced his side, from which blood and water gushed out. The\nwriter adds a strong asseveration of his veracity, but immediately\nbetrays himself by letting out that in relating the omission to break\nthe legs of Jesus he was comparing him to the Paschal lamb, of whom not\na bone was to be broken; while in telling of the soldier who pierced\nhis side, he was thinking of a phrase in Zechariah: \"They shall look\nupon me whom they have pierced\" (Zech. xii. 10; Jo. xix. 31-37).\n\nThe burial of the body took place quietly. Joseph of Arimath\u00e6a, a\nsecret admirer of Jesus, placed it in a new sepulchre of his own.\nWith him John associates a character who exists only in his Gospel,\nNicodemus, and whom he introduces here as taking some part in the\ninterment. To the circumstance of the burial in the rock sepulchre,\nMatthew adds an audacious fiction of his own; namely, that the chief\npriests, remembering Christ's prediction that he should rise on the\nthird day, obtained leave to seal the stone of the tomb and keep it\nwatched, lest the disciples should take the body by night and pretend\nthat he was risen (Mk. xv. 42-47; Mt. xxvii. 57-66; Lu. xxiii. 50-56;\nJo. xix. 38-42).\n\nCertainly if the Evangelist had meant to convey the impression that\nno human means could prevent the resurrection of Christ, he would\nhave been perfectly right. An actual body was not necessary for the\npurpose. For the legends appertaining to the resurrection belong\nto a region in which imagination, unhampered by the controlling\ninfluence of historical fact, has been permitted the freest play. Of\nthe appearances of Jesus after his death we have accounts by no less\nthan seven different hands, each story being distinct from, though\nnot always inconsistent with, the other six. Let us begin with what\nis probably the oldest of all, containing but a germ of the rest; the\nfirst eight verses of the last chapter of Mark. There we are told that\non the day after the Sabbath, Mary Magdalene, Mary James's mother, and\nSalome went to the sepulchre at sunrise. They found it empty, the stone\nhaving been rolled away. A young man in white clothes was sitting in\nit. He told them that Jesus was risen, and desired them to tell the\ndisciples that he was going to Galilee, where they would see him. All\nthat follows in this Gospel is added by a later hand, and the very\nfirst verse of the addition is plainly written in total disregard of\nwhat has just preceded it. Observe then that _the simplest form of the\nstory of the resurrection contains no mention of any actual appearance\nof Jesus whatever_, but merely an assertion that the body was not in\nthe tomb, and that a man, sitting inside it, made certain statements to\nthree women. To this the forger has added that Jesus appeared first to\nMagdalene, whose account, given to the disciples, was disbelieved by\nthem; secondly, to two disciples while walking, whose evidence was also\ndisbelieved; thirdly, to the eleven at dinner, to whom he addressed a\ndiscourse (Mk. xvi.).\n\nThe writer of the first Gospel is much more elaborate. He was a little\nembarrassed by the guards whom he had set to watch the tomb, whom it\nwas essential to find some convenient method of getting out of the\nway. Like Mark, he takes the two Marys (not Salome) to the sepulchre\nearly on the first day of the week; unlike Mark, he does not make them\nexamine the tomb and find it deserted. On the contrary, there is an\nearthquake (the author is rather fond of these natural convulsions),\nand an angel with a face like lightning, clothed in the purest white,\ndescends. He rolls back the stone and sits upon it. His appearance so\nterrifies the keepers that they become like corpses. The angel tells\nthe women that Jesus is risen, and that they are to let the disciples\nknow that he would go before them to Galilee, where they would see him.\nAs they are engaged on this errand, Jesus himself appears and gives\nthem a similar injunction. The second appearance occurred before the\neleven disciples, who saw him at an appointed place in Galilee, \"but\nsome doubted.\" Here Jesus addressed to them a parting discourse, and\nthis Gospel does not state how or when he quitted them. The awkward\ncircumstance of the presence of the guards, who had certainly not\ntestified to the angel's descent, had still to be surmounted. This is\naccomplished by a ridiculous story that they had been heavily bribed by\nthe priests and elders to say that the disciples had stolen the body\nwhile they were asleep (Mt. xxviii).\n\nUnlike either of the preceding writers, Luke conceives the first\nappearance of the risen Christ to have been, not to the women, but to\ntwo disciples. He does indeed relate that on the morning of the first\nday of the week Magdalene, Mary, Joanna, and other women went to the\ntomb, and found the stone rolled away and the body gone. While they\nwere wondering at this, two men in shining garments stood by them,\nand told them that he whom they sought was risen. They returned to\nreport to the apostles, to whom their words seemed as idle tales.\nPeter, however, ran to the sepulchre to verify their statement, and\nfound only the clothes in it. Two of the disciples were going that\nsame day to Emmaus. While walking and talking, a stranger joined them\nand entered into a conversation, in which he expounded the prophecies\nrelating to the Messiah. They requested this man to remain with them\nfor the night at the house where they were lodging. During supper he\ntook bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to them; whereupon they\nrecognized him as Jesus, and he vanished from their eyes. On returning\nto Jerusalem, they found the eleven and the rest asserting that Christ\nwas risen and had appeared to Peter. The two wanderers related their\nexperiences in their turn. While the disciples were talking, Jesus\nhimself appeared in their midst, and said, \"Peace unto you.\" Some\nskeptical doubts, however, troubled them even now, for Jesus thought it\nnecessary to prove his actual carnality by showing his hands and feet,\nas well as by eating some broiled fish and a piece of honeycomb. After\nthis he \"opened their understanding,\" by an expository discourse in\nreference to some of his own sayings and to the Scriptures; concluding\nwith an exhortation to remain at Jerusalem till they were endowed with\npower from on high (Lu. xxii. 1-49). This last passage is explained by\nthe same author in the Acts of the Apostles to refer to the descent\nof the Holy Ghost upon the apostles, which in that work is much more\ndefinitely promised by Jesus (Acts i. 5, 8). We also find in it an\nimportant addition to the details furnished by the Gospel about the\nresurrection; namely, that Jesus was seen by his disciples for forty\ndays after his physical death, during which time he kept speaking to\nthem about matters pertaining to the kingdom of God (Acts i. 3).\n\nDirectly contradicting Mark and Matthew, John states that Magdalene\n(no one else is mentioned) went to the sepulchre while it was still\ndark (not at dawn or sunrise), and found the stone taken away. Making\nno further inspection, she ran to Peter and to the beloved disciple,\nsaying that the body had been abstracted. The two ran together to the\nplace, and going in, found the clothes lying in the tomb, whereupon\nthe beloved disciple \"saw and believed,\" though what he believed is\nnot stated. Magdalene was standing outside; but after the two men had\nconcluded their examination she entered, and saw what they had not\nseen\u2014two angels, sitting one at each end of the place where the body\nhad been. These angels asked her why she was weeping; she answered,\nbecause her Lord's body had been taken. Turning round, she saw a man\nwhom she at first took for the gardener, but whom she soon recognized\nas Jesus. She returned and informed the disciples that she had seen\nhim. The same day, in the evening, Jesus appeared to the disciples,\nsaid, \"Peace unto you,\" and showed them his hands and feet. He then\nbreathed the Holy Ghost into them, and gave them authority to remit\nor retain sins. Thomas, who was not present on this occasion, roundly\nrefused to believe these facts unless he himself could touch the marks\nof the nails, and put his hand into the side. A week later Jesus again\nappeared, and Thomas was now enabled to dispel his doubts by actual\nexamination of his person. To these three appearances, with which the\ngenuine Gospel closed, a later hand has added a fourth. According\nto this new writer, a number of disciples were about to fish on the\nlake of Tiberias, when Christ was observed standing on the shore. The\nmiraculous draught of fishes is introduced here in a form slightly\ndifferent from that which it has in Luke. By acting on a direction from\nJesus, the disciples caught a vast number. He then bade them come and\ndine with him, which they did. After dinner, he instructed Peter to\nfeed his flock, and hinted that the beloved disciple might possibly\nlive till his return in glory (Jo. xx., xxi.).\n\nCompletely different from any of these narratives is the account of the\nresurrection contributed by Paul. It is somewhat confused and difficult\nto understand. Christ, he says, rose on the third day according to the\nScriptures, and was seen by Cephas; then by the twelve; after that by\nmore than five hundred brethren; after that by James; next by all the\napostles; and lastly by himself (1 Cor. xv. 3-8). It is to be noted\nthat since Paul does not say that Christ appeared _first_ to Cephas,\nwe may if we please combine with this account one of those which make\nhim appear first to Magdalene, or to her and other women. But even then\nthe difficulties do not disappear. For how could so notorious an event\nas the manifestation of Christ to five hundred people be passed over\n_sub silentio_ in all the Gospels and in the Acts? And granting that\nPaul may by an oversight have put \"the twelve\" for \"the eleven,\" are\nwe not compelled to suppose that \"all the apostles\" are distinct from\n\"the twelve,\" and if so, who are they? What, again, are we to think\nof the appearance to James, of which nothing is said elsewhere? Above\nall, what are we to think of the fact that the purely spiritual vision\ngranted to Paul, which was not even seen by his traveling companions,\nis placed by him exactly on a level with all the other reappearances of\nChrist, the physical reality of which so much trouble has been taken to\nprove?\n\nComparing now the several narratives of the resurrection with one\nanother, we find this general result. In Mark, Jesus is said to have\nappeared three times:\u2014\n\n  1. To Mary Magdalene.\n  2. To two disciples.\n  3. To the disciples at meat.\n\nTwo such appearances only are recorded in Matthew:\u2014\n\n  1. To the women.\n  2. To the eleven in Galilee.\n\nIn Luke he appears:\u2014\n\n  1. To Cleopas and his companion.\n  2. To Peter.\n  3. To the eleven and others.\n\nIn the two last chapters of John the appearances amount to four:\u2014\n\n  1. To Mary Magdalene.\n  2. To the disciples without Thomas.\n  3. To the disciples with Thomas.\n  4. To several disciples on the Tiberias lake.\n\nPaul extends them to six:\u2014\n\n  1. To Peter.\n  2. To the twelve.\n  3. To more than 500.\n  4. To James.\n  5. To all the apostles.\n  6. To Paul.\n\nUpon this most momentous question, then, every one of the Christian\nwriters is at variance with every other. Nor is this all, for two of\nthe number bring the earthly career of Jesus to its final close in a\nmanner so extraordinary that we cannot even imagine the occurrence of\nsuch an event, of necessity so notorious and so impressive, to have\nbeen believed by the other biographers, and yet to have been passed\nover by them without a word of notice or allusion. Can it be for a\nmoment supposed that two out of the four Evangelists had heard of the\nascension of Christ\u2014that the most wonderful termination of a wonderful\nlife\u2014and either forgot to mention, or deliberately omitted it? And may\nit not be assumed that Paul, when detailing the several occasions on\nwhich Christ had been seen after his crucifixion, must needs, had he\nknown of it, have included this, perhaps the most striking of all, in\nhis list? In fact the ascension rests entirely on the evidence of two\nwitnesses, both of them comparatively late ones, the forger of the\nlast verses of Mark, and the third Evangelist. Neither of them stand\nas near the events described as the true author of Mark, as Matthew,\nor as Paul, from no one of whom do we hear a word of the ascension.\nNor do even these two witnesses relate their story in the same terms.\nThe finisher of Mark merely tells us that after his parting charge to\nthe eleven, he was received into heaven and sat at God's right hand; a\nstatement couched in such general terms as even to leave it doubtful\nwhether there was any distinct and visible ascension, or whether Jesus\nwas merely taken to heaven like any other virtuous man, though enjoying\nwhen there a higher precedence (Mk. xvi. 19). Especially is this doubt\nfostered by the fact that this Gospel, when speaking of the witnesses\nto Christ's resurrection, never alludes to any of the physical proofs\nof his actual existence so much dwelt upon in Luke and the last chapter\nof John. Very much more definite is the statement at the close of the\nthird Gospel. There it is related that Jesus led his disciples out to\nBethany, where he blessed them and that, in the very act of blessing,\nhe was parted from them and carried up into heaven (Lu. xxiv. 50, 51).\nThe same author subsequently composed the Acts of the Apostles, and in\nthe interim he had greatly improved upon his previous conception of\nthe ascension. When he came to write the Acts, he was able to supply,\nwhat he had omitted before, the last conversation of the master with\nthe disciples he was about to leave; he knows too that after the final\nwords\u2014no blessing is mentioned here\u2014he was taken up and received by a\ncloud; that while the disciples were gazing up, two men in white\u2014no\ndoubt the very couple who had been seen at the sepulchre\u2014 were\nperceived standing by them, and that these celestial visitors told them\nthat Jesus would return from heaven in the same way in which he had\ngone to it (Acts i. 9-11). Unhappy Galileans! little could they have\ndreamt for how many centuries after that day their successors would\nwatch and wait, watching and waiting in vain, for the fulfillment of\nthat consoling prophecy.\n\nCasting a retrospective glance at the stories of the Resurrection\nand the Ascension, we may perhaps discern at least a psychological\nexplanation of their origin and of the currency they obtained. Whatever\nother qualities Jesus may have possessed or lacked, there can be\nno question that he had one\u2014that of inspiring in others a strong\nattachment to himself. He had in his brief career surrounded himself\nwith devoted disciples; and he was taken from their midst in the full\nbloom of his powers by a violent and early death. Now there are some\nwho have been taught by the bitter experience of their lives how\ndifficult, nay, how impossible it is to realize in imagination the\nfact that a beloved companion is in truth gone from them forever. More\nespecially will this mental difficulty be felt when he whom death has\nparted from our sides is young, vigorous, full of promise; when the\ninfinite stillness of eternal rest has succeeded almost without a break\nupon the joyous activity of a well-spent life; when the being who is\nnow no more was but a moment ago the moving spirit of a household, or\nthe honored teacher of a band of friends who were linked together by\nhis presence.\n\nWhere the association has been close and constant; where we have been\naccustomed to share our thoughts and to impart our feelings; where,\ntherefore, we have habitually entwined not only our present lives,\nbut our hopes and wishes for the future around the personality of the\ndead, this refusal of the mind to comprehend its loss is strongest of\nall. Emotion enters then upon a strange conflict with Reason. Reason\nmay tell us but too distinctly that all hope of the return of the\nbeloved one to life is vain and foolish. But Emotion speaks to us in\nanother language. Well nigh does it prevent us from believing even\nthe ghastly realities which our unhappy eyes have been compelled to\nwitness. Deep within us there arises the craving for the presence of\nour friend, and with it the irrepressible thought that he may even yet\ncome back to those who can scarcely bear to live without him. Were\nthese inevitable longings not to be checked by a clear perception\nthat they originate in our own broken hearts, we should fancy that we\nsaw the figure of the departed and heard his voice. In that case a\nresurrection would have taken place for us, and for those who believed\nour tale. So far from the reappearance of the well-known form seeming\nto be strange, it is its failure to reappear that is strange to us in\nthese times of sorrow. We fondly conceive that in some way the dead\nmust still exist; and if so, can one, who was so tender before, listen\nto our cry of pain and refuse to come? can one, who soothed us in\nthe lesser troubles of our lives, look on while we are suffering the\ngreatest agony of all and fail to comfort? It cannot be. Imagination\ndeclines to picture the long future of solitude that lies before us.\nWe cannot understand that we shall never again listen to the tones of\nthe familiar voice; never feel the touch of the gentle hand; never be\nencouraged by the warm embrace that tells us we are loved, or find a\nrefuge from miserable thoughts and the vexations of the world in the\naffectionate and ever-open heart. All this is too hard for us. We\nlong for a resurrection; we should believe in it if we could; we do\nbelieve in it in sleep, when our feelings are free to roam at pleasure,\nunrestrained by the chilling presence of the material world. In dreams\nthe old life is repeated again and again. Sometimes the lost one is\nbeside us as of old, and we are quite untroubled by the thought of\nparting. Sometimes there is a strange and confusing consciousness\nthat the great calamity has happened, or has been thought to happen,\nbut that now we are again together, and that a new life has succeeded\nupon death. Or the dream takes a less definite form. We are united\nnow; but along with our happiness in the union there is an oppressive\nsense of some mysterious terror clouding our enjoyment. We are afraid\nthat it is an unsubstantial, shadowy being that is with us; the least\ntouch may dissipate its uncertain existence; the slightest illness may\nextinguish its feeble breath. Granting only a strong emotion and a\nlively phantasy, we may comprehend at once how, in many lands, to many\nmourners, the images of their dreams may also become the visions of\ntheir waking hours. They see him again; they know that he is not gone;\nhe is beside them still.\n\nBut for us, who live in a calmer age, and see with scientific eyes,\nthere is no such comfort. Not to us can the bodily forms of those who\nhave gone before us to the grave appear again in all the loveliness of\nlife. In the first shock of our bereavement we may indeed indulge in\nsome such visionary hope; but as day after day passes by and leaves us\nin a solitude that does but deepen with the lapse of time, we learn to\nunderstand only too well that we are bereft forever. Hope gradually\ndwindling to a fainter and fainter remnant, is crushed at last by the\nmiserable certainty of profound despair. Yet even then, the mind of\nman refuses to accept its fate. The scene of the reunion, which we\ncannot but so ardently desire, is postponed to another season and to\na better world. Many are they to whom this final hope is an enduring\nconsolation, but if even that should fail us in the hour of darkness,\nas the more primitive and simpler hope failed before it; if here again\nemotion is reluctantly compelled to yield to reason; then there is\nstill one refuge in despondency, and a refuge of which we can never\nbe deprived. It is the thought that death, so cruel now, will one day\nvisit us with a kinder touch; and that the tomb, which already holds\nthe nearest and the dearest within its grasp, will open to receive us\nalso in our turn to its everlasting peace.\n\n\n                   SUBDIVISION 3.\u2014_The Ideal Jesus._\n\nThe Gospel attributed by the current legend to St. John differs from\nthe other three Gospels in almost every respect in which difference\nis possible. The events recorded are different. The order of events\nis different. The conversations of Jesus are different. His sermons\nare different. His opinions are different. The theories of the writer\nabout him are different. Were it not for the name and a few leading\nincidents, we should be compelled to say that the subject of the\nbiography himself is different. A more conspicuous unlikeness than that\nof the synoptical to the Johannine Jesus it is not easy to conceive\nin two narratives which depict the same hero. In the synoptical\nGospels Jesus is plain, direct, easy of comprehension, and fond of\nillustrating his meaning by short and simple parables. In John he is\nobscure, mystical, symbolic, and of his favorite method of teaching\nby parables there is not a trace. Both descriptions cannot be true.\nIt would be monstrous to suppose either that the synoptical Gospels\nomitted some of his most extraordinary miracles and some of his most\nremarkable discourses, or that the Gospel of John passed over in\nsilence the whole of that side of his character which is portrayed\nin the ethical maxims, the parables, and the exhortations of its\npredecessors. Were it so, none of the four could be accepted as other\nthan an extremely one-sided and imperfect biography, and each of them\nis plainly regarded by its author as complete within itself. None of\nthem refers to extraneous sources to supplement its own deficiencies.\nThe concluding verse of the fourth Gospel does indeed allude to many\nunrecorded actions of Jesus, which, if they were all written, would\nfill more books than the world could contain. But, not to rely on\nthe fact that the last chapter is spurious, these words contain no\nintimation that a mode of teaching completely different from that here\nrecorded was ever employed by Jesus. And this is the point in which\nJohn's narrative is peculiar. Again, to turn to the Synoptics, there\nis no shadow of an intimation in them that, between the last supper\nand arrest, Jesus addressed to his disciples a long and remarkable\ndiscourse, full of the most interesting revelations. Can we suppose\nthat they could have forgotten it, delivered as it was at such a moment\nas this, the very last before their master's condemnation at which he\nwas able to speak to them? Such a supposition is utterly untenable. The\ntwo traditions embodied in these versions of his life do not therefore,\nas some learned men\u2014Ewald, for example\u2014have supposed, supplement, but\nexclude one another.\n\nLet us enter into detail into some of the peculiar characteristics of\nthe Jesus of John. In the first place, we may note that his miracles\nare altogether new. One of them at least is so astounding that no\nbiographer who had heard of it could have passed it by. The raising\nof Lazarus is the greatest feat that Jesus ever performed. In other\ncases he brought persons who were supposed to be just dead to life,\nbut skeptical Jews might have suspected that they had never in reality\ndied at all. Ample precautions against such cavils were taken in the\ncase of Lazarus. This man lived at Bethany, and his sisters, Mary and\nMartha, were devoted admirers of Jesus. These women sent word to Jesus,\nwho had retired \"beyond Jordan,\" to say that their brother was ill.\nHe replied that this illness was for the glory of God. After he had\nheard of it he remained two days in the same place. Then, disregarding\nthe dissuasions of the disciples, who reminded him that the Jews had\nrecently sought to stone him, he proceeded towards Judea. He informed\nthem in that obscure manner which he almost invariably affects in this\nGospel, that Lazarus was asleep; but on their misunderstanding him,\nconsented to speak plainly and say that he was dead. He added that\nfor their sakes he was glad he had not been there, in order that they\nmight believe\u2014even the disciples' faith being apparently still in need\nof confirmation. On reaching Bethany, he found that Lazarus had been\nburied four days. Martha, who came to meet him, observed that had he\nbeen there, her brother would not have died, and that even now whatever\nhe asked of God would be given. Jesus told her that her brother would\nrise again; a saying which she interpreted as referring to the general\nresurrection; but he replied that whoever believed in him would never\ndie, and required of her an explicit declaration of her faith in this\ndogma. Martha evaded the inquiry by a profession of her conviction\nthat he was the Christ and went to summon Mary. She too remarked that\nif he had been there Lazarus would not have died. Distressed by her\ndistress, Jesus himself wept. Going to the grave, he ordered the stone\nwhich covered it to be removed, in spite of Martha's objection that\nputrefaction had set in. A curious scene followed. \"Jesus lifted up\nhis eyes and said, 'Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. And\nI know that thou hearest me always, but because of the people which\nstand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me.'\" We\nmust suppose these last words to have been spoken _sotto voce_, for\n\"the people which stood by\" would have been little likely to believe\nin him had they known that the thanksgiving to God was a mere pious\npretence, offered up for the purpose of impressing their imaginations\nby the event that was to follow. Knowing that his father always heard\nhim, he certainly had no occasion to thank him on this one occasion;\nif indeed he could properly be thanked at all for taking the necessary\nmeasures to ensure the credit of his own son, in whom he desired\nmankind to believe, and who is over and over again described as one\nwith himself. This is perhaps the only instance in any of the Gospels\nin which something like hypocrisy is ascribed to Jesus; in which he\nis represented as consciously acting a part for the benefit of the\nbystanders, and speaking simply with a view to effect. Happily for\nhis reputation we are not obliged to believe in the accuracy of his\nbiographer. After this he called loudly, \"Lazarus, come forth.\" The\ndead man accordingly arose, and came forth from the tomb clad in his\ngrave-clothes (Jo. xi. 1-46). His restoration to life was permanent,\nfor we find him afterwards among the guests at a supper to which Jesus\nwas invited (Jo. xii. 2).\n\nAnother singular miracle to which there is no allusion in any other\nGospel is that which is here declared to be the first; the conversion\nof water into wine. Jesus was at a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and when\nthe wine provided for the entertainment had all been consumed, his\nmother informed him of the state of things. He gave her a repelling\nanswer; but she told the servants to do what he bade them. He then\nordered six waterpots to be filled with water, and the contents to be\ndrawn. It was found that they contained wine of a superior quality to\nthat at first provided (Jo. ii. 1-11).\n\nThe second miracle according to John is not unlike some of those\nrecorded elsewhere. It consisted in the cure by a mere word, without\nvisiting the place, of a nobleman's son who was on the point of death.\nThis time also Jesus was at Cana, though the patient lay at Capernaum\n(Jo. iii. 46-54). Another cure was wrought at the pool of Bethesda,\nthe healing virtues of which are known only to this Gospel. A man who\nhad long been lying on its steps, too infirm to descend at the proper\nmoment, was enjoined to rise and walk, which he did (Jo. v. 1-9). It\nis singular that although \"a great multitude of impotent folk\" were\nwaiting at the pool, many of whom must needs have been kept long, since\nonly one could be cured each time the water was troubled, this man\nalone was selected for the object of a miracle. Why were not all of\nthem healed at once?\n\nNot only are the most wonderful proofs of Christ's divinity contained\nin this Gospel unknown to the rest, but its _dramatis person\u00e6_ are\nin several respects altogether novel. Nathanael, whose difficulties\nabout thinking that any good thing can come from Nazareth are overcome\nin a conversation with Jesus (Jo. i. 45-51); Nicodemus, the secret\nadherent who came by night and received instruction in the doctrine\nof regeneration (Jo. iii. 1-21), who at a later period supported him\nagainst the attacks of the Pharisees (Jo. vii. 51), and lastly brought\nspices to his interment (Jo. xix. 39); Lazarus, brother of Mary and\nMartha, who owed him his life (Jo. xi. 44; xii. 2); the woman of\nS\u00e2maria, to whom an important prophecy was made, and whose past life he\nknew by intuition (Jo. iv. 1-30); are all new personages, and they hold\nno mean place in the story. The immediate attendants on his person are\nno doubt the same; but the representation that there was one disciple\n\"whom Jesus loved\" above the rest, and to whom a greater intimacy was\npermitted (Jo. xiii. 23), is uncountenanced by anything in the other\nGospels; and indicates a fixed purpose of exalting the apostle John\nabove his compeers.\n\nWhile the scene, the persons, and the plot are thus diverse, the\nstyle of the principal actor is in striking contrast to that which\nhe employs elsewhere. Its most conspicuous characteristic is the\ncontinual recurrence to symbols. It is true that in the other Gospels\nJesus frequently exchanges the direct explanation of his views for the\nindirect method of illustration. But an illustration serves to clear up\nthe meaning of a speaker, a symbol to disguise it. Illustrations cast\nlight upon the principal thesis; symbols merely darken it. And this\nis the difference between the synoptical and the Johannine Jesus. The\none is anxious to be understood; the other, in appearance at least,\nis seeking to perplex. Hence the exchange of the parable for the\nsymbol. The number of such symbols in John is considerable. Jesus is\ncontinually inventing new ones. Near the beginning of the Gospel, he\nexplains to Nicodemus that it is needful to be born again; a statement\nby which Nicodemus is considerably perplexed (Jo. iii. 3, 4). But his\nsymbols are more generally applied to himself or his relations to the\nFather. He is the bread of life or the bread of God (Jo. vi. 33-48);\nagain, he is the living water (Jo. iv. 10), or he gives a water which\nprevents all future thirst (Jo. iv. 14); he is the true vine, his\nFather the husbandman, and his disciples the branches (Jo. xv. 1-5);\nelsewhere he is both the good shepherd and the door by which the sheep\nenter the fold (Jo. x. 7-16); he is the way, the truth, and the life\n(Jo. xiv. 6); he is the light that came into the world (Jo. xii. 46;\niii. 19); or he is the Resurrection and the Life (Jo. xi. 25). John the\nBaptist, also, unlike the John of the other Gospels, adopts the same\nmanner. Christ is spoken of by him as the Lamb of God, which takes away\nthe sins of the world (Jo. i. 29); or as the Bridegroom whose voice\nhe rejoiced to hear, while he himself was but the Bridegroom's friend\n(Jo. iii. 29). Sometimes \"the Jews,\" as they are termed in this Gospel,\nare puzzled by the enigmatical style of Jesus, the sense of which they\ncannot unriddle. Thus, when he tells them that if they destroy the\ntemple he will rebuild it in three days, they are naturally unable to\nperceive that he is speaking of the temple of his body (Jo. ii. 19-21).\nThey murmured because he spoke of himself as the Bread that came down\nfrom heaven, nor was any explanation offered them beyond a reiteration\nof the same statement (Jo. vi. 41-51). Not only the Jews, but also many\nof his own partisans, were hopelessly perplexed by the statement that\nno one could have life in him who did not eat his flesh and drink his\nblood (Jo. vi. 53, 60), a statement which differs materially from that\nmade at the passover (in the other Gospels), where the bread and wine\nwere actually offered as signs of his flesh and blood, and the apostles\nalone (who were present) were required to receive them. At other times\nhe confused them by mysterious intimations that he was going somewhere\nwhither they could not come, and that they should seek him and be\nunable to find him (Jo. vii. 33-36; viii. 21, 22). On one occasion, his\nauditors were unable to comprehend his assertion that he must be lifted\nup, and requested him to explain it. The only reply was another enigma,\nnamely, that the light was with them but a little while, and that\nthey should believe in it while they had it (Jo. xii. 32-36). To such\nlanguage they might well have retorted, that what they had from him was\nnot light, but a twilight in which no object could be distinctly seen,\nand which never advanced towards clear daylight.\n\nClosely connected with this tendency to speak in obscure images was\nhis predilection for argument with the Jews on abstruse theological\ntopics. In the other Gospels he teaches the people who surround him,\nand the subject of his teaching is generally the rules of moral\nconduct; comparatively seldom theology. In John he does not so much\nteach as dispute, and the subject of the dispute is not morals\u2014a field\nhe scarcely ever enters\u2014but his personal pretensions. Upon these he\ncarries on a continual wrangle, supporting his claims by his peculiar\nviews of the divine nature and of his relation to it (Jo. v. 16-47;\nvi. 41-59; vii. 14-36; viii. 12-29; ix. 39-41; x. 19-37). In the same\nspirit the blind man whom he cures enters into a discussion with the\nPharisees on the character of him who had restored his sight (Jo.\nix. 24-34). The Jews are depicted as continually occupied about this\nquestion. Even their own officers receive from them a reproof for\nmaking a laudatory remark about him (Jo. vii. 47, 48), while Nicodemus,\nwho interposes in arrest of judgment, is sharply asked whether he also\nis of Galilee (Jo. vii. 51-52).\n\nThe very best instruction of Jesus is not given, as in the other\nGospels, to a multitude, but is reserved for a select circle of his\nown followers. It is in the 14th, 15th, and 16th chapters that he\nrises to the sublimest heights of his doctrine, and the whole of this\nremarkable discourse is delivered to the disciples after Judas has\nleft the supper-table in order to betray him. The substance of his\nteaching is no less peculiar than its occasions. The writer conceives\nof him as holding an altogether singular relation to the Father, and\nthat relation he represents his Christ as continually expounding and\ninsisting upon as of vital moment. The Evangelist himself begins his\nwork by a concise statement of his doctrine on this point. The Logos,\nhe says, was with God in the beginning; the Logos was God. All things\nwere made by it, and nothing was made without it. In it was life, and\nthe life was the light of men. This Light came into the world, but the\nworld did not know him. Even his own, whoever these may have been,\ndid not receive him. To those who did receive him, he gave power to\nbecome the sons of God; and these were born, not of blood, nor of the\nwill of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. The Logos was\nmade flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, as of the\nonly-begotten of the Father (Jo. i. 1-14).\n\nThe language of Christ is duly adjusted to this very speculative\ntheory. Thus, he scandalizes the Jews by the bold assertion that he and\nhis Father are one; and adds to their horror by further maintaining\nthat he is in the Father, and the Father in him (Jo. x. 30, 38).\nElsewhere, Philip is required to believe in the same truth. In reply to\nhis ignorant request that he may be shown the Father, he is told that\nseeing Jesus is equivalent to seeing the Father. Moreover, the Father\nwho dwells in Christ performs the works which are apparently done by\nChrist alone (Jo. xiv. 9-11). The disciples, too, are included in this\nmystic unity, for they are in Jesus in the same sense in which he is in\nGod (Jo. xiv. 20; xvii. 21, 23). His Father, nevertheless, is greater\nthan himself (Jo. xiv. 28). Jesus has been glorified with the Father\nbefore the world existed, and looks forward to a return to that glory.\nHe wishes that those who have been given him on earth may be with him\nto behold the glory which God, who loved him before the foundation of\nthe world, has given him. That glory he has given them, and they are to\nbe one, even as he and his Father are one; he in them, and God in him\n(Jo. xvii. 5, 22-24).\n\nAfter these preliminary observations, we need not dwell long on the\nhistorical incidents of the Gospel, of which there are but few. The\nmeeting of Jesus with Andrew and Simon, and his reception of Nathanael,\nrelated in the first chapter, have already been noticed. It only\nremains to be said, that Nathanael was deceived by a prophecy which\nwas not fulfilled; for at the end of the interview, Jesus, referring\nto his amazement that he had been discovered under the fig-tree, which\nhad quite put him off his balance, tells him that he shall see greater\nthings than these, and especially mentions among them the opening of\nthe heavens and the descent of angels upon the Son of man. Nathanael\nnever saw anything of the kind (Jo. i. 35-51).\n\nThe conversion of water into wine follows next. A peculiarity in the\nnotions of this writer is evinced by the assertion that his mother and\nbrothers went with him to Capernaum, for his family do not accompany\nhim, according to any other statement, while here his mother not only\nis with him, but is aware that he is able to work a miracle (Jo. ii.\n1-12). Jesus, after visiting Capernaum, proceeded for the passover to\nJerusalem, where it is said that many believed in him because of his\nmiracles. His expulsion of the money-changers, however, brought him\ninto collision with the authorities of his nation, who asked him for\na sign; a question to which he replied by the undertaking to rebuild\nthe temple, if destroyed, in three days (Jo. ii. 13-25). But one of\nthe Jewish rulers, named Nicodemus, was disposed to believe in his\npretensions. This man came to him by night, and heard from him a long\ntheological disquisition (Jo. iii. 1-21). Jesus then went into Judea,\nand remained there with his disciples baptizing his converts. John the\nBaptist is made to bear an emphatic testimony to his superiority (Jo.\niii. 22-36). A visit to S\u00e2maria is the occasion for an interesting\ndialogue with a S\u00e2maritan woman who had come to draw water at a well;\nand her report leads the inhabitants to come out and see the prophet by\nwhom she had been so much impressed.\n\nThis incident is reproduced with curious fidelity in a Buddhist story.\nAnanda, one of Sakyamuni's disciples, met with a Matangi woman, one\nof a degraded caste, who was drawing water, and asked her to give him\nsome of it to drink. Just as the S\u00e2maritan wondered that Jesus, a\nJew, should ask drink of her, one of a nation with whom the Jews had\nno dealings, so this young Matangi girl warned Ananda of her caste,\nwhich rendered it unlawful for her to approach a monk. And as Jesus\nnevertheless continued to converse with the woman, so Ananda did not\nshrink from this outcast damsel. \"I do not ask thee, my sister,\" he\nreplied, \"either thy caste or thy family; I only ask thee for water,\nif thou canst give me some.\" The Buddha himself, to whom the Matangi\ngirl afterwards presented herself, treated her with equal kindness.\nHe contrived to divert the profane love she had conceived for Ananda\ninto a holy love of religion; much as Jesus led the S\u00e2maritan from\nthe thought of her five husbands, and of him who was not her husband,\nto the conception of the universal Father who was to be worshiped \"in\nspirit and in truth.\" And as the disciples \"marveled\" that Jesus should\nhave conversed with this member of a despised race, so the respectable\nBrahmins and householders who adhered to Buddhism were scandalized\nto learn that the young Matangi had been admitted to the order of\nmendicants (Jo. iv. 1-42; H. B. I., pp. 205, 206).\n\nAfter two days spent at S\u00e2maria Jesus went on to Galilee, where\nhe healed the nobleman's sons (Jo. iv. 43-54). Having returned to\nJerusalem for another feast, he cured the impotent man on the Sabbath,\nwhich endangered his life at the hands of the indignant Jews, and led\nhim to deliver a long vindication (Jo. v). The feeding of the five\nthousand was followed by an attempt to make him king, from which he\nprudently escaped. The disciples took ship to go to Capernaum, and\nJesus joined them by walking on the water. On the ensuing day he\npreached to the people who followed him, and shocked even some of the\ndisciples by the loftiness of the claims he advanced. Many of them are\nsaid to have left him at this time (Jo. vi).\n\nA singular proceeding is now mentioned. Urged by his brothers, who were\nstill incredulous, to go to Jerusalem for the feast of tabernacles, he\ndeclined on the ground that his time was not yet come. When they were\ngone he himself went also, though secretly (Jo. vii. 1-10). There is\nno reason assigned for this little stratagem, and he soon emerged from\nhis incognito and taught openly in the temple. The public mind was\nmuch divided about his character, some maintaining him to be Christ,\nothers contending that Christ could only come from the seed of David\nand the town of Bethlehem. An attempt to arrest him failed, owing to\nthe impression he made upon the police (Jo. vii. 11-53). A discussion\nwith the Jews was terminated by their taking up stones to throw at\nhim, a peril from which he escaped apparently by miracle (Jo. viii.\n12-59; verses 1-11 are spurious). Further offense was given by the\nrestoration of a blind man's sight on the Sabbath (Jo. ix). A discourse\non his title to authority provoked divisions, and at the feast of\nthe dedication he was plainly asked whether he was the Christ. His\nanswer again led to an attempt to stone him, from which he escaped\nto the place beyond Jordan where John had formerly baptized (Jo. x).\nThe raising of Lazarus and the anointing by Mary are the next events\nrecorded (Jo. xi. 1-xii. 9). The passover followed six days after the\nlatter incident, and his preaching at this festival was interrupted\nin a singular manner. Jesus had used the words, \"Father, glorify thy\nname!\" whereupon a voice was heard from heaven, saying, \"I both have\nglorified it, and will glorify it again.\" Thereupon Jesus observed that\nthis voice came not for his sake, but for that of the bystanders. It\nseems, however, to have produced but little effect upon them, for a few\nverses later we find a complaint that, in spite of his many miracles,\nthey did not believe in him (Jo. xii. 12-50). The last supper with the\ndisciples was immediately succeeded by a parting discourse of much\nbeauty, conceived in an elevated tone; and his last moments of freedom\nwere occupied in a prayer of which the pathos has been rarely equaled\n(Jo. xiii.-xvii).\n\nThe remainder of his career\u2014his trial, execution, and alleged\nresurrection\u2014have been fully treated in another place.\n\n\n           SUBDIVISION 4.\u2014_What did the Jews think of him?_\n\nVictorious over Jesus Christ at the moment, the Jewish nation have,\nfrom an early period in Christian history, been subject in their\nturn to his disciples. Their polity\u2014crushed under the iron heel of\nVespasian, scattered to the winds by Hadrian\u2014vanished from existence\nnot long after it had successfully put down the founder of the new\nfaith. Their religion, tolerated by the heathen Romans only under\nhumiliating and galling conditions, persecuted almost to death by the\nChristians, suffered until modern times an oppression so terrible and\nso cruel, that but for the deep and unshakeable attachment of its\nadherents, it could never have survived its perils. Hence the course\nof events has been such that this unhappy nation has never until quite\nrecently enjoyed the freedom necessary to present their case in the\nmatter of Jesus the son of Joseph; while the gradual decay of the\nrancor formerly felt against them, at the same time that it gives them\nliberty, renders it less important for them to come forward in what\nwould still be an unpopular cause. Thus it happens that one side only\nin the controversy, that of the Christians, has been adequately heard.\nThey certainly have not shrunk from the presentation of their views.\nEvery epithet that scorn, hatred, or indignation could suggest has been\nheaped upon the generation of Jews who were the immediate instigators\nof the execution of Jesus, while all the subsequent miseries of their\nrace have been regarded\u2014by the party which delighted to inflict\nthem\u2014as exhibitions of the divine vengeance against that one criminal\nact. Nor have even freethinkers shrunk from condemning the Jews as\nguilty of gross and unpardonable persecution, and that towards one who,\nif they do not think him a God, nevertheless appears to them singularly\nfree from blame. On the one side, according to the prevailing\nconception, stands the innocent victim; on the other the bloodthirsty\nJewish people. All good is with the one; all evil with the other. It is\nsupposed that only their hard-heartedness, their aversion to the pure\ndoctrine of the Redeemer, their determination to shut their eyes to the\nlight and their ears to the words of truth, could have led them to the\ncommission of so great a crime.\n\nWhether or not this theory be true, it at least suffers from the vice\nof having been adopted without due examination. An opinion can rest on\nno solid basis unless its opposite has been duly supported by competent\ndefenders. Now in the present instance this has not happened. Owing to\nthe causes mentioned above, the Christian view has been practically\nuncontested, and writer after writer has taken it up and repeated\nit in the unreflecting way in which we all of us repeat assertions\nabout which there is no dispute. Yet a very little consideration will\nshow that so simple an explanation of the transaction has at least no\n_a priori_ probability in its favor. That a whole nation should be\ncompletely in the wrong, and a few individuals only in the right, is a\nsupposition which can be accepted only on the most convincing evidence.\nAnd in order even to justify our entertaining it for a moment, we must\nbe in possession of a report of the circumstances of the case from\nthe advocates of the nation, as well as from the advocates of the\nindividuals who suffered by its action. A one-sided statement from the\npartizans of a convicted person can never be sufficient to enable us to\npronounce a conclusive verdict against his judges. The most ordinary\nrules of fairness prohibit this. Yet this is what is commonly done. No\naccount whatever of the trial of Jesus has reached us from the side of\nthe prosecution. Josephus, who might have enlightened us, is silent. On\nthe other hand, the side of the defense has furnished us with its own\nversion of what passed, and from the imperfect materials thus supplied\nwe must endeavor to discriminate between the two as best we can. To\ndo this justly, we must bear in mind, that even though the charges\nproduced against Jesus should not appear to justify the indignation\nof his accusers, it is at least unlikely that that indignation was\naltogether without reasonable cause. And painful as it may be to be\ncompelled to think that Jesus was in the wrong, it would surely\u2014had\nnot long habit perverted our natural sentiments\u2014be quite as painful\nto believe that a large multitude of men, impelled by mere malignity\nagainst a virtuous citizen, had conspired to put him to death on\ncharges which were absolutely groundless. The honor of an heroic,\nand above all, of a deeply religious people, is here at stake. It is\nno light matter to deal in wholesale accusations of judicial murder\nagainst them. It would surely be a happier solution if it could be\nshown that the individual condemned was not absolutely guiltless. But\npossibly we may be able to elude either alternative. Just as, according\nto the able reasoning of Grote, the upright character of Socrates may\nbe compatible with a sense of justice on the part of the Athenians\nwho condemned him to death, so it is conceivable that the innocence\nof Jesus may consist with the fact that the Jews who caused him to be\ncrucified were not altogether without excuse.\n\nAn examination of this question must be conducted with a careful regard\nto the hereditary feelings of orthodox Hebrews in matters of religion;\nwith an attention to the conceptions they had formed of holiness, and\nconsequently of blasphemy, its negation; with a desire to do justice\nif possible to the very prejudices that clouded their vision, and to\nrealize the intensity of the sentiment that ruled their national life\nand bound them to uphold their law in all its severe integrity. We must\nremember that the Jews were above all things monotheists. Ever since,\nafter the captivity, they had put away every remnant of idolatry, they\nhad clung to the unity and majesty of Jehovah with a stern tenacity\nwhich no alluring temptations, no extremity of suffering, had been\nable to break. If they were now ready to persecute for this faith,\nthey had at least shown themselves able\u2014they soon showed themselves\nable again\u2014to bear persecution for its sake. Their law, with its\nmonotheistic dogmas and its practical injunctions, was to them\nsupremely holy. Any attempt to infringe its precepts, or to question\nits authority, excited their utmost horror. To set up any other object\nof worship than that which it recognized, to teach any other faith than\nthat which rested on this foundation, was blasphemy in their eyes. The\nhappiness, nay, the very existence, of the nation was bound up with\nits strict observance. This may have been a delusion, but it was one\nfor which the existing generation was not responsible. It had been\nhanded down from their ancestors, and had reached them with all the\nsanctity of venerable age. If it were a delusion, it was one which the\ncompilers of the Pentateuch; which Josiah, with his reforming measures;\nwhich Ezra, with his purifying zeal; which the prophets and priests of\nolden times who had fought and labored for the religion of Jehovah, had\nmainly fostered. They had succeeded but too well in impressing upon the\nmind of the nation the profound conviction that, in order to ensure the\nfavor of God, they must maintain every iota of the revealed truth they\nhad received, and that his anger would surely follow if they suffered\nit to be in the smallest degree corrupted or treated with neglect.\n\nNevertheless the utmost efforts of the people to guard the purity of\nthe faith had been rewarded hitherto with little but misery. Their\nexemption from troubles did not last long after the rebuilding of the\ntemple. A prey now to the Seleucid\u00e6, now to the Ptolemies, their native\nland the scene of incessant warfare, they enjoyed under the Asmonean\nkings but a brief period of independence and good government. Their\npolity received a rude shock from the capture of Jerusalem by Pompey;\nmaintained but a shadow of freedom under the tyranny of Herod; and fell\nat last\u2014some time before the public appearance of Christ\u2014under the\ndirect administration of the unsympathetic Romans. A more intolerable\nfate could hardly be imagined. The Romans had no tenderness for their\nfeelings, no commiseration for their scruples, no comprehension\nof their peculiar practices. Hence constant collision between the\ngovernors and the governed. It is needless to enter in detail upon\nthe miserable struggles between those who were strong in the material\nforce and those who were strong in the force of conscience. Suffice\nit to say, that provocation on provocation was inflicted on the Jews,\nuntil at length the inevitable rebellion came, to be terminated by\nthe not less inevitable suppression with its attendant cruelties. But\nin the time of Jesus the crisis had not yet come. All things were in\na state of the utmost tension. It was of the highest importance to\nthe people, and their authorities were well aware of it, that there\nshould be nothing done that could excite the anger of their rulers.\nThe Romans knew, of course, that no loyalty was felt towards them in\nPalestine. And the least indication of resistance was enough to provoke\nthem to the severest measures. All that remained of independence to the\nJews\u2014the freedom to worship in their own way; their national unity;\ntheir possession of the temple; their very lives\u2014depended on their\nsuccess in conciliating the favor of the procurator who happened to be\nset over them. The assertion by any one of rights that might appear\nto clash with those of Rome, even the foolish desire of the populace\nto honor some one who did not pretend to them, were fraught with the\nutmost danger. It was necessary for the rulers to prove that they did\nnot countenance the least indication of a wish to set up a rival power.\n\nTheir task was more difficult because the people were continually\nlooking for some great national hero who should redeem them from\ntheir subjection. The conception of the \"Messiah,\" the Anointed\nOne, the King or High Priest who should restore, and much more than\nrestore, the ancient glory of their nation, who should lead them to\nvictory over their enemies and then reign over them in peace, was\nineradicably imbedded in their minds. Consequently they were only\ntoo ready\u2014especially in those days of overstrung nerves and feverish\nagitation under a hateful rule\u2014to welcome any one who held out the\nchance of deliverance. The risk was not imaginary. Prophets and\nMessiahs, if they were not successful, could do nothing but harm.\nTheudas, a leader who did not even claim Messiahship, had involved\nhis followers in destruction. Bar-cochab, who at a later time was\nreceived by many as the Messiah, brought upon his countrymen not only\nenormous slaughter, but even the crowning misfortune of expulsion from\nJerusalem. Now, although the high priests and elders no doubt shared\nthe popular expectation of a Messiah, they were bound as prudent men\nto test the pretensions of those who put themselves forward in that\ncharacter, and if they were imperiling the public peace, to put a stop\nto their careers. It was not for them, the appointed guides of the\npeople, to be carried away by every breath of popular enthusiasm. They\nwould have been wholly unworthy of their position had they permitted\nfloating reports of miracles and marvels, or the applauding clamor of\nadmirers, to impose upon their judgment. Calmly, and after examination\nof the facts, it was their duty to decide.\n\nJesus had professed to be the Messiah. So much is undisputed. Could\nhis title be admitted? Now, in the first place, it was the central\nconception of the Messianic office that its holder should exercise\ntemporal power. He was not expected to be a teacher of religious\ndoctrines, for this was not what was required. The code of theological\ntruth was, so far as the Jews were aware, completed. The Revelation\nthey possessed never hinted, from beginning to end, that it was\nimperfect in any of its parts, or that it needed a supplementary\nRevelation to fill up the void which it contained. Whatever Christians,\ninstructed by the gospel, may have thought in subsequent ages, the\nbelievers in the Hebrew Bible neither had ascertained, nor possibly\ncould ascertain, that Jehovah intended to send his Son on earth to\nenlighten them on questions appertaining to their religious belief.\nThis they thought had long been settled, and he who tried either to\ntake anything from it or add anything to it was in their eyes an\nimpious criminal. Such persons, they knew, had been sternly dealt with\nin the palmy days of the Hebrew state, and the example of their most\nhonored prophets and their most pious kings would justify the severest\nmeasures that could be taken against them. A spiritual reformer, then,\nwas not what they needed: a temporal leader was. And this they had\na perfect right to expect that the Messiah would be. The very word\nitself\u2014the Anointed One, a word commonly applied to the king\u2014indicates\nthe possession of the powers of government. Their prophecies all\npointed to this conception of the Messiah. Their popular traditions all\nconfirmed it. Their political necessities all encouraged it. The very\ndisciples themselves held it like the rest of their nation, for when\nthey met Jesus after his resurrection we find them inquiring, \"Lord,\nwilt thou at this time restore the kingdom of Israel?\" (Acts i. 6.).\nThe conversation may be imaginary, but the state of mind which such\na question indicates was doubtless real. The author represented them\nas speaking as he knew that they had felt. Now, if ever they, who had\nenjoyed the intimate friendship of Jesus, could still look to him as\none who would restore to Israel something of her bygone grandeur, was\nit to be expected that the less privileged Jews, who had inherited\nfrom their forefathers a fixed belief in this temporal restoration,\nshould suddenly surrender it at the bidding of Jesus of Nazareth? For\nhe at least did not realize the prevailing notions of what the Messiah\nought to be. For temporal sovereignty he was clearly unfit, nor does\nhe seem to have ever demanded it. There was a danger no doubt that his\nenthusiastic followers might thrust it upon him, and that, thus urged,\nhe might be tempted to accept it. But his general character precludes\nthe supposition that he could ever be fit to stand at the head of a\nnational movement. The absence, moreover, of all political enthusiasm\nfrom his teaching proved him not to be the Savior for whom they were\nlooking. His assertions that he was the Son of God, though they might\nprovoke sedition and endanger the security of his countrymen, could\nbring them no corresponding good.\n\nChristians have maintained that the Jews were entirely wrong in their\nconception of the Messiah's character, and that Jesus by his admirable\nlife brought a higher and more excellent ideal than theirs into the\nworld. They admire him for not laying claim to temporal dominion, and\nlaud his humility, his meekness, his submissiveness, the patience\nwith which he bore his sufferings, and the whole catalogue of similar\nvirtues. It was, according to them, the mere blindness of the Jews that\nprevented them from recognizing in him a far greater Messiah than they\nhad erroneously expected. Moreover, they tell us that another of the\nmistakes made by this gross nation was the expectation of an earthly\nkingdom in which Christ was to reign, whereas it was only a spiritual\nkingdom which he came to institute. But who were to be judges of the\ncharacter of the Messiah if not the Jews to whom he was to come? The\nvery thought of a Messiah was peculiarly their own. It had grown up\nin the course of their national history, and was embodied in their\nnational prophecies. They alone were its authorized interpreters;\nthey alone could say whether it was fulfilled in the case of a given\nindividual. It is surely a piece of the most amazing presumption\non the part of nations of heathen origin to pretend that they are\nmore competent than the Jews themselves to understand the meaning of\na Jewish term; a term, moreover, which neither had nor could have\nbefore the time of Jesus any sense at all except that which the Jews\nthemselves attached to it. Christians, who derive not only their idea\nof the Messiah's character, but their very knowledge of the word, from\nthe case of Jesus alone, undertake to set right the Jews, among whom it\nwas a current notion for centuries before he had been conceived in his\nmother's womb!\n\nGranting, however, that this difficulty might have been surmounted,\nsupposing that it was a spiritual kingdom which the ancient prophets\nunder uncouth images referred to, the question still remains whether\nJesus in other respects fulfilled the conditions demanded by Scripture.\nFor this purpose it will be the fairest method to confine ourselves\nto the discussion of those prophecies alone which are quoted by the\nEvangelists, and are therefore relied upon by them as proving their\ncase. Where, however, they have quoted only a portion of a prophecy,\nand the remainder gives a somewhat different complexion to the passage\nextracted, justice to their opponents requires that we should consider\nthe whole.\n\nTake first the circumstances of Christ's birth. It was expected that\nthe Messiah was to be of the family of David, and born at Bethlehem\nEphratah. Now, according to two of our authorities, he fulfilled\nboth of these conditions. But, without at all discussing the point\nwhether their statement is true, it is abundantly sufficient for the\nvindication of the Jews to observe, that they neither knew, nor could\nknow, anything at all, either of his royal lineage or of his birth at\nBethlehem. For he himself never stated either of the two capital facts\nof which Luke and Matthew make so much, nor does it appear that any of\nhis disciples alluded to them during his life-time. He was habitually\nspoken about as Jesus of Nazareth. Matthew, in endeavoring to account\nfor the name by misquoting a prophecy, bears witness to the fact that\nit expressed the general belief. Luke makes him speak of Nazareth\nas his own country. Nowhere does it appear that he repudiated the\nimplication conveyed by his ordinary title. Still less did he ever\nmaintain\u2014what his over-busy biographers maintained for him\u2014that he\nwas of the seed of David. Quite the reverse. He contends against the\nPharisees that the Messiah was not to be a descendant of David at all.\nThe dialogue as given by Matthew runs thus: \"'What is your opinion\nabout the Christ? whose son is he?' They say to him, 'David's.' He says\nto them, 'How then does David in the spirit call him Lord, saying, The\nLord said to my lord, Sit on my right hand until I place thine enemies\nunder thy feet? If then David calls him lord, how is he his son?'\"\n(Mt. xxii. 42-46). No answer was given by the Pharisees, nor was any\nexplanation of the paradox ever granted them by Jesus. In the absence,\nthen, of any further elucidation we can only put one interpretation\nupon his argument. It was clearly intended to show not only that the\nMessiah _need_ not, but that he _could_ not be of the house of David.\nDavid in that case would not have called him Lord. The Pharisees may\nhave been but little impressed by the force of the argument, but of\none thing they could scarcely entertain a doubt. Jesus wished it to be\nthought that he was the Messiah. He also wished it to be thought that\nthe Messiah was not a son of David. He himself therefore was certainly\nnot a son of David. But if anything more were needed to excuse the\nignorance\u2014supposing it such\u2014of the Jewish rulers about the birthplace\nand family of Jesus, we find it even super-abundantly in the work of\none of his own adherents\u2014the fourth Evangelist. Not that this writer\nis to be taken as an authority on the facts, but he is an authority on\nthe views that were current, at least in a portion of his own sect, and\non that which he himself\u2014writing long after the death of Christ\u2014had\nreceived by tradition. Now, in the beginning of his Gospel he describes\nPhilip the disciple as going to Nathanael, and saying, \"We have found\nhim of whom Moses in the law and of whom the prophets wrote, Jesus _the\nson of Joseph from Nazareth_.\" At this Nathanael skeptically asks, \"Can\nanything good come from Nazareth?\" and Philip replies, \"Come and see\"\n(Jo. i. 45, 46). According to this account, then, the very disciples\nof Jesus believed in his Nazarene nativity, as also (by the way) in\nhis generation by a human father. Nor is this all the evidence. In\nanother chapter an active discussion is represented as going on among\nthe Jews as to whether Jesus was the Christ or not. Opinions differed.\nForemost among the arguments for the negative, however, was the appeal\nto the Scriptural declaration that the Christ must be of David's seed,\nand emanate from the village of Bethlehem (Jo. vii. 42). No answer to\nthis was forthcoming from the partizans of Jesus, nor is any suggested\nby the Evangelist. There is but one rational inference to be drawn\nfrom his silence. He either had not heard, or he purposely ignored,\nthe story of Christ's birth at Bethlehem, and the genealogies which\nconnected him with David. His mind (if he had ever been a Jew) was\nto no small extent emancipated from Jewish limitations, and with his\nhighly refined views of the Logos, he did not believe in the necessity\nof these material conditions. It was nothing to him that they were\nnot fulfilled. More orthodox believers in the prophecies of the Old\nTestament may be pardoned if they could not so lightly put them aside.\nBut what shall be said of the conduct of Jesus? If he really were\na descendant of David, born at Bethlehem, and wrongly taken for a\nNazarene, can we acquit him of an inexcusable fraud upon the Jews in\nnot bringing these facts under their notice? Assuredly not. If, knowing\nas he did the weight they would have in the public mind, he kept them\nback; knowing that they would overcome some of the gravest objections\nthat were taken against his claim, he did not urge them in reply;\nknowing at the close of his life that he was charged with an undue\nassumption of authority, he did not produce them as at least a portion\nof his credentials,\u2014he played a part which it would be difficult to\nstigmatize as severely as it deserves. He believed that his reception\nby his nation would be an immense benefit to themselves, yet he did not\nspeak the word which might have helped them to receive him. He thought\nhe had a mission from God, yet he failed to use one potent argument in\nfavor of the truth of that idea. He saw finally that he was condemned\nto death for supposed impiety, yet he suffered the Sanhedrim to incur\nthe guilt of his condemnation without employing one of his strongest\nweapons in his defense. Happily we are not obliged to suspect him of\nthis iniquity. The contradictory stories by which his royal descent\nand his birth at Bethlehem are sought to be established sufficiently\nbetray their origin to permit us to believe in the honor and honesty of\nJesus.\n\nAnother Messianic prophecy which he is supposed to have fulfilled is\nthat of birth from a virgin, the necessity of which was deduced from\nan expression of Isaiah's. That the writer of the fourth Gospel was\nignorant of this virgin-birth we have already shown, and that the\nJewish people in general took him to be the son of Joseph is obvious\nenough from their allusions to his father (Mk. vi. 3; Mt. xiii. 55, 56;\nLu. iv. 22; Jo. vi. 42). Here again he never contradicted the prevalent\nassumption. But even had they known of the miraculous conception, the\nJews might have denied that the passage from Isaiah bore any such\nconstruction as that put upon it by Matthew. He renders it: \"Behold,\nthe virgin shall be with child, and bear a son\" (Mt. i. 23). But a\nmore proper translation would be: \"The maiden shall conceive, and bear\na son,\" for the word translated _virgin_ by Matthew does not exclude\nyoung women who have lost their virginity. Nay, it curiously enough\nhappens to be used elsewhere of maidens engaged in the very conduct by\nwhich they would certainly be deprived of it.\n\nMoreover, the two prophecies quoted by Matthew, which were, no doubt,\nfamiliar to the Jews, could by no possibility be applied by them to a\nperson of the character of Jesus. Even the small fragments torn away\nfrom their context by the Evangelist convict him of a misapplication.\nIn the first fragment, the Virgin's son is called Immanuel, a name\nwhich Jesus never bore (Mt. i. 23). In the second, he is described as\n\"a ruler, who shall govern my people Israel,\" which Jesus never was\n(Mt. ii. 6). But the unlikeness of the predicted person to Jesus is\nstill further shown by comparing the circumstances as conceived by the\nprophet with the actual circumstances of the time. Immanuel's birth is\nto be followed, while he is still too young to choose between good and\nevil, by a terrible desolation of the land. Hosts, described as flies\nand bees, are to come from Egypt and Assyria, and camp in the valleys,\nthe clefts of the rocks, the hedges and meadows. Cultivable land will\nproduce only thorns and thistles. Cultivated hills will be surrendered\nto cattle from fear of thorns and thistles (Isa. vii. 14-25). Nothing\nof all this happened in the time of Jesus. But the prophecy of Micah is\nstill more inappropriate. The \"ruler\" who is to be born in Bethlehem\nis to lead Israel to victory over all her enemies. He is to deliver\nhis people from the Assyrian. The remnant of Jacob is to be among the\nheathen, like a lion among the beasts of the forest, like a young\nlion among flocks of sheep. Its hand is to be lifted up against its\nadversaries, and all its enemies are to be destroyed (Micah v).\n\nThese references to prophecy were certainly not happy. An allusion by\nMatthew to the words, \"The people who walk in darkness see a great\nlight,\" is not much more to the purpose, for Isaiah in the passage\nin question proceeds to describe the child who is to bring them this\nhappiness as one who shall have the government upon his shoulder, who\nis to be on the throne of David, to establish and maintain it by right\nand justice for ever (Mt. iv. 15, 16; Is. ix. 1-7). Another extract\nfrom Isaiah, beginning, \"Behold my servant whom I have chosen,\" and\ndepicting a gentler character, is more appropriate, but is too vague to\nbe easily confined to any one individual.\n\nJesus himself is reported by one of his biographers to have relied on\ncertain words from the pseudo-Isaiah as a confirmation of his mission.\nIf the account be true, the circumstance is of great importance as\nshowing the view he himself took of his office, and the means he\nemployed to convince the Jews of his right to hold it. Entering the\nsynagogue at Nazareth, he received the roll of the prophet Isaiah,\nand proceeded to read from the sixty-first chapter as follows: \"The\nSpirit of the Lord Jehovah is upon me, because Jehovah has anointed\nme to announce glad tidings to the poor; he has sent me to bind up\nthe broken-hearted; to cry to the captives, Freedom, and to those in\nfetters, Deliverance; to cry out a year of good-will from Jehovah.\"\nHere Jesus broke off the reading in the middle of a verse, and declared\nthat this day this scripture was fulfilled (Lu. iv. 16-21). But let\nus continue our study of the prophetic vision a little further. \"To\ncry out a year of good-will from Jehovah, and _a day of vengeance from\nour God_: to comfort all that mourn; to appoint for the mourners of\nZion,\u2014to give them ornaments for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, a\ngarment of praise for a desponding spirit; that they may be called oaks\nof righteousness, a plantation of Jehovah to glorify himself. And they\nwill build up the ruins of old times, they will restore the desolations\nof former days; and they will renew desolate cities, the ruins of\ngeneration upon generation. And strangers shall stand and feed your\nflocks, and the sons of foreigners shall be your husbandmen and your\nvine-dressers. And you shall be called 'Priests of Jehovah;' 'Servants\nof our God,' shall be said to you; the riches of the Gentiles you shall\neat, and into their splendor you shall enter\" (Is. lxi. 1-6). Had Jesus\nconcluded the passage he had begun, he could scarcely have said, \"This\nday is the scripture fulfilled in your ears.\" The contrast between the\nprediction and the fact would have been rather too glaring.\n\nPerhaps the most striking apparent similarity to Jesus is found in\nthe man described in such beautiful language by an unknown prophet in\nthe fifty-third chapter of Isaiah. But these words could hardly be\napplied to him by the Jews; in the first place, because they would\nnot be construed to refer to him until after his crucifixion, seeing\nthat they describe oppression, prison, judgment, and execution; in the\nsecond place, because there was no reason to believe that he bore their\ndiseases, and took their sorrows upon him. And although the familiar\nwords\u2014doubly familiar from the glorious music of Handel,\u2014\"He was a\nman of sorrows, and acquainted with grief,\" may seem to us, who know\nhis end, to describe him perfectly, they could hardly describe him to\nthe Jews, who saw him in his daily life. In that, at least, there was\nnothing peculiarly unhappy.\n\nFailing the prophecies, which were plainly two-edged swords, Jesus\ncould appeal to his remarkable miracles. He and his disciples evidently\nthought them demonstrations of a divine commission. But, in the first\nplace, it is clear that the evidence of the most wonderful of these\nconsisted only of the rumors circulating among ignorant peasants, which\nthe more instructed portion of the nation very properly disregarded.\nTheir demand for a sign (Mt. xii. 38) proves that they were not\nsatisfied by these popular reports, if they had ever heard them. And in\nthe second place, those miracles which were better attested were not\nconvincing from the fact that others could perform them. Jesus, charged\nwith casting out devils by Ba\u00e4l-zebub, the prince of devils, adroitly\nretorted on the Pharisees by asking, if that were so, by whom their\nsons cast them out? (Mk. iii. 22; Mt. xii. 24-30; Lu. xi. 14-24). But\nthus he admitted that he was not singular in his profession. Miracles,\nin short, were not regarded by the Jews as any proof of Messiahship.\nTheir own prophets had performed them. Their own disciples now\nperformed them. Others might possibly perform them by diabolic agency.\nThe Egyptian magicians had been very clever in their contest with\nMoses, though Moses had beaten them, and had performed far more amazing\nwonders than those of Jesus, in so far as these latter were known to\nthe Pharisees.\n\nMiracles being too common to confer any peculiar title to reverence on\nthe thaumaturgist, there remained the doctrine and personal character\nof Jesus by which to judge him. It must be borne in mind that the\nimpression which these might make upon his antagonist would depend\nmainly upon his bearing in his relations with them. He might preach\npure morals in Galilee, or present a model of excellence to his own\nfollowers in Judea; but this would not entitle him to reception as the\nMessiah, nor would it remove an unfavorable bias created by his conduct\ntowards those who had not embraced his principles. Let us see, then,\nwhat was likely to be the effect on the Pharisees, scribes, and others,\nof those elements in his opinions and his behavior by which they were\nmore immediately affected.\n\nThere existed among the Jews, as there still exists among ourselves,\nan institution which was greatly honored among them, as it is still\nhonored, though in a minor degree, among ourselves. The institution\nwas that of a day of rest sacred to God once in every seven days.\nThis custom they believed to have been founded by the very highest\nauthority, and embodied by Moses in the ten commandments which he\nreceived on Sinai. Nothing in the eyes of an orthodox Jew could be\nholier than such an observance, enjoined by his God, founded by the\ngreatest legislator of his race, consecrated by long tradition. Now\nthe ordinary rules with regard to what was lawful and what unlawful on\nthis day were totally disregarded by Jesus. Not only did his disciples\nmake a path through a cornfield on the Sabbath, but Jesus openly cured\ndiseases, that is, pursued his common occupation, on this most sacred\nfestival (Mk. ii. 23iii. 7; Mt. xii. 1-14; Lu. vi. 1-11, xiii. 10-17,\nxiv. 1-6). When these violations of propriety (as they seemed to them)\nfirst came under the notice of the Pharisees, they merely remonstrated\nwith Jesus, and endeavored to induce him to restrain the impiety of his\ndisciples. Not only did he decline to do so, but he expressly justified\ntheir course by the example of David, and by that of the priests, who,\naccording to his mode of reasoning, profane the Sabbath in the temple\nby doing that to which by their office they were legally bound. Such\nan argument could scarcely convince the Pharisees, but they must have\nbeen shocked beyond measure when he proclaimed himself greater than the\ntemple, and asserted his lordship even over the Sabbath-day. They then\ninquired of him\u2014a perfectly legitimate question\u2014whether it was lawful\nto heal on the Sabbath, to which he replied that if one of their own\nsheep had fallen into the pit they would pick it out. Confirming his\ntheory by his practice, he at once healed a man with a withered hand.\nIt is noteworthy that the desire of the Pharisees to inflict punishment\nupon Jesus is dated by all three Evangelists from this incident; so\nthat the hostility towards him may be certainly considered as largely\ndue to his unsabbatarian principles.\n\nNow in this question it is almost needless for me to say that my\nsympathies are entirely with Jesus. Although I do not perceive in his\nconduct any extensive design against the Sabbath altogether, yet it is\nmuch that he should have attempted to mitigate its rigor. For that the\nworld owes him its thanks. But surely it cannot be difficult, in this\nhighly sabbatarian country, to understand the horror of the Pharisees\nat his apparent levity. Seeing that it is not so very long since the\nsupposed desecration of the Sunday in these islands subjected the\noffender to be treated as a common criminal; seeing that even now a\ntotal abstinence from labor on that day is in many occupations enforced\nby law; seeing that a custom almost as strong as law forbids indulgence\nin a vast number of ordinary amusements during its course,\u2014we can\nscarcely be much surprised that the sabbatarians of Judea were zealous\nto preserve the sanctity of their weekly rest. The fact that highly\nconscientious and honorable persons entertain similar sentiments about\nthe Sunday is familiar to all. We know that any one who neglected the\nusual customs; who, for example, played a game at cricket, or danced,\nor even pursued his commercial avocations on Sunday, would be visited\nby them with perfectly genuine reproaches. Yet this was exactly the\nsort of way in which Christ and his disciples shocked the Jews. To make\na path through a cornfield and pluck the ears was just one of those\nlittle things which the current morality of the Sabbath condemned, much\nas ours condemns the opening of museums or theatrical entertainments.\nTheir piety was scandalized at such a glaring contempt of the divine\nordinances. Nor was the reasoning of Jesus likely to conciliate them.\nTo ask whether it was lawful to do good or evil, to save life or to\nkill on the Sabbath-day was nothing to the purpose. The question was\nwhat _was_ good or evil on that particular day, when things otherwise\ngood were by all admitted to be evil. Nor were the cures effected by\nJesus necessary to save life. All his patients might well have waited\ntill evening, when the Sabbath was over. One of them, for instance,\na woman who had suffered from a \"spirit of weakness\" eighteen years,\nbeing unable to hold herself erect, was surely not in such urgent need\nof attendance that a few hours more of her disease would have done her\nserious harm. Jesus, with his principles, was of course perfectly right\nto relieve her at once, but it is not to be wondered at that the ruler\nof the synagogue was indignant, and told the people that there were six\nworking days; in them therefore they should come and be healed, and not\non the Sabbath. The epithet of \"hypocrite,\" applied to him by Jesus,\nwas, to say the least, hardly justified (Lu. xiii. 10-17).\n\nAnother habit of Jesus, in itself commendable, excited the displeasure\nof the stricter sects. It was that of eating with publicans and\nsinners. This practice, and the fact of his neglecting the fasts\nobserved by the Pharisees, gave an impression of general laxity\nabout his conduct, which, however unjust, was perfectly natural\n(Mk. ii. 15-22; Mt. ix. 10-17; Lu. v. 29-39). Here again I see no\nreason to attribute bad motives to his opponents who merely felt as\n\"church-going\" people among ourselves would feel about one who stayed\naway from divine service, and as highly decorous people would feel\nabout one who kept what they thought low company.\n\nEating with unwashed hands was another of the several evidences of his\ncontempt for the prevalent proprieties of life which gave offense.\nThe resentment felt by the Pharisees at this practice was the more\nexcusable that Jesus justified it on the distinct ground that he had no\nrespect for \"the tradition of the elders,\" for which they entertained\nthe utmost reverence. This tradition he unsparingly attacked, accusing\nthem of frustrating the commandment of God in order to keep it (Mk.\nvii. 1-13; Mt. xv. 1-9). Language like this was not likely to pass\nwithout leaving a deep-seated wound, especially if it be true (as\nstated by Luke) that one of the occasions on which he employed it was\nwhen invited to dinner by a Pharisee. Indifferent as the washing of\nhands might be in itself, courtesy towards his host required him to\nabstain from needless outrage to his feelings. And when, in addition to\nthe first offense, he proceeded to denounce his host and host's friends\nas people who made the outside of the cup and the platter clean, but\nwere inwardly full of ravening and wickedness, there is an apparent\nrudeness which even the truth of his statements could not have excused\n(Lu. xi. 37-39).\n\nNeither was the manner in which he answered the questions addressed to\nhim, as to a teacher claiming to instruct the people, likely to remove\nthe prejudice thus created. The Evangelists who report these questions\ngenerally relate that they were put with an evil intent: \"tempting\nhim,\" or some such expression being used. But whatever may have been\nthe secret motives of the questioners, nothing could be more legitimate\nthan to interrogate a man who put forward the enormous pretensions of\nJesus, so long as the process was conducted fairly. And this, on the\nside of the Jews, it apparently was. There is nowhere perceptible in\ntheir inquiries a scheme to entrap him, or a desire to entangle him in\ndifficulties by skillful examination. On the contrary, the subjects on\nwhich he is questioned are precisely those on which, as the would-be\nmaster of the nation, he might most properly be expected to give clear\nanswers. And the judgment formed of him by the public would naturally\ndepend to a large extent on the mode in which he acquitted himself in\nthis impromptu trial. Let us see, then, what was the impression he\nprobably produced.\n\nOn one occasion the Pharisees came to him, \"tempting him,\" to ascertain\nhis opinion on divorce. Might a man put away his wife? Jesus replied\nthat he might not, and explained the permission of Moses to give a wife\na bill of divorce as a mere concession to the hardness of their hearts.\nA divorced man or woman who married again was guilty of adultery. Even\nthe disciples were staggered at this. If an unhappy man could never be\nreleased from his wife, it would be better, they thought, not to marry\nat all (Mk. x. 1-12; Mt. xix. 1-12). Much more must the Pharisees have\ndissented from this novel doctrine. Rightly or wrongly, they reverenced\nthe law of Moses, and they could not but profoundly disapprove this\nassumption of authority to set it aside and substitute for its precepts\nan unheard of innovation.\n\nAnother question of considerable importance was that relating to the\ntribute. Some of the Pharisees, it seems, after praising him for\nhis independence, begged him to give them his opinion on a disputed\npoint: Was it lawful or not to pay tribute to the Emperor? All three\nbiographers are indignant at the question. They attribute it as usual\nto a desire to \"catch him in his words,\" or, as another Evangelist\nputs it, to \"entangle him in his talk.\" Jesus (they remark) perceived\nwhat one calls their \"wickedness,\" a second their \"hypocrisy,\" and the\nthird their \"craftiness.\" \"Why do you tempt me?\" he began. \"Bring me\na denarium that I may see it.\" The coin being brought, he asked them,\n\"Whose image and superscription is this?\" \"C\u00e6sar's.\" \"Then render to\nC\u00e6sar the things that are C\u00e6sar's, and to God the things that are\nGod's\" (Mk. xii. 13-17; Mt. xxii. 15-22; Lu. xx. 20-26). One of the\nEvangelists, reporting this reply, rejoices at the discomfiture of the\nPharisees, who \"could not take hold of his words before the people.\"\nDoubtless his decision had the merit that it could not be taken hold\nof, but this was only because it decided nothing. Taking the words in\ntheir simplest sense, they merely assert what nobody would deny. No\nPharisee would ever have maintained that the things of C\u00e6sar should\nbe given to God; and no partizan of Rome would ever have demanded\nthat the things of God should be given to C\u00e6sar. But practically it\nis evident that Jesus meant to do more than employ an unmeaning form\nof words. He meant to assert that the tribute was one of the things\nof C\u00e6sar, and that because the coin in which it was paid was stamped\nwith his image. More fallacious reasoning could hardly be imagined,\nand it is not surprising that the Pharisees \"marveled at him.\" Nobody\ndoubted that the Emperor possessed the material power, and no more\nthan this was proved by the fact that coins bearing his effigy were\ncurrent in the country. The question was not whether he actually ruled\nJudea, but whether it was lawful to acknowledge that rule by paying\ntribute. And what light could it throw on this question to show that\nthe money used to pay it was issued from his mint? It must almost be\nsupposed that Jesus fell into the confusion of supposing that the\ndenarium with C\u00e6sar's image and superscription upon it was in some\npeculiar sense C\u00e6sar's property, whereas it belonged as completely to\nthe man who produced it at the moment as did the clothes he wore. Had\nthe Roman domination come to an end at any moment, the coin of the\nEmpire would have retained its intrinsic value, but the Romans could\nby no possibility have founded a right of exacting tribute upon the\ncircumstance of its circulation. Either, therefore, this celebrated\ndeclaration was a mere verbal juggle, or it rested on a transparent\nfallacy.\n\nAfter the Pharisees had been thus disposed of, their inquiries were\nfollowed up by a puzzle devised by the Sadducees in order to throw\nridicule on the doctrine of a future state. These sectaries put an\nimaginary case. Moses had enjoined that if a man died leaving a\nchildless widow, his brother should marry her for the purpose of\nkeeping up the family. Suppose, said they, that the first of seven\nbrothers marries, and dies without issue. The second brother then\nmarries her with the like result; then the third, and so on through all\nthe seven. In the resurrection whose wife will this woman be, for the\nseven have had her as their wife? To this Jesus replies: first, that\nhis questioners greatly err, neither knowing the Scriptures nor the\npower of God; secondly, that when people rise from death they do not\nmarry, but are like angels; thirdly, that the resurrection is proved\nby the fact that God had spoken of himself as the God of Abraham,\nIsaac, and Jacob, and that he is not the God of the dead, but of the\nliving (Mk. xii. 18-27; Mt. xxii. 23-33; Lu. xx. 27-40). Whether the\nSadducees were or were not satisfied by this answer we are not told,\nbut it is quite certain that their modern representatives could not\naccept it. For the inquirers had hit upon one of the real difficulties\nattending the doctrine of a future life. We are always assured that one\nof the great consolations of this doctrine is the hope it holds out of\nmeeting again those whom we have loved on earth, and living with them\nin a kind of communion not wholly unlike that which we have enjoyed\nhere. Earthly relationships, it is assumed, will be prolonged into\nthat happier world. There the parent will find again the child whom\nhe has lost, and the child will rejoin his parent; there the bereaved\nhusband will be restored to his wife, and the widow will be comforted\nby the sight of the companion of her wedded years. All this is simple\nenough. Complications inevitably arise, however, when we endeavor to\npick up again in another life the tangled skein of our relations in\nthis. Not only may the feelings with which we look forward to meeting\nformer friends be widely different after many years' separation from\nwhat they were at their death; but even in marriage there may be a\npreference for a first or a second husband or wife, which may render\nthe thought of meeting the other positively unpleasant. And if the\nsentiments of the other should nevertheless be those of undiminished\nlove, the question may well arise, whose husband is he, or whose wife\nis she of the two? Are all three to live together? But then, along with\nthe comfort of meeting one whom we love, we have the less agreeable\nprospect of meeting another whom we have ceased to love. Or will one\nof the two wives or two husbands be preferred and the other slighted?\nIf so, the last will suffer and not gain by the reunion. Take the\npresent case. Assume that the wife loved only her first husband, but\nthat all the seven were attached to her. Then we may well ask, whose\nwife will she be of them? Will her affections be divided among the\nseven, or will they all be given to the first? In the former case, she\nwill be compelled to live in a society for which she has no desire; in\nthe latter, six of her seven husbands will be unable to enjoy the full\nbenefit of her presence. The question is merely evaded by saying that\nin the resurrection there is neither marriage nor giving in marriage,\nbut that men are like angels. Either there is no consolation in living\nagain, or there must be some kind of repetition of former ties. Still\nless logical is the argument by which Jesus attempts to prove the\nreality of a future state against the Sadducees. In syllogistic form it\nmaybe thus stated:\u2014\n\n God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. God told Moses in\n the bush that he was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Therefore\n they are not dead, but living (Mk. xii. 18-27; Mt. xxii. 23-33; Lu.\n xx. 27-40).\n\nWhat is the evidence of the major premiss? The moment it is questioned\nit is seen to be invalid. Nothing could be more natural than that\nMoses, or any other Hebrew, should speak of his God as the God of\nAbraham, Isaac, and Jacob, meaning that those great forefathers of his\nrace had adored and been protected by the same Jehovah in their day,\nbut not therefore that they were still living. The Sadducees must have\nbeen weak indeed if such an argument could weigh with them for a moment.\n\nAfter this a scribe or lawyer drew from Jesus the important declaration\nthat in his opinion the two greatest commandments were that we\nshould love God with the whole heart, soul, mind, and strength; and\nour neighbors as ourselves (Mk. xii. 28-34; Mt. xxii. 34-40; Lu. x.\n25-37). How gratuitous the imputations of ill-will thrown out against\nthose who interrogate Jesus may be, is admirably shown in the present\ninstance. One Gospel (the most trustworthy) asserts that the question\nabout the first commandment was put by a scribe, who thought that Jesus\nhad answered well, and who, moreover, expressed emphatic approval of\nthe reply given to himself. Such (according to this account) was his\nsympathy with Jesus, that the latter declared that he was not far from\nthe kingdom of God. Mark now the extraordinary color given to this\nsimple transaction in another Gospel. The Pharisees, we are told, saw\nthat the Sadducees had been silenced, and therefore drew together.\nApparently as a result of their consultation (though this is not\nstated), one of _them_ who was a lawyer asked a question, _tempting\nhim_, namely, Which is the great commandment in the law? Diverse,\nagain, from both versions is the narrative of a third. In the first\nplace, all connection with the preceding questions is broken off,\nand without any preliminaries, a lawyer stands up, and, _tempting\nhim_, inquires, \"Master, by what conduct shall I inherit eternal\nlife?\" To which Jesus replies by a counter-question, \"What is written\nin the law?\" and then, strange to say, these two great commandments\nare enunciated, not by him, but by the unknown lawyer, whose answer\nreceives the commendation of Jesus.\n\nThe bias thus evinced by the Evangelists, even in reporting the fairest\nquestions, seems to show that Christ did not like his opinions to be\nelicited from him by this method, feeling perhaps that it was likely\nto expose his intellectual weaknesses. In this way, and possibly in\nothers, a sentiment of hostility grew up between himself and the\ndominant sects, which, until the closing scenes of his career, was\nfar more marked on his side than on theirs. Beautiful maxims about\nloving one's enemies and returning good for evil did not keep him\nfrom reproaching the Pharisees on many occasions. Unfortunately, a\nman's particular enemies are just those who scarcely ever appear to\nhim worthy of love, and this was evidently the case with Jesus and\nthe men upon whom he poured forth his denunciations. Judging by his\nmode of speaking, we should suppose that all religious people who did\nnot agree with him were simply hypocrites. This is one of the mildest\nterms by which he can bring himself to mention the Pharisees or the\nscribes. Of the latter, he declares that they devour widows' houses,\nand for a pretence make long prayers; therefore they would receive the\ngreater damnation (Mk. xii. 40; Mt. xxiii. 14). The scribes and the\nPharisees, it is said, bind heavy burdens on others, and refuse to\ntouch them themselves (surely an improbable charge). They do all their\nworks to be seen of men (their outward behavior then was virtuous).\nOne of their grievous sins is that they make their phylacteries broad,\nand enlarge the borders of their garments. Worse still: they like\nthe best places at dinner-parties and in the synagogues (to which\nperhaps their position entitled them). They have a pleasure in hearing\nthemselves called \"Rabbi,\" a crime of which Christ's disciples are\nespecially to beware. They shut up the kingdom of heaven, neither\nentering themselves, nor allowing others to enter. They compass sea and\nland to make one proselyte, but all this seeming zeal for religion is\nworthless: when they have the proselyte, they make him still more a\nchild of hell than themselves. They pay tithes regularly, but omit the\nweightier virtues; unhappily too common a failing with the votaries of\nall religions. They make the outside of the cup and platter clean, but\nwithin they are full of extortion and excess. Like whited sepulchres,\nthey look well enough outside, but this aspect of righteousness is a\nmere cloak for hypocrisy and wickedness. They honor God with their\nlips, but their heart is far from him.[30]\n\nHe uses towards them such designations as these: \"Scribes and\nPharisees, hypocrites;\" \"you blind guides;\" \"you fools and blind;\"\n\"thou blind Pharisee;\" \"you serpents, you generation of vipers.\" If\nwe may believe that he was the author of a parable contained only\nin Luke, he used a Pharisee as his typical hypocrite, and held up a\npublican\u2014one of a degraded class\u2014as far superior in genuine virtue to\nthis self-righteous representative of the hated order (Lu. xviii. 9-14).\n\nHad the Pharisees been actually guilty of the exceeding wickedness\nwhich Jesus thought proper to ascribe to them, his career would surely\nhave been cut short at a much earlier stage. As it was, they seem to\nhave borne with considerable patience the extreme license which he\npermitted himself in his language against them. Nay, I venture to say\nthat had he confined himself to language, however strong, he might\nhave escaped the fate which actually befell him. And the evidence of\nthis proposition is to be found in the extreme mildness with which\nhis apostles were afterwards treated by the Sanhedrim, even when they\nacted in direct disobedience to its orders (Acts iv. 15-21, and v.\n27-42). Only Stephen, who courted martyrdom by his language, was put to\ndeath, and that for the legal offense of blasphemy. Ordinary prudence\nwould have saved Jesus. For his arrest was closely connected with his\nexpulsion of the money-changers from the temple court. Not indeed that\nhe was condemned to death on that account, but that this ill-considered\ndeed was the immediate incentive of the legal proceedings, which\nsubsequently ended, contrary perhaps to the expectation of his\nprosecutors, in his conviction by the Sanhedrim on a capital charge.\nLet us consider the evidence of this. For the convenience of persons\ngoing to pay tribute to the temple, some money-changers\u2014probably\nneither better nor worse than others of their trade\u2014sat outside for the\npurpose of receiving the current Roman coinage and giving the national\nmoney, which alone the authorities of the temple received in exchange.\nCertain occasions in life requiring an offering of doves, these too\nwere sold in the precincts of the temple, obviously to the advantage\nof the public. Had Jesus disapproved of this practice, he might have\ndenounced it in public, and have endeavored to persuade the people to\ngive it up. Instead of this, he entered the temple, expelled the buyers\nand sellers (by what means we do not know), upset the money-changers'\ntables and the dove-sellers' seats, and permitted no one to carry a\nvessel through the temple. \"Is it not written,\" he exclaimed, \"'My\nhouse shall be called a house of prayer for all nations?' but you have\nmade it a den of thieves\" (Mk. xi. 15-18; Mt. xxi. 12, 13; Lu. xix.\n45-48). The action and the words were alike unjustifiable. The extreme\ncare of the Jews to preserve the sanctity of their temple is well known\nfrom secular history. Nothing that they had done or were likely to do\ncould prevent it from remaining a house of prayer. And even if they had\nsuffered it to be desecrated by commerce, was it, they would ask, for\nJesus to fall suddenly upon men who were but pursuing a calling which\ncustom had sanctioned, and which they had no reason to think illegal or\nirreligious? Was it for him to stigmatize them all indiscriminately as\n\"thieves\"? Plainly not. He had, in their opinion, exceeded all bounds\nof decorum, to say nothing of law, in this deed of violence and of\npassion. Thus, there was nothing for it now but to restrain the further\nexcesses he might be tempted to commit.\n\nNo immediate steps were, however, taken to punish this outrage. It is\nalleged that Jesus escaped because of the reputation he enjoyed among\nthe people. At any rate, the course of the authorities was the mildest\nthey could possibly adopt. They contented themselves with asking Jesus\nby what authority he did these things, a question which assuredly they\nhad every right to put. He answered by another question, promising\nif they answered it, he would answer theirs. Was John's baptism from\nheaven or from men? Hereupon the Evangelists depict the perplexity\nwhich they imagine arose among the priests. If they said, from heaven,\nJesus would proceed to ask why they had not received him; if from men,\nthey would encounter the popular impression that he was a prophet. All\nthis, however, may be mere speculation; we return within the region of\nthe actual knowledge of the Evangelists when we come to their answer.\n\"And they say in answer to Jesus, '_We do not know._' And Jesus says to\nthem, '_Neither do I tell you_ by what authority I do these things.'\"\n(Mk. xi. 27-33; Mt. xxi. 23-27; Lu. xx. 1-8). Observe in this reply the\nconduct of Jesus. He had promised the priests that if they answered his\nquestion, he would also answer theirs. They _did_ answer his question\nas best they could, and he refused to answer theirs! Even in the\nEnglish version, where the contrast between him and them is disguised\nby the employment of the same word \"tell\" as the translation of two\nvery different verbs in the original, the distinction between \"We\n_cannot_ tell\" and \"I _do not_,\" that is \"will not tell\" is palpable\nenough. But it is far more so in the original. The priests did not by\nany means decline to answer the question; they simply said, what may\nvery likely have been true, that they did not know whence the baptism\nof John was. In the divided state of public opinion about John, nothing\ncould be more natural. They could not reply decidedly if their feelings\nwere undecided. Their reply, \"We do not know,\" was then a perfectly\nproper one. The corresponding reply on the part of Jesus would have\nbeen, \"I do not know by what authority I do these things;\" but this\nof course it was impossible to give. The chief priests, scribes and\nelders had more right to ask Jesus to produce his authority for his\nassault than he had to interrogate them about their religious opinions.\nBut Jesus, though he had for the moment evaded a difficulty, must have\nbeen well aware that he was not out of danger. He found it necessary to\nretire to a secret spot, known only to friends. Here, however, he was\ndiscovered by his opponents, and brought before the Sanhedrim to answer\nto the charges now alleged against his character and doctrine.\n\nTo some extent these charges are matter of conjecture. The Gospels\nintimate that there was much evidence against him which they have not\nreported. Now it is impossible for us to do complete justice to the\ntribunal which heard the case unless we know the nature and number\nof the offences of which the prisoner was accused. One of them, the\npromise to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, may have\npresented itself to their minds as an announcement of a serious\npurpose, especially after the recent violence done to the traders.\nHowever this may be, there was now sufficient evidence before the court\nto require the high priest to call upon Jesus for his reply. He might\ntherefore have made his defense if he had thought proper. He declined\nto do so. Again the high priest addressed him, solemnly requiring him\nto say whether he was the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus admitted that\nsuch was his conviction, and declared that they would afterwards see\nhim return in the clouds of heaven. Hereupon the high priest rent his\nclothes, and asked what further evidence could be needed. All had\nheard his blasphemy; what did they think of it? All of them concurred\nin condemning him to death (Mk. xv. 53-64; Mt. xxvi. 57-66; Lu. xxii.\n66-71).\n\nThe three Evangelists who report the trial all agree that the blasphemy\nthus uttered was accepted at once as full and sufficient ground for\nthe conviction of Jesus. Now, I see no reason whatever to doubt\nthat the priests who were thus scandalized by his declaration were\nperfectly sincere in the horror they professed. All who have at all\nrealized the extremely strong feelings of the Jews on the subject of\nMonotheism, will easily understand that anything which in the least\nimpugned it would be regarded by them with the utmost aversion. And\na man who claimed to be the Son of God certainly detracted somewhat\nfrom the sole and exclusive adoration which they considered to be due\nto Jehovah. As indeed the event has proved; for the Christian Church\nsoon departed from pure Monotheism, adopting the dogma of the Trinity;\nwhile Christ along with his Father, and even more than his Father,\nbecame an object of its worship. So that if the Jews considered it\ntheir supreme obligation to preserve the purity of their Jehovistic\nfaith, as their Scriptures taught them to believe it was, they were\nright in putting down Jesus by forcible means. No doubt they were\nwrong in holding such an opinion. It was not, in fact, their duty to\nguard their faith by persecution. They would have been morally better\nhad they understood the modern doctrine of religious liberty, unknown\nas it was to Christians themselves until some sixteen centuries after\nthe death of Christ. But for their mistaken notions on this head they\nwere only in part responsible. They had inherited their creed with its\nprofound intolerance. Their history, their legislators, their prophets,\nall conspired to uphold persecution for the maintenance of religious\ntruth. They could not believe in their sacred books, and disbelieve the\npropriety of persecution. Before they could leave Jesus at large to\nteach his subversive doctrines, they must have ceased to be Jews; and\nthis it was impossible for them to do. We must not be too hard upon men\nwhose only crime was that they believed in a false religion.\n\nAccording to the dictates of that religion, Jesus ought to have been\nstoned. But the Roman supremacy precluded the Jews from giving effect\nto their own laws. Jesus was therefore taken before the procurator,\nand accused of \"many things.\" The charge of blasphemy of course would\nweigh nothing in the mind of a Roman; and it is evident that another\naspect of the indictment was brought prominently before Pilate: namely,\nthe pretension of Jesus to be king of the Jews. As to the substantial\ntruth of this second charge, we are saved the necessity of discussion,\nfor Jesus himself, when questioned by Pilate, at once admitted it. But\nwhether it was made in malice, and in a somewhat different sense from\nthat in which Pilate understood it, is not so clear. Jesus at no time,\nso far as we know, put forward any direct claim to immediate temporal\ndominion. At the same time it must be remembered that the ideas of\nMessiahship and possession of the kingdom were so intimately connected\nin the minds of the Jews, that they were probably unable to dissociate\nthem. Unfit as Jesus plainly was for the exercise of the government,\nthey might well believe that, if received by any considerable number of\nthe people, it would be forced upon him as the logical result of his\ncareer. Nor were these fears unreasonable. His entry into Jerusalem\nriding on an ass (an animal expressly selected as emblematic of his\nroyalty), with palm-branches strewed before him, and admirers calling\n\"Hosanna!\" as he went, pointed to a very real and serious danger.\nAnother such demonstration might with the utmost ease have passed into\na disturbance of the peace, not to say a tumult, which the Romans would\nhave quenched in blood unsparingly and indiscriminatingly shed. Jesus\nwas really therefore a dangerous character, not so much to the Romans,\nas to the Jews. Not being prepared to accept him as their king in fact,\nthey were almost compelled in self-preservation to denounce him as\ntheir would-be king to Pilate.\n\nHis execution followed. His supposed resurrection, and the renewed\npropagation of his faith, followed that. It has been widely believed\nthat because Christianity was not put down by the death of its founder,\nbecause, indeed, it burst out again in renewed vigor, therefore the\nmeasures taken against him were a complete failure, and served only\nto confer additional glory and power on the religion he had taught.\nBut this opinion arises from a confusion of ideas. If they aimed at\npreserving their own nation from what they deemed an impious heresy\u2014and\nI see no proof that they aimed at anything else\u2014the Jewish authorities\nwere perfectly successful. Christianity, which, if our accounts\nbe true, threatened to seduce large numbers of people from their\nallegiance to the orthodox creed, was practically extinguished among\nthe Jews themselves by the death of Christ. They could not possibly\nbelieve in a crucified Messiah. Only a very small band of disciples\npersisted in adhering to Jesus, justifying their continued faith by\nasserting that he had risen from the tomb. But it was no longer among\nthe countrymen of Jesus, whom he had especially sought to attach to\nhis person and his doctrine, that this small remnant of his followers\ncould find their converts. Neither then, nor at any subsequent time,\nhas Christianity been able to wean the Jews from their ancient faith.\nThe number of those who, from that time to this, have abandoned it in\nfavor of the more recent religion has been singularly small. If, as is\nprobable, there was during the earthly career of Jesus a growing danger\nthat his teaching might lead to the formation of a sect to which many\nminds would be attracted, that danger was completely averted.\n\nTrue, Christianity, when rejected by the Jews, made rapid progress\namong the Gentiles. But it was no business of the authorities at\nJerusalem to look after the religion of heathen nations. They might\nhave thought, had they foreseen the future of Christianity, that\na creed which originated among themselves, and had in it a large\nadmixture of Hebrew elements, was better than the worship of the pagan\ndeities. Be this as it may, the particular form of error which the\nGentiles might embrace was evidently no concern of theirs. But they had\na duty, or thought they had one, towards their own people, who looked\nto them for guidance, and that was to preserve the religion that had\nbeen handed down from their forefathers uncorrupted and unmixed. This\nthey endeavored to do by stifling the new-born heresy of Jesus before\nit had become too powerful to be stifled. Their measures, having regard\nto the end they had in view, were undoubtedly politic, and even just.\n\nFor were they not perfectly right in supposing that faith in Christ\nwas dangerous to faith in Moses? The event has proved it beyond\npossibility of question. Not indeed that they could perceive the extent\nof the peril, for neither Jesus nor any of his disciples has ventured\nthen to throw off Judaism altogether. But they did perceive, with a\nperfectly correct insight, that the Christians were setting up a new\nauthority alongside of the authorities which alone they recognized,\u2014the\nScriptures and the traditional interpretation of the Scriptures. And\nit was precisely the adoption of a new authority which they desired to\nprevent. So completely was their foresight on this point justified,\nthat not long after the death of Christ, his assumed followers received\nconverts without circumcision, that all-essential rite; and that, after\nthe lapse of no long period of time, Judaism was entirely abandoned,\nand a new religion, with new dogmas, new ritual, and new observances,\nwas founded in its place. Surely the action of the men who sat in\njudgment upon Jesus needs no further justification, from their own\npoint of view, than this one consideration. They had no more sacred\ntrust, in their own eyes, than to prevent the admission of any other\nobject of worship than the Lord Jehovah. Christ speedily became among\nChristians an object of worship. They owned no more solemn duty than\nto observe in all its parts the law delivered by their God to Moses.\nThat law was almost instantly abandoned by the Christian Church. They\nknew of no more unpardonable crime than apostasy from their faith. That\napostasy was soon committed by the Jewish Christians.\n\nOn all these grounds, then, I venture to maintain that the spiritual\nrulers of Judea were not so blameworthy as has been commonly supposed\nin the execution of Jesus of Nazareth. Judged by the principles\nof universal morality, they were undoubtedly wrong. Judged by the\nprinciples of their own religion, they were no less undoubtedly right.\n\n\n            SUBDIVISION 5.\u2014_What did he think of himself?_\n\nHaving endeavored, as far as our imperfect information will admit, to\nrealize the view that would be taken of Jesus by contemporary Jews, let\nus seek if possible to realize the view which he took of himself. In\nwhat relation did he suppose himself to stand to God the Father? And\nin what relation to the Hebrew law? What was his conception of his own\nmission, and of the manner in which it could best be fulfilled?\n\nThough, in replying to these questions, we suffer somewhat from the\nscarcity of the materials, we do not labor under the same disadvantages\nas those we encountered in the preceding section. For there we had\nto judge between two bitterly hostile parties, of which only one had\npresented its case. And from the highly colored statement of this one\nparty we had to unravel, as best we could, whatever circumstances\nmight be permitted to weigh in favor of the other. Here we have no\nconflicting factions to obscure the truth. The opinion formed by Jesus\nof himself has been handed down to us by his own disciples, who,\neven if they did not perfectly understand him, must at least have\nunderstood him far better than anybody else. And if the picture they\ngive us of the conception he had formed of his own office be consistent\nwith itself, there is also the utmost probability that it is true.\nEspecially will this hold good if this conception should be found to\ndiffer materially from that not long afterwards framed about him by the\nChristian Church.\n\nConsider first the idea he entertained concerning his Messianic\ncharacter, and his consequent relation to God. His conviction that he\nwas the Messiah, who was sent with a divine message to his nation, was\nevidently the mainspring of his life. It was under this conviction that\nhe worked his cures and preached his sermons. Probably it strengthened\nas he continued in his career, though of this there is no possible\nevidence. Possibly, however, the instructions he gave on several\noccasions to those whom he had healed, and once to his disciples, to\ntell no man about him, arose from a certain diffidence about the power\nby which his miracles were effected (_E.g._, Mk. i. 44; Mt. ix. 30),\nand a reluctance to accept the honor which the populace would have\nconferred upon him. However this may be, he certainly put forward\nhis belief on this subject plainly enough, and its acceptance by his\ndisciples no doubt confirmed it in his own mind, while its rejection by\nthe nation at large, especially the more learned portion of it, gave\na flavor of bitterness to the tone in which he insisted upon it. The\ntitle by which he habitually designates himself is the Son of man. This\nwas, no doubt, selected as a more modest name than \"Son of God.\" The\nlatter was never (if we exclude the fourth Gospel) applied by Jesus to\nhimself, but when applied to him by others, he made no objection to it,\nbut accepted it as his due. The inference from his behavior is, that he\nliked to be thought the Son of God (as indeed is shown by his eulogy of\nPeter when that apostle had so described him) (Mt. xvi. 17; vers. 18\nand 19 are probably interpolations), but that he did not quite venture\nto claim the title for himself. That he was ever imagined, either by\nhimself or others, to be the Son of God in the literal, materialistic\nsense in which the term was afterwards understood, it would be an\nentire mistake to suppose. No such notion had ever been formulated\nby the Jewish mind, and it would, no doubt, have filled his earliest\ndisciples with horror. As Mr. Westcott truly observes, \"Years must\nelapse before we can feel that the words of one who talked with men\nwere indeed the words of God\" (Canon of New Testament, p. 64). Nor was\nthe Hebrew Jehovah the sort of divinity who would have had a son by a\nyoung village maiden. Proceedings of that kind were left to the heathen\ndeities. Nor did Christ, in claiming a filial relationship to God, ever\nintend to claim unity with the divine essence, still less to assert\nthat he actually was God himself. This notion of identity would receive\nno sanction even from the fourth Gospel, which does, quite unlike its\npredecessors, lend some sanction to that of unity in nature. The best\nproof of this is that Jesus never, at any period of his life, desired\nhis followers to worship him, either as God or as the Son of God. Had\nhe believed of himself what his followers subsequently believed of him,\nthat he was one of the constituent persons in a divine trinity, he must\nhave enjoined his apostles both to address him in prayer themselves,\nand to desire their converts to address him. It is quite plain that he\ndid nothing of the kind, and that they never supposed him to have done\nso. Belief in Christ as the Messiah was taught as the first dogma of\napostolic Christianity, but adoration of Christ as God was not taught\nat all. But we are not left in this matter to depend on conjectural\ninferences. The words of Jesus are plain. Whenever occasion arose,\nhe asserted his inferiority to the Father (as Milton has proved to\ndemonstration),[31] though, as no one had then dreamt of his equality,\nit is natural that the occasions should not have been frequent. He made\nhimself inferior in knowledge when he said that of the day and hour of\nthe day of judgment no one knew, neither the angels in heaven, nor the\nSon; no one except the Father (Mk. xiii. 32). He made himself inferior\nin power when he said that seats on his right hand and on his left\nin the kingdom of heaven were not his to give (Mk. x. 40); inferior\nin virtue when he desired a certain man not to address him as \"Good\nmaster,\" for there was none good but God (Mk. x. 18). The words of his\nprayer at Gethsemane, \"all things are possible unto thee,\" imply that\nall things were not possible to him; while its conclusion, \"not what\nI will, but what thou wilt,\" indicates submission to a superior, not\nthe mere execution of a purpose of his own (Mk. xiv. 36). Indeed, the\nwhole prayer would have been a mockery, useless for any purpose but the\ndeception of his disciples, if he had himself been identical with the\nBeing to whom he prayed, and had merely been giving effect by his death\nto their common counsels. While the cry of agony from the cross, \"My\nGod, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?\" (Mk. xv. 34,) would have been\nquite unmeaning if the person forsaken and the person forsaking had\nbeen one and the same. Either, then, we must assume that the language\nof Jesus has been misreported, or we must admit that he never for a\nmoment pretended to be co-equal, co-eternal, or con-substantial with\nGod.\n\nThroughout his public life he spoke of himself as one who was sent\nby God for a certain purpose. What was that purpose? Was it, as\nthe Gentile Christians so readily assumed, to abolish the laws and\ncustoms of the Jews, and to substitute others in their stead? Did\nhe, for example, propose to supplant circumcision by baptism? the\nSabbath by the Sunday? the synagogue by the church? the ceremonial\nobservances of the law of Moses by observances of another kind? If so,\nlet the evidence be produced. For unless we find among his recorded\ninstructions some specific injunction to his disciples that they were\nno longer to be Jews, but Christians, we cannot assume that he intended\nany such revolution. Now, not only can no such injunction be produced,\nbut the whole course of his life negatives the supposition that any was\ngiven. For while teaching much on many subjects, he never at any time\nalludes to the Mosaic dispensation as a temporary arrangement, destined\nto yield to a higher law. Yet it would surely have been strange if he\nhad left his disciples to guess at his intentions on this all-important\nsubject. Moreover, it came directly in his way when he censured the\nPharisees. He frequently accuses them of overlaying the law with a\nmultitude of unnecessary and troublesome rules; but while objecting to\nthese, he never for a moment hints that the very law itself was now\nto become a thing of the past. Quite the reverse. The Pharisees were\nvery scrupulous about paying tithes and disregarded weightier matters;\nthese, he says, they ought to have done, and not to have left the\nother undone. If those tithes were no longer to be paid (at least not\nfor the same objects), why does he not say so? Again, he charges them\nwith transgressing the commandment of God by their tradition; where\nit is the accretions round the law, and not the law itself, which he\nattacks. In one case he even directly imposes an observance of the\nlegal requirements on a man over whom he has influence (Mk. i. 44).\nMoreover, he himself evidently continued to perform the obligations of\nhis Jewish religion until the very end of his life, for one of his last\nacts was to eat the passover with his disciples. The only institution\nwhich he apparently desires to alter at all is the Sabbath, and there\nit is plain that he aims at an amendment in the mode of its observance,\nnot at its entire abolition. Indeed, he justifies his disciples by\ninvoking the example of David, an orthodox Hebrew; and very happily\nremarks, that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath\u2014one\nof his best and most epigrammatic sayings. But an institution made for\nman was indeed one to be rationally observed, but by no means one to be\nlightly tampered with. Jesus, in fact, was altogether a Jew, and though\nan ardent reformer, he desired to reform within the limits of Judaism,\nnot beyond them.\n\nIf further proof were needed of this than the fact that he himself\nneither abandoned the religion of his birth, nor sought to obtain\ndisciples except among those who belonged to it, it would be found in\nhis treatment of the heathen woman whose daughter was troubled with\na devil. To her he distinctly declared that he was not sent except\nto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. In reply to her further\npersistence, he told her that it was not well to take the children's\nmeat and throw it to dogs. Nothing but her appropriate yet modest\nanswer induced him to accede to her request (Mt. xv. 21-28). Further\nconfirmation is afforded by his instructions to his disciples, whom he\ndesired not to go either to the Gentiles or the S\u00e2maritans, but to the\nlost sheep of the house of Israel (Mt. x. 5, 6). His own practice was\naltogether in conformity with these instructions. He markedly confined\nthe benefits of his teaching to his fellow-countrymen. Once only is\nhe said to have visited the neighborhood of Tyre and Sidon, and then\nhe was anxious to preserve the strictest incognito (Mk. vii. 24).\nEven when the Jews refused to believed in him, he sought no converts\namong the Gentiles. He never even intimated that he would receive such\nconverts without their previous adoption of the Jewish faith, and after\nhis decease his most intimate disciples were doubtful whether it was\nlawful to associate with uncircumcised people (Acts x. 28; xi. 2, 3).\nNot only, therefore, had he himself never done so, but he had left no\ninstructions behind him that such a relaxation of Jewish scruples might\never be permitted. True, when disappointed among his own people, he\nnow and then contrasted them in unflattering terms with the heathen.\nChorazin and Bethsaida were worse than Tyre and Sidon; Capernaum less\nopen to conviction than Sodom (Mt. xi. 20-24). The faith of the heathen\ncenturion was greater than any he had found in Israel (Mt. viii. 10).\nBut all these expressions of embittered feeling imply that it was in\nIsrael he had looked for faith, towards Israel that his desires were\nturned. To discover faith out of it might be an agreeable surprise, but\nas a general rule, was neither to be expected nor sought.\n\nHaving, then, determined, what the purport of his mission was not,\nlet us try to discover what it was. The quest is not difficult. The\nwhole of his teaching is pervaded by one ever-recurring keynote, which\nthose who have ears to hear it cannot miss. He came to announce the\napproach of what he termed \"the kingdom of heaven.\" A great revolution\nwas to take place on earth. God was to come, accompanied by Jesus, to\nreward the virtuous and to punish the wicked. A totally new order of\nthings was to be substituted in lieu of the present unjust and unequal\ninstitutions. And Jesus was sent by God to warn the children of Israel\nto prepare for this kingdom of heaven. There was but little time to\nlose, for even now the day of judgment was at hand. The mind of Jesus\nwas laden with this one great thought, to which, with him, all others\nwere subordinate. It runs through his maxims of conduct, his parables,\nhis familiar converse with his disciples. Far from him was the notion\nof founding a new religion, to be extended throughout the world and to\nlast for ages. It was a work of much more immediate urgency which he\ncame to do. \"Prepare for the kingdom of heaven, for it will come upon\nyou in the present generation;\" such was the burden of his message. Let\nus hear his own mode of delivering it to men.\n\nThe very beginning of his preaching, according to Mark, was in this\nstrain: \"The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has approached;\nrepent, and believe the Gospel\" (Mk. i. 15). Precisely similar is the\npurport of his earliest doctrine according to Matthew (Mt. iv. 7).\nHow thoroughly he believed that the time was fulfilled is shown by\nhis decided declaration that there were some among his hearers who\nwould not taste of death till they had seen the kingdom of God come\nwith power (Mk. ix. 1), a saying which, as it would never have been\ninvented, is undoubtedly genuine. He told his disciples that Elias,\nwho was expected to precede the kingdom of heaven, had already come\n(Mk. ix. 13).\n\nOver and over again, in a hundred different ways, this absorbing\nthought finds expression in his language. The one and only message the\ndisciples are instructed to carry to the \"lost sheep of the house of\nIsrael\" is that the kingdom of heaven is at hand (Mt. x. 17). When a\ncity does not receive them, they are to wipe off the dust of it against\nthem, and bid them be sure that the kingdom of God is near them (Lu.\nx. 11). In the coming judgment, Chorazin, Bethsaida, and above all his\nown place Capernaum, were to suffer more than Tyre and Sidon. Earthly\nmatters assume, in consequence of this conviction of their temporary\nnature, a very trivial aspect. The disciples are to take no thought\nfor the morrow; the morrow will take thought for itself. Nor are they\nto trouble themselves about food and clothing, but to seek first the\nkingdom of God (Mt. vi. 31-34). They are not to lay up treasure on\nearth, but in heaven, in order that their hearts may be there (Mt.\nvi. 19-21). Moreover, they must be always on the watch, as the Son of\nman will come upon them at an unexpected hour. It would not do then\nto be engaged as the wicked antediluvians were when overtaken by the\nflood, in the occupations of eating and drinking, or marrying and\ngiving in marriage. Instead of this, they must be like the faithful\nservant whom his master on returning to his house found watching (Mt.\nxxiv. 38, 42, 43; Lu. xii. 37, 38). Preparation is to be made for the\nkingdom which their Father will give them by selling what they have\nand bestowing alms, so laying up an incorruptible treasure; by keeping\ntheir loins girded and their lights burning (Lu. xii. 32). Neglect of\nthese precautions will be punished by exclusion from the joys of the\nkingdom, as shown in the parable of the ten virgins (Mt. xxv. 1-13).\nBut the indications of the great event are not understood by the\npeople, who are able to read the signs of the coming weather, but not\nthose of the times (Lu. xii. 54-57); an inability which might have been\ndue to the fact that they had had some experience of the one kind of\nsigns and none of the other. On another occasion, he observes that the\nlaw and the prophets were till John; since then the kingdom of God has\nbeen preached, and every man presses into it (Lu. xvi. 16). Here he\nspecially proclaims himself as the preacher of the kingdom; the man who\nbrought mankind this new revelation. Such was the manner in which this\nrevelation was announced, that some at least of those who heard him\nthought that the kingdom was to come immediately. To counteract this\nview he told the parable of the nobleman who went from home to receive\na kingdom, leaving his servants in charge of certain monies, and\nrewarded them on his return according to the amount of interest they\nhad obtained by usury, punishing one of them who had made no use of\nthe sum intrusted to him (Lu. xix. 11-27). He himself, of course, was\nthe nobleman who received his kingdom and returned again to judge his\nservants. So urgent was the message he had to deliver, that (according\nto one Evangelist) a man who wished to bury his father before joining\nhim was told to let the dead bury their dead, but to go himself and\nannounce the kingdom of God; while another, who asked leave to bid\nfarewell to his family, was warned that no man, having put his hand to\nthe plough, and looking back, was fit for that kingdom (Lu. ix. 58-62).\n\nThe arrival of the kingdom was to be preceded by various signs. There\nwould be false Christs; there would be wars, earthquakes, and famines;\nthere would be persecutions of the faithful; but the Gospel (that is,\nthe announcement of the approach of this new state of things) must\nfirst be published in all nations.[32] Then the sun and moon would be\ndarkened and the stars fall; the Son of man would come in power and\nglory, and gather his elect from all parts of the earth. The existing\ngeneration was not to pass till all these things were done. Not even\nthe Son knew when this would happen; but as it might come suddenly and\nunexpectedly upon them, they were to be continually on the watch (Mk.\nxiii.; Mt. xxiv). The apostles would not even finish the cities of\nIsrael before the Son of man had come (Mt. x. 23).\n\nLittle is said in description of the nature of the kingdom of heaven\nexcept by the method of illustration. The main result to be gathered\nfrom numerous allusions to it is that justice is to prevail. Thus, the\nkingdom of heaven is said to be like a man who sowed good seed in his\nfield, but in whose property an enemy maliciously mingled tares. At\nthe harvest the tares are to be burnt, and the wheat gathered into the\nbarn. This parable Jesus himself explained. The tares are the wicked;\nthe wheat represents \"the children of the kingdom.\" And as tares are\nburnt, so \"the Son of man shall send his angels, and collect from his\nkingdom all offenses, and those who do wickedness, and shall throw them\ninto the furnace of fire; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.\nThen the just shall shine out like the sun in the kingdom of their\nFather.\" The same idea is expressed in the illustration of the net cast\ninto the sea, which gathers good fish and bad. Just as the fishermen\nseparate these, so the angels at the end of the world will separate\nthe wicked from the midst of the just. Other comparisons represent the\ninfluence on the heart of faith in the kingdom. Thus, the kingdom of\nheaven is like a grain of mustard seed, which, though the smallest of\nseeds, becomes the largest of herbs. Or it is like leaven leavening\nthree measures of meal. Again, it is like treasure hid in a field, or a\npearl of great price (Mt. xiii. 24-50).\n\nThe best qualification for pre\u00ebminence in the kingdom was humility.\n\nWhen asked who was to be greatest in the kingdom of heaven, Jesus\nreplied that it would be he who humbled himself like a little child\n(Mt. xviii. 1-4). He delights in the exhibition of striking contrasts\nbetween the present and the future state of things. The first are to be\nthe last, and the last first. Those who have made great sacrifices now\nare then to receive vast rewards (Mk. x. 29-31). He who has lost his\nlife for his sake is to find it, and he who has found it is to lose it\n(Mt. x. 39). The stone rejected by the builder is to become the head\nof the corner (Mk. xii. 10). The kingdom of God is to be taken from\nthe privileged nation and given to another more worthy of it (Mt. xxi.\n43). Publicans and harlots are to take precedence of the respectable\nclasses in entering the kingdom (Mt. xxi. 31). It is scarcely possible\nfor rich men to enter it at all, though God may perhaps admit them by\nan extraordinary exertion of power (Mk. x. 23-27). Many even who trust\nin their high character for correct religion will find themselves\nrejected. But they will be safe who have both heard the sayings of\nJesus and done them. They will have built their houses on rocks, from\nwhich the storms which usher in the kingdom will not dislodge them.\nThose, however, who hear these sayings, and neglect to perform them,\nwill be like foolish men who have built their houses on sand, where\nthe storms will beat them down, and great will be their fall (Mt. vii.\n22-29). That the kingdom is to be on earth, not in some unknown heaven,\nis manifest from the numerous references of Jesus to the time when\nthe Son of man will \"come;\" a time which none can know, yet for which\nall are to watch. He never speaks of men \"going\" to the kingdom of\nheaven; it is the kingdom of heaven which is to come to them. And the\nmost remarkable of the many contrasts will be that between the present\nhumiliation of the Son and his future glory. He will return to execute\nhis Father's decrees. His judges themselves will see him \"sitting on\nthe right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven\" (Mt. xxvi.\n64). Instead of standing as a prisoner at the bar, he will then be\nenthroned as a judge. \"When the Son of man shall come in his glory,\nand all the angels with him, then he shall sit on the throne of his\nglory; and all the nations shall be collected before him, and he shall\nseparate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep\nfrom the goats; and he shall put the sheep on his right hand, but the\ngoats on his left.\" The goats, who have done harm, are then to go into\neverlasting punishment; and the sheep, who have done good, are to pass\ninto eternal life (Mt. xxv. 31-46).\n\nThis equitable adjustment of rewards and punishments to merit and\ndemerit is the leading conception in the revolution which the kingdom\nof heaven is to make. The faithful servant is to be made ruler over his\nmaster's goods; the unfaithful one to be cut off and assigned a portion\nwith the hypocrites. The virgins whose lamps are ready burning will\nbe admitted to the marriage festival. The servants who make the best\nuse of the property committed to their charge will be rewarded, while\nthose who have failed to employ it properly will be cast into outer\ndarkness (Mt. xxiv. 42-xxv. 30). So also the wicked husbandmen in the\nvineyard, who ill treated their master's servants and killed his heir,\nare to be destroyed when he comes, and the vineyard is to be committed\nto other cultivators (Mk. xii. 1-9). All those, on the other hand,\nwho have made great sacrifices for the sake of Christ will receive a\nhundred-fold compensation for all that they have now abandoned (Mt.\nxix. 29, 30).\n\nSuch was the sort of notion\u2014rude, yet tolerably definite\u2014which Jesus\nhad formed of the kingdom his Father was about to found, and for\nthe coming of which he taught his disciples to pray. This hope of a\nreign of justice, of an exaltation of the lowly and virtuous, and a\ndepression of the proud and wicked, animated his teaching and inspired\nhis life. To make known this great event, so shortly to overtake them,\nto mankind, was a duty with which in his opinion he had been charged by\nGod; to receive this message at his hands was in his judgment the first\nof virtues, to spurn it the most unpardonable of crimes.\n\n\n         SUBDIVISION 6.\u2014_What did his disciples think of him?_\n\nThere is on record a remarkable conversation which affords us a\nglimpse, both of the rumors that were current about Christ among the\npeople, and also of the view taken of him by his nearest friends during\nhis life-time. Jesus had gone with his disciples into the towns of\nC\u00e6sarea Philippi. On the way, being apparently curious about the state\nof public opinion, he asked them, \"Whom do men say that I am?\" To this\nthey replied, \"John the Baptist; and some say Elias, and others that\nthou art one of the prophets.\" To which Jesus rejoined, \"But you, whom\nsay you that I am?\" Peter returned the answer, \"Thou art the Messiah;\"\nor \"Thou art the Messiah, the Son of the living God.\" It is remarkable\nthat Peter alone is represented as replying to this second question, as\nif the others had not yet attained to the conviction which this apostle\nheld of the Messiahship of Jesus. Especially would this conclusion be\nconfirmed if we adopted the version of Matthew, where Jesus expresses\nhis high approbation of Peter's answer (Mk. viii. 27-30; Mt. xvi.\n13-20). If this apostle was peculiarly blessed on account of his\nperception of this truth, it may be inferred that his companions had\neither not yet perceived, or were not yet sure of it. That Peter did\nnot mean by calling him the Messiah to state that he was a portion\nof the deity himself, is evident from what follows; for Jesus having\npredicted his future sufferings, \"Peter began to rebuke him,\" anxious\nto avert the omen. Had he believed that it was God himself with whom he\nwas conversing, he could hardly have ventured to question his perfect\nknowledge of the future.\n\nThe doctrine of the divinity of Christ is not, in fact, to be found\nin the New Testament. Even the writer of the fourth Gospel, who holds\nthe highest and most mystical view of his nature, does not teach that.\nOften indeed in that Gospel does Jesus speak of himself as one with the\nFather. But the dogmatic force of all these expressions is measured by\nthe fact that precisely in the same sense he speaks of the disciples as\none with himself. As the Father and he are in one another, so he prays\nthat the disciples may be one in them (Jo. xvii. 21). Moreover, when\nthe Jews charged him with making himself God, he met them by inquiring\nwhether it was not written in their law, \"I said, Ye are gods.\" If,\nthen, those to whom the word of God came were called gods, was it\nblasphemy in him, whom the Father had sanctified and sent, to say, \"I\nam the Son of God?\" (Jo. x. 33-37). Here, then, the term which Jesus\nappropriates is \"Son of God,\" and this he considers admissible because\nthe Hebrew people generally had been called gods. Evidently, then, he\ndoes not admit the charge of making himself God.\n\nThe authority of the fourth Gospel is, of course, of no value in\nenabling us to determine what Jesus said or did, but it is of great\nvalue as evidence of the view taken about him by those of his disciples\nwho, at this early period, had advanced the furthest in the direction\nof placing him on a level with God himself. It is either the latest,\nor one of the latest, compositions in the New Testament, and it proves\nthat, at the period when its author lived, even the boldest spirits had\nnot ventured on the dogma which afterwards became the corner-stone of\nthe Christian creed.\n\nThroughout the rest of the canonical books, Jesus is simply the\nMessiah, the Son of God; in whom, in that sense, it is a duty to\nbelieve. Whoever believes this much is, according to the first epistle\nof John, born of God (1 John v. 1).\n\nClearer still is the evidence that, in the opinion of those most\ncompetent to judge, Jesus had no intention of abolishing the\nobservance of the law of Moses. So far were his disciples from\nimagining that he contemplated any such change, that they were at first\nin doubt whether it was allowable for them even to relax the rules\nwhich forbade social intercourse with heathens. The writer of the Acts\nof the Apostles, however, informs us that, when an important convert\nwas to be won over from the pagan ranks, Peter had the privilege of a\nvision which enjoined him not to call anything which God had cleansed\ncommon or unclean. Interpreting this to mean that he might associate\nwith the Gentiles, he received the heathen convert, Cornelius, with all\ncordiality, and even preached the gospel of Jesus to the uncircumcised\ncompany by whom he was surrounded. That this was a novel measure is\nplainly evinced by the fact that the Jewish Christians who were present\nwere astonished that the gift of the Holy Ghost should be poured out\nupon the Gentiles. They therefore had conceived that Christianity was\nto be confined to themselves (Acts x).\n\nBut there is more direct evidence of the same fact. When Peter returned\nto Jerusalem, the circumcised believers there found fault with him\nbecause he had gone in to uncircumcised men, and had eaten with them.\nPeter, of course, related his vision in self-defense, and since there\nwas no reply to be made to such an argument as this, they accepted the\nnew and unexpected fact which he announced: \"Well, then, God has given\nrepentance to life to the Gentiles also\" (Acts xi. 1-18). Paul, who was\ntoo strong-minded to need a revelation to teach him the best way of\npromoting Christian interests, also received heathen converts without\nrequiring them to come under Jewish obligations. But the conduct of\nthese apostles was far from meeting with unmixed approbation in the\ncommunity. Some men from Judea came to Antioch, where Paul and Barnabas\nwere, and informed the brethren there that unless they were circumcised\nthey could not be saved. So important was this question deemed, that\nPaul and Barnabas, after much disputing with these Judaic Christians,\nagreed to go with them to Jerusalem to refer the matter to a council\nof the apostles and elders. Obviously, then, it was a new case which\nhad arisen. No authoritative _dictum_ of Jesus could be produced. The\npossibility of having to receive heathens among his disciples was one\nhe had never contemplated. Called to deal with this supremely important\nquestion, on which the whole future of the Church turned, the apostles\ndisplayed moderation and good sense. Acting on the concurrent advice\nof Peter, Paul, James, and Barnabas, they wrote to the brethren in\nAntioch, Syria, and Cilicia, that they had determined to lay no greater\nburden upon them than these necessary things:\u20141. Abstinence from meat\noffered to idols; 2. from blood; 3. from things strangled; 4. from\nfornication. Hence it will be seen that they absolved the heathen\nbelievers from all Jewish observances except two, those that forbade\nblood and things strangled. These, from long habit and the fixed\nprejudices of their race, no doubt appeared to them to have some deeper\nfoundation than a mere arbitrary command. These therefore they enjoined\neven upon pagans (Acts xv. 1-31).\n\nBe it observed, however, that this dispensation applied only to those\nwho were not of Hebrew blood. The apostles and elders assembled at\nJerusalem had no thought of dispensing _themselves_ from the binding\nforce of the law of Moses. To observe it was alike their privilege\nand their duty. They did not conceive that, in becoming Christians,\nthey had ceased to be Jews, any more than a Catholic who becomes a\nProtestant conceives that he has ceased to be a Christian. The question\nwhether those who had been born Jews should abandon their ancient\nreligion was not even raised at this time among them. The only question\nwas whether those who had not been born Jews should adopt it.\n\nInnovation, however, is not to be arrested at any given point. Liberty\nhaving been conceded to the Gentiles, it was not unnatural that some\nof the apostles, when living among the Gentiles, should take advantage\nof it for themselves. No overt rule was adopted on this subject. It\nseems to have been tacitly understood that all Jews should continue\nto be bound by the rigor of their native customs, except in so far as\nthey had been modified by common consent: and the attempt of some to\nescape from this burden was an occasion of no small scandal to the\nmore orthodox members of the sect (Acts xxi. 20; Gal. ii. 12). Both\nPeter and Paul indeed, at separate times, were compelled to make some\nconcessions to the extremely strong feeling in favor of the law which\nexisted at headquarters. The conduct of these two eminent apostles\nmerits examination.\n\nPeter, it appears, never gave up Judaism in his own person; but when\nstaying at Antioch he mixed freely with Gentiles, making no attempt to\nimpose the law upon them, and approving of the proceedings of Paul. It\nso happened, however, that there came to Antioch some brethren from\nJames at Jerusalem. These men were strict Jews, and Peter was so much\nafraid of them, that he \"withdrew and separated himself\" from his\nformer companions. The other Jewish Christians, and even Barnabas,\nthe former friend of Paul, were induced to act in the same way. Paul,\nwho was not likely to lose the opportunity of a little triumph over\nPeter, ruthlessly exposed his misconduct. According to his account, he\npublicly addressed him in these terms: \"If thou, being a Jew, livest\nlike a Gentile and not like a Jew, why dost thou compel the Gentiles\nto be like Jews?\" (Gal. ii. 11-14.). What answer Peter returned, or\nwhether he returned any, Paul does not inform us. His charge against\nPeter I understand to be, not that the apostle had positively adopted\nheathen customs, and then taken up Jewish ones again, but that he had\nrelaxed in his own favor the rules which forbade Jews from eating with\nGentiles. On the appearance of the stricter Christians from Jerusalem\nhe put on the appearance of a strictness equal to their own. Such\nconduct was consistent with the character of the disciple who had\ndenied his master.\n\nPaul himself, on the other hand, was a complete freethinker. Once\nconverted, the system of which he had formerly been the zealous\nupholder no longer had any power over his emancipated mind. His\nrobust and logical intellect soon delivered him from the fetters in\nwhich he had been bound. Far, however, from following his example,\nthe Christians at Jerusalem were shocked at the laxity of his morals.\nThe steps he took to conciliate them are graphically described in the\nActs of the Apostles. On visiting the capital, Paul and his companions\nwent to see James, with whom were assembled all the elders; and Paul\ndescribed the success he had met with among the Gentiles. Hereupon the\nassembled company, or more probably James as their spokesman, informed\nPaul what very disadvantageous reports were current concerning him.\n\"Thou seest, brother,\" they began, \"how many thousands of believers\nthere are among the Jews, and all are zealots for the law; and they\nhave been informed of thee that thou teachest the Jews among the\nGentiles apostasy from Moses, saying that they should not circumcise\ntheir children, nor walk in the customs. What is it, then? It is quite\nnecessary that the multitude should meet, for they will hear that thou\nart come. Do then this that we tell thee. We have four men who have\na vow upon them; take these and be purified with them, and bear the\nexpense with them of having their heads shaven; and all will know that\nthere is nothing in what they have heard about thee, but that thou also\nwalkest in the observation of the law\" (Acts xxi. 20-24). This sensible\nadvice was adopted by Paul; and the \"zealots for the law,\" who composed\nthe Christian community at Jerusalem, had the satisfaction of seeing\nhim purify himself and enter the temple with the men under the vow.\nOn a later occasion, too, when charged with crime before Felix, Paul\nmentioned the fact that twelve days ago he had gone up to worship at\nJerusalem, as if he had been an orthodox Jew (Acts xxiv. 11).\n\nBut although he might think it expedient to satisfy James and his\nfriends at Jerusalem by a concession to public opinion, the rumor which\nhad reached the brethren there, if unfounded in the letter, was in\nfact an accurate representation of the inevitable outcome of Paul's\nteaching. Possibly he did not wish to press his own views upon others\nof his nation, and therefore did not interfere with such of them as,\nthough living among heathens, yet adhered religiously to their national\ncustoms. But unquestionably his own feelings were strongly enlisted\nin favor of the abolition of the law, and if the Jewish Christians\nread and accepted his writings, they could hardly fail to adopt his\npractice. The law in his opinion was no longer necessary for those who\nbelieved in Christ. He is not the true Jew who is one outwardly, nor\nis that the true circumcision which is outward. He is a Jew who is so\ninternally, and circumcision is of the heart in the spirit, not in\nthe letter. If it be asked what advantage the Jew has, Paul replies\nthat he has much: the first of all, that to his nation were confided\nthe oracles of God (Rom. ii. 28, 29, iii. 1, 2). He knows, he says,\nand is persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean in\nitself, though to him who thinks it so it may be unclean. It is well\nto abstain from eating flesh or drinking wine, or anything else that\nmay give offense to others, but these things are all unimportant in\nthemselves. One man esteems one day above another; another man esteems\nthem all alike; let each be fully persuaded in his own mind. Only let\nus not judge one another, nor put stumbling-blocks in one another's way\n(Rom. xiv).\n\nFrom these considerations it appears that the suspicions entertained\nof Paul at Jerusalem were substantially true. Possibly he did not\nabsolutely teach the Jews to abandon the law; possibly he did not even\ncompletely abandon it himself. But in his writings he constantly treats\nit as a thing indifferent in itself; Christians might or might not\nbelieve in its obligations, and provided they acted conscientiously,\nall was well. Along with these very skeptical opinions, however,\nPaul strongly held to the necessity of worldly prudence. He is very\nindignant with the \"false brethren privily introduced, who slipped in\nto spy out the liberty we have in Jesus Christ, that they might enslave\nus; to whom,\" he adds, \"we did not yield by subjection even for an\nhour\" (Gal. ii. 4, 5). But whether the brethren at Jerusalem required\nhim to clear himself from the report that he was not an observer of the\nlaw, there came in another principle of action, which he has himself\nexplained with praiseworthy frankness. \"To the Jews,\" he tells the\nCorinthians, \"I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to those\nunder the law as under the law, not being myself under the law, that I\nmight gain those under the law; to those without law, as without law\n(not being without law to God, but law-abiding to Christ), that I might\ngain those without law; to the weak I became weak, that I might gain\nthe weak; I became all things to all men, that by all means I might\nsave some\" (1 Cor. ix. 20-22). Acting on this elastic rule, Paul might\neasily comply with all the demands of James and his zealots. To the\nJews he became a Jew for the nonce. It was perhaps in the same spirit\nof worldly wisdom that he took the precaution of circumcising a young\nconvert who was Jewish only on the mother's side, his father having\nbeen a Greek (Acts xvi. 1-3).\n\nWhile such was the conduct of this strong-minded reformer, it is plain\nthat his attitude towards the law was not shared by the personal\nfriends of Jesus. James at Jerusalem adhered strictly to Judaism.\nThe other apostles, so far as we know, did the same. The rest of the\nbrethren there did the same. Paul was tolerated, and even cordially\nreceived, as the apostle of the Gentiles, but it does not appear that\nhe had any following among the Jews. Had any of the original apostles\nfollowed him in his bold innovations, he would surely have mentioned\nthe fact, as he has mentioned the partial adhesion of Peter. On the\ncontrary, he seems in his epistles, when attacking the Judaic type\nof Christianity, to be arguing as much against them as against the\nunchristian Jews or the heathen.\n\nStronger evidence than mere inference is, however, obtainable on this\npoint. The Jewish Christians, who had received their doctrines direct\nfrom the companions of Jesus, soon came to form a sect apart, and\nwere known by the name of Ebionites. Of these men, Iren\u00e6us tells us\nthat \"they use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate\nthe apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law.\"\nMoreover, \"they practice circumcision, persevere in the observance of\nthose customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their\nstyle of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house\nof God\" (Adv. H\u00e6r. i. 26). It was a strange fate that befell these\nunfortunate people, when, overwhelmed by the flood of heathenism that\nhad swept into the Church, they were condemned as heretics. Yet there\nis no evidence that they had ever swerved from the doctrines of Jesus,\nor of the disciples who knew him in his life-time. Jesus himself had\nbeen circumcised, and he certainly never condemned the rite, or spoke\nof it as useless for the future. He was so Judaic in his style of life\nthat he reverenced the temple at Jerusalem as \"a house of prayer for\nall nations,\" and deemed it his special duty to purify it from what\nhe regarded as pollution. But the torrent of progress swept past the\nEbionites, and left them stranded on the shore.\n\nShould the position here maintained with reference to the Judaic\ncharacter of the early Christians be thought to require further\nconfirmation, I should find it in the weighty words of a theologian\nwho, while entirely Christian in his views, is also one of the highest\nauthorities on the history of the Church. Neander, speaking of this\nquestion, observes that the disciples did not at once arrive at the\nconsciousness of that vocation which Christ (in his opinion) had\nindicated to them, namely, that they should form a distinct community\nfrom that of the Jews. On the contrary, they attached themselves to\nthis community in every respect, and all the forms of the national\ntheocracy were holy to them. \"They lived in the conviction that these\nforms would continue as they were till the return of Christ, by which\na new and higher order of things was to be founded; and this change\nthey expected as one that was near at hand. Far from them, therefore,\nlay the thought of the foundation of a new cultus, even if from the\nlight of belief in the Redeemer new ideas had dawned upon them about\nthat which belonged to the essence of the true adoration of God. They\ntook part as zealously in the service of the temple as any pious Jews.\nOnly they believed that a sifting would take place among the theocratic\npeople, and that the better part of it would be incorporated in _their_\ncommunity by the recognition of Jesus as the Messiah\" (Neander,\nPflanzung der Christlichen Kirche, vol. i. p. 38). Neander proceeds to\npoint out\u2014and here too his remarks are valuable\u2014that the outward forms\nof Judaism gave facilities for the formation of such smaller bodies\nwithin the general body, by means of the division into synagogues. The\nChristians, therefore, constituted merely a special synagogue, embraced\nwithin the mass of believers who all accepted the law of Moses, all\nworshiped at the temple of Jerusalem. It will be seen, however, that\nI differ from Neander in so far as he supposes that the members of\nthe Christian synagogue, in adhering to Judaism, were neglecting any\nindications given by their founder. On the contrary, it appears to me a\nmore reasonable explanation of their conduct that the founder himself\nhad never contemplated that entire emancipation from Judaic forms which\nwas soon to follow.\n\nOn these two points, then\u2014the humanity of Jesus and his Judaism\u2014the\nearly history of the Church affords our position all possible support.\nHow is it about the third\u2014his announcement of a kingdom of heaven soon\nto come? Paul must have derived his doctrine on this point, whatever it\nwas, from those who were disciples of Christ before him, for it does\nnot appear that he had any special revelation on the subject. Let us\nhear what was the impression made upon his mind by their report of the\nteaching of Jesus. \"We do not wish you to be ignorant, brethren\"\u2014so he\nwrites to the Thessalonians\u2014\"that you may not grieve like the rest who\nhave no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, thus\nalso will God bring those who sleep through Jesus. For this we say to\nyou _by the word of the Lord_\" (Paul therefore is speaking with all the\nauthority of his apostolic commission), \"_that we who are alive and are\nleft for the coming of the Lord_ shall not take precedence of those who\nare asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with the\nword of command, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet\nof God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive\nand are left shall be snatched with them in the clouds to meet the\nLord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord\" (1 Thess.\niv. 13-17). Clearer than this it is difficult to be. There can be no\nquestion whatever, unless we put an arbitrary significance on these\nwords, that Paul looked for the second coming of Christ and the final\njudgment long before the existing generation had passed away. Some will\nfall asleep before that day, but he fully expects that he himself and\nmany of those whom he is addressing will be alive to witness it. So\nconfident is he of this, that he even describes the order in which the\nfaithful will proceed to join their Lord, the dead taking a higher rank\nthan the living. He differs from Jesus, and probably from the other\napostles, in placing the kingdom of heaven somewhere in the clouds,\nand not on earth. But he entirely agrees with them as to the date of\nthe revolution. Quite consistent with the above passage is another (of\nwhich, however, the correct reading is doubtful): \"We shall not all\nsleep, but we shall all be changed.\"\n\nFilled with the like hope, he prays that the spirit, mind, and _body_\nof the Thessalonians may be preserved blameless to the coming of Christ\n(1 Thess. v. 23). And he comforts them in a subsequent letter by the\npromise that they who are troubled shall have \"rest with us in the\nrevelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with the angels of his power\"\n(2 Thess. i. 7). While, in writing to the Corinthians, he speaks of\nthe existing generation as those \"upon whom the ends of the ages have\ncome.\"\n\nNot less clear is the language of the other apostles. Peter on that\nmemorable day of Pentecost when the apostles exhibit the gift of\ntongues, and some irreverent spectators are led to charge them with\ninebriety, explains to the assembly that the scene which had just\nbeen witnessed was characteristic of the \"last days,\" as foretold by\nthe prophet Joel. In those days their sons and their daughters were\nto prophesy, their young men to see visions, and their old men to\ndream dreams; the Spirit was to be poured out on God's servants and\nhandmaidens; there were to be signs and wonders; blood, fire, and\nsmoke; the sun was to be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood;\nand whoever called on the name of the Lord was to be saved. Thus Peter,\nthan whom there could be no higher authority as to the mind of Christ,\napplied to his own time the prophetic description of the \"day of the\nLord\" given by Joel (Acts ii. 14-21). James exhorts his disciples\nnot to be in too great a hurry for the arrival of Christ. They are\nto imitate the husbandman waiting for the ripening of his crops. \"Be\nyou also patient: confirm your hearts; for the coming of the Lord\ndraws near\" (James v. 7, 8). The author of the first epistle of Peter\ndistinctly informs the Christian community that \"the end of all things\nis at hand.\" And he warns them not to think it strange concerning the\nfiery trial which is to try them, \"but rejoice, inasmuch as you share\nin the sufferings of Christ; that in the revelation of his glory you\nmay also rejoice with exceeding joy\" (1 Pet. iv. 7, 12, 13). Further on\nhe promises that when the chief Shepherd appears, they shall receive\n\"the unfading crown of glory\" (1 Pet. v. 4). In the first epistle of\nJohn the disciples are thus exhorted: \"And now, little children, remain\nin him, that when he comes we may have boldness, and may not be ashamed\nbefore him at his coming\" (1 Jo. ii. 28).\n\nIn the next chapter he tells them that, \"when he appears we shall\nbe like him, for we shall see him as he is\" (1 Jo. iii. 2). Of the\nApocalypse it cannot be necessary to speak in detail. The one great\nthought that inspires it from beginning to end is that of the speedy\nreturn of Jesus, accompanied as it will be by the judgment of the\nwicked, the reward of the faithful, and the establishment of a new\nheaven and a new earth far more glorious and more beautiful than those\nthat are to pass away. The end of the book is conclusive as to its\nmeaning: \"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify these things to you\nin the churches.\" \"He that testifies these things says, 'Surely I come\nquickly. So be it; come, Lord Jesus'\" (Rev. xxii. 16, 20).\n\nThere is another passage bearing on this subject, which, as it appears\nto have been written at a later date than any of those hitherto\nquoted, may best be considered last. It is found in the second epistle\nattributed to Peter. The epistle was probably written after the first\ngeneration of Christians had passed away, but the forger endeavors\nto assume the style of the apostle whose name he borrows. From the\nlanguage he employs it is evident that there was some impatience among\nbelievers in his day on account of what seemed to them the long delay\nin the second coming of Christ. Scoffers had arisen, who were putting\nthe awkward question, \"Where is the promise of his coming? for since\nthe fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the\nbeginning of creation.\" Such scoffers, he tells them, are to come \"in\nthe last days,\" and he warns them how to resist the influence of their\nspecious arguments. For this purpose he reminds them of the former\ndestruction of the earth by water, and assures them that the present\nheavens and the present earth are to be destroyed by fire. They are\nnot to let the consideration escape them that with the Lord one day is\na thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. Hence God is not\nreally slow about fulfilling his promise, as some people believe; he is\nonly waiting out of kindness, not being willing that any should perish,\nbut desiring that all should come to repentance. But the day of the\nLord will come unexpectedly, like a thief in the night; wherefore the\nChristians who are looking for new heavens and a new earth, according\nto his promise, must take care to be ready that they may be found by\nhim spotless and blameless (2 Pet. iii). Here, then, we have a further\nproof of the hopes entertained by the early Christians; for this\nwriter, who evidently felt that the promises held out by the original\napostles were in danger of being discredited by the long delay in the\nexpected catastrophe, concerns himself to show that the postponement\nof its arrival is not after all so great as it may seem, and seeks\nto dispel the doubts that had grown up concerning it. He thus bears\nimportant testimony to the nature of the expectations entertained by\nthose who had gone before him.\n\nBut even if we had not this epistle, we should find some evidence of\nthe same fact in the writings of the earliest fathers. Thus, in the\nfirst epistle of Clement, the Christians are warned in the following\nlanguage:\u2014\n\n\"Far from us be that which is written, 'Wretched are they who are of\na double mind and of a doubting heart;' who say, 'These things we\nhave heard even in the time of our fathers; but behold, we have grown\nold and none of them has happened unto us!' Ye foolish ones! compare\nyourselves to a tree; take [for instance] the vine. First of all it\nsheds its leaves, then it buds, next it puts forth leaves, and then it\nflowers; after that comes the sour grape, and then follows the ripened\nfruit. Ye perceive how in a little time the fruit of a tree comes to\nmaturity. Of a truth, soon and suddenly shall his will be accomplished,\nas the Scripture also bears witness, saying, 'Speedily will he come,\nand not tarry;' and, 'The Lord shall suddenly come to his temple, even\nthe Holy One, for whom ye look'\" (First Ep. of Clement, ch. xxiii.\u2014A.\nN. L., vol. i. p. 24).\n\nFurther on, the same writer expressly states that what the apostles\nof Christ preached was the speedy advent of the new order of things.\n\"Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the\nresurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of\nGod, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming\nthat the kingdom of God was at hand\" (Ibid., ch. xli.\u2014A. N. L., vol. i.\np. 37). Here, then, we have authority of this very early writer for the\nstatement that such was the view taken of the mission of Jesus by his\noriginal disciples.\n\nAgain, in the second epistle of Clement, this expression occurs:\u2014\"Let\nus expect, therefore, hour by hour, the kingdom of God in love and\nrighteousness, since we know not the day of the appearing of God\"\n(Second Ep. of Clement, ch. xii.\u2014A. N. L., vol. i. p. 62). Thus it\nappears that the apostles received from Jesus, and the early Christians\nfrom the apostles, the doctrine that the return of the Messiah in his\nglory would take place soon.\n\n\n             SUBDIVISION 7.\u2014_What are we to think of him?_\n\nWe come now to the most important question of all, namely, what\nopinion the evidence we possess should lead us to form of the moral\ncharacter of Jesus, and of the value of his teaching. In considering\nthis subject, we are met at the threshold of the inquiry by the\nextreme difficulty of discarding the traditional view which has gained\ncurrency among us. Not only believers in the Christian religion, but\nfreethinkers who look upon Christ as no more than an extraordinary man,\nhave united to utter his praises in no measured terms. His conduct has\nbeen supposed to present an ideal of perfection to the human race, and\nhis aphorisms to embody the supreme degree of excellence and of wisdom.\nSome critics, not being Christians, have even gone so far as to assume\nthat whatever items in his reported language or behavior seemed to\nreflect some discredit upon him could not be genuine, but must be due\nto the imaginations of his disciples.\n\nAll this unbounded panegyric naturally raises in the minds of critics\nwho have freed themselves from the accepted tradition a slight\nprejudice against him, and this may lead them to regard his errors\nwith too unsparing a severity, and to mete out scant justice to the\nmerits he may really possess. No task can be less easy than that of\napproaching this question with a mind entirely devoid of bias on the\none side or on the other. For my own part, I shall endeavor, if I\ncannot attain perfect impartiality, at least neither to praise nor to\nblame without adequate reason.\n\nBefore proceeding, however, it may be well to state that I\nshall not attempt to discriminate between the authentic and the\nunauthentic utterances of Jesus, but shall take for granted that his\nreporters\u2014excluding the fourth Evangelist\u2014have in the main reported him\ncorrectly. No doubt this position is not strictly true. There must be\nerrors, and there may be grave errors in the record, since those who\ntransmitted the language of their master trusted only to memory. But it\nis on the whole much more likely that the parables, sermons, and short\nsayings ascribed to Jesus represent with some approach to fidelity what\nhe really said, than that they, or any considerable portion of them,\nwere invented by any of his disciples afterwards. They have, moreover,\na characteristic flavor which it would have been difficult for a\nforger to give to the fictitious utterances he might have added to the\ngenuine remains. It is, however, a question of minor import whether\nthe synoptical writers are or are not faithful reporters. Jesus is\npresented to our admiration by them as the Son of God, and as a pattern\nof virtue and of wisdom. Therefore, even if we are not criticising a\nportrait from life, we are at least criticising the ideal portrait\nwhich they have held up as an object of worship, and which Christendom\nhas accepted as such.\n\nOmitting (as already considered) those very considerable portions of\nhis doctrine which refer to himself and to his kingdom, we may proceed\nto the more strictly ethical elements which are to be found scattered\nabout in his instructions to his hearers, sometimes contained in those\nstriking parables which, following the habit of his nation, he was fond\nof relating; sometimes in the short, clear, and incisive sentences of\nwhich he was a master. In considering the value and originality of his\nviews, it will be of advantage to compare them, where we can, with\nthose of other great teachers of mankind.\n\nPerhaps one of the most conspicuous peculiarities is his fondness for\nimpressive contrasts. He has a peculiar pleasure in contemplating\nthe reversal of existing arrangements. The first are to be last; the\nhumble exalted; the poor preferred to the rich; the meanest to become\nthe greatest, and so forth. Strangely similar to this favorite idea,\nso continually making its appearance in his moral forecasts, is the\nlanguage frequently used by his Chinese predecessor La\u00f2-ts\u00e9, who in\nmore than one respect greatly resembles him. Thus Jesus tells his\ndisciples that he who is greatest among them shall be their servant,\nand that he who exalts himself shall be abased, while he who humbles\nhimself shall be exalted (Mt. xxiii. 10, 11). Elsewhere he declares\nthat if any man desire to be first, he shall be last, and servant of\nall (Mk. ix. 35). Presenting a child, to render his lesson the more\nimpressive, he tells them that he who humbles himself like this little\nchild is greatest in the kingdom of heaven (Mt. xviii. 4). Exactly\nin the same tone La\u00f2-ts\u00e9 observes that \"the holy man places himself\nbehind, and comes to the front; neglects himself and is preserved\" (T.\nt. k., ch. vii). Heaven, according to the same sage, does precisely as\nJesus expects his Father to do in the kingdom of heaven. \"It lowers\nthe high, it raises the low. The way of heaven is to diminish what is\nsuperfluous, to complete what is deficient. The way of man is not this;\nhe diminishes what is deficient to add it to what is superfluous\" (T.\nt. k., ch. lxxvii).\n\nOn the same subject of humility, an opinion of the philosopher Mang, or\nMencius, may be compared with one of Christ's. There was a strife among\nthe disciples of the latter which should be accounted the greatest.\nChrist said: \"The kings of the earth have dominion over them, and they\nwho have authority over them are called benefactors. But be not you\nso: but let the greater among you be as the younger, and he that leads\nas he that serves\" (Lu. xxii. 25, 26). Now Mang in like manner warns\nhis disciples against the craving for authority. \"Mencius said: 'The\nsuperior man has three things in which he delights, and to be ruler\nover the empire is not one of them. That his father and mother are both\nalive, and that the condition of his brothers affords no cause for\nanxiety;\u2014this is one delight. That, when looking up, he has no occasion\nfor shame before heaven; and below, he has no occasion to blush before\nmen;\u2014this is a second delight. That he can get from the whole empire\nthe most talented individuals, and teach and nourish them;\u2014this is the\nthird delight. The superior man has three things in which he delights,\nand to be ruler over the empire is not one of them'\" (Mang, vii. 1,\n20.\u2014C. C., vol. ii. p. 334). This definition of the pleasures of the\nhigh-minded man is quite equal of its kind to anything that has been\nsaid on the same subject by Jesus. It is true that Mang ranges over\na somewhat wider field, and that therefore the sentences just quoted\ndo not admit of exact comparison with anything coming from Jesus.\nBut while both agree in reprobating the desire to exercise power,\nMang goes beyond Jesus in proposing to substitute other interests for\nthat of political ambition. And these interests are of the best kind.\nHis \"superior man\" rejoices in the prosperity of his family, in the\nconsciousness of his innocence of any disgraceful conduct, and in his\nopportunities of teaching those who are most worthy of his instructions\nand most likely to carry on his work. The latter is a pleasure which\nis rarely mentioned, and it shows much thoughtfulness on the part of\nthe philosopher to have upheld it as an object in life.\n\nCuriously enough, another Chinese sage has anticipated another of the\nbest points in the doctrine of Jesus. Jesus enjoined his hearers not\nto practice charity in a public and ostentatious manner, like the\nhypocrites, \"but when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what\nthy right hand doeth\" (Mt. vi, 3). In this admirable maxim he would\nhave had the support of all true Confucians, for one of their canonical\nwriters had also told them that \"it is the way of the superior man\nto prefer the concealment of his virtue, while it daily becomes more\nillustrious, and it is the way of the mean man to seek notoriety, while\nhe daily goes more and more to ruin\" (C. C., i. 295.\u2014Chung Yung, ch.\nxxxiii. 1).\n\nOn another question, that of the admonition of an erring friend,\nJesus gave an opinion which is in perfect accord with an opinion\ngiven by Confucius. If a man's brother trespass against him, he is\nfirst, according to Jesus, to take him to task in private; should\nthat fail, to call in two or three witnesses to hear the charge; and\nshould the offender still be obdurate, to inform the Church.[33] If\nhis impenitence continue even after this, he is to become to him\n\"as a heathen and a publican\" (Mt. xviii. 15-17). Turning to the\nconversations of Confucius, we find the following:\u2014\"Tsze-kung asked\nabout friendship. The Master said, 'Faithfully admonish your friend,\nand kindly try to lead him. If you find him impracticable, stop. Do not\ndisgrace yourself'\" (Lun Yu, b. xii. ch. 33.\u2014C. C., i. 125). The steps\ninculcated by the two teachers are, making allowance for difference of\ncountry, almost identical.\n\nThe thoughts as well as the language of Jesus are often reproduced with\nsingular fidelity in the sacred works of Buddhists. As the Buddha is,\non the whole, the prophet whose character approaches most closely to\nthat of Jesus, so we are almost certain to find in the literature of\nBuddhism nearly all the most exalted features of his ethical teaching.\nThus Jesus praises the poor widow who contributes her mite to the\ntemple treasury, because she has given all that she had. In one of the\nnumerous legends supposed to have been related by Sakyamuni an exactly\nsimilar incident occurs. A former Buddha was traveling through various\ncountries, accompanied by his attendant monks. The rich householders\npresented them with all kinds of food as offerings. A poor man, who had\nno property whatever, and lived by collecting wood in the mountains\nand selling it, had gained two coins by the pursuit of his industry.\nPerceiving the Buddha coming from a visit to the royal palace, he\ndevoutly gave him these two coins; his sole possession in the world.\nThe Buddha received them, and mercifully remembered the donor, who\n(as Sakyamuni now explained) was richly rewarded during ninety-one\nsubsequent ages (W. u. Th., p. 53). The widow's mite is no less closely\nreflected in the following anecdote from the same collection. In the\ntime of a former Buddha, a certain monk belonging to his train had\ngone out to collect the offerings of the pious. He arrived at the hut\nof a miserable couple, who had nothing between them but an old piece\nof cotton-wool. When the husband went out to beg, the wife sat at home\nnaked in the hay; and when the wife went out, the husband remained in\nthe same condition. To these people then the monk approached, crying\nout as usual, \"Go and prostrate yourself before Buddha! present him\nwith gifts!\" It happened that the wife was wearing the cotton-wool on\nthis occasion. She therefore requested the holy man to wait a little,\npromising to return. Hereupon she entered the house and requested the\npermission of her husband to offer the cotton-wool to Buddha. He,\nhowever, pointed out that as they had not the smallest property beyond\nthis, extreme inconvenience would result from the loss of it, for both\nof them must then remain at home. To this she replied that they must\nneeds die in any case, and that their hopes for the future would be\nmuch improved if they died after presentation of an offering. She then\nreturned to the monk, and requested him to turn away his eyes a moment.\nBut he told her to give her alms openly in her hands, and that he would\nthen recite a benediction over them. The full delicacy of her situation\nhad now to be explained. \"Except this cotton-wool stuff on my body I\nhave nothing, and no other clothing; since, then, it would be improper\nfor thee to behold the foul-smelling impurity of the female body, I\nwill reach thee out the stuff from within.\" So saying she retired into\nthe house and handed out her garment. When the monk delivered it to\nBuddha, it caused great offense to the king's courtiers, who surrounded\nhim, on account of its being old and dirty. But Buddha, who knew their\nthoughts, said, \"I find, that of all the gifts of this assembly, no\nsingle one surpasses this in cleanliness and purity\" (W. u. Th., p.\n150).\n\nNot only in the case of the widow at the treasury did Jesus dwell\nupon the value of even trifling gifts made for the sake of religion.\nAnother time he declared to those about him that whoever gave them a\ncup of cold water in his name, because they belonged to Christ, would\nnot lose his reward. In Buddhist story the very same ideas are to be\nfound; almost the same words. An eminent member of the Buddha's circle\nsays that \"whoever with a purely-believing heart offers nothing but a\nhandful of water, or presents so much to the spiritual assembly or to\nhis parents, or gives drink therewith to the poor and needy, or to a\nbeast of the field;\u2014this meritorious action will not be exhausted in\nmany ages\" (W. u. Th., p. 37).\n\nThe simile of fishing for men, employed by Jesus in his summons to\nSimon and Andrew, is likewise to be discovered in the works of the\ngreat Asiatic religion. The images of the Bodhisattvas, or Buddhas\nyet to come, frequently hold in their hands a snare, which is thus\nexplained in the _Nippon Pantheon_:\u2014\"He disseminates upon the ocean of\nbirth and decay the Lotus-flower of the excellent law as bait; with\nthe loop of devotion, never cast out in vain, he brings living beings\nup like fishes, and carries them to the other side of the river, where\nthere is true understanding\" (B. T., p. 213). And in the book from\nwhich some illustrations have already been taken, it is said of a\nbeliever that \"he had been seized by the hook of the doctrine, just as\na fish, who has taken the line, is securely pulled out\" (W. u. Th., p.\n114).\n\nHitherto we have noticed a few of the minor points in the doctrine of\nJesus, and while there has been little in these to object to, there\nhas also been little to excite excessive admiration. The extreme\nexaltation of humility, and the evident anxiety to see, not equality\nof conditions, but a reversal of the actual inequalities, are not\namong the best features of his ideal system. We cannot but suspect\nsomething of a personal bias. Thus, in the parable of the Pharisee and\nthe publican, aimed at a hostile and detested order, the publican is\njustified by nothing but his humility; while in that of Lazarus and\nDives, Lazarus is eternally rewarded for nothing but his poverty. It\nis no doubt well to be humble, and we should be glad to see poverty\nremoved; but it is not to be assumed that the Pharisee, conscious of\nleading an honorable life, is therefore a bad man; nor that the rich\nproprietor should be tormented in hell merely because he does not give\nalms to all the beggars who throng about his gates. When Jesus desires\nthat virtuous actions should be done as quietly and even as secretly\nas possible, he inculcates an important principle of morals, and it is\ndevoutly to be wished that we had among us more of this unconspicuous\nkindness, and less ostentatious charity. Where, however, he preaches\non the virtue of bestowing alms on his disciples, he does but echo\na sentiment which is natural to religious teachers in all ages, and\nto which, as we have seen, the emissaries of another and earlier\nfaith, were equally alive. Passing from these comparatively trifling\nquestions, let us consider some of his decisions on the greater moral\nproblems with which he felt called upon to deal.\n\nOn a vast social subject\u2014that of divorce\u2014he pronounced an opinion\nwhich gives us a little insight into his mode of regarding that most\nimportant of all topics, the relations of the sexes. The Pharisees,\nit appears, came to him and asked him whether it was permissible for\na man to put away his wife, Moses having allowed it. Jesus explained\nthat this precept had been given for the hardness of their hearts.\nHis own view was, that man and wife are one flesh, and that if either\nshould leave the other, except on account of unfaithfulness, and marry\nagain, that one would be guilty of adultery. This severe doctrine he\nsupported by one of his short sayings: \"What God hath joined together,\nlet not man put asunder\" (Mk. x. 1-12; Mt. xix. 1-12, and v. 31, 32).\nBut surely this judgment assumes the very point at issue. The joining\ntogether in wedlock is ascribed to God; the putting asunder to man.\nBut granting the sacredness of the marriage tie, it would still be no\nless possible to invoke the divine sanction for its dissolution than\nfor its original formation. And in many instances the maxim might be\nexactly reversed. So unfortunate is the result of many marriages, that\nit would be easy for a religious reformer to say of them, with perfect\nsincerity, \"What man hath joined together, let God put asunder.\" There\nis, in fact, almost as much to be said on moral grounds for the divorce\nof unhappy couples as for the marriage of happy ones. Nor does Jesus\nby any means face the real difficulties of the question by allowing\ndivorce where either of the parties has been guilty of adultery. This,\nno doubt, is the extreme case, and if divorce is not to be given here,\nit can be given nowhere. But why is adultery to be the sole ground of\nseparation? Why is an institution which may bring so much happiness to\nmankind to be converted into one of the most fertile sources of human\nmisery? Why, when both parties to the contract desire separation, is\nan external authority, whether that of opinion or of law, to enforce\nunion? None of these questions appear to have presented themselves to\nthe mind of Jesus. Supposing even that his decision were right, he\nassigns no reasons for it, but simply lays down the law in a trenchant\nmanner, without giving us the least clue to the process by which he\narrived at so strange a conclusion. Nor is it in the least likely\nthat the many perplexities encompassing this, and all other questions\naffecting the morals of sex, had ever troubled him. His mind was not\nsufficiently subtle to enter into them; and thus it is that, throughout\nthe whole course of his career, he lays down no single doctrine (if we\nexcept this one on divorce) which can be of the smallest service to his\ndisciples in the many practical troubles that must beset their lives\nfrom the existence of a natural passion of which he takes no account.\n\nAnother weak point in the system of Jesus is his aversion to wealth\nand wealthy men, apart from the consideration of the good or bad use\nthey may make of their property. Thus, the only advice he gives to the\nrich man who had kept all the commandments was to sell everything he\nhad and give the proceeds to the poor; a measure of very questionable\nadvantage to those for whose benefit it is intended. When the man\nnaturally declined to take this course\u2014practically a mere throwing off\nof the responsibilities of life\u2014Jesus remarked that it was hard for\nthose who had riches to enter the kingdom of God. Seeing the amazement\nof his disciples, he emphasized his doctrine by adding that it was\neasier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a\nrich man to enter that kingdom. Hereupon his disciples, \"excessively\nastonished,\" asked who then could be saved, and Jesus left a loophole\nfor the salvation of the rich by the declaration that, impossible as it\nmight be for men to pass a camel through a needle's eye, all things are\npossible with God (Mk. x. 17-27). A like _animus_ against the wealthier\nclasses is evinced in the story of the king who invited a number of\nguests to a wedding festivity. Those who had received invitations made\nlight of them, one going to his farm, another to his merchandise, and\nso forth; or, according to another version, alleging their worldly\naffairs as excuses. Seeing that they would not come, the king bade his\nservants go out into the highways, and bring in whomsoever they might\nfind; or, as Luke puts it, the poor, the maimed, the halt, and the\nblind (Mt. xxii. 1-10; Lu. xiv. 16-24).\n\nMore indiscriminately still is this aversion to the rich expressed\nin the parable of Lazarus and Dives. Here we are not told that the\ngreat proprietor had been a bad man, or had acted with any unusual\nselfishness. The utmost we may infer from the language used about\nhim is that he had not been sufficiently sensitive to the difference\nbetween his own condition and that of the beggar. But no positive\nunkindness is even hinted at. Nor had the beggar done anything to\nmerit reward. He had only led one of those idle and worthless lives of\ndependence on others which are too common among Southern nations. Yet\nin the future life the beggar appears to be rewarded merely because in\nthis life he had been badly off; and the rich man is punished merely\nbecause he had been well off (Lu. xvi. 19-25). A stronger instance of\napparently irrational prejudice it would be difficult to find.\n\nIn connection with these notions about wealth there is a curious theory\nof social intercourse deserving to be considered. Jesus has expressed\nit thus: \"When thou makest a supper or a dinner, do not invite thy\nfriends, or thy brothers, or thy relations, or thy rich neighbors,\nlest they also should invite thee in return, and thou shouldst have\na recompense. But when thou makest a feast, invite the poor, the\nmaimed, the lame, the blind; and thou shalt be blessed because they\nhave not the means of making thee a recompense. For thou shalt be\nrecompensed at the resurrection of the just\" (Lu. xiv. 12-14). Nobody\ncan object to charitable individuals asking poor people or invalids\nwithout rank to dinner at their houses; indeed, it is to be wished that\nthe practice were more common than it is. But we cannot admit that\nthis kind action ought to be rendered obligatory, to the exclusion\nof other modes of conduct. Society, properly speaking, cannot exist\nexcept by reciprocity. That sort of friendly intercourse between\nequals which constitutes society implies giving and taking; and it\nis eminently desirable that we should do exactly what Christ would\nforbid us doing, namely, invite our neighbors and be invited by them as\ncircumstances may require. The fear that we may receive a recompense\nfor the dinner-parties we may give is surely chimerical. Pleasantness\nand mutual advantage are alike promoted by this reciprocity, which,\nmoreover, avoids the discomfort produced when the obligation is wholly\non one side. Jesus, in fact, overlooks entirely the more intellectual\nside of society, and dwells exclusively on the moral side. What he\nwishes to establish, is not converse between men, but charity. So that\na person acting on his views would be excluded from the society of\nthose who might benefit him either materially or morally, and would be\nconfined to those whom he might benefit. Such an arrangement would not\nin the end be good either for the benefactors or the benefited.\n\nHis conceptions of justice are seemingly not more perfect than his\nconceptions of social arrangements. The parable of the laborers is\nintended to justify the deity in assigning equal rewards to those who\nhave borne unequal burdens, and also to illustrate his doctrine that\nthe first will be last, and the last first. A householder hires a\nnumber of laborers to work in his vineyard; some of whom he engages\nin the morning, others later in the day, others towards its close.\nAll of them receive a denarium in payment, though some had worked the\nwhole day, and others only an hour. At this result the class which had\nworked the longer time grumble; but the householder defends himself by\nappealing to the strict terms of his contract, by which he had bound\nhimself to give the same wages to all (Mt. xx. 1-16). No doubt the\nlaborers who had borne the burden and heat of the day had no _legal_\nstanding-point for their complaint; but the sentiment that prompted it\nwas none the less a just one. Granting the validity of the master's\nplea that he had honorably fulfilled his bargain, it may still be urged\nthat the bargain itself was not of an equitable character. Plainly, a\nsum which is adequate pay for an hour, is inadequate for ten or twelve;\nand that which is sufficient for a day is excessive for an evening.\nAnd the same argument applies to a future state. If, as is so often\nurged, it is to be a compensation for the sufferings of this state,\nthen it ought to bear some proportion to those sufferings. But how can\nthis be effected? Jesus saw the difficulty, and endeavored, but not\nsuccessfully, to meet it by this parable.\n\nBut the imperfection of his sense of justice is nowhere more\nconspicuously shown than in the conduct he ascribes to God. To recur\nagain to the case of Lazarus and Dives. Not only is the rich man\npunished with frightful torture, but his humble and kindly request that\nLazarus might be allowed to warn his five brothers of their possible\nfate is met with a peremptory refusal. The only reason alleged for this\ncruelty is that they have Moses and the prophets, who certainly did not\ninform them that the mere possession of wealth or enjoyment of luxury\nwas punished by everlasting misery (Lu. xvi. 27-31). In other places,\ntoo, the horrible doctrine of unending punishment is asserted by Jesus,\nand all the efforts of his modern disciples will not explain away this\nfact. The tares are to be bound up in bundles to be burnt. The wicked\nare to be cast into a furnace of fire, where there will be wailing and\ngnashing of teeth (Mt. xiii. 30, 42, 50). It is better to enter into\nlife mutilated than to be thrown unmutilated into the fire (Mt. xviii.\n8, 9) of hell which is never quenched (Mk. ix. 43-46). The servant who\nhad made no money by usury is cast into outer darkness (Mt. xxv. 30).\nThe righteous go into eternal life; the wicked to eternal punishment\n(Mt. xxv. 46). Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost cannot be forgiven,\nbut involves eternal damnation (Mk. iii. 29). It is almost needless to\nobserve that no wickedness could ever justify punishment without an\nend; that is, punishment for punishment's sake; and that the creation\nof human beings whose existence _terminated_ in torture would be\nitself a far more terrible crime than any which the basest of mankind\ncan ever commit.\n\nThere is one more point as to which his teaching will not bear\ninvestigation. It is the doctrine of the power of prayer. He tells his\nhearers, in the most absolute manner, that they will receive whatever\nthey may ask in prayer, provided they believe (Mk. xi. 24; Mt. xxi.\n22). Faith is the grand and sole condition of the accomplishment of\nall desires. This is the explanation of the withered fig-tree. It was\nfaith that had wrought the change. By faith the disciples might effect\nnot only such matters as the destruction of fig-trees, but far more\nstupendous miracles (Mt. xxi. 19-21). This is the explanation of the\ndisciples' failure with the lunatic child. It was owing to their want\nof faith. Had they but faith as a grain of mustard seed\u2014so Jesus told\nthem\u2014they would be able to say to a mountain, \"Remove hence thither,\"\nand it would be removed. Nothing would be impossible to them (Mt.\nxvii. 20). And if they had faith themselves, if they really believed\nin their master's words, and ever attempted the experiment of working\nsuch transformations in nature, they must have experienced the bitter\ndisappointment so graphically described by the authoress of \"Joshua\nDavidson\" in the case of that sincere Christian. But short of this\nextreme trial of the power of faith over matter, many generations of\npious believers will bear sad witness to the fact that they have asked\nmany things in prayer which they have _not_ received; not least among\nthe number being moral excellence, which they have but imperfectly\nattained. Yet this, it would seem, might be the most easily granted\nwithout interference with the physical universe. And if it be pleaded\nthat no Christian has ever really succeeded in acquiring the degree of\nfaith required to move mountains, what becomes of the promise of Jesus?\nIs it not a mere form of words, depending for its truth on a condition\nwhich human nature never can fulfill?\n\nThe opinions of Jesus on the question of the lawfulness of the tribute,\nand his reply to the Sadducean difficulty about due adjustment of\nmatrimonial relations in a future state, have been already noticed.\nNeither of these decisions, it has been shown, can be regarded as\nevincing wisdom or depth of thought. On the other hand, his answer\nto the scribe who asked him which was the first commandment fully\ndeserves the approbation which his questioner bestowed. After this,\nremarks the Evangelist triumphantly, no man dared to interrogate him.\nPassing from these isolated judgments, let us consider now the fullest\nexposition to be found anywhere of the moral system of Jesus,\u2014the\nso-called Sermon on the Mount (Mt. v.-vii. inclusive). As reported\nby Matthew, this is a vast collection of precepts on many different\nsubjects, delivered no doubt on many different occasions. Taken\ntogether, they contain the concentrated essence of his teaching, and\noffer therefore the fairest field for discussion and criticism. He\nopens his discourse with a series of blessings, in which his extreme\nfondness for contrasting the present with the future order is markedly\nexhibited. Those whom he selects as the objects of benediction are the\npoor in spirit; mourners; the meek; those who hunger and thirst after\nrighteousness; the merciful; the pure in heart; the peace-makers; those\nwho are persecuted for righteousness' sake; the disciples when reviled,\npersecuted, and unjustly accused. Of the nine classes of those who are\nthus blessed, five are composed of those whose present condition makes\nthem objects of pity, and who are consoled with the assurance that they\nshall be rewarded in the kingdom of heaven. After this, the followers\nof Jesus are admonished that they are the salt of the earth, and that\nthey must cause their light to shine before men. This is followed by\nthat remarkable declaration (already noticed) as to the permanence of\nthe law, and by a warning that, if they wished to enter the kingdom of\nheaven, their righteousness must exceed that of those odious people,\nthe scribes and Pharisees.\n\nHereupon Jesus takes up three great commandments\u2014not to kill, not to\ncommit adultery, not to commit perjury\u2014and proceeds to expand their\nmeaning beyond the literal signification of the words. Thus, it had\nbeen said, \"Thou shalt not kill.\" But he says, that whoever is angry\nwith his brother shall be liable to the judgment; that whoever says\n\"Raka\" to his brother shall be liable to the Sanhedrim; but that\nwhoever says \"Fool,\" shall be liable to hell, or literally, to \"the\ngehenna of fire.\" The punishment is of undue severity in proportion\nto the offense; but when, in the following verses, Jesus insists on\nthe importance of doing justice to men before performing religious\nobligations, he speaks in the truest spirit of humanity. Proceeding\nto the commandment not to commit adultery, he enjoins an excess of\nself-discipline. It is _not_ desirable to pluck out the right eye and\ncut off the right hand because they offend us, though it is well to\ntrain them to obey the higher faculties. The argument of Jesus rests\nonly on the assumption that the sinful members, if not destroyed by\nsuch violent measures as this, may land the whole body in hell. Dealing\nnext with the question of oaths, he enlarges the prohibition of perjury\ninto a prohibition of all swearing whatsoever, assigning the strangest\nreasons for avoiding the employment, when taking oaths, of the names\nof various objects. They are not to swear by heaven, because it is\nGod's throne; nor by the earth, because it is his footstool; nor by\nJerusalem, because it is the city of the great king; nor by the head,\nbecause we cannot make a single hair black or white. Granting even that\nthe advice is good, what is to be said of these reasons? What would be\nthought of a Member of Parliament using an exactly parallel argument:\nnamely, that it is wrong to swear by the New Testament, because the\nperson taking the oath cannot make a single type larger or smaller?\n\nThe theory embodied in the following verses occupies so cardinal a\nplace in the philosophy of Jesus, that in order to do him justice they\nmust be quoted at length. \"You have heard that it has been said, An eye\nfor an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I tell you not to resist evil;\nbut whoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other\nalso. And as for him who wishes to sue thee, and take thy coat, give\nhim thy cloak also. And whoever shall compel thee to go one mile, go\ntwo with him. Give to him that asketh thee; and turn not away from him\nthat wishes to borrow of thee. You have heard that it has been said,\nThou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you,\nLove your enemies, and pray for them who persecute you, that you may be\nsons of your father in heaven; for he causes his sun to rise on bad and\ngood, and sends rain on just and unjust\" (Mt. v. 38-45).\n\nPerhaps there is no single point in the moral teaching of Jesus\nwhich has been more celebrated than this. It is thought to represent\nthe very acme of perfection, and Christianity takes credit to itself\nfor the embodiment of so magnificent a doctrine in its moral system.\nAnd certainly the words of Jesus are so sublime as almost to extort\nadmiration and disarm criticism. Nor would it at all detract from\nhis merits if the principle here laid down should turn out to be no\nnew discovery of his own, but one already reached by great teachers\nin other lands; for it was through him that it was made known to the\nJews of his own age, and thus to the whole of Christendom. Moreover,\nwe cannot suppose that he had ever heard of those who had anticipated\nthe sentiments, and almost the words, of these beautiful sentences in\nthe Sermon on the Mount. Nevertheless, these anticipations exist; and\nwhatever glory this rule may confer on the religion of Christ must\nbelong equally, and even by prior right, to the religion of Lao-tsze\nand the religion of Buddha. Thus Lao-tsze says, \"Return enmity by doing\ngood\" (T. t. k., 63). Or again, \"I treat the good man well; the man\nwho is not good I also treat well\" (Ibid., 49). The very perfection of\npatience under injustice, extending to the length of blessing those\nwho curse, and turning the other cheek to those who smite the one\u2014is\nexhibited in the old Buddhistic legend of P\u00fbrna. P\u00fbrna is a convert\nwho spontaneously betakes himself as a missionary to a savage nation.\nThe Buddha asks him what he will do if they address him in coarse and\ninsolent language. He replies that he will consider them good and\ngentle people not to strike him with their fists or stone him. Should\nthey strike him with their fists or stone him, he will still think them\ngood and gentle neither to strike him with sticks or swords; should\nthey strike him with sticks or swords, he will equally praise them for\nnot killing him; should they even kill him, he will still say, \"They\nare certainly good people, they are certainly gentle people, they who\ndeliver me with so little pain from this body full of impurity\" (H. B.\nI., p. 253). This is certainly a most consistent application of the\nprinciple of non-resistance to evil, and of loving one's enemies. No\nChristian saint or martyr could have followed his master's precepts\nmore faithfully than this Buddhist apostle. But whether those precepts\nadmit of general adoption into the scheme of human morals is a much\nmore difficult question than whether in occasional instances here\nand there they have led to admirable conduct. Let us call in another\nChinese philosopher to our assistance on this point.\n\nThe doctrine of returning good for evil, proclaimed, as we have seen,\nby Lao-tsze, was thus dealt with by his great rival, Confucius. \"Some\none said, 'What do you say concerning the principle that injury should\nbe recompensed with kindness?' The Master said, 'With what, then,\nwill you recompense kindness? Recompense injury with justice, and\nrecompense kindness with kindness.'\" How shall we decide between these\nauthorities? None can question the nobility of the conduct enjoined by\nJesus in certain instances. There are cases where the return of good\nfor evil, of blessing for cursing, of benevolence for persecution,\nis not only the highest practicable virtue, but also the best\npunishment of the evil-doers. Nevertheless, there is great force in the\nobservations of Confucius. If we are to reward injury by kindness, how\nare we to reward kindness? Is there to be no difference made between\nthose who do us good and those who do us harm? To so pertinent a\nquestion we are compelled to answer that the practical results of such\nconduct on our part would be simply disastrous. Unkindness would not\nreceive its natural and appropriate penalty, nor kindness its natural\nand appropriate reward. Not only should we ourselves be losers by our\nfailure to resist injustice, but the worst classes of mankind would\nreceive by that non-resistance a powerful stimulus to evil. Imagine,\nfor example, that, instead of opposing an extortionate claim, we give\nup our cloak also to the man who wishes to take our coat. Plainly\nsuch conduct can have but one result. We shall become the victims of\nextortionate claims, and our property will be squandered among the\nundeserving instead of being kept for better uses. Or suppose that\npersecution for the sake of our opinions, instead of being met with\narmed resistance, wherever that resistance is likely to be successful,\nis received only with blessings showered on the heads of the\noppressors; without doubt, the hands of the persecuting party will be\nstrengthened, and liberty, which is everywhere the result of resisting\nevil, will never be established. The freedom we ourselves enjoy, both\nas a nation in respect of other nations, and as individuals in respect\nof our domestic government, is the consequence of acting on a principle\nthe direct reverse of that laid down by Jesus. Our ancestors, who were\ngood Christians but much better patriots, would have been amazed indeed\nat any attempt to persuade them to turn the left cheek to him who smote\nthem on the right. A doctrine more convenient for the purposes of\ntyrants and malefactors of every description it would be difficult to\ninvent.\n\nAt the same time it must be conceded that there is in it some truth,\nprovided we discriminate between fitting and unfitting occasions\nfor its application. It is not the violent man who assaults us, the\nunscrupulous man who sues us, or the persecutor who tramples on our\nfreedom, who should be met by a benevolent return. But there are\noffenses of so personal a nature, affecting our individual interest\nso largely, and the public interest so slightly, that the best way of\ndealing with them may often be not to resent them, but to receive them\nwith unruffled gentleness. Each person must judge for himself what are\nthe cases to which this possibility applies. But the guiding rule in\nthus acting must be that we expect by thus returning good for evil to\nsoften the heart of him who has done us wrong, and in the language of\nPaul to \"heap coals of fire on his head.\" Should the effect be simply\nto relieve him from the penalty of our resentment without inducing\nhim to change his course, we shall have done him a moral injury and\nsociety a material injury, and the probability or improbability of such\nresult should be measured in deciding upon the conduct to be pursued.\nProperly guarded, and borne in mind as the occasional exception, by no\nmeans as the rule, the return of injustice or ill-will by benevolence\nand kindly feeling may be of the utmost value, both in cultivating\nthe best emotions in those who practice it, and in calling forth the\nrepentance of those towards whom it is practiced; but as a universal\nand absolute principle it must be utterly rejected. Lao-tsze and Jesus\nwhen they affirmed it undoubtedly struck one of the highest notes in\nhuman nature. Yet it must be granted that Khung-tsze took a wider view,\nand that his injunction to recompense injury with justice, and kindness\nwith kindness, is more consistent with a philosophic regard for the\ninterests of mankind, and with a practicable scheme of social ethics.\n\nJesus proceeds to enjoin his disciples neither to give alms, nor to\npray, nor to fast in an ostentatious manner; and in connection with\nthis excellent advice he teaches them the short prayer which has become\nso famous under his name. The clauses of this prayer may be worth some\nconsideration. It begins with a formula of adoration addressed to \"Our\nfather in heaven.\" Then follows a petition full of meaning to Jesus\nand those to whom he imparted it, but of little or no signification in\nthe mouths of the millions of modern Christians who daily repeat it:\n\"Thy kingdom come.\" Jesus hoped, and his disciples caught the hope,\nthat God's kingdom would come very soon; and this prayer was a request\nfor the early realization of the glories of that kingdom. Those who\nthen employed it believed that at any moment it might be granted, and\nthat at no distant period it certainly would be granted. \"Thy will be\ndone, as in heaven so also on earth;\" a clause embodying the popular\nconception of another region in which God's will is perfectly obeyed,\nwhile here it is met by some counteracting influence. \"Give us this\nday our daily bread,\" for beyond the daily provision they were not\nto look; a doctrine which we shall notice shortly. \"And forgive us\nour debts\" (or, in Luke, our sins) \"as we forgive our debtors; and\nlead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.\" Passing over\nthe singular conception of God as leading men into temptation, let\nus rather notice the preceding petition, on which Jesus himself has\nsupplied a commentary, that we may be forgiven, as we forgive others.\nIn reference to this he tells his hearers, that if they forgive men\ntheir trespasses, their heavenly father will forgive theirs; and that\nif they do not thus behave, neither will he. A kindred doctrine is laid\ndown in the beginning of the next chapter, where he tells them not to\njudge, that they may not be judged; that with what measure they mete,\nit shall be measured to them again. And this illustrated in another\nplace by the parable of the servant who, having been excused from the\nimmediate payment of a large debt by his master, refused to excuse a\nfellow-servant from the payment of a small one; whereupon his master\nflew into a passion, and \"delivered him to the tormentors\" (Mt. xviii.\n23-35). There is an apparent justice and real emotional satisfaction\nin the harsh treatment of those who are harsh themselves. But we must\nnot be misled by the immediate gratification we experience at the\npunishment of the unforgiving servant, supposing that it is right to\nmete out to each man the measure he metes out to others. Assuredly\nit does not follow that because a man is unjust or cruel, he should\nbe treated with injustice or cruelty himself. Either it is right to\nforgive a man's sins, or it is not. If right, then his own harshness\nin refusing forgiveness to another is one of the sins which should\nbe forgiven. If not right, then neither that nor any other offense\nshould be forgiven by the supreme dispenser of justice. For what reason\nshould the one crime of not forgiving those who trespass against us\nbe selected for a punishment of such extraordinary severity, while it\nis implied that the penalty of other and graver crimes may by God's\nmercy be remitted? The fact is, that Jesus is misled by a false analogy\nbetween the conduct of one man towards another, in a case where he is\npersonally concerned, and the conduct of a judge towards criminals.\nOffenses against morality are treated as personal offenses against God,\nwho has therefore the same right to forgive them as a creditor has to\nexcuse his debtor from payment. But in a perfect system of justice,\nhuman or divine, there could be no question of forgiveness at all.\nEvery violation of the law would bring its appropriate penalty, _and\nno more_. The penalty being thus proportioned to the offense, there\ncould be no question of that sort of \"forgiveness\" which implies a\nsuspicion that it is, or may be, too severe. No doubt, the temper of\nthe offender, and the probability of his repeating the crime, would be\nelements to be considered in awarding the sentence. But it must always\nbe borne in mind that either the hope of complete pardon, or the threat\nof a punishment far heavier than is needed to deter, equally tend to\nneutralize the effects of our system of justice. And thus it has been\nin Christendom. The threat of everlasting torture, accompanied with the\nexpectation of complete forgiveness, has been less efficacious than\nwould have been the most moderate of earthly penalties, provided they\nhad been certain. But Jesus was encumbered with a system in which there\nwere no gradations. Thus he represents the deity now as extending\ncomplete forgiveness to sins which should have received their fitting\nretribution; now as visiting with immoderate severity offenses for\nwhich more lenient measures would have amply sufficed.\n\nProceeding to another subject, the speaker dwells upon the comparative\nunimportance of terrestrial affairs. He advises men not to lay up\ntreasure on earth, but in heaven, for where their treasure is, there\nwill their heart be also; and he goes on to say, \"Take no thought for\nyour life what you shall eat or what you shall drink, nor for your\nbody what you shall put on. Is not the life more than nourishment,\nand the body than raiment? Look at the birds of the sky, for they sow\nnot, neither do they reap nor gather into barns, and your heavenly\nfather feeds them. Are you not much better than they? And which of\nyou by taking thought can add a single cubit to his stature? And why\ndo you take thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field,\nthey toil not, neither do they spin: and I say to you that not even\nSolomon in all his glory was clothed like one of these. And if God\nso clothe the grass of the field which exists to-day and to-morrow\nis cast into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of\nlittle faith?\" Therefore his disciples are to take no thought about\neating, drinking, or clothing (as the Gentiles do), for their heavenly\nfather knows that they have need of these things. They are to seek\nthe kingdom of God and his righteousness, and these will be added.\nThey are to take no thought for the morrow, but let the morrow take\nthought for itself (Mt. vi. 25-34). Upon which extraordinary argument\nit would have been interesting to ask a few questions. In the first\nplace, how did Jesus suppose that it had happened that men had in\nfact come to trouble themselves about food, drink, and clothing? Did\nhe imagine that an inherent pleasure in labor had driven them to do\nso? Would he not rather have been compelled to admit that, not by any\nchoice of their own, but just because their heavenly father had _not_\nprovided these things in the requisite abundance, they had been forced\nto \"take thought\" for the morrow, all their primitive inclinations\nnotwithstanding? Every tendency of human nature would have prompted men\nto take no thought either for food or raiment, had not hunger and cold\nbrought vividly before them the necessity of doing so. But for this\nthey would only have been too glad to live like the birds of the air\nor the lilies of the field. But let us examine a little more closely\nthe reasoning of Jesus. Birds neither sow nor reap; God feeds them;\ntherefore he will feed us without sowing or reaping. A more unfortunate\nillustration of the care of Providence for his creatures it would be\ndifficult to find. Was Jesus ignorant of the fact that he feeds some\nbirds upon others whom they seize on as their prey, and these again\nupon an inferior class of animals? So that, if he is careful of the\nhawk, it is at the expense of the dove; and if he is careful of the\nsparrow, it is at the expense of the worm. Cannibalism, or at least a\nrecourse to wild animals as the only obtainable diet, must have been\nthe logical results of the doctrine of Jesus. Not less singular would\nbe the effects of his teaching as to clothes. The lily which remains\nin a state of nature is more beautifully arrayed than was Solomon.\nGranted; but does it therefore follow that we are to imitate the lily?\nWe might agree with Jesus that nudity, alike in flowers and in human\nbeings, is more beautiful than the most superb dressing: yet there are\nconveniences in clothes which may even justify taking a little thought\nin order to obtain them, and those who really omit to do this are\ngenerally the lowest types of the human race. That God would not give\nus clothing if we ourselves made no effort to obtain it, is not only\nadmitted, but almost asserted, in the argument of Jesus; for he refers\nus to the grass of the field, which remains in its natural condition,\nas an example of the kind of raiment which our heavenly father\nprovides. So absurd are these precepts, that no body of Christians has\never attempted to act upon them. Some there have been, indeed, who took\nno thought for the morrow, and who never exerted themselves to procure\nthe necessaries of life. But then they lived in the midst of societies\nwhere these things were provided by the labor of others, and where they\nwell knew that their pious indolence would not leave them a prey to\nhunger, but would rather stimulate the charitable zeal of their more\nsecular brethren.\n\nAfter laying down the rule against judging others, which has been\nalready referred to, Jesus gives the excellent advice to those who\nwould pull the mote out of their brother's eye to attend first to the\nbeam in their own. This is followed by the proverbial warning not to\ncast pearls before swine. A singular passage succeeds, in which the\ndoctrine is broadly stated that whatever men desire of God they are\nto ask it, \"for every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds.\"\nAnd it is added, that as they give their children good gifts, so their\nheavenly father gives good things to those who ask him. But what of\nthose who do not ask him? Does he, like an unwise human parent, give\nmost to those who are the loudest in their petitions, neglecting the\nhumble or retiring children who make no noise? These verses allow us\nno option but to suppose that Jesus thought he did, and this inference\nreceives strong confirmation from the parable of the unjust judge, who\nyielded to clamor what he would not give from a sense of justice (Lu.\nxviii. 1-5), as also from the illustration of the man who was wearied\nby the importunity of his friend into doing what he would not have\ndone for the sake of friendship (Lu. xi. 5-9). In the former case, the\nparable is related for the express purpose of showing \"that men ought\nalways to pray and not to faint;\" in the latter, the illustration is\ngiven in connection with the very verses which we are now criticising.\nThere is, then, no escape from the conclusion that the conceptions\nJesus had of the deity were of a nature to lead to the belief that God\nmight be worried by continual prayer into concessions and favors which\nwould not otherwise have been granted.\n\nExcepting a single verse, the remainder of the sermon is occupied with\na warning that the way to life is narrow, that to destruction broad;\nwith a caution against false prophets, and a very fine description of\nthe future rejection from heaven of many who have made loud professions\nof religion, and contrariwise, of the reception of those who have done\ntheir father's will, and whom he likens to one who has built his house\nupon the solid rock as distinguished from one who has built it on the\nsand. One verse, however, remains, and that not only the most important\nin the whole of this discourse, but ethically the most important in the\nwhole of its author's system. That verse is the well-known commandment:\n\"All things whatsoever you may wish men to do to you, thus also do\nyou to them. For this is the law and the prophets\" (Mt. vii. 12; Lu.\nvi. 31). Whether Jesus perceived that in this brief sentence he was\nenunciating the cardinal principle of all morality is of necessity\nuncertain. But from the addition of the phrase \"this is the law and\nthe prophets,\" it is probable that he regarded it as a summary of the\nmoral teachings of the religion he professed. If so, he has rightly\nlaid the foundation of scientific ethics. Utilitarians, who believe\nthat the object of morality is human happiness, may claim him (as one\nof them has already done) as the father of their system. While Kant,\nwho gives the fundamental law, so to act that the rule of your conduct\nmay be such as you yourself would wish to see adopted as a general\nprinciple, will be equally in agreement with him. Nor does it detract\nfrom the merits of Jesus that this very doctrine should have been\nannounced in China about five centuries before he proclaimed it in\nJudea. He remains not less original; but we, while giving him his due,\nmust be careful to award an equal tribute to his great predecessor,\nConfucius. Twice over did that eminent man assert the principle taught\nin the Sermon on the Mount. In the first instance, \"Chung-kung asked\nabout perfect virtue. The Master said, 'It is, when you go abroad, to\nbehave to every one as if you were receiving a great guest; to employ\nthe people as if you were assisting at a great sacrifice; _not to do to\nothers as you would not wish done to yourself_; to have no murmuring\nagainst you in the country, and none in the family'\" (C. C., vol. i.\np. 115.\u2014Lun Yu, xii. 2). Much more strikingly is this law enunciated\nin the second case. \"Tsze-kung asked, saying, 'Is there one word which\nmay serve as a rule of practice for all one's life?' The Master said,\n'Is not RECIPROCITY such a word? What you do not want done to yourself,\ndo not do to others'\" (C. C., vol. i. p. 165.\u2014Lun Yu, xv. 23). And we\nhave another statement of the rule in the work ascribed to the grandson\nof Confucius, where he is reported to have said, \"What you do not\nlike when done to yourself, do not do to others\" (Chung Yung, xiii.\n3.\u2014C. C., vol. i. p. 258). It is true, as remarked by the translator,\nthat the doctrine is here stated negatively, and not positively; but\npractically this can make little difference in its application. Not\nto do to others what we wish them not to do to us would amount to\nnearly the same thing as doing what we wish them to do. Obviously it\nprohibits all actual injury which we should resent if inflicted on\nourselves. But it also enjoins active benevolence; for as we do not\nlike the lack of kindness towards ourselves when in distress or want,\nso we must not be guilty of showing such lack of kindness to others.\nTake the parable of the good S\u00e2maritan, told in illustration of the\nkindred maxim to love our neighbors as ourselves. Plainly we should not\nlike the conduct of the priest and the Levite were we in the situation\nof the plundered man. And if so, the behavior of the good S\u00e2maritan is\nthat which the Chinese as well as the Jewish prophet would require us\nto pursue.\n\nMuch more might be said of the doctrines of Jesus, but it is time to\nbring this over-long section to a close. What answer shall we now\nreturn to the query which stands at the head of this final division?\nWhat are we to think of him? Is our judgment to be mainly favorable or\nmainly unfavorable? or must it be a mixture of opposing sentiments?\nThe reply may be given under three separate heads, relating the one to\nhis work as a prophet, the next to his intellectual, and the last to\nhis moral character. Considered as a prophet, he forms one of a mighty\ntriad who divide among them the honor of having given their religions\nto the larger portion of Asia and to the whole of Europe. Confucius,\nto whom Eastern Asia owes its most prevalent faith; Buddha Sakyamuni,\nwhose faith is accepted in the south and centre of that continent;\nand Christ, to whom Europe bows the knee, are the members of this\ngreat trinity not in unity. All three are alike in their possession\nof prophetic ardor and prophetic inspiration. Two of them, the\nChinaman and the Jew, speak as the conscious agents of a higher Power.\nThe other, of whom his creed prevents us from saying this, is yet\nrepresented in his story as predestined to a great mission, becoming\naware of that destiny at a certain epoch of his life, and thenceforth\nfeeling that no temptations and no sufferings can induce him to swerve\nfrom his allotted task. Of these three men it would perhaps be accurate\nto say that Confucius was the most thoughtful, Sakyamuni the most\neminently virtuous, and Christ the most deeply religious. Not that a\ndescription like this can be regarded as exhaustive. Each trespasses\nto some degree on the special domain of the others. Especially is it\nhard to compare the moral excellence of Jesus with that of Buddha. The\nHindu, as depicted in his biographies, offers a character of singular\nbeauty, and free from some of the defects which may be discerned in\nthat of the Jew. History, however, was too much despised by these\nOriental sectaries to enable us to form a trustworthy comparison. All\nwe can affirm is, that, assuming the pictures of both prophets to be\ncorrectly drawn, there is in Sakyamuni a purity of tone, an absence\nof violence or rancor, an exemption from personal feeling and from\nhostile bias, which place him even on a higher level than his Jewish\nfellow-prophet. Supposing, on the other hand, that either picture\nis not historical, then it must be conceded that primitive Buddhism\nattained a more perfect ideal of goodness than primitive Christianity.\nBoth ideals, however, are admirable, and they closely resemble one\nanother.\n\nMorally not unlike, Jesus and Sakyamuni have another point of\nsimilarity in a certain mournfulness of spirit, a sorrowing regret for\nthe errors of human kind, and a tender anxiety to summon them from\nthose errors to a better way. Each in his own manner felt that life\nwas very sad; each desired to relieve that sadness, though each aimed\nat effecting his end by different means. Sakyamuni offered to his\ndisciples the peace of Nirv\u00e2na; Jesus, the favor of God and the rewards\nto be given in his kingdom. There is a striking similarity in the\nmanner in which the summons to suffering humanity is expressed in each\nreligion. Here are the words ascribed to Buddha: \"Many, driven by fear,\nseek an asylum in mountains and in woods, in hermitages and in the\nneighborhood of sacred trees. But it is not the best asylum, it is not\nthe best refuge, and it is not in that asylum that men are delivered\nfrom every pain. He, on the contrary, who seeks a refuge in Buddha, in\nthe Law and in the Assembly, when he perceives with wisdom the four\nsublime truths, ... that man knows the best asylum, the best refuge;\nas soon as he has reached it, he is delivered from every pain\" (H. B.\nI., p. 186). Still more beautifully is the like sentiment expressed by\nJesus: \"Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will\ngive you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn of me, for I am meek and\nlowly of heart, and you shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke\nis easy and my burden is light\" (Mt. xi. 28-30).\n\nWhile in tenderness and sympathy for human sorrow Christ resembles\nBuddha, in the nature of his moral precepts he sometimes resembles\nConfucius. The plain duties of man towards his fellow-man are\ninculcated in the same spirit by both, while in Buddhism it is\ngenerally the most extreme and often prodigious examples of charity\nor self-sacrifice that are held up to admiration. Buddhism, moreover,\nteaches by means of long stories; Confucius and Jesus by means of short\nmaxims. To a certain extent, indeed, Jesus combines both methods, the\nfirst being represented in his parables; but these are much simpler,\nand go far more directly to the point, than the complicated narratives\nof the Buddhistic canon. On the whole, we may safely say that Jesus is\ncertainly not surpassed by either of these rival prophets, and that in\nsome respects, if not in all, he surpasses both.\n\nAnother comparison is commonly made, and may be just touched on here.\nIt is that between the Hebrew prophet and the Athenian sage, \"who,\" in\nthe words of Byron, \"lived and died as none can live or die.\" Without\nfully endorsing this emphatic opinion of the poet, we may admit that\nSocrates is not unworthy to stand beside Jesus in the foremost rank\nof the heroes of our race. He shares with the prophets who have been\nalready named the inspiring sense of a divine mission which he is\nbound to fulfill. At all hazards and under all conditions he will\ncarry on the special and peculiar work which the divine voice commands\nhim to do. And this plenary belief in his own inspiration is not\naccompanied, as sometimes happens, by mental poverty. Intellectually\nhis superiority to Jesus cannot be disputed. It is apparent in the very\nmanner of his instruction. Socrates could never have enunciated the\ntruths he had to tell in that authoritative tone which is appropriate\nto the religious teacher. Whatever knowledge he thinks it possible to\nacquire at all must be acquired by reasoning and inquiry; and must be\ntested by comparison of our own mental condition with that of others.\nNothing must be assumed but what is granted by the hearer. Socrates\nwould have thought that there was little gained by the mere dogmatic\nassertion of moral or spiritual truths. He must carry his interlocutor\nalong with him; must compel him to admit his errors; must stimulate\nhis desire of improvement by bringing him face to face with his own\nignorance. Much as we must value the moral teaching of Christ, it must\nbe confessed that the peculiar gift of Socrates is one of a far rarer\nkind. The power of inculcating holiness, purity, charity, and other\nvirtues, either directly by short maxims (as in the Confucian Analects,\nin Mencius, or in Marcus Aurelius), or indirectly by stories (as in\nBuddhagosha's parables), is by no means so uncommon as the Socratic\ngift of searching examination into men's minds and souls. If Jesus is\nunsurpassed in the former\u2014\"primus inter pares\"\u2014Socrates is absolutely\nwithout a rival in the latter.\n\nWhether the shock of the _elenchus_ of Socrates, or the touching beauty\nof the parables and the Sermon on the Mount, produced the greatest\nbenefit to the hearers is a question that can hardly be determined.\nThe effect of either method must depend upon the character of those to\nwhom it is applied. Outward appearances would lead us to assign more\ninfluence to the method of Jesus; for Socrates left no Socratics, while\nChrist did leave Christians to hand on his doctrine. But, in the first\nplace, it may be confidently asserted that no lasting sect could have\nbeen formed upon the basis of the few truths taught by Jesus himself;\nand, in the second place, the fact that he became the founder of a new\nreligion must be attributed as much to the state of Judea at the time\nas to his personal influence. That the influence of Socrates was not\nsmall in his own life-time might be inferred from the bitterness of the\nprosecution alone, even if Plato had not remained to attest the abiding\nimpress he left upon an intellect by the side of which those of Peter,\nJames, and John, are but as little children to a full-grown athlete.\nWe can imagine the havoc that would have been made in the statements\nand arguments of Jesus had Socrates met him face to face and subjected\nhim to his testing method. How ill would his loose popular notions have\nborne a close examination of their foundations; how easily would his\ndogmatic assertions have been exposed in all their naked presumption by\na few simple questions; how quickly would his careless reasoning have\nbeen shattered by the dialectic art which would have forced him to\nexhibit its fallacies himself before the assembled audience! But there\nwas no one competent to the task, and when his opponents attempted to\nperplex him by what they thought awkward questions, he was able to\nbaffle them without much trouble by his superior skill.\n\nIt is not, however, as an intellectual man that we must consider Jesus.\nHe himself laid no claim to the character, and, if we would do him\njustice, we must judge him by his own idea of his function and his\nduties. So judging, there can be no question that we must recognize in\nhim a man of the highest moral grandeur, lofty in his aims, pure in\nhis use of means, earnest, energetic, zealous, and unselfish. No doubt\nhe was sometimes misled by that very ardor which inspired him with\nthe courage required to pursue his work. No doubt he suffered himself\nto forget the charity that was due to those who could not accept his\nmission nor bow before his preaching. No doubt he returned curse for\ncurse, and hatred for hatred, with unsparing hand. Perhaps, too, he\nwas sometimes the first to give way to angry passion, and to express\nin scathing words the bitterness he felt. Yet his failings are those\nof an upright and honorable character, and while they ought not to be\nextenuated or denied, neither ought they to outweigh his great and\nunquestionable merits. Appointed, as he believed, to a special work,\nhe bravely and honestly devoted his powers to the fulfillment of that\nwork, not even shrinking from his duty when it led him to the cross.\n\nHis unhappy end has cast its shadow over his life. He has been\ncontinually spoken of as \"a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.\"\nThere is no reason to suppose that in any special sense he corresponded\nto the prophetic picture. Undoubtedly he had his sorrows; undoubtedly\nhe was acquainted with grief. But unless there had been in his private\nlife some tragedy of which we are not informed, those sorrows were not\nof the bitterest, nor was that grief of the deepest. There is no doubt\nin his language a tinge of that sadness which all great natures who are\nnot in harmony with their age must needs experience. He believed that\nhe had great truths to tell, and he found his countrymen unwilling to\nreceive them. Here was one source of unhappiness; and another he had\nin common with all who are deeply conscious of the miseries of human\nexistence. But in no special or transcendent sense can he be termed a\nman of sorrows and acquainted with grief. So far as our evidence goes,\nhe was exempt from the most terrible calamities that befall mankind.\nFree from all earthly ties but those of friendship with his chosen\ncompanions, he was not exposed to many of the anxieties and trials\nwhich afflict more ordinary men. Dying young, he did not suffer (so\nfar as we know) from any serious illness, nor from the troubles, both\nphysical and mental, that scarcely ever fail to beset a longer life.\nBereavement, the most terrible or human ills, never afflicted him.\nWhether in his youth he had suffered the pains of unrequited love at\nthe hands of some Galilean maiden we cannot tell. But there is nothing\nin his language or his career that would lead us to see in him an\nembittered or disappointed man.\n\nJudging by the representation given in the Gospels, it does not\nappear that his life was in any special measure sad or gloomy. On\nthe contrary, his circumstances were in the main conducive to a fair\nshare of happiness. Surrounded by admiring friends of his own sex,\nand attended by sympathizing (perhaps loving) women, he passed from\nplace to place, drawing crowds around him, speaking his mind freely,\nand receiving no inconsiderable homage. Granting that he had enemies,\nhe was able until his prosecution to meet them on equal terms, and\nwas not prohibited (as he would have been in most Christian countries\nuntil recent times) from proclaiming aloud his unorthodox opinions.\nTrue, this liberty was not allowed to continue for ever, but it was no\nsmall matter for him that it had continued so long. True, he suffered\na painful death; but far less painful than many a humble martyr has\nundergone for his sake; far less painful even than those torturing\nillnesses which so often precede the hour of rest. Nor is it possible\nthat his death could reflect its agonies back upon his life. His life,\non the whole, seems to have been one, if not of abundant happiness,\nyet of a fair and reasonable degree of cheerfulness and of comfort.\nThe notion that he had not where to lay his head is of course utterly\nunfounded. Not only had he his own house at Nazareth, but he had\nfriends who at all times were happy to receive him. If he himself ever\ndrew this sad picture of his desolation (which I doubt), he must\nhave done it for a special purpose, and without regard to the literal\naccuracy of his words.\n\nWhile, then, I see no proof of the peculiar sorrow ascribed to him on\nthe strength of a prophecy, I freely admit that he had the melancholy\nwhich belongs to a sympathetic heart. His words of regret over\nJerusalem are unsurpassed in their beauty. At this closing period of\nhis career we may indeed detect the sadness of disappointment. And in\nthe bitter cry that was wrung from him at the end, \"My God, my God,\nwhy hast thou forsaken me?\" we look down for a moment into an abyss\nof misery which it is painful to contemplate; physical suffering and\na shaken faith, the agonies of unaccomplished purposes, and the still\nmore fearful agony of desertion by the loving Father in whom he had put\nhis trust.\n\nBut Jesus, though he knew it not, had done his work. Nay, he had done\nmore than he himself intended. After-ages saw in him\u2014what he saw only\nin his God\u2014an ideal to be worshiped and a power to be addressed in\nprayer. We, who are free from this exaggeration of reverence, may\nyet continue to pay him the high and unquestioned honor which his\nunflinching devotion to his duty, his gentle regard for the weak and\nsuffering, his uncorrupted purity of mind, and his self-sacrificing\nlove so abundantly deserve.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER VI.\n\n                        HOLY BOOKS, OR BIBLES.\n\n\nVast, and even immeasurable, as the influence has been which has been\nexercised on the course of human development by the great men of whom\nwe have spoken, it has been equaled, if not surpassed, by the influence\nof the peculiar class of writings which we have grouped together under\nthe designation of Holy Books. Of this, the last manifestation of the\nReligious Idea, it will be necessary to speak in considerable detail;\nboth on account of its intrinsic importance, and because it is a\nbranch of the subject which has not hitherto received the attention it\ndeserves.\n\nWe have been far too much accustomed in Europe to treat the Bible as\na book standing altogether by itself; to be admired, reverenced and\nloved, or, it may be, to be criticised, objected to and rejected,\nnot as one of a class, but as something altogether peculiar and\nunparalleled in the literary history of the world. And, undoubtedly,\nif we compare it with ordinary literature of whatever description,\nwhatever age, and whatever nation, this opinion is just. Neither in\nthe poetry, the history, or the philosophy of any other nation do we\nfind any work that at all resembles it. Nevertheless it would be a\nvery rash conclusion to arrive at, that because in the whole field\nof Greek or Roman, Italian or French, Teutonic or Celtic literature,\nthere is nothing that admits of being put in the same category with\nthe Bible, therefore the Bible cannot be placed in any category\nat all. It is one of a numerous class; a class marked by certain\ndistinct characteristics; a class of which some specimen is held in\nhonor from the furthest East of Asia, to the extreme West of America,\nor, in other words, throughout every portion of the surface of the\nearth which is inhabited by any race with the smallest pretense to\ncivilization and to culture. Wherever there is literature at all, there\nare Sacred Books. If in some isolated cases it is not so, these cases\nare exceptions too trifling in extent to invalidate the rule. Speaking\ngenerally we may say, that every people which has risen above the\nconditions of savage life; every nation which possesses an organized\nadministration, a settled domestic life, a religion with developed\nand complex dogmas, possesses also its Sacred Books. If this truth\nhas been too generally forgotten; if the Bible has been too commonly\ntreated as something exceptional and peculiar which it was the glory\nof Christianity to possess, this omission is probably in great part\ndue to the fact that the attention of scholars has been too much\nconfined to the literature, the religion, and the general culture of\nthe Greeks and Romans. From special circumstances these nations had no\nSacred writings among them. Their religion was independent of any such\nauthorities; and our notions of pagan religion have been largely drawn\nfrom the religions of Greece and Rome. But the Greeks and Romans were\nonly an insignificant fraction of the Aryan race; and other far more\nnumerous branches of that race had their recognized and authoritative\nScriptures, containing in some portions those most ancient traditions\nof the original stock which entered into the intellectual property of\nthe Hellenic family, in the form of mythological tales and current\nstories of their gods. We must not therefore be led by the example of\nclassical antiquity to ignore the existence of these writings, or to\noverlook their importance.[34]\n\nWe may classify the Sacred Books to which reference will be made in\nthis chapter as follows, proceeding (as in the case of prophets) from\nEast to West:\u2014\n\n 1. THE THIRTEEN KING, or Canon of the Confucians. 2. The TA\u00d2-T\u0114-K\u012aNG,\n or Canon of the Ta\u00f2-s\u00e8. 3. The VEDA, or Canon of the Hindus. 4. The\n TRIPITAKA, or Canon of the Buddhists. 5. The ZEND AVESTA, or Canon\n of the Parsees. 6. The KORAN, or Canon of the Moslems. 7. The OLD\n TESTAMENT, or Canon of the Jews. 8. The NEW TESTAMENT, or Canon of the\n Christians.\n\nThe works included in the above list,\u2014which are more numerous than\nmight at first appear, owing to the vast collections comprised under\nthe titles \"Vedas,\" and \"Tripitaka,\"\u2014are distinguished, as has been\nalready stated, by certain common characteristics. It would be an\nexaggeration to say that all of these characteristics apply to each one\nof the writings accepted by any portion of mankind as canonical. This\ncannot be so, any more than the peculiar qualities which may happen to\ndistinguish any given race of men can ever belong in equal measure to\nall its members. Hence there will necessarily be some exceptions to\nour rules, but on the whole I believe we may say with confidence that\ncanonical or sacred books have the following distinctive marks:\u2014\n\nA. There are certain external marks, the presence of which is essential\nto constitute them sacred at all.\n\n1. They must be accepted by the sectaries of the religion to which\nthey belong as being either inspired, or, if the nature of the faith\nprecludes this idea, as containing the highest wisdom to which it is\npossible for man to attain, and indeed a much higher wisdom than can\nbe reached by ordinary men. Nor do those who accept these books ever\nexpect to attain it. They regard the authors, or supposed authors, as\nenlightened to a degree which is beyond the reach of their disciples,\nand receive their words as utterances of an unquestionable authority.\nBut wherever a divine being is acknowledged, these books are regarded\nas emanating from him. Either they have fallen direct from heaven and\nbeen merely \"seen\" by their human editors, as was the case with the\nVedic hymns; or their contents have been communicated in colloquies\nto holy men by the Deity himself, as happened with the Avesta; or an\nangel has revealed them to the prophet while in a fit or a state of\necstacy, as Mahomet was made acquainted with the Suras of the Koran; or\nlastly, as is held to have been the case with the Jewish and Christian\nScriptures, the mind of the writer has been at least so guided and\ninformed by the Spirit of God, that in the words traced by his pen it\nwas impossible he should err.\n\nSuch a conviction is expressly stated in the Second Epistle to\nTimothy, where it is said that \"all Scripture is given by inspiration\nof God.\" And a claim to even more than inspiration is put forward in\nthe Apocalypse, whose author first calls his work \"the Revelation of\nJesus Christ,\" which he says God sent to him by an angel deputed for\nthe purpose, and then proceeds to describe voices heard, and visions\nperceived; thus resting his prophetic knowledge not on supernatural\ninformation communicated to the mind, but on the direct testimony of\nhis senses.\n\n2. With this theory of inspiration, or of a more than human knowledge\nand wisdom, is closely connected an idea of _merit_ to be obtained\nby reading such books, or hearing them read. With tedious iteration\nis this notion asserted in the later works of the Buddhist Canon.\nThese indeed represent the degeneracy of the idea. One of them is so\nfilled with the panegyrics pronounced upon itself by the Buddha or\nhis hearers, and with the recital of the advantages to be obtained\nby him who reads it, that the student searches in vain under this\nmass of laudations for the substance of the book itself (H. B. I.,\np. 536). A S\u00fbtra translated by Schlagintweit from the Thibetan,\nand bearing the marks (according to its translator) of having been\nwritten at a period of \"mystic modification of Buddhism,\" promises\nthat, at a future period of intense and general distress this S\u00fbtra\n\"will be an ablution for every kind of sin which has been committed\nin the meantime: all animated beings shall read it, and on account of\nit all sins shall be wiped away\" (B. T., p. 139). In another S\u00fbtra,\ntermed the Karanda vyuha, a great saint is introduced as exhorting\nhis hearers to study this treatise, the efficaciousness of which he\nhighly exalts (H. B. I., p. 222). Another speaker recites in several\nstanzas the advantages which will accrue to him who either reads the\nKaranda vyuha or hears it read (Ibid., p. 226). Such was the force of\nthe idea that the mere mechanical reading or copying of the sacred\ntexts was in itself meritorious, that, by a still further separation\nof the outward action from its rational signification, the purely\nunintelligent process of turning a cylinder on which sentences of\nScripture were printed came to be regarded as equally efficacious. An\nauthor who has given an interesting account of these cylinders observes\nthat, as few men in Thibet knew how to read, and those who did had not\ntime to exercise their powers, \"the Lamas cast about for an expedient\nto enable the ignorant and the much-occupied man also to obtain the\nspiritual advantages\" (namely, purification from sin and exemption from\nmetempsychosis) \"attached to an observance of the practice mentioned;\nthey taught that the mere turning of a rolled manuscript might be\nconsidered an efficacious substitute for reading it.\" So completely\ndoes the one process take the place of the other that \"each revolution\nof the cylinder is considered to be equal to the reading of as many\nsacred sentences or treatises as are enclosed in it, provided that the\nturning of the cylinder is done slowly and from right to left;\" the\nslowness being a sign of a devout mind, and the direction of turning\nbeing a curious remnant of the original practice of reading, in which,\nas the letters run from left to right, the eye must move over them in\nthat direction (B. T., pp. 230, 231). Similar sentiments, though not\npushed to the same extravagance, prevail among the Hindus. One of the\nBr\u00e2hmanas, or treatises appended to the metrical portion of the Vedas,\nlays down the principle that \"of all the modes of exertion, which are\nknown between heaven and earth, study of the Veda occupies the highest\nrank (in the case of him) who, knowing this, studies it\" (O. S. T.,\nvol. iii. p. 22). Manu, one of the highest of Indian authorities,\nobserves that \"a Brahman who should destroy these three worlds, and\neat food received from any quarter whatever, would incur no guilt if\nhe retained in his memory the Rig Veda. Repeating thrice with intent\nmind the Sanhit\u00e2 of the Rik, or the Yajush, or the S\u00e2man, with the\nUpanishads, he is freed from all his sins. Just as a clod thrown into\na great lake is dissolved when it touches the water, so does all sin\nsink in the triple Veda\" (Ibid., vol. iii. p. 25). Reading the Holy\nScriptures is with the Parsees a positive duty. And these works, read\nin the proper spirit, are thought to exert upon earth an influence\nsomewhat similar to that of the primeval Word at the origin of created\nbeings (Z. A. Q., p. 595). It is needless to speak of the importance\nattached among Jews and Christians to the reading and re-reading\nof their Bibles, or of the spiritual benefits supposed to result\ntherefrom. It is worth remarking, however, that this constant perusal\nof Holy Writ is altogether a different operation from that of studying\nit for the sake of knowing its contents. People read continually what\nthey are already perfectly familiar with, and they neither gain, nor\nexpect to gain, any fresh information from the performance. And this is\na species of reading to which among Christian nations the Bible alone\nis subjected.\n\nThe genesis of this notion is not difficult to follow. Once let a given\nwork be accepted as containing information on religious questions which\nman's unaided faculties could not have attained, and it is evident that\nthere is no better way of qualifying himself for the performance of his\nobligations towards heaven than by studying that work. Its perusal and\nre-perusal will increase his knowledge of divine things, and render him\nmore and more fit, the oftener he repeats it, to put that knowledge\ninto practice. But if it is thus advantageous to the devout man to be\nfamiliar with the sacred writings of his faith, it is plain that the\nattention he gives to them must be in the highest degree agreeable\nto the divinity from whom they emanate. For, to put it on the lowest\nground, it is a sign of respect. It renders it evident that he is not\nindifferent to the communication which his God has been pleased to\nmake. It evinces a pious and reverential disposition. Hence not only\nis the reader benefited by such a study, but the Deity is pleased by\nit. Or if the books are not conceived as inspired by any deity, yet\na careful attention to them shows a desire for wisdom, and a humble\nregard for the instructions of more highly-gifted men who in these\nreligions stand in the place of gods. Thus the action of reading these\nworks, and becoming thoroughly familiar with their contents, is for\nnatural reasons regarded as meritorious. But this is not all. An act\nwhich at first is meritorious as a means, tends inevitably to become\nmeritorious as an end. Moreover, actions frequently repeated for some\ndefinite reason come to be repeated when that reason is absent. Thus,\nthe reading of Sacred Books, originally a profitable exercise to the\nmind of the reader, is soon undertaken for its own sake, whether the\nmind of the reader be concerned in it or not. And the action, having\nbecome habitual, is stereotyped as a religious custom, and therefore\na religious obligation. The words of the holy books are read aloud to\na congregation, without effort or intelligence on their part, perhaps\nin a tongue which they do not comprehend. Even if the vernacular be\nemployed, there is not the pretence of an effort to penetrate the sense\nof difficult passages. Holy Writ has become a charm, to be mechanically\nread and as mechanically heard, and the notion of merit\u2014arising in the\nfirst instance from the high importance of understanding its meaning\nwith a view to practicing its precepts\u2014now attaches to the mere\nrepetition of the consecrated words.\n\n3. The exact converse of this unintelligent reverence for the sacred\nwritings is the excessive and over-subtle exercise of intelligence upon\nthem. It is the common fate of such works to be made the subject of the\nmost minute, most careful, and most constant scrutiny to which any of\nthe productions of the human mind can be subjected. The pious and the\nlearned alike submit them to an unceasing study. No phrase, no word,\nno letter, passes unobserved. The result of this devout investigation\nnaturally is, that much which in reality belongs to the mind of the\nreader is attributed to that of the writer. Approached with the fixed\nprepossession that they contain vast stores of superhuman wisdom, that\nwhich is so eagerly sought from them is certain to be found. Hence the\nnatural and simple meaning of the words is set aside, or is relegated\nto a secondary place. All sorts of forced interpretations are put upon\nthem with a view of compelling them to harmonize with that which it\nis supposed they ought to mean. Statements, doctrines, and allusions\nare discovered in them which not only have no existence in their\npages, but which are absolutely foreign to the epoch at which they\nwere written. This process of false interpretation is greatly favored\nby distance of time. When an ancient book is approached by those who\nknow but little of the external circumstances, or of the intellectual\nand spiritual atmosphere, of the age in which it was composed, much\nthat was simple and plain enough to the contemporaries of the writer\nwill be dubious and obscure to them. And when they are determined to\nfind in the venerable classic nothing but perfect truth, the result of\nsuch conditions is an inevitable confusion. Their own actual notions\nof truth must at all hazards be discovered in the sacred pages. The\nassumption cannot be surrendered; all that does not agree with it must\ntherefore be suitably explained.\n\nAre proceedings or actions which shock the improved morality of a\nlater age spoken of with approbation in the canonical books? Some\nevasion must be discovered which will reconcile ethics with belief. Are\ndoctrines which the religion of a later age rejects plainly enunciated,\nor statements of facts, which later investigation has shown to be\nimpossible, unequivocally made? The inconvenient passages must be\nshown to bear another construction. Are there portions whose character\nappears too trivial or too mundane to be consistent with the dignity\nof works given for the instruction of mankind? These portions must be\nshown to possess a mystical significance; a spirit hidden beneath the\nletter; profound instruction veiled under ordinary phrases. Are the\ndogmas cherished as of supreme importance by subsequent generations\nunhappily not to be found in the text of Revelation? These dogmas must\nbe read out of them by putting a strain upon words which apparently\nrefer to some other subject. Perhaps, if they are not contained in\nthem _totidem verbis_, they may be _totidem syllabis_: or if not even\n_totidem syllabis_, at least _totidem literis_. And the absence of a\nletter (like the k in shoulder-knots) can always be got over somehow.\nLastly, are there palpable contradictions? At whatever cost they must\nbe explained away, for Holy Writ, being inspired, can never contradict\nitself.\n\nLet us consider a few of the most striking examples of these methods\nof treatment. China, usually so matter of fact, has manifested in this\nfield a subtlety of interpretation not altogether unworthy of the\nmore mystical India. The Ch'un Ts'\u00ebw, one of the books of the Chinese\nCanon, is a historical compilation attributed to Confucius himself,\nand is therefore of more than ordinary authority even for a Sacred\nBook. Concerning one of the years of which it contains a record, the\nfollowing statements are made:\u2014\n\n\"In the ninth month, on Kang-seuk, the first day of the moon, the sun\nwas eclipsed.\n\n\"In winter, in the tenth month, on Kang-shin, the first day of the\nmoon, the sun was eclipsed\" (C. C., vol. v. p. 489.\u2014Ch'un Ts'\u00ebw, b. 9,\nch. xxi. p. 5, 6).\n\nTwo eclipses in such close proximity were of course an impossibility.\nChinese scholars were fully aware of this, and knew, moreover, that\nthe second eclipse mentioned did not take place. A similar mistake\noccurred in another chapter, so that there were two unquestionable\nblunders to be got over. No wonder then that \"the critics,\" as Dr.\nLegge says, \"have vexed themselves with the question in vain.\" But one\nof them proposes an explanation. \"In this year,\" he remarks, \"and in\nthe twenty-fourth year, we have the record of eclipses in successive\nmonths. According to modern chronologists such a thing could not be;\nbut _perhaps it did occur in ancient times_!\" (Ibid., vol. v. p. 491).\nDr. Legge has italicized the concluding words, and put an exclamation\nafter them, as if they embodied a surprising absurdity. But his\nexperience of Biblical criticism must have presented him with abundant\ninstances of similar interpretations of the glaring contradictions to\nmodern science found in Scripture. Is it more ridiculous to suppose\nthat the two eclipses might have occurred in two months than to believe\nthat the sun stood still, in other words, that the revolution of the\nearth on its axis ceased for a space of time? or that an ass could be\nendowed with human speech? or that a man, instead of dying, could rise\nfrom earth to heaven? And if these and similar strange occurrences be\nexplained as miracles, then such miracles \"did occur in ancient times,\"\nand do not now. Or if it be attempted, as it is by interpreters of the\nrationalistic school to get over the difficulty by supposing a natural\nevent as the foundation of the story\u2014as one writer suggests that the\ndescent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost was a strong blast of wind\u2014then\nEuropean critics, like those of China, \"vex themselves in vain.\"\n\nNo country, however, has done more than India, possibly none has done\nso much, in the peculiar exercise of ingenuity by which all sorts of\nsenses are deduced from sacred texts. The Veda formed in that highly\nreligious land the common basis on which each variety of philosophy was\nfounded, and by which each was thought to be justified. Dr. Muir has\ncollected a number of facts in proof of the diverse interpretations\nthat found defenders among the champions of the several schools. In\nthese facts, according to him, \"we find another illustration (1)\nof the tendency common to all dogmatic theologians to interpret in\nstrict conformity to their own opinions the unsystematic and not\nalways consistent texts of an earlier age which have been handed\ndown by tradition as sacred and infallible, and to represent them as\ncontaining, or as necessarily implying, fixed and consistent systems of\ndoctrine; as well as (2) of the diversity of view which so generally\nprevails in regard to the sense of such texts among writers of\ndifferent schools, who adduce them with equal positiveness of assertion\nas establishing tenets and principles which are mutually contradictory\nor inconsistent\" (O. S. T., vol. iii. p. xx).\n\nExactly the same methods were applied to the sacred books of Buddhism.\n\"It is in general,\" says Burnouf, \"the same texts that serve as a\nfoundation for all doctrines; only the explanation of these texts\nmarks the naturalistic, theistic, moral or intellectual tendency\" (H.\nB. I., p. 444). To meet the case of contradictions occurring in the\nBuddhistic S\u00fbtras a theory of a double meaning has been invented. The\nvarious schools that had arisen in the course of time did not venture\nto reject the S\u00fbtras that failed to harmonize with their own opinions,\nas not having emanated from Buddha, but maintained he had not expressed\nthem in the form of absolute truth. He had often, they thought, adapted\nhimself to the conceptions of his hearers, and uttered what was\ndirectly contradictory to his veritable ideas. Hence his words must\nbe taken in two senses; the palpable and the hidden sense (Wassiljew,\npp. 105, 329). As it has been with the Chinese Classics, with the\nVeda, and with the Tripitaka, so it has been with the Zend Avesta.\nSpeaking of the progress of scholarship in deciphering the sense of\nthat ancient work, Professor Max M\u00fcller justly observes that \"greater\nviolence is done by successive interpreters to sacred writings than to\nany other relics of ancient literature. Ideas grow and change, yet each\ngeneration tries to find its own ideas reflected in the sacred pages of\ntheir early prophets, and in addition to the ordinary influences which\nblur and obscure the sharp features of old words, artificial influences\nare here at work distorting the natural expression of words which have\nbeen invested with a sacred authority. Passages in the Veda or Zend\nAvesta which do not bear on religious or philosophical doctrines,\nare generally explained simply and naturally, even by the latest of\nnative commentators. But as soon as any word or sentence can be so\nturned as to support a doctrine, however modern, or a precept, however\nirrational, the simplest phrases are tortured and mangled till at last\nthey are made to yield their assent to ideas the most foreign to the\nminds of the authors of the Veda and Zend Avesta\" (Chips, vol. i. p.\n134).\n\nIt is remarkable that almost identical expressions are employed by\na Roman Catholic writer in reference to the efforts that have been\nmade by theologians to discover the doctrine of the Trinity in the\npages of the Hebrew Bible. I am glad to be able to quote an authority\nso unexceptionable as that of M. Didron for the proposition, that\nthe poverty of the Old Testament in texts relating to the Trinity\nhas caused the commentators to torture the sense of the words and\nthe signification of facts. He adds the interesting information that\nartists, pushed on by the commentators, have represented the signs of\nthe Trinity in scenes which did not admit of them. Thus, commentators\nand artists have united to find a revelation of the three persons\nof the Godhead in the three angels whom Abraham met in the plain of\nMamre; in the three companions of Daniel who were thrown into the fiery\nfurnace, and in other passages of equal relevance. No wonder, when such\nare the texts relied upon to prove the presence of this cardinal dogma,\nthat M. Didron should observe that the Old Testament contains very few\ntexts that are clear and precise upon the subject, and that in this\nportion of the Sacred Books we do not see a sufficient number of real\nand unquestionable manifestations of the Holy Trinity (Ic. Ch., pp.\n514-517).\n\nPerhaps, however, the most conspicuous instance of the power of\npreconceptions in deciding the sense of Holy Writ is the traditional\ninterpretation of the Song of Solomon. In this little book, which is\naltogether secular in its subject and its nature, the love of a young\ndamsel to her swain is described in peculiarly plain and sensuous\nlanguage. But precisely because it was so plain was it necessary to\nfind allegorical allusions under its rather glowing phrases. Hence such\nexpressions as \"let him kiss me with a kiss of his mouth; thy caresses\nare softer than wine,\" are held to refer to \"the Church's love unto\nChrist,\" and an enthusiastic encomium passed by the Shulamite upon the\nphysical perfections of her lover is called \"a description of Christ by\nhis graces.\" So, when another speaker, in this case a man, flatters\na woman by enumerating the beauties of her form, the feet, the joints\nof her thighs, the navel, the belly, the two breasts so passionately\npraised by her admirer, are thought in some mystic way to signify the\ngraces of the Church. A passage referring to a young girl not yet fully\ndeveloped is made out to be a foreshadowing of \"the calling of the\nGentiles,\" and the natural and simple appeal to a lover to make haste\nto come is \"the Church praying for Christ's coming.\"\n\nEqual, or nearly equal, absurdities are found in the Chinese\ninterpretations of certain Odes contained in their classics. These\nOdes are, like the Song of Songs, mere expressions of human love. But\nthe critics find in them profound historical allusions; history being\nthe staple of the Chinese sacred books, as theology is of the Hebrew\nones. Now it happened in China, as it has happened in Europe, that\nthere was a traditional meaning attached to this portion of the sacred\nbooks; and the traditional meaning was embodied in a Preface which was\ngenerally supposed to have descended from very ancient times, which\ncame to be incorporated with the Odes, and thus appeared to rest on\nthe same authority as the text itself. But a Chinese scholar, named\nChoo He, who examined the preface in a freer spirit than was usual\namong the commentators, formed a very different opinion as to its age\nand its authority. He believed it to be of much more recent date that\nwas commonly supposed, and by no means to form an integral portion of\nthe Odes. The prevailing theory was that the Preface had existed as a\nseparate document in the time of a scholar named Maou, \"and that he\nbroke it up, prefixing to each Ode the portion belonging to it. The\nnatural conclusion,\" observes Choo He, \"is that the Preface had come\ndown from a remote period, and Hwang\" (a scholar who, in one account,\nis said to have written the Preface) \"merely added to it and rounded it\noff. In accordance with this, scholars generally hold that the first\nsentences in the introductory notices formed the original Preface which\nMaou distributed, and that the following portions were subsequently\nadded. This view may appear reasonable, but when we examine those\nfirst sentences themselves we find some of them which do not agree\nwith the obvious meaning of the Odes to which they are prefixed, and\ngive merely the rash and baseless expositions of the writers.\" Choo He\nadds, that after the prefatory notices were published as a portion of\nthe text, \"they appeared as if they were the production of the poets\nthemselves and the Odes seemed to be made from them as so many themes.\nScholars handed down a faith in them from one to another, and no one\nventured to express a doubt of their authority. The text was twisted\nand chiseled to bring it into accordance with them, and nobody would\nundertake to say plainly that they were the work of the scholars of the\nHan dynasty\" (C. C., vol. iv. Proleg., p. 33).\n\nAmple confirmation of the justice of Choo He's opinion will be found on\nturning to the Odes and comparing them with the notices in the Preface,\nwhich bear a family likeness to the headings of the chapters in the\nSong of Songs. Here, for example, is an Ode:\u2014\n\n    \"If you, Sir, think kindly of me,\n    I will hold up my lower garments, and cross the Tsin.\n    If you do not think of me,\n    Is there no other person [to do so?]\n    You foolish, foolish fellow!\"[35]\n\nThe second stanza is identical, with this exception, that the name of\nthe river is changed. Now this young lady's coquettish appeal to her\nlover is said in the Preface to be an expression \"of the desire of the\npeople of Ch'ing to have the condition of the State rectified\" (C. C.,\nvol. iv. Proleg., p. 51). Another Ode runs thus:\u2014\n\n    1. \"The sun is in the east,\n    And that lovely girl\n    Is in my chamber.\n    She is in my chamber;\n    She treads in my footsteps, and comes to me.\n\n    2. \"The moon is in the east,\n    And that lovely girl\n    Is inside my door.\n    She is inside my door;\n    She treads in my footsteps, and hastens away.\"[36]\n\nThis simple poem is supposed by the Preface to be \"directed against\nthe decay [of the times].\" Observe the theory that anything appearing\nin a sacred book must have a moral purpose. \"The relation of ruler\nand minister was neglected. Men and women sought each other in lewd\nfashion; and there was no ability to alter the customs by the rules of\npropriety\" (C. C., vol. iv. Proleg., p. 52). A commentator, studious\nto discover the hidden moral, urges that the incongruous fact of\nthe young woman's coming at sunrise and going at moonrise \"should\nsatisfy us that, under the figuration of these lovers, is intended a\nrepresentation of Ts'e, with bright or with gloomy relations between\nits ruler and officers\" (C. C., vol. iv. p. 153, note). In another Ode\na lady laments her husband's absence, pathetically saying that while\nshe does not see him, her heart cannot forget its grief:\n\n    \"How is it, how is it,\n    That he forgets me so very much?\"\n\nis the burden of every stanza. This piece, according to the Preface,\nwas directed against a duke, \"who slighted the men of worth whom his\nfather had collected around him, leaving the State without those who\nwere its ornament and strength\" (C. C., vol. iv. p. 200, and the\nnote.\u2014She King, pt. i. b. 11, ode 7).\n\nWith such methods as these there is no marvel which may not be\naccomplished. And when, by the lapse of many centuries, the very\nlanguage of the sacred records has been forgotten\u2014as the Sanscrit of\nthe Vedas was forgotten by the Hindus, the Zend by the Parsees, and the\nHebrew by the Jews\u2014the process of perversion is still further favored.\nThe original works are then accessible but to a few; and when these few\nundertake to explain them in the ordinary tongue, they will do so with\na gloss suggested by their own imperfect comprehension of the thoughts\nand language of the past.\n\nThese, then, may be accepted as the external marks of Sacred Books:\n1. The unusual veneration accorded to them by the adherents of each\nreligion, on the ground that they contain truths beyond the reach\nof human intelligence when not specially enlightened; or in other\nwords, the theory of their _inspiration_. 2. The notion of _religious\nmerit_ attached to reading them. 3. The application to them of _forced\ninterpretation_, in order to bring them into accordance with the\nassumptions made regarding them.\n\nB. Passing now to the internal marks by which writings of this class\nare distinguished, we shall find several which, taken together,\nconstitute them altogether a peculiar branch of literature.\n\n1. Their subjects are generally confined within a certain definite\nrange, but in the limits of that range there is a considerable portion\nwhich has the peculiarity that their investigation transcends the\nunaided powers of the human intellect. Almost the whole of the vast\nfield of theological dogma comes under this head. The sublimer subjects\nusually dealt with, and not only dealt with, but emphatically dwelt\nupon, in the Sacred Books are, the nature of the Deity and his mode\nof action towards mankind; the creation of the world and its various\nconstituent parts, including man himself; the motives of the Deity in\nthese exercises of his power; the dogmas to be believed in reference\nto the Deity himself and in reference to other superhuman powers or\nagencies, whether good or bad; and the condition of the soul after\ndeath with the rewards and the punishments of vicious conduct. Coming\ndown to matters of a less purely celestial character, but still beyond\nthe reach of the uninspired faculties of ordinary minds, they treat of\nthe primitive condition of mankind when first placed upon the earth;\nof his earliest history; of the rites by which the divine being is to\nbe worshiped; of the sacrifices which are to be offered to him; of the\nceremonies by which his favor is to be won. Here we move in a region\nwhich is at least intelligible and free from mysteries, though it is\nplain that we could not arrive at any certain conclusions on such\nthings as these without divine assistance and superhuman illumination.\n\nLastly, the Sacred Books of all nations profess to give information on\na subject the nature of which is altogether mundane, and with regard to\nwhich truth is accessible to all, inspired or uninspired;\u2014the rules of\nmoral conduct. These are, I believe, the main subjects which will be\nfound treated of in the various books that lay claim to the title of\nSacred. These subjects may be briefly classified as, 1. Metaphysical\nspeculations as to the nature of the Deity. 2. Doctrines as to the\npast or future existence of the soul. 3. Accounts of the creation. 4.\nLives of prophets or collections of their sayings. 5. Theories as to\nthe origin of evil. 6. Prescriptions as to ritual. 7. Ethics. That this\ndoes not pretend to be an exhaustive classification, I need hardly say;\nother topics are treated in some of them to which no allusion is made,\nand all of these topics themselves are not treated at all. But they are\nthose with which the Sacred Books are principally concerned; and more\nthan this, they are those in the treatment of which these books are\nespecially peculiar. One important feature both of the Chinese and the\nJewish Canon is passed over, namely, their historical records. If these\nrecords were not exceptional appearances in sacred works, or if, though\nexceptional, they presented some essential singularity marking them\noff from all ordinary history, they should be included in the list of\nsubjects. But as the Chinese Shoo King are perfectly commonplace annals\nof matters of fact; and as the Books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles\nare not otherwise distinguished from secular history than by their\ntheological theories\u2014in respect of which they are included under the\nprevious heads\u2014I see no reason to include history among the matters\ngenerally treated in Sacred Books. It is right, however, to note in\npassing that in these two instances it is found in them.\n\n2. Since, however, it will be obvious to all that these great topics\nare discussed in many other works which have no pretension to be\nthought sacred, we must seek for some further and more definite\ncriterion by which to separate them from general literature. And we\nshall find it in the _manner_ in which the above-named subjects are\ntreated. The great distinction between sacred and non-sacred writings\nin their manner of dealing with these great questions is the tone of\nauthority, and if the expression may be used, of finality, assumed\nby the former. There is no appeal beyond them to a higher authority\nthan their own. Having God as their author and inspirer, or being the\nproduct of the supreme elevation of reason, they take for granted\nthat human beings will not question or cavil at their statements.\nWhile other writers, when seeking to enforce the doctrines of any\npositive religion, invariably rest their contentions, implicitly or\nexplicitly, on some superior authority, referring their readers or\nhearers either to the Vedas, the Koran, the Bible, the Church, or\nsome other recognized standard of belief and would think it in the\nlast degree presumptuous to claim assent except to what can be found\nin or deduced from that standard; while those teachers who are not\nthe exponents of any positive, revealed religion, endeavor to prove\ntheir conclusions from the common intuitions or the common reasoning\nfaculties of mankind; the writers of these books do neither. They seem\nto speak with a full confidence that their words need no confirmation\neither from authority or from reason. If they tell us the story of the\ncreation of the world, they do not think it needful to inform us from\nwhat sources the narrative is derived. If they reveal the character of\nGod, it is without explaining the means by which their insight has been\nobtained. If they lay down the rules of religious or moral conduct, it\nis not done with the modesty of fallible teachers, but with the voice\nof unqualified command emanating from the plentitude of power. Of their\ndecisions there can be no discussion; from their sentences there is no\nappeal.\n\n3. It corresponds with this character that Sacred Books should very\ngenerally be anonymous; or more strictly speaking, impersonal; that\nis, that they should not be put forward in the name of an individual,\nand that no individual should take credit for their authorship.\nUnderstanding the expression in this somewhat wider sense, we may\nsay that anonymity is a general characteristic of this class of\nwritings. Their authors do not desire to invite attention to their\nown personality, or to claim assent on the ground of respect or\nconsideration towards themselves. On the contrary, they withdraw\nentirely from observation; they appear to be thoroughly engrossed in\nthe greatness of the subject; and to write not from any deliberate\ndesign or with any artistic plan, but simply from the fullness of the\ninspiration by which they are controlled. Hence not only are the names\nof the authors in most cases completely lost to us, but they have left\nus not a hint or an indication by which we could discover what manner\nof men they were. Even where the name of a writer has been preserved\nto us, it is often rather by some accident altogether independent of\nthe book, and which in no way alters its anonymous character. We happen\nto know, on what seems to be good authority, that La\u00f2-ts\u00e9 composed\nthe Ta\u00f2-t\u0115-K\u012bng, but assuredly there is not a syllable in the work\nitself which indicates its author. We happen to know beyond a doubt\nthat Mahomet composed the Koran; but the theory of the book is that it\nhad no human author at all, and it was put forth, not as the prophet's\ncomposition, but as the literal reproduction of revelations made to\nhim from heaven. The most noteworthy exceptions are the prophets of\nthe Old Testament and the Pauline, Petrine and Johannine Epistles of\nthe New. But of the prophets, though their names are indeed given, the\ngreat majority are little more than a mere name to us; while large\nportions of the prophecies, attributed in the Jewish Canon to some\ncelebrated prophet, are in reality the work of unknown writers. This is\nnotoriously the case with the whole of the latter part of our Isaiah;\nit is the case with parts of Jeremiah; it is the case with Malachi\n(whose real name is not preserved); it is the case with Daniel.\n\nThe Pauline Epistles offer indeed a marked exception to the rule; and\nsome of them are of doubtful authenticity. The Epistles of Peter,\nof John, of James and Jude, even if their authorship be correctly\nassigned, are of too limited extent to constitute an exception of any\nimportance. The rest of the Christian Bible follows the rule. Like\nthe Vedic hymns, like the S\u00fbtras of Buddhism, like the records of\nthe life and doctrines of Khung-ts\u00e9, like the Avesta, all the larger\nbooks of the Bible\u2014except the prophets\u2014are anonymous. The whole of\nthe historical portion of the Old Testament, the four Gospels, the\nActs of the Apostles, the Epistle to the Hebrews, are\u2014whatever names\ntradition may have associated with them\u2014strictly the production of\nunknown authors. This characteristic is one of very high importance,\nbecause it indicates\u2014along with another which I am about to mention\u2014the\nspirit in which these works were written. They were written as it were\nunconsciously and undesignedly; not of course without a knowledge on\nthe writer's part of what he was about, but without that conscious and\ndistinct intention of composing a literary work with which ordinary\nmen sit down to write a book. Flowing from the depths of religious\nfeeling, they were the reflection of the age that brought them forth.\nGenerations past and present, nations, communities, brotherhoods of\nbelievers, spoke in them and through them. They were not only the work\nof him who first uttered them or wrote them; others worked with him,\nthought with him, spoke with him; they were not merely the voice of an\nindividual, but the voice of an epoch and of a people. Hence the utter\nabsence of any apparent and palpable authorship, the disappearance of\nthe individual in the grandeur of the subject. This phenomenon is not\nindeed quite peculiar to Sacred Books. It belongs also to those great\nnational epics which likewise express the feelings of whole races and\ncommunities of men; to the Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata, to the R\u00e2m\u00e2yana, to the Iliad\nand the Odyssey, to the Volsungen and Nibelungen Sagas, to the Eddas,\nto the legends of King Arthur and his knights. These poems, or these\npoetical tales, are anonymous, and they occupy in the veneration of the\npeople a rank which is second only to that of books actually sacred. In\nsome other respects they bear a resemblance to Sacred Books, but these\nbooks differ from them in one important particular, which of itself\nsuffices to place them in a different category. What that particular is\nmust now be explained.\n\n4. If I were to describe it by a single word, I should call it their\n_formlessness_. The term is an awkward one, but I know of no other\nwhich so exactly describes this most peculiar feature of Sacred Books.\nLike the earth in its chaotic condition before creation, they are\n\"without form.\" That artistic finish, that construction, combination\nof parts into a well-defined edifice, that arrangement of the whole\nwork upon an apparent plan, subservient to a distinct object, which\nmarks every other class of the productions of the human mind, is\nentirely wanting to them. They read not unfrequently as if they had\nbeen carelessly jotted down without the smallest regard to order, or\nthe least attention to the effect to be produced on the mind of the\nreader. Sometimes they may even be said to have neither beginning,\nmiddle, nor end. We might open them anywhere and close them anywhere\nwithout material difference. Sometimes there is a distinct progress\nin the narrative, but it is nevertheless wholly without methodical\ncombination of the separate parts into a well-ordered whole. Herein\nthey differ also from those poetical Epics which we have found agreeing\nwith them in being virtually anonymous. Nothing can exceed the grace,\nthe finish, the perfection of style, of those immortal poems which are\nknown as Homeric. The northern Epics are indeed simpler, ruder, far\nmore destitute of literary merit. The first part, for instance, of the\nEdda Saemundar (which perhaps ought not to be called an Epic at all) is\nto the last degree uncouth and barbarous. But then the subject-matter\nof this portion of the Edda is such as belongs properly to Sacred\nBooks, and had it ever been actually current among the Scandinavians\nas a canonical work\u2014of which we have no evidence\u2014it would be entitled\nto a place among them. When we come to the second or heroic portion of\nthis Edda, the case is different. The mode of treatment is still rude\nand unattractive, but if, unrepelled by the outward form, we study the\nlongest of the narratives which this division contains\u2014the Saga of the\nVolsungs\u2014we shall discover in it a tale, which for the exquisite pathos\nof its sentiments, for the deep and tragic interest which centres\nround the principal characters, for the vivid delineation by a few\nbrief touches of the intensest suffering, is scarcely surpassed even\nby the far more finished productions of Hellenic genius. No doubt the\nfoundation of the story is mythological, and this throws over many of\nits incidents a grotesqueness which goes far in modern eyes to mar the\neffect. But the mythological incidents of the Iliad and the Odyssey are\ngrotesque also, and it requires all the genius of the poet to render\nthem tolerable. Apart from this groundwork, the Volsunga-Saga treats\nits personages as human, and claims from its readers a purely human\ninterest in their various adventures. It relates these adventures in\na connected form, it depicts the feelings of the several actors with\nall the sympathy of the dramatist, and draws no moral, teaches no\nlesson. In the whole range of sacred literature I recollect nothing\nlike this. Stories are doubtless told in it, but we are made to feel\nthat they are subservient to an ulterior purpose. In the Old Testament\nand in the New, they serve to enforce the theological doctrines of\nthe writers; in the works of the Buddhists they generally impress\non the hearers some useful lesson as to the reward of merit, and the\npunishment of demerit, in a future existence. Of the genuine and simple\nrelation of a rather elaborate romance, terminating in itself, there\nis probably no instance. Such stories as are related are moral tales,\nand not romances; and they are generally too short to absorb, in any\nconsiderable degree, the interest of the reader.\n\nWhile this is the difference between secular and Sacred Books in\nrespect of their narrative portions, the sacred are as a whole even\nmore decidedly below the secular in all that belongs to style and\ncomposition. The dullest historian generally contrives to render his\nchronicle more lucid, and therefore more readable, than the authors of\ncanonical books. In these last there is the most absolute disregard\nof artistic or literary excellence. Hence they are, with scarcely\nan exception, very tedious reading. M. Renan observes of the Koran\nthat its continuous perusal is almost intolerable. Burnouf hesitates\nto inflict upon his readers the tedium he himself has suffered from\nthe study of certain Tantras. The inconceivable tediousness of the\nBuddhistic S\u00fbtras\u2014excepting the earlier and simpler ones\u2014is well\nknown to those who have read or attempted to read such works, as,\nfor instance, the Saddharma Pundarika. The Chinese Classics are\nless repulsive, but few readers would care to study them for long\ntogether. The Vedic hymns, though full of mythological interest, are\nyet difficult and unpleasant reading, both from their monotony and\nthe looseness of the connection between each verse and sentence. The\nBr\u00e2hmanas are barely readable. The Avesta is far from attractive. The\nBible, though vastly superior in this respect to all the rest of its\nclass, is yet not easy to read for any length of time without fatigue.\nDoubtless, if taken as a special study, with a view to something\nwhich we desire to ascertain from it, we may without difficulty read\nlarge portions at a time; yet we see that Christians, who read it\nfor edification, invariably choose in their public assemblies to\nconfine themselves to very moderate sections of it indeed, while they\nwill listen to sermons of many times the length. There can be little\ndoubt that a similar practice is pursued in private devotion. Single\nchapters, or at most a few chapters, are selected; these are perused,\nand perhaps made the object of meditation; but even the most fervent\nadmirers of the Bible would probably find it difficult to read through\nits longer books without pausing. They do not, so to speak, \"carry us\non.\" It was essential to dwell on this tediousness of Sacred Books,\nbecause it forms one of their most marked characteristics. Nor does\nit arise, as is often the case, from indifference or aversion on the\npart of the reader. Other books repel us because we have no interest\nin the subjects with which they deal. In these, the keenest interest\nin the subjects with which they deal will not suffice to render their\npresentation tolerable.\n\n\n                   SECTION I.\u2014THE THIRTEEN KING.[37]\n\nSacred Books in general are in China termed _King_. But as the Chinese\nBuddhists have their own sacred literature, and as Taouists are in\npossession of a sacred work of their founder, La\u00f2-ts\u00e9, I call the\nBooks of the State religion, that is, of the followers of Confucius,\n_the_ King _par excellence_. For Confucianism is the official creed\nof the Government of China, and the Confucian Canon forms the subject\nof the Civil Service examinations which qualify for office. According\nto a competent authority, \"a complete knowledge of the whole of them,\nas well as of the standard notes and criticisms by which they are\nelucidated, is an indispensable condition towards the attainment of the\nhigher grades of literary and official rank\" (Chinese, vol. ii. p. 48).\n\nThe writings now recognized as especially sacred in China are \"the\nfive King,\" and \"the four Shoo.\"[38] _King_ is a term of which the\nproper signification is \"the warp, the chain of a web: thence that\nwhich progresses equally, that which constitutes a fundamental law,\nthe normal. Applied to books, it indicates those that are regarded as\ncanonical; as an absolute standard, either in general or with reference\nto some definite object\" (T. T. K., p. lxviii). In the words of another\nSinologue, it is \"the Rule, the Law, a book of canonical authority, a\nclassical book\" (L. T., p. ix). The word seems therefore on the whole\nto correspond most nearly to what we mean by a \"canonical book.\" _Shoo_\nmeans \"Writings or Books.\" The four Shoo, of which I shall speak first,\nare these:\u2014A 1. The Lun Yu, or Digested Conversations (of Confucius). A\n2. The Ta H\u00ebo, or Great Learning. A 3. The Chung Yung, or Doctrine of\nthe Mean. A 4. The Works of Mang-tsze, or Mencius. The five King are\nthese:\u2014B 1. The Yih, or Book of Changes (Noticed in Pauthier, p. 137).\nB 2. The Shoo, or Book of History. B 3. The She, or Book of Poetry. B\n4. The Le Ke, or Record of Rites. B 5. The Ch'un Ts'\u00ebw, or Spring and\nAutumn, a chronicle of events from B. C. 721-B. C. 480. The oldest\nenumeration specified only the five King, to which the Yoke, or Record\nof Music (now in the Le Ke), was sometimes added, making six. There was\nalso a division into nine King; and in the compilation made by order of\nT\u00e1e-Tsung (who reigned in the 7th century A. D.) there are specified\nthirteen King, which consist of:[39]\u20141-7. The five King, including\nthree editions of the Ch'un Ts'\u00ebw. 8. The Lun Yu (A 1). 9. Mang-tsze\n(A 4). 10. The Chow Le, or Ritual of Chow. 11. The E Le, or Ceremonial\nUsages. 12. The Urh Ya, a sort of ancient dictionary. 13. The Heaou\nKing, or Classic of Filial Piety. The apparent omission of the Ta H\u00ebo\n(A 2) and the Chung Yung (A 3) is accounted for by the fact that both\nare included in the Le Ke (B 4). The only works which it is at present\nin my power to speak of in detail are those classified as A 1 to A 4,\nand as B 2.\n\nThe authenticity of these works is considered to be above reasonable\nsuspicion; for though an emperor who reigned in the third century B.\nC., did indeed order (B. C. 212) that they should all be destroyed,\nyet this emperor died not long after the issue of his edict, which was\nformally abrogated after twenty-two years; and subsequent dynasties\ntook pains to preserve and recover the missing volumes. As it is of\ncourse improbable that every individual would obey the frantic order\nof the emperor who enjoined their destruction, there appears to be\nsufficient ground for Dr. Legge's conclusion, that we possess the\nactual works which were already extant in the time of Confucius, or (in\nso far as they referred to him) were compiled by his disciples or their\nimmediate successors.\n\n\n                     SUBDIVISION 1.\u2014_The Lun Yu._\n\n1. The first of the four Books is the Lun Yu, or \"Digested\nConversations.\" From internal evidence it seems to have been compiled\nin its actual form, not by the immediate disciples of Confucius, but\nby their disciples. Its date would be \"about the end of the fourth,\nor beginning of the fifth, century before Christ;\" that is, about 400\nB.C. It bears a nearer resemblance to the Christian Gospels than any\nother book contained in the Chinese Classics, being in fact a minute\naccount, by admiring hands, of the behavior, character, and doctrine,\nof the great Master, Confucius. Since, however, it contains no notice\nof the events of his life in chronological order, it answers much more\naccurately to the description given by Papais of the \"\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03b9\" composed\nby Matthew in the Hebrew dialect than to that of any of our canonical\nGospels.\n\nBiographical materials may indeed be discovered in it; but they\noccur only as incidental allusions, subservient to the main object\nof preserving a record of his sayings. In the minute and painstaking\nmode in which this task is performed there is even a resemblance to\nBoswell's \"Johnson;\" as in that celebrated work, we have as it were\na photographic picture of the great man's conversation, taken by a\nreverent and humble follower. And as there is a total absence of\nthat fondness for the marvelous and that tendency to exaggerate the\nMaster's powers which so generally characterize traditional accounts\nof religious teachers, we may fairly infer that we have here a\ntrustworthy, and in the main, accurate representation of Confucius'\npersonality and of his teaching. As I have largely drawn upon this work\nin writing the Life of that prophet, I need not now detain the reader\nwith any further quotations.\n\n\n                     SUBDIVISION 2.\u2014_The Ta H\u00ebo._\n\nPassing to the Ta H\u00ebo, or Great Learning, we find ourselves occupied\nwith a book which bears the same kind of relationship to the Lun Yu as\nthe Epistle to the Hebrews does to the Gospels. This work is altogether\nof a doctrinal character; and as in the Epistle, the exposition of\nthe doctrines is by no means so clear and simple as in the oral\ninstructions of the founder of the school. The Ta H\u00ebo is attributed by\nChinese tradition to K'ung Keih, the grandson of Confucius; but its\nauthorship is in fact, like that of the Epistle, unknown. It was added\nto the Le Ke, or Record of Rites, in the second century A.D.\n\nIt begins with certain paragraphs which are attributed, apparently\nwithout authority, to Confucius; and all that follows is supposed to be\na commentary on this original text. The text begins thus:\u2014\n\n1. \"What the Great Learning teaches, is\u2014to illustrate illustrious\nvirtue; to renovate the people; and to rest in the highest\nexcellence....\n\n4. \"The ancients who wished to illustrate illustrious virtue throughout\nthe Empire, first ordered well their own States. Wishing to order\nwell their States, they first regulated their families. Wishing to\nregulate their families, they first cultivated their persons. Wishing\nto cultivate their persons, they first rectified their hearts. Wishing\nto rectify their hearts, they first sought to be sincere in their\nthoughts. Wishing to be sincere in their thoughts, they first extended\nto the utmost their knowledge. Such extension of knowledge lay in the\ninvestigation of things.\"\n\nAfter a few more verses of text, we come to the \"Commentary of the\nphilosopher Tsang,\" which is mainly occupied with what purports to be\nan explanation of the process described in the foregoing verses. For\ninstance, the sixth chapter \"explains making the thoughts sincere,\"\nthe seventh, \"rectifying the mind and cultivating the person;\" until\nat last we arrive at the right manner of conducting \"the government of\nthe State, and the making of the Empire peaceful and happy.\" The object\nof the treatise is therefore practical, and the subject a favorite one\nwith the Chinese Classics, that of Government. Great stress is laid on\nthe influence of a good example on the part of the ruler; and those\nmodel sovereigns, \"Yaou and Shun,\" are appealed to as illustrations\nof its good effect in such hands as theirs. In the course of the\nexposition of these principles, we meet with dry maxims of political\neconomy, worthy of modern times, such as this:\u2014\n\n\"There is a great course also for the production of wealth. Let the\nproducers be many and the consumers few. Let there be activity in the\nproduction, and economy in the expenditure. Then the wealth will always\nbe sufficient\" (Ta H\u00ebo).\n\n\n                   SUBDIVISION 3.\u2014_The Chung Yung._\n\nThe composition of the Chung Yung, or \"Doctrine of the Mean,\" is\nuniversally attributed in China to K'ung Keih, or Tsze-sze, the\ngrandson of Confucius. The external evidence of his authorship is, in\nDr. Legge's opinion, sufficient; though if that which he has produced\nbe all that is extant, it does not seem to be at all conclusive. Some\nquotations from it have already been made in the notice of Confucius,\nmany of whose utterances are contained in it.\n\nIts principal object is, or seems to be, to inculcate the excellence\nof what is called \"the Mean,\" but the explanation of what is intended\nby the Mean is far from clear. The course of the Mean, however, is\nthat taken by the sage; the virtue which is according to the Mean is\nperfect; the superior man embodies it in his practice; ordinary men\ncannot keep to it; mean men act contrary to it; and Shun, a model\nemperor, \"determined the Mean\" between the bad and good elements in\nmen, \"and employed it in his government of the people.\" The Mean, from\nthe attributes thus assigned to it, would appear to be a state of\ncomplete and hardly attainable moral perfection, of which they who have\noffered an example in their conduct have (at least in modern times)\nbeen rare indeed. In the beginning of the treatise we learn that:\u2014\n\n1. \"What Heaven has conferred is called THE NATURE; an accordance with\nthis nature is called THE PATH _of duty_; the regulation of this path\nis called INSTRUCTION.\"\n\n4. \"While there are no stirrings of pleasure, anger, sorrow or joy, the\nmind may be said to be in the state of EQUILIBRIUM. When those feelings\nhave been stirred, and they act in their due degree, there ensues what\nmay be called the state of HARMONY. This EQUILIBRIUM is the great root\n_from which grow all the human actings_ in the world, and this HARMONY\nis the universal path _which they all should pursue_\" (The italics,\nhere and in future quotations, are in Legge).\n\n5. \"Let the states of equilibrium and harmony exist in perfection, and\na happy order will prevail throughout heaven and earth, and all things\nwill be nourished and flourish\" (Chung Yung).\n\nIn another part of the work, \"the path\" is described as not being \"far\nfrom the common indications of consciousness;\" and the following rule\nis laid down with regard to it:\u2014\n\n\"When one cultivates to the utmost the principles of his nature, and\nexercises them on the principle of reciprocity, he is not far from the\npath. What you do not like, when done to yourself, do not do to others\"\n(Ibid., xiii. 3).\n\nA large and important portion of the goodness required of those who\nwould walk in the path is sincerity. Sincerity is declared to be the\n\"way of Heaven\" (Ibid., xx. 18), and it is laid down that \"it is only\nhe who is possessed of the most complete sincerity that can exist under\nHeaven, who can give its full development to his nature.\" Having this\npower, he is said to be able to give development to the natures of\nother men, animals, and things, and even \"to assist the transforming\nand nourishing powers of Heaven and Earth,\" so that \"he may with Heaven\nand Earth form a ternion\" (Chung Yung, xx. 7).\n\nThe doctrine of \"Heaven\" as a protecting power holds no inconsiderable\nplace in this short treatise. Thus it is stated that \"Heaven, in the\nproduction of things, is surely bountiful to them, according to their\nqualities\" (Ibid., xvii. 3). \"In order to know men\" the sovereign \"may\nnot dispense with a knowledge of Heaven\" (Ibid., xxii). \"The way of\nHeaven and Earth may be completely declared in one sentence. They are\nwithout any doubleness, and so they produce things in a manner that is\nunfathomable.\n\n\"The way of Heaven and Earth is large and substantial, high and\nbrilliant, far reaching and long enduring\" (Chung Yung, xxvi. 7, 8).\n\nAnd in a very high-flown passage on the character of the sage\u2014said to\nrefer to the author's grandfather\u2014he is spoken of as \"the equal of\nHeaven\" (Ibid., xxxi. 3).\n\nHeaven, however, is not the only superhuman power that is mentioned in\nthe Chung Yung. In one of its chapters we are told that Confucius thus\nexpressed himself:\u2014\n\n\"How abundantly do spiritual beings display the powers that belong to\nthem!\n\n\"We look for them, but do not see them; we listen to, but do not hear\nthem; yet they enter into all things, and there is nothing without them.\n\n\"They cause all the people in the Empire to fast and purify themselves,\nand array themselves in their richest dresses, in order to attend at\ntheir sacrifices. Then, like overflowing water, they seem to be over\nthe heads, and on the right and left _of their worshipers_\" (Chung\nYung, xvi. 1-3).\n\nThis positive expression of opinion is scarcely consistent with the\nhabitual reserve of Kung-tse on subjects of this kind (Lun Yu, vii.\n20), and were it not that it rests apparently on adequate authority, we\nmight be tempted to reject it as apocryphal.\n\n\n               SUBDIVISION 4.\u2014_The works of Mang-tsze._\n\nThe next place in the Chinese Scriptures is occupied by the works\nof Mang-tsze, the philosopher Mang, or as he is frequently called,\nMencius. Mang lived nearly two hundred years later than Confucius,\nhaving been born about 371, and having died in 288 B. C. He was not an\noriginal teacher asserting independent authority, and has no claim to\nthe title of prophet. On the contrary, he was an avowed disciple of\nConfucius, to whose _dicta_ he paid implicit reverence, and whom he\nquoted with the respect due to the exalted character which the sage had\nalready acquired in the eyes of his school.\n\nThe so-called \"Works of Mang\" are not original compositions of this\nphilosopher, but collections of his sayings, resembling the Lun Yu, or\nConfucian Analects. Whether he compiled them, or took any part in their\ncompilation himself, is uncertain. But, considering their character,\nthe more probable hypothesis seems to be that they were committed to\nwriting by his friends, or disciples, either during his own life, or\nimmediately after his death.\n\nThe evidence of their antiquity and authenticity must be very briefly\ntouched upon. The earliest notice of Mang is antecedent to the Ts'in\ndynasty (255-206 B. C.), that is, within thirty-three years after his\ndeath. We are indebted for it to Seun K'ing, who \"several times makes\nmention of\" Mang, and who in one chapter of his works, \"quotes his\narguments and endeavors to set them aside.\" In the next place, we have\naccounts of him, and references to his writings, in K'ung Foo, prior\nto the Han dynasty, that is, before 206 B. C. Thirdly, he is quoted\nby writers from 186-178 B. C., under the Han dynasty. About 100 B. C.\noccurs the earliest mention now known of Mang's works. It emanates from\nSze-ma Tseen, who attributes to Mang himself the composition of \"seven\nbooks.\" While in a category of the date A. D. 1, the works of Mang are\nentered as being \"in eleven books;\" a discrepancy which has given rise\nto perplexities among Chinese scholars, with which we need not concern\nourselves. Suffice it to say, that Mang's works, as we now possess\nthem, consist only of seven books, and are not known to have ever\nconsisted of more.\n\nThis evidence would appear to be sufficient to prove the antiquity of\nthe collection, though not its Mencian authorship. Whoever may have\nbeen its author, it was not admitted among the Sacred Books till many\ncenturies after it had been received among scholars as a valuable,\nthough not classical, work. Under the Sung dynasty, which began to\nreign about A. D. 960-970, the works of Mang were at length placed on a\nlevel with the Lun Yu, as part of the great Bible of China.\n\nOn the whole, Mang's writings are of little interest for European\nreaders, and I shall not trouble mine with any elaborate account of\nthem. They are mainly occupied with the question of the good government\nof the Empire. What constitutes a good ruler? on what principles should\nthe administration of public affairs be carried on? how can the people\nbe rendered happy and the whole Empire prosperous? these are the\nsort of inquiries that chiefly engaged the attention of Mang, and to\nwhich he sought to furnish satisfactory replies. At the courts of the\nmonarchs who received him, he inculcated benevolent conduct towards\ntheir subjects, with a paternal regard for their welfare, and sometimes\nboldly reproved unjust or negligent rulers. Holding, in common with the\nrest of his school, the doctrine of a superintendence of human affairs\nby a power named Heaven, he asserted in uncompromising terms the theory\nthat Heaven expresses its will through the instrumentality of the\npeople at large. \"Vox populi, vox Dei,\" is the sentiment that animates\nthe following passage, which contains one of the most courageous\nassertions of popular rights to be found in the productions of any age\nor country:\u2014\n\n\"Wan Chang said, 'Was it the case that Yaou gave the empire to\nShun?'[40] Mencius said, 'No. The emperor cannot give the empire to\nanother.'\n\n\"'Yes;\u2014but Shun had the empire. Who gave it to him?'\n\n\"'Heaven gave it to him,' was the answer.\n\n\"'Heaven gave it to him:\u2014did _Heaven_ confer its appointment on him\nwith specific injunctions?'\n\n\"_Mencius_ replied, 'No. Heaven does not speak. It simply showed its\nwill by his personal conduct, and his conduct of affairs.'\n\n\"'It showed its will by his personal conduct and his conduct of\naffairs:\u2014how was this?' Mencius' answer was, 'The empire [? emperor]\ncan present a man to Heaven, but he cannot make Heaven give that man\nthe empire. A prince can present a man to the emperor, but he cannot\ncause the emperor to make that man a prince. A great officer can\npresent a man to his prince, but he cannot cause the prince to make\nthat man a great officer. Yaou presented Shun to Heaven, and the\npeople accepted him. Therefore I say, Heaven does not speak. It simply\nindicated its will by his personal conduct and his conduct of affairs.'\n\n\"_Chang_ said, 'I presume to ask how it was that _Yaou_ presented\n_Shun_ to Heaven, and Heaven accepted him; and that he exhibited him to\nthe people, and the people accepted him.\" _Mencius_ replied, 'He caused\nhim to preside over the sacrifices, and all the spirits were well\npleased with them;\u2014thus Heaven accepted him. He caused him to preside\nover the conduct of affairs, and affairs were well administered, so\nthat the people reposed under him;\u2014thus the people accepted him. Heaven\ngave _the empire_ to him. The people gave it to him. Therefore I said,\nThe emperor cannot give the empire to another.\n\n\"'Shun assisted Yaou in the government for twenty and eight years;\u2014this\nwas more than man could have done, and was from Heaven. After the\ndeath of Yaou, when the three years' mourning was completed, Shun\nwithdrew from the son of Yaou to the south of South river. The princes\nof the empire, however, repairing to court, went not to the son of\nYaou, but they went to Shun. Singers sang not the son of Yaou, but\nthey sang Shun. Therefore I said, Heaven _gave him the empire_. It was\nafter these things that he went to the Middle kingdom, and occupied\nthe emperor's seat. If he had, _before these things_, taken up his\nresidence in the palace of Yaou, and had applied pressure to the son\nof Yaou, it would have been an act of usurpation, and not the gift of\nHeaven.\n\n\"'This sentiment is expressed in the words of The great\nDeclaration,\u2014_Heaven sees according as my people see; Heaven hears\naccording as my people hear_'\" (The Italics are mine.\u2014Mang-tsze, b. 5,\npt. i. ch. v.).\n\nMang's notion of what a really good government should do is fully\nexplained at the end of the first part of the first book, in an\nexhortation to the king of Ts'e. His Majesty, he observed, should\n\"institute a government whose action shall all be benevolent,\" for then\nhis kingdom will be resorted to by officers of the court, farmers,\nmerchants, and persons who are aggrieved by their own rulers. The king\nmust take care \"to regulate the livelihood of people,\" in order that\nall may have enough for parents, wives, and children; for \"they are\nonly men of education, who without a certain livelihood, are able to\nmaintain a fixed heart. As to the people, if they have not a certain\nlivelihood, it follows that they will not have a fixed heart. And if\nthey have not a fixed heart, there is nothing which they will not do,\nin the way of self-abandonment, of moral deflection, of depravity, and\nof wild license. When they have thus been involved in crime, to follow\nthem up and punish them,\u2014this is to entrap the people. How can such a\nthing as entrapping the people be done under the rule of a benevolent\nman?\" With a view then to their material and moral well-being, mulberry\ntrees should be planted, the breeding seasons of domestic animals be\ncarefully attended to, the labor necessary to cultivate farms not be\ninterfered with, and \"careful attention paid to education in schools.\"\nAnd it has never been known that the ruler in whose State these\nthings were duly performed \"did not attain to the Imperial dignity\"\n(Mang-tsze, b. 1, pt. i. ch. vii. p. 18-24). The only virtue required\nfor \"the attainment of Imperial sway\" is \"the love and protection of\nthe people; with this there is no power which can prevent a ruler from\nattaining it\" (Ibid., b. 1, pt. i. ch. vii. p. 3). In accordance with\nhis decided opinions as to the right of the people to be consulted\nin the appointment of their rulers, he advised the same king to be\nguided entirely by popular feeling in assuming, or not assuming, the\ngovernment of a neighboring territory which he had conquered. \"If the\npeople of Yen will be pleased with your taking possession of it, then\ndo so.... If the people of Yen will not be pleased with your taking\npossession of it, then do not do so\" (Mang-tsze, b. 1, pt. ii. ch. x.\np. 3).\n\nMang was something of a political economist as well as a statesman.\nThere is in his writings a just and striking defense of the division\nof labor, in opposition to the primitive simplicity recommended by a\nman named Heu Hing, who wished the rulers to cultivate the soil with\ntheir own hands. Mang's answer to Heu Hing's disciple is in the form of\nan _ad hominem_ argument, showing that, as Heu Hing himself does not\nmanufacture his own clothes or make his own pots and pans, but obtains\nthem in exchange for grain, in order that all his time may be devoted\nto agriculture, it is absurd to suppose that government is the only\nbusiness which can advantageously be pursued along with husbandry, as\nHeu Hing desired (Mang-tsze, b. 1, pt. ii. ch. x. p. 3).\n\nIt was not enough, however, in Mang's eyes that a sovereign should\nconduct the government of his country in accordance with the great\nethical and economical maxims he laid down; he must also pay strict\nattention to the rules of Chinese etiquette. On some occasions Mang\ninsisted even haughtily on the observance towards himself of these\nrules by the princes who wished to see him, even though one of his own\ndisciples plainly told him that in refusing to visit them because of\ntheir supposed failure to attend to such minuti\u00e6 he seemed to him to\nbe \"standing on a small point\" (Ibid., b. 3, pt. i. ch. iv). In fact\nthe \"rules of propriety\" held in his estimation no less a place than\nin that of his Master and predecessor. It is gratifying, however, to\nfind him admitting that cases may arise where their operation should\nbe suspended. Indecorous as it is for males and females to \"allow\ntheir hands to touch in giving or receiving anything,\" yet when \"a\nman's sister-in-law\" is drowning he is permitted, and indeed bound to,\n\"rescue her with the hand.\" Nay, Mang in his liberality goes further,\nand emphatically observes, that \"he who would not so rescue a drowning\nwoman is a wolf\" (Mang-tsze, b. 4, pt. i. ch. xvii. p. 1).\n\nThe most important doctrine of a moral character dwelt upon by Mang\nis that of the essential goodness of human nature, on which he lays\nconsiderable stress. According to him, \"the tendency of man's nature\nto good is like the tendency of water to flow downwards,\" and it is\nshared by all, as all water flows downwards. You may indeed force water\nto go upwards by striking it, but the movement is unnatural, and it is\nequally contrary to the nature of men to be \"made to do what is not\ngood\" (Ibid., b. 6, pt. i. ch. ii. pp. 2, 3). Yaou and Shun were indeed\ngreat men, but all may be Yaous and Shuns, if only they will make the\nnecessary effort (Ibid., b. 6, pt. ii. ch. ii. pp. 1-5). \"_Men's_\nmouths agree in having the same relishes; their ears agree in enjoying\nthe same sounds; their eyes agree in recognizing the same beauty;\u2014shall\ntheir minds alone be without that which they similarly approve?\nWhat is it then of which they similarly approve? It is, I say, the\nprinciples _of our nature_, and the determinations of righteousness.\nThe sages only apprehended before me that of which my mind approves\nalong with other men. Therefore the principles of our nature and the\ndeterminations of righteousness are agreeable to my mind, just as\nthe flesh of grass [?-fed] and grain-fed animals is agreeable to my\nmouth\" (Mang-tsze, b. 6, pt. i. ch. vii. p. 8). It ought not to be\nsaid that any man's mind is without benevolence and righteousness. But\nmen lose their goodness as \"the trees are denuded by axes and bills.\"\nThe mind, \"hewn down day after day,\" cannot \"retain its beauty.\" But\n\"the calm air of the morning\" is favorable to the natural feelings of\nhumanity, though they are destroyed again by the influences men come\nunder during the day. \"This fettering takes place again and again,\"\nand as \"the restorative influence of the night\" is insufficient to\npreserve the native hue, \"the nature becomes not much different from\nthat of the irrational animals,\" and then people suppose it never had\nthese original powers of goodness. \"But does this condition,\" continues\nMang, \"represent the feelings proper to humanity?\" (Ibid., b. 6, pt.\ni. ch. viii. p. 2). What some of these feelings are he has plainly\ntold us. Commiseration, shame, and dislike, modesty and complaisance,\napprobation and disapprobation, are according to him four principles\nwhich men have just as they have their four limbs. The important point\nfor all men to attend to is their development, for if they are but\ncompletely developed, \"they will suffice to love and protect all within\nthe four seas\" (Ibid., b. 2, pt. i. ch. vi. pp. 5-7). And in another\nplace he insists on the importance of studying and cultivating the\nnature which he asserts to be thus instinctively virtuous. \"He who has\nexhausted all his mental constitution knows his nature. Knowing his\nnature, he knows Heaven.\n\n\"To preserve one's mental constitution, and nourish one's nature, is\nthe way to serve Heaven\" (Ibid., b. 7, pt. i. ch. i. pp. 1, 2).\n\nThe moral tone of Mang's writings is exalted and unbending, and evinces\na man whose character will bear comparison with those of the greatest\nphilosophers or most eminent Christians of the western world.\n\n\n                    SUBDIVISION 5.\u2014_The Shoo King._\n\nIn this work are contained the historical memorials of the Chinese\nEmpire. The authentic history of China extends, as is well known, to an\nearlier date than that of any extant nation. It possesses records of\nevents that occurred more than two thousand years before the Christian\nera, although these events are intermixed with fabulous incidents.\n\"From the time of T'ang the Successful, however,\" Dr. Legge informs us,\n\"commonly placed in the eighteenth century before Christ, we seem to\nbe able to tread the field of history with a somewhat confident step\"\n(C. C., vol. iii. Proleg., p. 48). The exact dates, however, cannot be\nfixed with certainty till the year 775 B. C. \"Twenty centuries before\nour era the Chinese nation appears, beginning to be\" (Ibid., p. 90).\n\nWithout entering into the history of the text of the Shoo King, it\nmay be stated that its fifty-eight books may probably be accepted as\n\"substantially the same with those which were known to Seun-tsze,\nMencius, Mih-tsze, Confucius himself, and others\" (C. C., vol. iii.\nProleg., p. 48).\n\nIts earliest books\u2014which must be regarded as in great part\nlegendary\u2014contain accounts of three Chinese Emperors\u2014Yaou, Shun,\nand Yu\u2014whose conduct is held up as a model to future ages, and who\nrepresent the _beau id\u00e9al_ of a ruler to the Chinese mind.\n\nThese admirable sovereigns were succeeded by men of very inferior\nvirtue. T'ae-k'ang (B. C. 2187), the grandson of Yu, \"pursued his\npleasure and wanderings without any restraint.\" An insurrection against\nhis authority took place, and his five brothers took occasion to\nadmonish him by repeating \"the cautions of the great Yu in the form of\nsongs.\" The first of these songs may be quoted as a good specimen of\nthe doctrine of the Shoo King with reference to the imperial duties:\u2014\n\n    \"It was the lesson of our great ancestor:\u2014\n    The people should be cherished;\n    They should not be down-trodden:\n    The people are the root of a country;\n    The root firm, the country is tranquil.\n    When I look throughout the empire,\n    Of the simple men and simple women,\n    Any one may surpass me,\n    If I, the one man, err repeatedly:\u2014\n    Should dissatisfaction be waited for till it appears?\n    Before it is seen, it should be guarded against.\n    In my relation to the millions of the people,\n    I should feel as much anxiety as if I were driving six horses with\n      rotten reins.\n    The ruler of men\u2014\n    How can he be but reverent _of his duty_?\"[41]\n\nMany successive dynasties, comprising sovereigns of various characters,\nsucceed these original Emperors. Throughout the Shoo King we find\ngreat stress laid on the doctrine, that the rulers of the land enjoy\nthe protection of Heaven only so long as their government is good.\nShould the prince become tyrannical, dissolute, or neglectful of his\nexalted duties, the favor of the Divine Power is withdrawn from him\nand conferred upon another, who is thus enabled to drive him from the\nthrone he is no longer worthy to fill. The emphatic and reiterated\nassertion of this revolutionary theory is very remarkable. Thus, a king\nwho has himself just effected the overthrow of an incompetent dynasty,\nis represented as addressing this discourse to the \"myriad regions:\"\u2014\n\n\"Ah! ye multitudes of the myriad regions, listen clearly to the\nannouncement of me, the one man. The great God has conferred _even_ on\nthe inferior people a moral sense, compliance with which would show\ntheir nature invariably right (the same doctrine insisted on by Mang).\n_But_ to cause them tranquilly to pursue the course which it would\nindicate, is the work of the sovereign.\n\n\"The king of Hea (the monarch whom the speaker had superseded,)\nextinguished his virtue and played the tyrant, extending his oppression\nover you, the people of the myriad regions. Suffering from his cruel\ninjuries, and unable to endure the wormwood and poison, you protested\nwith one accord your innocence to the spirits of heaven and earth. The\nway of Heaven is to bless the good and punish the bad. It sent down\ncalamities on _the House of_ Hea, to make manifest its crimes.\n\n\"Therefore I, the little child, charged with the decree of Heaven and\nits bright terrors, did not dare to forgive _the criminal_. I presume\nto use a dark-colored victim, and making clear announcement to the\nspiritual Sovereign of the high heavens, requested leave to deal with\nthe ruler of Hea as a criminal. Then I sought for the great sage, with\nwhom I might unite my strength, to request the favor of Heaven on\nbehalf of you, my multitudes. High Heaven truly showed its favor to\nthe inferior people, and the criminal has been degraded and subjected\"\n(Shoo King, iv. 3. 2).\n\nIt is true that this speech, proceeding from an interested party\nnaturally anxious to set his own conduct in the fairest light, is\nliable to suspicion. But there is abundant evidence in the pages of the\nShoo King that the views expressed above were participated in by its\nwriters, who constantly hold the fate that befalls wicked Emperors as\na punishment from Heaven, and laud those who effect their own downfall\nas Heaven's agents. They also frequently introduce sage advisers who\nreprove the reigning Emperor for his faults, and admonish him to walk\nin the ways of virtue in a spirit of the utmost frankness. One of\nthese monarchs candidly confesses the benefit he has derived from the\ninstructions of such a counselor, whose lessons have led him to effect\na complete reformation of his character (Ibid., iv. 5. pt. ii). Another\ncharged his minister to be constantly presenting instructions to aid\nhis virtue, and to act towards him as medicine which should cure his\nsickness (Ibid., iv. 8. pt. i. 5-8). If, however, a dynasty persisted\nin its evil courses, in spite of all the warnings it might receive,\nit was doomed to perish. Losing the attachment of the people, it fell\nundefended and unregretted. Such was the case with the house of Yin.\nThe Viscount of Wei, who is stated by old authorities to have been a\nbrother of the Emperor, thus described its career:\u2014\n\n\"The Viscount of Wei spoke to the following effect:\u2014'Grand Tutor and\nJunior Tutor, _the House of_ Yin, we may conclude, can no longer\nexercise rule over the four quarters of the empire. The great deeds of\nour founder were displayed in former ages, but by our being lost and\nmaddened with wine, we have destroyed _the effects of_ his virtue, in\nthese after times. The people of Yin, small and great, are given to\nhighway robberies, villainies, and treachery. The nobles and officers\nimitate one another in violating the laws; and for criminals there\nis no certainty that they will be apprehended. The lesser people\n_consequently_ rise up, and make violent outrages on one another. The\ndynasty of Yin is now sinking in ruin;\u2014its condition is like that of\none crossing a large stream, who can find neither ford nor bank. That\nYin should be hurrying to ruin at the present pace!'\u2014\n\n\"He added, 'Grand Tutor and Junior Tutor, we are manifesting insanity.\nThe venerable of our families have withdrawn to the wilds; and now you\nindicate nothing, but tell me of the impending ruin;\u2014what is to be\ndone?'\n\n\"The Grand Tutor made about the following reply:\u2014'King's son, Heaven in\nanger is sending down calamities, and wasting the country of Yin.'\" And\nafter mentioning the crimes of the Emperor, he proceeds:\u2014\"'When ruin\novertakes Shang, I will not be the servant _of another dynasty_. _But_\nI tell you, O king's son, to go away as being the course _for you_....\nLet us rest quietly in our several parts, and present ourselves to the\nformer kings. I do not think of making my escape'\" (Shoo King, iv. 11).\n\nIn another portion of the Shoo the causes which lead to the\npreservation or loss of Heaven's favor are thus described by \"The Duke\nof Chow:\"\u2014\"The favor of Heaven is not easily preserved. Heaven is hard\nto be depended on. Men lose its favoring appointment because they\ncannot pursue and carry out the reverence and brilliant virtue of their\nforefathers.\" Again:\u2014\"Heaven is not to be trusted. Our course is simply\nto seek the prolongation of the virtue of the Tranquilizing king, and\nHeaven will not find occasion to remove its favoring decree which King\nWan received\" (Shoo King, xvi. 1).\n\nThe paramount importance to the national welfare of a wise selection\nof ministers and officials receives its full share of attention in the\nChinese Bible. The Duke of Ts'in, another province of the Empire, is\nrepresented as speaking thus:\u2014\n\n\"I have deeply thought and concluded;\u2014Let me have but one resolute\nminister, plain and sincere, without other abilities, but having a\nsimple, complacent mind, and possessed of generosity, regarding the\ntalents of others, as if he himself possessed them: and when he finds\naccomplished and sage-like men, loving them in his heart more than\nhis mouth expresses, really showing himself able to bear them:\u2014such a\nminister would be able to preserve my descendants and my people, and\nwould indeed be a giver of benefits\" (Shoo King, v. 30. See also v. 19.\n2).\n\nThese extracts, without giving an adequate notion of the very\nmiscellaneous contents of the Shoo King, a work which could not be\naccomplished without an undue extension of the subdivision referring\nto it, will serve to show that its moral tone on matters relating\nto the government of a nation is not inferior to that of any of the\nproductions of classical or Hebrew antiquity.\n\n\n                    SUBDIVISION 6.\u2014_The She King._\n\nWhatever sanctity or authority may attach to the She King in the minds\nof the Chinese, must belong to it solely on account of its antiquity,\nfor there is certainly nothing in the character of its contents that\nshould entitle it to a place in the consecrated literature of a nation.\nSimilar phenomena, however, are not unknown among more devout races\nthan the Chinese. Thus the Hebrews admitted into their Canon the Books\nof Ruth and Esther, and the Song of Solomon, which contain but little\nof an edifying nature, though full of human interest. The same may be\nsaid of the She King. The play of human emotions is vividly represented\nin it, but there is not much in which moral or religious lessons are to\nbe found, except by doing violence to the text.\n\nThe She King is a collection of ancient poems. Tradition attributes the\narrangement and selection of the Odes now contained in it to Confucius,\nwho is supposed to have selected them in accordance with some wise\ndesign from a much larger number. The present translator, however,\nassigns reasons for rejecting this tradition, and for believing that\nthe She King was current in China long before his time in a form not\nvery different from that in which we now possess it. At the present\nday, its songs have not lost their ancient popularity, for it is\nstated that they are \"the favorite study of the better informed at\nthe present remote period. Every well-educated Chinese has the most\ncelebrated pieces by heart, and there are constant allusions to them in\nmodern poetry and writings of all kinds\" (Davis' Chinese, ii. 60).\n\nThe poems, which were collected from many different provinces, relate\nto a great variety of subjects. Some are political, some domestic, some\nsacrificial, others festive. We have rulers addressing the princes of\ntheir kingdom in laudatory terms, and princes in their turn extolling\nthe ruler; complaints of unemployed politicians, and groans from\noppressed subjects; husbands deploring their absence from their wives\non military service; forlorn wives longing for the return of absent\nhusbands; stanzas written by lovers to their mistresses, and maidens'\ninvocations of their lovers; along with a few allusions to amatory\ntransactions of a more questionable character. All these miscellaneous\nmatters are treated in short, simple, and rather monotonous poems,\nwhich, if they have any beauty in the original, have completely\nlost it in the process of translation. There is sometimes pathos in\nthe feelings uttered; but the expressions are of the most direct\nand unornamental kind, and the whole book partakes largely of that\nartlessness which we have noted as one of the ordinary marks of Sacred\nBooks.\n\nA few specimens will suffice. Here is the \"protest of a widow against\nbeing urged to marry again:\"\u2014\n\n    1. \"It floats about, that boat of cypress wood,\n    There in the middle of the Ho.\n    With his two tufts of hair falling over his forehead;\n    He was my mate;\n    And I swear that till death I will have no other.\n    O mother, O Heaven,\n    Why will you not understand me?\n\n    2. \"It floats about, that boat of cypress wood,\n    There by the side of the Ho.\n    With his two tufts of hair falling over his forehead;\n    He was my only one;\n    And I swear that till death I will not do the evil thing.\n    O mother, O Heaven,\n    Why will you not understand me?\"[42]\n\nIn the following lines a young lady begs her lover to be more cautious\nin his advances, and that in a tone which may remind us of Nausikaa's\nrequest to Odysseus to walk at some distance behind her, lest the\nbusybodies of the town should take occasion to gossip:\u2014\n\n    1. \"I pray you, Mr. Chung,\n    Do not come leaping into my hamlet;\n    Do not break my willow-trees.\n    Do I care for them?\n    But I fear my parents.\n    You, O Chung, are to be loved,\n    But the words of my parents\n    Are also to be feared.\n\n    2. \"I pray you, Mr. Chung,\n    Do not come leaping over my wall;\n    Do not break my mulberry-trees.\n    Do I care for them?\n    But I fear the words of my brothers.\n    You, O Chung, are to be loved,\n    But the words of my brothers\n    Are also to be feared.\n\n    3. \"I pray you, Mr. Chung,\n    Do not come leaping into my garden;\n    Do not break my sandal-trees.\n    Do I care for them?\n    But I dread the talk of people.\n    You, O Chung, are to be loved,\n    But the talk of people\n    Is also to be feared.\"[43]\n\nThe following Ode, conceived in a different spirit, will serve to\nillustrate one of the most prominent features of Chinese character as\ndepicted in these ancient books,\u2014its filial piety. It is supposed to\nbe the composition of a young monarch who has just succeeded to the\ngovernment of his kingdom:\u2014\n\n    \"Alas for me, who am [as] a little child,\n    On whom has devolved the unsettled State!\n    Solitary am I and full of distress.\n    Oh my great Father,\n    All thy life long, thou wast filial.\n\n    \"Thou didst think of my great grandfather,\n    [Seeing him, as it were] ascending and descending in the court.\n    I, the little child,[44]\n    Day and night will be so reverent.\n    \"Oh ye great kings,\n    As your successor, I will strive not to forget you.\"[45]\n\n\n                   SUBDIVISION 7.\u2014_The Ch'un Ts'\u00ebw._\n\nAccording to Chinese tradition, the Ch'un Ts'\u00ebw, or Spring and Autumn,\nwas the production of Confucius himself; not indeed his original\ncomposition, but a compilation made by him from pre\u00ebxisting sources.\nThe title of Ch'un Ts'\u00ebw was not of his own making. It was the name\nalready in use for the annals of the several States. The annals were\narranged under the four seasons of each year, and then two of the\nseasons\u2014Spring and Autumn\u2014were used as an abbreviated term for all the\nfour. And so strictly is this principle of parceling out the annals of\neach year under the several seasons adhered to in the work, that even\nwhen there is no event to be recorded we have such entries as these:\n\"It was summer, the fourth month.\" \"It was winter, the tenth month.\"\n\nThe classical Ch'un Ts'\u00ebw was compiled from the Ch'un Ts'\u00ebw of the\nState of Loo. It is even doubtful whether Confucius did anything more\nthan copy what he found in the annals of that country. Dr. Legge\nevidently inclines to the belief that he altered nothing. At any rate,\nthe work can only be regarded as very particularly his own. More than\nthis, it is questionable whether the text we have at present is that of\nthe original Ch'un Ts'\u00ebw at all. This classic is indeed said to have\nbeen recovered in the Han dynasty after the destruction of the book.\nBut there are circumstances which may well make us hesitate before\nwe accept the Chinese account of this recovery as a fact. Mang, who\nhad the best opportunities of knowing what his master was believed to\nhave written, if not what he actually had written, speaks of the Ch'un\nTs'\u00ebw in terms wholly inapplicable to the work before us. He asserts\nexpressly that it was composed by him because right principles had\ndwindled away, because unseemly language and unrighteous deeds were\ncommon, and he attributes to its completion the result that \"rebellious\nministers and villainous sons were struck with terror.\" Now we may\nallow what limits we please for the exaggeration natural to a disciple\nwhen speaking of the labors of a revered master. But can we believe\nthat Mang, a man whose own teaching proves him to have been a moderate\nand sensible thinker, would have spoken thus of a compilation which\nfrom beginning to end contains absolutely no moral principles whatever?\nYet such is the case with the \"Spring and Autumn\" as we possess it.\nThere is not in it the faintest glimmer of an ethical judgment on the\nhistorical events which it records. A birth, an eclipse, a fall of\nsnow, a plague of insects, a murder, a battle, the death of a ruler,\nare all chronicled in the same dry, lifeless, unvarying style. Nowhere\nwould it be possible for an unprejudiced critic to detect the opinions\nof the compiler, or to gather from his words that he viewed a virtuous\naction with more favor than an abominable crime. Such being the case,\nI hesitate, notwithstanding the high authority of Dr. Legge, to accept\nthe genuineness of this work as beyond cavil.\n\nIt has in fact been questioned in China, not indeed on very valid\ngrounds, by a scholar whose letter he has translated in his\nProlegomena, and he himself candidly acknowledges the extreme\ndifficulty of reconciling the character of our present text with the\nstatement of Mang. But he considers the external testimony to the\nrecovery of the book sufficiently weighty to dispose of this and other\ndifficulties. Yet, without disputing the strength of the grounds on\nwhich this conclusion rests, we may still permit ourselves to entertain\na modest doubt whether this compilation was really the handiwork of\nsuch a man as we know Confucius to have been, and that doubt will be\nstrengthened when we recall the common tendency of the popular mind to\nconnect the authorship of standard works with names of high repute.\nAnd the bare existence of such a doubt will compel us to suspend our\njudgment on the very serious charges of misrepresentation and falsehood\nwhich Dr. Legge has brought against Confucius in his capacity of\nhistorian. If the actual Ch'un Ts'\u00ebw be shown to be identical with that\nedited by Confucius, and if he simply adopted, without alteration,\nor with very trivial alteration, the labors of his predecessors, the\ngravity of these charges will be very considerably diminished. For\nwe know not but what some feeling of respect for that which he found\nalready recorded may have stayed his hand from revision and improvement.\n\nPassing to the work itself, we shall find little in it worthy of\nattention, unless by those who may be desirous of studying the\nhistory of China. Chinese commentators have indeed discovered all\nkinds of recondite meanings in it, as is usually the case with the\ncommentators on Sacred Books, but these are of no more value than the\nsimilar discoveries of types and mystic foreshadowings in the Hebrew\nScriptures. In itself, the text is profoundly uninteresting. Here is\none of the shortest chapters as a specimen. The title of the Book from\nwhich it is taken is \"Duke Chwang:\"\u2014\n\n XXVI. 1. \"In his twenty-sixth year, in spring, the duke invaded the\n Jung.\n\n 2. \"In summer, the duke arrived from the invasion of the Jung.\n\n 3. \"Ts'aou put to death one of its great officers.\n\n 4. \"In autumn, the duke joined an officer of Sung and an officer of\n Ts'e in invading Seu.\n\n 5. \"In winter, in the twelfth month, on Kwei-hae, the first day of the\n moon, the sun was eclipsed\" (Ch'un Ts'\u00ebw, iii. 26).\n\nThe events noted in these annals refer to various States\u2014for it\nappears that the several States were in the habit of communicating\nremarkable occurrences to each other\u2014but they are of a very limited\nclass, and are invariably recorded in the brief manner of the chapter\nthat has just been quoted. Eclipses of the sun are duly registered,\nand the record thus acquires a chronological value of high importance\nin historical researches. Among the other facts commonly mentioned\nare sacrifices for rain, which occur very frequently; wars, with\nthe results of great battles; the marriages or deaths of rulers and\nimportant persons; their journeys; occasionally their murder; meetings\nof rulers for the purpose of common action in matters of State;\ndiplomatic missions; invasions of locusts or other troublesome insects;\nand lastly, peculiarities of various kinds in the state of the weather.\nIt is plain that annals of this kind have no religious significance\nbeyond that which they derive from the mere fact of being reputed\nsacred. And in this aspect the Ch'un Ts'\u00ebw is certainly curious. Having\nbeen assigned\u2014rightly or wrongly\u2014to the pen of the prophet of China, it\nseems to have become a point of honor with Chinese scholars to extract\nfrom it, by hook or by crook, the profoundest lessons on politics and\nmorals.\n\n\n                   SECTION II.\u2014THE TA\u00d2-T\u0114-K\u012aNG.[46]\n\nThere are in China three recognized sects or \"religiones\nlicit\u00e6:\"\u2014Confucianism, Buddhism, and Tao-ism. We have examined the\nSacred Books of the first; those of the second will come under\nreview in another section. There remains the comparatively small and\nunimportant sect of the Ta\u00f2-ts\u00e9, or \"Doctors of Reason,\" who derive\ntheir origin from La\u00f2-ts\u00e9, and who possess as their classic the single\nwritten composition which emanated from their founder. It is entitled\nthe Ta\u00f2-t\u0115-K\u012bng.\n\nAncient as this book is (probably about B.C. 520), there is no reason\nto doubt its authenticity.[47] This is sufficiently guaranteed by\nquotations from it which are found in authors belonging to the fourth\ncentury B.C., and by the fact that a scholar who wrote in B.C. 163\nmade it the subject of a commentary, which accompanies it sentence\nby sentence. Nor does Chinese tradition state that it perished in\nthe Burning of the Books (B.C. 212-209), which was a measure leveled\nagainst the Confucian school, and took place under an Emperor who\nwas favorable to the Ta\u00f2-ts\u00e9. We may safely conclude that we are in\npossession of the genuine composition of the ancient philosopher (T. T.\nK., lxxiii., lxxiv).\n\nOf the three words which compose its title, King has already been\nexplained (Supra p. 390-391). The full meaning of Ta\u00f2 will appear in\nthe sequel: we may here term it the Absolute. Te means Virtue; and the\ntitle would thus imply either that this Canonical Book deals with the\nAbsolute _and_ with Virtue, or with that kind of virtue which emanates\nfrom, and is founded upon, a belief in and a spiritual union with the\nAbsolute.[48]\n\nWhatever the signification of its name, its principal subjects\nundoubtedly are Ta\u00f2 and Te: the Supreme Principle and human Virtue.\nLet us see what is La\u00f2-ts\u00e9's description of Ta\u00f2, the great fundamental\nBeing on whom his whole system rests. \"Ta\u00f2, if it can be pronounced, is\nnot the eternal Ta\u00f2. The Name, if it can be named, is not the eternal\nName. The Nameless One is the foundation of Heaven and Earth; he who\nhas a Name is the Mother of all beings\" (Ch. 1). These enigmatical\nsentences open the Ta\u00f2 philosophy. The idea that Ta\u00f2 is unnameable\nis a prominent one in the author's mind, although he seems also to\nrecognize a subordinate creative principle\u2014like the Gnostic \u00c6ons\u2014which\nis nameable. Thus we read: \"Ta\u00f2, the Eternal has no Name.... He who\nbegins to create, has a Name\" (Ch. 32). Again: \"For ever and ever it is\nunnameable, and returns into non-existence.\" Or: \"I know not its Name;\nif I describe it, I call it Ta\u00f2\" (Ch. 25). We are reminded of Faust's\nreply in Goethe:\u2014\n\n    \"Ich habe keinen Namen\n    Daf\u00fcr? Gef\u00fchl ist alles;\n    Name ist Schall und Rauch\n    Umnebelnd Himmelsgluth.\"\n\nNor is Ta\u00f2 only without a Name; it is sometimes described as if devoid\nof all intelligible attributes. Thus, in one chapter, we learn that\nit is eternally without action, and yet without non-action (Ch. 37).\nNay, the entire absence of all activity is not unfrequently predicated\nof Ta\u00f2, whose great merit is stated to be complete quiescence. Ta\u00f2\nis moreover incomprehensible, inconceivable, undiscoverable, obscure\n(Ch. 21). Its upper part is not clear, its lower part not obscure. It\nreturns into non-existence. It is the form of the Formless; the image\nof the Imageless (Ch. 14). Mysterious as this Being is, yet in other\nplaces attributes are ascribed to it which go far to elucidate the\nauthor's conception of its nature. Productive energy, for instance, is\nplainly attributed to Ta\u00f2, for it is stated that Ta\u00f2 produces one, one\ntwo, and two three, while three produces all creatures (Ch. 32). The\nfollowing account is less mystical: \"Ta\u00f2 produces them [creatures],\nits Might preserves them, its essence forms them, its power perfects\nthem: therefore of all beings there is none that does not adore Ta\u00f2,\nand honor its Might. The adoration of Ta\u00f2, the honoring of its Might,\nis commanded by no one and is always spontaneous. For Ta\u00f2 produces\nthem, preserves them, brings them up, fashions them, perfects them,\nripens them, cherishes them, protects them. To produce and not possess,\nto act and not expect, to bring up and not control, this is called\nsublime Virtue.\"[49] In addition to these creative and preservative\nqualities, it has moral attributes of the highest order. Thus, its\nSpirit is supremely trustworthy. In it is faithfulness (Ch. 21). All\nbeings trust to it in order to live. When a work is completed, it does\nnot call it its own. Loving and nourishing all beings, it still does\nnot lord it over them. It is eternally without desire. All beings turn\nto it, yet it does not lord it over them (Ch. 34). It is eminently\nstraightforward. It dwells only with those who are not occupied with\nthe luxuries of this world (Ch. 53). Nay, it is altogether perfect (Ch.\n25). The last assertion is found in a chapter which, as it is probably\nthe most important in the book for the purpose of understanding the\ntheology of the author, deserves to be translated in full:\u2014\"There\nexisted a Being, inconceivably perfect, before Heaven and Earth arose.\nSo still! so supersensible! It alone remains and does not change.\nIt pervades all and is not endangered. It may be regarded as the\nMother of the World. I know not its name; if I describe it, I call\nit Ta\u00f2. Concerned to give it a Name, I call it Great; as great, I\ncall it Immense; as immense, I call it Distant; as distant, I call it\nReturning. For Ta\u00f2 is great; Heaven is great; the Earth is great; the\nKing is also great. In the world there are many kinds of greatness,\nand the King remains one of them. The measure of Man is the earth; the\nmeasure of earth, Heaven; the measure of Heaven, Ta\u00f2; Ta\u00f2's measure\nitself.\"[50]\n\nSuch is the picture of Ta\u00f2; but the Ta\u00f2-t\u0115-K\u012bng is much more than a\ntreatise on theology; it is even more conspicuously a treatise on\nmorals. Ta\u00f2 is indeed the transcendental foundation on which the\nethical superstructure is raised; but the superstructure occupies\na much more considerable space than the foundation, and seems to\nhave been the main practical end for which the latter was laid down.\nIntermingled with the image of Ta\u00f2 we find the image of the good man,\nor, as we may call him, in Scriptural phraseology, the righteous man;\nan ideal of perfect virtue, whom the author holds up, not as an actual\nperson, but as an imaginary model for the guidance of human conduct.\nBy putting together the scattered traits of his character, we may\narrive at a tolerable comprehension of the author's conception of\nperfect goodness. In the first place, the righteous man is in harmony\nin his actions with Ta\u00f2; he becomes one with Ta\u00f2, and Ta\u00f2 rejoices\nto receive him (Ch. 23). He places himself in the background, and\nby that very means is brought forward (Ch. 7). He does not regard\nhimself, and therefore shines; he is not just to himself, and is\ntherefore distinguished; does not praise himself, and is therefore\nmeritorious; does not exalt himself, and is therefore pre\u00ebminent. As\nhe does not dispute, none can dispute with him (Ch. 22). If he acts,\nhe sets no store by his action; for he does not wish to render his\nwisdom conspicuous (Ch. 77). He knows himself, but does not regard\nhimself; loves himself, but does not set a high price on himself (Ch.\n72). Unwilling lightly to promise great things, he is thereby able\nto accomplish the more; by treating things as difficult, he finds\nnothing too difficult during his whole life (Ch. 63). Inaccessible\nalike to friendship and enmity, uninfluenced by personal advantage or\ninjury, by honor or dishonor, he is honored by all the world (Ch. 56).\nHe is characterized by quiet earnestness; should he possess splendid\npalaces, he inhabits them or quits them with equal calm (Ch. 26).\nHe clothes himself in wool (a very coarse material in China), and\nhides his jewels (Ch. 70). He is ever ready to help others; for the\ngood man is the educator of the bad, the bad man the treasure of the\ngood (Ch. 27). \"The righteous man does not accumulate. The more he\nspends on others, the more he has; the more he gives to others, the\nricher he is\" (Ch. 81). \"He who knows others is clever; he who knows\nhimself is enlightened\" (Ch. 33). Thus the sage, like Socrates, makes\n\u03bd\u1ff6\u03b8\u03b9 \u03c3\u00e9\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd a main principle of his conduct. Should he be called\nto the administration of the realm, he adopts a policy of _laisser\nfaire_, for he has observed the evils produced by over-legislation.\nIt is his belief that if he be inactive, the people will improve by\nthemselves; if he be quiet, they will become honorable; if he abstain\nfrom intermeddling, they will become rich; if he be free from desires,\nthey will become simple (Ch. 57). Compelled to engage in war, he will\nnot make use of conquest to triumph or exalt himself, neither will he\ntake violent measures (Ch. 30). Mercy is a quality that must not be\ndespised; the merciful will conquer in battle (Ch. 67). Endowed with\nthese characteristics, the good man need fear nothing. Like Horace's\n\n  \"Integer vit\u00e6 scelerisque purus,\"\n\nhe is preserved from danger. The horn of the rhinoceros, the claws of\nthe tiger, the blade of the sword, cannot hurt him (Ch. 50). He is like\na new-born child: serpents do not sting it, nor wild beasts seize it,\nnor birds of prey attack it.[51]\n\nA few features, which do not directly enter into the delineation of the\ncharacter of the sage, must still be added to complete that image. And\nfirst, a prominent place must be assigned to a quality which is a large\ningredient in La\u00f2-ts\u00e9's conception of goodness, both human and divine.\nIt is that of gentleness, or, as he would call it, weakness. It is a\nfavorite principle of his, that the weak things of the earth overcome\nthe strong, and that they overcome in virtue of that very weakness. He\nhas an aversion to all conspicuous exercise of force. The deity of his\nphilosophy is one who is indeed all-powerful, but who never displays\nhis power. The method of Heaven\u2014and it should also be that of man\u2014is\n_apparent_ yielding, leading to real supremacy. \"It strives not, yet is\nable to overcome. It speaks not, yet is able to obtain an answer. It\nsummons not, yet men come to it of their own accord; is long-suffering,\nyet is able to succeed in its designs\" (Ch. 73). The superiority of\nthe weak\u2014or the seeming weak\u2014to the strong, is further illustrated\nby La\u00f2-ts\u00e9 in several parallels. We enter life soft and feeble; we\nquit it hard and strong. Therefore softness and feebleness are the\ncompanions of life; hardness and strength of death (Ch. 76). And does\nnot the wife overcome her husband by her quietness? (Ch., 61.) Is not\nwater the softest and weakest of all things in the world, yet is there\nanything which ever attacks the hard and strong that is able to surpass\nit? (Ch., 78.) Thus, the most yielding of all substances overcomes the\nmost inflexible. Hence is manifest the advantage of inactivity and of\nsilence (Ch. 43). It is fully in accordance with these notions that\nLa\u00f2-ts\u00e9 should distinctly deprecate warfare, and should assert that the\nmost competent general will not be warlike. Calmly conscious of his\npower, he is not quarrelsome or eager for battle, and thus possessing\nthe virtue of peaceable and patient strength, he becomes the peer\nof Heaven (Ch. 68). War is altogether to be condemned, as pregnant\nwith calamity to the state (Ch. 30). \"The most beauteous weapons are\ninstruments of misfortune; all creatures abhor them; therefore he who\nhas Ta\u00f2 does not employ them.\" They are not the instruments of the wise\nman. If he must needs resort to them, yet he still values peace and\nquietness as the highest aims. He conquers with reluctance. \"He who has\nkilled many men, let him weep for them with grief and compassion. He\nwho has conquered in battle, let him stand as at a funeral pomp\" (Ch.\n31).\n\nAnother striking characteristic of La\u00f2-ts\u00e9's moral system is his\ndislike of luxury, and his earnest injunction to all men to be\ncontented with modest circumstances. We have seen that the sage is\ndepicted as wearing coarse clothing, and La\u00f2-ts\u00e9 considers that the\nvery presence of considerable riches indicates the absence of Ta\u00f2 from\nthe minds of their possessors. As we should express it, the devotion\nto worldly wealth is inconsistent with a spiritual life. \"To wear fine\nclothes, to carry sharp swords, to be filled with drink and victuals,\nto have a superfluity of costly gems, this is to make a parade of\nrobbery (Or, this is \"magnificent robbery,\" O. P., p. 41); truly not\nto have Ta\u00f2\" (Ch. 53). Moreover, the very pomp of the palace leads\nto uncultivated fields and empty barns (Ibid). La\u00f2-ts\u00e9 therefore\nwarns every one not to consider his abode too narrow or his life too\nconfined. If we do not think it too confined, it will not be so (Ch.\n72). Nay, he goes further, and asserts that the world is best known by\nstaying at home. The further a man goes, the less he knows (Ch. 47).\nA truly virtuous and well-governed people will never care to travel\nbeyond its own limits. To such a people its food will be so sweet, its\nclothing so beautiful, its dwellings so comfortable, and its customs\nso dear, that it will never visit the territory of its neighbors, even\nthough that territory should lie so close that the cackling of the hens\nand the barking of the dogs may be heard across the boundary (Ch. 80).\n\nIt results from the above exposition of his ethical principles that\nLa\u00f2-ts\u00e9 insists mainly upon three virtues: Modesty, Benevolence, and\nContentment. \"For my part,\" he says himself, \"I have three treasures; I\nguard them and greatly prize them. The first is called Mercy,[52] the\nsecond is called Frugality, the third is called Not daring to be first\nin the kingdom. Mercy\u2014therefore I can be brave; Frugality\u2014therefore I\ncan give away; Not daring to be first in the kingdom\u2014therefore I can\nbecome the first of the gifted ones\" (Ch. 67).\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nOf all the sacred books, the Ta\u00f2-t\u0115-K\u012bng is the most philosophical.\nIt stands, indeed, on the borderland between a revelation and a\nsystem of philosophy, partaking to some extent of the nature of both.\nSince, however, it forms the fundamental classic of a religious\nsect, and since it has engaged in its interpretation a multitude of\ncommentators,[53] it appears to be fully entitled to a place among\nScriptures. Not indeed that the Chinese regard it as a revelation in\nthe same sense in which nations of a more theological cast of mind\napply that term to the books composing their Canon. But I see no reason\nto doubt that the Ta\u00f2-ts\u00e9, however little they attend to its precepts,\nyet treat it as a work of unapproachable perfection and unquestionable\ntruth. Indeed, the writer of a fabulous life of La\u00f2-ts\u00e9, who lived many\ncenturies after his death, expressly ascribes to it those peculiar\nqualities which, as we have seen, are the special attributes of sacred\nbooks (L. V. V., pp. xxxi., xxxii).\n\nTo the European reader who approaches it for the first time it\nwill probably appear a perplexing study. Participating largely in\nthat disorder and confusedness which characterizes the class of\nliterature to which it belongs, it presents, in addition, considerable\ndifficulties peculiarly its own. The correct translation of many\npassages is doubtful. The sense of still more is ambiguous and obscure.\nLa\u00f2-ts\u00e9 is fond of paradox, and his constant employment of paradoxical\nantithesis seems specially designed to puzzle the reader. If his\ndoctrine was understood by few, it must be confessed that this was\npartly his own fault. Moreover, the reverence with which he speaks of\nTa\u00f2, and the care with which he insists that Ta\u00f2 does nothing, seem\nat first sight inconsistent. We feel ourselves in an atmosphere of\nhopeless mysticism. Nevertheless, these superficial troubles vanish,\nor at least retire into the background, after repeated perusals of the\nwork. There are few books that gain more on continued acquaintance.\nEvery successive study reveals more and more of a wisdom and a beauty\nwhich we miss at first in the obscurity and strangeness of the style.\n\nAnd first, Ta\u00f2 itself turns out to be a less incomprehensible and\ncontradictory being than we originally supposed. For although he may\nsometimes be spoken of as doing nothing, or even as destitute of all\ndistinct qualities, yet other attributes expressly exclude the notion\nof absolute inaction. A being which creates, cherishes and loves, and\nin which all the world implicitly trusts, is not the kind of nonentity\nthat can be described as wholly devoid of \"action, thought, judgment,\nand intelligence.\"[54] Moreover, it is to be borne in mind that the\nsage is to imitate Ta\u00f2 in the quality\u2014for which he is highly lauded\u2014of\ndoing nothing. The two pictures, that of Ta\u00f2 and his follower, must\nbe held side by side in order to be correctly understood. Now what is\nthe peculiar beauty, from a philosophical point of view, of the order\nof Nature? It is that all its parts harmoniously perform their several\noffices, without any violent or conspicuous intrusion of the presiding\nprinciple which guides them all.\n\nOther teachers, indeed, have seen God mainly in violent and convulsive\nmanifestations, and have appealed to miraculous suspensions of natural\norder as the best proofs of his existence. Not so La\u00f2-ts\u00e9. He sees him\nin the quiet, unobtrusive, unapparent guidance of the world; in the\nunseen, yet irresistible power to which mankind unresistingly submit,\nprecisely because it is never thrust offensively upon them. The Deity\nof La\u00f2-ts\u00e9 is free from those gross and unlovely elements which degrade\nhis character in so many other religions. He rules by gentleness and\nlove, not by vindictiveness and anger. So should it be with the holy\nman who takes him for his model. Assuredly we are not to understand\nthose passages which enjoin quiescence so earnestly upon him as a\nmeaning that he is to lead a life of absolute indolence. Like Ta\u00f2, he\nis to guide his fellow-creatures rather by the beauty of his conduct\nthan by positive commands laid imperatively upon them. Let him but be\na shining example; they will be drawn towards him. The activity from\nwhich a wise ruler is to abstain is the vexatious multiplication of\nlaws and edicts, which do harm rather than good. But neither ruler\nnor philosopher is told to do nothing; for benevolence, love, and the\nrequital of good for evil, to say nothing of other positive virtues,\nare most strictly enjoined on all. La\u00f2-ts\u00e9 himself no doubt lived, and\nloved, a retired contemplative life. This is the kind of existence\nwhich he evidently considered the most perfect and the most godlike. He\ncounsels his followers to be wholly unambitious, and to abstain from\nall active pursuit of political honor. Such counsel might possibly be\nwell adapted to the time in which he lived. But none the less does he\nlay down rules for the guidance of kings, statesmen, and warriors,\nin their several spheres. Nor is the book wanting in pithy apothegms\napplicable to all, and remarkable alike for the wisdom of their\nsubstance and the neatness of their form. Whether, in short, we look\nto the simplicity and grandeur of its speculative doctrine, or to the\nunimpeachable excellence of its moral teaching, we shall find few among\nthe great productions of the human mind that evince, from beginning to\nend, so lofty a spirit and so pure a strain.\n\n\n\n\n                        APPENDIX TO SECTION II.\n\n              _Translations of the Ta\u00f2-t\u0115-K\u012bng_, ch. 25.\n\n\nABEL R\u00c9MUSAT.\u2014\"Avant le chaos qui a pr\u00e9c\u00e9d\u00e9 la naissance du ciel et de\nla terre, un seul \u00eatre existait, immense et silencieux, immuable et\ntoujours agissant sans jamais s'alt\u00e9rer. On peut le regarder comme la\n_m\u00e8re_ de l'univers. J'ignore son nom, mais je le d\u00e9signe par le mot de\n_raison_.\n\nForc\u00e9 de lui donner un nom, je l'appelle _grandeur_, _progression_,\n_\u00e9loignement_, _opposition_. Il y a dans le monde quatre grandeurs;\ncelle de la raison, celle du ciel, celle de la terre, celle du roi,\nqui est aussi une des quatre. L'homme a son type et son mod\u00e8le dans\nla terre, la terre dans le ciel, le ciel dans la raison, la raison en\nelle-m\u00eame.\"[55]\n\nSTANISLAS JULIEN.\u2014\"Il est un \u00eatre confus qui existait avant le ciel et\nla terre.\n\nO qu'il est calme! O qu'il est immat\u00e9riel!\n\nIl subsiste seul et ne change point.\n\nIl circule partout et ne p\u00e9riclite point.\n\nIl peut \u00eatre regard\u00e9 comme la m\u00e8re de l'univers.\n\nMoi, je ne sais pas son nom.\n\nPour lui donner un titre, je l'appelle _Voie_ (Tao).\n\nEn m'effor\u00e7ant de lui faire un nom, je l'appelle _grand_.\n\nDe _grand_, je l'appelle _fugace_.\n\nDe _fugace_, je l'appelle _\u00e9loign\u00e9_.\n\n_D'\u00e9loign\u00e9_, je l'appelle (l'\u00eatre) _qui revient_.\n\nC'est pourquoi le Tao est _grand_, le ciel est _grand_, la terre est\n_grande_, le roi aussi est _grand_.\n\nDans le monde, il y a quatre grandes choses, et le roi en est une.\n\nL'homme imite la terre; la terre imite le ciel; le ciel imite le Tao;\nle Tao imite sa nature\" (L. V. V., p. 35).\n\nJOHN CHALMERS.\u2014\"There is something chaotic in nature which existed\nbefore heaven and earth. It was still. It was void. It stood alone and\nwas not changed. It pervaded everywhere and was not endangered. It may\nbe regarded as the Mother of the Universe. I know not its name, but\ngive it the title of Tau. If I am forced to make a name for it, I say\nit is _Great_; being great, I say that it _passes away_; passing away,\nI say that it is _far off_; being far off, I say that it _returns_.\n\nNow Tau is great; Heaven is great; Earth is great; a king is great. In\nthe universe there are four greatnesses, and a king is one of them.\nMan takes his law from the Earth; the Earth takes its law from Heaven;\nHeaven takes its law from Tau; and Tau takes its law from what is in\nitself\" (O. P., p. 18).\n\nREINHOLD VON PL\u00c4NCKNER.\u2014\"Es existirt ein das All erf\u00fcllendes, durchaus\nvollkommenes Wesen, das fr\u00fcher war denn der Himmel und die Erde. Es\nexistirt da in erhabener Stille, es ist ewig und unver\u00e4nderlich, und\nohne Anstoss dringt es \u00fcberall hin, \u00fcberall da.\n\nMan m\u00f6chte es als den Sch\u00f6pfer der Welt ansehen. Seinen Namen weiss\nich nicht, ich nenne es am liebsten das Tao; soll ich diesem eine\nbezeichnende Eigenschaft beilegen, so w\u00fcrde es die der h\u00f6chsten\nErhabenheit sein.\n\nJa, erhaben ist das Wesen, um das sich das All und Alles im All bewegt,\nals solches muss es ewig sein, und wie es ewig ist, ist es folglich\nauch allgegenw\u00e4rtig.\n\nJa das Tao ist erhaben, erhaben ist auch der Himmel, erhaben die Erde,\nerhaben ist auch das Ideal des Menschen. So sind denn vier erhabene\nWesen im Universum, und das Ideal des Menschen ist ohne Zweifel eins\nderselben.\n\nDenn der Mensch stammt von der Erde, die Erde stammt vom Himmel, der\nHimmel stammt vom Tao.\u2014Und das Tao stammt ohne Frage allein aus sich\nselbst\" (L. T., p. 113).\n\n\n                      SECTION III.\u2014THE VEDA.[56]\n\nThe word _Veda_ is explained by Sanskrit scholars as meaning _knowing_\nor _knowledge_, and as being related to the Greek o\u1f35\u03b4\u03b1. The works\ncomprised under this designation are manifold, and appertain to\nwidely different epochs. In the first place they fall into two main\nclasses, the _Sanhit\u00e2_ and the _Br\u00e2hmana_. The Sanhit\u00e2 portion of\nthe Veda consists of hymns or metrical compositions addressed to the\nseveral deities worshiped by their authors, and expressing religious\nsentiment; the Br\u00e2hmana portion, of theological treatises in prose\nof an expository, ritualistic and didactic character. Across this\nsubdivision into two classes there runs another of the whole Veda into\nfour so-called Vedas, the Rig-Veda, the Yajur-Veda, the S\u00e2ma-Veda,\nand the Atharva-Veda. Each of these has its own Sanhit\u00e2s, and its own\nBr\u00e2hmanas; but the Sanhit\u00e2, or hymns, of the three other Vedas are\nnot materially different from those of the Rig-Veda. On the Rig-Veda\nthey are all founded; this is the fundamental Veda, or great Veda; and\nin knowing this one we should know all. The other three, according to\nMax M\u00fcller, contain \"chiefly extracts from the Rig-Veda, together with\nsacrificial formulas, charms, and incantations\" (Chips, vol. i. p. 9).\nIt must not therefore be imagined that we have in these four Vedas four\ndifferent collections of hymns. They are rather four different versions\nof the same collection, the S\u00e2ma-Veda, for instance, containing but\nseventy-one verses which are wanting in the Rig-Veda (S. V., p.\nxxviii), and being otherwise \"little more than a repetition of the Soma\nMandala of the Rich\" (Wilson, vol. i. p. xxxvii), or of that book of\nthe Rig-Veda which is devoted to the god Soma. The Atharva-Veda-Sanhit\u00e2\nis indeed to a certain extent an exception; belonging to a later age,\nit has some hymns altogether peculiar to itself, and its fifteenth\nbook \"has something of the nature of a Br\u00e2hmana\" (O. S. T., vol. i. p.\n2). It must be noted, moreover, that of the Yajur-Veda there are two\ndifferent versions, the Black and the White Yajur-Veda, said to have\ndescended from two rival schools. The hymns of the first are termed the\nTaittiriya-Sanhit\u00e2, those of the second the V\u00e2jasaneyi-Sanhit\u00e2.\n\nThe origin of those four distinct, yet not different Vedas, is thus\nexplained. In certain sacrifices, formerly celebrated in India, four\nclasses of priests were required, each class being destined for the\nperformance of distinct offices. To such of these classes was assigned\none of the Vedas, which contained the hymns required by that class.\nThus the S\u00e2ma-Veda was the prayer-book of the Udg\u00e2tri priests, or\nchoristers, who chant the hymns. The Yajur-Veda was the prayer-book\nof the Adhvaryu priests, or attendant ministers, who prepare the\nground, slay the victims, and so forth. The Atharva-Veda was said to be\nintended for the Brahman who was, according to one of the Br\u00e2hmanas,\nthe \"physician of the sacrifice;\" the general superintendent who was to\ntell if any mistake had been committed in it (A. B., 5. 5.\u2014vol. ii. p.\n376). For the fourth class, the Hotri priests, or reciters of hymns,\nno special collection was made in the form of a liturgy. They used the\nRig-Veda, a collection of the hymns in general without any special\nobject, and they were supposed to know the sacred poetry without the\nhelp of a prayer-book (A. S. L., pp. 175, 473, and Chips, vol. i. p. 9).\n\nOriginally preserved by scattered individuals (for the Mantra part of\nthe Vedas, [or their Sanhit\u00e2] was composed in an age when writing was\nnot in use), the hymns were subsequently collected and arranged in\ntheir present form: a task which Indian tradition assigns to Vy\u00e2sa, the\nArranger, but which was probably the work of many different scholars,\npossibly during many generations. The same tradition asserts that each\nVeda was collected, under Vy\u00e2sa's superintendence, by a different\neditor; and that the collections, transmitted from these primary\ncompilers to their disciples, were, in the course of transmission,\nrearranged in various ways, until the number of Sanhit\u00e2s of each Veda\nin circulation was very considerable. Each school had its own version,\nbut the differences are supposed by Wilson to have concerned only the\norder, not the matter of the S\u00fbktas.\n\nThe extreme antiquity of our extant Veda is guaranteed by the amplest\ntestimony. In the indexes compiled by native scholars 500 or 600\nyears before Christ, \"we find every hymn, every verse, every word and\nsyllable of the Veda accurately counted\" (Chips, vol. i. p. 11). Before\nthis was done, not only was the whole vast collection complete, but it\nwas ancient; for had it been a recent composition it would not have\nenjoyed the pre\u00ebminent sanctity which rendered it the object of this\nminute attention. And not only is the Veda ancient, but it has been\nshown that, from the variety of its component strata, it must have been\nthe growth of no small period of time, its earliest elements being\nof an almost unfathomable antiquity. Max M\u00fcller, who has elaborately\ntreated this question, divides the Vaidik age\u2014the age during which\nthe Veda was in process of formation\u2014into four great epochs. The most\nprimitive hymns of the Rig-Veda he attributes to what he terms _the\nChhandas period_ (from Chhandas, or metre), the limits of which cannot\nbe fixed in the ascending direction, but which descends no later than\n1000 B.C. And he thinks that \"we cannot well assign a date more recent\nthan 1200 to 1500 before our era\" (Ibid., vol. i. p. 13) for the\ncomposition of these hymns. The ten books of the Rig-Veda, however,\ncomprise the poetry of two different ages. Some of the hymns betray a\nmore recent origin, and must be assigned to the second, or _Mantra\nperiod_. These comparatively modern compositions belong to a time\nwhich may have extended from about 1000 to about 800 B.C. After this\nwe enter on the _Br\u00e2hmana period_, in which the Rig-Veda-Sanhit\u00e2 not\nonly existed, but had reached the stage of being misinterpreted, its\noriginal sense having been forgotten. During this period\u2014which we may\nplace from B.C. 800 to 600\u2014the national thought took the form of prose,\nand the Br\u00e2hmanas were written. Here the age of actually-inspired\nliterature terminates, and we arrive at the _S\u00fbtra period_, which may\nhave lasted till 200 B.C. Works of high authority, but not in the\nstrict sense revealed works, were produced during these four hundred\nyears (A. S. L., _passim_). An equal, or greater antiquity is usually\nclaimed by other Sanskritists for these several classes of sacred\nliterature. Wilson would place Manu (who belongs to the S\u00fbtra period)\nnot lower than the fifth or sixth century; the Br\u00e2hmana literature in\nthe seventh or eighth; and would allow at least four or five centuries\nbefore this for the composition and currency of the hymns, thus\nreaching the date of 1200 or 1300 before the Christian era (Wilson,\nvol. i. p. xlvii).\n\nHaug, who believes that \"a strict distinction between a Chhandas and\nMantra period is hardly admissible,\" and that certain sacrificial\nformulas, considered by Max M\u00fcller to be more recent, are in fact some\ncenturies older than the finished hymns ascribed by that scholar to the\nChhandas age, carries back the composition of both Sanhit\u00e2 and Br\u00e2hmana\nto a much earlier date. \"The bulk of the Br\u00e2hmanas\" he assigns to B.C.\n1400-1200; and \"the bulk of the Sanhit\u00e2s\" to B.C. 2000-1400; while \"the\noldest hymns and sacrificial formulas may be a few hundred years more\nancient still,\" and thus \"the very commencement of Vedic literature\"\nmight be between B.C. 2400 and 2000 (A. B., vol. i. pp. 47, 48). While\nBenfey, considering that the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khyas (a branch of the S\u00fbtras) must\nhave been composed from B.C. 800 to 600, observes that the text of the\nS\u00e2ma-Veda must extend beyond this epoch (S. V., p. xxix).\n\nOf the several Sanhit\u00e2s, that of the Rig-Veda (whose name is derived\nfrom a word _rich_, praise) is usually considered the most ancient,\nthough Benfey expresses the opinion that the text of the S\u00e2ma-Veda may\npossibly be borrowed from an older version of the Rig-Veda than before\nus (Ibid., p. xxix). Max M\u00fcller, on the other hand, conceives the S\u00e2ma\nand Yajur-Vedas to have been probably the production of the Br\u00e2hmana\nperiod (A. S. L., p. 457). He even denies to any but the Rich the right\nto be called Veda at all (Chips, vol. i. p. 9). Whatever claim, or want\nof claim, they may possess to the honor, it is certain that they have\nfor more than 2,000 years invariably received it at the hands of the\nHindus themselves. So far from admitting the pre\u00ebminence of the Rich,\nthe ancient Hindus, according to one of their descendants, held the\nS\u00e2ma in the highest veneration (Chhand. Up., introduction, p. 1). If a\ndoubt can exist as to the canonicity of any one of them, it can only\napply to the Atharva-Veda; for in certain texts we find mention made\nof three Vedas only, the Atharva, from its comparatively late origin,\nhaving apparently been long denied the privilege of admission to an\nequal rank with its compeers.\n\nWhatever their antiquity, the sanctity of these works in Indian opinion\nis of the highest order. Never has the theory of inspiration been\npushed to such an extreme. The Veda was the direct creation of Brahma;\nand the Rishis, or Sages, who are the nominal authors of the hymns,\ndid not compose them, but simply \"saw\" them. Although, therefore, the\nname of one of these seers is coupled with each hymn, it must not be\nsupposed that he did more than perceive the divine poem which was\nrevealed to his privileged vision. And the Veda is distinguished as\n_Sruti_, Revelation, from the _Smriti_, Tradition, under which term\nis included a great variety of works enjoying a high, but not an\nindependent, authority. They are to be accepted, in theory at least,\nonly when they agree with the Veda, and to be set aside if they happen\nto differ from it; while no such thing as a contradiction within the\nbody of the Veda is for a moment to be thought of as possible, apparent\ninconsistencies being only due to our imperfect interpretations. The\nSruti class comprises only the Mantra of each Veda and its Br\u00e2hmanas;\nthe Smriti consists of the great national epics, namely the R\u00e2m\u00e2yana\nand Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata; the M\u00e2nava-Dharma-Sastra, or Menu; the Pur\u00e2nas; the\nS\u00fbtras, or aphorisms; and the so-called six Ved\u00e2ngas, a term indicating\nsix branches of study carried on by the help of treatises on the\npronunciation, grammar, metre, explanation of words, astronomy, and\nceremonial of the Veda. How thoroughly the Veda was analyzed, how\nminutely every word of it was investigated, is shown by the fact that\nthese Ved\u00e2ngas all have direct reference to it, and were intended to\nassist in its comprehension. And in ancient times it was the duty of\nBrahmans to be well acquainted both with the S\u00fbktas (hymns), and with\ntheir application to ritual. A Brahman, indeed, who wanted to marry was\nnot obliged to devote more than twelve years to learning the Veda, but\nan unmarrying Brahman might spend forty-eight years upon it (A. S. L.,\np. 503).\n\n\n                     SUBDIVISION 1.\u2014_The Sanhit\u00e2._\n\nPassing now to a more detailed consideration of the Mantra division, we\nfind that the Rig-Veda-Sanhit\u00e2\u2014the most comprehensive specimen of this\ndivision\u2014comprises more than a thousand short poems, of which the vast\nmajority are addressed to one or more of the Indian gods. A few only,\nand those believed to be of later origin, are of a different character.\nThis collection is divided in two ways; into ten Mandalas, or eight\nAshtakas, the two divisions being quite independent of one another.\nUnder each of these greater heads are several lesser ones, which it is\nneedless to enumerate. The deities to whom the hymns are devoted are\nexceedingly various and numerous, but as this is not an essay specially\nintended to elucidate the Veda, but aiming only at a general comparison\nof this with other sacred books, it would be going beyond our scope to\nattempt a full account of their several names, attributes, and honors.\nA few only of the more conspicuous gods need be noticed.\n\nOf these, Agni, as the one with whose praises the Rig-Veda opens, and\nwho, next to Indra, is the principal character in the Vedic hymnology,\nclaims our attention first. He is the god of fire, or more literally,\nhe is the fire itself, and a god at the same time. His name is almost\nidentical with the Latin _Ignis_. He is frequently spoken of as\ngenerated by the rubbing of sticks, for in this manner did the Rishis\nkindle the fire required for their sacrifices. The sudden birth of the\nfiery element in consequence of this process must have impressed them\nas profoundly mysterious. They allude to it under various images.\nThus, the upper stick is said to impregnate the lower, which brings\nforth Agni. He is the bearer of human sacrifices to the gods; a kind of\ntelegraph from earth to heaven. Many are the blessings asked of him.\nBut let the Rishis speak for themselves. Here is the first S\u00fbkta of the\nRig-Veda-Sanhit\u00e2:\u2014\n\n 1. \"I praise Agni, the household priest, the divine offerer of the\n sacrifice, the inviter who keeps all treasures. 2. Agni, worthy of the\n praises of the ancient Rishis, and also of ours, do thou bring hither\n the gods. 3. By Agni, _the sacrificer_ enjoys wealth, that grows from\n day to day, confers renown, and surrounds him with heroes. 4. Agni,\n the sacrifice which thou keepest from all sides uninvaded, approaches\n surely the gods. 5. Agni, inviter, performer of gracious deeds,\n thou who art truthful, and who shinest with various glories, come\n thou, O God, with the gods. 6. The prosperity, which thou, O Agni,\n bestowest upon the worshiper, will be in truth _a prosperity_ to thee,\n O Angiras. 7. We approach thee in our minds, O Agni, day after day,\n by night and day, to offer thee our adoration. 8. Thee the radiant\n guardian of the meet _reward_ of the sacrifices, who is resplendent\n and increasing in his sacred house. 9. Be thou, O Agni, accessible to\n us, as a father is to the son; be near us for our welfare\" (Roer, p.\n 1).\n\nEven more important than Agni is Indra, the great national god of\nthe Hindus. He is above all things a combative god. His strength is\nimmense, and his worshipers implore him to give them victory and power.\nHe slays the demon Vrittra, a myth symbolizing the dispersion of clouds\nby the sun. Above all, he loves the juice of the Soma plant (_Asclepias\nacida_), which is poured out to him abundantly in sacrifice, which he\nconsumes with avidity, and from which he derives renewed force and\nenergy. These two stanzas, taken from the S\u00e2ma-Veda, express some of\nhis attributes:\u2014\n\n \"Thou, O Indra, art glorious, thou art victorious, thou art the lord\n of strength; thou conquerest the strong enemies singly and alone, thou\n unconquered refuge of men. To thee, living One, we pray; to thee now\n the very wise, for treasures, as for our share; may thy blessing be\n granted us\" (S. V., ii. 6. 2. 12).\n\nThe following hymn brings into especial prominence the more warlike\nfunctions of Indra, and may be regarded as a prayer \"in the time of war\nand tumults:\"\u2014\n\n 8. \"May Indra be the leader of these (our armies); may Brihaspati,\n Largess, Sacrifice and Soma march in front; may the host of Maruts\n precede the crushing, victorious armies of the gods. May the fierce\n host of the vigorous Indra, of King Varuna, of the Adityas, and the\n Maruts (go before us); the shout of the great-souled, conquering,\n world-shaking gods, has ascended.... 10. Rouse, O opulent god, the\n weapons, rouse the souls of our warriors, stimulate the power of the\n mighty men; may shouts arise from the conquering chariots. 11. May\n Indra be ours when the standards clash; may our arrows be victorious:\n may our strong men gain the upper-hand; preserve us, O gods, in the\n fray. 12. Bewildering the hearts of our enemies, O Apv\u00e2 (Apv\u00e2 is\n explained as a disease or fear), take possession of their limbs and\n pass onward; come near, burn them with fires in their hearts; may our\n enemies fall into blind darkness\" (O. S. T., vol. v. p. 110.\u2014Rig-Veda,\n x. 103).\n\nIndra's Soma-drinking propensities are not particularly alluded to in\nthese verses: elsewhere they form the ever-recurring burden of the\nchants of which he is the hero. Thus, to take but one specimen, which,\nby its resemblance to others, may fitly stand for all, he is thus\nlauded:\u2014\n\n 1. \"May the Somas delight thee! bestow grace, O hurler of lightning!\n destroy him who hates the priest. 2. Thou who art praiseworthy, drink\n our drink! thou art sprinkled with streams of honey! from thee, O\n Indra, glory is derived.... 4. The Indus (the Somas) stream into thee,\n like rivers, Indra! into the sea, and never overfill thee\" (S. V., i.\n 1. 1).\n\nIndra is, in fact, the Zeus of Indian mythology; the thunderer, the\ngod of the sky, the all-powerful protector of men and destroyer of\nthe demons of darkness. His functions are easily understood, but it\nis curious that the Soma, which is offered to him in sacrifice, and\nwhich he drinks with all the avidity of a confirmed toper, is itself\ncelebrated as a god of very considerable powers. Soma appears to be\nregarded as a sort of mediator between the greatest gods and men,\nespecially between man and Indra. He is repeatedly entreated to go\nto Indra, to flow around him, and thus to conciliate and delight him.\nBut Soma can confer benefits independently. One poet implores him to\nstream forth blessing \"on the ox, the man, and the horse; and, O king,\nblessings on plants\" (S. V., ii. 1. 1. 1). In the hymns devoted to him\nhe is raised to an exalted station among the celestial beings, while\nthe sacrifice in which he is drunk by the priests is the capital right\nin the Brahmanical liturgy (A. B., vol. i. p. 59). The most eminent\nvirtues are inherent in this divine beverage, when taken with all the\nceremonies prescribed by traditional law. The Soma juice has, in the\nopinion of Hindu theologians, \"the power of uniting the sacrificer on\nthis earth with the celestial King Soma,\" and making him \"an associate\nof the gods, and an inhabitant of the celestial world\" (Ibid., vol.\ni. pp. 40, 80). Such was the excellence of this juice, that none\nbut Brahmans were permitted to imbibe it. Kings, at their inaugural\nceremonies, received a goblet which was nominally Soma, but on account\nof their inferior caste they were in fact put off with some kind of\nspirituous liquor which was supposed, by a mystical transformation,\nto receive the properties of that most holy divinity (Ibid., vol. ii.\np. 522). Agreeably to this theory of Soma's extensive powers, he is\ninvoked in such terms, for instance, as these:\u2014\n\n 7. \"Place me, O purified god, in that everlasting and imperishable\n world where there is eternal light and glory. O Indu (Soma), flow for\n Indra. 8. Make me immortal in the world where king Vaivasvata (Yama,\n the son of Vivasvat) lives, where is the innermost sphere of the sky,\n where those great waters flow\" (O. S. T., vol. v. p. 266.\u2014Rig-Veda,\n ix. 113).\n\nSingular as it may seem that the juice of the Soma-plant should be at\nonce an object sacrificed on the altar to other gods and a god himself,\nsuch a confusion of attributes will be less surprising to those who\nare familiar with the Christian theory of the Atonement, in which the\nsame God is at once the person who decrees the sacrifice, the person\nwho accepts it, and the victim. At least the double function of Soma is\nless perplexing than the triple function of Christ.\n\nConsiderable among Vedic deities are the Maruts, or gods of tempest.\nThey are in intimate alliance with Indra, to whom their violent nature\nis closely akin. Their attributes are simple. A notion of them may\nperhaps be gained from these verses:\u2014\n\n 1. \"What then now? When will you take (us) as a dear father takes\n his son by both hands, O ye gods, for whom the sacred grass has been\n trimmed? 2. Whither now? On what errand of yours are you going, in\n heaven, not on earth? Where are your cows sporting? 3. Where are your\n newest favors, O Maruts? Where the blessings? Where all delights?...\n 6. Let not one sin after another, difficult to be conquered, overcome\n us; may it depart together with lust. 7. Truly they are furious\n and powerful; even to the desert the Rudriyas bring rain that is\n never dried up. 8. The lightning lows like a cow, it follows as a\n mother follows after her young, that the shower (of the Maruts)\n may be let loose. 9. Even by day the Maruts create darkness with\n the water-bearing cloud, when they drench the earth. 10. From the\n shout of the Maruts over the whole space of the earth, men reeled\n forward. 11. Maruts on your strong-hoofed steeds go on easy roads\n after those bright ones (the clouds) which are still locked up. 12.\n May your felloes be strong, the chariots, and their horses; may your\n reins be well fashioned. 13. Speak out forever with thy voice to\n praise the Lord of prayer, Agni, who is like a friend, the bright\n one. 14. Fashion a hymn in thy mouth! Expand like a cloud! Sing a\n song of praise. 15. Worship the host of the Maruts, the brisk, the\n praiseworthy, the singers. May the strong ones stay here among us\" (R.\n V. S., vol. i. p. 65.\u2014Rig-Veda, i. 38).\n\nThe most charming member of the Vedic pantheon, and the one who seems\nto have called forth from the Rishis the deepest poetical feeling,\nis Ushas (\u1f1c\u03c9\u03c2), the Dawn. Her continual reappearance, or birth,\nmorning after morning, seems to have filled them with delight and\ntenderness. The hymn now to be quoted\u2014too long to be extracted in\nfull\u2014gives expression to the feelings with which they gazed upon this\never-recurring mystery:\u2014\n\n 2. \"The fair and bright Ushas, with her bright child (the Sun), has\n arrived; to her the dark (night) has relinquished her abodes; kindred\n to one another, immortal, alternating Day and Night go on changing\n color. 3. The same is the never-ending path of the two sisters, which\n they travel, commanded by the gods. They strive not, they rest\n not, the prolific Night and Dawn, concordant, though unlike. 4. The\n shining Ushas, leader of joyful voices (or hymns) has been perceived;\n she has opened for us the doors (of the sky); setting in motion all\n moving things, she has revealed to us riches. Ushas has awakened all\n creatures.... 6. (Arousing) one to seek royal power, another to follow\n after fame, another for grand efforts, another to pursue as it were\n his particular object,\u2014Ushas awakes all creatures to consider their\n different modes of life. 7. She, the daughter of the sky, has been\n beheld breaking forth, youthful clad in shining attire: mistress of\n all earthly treasures. Auspicious Ushas, shine here to-day. 8. Ushas\n follows the track of the Dawns that are past, and is the first of the\n unnumbered Dawns that are to come, breaking forth, arousing life and\n awaking every one that was dead.... 10. How great is the interval that\n lies between the Dawns which have arisen, and those which are yet to\n arise! Ushas yearns longingly after the former Dawns, and gladly goes\n on shining with the others (that are to come). 11. Those mortals are\n gone who saw the earliest Ushas dawning; we shall gaze upon her now;\n and the men are coming who are to behold her on future morns.... 13.\n Perpetually in former days did the divine Ushas dawn; and now to-day\n the magnificent goddess beams upon this world: undecaying, immortal,\n she marches on by her own will\" (O. S. T., vol. v. p. 188.\u2014Rig-Veda,\n i. 113).\n\nHardly a trace of a moral element is to be found in those productions\nof the Rishis which have hitherto been quoted. And such as these are is\nthe general character of the Rig-Veda-Sanhit\u00e2. It consists in petitions\nfor purely material advantages, coupled with unbounded celebrations of\nthe power of the god invoked, often under the coarsest anthropomorphic\nimages. But while it must be admitted that the sentiment expressed is\nrarely of a high order, it must not be supposed that the old Hindu\ngods are altogether destitute of ethical attributes. Marked exceptions\nto the general tenor of the supplications offered to them certainly\noccur. There are passages which betray a decided consciousness of\nsin, a desire to be forgiven and a conviction that certain kinds of\nconduct entail divine disapprobation, while other kinds bring divine\napprobation. Thus, in the hymns addressed to the Adityas, a class of\ngods generally reckoned as twelve in number, and to Mitra and Varuna,\ntwo of these Adityas, such feelings are plainly expressed (O. S. T.,\nvol. v. p. 56 ff). Of these two, Mitra is sometimes explained as the\nSun, or the god of Day, Varuna as the god of Night. Varuna\u2014whose name\ncorresponds to that of Ouranos\u2014is a very great and powerful divinity,\nwho is endowed by his adorers with the very highest attributes. He is\nsaid to have meted out heaven and earth, and to dwell in all worlds as\ntheir sovereign, embracing them within him (Ibid., vol. v. p. 61). He\nis said to witness sin, and is entreated to have mercy on sinners. One\npenitent poet implores Varuna to tell him for what offense he seeks to\nkill his worshiper and friend, for all the sages tell him that it is\nVaruna who is angry with him. And he pleadingly contends that he was\nnot an intentional culprit; he has been seduced by \"wine, anger, dice,\nor thoughtlessness.\" Another begs the god that, in whatever way mortals\nmay have broken his laws, he will be gracious. A third admits that\nhe, who was Varuna's friend, has offended against him, but asks that\nthey who are guilty may not reap the fruits of their sin; concluding\nwith this amicable hint: \"Do thou, a wise god, grant protection to\nhim who praises thee\" (O. S. T., vol. v. pp. 66, 67). \"The attributes\nand functions ascribed to Varuna,\" observes Dr. Muir, \"impart to his\ncharacter a moral elevation and sanctity far surpassing that attributed\nto any other Vedic deity\" (Ibid., vol. v. p. 66). And while even in the\nearlier portion of the Rig-Veda\u2014from which the above expressions have\nbeen collected by Dr. Muir\u2014such qualities are ascribed to Varuna, we\nshall find a still higher conception of his character in a later work,\nthe Atharva-Veda. Here is the description of the Lord of Heaven from\nthe mouth of the Indian Psalmist:\u2014\n\n 1. \"The great lord of these worlds sees as if he were near. If a man\n thinks he is walking by stealth, the gods know it all. 2. If a man\n stands or walks or hides, if he goes to lie down or to get up, what\n two people sitting together whisper, King Varuna knows it, he is there\n as the third. 3. This earth, too, belongs to Varuna, the king, and\n this wide sky with its ends far apart. The two seas (the sky and the\n ocean) are Varuna's loins; he is also contained in this small drop of\n water. 4. He who should flee far beyond the sky, even he would not be\n rid of Varuna, the king. His spies proceed from heaven towards this\n world; with thousand eyes they overlook this earth. 5. King Varuna\n sees all this that is between heaven and earth, and what is beyond. He\n has counted the twinklings of the eyes of men. As a player throws the\n dice he settles all things. 6. May all thy fatal nooses, which stand\n spread out seven by seven and threefold, catch the man who tells a\n lie; may they pass by him who tells the truth\" (A. S. L.\u2014Atharva-Veda,\n iv. 16).\n\nA consciousness of the unity of Deity, under whatever form he may be\nworshiped, adumbrated here and there in earlier hymns, becomes very\nprominent in the later portions of the Veda. From the most ancient\ntimes, possibly, occasional sages may have attained the conception so\nfamiliar to the Hindu thinkers of a later age, that a single mysterious\nessence of divinity pervaded the universe. And in the tenth book of the\nRig-Veda, which is generally admitted to belong to a more recent age\nthan the other nine books, as also in the Atharva-Veda, this essence\nis celebrated under various names; as Purusha, as Brahma, as Prajapati\n(Lord), or Skambha (Support). The hymns in which this consciousness\nappears are extremely mystical, but a notice of the Veda, however\nslight, would be very imperfect without a due recognition of their\npresence. They form the speculative element partly in the midst of,\npartly succeeding to, the simple, practical, naked presentation of\nthe commonplace daily wants and physical desires of the early Rishis.\nTake the following texts from the first book of the Rig-Veda. They\ngive utterance to an incipient sentiment of divine unity. The first\ncelebrates a goddess Aditi: \"Aditi is the sky, Aditi is the air, Aditi\nis the mother and father and son. Aditi is all the gods and the five\nclasses of men. Aditi is whatever has been born. Aditi is whatever\nshall be born\" (O. S. T., vol. v. p. 354.\u2014Rig-Veda, i. 89. 10). More\nremarkable than this\u2014for we may suspect here a sectarian desire to\nglorify a favorite goddess\u2014is this assertion: \"They call him Indra,\nMitra, Varuna, Agni; and he is the celestial (well-winged) Garutmat.\nSages name variously that which is but one: they call it Agni, Yama,\nM\u00e2tarisvan\" (O. S. T., vol. v. p. 353.\u2014Rig-Veda, i. 164. 46). In the\ntenth book of the Rig-Veda, the presence of the speculative element in\nthe theology of the Rishis,\u2014their longing to find a universal Being\nwhom they could adore,\u2014is much more marked. Thus do they express this\nsentiment:\u2014\"Wise poets make the beautiful-winged, though he is one,\nmanifold by words\" (Chips, vol. i. p. 29.\u2014Rig-Veda, x. 114. 5). Or more\nelaborately thus:\u2014\n\n 1. \"In the beginning there arose the golden Child\u2014He was the one born\n lord of all that is. He established the earth and this sky;\u2014Who is\n the God to whom we shall offer our sacrifice? 2. He who gives life,\n He who gives strength; whose command all the bright gods revere;\n whose shadow is immortality, whose shadow is death;\u2014Who is the God\n to whom we shall offer our sacrifice? 3. He who through his power is\n the one King of the breathing and awakening world; He who governs all\n man and beast; Who is the God to whom we shall offer our sacrifice?\n 4. He whose greatness these snowy mountains, whose greatness the\n sea proclaims, with the distant river\u2014He whose these regions are,\n as it were his two arms;\u2014Who is the God to whom we shall offer our\n sacrifice? 5. He through whom the sky is bright and the earth firm\u2014He\n through whom the heaven was established,\u2014nay, the highest heaven;\u2014He\n who measured out the light in the air;\u2014Who is the God to whom we shall\n offer our sacrifice? 6. He to whom heaven and earth, standing firm\n by His will, took up, trembling inwardly\u2014He over whom the rising sun\n shines forth;\u2014Who is the God to whom we shall offer our sacrifice?\n 7. Wherever the mighty water-clouds went, where they placed the seed\n and lit the fire, thence arose He who is the sole life of the bright\n gods;\u2014Who is the God to whom we shall offer our sacrifice? 8. He who\n by his might looked even over the water-clouds, the clouds which\n gave strength and lit the sacrifice; He who alone is God above all\n gods;\u2014Who is the God to whom we shall offer our sacrifice? 9. May He\n not destroy us\u2014He the creator of the earth; or He, the righteous, who\n created the heaven; He also created the bright and mighty waters;\u2014Who\n is the God to whom we shall offer our sacrifice?\" (Chips, vol. i. p.\n 29, or A. S. L., p. 569.\u2014Rig-Veda, x. 121).\n\nThe same book contains a very important hymn, entitled the Purusha\nS\u00fbkta. In it we find ourselves transported from the transparent\nelemental worship of the ancient Aryas into the misty region of\nBrahmanical subtleties. Purusha appears to be conceived as the\nuniversal essence of the world, all existences being but one-quarter\nof him. The theory of sacrifice occupies, as in the later Indian\nliterature generally, a prominent position. Purusha's sacrifice\ninvolved the momentous consequences of the creation of the several\nVedas and of living creatures. The four castes sprang from different\nparts of his person, the parts corresponding to their relative\ndignity. The purpose of this portion is obvious, namely, to give\ngreater sanctity to the system of caste, a system to which the earlier\nhymn makes no allusion, and which we may suppose to have grown up\nsubsequently to the era of their composition. Tedious as it is, the\nPurusha S\u00fbkta is too weighty to be quite passed over.\n\n 1. \"Purusha has a thousand heads, a thousand eyes, a thousand feet.\n On every side enveloping the earth, he overpassed (it) by a space of\n ten fingers. 2. Purusha himself is this whole (universe), whatever\n has been and whatever shall be. He is also the lord of immortality,\n since (or when) by food he expands. 3. Such is his greatness, and\n Purusha is superior to this. All existences are a quarter of him; and\n three-fourths of him are that which is immortal in the sky. 4. With\n three-quarters Purusha mounted upwards. A quarter of him was again\n produced here. He was then diffused everywhere over things which eat\n and things which do not eat. 5. From him was born Vir\u0101j, and from\n Vir\u0101j, Purusha. When born, he extended beyond the earth, both behind\n and before. 6. When the gods performed a sacrifice with Purusha as\n the oblation, the spring was its butter, the summer its fuel, and the\n autumn its (accompanying) offering. 7. This victim, Purusha, born in\n the beginning, they immolated on the sacrificial grass. With him the\n gods, the S\u0101dhyas, and the Rishis sacrificed. 9. From that universal\n sacrifice sprang the rich and s\u0101man verses, the metres and the yajush.\n 10. From it sprang horses, and all animals with two rows of teeth;\n kine sprang from it; from it goats and sheep. 11. When (the gods)\n divided Purusha, into how many parts did they cut him up? what was his\n mouth? what arms (had he)? what (two objects) are said (to have been)\n his thighs and feet? 12. The Brahman was his mouth; the R\u00e2janya was\n made his arms; the being (called) the Vaisya, he was his thighs; the\n S\u00fbdra sprang from his feet. 13. The moon sprang from his soul (manas),\n the sun from his eye, Indra and Agni from his mouth, and V\u0101yu from his\n breath. 14. From his navel arose the air, from his head the sky, from\n his feet the earth, from his ear the (four) quarters; in this manner\n (the gods) formed the worlds. 15. When the gods, performing sacrifice,\n bound Purusha as a victim, there were seven sticks (stuck up) for it\n (around the fire), and thrice seven pieces of fuel were made. 16. With\n sacrifice the gods performed the sacrifice. These were the earliest\n rites. These great powers have sought the sky, where are the former\n S\u0101dhyas, gods\" (O. S. T., vol. i. p. 9.\u2014Rig-Veda, x. 90).\n\nThe wide interval which separates theological theories of this kind\nfrom the primitive hymns to the old polytheistic gods, is also marked\nby a tendency to personify abstract intellectual conceptions, and to\nconfer exalted attributes upon them. Skambha, or Support, mentioned\nabove; K\u00e2la, Time, celebrated in the Atharva-Veda; Speech, endowed\nwith personal powers in the tenth book of the Rig-Veda; Wisdom, to\nwhom prayer is offered in the Atharva-Veda, are instances of this\ngeneralizing tendency. As a specimen, the hymn to Wisdom may be taken,\nand readers may console themselves with the reflection that it is our\nlast quotation from the Mantra part of the Veda:\u2014\n\n 1. \"Come to us, wisdom, the first, with cows and horses; (come)\n thou with the rays of the sun; thou art to us an object of worship.\n 2. To (obtain) the succor of the gods, I invoke wisdom the first,\n full of prayer, inspired by prayer, praised by rishis, imbibed by\n Brahmach\u0101rins. 3. We introduce within me that wisdom which Ribhus\n know, that wisdom which divine beings (asur\u0101h) know, that excellent\n wisdom which rishis know. 4. Make me, O Agni, wise to-day with that\n wisdom which the wise rishis\u2014the makers of things existing\u2014know. 5.\n We introduce wisdom in the evening, wisdom in the morning, wisdom at\n noon, wisdom with the rays of the sun, and with speech\" (O. S. T.,\n vol. i. p. 255 note.\u2014Atharva-Veda, vi. 108).\n\nInteresting as the Mantra of the Vedas is from the fact of its being\nthe oldest Bible of the Aryan race, it is impossible for modern\nreaders to feel much enthusiasm for its contents. The patient labor of\nthese scholars who have engaged in translations of some parts of it\nfor the benefit of European readers is highly commendable, but it is\nprobable that few who have read any considerable number of these hymns\nwill be desirous of a further acquaintance with them, unless for the\npurpose of some special researches. Indeed, it may be said that the\ndevoted industry of Benfey, Muir, Max M\u00fcller, and others, has placed\nmore than a sufficient number of them within reach of the general\npublic to enable us all to judge of their literary value and their\nreligious teaching. With regard to the former, it would be difficult to\nconcede to them anything but a very modest place. In beauty of style,\nexpression, or ideas, they appear to me to be almost totally deficient.\nAssuming, as we are entitled to do, that all the best specimens have\nbeen already culled by scholars eager to find something attractive in\nthe Veda, it must be confessed that the general run of the hymns is\nsingularly monotonous, and their language by no means conspicuous for\npoetical coloring. No doubt, poetry always loses in translation; but\nIsaiah and Homer are still beautiful in a German or English dress; the\nS\u00fbktas of the Rig-Veda are not. A few exceptions no doubt occur, as in\nthe stanzas to Ushas, or Dawn, quoted above, but the ordinary level is\nnot a high one.\n\nAlthough, however, the literary merit of the Veda cannot be ranked\nhigh, its value to the religious history of humanity at large, and of\nour race in particular, can hardly be overrated. To the comparative\nmythologist, above all, it possesses illimitable interest, from the\nnew light it sheds upon the origin and significance of many of those\nworld-wide tales which, in their metamorphosed Hellenic shape, could\nnot be effectually brought under the process of dissection by which\ntheir primitive elements have now been laid bare. Mythology is beyond\nthe province of this work, and therefore I purposely refrain from\nentering upon any explanation of the physical meaning of the old Aryan\ngods, or of the stories in which they figure.[57] All that I have to do\nwith here is the grade attained in the development of religious feeling\namong those who worshiped them. And this, it is plain, was at first a\nvery elementary one. The more striking phenomena of nature\u2014the sun, the\nmoon, the sky, the storms, the dawn, the fire\u2014at first attracted their\nattention, and absorbed their adoration. To these personal beings, as\nthey seemed to the awe-struck Rishis, petitions of the rudest type were\nconfidently addressed. Very little allusion, if any, was made to the\nnecessities of the moral nature; the craving for spiritual knowledge\nwas scarcely felt; but great stress was laid on temporal prosperity.\nBoons of the most material kind were looked for at the hands of the\ngods. Plenty of offspring, plenty of physical strength, plenty of\nproperty, especially in cattle, and victory over enemies; such are the\nrequests most commonly poured into the ears of Indra, or Agni, or the\nMaruts. These gods are regarded as the sympathizing friends of men, and\nif they should fail to do what may reasonably be expected of a god, are\nalmost upbraided for their negligence. The conception of their power\nis a high one, though that of their moral nature is still rudimentary.\nTheir greatness and their glory, their victories, their splendor,\nare described in vigorous and high-sounding phrases. The changes are\nrung upon their peculiar attributes or their famous exploits. Each\ngod in his turn is a great god; but all are separate individuals;\nthere appears in the crude Aryan mind to be as yet no dawning of the\nperplexing questions on the unity of the Divine which troubled its\nlater development. For as it progresses, the Hindu religion gradually\nchanges. External calm, succeeding the wars of the first settlers,\npromotes internal activity. The great problem of the Universe is\nno longer solved, five or six centuries after the older Rishis had\npassed away, in the simple fashion which satisfied their curiosity.\nMultiplicity is now resolved into unity; mystical abstractions take\nthe place of the elementary powers of nature. Speech is a goddess; the\nVedas themselves\u2014as in the Purusha hymn\u2014acquire a quasi-divinity; the\nBrahmach\u00e2rin, or student of theology, is endowed with supernatural\nattributes, due to the sacred character of his pursuits. Sacrifice,\nfixed and regulated down to the smallest minuti\u00e6, has a peculiar\nefficacy, and becomes something of far deeper meaning than a merely\nacceptable present to the gods. Every posture, every word, every\ntone acquires importance. There are charms, there are curses, there\nare incantations for good and evil purposes, for the acquisition of\nwealth or the destruction of an enemy. It is by its collection of such\nmagical formul\u00e6 that the Atharva-Veda is distinguished from its three\npredecessors. It forms the last stone laid upon the edifice of the\ngenuine Veda, an edifice built up by the labor of many centuries, and\nincluding the whole of that original revelation to which the centuries\nthat succeeded it bowed down in reverence and in faith.\n\n\n                    SUBDIVISION 2.\u2014_The Br\u00e2hmanas._\n\nAttached to this edifice as an outgrowth rather than an integral part,\nthe treatises known as Br\u00e2hmanas took their place as appendages of\nthe Sanhit\u00e2. Although they are reckoned by the Hindus as belonging\nto the Sruti, although their nominal rank is thus not inferior to\nthat of the true Veda, yet it must have taken them many generations\nto acquire a position of honor to which nothing but tradition could\npossibly entitle them. For any gleams of poetical inspiration, of\nimaginative religious feeling, of naturalness or simple earnestness\nthat had shone athwart the minds of devout authors in preceding ages,\nhad apparently passed away when the Br\u00e2hmanas were composed. They are\nthe elaborate disquisitions of scholars, not the outpourings of men of\nfeeling. Religion was cut and dried when they were written; every part\nof it has become a matter of definition, of theory, of classification.\nIf in the Vedic hymns we are placed before a stage where religious\nfaith is a living body, whose movements, perhaps uncouth, are still\nenergetic and genuine, the Br\u00e2mhanas, on the other hand, take us into\nthe dissecting-room, where the constituent elements of its corpse are\nexposed to our observation. Not indeed that a true or deep faith had\nceased in the Br\u00e2hmana period; such an assertion would no doubt be\nextravagant; but the Br\u00e2hmanas themselves are the products of minds\nmore given to analysis than to sentiment, and of an age in which the\npredominant tendency, at least among cultivated Brahmans, was not so\nmuch to feel religion as to think about it. It is so everywhere. The\nHebrew Bible, once fixed and completed, gives rise to the Mishnah.\nThe Apostles and Fathers of the Christian Church are followed by\na race of schoolmen. The simple S\u00fbtras of Buddhism, replete with\nplain, world-wide lessons of moral truth, give place to the abstruse\ndevelopments of incomprehensible theology. Thus the Br\u00e2hmanas mark the\nepoch when the Veda had finally ceased to grow, and its every word\nand letter had become the object of an unquestioning adoration as the\nimmediate emanation of God.\n\nBut among a people so subtle and so inquisitive in all matters of\nreligious belief as the Hindus, opinion could not rest unmoved upon\nthe original foundation. Their minds did not, like those of the Jews,\nstop short for ever in their intellectual progression, chained to the\nunshakeable rock of a god-given Revelation. Ever active, ever attracted\nto the enigmas of life, the Brahmans pushed their speculations into\nnew regions of thought, pondered upon new problems, and invented new\nsolutions. Not that we are to expect to find in the literature of\nthis period any valuable discoveries or any very striking philosophy.\nThe true philosophical systems came later. But still we do find a\nrestless spirit of inquiry, ever prompting fresh efforts to conceive\nthe significance of the gods or to penetrate the mysteries of nature,\nthough the questions discussed are often trifling, and the results\narrived at frivolous.\n\nEvery Veda has, as already stated, its own Br\u00e2hmana or Br\u00e2hmanas.\nThus, two of these treatises appertain to the Rig-Veda; three to the\nS\u00e2ma-Veda, one to the Black and one to the White Yajur-Veda, and one to\nthe Atharva-Veda (O. S. T., vol. i. p. 5). Appended to the Br\u00e2hmanas,\nand forming, according to Dr. Muir, their \"most recent portions,\" are\nthe \u00c2ranyakas and Upanishads, a kind of supplementary works devoted\nto the elucidation of the highest points of theology. The Br\u00e2hmanas\npresent an example of Ritualism in all its glory. They fix the exact\nnature of every part of every ceremony; describe minutely the mode\nin which each sacrifice is to be offered; mention the Mantras to be\nrecited on each occasion; declare the benefits to be expected from the\nseveral rites, and explain the reasons\u2014drawn from the history of the\ngods\u2014why they are all to be performed in this particular way and order,\nand in no other. They are in fact liturgies, accompanied by exposition.\nHence they are totally unfit for quotation in a general work, for\nthey would be incomprehensible without an accompanying essay on the\nVedic sacrifices, entering into details which would interest none but\nprofessional students of the subject.\n\nThus, the Aitareya Br\u00e2hmana occupies itself entirely with the duties of\nthe Hotri priests; for the recitation of the Rig-Veda, to which this\nBr\u00e2hmana belonged, was their province. Occasionally, however, the\nBr\u00e2hmanas, Upanishads, and \u00c2ranyakas are enlivened by the introduction\nof apologues, intended to illustrate the point of theological dogma\nto which the author is addressing himself. Some of these apologues\nare curious, though the style in which they are related is generally\nso prolix as to preclude extraction. A notion of them may be gathered\nfrom condensed statements. Thus, in the Brihad \u00c2ranyaka Upanishad a\nstory is told of a dispute among the vital organs as to which of them\nwas \"best founded,\" _i. e._, most essential to life. To obtain the\ndecision of this controversy they repaired to Brahma, who said, \"He\namongst you is best founded by whose departure the body is found to\nsuffer most.\" Hereupon Speech departed, and returning after a year's\nabsence, inquired how the others had lived without it. \"They said, 'As\ndumb people who do not speak by speech, breathing by the vital breath,\nseeing by the eye, hearing by the ear, thinking by the mind, and\nbegetting children, so have we lived.'\" The eye, the ear, the mind, the\norgan of generation, each departed for a year, and, _mutatis mutandis_,\nwith similar results; blindness, deafness, idiocy, impotence, were all\ncompatible with life. Lastly, \"the vital breath being about to depart,\nas a great, noble horse from the Sindhu country raises its hoofs, so it\nshook these vital organs from their places. They said, 'Do not depart,\nO Venerable. We cannot live without thee.' 'If I am such, then offer\nsacrifice to me.' (They answered)\u2014'Be it so.'\" All the other organs\nhereupon admitted that their own existence depended on that of the\nvital breath (B. A. U., ch. vi. p. 259).\n\nSeveral narratives in various Br\u00e2hmanas point to the fact that\ntheological knowledge was not in these early days confined to the\nsingle caste by which it was afterwards monopolized, for they speak\nof well-read kings by whom Brahmans were instructed. In the Ch\u00e2ndogya\nUpanishad, for example, five members of the Brahmanical caste engaged\nin a debate upon the question \"Which is our soul, and which is Brahma?\"\nUnable to satisfy themselves, they repaired, accompanied by another\ntheologian who had been unable to answer them, to a monarch named\nAsvapati, and declining his proffered gifts, requested him to impart to\nthem the knowledge he possessed of the Universal Soul. He accordingly\nasked each of them in turn which soul he adored. The first replied\nthat he adored the heaven; the second, the sun; the third, the winds;\nthe fourth, the sky; the fifth, water; the sixth, the earth. To\neach of them in turn the king admitted that it was indeed a partial\nmanifestation of the Universal Soul which he worshiped, and that its\nadoration would confer some advantages. But, he finally added, \"You\nconsume food, knowing the Universal Soul to be many; but he who adoreth\nthat Universal Soul which pervadeth the heaven and the earth, and is\nthe principal object indicated by (the pronoun) _I_, consumeth food\neverywhere and in all regions, in every form and in every faculty.\" Of\nthat all-pervading Soul the several phenomena of the visible Universe\nworshiped by the Brahmans in their ignorance are but parts (Chhand.\nUp., ch. v. section 11-18, p. 92-97). Other Br\u00e2hmanas tell similar\nstories of the occasional pre\u00ebminence of the Kshattriya caste in the\nrivalry of learning. Thus, the Satapatha Br\u00e2hmana, the Brihad \u00c2ranyaka\nUpanishad, and the Kaush\u00eetaki Br\u00e2hmana Upanishad, all refer to a\ncertain king Aj\u00e2tasatru, who proved himself superior in theological\ndisputation to a Brahman named B\u0101l\u0101ki, \"renowned as a man well-read in\nthe Veda.\" Let us take the version of the last-named Upanishad. B\u0101l\u0101ki\nproposed to \"declare divine knowledge\" to the king, who offered to give\nhim a thousand cows for his tuition. But after he had propounded his\nviews on the Deity, and had been put to shame by the king's answers,\nthe latter said, \"Thou hast vainly proposed to me; let me teach\nthee divine knowledge. He, son of Balaka, who is the maker of these\nsouls, whose work that is,\u2014he is the object of knowledge.\" Convinced\nof his ignorance, B\u0101l\u0101ki proposed to become the king's pupil. \"The\nking replied, 'I regard it as an inversion of the proper rule that a\nKshattriya should initiate a Brahman. But come, I will instruct thee'\"\n(O. S. T., vol. i. p. 431).\n\nBoth these stories illustrate the striving towards conceptions of the\nunity of the divine essence which is characteristic of this speculative\nage. The next, from the Satapatha Br\u00e2hmana, has reference to another\nimportant point,\u2014the future of the soul. A young Brahman, called\nSvetaketu, came to a monarch who inquired whether he had received a\nsuitable education from his father. The youth replied that he had.\nHereupon the king proceeded to put him through an examination, in\nwhich he completely broke down. One of the questions was this:\u2014\"Dost\nthou know the means of attaining the path which leads to the gods, or\nthat which leads to the Pitris (Ancestors (_patres_)); by what act\nthe one or the other is gained?\" In other words did he know the way\nto heaven? The student did not. Vexed at his failure, the young man\nhastened to his father, reproached him with having declared that he\nwas instructed, and complained that the R\u00e2janya had asked him five\nquestions, of which he knew not even one. Gautama inquired what they\nwere, and on hearing them, assured his son that he had taught him all\nhe himself knew. \"But come, let us proceed thither, and become his\npupils.\" Receiving his guest with due respect, the king offered Gautama\na boon. Gautama begged for an explanation of the five questions.\n\"That,\" said the king, \"is one of the divine boons; ask one of those\nthat are human.\" But Gautama protested that he had wealth enough of all\nkinds, and added, \"Be not illiberal towards us in respect to that which\nis immense, infinite, boundless.\" The king accordingly accepted them as\nhis pupils, saying, \"Do not attach any blame to me, as your ancestors\n(did not). This knowledge has never heretofore dwelt in any Brahman;\nbut I shall declare it to thee. For who should refuse thee when thou so\nspeakest?\" (O. S. T., vol. i. p. 434.)\n\nUnhistorical as they probably are in their details, these traditions\nare curious both as illustrating the predominant inclination to\nspeculative inquiries, and the fact that in those inquiries the\npriestly caste was sometimes outshone by their more secular rivals. The\nfollowing quotation bears upon another doctrine, the transcendent merit\nof patience under trials, even of the severest kind. Manu, the typical\nancestor of mankind, is represented as resigning his most precious\npossessions to enable impious priests to perform a sacrifice:\u2014\n\n \"Manu had a bull. Into it an Asura-slaying, enemy-slaying voice had\n entered. In consequence of this (bull's) snorting and bellowing,\n Asuras and R\u00e2kshasas (these are species of demons) were continually\n destroyed. Then the Asuras said, 'This bull, alas! does us mischief;\n how shall we overcome him?' Now there were two priests of the Asuras\n called Kil\u00e2ta and Akuli. They said, 'Manu is a devout believer: let\n us make trial of him.' They went and said to him, 'Let us sacrifice\n for thee.' 'With what victim?' he asked. 'With this bull,' they\n replied. 'Be it so,' he answered. When it had been slaughtered,\n the voice departed out of it, and entered into Manu's wife M\u00e2nav\u00ee.\n Wherever they hear her speaking, the Asuras and R\u00e2kshasas continue to\n be destroyed in consequence of her voice. The Asuras said, 'She does\n us yet more mischief; for the human voice speaks more.' Kil\u00e2ta and\n Akuli said, 'Manu is a devout believer: let us make trial of him.'\n They came and said to him, 'Manu, let us sacrifice for thee.' 'With\n what victim?' he asked. 'With this (thy) wife,' they replied. 'Be it\n so,' he answered\" (O. S. T., vol. i. p. 188).\n\nSometimes, though not often, the Br\u00e2hmanas contain references to\nmoral conduct. A very theological definition of Duty is given in the\nCh\u00e2ndogya Upanishad, where it is stated, \"Threefold is the division of\nDuty. Sacrifice, study, and charity constitute the first; penance is\nthe second; and residence by a Brahmach\u00e2rin (a student of theology)\nexclusively in the house of a tutor is the third. All those [who attend\nto these duties] attain virtuous regions; the believer in Brahma alone\nattains to immortality\" (A. B., vii. 2. 10). In another Br\u00e2hmana it is\nasserted that \"the marriage of Faith and Truth is a most happy one. For\nby Faith and Truth joined they conquer the celestial world\" (Chhand.\nUp., ch. ii. sec. 23). And the the story of Sunahsepa, which contains\nan emphatic repudiation of human sacrifice, has a moral bearing. As a\nrule, however, the Br\u00e2hmanas do not concern themselves with ethical\nquestions. The rules of sacrifice, and the doctrines of a complicated\ntheology, are their main business; and the topics they are thus led to\ndebate in elaborate detail must frequently impress the European reader\nas not only uninteresting, but unmeaning.\n\n\n                    SECTION IV.\u2014THE TRIPITAKA.[58]\n\nWhen the master-mind who, by oral and personal instruction, has led\nhis disciples to the knowledge of new and invaluable truths passes\naway\u2014when the lips that taught them are closed forever, and the\nintellect that solved the problems of human life is at rest, when the\nsoul that met the spiritual cravings of their souls is no more near\nthem\u2014a necessity at once arises for the collection of the sayings,\nthe apologues, or the parables which can now be heard no more, and\nwhich only live in the memories of those who heard them. The precious\npossession must not be lost. The light must not be suffered to die\nout. Either the words of the Departed One must be transmitted orally\nfrom disciple to disciple, from generation to generation (as happens\nin countries where writing is uncommon or unknown), or they must be\nrendered imperishable by being once for all recorded in books.\n\nSuch was the course of events upon the death of Gautama Buddha.\nTradition tells us that immediately after that great Teacher had\nentered into Nirv\u00e2na, his disciples assembled in council to collect\nhis \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1, and to fix the Canons of the Faith. This Canon consisted\nof three portions, and is therefore called the _Tripitaka_, or Three\nBaskets. Of these baskets, his disciple Upali was appointed to\nrecall to memory, and edit, the one termed _Vinaya_, or the Buddha's\ninstructions on discipline; Ananda (the intimate friend of Gautama),\nthe S\u00fbtras, or practical teachings; and K\u00e2syapa, the Abhidharma, or\nmetaphysical lectures. Into these three classes the Buddhist Canon\nremains still divided. But the text, as thus established, did not\nescape the necessity of further revision. One hundred and ten years\nafter Sakyamuni's decease, certain monks brought considerable scandal\non the Church by disregarding his precepts. To meet the difficulty,\na council was held under the Buddhist king Asoka, the orthodox faith\nwas determined, and a new edition of the Canonical Works compiled by\nseven hundred \"accomplished priests.\" Divisions and heresies, however,\ncould not be prevented. In Kanishka's reign, four hundred years after\nBuddha, the Church was split up into eighteen sects, and a third\ncouncil had to issue a third Revision of the Sacred Texts.[59]\n\nAll this is not to be taken as literally true. Especially is it\nimpossible to accept the story that a Text of the Buddha's precepts\nand lectures was formed immediately after his death. It is probable\nthat not even the earliest parts of the Tripitaka were committed to\nwriting till long after that event, and it is quite certain that its\nlater elements could not have been added till some centuries after it.\nNevertheless, there may be, and indeed it is almost beyond doubt that\nthere are, some works in this Canon which were already current as the\nWord of Buddha in the time of Asoka, who reigned in the third century\nbefore Christ. In an inscription quoted by Burnouf, and indisputably\nemanating from that monarch, it is stated that the law embraces the\nfollowing topics:\u2014\"The limits marked by the Vinaya, the supernatural\nfaculties of the Ariyas, the dangers of the future, the stanzas of\nthe hermit, the S\u00fbtra of the hermit, the speculation of Upatisa\n(Sariputtra) only, the instruction of Laghula (Rahula), rejecting false\ndoctrines. This,\" adds the proclamation, \"is what has been said by the\nblessed Buddha\" (Lotus, p. 725). In this enumeration we recognize, as\nBurnouf has observed, the classes Vinaya and S\u00fbtra, which still form\ntwo out of the three baskets, and we find also that certain texts\nwere accepted by the Church as containing the genuine teaching of the\nBuddha. We must suppose, therefore, that at the epoch of the Council\nheld under Asoka in B. C. 246, there were already many unquestioned\nworks in circulation. Nor is there any reason to doubt that some of\nthese have descended to our times. Burnouf divides the S\u00fbtras (in the\nmore general sense of instructions or sermons) into two kinds: simple,\nand developed S\u00fbtras, of which the simple ones bear marks of antiquity\nand of fairly representing primitive Buddhism, while the developed\nS\u00fbtras contain the fanciful speculations of a later age.\n\nTwo most fortunate discoveries, the one made by Mr. Hodgson in Nepaul,\nthe other by Csoma K\u0151r\u00f6si in Thibet, have placed the vast collection\nforming the Canon of Buddhism within the reach of European scholars.\nBrian Houghton Hodgson was the British Resident in Nepaul in the early\npart of the present century, and he there succeeded in obtaining a\nlarge number of volumes in Sanskrit which he presented to the Asiatic\nSocieties of London and Paris. To the latter he presented first\ntwenty-four works, and subsequently sixty-four MSS., being copies of\nworks he had sent to the Asiatic Society in London. These books happily\nfell into the hands of one of the greatest of Sanskrit scholars,\nEug\u00e8ne Burnouf, who, in his \"History of Indian Buddhism,\" translated a\nsufficient number of them to serve as specimens. About the same time\na zealous Hungarian, Csoma K\u0151r\u00f6s, undertook an adventurous journey\ninto the heart of Asia, with a view of discovering the original stock\nof the Hungarian race. Failing in this object, he achieved another of\ngreater value, that of unearthing the whole of the sacred books known\nin Thibet under the name of the _Kah-gyur_, or _Kan-gyur_ (properly\nb_kah_-h_gyur_), which is the Thibetan translation, in one hundred\nvolumes, of the very works of which Hodgson in Nepaul had discovered\nthe Sanskrit originals. Such is the nature of our guarantees for the\nauthenticity of the text.\n\n\n                  SUBDIVISION 1.\u2014_The Vinaya-Pitaka._\n\nLet us proceed to consider in detail the division which stands first in\nthe Buddhist classification, the Vinaya-Pitaka, or basketful of works\non Discipline. These, according to Burnouf, are of very different ages,\nsome being, from the details they furnish with reference to Sakyamuni,\nhis institutions and his surroundings, of very ancient date, and\nothers, which relate events that did not occur till two hundred years\nor more after his death, belonging to a more recent period. One of the\nmost instructive of the legends which form the staple of the works\non Discipline, is that of P\u00fbrna. Only a brief extract of it can be\nattempted here.\n\nBhagavat (that is, the Lord, or Buddha) was at Sr\u00e2vasti, in the garden\nof An\u00e2tha-pindika. (An\u00e2tha-pindika was a householder who had embraced\nthe religion of the Buddha, and in whose garden he was accustomed\nto preach.) There resided at this time in the town of Surparaka a\nvery wealthy householder, named Bhava. This Bhava had three sons\nby his legitimate wife, who were christened respectively Bhavila,\nBhavatrata, and Bhavanandin. After some years he fell into an illness\nwhich led to his using language of extraordinary violence. His wife\nwith her three sons deserted him in consequence, but a young female\nslave, reflecting that he had immense wealth, and that it would not\nbe suitable for her to desert him, remained in the house and nursed\nhim throughout his malady. Seeing that he owed her his life, Bhava\non his recovery told her that he would give her a reward. The young\nwoman begged that if satisfied she might be admitted to her master's\nbed. Bhava endeavored to get off, promising a handsome sum of money\nand her liberty instead, but the girl was determined, and obtained her\nwish. The result was that \"after eight or nine months\" she gave birth\nto a beautiful boy, to whom the name of P\u00fbrna (the Accomplished) was\ngiven. The infant P\u00fbrna was confided to eight nurses, and subsequently\nreceived a first-rate education. In due time, the three elder sons were\nmarried by their father's desire, but the father, seeing them absorbed\nin mere uxoriousness, reproved their indolence, telling them that he\nhad not been married until he had amassed a lac (100,000) of Suvarna\n(representing about twenty-eight shillings). Struck by this reproof,\nthe three sons went to sea on a mercantile expedition, and returned\nafter having each made a lac of Suvarnas. But P\u00fbrna, who had remained\nat home to manage the shop, was found to have gained an equal sum in\nthe same time. Bhava, perceiving P\u00fbrna's talents, impressed on his sons\nthe importance of union, and the duty of disregarding what was said by\ntheir wives, women being the destroyers of family peace. He illustrated\nhis remarks by a striking expedient. Having desired his sons to bring\nsome wood, and to kindle it, he then ordered them all to withdraw the\nbrands. This being done, the fire went out, and the moral was at once\nunderstood by the four young men. United the fuel burns; and thus the\nunion of brothers makes their strength. Bhavila in particular was\nwarned by his father never to abandon P\u00fbrna. In course of time Bhava\ndied, and the three legitimate sons undertook another voyage. During\ntheir absence, the wives of the two younger sons fancied themselves\nill-treated by P\u00fbrna, who, in the midst of his business in the shop,\ndid not supply their maids fast enough with all they sent for. On the\nreturn of their husbands these two complained to them that were treated\nas happens to those in whose family the son of a slave exercises the\ncommand. The two brothers merely reflected that women sowed divisions\nin families. Unhappily, however, some trifling incidents, in which\nBhavila's child appeared to have been treated by P\u00fbrna with undue\npartiality, gave the sister-in-law a more plausible pretext for their\ncomplaints. Such was the effect of their jealousy, that the younger\nbrothers determined to demand a division of the property, in which\nP\u00fbrna (as a slave) was to form one of the lots. Bhavila, as eldest\nbrother, had first choice, and remembering his father's advice,\nchose P\u00fbrna. One of the other brothers took the house and land, and\nejected Bhavila's wife; the other took the shop and the property\nin foreign parts, and ejected P\u00fbrna. Bhavila, his wife, and P\u00fbrna,\nretired penniless to the house of a relative. The wife in distress\nsent out P\u00fbrna with nothing but a brass coin, which had been attached\nto her dress, to buy provisions. P\u00fbrna met a man who had picked up\nsome stranded sandal-wood on the sea-shore, and buying it of him (on\ncredit) for five hundred K\u00e2rsh\u00e2panas, sold a portion of it again for\none thousand. With this sum he first paid the man who had sold the\nwood, and then obtained provisions for the household. He had still in\nhis possession some pieces of the sandal-wood, which was of a very\nvaluable species called Gosirsha. Shortly after this, the king fell\nill, and his doctors having prescribed an unguent of this very wood,\nit was found that no one but P\u00fbrna had any in his possession. P\u00fbrna\nsold a piece of it to the Government at one thousand K\u00e2rsh\u00e2panas, and\nthe king recovered. Hereupon he reflected that he was but a poor sort\nof king who had no Gosirsha sandal-wood in his establishment, and sent\nfor P\u00fbrna. P\u00fbrna, guessing his object, approached him with one piece in\nhis hand, and three in his robe. The king, after ascertaining that the\nprice of the one piece would be a lac of Suvarnas, inquired if there\nwas more. P\u00fbrna then showed him the three other pieces, and the king\nwould have given him four lacs of Suvarnas. The wily merchant, however,\noffered to present him with one piece, and when the grateful monarch\noffered him a boon, requested that he might henceforth be protected\nagainst all insults, which was at once accorded.\n\nAbout this time five hundred merchants arrived at Surparaka with a\ncargo of goods. The Merchants' Company passed a resolution that none\nof them should act independently of the rest in buying any of these\ngoods; in short, that there should be no competition. Any one dealing\nwith the merchants alone was to pay a fine. P\u00fbrna, however, at once\nwent to the vessel and bought the whole cargo at the price demanded,\neighteen lacs of Suvarnas, paying the three lacs he had received as\nsecurity. The Merchants' Company, finding themselves anticipated,\nseized P\u00fbrna and exposed him to the sun to force him to pay the fine.\nNo sooner was the king informed of this than he sent for the Merchants'\nCompany to learn the cause of their proceedings. They told him; but\nbeing obliged to confess that they had never informed P\u00fbrna or his\nbrother of the resolution passed, they had to release him with shame.\nFortune still favored him. Soon after this, the king happened to\nrequire the very articles which P\u00fbrna had purchased, and desired the\nMerchants' Company to purchase them. P\u00fbrna hereupon sold them at double\nthe price he had paid. His next step was to undertake a sea-voyage\nfor commercial purposes, and the first having been successful, it was\nfollowed by five others, all equally so. His seventh was undertaken at\nthe instance of some Buddhist merchants from Sr\u00e2vasti, where Gautama\nwas teaching. During the voyage he was profoundly impressed with\ntheir religious demeanor. \"These merchants, at night and at dawn,\nread aloud the hymns, the prayers which lead to the other shore, the\ntexts which disclose the truth, the verses of the Sthaviras, those\nrelating to the several sciences, and those of the hermits, as well\nas the S\u00fbtras containing sections about temporal interests. P\u00fbrna,\nwho heard them, said to them, 'Gentlemen, what is that fine poetry\nwhich you sing?' 'It is not poetry, O prince of merchants; it is the\nvery words of the Buddha.' P\u00fbrna, who had never till now heard this\nname of Buddha mentioned, and who felt his hair stand up all over his\nbody, inquired with deep respect, 'Gentlemen, who is he whom you call\nBuddha?' The merchants replied, 'The Sramana Gautama, descended from\nthe Sakya family, who having shaven his hair and beard, having put\non garments of yellow hue, left his house with perfect faith to enter\nupon a religious life, and who has reached the supreme condition of an\nall-perfect Buddha; it is he, O prince of merchants, who is called the\nBuddha.' 'In what place, gentlemen, does he now reside?' 'At Sr\u00e2vasti,\nO prince of merchants, in the wood of Jetavana, in the garden of\nAn\u00e2tha-pindika.'\" The result of this conversation was that P\u00fbrna, on\nhis return, announced to his brother his intention of becoming a monk,\nand advised him never to go to sea, and never to live with his two\nbrothers. After this he went straight to An\u00e2tha-pindika, and was by\nhim presented to the Buddha, who received him with the remark that the\nmost agreeable present he could have was a man to convert. P\u00fbrna then\nreceived the investiture and tonsure by miracle, and was instructed in\nthe law (in an abridged version) by his master. A beautiful, and very\ncharacteristic conversation follows the reception of the new doctrine.\nThe Buddha inquired of P\u00fbrna where he would now reside, and the latter\n(who intended to lead an ascetic life) replied that he would reside \"in\nthe land of the Sronaparantakas.[60] 'O P\u00fbrna,' says Gautama, 'they are\nviolent, these men of Sronaparanta: they are passionate, cruel, angry,\nfurious, and insolent. When the men of Sronaparanta, O P\u00fbrna, shall\naddress thee to thy face in wicked, coarse, and insulting language,\nwhen they shall become enraged against thee and rail at thee, what\nwilt thou think of that?' 'If the men of Sronaparanta, O Lord, address\nme to my face in wicked, coarse, and insulting language, if they\nbecome enraged against me and rail at me, this is what I shall think\nof that: They are certainly good men, these Sronaparantakas, they are\ngentle, mild men, they who address me to my face, in wicked, coarse and\ninsulting language, they who become enraged against me and rail at me,\nbut who neither strike me with the hand nor stone me.'\" The rest must\nbe given in an abridged form. \"But if they do strike thee with the hand\nor stone thee?\" \"I shall think them good and gentle for not striking\nme with swords or sticks.\" \"And if they do that?\" \"I shall think them\ngood and gentle for not depriving me entirely of life.\" \"And if they\ndo that?\" (What follows is literal.) \"If the men of Sronaparanta, O\nLord, deprive me entirely of life, this is what I shall think: There\nare hearers of Bhagavat [the Lord] who by reason of this body full\nof ordure, are tormented, covered with confusion, despised, struck\nwith swords, who take poison, who die of hanging, who are thrown down\nprecipices. They are certainty good people, these Sronaparantakas,\nthey are gentle people, they who deliver me with so little pain from\nthis body full of ordure.\" \"Good, good, P\u00fbrna; thou canst, with the\nperfection of patience with which thou art endowed, yes, thou canst\nlive, thou canst take up thy abode in the land of the Sronaparantakas.\nGo, P\u00fbrna; delivered thyself, deliver; arrived thyself at the other\nshore, cause others to arrive there; consoled thyself, console; having\ncome thyself to complete Nirv\u00e2na, cause others to arrive there.\"\n\nHereupon P\u00fbrna took his way to Sronaparanta, where he converted a\nhuntsman who had intended to kill him, and obtained five hundred\nnovices composed of both sexes.\n\nAfter a time, Bhavila, his brother, was requested by Bhavatrata and\nBhavanandin to enter into partnership with them; and his repugnance to\nthe proposal was overcome by the reproaches of his younger brothers,\nwho said that he would never have dared to go to sea as P\u00fbrna had done.\nStung by this taunt, he engaged with them in a sea-voyage. The vessel\nwas attacked by a furious storm, raised by a demon in consequence of\nthe merchants having cut some sandal-wood which was under this demon's\nprotection. Bhavila stood dumbfounded; and when the passengers inquired\nthe reason, informed them that he was thinking of his brother's advice\nnever to go to sea. It turned out that the merchants on board knew of\nP\u00fbrna's great sanctity, and they addressed their prayers to him. He\ncame through the air, after the manner of Buddhist ascetics, appeared\nsitting cross-legged over the vessel, and allayed the tempest. The\nvessel, loaded with sandal-wood, was brought safety back to Surparaka.\nThe sandal-wood P\u00fbrna took possession of in order to make a palace for\nthe Buddha, and desired his brothers to invite that personage and his\ndisciples to a repast. The invitation was miraculously conveyed to the\nBuddha (who was a long way off, at Sr\u00e2vasti), and he told his followers\nto prepare to accept it. P\u00fbrna returned suddenly to the Assembly\n(around Buddha) and performed a miracle. The king of Surparaka, on his\nside, made preparations on the grandest scale for the reception of the\nBuddhist hierarchy, which came to his city by all kinds of supernatural\nmeans. P\u00fbrna, standing by him, explained the various prodigies as they\noccurred. Omitting some marvelous conversions wrought by the Buddha\non his way, it may be mentioned that he descended into the middle of\nthe town of Surparaka from the air, and there taught the law, by which\nhundreds of thousands of living beings attained the several degrees of\nknowledge which lead, sooner or later, to salvation.\n\nPassing over a passage in which two royal N\u00e2gas (or serpent-kings)\nmake their appearance to receive the law, and another in which Gautama\nproceeds to another universe to instruct the mother of his disciple\nMaudgaly\u00e2yana, we arrive at the moral which always forms the conclusion\nof these Buddhist tales. The monks surrounding the Buddha inquired\nwhat actions P\u00fbrna had performed in order, first, to be born in a\nrich family; secondly, to be the son of a slave; and lastly, \"when\nhe had entered on a religious life, to behold the condition of an\nArhat[61] face to face, after having annihilated all the corruptions\nof evil?\" Buddha replied, that in the very age in which we live, but\nat a period of it when men lived twenty thousand years, there was\na venerable Tath\u00e2gata, or Buddha, named K\u00e2syapa, who resided near\nBenares. P\u00fbrna, who had adopted a religious life under him, \"fulfilled\namong the members of the Church[62] the duties of servant of the law.\"\nThe servant of a certain Arhat set himself to sweep the monastery, but\nthe wind blowing the dirt from side to side, he gave up the attempt,\nintending to proceed when the wind should have abated. The servant of\nthe law coming in, and finding the monastery unswept, allowed himself\nto be carried away by rage, and to utter these offensive words: \"This\nis the servant of some slave's son.\" When he had had time to recover\nhis calmness, the Arhat's servant presented himself, and asked if he\nknew him. The servant of the law replied that he did, and that they\nboth had entered into a religious life under the Buddha K\u00e2syapa. The\nother rejoined that while he had fulfilled all his duties, the servant\nof the law had been guilty of a fault in giving way to his temper, and\nexhorted him to diminish that fault by confession. The latter repented,\nand was thereby saved from re-birth in hell; but he was doomed to be\nre-born for five hundred generations in the womb of a slave. In this\nlast existence he was still the offspring of a slave; but because he\nhad formerly served the members of the Church, he was born in a rich\nand prosperous family; and because he had formerly read and studied\nBuddhist theology, he now became an Arhat under Gautama Buddha, after\nannihilating evil (H. B. I., p. 235 ff.).\n\nSuch is a favorable specimen of a vast number of legends contained in\nthe Buddhist Canon. The following fragment is of a rather different\nkind. It illustrates the extravagant adoration paid to the person of\nBuddha some generations after his death. A king named Rudrayana had\nsent to another, named Bimbis\u00e2ra, an armor of marvelous properties and\npriceless value. Bimbis\u00e2ra, at a loss what present he could send back\nwhich would be a fitting return for such a gift, determined to seek out\nBuddha and consult him on the point:\u2014\n\n \"King Bimbis\u00e2ra addressed him thus:\u2014'In the town of R\u00f4ruka, Lord,\n there lives a king called Rudrayana; he is my friend; though I have\n never seen him, he has sent me a present of an armor composed of\n five pieces. What present shall I give him in return?' 'Have the\n representation of the Tath\u00e2gata traced on a bit of stuff,' answered\n Bhagavat, 'and send it him as a present.'\n\n \"Bimbis\u00e2ra sent for some painters, and said\u2014'Paint on a bit of stuff\n the image of the Tath\u00e2gata.' The blessed Buddhas are not very easy to\n get at, which is the reason why the painters could find no opportunity\n of [painting] Bhagavat. So they said to Bimbis\u00e2ra\u2014'If the king would\n give a feast to Bhagavat in the interior of his palace, it would be\n possible for us to seize the occasion of [painting] the blessed one'\n King Bimbis\u00e2ra having accordingly invited Bhagavat to his palace, gave\n him a feast. The blessed Buddhas are beings that people are never\n weary of looking at. Whichever limb of Bhagavat the painters looked\n at they could not leave off contemplating it. So they could not seize\n the moment to paint him. Bhagavat then said to the king\u2014'The painters\n will have trouble, O great king; it is impossible for them to seize\n the moment to [paint the] Tath\u00e2gata, but bring the canvass.' The king\n having brought it, Bhagavat projected his shadow on it, and said to\n the painters\u2014'Fill that outline with colors; and then write over it\n the formulas of refuge as well as the precepts of instruction; you\n will have to trace both in the direct order, and in the inverse order\n the production of the [successive] causes [of existence], which is\n composed of twelve terms; and on it will be written these two verses:\n\n \"'Begin, go out [of the house]; apply yourself to the law of Buddha;\n annihilate the army of death, as an elephant upsets a hut of reeds.\n\n \"'He who shall walk without distraction under the discipline of this\n law, escaping birth and the revolution of the world, will put an end\n to sorrow.[63]\n\n \"'If any one asks what these verses are, you must answer: The first\n is the introduction; the second, the instruction; the third, the\n revolution of the world; and the fourth, the effort.'\" (H. B. I., p.\n 341).\n\nBimbis\u00e2ra, acting under Bhagavat's dictation, then wrote to Rudrayana\nthat he was about to send him the most precious object in the three\nworlds, and that he must adorn the way by which it would arrive for two\nand a half yojanas. Rudrayana was rather irritated by this message, and\nproposed immediate war, but was dissuaded by his ministers. The picture\ntherefore was received with all honor, and not uncovered till after it\nhad been duly adored. Certain foreign merchants who happened to be on\nthe spot, on seeing the portrait, cried out altogether: \"Adoration to\nBuddha.\" At this name the king felt his hair stand on end, and inquired\nwho Buddha was. His position, and the meaning of the inscription,\nwas explained to him by the merchants. The consequence, as may be\nsupposed, was his conversion to Buddhism. He reflected on the causes of\nexistence, and attained the degree of Srot\u00e2patti (H. B. I., p. 344.)\n\nVery little allusion is made in these legends to the immediate subject\nof the Vinaya-pitaka, namely, Discipline. But a reference to Csoma's\nAnalysis of the Dulva (the Thibetan title for the Vinaya) will show\nthat it is in fact largely occupied in laying down rules for the\nguidance of monks and nuns, these rules being frequently supposed to\nhave arisen out of particular events, while \"moral tales\" are freely\nintermingled with the treatment of the main business. The hap-hazard\nmanner in which the regulations needful for the government of the\nChurch were framed\u2014according to the theory of the Scriptures\u2014may be\nillustrated by a few specimens. Thus, two persons in debt had taken\norders, \"Shakya (Sakyamuni) prohibits the admission into the religious\norder of any one who is in debt\" (As. Re., vol. xx. p. 53). This rule\nentirely agrees with the general spirit of Gautama's proceedings, as\nnarrated in the Buddhist books, and we are warranted in supposing\nthat statements so harmonious rest on a historical foundation. Thus,\nhe is said to have refused to admit young people without the consent\nof their parents, or servants of a king without their royal master's\nsanction. Regulations like these may well have been made by Buddha\nfrom a cautious anxiety to avoid all conflict with established\nauthorities. Further on in the same volume of the Dulva the reception\nof hermaphrodites is likewise prohibited (As. Re., vol. xx. p. 55).\nOn another occasion, leave is given to learn swimming. \"Indecencies\"\nare then \"committed in the Ajirapati river. They are prohibited from\ntouching any woman;\u2014they may not save even one that has fallen into\nthe river\" (Ibid., vol. xx. p. 59). Elsewhere we are told of a pious\nlady who provided the infant community with cloth to make bathing\nclothes, since she had heard that both monks and nuns bathed without\nany garments (Ibid., vol. xx. p. 70). A little further on, the dress\nof the priesthood is prescribed. Some of the disciples wished to\nwear one thing, and some another; others to go naked. \"Shakya tells\nthem the impropriety and indecency of the latter, and prohibits it\nabsolutely: and rebuking them, adds that such a garb, or to go naked,\nis the characteristic sign of a _Mu-stegs-chan_ (Sansk) _T\u00eerthika_\"\n(Ibid., vol. xx. p. 71). Here again we seem to have a historical\ntrait, for it was one of the distinctive features of Buddhism that its\nvotaries were never naked, like the T\u00eerthikas, or heretical ascetics,\nbut always wore the yellow robe. In other places there are rules on\nlodging, on bedding, on the treatment of quarrelsome priests, the use\nof fragrant substances, and many other trivial points of ecclesiastical\ndiscipline. The volumes containing all these instructions are followed\nby one in which the same stories are told, and the same morals deduced\nfrom them, concerning the nuns. Then there are some injunctions\napparently peculiar to this sex, as, for instance, the restraint\nimposed on their possession of a multiplicity of garments. Another\nprohibition was called forth by the following conduct of a nun. A king\nhad sent a piece of fine linen cloth as a present to a brother king.\n\"It comes afterwards into the hands of _G_tsug-_D_gah-Mo (a lewd or\nwicked priestess); she puts it on, appears in public, but from its\nthin texture, seems to be naked. The priestesses are prohibited from\naccepting or wearing such thin clothes\" (As. Re., vol. xx. p. 85).\n\nIt will be observed from these few quotations that according to the\nCanon the Buddha's usual mode of proceeding was to lay down rules as\noccasion required. Some instructive anecdote is related, and the new\norder follows as a natural consequence of the event. More probably the\nrules were in fact made first, and the anecdotes subsequently composed\nto account for them. However this may be, there exist in the Canon\nsome undoubtedly ancient ordinances not called forth by any special\ncircumstances, conformity to which was required of the monks, if not\nby their founder himself, at least by the rulers of his Church in its\nmost primitive condition. Such, for example, are \"the thirteen rules by\nwhich sin is shaken,\" reported by Burnouf, which are also found, with\nthe exception of a single one, in a Chinese work entitled \"the sacred\nbook of the twelve observances\" (H. B. I., p. 304). These rules belong,\naccording to Burnouf, to an epoch when the organization of the monks\nunder a powerful hierarchy, and their residence in settled monasteries,\nhad scarcely begun. Some of them are even inconsistent with the\ninstitution of such monasteries, or Viharis, which are nevertheless\nvery ancient. The fact that the above-named Chinese treatise, the\npentaglot Buddhist Vocabulary,[64] and a list current among the\nSinghalese, all contain these articles of discipline (though with\nslight variations) proves, moreover, that they appertain to that common\nfund on which Northern and Southern Buddhists drew alike. The first\narticle (following the order in the Vocabulary) signifies \"wearing rags\nfound in the dust,\" and refers to an injunction addressed to the monks\nto wear vestments composed of rags picked up in heaps of ordure, in\ncemeteries, and such places. The second, \"he who has three garments,\"\ncorresponds to an order found in the Chinese book forbidding monks to\nhave more than three garments. Of the third article which is corrupt,\nBurnouf can give no satisfactory explanation; and the fourth means \"he\nwho lives by alms,\" a practice at all times imposed on the monastic\norders. Fifthly, the ascetic is described as \"he who has but one seat;\"\nsixthly, as \"one who eats no sweetmeats after his meal,\" all eating\nfor the day having to be finished by noon. Seventhly, he \"lives in the\nforest,\" that is, in lonely places; and eighthly, he is \"near a tree,\"\nthe Chinese injunction requiring him to sit near a tree, and to seek no\nshelter. The ninth order obliges them to sit on the ground, that is,\nto live in the open air; the tenth, to dwell among tombs, which the\nSinghalese interpret as an order to visit cemeteries and meditate on\nthe instability of human affairs; the eleventh, to sit, and not to lie\ndown. Of the meaning of the twelfth there is some doubt; it may signify\nthat the monk is to remain where he is, or that he is not to change the\nposition of his mat when once laid down. To these twelve the Singhalese\nadd a thirteenth article, that the monk is to live by begging from\nhouse to house.\n\nNot less remarkable are the ten commandments of Buddhism, which are\ndoubtless also of considerable antiquity. Burnouf states that he has\nfound them in the sequel of the Pr\u00e2timoksha S\u00fbtra in the Pali-Burman\ncopy of that most important work (to which reference will shortly be\nmade). These are the ten commandments as given in that authority:\u2014\n\n 1. Not to kill any living creature.\n\n 2. Not to steal.\n\n 3. Not to break the vow of chastity.\n\n 4. Not to lie.\n\n 5. Not to drink intoxicating liquors.\n\n 6. Not to take a meal except at the appointed time.\n\n 7. Not to visit dances, performances of vocal or instrumental music,\n or dramatic representations.\n\n 8. Not to wear garlands, or use perfumes and unguents.\n\n 9. Not to sleep on a high or large bed.\n\n 10. Not to accept gold or silver (Lotus, p. 444).\n\nOf these commandments, some are evidently general, being founded on\nthe fundamental principles of ethics; others are addressed only to\nthose in orders. Such is the case with the last five, all of which bear\nreference to certain disciplinary laws imposed upon the monks and nuns.\nTheir object is to prohibit luxury of various kinds, such as the use of\na large bed, and to restrain the love of sensual enjoyments, such as\nplays, music, and dancing. Another list of offenses, after enumerating\nthe first five of those contained in the preceding list, adds five\nmore, namely:\u2014\n\n  1. Blasphemy of the Buddha.\n  2. Blasphemy of the Law.\n  3. Blasphemy of the Church.\n  4. Heresy.\n  5. Violation of a nun (Lotus, p. 445).\n\nSuch are the leading points of monastic discipline among the primitive\nBuddhists. A more elaborate and formal treatise on the subject of\nthe sins to be avoided, and the penalties to be imposed on their\ncommission, is the Pr\u00e2timoksha S\u00fbtra, or S\u00fbtra on Emancipation. It is\nthe standard work on this subject, and should be recited before the\nassembled Vih\u00e2ra twice in each month, any guilty brother confessing\nany transgression of its precepts of which he might be conscious. Its\nantiquity is undoubted, for in a S\u00fbtra known to have been brought to\nChina from India in A.D. 70 (and therefore already of established\nrepute) the Pr\u00e2timoksha is referred to as the \"two hundred and fifty\nrules\" (C. B. S., p. 189). It does, in fact, contain two hundred and\nfifty rules in its Chinese form, while the Thibetan version contains\ntwo hundred and fifty-three, and the Pali version but two hundred and\ntwenty-seven (H. B. I., p. 303). While the Pr\u00e2timoksha S\u00fbtra now to\nbe quoted is destined for monks, or Bhikshus, it is to be noted that\nthere exists likewise a \"Bhikshun\u00ee Pr\u00e2timoksha S\u00fbtra,\" or Treatise on\nEmancipation for Nuns (As. Re., vol. xx. pp. 79, 84). The rules are,\n_mutatis mutandis_, the same for both sexes.\n\nIt will be interesting to glance rapidly at the nature of the faults\nand crimes the confession of which is here imposed on Bhikshus and\nBhikshun\u00ees.[65]\n\nThe S\u00fbtra opens with certain stanzas designed to celebrate the Buddhist\nTrinity,\u2014the Buddha, the Law, and the Church. Then follow some\n\"preparatory questions:\"\u2014\n\n \"Are the priests assembled? (They are.) Are all things arranged?\n (seats, water, sweeping, &c.) (They are.) Let all depart who are\n not ordained. (If any, let them go; if none are present, let one\n say so.) Does any Bhikshu here present ask for absolution? (Let him\n answer accordingly.) Exhortation must be given to the priestesses\n (but if there are none present, let one say so). Are we agreed what\n our present business is? It is to repeat the precepts in this lawful\n assembly.\n\n \"Venerable brethren, attend now! On this ... day of the month ... let\n the assembled priests listen attentively and patiently, whilst the\n precepts are distinctly recited.\"\n\n\n COMMENCEMENT.\n\n \"Brethren! I desire to go through the Pr\u00e2timoksha. Bhikshus! assembled\n thus, let all consider and devoutly reflect on these precepts. If any\n have transgressed, let him repent! If none have transgressed, then\n stand silent! silent! Thus, brethren, it shall be known that ye are\n guiltless.\n\n \"Now if a stranger ask one of us a question we are bound to reply\n truthfully: so, also, Bhikshus, we who reside in community, if we know\n that we have done wrong, and yet decline to acknowledge it, we are\n guilty of prevarication. But Buddha has declared that prevarication\n effectually prevents our religious advancement. That brother,\n therefore, who is conscious of transgression, and desires absolution,\n ought at once to declare his fault, and after proper penance he shall\n have rest and peace.\n\n \"Brethren! having repeated this preface, I demand of you all\u2014Is this\n assembly pure or not? (Repeat this three times.) Brethren! this\n assembly is pure; silent! silent! ye stand! So let it be! Brethren, I\n now proceed to recite the four parajika laws, ordered to be recited\n twice every month.\"\n\nThese four laws are then repeated, and the penalty of excommunication,\nwhich attaches to a breach of any of them, is enunciated. The first of\nthe four prohibits impure conduct; the second, theft. The third runs as\nfollows:\u2014\n\n \"If a Bhikshu cause a man's death, or hold a weapon and give it a man\n (for the purpose), or if he speak of the advantages of death, or if he\n carelessly exhort one to meet death (saying), 'Tush, you are a brave\n man,' or use such wicked speech as this, 'It is far better to die\n and not to live,' using such considerations as these, bringing every\n sort of expedient into use, praising death, exhorting to death: this\n Bhikshu ought to be excluded and cut off.\"\n\nThe fourth rule is against pretending to a perfect knowledge of the\nTruth which the Bhikshu does not in fact possess.\n\nAt the end of the recitation of these four rules it is declared that\na brother who has transgressed any one of them \"has acquired the\nguilt which demands exclusion, and ought not to live as a member of\nthe priesthood.\" The question as to the purity of the Assembly is\nthen again put, and the priest (after declaring it pure) proceeds to\nthirteen rules, the breach of which is punished by suspension. The\nfirst restrains a monk from pampering lustful thoughts, the second\nfrom bringing any part of his body in contact with that of a woman,\nthe third from lewd talk with a woman, the fourth from obtaining a\nwoman to minister to him. For a violation of this last injunction the\nhighest penance, as well as suspension, is appointed. There follow\nrules against building a residence of illegal size, or without due\nconsecration, or on an inconvenient site; against building a Vih\u00e2ra\non an inconvenient site; against slander of a Bhikshu (two rules),\nagainst causing disunion in a community, against forming a cabal for\nmutual protection against just censure, against disorderly conduct\nwhen living in a house, against a refusal to listen to expostulation\nor reproof. Solitary confinement, and six days of penance, are the\npenalties imposed on these offenses; after the infliction of the\nsentence absolution is to be given. Next we have two rules \"not\ncapable of exact definition,\" but relating to licentious talk with \"a\nfaithful laywoman.\" Thirty rules relating to priests' robes and the\nlike matters are now recited. They seem to be aimed at covetousness in\nreceiving or asking gifts. After the usual inquiry as to the purity of\nthe brethren, ninety rules against offenses requiring \"confession and\nabsolution\" are to be read. Some of these seem to be repetitions of\nprevious ones belonging to a more serious category, as the first two,\non lying and slander, and the eighth, against pretended knowledge. Then\nthe Pr\u00e2timoksha proceeds to say that if a Bhikshu use hypocritical\nlanguage, if he occupy the same lodging as a woman, or the same as a\nman not yet ordained above two nights, if he chant prayers with a man\nnot yet ordained, if he rail at a priest, if he use water containing\ninsects (so as to destroy life), if he give clothes to a Bhikshun\u00ee,\nor nun, if he go with a Bhikshun\u00ee in any boat except a ferry-boat,\nif he agree to walk with a Bhikshun\u00ee along the road, if he gambol in\nthe water while bathing, if he drink distilled or fermented liquor,\nor commit any of the many other faults, partly against morality\nin general, partly against conventual rule, he is guilty of a\ntransgression of this class. Four rules follow against receiving food\nfrom a nun, against allowing a nun in a layman's house to point out\ncertain dishes, and have them given to certain monks; against going to\ndinner uninvited; against the omission on the part of a monk residing\nin a dangerous place to warn those who may bring him victuals of the\nrisk they run. A hundred rules, mostly trifling, are now entered on.\nThey are such as these: \"Not to enter a layman's house in a bouncing\nmanner.\" \"Not to munch or make a munching noise in eating rice,\" and\nlikewise, \"not to make a lapping noise.\" \"Not to clean the teeth under\na pagoda;\" with many other minute regulations on a multitude of trivial\npoints. The seven concluding laws refer simply to the mode of deciding\ncases.\n\n\n                  SUBDIVISION 2.\u2014_The S\u00fbtra-Pitaka._\n\nWe have thus concluded our notice of the Pr\u00e2timoksha S\u00fbtra, and may\npass on to the S\u00fbtra-pitaka, the second of the three baskets into\nwhich the Canon is divided. S\u00fbtra is a term signifying a discourse,\nor lecture, and the S\u00fbtras of Buddhism are frequently moral stories,\nsupposed to emanate from Gautama Buddha himself, and embodying the\ngreat features of his gospel, as the Sermon on the Mount and the\nParables do those of the gospel of Jesus. A very interesting collection\nof such stories belonging to the S\u00fbtra-pitaka is contained in a work\ntranslated from the Thibetan by a Russian scholar, and forming, under\nthe title of the _H_dsangs-_b_lun, or the Wise Man and the Fool, a\nportion of the twenty-eighth volume of the _M_do, or S\u00fbtra-pitaka. From\nCsoma's Analysis it appears that many other narratives of a similar\nnature are embodied in this section of the Canon, though much of it\nalso consists of more direct dogmatic instruction. From \"The Wise Man\nand the Fool\" I select a chapter which affords a good illustration of\nthe boundless charity which Buddhism inculcates.\n\nThe victoriously-perfect One was living at Sr\u00e2vasti. When the time\ncame to receive alms, he set out with his disciple Ananda, alms-bowl\nin hand, along the road. It so happened that he met two men who had\nbeen condemned to death for repeated robberies, and were being led to\nexecution. Their mother, seeing the Buddha, thus addressed him:\u2014\"O\nchief of gods, think of us with mercy, and vouchsafe to take under\nthy protection these my sons who are going to execution.\" Buddha\naccordingly interceded with the king, who gave them a free pardon.\nTouched with gratitude, the two men asked leave to become monks, and\non Buddha's consenting to receive them, their hair at once fell off\nfrom head and face, and their garments assumed the yellow hue of the\norder.[66] Both mother and sons attained high spiritual grades. Ananda\nmarveled what good deeds these three could have performed to meet with\nthe victoriously-perfect One, to be saved from such great evils, and\nto obtain the prospect of Nirv\u00e2na. Buddha thereupon informed him that\nthis was not the first occasion on which he had saved their lives, and\non Ananda's request for a further explanation, related the following\ncircumstances. Countless years ago, there lived in Jambudw\u00eepa (India) a\ncertain king who had three sons. The youngest son was mild and merciful\nfrom his childhood upwards. One day, when the king, with his ministers,\nwives and sons, was at a picnic outside the town, the three sons went\ninto a wood, where they found a tigress, with young recently littered,\nso nearly starved that she was almost on the point of devouring her\nown brood. The youngest asked his brothers what food a tigress would\neat. \"Newly-killed meat and warm blood.\" \"Is there any one who would\nsupport its life with his own body?\" \"No one,\" replied the elder\nbrothers; \"that would be too difficult\" (I give only the substance\nof this colloquy). Then the youngest prince thought within himself:\n\"For a long time I have been driven about in the circle of births, and\nhave thrown away my body and my life innumerable times; often have I\nsacrificed it for the passion of the desires, often for that of rage,\noften too for folly and ignorance; what value then has this body,\nwhich has not one single time trodden the field of meritorious actions\nfor the sake of religion!\" Meantime, all three had walked on; but the\nyoungest, pleading some business of his own, desired them to go on,\nleaving him to follow. Having returned to the cave of the tigress, he\nlaid himself down beside her, but found her too weak to open her mouth.\nHereupon the prince contrived to bleed himself with a sharp splinter\nof wood, and the tigress, after licking the blood that flowed from\nhim, was sufficiently refreshed to consume him altogether. The two\nelder brothers, wondering at his long absence, returned to the tiger's\nhole, where, on finding his remains, they rolled upon the ground and\nfainted, overcome with grief. The queen, who had had an alarming dream,\nquestioned them anxiously on their return as to their brother, and she\ntoo on learning the sad event, which their choking voices for some\ntime prevented them from telling, fell senseless to the ground. Soon\nafter, both king and queen visited the den, but could find nothing but\nbones. Meantime, the prince had been born again in the Tushita heaven.\nLooking about to discover what good action of his had brought him to\nthis place, he saw the bones of his former body in the tigress's den,\nand his parents sighing and groaning around them. He returned from his\nheavenly abode to give them some consolation and some good advice. They\nwere at length somewhat comforted, and collecting his bones, buried\nthem in a costly sarcophagus.\n\nBuddha then turns to Ananda and asks him whom he supposes the actors in\nthis tragedy to have been. He tells him, without waiting for an answer,\nthat the king was his present father, the queen his present mother, the\nelder princes certain personages named Maitreya and Vasumitra, and the\nyoungest prince no other than himself. The young tigers were, it need\nhardly be said, the condemned felons whom he had now again delivered\nfrom death.\n\nWhile this anecdote inculcates charity in its fullest extent, the one\nwhich is now to be quoted illustrates another most conspicuous point in\nthe ethics of Buddhism,\u2014the regard paid by it to personal purity and\nthe deadening influence it exercised on the senses. The translation of\nthis curious legend is due to Burnouf:\u2014\n\n \"There was at Mathur\u00e2 a courtesan called V\u00e2savadatt\u00e2. Her maid went\n one day to Upagupta to buy her some perfumes. V\u00e2savadatt\u00e2 said to her\n on her return: 'It seems, my dear, that this perfumer pleases you,\n as you always buy from him.' The maid answered her: 'Daughter of my\n master, Upagupta, the son of the merchant, who is gifted with beauty,\n with talent, and with gentleness, passes his life in the observance of\n the law.' On hearing these words V\u00e2savadatt\u00e2 conceived an affection\n for Upagupta, and at last she sent her maid to say to him: 'My\n intention is to go and find you; I wish to enjoy myself with you.' The\n maid delivered her message to Upagupta; but the young man told her to\n answer her mistress: 'My sister, it is not yet time for you to see\n me.' Now it was necessary in order to obtain the favors of V\u00e2savadatt\u00e2\n to give five hundred Pur\u00e2nas. Thus the courtezan imagined that [if\n he refused her, it was because] he could not give the five hundred\n Pur\u00e2nas. For this reason, she sent her maid to him again to say, 'I do\n not ask a single K\u00e2rch\u00e2pana from the son of my master; I only wish to\n enjoy myself with him.' The maid again delivered this new message, and\n Upagupta answered her in the same way: 'My sister, it is not time yet\n for you to see me.'\n\n \"However, the son of a master-workman had come to settle with\n V\u00e2savadatt\u00e2, when a merchant, who was bringing from the north five\n hundred horses which he wished to sell, came to the town of Mathur\u00e2,\n and asked who was the most beautiful courtezan. He was answered that\n V\u00e2savadatt\u00e2 was. Immediately, taking 500 Pur\u00e2nas and a great number\n of presents, he went to the courtezan. Then V\u00e2savadatt\u00e2, urged by\n covetousness, assassinated the son of the master-workman, who was at\n her house, threw his body into the middle of the filth of the town,\n and gave herself up to the merchant. After some days, the young man\n was extricated from the filth by his parents, who denounced the\n murder. The king at once gave orders to the executioners to go and cut\n off V\u00e2savadatt\u00e2's hands, feet, ears, and nose, and to leave her in the\n cemetery. The executioners carried out the orders of the king, and\n left the courtezan in the place named.\n\n \"Now Upagupta heard of the punishment that had been inflicted on\n V\u00e2savadatt\u00e2, and at once this idea came into his mind: 'Some time\n ago, this woman wished to see me for a sensual object, and I did not\n consent that she should see me. But now that her hands and feet, ears\n and nose, have been cut off, it is time she should see me,' and he\n pronounced these verses:\n\n \"'When her body was covered with beautiful attire, when she shone with\n ornaments of different sorts, the best thing for those who aspired to\n deliverance and who wished to escape the law of renewed birth was not\n to go and see this woman.\n\n \"'To-day, when she has lost her pride, her love and her joy, when she\n has been mutilated by the edge of the knife, when her body is reduced\n to its true nature, it is time to see her.'\n\n \"Then sheltered by a parasol carried by a young man who accompanied\n him as a servant, he went to the cemetery with a measured step.\n V\u00e2savadatt\u00e2's maid had stayed with her mistress out of gratitude for\n her past kindness, and she prevented the crows from approaching her\n body. [Seeing Upagupta] she said to her: 'Daughter of my master, he\n to whom you sent me several times, Upagupta, is coming this way. No\n doubt he comes attracted by the desire for pleasure.' But V\u00e2savadatt\u00e2,\n hearing these words, answered:\n\n \"'When he sees me deprived of beauty, racked with grief, lying on the\n ground all covered with blood, how can he feel love of pleasure?'\n\n \"Then she said to her maid, 'Friend, pick up the limbs that have been\n severed from my body.' The maid picked them up at once, and hid them\n under a bit of linen. At this moment Upagupta arrived, and he stood\n up before V\u00e2savadatt\u00e2. The courtezan, seeing him standing up before\n her, said to him: 'Son of my master, when my body was whole, when it\n was made for enjoyment, I several times sent my maid to you, and you\n answered me: \"My sister, it is not time for you to see me.\" To-day,\n when the knife has carried off my hands and feet, my ears and nose,\n when I am thrown in the dirt and in blood, why do you come?' And she\n uttered the following verses:\n\n \"'When my body was soft like the lotus flower, when it was adorned\n with ornaments and rich clothes, when it had all which attracted the\n eye, I was so unhappy as not to see you.\n\n \"'To-day why do you come to contemplate a body, the sight of which\n the eyes cannot bear, which games, pleasure, joy, and beauty have\n abandoned, which inspires horror, and is stained with blood and dirt?'\n\n \"Upagupta answered her: 'I have not come to you, my sister, attracted\n by the love of pleasure; but I am come to see the real nature of the\n miserable objects of the enjoyments of man'\" (H. B. I., p. 146 ff.).\n\nSuch is the character of the more ancient portions of the S\u00fbtra-pitaka.\nIt consists largely of tales, most of which have much the same outward\nform, the details only being varied; and all of which are intended to\nimpress some kind of moral upon their hearers. But the S\u00fbtra collection\nis composed of two different classes of works, the one class being\nnamed by Burnouf simple S\u00fbtras, the other developed S\u00fbtras. The\ndeveloped S\u00fbtras belong, according to the same authority, to a much\nlater period, and are marked off from the simple S\u00fbtras by certain\nwell-defined characters. They are indeed of a kind which absolutely\nprecludes the notion that they can emanate in any way whatever from\nSakyamuni, or that they could have been composed during the modest\nbeginnings of his Church, when his followers were rather intent on\npractical goodness than on pompous and high-flown descriptions of their\nMaster's magnificence. Not that all the S\u00fbtras classed by Burnouf as\nsimple must needs belong to a very early age; but that the developed\nS\u00fbtras certainly could not have been written until some centuries after\nSakyamuni's death, when his disciples, instead of using their voices\nin actual conversation, enjoyed the leisure and the means to employ\ntheir pens in attempted fine writing. Burnouf has given the public a\nsingle specimen of a S\u00fbtra of this class, and they must be very devoted\nstudents of Oriental literature who wish for another. Here is a sample\nof its style:\u2014\n\n\"Then the Bodhisattva Mah\u00e2sattva Akshayamati having risen from his\nseat, after throwing his upper garment over his shoulder, and placing\nhis right knee on the ground, directing his joined hands, in token of\nrespect, to the quarter where Bhagavat was, addressed him in these\nwords: 'Why, O Bhagavat, does the Bodhisattva Mah\u00e2sattva Avalokitesvara\nbear that name?' This having been said, Bhagavat spoke thus to the\nBodhisattva Akshayamati: 'O son of a family, all the hundreds of\nthousands of myriads of creatures existing in the world who suffer\npains, have but to hear the name of the Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara to\nbe delivered from this mass of pains'\" (Lotus, p. 261).\n\nThe extraordinary diffuseness of this kind of composition is scarcely\ncredible. Not only is every doctrine elaborated in the utmost number of\nwords possible, but its exposition in prose is regularly followed by a\nsecond exposition in verse. Add to this peculiar feature of developed\nS\u00fbtras another, namely, that innumerable crowds of supernatural\nauditors (especially Bodhisattvas, or future Buddhas) are present at\ntheir delivery by the Buddha, and take part in the dialogue, or demand\nexplanations on knotty points, and some conception may be formed of\ntheir wholly unreal and unnatural character. Thus, the Lotus concludes\nwith the statement that innumerable Tath\u00e2gatas (Buddhas) come from\nother universes, seated on thrones near diamond trees, innumerable\nBodhisattvas, and the whole of the four assemblies of the universe,\nwith Devas (gods), men, Asuras, and Gandharvas, transported with joy,\npraised what Bhagavat had said. Although the simple S\u00fbtras mention the\npresence of gods at the Buddha's teaching, yet they do not (so far as I\nam aware) introduce these hosts of Bodhisattvas and Buddhas belonging\nto other worlds than ours. Their horizon had not extended itself to\nsuch vast limits, and they confined themselves to the universe in which\nwe live.\n\n\n                SUBDIVISION 3.\u2014_The Abhidharma-pitaka._\n\nA third section of the Canon remains, the Abhidharma, or Metaphysics.\nBuddhist metaphysics are so absolutely mystical that it would be a\nwaste of time to enlarge upon them in a work not specially consecrated\nto Oriental subjects. The subtleties of the Indian mind would require\nfar more space to explain than would be consistent with the objects\nin view here, even if the writer were competent to explain them. The\nimpression left on the mind by the perusal of the Abhidharma is that\nwe delude ourselves if we believe in the reality of anything whatever.\nThere is no material world; all we see, hear, feel or believe, is\nillusion; our thoughts themselves are no-thoughts; this doctrine is\nthat of wisdom and truth, but there is no wisdom and no truth. The\nBuddha arrives by his meditations at this sublime knowledge; but there\nis no meditation and no knowledge. He conducts living creatures to\nNirv\u00e2na: but there are neither creatures to be conducted, nor a Buddha\nto conduct them. All is nothingness, and nothingness is all. That this\nnihilism is common to all the schools into which Buddhists are divided,\nI do not mean to assert. There are in Nepaul certain schools which hold\na peculiar modification of theism, and they probably may not embrace\nthese strange and unintelligible systems. But the views\u2014if views they\ncan be called\u2014which have just been described, do mark the canonical\nbooks of the Abhidharma with which I am acquainted; such as the\nso-called Pradjn\u00e2 P\u00e2ramit\u00e2, or Perfection of Wisdom. There is, however,\none metaphysical theory which is not a mere series of contradictions,\nand which, from its close connection with the deepest roots of the\nBuddhistic faith, deserves more than a mere cursory mention. It is the\ndogma known as that of the twelve Nid\u00e2nas, or successive causes of\nexistence.\n\nIt has already been explained that the original aim of Buddhism\u2014the\nsalvation offered by Sakyamuni\u2014was deliverance from this painful\nexistence. The four truths which formed the foundation of his system\nhave also been spoken of. It may be well to remind the reader that\nthey are these:\u20141. The existence of Pain; 2. The production of Pain;\n3. The annihilation of Pain; 4. The way to the annihilation of Pain.\nNow if existence was, as the Buddhists believed, the source of pain,\nit was important to discover the source of existence. This the theory\nof the Nid\u00e2nas professes to do. It is therefore not only intimately\nrelated to the four great truths, but forms an essential supplement\nto them. A very ancient formula, discovered not only in books but on\nimages, declares that, \"Of all things proceeding from cause, the cause\nof their procession hath the Tath\u00e2gata explained. The great Sramana has\nlikewise declared the cause of the extinction of all things.\" Whether\nthis formula refers to the four truths, or to the Nid\u00e2nas, it is\nimpossible to say. The Nid\u00e2nas, however, might well be referred to in\nthese terms. They are described in a passage which Burnouf has quoted\nfrom the Lalitavistara, in which the Bodhisattva (afterwards Buddha) is\nstated to have risen through prolonged meditation from the knowledge of\neach successive consequent to that of its antecedent. The Bodhisattva,\nwe are told, collected his thoughts and fixed his intelligence in the\nlast watch of night, just before the dawn appeared. \"Then this thought\ncame into his mind: The existence of this world, which is born, grows\nold, dies, falls, and is born again, is certainly an evil. But he could\nnot recognize the means of quitting this world, which is nothing but a\ngreat accumulation of sorrows, which is composed but of decrepitude,\nillness, death, and other miseries, which are altogether formed of them.\n\n\"This reflection brought the following thought into his mind: What is\nthe thing the existence of which leads to decrepitude and death, and\nwhat cause have decrepitude and death? This reflection came into his\nmind: Birth existing, decrepitude and death exist; for decrepitude and\ndeath have birth as their cause.\"\n\nA similar process of reasoning led him to see that the cause of birth\nwas existence; that of existence, conception; that of conception,\ndesire; that of desire, sensation; that of sensation, contact; that of\ncontact, the six seats of sensible qualities; that of the six seats,\nname and form; that of name and form, knowledge; that of knowledge,\nthe concepts; that of the concepts, ignorance. \"It is thus,\" exclaims\nthe Bodhisattva when this great light had burst upon him, \"it is thus\nthat the production of this world, which is but a mass of sorrows,\ntakes place.\" And by an inverse process he went on to reflect that if\nignorance did not exist, neither would the concepts, and so on through\nevery link of the chain. Until at length, \"from the annihilation of\nbirth results the annihilation of decrepitude, of death, of sufferings,\nof lamentations, of sorrow, of regret, of despair. It is thus that\nthe annihilation of this world, which is but a mass of sorrows, takes\nplace\" (H. B. I., p. 487).\n\nThis speculation is by no means easy to understand. Apparently it\nmeans that ignorance, in the sense of a mistaken notion of the reality\nof the material world, leads to a whole series of blunders, ending\ninevitably in birth. From this fundamental error or belief in the\nexistence of sensible objects spring certain other false conceptions.\nKnowledge, which next ensues, may mean not merely cognition but\nconsciousness, knowledge of our existence; and in this sense, or in\nsomething like it, it must be taken in order to explain the apparent\nparadox of a deduction of the pedigree of knowledge directly from\nignorance. Hence name and form, a still further distinction of the\nindividual\u2014a specialization of the vague knowledge of himself which\nthe last stage brought him to. The next step carries us on to the six\nseats of sensible qualities; a phrase expressing the organs by which\nsensible qualities are perceived\u2014the five senses, and _Manas_, the\nheart, which the Indians considered as a sixth sense. It appears also\nfrom Burnouf's remarks that the Sanskrit term includes along with the\norgans the qualities they perceive, the Law being assigned to the\nheart or internal sense as the object of its perception. The six seats\nbeing given, contact follows; contact implies sensation, and sensation\nnaturally leads to desire. Conception is represented as the effect of\ndesire, but another translation of this term by attachment, fondness\nfor material things, renders the sequence easier to understand.\nAttachment to anything but the three gems\u2014the Buddha, the Law, and the\nChurch\u2014is, however, a fatal error, and leads to the melancholy result\nof existence. Evidently, however, the being whose downward progress\nhas thus been described must have existed before, and the event here\nalluded to must probably be the passage into the definite condition of\nthe human embryo. And this is rather confirmed by the fact that the\nnext step is that of birth, followed, as a matter of course, by the\nmiseries of human life, terminating in death.[67] And death, unless\nevery remnant of attachment to, and desire for, all worldly things has\nbeen purged away, unless every trace of sinful tendencies has been\nobliterated, is but a fresh beginning of the same weary round.\n\n\n        SUBDIVISION 4.\u2014_Theology and Ethics of the Tripitaka._\n\nThus we have examined in succession the three great divisions of the\nBuddhist Canon. We may pass over a comparatively late and spurious\naddition to it, the Tantras\u2014full of the worship of strange gods and\ngoddesses, and of magical formularies\u2014to consider the general features\nof these sacred works in reference to their theological teaching and\nto their moral tendency. Theology is perhaps a term that will be held\nto be misplaced in speaking of a system which acknowledges no God. Yet\nBuddhism is so full of supernatural creatures, and the Buddha himself\noccupies a position so nearly divine, that it would be hard to find\na more appropriate word. Buddha himself is the central figure of the\nwhole of his system, far more completely than Christ is the central\nfigure of Christianity, or Mahomet of Islam. There is no Deity above\nhim; he stands out alone, unrivaled, unequaled, and unapproachable. The\ngods of the Hindu pantheon are by no means annihilated in the Buddhist\nScriptures. On the contrary, they play a certain part in them, as when\nsome of the greatest among their number assist at the delivery of M\u00e2y\u00e2.\nBut the part assigned to them is always a subordinate one; they are\npractically set aside, not by the skeptical process of questioning\ntheir existence, but by the more subtle one of introducing them as\nhumbly seated at the Buddha's footstool, and devout recipients of his\ninstructions. Hostility to Gautama Buddha there may be, but not from\nthem. It proceeds from heretical Brahmans\u2014rivals in trade\u2014and from\nthose whom they may for a time deceive. The gods are among the most\ndocile of his pupils, and display a praiseworthy eagerness to acquire\nthe knowledge he may condescend to impart. Infinitely above gods and\nmen, because possessing infinitely deeper knowledge and infinitely\nhigher virtue, stands the Tath\u00e2gata, the man who walks in the footsteps\nof his predecessors. His position is the greatest to which any mortal\ncreature can attain. But it has been attained by many before, and\nwill be by many hereafter. Far away into ages separated from ours by\nmillions of millions of years stretches the long list of Buddhas, for\nevery age has received a similar light to lighten up its darkness. All\nhave led lives marked by the same incidents, and have taught the same\ntruths. But by and by the darkness has returned; the doctrines of the\nformer Buddha have been forgotten, and a new one has been needed. Then\nin due season he has appeared, and has again opened to mankind the path\nof salvation. Thus K\u00e2syapa Buddha preceded Gautama Buddha, and Maitreya\n(now a Bodhisattva) will succeed him. The Buddha is an object of the\nmost devout adoration. Prayers are addressed to him; his relics are\nenshrined in St\u00fbpas, or buildings erected by the piety of believers\nto cover them; his footprints are viewed with reverential awe, and\nhis tooth, preserved in Ceylon, receives the constant homage of that\npious population. Thus his position is not unlike that of a true Deity,\nthough the theory of Buddhism would require us to suppose that he is\nnon-existent, and therefore wholly unable to aid his worshippers. But\nthis theory is not acted upon, and is probably not held in all its\nstrictness; for Buddha\u2014though to some extent superseded in Northern\nBuddhism by other divinities\u2014is the object of a decided worship in both\nits elements of prayer and praise.\n\nBut the pre\u00ebminent station occupied by a Buddha is not reached without\na long and painful education. Through ages, the length of which is\nscarcely to be expressed by numbers, they are qualifying themselves for\ntheir glorious task. During this period they are termed Bodhisattvas,\nthat is, beings who have taken a solemn resolution to become Buddhas,\nand are practicing the necessary virtues. The very fact of taking this\nresolution is an exercise of exalted benevolence, for their excellence\nis such that they might, if they pleased, enter at once into Nirv\u00e2na.\nBut such is their love for the human race, that they prefer to be\nborn again and again in a world of woe, in order to throw open Nirv\u00e2na\nto others besides themselves. To attain their end, they must make\nan offering to some actual Buddha, wishing at the same time that by\nvirtue of this act they may become Buddhas themselves; and they must\nreceive an assurance from the object of their gift that this wish\nwill be fulfilled. Thus Gautama, who happened at the time to be a\nprince, presented a golden vessel full of oil to a Buddha named Purana\nD\u00eepankara, with the wish alluded to, and was assured by him that he\nwould in a future age become a supreme Buddha (M. B., p. 92). The tales\nof the pains endured, the sacrifices made, the virtues practiced by\nGautama during this probationary period are numerous and varied. He\nhimself, by virtue of his faculty of knowing the past, related them to\nhis disciples. He had sacrificed wife, children, property, even his\nown person, for the good of other living creatures; he had endured\nall kinds of sufferings; he had shown himself capable of the rarest\nunselfishness, the most perfect purity, the most unswerving rectitude.\nThe tale of his endurances might move compassion, had it not been\ncrowned at last with the highest reward to which a mortal can aspire.\n\nWhile the Buddha occupies the first rank among human and superhuman\nbeings, and a Bodhisattva the second, the Scriptures introduce us to\nothers holding very conspicuous places among the spiritual nobility.\nSuch, for instance, are the Pratyeka Buddhas. These are persons of very\nhigh intelligence and very extraordinary merit. But they are unable\nto communicate their knowledge to others. They can save themselves;\nothers they cannot save. Herein lies their inferiority to supreme\nBuddhas,\u2014that while their spiritual attainments are sufficient to\nensure their entry into Nirv\u00e2na, they are inadequate to enable them to\nobtain the same privilege for any other person.\n\nIn addition to these not very interesting Buddhas, the legends speak\nof certain grades of intelligence attained by Gautama's hearers.\nThus, we are often told that many of the audience\u2014perhaps hundreds\nof thousands\u2014after hearing a sermon from him, became Arhats; others\nare said to have become An\u00e2g\u00e2min, Sakrid\u00e2g\u00e2min, or Srot\u00e2panna. These\ndegrees are based upon the reception of the four truths. According to\nthe manner in which a man received these truths, he entered one of\neight paths, each of the four degrees having two classes, a higher and\na lower one. Sometimes these paths are called \"fruits;\" a disciple\nis said to obtain the fruits of such and such a state. An Arhat is a\nperson of very high station indeed. Excepting a Buddha, none is equal\nto him, either in knowledge or miraculous powers, both of which he\npossesses to a pre\u00ebminent extent. The Arhat after his death enters\nat once into Nirv\u00e2na. The An\u00e2g\u00e2min enters the third path (from the\nbottom), and is exempt from re-birth except in the world of Devas,\nor gods. He who obtains or \"sees\" the fruit of the second path is\nborn once more in the world of gods or in that of men. Finally, the\nSrot\u00e2panna undergoes re-birth either among gods or men seven times, and\nis then delivered from the stream of existence.[68]\n\nBelow the fortunate travelers along the path stands the mass of\nordinary believers. All of these, of course, aim ultimately\u2014or should\naim\u2014at that perfection of knowledge and of character which ensures\nNirv\u00e2na; but in popular Buddhism at the present day this distant goal\nappears to be well-nigh forgotten, and to have given place to some\nheaven, or place of enjoyment, above which the general hope does not\nrise.\n\nBelievers in general are divided into two classes, Bhikshus and\nBhikshun\u00ees, or monks and nuns; and Up\u00e2sakas, lay disciples. The\ndistinction between these classes is well illustrated by the following\nextract from a sacred book, the consideration of which will lead us\nfrom the domain of theology into that of morality:\u2014\"What is to be\ndone in the condition of a mendicant?\u2014The rules of chastity must be\nobserved during the whole of life.\u2014That is not possible; are there\nno other means?\u2014There are others, friend; namely, to be a devotee\n(Up\u00e2saka).\u2014What is to be done in this condition?\u2014It is necessary during\nthe whole of one's life to abstain from murder, theft, pleasure,\nlying, and the use of intoxicating liquors.\" The injunctions thus\nstated to be binding on the laity are in fact the first five of the\nten commandments, pleasure being simply a designation of unchastity,\nwhich the layman as well as the monk is here ordered to eschew. The\nfirst five commandments are in fact general, referring to universal\nethical obligations, not merely to monastic discipline, like the\nother five. But Buddhist morality is by no means merely negative. It\nenjoins not only abstinence from such definite sins as these, but the\npractice of positive virtues in their most exalted forms. In no system\nis benevolence, or, as it is termed in the English New Testament,\ncharity, more emphatically inculcated. Exhibited, as we have seen it\nis, in the highest degree by Buddha himself, it should be illustrated\nto the extent of their capabilities by all his followers. Chastity is\nthe subject of almost equal praise. And the other virtues come in for\ntheir share of recognition, the general object of the examples held\nup to admiration being to exhort the faithful to a life spotless in\nall its parts, like that of their master. With this aim the legends\nrelated generally fall into some such form as this: Characters appear\nwho undergo some suffering, but receive also some great reward, such as\nmeeting with Buddha, and embracing his religion. It is then explained\nby Buddha that the sufferings were the result of some bad action done\nin a former life, and the benefit received the result of some good\naction; while he will probably add that he himself in that bygone\nage stood in the relation of a benefactor to the recipient of his\nfaith. Or a number of persons are introduced playing various parts,\ngood and evil, and receiving blessings or misfortunes. One of these\nis conspicuous by the excellence of his conduct. Then, at the end of\nthe story, the disciples are told not to imagine that this model of\nvirtue is any other than Sakyamuni himself, while the other characters\nare translated, according to their special peculiarities, each into\nsome individual living at the time, and forming either one of Buddha's\nretinue, or connected with him by ties of kindred, or (if wicked)\nmarked by hostility to his person or doctrine. Thus, the bad parts in\nthese dramas are often allotted to his cousin Devadatta, who figures in\nthese Scriptures as his typical opponent.\n\nThe essential doctrine of all these moral fictions\u2014the corner-stone\nof Buddhist ethics\u2014is that every single act of virtue receives its\nreward, every single transgression its punishment. The consequences of\nour good deeds or misdeeds, mystically embodied in our Karma, follow\nus from life to life, from earth to heaven, from earth to hell, and\nfrom heaven or hell to earth again. Karma expresses an idea by no means\neasily seized. Perhaps it may be defined as the sum total of our moral\nactions, good and bad, conceived as a kind of entity endowed with the\nforce of destiny. It is our Karma that determines the character of our\nsuccessive existences. It is our Karma that determines whether our next\nbirth shall be in heaven or hell, in a happy or miserable condition\nhere below. And as Karma is but the result of our own actions, each of\nwhich must bear its proper fruit, the balance, either on the credit or\ndebit side of our account, must always be paid; to us or by us, as the\ncase may be.\n\nLet us illustrate this by an instance or two. A certain prince, named\nKun\u00e2la, remarkable for his personal beauty, had been deprived of his\neyes through an intrigue in his father's harem. Sakyamuni, in pointing\nthe moral, informs his disciples that Kun\u00e2la had formerly been a\nhuntsman, who finding five hundred gazelles in a cave, had put out\ntheir eyes in order to preclude their escape. For this cruelty he had\nsuffered the pains of hell for hundreds of thousands of years, and had\nthen had his eyes put out in human existences. But Kun\u00e2la also enjoyed\ngreat advantages. He was the son of a king, he possessed an attractive\nperson, and, above all, he had embraced the truths of Buddhism. Why was\nthis? Because he had once caused a St\u00fbpa of a former Buddha, which an\nunbelieving monarch had suffered to be pulled to pieces, to be rebuilt,\nand had likewise restored a statue of this same Buddha which had been\nspoilt (H. B. I., p. 414). The truly Buddhistic spirit of this young\nprince is evinced by the circumstance that he interceded earnestly with\nhis father for the pardon of his stepmother who had caused him to be so\ncruelly mutilated.\n\nIn another case, a poor old woman, who had led a miserable existence as\nthe slave of an unfeeling master and mistress, was re-born in one of\nthe heavens, known as that of the three-and-thirty gods. Five hundred\ngoddesses descended to the cemetery where she had been heedlessly\nthrown into the ground, strewed flowers on her bones, and offered them\nspices. The reason of all this honor was, that on the previous day\nshe had met with K\u00e2ty\u00e2yana, an apostle of Buddhism, had drawn water\nand presented it to him in his bowl, and had consequently received a\nblessing from him, with an exhortation to enter her mistress's room\nafter she had gone to sleep, and sitting on a heap of hay to fix her\nmind exclusively upon Buddha. This advice she had attended to, and had\nconsequently received the above-named reward (W. u. T., p. 153).\n\nGood and evil, under this elaborate system, are thus the seeds which,\nby an invariable law, produce their appropriate fruits in a future\nstate. The doctrine may in fact be best described in the words\nattributed to its author:\u2014\"A previous action does not die; be it good\nor evil, it does not die; the society of the virtuous is not lost;\nthat which is done, that which is said, for the Aryas,[69] for these\ngrateful persons, never dies. A good action well done, a bad action\nwickedly done, when they have arrived at their maturity, equally bear\nan inevitable fruit\" (H. B. I., p. 98).\n\n\n                    SECTION V.\u2014THE ZEND-AVESTA.[70]\n\nPersia was once a great power in the world; the Persian religion,\na conquering and encroaching faith. The Persian Empire threatened\nto destroy the independence of Greece. It held the Jews in actual\nsubjection, and its religious views profoundly influenced the\ndevelopment of theirs. Through the Jews, its ideas have penetrated the\nChristian world, and leavened Europe. It once possessed an extensive\nand remarkable sacred literature, but a few scattered fragments of\nwhich have descended to us. These fragments, recovered and first\ntranslated by Anquetil du Perron, have been but imperfectly elucidated\nas yet by European scholars; and there can be no doubt that much more\nlight remains to be cast upon them by philology as it progresses. Such\nas they are, however, I shall make use of the translations already\nbefore us to give my readers an imperfect account of the character of\nthe Parsee Scriptures.\n\nThese compositions are the productions of several centuries and are\nwidely separated from one another in the character of their thought,\nand in the objects of worship proposed to the faithful follower of\nZarathustra. The oldest among them, which may belong to the time of the\nprophet himself, are considered by Haug to be as ancient as B.C. 1200,\nwhile the youngest were very likely as recent as B.C. 500.\n\nHaug considers the Avesta to be the most ancient text, while the Zend\nwas a kind of commentary upon this already sacred book.\n\nTaking the several portions of the Zend-Avesta in their chronological\norder (as far as this can be ascertained), we shall begin with the five\nG\u00e2th\u00e2s, which are pronounced by their translator to be \"by far the\noldest, weightiest, and most important pieces of the Zend-Avesta\" (F.\nG., xiii). Some portions of these venerable hymns are even attributed\nby him to Zarathustra himself; but this\u2014except where the prophet is in\nsome way named as the author\u2014must be considered only as an individual\nopinion, which can carry no positive conviction to other minds until\nit is supported by stronger evidence than any at present accessible.\nMeantime, we may rest assured that we possess among these hymns some\nundoubted productions of the Zarathustrian age.\n\n\n                   SUBDIVISION 1.\u2014_The Five G\u00e2th\u00e2s._\n\nProceeding to the individual G\u00e2th\u00e2s, we find that the first, which\nbegins with the 28th chapter of the Ya\u00e7na, bears the following heading:\n\"The revealed Thought, the revealed Word, the revealed Deed of the\ntruthful Zarathustra.\u2014The immortal saints chanted the hymns.\"[71]\n\nThe G\u00e2th\u00e2 Ahunavaiti\u2014such is its title\u2014then proceeds:\u2014\n\n 1. \"Adoration to you, ye truthful hymns!\n\n 2. \"I raise aloft my hands in devotion, and worship first all true\n works of the wise and holy Spirit, and the Understanding of the pious\n Disposition, in order to participate in this happiness.\n\n 3. \"I will draw near to you with a pious disposition, O Wise One! O\n Living One! with the request that you will grant me the mundane and\n the spiritual life. By truth are these possessions to be obtained,\n which he who is self-illuminated bestows on those who strive for them\"\n (F. G., vol. i. p. 24.\u2014Ya\u00e7na, xxviii. 1-3).\n\nThe most important portion of this G\u00e2th\u00e2 is the 30th chapter, because\nin it we have a vivid picture of the conflict in which the religion\nof Ahura-Mazda was born. Philological inquiry has rendered it clear\nbeyond dispute, that Parseeism took its rise in a religious schism\nbetween two sections of the great Aryan race, at a period so remote\nthat the occupation of Hindoostan by an offshoot of that race had\nnot yet occurred. The common ancestors of Hindus and Persians still\ndwelt together in Central Asia, when the great Parsee Reformation\ndisturbed their harmony; the one section adopting, or adhering to, the\nVedic polytheism which they subsequently carried to India; the other\nembracing the more monotheistic creed which afterwards became the\nnational religion of Persia.\n\nThe following hymn of the reformers carries us into the very midst of\nthe strife:\u2014\n\n 1. \"I will now tell you who are assembled here, the wise sayings of\n the most wise, the praises of the living God, and the songs of the\n good spirit, the sublime truth which I see arising out of these sacred\n flames.\n\n 2. \"You shall, therefore, hearken to the soul of nature (_i. e._,\n plough and cultivate the earth);[72] contemplate the beams of fire\n with a most pious mind! Every one, both men and women, ought to-day\n to choose his creed (between the Deva and the Ahura religion). Ye\n offspring of renowned ancestors, awake to agree with us (_i. e._, to\n approve of my lore, to be delivered to you at this moment)!\"\n\n(The prophet begins to deliver the words, revealed to him through the\nsacred flames.)\n\n 3. \"In the beginning there was a pair of twins, two spirits, each of a\n peculiar activity; these are the good and the base, in thought, word,\n and deed. Choose one of these two spirits! Be good, not base!\n\n 4. \"And these two spirits united created the first (material things);\n the one, the reality, the other, the non-reality. To the liars (the\n worshipers of the devas, _i. e._, gods) existence will become bad,\n whilst the believer in the true god enjoys prosperity.\n\n 5. \"Of these two spirits you must choose one, either the evil, the\n originator of the worst actions, or the true holy spirit. Some may\n wish to have the hardest lot (_i. e._, those who will not leave the\n polytheistic deva-religion), others adore Ahura-Mazda by means of\n sincere actions.\n\n 6. \"You cannot belong to both of them (_i. e._, you cannot be\n worshipers of the one true God and of many gods at the same time). One\n of the devas, against whom we are fighting, might overtake you, when\n in deliberation (what faith you are to embrace), whispering you to\n choose the no-mind. Then the devas flock together to assault the two\n lives (the life of the body, and that of the soul), praised by the\n prophets\" (Parsees, pp. 141, 142.\u2014Yasna, 30).\n\nIn another portion of this G\u00e2th\u00e2 it is interesting to observe the\nspirit of religious zeal breaking out, as it so generally does, into\nthe language of persecution:\u2014\n\n xxxi. 18. \"Do not listen to the sayings and precepts of the wicked\n (the evil spirit), because he has given to destruction house, village,\n district, and province. Therefore kill them (the wicked) with the\n sword!\"\n\nThe wicked, as appears from the context, are those who did not accept\nthe Zarathustrian revelation.\n\nIn the second G\u00e2th\u00e2, or G\u00e2th\u00e2 Ustavaiti, there are some very curious\npassages. A few have been quoted in the notice of Zarathustra. The\nfollowing verses indicate the nature of the worship addressed to\nAhura-Mazda in the most ancient period of the Parsee religion:\u2014\n\n xliii. 2. \"I believe thee to be the best thing of all, the source of\n light for the world. Everybody shall choose thee (believe in thee) as\n the source of light, thee, thee, holiest spirit Mazda! Thou createst\n all good true things by means of the power of thy good mind at any\n time, and promisest us (who believe in thee) a long life.\n\n 4. \"I will believe thee to be the powerful, holy (god) Mazda! For\n thou givest with thy hand, filled with helps, good to the pious\n man, as well as to the impious, by means of the warmth of the fire\n strengthening the good things. For this reason the vigor of the good\n mind has fallen to my lot.\n\n 5. \"Thus I believe in thee as the holy God, thou living Wise One!\n Because I beheld thee to be the primeval cause of life in the\n creation. For thou hast made (instituted) holy customs and words, thou\n hast given a bad fortune (emptiness) to the base, and a good one to\n the good man. I will believe in thee, thou glorious God! in the last\n (future) period of creation\" (Parsees, p. 149).\n\n xliv. 3. \"That which I shall ask thee, tell it me right, thou living\n God! Who was in the beginning the father and creator of truth? Who\n made the way for the sun and stars? Who causes the moon to increase\n and wane, if not thou? This I wish to know besides what I already\n know.\n\n 4. \"That I will ask thee, tell it me right, thou living God! Who is\n holding the earth and the skies above it? Who made the waters and\n the trees of the field? Who is in the winds and storms that they so\n quickly run? Who is the creator of the good-minded beings, thou Wise\n One?\n\n 5. \"That I will ask thee, tell it me right, thou living God! Who made\n the lights of good effect and the darkness? Who made the sleep of good\n effect and the activity? Who made morning, noon and night, always\n reminding the priest of his duties?\" (Ibid., p. 150.)\n\n xlvi. 7. \"Who is appointed protector of my property, Wise One! when\n the wicked endeavor to hurt me? Who else, if not thy fire, and thy\n mind, through which thou hast created the existence (good beings),\n thou living God! Tell me the power necessary for holding up the\n religion\" (Ibid., p. 156).\n\nThe third G\u00e2th\u00e2 is termed \u00c7pe\u00f1ta-Mainyus. It begins with praise\nof Ahura-Mazda as the giver of the two forces of perfection and\nimmortality. From this holiest spirit proceeds all the good contained\nin the words uttered by the good mind. He is the father of all truth.\nOf such a spirit is he who created this earth with the fire resting in\nits lap. Ahura-Mazda placed the gift of fire in the sticks that are\nrubbed together by the duality of truth and piety. The following verse\nrefers to Mazda's prophet, Zarathustra:\u2014\n\n xlviii. 4. \"He who created, by means of his wisdom, the good and the\n no-mind in thinking, words, and deeds, rewards his obedient followers\n with prosperity. Art thou (Mazda) not he in whom the last cause of\n both intellects (good and evil) is _hidden_?\" (Parsees, p. 159).\n\nThe concluding chapter of this G\u00e2th\u00e2 is a hymn of praise supposed to\nemanate from the Spirit of Earth and to be addressed to the highest\ngenii. It is not without beauty and sublimity, but I forbear to make\nquotations from it, as some of its most interesting verses are noticed\nelsewhere.\n\nThe fourth and fifth G\u00e2th\u00e2 are much shorter, and are considered by Haug\nas an appendix. The following verse may serve as a specimen of the\nformer:\u2014\n\n lii. 20. \"May you all together grant us this your help, truth through\n the good mind, and the good word in which piety consists. Be lauded\n and praised. The Wise One bestows happiness.\n\n 21. \"Has not the Holy One, the living wise one, created the radiant\n truth, and possession with the good mind by means of the wise sayings\n of \u00c2rmaiti, by her actions and her faith?\n\n 22. \"The living Wise One knows what is always the best for me in\n the adoration of those who existed and still exist. These I will\n invoke with mention of their names, and I will approach them as their\n panegyrist\" (F. G., vol. ii. p. 56).\n\nOf the first three verses of the fifth G\u00e2th\u00e2 I have spoken above (p.\n184). The fourth and fifth run thus:\u2014\n\n liii. 4. \"I will zealously confess this your faith, which the blessed\n one destined to the landlord for the country people, to the truthful\n householder for the truthful people, ever extending the glory and the\n beauty of the good mind, which the living Wise One has bestowed on the\n good faith for ever and ever.\n\n 5. \"I proclaim formul\u00e6 of blessing to girls about to be married:\n Attend! attend to them! You possess by means of those formul\u00e6 the life\n of the good mind. Let one receive the other with upright heart; for\n thus only will you prosper\" (F. G., vol. ii. p. 57).\n\n\n     SUBDIVISION 2.\u2014_Ya\u00e7na 35-41, or the Ya\u00e7na of seven chapters._\n\nThe Ya\u00e7na of seven chapters, which in the present arrangement of\nthe text is inserted between the first and second G\u00e2th\u00e2s, is of\nmore recent date than the G\u00e2th\u00e2s, but more ancient than the rest of\nthe Zend-Avesta. \"It appears to be the work of one of the earliest\nsuccessors of the prophet, called in ancient times _Zarathustra_ or\n_Zarathustrotema_, who, deviating somewhat from the high and pure\nmonotheistic principles of \u00c7pitama, made some concessions to the\nadherents of the ante-Zoroastrian religion by addressing prayers to\nother beings than Ahura-Mazda\" (Parsee, p. 219). The seven chapters\nmay be most accurately described as Psalms of praise, in which a great\nvariety of objects, spiritual and natural, receive a tribute of pious\nreverence from the worshiper. They are not, however, on that account to\nbe considered as gods, or as in any way the equals of Ahura-Mazda, who\nis still supreme. The beings thus addressed are portions of the \"good\ncreation,\" or of the things created by the good power, Ahura-Mazda;\nand they are either subjects of his spiritual kingdom, such as the\nAmesha-\u00e7pentas (seven very important spirits), or they are simply\nportions of the material universe treated as semi-divine, and exalted\nto objects of religious worship. Thus in the last chapter of this\nsection, the author directs his laudations to the following, among\nother, genii and powers: the dwelling of the waters, the parting of the\nWays, mountains, the wind, the earth, the pure ass in Lake Vouru-Kasha,\nthis lake itself, the Soma, the flowing of the waters, the flying of\nthe birds. It is plain from this enumeration that we are already a\nstep beyond the simple adoration of Ahura-Mazda so conspicuous in the\nG\u00e2th\u00e2s, and that the door is opened to the multitude of spirits and\ndivinities that make their appearance in other parts of the Parsee\nritual.\n\nThis section of the Ya\u00e7na opens, however, with a striking address to\nAhura-Mazda:[73]\u2014\n\n xxxv. 1. \"We worship Ahura-Mazda the pure, the master of purity. We\n worship the Amesha-\u00e7pentas (the archangels), the possessors of good,\n the givers of good. We worship the whole creation of the true spirit,\n both the spiritual and terrestrial, all that supports (raises) the\n welfare of the good creation, and the spread of the good Mazdaya\u00e7na\n religion.\n\n 2. \"We praise all good thoughts, all good words, all good deeds,\n which are and will be (which are being done and which have been done)\n and we likewise keep clean and pure all that is good.\n\n 3. \"O Ahura-Mazda, thou true happy being! we strive to think, to\n speak, and to do only those of all actions which might be best fitted\n to promote the two lives (that of the body and of the soul).\n\n 4. \"We beseech the spirit of earth by means of these best works\n (agriculture) to grant us beautiful and fertile fields, to the\n believer as well as to the unbeliever, to him who has riches as well\n as to him who has no possession\" (Parsees, p. 163).\n\nThe following invocation of fire deserves to be mentioned before we\nquit this portion of the Ya\u00e7na:\u2014\n\n xxxvi. 4. \"Happy is the man to whom thou comest in power, O Fire, Son\n of Ahura-Mazda.\n\n 5. \"Friendlier than the friendliest, more deserving of adoration than\n the most adorable.\n\n 6. \"Mayest thou come to us helpfully to the greatest of\n transactions....\n\n 9. \"O Fire, Son of Ahura-Mazda, we approach thee\n\n 10. \"with a good spirit, with good purity\" (Av., ii. 137).\n\n\n                 SUBDIVISION 3.\u2014_Ya\u00e7na, Chapter XII._\n\nThis chapter is stated by Haug to be written in the G\u00e2th\u00e2 dialect; it\nis therefore extremely ancient, and as it contains the Confession of\nFaith made by Zarathustrian converts on their abandonment of idolatry,\nor worship of the Devas, it is of sufficient importance to be quoted at\nlength:\u2014\n\n xii. 1. \"I cease to be a Deva _worshiper_. I profess to be a\n Zoroastrian Mazdaya\u00e7na (worshiper of Ahura-Mazda), an enemy of the\n Devas, and a devotee to Ahura, a praiser of the immortal saints\n (Amesha-\u00e7pentas), a worshiper of the immortal saints. I ascribe all\n good things to Ahura-Mazda, who is good, and has good, who is true,\n lucid, shining, who is the originator of all the best things, of the\n spirit in nature (g\u00e2us), of the growth in nature, of the luminaries\n and the self-shining brightness which is in the luminaries.\n\n 2. \"I choose (follow, profess) the holy \u00c2rmaiti, the good; may she\n be mine! I abominate all fraud and injury committed on the spirit\n of earth, and all damage and destruction of the quarters of the\n Mazdaya\u00e7nas.\n\n 3. \"I allow the good spirits who reside on this earth in the good\n animals (as cows, sheep, &c.), to go and roam about free according to\n their pleasure. I praise, besides, all that is offered with prayer\n to promote the growth of life. I shall cause neither damage nor\n destruction to the quarters of the Mazdaya\u00e7nas, neither with my body\n nor my soul.\n\n 4. \"I forsake the Devas, the wicked, bad, false, untrue, the\n originators of mischief, who are most baneful, destructive, the basest\n of all beings. I forsake the Devas and those who are Devas-like, the\n witches and their like, and any being whatever of such a kind. I\n forsake them with thoughts, words and deeds: I forsake them hereby\n publicly, and declare that every lie and falsehood is to be done away\n with.\n\n 5, 6. \"In the same way as Zarathustra at the time when Ahura-Mazda was\n holding conversations and meetings with him, and both were conversing\n with each other, forsook the Devas; so do I forsake the Devas, as the\n holy Zarathustra did.\n\n 7. \"To that party to which the waters belong, to whatever party the\n trees, and the animating spirit of nature, to that party to which\n Ahura-Mazda belongs, who has created this spirit and the pure man; to\n that party of which Zarathustra, and Kava Vist\u00e2\u00e7pa and Frashaostra\n and J\u00e2m\u00e2\u00e7pa were, of that party of which all the ancient fire-priests\n (Soshya\u00f1to) were, the pious, who were spreading the truth: of the same\n party and creed _am_ I.\n\n 8. \"I am a Mazdaya\u00e7na, a Zoroastrian Mazdaya\u00e7na. I profess this\n religion by praising and preferring it to others (the Deva religion).\n I praise the thought which is good, I praise the word which is good, I\n praise the work which is good.\n\n 9. \"I praise the Mazdaya\u00e7na religion, and the pure brotherhood which\n it establishes and defends against enemies, the Zoroastrian Ahura\n religion, which is the greatest, best, and most prosperous of all that\n are, and that will be. I ascribe all good to Ahura-Mazda. This shall\n be the praise (profession) of the Mazdaya\u00e7na religion.\"\n\n\n           SUBDIVISION 4.\u2014_The Younger Ya\u00e7na, and Vispered._\n\nWhile the G\u00e2th\u00e2s and the confession just quoted represent the most\nancient phase of the Mazdaya\u00e7na faith, we enter, in the remaining\nportion of the Ya\u00e7na, on a much later stage of the growing creed. So\nmany new divinities, or at any rate, objects of reverential addresses,\nnow enter upon the scene, that we almost lose sight of Ahura-Mazda in\nthe throng of his attendants. We seem to be some ages away from the\ndays when Zarathustra bade his hearers choose between the one true God\nand the multitude of false gods worshiped by his enemies. Ahura-Mazda\nis safely enthroned, and Zarathustra shines out gloriously as his\nprophet; but Zarathustra's creed is overloaded with elements of which\nhe himself knew nothing. The first chapter of the Ya\u00e7na, a liturgical\nprayer, brings these elements conspicuously before us. It is an\ninvocation and celebration of a great variety of powers belonging to\nwhat is termed the good creation, or the world of virtuous beings and\ngood things, as opposed to the malicious beings and bad things who form\nthe realm of evil.[74] Thus it opens:\u2014\n\n \"I invoke and I celebrate the creator Ahura-Mazda, luminous,\n resplendent, very great and very good, very perfect and very\n energetic, very intelligent and very beautiful, eminent in purity,\n who possesses the excellent knowledge, the source of pleasure; him\n who has created us, who has formed us, who has nourished us, the most\n accomplished of intelligent beings.\"[75]\n\nEvery verse, until we approach the end, commences with the same\nformula:\u2014\"I invoke and I celebrate;\" or, as Spiegel translates it,\n\"I invite and announce it;\" the sole difference is in the beings\ninvoked. Many of these are powers of more or less eminence in the\nParsee spiritual hierarchy, but it would be going beyond our object\nhere to enumerate their names and specify their attributes. To a large\nproportion of them the epithets \"pure, lord of purity,\" are added,\nwhile some are dignified with more special titles of honor. After the\nabove homage to Ahura-Mazda, the writer invokes and celebrates, among\nothers: Mithra (a very famous god), who increases oxen, who has one\nthousand ears, and ten thousand eyes; the fire of Ahura-Mazda; the\nwater given by Ahura-Mazda; the Fravashis (angels or guardian spirits)\nof holy men and of women who are under men's protection; energy, with\na good constitution and an imposing figure; victory given by Ahura;\nthe months; the new moon; the full moon; the time of fecundation; the\nyears; all the lords of purity, and thirty-three genii surrounding\nH\u00e2vani, who are of admirable purity, whom Mazda has made known,\nand Zarathustra has proclaimed; the stars, especially a star named\nTistrya; the moon, which contains the germ of the ox; the sun, the\neye of Ahura-Mazda; the trees given by Mazda; the Word made known by\nZarathustra against the Devas; the excellent law of the Mazdaya\u00e7nas;\nthe perfect benediction; the pure and excellent man; these countries\nand districts; pastures and houses; the earth, the sky, the wind; the\ngreat lord of purity; days, months, and seasons; the Fravashis of the\nmen of ancient law; those of contemporaries and relations, and his own;\nall genii who ought to be invoked and adored. It is manifest from this\ninvocation, in which I have omitted many names and many repetitions,\nhow far we are from the stern and earnest simplicity of the G\u00e2th\u00e2s.\nRegular liturgical forms have sprung up, and these express the more\ndeveloped and complicated worship which the Parsee priesthood has now\nengrafted on the Zarathustrian monotheism.\n\nThe concluding verses run as follows:\u2014\n\n \"O thou who art given in this world, given against the Devas,\n Zarathustra[76] the pure, lord of purity, if I have wounded thee,\n either in thought, word, or deed, voluntarily or involuntarily, I\n again address this praise in thine honor; yes, I invoke thee if I have\n failed against thee in this sacrifice and this invocation.\n\n \"O all ye very great lords, pure, masters of purity, if I have wounded\n you, &c. [as above].\n\n \"May I, a worshiper of Mazda, an adherent of Zarathustra, an enemy of\n the Devas, an observer of the precepts of Ahura, address my homage to\n him who is given here, given against the Devas; to Zarathustra, pure,\n lord of purity, for the sacrifice, for the invocation, for the prayer\n that renders favorable, for the benediction. (May I address my homage)\n to the lords (who are) the days, the parts of days, &c., for the\n benediction; that is to say: (may I address my homage) to the lords\n (who are) the days, the parts of days, the months, the seasons of the\n year (Gahanb\u00e2rs), the years; for the sacrifice, for the invocation,\n for the prayer that renders favorable, for the benediction.\"[77]\n\nThe rest of the Ya\u00e7na consists mainly of praises or prayers addressed\nto the very numerous objects of Parsee adoration, and most of it is of\nlittle interest. The following short section, however, deserves remark:\u2014\n\n _Ya\u00e7na 12._\n\n 1. \"I praise the thoughts rightly thought, the words rightly spoken,\n and the deeds rightly done.\n\n 2. \"I seize upon (or resort to) all good thoughts, words and deeds.\n\n 3. \"I forsake all bad thoughts, words, and deeds.\n\n 4. \"I bring you, O Amesha-\u00e7pentas,\n\n 5. \"Praise and adoration,\n\n 6. \"With thoughts, words, and deeds, with heavenly mind, the vital\n force from my own body.\"[78]\n\nIn the following verses again there is some excellence:\u2014\n\n 1. \"May that man attain that which is best who teaches us the\n right way to our profit in this world, both the material and the\n spiritual world, the plain way that leads to the worlds where Ahura\n is enthroned, and the sacrificer, resembling thee, a sage, a saint, O\n Mazda.\n\n 2. \"May there come to this dwelling contentment, blessing, fidelity,\n and the wisdom of the pure.\"\n\n 8. \"In this dwelling may \u00c7raosha[79] (obedience) put an end to\n disobedience, peace to strife, liberality to avarice, wisdom to\n error, truthful speech to lying, which detests purity\" (Av. ii. 186,\n 187.\u2014Ya\u00e7na 59).\n\nThe prominent position occupied by fire in the Parsee faith is well\nknown. The presence of fire is indeed an essential part of their\nritual, in which it is treated with no less honor than the consecrated\nwafer in that of Catholic Christians. Not only, however, is it employed\nin their rites, but it is addressed as an independent being, to whom\nworship is due. Not that its place in the hierarchy is to be confounded\nwith that of Ahura-Mazda. It is not put upon a level with the supreme\nbeing, but it is addressed as his son, its rank being thus still more\nclosely assimilated to that of the host, which is in like manner a part\nof the liturgical machinery and an embodiment of the son of God. A\nspecial chapter of the Ya\u00e7na\u2014the 61st\u2014is devoted to Fire, and a summary\nof its contents will help us to understand the light in which this\ndeity was regarded.\n\nThe sacrificer begins by vowing offerings and praise and good\nnourishment to \"Fire, son of Ahura-Mazda.\" He trusts that Fire may ever\nbe provided with a proper supply of wood, and may always burn brightly\nin this dwelling, even till the final resurrection. He beseeches Fire\nto give him much property, much distinction, holiness, a ready tongue,\nwit and understanding, activity, sleeplessness, and posterity. Fire\nis said to await nourishment from all; whoever comes, he looks at his\nhands, saying: \"What does the friend bring his friend, the coming one\nto him who sits alone?\" And this is the blessing he bestows on him who\nbrings him dry wood, picked out for burning: \"Mayest thou be surrounded\nwith herds of cattle, with abundance of men. May it be with thee\naccording to the desire of thy heart, according to the desire of thy\nsoul. Be joyous, live thy life the whole time that thou shalt live.\"[80]\n\nThe last chapter but one of the Ya\u00e7na is a hymn in universal praise of\nthe good creation. All the objects belonging to that creation\u2014that is,\nmade by Ahura-Mazda, and standing in contrast with the bad creation\nof Agra-Mainyus\u2014are enumerated, and as a catalogue of these the hymn\nis interesting. Ahura-Mazda himself is named first; then Zarathustra;\nafter this follows the Fravashi (angel) of Zarathustra, the\nAmesha-\u00e7pentas, the Fravashis of the pure, and so forth, through a long\nlist of animate and inanimate beings. Each is named with the formula\n\"we praise\" following the title, as: \"The whole earth we praise\" (Av.,\nvol. ii. p. 202.\u2014Ya\u00e7na, 70).\n\nSo close is the resemblance between the Vispered and that portion\nof the Ya\u00e7na which we have just examined, that it will be needless\nto dwell upon the contents of the former. We may therefore at once\npass on to a very important section, for theological purposes, of the\nZend-Avesta, namely\u2014\n\n\n                      SUBDIVISION 5.\u2014_Vendidad._\n\nTotally unlike either the Ya\u00e7na, the Vispered, or the Yashts, the\nVendidad is a legislative code\u2014dealing indeed largely with religious\nquestions, but not confining itself exclusively to them. It differs\nfrom the remainder of the sacred volume much as Leviticus differs from\nthe Psalms, or as the Institutes of Menu differ from the hymns of the\nRig-Veda. It is regarded as equally holy with the rest of the Avesta,\nand is recited in divine service along with Vispered and Ya\u00e7na, the\nthree together forming what is termed the Vendidad-Sade (Av., ii.\nlxxv). Its abrupt termination indicates that the code is not before us\nin its entirety; the portion which has been preserved, however, does\nnot appear to have suffered great mutilation. Let us briefly summarize\nits contents, first premising that the form they assume (with trifling\nexceptions) is that of conversations between Ahura-Mazda and his\nprophet.\n\nThe first Fargard (or chapter) is an enumeration of the good countries\nor places created by Ahura-Mazda, and of the evils\u2014such as the\nserpent, the wasp, and various moral offenses, including that of\ndoubt\u2014created in opposition to him in each case by the president of the\nbad creation, Agra-Mainyus. The second Fargard is a long narrative of\nthe proceedings of a mythological hero named Yima (the Indian Yama),\nto whom Ahura-Mazda is stated to have once committed the government\nof the world, or of some part of it. Thus far we have not entered on\nthe proper subject-matter of the Vendidad. The third Fargard, while\nstill introductory, approaches more nearly to the subsequent chapters,\nalike in its form and its contents. In it Zarathustra lays certain\nqueries before Ahura-Mazda, and the replies given by that deity are\nof high importance for the comprehension of both the social and moral\nstatus of the Parsees at the time when this dialogue was written. The\nstress laid upon the virtue of cultivating the soil is especially to be\nnoticed. Similar sentiments are frequently repeated in the Vendidad,\nand indicate a people among whom agriculture was still in its infancy,\nthe transition from the pastoral state to the more settled condition of\ntillers of the soil being still incomplete. The compilers of this code\nevidently felt strongly the extreme value to their youthful community\nof agricultural pursuits, and therefore encouraged them at every\nconvenient opportunity by representing them as peculiarly meritorious\nin the sight of God.\n\nZarathustra begins his inquiries by asking what is in the first place\nmost agreeable to this earth, and successively ascertains what are the\nfive things which give it most satisfaction, and what the five which\ncause it the most displeasure. Ahura-Mazda answers that, in the first\nplace, a holy man with objects of sacrifice is the most agreeable; then\na holy man making his dwelling-place, and storing it with all that\npertains to a happy and righteous life; then the production of grain\nand of fruit trees, the irrigation of thirsty land, or the drainage of\nmoist land; fourthly, the breeding of live-stock and draught-cattle;\nfifthly, a special incident connected with the presence of such animals\non the land. The five displeasing things are, the meetings of Daevas\nand Drujus (evil spirits), the interment of men or dogs (which was\ncontrary to the law), the accumulation of Dakhmas, or places where\nthe bodies of the dead were left exposed, the dens of animals made by\nAgra-Mainyus, and lastly, unbecoming conduct on the part of the wife\nor son of a holy man. Further questions are then put as to the mode of\nconduct which wins the approbation of the earth, and it is stated to\nconsist in actions which tend to counteract the evils above enumerated.\nIn the course of these replies occasion is again taken to eulogize the\nman who vigorously cultivates the soil, and to censure him who idly\nleaves it uncultivated. Certain penalties are then imposed on those who\nbury dogs or men, but the sin of leaving them underground for two years\nis declared to be inexpiable, except by the Mazdaya\u00e7na Law, which can\npurify the worst offenders:\u2014\n\n \"For it (the Law) will take away these (sins) from those who praise\n the Mazdaya\u00e7na Law, if they do not again commit wicked actions. For\n this the Mazdaya\u00e7na Law, O holy Zarathustra, takes away the bonds of\n the man who praises it. It takes away deceit. It takes away the murder\n of a pure man. It takes away the burial of the dead. It takes away\n inexpiable actions. It takes away accumulated guilt. It takes away\n all sins which men commit\" (Av., vol. i. p. 87, 88.\u2014Vendidad, iii.\n 140-148).\n\nWe see from this that the power of the Law to deliver sinners from\nthe burden of their offenses was in no way inferior to that of the\nAtonement of Christ.\n\nIt is unnecessary to dwell upon the fourth Fargard, which deals with\nthe penalties\u2014consisting mainly of corporal punishment\u2014for breach of\ncontract and other offenses. The fifth and sixth, being concerned\nwith the regulations to be observed in case of impurity arising from\nthe presence of dead bodies, are of little interest. A large part of\nthe seventh is occupied with the same subjects, but its course is\ninterrupted by certain precautions to be attended to in the graduation\nof students of medicine, which may be commended to the notice of\nother religious communities. Should a Mazdaya\u00e7na desire to become a\nphysician, on whom, inquires Zarathustra, shall he first try his hand,\nthe Mazdaya\u00e7na (orthodox Parsees), or the Daevaya\u00e7nas (adherents of\na false creed)? Ahura-Mazda replies that the Daevaya\u00e7nas are to be\nhis first patients. If he has performed three surgical operations on\nthese heretics, and his three patients have died, he is to be held\nunfit for the medical profession, and must on no account presume to\noperate on the adherents of the Law. If, however, he is successful\nwith the Daevaya\u00e7nas, he is to receive his degree, and may proceed to\npractice on the more valuable bodies of faithful Parsees. So careful a\ncontrivance to ensure that none but infidels shall fall victims to the\nknife of the unskilful surgeon evinces no little ingenuity.\n\nThe eighth Fargard relates chiefly to the treatment of dead bodies,\nwhile the ninth proceeds to narrate the rites for the purification of\nthose who have come in contact with them. A terrible penalty\u2014that\nof decapitation\u2014is enacted against the man who ventures to perform\nthis rite without having learnt the law from a priest competent\nto purify. The tenth Fargard prescribed the prayers by which the\n_Drukhs_, or impure spirit supposed to attach itself to corpses, and\nto come from them upon the living, is to be driven away: and the\nsubject is continued in the eleventh, which contains formularies\nfor the purification of dwellings, fires, and other objects. Along\nwith injunctions as to the purification of houses where a death has\noccurred, the twelfth Fargard informs its hearers how many prayers\nthey are to offer up for deceased relatives. The number varies both\naccording to their relationship, being highest for those that are\nnearest akin, and according to their purity or sinfulness, double as\nmany being required for the sinful as for the pure. After a short\nintroduction expounding the merit of killing a certain species of\nanimal and the demerit of killing another (what they are is uncertain),\nthe thirteenth Fargard proceeds to enumerate in detail the various\nkinds of offenses against dogs, and the corresponding penalties. Dogs\nwere evidently of the utmost importance to the community, and their\npersons are guarded with scarcely less care than those of human beings.\nThey are held to have souls, which migrate after their decease to\na canine Paradise. It seems, too, that shades of departed dogs are\nappointed to watch the dangerous bridge over which men's souls must\ntravel on the road to felicity, and which the wicked cannot pass; for\nwe are informed of the soul of a man who has killed a watch-dog, that\n\"the deceased dogs who guard against crime and watch the bridge do\nnot make friends with it on account of its abominable and horrible\nnature\" (Av., vol. i. p. 192.\u2014Vendidad, xiii. 25); while a man who has\nkilled a water-dog is required to make \"offerings for its pious soul\nfor three days and three nights\" (Av., vol. i. p. 201.\u2014Vendidad, xiii.\n173). The place to which the souls of these animals repair is termed\n\"the water-dwelling,\" and it is stated that two water-dogs meet them\non their arrival, apparently to welcome them to their aqueous heaven\n(Av., vol. i. p. 200.\u2014Vendidad, xiii. 167). Not only killing dogs,\nbut wounding them or giving them bad food, are crimes to be severely\npunished; and even in case of madness the dog's life is on no account\nto be taken. On the contrary, the utmost care is to be taken, by\nfastening him so as to prevent escape, that he should do himself no\ninjury, for if he should happen in his madness to fall into water and\ndie, the community will have incurred sin by the accident.[81] The\nfollowing verses convey an interesting notion of the esteem in which\nthe dog was held among the early Parsees. The speaker is Ahura-Mazda:\u2014\n\n \"I have created the dog, O Zarathustra, with his own clothes and his\n own shoes; with a sharp nose and sharp teeth; attached to mankind,\n for the protection of the herds. Then I created the dog, even I\n Ahura-Mazda, with a body capable of biting enemies. When he is in good\n health, when he is with the herds, when he is in good voice, O holy\n Zarathustra, there comes not to his village either thief or wolf to\n carry off property unperceived from the villages\" (Av., vol. i. p.\n 197.\u2014Vendidad, xiii. 106-113).\n\nIn the fourteenth Fargard, water-dogs are further protected against\nwounds; while in the fifteenth, the preservation of the canine species\nat large is ensured by elaborate enactments. To give a dog bones which\nhe cannot gnaw, or food so hot as to burn its tongue, is a sin; to\nfrighten a bitch in pup, as by clapping the hands, is likewise to incur\nguilt; and they are gravely criminal who suffer puppies to die from\ninattention. If born in camel-stalls, stables, or any such places,\nit is incumbent on the proprietor to take charge of them; or, if the\nlitter should be at large, at least the nearest inhabitant is bound to\nbecome their protector. Strangely intermingled with these precautions\nare rules prohibiting cohabitation with women in certain physical\nconditions, and enactments for the prevention of abortion, and for\nensuring the support of a pregnant girl by her seducer, at least until\nher child is born. The crime of abortion is described in a manner which\ncuriously reveals the practices occasionally resorted to by Parsee\nmaidens. Should a single woman be with child, and say, \"The child was\nbegotten by such and such a man\"\u2014\n\n \"If then this man says, 'Try to make friends with an old woman and\n inquire of her; if then this girl does make friends with an old woman,\n and inquire of her, and this old woman brings Baga, or Sha\u00eata, or\n Ghn\u00e2na, or Fra\u00e7p\u00e2ta, or any of the vegetable purgatives, saying, 'Try\n to kill this child;' if then the girl does try to kill the child, then\n the girl, the man, and the old woman are equally criminal.\"\n\nNeither the sixteenth nor the seventeenth Fargard need detain us. They\nrelate, the one to the above-mentioned rules to be observed towards\nwomen, the other to the disposal of the hair and nails, which are\nheld to pollute the earth. The eighteenth Fargard begins, as if in\nthe middle of a conversation, with an address by Ahura-Mazda, on the\ncharacteristics of true and false priests, some, it appears, having\nimproperly pretended to the priesthood. After some questions on other\npoints of doctrine put by Zarathustra, we are suddenly introduced to a\nconversation between the angel \u00c7raosha and the Drukhs, or evil spirit,\nin which the latter describes the several offenses that cause her to\nbecome pregnant, or, in other words, increase her influence in the\nworld. After this interlude, we return to Ahura-Mazda and Zarathustra.\nThe prophet, having been exhorted to put questions, inquires of\nhis god who causes him the greatest annoyance. Ahura-Mazda replies\nthat it is \"he who mingles the seed of the pious and the impious,\nof Daeva-worshipers and of those who do not worship the Daevas, of\nsinners and non-sinners.\" Such persons are \"rather to be killed than\npoisonous snakes.\" Hereupon Zarathustra proceeds to ascertain what are\nthe penalties for those who cohabit with women at seasons when the\nlaw requires them to be separate. At the beginning of the nineteenth\nFargard, we have an account of the temptation of the prophet by the\nevil one, to which allusion has been made in another place. Zarathustra\nseeks for information as to the means of getting rid of impurities, and\nis taught by Ahura-Mazda to praise the objects he has created. In the\nlatter part of the chapter we have a remarkable account of the judgment\nof departed souls. In conclusion, we have a psalm of praise recited\nby the prophet in honor of God, the earth, the stars, the G\u00e2th\u00e2s, and\nnumerous other portions of the good creation. There is little in the\ntwentieth Fargard beyond the information that Thrita was the first\nphysician, and a formula of conjuration, apparently intended to be\nused in order to drive away diseases. In the twenty-first, we find\npraises of the cloud, the sun, and other heavenly bodies. The last\nFargard of the Vendidad differs widely from the rest in its manner of\nrepresenting Ahura-Mazda. It is, no doubt, as Spiegel observes, of late\norigin. Ahura-Mazda complains of the opposition he has encountered\nfrom Agra-Mainyus, who has afflicted him with illness (whether in\nhis own person, or in that of mankind, is not clear). He calls upon\nManthra-\u00c7penta, the Word, to heal him, but that spirit declines, and a\nmessenger is accordingly sent to Airyama to summon him to the task.[82]\nAiryama commences his preparations on an extensive scale, but at this\npoint the Vendidad breaks off, and we are left in doubt as to the\nresult of his efforts.\n\n\n       SUBDIVISION 6.\u2014_The Khorda-Avesta, with the Homa Yasht._\n\nThe term Khorda-Avesta, or little Avesta, is applied, according to\nSpiegel, to that part of the Zend-Avesta which includes the Yashts,\nand certain prayers, some of them of extreme sanctity, and constantly\nemployed in Parsee worship. He informs us that, while the remainder\nof the sacred texts serve more especially for priestly study and for\npublic reading, the Khorda-Avesta is mainly used in private devotion\n(Av., vol. iii. p. 1). Some of its prayers belong to a comparatively\nrecent period, being composed no longer in the Zend language, but in\na younger dialect; and we meet in them with the Persian forms of the\nold names\u2014Ormazd standing for Ahura-Mazda, Ahriman for Agra-Mainyus,\nand Zerdoscht for Zarathustra. The names of the genii have undergone\ncorresponding alterations. We find ourselves in these prayers, and\nindeed throughout the Yashts, many centuries removed from the age of\nZarathustra and his immediate followers. Some of the more celebrated\nprayers, however (not belonging to the class of Yashts), must be of\nconsiderable antiquity, if we may judge from the fact of their being\nmentioned in the Ya\u00e7na. Thus, in the 19th chapter of the Ya\u00e7na, we\nfind an elaborate exaltation of the powers of the Ahuna-Vairya, which\nstands second in the Khorda-Avesta. Zarathustra is represented as\nasking Ahura-Mazda, \"What was the speech which thou spokest to me, as\nexisting before the sky, before the water, before the earth, before\nthe ox, before the trees, before the fire, son of Ahura-Mazda, before\nthe pure men, before the Daevas with perverted minds, and before\nmen, before the whole corporeal world, before all things created by\nMazda which have a pure origin?\" This speech, existing prior to all\ncreated objects, is declared to have been a part of the Ahuna-Vairya.\nThe immense benefits of repeating this prayer, which is stated to\nensure salvation, are then recounted to the prophet. The 20th chapter\nis occupied with the merits of another of these short formularies,\nthe Ashem-voh\u00fb. These prayers are in continual use, not only in the\nliturgy, but among the laity. They are sometimes required to recite\ngreat numbers of Ahuna-Vairyas at one time, and at the commencement of\nsowing, or of any good work, it is proper to repeat it. The Ashem-voh\u00fb\nis to be said on various occasions, particularly on waking and before\ngoing to sleep (Av., vol. ii. pp. lxxxii., lxxxiii). The higher\nsanctity, as well as greater antiquity, of these prayers is evinced\nby the fact that we find them constantly introduced in the course of\nothers, to which they form a necessary supplement. There are often\nseveral Ashem-voh\u00fbs in a single brief prayer. The Ashem-voh\u00fb, in\nfact, fulfills a function much like that of the Lord's prayer in the\nliturgies of some Christian Churches.\n\nLet us now see what these most sacred forms of adoration contain. The\nAshem-Voh\u00fb is to this effect:\u2014\n\n  \"Purity is the best possession.\n  Hail, hail to him:\n  Namely, to the pure man best in purity.\"[83]\n\nIt is strange that, in a formulary occupying so conspicuous a place\nin Parsee devotion, there should be no acknowledgment of God. But\nthis want is supplied in the Ahuna-Vairya, or Yath\u00e2-ah\u00fb-vairyo, which\nfollows it.\n\nYath\u00e2-ah\u00fb-vairyo:\u2014\n\n \"As it is the Lord's will, so (is he) the ruler from purity.\n\n (We shall receive) gifts from Vohu-mano for the works (we do) in the\n world for Mazda.\n\n And (he gives) the kingdom to Ahura who protects the poor\" (Av., vol.\n iii.\u2014Khorda-Avesta, 2).\n\nCertainly this is not very intelligible, but the last clause is\nremarkable, as implying that the way to advance God's kingdom on earth\nis to confer benefits on the poor.\n\nPassing over a number of other prayers, we enter upon the Yashts,\nwhich are distinguished from all other parts of the Avesta by the fact\nthat each of them is written in celebration of some particular god or\ngenius. Ahura-Mazda, indeed, still retains his supremacy, and every\nYasht begins with a formula, of which the first words are \"In the name\nof the God Ormazd,\" while the first Yasht is devoted exclusively to his\npraise. Subject to this recognition, however, the inferior potentates\nare each in turn the object of panegyrics in that exaggerated style in\nwhich Oriental literature delights. We need not stop to recount the\nparticular honors rendered to each. One Yasht, however, is sufficiently\ncurious to merit our attention, the more so as we possess a translation\nof it by Burnouf.[84] It is termed the Homa Yasht, and is intended to\nextol the brilliant qualities of the god whose name it bears. At that\nperiod of the day which is termed H\u00e2vani\u2014so it begins\u2014Homa came to\nfind Zarathustra, who was cleaning his fire, and singing the G\u00e2th\u00e2s.\n\"Zarathustra asked him: 'What man art thou who in all the existing\nworld appearest to my sight as the most perfect, with thy beautiful\nand immortal person?' Then Homa, the holy one, who banishes death,\nanswered me: 'I am, O Zarathustra, Homa, the holy one, who banishes\ndeath. Invoke, O \u00c7pitama,[85] extract me to eat me, praise me to\ncelebrate me, in order that others, who desire their good, may praise\nme in their turn.' Then Zarathustra said: 'Adoration to Homa! Who is\nthe mortal, Homa, who first in the present world extracted thee for\nsacrifice? What holiness did he acquire? What advantage accrued to him\nthereby?'\" Homa replies that Vivanghat was the first to extract him for\nsacrifice, and that he acquired the advantage of becoming father to the\nglorious Yima, in whose reign \"there was neither cold nor (excessive)\nheat, nor old age nor death, nor envy produced by the Deva. Fathers\nand sons alike had the figure of men of fifteen years of age, as\nlong as Yima reigned.\" Similar questions are then put by Zarathustra\nregarding the second, third, and fourth mortals who worshiped Homa, and\nsimilar replies are given. All had distinguished sons; but the last,\nPuruchaspa, was rewarded beyond all others by the birth of Zarathustra\nhimself. Homa thereupon magnifies Zarathustra in the usual style of\nthe later parts of the Zend-Avesta, and Zarathustra, who is not to be\noutdone in the language of compliment, thus addresses him in return:\n\"Adoration to Homa! Homa, the good, has been well made; he has been\nmade just; made good; he bestows health; he has a beautiful person; he\ndoes good; he is victorious; of the color of gold; his branches are\ninclined to be eaten; he is excellent; and he is the most celestial\nway for the soul. O thou who art of the color of gold, I ask thee for\nprudence, energy, victory, beauty, the force that penetrates the whole\nbody, greatness which is spread over the whole figure;\" and so forth,\nthrough several other by no means modest petitions. In a more formal\nmanner Zarathustra then demands of Homa the following favors: 1st, the\nexcellent abode of the saints; 2dly, the duration of his body; 3dly, a\nlong life; 4thly, and 5thly, to be able to annihilate hatred and strike\ndown the cruel man; 6thly, that they (the faithful?) may see robbers,\nassassins, and wolves before being seen by them. After this, Homa is\npraised generally. He gives many good gifts, among them posterity to\nsterile mothers, and husbands to spinsters of advanced years. He is\nfinally requested, if there should be in the village or the province a\nman who is hurtful to others, to take from him the power of walking, to\ndarken his intelligence, and to break his heart (For another Yasht, see\nch. i).\n\nThe Yashts are succeeded by various pieces, of which one relates to\nParsee eschatology, and the others, celebrating numerous supernatural\nobjects of worship, do not call for any special remark. After these we\ncome to the so-called Patets, which belong to the most recent portions\nof the book, and indicate a highly developed consciousness of sin,\nand of the need of divine forgiveness. They correspond in tone and\ncharacter to the General Confession which has been placed by the Church\nof England in the forefront of her Liturgy, except that they contain\nlong enumerations of the several classes of offenses for which pardon\nis to be entreated. One of them, after such a catalogue, thus addresses\nthe Deity:\u2014\n\n \"Whatever was the wish of the Creator Ormazd, and I ought to have\n thought and did not think, whatever I ought to have said and did not\n say, whatever I ought to have done and did not do.\u2014I repent of these\n sins, with thoughts, words, and works, both the corporeal and the\n spiritual, the earthly and the heavenly sin, with the three words\n (that is, with thoughts, words, and works). Forgive, O Lord; I repent\n of the sin.\n\n \"Whatever was the wish of Ahriman, and I ought to have thought and yet\n did think, whatever I ought not to have said and yet did say, whatever\n I ought not to have done and yet did,\u2014I repent of these sins with\n thoughts, words, and works, both the corporeal and the spiritual, the\n earthly and the heavenly sins, with the three words. Forgive, O Lord;\n I repent of the sin\" (Av., vol. iii. p. 211.\u2014Khorda-Avesta, xlv. 8, 9).\n\nAnother of these Patets contains the following comprehensive formula:\u2014\n\n \"In whatever way I may have sinned, against whomsoever I may have\n sinned, howsoever I may have sinned, I repent of it with thoughts,\n words, and works; forgive!\" (Av., vol. iii. p. 216.\u2014Khorda-Avesta,\n xlv. 1.)\n\nThe same Patet contains a confession of faith, which, as it alludes to\nthe several dogmas that were held to be of first-rate importance in the\ncreed of the true disciple of Zarathustra, may be worth quoting before\nwe quit the subject:\u2014\n\n \"I believe in the existence, the purity, and the indubitable truth\n of the good Mazdaya\u00e7na faith, and in the Creator Ormazd and the\n Amschaspands, in the exaction of an account, and in the resurrection\n of the new body. I remain in this faith, and confess that it is not\n to be doubted, as Ormazd imparted it to Zertuscht, Zertuscht to\n Fraschaostra and J\u00e2m\u00e2\u00e7p, as \u00c2derb\u00e2t, the son of Mahresfand, ordered\n and purified it, as the just Paoiryotkaeshas and the De\u00e7t\u00fbrs in family\n succession have brought it to us, and I thence am acquainted with it\"\n (Av., vol. iii. p. 218.\u2014Khorda-Avesta, xlv. 28).\n\nIn more than one respect this confession is interesting. First, it\nasserts the excellence and the unquestionable infallibility of the\ntraditional faith in terms which a Catholic could hardly improve upon.\nSecondly, it brings before us in succinct form the leading points\nincluded in that faith\u2014the Creator, at the head of all the created\nworld; the seven Amschaspands or Amesha-\u00c7pentas, heavenly powers of\nwhom Ormazd himself was chief; the judgment to be expected after\ndeath, and the strict account then to be required; lastly, the general\nresurrection with its new body. Proceeding next to the manner in which\nthis faith had been handed down from generation to generation, we have\nfirst the cardinal doctrine that God himself was the direct teacher of\nhis prophet; after that, a statement that the prophet communicated it\nto others, from whom it descended to still later followers, one of whom\nis declared to have \"ordered and purified it.\" Thus the consciousness\nof subsequent additions to the original law is betrayed. Thus amended,\nthe priests, or De\u00e7t\u00fbrs, are said to have transmitted it to the time\nof the speaker, the authority of the ecclesiastical order in the\ninterpretation of the sacred records being thus carefully maintained.\n\nHow many generations had elapsed before the transmission of the law\ncould thus become the subject of deliberate incorporation among\nrecognized dogmas, it is impossible to say. Undoubtedly, however, we\nstand a long way off\u2014not only in actual time, but in modes of thought\nand forms of worship\u2014from the ancient Iranian prophet. The change from\nthe faith of Peter to that of St. Augustine is not greater than that\nfrom the faith of Zarathustra's rude disciples to that of the subtle,\nself-conscious priests who composed these later formularies, or the\nlaity who accepted them. Still, after all has been said, after it has\nbeen freely admitted that subsequent speculation, or imagination,\nor the influence of neighboring creeds, introduced a host of minor\nspirits or quasi-gods, of whom Zarathustra knew nothing, it must also\nbe emphatically asserted that the God of Zarathustra never loses, among\nthe multitude of his associates, either his supremacy or his unique\nand transcendent attributes. While in the G\u00e2th\u00e2s Ahura-Mazda alone\nis worshiped; while in the later chapters of the Ya\u00e7na many other\npersonages receive a more or less limited homage along with him; while\nin the Yashts these personages are singled out one after another for\nwhat appears unbounded adoration,\u2014the original God invariably maintains\nhis rank as the Creator; the one Supreme Lord of mankind, as of all his\ncreatures; the instructor of Zarathustra; the Being compared to whom\nall others stand related as the thing made towards its Maker. Theism\ndoes not in the Avesta pass into polytheism. Strictly speaking, its\nspirit is monotheistic throughout, though we might often be betrayed\ninto thinking the contrary by the extravagance of its language. Nor\ncan I discover in its pages the doctrine which some have held to be\ncontained in it, namely, that above Ahura-Mazda, somewhere in the\ndark background of the universe, was a God still greater than him,\nthe ultimate Power to which even he must yield, Zrv\u00e2na-Akarana, or\nInfinite Time. The very name of this highly abstract being appears\nbut rarely in the Avesta, and never, so far as I am able to discover,\nin the character thus assigned to him. Ahura-Mazda remains throughout\nthe God of Gods; his is the highest and most sacred name known to his\nworshipers, and none can compare with him, the Infinite Creator, in\ngreatness, in glory, or in power.\n\nIt is not to be expected that, in the early stage of social progress\nat which a great part at least of the Avesta was written, its moral\ndoctrines should be altogether faultless. Nevertheless, it may well\nsustain a comparison in this respect with the codes which have been\nreceived as authoritative by other nations. Subject to the drawback,\ncommon to all theologically-influenced systems of ethics, of laying\nas much stress upon correct belief and the diligent performance of\nthe customary rites as upon the really fundamental duties of men, the\nZend-Avesta upholds a high standard of morality, and honestly seeks\nto inculcate upon believers the immense importance of leading an\nupright and virtuous life. Such a life alone is pleasing to God; such\na life alone can insure a safe passage over the hazardous bridge by\nwhich the soul must pass to Paradise. Not only are the more obvious\nvirtues\u2014respect for life, careful observance of promises, industrious\nconduct\u2014sedulously enjoined on the faithful Parsee, but some others,\nless obvious and too frequently overlooked, are urged upon them. The\nseducer is bound to provide both for the infant he has called into\nexistence, and for its mother, at least for a certain period. Domestic\nanimals are not forgotten, and humanity towards these dependent\ncreatures is commanded in a series of precepts, the spirit of which\nwould do honor to any age. And, in general, the blamelessness required\nin thoughts, words, and works imposed on the devout Mazdaya\u00e7na a\ncomprehensive attention to the many ways in which he might lapse from\nvirtue, and held before him an exalted conception of moral purity.\n\nYet, when all this has been said, it must still be admitted that the\nZend-Avesta hides its light, such as it is, under a bushel. Such is\nthe number of supra-mundane spirits to be lauded, such a mass of\nceremonies to be attended to, so great the proportion of space devoted\nto guarding against legal impurities as compared with that consigned\nto preventing moral evil, that the impression left upon the minds of\nunbelieving readers is on the whole far from favorable. Morality has,\nin fact, got buried under theology. The trivialities, inanities, and\nrepetitions that abound in the sacred text draw off the mind from the\noccasional excellences of thought and expression which it contains.\nThus he who toils through the verbose Fargards of the Vendidad, the\nobscure chapters of the older and younger Ya\u00e7na, or the panegyrical\nrhapsodies of the Yashts, will find but little to reward his search.\nWith the G\u00e2th\u00e2s indeed it is otherwise. These are full of interest, and\nnot quite devoid of a simple grandeur. But as a whole, the Avesta is a\nmine which, among vast heaps of rubbish, discloses but here and there a\ngrain of gold.\n\n\n                      SECTION VI.\u2014THE KORAN.[86]\n\nAlone among the Scriptures of the several great religions, the Koran\nis the work of a single author. It is, therefore, characterized by\ngreater uniformity of style, subject, and doctrine than the sacred\ncollections of other nations. Considerable as the difference is between\nits earlier and its later Suras, a consistent line of thought is\nvisible throughout, and pious Moslems are free from the difficulty that\nhas always beset Christian theologians of \"harmonizing\" contradictory\npassages both supposed to emanate from God. There are, indeed, earlier\nrevelations inconsistent with later ones; but in this case, the former\nare held to have been abrogated by the latter. Mediocre in the order of\nits thought, diffuse in style, abundant in repetitions, there are few\nbooks more calculated to task the patience of a conscientious reader.\nBut we must recollect, in judging it, that its author did not write\nit, and very possibly never contemplated its existence as a complete\nwork. He published it from time to time as occasion required, much\nas a modern statesman would announce his views by means of speeches,\npamphlets, or election addresses.\n\nWhen a revelation arrived, Mahomet in the first instance dictated\nit to his secretary Zayd, who wrote it on palm-leaves or skins, or\ntablets of any kind that might be at hand. Of the remaining Moslems,\nsome took copies, but many more committed the revelations to memory;\nthe Arab memory being remarkably retentive. Under the reign of Abu\nBekr, the prophet's successor, Omar, finding that some one who knew a\npiece of the Koran had been killed, suggested that the whole should be\ncollected. The suggestion was adopted, and Abu Bekr intrusted the work\nof collection to the secretary Zayd. The Koran was then put together,\nnot only from the leaves that had been left by Mahomet, and thrown\nwithout any regard to order into a chest, but also from the fragments,\neither written or preserved in the memory, that were contributed by\nindividual believers. The copy thus made was not published, but was\ncommitted for safe custody to Hafsa, daughter of Omar, and one of the\nwidows of the prophet. She kept it during the ten years of her father\nOmar's caliphate. But as there were no official and authorized copies\nof this genuine Koran, it came to pass that the various missionaries\nwho were sent as teachers to the newly-conquered countries repeated\nit differently, and that various readings crept into the transcripts\nin use. Hence serious threatenings of division and scandal among\nthe Moslems. The caliph Othman, foreseeing the danger, appointed a\ncommission, with the secretary Zayd at its head, to copy the copy\nof Hafsa and return it to her, their duty being to determine on\ndifferences of reading, and to be careful to restore the Meccan idiom\nwhere it had been departed from in any of the versions. Several copies\nwere made by the commissioners, of which one was kept at Medina, and\nthe others sent to the great military stations. This was the official\ntext, prepared about A. H. 25-30; and after its establishment, all\nprivate copies or fragments of the Koran were ordered by Othman to be\ndestroyed.[87] The original Koran, which Mahomet did but reproduce, is\nsupposed by those who accept it as divine to be preserved in heaven, in\nthe very presence of its original author, on an enormous table.\n\nIn the Koran, as arranged by Zayd, there is apparently no fixed\nprinciple in the order of the Suras or chapters. In the main, the\nlongest Suras come first, but even this rule is not adhered to\nconsistently. Of chronological arrangement there is not a trace, and\nit has been left to the ingenuity of European scholars to endeavor to\ndiscover approximately the date of the several revelations. Of some,\nthe occasions of their publication are known, but in the case of\nthe great majority, nothing beyond a conjectural arrangement can be\nattained.\n\nThe principal themes with which the Koran is occupied are the unity of\nGod; his attributes; the several prophets preceding Mahomet, whom he\nhas sent to convert unbelievers; the joys of Paradise and the terrors\nof hell; and the legislative edicts promulgated for the government of\nthe Arabs under the new religion. Of these several subjects, the first\ntwo occupy a predominant place in the earliest revelations. Legends of\nprophets, of whom Mahomet recognized a considerable number, form one\nof the standing dishes set before the faithful during all but the very\nbeginning of his career. He was also fond of speaking of the contrast\nbetween the position of believers and skeptics in a future state; but\nhe seems at first to have expected a temporal judgment on his Meccan\nopponents, and afterwards to have been contented with awaiting the\ndivine vengeance in another world. Legislation, of course, belongs only\nto that portion of the Koran which was revealed after the Hegira.\n\nA few specimens will be quite sufficient to give a notion both of the\nearlier and later style of this sacred volume. Here is a Sura revealed\nat Mecca during the first struggles of the prophet's mind, when it was\ncompletely possessed with the awfulness of the new truth:\u2014\n\n \"O thou enfolded in thy mantle, stand up all night, except a small\n portion of it, for prayer. Half; or curtail the half a little,\u2014or add\n to it: and with measured tone intone the Koran, for we shall devolve\n on thee weighty words. Verily, at the coming of night are _devout_\n (Italics, here and elsewhere, in Rodwell) impressions strongest, and\n words are most collected; but in the daytime thou hast continual\n employ\u2014and commemorate the name of thy Lord, and devote thyself to\n him with entire devotion.... Of a truth, thy Lord knoweth that thou\n prayest almost two-thirds, or half, or a third of the night, as do a\n part of thy followers\" (K., p. 7.\u2014Sura, 73).\n\nThis is the opening Sura of the Koran:\u2014\n\n \"Praise be to God, Lord of the worlds! the compassionate! the\n merciful! King on the day of reckoning! Thee _only_ do we worship, and\n to thee do we cry for help. Guide thou us on the straight path, the\n path of those to whom thou hast been gracious; with whom thou art not\n angry, and who go not astray\" (K., p. 11.\u2014Sura, 1).\n\nIn the Sura now to be quoted we find an allusion to one of the prophets\nwhom Mahomet regarded as precursors\u2014the prophet Saleh, who had sent\nthem to a people called Themoud to bid them worship God. The legend\nassociated with his name is, that he appealed to a she-camel as a\nproof of his divine mission, commanding the people to let her go at\nlarge and do her no hurt. Some of the Themoudites believed; but they\nwere ridiculed by the skeptical chiefs of the nation, whose wickedness\nwent so far as actually to hamstring the apostolic camel. Hereupon an\nearthquake overtook them by night, and they were all found dead in\nthe morning (K., p. 376.\u2014Sura, 7. 71-77). Such things were Mahomet's\nstock-in-trade; and the following Sura exemplifies the mixture of his\nearly poetic thoughts with the prosaic narratives which did duty so\nconstantly during the maturity of his apostleship:\u2014\n\n \"By the Sun and his noonday brightness! by the Moon when she followeth\n him! by the Day when it revealeth his glory! by the Night when it\n enshroudeth him! by the Heaven and him who built it! by the Earth\n and him who spread it forth! by a Soul and him who balanced it, and\n breathed into it its wickedness and its piety! blessed now is he who\n hath kept it pure, and undone is he who hath corrupted it!\n\n \"Themoud in his impiety rejected the message of the Lord, when the\n greatest wretch among them rushed up:\u2014Said the apostle of God to\n them,\u2014The camel of God! let her drink. But they treated him as an\n imposter and hamstrung her. So their Lord destroyed them for their\n crime, and visited all alike: nor feared he the issue\" (K., p.\n 24.\u2014Sura, 91).\n\nThe same Sura which contains the history of Saleh, prophet of Themoud,\nrefers also to various other divine messengers who had fulfilled the\nsame office of announcing the judgments of God. Mahomet's general view\nof the prophetic function seems to be expressed in these words:\u2014\n\n \"Every nation hath its set time. And when their time is come they\n shall not retard it an hour; and they shall not advance it. O children\n of Adam! there shall come to you Apostles from among yourselves,\n rehearsing my signs to you; and whoso shall fear God and do good\n works, no fear shall be upon them, neither shall they be put to grief.\n But they who charge our signs with falsehood, and turn away from them\n in their pride, shall be inmates of the fire; for ever shall they\n abide therein\" (K., p. 371.\u2014Sura, 7. 32-34).\n\nThe prophets whom he mentions in this Sura are Noah, who was sent to\nwarn his people of the Deluge; Houd, sent to Ad, an unbelieving nation\nwhom God cut off, with the exception of those who had accepted Houd;\nSaleh, sent to Themoud as above related; Lot, sent to Sodom to warn it\nagainst sin; Shoaib, sent to Madian, a people of which the unbelieving\nmembers were destroyed by earthquakes; Moses, sent with signs to\nPharaoh and his nobles, as also to the Israelites, of whom some\nworshiped the calf, and were overtaken by the wrath of their Lord (K.,\np. 375-386.\u2014Sura, 7. 57-154). In another Sura he makes mention of other\nprophets besides these: namely, of John the Baptist, Jesus of Nazareth,\nAbraham, Ishmael, and Enoch (K., p. 127 ff.\u2014Sura, 19).\n\nHis view of Jesus Christ is peculiar and interesting. He invariably\ntreats him with the highest respect as a servant of God and his own\nprecursor, but he is careful to protest that the opinion of his\ndivinity was not held by Jesus, and was a baseless invention of his\nfollowers. The notion that God could have a son seems to him a gross\nprofanation, and he often recurs to it in terms of the strongest\nreprobation. Thus he endeavors to claim Christ as a genuine Moslem, and\nto include Christianity within the pale of the new faith. A Christian\nwho adopted it might continue, indeed must continue, to believe\neverything in the Old and New Testaments, except such passages as\nexpressly assert the incarnation and divinity of Jesus. Yet Mahomet's\nown version of this prophet's conception involves a supernatural\nelement, and only differs from that of Luke in not asserting the\npaternity of God.\n\n \"And make mention in the Book,\" he says, \"of Mary when she went apart\n from her family, eastward, and took a veil _to shroud herself_ from\n them, and we sent our spirit to her, and he took before her the form\n of a perfect man. She said: 'I fly for refuge from thee to the God\n of Mercy! If thou fearest him _begone from me_.' He said: 'I am only\n a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a holy son.' She\n said: 'How shall I have a son, when man hath never touched me, and\n I am not unchaste.' He said: 'So shall it be. Thy Lord hath said:\n easy is this with me, and we will make him a sign to mankind and a\n mercy from us. For it is a thing decreed.' And she conceived him, and\n retired with him to a far-off place\" (K., p. 128.\u2014Sura, 19. 16-22).\n\nHer virginity is expressly asserted in another place, where she is\ndescribed as \"Mary, the daughter of Imran, who kept her maidenhood, and\ninto whose womb we breathed of our spirit.\"[88]\n\nWhen the child was born the woman was accused of unchastity, but the\ninfant prophet at once opened his mouth and declared his prophetic\ncharacter. From this narrative it appears that, in Mahomet's opinion,\nJesus was neither begotten by a human father, nor was the son of God.\nHe finds a _via media_ in the doctrine that he was created, like Adam,\nby an express exertion of the power of the Almighty. \"He created him of\ndust: He then said to him, 'Be,' and he was\" (K., p. 502.\u2014Sura, 3. 52).\nAnd again, in the Sura above quoted: \"It beseemeth not God to beget a\nson, Glory be to him! when he decreeth a thing, he only saith to it,\nBe, and it is\" (K., p. 130.\u2014Sura, 19. 36).\n\nHe is very indignant against those who hold the doctrine of the\nincarnation, which he apparently considers as equivalent to that of\nphysical generation by the Deity, and which, under any aspect, is\ncertainly shocking to a genuine monotheist.\n\n\"They say: 'The God of Mercy hath gotten offspring.' Now have ye done\na monstrous thing! Almost might the very heavens be rent thereat, and\nthe earth cleave asunder, and the mountains fall down in fragments,\nthat they ascribe a son to the God of Mercy, when it beseemeth not the\nGod of Mercy to beget a son!\" (K., p. 135.\u2014Sura, 19. 91-93.) \"And they\nsay, 'God hath a son:' No! Praise be to him! But his whatever is in the\nheavens and the earth! All obeyeth him, sole Maker of the heavens and\nof the earth! and when he decreeth a thing he only saith to it, Be, and\nit is\" (K., p. 445.\u2014Sura, 2. 110-111).\n\nMahomet's conception of his own character is most clearly expressed\nin the seventh Sura, where, after enumerating some of the prophets\nwho had gone before him (as already related), he proceeds to describe\na supposed dialogue between Moses and God, in which the Deity speaks\nthus:\u2014\n\n \"My chastisement shall fall on whom I will, and my mercy embraceth\n all things, and I write it down for those who shall fear me, and pay\n the alms, and believe in our signs, who shall follow the Apostle, the\n unlettered Prophet\u2014whom they shall find described with them in the\n Law and Evangel. What is right will he enjoin them, and forbid them\n what is wrong, and will allow them healthful viands and prohibit the\n impure, and will ease them of their burden, and of the yokes which\n were upon them; and those who shall believe in him, and strengthen\n him, and help him, and follow the light which hath been sent down with\n him,\u2014these are they with whom it shall be well.\"\n\nThe revelation to Moses now ceases, and God continues to address\nMahomet with the usual preliminary \"say:\"\u2014\n\n \"Say to them: O men! Verily I am God's apostle to you all: whose is\n the kingdom of the Heavens and of the Earth! There is no God but\n he! He maketh alive and killeth! Therefore believe in God and his\n apostle\u2014the unlettered Prophet\u2014who believeth in God and his word.\n And follow him that ye may be guided aright\" (K., p. 386.\u2014Sura, 7.\n 155-158).\n\nMahomet liked to describe himself as unlettered, and thus to obtain for\nthe scriptural knowledge and literary skill displayed in the Koran the\ncredit of its being due to inspiration.\n\nIn another place he again describes his prophetic character in the\nfollowing strain:\u2014\n\n \"Muhammed is not the father of any man among you, but he is the\n Apostle of God and the seal of the prophets: and God knoweth all\n things.... O Prophet! we have sent thee to be a witness, and a\n herald of glad tidings, and a warner; and one who, through his own\n permission, summoneth to God, and a light-giving torch\" (K., p.\n 567.\u2014Sura, 33, 40, 44, 45).\n\nA conspicuous feature of the Koran to which allusion has not yet\nbeen made is its frequent reference to the pleasures of Paradise to\nbe enjoyed by the faithful, and the pains of hell to be suffered\nby the infidels. The day of judgment is continually held out as\nan encouragement to the former, and a terror to the latter. The\nfifty-sixth Sura contains a description of heaven which is enough\nto make the mouth of good Moslems water. \"The people of the right\nhand\" are to be happy; those of the left hand, wretched. The former\nare to have \"gardens of delight,\" with \"inwrought couches,\" whereon\nreclining, \"aye-blooming youths\" are to bring them \"flowing wine\" of\nthe best celestial vintage. They are to enjoy their favorite fruits,\nand to eat whatever birds they long for. \"Houris with large dark\neyes,\" and \"ever virgins,\" never growing old, are to supply them\nwith the pleasures of love, so strangely overlooked in the Christian\npictures of heavenly life. On the other side, we have \"the people of\nthe left hand,\" who are to be tormented with \"pestilential winds\"\nand \"scalding water,\" and are to live \"in the shadow of a black\nsmoke,\" with the fruit of a bitter tree to eat and boiling water to\ndrink (K., p. 60.\u2014Sura, 56). The prophet delights in warning his\nenemies of their coming fate. \"Verily,\" says God in another place,\n\"we have got ready the flame for the infidel\" (K., p. 598.\u2014Sura, 48.\n13). \"O Prophet!\" we read elsewhere, \"make war on the infidels and\nhypocrites, and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their abode!\nand wretched the passage to it!\" (K., p. 606.\u2014Sura, 66. 9). \"God\npromiseth the hypocritical men and women, and the unbelievers, the\nfire of hell\u2014therein shall they abide\u2014this their sufficing portion!\"\n(K., p. 621.\u2014Sura, 9. 69). Some, who had declined to march with the\nProphet from Medina on account of the heat, are sternly reminded that\n\"a fiercer heat will be the fire of hell\" (K., p. 623.\u2014Sura, 9. 82).\n\nIn contradistinction to the deplorable state of the hypocrites and\nunbelievers\u2014blind in this world and destined to suffer eternally in\nthe next\u2014we have a pleasing picture of the condition of the faithful\nMoslems:\u2014\n\n \"Muhammed is the apostle of God; and his comrades are vehement against\n the infidels, _but_ full of tenderness among themselves. Thou mayst\n see them bowing down, prostrating themselves, imploring favors from\n God, and his acceptance. Their tokens are on their faces, the marks of\n their prostrations. This is their picture in the Law and their picture\n in the Evangel; they are as the seed which putteth forth its stalk;\n then strengtheneth it, and it groweth stout, and riseth upon its stem,\n rejoicing the husbandman\u2014that the infidels may be wrathful at them.\n To such of them as believe and do the things that are right, hath God\n promised forgiveness and a noble recompense\" (K., p. 601.\u2014Sura, 48.\n 29).\n\n\n                    SECTION VII.\u2014THE OLD TESTAMENT.\n\nBefore entering upon the comparative examination of the Hebrew Canon,\nit is necessary to say a few words of the extraordinary race who were\nits authors. There is probably no other book of which it may be said,\nwith the same depth and fulness of meaning, that it is the work of a\nnation and the reflection of a nation's life. The history of the Bible\nand the history of the Jews are more intimately bound up together than\nis that of any other nation with that of any other book. During the\nperiod of their political existence as a separate people they wrote\nthe Canon. During the long period of political annihilation which has\nsucceeded, they have not ceased to write commentaries on the Canon.\nThis one great production has filled the imaginations, has influenced\nthe intellect, has fed the religious ardor of each succeeding\ngeneration of Jews. To name the canonical Scriptures, and the endless\nseries of writings suggested by them or based upon them, would be\nalmost to sum up the results of the literary activity of the Hebrew\nrace.\n\nOur first historical acquaintance with the Hebrews brings them\nbefore us as obtaining by conquest, and then inhabiting, that narrow\nstrip of territory bordering the Mediterranean Sea which is known as\nPalestine. Their own legends, indeed, carry us back to a still earlier\nperiod, when they lived as slaves in Egypt; but on these, from the\ncharacter of the narrative, very little reliance can be placed. The\nstory, gradually becoming less and less mythical, tells us, what is\nprobably true, that they overcame the native inhabitants of Palestine\nin war, and seized upon their land; that they then passed through\nan anarchial period, during which the centre of authority seems to\nhave been lost, and the national unity was in no small danger of\nbeing destroyed, had not vigorous and able leaders interposed to save\nit; that, under the pressure of these circumstances, they adopted a\nmonarchial constitution, by which the dangers of this time of anarchy\nwere at least to a large extent averted, and the discordant elements\nbrought into subjection to a common centre. Thus united, the Jewish\nmonarchy rapidly attained a considerable height of splendor and of\npower. Surrounding nations fell under its sway, and it took rank as\none of the great powers which divided Western Asia. But this glory was\nnot to last long. The monarchy, broken up into two hostile parts by the\nfolly of Rehoboam, lost alike its unity and its strength; and after\na long series of kings, whom it is needless to enumerate, both its\nbranches fell victims, at separate times, the one to Shalmaneser, king\nof the Assyrians, the other to Nebuchadnezzar, king of the Chaldees.\nThe latter event, while it put an end to the very existence of the\nJewish nation as an independent political power\u2014for it was but a fitful\nindependence which was recovered under the Asmoneans\u2014marks an epoch\nwhich severs the history of the Jews into two periods, distinguished\nfrom one another by the completely different character borne by the\npeople in each. It is customary, for theological purposes, to represent\nthe religious development of the Jews as pervaded by a fundamental\nunity. They are supposed to have known and worshiped the true God\nfrom the beginning, to have been sharply marked off from the rest of\nthe world by their strict monotheism, and to have been unfaithful to\ntheir inherited creed only when they refused to recognize Christ and\nhis apostles as its authorized interpreters. Their own records tell a\nvery different story. According to these, the religion of the Jews,\nlike that of other nations, progressed, changed, improved, underwent\npurification and alteration, and was, in its earlier forms, not much\nunlike that of the surrounding heathens. Their leaders, indeed, and all\nthose whom their Scriptures uphold as examples of excellence, worshiped\na national God, Jehovah, whom they may have considered the only god who\nenjoyed actual existence and possessed actual power. But whether or\nnot this were the case, he was, for all practical purposes, simply the\ntutelary deity of the Hebrews. In his name the conquerors of Palestine\npillaged, murdered, and inflicted cruelties on the vanquished; to him\nthey looked for aid in their belligerent undertakings; to him they\noffered the first fruits of victory. It was under his direct leadership\nthat they professed to subdue the heathens, and to attain national\nsecurity. The ark was his dwelling, and it could only bring destruction\nto the Philistines, who were not under the protection of its inmate.\nAnd when the Jews asked to be placed under the rule of a monarch,\nthey were told by the mouthpiece of Jehovah that it was his divine\ngovernment which they were rejecting. The morality of the chiefs who\nconducted the invasion and subjugation of Palestine was not one whit\nsuperior to that of their enemies, nor was the god on whose power they\nrelied of an essentially higher nature than many other national or\nlocal divinities who were worshiped by other nations. They were the\nrude leaders of a rude people worshiping a rude deity. His character\nwas such as we might expect the tutelary divinity of a tribe of\nwandering and unsettled Bedouins to be. Having to establish their right\nto a permanent home and an organized government by force of arms, it\nwas only natural that they should represent their God as favoring the\nexploits of those arms, and even urging them on to the most ruthless\nexercise of the rights of conquerors. It was natural that even their\nmost revolting acts should be placed under the especial patronage of\nthis approving god. It was natural, too, that when the conquest had\nbeen at least in great part effected, while yet the anarchial and\nsemi-savage condition of the victors continued (as it did more or less\nuntil after the accession of David), and internal strife took the place\nof external warfare, the national god should become to some extent a\nparty-god; should favor one section against another, and even excite\nthe ferocious passion of those to whose side he inclined. The god of\nMoses, of Joshua, and the Judges was thus a passionate, relentless, and\ncruel partisan. No doubt the facts were not precisely such as they are\nrepresented to us by the writers in the Old Testament, since in the\ninternecine conflicts which occasionally broke forth we may assume that\neach side claimed for itself the approbation of Jehovah. But still the\nstory of the Hebrew annals is clear enough to show us the semi-savage\ncharacter of the people in these early days, and their utter failure to\nform that lofty conception of the deity with which they have been so\nlargely credited by believers in the supernatural inspiration of their\nhistorical records.\n\nThe primitive conception entertained at this period, which corresponded\nwith that generally found among uncivilized nations, was improved\nand elevated to some extent during the age of comparatively settled\ngovernment which succeeded. As the Israelites advanced in the practice\nof the arts, in the possession of wealth, in the cultivation of the\nliterary or musical attainments that refine domestic life, in the\npeaceful organization of a society that had become more industrial and\nless warlike, their idea of Jehovah underwent the modifications which\nthese changes imply. The god of Samuel is widely different from the\ngod of Isaiah or Jeremiah. Whether the popular notion had risen to the\nheight attained by these prophets may indeed be doubted; but this too\nmust have altered in order to make such prophets possible. Yet, in\nspite of the comparative improvement, there are abundant indications\nduring the kingly period that the old Hebrew deity still retained the\nferocious characteristics by which he had formerly been distinguished.\nElijah's patron is gracious enough to his own adherents, but the\nattributes of mercy or gentleness towards human beings generally are\nundiscoverable in his character. And the deeds of blood which pious\nmonarchs from time to time were guilty of in his honor, and which\nreceived his approbation, show that if the process of his civilization\nhad begun, it was still very far from being completed.\n\nBut the special glory of the Jewish race is supposed to consist even\nmore in the fact that this God, such as he was, stood alone, than in\nthe excellence of the manner in which they conceived of his nature.\nThe constancy of their monotheism, amid the polytheism of surrounding\nnations, has appeared to subsequent generations so marvelous as\nto require a revelation to account for it. The facts, however, as\nrelated to us by the Jews themselves, do not warrant the supposition\nthat monotheism actually was the creed of the people until after the\nCaptivity. It appears, indeed, that that form of belief was held by\nthose who are depicted to us as the most eminent and the most virtuous\namong them, and it would seem that there was generally a considerable\nparty who adhered to the worship of Jehovah, and at times succeeded\nin forcing it upon the nation at large. But that Jehovism was the\nauthorized and established national religion, and that every other\nform and variety of faith was an authorized innovation, is a far\nwider conclusion than the facts will warrant us in drawing. This, no\ndoubt, and nothing less than this, is the contention of the historical\nwriters of the Old Testament; but even their own statements, made as\nthey are under the influence of the strongest Jehovistic bias, point\nwith tolerable clearness to a different conclusion. They inform us\nthat while the most ancient leaders of the Israelites who conducted\nthem to the promised land, the distinguished Judges who from time to\ntime arose, and all the most virtuous kings, belonged to the religion\nof Jehovah, the people, notwithstanding these great examples, were\ncontinually guilty of relapses into idolatry of the most flagrant\nkind. This tendency manifested itself so early, and reappeared with\nsuch persistence during the whole history of the Israelites of both\nbranches up to the destruction of their respective monarchies, that we\ncannot, consistently with the admitted facts, suppose that Jehovism\nhad at any time taken very deep root in the mind of the people. They\nseem, on the contrary, to have been readily swayed to and fro by\nthe example of the reigning monarch. Whether indeed they sincerely\nadopted monotheism under a monotheistic sovereign, may perhaps be\ndoubted; but the emphatic denunciations of the Biblical writers leave\nus no room to question the perfect sincerity of their idolatry. All\ntherefore that we can be justified in inferring from what they tell\nus is, that a succession of priests and prophets maintained the faith\nof Jehovah from age to age, and that from time to time a sovereign\narose who favored their views, and did all in his power, sometimes by\nfair means and not unfrequently by foul, to advance the interests of\nthe Jehovistic party. Indian history acquaints us with very similar\nfluctuations in the religion of a province, according as the priests\nof one or the other contending sect succeeded in obtaining influence\nover the mind of the reigning Rajah. But although we maintain that\nmonotheism was not, previous to the captivity, the popular religion\nof the Jews, we need not go the length of asserting that there was no\ndifference in their minds between Jehovah and the other deities whom\nthey adopted from surrounding nations. Jehovah was unquestionably\nthe national god, who was held to extend a peculiar protection over\nthe Hebrew race. Nor does it follow that those who betook themselves\nto some idolatrous _cultus_ necessarily abandoned that of Jehovah.\nBoth might well have been carried on together, and there is abundant\nevidence that the Jews of this period had much of that elasticity which\ncharacterizes polytheism, and makes it ever ready to add new members\nto its pantheon without discarding old favorites. So far as there was\na national worship carried on by a national priesthood, Jehovah must\nhave been its object. But we are not therefore compelled to imagine\nthat the nation had adopted Jehovism in so solemn and binding a manner\nas to render its abandonment a gross violation of their fundamental\ninstitutions. No doubt, according to the Scriptural writers, it was a\ndeliberate breach of the original constitution to forsake, even for a\nmoment, the exclusive service of the national god for that of any other\ndeity whatsoever. But the supernatural origin assigned by them to this\noriginal constitution throws a doubt on their assertions, while the\nfacts they report serve to increase it. For while we learn that Jehovah\nwas deserted by one generation after another in favor of more popular\nrivals, much to the indignation of his priests and prophets, we do not\nperceive any traces of a consciousness on the part of the idolaters\nthat they were guilty of infidelity to fundamental and unchangeable\nlaws. They rather appear to have acted in mere levity, and the repeated\nobjurgations of the Jehovistic party would tend to the conclusion that\nthe people were not aware of any binding obligation to adhere to the\nworship of this deity to the exclusion of that of every other. The\nefforts of the Jehovists may indeed show that _they_ believed such an\nobligation to exist: but not that their opponents were equally aware\nof it. Moreover, we are not without some more positive testimony which\nstrongly favors this view of their mutual relations. Under the reign of\nthe pious, and no doubt credulous, Josiah, a certain priest professed\nto have discovered a \"book of the law\" mysteriously hidden in the\ntemple. Without discussing in this place what book this may have been,\nit is plain that it inculcated Jehovism under the penalty of curses\nsimilar to those found in Deuteronomy, and it is plain too that its\ncontents caused the monarch a painful surprise, which expressed itself\nby his rending his clothes and sending a commission to \"inquire of the\nLord\" \"concerning the words of this book that is found.\" Now is it\npossible to suppose that the words of such a book as this could have\ninflicted on Josiah so great a shock, or have required the appointment\nof a special commission to inquire concerning them, if it had been a\nmatter of familiar and general knowledge among the Jews that their\nforefathers had solemnly adopted Jehovism as the only lawful national\ncreed, invoking upon themselves those very curses which the most devout\nof monarchs was now unable to hear without astonishment and alarm? And\nhow are we to explain the production of this book by the priests as a\nnew discovery? If it had been merely the re-discovery of a lost volume\nwould the language of the narrative have been at all appropriate? Must\nnot Josiah in that case have rejoiced at the restoration to Judah of so\nprecious a treasure, however much he might have regretted the failure\nof the nation to observe its precepts? The difficulty of supposing such\nfacts to have been forgotten is equally great. It would be scarcely\npossible to imagine that not only the people, but the priests, could\nat any period have lost all memory of the fact that they were bound,\nunder the most terrible penalties, to adhere to the faith of Jehovah.\nAt least the spiritual advisers of so religious a monarch must have\nbeen well aware that their own creed formed an essential part of the\nJewish constitution; and we cannot doubt that they would carefully\nhave impressed this fact on their willing pupil, not as a startling\ndisclosure made only after he had been seventeen years on the throne\nand had attained the age of twenty-five, but as one of his earliest and\nmost familiar lessons. In fact, this sudden discovery, in some secret\nrecess of the temple, of a hitherto unknown volume, concerning whose\nclaims to authority or antiquity the writers preserve a mysterious\nsilence, rather suggests the notion of a Jehovistic _coup d'\u00e9tat_,\nprepared by the zeal of Hilkiah the priest and Shaphan the scribe. A\nlong time had passed since the accession of the king. His favorable\ndispositions were well known. Since the eighth year of his reign at\nleast he had been under the influence of the priests, and in the\ntwelfth he had entered (no doubt under their directions) upon that\ncareer of persecuting violence which was usual with pious monarchs\nin Judea.[89] His mind was undoubtedly predisposed to receive with\nimplicit confidence any statements they might make. Hence, if Hilkiah\nand his associates had conceived the idea of compiling, from materials\nat their command, a book which, while recapitulating some events in\nthe ancient history of Israel, should represent those events in a light\nfavorable to their designs, they could hardly have chosen a better\nmoment for the execution of such a scheme. That they actually did this,\nit would be going beyond the evidence in our possession to assert. It\nmay be that the book was an old one; and in any case, it is unnecessary\nto suppose that it was an original composition of Hilkiah's, palmed off\nupon the king as ancient. All that appears to me clearly to follow from\nthe terms of the narrative is, that the law which this book contained\n(evidently the law of Jehovah) had not hitherto been regarded as the\nestablished law of the country, and that the production of this volume,\nin which its claims to that dignity were emphatically asserted, and its\nviolation represented as entailing the most grevious curses, was one of\nthe plans taken by the priestly party to procure for it the recognition\nof that supremacy which they declared it had actually enjoyed in the\ndays of their forefathers. But although the history of Israel has been\nwritten by adherents of this party, and we are unfortunately precluded\nfrom checking their statements by any document recounting the same\nevents from the point of view of their opponents, their records, biased\nas they are, clearly show us a nation whose favorite and ordinary\ncreed was not monotheism; which was ever ready to adopt with fervor\nthe idolatrous practices of its neighbors; and which was not converted\nto pure and exclusive monotheism till after the terrible lesson of the\nCaptivity in Babylon.\n\nThis great event was turned to excellent account by the priests and\nprophets of Jehovah. Instead of regarding it as a natural consequence\nof the political relations of Judea with more powerful empires,\nthey represented it as the fulfillment of the penalties threatened\nby Jehovah for infidelity towards himself. And as this view offered\na plausible explanation of their unparalleled misfortunes, it was\nnaturally accepted by many as the true solution of sufferings so\ndifficult to reconcile with the protection supposed to be accorded by\ntheir national god. Under these circumstances a double process went\non during their compulsory residence in heathendom. Great numbers,\nwho were either not Jehovists, or whose Jehovism was but lukewarm,\ngradually adapted themselves to their situation among idolaters, and\nbecame at length indistinguishably fused, as the ten scribes had been,\nwith the alien races. But a few remained faithful to their God. These\nfew it was who formed the whole of the nation which, when return was\npossible, returned to their native soil. Those who were not inspired\nby a deep sense of the sanctity of their national religion; those to\nwhom the restoration of their national rites was not the one object of\noverwhelming importance; those whose hopes of national restoration were\nof a temporal rather than a spiritual nature, had no sufficient motive\nto return to their native soil. Jerusalem could have no attractions\nfor them which Babylon did not possess. Thus, by a natural process,\nthe most ardent, the most spiritual, the most unbending monotheists\nwere weeded out from the mass of the community, and it was they who\naccompanied Zerubbabel or Ezra on his sacred mission. Misfortune, which\nhad not shaken their faith, had deepened and purified it. Not only were\nthey Jehovists, but they were Jehovists of the sternest type. There was\namong them none of that admixture of levity, and none of that facile\nadaptability to foreign rites, which characterized the oldest Jews.\nFrom this time forward their monotheism has never been broken by a\nsingle relapse.\n\nThus the Captivity forms the turning-point in the character of the\nJews; for, in fact, the nation which was conquered by Nebuchadnezzar\nwas not the nation which, in the days of Kyros and Artaxerxes returned\nto re-colonize and rebuild Jerusalem. The conquered people belonged\nto a monarchy which, if it was now feeble and sunken, was directly\ndescended from one which had been glorious and mighty, and which had\naimed at preserving for Judea the status and dignity of an independent\npower. Under its influence the Jews had been mobile, idolatrous,\ndeaf to the voice of Jehovistic prophets, neglectful of Jehovistic\nrites; desirous of conquest, and, when that was impossible, unwilling\non political grounds to submit to foreign domination; rude if not\nsemi-barbarous in morals, and distracted by the contention of rival\nreligious parties. But this polity, of which the ruling motives were\nmainly political, was succeeded after the return of the exiles by a\npolity of which the ruling motives were exclusively religious. All were\nnow adherents of Jehovah; all were zealous performers of the rites\nconceived to be his due.\n\nThis change must be borne in mind if we would understand Jewish\nhistory; for the same language is not applicable to the Jews before and\nafter the Captivity, nor can we regard in the same light a struggling\nand feeble race upholding its unanimous faith in the midst of trials,\nand an independent nation in which a party, from time to time\nvictorious, endeavors to impose that faith by force. We may without\ninconsistency censure the violence of the Jehovistic sectaries, and\nadmire the courage of the Jehovistic people. But although there is much\nin this change that is good, it must be admitted that it has its bad\nside. While becoming more conscientious, more scrupulously true to its\nown principles, and more penetrated with a sense of religion, Judaism\nbecame at the same time more rigid, more formal, more ritualistic, and\nmore unsocial. Ewald has remarked that the constitution established\nafter the return from captivity is one that lays undue stress upon the\nexterior forms of religion, and may in time even become hostile to\nwhat is truly holy. As it claims to be in possession of something holy\nwhich temporal governments do not possess, it cannot submit to their\ndominion; hence, he observes, Israel could never become an independent\nnation again under this constitution.[90] Nor was this all. Even apart\nfrom its tendency to magnify external forms, which was perhaps not of\nits essence, the religion of Jehovah had inherent vices. The Jews,\nbelieving their god to be the only true one, and insisting above all\non the supreme importance of preserving the purity of his _cultus_,\nwere necessarily led to assume a haughty and exclusive attitude towards\nall other nations, which could not fail to provoke their hostility.\nThis unloveable spirit was shown immediately after their return by\ntheir contumelious rejection of the S\u00e2maritan proposals to aid in\nbuilding the temple\u2014proposals which seem to have been made in good\nfaith; by the Sabbatarian legislation of Nehemiah; and even more by the\nexclusively harsh measures taken by Ezra for the purification of the\nrace. It was simply inevitable that all heathen nations who came in\ncontact with them should hate a people who acted on such principles.\nNor were the fears of the heathen altogether without foundation. When\nthe Jews recovered a temporary independence under the Maccabees, their\nintolerance, now able to vent itself in acts of conquest, became a\nsource of serious danger. Thus, John Hyrcanus destroyed the temple of\nthe S\u00e2maritans (who also worshiped Jehovah) on Mount Gerizim, and the\nJews actually commemorated the event by a semi-festival. Alexander\nJannasus, too, carried on wars of conquest against his neighbors. In\none of these he took the town of Gaza, and evinced the treatment to\nbe expected from him by letting loose his army on the inhabitants and\nutterly destroying their city. It was no doubt their unsocial and proud\nbehavior towards all who were not Jews that provoked the heathens\nto try their temper by so many insults directed to the sensitive\npoint\u2014their religion. Culpable as this was, it must be admitted that\nit was in some degree the excessive scrupulosity of the Jews in regard\nto things indifferent in themselves that exposed them to so much\nannoyance. Had they been content to permit the existence of Hellenic\nor Roman customs side by side with theirs, they might have been spared\nthe miseries which they subsequently endured. But the Scriptures,\nfrom beginning to end, breathed a spirit of fierce and exclusive\nattachment to Jehovah; he was the only deity; all other objects of\nadoration were an abomination in his sight. Penetrated with this\nspirit, the Jews patiently submitted to the yoke of every succeeding\nauthority\u2014Chaldeans, Syrians, Egyptians, Romans\u2014until the stranger\npresumed to tamper with the national religion. Then their resistance\nwas fierce and obstinate. The great rebellion which broke out in the\nreign of Antiochus Epiphanes, under the leadership of Mattathias, was\nprovoked by the attempt of that monarch to force Greek institutions on\nthe Jewish people. The glorious dynasty of the Asmoneans were priests\nas well as kings, and the royal office, indeed, was only assumed by\nthem in the generation after that in which they had borne the priestly\noffice, and as a consequence of the authority derived therefrom. Under\nthe semi-foreign family of the Herods, who supplanted the Asmoneans,\nand ruled under Roman patronage, as afterwards under the direct\ngovernment of Rome, it was nothing but actual or suspected aggressions\nagainst the national faith that provoked the loudest murmurs or the\nmost determined opposition. It was this faith which had upheld the\nJews in their heroic revolt against Syrian innovations. It was this\nwhich inspired them to support every offshoot of the Asmonean family\nagainst the odious Herod. It was this which led them to entreat of\nPompey that he would abstain from the violation of the temple; to\nimplore Caligula, at the peril of their lives, not to force his statue\nupon them; to raise tumults under Cumanus, and finally to burst the\nbonds of their allegiance to Rome under Gessius Florus. It was this\nwhich sustained the war that followed upon that outbreak\u2014a war in which\neven the unconquerable power of the Roman Empire quailed before the\nunrivaled skill and courage of this indomitable race; a war of which I\ndo not hesitate to say that it is probably the most wonderful, the most\nheroic, and the most daring which an oppressed people has ever waged\nagainst its tyrants.\n\nBut against such discipline as that of Rome, and such generals\nas Vespasian and Titus, success, however brilliant, could be but\nmomentary. The Jewish insurrection was quelled in blood, and the Jewish\nnationality was extinguished\u2014never to revive. One more desperate effort\nwas indeed made; once more the best legions and the best commanders of\nthe Empire were put in requisition; once more the hopes of the people\nwere inflamed, this time by the supposed appearance of the Messiah,\nonly to be doomed again to a still more cruel disappointment. Jerusalem\nwas razed to the ground; Aelia Capitolina took its place; and on the\nsoil of Aelia Capitolina no Jew might presume to trespass. But if the\ntrials imposed on the faith of this devoted race by the Romans were\nhard, they were still insignificant compared to those which it had to\nbear from the Christian nations who inherited from them the dominion\nof Europe. These nations considered the misfortunes of the Jews as\nproceeding from the divine vengeance on the crime they had committed\nagainst Christ; and lest this vengeance should fail to take effect,\nthey made themselves its willing instruments. No injustice and no\npersecution could be too bad for those whom God himself so evidently\nhated. Besides, the Jews had a miserable habit of acquiring wealth;\nand it was convenient to those who did not share their ability or\ntheir industry to plunder them from time to time. But the Jewish race\nand the Jewish religion survived it all. Tormented, tortured, robbed,\nput to death, hunted from clime to clime; outcasts in every land,\nstrangers in every refuge, the tenacity of their character was proof\nagainst every trial, and superior to every temptation. In this unequal\ncombat of the strong against the weak, the synagogue has fairly beaten\nthe Church, and has vindicated for itself that liberty which during\ncenturies of suffering its enemy refused to grant. Eighteen hundred\nyears have passed since the soldiers of Titus burned down the temple,\nlaid Jerusalem in ashes, and scattered to the winds the remaining\ninhabitants of Judea; but the religion of the Jews is unshaken still;\nit stands unconquered and unconquerable, whether by the bloodthirsty\nfury of the legions of Rome, or by the still more bloodthirsty\nintolerance of the ministers of Christ.\n\n\n                SUBDIVISION I.\u2014_The Historical Books._\n\nIt is scarcely necessary to say that no complete account of the\ncontents of the Old Testament can be attempted here. To accomplish\nanything like a full description of its various parts, and to discuss\nthe numerous critical questions that must arise in connection with such\na description, would in itself require a large volume. In a treatise\non comparative religion, anything of this kind would be out of place.\nIt is mainly in its comparative aspect that we are concerned with the\nBible. Hence many very interesting topics, such, for instance, as the\nage or authorship of the several books, must be passed over in silence.\nTempting as it may be to turn aside to such inquiries, they have no\nimmediate bearing on the subject in hand. Whatever may be the ultimate\nverdict of Biblical criticism respecting them, the conclusions here\nreached will remain unaffected. All that I can do is to assume without\ndiscussion the results obtained by the most eminent scholars, in so\nfar as they appear to me likely to be permanent. That the Book of\nGenesis, for example, is not the work of a single writer, but that at\nleast two hands may be distinguished in it; that the Song of Solomon\nis, as explained both by Renan and Ewald, a drama, and not an effusion\nof piety; that the latter part of Isaiah is not written by the same\nprophet who composed the former,\u2014are conclusions of criticism which\nI venture to think may now be taken for granted and made the basis\nof further reasoning. At the same time I have taken for granted\u2014not\nas certain, but as likely to be an approximation to the truth\u2014the\nchronological arrangement of the prophets proposed by Ewald in his\ngreat work on that portion of Scripture. Further than this, I believe\nthere are no assumptions of a critical character in the ensuing pages.\n\nFirst, then, it is to be observed that the problems which occupied\nthe writers of the Book of Genesis, and which in their own fashion\nthey attempted to solve, were the same as those which in all ages have\nengaged the attention of thoughtful men, and which have been dealt\nwith in many other theologies besides that of the Hebrews. The Hebrew\nsolution may or may not be superior in simplicity or grandeur to the\nsolutions of Parsees, Hindus, and others; but the attempt is the same\nin character, even if the execution be more successful. The authors of\nGenesis endeavor especially to account for:\u2014\n\n  1. THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE.\n  2. THE ORIGIN OF MAN AND ANIMALS.\n  3. THE INTRODUCTION OF EVIL.\n  4. THE DIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES.\n\nAlthough the fourth of these questions is, so far as I am aware, not a\ncommon subject of consideration in popular mythologies, the first three\nare the standard subjects of primitive theological speculation. Let us\nbegin with the Creation.\n\nOne of the earliest inquiries that human beings address themselves to\nwhen they arrive at the stage of reflection is:\u2014How did this world in\nwhich we find ourselves come into being? Out of what elements was it\nformed? Who made it, and in what way? A natural and obvious reply to\nsuch an inquiry is, that a Being of somewhat similar nature to their\nown, though larger and more powerful, took the materials of which the\nworld is formed and moulded them, as a workman moulds the materials\nof his handicraft, into their present shape. The mental process gone\nthrough in reaching this conclusion is simply that of pursuing a\nfamiliar analogy in such a manner as to bring the unknown within the\nrange of conceptions applicable to the known. The solution, as will\nbe seen shortly, contrives to satisfy one-half of the problem only by\nleaving the other half out of consideration. This difficulty, however,\ndoes not seem to have occurred to the ancient Hebrew writers who\npropounded the following history of the Creation of the Universe:\u2014\n\n\"In the beginning,\" they say, \"God created the heavens and the earth.\nAnd the earth was desolate and waste, and darkness on the face of the\nabyss, and the Spirit of God hovering on the face of the waters. And\nGod said: Let there be light, and there was light. And God saw the\nlight that it was good, and God divided between the light and the\ndarkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called\nNight. And it was Evening, and it was Morning: one day.\n\n\"And God said: Let there be a vault for separation of the waters,\nand let it divide between waters and waters.\" Hereupon he made the\nvault, and separated the waters above it from those below it. The\nvault he called Heavens. This was his second day's work. On the third,\nhe separated the dry land from the sea, \"and saw that it was good;\"\nbesides which he caused the earth to bring forth herbs and fruit-trees.\n\"And God said: Let there be lights in the vault of the heavens to\ndivide between the day and between the night, and let them be for signs\nand for times and for days and for years.\" Hereupon he made the sun for\nthe day, the moon for the night, and the stars. \"And God put them on\nthe vault of the heavens to give light to the earth, and to rule by day\nand by night, and to separate between the light and the darkness; and\nGod saw that it was good. And it was evening, and it was morning; the\nfourth day\" (Gen. i. 1-19).\n\nLet us pause a moment here before passing on to the next branch of the\nsubject: the creation of animals and man. The author had two questions\nbefore him; how the materials of the universe came into being, and how,\nwhen in being, they assumed their present forms and relative positions.\nOf the first he says nothing, unless the first verse be taken to\nrefer to it. But this can scarcely be; for the expression, \"God made\nthe heavens and the earth,\" cannot easily be supposed to refer to\nthe original production of the matter out of which the heavens and\nthe earth were subsequently made. Rather must we take it as a short\nheading, referring to the creation which is about to be described. And\nin any case, the manner in which there came to be anything at all out\nof which heavens and earth could be constructed is not considered. We\nare left apparently to suppose that matter is coeval with the Deity;\nfor the author never faces the question of its origin, which is the\nreal difficulty in all such cosmogonies as his, but hastens at once\nto the easier task of describing the separation and classification of\nmaterials already in existence.\n\nSomewhat similar to the Hebrew legend, both in what it records and\nin what it omits, is the story of creation as told by the Quich\u00e9s in\nAmerica:\u2014\n\n \"This is the first word and the first speech. There were neither men\n nor brutes, neither birds, fish, nor crabs, stick nor stone, valley\n nor mountain, stubble nor forest, nothing but the sky; the face of\n the land was hidden. There was naught but the silent sea and the sky.\n There was nothing joined, nor any sound, nor thing that stirred;\n neither any to do evil, nor to rumble in the heavens, nor a walker\n on foot; only the silent waters, only the pacified ocean, only it\n in its calm. Nothing was but stillness, and rest, and darkness,\n and the night; nothing but the Maker and Moulder, the Hurler, the\n Bird-Serpent\" (M. N. W., p. 196.\u2014Popol Vuh, p. 7).\n\nAnother cosmogony is derived from the Mixtecs, also aborigines of\nAmerica:\u2014\n\n \"In the year and in the day of clouds, before ever were either years\n or days, the world lay in darkness; all things were orderless, and a\n water covered the slime and the ooze that the earth then was\" (M. N.\n W., p. 196).\n\nTwo winds are in this myth the agents employed to effect the subsidence\nof the waters, and the appearance of dry land. In another account,\nrelated by some other tribes, the muskrat is the instrument which\ndivides the land from the waters. These myths, as Mr. Brinton, who\nhas collected them, truly remarks, are \"not of a construction, but a\nreconstruction only, and are in that respect altogether similar to the\ncreative myth of the first chapter of Genesis.\"\n\nIn the Buddhistic history of the East Mongols, the creation of the\nworld is made, as in Genesis, the starting point of the relation.\nBut the creative forces in this mythology are apparently supposed to\nbe inherent in primeval matter. Hence we have a Lucretian account of\nthe movements of the several parts of the component mass without any\nconsideration of the question how the impulse to these movements was\noriginally given. \"In the beginning there arose the external reservoir\nfrom three different masses of matter; namely, from the creative air,\nfrom the waving water, and from the firm, plastic earth. A strong wind\nfrom ten-quarters now brought about the blue atmosphere. A large cloud,\npouring down continuous rain, formed the sea. Dry land arose by means\nof grains of dust collecting on the surface of the ocean, like cream on\nmilk.\"[91]\n\nAlthough the sacred writings of the Parsees contain no connected\naccount of the creation, yet this void is fully supplied by traditions\nwhich have acquired a religious sanction, and have entered into the\npopular belief. Those traditions are found in the Bundehesh and the\nShahnahmeh, works of high authority in the Parsee system. According to\nthem, Ahura-Mazda, the good principle, induced his rival, Agra-Mainyus,\nthe evil principle, to enter into a truce of nine thousand years,\nforeseeing that by means of this interval he would be able to subdue\nhim in the end. Agra-Mainyus, having discovered his blunder, went to\nthe darkest hell, and remained there three thousand years. Ahura-Mazda\ntook advantage of this repose to create the material world. He\nproduced the sky in forty-five days, the water in sixty, the earth in\nseventy-five, the trees in thirty, the cattle in eighty, and human\nbeings in seventy-five; three hundred and sixty-five days were thus\noccupied with the business of creation. It will be observed that,\nthough the time taken is longer, the order of production is the same\nin the Parsee as in the Hebrew legend. This fact tends to confirm the\nsupposition, which will hereafter appear still more probable, of an\nintimate relation between the two.\n\nAlways prone to speculation, the Hindus were certain to find in the\ndark subject of creation abundant materials for their mystic theories.\nVarious explanations are accordingly given in the Rig-Veda. Thus, the\nfollowing account is found in the tenth Book:\u2014\n\n \"Let us, in chanted hymns, with praise, declare the births of the\n gods,\u2014any of us who in this latter age may behold them. Br\u00e2hmanaspati\n blew forth these births like a blacksmith. In the earliest age of\n the gods, the existent sprang from the non-existent: thereafter the\n regions sprang from Utt\u0101napad. The earth sprang from Utt\u0101napad, from\n the earth sprang the regions: Daksha sprang from Aditi, and Aditi from\n Daksha. Then the gods were born, and drew forth the sun, which was\n hidden in the ocean\" (O. S. T., vol. v. p. 48.\u2014Rig-Veda, x. 72).\n\nWith higher wisdom, another Vaidik Rishi declares it impossible to know\nthe origin of the universe:\u2014\n\n \"There was then neither nonentity nor entity: there was no atmosphere,\n nor sky above. What enveloped [all]? Where, in the receptacle of\n what, [was it contained]? Was it water, the profound abyss? Death was\n not then, nor immortality; there was no distinction of day or night.\n That One breathed calmly, self-supported; there was nothing different\n from, or above, it. In the beginning darkness existed, enveloped\n in darkness. All this was undistinguishable water. That One which\n lay void, and wrapped in nothingness, was developed by the power of\n fervor. Desire first arose in It, which was the primal germ of mind;\n [and which] sages, searching with their intellect, have discovered in\n their heart to be the bond which connects entity with nonentity. The\n ray [or cord] which stretched across these [worlds], was it below or\n was it above? There were there impregnating powers and mighty forces,\n a self-supporting principle beneath, and energy aloft. Who knows, who\n here can declare, whence has sprung, whence, this creation? The gods\n are subsequent to the development of this [universe]; who then knows\n whence it arose? From what this creation arose, and whether [any one]\n made it or not, he who in the highest heaven is its ruler, he verily\n knows, or even he does not know\" (O. S. T., vol. v. p. 356.\u2014Rig-Veda,\n x. 129).\n\nA later narrative ascribes creation to the god Prajapati, who, it is\nsaid, having the desire to multiply himself, underwent the requisite\nausterities, and then produced earth, air, and heaven (A. B., vol. ii.\np. 372).\n\nWe now return to Genesis, which proceeds to its second problem: the\ncreation of living creatures and of man. This is solved in two distinct\nfashions by two different writers. The first relates that on the fifth\nday God said, \"Let the waters swarm with the swarming of animals\nhaving life, and let birds fly to and fro on the earth, on the face\nof the vault of the heavens.\" Having thus produced the inhabitants of\nthe ocean and air on the fifth day, he produced those of earth on the\nsixth. On this day too he made man in his own image, and created them\nmale and female. The whole of his work was now finished, and on the\nseventh day he enjoyed repose from his creative exertions, for which\nreason he blessed the seventh day (Gen. 1-ii. 3).\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nHere the first account of creation ends; the second begins with a\ndescriptive title at the fourth verse of the second chapter. The writer\nof this version, unlike his predecessor, instead of ascribing the\ncreation of man to the immediate fiat of Elohim, describes the process\nas resembling one of manufacture. God formed the human figure out of\nthe dust of the earth, and then blew life into it, a conception drawn\nfrom the wide-spread notion of the identity of breath with life. Again\nthe narrator of the second story varies from the narrator of the first\nabout the creation of the sexes. In the first, the male and female are\nmade together. In the second, a deep sleep falls upon the man, during\nwhich God takes out a rib from his side and makes the woman out of it.\nGenerally speaking, it may be remarked that the former writer moves in\na more transcendental sphere than the latter. He likes to conceive the\norigin of the world, with all its flora and all its fauna, as arising\nfrom the simple power of the word of God. How they arise he never\ntroubles himself to say. The latter is more terrestrial. God with him\nis like a powerful artist; extremely skilled indeed in dealing with\nhis materials, but nevertheless obliged to adapt his proceedings to\ntheir nature and capabilities. This author delights in the concrete\nand particular; and not only does he aim at relating the order of\nthe creation, but also at making the _modus operandi_ more or less\nintelligible to his hearers.\n\nA somewhat different account of the origin of man is given in the\ntraditions of Samoa, one of the Fiji islands. These traditions also\ndescribe an epoch when the earth was covered with water. \"Tangaloa,\nthe great Polynesian Jupiter,\" sent his daughter to find a dry place.\nAfter a long time she found a rock. In subsequent visits she reported\nthat the dry land was extending. \"He then sent her down with some earth\nand a creeping plant, as all was barren rock. She continued to visit\nthe earth and return to the skies. Next visit, the plant was spreading.\nNext time, it was withered and decomposing. Next visit, it swarmed with\nworms. And the next time, the worms had become men and women! A strange\naccount of man's origin!\" On which it may be remarked, as a curious\npsychological phenomenon, tending to illustrate the effects of habit,\nthat the missionary considers it \"a strange account of man's origin\"\nwhich represents God as making him from worms, but readily accepts\nanother in which he is made out of dust.\n\nThe third question dealt with in Genesis is that of the origin of evil.\nThis is a problem which has engaged the attention and perplexed the\nminds of many inquirers besides these ancient Hebrews, and for which\nmost religions provide some kind of solution. The manner in which it is\ntreated here is as follows:\u2014\n\nWhen God made Adam, he placed him in a garden full of delights, and\nespecially distinguished by the excellence of its fruit-trees. There\nwas one of these trees, however, the fruit of which he did not wish\nAdam to eat. He accordingly gave him strict orders on the subject in\nthese words: \"Of every tree of the garden thou mayst eat; but of the\ntree of knowledge of good and evil, of that thou mayst not eat, for on\nwhat day thou eatest thereof, thou diest the death\" (Gen. ii. 16, 17).\nThis order we must suppose to have been imparted by Adam to Eve, who\nwas not produced until after it had been given. At any rate, we find\nher fully cognizant of it in the ensuing chapter, where the serpent\nappears upon the scene and endeavors, only too successfully, to induce\nher to eat the fruit. After yielding to the temptation herself, she\ninduced her husband to do the like; whereupon both recognized the\nhitherto unnoticed fact of their nudity, and made themselves aprons of\nfig-leaves. Shortly after this crisis in their lives God came down to\nenjoy the cool of the evening in the garden; and Adam and Eve, feeling\ntheir guilt, ran to hide themselves among the trees. God called Adam,\nand the latter replied that he had hidden himself because he was naked.\nBut God at once asked who had told him he was naked. Had he eaten of\nthe forbidden tree? Of course Adam and Eve had to confess, and God\nthen cursed the serpent for his gross misconduct, and punished the man\nby imposing labor upon him, and the woman by rendering her liable to\nthe pains of childbirth. He also condescended so far as to become the\nfirst tailor, making garments of skins for Adam and Eve. But though he\nhad thus far got the better of them by his superior strength, he was\nnot without apprehension that they might outwit him still. \"And God,\nthe Everlasting, spoke: See, the man is become as one of us, to know\ngood and evil; and now, lest he should stretch out his hand and take\nalso of the tree of life, and eat and live forever! Therefore God,\nthe Everlasting, sent him out of the garden of Eden, to cultivate the\nground from which he had been taken\" (Gen. iii. 22, 23). And in order\nto make quite sure that the man should not get hold of the tree of\nlife, a calamity which would have defeated his intention to make him\nmortal, he guarded the approach to it by means of Cherubim, posted as\nsentinels with the flame of a sword that turned about. In this way\nhe conceived that he had secured himself against any invasion of his\nprivilege of immortality on the part of the human race.\n\nLike the myth of creation, the myth of a happier and brighter age,\nwhen men did not suffer from any of the evils that oppress them now,\nis common, if not universal. Common too, if not equally common, is the\nnotion that they fell from that superior state by contracting the stain\nof sin. I need scarcely refer to the classical story of a golden age,\nembodied by Hesiod in his \"Works and Days,\" nor to the fable of Pandora\nallowing the ills enclosed in the box to escape into the world. But it\nmay be of interest to remark, that the conception of a Paradise was\nno less familiar to the natives of America than to those of Europe.\n\"When Christopher Columbus,\" observes Brinton, \"fired by the hope of\ndiscovering this terrestrial paradise, broke the enchantment of the\ncloudy sea and found a new world, it was but to light upon the same\nrace of men, deluding themselves with the same hope of earthly joys,\nthe same fiction of a long-lost garden of their youth\" (M. N. W., p.\n87). Elsewhere he says: \"Once again, in the legends of the Mixtecas, we\nhear the old story repeated of the garden where the first two brothers\ndwelt.... 'Many trees were there, such as yield flowers and roses, very\nluscious fruits, divers herbs, and aromatic spices'\" (M. N. W., p.\n90). Corresponding to the golden age among the Greeks was the Parsee\nconception of the reign of Yima, a mythological monarch who was in\nimmediate and friendly intercourse with Ahura-Mazda. Yima's kingdom is\nthus described in the Vendidad: \"There was there neither quarreling\nnor disputing; neither stupidity nor violence; neither begging nor\nimposture; neither poverty nor illness. No unduly large teeth; no form\nthat passes the measure of the body; none of the other marks, which\nare marks of Agra-Mainyus, that he has made on men\" (Av., vol. i. p.\n76.\u2014Vendidad, Fargard ii. 116 ff.). In another passage, found in the\nKhorda-Avesta, not only is the happiness of Yima's time depicted, but\nit is also distinctly asserted that he fell through sin. \"During his\nrule there was no cold, no heat, no old age, no death, no envy created\nby the Devas, on account of the absence of lying, previously, before\nhe (himself) began to love lying, untrue speeches. Then, when he began\nto love lying, untrue speeches, Majesty fled from him visibly with the\nbody of a bird\" (Av., vol. iii. p. 175.\u2014Khorda-Avesta, xxxv. 32, 34).\n\nMore elaborately than in any of these systems is the fall of man\ndescribed in the mythology of Buddhism. In this religion, as in that of\nthe Jews, man is of divine origin, though after a somewhat different\nfashion. A spiritual being, or god, fell from one of the upper spheres,\nto be born in the world of man. Through the progressive increase of\nthis being arose \"the six species of living creatures in the three\nworlds.\" The most eminent of these species, Man, enjoyed an untold\nduration of life (another point in which Buddhistic legends resemble\nthose of the Hebrews). Locomotion was carried on through the air;\nthey did not consume impure terrestrial food, but lived on celestial\nvictuals; and propagation, since there was no distinction of sex, was\ncarried on by means of emanation. They did not require sun or moon,\nfor they saw by their own light. Alas! one of these pure beings was\ntempted by a fool called earth-butter and ate it. The rest followed\nits example. Hereupon the heavenly food vanished; the race lost their\npower of going about the sky, and ceased to shine by their own light.\nThis was the origin of the evil of the darkening of the mind. As a\nconsequence of these deeds, sun, moon, and stars appeared. Still\ngreater calamities were in store for men. Another, at another time,\nate a different kind of food, an example again followed by the rest.\nIn consequence of this, the distinctions of sex were established in\nthem; passion arose; they began to beget children. This was the origin\nof the evil of sensual love. On a further occasion, one of them ate\nwild rice, and all lived for a time on wild rice, gathered as it was\nneeded for immediate consumption. But when some foolish fellow took it\ninto his head to collect enough for the following day, the rice ceased\nto grow without cultivation. This was the origin of the evil of idle\ncarelessness. It being now necessary to cultivate rice, persons began\nto appropriate and quarrel about land, and even to kill one another.\nThis was the origin of the evil of anger. Again, some who were better\noff hid their stores from those who were not so well off. This was\nthe origin of the evil of covetousness. In course of time the age of\nmen began to decline so as to be expressible in numbers. It continues\ngradually to decline until a turning-point arrives, at which it again\nincreases (G. O. M., p. 5-9).\n\nSeveral points of similarity between the Hebrew myth and that just\nnarrated will doubtless occur to the reader. The fall of man is due,\nin this, as in Genesis, to the eating of a peculiar food by a single\nperson; and this example is followed, in the one case, by the only\nother inhabitant; in the other, by all. The calamity thus entailed\ndoes not terminate in the loss of former pleasures, but extends to the\nintroduction of crime and sexual relations. Eve is cursed by having to\nbear children; the same misfortune happened to the Buddhist women. Cain\nquarreled with Abel and killed him; so did the landed proprietors in\nthe Indian legend quarrel with and kill one another.\n\nThe fourth question which appeared to have engaged the attention of the\nauthors of Genesis was that of the variety of languages. How was it,\nif all mankind were descended from a single pair, and if again all but\nthe Noachian family had been drowned, that they did not all speak the\npure language in which Adam and Eve had conversed with their Creator\nin Paradise? Embarrassed by their own theories, the writers attempted\nto account for the phenomenon of the diverse modes of speech in use\namong men by an awkward myth. Men had determined to build a town, with\na tower which should reach to heaven. Jehovah, however, came down one\nday to see what they were about, and was filled with apprehension that,\nif they succeeded in this undertaking, he might find it impossible\nto prevent them from carrying out their wishes in other ways also,\nwhatever those wishes might be. So he determined to confound their\nlanguage, that they might not understand one another, and by this happy\ncontrivance put an end to the construction of the dangerous tower (Gen.\nxi. 1-9).\n\nWe have anticipated the course of the narrative in order to consider\nthe solutions offered in Genesis of the four principal problems with\nwhich it attempts to deal. We must now return to the point at which we\nleft the parents of the race, namely, immediately after their expulsion\nfrom Eden. They now began to beget children rapidly; and Adam's eldest\nson, Cain, afterwards killed his second son, Abel, for which Jehovah\ncursed him as he had previously cursed his parents. Adam and Eve had\nseveral other children, and (though this is nowhere expressly stated,\nbut only implied) the brothers and sisters united in marriage to carry\nout the propagation of the species. In course of time, however, the\n\"sons of God\" began to admire the beauty of the \"daughters of men,\" and\nto take wives from among them. Jehovah, indignant at such a scandal,\nfixed the limits of man's life\u2014which had hitherto been measured by\ncenturies\u2014at 120 years. At the same time there were giants on earth.\nNow Jehovah saw that the human race was extremely wicked, so much\nso, that he began to wish he had never created it. To remedy this\nblunder, however, he determined to destroy it; and in order that the\nimprovement should be thorough, to destroy along with it all cattle,\ncreeping things, and birds, who had not (so far as we are aware,)\nentered into the same kind of irregular alliances with other species as\nmen. Nevertheless, he had still a lingering fondness for his handiwork,\nbadly as it had turned out; and therefore determined to preserve enough\nof each kind of animal, man included, to carry on the breed without\nthe necessity of resorting a second time to creation. Acting upon\nthis resolve, he ordered an individual named Noah to build an ark of\ngopher-wood, announcing that he would shortly destroy all flesh, but\nwished to save Noah and his three sons, with their several wives. He\nalso desired him to take two members of each species of beasts and\nbirds, or, according to another account, seven of each clean beast\nand bird, and two of each unclean beast; but in any case taking care\nthat each sex should be represented in the ark. When Noah had done all\nthis, the waters came up from below and down from above, and there\nwas an increasing flood for forty days. All terrestrial life but that\nwhich floated in the ark was destroyed. At last the waters began to\nebb, and finally the ark rested on the 17th day of the 7th month on\nMount Ararat. After forty more days Noah sent out a raven and a dove,\nof which only the dove returned. In seven days he sent the dove again,\nand it returned, bringing an olive-leaf; and after another week, when\nhe again sent it out, it returned no more. It was not, however, till\nthe 27th of the 2d month of the ensuing year (these chroniclers being\nvery exact about dates) that the earth was dried, and that Noah and his\nparty were able to quit the ark. To commemorate the goodness of God in\ndrowning all the world except himself and his family, Noah erected an\naltar and offered burnt-offerings of every clean beast and every clean\nfowl. The effect was instantaneous. So pleased was Jehovah with the\n\"pleasant smell,\" that he resolved never to destroy all living beings\nagain, though still of opinion that \"the imagination of man's heart is\nevil from his youth\" (Gen. vi. 7, 8).\n\nThe myth of the deluge is very general. The Hebrews have no exclusive\nproperty in it. Many different races relate it in different ways. We\nmay easily suppose that the partial deluges to which they must often\nhave been witnesses suggested the notion of a universal deluge, in\nwhich not only a few tribes or villages perished, but all the inhabited\nearth was laid under water; or the memory of some actual flood of\nunusual dimensions may have survived in the popular mind, and been\nhanded down with traits of exaggeration and distortion such as are\ncommonly found in the narratives of events preserved by oral tradition.\nLet us examine a few instances of the flood-myth.\n\nThe Fijians relate that the god \"Degei was roused every morning by the\ncooing of a monstrous bird,\" but that two young men, his grandsons,\none day accidentally killed and buried it. Degei having, after some\ntrouble, found the dead body, determined to be avenged. The youths\n\"took refuge with a powerful tribe of carpenters,\" who built a fence to\nkeep out the god. Unable to take the fence by storm, Degei brought on\nheavy floods, which rose so high that his grandsons and their friends\nhad to escape in \"large bowls that happened to be at hand.\" They landed\nat various places; but it is said that the two tribes became extinct\n(Viti, p. 394).\n\nThe Greenlanders have \"a tolerably distinct tradition\" of a flood. They\nsay that all men were drowned excepting one. This one beat with his\nstick upon the ground and thereby produced a woman (Gr\u00f6nland, p. 246).\n\nKamtschatka has a somewhat similar legend, except that it admits a\nlarger number of survivors. Very many, according to this version, were\ndrowned, and the waves had sunk those who had got into boats; but\nothers took refuge in rafts, binding the trees together to make them.\nOn these they saved themselves with their provisions and all their\nproperty. When the waters subsided, the rafts remained on the high\nmountains (Kamtschatka, p. 273).\n\nAmong the North Americans \"the notion of a universal deluge\" was, in\nthe time of the Jesuit De Charlevoix, \"rather wide-spread.\" In one of\ntheir stories, told by the Iroquois, all human beings were drowned; and\nit was necessary, in order to re-populate the earth, to change animals\ninto men (N. F., vol. iii. p. 345).\n\nThe Tupis of Brazil are supposed to be named after Tupa, the first\nof men, \"who alone survived the flood\" (M. N. W., p. 185). Again,\n\"the Peruvians imagined that _two_ destructions had taken place, the\nfirst by a famine, the second by a flood; according to some a few only\nescaping, but, after the more widely accepted opinion, accompanied by\nthe absolute extirpation of the race.\" The present race came from eggs\ndropped out of heaven (Ibid., p. 213). Several other tribes relate in\ndiverse forms this world-wide story. In one of the versions, found in\nan old Mexican work, a man and his wife are saved, by the directions\nof their god, in a hollow cypress. In another, the earth is destroyed\nby water, because men \"did not think nor speak of the Creator who had\ncreated them, and who had caused their birth.\" \"Because they had not\nthought of their Mother and Father, the Heart of Heaven, whose name is\nHurakan, therefore the face of the earth grew dark, and a pouring rain\ncommenced, raining by day, raining by night\" (Ibid., p. 206 ff.).\n\nThe diluvian legend appears in a very singular form in India in the\nSatapatha Br\u00e2hmana. There it is stated, that in the basin which was\nbrought to Manu to wash his hands in, there was one morning a small\nfish. The fish said to him, \"Preserve me, I shall save thee.\" Manu\ninquired from what it would save him. The fish replied that it would be\nfrom a flood which would destroy all creatures. It informed Manu that\nfishes, while small, were exposed to the risk of being eaten by other\nfishes; he was therefore to put it first into a jar; then when it grew\ntoo large for that, to dig a trench and keep it in that; that when it\ngrew too large for the trench, to carry it to the ocean. Straightway\nit became a large fish, and said: \"Now in such and such a year, then\nthe flood will come; thou shalt therefore construct a ship, and resort\nto me; thou shalt embark in the ship when the flood rises, and I shall\ndeliver thee from it.\" Manu took the fish to the sea, and in the year\nthat had been named, \"he constructed a ship and resorted to him. When\nthe flood rose, Manu embarked in the ship. The fish swam towards him.\nHe fastened the cable of the ship to the fish's horn. By this means he\npassed over this northern mountain. The fish said, 'I have delivered\nthee; fasten the ship to a tree. But lest the water should cut thee\noff whilst thou art on the mountain, as much as the water subsides, so\nmuch shalt thou descend after it.' He accordingly descended after it\nas much (as it subsided).... Now the flood had swept away all these\ncreatures; so Manu alone was left here\" (O. S. T., vol. i. p. 183). The\nstory goes on to relate that Manu, being quite alone, produced a woman\nby \"arduous religious rites,\" and that with this woman, who called\nherself his daughter, \"he begot this offspring, which is this offspring\nof Manu,\" that is, the existing human race.\n\nAfter the flood, the history proceeds for some time to narrate the\nlives of a series of patriarchs, the mythological ancestors of the\nHebrew race. Of these the first is Abram, afterwards called Abraham;\nto whom a solemn promise was made that he was to be the progenitor\nof a great nation; that Jehovah would bless those who blessed him,\nand curse those who cursed him; and that in him all generations of\nthe earth should be blessed (Gen. xii. 1-3). When Abraham visited\nEgypt, he desired his wife Sarah to call herself his sister, fearing\nlest the Egyptians should kill him for her sake. She did so, and was\ntaken into Pharaoh's harem in consequence of her false statement; but\nJehovah plagued Pharaoh, and his house so severely that the truth\nwas discovered, and Sarah was restored to her lawful husband. It is\nremarkable that Abraham is stated to have subsequently repeated the\nsame contemptible trick, this time alleging by way of excuse that Sarah\nreally was his step-sister; and that Abraham's son, Isaac, is said to\nhave done the same thing in reference to Rebekah (Gen. xii. 10-20, xx.,\nxxvi. 6-11). Abimelech, king of Gerar, who was twice imposed upon by\nthese patriarchs, must have thought it a singular custom of the family\nthus to pass off their wives as sisters. Apparently, too, both of\nthem were quite prepared to surrender their consorts to the harems of\nforeign monarchs rather than run the smallest risk in their defense.\n\nAbraham, at ninety-nine years of age, was fortunate in all things\nbut one: he had no legitimate heir. But this too was to be given\nhim. Jehovah appeared to him, announced himself as Almighty God, and\nestablished with Abraham a solemn covenant. He promised to make him\nfruitful, to give his posterity the land of Canaan, in which he then\nwas, and to cause Sarah to have a son. At the same time he desired\nthat all males should be circumcized, an operation which was forthwith\nperformed on Abraham, his illegitimate son Ishmael, and all the men in\nhis house (Gen. xvii). In due time Sarah had a son whom Abraham named\nIsaac. But when Isaac was a lad, and all Abraham's hopes of posterity\nwere centered in him as the only child of Sarah, God one day commanded\nhim to sacrifice him as a burnt-offering on a mountain in Moriah.\nWithout a murmur, without a word of inquiry, Abraham prepared to obey\nthis extraordinary injunction, and was only withheld from plunging\nthe sacrificial knife into the bosom of his son by the positive\ninterposition of an angel. Looking about, he perceived a ram caught in\na thicket, and offered him as a burnt offering instead of Isaac. For\nthis servile and unintelligent submission, he was rewarded by Jehovah\nwith further promises as to the amazing numbers of his posterity in\nfuture times (Gen. xxi. 1-8; xxii. 1-19).\n\nThe tradition of human sacrifice, thus preserved in the story of\nAbraham and Isaac, is found also in a curious narrative of the Aitareya\nBr\u00e2hmana. That sacred book also commemorates an important personage, in\nthis instance a king, who had no son. Although he had a hundred wives,\nyet none of them bore him a male heir. He inquired of his priest,\nNarada, what were the advantages of having a son, and learned that\nthey were very great. \"The father pays a debt in his son, and gains\nimmortality,\" such was one of the privileges to be obtained by means\nof a son. The Rishi Narada therefore advised King Harischandra to pray\nto Varuna for a son, promising at the same time to sacrifice him as\nsoon as he was born. The king did so. \"Then a son, Rohita by name, was\nborn to him. Varuna said to him, 'A son is born to thee, sacrifice him\nto me.' Harischandra said, 'An animal is fit for being sacrificed,\nwhen it is more than ten days old. Let him reach this age, then I will\nsacrifice him to thee. At ten days Varuna again demanded him, but now\nhis father had a fresh excuse, and so postponed the sacrifice from age\nto age until Rohita had received his full armor.\" Varuna having again\nclaimed him, Harischandra now said, \"Well, my dear, to him who gave\nthee unto me, I will sacrifice thee now.\" But Rohita, come to man's\nestate, had no mind to be sacrificed, and ran away to the wilderness.\nVaruna now caused Harischandra to suffer from dropsy. Rohita, hearing\nof it, left the forest, and went to a village, where Indra, in\ndisguise, met him and desired him to wander. The advice was repeated\nevery year until Rohita had wandered six years in the forest. This last\nyear he met a poor Rishi, named Ajigarta, who was starving, to whom\nhe offered one hundred cows for one of his three sons as a ransom for\nhimself in the sacrifice to be offered to Varuna. The father having\nobjected to the eldest, and the mother to the youngest, the middle one\nSunahsepa, was agreed upon as the ransom, and the hundred cows were\npaid for him. Rohita presented to his father the boy Sunahsepa, who\nwas accepted by the god with the remark that a Brahman was worth more\nthan a Kshattriya. \"Varuna then explained to the king the rites of the\nRajasuya sacrifice, at which on the day appointed for the inauguration\nhe replaced the (sacrificial animal) by a man.\"\n\nBut at the sacrifice a strange incident occurred. No one could be\nfound willing to bind the victim to the sacrificial post. At last his\nfather offered to do it for another hundred cows. Bound to the stake,\nno one could be found to kill him. This act also his father undertook\nto do for a third hundred. \"He then whetted his knife and went to kill\nhis son. Sunahsepa then got aware that they were going to butcher him\njust as if he were no man (but a beast). 'Well,' said he, 'I will seek\nshelter with the gods.' He applied to Prajapati, who referred him to\nanother god, who did the same; and thus he was driven from god to\ngod through the pantheon, until he came to Ushas, the dawn. However,\nas he was praising Ushas, his fetters fell off, and Harischandra's\nbelly became smaller; until at the last verse he was free, and\nHarischandra well.\" Sunahsepa was now received among the priests as\none of themselves, and he sat down by Visvamitra, an eminent Rishi.\nAjigarta, his father, requested that he might be returned to him, but\nVisvamitra refused, \"for,\" he said, \"the gods have presented him to\nme.\" From that time forward he became Visvamitra's son. At this point,\nhowever, Ajigarta himself entreated his son to return to his home, and\nthe answer of the latter is remarkable. \"Sunahsepa answered, 'What is\nnot found even in the hands of a Shudra, one has seen in thy hand, the\nknife (to kill thy son); three hundred cows thou hast preferred to\nme, O Angiras.' Ajigarta then answered, 'O my dear son! I repent of\nthe bad deed I have committed; I blot out this stain! one hundred of\nthe cows shall be thine!' Sunahsepa answered, 'Who once might commit\nsuch a sin, may commit the same another time. Thou art still not free\nfrom the brutality of a Shudra, for thou hast committed a crime for\nwhich no reconciliation exists.' 'Yes, irreconcilable (is this act),'\ninterrupted Visvamitra!\" (A. B., p. 460-469.)\n\nOn the likeness of this story to the Hebrew legend of the intended\nsacrifice of Isaac, and on the difference between the two, I shall\ncomment elsewhere. From the days of Abraham the history proceeds\nthrough a series of patriarchal biographies\u2014those of Isaac and Rebekah,\nof Jacob and Rachel, of Joseph and his brothers\u2014to the captivity of\nthe Israelites in Egypt under the successor of the monarch whose prime\nminister Joseph had been. It is at this point that the history of the\nHebrews as a distinct nation may be said to begin. The patriarchs\nbelong to universal history. But from the days of the Egyptian\ncaptivity it is the fortunes of a peculiar tribe, and afterwards of\nan independent people that are followed. We have their deliverance\nfrom slavery, their progress through the wilderness, their triumphant\nestablishment in their destined home, the rise, decline, and fall\nof their national greatness, depicted with much graphic power, and\nintermingled with episodes of the deepest interest. It would not be\nconsistent with the plan or limits of this work to follow the history\nthrough its varied details; all we can do is to touch upon it here\nand there, where the adventures, institutions, or imaginations of\nthe Hebrews present points of contact with those of other nations as\nrecorded in their authorized writings.\n\nIt was only by the especial favor of Jehovah that the Hebrew slaves\nwere enabled to escape from Egypt at all. That deity appointed a man\nnamed Moses as their leader; and, employing him as his mouthpiece,\ndesired Pharaoh to let them go. On Pharaoh's refusal, he visited Egypt\nwith a series of calamities; all of them inadequate to the object\nin view, until at length Pharaoh and all his army were overwhelmed\nin the Red Sea, which had opened to allow the Israelites to pass.\nThese last now escaped into the wilderness, where, under the guidance\nof Moses, they wandered for forty years, undergoing all sorts of\nhardships, before they reached the promised land. During the course\nof their travels, Jehovah gave Moses ten commandments, which stand\nout from a mass of other injunctions and enactments, by the solemnity\nwith which they were delivered, and by the extreme importance of their\nsubject-matter. They are reported to have been given to Moses by\nJehovah in person on Mount Sinai, in the midst of a very considerable\namount of noise and smoke, apparently intended to be impressive. By\nthese laws the Israelites were ordered\u2014\n\n  1. To have no other God but Jehovah.\n  2. To make no image for purposes of worship.\n  3. Not to take Jehovah's name in vain.\n  4. Not to work on the Sabbath day.\n  5. To honor their parents.\n  6. Not to kill.\n  7. Not to commit adultery.\n  8. Not to steal.\n  9. Not to bear false witness against a neighbor.\n  10. Not to covet.\n\nConcerning these commandments, it may be observed that the acts\nenjoined or forbidden are of very different characters. Some of the\nobligations thus imposed are universally binding, and the precepts\nrelating to them form a portion of universal ethics. Others again are\nof a purely special theological character, and have no application\nat all except to those who hold certain theological doctrines.\nLastly, others command states of mind only, which have no proper\nplace in positive laws enforced under penalties. To illustrate these\nremarks in detail: the four commandments against killing, stealing,\nadultery, and calumny are of universal obligation, and though they\nare far from exhausting the list of actions which a moral code should\nprohibit, yet properly belong to it and are among its most important\nconstituents. But the first, second, third, and fourth commandments\npresuppose a nation believing in Jehovah as their God; and even with\nthat proviso the fourth, requiring the observance of a day of rest,\nis purely arbitrary; belonging only to ritual, not to morals. To\nplace it along with prohibitions of murder and theft, is simply to\nconfuse in the minds of hearers the all-important distinction between\nspecial observances and universal duties. Again, the fifth and tenth\ncommandments require mere emotional conditions; respect for parents in\nthe one case, absence of covetousness in the other. No doubt both these\nmental conditions have actions and abstinences from action as their\ncorrelatives; but it is with these last that law should deal, and not\nwith the mere states of feeling over which no commandment can exercise\nthe smallest control. Law may forbid us to annoy our neighbor, or do\nhim an injury on account of his wife whom we love, or his estate which\nwe desire to possess; but it is idle to forbid us to wish that the wife\nor the estate were ours.\n\nThese errors are avoided in the five fundamental commandments of\nBuddhism, which relate wholly to matters that, if binding upon any, are\nbinding upon all. They are these:\u2014\n\n  1. Not to kill.\n  2. Not to steal.\n  3. Not to indulge in illicit pleasures of sex.\n  4. Not to lie.\n  5. Not to drink intoxicating liquors.[92]\n\nNo doubt the fifth is not of equal importance with the rest; yet\nits intention is simply to put a stop to drunkenness, and this it\naccomplishes, like teetotal societies, by requiring entire abstinence.\nProbably in hot climates, and with populations not capable of much\nself-control, this was the wisest way. The third commandment, as I have\npresented it, is somewhat vague, but this is because the form in which\nit is given by the authorities is not always the same. Sometimes it\nappears as a mere prohibition of all unchastity; but the more probable\nview appears to be that of Burnouf, who interprets it as directed\nagainst adultery, in substantial accordance with Alabaster, who renders\nit as an injunction \"not to indulge the passions, so as to invade the\nlegal or natural rights of other men.\"\n\nIn the eight principal commandments of the Parsees, the breach of\nwhich was to be punished with death, there is the the same confusion of\ntheological and natural duties as in the Hebrew Bible. The Parsees were\nforbidden\u2014\n\n  1. To kill a pure man (_i.\u202fe._, a Parsee).\n  2. To put out the fire Behram.\n  3. To throw the impurity from dead bodies into fire or water.\n  4. To commit adultery.\n  5. To practice magic or contribute to its being practiced.\n  6. To throw the impurity of menstruating women into fire or water.\n  7. To commit sodomy with boys.\n  8. To commit highway-robbery or suicide (Av., vol. ii. p. lx).\n\nBesides these commandments, Jehovah gave his people a vast mass of\nlaws, amounting in fact to a complete criminal code, through his\nmouthpiece Moses. Among these laws were those which were written on the\ntwo tables of stone, commonly though erroneously supposed to have been\nthe ten commandments of the twentieth chapter. The express statement\nof Exodus forbids such a supposition. It is there stated that when God\nhad finished communing with Moses he gave him \"two tables of testimony,\ntables of stone, written with the finger of God.\" This most valuable\nautograph Moses had the folly to break in his anger at finding that the\nIsraelites, led by his brother Aaron, had taken to worshiping a golden\ncalf in his absence (Ex., xxxi. 18, and xxxii. 19). God, however,\ndesired him to prepare other tables like those he had destroyed, and\nkindly undertook to write upon them the very words that had been on\nthe first. Apparently, however, he only dictated them to Moses, who\nis said to have written upon the tables \"the words of the covenant,\nthe ten commandments.\" What these words were there can be no doubt,\nfor he had begun his address to Moses by saying, \"Behold, I make a\ncovenant;\" and had concluded it by the expression, \"Write thou _these_\nwords: for after the tenor of these words have I made a covenant\nwith thee and with Israel\" (Ex. xxxiv. 1-28). Now the commandments\nthus asserted to have been written on the tables of stone were very\ndifferent from the ten given before on Mount Sinai, and resemble more\nclosely still the style of those quoted from the Parsee books. Yet\nthey were evidently deemed by the writers of great importance, from\nthe honor ascribed to them of having been originally written in God's\nown handwriting on stone. Their purport is:\u20141. To forbid any covenant\nwith the inhabitants of the land to which the Israelites were going,\nand to enjoin them to \"destroy their altars, break their images, and\ncut down their groves;\"\u20142. To require the observance of the feast of\nunleavened bread;\u20143. To lay claim to firstlings for Jehovah, and demand\ntheir redemption;\u20144. To command the Sabbatical rest;\u20145. To enjoin the\nobservance of the feast of weeks;\u20146. To desire that all males should\nappear thrice yearly before the Lord;\u20147. To forbid the sacrifice of\nblood with leaven;\u20148. To forbid leaving the sacrifice of the feast\nof the passover till morning;\u20149. To demand the first-fruits for\nJehovah;\u201410. To forbid seething a kid in its mother's milk.[93]\n\nEminent as Moses was, and high as he stood in the favor of his God, he\nwas not permitted to lead his people to Canaan. Jehovah punished him\nfor a momentary weakness by depriving him of that privilege, which was\nreserved for Joshua. Just as the waters of the Red Sea were cleft in\ntwo to allow the Israelites to quit Egypt, so were those of the Jordan\ncleft in two to allow them to enter Canaan. No sooner did the feet\nof the priests bearing the ark touch the water, than the portion of\nthe river below was cut off from that above, the upper waters rising\ninto a heap (Josh. iii). Striking as this miracle is, it is not more\nso than that performed by Visvamitra, an Indian sage. When he arrived\nat a river which he desired to cross, that holy man said: \"Listen,\nO sisters, to the bard who has come to you from afar with wagon and\nchariot. Sink down; become fordable; reach not up to our chariot-axles\nwith your streams. (The rivers answer): We shall listen to thy words,\nO bard; thou hast come from far with wagon and chariot. I will bow\ndown to thee like a woman with full breast (suckling her child), as\na maid to a man will I throw myself open to thee. (Visvamitra says):\nWhen the Bharatas, that war-loving tribe, sent forward, impelled by\nIndra, have crossed thee, then thy headlong current shall hold on its\ncourse. I seek the favor of you the adorable. The war-loving Bharatas\nhave crossed; the Sage has obtained the favor of the rivers. Swell on,\nimpetuous and fertilizing; fill your channels; roll rapidly\" (O. S. T.,\nvol. i. p. 340).\n\nSo that the very same prodigy which, according to the Book of Joshua,\nwas wrought for the benefit of the Hebrew people in Palestine, was,\naccording to the Rig-Veda, wrought for the benefit of a warlike tribe\nin India.\n\nAfter their arrival and settlement in Palestine the Israelites passed\nthrough a period of great trouble and disturbance. The government was\na direct theocracy; men appointed by God, that is, self-appointed,\nput themselves at the head of affairs and governed with more or less\nsuccess under the inspiration, and in the name of Jehovah. During this\ntime the people were exposed to great annoyance from their enemies the\nPhilistines, by whom they were for a certain space held in subjugation.\nThe legend of the national hero and deliverer, Samson, falls within\nthis period of depression under a foreign yoke. Samson is the Jewish\nHerakles, and his exploits are altogether as fabulous as those of\nhis Hellenic counterpart; though it is not impossible that such a\npersonage as Samson may have lived and may have led the people with\nsome glory against their hereditary enemies. Many internal disturbances\ncontributed to render the condition of the Israelites under their\ntheocracy far from enviable; and at length, under the government of\nSamuel, the last representative of this state of things, the people\ncould bear their distress no longer and united to demand a king. The\nrequest was undoubtedly a wise one; for the authority of a monarch was\neminently needed to give internal peace and protection against external\nattacks to the distracted nation. Samuel, however, was naturally\nopposed to such a change. His feelings and his interests were alike\nconcerned in the maintenance of the direct government of Jehovah, whose\nplenipotentiary he was. But all his representations that the proposal\nto elect a king was a crime in the eyes of God, were unavailing. He\nwas compelled to yield, and selected, as the monarch appointed by\nJehovah himself, a young man named Saul. Before long, however, Jehovah\ndiscovered that he had made a mistake, and that Saul was not the kind\nof man he had hoped to find him. Samuel was therefore desired to\nanoint David to supplant him. In other words, Saul did not prove the\nobedient instrument which Samuel had hoped to make of him, and he\ntherefore entered into a secret conspiracy to procure his deposition.\nThe conduct of Saul, and his relations to David, have probably been\nmisrepresented by the ecclesiastical historians, who persistently\nfavor David. Nevertheless, they cannot wholly disguise the lawless and\nsavage career of this monarch before his accession to the throne, of\nwhich at length he obtained possession. Nor was his conduct during his\noccupation of it altogether exemplary. He, however, promoted the views\nof the priestly party, and this was enough to cover a multitude of sins.\n\nHis son Solomon who succeeded him was the most magnificent of the\nmonarchs of Israel and the last who ruled over the undivided kingdom.\nHe was especially renowned for his wisdom, which is exemplified by a\nfamous decision. Two women came before him to dispute the ownership\nof an infant. One of them stated that the other, who was alone in the\nsame house with her, had killed her own child by lying upon it during\nthe night, and taken the living child from its mother while that mother\nwas asleep. The other asserted that the living child was hers. Having\nheard the two statements, the king ordered the living child to be cut\nin two and half given to each woman. Hereupon the one declared that\nshe would prefer to resign it altogether; but the other professed her\nacquiescence in the judgment. The king at once awarded it to her who\nhad been willing to resign it rather than see it divided (1 Kings,\niii. 16-28). Equal, or perhaps even greater wisdom, was displayed by\na monarch whose history is recorded in one of the sacred books of\nBuddhism. Two women were contending before him about their right to a\nboy. He desired each of them to take hold of it by one of its hands and\nto pull at it; the one who succeeded in getting it to keep it. She who\nwas not the mother pulled unmercifully; whereas the true mother, though\nstronger than her rival, only pulled gently in order to avoid hurting\nit. The king perceived the truth, and adjudged it to the one who had\npulled it gently (G. O. M., p. 344).\n\nRehoboam, the son and successor of Solomon, failing to conciliate the\npeople at his accession, brought about the schism between S\u00e2maria and\nJudea, between the ten tribes and the two, which was never afterwards\nhealed. After this the government in each kingdom may be described as\nabsolute monarchy tempered by prophetical admonition. The prophets,\nwho formed a kind of professional body of advisers in the interest of\nJehovah, made it their business to reprove the crimes, and especially\nthe idolatries of the kings. They exercised the kind of influence which\na _corps diplomatique_ may sometimes exercise on a feeble court. The\nmonarchs sometimes attended to their advice; sometimes rejected it; and\nthey receive commendation or reproof at the hands of the historians\naccording to their conduct in this respect. Two of these prophets,\nElijah and Elisha, were men of great eminence, and their actions\nare recorded at length. Such was the power of Elisha that when, on\none occasion, he cursed some children who had called him bald head,\nshe-bears came out of the wood and ate forty-two of them (2 Kings, ii.\n23-25). Respect for ecclesiastics or prophets is sometimes inculcated\nby such decided measures as these. A young Buddhist monk once laughed\nat another for the alacrity with which he leapt over a grave, saying he\nwas as active as a monkey. The man whom he had ridiculed told him that\nhe belonged to the highest rank in the Church; that is, that he was an\nArhat. Upon hearing this the young monk was so alarmed that all his\nhair stood on end, and he begged for forgiveness. His repentance saved\nhim from being born in hell; but because he had laughed at an Arhat he\nwas condemned to be born 500 times as a monkey (G. O. M., p. 351).\n\nElisha's powers in other respects were not less wonderful. He could\ncause iron to swim, could foretell the course of events in a war, could\nrestore the dead to life, and could smite the king's enemies with\nblindness (2 Kings, vi. 7). In this last accomplishment he has rivals,\nas Canon Callaway has correctly noted, among the Amazulu priests. The\nAmazulus have a word in their language to describe the practice. \"It\nis called an _umlingo_,\" they say, if, when a chief is about to fight\nwith another chief, his doctors cause a darkness to spread among his\nenemies, so they are unable to see clearly (R. S. A., vol. iii. p. 338).\n\nThe kingdom of Israel, unfaithful to the worship of Jehovah, fell\nunder the yoke of Shalmaneser, King of Assyria; while Judah, though\nattacked and summoned to submit, by his successor, Sennacherib (or more\ncorrectly Sanherib), remained independent some time longer. The King\nof Judah was at this time Hezekiah, a man thoroughly imbued with the\nprinciples of the Jehovistic party, and therefore much lauded by the\nhistorians. The prophet of the day was Isaiah, one of the most eminent\nof those who have filled the prophetic office. Isaiah warmly encouraged\nHezekiah to resist the designs of conquest cherished by Sanherib, and\npromised a successful issue. The messengers of the Assyrian monarch\nhad insultingly reproached Jehovah with his inability to deliver the\nland, alleging that none of the gods of the territories which he had\nconquered had availed them anything. But a signal confutation of\nthis profane belief in large armies as against deities was about to\nbe given, and that in a manner which gave an equally signal triumph\nto Jehovah, the god of the Jews, and Ptah, the god of the Egyptians.\nSanherib was engaged in an expedition against Egypt, which was governed\nat this time by a priest-king, resembling Hezekiah in the piety of his\ncharacter. This priest was in bad odor with his army, who refused to\nassist him against the invaders. During his trouble on this account,\nthe god whom he served appeared to him in his sleep and promised that\nhe should suffer nothing, for he would send him his divine assistance,\njust as Jehovah promised deliverance through the mouth of Isaiah. He\ntherefore went with some followers to Pelusium, and when there, a\nnumber of field-mice, pouring in upon the Assyrians, devoured their\nquivers, their bows, and the handles of their shields, so that on the\nnext day they fled defenseless, and many were killed. Herodotus tells\nus that in his day there was still to be seen the statue of the king\nin the temple of Ptah, a mouse in his hand, and this inscription:\n\"Whoever looks on me, let him revere the gods\" (Herod., ii. 141). In\nthe Hebrew version of this catastrophe, the field-mice are converted\ninto the angel of the Lord, and the destruction of the weapons into the\nslaughter by that angel of 185,000 men. Sanherib, it is added, returned\nto Nineveh, where he was assassinated by his two sons (2 Kings, xix.\n35-37). But Sanherib himself, in a deciphered inscription, declares\nthat he had beaten the Egyptians, subjected Judea, carried off many of\nits inhabitants, and only left Jerusalem to the king (R. I., p. 328).\nCertainly this statement is strongly confirmed, so far as Judea is\nconcerned, by the admission of the historians themselves, that Sanherib\nhad taken the fenced cities of the country; that Hezekiah had made an\nunreserved submission to him, and had even sent him, by way of tribute,\nnot only all the treasures in his own palace and in the temple, but the\nvery gold from the doors of the temple, and from the pillars which he\nhimself had overlaid (2 Kings xviii. 13-16). So humiliating a position\nwent far to justify the taunts of the Assyrian ambassadors, that the\ngod of Judea was no more to be trusted as a defense against material\nweapons than the gods of the subjugated nations.\n\nA remarkable instance of the favor of Heaven towards Hezekiah was\nsubsequently evinced. The king fell dangerously ill, and was warned by\nIsaiah to make the necessary arrangements in view of his death, which\nwas about to happen. Hezekiah did not bear the announcement with much\ndignity. He passionately implored Jehovah to remember his piety and\ngood deeds, and then \"wept sore.\" Moved by this pitiable supplication,\nJehovah sent Isaiah back again to promise him fifteen years' more life.\nOn Hezekiah's asking for a sign that he would be healed, Isaiah asked\nhim whether he would prefer that the shadow on the dial should advance\nor go back ten degrees. Hezekiah, thinking that it was a mere trifle\nfor a god to cause it to advance, desired that it might turn backwards\n(2 Kings, xx. 1-11).\n\nA similar grace was shown towards King Woo in China, but in this case\nit was the prayer of others, not his own, that effected his recovery.\nHis brother, the Duke of Chow, erected four altars, put certain\nsymbols upon them, and addressed himself to three departed kings. \"The\n_grand_ historian _by his order wrote_ on tablets his prayer to the\nfollowing effect:\u2014\" A. B., your chief descendant, is suffering from\na severe and dangerous sickness;\u2014if you three kings have in heaven\nthe charge of _watching over_ him, _Heaven's_ great son, let me, Tan,\nbe a substitute for his person. \"I have been lovingly obedient to my\nfather; I am possessed of many abilities and arts which fit me to serve\nspiritual beings. Your chief descendant, on the other hand, has not\nso many abilities and arts as I, and is not so capable of serving\nspiritual beings. And, moreover, he was appointed in the hall of God\nto extend his aid to the four quarters _of the empire_, so that he\nmight establish your descendants in this lower world. The people of\nthe four quarters stand in reverent awe of him. Oh! do not let that\nprecious heaven-conferred appointment fall to the ground, and all our\nformer kings will also have a perpetual reliance and resort. I will\nnow seek for your orders from the great tortoise\" (C. C., vol. iii. p.\n353.\u2014Shoo King, part 5, book 6). After this prayer, the Duke divined\nwith the tortoises, which gave favorable indications. \"The oracular\nresponses\" were favorable too. Accordingly the king recovered, but the\ndevoted brother, though he did not die, suffered for some time from\nunjust suspicions, and retired from court. This was after the decease\nof King Woo. The discovery of the tablets by Woo's successor led to his\nrestoration to favor. The relation of the reign of Hezekiah, one of\nthe most inglorious of Judah's rulers, is an example of the use made\nof a theory which pervades and colors the whole history of the kings\nfrom beginning to end. That theory is, that God favored and protected\nthose monarchs who worshiped and obeyed his prophets, while he\npunished those who worshiped other gods and neglected his orders. The\ndeposition of Saul, the glory of David, the destruction of the families\nof Jeroboam and Baasha, the miserable fate of Ahab and his seventy\nsons, the exaltation of Jehu and his milder punishment proportioned\nto his mitigated idolatry, are all examples of the prevalence of this\ntheory. Some of the facts indeed were rather difficult to deal with;\nsuch, for instance, as the palpable decline of Judea under Hezekiah,\nand the continuance of its previous misfortunes under Josiah, the most\npraiseworthy of the kings, who, in spite of his unrivaled piety, was\nslain in a battle against a mere pagan. But inconsistencies like these\nmight be glossed over or explained away. The best kings might meet with\nthe greatest calamities, and the people of Jehovah might prove even\nmore unfortunate than the heathen. It mattered not. They were still\nunder his protection; and if they suffered, it was because they had\nnot worshiped him enough, or not worshiped him exclusively. With this\nelastic hypothesis the key to all historical events was found.\n\nTraces of a similar theory are to be found in the sacred books of\nChina, though in one instance it is placed in the mouth of a successful\nsovereign desirous of vindicating his supersession of a former dynasty.\nIt is, however, precisely in such cases, where some David or Jehu\nhas deposed a former monarch and taken his throne, that this theory\nis useful, transferring, as it does, the responsibility of the issue\nto a higher power. Thus speaks the Chinese king:\u2014\"I have heard the\nsaying\u2014'God leads men to tranquil security,' but the sovereign of Hea\nwould not move to such security, whereupon God sent down _corrections_,\nindicating his mind to him. K\u00ebe, however, would not be warned by God,\nbut proceeded to greater dissoluteness and sloth and excuses for\nhimself. Then Heaven no longer regarded nor heard him, but disallowed\nhis great appointment, and inflicted extreme punishment. Hereupon it\ncharged your founder, T'ang the Successful, to set Hea aside, and by\nmeans of able men to rule the empire. From T'ang the Successful down to\nthe Emperor Yih, every sovereign sought to make his virtue illustrious,\nand duly attended to the sacrifices. And thus it was that while Heaven\nexerted a great establishing influence, preserving and regulating the\nhouse of Yin, but its sovereigns on their part were humbly careful\nnot to lose the favor of God, and strove to manifest a good-doing\ncorresponding to that of Heaven. But in these times, their successor\nshowed himself greatly ignorant of _the ways of_ Heaven, and much less\ncould it be expected of him that he would be regardful of the earnest\nlabors of his fathers for the country. Greatly abandoned to dissolute\nidleness, he paid no regard to the bright principles of heaven, nor the\nawfulness of the people. On this account God no longer protected him,\nbut sent down the great ruin which we have witnessed. Heaven was not\nwith him because he did not seek to illustrate his virtue. _Indeed_,\nwith regard to all states, great and small, throughout the four\nquarters of the empire, in every case there are reasons to be alleged\nfor their punishment.... The sovereigns of our Chow, from their great\ngoodness, were charged with the work of God. There was the charge to\nthem, Cut off Yin. _They proceeded to perform it_, and announced the\ncorrecting work of God.... The thing was from the decree of Heaven; do\nnot resist me; I dare not have any further change for you\" (C. C.,\nvol. iii. p. 460.\u2014Shoo King, part 5, b. 14, ii. 1-18).\n\nBut it was not only by interested parties that this doctrine was\nproclaimed in China. The She King, a sacred book corresponding in\ncharacter to the Psalms, distinctly adopts it, and thus gives it the\nhighest sanction. This is the language of one of the Odes:\u2014\n\n    \"Great is God,\n\n    Beholding this lower world in majesty.\n    He surveyed the four quarters [of the kingdom],\n    Seeking for some one to give settlement to the people.\n    Those two [earlier] dynasties\n    Had failed to satisfy him with their government;\n    So throughout the various States\n    He sought and considered\n    For one on which he might confer the rule.\n    Hating all the great [States],\n    He turned his kind regards on the west,\n    And there gave a settlement [to king T'\u00e6]....\n    God having brought about the removal thither of this Intelligent\n      ruler,\n    The Kwan hordes fled away; ...\n    God, who had raised the State, raised up a proper ruler for it....\n    This King Ke\n    Was gifted by God with the power of judgment,\n    So that the fame of his virtue silently grew.\n    His virtue was highly intelligent,\n    Highly intelligent and of rare discrimination;\n    Able to lead; able to rule,\u2014\n    To rule over this great country;\n    Rendering a cordial submission, effecting a cordial union.\n    When the sway came to King W\u0103n,\n    His virtue left nothing to be dissatisfied with.\n    He received the blessing of God,\n    And it was extended to his descendants.\"\n\nThe Ode proceeds to relate how completely victorious this virtuous\nking was over his enemies, and how perfect was the security from\ninvasion enjoyed by the country while he governed it (C. C., vol. iv.\np. 448.\u2014She King, part 3, b. 1, ode 7).\n\nFeelings like those that inspired the Jewish chroniclers are still\nmore clearly visible in the history of Thibet than in that of China.\nHere the orthodox compilers frequently inform us that the reign of a\nking who observed the law and honored the clergy was distinguished\nin a peculiarly high degree by the prosperity of the land and the\nhappiness of its people. Of one, for instance, who \"entered the\nportals of religion\" at thirty-eight years of age, it is noted that\n\"he founded the constitution of the whole great nation on order, and\nfurthered its welfare and peace\" (G. O. M., p. 201). His son made the\nwhole great nation happy by promoting religion and the laws (Ibid.,\np. 203). Another monarch receives a still higher panegyric. \"By the\nunbounded honor he showed towards the clergy, he exalted religion, so\nthat by the religious care which he bestowed on the inhabitants of\nthe snow-kingdom, the welfare of the people of Thibet equaled that of\nthe Tegri\" (gods or spirits). A painful contrast is presented by his\nsuccessor on the throne, Lang-Dharma, who belonged to the heretical\n\"black religion,\" who destroyed the temples of Buddhism, persecuted\nits adherents, burnt its books, and degraded its ministers. So impious\nwas he, that the very names of the three gems and of the four orders\nof clergy ceased to be mentioned in the land. He met, however, with\nhis well-deserved punishment at the hands of a faithful Buddhist, who\nassassinated him with a bow and arrow, at the same time using words\nto the effect that, as Buddha overcame the unbelievers, so he had\nkilled the wicked king (Ibid., p. 49). Another king \"showed respect\nto the hidden sanctuaries, whereby his power and the welfare of the\nland increased\" (Ibid., p. 321). Comparable to Josiah in his piety and\nreverence for the true religion was a king whose reign is described in\nglowing language by his admiring historians. \"This powerful ruler,\"\nthey say, \"who regarded the religion of Buddha as the most precious\ngem, gave great freedoms and privileges to the clergy.\" He honored\ntemples and respected the pious endowments of his ancestors. Not only\ndid he punish thieves, robbers, and similar criminals, but if any man,\nof high or low position, was inimical or ill-disposed towards the faith\nhe was deprived of his property and reduced to the greatest distress.\nSome of those whose heresy was visited with this severe chastisement\nwere so unreasonable as to grumble, and pointed out that it was only\nthe clergy who were fattening on their misery and oppression. In saying\nthis they pointed at the spiritual men who passed by; whereupon the\nfaithful king issued a decree, saying, \"It is strictly prohibited to\nlook contemptuously at my clergy and to point at them with the finger;\"\nwhoever dared to do so was to have his eyes put out and his finger\ncut off. Unfortunately \"these orders of the pious king\" led to the\nformation of a party of malcontents, by two of whom he was strangled\nin his sleep. The lamentations of the historian at this untoward\nevent are unmeasured. The power and strength of the Thibetan kingdom\nran away like the stream of spring waters; the happiness and welfare\nof the people were extinguished like a lamp whose oil is exhausted;\nthe royal power and majesty vanished like the colors of the rainbow;\nthe black religion began to prevail like a destructive tempest; the\ninclination to good dispositions and good deeds was forgotten like\na dream. Moreover, the translation of religious writings remained\nunfinished\u2014for this king had also resembled Josiah in his interest in\nsacred books;\u2014and those great men who adhered to the true religion\ncould only weep over its decline and fall (G. O. M., p. 361).\n\nNot less pitiable was the fate of Judea under the irreligious monarchs\nwho followed upon Josiah. One was taken prisoner by the king of Egypt;\ntwo others were carried off to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar; under the\nfourth, the national independence was finally extinguished, and the\npeople reduced to a condition of captivity in a foreign land. This\ncalamity is distinctly ascribed to their neglect of the true religion,\nand their contempt for the messengers of God (2 Chron. xxxvi. 14-17).\n\nStrictly speaking, the history of the Jewish nation ends with the\nCaptivity. But there are still three books of a historical character in\nthe Old Testament, Ezra and Nehemiah, relating the fortunes of a small\nnumber of Jews who returned to the land of their forefathers, when a\nchange of policy in their rulers rendered this return possible; and\nEsther, containing the account of the reception of a Jewish woman into\nthe harem of a heathen king, and showing how ably she contrived to use\nher influence in favor of the interests of her race.\n\n\n       SUBDIVISION 2.\u2014_Job, Psalms, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes._\n\nThe Book of Job, the Psalms attributed to David, and the Proverbs and\nEcclesiastes attributed to Solomon, resemble one another in teaching\nreligion and morality by the method of short sentences or maxims. They\ndo not, like the books we have just examined, convey their moral by\nmeans of historical narrative; nor do they, like the prophets, impress\nit in flowing and continuous rhetoric. Between the sober and even\ncourse of the history, and the impassioned emotional torrents poured\nout by the prophets, they occupy a medium position. They are more\nintrospective, more occupied with feelings and reflections, than the\nfirst; more heedful of external nature, more able to contemplate facts,\napart from their peculiar construction of those facts, than the last.\n\nJob is the story of a wealthy land-owner, concerning whom God and Satan\nenter into a sort of wager; God, in the first instance, challenging\nSatan to consider his piety and general good character, and Satan\nreplying that, if only his prosperity were destroyed, he would curse\nGod to his face. God then gives Satan leave to put his theory to the\ntest by attacks directed against Job's property, desiring at the same\ntime that his person may be spared. Job bears the loss of his wealth\nwith resignation; but at a second colloquy Satan insinuates that his\nvirtue would give way if his misfortunes extended to his person.\nHereupon God gives Satan leave to attack him in every respect so long\nas he spares his life. Poor Job is accordingly covered with boils\nfrom head to foot, and his patience, proof against poverty, breaks\ndown under this terrible infliction. He loudly curses the day of his\nbirth, and wishes he had died from the womb. After this introduction,\nwhich, in its familiar conversations between Jehovah and the devil,\nresembles the grotesque legends of the middle ages, the bulk of the\nbook is occupied with the complaints of Job, the discourses of his\nthree friends who come to comfort him, the reproaches directed against\nhis self-righteousness by a person named Elihu, and, finally, a long\naddress\u2014containing as it were the moral of the tale\u2014from the Almighty\nhimself. At the close of the book Job expresses his abhorrence of\nhimself and his profound repentance, and his former prosperity is\nthen not only restored but amplified to a high degree. He has seven\nsons and three beautiful daughters, and dies one hundred and forty\nyears after the events narrated, having seen four generations of his\ndescendants. What was the effect on the mind of Satan of this result,\nwhether he considered himself defeated, or whether he was confirmed\nin his malicious opinion that Job did not \"fear God for nought,\" is\nnowhere stated. But one of the most curious features of this book is\nthe picture it gives of that person, as a being not altogether bad,\nthough fond of mischief, taking a somewhat cynical view of the motives\nof human conduct, and anxious, in the interests of his theory, to\ntry experiments upon a subject selected for him by his antagonist,\nand therefore peculiarly likely to disappoint his expectations. It\ndoes not appear that he had any desire to hurt Job further than was\nnecessary for his purpose, nor is there a trace of the bad character he\nsubsequently obtained as a mere devil, longing to involve men's souls\nin eternal destruction.\n\nIn the Psalms we have a series of religious songs of varying\ncharacter\u2014praising, blessing, supplicating, complaining, lamenting,\ninvoking good or evil upon others, according to the mood of the\nseveral writers, or of the same writer at different seasons. Some of\nthem are of considerable beauty, and express much depth of religious\nfeeling. Others, again, are inspired by sentiments of malevolence, and\nmerely appeal to God in support of national or private animosities. As\nexamples of the latter class, take the 110th Psalm, supposed to have\nbeen addressed to David, where it is predicted that \"the Lord at the\nright hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath,\" and\nthat \"he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound\nthe heads over many countries.\" In the immediately preceding Psalm,\nthe 109th, the writer is still more vindictive, and his enemy is more\nexclusively his own. He begins by calling him \"wicked,\" and says he has\nspoken against him with a lying tongue. Premising that he is altogether\nin the act of prayer, he prays against the adversary in somewhat\nemphatic language:\u2014\n\n \"Set thou a wicked man over him, and let the accuser stand at his\n right hand. When he shall be judged, let him be found guilty, and let\n his prayer become sin. Let his days be few, and let another take his\n office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his\n children wander about and beg, and seek food far from their desolate\n places. Let the creditor catch all that he hath, and strangers rob the\n fruit of his industry. Let there be none to extend mercy to him, and\n let none be merciful to his fatherless children. Let his posterity be\n cut off, and in the following generation let their name be blotted\n out. Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the Lord, and\n let not the sin of his mother be blotted out. Let them be before the\n Lord continually, and let him cut off the memory of them from the\n earth\" (Psalms cix. 1-15).\n\nIn the following verse the enemy is declared to have persecuted the\npoor and needy, and this is put forward as the excuse for imprecations\nevidently inspired by personal ill-will. In another of these Psalms,\nJehovah is entreated to persecute the enemies of Israel with storm\nand tempest, as fires burn up woods and flames set mountains on fire\n(Psalms lxxxiii. 14, 15). Elsewhere the king is said to trust in the\nLord, and he therefore hopes that the Lord will find out his enemies,\nand will make them as a fiery oven in the time of his anger; that the\nfire will devour them; and that he will destroy their fruit from the\nearth and their seed from among the children of men (Ps. xxi. 8-10).\n\nParallels to these Psalms of cursing may be met with in the Veda, just\nas the Psalms in general are more nearly paralleled by the Vedic hymns\nthan by those of any other sacred book. One poet writes as follows:\u2014\n\n \"Blinded shall ye be, O enemies, like headless snakes, and thus\n plagued by Agni, may Indra always kill the best of you. Whatever\n relation troubles us, whatever stranger wishes to kill us, him may\n all the gods destroy; prayer is my powerful protection, my refuge and\n powerful protection\" (S. V., p. 297.\u2014S\u00e2ma Veda, 2. 9. 3. 8).\n\nRemarkably close is the similarity between the assertion of the Hindu\nRishi that prayer is his powerful protection, and that of the Hebrew\nPsalmist that he is, or gives himself to, prayer. In another hymn\nthe aid of a goddess Apv\u0101 (said to mean \"disease or fear\") is invoked\nagainst the enemies of the singer:\u2014\n\n \"Bewildering the hearts of our enemies, O Apv\u0101, take possession of\n their limbs and pass onwards; come near, burn them with fires in\n their hearts; may our enemies fall into blind darkness (O. S. T.,\n vol. v. p. 110).... Attack, ye heroes, and conquer; may Indra grant\n you protection; may our arm be productive of terror, that ye may be\n unconquerable. Arrow-goddess, sharpened by prayer; fly past as when\n shot off; reach the enemies; penetrate into them; let not even one\n escape thee\" (S. V., p. 297.\u2014S\u00e2ma Veda, 2. 9. 3. 5).\n\nBut these expressions of hostility, directed apparently against enemies\nwho were engaged in actual war with the friends of the writer, make\nno approach in the bitterness of their curses to the language of the\nPsalmist when dealing with his personal foes. A parallel to this more\nprivate enmity may be found in the Atharva-Veda, where the god Kama\nis invoked to bring down the severest evils upon the objects of the\nimprecation:\u2014\n\n \"With oblations of butter I worship Kama, the mighty slayer of\n enemies. Do thou, when lauded, beat down my foes by thy great might.\n The sleeplessness which is displeasing to my mind and eye, which\n harasses and does not delight me, that sleeplessness I let loose\n upon my enemy. Having praised Kama, may I rend him. Kama, do thou,\n a fierce lord, let loose sleeplessness, misfortune, childlessness,\n homelessness, and want upon him who designs us evil.... May breath,\n cattle, life, forsake them.... Indra, Agni, and Kama, mounted on\n the same chariot, hurl ye down my foes; when they have fallen into\n the nethermost darkness, do thou, Agni, burn up their dwellings.\n Kama, slay my enemies; cast them down into thick [literally, blind]\n darkness. Let them all become destitute of power and vigor, and not\n live a single day.... Let them (my enemies) float downwards like a\n boat severed from its moorings.... Do thou, Kama, drive my enemies\n from this world by that [same weapon or amulet] wherewith the gods\n repelled the Asuras, and Indra hurled the Dasyus into the nethermost\n darkness\" (O. S. T., vol. v. p. 404).\n\nAs corresponding to the many expressions to be found in the Psalms of\ntrust in God, of pious belief in his protection, and of sensibility to\nhis all-embracing knowledge, we may quote the language of a Chinese\nmonarch in one of the Odes of the She King. The first six lines are,\nit appears, held by the current interpretation in China to contain the\nadmonition addressed by the ministers to the king, and the last six the\nking's reply. But we may more reasonably suppose, with Dr. Legge, that\nthe whole Ode is spoken by the king himself:\u2014\n\n    \"Let me be reverent, let me be reverent [in attending to my duties];\n    [The way of] Heaven is evident,\n    And its appointment is not easily [preserved].\n    Let me not say that It is high aloft above me.\n    It ascends and descends about our doings;\n    It daily inspects us wherever we are.\n\n    I am [but as] a little child,\n    Without intelligence to be reverently [attentive to my duties];\n    But by daily progress and monthly advance,\n    I will learn to hold fast the gleams [of knowledge], till I arrive at\n      bright intelligence.\n    Assist me to bear the burden [of my position],\n    And show me how to display a virtuous conduct.\"[94]\n\nWe may fairly place this simple expression of the author's desire to\ndo his duty, and of his reverential consciousness that Heaven is ever\nabout us and \"inspects us wherever we are,\" beside the words attributed\nto David:\u2014\n\n \"O Jehovah, thou hast searched me, and known me. Thou knowest my\n down-sitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar\n off. Thou winnowest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with\n all my ways\" (Psalm cxxxix. 1-3).\n\nWe need not dwell upon the Proverbs, traditionally ascribed to Solomon,\nbut scarcely worthy of the renowned wisdom of that monarch. Some of\nthem are indeed shrewd and well expressed; others are commonplace; and\nothers again display more worldly wisdom than religion or virtue. Such\nis the recommendation of bribery: \"A gift in secret pacifieth anger,\nand a reward in the bosom strong wrath\" (Prov. xxi. 14); which, if\nwritten by a king and dispenser of justice, would be a tolerably broad\nhint to his loving subjects. It is noteworthy that Christ had studied\nthis book, and that it had sunk deep into his mind (_e. g._, Prov. xxv.\n21, 22, and xxvii. 1). The two concluding chapters are not by the same\nauthor, at least if we may believe in their superscriptions. In the\nlast of all, a king named Lemuel repeats for the benefit of posterity\nthe advice given him by his mother, and no doubt by many mothers to\nmany sons both before and after him, to be careful about women and not\nto drink wine or spirituous liquors.\n\nEcclesiastes, or Koheleth, composed (according to Ewald) in the latter\nend of the Persian dominion, is the work of a cynic who has had much\nexperience of the world, and has found it hollow and unsatisfactory.\nHe is not a man of very devout mind, and can find no comfort in the\nordinary commonplaces about the goodness of God, or the manner in which\nmisfortunes are sent as punishments for sin. There is much good sense\nmixed with his lamentations over the vanity of life. He has seen all\nthe works done under the sun, and all are in his opinion \"vanity and\nvexation of spirit.\"\n\n\"Wisdom and knowledge do but bring more grief. Koheleth tried various\nkinds of pleasure and found them vain too. He built, he planted, he\nmade pools of water. He procured men-servants and maid-servants, and\n(as a natural consequence) had servants born in his house. All was\nequally fruitless. But whatever a man does, he has nothing but sorrow\nand grief. Even wisdom is of little use, for a dolt may inherit the\nfruit of the wise man's labors. Men are no better than animals; they\nall die equally; all return to the dust. Who can say that man's spirit\ngoes upwards, and the animal's downwards? Just men are often rewarded\nlike wicked men, and wicked men like just ones; this is one of the\nmany vanities on earth. So then the best thing a man can do is to eat,\ndrink, and enjoy life with an agreeable wife; for this life is all he\nhas. Once dead, there is no further consciousness, or participation in\nanything that is going on. Whatever a man's hand finds to do, let him\ndo it with all his might; for there is neither action nor knowledge\nin the grave. It is well to remember God in youth before the evil days\ncome. Words of the wise are as goads, but book-making and preaching\nare both of them a bore.\" Lastly, Koheleth concludes with the pious\nadvice to the young man whom he is addressing, to fear God and keep his\ncommandments, for that God will judge every action, be it good or be it\nbad.\n\n\n               SUBDIVISION 3.\u2014_The Song of Solomon._[95]\n\nIt is a singularly fortunate circumstance that the Song of Songs, a\nlittle work of an altogether secular nature and wholly unlike any\nother portion of the Hebrew Scriptures, should have been admitted into\nthe Canon. Whatever may have been the delusion, whether its reputed\nSolomonian authorship or some other theory about it, under which it\nobtained this privilege, we owe it to this mistake that the solitary\nexample of the Jewish drama in existence should have been preserved for\nthe instruction of modern readers. I say modern readers, because it\nis not until quite recently that the dramatic character of this piece\nhas been ascertained and established beyond reasonable doubt. Thanks\nto the scholarship of Germany and France, we are now able to read the\nSong in the light of common sense. The stern theology of Judaism is\nfor once laid aside, and we have before us a common love-story such\nas might happen among any Gentile and unbelieving race. A young girl,\ncalled a Sulamite, who is attached to a young man of her own rank in\nlife, has been carried off to the harem of Solomon against her will.\nShe is indifferent to the splendor of the royal palace, and resists\nthe amorous advances of the king. Thus she succeeds in \"keeping her\nvineyard;\" and is rewarded by rejoining her shepherd lover in her\nnative village. The play is not without beauty, although it evinces\na somewhat primitive condition of the drama at the time of its\ncomposition.\n\n\n                    SUBDIVISION 4.\u2014_The Prophets._\n\nWe have in the prophetical books a class of writings altogether\npeculiar to the Hebrew Scriptures. The prophets were men who during\nthe whole course of the Hebrew monarchy, and even long after its\nclose, acted as the inspired organs of the Almighty; admonishing,\nreproving, warning, or counseling in his name. At first the method\nby which the revelations they received were made known by them, was\noral communication. Writing was not employed by them as an instrument\nof prophetic discourse until after the earliest and most flourishing\nstage of the monarchy was past. Perhaps they were the most powerful\nof the prophets who addressed their exhortations directly to those\nfor whom they were intended in eloquent discourse or timely parable.\nSuch prophets were Samuel, Nathan, Elijah, and Elisha, at the courts\nof the several kings in whose days they lived. Prophecy had declined a\nlittle in its influence on the people when its representatives betook\nthemselves to the calmer method of written composition. Nevertheless,\nsome of the prophets who have left us their works in writing continued\nat the same time to employ the older instrument of spoken addresses.\nIsaiah and Jeremiah are conspicuous instances of this employment of\nthe two organs of communication downwards. During this same period\nthere were many prophets who trusted exclusively to writing; while\nin the latest stage of prophetical inspiration, oral instruction was\naltogether dropped, and literary means alone were employed to make\nknown the mind of Jehovah to his chosen people.\n\nThe constant theme of all the prophets whose works have come down to\nus is the future greatness of the Hebrew race; their complete triumph\nover all their enemies; the glory of their ultimate condition, and the\nconfusion or destruction of those who have opposed their march to this\nfinal victory. The human agent by whom this great revolution is to be\neffected is the Messiah. He is the destined weapon in the hand of God\nby whom Jewish religion, Jewish institutions, and Jewish rulers are\nto attain that supremacy over heathen religion, heathen institutions,\nand heathen rulers which is their natural birthright. Continual\ndisappointment had no effect upon these sanguine expectations. The\nMessiah _must_ come, Israel _must_ be victorious over every other\nnation that came in the way: this was the word of God, and it could not\nfail to be fulfilled. Troubles of many kinds might beset the people in\nthe meantime; but of the attainment of the goal at last there could be\nno doubt.\n\nOf course this ever-recurring burden of the prophetic song is varied\nby many strains on subordinate or outlying topics. The prophets\nconstantly refer to the events of the day, and use them for their own\npurposes. They reprove the sins of kings and people, endeavoring to\nshow that these bring upon them the misfortunes from which they suffer\nand which postpone the day of their triumph over the Gentiles. They\nconnect special calamities with special offenses. They indicate the\nconduct which under existing circumstances ought to be pursued. They\ndraw eloquent and beautiful pictures of the state of their own and of\nforeign countries. And they endeavor to raise the popular conceptions\nof the majesty of God, of his character, and his requirements, to the\nlevel they have themselves attained.\n\nTurning now to the individual books which have come down to us in\nthe Canon, and which must by no means be taken as comprehending all\nthe works of the prophets who wrote their prophecies, we find that\nthe oldest of these is that of Joel, the son of Pethuel.[96] Joel is\nsupposed by the highest authority to have lived in the time of King\nJehoash, or Joash, who is praised for his devout obedience to Jehoiada,\nthe priest (2 Kings, xii). His prophecy was occasioned by a devastation\nof locusts. Locusts had wasted the land for some years, and there had\nbeen drought at the same time. On the occasion of a long drought Joel\nfeared a fresh invasion of locusts, and therefore summoned his people\nto a festival of repentance at the temple. This festival occurred,\nand rain soon followed (P. A. B., vol. i. p. 87 ff.). Here the old\nnotion of a direct connection between the attention paid by the people\nto Jehovah and his care for them is almost grotesquely manifested.\nLocusts are to be averted by fasting; rain obtained by rather more than\nusual devotion to God. On the other hand, the more spiritual view of\nreligion to which the prophets generally tend, is shown in the order\nto the people to rend their hearts and not their garments. After thus\nattending to immediate necessities, Joel in stirring language exhorts\nthe people to war, hoping that they would thus get rid of the foreign\noppressors who had broken into the sunken kingdom of David. He bids\nthem beat their plough-shares into swords, and their pruning-hooks into\nspears, and desires the weak to say that they are strong. He promises\nhis people revenge over their enemies, and holds out the cheering\nprospect of a time when, instead of their sons and daughters being sold\nas slaves to strangers, they will themselves make slaves of the sons\nand daughters of the heathen.\n\nSome short passages subsequently embodied by Isaiah in his works are\nconsidered by Ewald to belong to the same early age as Joel. The\nnext complete prophet, however, in order of time, was Amos, whose\nrevelations applied to the northern kingdom and threatened it with\ninvasion by the Assyrians. Amos in fact utters a series of threatening\npredictions against various peoples, and his tone is mainly that\nof reproof. While, however, he foretells the captivity of Israel,\nand holds out nothing but the most depressing prospects of ruin and\nmisery throughout the bulk of his book, he falls at the end into the\naccustomed strain of hopeful exultation. \"The tabernacle of David\"\nis to be raised up; Israel is to be supreme over the heathen; and\nthe Israelites are not to be disturbed again from the land which\nGod has given them, where exuberant prosperity is to be their lot.\nIncidentally, Amos tells us a little of his personal history, which is\nnot without interest. He attributes his consecration to the prophetic\noffice to the direct intervention of Jehovah. He had originally no\nconnection with other prophets, but was a simple herdsman, and was\nemployed to gather sycamore fruit. But Jehovah took him while he was\nfollowing the flock, and said, \"Go, prophecy unto my people Israel.\"\nHis is thus a typical case of the belief in immediate inspiration, and\nhe is an example of the kind of character which led to the existence\namong the Israelites of the peculiar and powerful class who were holy,\nbut not consecrated. Amos also tells us of a quarrel he had had with\nAmaziah, a priest at the court of Jeroboam. This priest had complained\nof his dismal predictions to the king, and had bidden him go to Judah\nand prophecy there. In return for this evidence of hostility Amos\ninforms the priest that his wife is to become a prostitute in the town,\nthat his sons and his daughters are to fall by the sword, that his\nland is to be divided by lot, and that he himself is to die on polluted\nsoil (Amos vii. 10-17). Such were the courtesies that passed between\nrival teachers of religion at the court of Jeroboam.\n\nHosea also tells us something of his personal affairs, more especially\nof his matrimonial relations, in which he was far from fortunate. We\nfeel, in his opening chapters, the soreness of a husband whose wife has\ncontemned his company and sought the amusement of a troop of lovers.\nGomer, in fact, was shockingly unfaithful, and Hosea uses her as a\ntype of the infidelity of Israel to Jehovah. At length she deserted\nhim altogether, and went to another house, but he brought her back as\na slave and put her under strict conjugal discipline. In like manner\nis Israel to return to her God, whom she has deserted for a time, and\nunder the influence of God's love, freely bestowed after his anger\nhas passed away, is to enjoy a period of great prosperity. Hosea, it\nwill be observed, belonged to the northern kingdom, and his book is\npre\u00ebminently the Ephraimitic book of prophecy. But he wrote it in\nJudah. He worked in the north at two distinct epochs, first towards the\nclose of Jeroboam II.'s reign, afterwards in the time of Zachariah,\nShallum, and Menahem (P. A. B., vol. i. p. 171 ff.).\n\nAn anonymous prophet, contemporary with Isaiah, stands next in order\nof time. He is the author of Zechariah ix.-xi. inclusive, and of\nZechariah chap. xiii. ver. 7-9 (P. A. B., vol i. p. 247 ff.). These\nchapters contain the first distinct announcement of the advent of the\nMessiah, who is described in the famous prediction of a King coming to\nJerusalem on an ass, and on a colt, the foal of an ass. Here too we\nfind the curious allegory of the two staves, Beauty and Bands, whereof\none was broken by the prophet in token of the breach of his covenant\nwith all the nations; the other, in token of the rupture of fraternal\nrelations between Israel and Judah. In the course of this allegory, the\nprophet demands his price, thirty pieces of silver, and throws it into\nthe temple treasure; a passage which, by an accidental obscurity in\nthe Hebrew, has been mistranslated as referring, not to the treasure,\nbut to \"the potter in the house of Lord,\" and then misapplied to the\nbetrayal of Christ and the purchase of the potter's field.\n\nIn the concluding words of this prophet it is announced that two-thirds\nof the people will perish, but that the remaining third will, after\nrefining and trial, be accepted by God as his own people.\n\nWe enter now upon the consideration of a prophet who stands in the\nforemost rank of those distinguished leaders of opinion whose works\nhave been included in the Canon. There is no greater name among the\nprophets of Israel than that of Isaiah. But in speaking of Isaiah we\nmust not fall into the confusion of including under his writings the\ncompositions of a prophet of far later date, which have been mistakenly\nbound up with his. Isaiah himself cannot receive credit for all that is\npublished in his name. But that which he has actually left us is enough\nto entitle him to admiration as a master of rhetoric.\n\nIsaiah lived in the reign of Hezekiah, and enjoyed a position of high\npublic consideration. Some of his prophetic sayings he wrote down soon\nafter he had uttered them; others not till long after. He had begun to\ncome forward as a prophet in the last year of the reign of Uzziah. When\nhe had labored a long time in his vocation of teacher, he determined to\ncollect his sayings in a book. His oldest work was written about the\nyear 740 B. C., just after the accession of the young and weak Ahaz\nat Jerusalem, when the Assyrians had rendered the northern kingdom\ntributary but had not yet come to Judea. His second was written\napparently in the reign of Hezekiah, in 724; and his third in the days\nof the same king, when the service of Jehovah had been restored. Such\nat least are the conclusions of the highest living authority on the\nliterature of the Hebrew race (P. A. B., vol. i. p. 271 ff.).\n\nThe earliest stratum discernible (according to that authority) in the\nBook of Isaiah is from chap. ii. 2 to chap. v. inclusive, and chap ix.\n7-x. 4. The last five verses of chap. v. should not be taken along with\nthe rest of the chapter, but should follow upon chap. x. 4 (Ibid.,\nvol. i. p. 286 ff.). These passages begin with a beautiful description\nof the happiness of the Israelites in the days of their coming glory,\nwhen the mountain of the Lord's house will be established on the top of\nthe mountains, and exalted above the hills; and when all nations will\nflow to it, to worship and to learn the true faith. It is remarkable\nas evidence of the wide distinction between the view of Joel and that\nof Isaiah, that Isaiah exactly reverses the image of his predecessor,\ndeclaring that swords will be beaten into plough-shares and spears into\npruning-hooks. Joel was looking to the necessities of the immediate\npresent; Isaiah to the prospects of the future. These chapters also\ncontain an amusing ironical account of the finery of the Jerusalem\nladies, which might apply with slight alterations to the rich women of\nall ages and countries. No doubt it was very offensive to Isaiah that\nthey should go about with necks erect and wanton eyes, walking with a\nmincing gait; but a prophet who should threaten the women of London\nor Paris with scab on the head and the exposure of their persons on\naccount of sins like these, would certainly bring more reprobation\non himself than on them. But manners in Isaiah's days were not so\ndelicate. A time is predicted when Jehovah will wash away the filth of\nZion's daughters, and when all in Jerusalem shall be called holy.\n\nIn the second part of his book (chap. vi. 1, chap. ix. 6, and chap.\nxvii. 1-11) Isaiah gives an interesting, though only figurative,\naccount of his consecration to the prophetic office. In the year of\nKing Uzziah's death he says he saw the Lord sitting on his throne with\na train so long as to fill the temple. When he cried out that he was\nundone, for that he, a man of unclean lips, had seen the King, the\nLord of hosts, a seraph flew up to him with a live coal in a pair of\ntongs, laid the coal on his mouth, and told him that his iniquity was\nnow taken away and his sin purged. After this the voice of the Lord\nwas heard inquiring whom he should send, and Isaiah offered to take\nthe post of his ambassador: \"Here am I, send me.\" The proposal was\naccepted, and he at once received his instructions from headquarters.\nThe prophet began to preach in the manner desired, and among much\ndiscouraging matter he uttered the magnificent description of the\nMessiah, which is familiar to all:\u2014\n\n \"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the\n government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called\n Wonderful, Counselor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the\n Prince of Peace.\"\n\nIsaiah's third work (composed in the reign of Hezekiah) begins at\nthe first chapter of the canonical book. It opens with a pathetic\nlamentation over the infidelity of the children of Israel to their\nGod, and proceeds at chap. xiv. 28 to recount a \"burden\" which came in\nthe death-year of King Ahaz. A prophecy by which a much older prophet\n(belonging, as is supposed, to the time of Joel) is embodied in \"the\nburden of Moab,\" and extends through chap. xv. and chap. xvi. 7-12,\nafter which Isaiah, having mentioned that this was formerly the word\nof the Lord about Moab, proceeds to say that his present word is that\nwithin three years the glory of Moab shall be contemned. The latter\npart of chap. xxi. (ver. 11-17), dealing with Dumah and Arabia, also\nbelongs to this period.\n\nFurther divisions are distinguishable in the writings of Isaiah after\nthese three parts have been separated from the rest. Thus, we have a\nfourth division consisting of the 22d and 23d chapters, and containing\na personal attack on Shebna and a prediction of the fall of Tyre. A\nfifth division, from chap. xxviii. to xxxii. inclusive, ends with a\nbeautiful description of the happier time that is to come, when the\nfruit of justice will be peace, and the result of justice quietness and\nsecurity, when the people will dwell in sure habitations and untroubled\nabodes. There is another writing, the sixth in order, which begins at\nchap. x. 5, and extends, in the first instance, to the end of chap.\nxii. This prophecy is remarkable, even in this eloquent book, for\nthe marvelous eloquence with which, in his visions of future glory,\nthe inspired seer depicts the government of the \"rod out of the stem\nof Jesse,\" the \"Branch\" that is to \"grow out of his roots,\" in whose\nreign the wild beasts will no longer persecute their prey, nor Ephraim\nand Judah keep up the memory of their ancient feud; who will cause\nhis beloved people to put the Philistines to flight, to conquer Edom\nand Moab, and reduce the children of Ammon to submission. Prophecies\ndirected against Ethiopia and Egypt (chap. xvii. 12-xviii. 7, and chap.\nxx.) belong to the same portion of Isaiah's collected works. Threats\nagainst the Assyrians are contained in additional chapters, namely,\nchap. xxxiii. and chap. xxxvii. 22-35. Lastly, a seventh portion of\nIsaiah consists of chap. xix., which, after holding out the prospect\nof great misfortunes to Egypt, ends in a somewhat unusual strain by\nadmitting both Egyptians and Assyrians to be equal sharers with the\nIsraelites in the ultimate prosperity of the earth, and declaring that\nthe Lord himself will bless them all, saying, \"Blessed be Egypt my\npeople, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance.\"\n\nIt should be noted that, if Ewald's supposition be correct, the\nfirst four sections of the work, thus decomposed into its several\nconstituents, were edited by Isaiah himself, while the fifth, sixth,\nand seventh were added by subsequent compilers to the collection he had\nleft behind (P. A. B., vol. i. p. 488).\n\nA very short prophecy called by Obadiah's name follows upon the genuine\nwritings of Isaiah in chronological order. It is in fact anonymous. In\nits present form it belongs to the time of the Captivity. The object of\nthe unknown prophet was to reprove the Idumeans for rejoicing in and\nprofiting by the destruction of Jerusalem. In his writing he embodied\nan older prophecy by the actual Obadiah, referring to a calamity that\nhad befallen Edom, when a part of its territory had been surprised\nand completely plundered by a people with whom it had just been in\nalliance. The same old piece was used by Jeremiah (chap. xlix. 7) in\nhis prophecy upon Edom (Ib., vol. i. p. 489 ff.).\n\nMicah, the next prophet, was a younger contemporary of Isaiah,\nbut lived in the country. When he wrote the northern kingdom was\napproaching its end, and he threatens Judah with chastisement and\ndestruction. He foresaw the fulfillment of Messianic hopes as arising\nonly from the ruin of the existing order of things. No more than\nthe first five chapters are by Micah himself (Ib., vol. i. p. 498\nff.). His book is remarkable for the extremely warlike description\nhe gives of Messianic happiness. Many other prophets conceive it as\nan important element in that happiness that the Israelites shall be\nvictorious over their enemies; but few, if any, have come up to Micah\nin the fervor with which he foretells the desolation, the carnage, the\nutter suppression of rival nations, which will accompany that age. The\nauthor of the scenes of blood will be the ruler who is to come from\nBethlehem-Ephratah. The prophet who has added the last two chapters\nalso looks forward to an age when Jehovah will at length perform his\npromises to Abraham and Jacob, to the terror of the unbelieving nations.\n\nNext after Micah stands Nahum. The occasion of his prophecy was a\nhostile attack directed against Nineveh. He must have seen the danger\nwith his own eyes, and he was therefore a descendant of one of the\nIsraelites who had been carried off to Assyria. He evidently lived far\nfrom Palestine, and was familiar with Assyrian affairs. Elkosh, where\nthe inscription places his residence, was a little town on the Tigris.\nHis book may refer to the siege of Nineveh by the Median king Phraortes\nabout six hundred and thirty-six (P. A. B., vol. ii. p. 1). The\ninterest of Nahum's prophecy is merely local; he does not rise beyond\nthe politics of the hour, and we need not therefore stop to examine\nhis utterances in detail. It may be noted, however, that an expression\nwhich has become famous through its adoption by a much later prophet,\n\"Behold, upon the mountains the feet of him that bringeth good tidings,\nthat publisheth peace,\" is first found in Nahum.\n\nZephaniah's prophecy arose out of a great movement of nations. He lived\nin the reign of Josiah, but wrote before the reformation effected by\nthat monarch. The movement alluded to by him must have been the great\nirruption of the Scythians mentioned by Herodotus as having interrupted\nthe siege of Nineveh by Kyaxares, King of the Medes (Herod., i. 103).\nThese last days of the Assyrian kingdom gave rise to long disturbances\nin which the Chaldeans became conquerors (P. A. B., vol. ii. p. 14).\nAfter various threatenings against divers people, the prophecy of\nZephaniah ends with a beautiful vision of the age to come, when the\nsuppliants of Jehovah will come from beyond the rivers of Ethiopia; and\nwhen a virtuous and happy remnant will be left in Israel.\n\nWhen Habakkuk, the next prophet, wrote his thoughts, and composed\nthe public prayer or psalm which forms his concluding chapter, the\nChaldeans were already in the land. This \"bitter and hasty nation\" was\nquite a new phenomenon there. Habakkuk lived after the reformation of\nJosiah, and therefore in the reign of Jehoiakim (Ib., vol. ii. p. 29).\nHe seems to have written to plead with the Almighty for deliverance,\nand to express unabated confidence in him; and he hoped that his\nwords, set to music and sung in public worship, would induce him to\nabate his anger as manifested in the Chaldean scourge.\n\nAn anonymous prophet (Ib., vol. ii. p. 52) (Zechariah xiii. 1-xiii.\n6, and xiv.) predicts the siege and capture of Jerusalem, with all\nthe miserable incidents of conquest: the rifling of her houses, the\nravishing of her women, the condemnation to captivity of half her\ninhabitants. Like other prophets, however, he looks forward in sanguine\nanticipation to a day when the heathen nations who now make war upon\nJerusalem will regularly go up there every year to worship Jehovah, and\nkeep the feast of tabernacles. At least if any of them do not, they\nwill have no rain. In that glorious age the very pots in the Lord's\nhouse will be like the bowls for offerings; nay, every pot in Judah and\nJerusalem will be holy to the Lord of hosts.\n\nWe pass now to the consideration of a prophet who stands second in\neminence only to Isaiah, and to the unknown author of the later work\nwhich in the Canon is included in the Book of Isaiah. Jeremiah began\nto prophesy in the thirteenth year of Josiah, and continued to do so\nduring the reigns of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah. His active life, like that\nof Isaiah, extended over a period of half a century (P. A. B., vol. ii.\np. 63 ff.). It is noteworthy that Jeremiah was a priest, and therefore\ncombined in his person the double qualification of consecration and of\nexceptional holiness: that is, he was consecrated to Jehovah, and also\nappointed expressly by Jehovah. The manner of his appointment to be\na holy person resembles the manner of the appointment of Isaiah. The\nword of the Lord came to him, saying, that before God had formed him in\nthe belly he had known him, and before he had come forth from the womb\nhe had sanctified him, and ordained him a prophet unto the nations.\nJeremiah objected that he was but a child. But Jehovah told him not\nto say he was a child, for that he was to go where he was sent, and\nspeak what he was commanded. He was not to be afraid of men's faces,\nfor he, the Lord, would deliver him. Then he touched Jeremiah's mouth\nwith his hand, and said: \"Behold, I put my words in thy mouth. See, I\nappoint thee this day over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root\nout, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build and\nto plant.\" After this solemn dedication to his duties Jeremiah was\ncertainly endowed with the fullest qualifications for the prophetic\noffice. He immediately began to see images; namely, a rod of an\nalmond-tree and a seething pot, and it continued afterwards to be one\nof his characteristics to employ material imagery of this nature for\nthe purpose of illustrating the truths he had to communicate.\n\nAfter this introduction, we have a long section of the work, namely,\nfrom the second chapter to the twenty-fourth, beginning with the\nprophecies of the thirteenth year of Josiah. Among other things this\nportion includes Jeremiah's bitter imprecation upon his personal\nenemies, the \"men of Anathoth,\" on whom he begs to be permitted to\nwitness the vengeance of God, and concerning whom he receives the\nconsoling assurance that their young men will die by the sword, and\ntheir sons and daughters by famine, and that there will not be a\nremnant left. This section contains also the terrible prayer against\nthose who \"devised devices\" against Jeremiah, in other words, did\nnot believe in his predictions. In its intense intolerance, in its\nunblushing disclosure of private malignity, in its unscrupulous\nenumeration of the ills desired for these opponents of the prophet, it\nis perhaps unrivaled in theological literature. To do Jeremiah justice\nit ought to be quoted at length:\u2014\n\n \"Give heed to me, O Jehovah, and listen to the voice of my opponents.\n Shall evil be recompensed for good, that they dig a pit for my life?\n Remember how I stood before thee, to speak a good word for them, to\n turn away thy wrath from them. Therefore give their sons to famine,\n and deliver them into the power of the sword; and let their wives be\n bereaved of their children and widowed, and let their men be put to\n death; let their young men be slain by the sword in battle. Let a\n cry be heard from their houses, when thou suddenly bringest troops\n upon them; for they have digged a pit to take me, and hid snares for\n my feet. Yet thou, Jehovah, knowest all their counsel against me to\n slay me; and blot not out their sin from thy sight, and let them be\n overthrown before thee; deal with them in the time of thine anger\"\n (Jer. xviii. 19-23).\n\nIn another chapter there is a curious account of an incident with\nPashur, superintendent of the Temple, who had caused Jeremiah to be\nput in stocks for a day. Jeremiah complains bitterly of the treatment\nhe meets with on account of his prophesying, and wishes to resign\nthe office, but the impulse proves too strong for him. He consoles\nhimself with a pious hope that Jehovah will let him see his vengeance\non his enemies (Jer. xx. 1-12). He continues to predict misfortunes,\nbut intermingles with his gloomier forebodings a fine vision of the\ntime when God shall gather together the remnant of his flock from\nthe countries to which he has driven them, and raise up \"a righteous\nBranch\" of the house of David, who will reign and prosper, who will\nexecute justice and equity, in whose days Judah will be saved, and\nIsrael dwell secure (Jer. xxiii. 2-6).\n\nIn a third section of his work (chap. xlvi. 1-12, and chap. xlvii. 49)\nJeremiah deals with foreign nations, and then (in chap. xxv.) declares\nthat he has been prophesying a long time without being able to get the\nJews to listen to him, foretells their subjugation by Nebuchadnezzar,\nand (rather unfortunately for his own and Jehovah's reputation for\ncorrect foresight) commits himself to the definite term of seventy\nyears as the duration of the coming captivity. A wise prophet would\nhave kept within the safe region of vagueness, where he could not come\ninto collision with awkward dates nor drive orthodox interpreters into\nsuch pitiable straits as those in which Ewald, for example, finds\nhimself, when he is compelled to say that seventy years is a perfectly\ngeneral indication of a future that cannot be more precisely fixed, and\nthat it merely refers to the third generation from the writer (P. A.\nB., vol. ii. p. 230). The remainder of this section (chap. xxvi.-xxix.)\nrelates certain encounters with other prophets whose predictions had\nturned out false, and one of whom, as Jeremiah exultingly relates, died\nduring the year, exactly as Jeremiah had declared he would. Interesting\nevidence is supplied by these chapters of the existence of numerous\nprophets who differed from each other, and between whose claims only\nthe event could decide.\n\nIn the fourth section (chap. xxx.-xxxv.) Jeremiah prophesies the\nrestoration of Israel, and tells his readers how he bought a field\nfrom his cousin on the strength of his hopes that the captivity would\nhave an end. A fifth part (chaps. xxxvi., xlv.) relates to Baruch,\nJeremiah's secretary; and an appendix (chap. xxxvii.-xliv., and chap.\nxlvi. 13-28) contains historical matter, and predictions about Egypt,\nbut concludes with the usual promise of the ultimate return of the\nJewish nation to its ancestral home.\n\nThe last chapter of Jeremiah is purely historical, and, like the\nhistorical portions of Isaiah, need not be considered under the\nprophets; but it must be noted that chaps. l. and li. are not by\nJeremiah, being the work of a much later writer, who lived in\nPalestine, and who composed them to show that the words of the genuine\nJeremiah were fulfilled in the destruction of Babylon by the Medes,\nwhich was taking place at this time (P. A. B., vol. iii. p. 140 ff.).\nThe small Book of Lamentations over the unhappy fate of Jerusalem,\nascribed to Jeremiah, is an artistic attempt to embody the grief of\nthe writer in a song of which each verse begins with a new letter, in\nalphabetical order.\n\nWe pass now to the prophet Ezekiel, a Jew who was taken into captivity\nwith Jehoiachin, and lived at a small town of Mesopotamia. He felt the\nfirst prophetic impulses in the fifth year of the Captivity (Ib., vol.\nii. p. 322 ff.). At this time the heavens were opened; he saw visions,\nand the word of the Lord came expressly to him. Such was the nature of\nhis consecration. The first section of Ezekiel extends from chap. i. to\nxxiv., and contains utterances about Israel before the destruction of\nJerusalem. The second section (chap. xxv.-xxxii.) deals with foreign\nnations, and the third (chap. xxxiii.-xlviii.) holds out promises of\nrestoration.\n\nEzekiel is very inferior to his great predecessors, Isaiah and\nJeremiah. He has neither the fervid, manly oratory of the first nor\nthe pathetic, though rather soft and feminine flow of the second. He\ntakes pleasure in rather coarse images, such as that of the bread baked\nwith human dung (Ezek. iv), that of Jehovah with his two concubines,\nwho bore him sons and vexed him with their licentious conduct (Ezek.\nxxiii), or that of the child whose navel was not cut, who grew up into\na woman, over whom Jehovah spread his skirt and covered her nakedness\n(Ezek. xvi. 8). And in general, Ezekiel is particularly prone to\nteaching by means of similes and illustrations. Sometimes he sees\nvisions in which God explains his meaning; at other times he acts in a\nmanner which is designed to be typical of coming events. Thus, on one\noccasion, he openly brings out his furniture for removal, as a sign to\nthe rebellious house of Israel (Ezek. xii. 1-7).\n\nAs in Jeremiah, so in Ezekiel we find traces of hostility towards\nrival prophets, whom he denounces in no measured terms. It is\ninteresting, too, to observe that there were female prophets in his\nday, who prophesied out of their own hearts. To them also he conveys\nthe reprobation of the Almighty (Ezek. xiii). The form in which he\nlooks forward to the restoration of Israel and Judah to their homes,\nis somewhat different from that in which it was expected by his\npredecessors. In a very singular vision, he relates that his God took\nhim into a valley which was full of bones, and told him that these\nwere the bones of the whole house of Israel. Ezekiel is then informed\nthat God will open the graves of the dead, and cause these bones to\nlive again, and will bring them to the land of Israel. Afterwards, he\nis told to join two sticks into one, this junction representing the\nfuture union of Ephraim and Judah, who are to be gathered from among\nthe heathen, and are to form one nation governed by one king. That\nking is to be David, who will be their prince forever. God will make\nan everlasting covenant of peace with them, and put his sanctuary in\ntheir midst for evermore. Here the resurrection of the dead, and the\nreturn of David, instead of the appearance of a new king, are peculiar\nfeatures.\n\nAn anonymous prophet is supposed to have written Isaiah xxi. 1-10, and\nanother Isaiah xiii. 2-xiv. 23, the latter referring to Babylon, and\ncontaining the imaginary exultation of the restored Israelites over the\nfallen Babylonians. After these fragments we have the work of one who\nis perhaps the greatest of all the prophets, but who also is unknown\nto us by name. As the most fitting description we may perhaps call\nhim the anonymous prophet. The whole of the latter portion of Isaiah,\nfrom chap. xl. to the end, is his work. The anonymous prophet lived\nin Egypt. His peculiar conception was that Israel was the servant of\nthe Lord for the peace and the salvation of nations, as Kyros was his\nservant in war (P. A. B., vol. iii. p. 20 ff.). Alike in beauty of\nlanguage and sublimity of thought he is supreme among the writers of\nthe Hebrew Bible. He is the prophet of sorrow: yet also the prophet of\nconsolation. Whether by a curious accident, or whether by virtue of\na tendency (not uncommon among truly great writers) to withdraw his\npersonality from observation and confine himself wholly to the message\nhe had to deliver, he tells us nothing of himself. Hence he has for\ncenturies been hidden behind the figure of Isaiah, whom nevertheless\nhe surpasses in the purity of his ideal. To him we owe the beautiful\npassage beginning \"Comfort ye, comfort ye, my people,\" with the\ndescription afterwards applied by Jesus Christ to John the Baptist.\nFrom him also we have the most exalted conceptions of the Messiah,\nthe moral element in his character being raised as compared with the\nelement of material power, to a height hitherto unexampled in prophetic\nvision. Take, for instance, this description of his mildness combined\nwith indomitable perseverance:\u2014\n\n \"He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the\n street. A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall\n he not quench; he shall bring forth judgment unto truth. He shall not\n fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth, and\n the isles shall wait for his law\" (Is. xlii. 2-4).\n\nIt is the anonymous prophet, too, who has given us the familiar\npassage, \"He is despised and rejected of men;\" a passage describing\nthe career of a great man whose teachings involved him in persecution\nand ultimately in martyrdom, but nowise applicable to the Messiah.\nThat a historical incident, known to the writer, is alluded to in this\ntouching account of suffering goodness, admits of no reasonable doubt.\n\nThe anonymous prophet is pre\u00ebminently the prophet of consolation.\nLiving in the days of Kyros and of the restoration of the Temple, he\nhad the elements of soothing speech ready to his hand; and as his\npredecessors had prophesied destruction and woe, occasionally varied\nwith strains of hope, so he prophesies in strains of hope, occasionally\nvaried with sterner language. It is his especial mission to heal the\nwounds that have been made in the spirit of Judah. God had indeed\nforsaken her for a while; but he will now take her back as a deserted\nwife, who had suffered her punishment. He had hidden his face in a\nlittle wrath for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will he now\nhave mercy upon her (Is. liv. 5-7). The concluding chapter of the\nanonymous prophet contains a magnificent description of the ultimate\ngathering of all nations and tongues, when Jerusalem will be the\ncentral point of human worship, and the glory of God will be seen by\nall. The picture is not indeed unmingled with darker shades, for great\nnumbers are to be destroyed by Jehovah in his indignation. On the other\nhand, there is a trait exhibiting the superiority of this prophet to\nhis predecessors in toleration for the Gentiles: namely, the remarkable\nprediction that some of them also are to be priests and Levites (Is.\nlxvi. 12-24). The man who could utter this sentiment had made a\nsignal advance upon the ordinary narrow and exclusive notions of the\nprerogatives of the Jewish race.\n\nIt was mentioned that the fiftieth and fifty-first chapters of Jeremiah\nwere added by a later hand. The same hand (in Ewald's opinion) composed\nthe thirty-fourth and thirty-fifth chapters of Isaiah, of which the\nsecond describes in very eloquent terms the coming glory, when \"the\nransomed of the Lord shall return, and come to Zion with songs, and\neverlasting joy upon their heads; they shall obtain joy and gladness,\nand sorrow and sighing shall flee away\" (Is. xxxv. 10). Another unknown\nwriter (Isaiah xxiv.-xxvii.) predicts in the first place the desolation\nwhich the Lord is about to effect, and then the happiness of the Jews\nwho will be brought to their own land again, to worship Jehovah in the\nholy mount at Jerusalem. One of his expressions, \"He will swallow up\ndeath in victory,\" has been adopted by St. Paul; another, \"The Lord\nGod will wipe away tears from off all faces,\" by the author of the\nApocalypse.\n\nThe interest of Haggai's prophecy is purely special: it refers to the\nbuilding of the temple at Jerusalem in the reign of Darius. It was the\nunexpected obstacles by which the building was hindered that kindled\nhis zeal; he made his five speeches in three months of the same year.\nProbably he had not seen the first temple, and he left his prophetic\nwork to his younger contemporary Zechariah (P. A. B., vol. iii. p. 177\nff.).\n\nZechariah also lived in the time of Darius, and dealt principally with\nthe building of the temple (Ib., vol. iii. p. 187 ff.). A series of\nvisions which he professes to see shows how his mind was running upon\nthis absorbing theme; and he even expects the Messiah, whom Isaiah and\nJeremiah had called a Branch of David, and whom he more emphatically\nterms _the_ Branch, to appear at the head of affairs and to carry the\nworks to their completion (Zech., 8, and vi. 12). He supposes that he\nwill then sit and rule upon his throne; a priest will be beside him,\nand there will be a counsel of peace between these two\u2014the monarch and\nhis ecclesiastical minister (Zech., vi. 13).\n\nIt was probably more than half a century later that the short book\nbearing the title of Malachi was written. The true name of its author\nis unknown, and that of Malachi, my messenger, was taken by its editor\nfrom the first verse of the third chapter (P. A. B., vol. iii. p.\n214 ff.). He is not a prophet of a high calibre, as is shown by his\ndenunciation, already quoted, of those among the Jews who offered\nJehovah their least valuable cattle. Nor is his conception of the\nMessianic epoch in any way comparable to that of the great prophets\nwhose works he might have studied. He says indeed that the Sun of\nrighteousness will arise with healing in his wings; but it appears that\nthis healing is to consist in the Israelites treading down the wicked,\nwho will be as dust under their feet. He concludes by announcing the\nreturn of Elijah, before \"the great and dreadful day of the Lord,\" and\nsays, in his threatening tone, that this prophet will turn the hearts\nof the fathers to the children, and of the children to the fathers,\nlest God should come and smite the earth with a curse.\n\nThe Book of Jonah, which may have been written in the fifth or sixth\ncentury B. C. (P. A. B., vol. iii. p. 233 ff.), is a story with a\nmoral rather than a prophecy. Jonah was desired by Jehovah to preach\nagainst Nineveh, but fled from his duty, and took passage in the ship\nto Tarshish, duly paying his fare. However, when a storm arose, Jonah\nknew that it was sent as a penalty for his disobedience, and told the\nsailors to throw him overboard. This they did, but he was swallowed\nalive by a large fish prepared for the purpose, and remained within it\nthree days. By this lesson he was prepared to execute God's commands,\nand was accordingly thrown up by the fish on dry land. He preached\nto the people of Nineveh, as desired, the coming destruction of their\ncity; but when they repented, Jehovah changed his mind, much to the\nannoyance of his prophet, who represented that his unfortunate tendency\nto clemency was the very reason why he had not wished to enter his\nservice. But Jehovah, by causing him to regret the destruction of a\ngourd which had sheltered him, showed him that there would be much more\nreason to spare so large a city as Nineveh, which contained, not only a\nvast population, but also a great deal of cattle.\n\nIf Malachi and Jonah stand in unfavorable contrast to the works\ncomposed during the golden age of Hebrew literature, Daniel, the\nlatest book of the Old Testament, represents the complete degeneracy\nof prophecy. It is from beginning to end artificial; professing to be\nwritten at one time and by an author whose name and personality are\ngiven; in reality written at another time, and by an author whose name\nand personality are concealed. Hence it contains pseudo-prophecies,\nwhich are comparatively clear, extending from the imagined date of\nthe supposed prophet to the actual date of the real prophet; and it\ncontains genuine prophecies which are obscure, and which extend from\nthe actual date into the actual future. It contains also much that\nrelates to the politics of the day, and which, for obvious reasons,\nis cast into an enigmatic form. Daniel was written about the year\nB. C. 168, a little before the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, and\nthe allusions to that monarch are of course made under the veil of\nprophecy, in a style designed to be intelligible, without being direct.\nThe predictions of the eleventh chapter refer to the wars of the Syrian\nand Egyptian kings, and especially to Antiochus Epiphanes, who is the\n\"vile person\" mentioned in the twenty-first verse. The purpose of the\nwork was to set an example of fidelity to Jehovah to the powerful Jews\nwho were connected with the Syrian court, and especially to the younger\nmembers of the great Jewish families, who were in danger of being\ncorrupted by its seductions (P. A. B., vol. iii. p. 298 ff.).\n\nThe form chosen to effect the writer's object is autobiographical.\nIn this way he was able to utter his political views\u2014which, directly\nexpressed, would have been dangerous to his safety\u2014under the guise of\nsentiments uttered by Daniel, the fictitious narrator of the story.\nDaniel was taken as a captive child along with other children of Jewish\nrace to serve at the court of Nebuchadnezzar, and remained at the\nChaldean court until the death of Nebuchadnezzar's son, Belshazzar, and\nthe subjugation of his empire by the Medes and Persians. He continued\nto hold an honorable position at the Persian court under Darius and\nKyros. He first rose to distinction by relating and interpreting to\nNebuchadnezzar a dream which the king had himself forgotten. Thus,\nfrom being a mere page he rose to be a sort of astrologer royal. His\nlife was not, however, free from trouble. Among the children who had\nbeen brought with him from Judea he had three friends, Hananiah,\nMishael, and Azariah, whom the Chaldeans called Shadrach, Meshach, and\nAbednego. When Daniel had successfully interpreted the king's dream,\nhe contrived to obtain lucrative situations in the province of Babylon\nfor Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. But these three having refused to\nworship a golden image which the king had set up in that province were\nby the king's orders cast into a burning fiery furnace, heated beyond\nits usual temperature. But though they fell bound in the midst of it,\nthey were not burnt, and were seen walking about at their ease in it,\naccompanied by a fourth, who looked like the Son of Man (Dan. iii).\n\nIt is remarkable that a precisely similar prodigy occurred in one of\nthe innumerable previous existences of the Buddha Sakyamuni. He was at\nthis time the son and heir of a great king, and to prove his devotion\nto the true doctrine he literally obeyed the instructions of a Brahman,\nwho desired him to fill a ditch ten yards deep with glowing coals and\njump into it. On this condition the Brahman had consented to teach him\nthe holy doctrine. Resisting all entreaties to preserve his life, the\nprince caused the pool of fire to be prepared and leapt into it without\nshrinking for a moment. On the instant it was converted into a basin of\nflowers, and he appeared sitting on a lotus-flower in its midst, while\nthe gods caused a rain of flowers, that rose knee-deep to fall upon the\nassembled people (G. O. M., p. 14).\n\nNor is this the only other example of a wise discrimination being\nexercised by the fiery element. During the reign of the Indian\nking Asoka, who in the early part of his career was ferocious and\nirreligious, the public executioner enjoyed the singular privilege of\nbeing entitled to retain in his house every one, whatever his position\nor character, who might cross the threshold of his door. Now the\noutside of the executioner's house was beautiful and attractive, though\nwithin it was full of instruments of torture, with which he inflicted\non his victims the punishments of hell. One day a holy monk, named\nSamudra, arriving at this apparently charming house, entered it, but\non discovering the nature of its interior wished to make his exit. But\nit was too late. The executioner had seen him, and told him that he\nmust die. After seven days' respite, he threw the monk into an iron\ncaldron filled with water mixed with loathsome materials, and kindled a\nfire below it. But the fire would not burn. Far from experiencing any\npain, the holy man appeared calmly seated on a lotus. The executioner\nhaving informed Asoka of this fact, the king arrived with a suite of\nthousands of persons. Seeing this crowd, the monk darted into the\nair, and there produced miraculous appearances. The king, struck by\nthe extraordinary sight, requested the ascetic to say who he was,\ndeclaring that he honored him as a disciple. Samudra, perceiving that\nthe moment had arrived at which the king was to receive the grace of\ninstruction in the law, replied that he was a son of Buddha, that\nmerciful Being, and that he was delivered from the bonds of existence.\n\"And thou, O great king, thy advent was predicted by Bhagavat, when\nhe said: A hundred years after I shall have entered into complete\nNirv\u00e2na, there will be in the town of Pataliputtra a king called Asoka,\na king ruling over the four quarters of the world, a just king, who\nwill distribute my relics,\" and so forth. He proceeded to point out to\nAsoka the wickedness of establishing a house of torment like that he\nwas in, and entreated him to give security to the beings who implored\nhis compassion. Hereupon the king accepted the law of Buddha, and\ndetermined to cover the earth with monuments for his relics. But when\nthe royal party were about to leave the place, the executioner had\nthe audacity to remind Asoka of his promise that no one who had once\nentered his doors might ever go out. \"What,\" cried Asoka, \"do you wish\nthen to put me also to death?\" \"Yes,\" replied the man. On this he was\nseized and thrown into the torture-room, where he died in the flames,\nand his house was destroyed (H. B. I., p. 365-372).\n\nDaniel himself met with an adventure of the same perilous nature\nas that which had befallen his three friends, though under another\ngovernment. Darius, by the advice of some counselors who desired to\ndestroy Daniel, had made an order that no one should ask a petition\nof any god or man save himself for thirty days. But Daniel of course\ncontinued to worship Jehovah as before, and was sentenced in the terms\nof the edict to be thrown into a lions' den. But the lions would no\nmore eat Daniel than the fire would burn his co-religionists; and just\nas Asoka, when he had witnessed the escape of the ascetic, worshiped\nBuddha, so Darius, having discovered Daniel uninjured in the lions'\nden, immediately ordered that in all parts of his dominions people\nshould tremble and fear before the God of Daniel (Dan. vi).\n\nOf the prophecies contained in this book the most remarkable is that\nconcerning the Messiah, who is announced as destined to come at a\ntime fixed by a mystical calculation expressed in weeks. The object\nof the writer was to fix a date for the Messiah's appearance, without\nexpressing himself in such unambiguous terms as would be universally\nunderstood. Such is the true method of prophecy in all religions, for\na prophet who utters his forecast of the future in such a manner as\nto render his meaning unmistakable, exposes himself to the hazardous\npossibility that the event in history may turn out altogether unlike\nthe event foretold.\n\n\n                  SUBDIVISION 5.\u2014_The God of Israel._\n\nOne great question has hitherto been left untreated\u2014that of the\ntheology and morals of the Hebrew Bible. Theology and morals are\nso intimately blended in its pages that the one can scarcely be\ndiscussed without involving the other. The character of Jehovah is\nthe pattern of morality; his will is its fundamental law; his actions\nits exemplification. Hence to consider the character of Jehovah is\nof necessity to consider also the Hebrew notions of ethics; while to\ninquire into the Hebrew standard of ethics is to enquire into the\ncommands of Jehovah. Let us try then to ascertain what manner of deity\nJehovah is. To do so, our best course will be to select the salient\nfeatures of his history, as related by the sacred writers.\n\nNow, at the very outset of his proceedings we observe that he takes up\ntowards mankind a very definite attitude: that of a superior entitled\nto demand implicit obedience. Whether the fact that he was man's\ncreator justified so extensive a claim it is needless in this place\nto discuss. Suffice it that he had the power to enforce under the\nseverest penalties the submission he demanded. But it might have been\nexpected that a divine being, who assumed such unlimited rights over a\nrace so vastly his inferiors in knowledge and in strength, should at\nleast exercise them with discretion and moderation. It might have been\nexpected that where he claimed obedience it would be with a view to the\nwell-being of his creatures; not merely as an arbitrary exercise of\nhis enormous power. What, on the contrary, is the conduct he pursued?\nHis very first act after he had created Adam and Eve and placed them\nin Paradise was to forbid them, under penalty of death, to eat the\nfruit of a certain tree which grew in their garden. There is not even\na vestige of a pretense in the narrative that the fruit of this tree\nwould in itself, and apart from the divine prohibition, have done them\nany harm. Quite the contrary; the fact of eating it enlarged their\nfaculties; making them like gods, who know good and evil. And Jehovah\nwas afraid that they might, after eating the fruit of the tree of\nknowledge, eat also that of the tree of life, after which he would be\nunable to kill them. So that it was his deliberate purpose in issuing\nthis injunction to keep mankind feeble, ignorant and dependent. Nor\nis this by any means the whole extent of his misconduct. One of two\ncharges he cannot escape. Either he knew when he created Adam and Eve\nthat their nature was such that they would disobey, or he did not. In\nthe first case, he knowingly formed them liable to fall, knowingly\nplaced them amid conditions which rendered their fall inevitable; and\nthen punished them for the catastrophe he had all along foreseen as\nthe necessary result of the character he had bestowed upon them. In\nthe second case, he was ignorant and shortsighted, being unable to\nguess what would be the nature of his own handiwork; and should not\nhave meddled with tasks which were obviously beyond the scope of his\nfaculties. And even in this latter case, the most favorable one for\nJehovah, he acted with unpardonable injustice towards the man and\nwoman in first creating them with a nature whose powers of resistance\nto temptation he could not tell, then placing temptation, raised to\nits utmost strength by a mysterious order, continually under their\nnoses, then allowing a serpent to suggest that they should yield to\nit, and lastly punishing the unhappy victims of this chain of untoward\ncircumstances by expulsion from their garden. A human parent who\nshould thus treat his children would be severely and justly censured.\nIt is a striking proof how rudimentary were the Hebrew conceptions of\njustice, that they should have accepted, in reference to their deity,\na story which evinces so flagrant a disregard of its most elementary\nrequirements (Gen. ii. 8, and iii). Just as in the case of Adam and\nEve, he required implicit obedience to an arbitrary command, so in the\ncase of Abraham he required implicit obedience to an immoral one. There\nwas with him no fixed system of morality. Submission to his will was\nthe alpha and omega of virtue. Observe now how superior is the feeling\nshown in the Hindu legend which has been quoted as a parallel to that\nof the projected sacrifice of Isaac. Although in that story the father\nwas bound by a solemn promise to sacrifice his son, yet he is never\nblamed for his reluctance to do so, though Abraham is praised for his\nwillingness; while the Brahman who is actually prepared to plunge the\nsacrificial knife into his child's breast is treated with scorn and\nreprobation for his unfeeling behavior. Even the service of the gods is\nnot made supreme over every human emotion. But the conception of the\nexistence of duties independent of the divine will seems not to have\nentered the minds of the Hebrew theologians who wrote these books.\n\nThe further proceedings of Jehovah are quite in keeping with his\nbeginning in the garden of Eden. Throughout the whole course of the\nhistory he shows the most glaring partiality. In its earlier period\nhe is partial to individuals; in its later, to the Hebrew race. Let\nus notice a few cases of this favoritism as shown towards individual\nfavorites. Immediately after the curse upon Adam and Eve, and their\nbanishment from Eden, we have the instructive story of Cain and Abel,\nso magnificently dramatized by Byron. These two brothers, sons of the\noriginal couple, both brought offerings to Jehovah; Cain, the fruit of\nthe ground; Abel, the firstlings of his flock. But the Lord had respect\nto Abel and his offering, but not to Cain and his offering. Why was\nthis difference made? Absolutely no reason is assigned for it, and it\nis not surprising, however lamentable, that it should have excited the\njealousy of the brother who was thus ill-treated (Gen. iv. 1-8). Again,\nit has been remarked above that Abraham and Isaac had a singular way of\npassing off their wives as their sisters. Pharaoh was once deceived in\nthis way about Sarah; Abimelech of Gerar, once about Sarah, and once\nabout Rebekah. These two monarchs were plagued by Jehovah on account of\ntheir innocent mistake; the patriarchs were not even reproved for this\ncowardly surrender of their consorts to adulterous embraces (Gen. xii.\n11-20, xx., xxvi. 7-11). Jacob is another favorite, while his brother\nEsau is coldly treated. Yet the inherent meanness of Jacob's character,\nand the comparative excellence of Esau's, are too obvious to escape\neven a careless reader. What can be more pitiful than the conduct of\nJacob in taking advantage of a moment of weakness in his brother to\npurchase his birthright? (Gen. xxv. 29-34.) What more ungenerous than\nthe odious trick by which he imposed upon his father, and cheated Esau\nof his blessing? (Gen. xxvii.) What again can be more magnanimous than\nthe long subsequent reception by Esau of the brother whose miserable\nsubserviency showed his consciousness of the wrong he had done him?\n(Gen. xxxiii. 1-15). Yet this is the man whom Jehovah selects as the\nobject of his peculiar blessing, and whose very deceitfulness towards a\nkind employer he suffers to become a means of aggrandizement (Gen. xxx.\n41-43).\n\nThe same partisanship which in these cases forms so conspicuous a trait\nin the character of Jehovah distinguishes the whole course of his\nproceedings in reference to the delivery of the Israelites from Egypt\nand their settlement in Palestine. Every other nation is compelled to\ngive way for their advantage. Pharaoh and all the Egyptians are plagued\nfor holding them in slavery, not in the least because Jehovah was an\nabolitionist (for he never troubled himself about slavery anywhere\nelse), but because it was his own peculiar people who were thus in\nsubjugation to a race whom he did not equally affect. Throughout the\nlong journey from Egypt to the promised land, Jehovah accompanies the\nIsraelites as a sort of commander-in-chief, directing them what to do,\nand giving them the victory over their enemies. As the Red Sea was\ndivided to enable them to escape from their enemies on the one side, so\nthe Jordan was cleft in two to enable them to conquer their enemies on\nthe other (Ex. xiv. 21, 22.\u2014Josh. iii. 7-17). The walls of a fortified\ncity were thrown down to enable them to enter (Josh. vi. 20). The sun\nwas arrested in his course to enable them to win a battle (Josh. x.\n12-14). Hornets were employed to accomplish the expulsion of hostile\ntribes without trouble to the Israelites (Josh. xxiv. 12). Thus, as\nJehovah afterwards took care to remind them, he gave them a land for\nwhich they did not labor, and cities which they did not build (Josh.\nxxiv. 13).\n\nNevertheless the lot of the race who were thus highly favored was far\nfrom happy. Their God was indeed a powerful protector, but he was also\nan exacting ruler. His service was at no time an easy one, and he was\nliable to outbursts of passion which rendered it peculiarly oppressive.\nTolerant as he might be towards some descriptions of immorality, he had\nno mercy whatever for disloyalty towards himself. On one occasion he\ncharacterized himself by the name of \"Jealous\" (Ex. xxxiv. 14), which\nwas but too appropriate, and implied the possession of one of the least\nadmirable of human weaknesses. Now the Israelites were unfortunately\nprone to lapses of this kind. Such was the severity with which these\noffenses were treated that it is questionable whether it would not have\nbeen a far happier fate to be drowned in the Red Sea with the Egyptians\nthan preserved with the children of Israel. A few instances of what\nthey had to undergo will illustrate this remark.\n\nMoses had impressed upon the people the importance of having no other\ndeity but Jehovah, and had succeeded while he was actually among\nthem in restricting them to his worship alone. But no sooner was he\nabsent for a season than they immediately forsook Jehovah, and took\nto worshiping a golden calf. Worst of all, this new divinity was set\nup by Aaron, the brother of Moses, and high priest of the Jehovistic\nfaith. That Jehovah should be rather vexed at such ungrateful behavior,\nafter all the trouble he had taken in plaguing and slaughtering the\nEgyptians, was only natural; but it was surely an extraordinary want\nof self-control to propose to consume the whole nation at once,\nreserving only Moses as the progenitor of a better race. Here, as\nin other cases, Moses showed himself more merciful than his God. He\ningeniously urged as a motive to clemency that the Egyptians would say\nextremely unpleasant things if the Israelites were destroyed; and after\nhis return to the camp he contrived to appease him by inducing the\nLevites to perpetrate a fratricidal massacre, whereby three thousand\npeople fell. This measure was described by Moses as a consecration\nof themselves to the Lord, that he might bestow his blessing upon\nthem. It proved successful, for Jehovah now contented himself with\nmerely plaguing the people instead of exterminating them (Ex. xxxii).\nThus, he had scarcely finished plaguing the Egyptians before he began\nplaguing the Israelites in their turn. Indeed he was at this period\npeculiarly prone to sending plagues of one kind or another. Some\ncomplaints of the Israelites in the wilderness were visited by fire\nwhich burnt up those who were at the extremities of the camp (Num. xi.\n1-3). When they began to pine for the varied food they had enjoyed in\nEgypt, and to lament the absence of flesh meat, he sent them quails\nindeed, but accompanied the gift with a very great plague, of which\nlarge numbers perished (Num. xi. 4-34). When they were dismayed by\nthe reports brought them concerning the inhabitants of Palestine, and\ncomplained of their God for the position he had brought them into, he\nagain fell into a rage and proposed to destroy them all by pestilence\nexcept Moses. But Moses a second time appealed to him on what seems\nto have been his weak side,\u2014his regard for his reputation among the\nEgyptians. These had all heard of what he had been doing, and would not\nthey and the other neighboring nations ascribe the destruction of the\nIsraelites in the wilderness to his inability to bring them into the\npromised land? Moved by this reasoning, Jehovah consented to spare the\npeople, but determined at the same time to avenge himself upon them by\nnot permitting any of those that had come from Egypt (except Joshua\nand Caleb, who had reported in the proper spirit about Palestine) to\nset foot within the country to which he had solemnly engaged himself\nto conduct them (Num. xiv. 1-39). Thus, they were only saved from the\nEgyptians to perish in the wilderness. Truly, the tender mercies of the\nLord were cruel.\n\nBut the miseries of these unfortunate wanderers were by no means ended.\nWhen, oppressed by the troubles and weariness of the way, they dared\nto murmur, and inquired of Moses why he had brought them out of Egypt\nto die in the wilderness, where there was neither tolerable bread, nor\nwater, the resentment of Jehovah was excited by this audacity. They\nought to have been only too grateful that they had remained alive.\nJehovah had not caused the earth to swallow them as it had done Korah,\nDathan, and Abiram, with their wives and little children, because\nthey had ventured to complain of the government of Moses; nor had he\ndestroyed them by plague, as he had destroyed 14,700 people because\nthere had been some expressions of dissatisfaction at the sudden death\nof those seditious men. If then they had hitherto escaped destruction,\nthey were certainly foolish in complaining of the hardships of the\ndesert. At any rate Jehovah soon convinced them that their grumbling\nwas useless. No constitutional opposition was permitted in those days.\nFiery serpents were despatched to bite them, and many of them died in\nconsequence. Such was the extent of the calamity that Moses, always\nmore merciful than his God, interceded for his people; and was directed\nto set up a brazen serpent, by looking at which the bites of the living\nserpents were healed (Num. xxi. 1-9).\n\nThe extraordinary cruelty ascribed by the Hebrews to their national\ndeity is shown in many other instances besides those that have been\nmentioned. And it is to be noticed that it is cruelty mingled with\ncaprice. No one could tell beforehand precisely what actions he would\nvisit with punishment, nor what would be the punishment with which\nhe would visit them. Everything with him was uncertain. He had no\nfixed system of laws at all, and he sometimes condemned a criminal in\nvirtue of _ex post facto_ legislation. The deluge is an example of\nall these vices combined. It was an excessively cruel punishment; it\nwas inflicted capriciously, and once in a way only, because God had\nchanged his mind as to the propriety of having created man; and it\nwas the result of a resolution arrived at after the offenses it was\ndesigned to chastise had already been committed. No human being could\npossibly have guessed beforehand that his crimes would be punished in\nthat particular way. And after the crimes of the antediluvians had been\nthus punished, the survivors received a promise that no misconduct on\ntheir part would ever be visited upon them in the same way. So that\nany conceivable utility which the deluge might have had as a warning\nfor the future was utterly destroyed. Equal caprice, though not equal\ncruelty, was shown towards the builders of the tower of Babel, who were\nsuffered to begin their labors without hindrance, but were afterwards\nstopped by the confusion of their languages. Why it was wrong to erect\nsuch a tower is never stated. Could any of those engaged upon it have\nguessed that the attempt was one deserving of punishment? Still worse\nwas Jehovah's behavior to the prophet Balaam, for he first ordered\nhim to go with the men who were sent for him, and then was angry with\nhim because he went (Num. xxii. 20, 22). Such conduct was on a level\nwith that of a pettish woman. Instances of barbarous severity may be\nfound in abundance. Nadab and Abihu, sons of Aaron, were devoured by\n\"fire from the Lord,\" because they had taken their censers, and offered\nstrange fire before him (Lev. x. 1, 2). A man who on the father's side\nwas Egyptian, was ordered to be stoned for blaspheming and cursing the\nname of the Lord; Jehovah being peculiarly eager in avenging personal\naffronts (Lev. xxiv. 10-16). On this occasion no doubt a general\nlaw was announced affixing the penalty of stoning to the offense of\nblasphemy; but the law was _ex post facto_ so far as the individual\nwho suffered by its operation was concerned. On another occasion the\nheads of the people were ordered to be all hung for whoredom with the\ndaughters of Moab, and for idolatry. Phinehas, Aaron's son, seeing an\nIsraelite with a Midianitish woman, ran then both through the body with\na javelin; for which heroic exploit against an unprepared man and a\ndefenseless woman he was specially praised; was declared to have turned\naway God's wrath from Israel, and received a \"covenant of peace\" for\nhimself and his posterity (Num. xxv. 1-15). At a much later period,\nwhen David was causing the ark to be brought back from the Philistines,\nan unfortunate man who had put out his hand to touch it because the\noxen shook it, was immediately slain; an act at which even the pious\nDavid was displeased, and which caused him, not unnaturally, to be\n\"afraid before the Lord that day\" (2 Sam. vi. 6-9). In the reign of\nJeroboam a prophet who had only been guilty of the involuntary error of\nbelieving another prophet who had told him a falsehood, was killed by a\nlion sent expressly for his punishment, while the man who had deceived\nhim escaped scot free (1 Kings xiii. 1-32). Another man suffered for\nrefusing to obey the word of a prophet what this one had suffered for\nobeying it. Being desired by one of the \"sons of the prophets\" to\nsmite him so as to cause a wound, and having declined the office, he\nwas informed that for his disobedience to the voice of the Lord he\nwould be slain by a lion, which accordingly happened (1 Kings xx. 35,\n36). Mercy towards a conquered enemy was sometimes an actual crime.\nBecause he spared Agag, Saul was rejected from being king over Israel,\nand the Lord repented that he had appointed so weak-minded a man.\nSamuel, who was made of sterner stuff, had no scruple in carrying out\nthe behests of his God, for he \"hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord\"\n(1 Sam. xv). In like manner Ahab was reproved for sparing the life of\nBen-hadad, King of Syria (1 Kings xx. 42, 43). The same monarch whose\nleniency had thus brought him into trouble was afterwards the victim\nof a sanguinary fraud practiced upon him by Jehovah. Tired of his\nreign, and eager to effect his destruction, the Lord put a lying spirit\ninto the mouth of all his prophets, who were thus induced to prophesy\nvictory in an engagement which actually terminated in his defeat and\ndeath (1 Kings xxii. 1-40). Observe, that however foolish Ahab may have\nbeen in believing the false prophets and disbelieving Micaiah, this\ndoes not excuse Jehovah, who according to his own chosen spokesman,\ndeliberately arranged this scheme for the overthrow of the king in the\ncourt of heaven. Other barbarous deeds followed upon this. To gratify\nElijah, a hundred men who were guiltless of any crime whatever, were\nconsumed by fire (2 Kings i. 9-12). To assuage the wounded vanity of\nElisha, forty-two little children were eaten by bears (2 Kings ii.\n23, 24). To maintain the glory of the true God, Elijah slaughtered the\nprophets of Baal to the number of many hundreds (1 Kings xviii. 17-40).\nTo re\u00ebstablish the orthodox faith, Jehu got rid of the worshipers of\nBaal, collected together by an infamous trick, in one indiscriminate\nmassacre; an atrocity for which he was specially praised and rewarded\nby \"the Lord\" (2 Kings x. 18-30).\n\nIt is needless to prolong the list of cruelties practiced upon private\nindividuals. But the subject would be incompletely treated, did we\nnot observe that the same spirit prevailed in the dealings of Jehovah\nwith nations. Thus, when the Israelites were about to enter the land\nof Canaan, they were desired utterly to destroy the seven nations\nwho possessed it already (Deut. vii. 2). When they captured Jericho,\nthey slew all its inhabitants, young and old, except the household\nof the prostitute with whom their messengers had lodged, and who had\nshamelessly betrayed her countrymen. Her, with her family they saved\n(Josh. vi. 1-25). All the inhabitants of Ai were utterly destroyed\n(Josh. viii. 26). All the inhabitants of Makkedah were utterly\ndestroyed (Josh. x. 28). All the inhabitants of many other places were\nutterly destroyed (Josh. x. 29-43, and xi. 11, 14). One city alone made\npeace with Israel; all the rest were taken in battle, and that because\nJehovah had deliberately and of set purpose hardened the hearts of\ntheir inhabitants, that they might be utterly destroyed (Josh. xi. 20).\n\nSuch a catalogue of crimes\u2014and the number is by no means\nexhausted\u2014would be sufficient to destroy the character of any pagan\ndivinity whatsoever. I fail to perceive why the Jews alone should be\nprivileged to represent their God as guilty of such actions without\nsuffering the inference which in other cases would undoubtedly be\ndrawn\u2014namely, that their conceptions of deity were not of a very\nexalted order, nor their principles of morals of a very admirable kind.\nThere is, indeed, nothing extraordinary in the fact that, living in a\nbarbarous age, the ancient Hebrews should have behaved barbarously.\nThe reverse would rather be surprising. But the remarkable fact is,\nthat their savage deeds, and the equally savage ones attributed to\ntheir God, should have been accepted by Christendom as flowing in the\none case from the commands, in the other from the immediate action\nof a just and beneficent Being. When the Hindus relate the story of\nBrahma's incest with his daughter, they add that the god was bowed\ndown with shame on account of his subjugation by ordinary passion (O.\nS. T., vol. i. p. 112). But while they thus betray their feeling that\neven a divine being is not superior to all the standards of morality,\nno such consciousness is ever apparent in the narrators of the passions\nof Jehovah. While far worse offenses are committed by him, there is no\ntrace in his character of the grace of shame.\n\nTurning now to the legislation which emanated from him, we shall find\nevidence of the same spirit which has been seen to mark his daily\ndealings. It is impossible here to examine that legislation in detail,\nand it may be freely conceded that much of it was well adapted to\nthe circumstances under which it was delivered. Some of the precepts\ngiven are indeed trivial, such as the order to the Israelites not\nto round the corners of their heads, nor mar the corners of their\nbeards (Lev. xix. 27), and others are [such as are] merely special\nto the Hebrew religion. But the mass of enactments may very probably\nhave been wise, or, at least, not conspicuously the reverse. Those\nto which the chief exception must be taken, are such as demonstrate\nthe essentially inhuman character of the authority from whom they\nemanated. Thus, death is the penalty affixed to the insignificant\noffense of Sabbath-breaking (Ex. xxxv. 2). If the nearest relation,\nor even the wife of his bosom, or the friend who is as his own soul,\nsecretly entice a man to go and worship other gods, he himself is to\nput the tempter to death, his own hand being the first to fling the\nstones by which he is to perish (Deut. xiii. 6-11). The Inquisition\nitself could have no more detestable law than this. If it is a city\nthat is guilty of such heresy, it is to be burnt down, and all its\ninhabitants put to the sword (Deut. xiii. 12-16). The mere worship of\npagan divinities, apart from any effort to seduce others, is likewise\npunished with stoning (Deut. xvii. 2-7). In cities not in Palestine,\ntaken in war, all the males only are to be put to death; but in the\ncities of Palestine itself, nothing that breathes is to be saved alive\n(Deut. xx. 13-18). A \"stubborn and rebellious son\" may be put to death\nby stoning, and that at the instance of his parents (Deut. xxi. 18-21).\nIn appearance this terrible process for dealing with a naughty boy\nis less severe than the _patria potestas_ of the Romans, by which the\npower of life and death was lodged in the father alone. Practically,\nhowever, the exercise of this unlimited _legal_ right was prevented\nto a large extent, for a religious curse rested on the father who\neven sold his married son, and he could not pronounce sentence on any\nchild till after consulting the nearest blood-relations on both sides,\nwithout incurring the same anathema (Mommsen, History of Rome, vol. i.\np. 65). No doubt the purely legal power of the head of the family was\nunaffected by these restraints. Human authority still permitted him\nto expose his children at birth, to sell them, or to sentence them to\ndeath. But the difference between Roman and Jewish institutions was,\nthat in Rome, religion sought to mitigate the cruelty of the civil law;\nin Palestine, religion not only did nothing to soften, but positively\nsanctioned, by its august commands the most revolting enactments of\nbarbaric legislation. It is true that no instance is known to history\nof the employment of this law by Jews against their children, but this\ncan only show that their parental morality was superior to the morality\nof the divine law. At a much later time than that at which this\nenactment was given, when the Israelites returned from the Captivity,\nthe same harsh and intolerant spirit as we have observed in their\nearlier legislation broke forth again. By a cruel measure, enacted by\nEzra, the representative of Jehovah, and taking the form of a covenant\nwith God, the people were forced to repudiate all their wives who\nwere not of pure Israelitish blood (Ezra ix, and x). Nehemiah, who\nwas likewise zealous in the service of Jehovah, was no less an enemy\nto \"outlandish women,\" and took rather strong measures against those\nwho had married them, such as cursing them, smiting them, plucking off\ntheir hair, and making them swear not to give their sons or daughters\nin marriage to foreigners (Neh. xiii. 23-28).\n\nSuch being the moral characteristics of the Hebrew God, can it be said\nthat the intellectual ideas of the divine nature found in the Old\nTestament are of a highly refined and spiritual order? On the contrary,\nas compared with the gods of other races, Jehovah is remarkably\nanthropomorphic and materialistic. He does not approach in spirituality\nto the higher conceptions of the Hindus, nor is he even equal to those\nof less subtle and speculative nations. He is on a level with the gods\nof popular mythologies, but not with those more mysterious powers who\noften stand above them. The evidence of this proposition is to be found\nin the whole tenor of the historical books. Thus, in the very beginning\nof Genesis, we find that he \"rested on the seventh day,\" (Gen. ii.\n2) as if he were a being altogether apart from the forces of nature,\nand might leave the world to go on without him. A little later he is\nfound \"walking in the garden in the cool of the day\" (Gen. iii. 8). He\nclearly had a body resembling that of man, for on one occasion Moses\nwas so highly favored as to be permitted to see his \"back parts,\" and\nwas covered with his hand while he was passing by. His face Moses was\nnot permitted to behold, as it would have caused his death (Ex. xxxiii.\n20-23). In order to pass by he \"descended\" in a cloud, implying local\nhabitation, and at this time he magniloquently proclaimed his own\ntitles and virtues, which he might more gracefully have employed an\nangel to do for him. Elsewhere it is stated that Moses and the elders\n\"saw the God of Israel,\" and that he had some sort of paved work of\nsapphire stone under his feet. When Moses went up alone into the mount,\n\"the sight of the glory of the Lord was like devouring fire.\" God was\nat this time supposed to be on the mount, and there held discourse\nwith Moses (Ex. xxiv. 10-25). In the course of it he says that he will\n\"commune\" from above the mercy-seat in the tabernacle, again (as in so\nmany other places) implying occupation of definite space (Ex. xxv. 22).\nHe promises to \"dwell among the children of Israel,\" that is, to be a\nnational and local God (Ex. xxix. 45, 46). Confirmation of the view\nhere taken of his limited nature is found in the fact that he thought\nit necessary to \"go down\" to Sodom and Gomorrah, to verify the reports\nwhich had reached him concerning the conduct of their inhabitants.\nAnd when Abraham appealed to him for mercy for those of them who were\nrighteous, his several answers clearly implied that when he went\nto those cities he would discover how many of them came under that\ndenomination. \"If I find in Sodom fifty righteous,\" and so forth, is\nthe language of one who does not know a fact, but is going to ascertain\nit. And accordingly at the end of the colloquy \"the Lord went his way\"\n(Gen. xviii. 20-33). So completely anthropomorphic is the conception of\ndeity that, although the expression occurs only in a parable, it is not\nat variance with the mode in which he is usually spoken of when wine is\nsaid \"to cheer God and man\" (Judg. ix. 13). Evidently there was nothing\nshocking to the Hebrew mind in such an expression. And when they\npictured their God as walking, talking, indignant, angry, repenting,\njealous, showing himself to human beings, and generally indulging in\nthe passions of mortals, it was perfectly easy to conceive that wine\nmight exercise the same effect on him as it did on them.\n\nNo doubt the Hebrew mythology is free from all that class of stories\nin which a divine being is represented as making love to or cohabiting\nwith women. Or, to speak more accurately, they never represent Jehovah\nhimself as indulging in such amusements. There is a reminiscence of\nthis form of myth in the statement that before the deluge the sons of\nGod intermarried with the daughters of men (Gen. vi. 2); but their\nsupreme Being was free at least from sexual passion. So far as it goes,\nthis is well; but if I had to choose between a God who was somewhat\nlicentious in his relations with mankind, and one who did not stick at\ndeeds of bloodshed of the most outrageous character, I confess I should\nsee no very powerful reason to prefer the latter.\n\nThat, in spite of all these drawbacks, there are some better elements\nin the Hebrew ideal I do not at all deny. The poetical description of\nGod as a \"still small voice\" is both eloquent and spiritual; and the\nprayer of Solomon, with its admission that the heaven of heavens cannot\ncontain the Infinite Power who is entreated to dwell in the Temple, is\nin many respects beautiful and admirable. So also the views of Jehovah\nattained and uttered by some of the prophets are far loftier than\nthose generally expressed in the historical books. Many of the Psalms,\nagain, are full of beauty in the manner in which they speak of him to\nwhom they are addressed. In a nation so deeply religious as the Jews,\nand so much given to meditation on God, it was inevitable that the\nhigher class of minds should conceive him more spiritually than the\nlower, and it is this class to whom we owe the poetical and prophetic\nwritings. It was inevitable also that as civilization advanced, the\ngrosser elements of the conception, which belonged to a barbarous\npeople, should be eliminated, and that the finer ones should remain.\nThe entire supersession of the older God by the newer was prevented\nby the fact that the Old Testament was a sacred book, and that hence\nevery one of its statements had to be received as absolutely true. The\ninconsistency between the wrathful monarch of ancient times and the\nloving Spirit of more recent ages was sought to be surmounted by those\nprocesses of interpretation which have been shown to be invariably\nadopted when it is desired to bring the infallible Scriptures of any\nnation into harmony with the opinions of their readers. But happily the\nlanguage of the historical portions of the Old Testament is singularly\nplain, and no ingenious manipulation of the text can with the smallest\nplausibility put aside the obvious meaning of the broad assertions on\nwhich is founded the above delineation of the God of Israel.\n\n\n                   SECTION VIII.\u2014THE NEW TESTAMENT.\n\nSince a considerable portion of the New Testament has already been\ndealt with in the life of Jesus, we have only, in the present section,\nto consider the remaining works of which it is composed. These will\nnot require a very elaborate treatment. They consist of one historical\nbook, continuing the history of the Christian community from the death\nof its founder till the imprisonment of Paul at Rome, of letters,\npartly genuine, partly spurious, bearing the names of eminent apostles\nas their authors, and of one composition somewhat akin in its nature\nto the writings of the Hebrew prophets. Of these several parts of the\nNew Testament (excluding the Gospels) some of the Epistles are probably\nthe most ancient; but as it would be difficult to establish any precise\nchronological sequence among the several books, it will be most\nconvenient to begin with that which stands first in actual order.\n\n\n              SUBDIVISION 1.\u2014_The Acts of the Apostles._\n\nThe author of the third gospel, having written the life of Jesus,\nproceeded to compose, in addition to it, a history of the proceedings\nof his apostles after his decease. We are greatly indebted to him for\nhaving done so, for this book is, notwithstanding some extravagances,\nof considerable value, and is the most trustworthy of the five\nhistorical books in the New Testament. It brought the narrative of\nevents nearer to the date at which it was written than the gospel could\ndo, and it dealt with events concerning which better evidence was\naccessible to the writer. There was thus not the same scope for fiction\nas there had been in the life of Christ. Nevertheless the story of the\nActs of the Apostles is by no means free from legendary admixture.\n\nBeginning with the ascension, which has been already noticed in\nconnection with the gospel, it proceeds to relate the choice of a new\napostle in place of the unfaithful Judas. The ceremony by which the\nchoice was made evinces a singular superstition on the part of the\napostles. Having selected two men, Joseph and Matthias, they simply\nprayed that God would show which he had chosen. They then drew lots,\nand the lot fell upon Matthias (Acts i. 15-26).\n\nThe next important event in the history of the Church thus recruited,\nwas the reception of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost. On this\noccasion the Christians were all assembled, when suddenly there was a\nsound like that of strong wind; cloven tongues appeared and sat upon\nthem; they were filled with the Holy Ghost, and suddenly acquired the\npower of speaking foreign languages (Acts ii. 1-13). Since the \"gift\nof tongues\" has not been unknown in certain communities in recent\ntimes, we might perhaps form a tolerably correct notion from the\nreports of modern observers as to what the scene among the disciples\nwas like. Even, however, without this modern experience, we should not\nbe altogether in the dark as to the character of the phenomenon of\nwhich the author of the Acts makes mention. For although it is indeed\nstated that some of the strangers who were present heard each his own\nlanguage spoken by the disciples, it is added that the conviction\nproduced upon others was that the Christians were drunk. It must have\nbeen a wild and singular exhibition which could lead to the formation\nof such an opinion. But if we wanted further explanation we should find\nit in the words of Paul, whose strong practical judgment led him to\ndepreciate the value of the gift of tongues as compared with that of\npreaching. Had this gift consisted in the power of speaking their own\nlanguages to foreign nations, there is none to whom it would have been\nof greater service than the apostle of the Gentiles. Yet it is he who\ntells us that at a meeting he would rather speak five words with his\nunderstanding, that he might teach others also, than ten thousand in\na tongue. So that the words spoken \"in tongues\" were not spoken with\nthe understanding; they were mere sounds without a meaning to him who\nuttered them. Equally clear is the evidence of Paul to the fact that\nthey were without a meaning to him who heard them. His reason for\ndesiring his correspondents to cultivate the gift of prophesying (or\npreaching) rather than that of tongues is that \"he that speaks in a\ntongue speaks not to men, but to God, for _nobody_ understands him, but\nin the spirit he speaks mysteries. But he that preaches speaks to men\nedification, and exhortation, and comfort. He that speaks in a tongue\nedifies himself; but he that preaches edifies the Church\" (1 Cor. xiv.\n2-4). Tongues, he says further on, are for a sign to unbelievers; that\nis, they are of use merely to impress the senses of those whose minds\ncannot yet be appealed to. But if the unbelieving or unlearned should\nhappen to enter a meeting where the disciples were all speaking with\ntongues, they would consider them mad: a striking testimony to the\ntumultuous character of scenes like that presented by the enthusiastic\nassembly of the Christians at Pentecost. Hence Paul desires that two,\nor at most three, should speak with tongues at a time, and that there\nshould always be somebody to interpret, in other words, to translate\nnonsense into sense. Without an interpreter, he would not sanction any\nexercise of this peculiar faculty on the part of the inspired linguist\n(1 Cor. xiv. 1-28).\n\nTo satisfy the doubts of those who attributed the sudden attainments\nof the apostles to intoxicating drinks, Peter delivered a discourse,\nwhich ended in the addition of 3,000 members to the rising sect. It\nis remarkable that these new members at once became communists, both\nthey and all the disciples having all things in common; a noteworthy\nindication of what was required by the religion of Christ as understood\nby his immediate disciples (Acts ii. 14-47). Further evidence, if any\nwere needed, of the communistic character of the Church is contained\nat the end of the fourth chapter, while the fifth informs us of the\ntolerably severe measures taken to enforce it. \"There was one heart and\none soul among the multitude of those who believed, nor did a single\none say that any of the things he possessed was his own; but they had\nall things common.\" Unhappily the one heart and one mind did not extend\nto Ananias or to his wife Sapphira, for this naughty couple \"sold a\npossession and kept back part of the price.\" But Peter was not thus to\nbe taken in. It does not appear from the account that Ananias was asked\nwhether the sum he produced was the whole price of the land, or that he\ntold any falsehood regarding it. However, Peter remarked that he might\nhave kept either the property or its price, had he thought proper, and\ncharged him with lying to God; whereupon the poor man fell down dead.\nAbout three hours later, Sapphira came in; and she distinctly stated\nthat the sum produced by Ananias was the full price. Peter told her\nthat the feet of those who had buried her husband were at the door, and\nwould carry her out too. She then fell down at his feet, and expired in\nher turn (Acts. iv. 31-v. 11).\n\nNo wonder that \"great fear came upon all the Church\" when they heard\nthese things. Peter's proceedings were indeed alarming, and could we\nfor a moment accept the account of his historian, we should have no\noption but to hold him guilty of the wilful murder of Sapphira. He\nknew, according to his own statement, what the effect of his words upon\nthis woman would be, and he should have abstained from any expression\nthat could bring about so terrible a catastrophe. Happily, we may\nreject the whole story as either a fiction or a perversion of fact.\nHad it been true, it would have called for very much sterner measures\nthan those taken by the Sanhedrim, who, having already desired Peter\nand John to keep silence about the new religion, now merely imprisoned\nthe apostles, and afterwards, on the prudent advice of Gamaliel,\ndetermined to release them; not indeed till after they had beaten them\nand again prohibited their propagandist efforts (Acts v. 17-42). It\nis interesting to observe that Luke effects the deliverance of the\napostles from prison by the intervention of an angel, and that at a\nlater period, when Peter had been imprisoned by Herod, he again gets\nhim out by means of an angel who appears to him while sleeping, and at\nwhose presence his chains fall off (Acts xii. 1-19). This is quite in\naccordance with the proceedings of the same author in the gospel, where\nhis partiality for angels as part of his theatrical machinery has been\nshown to be characteristic.\n\nThe infant community was now increasing in numbers, and along with\nthis increase there arose the customary consequences\u2014dissension and\nmutual distrust. We are fortunate in possessing in the Acts an account\nof the very first quarrel in the Church; the earliest symptom of those\ndiscords and hostilities, which, since that time, have so incessantly\nraged within her limits. It was on a question of money; the Greeks\nmurmuring against the Hebrews, because they thought their widows were\nneglected in the daily ministration. The apostles tided over the\nimmediate difficulty by appointing subordinate officers to attend to\nmatters of business. The plan succeeded; but their peace was soon to be\ndisturbed again by graver questions (Acts vi. 1-8).\n\nAmong those appointed to superintend the pecuniary interests of the\nChurch was one named Stephen. This man is reported to have performed\ngreat wonders and miracles, but some of the Jews accused him of\nblasphemy, and after an eloquent defense, which to Jewish ears amounted\nto an admission of the charge, he was sentenced to death by stoning.\nForemost in the execution of the sentence was a man named Saul, who\nwas conspicuous at this time for the bitterness with which he pursued\nthe Christians, entering their private houses, and causing them to be\nimprisoned (Acts vi. 9-viii. 3).\n\nIf any proof were needed of the entire conscientiousness of the\nJewish persecutors of Christianity at this time we should find it in\nthe character of Saul. Of the honesty of his religious zeal, of the\nsingle-minded sense of duty from which he acted in his anti-Christian\nperiod, his subsequent career makes it impossible to entertain a doubt.\nMen like the apostle Paul are not made out of selfish, dishonest, or\ncruel natures. He was at the martyrdom of Stephen as honorable and\nfearless an upholder of the ancient faith as he was afterwards to the\nnew. He himself several times refers in his writings to his persecution\nof the Church, and always in the tone of a man who had nothing to be\nashamed of but a mistake in judgment. As touching the righteousness\nwhich is in the law, he tells us he was blameless (Phil. iii. 6). And\nalthough in intellectual power he was doubtless above the average of\nhis class, in point of genuine devotion to his creed, he may fairly be\ntaken as a type of the men with whom he consented to act.\n\nSaul had probably been impressed by the conduct of the Christians, whom\nhe had so ruthlessly delivered up to justice. At any rate the subject\nof the Christian religion had taken great hold upon his mind, for on\nhis way to Damascus he saw a vision which induced him to become himself\na follower of Jesus. It is unfortunate that we have no detailed account\nof the nature of the event which led to his conversion from Paul\nhimself. He often alludes to it, but nowhere describes it.\n\nThe most important passage bearing upon the subject is in the Second\nEpistle to the Corinthians, where he thus mysteriously refers to his\nexperience on this occasion: \"I knew a man in Christ above fourteen\nyears ago (whether in the body I do not know, whether out of the body\nI do not know) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew\nsuch a man (whether in the body, whether out of the body, God knows),\nthat he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which\nit is not lawful for a man to utter\" (2 Cor. xii. 2-4). So far as it\ngoes, this account does not very well agree with that of the Acts,\nsince there we are told exactly what were the words Paul heard, and\nwhat he answered. We are left in doubt then whether the conversation\nbetween Christ and the apostle there related rests on the authority of\nPaul himself, or represents merely the imagination of others as to what\nmight have passed between them. But that Paul saw some kind of vision,\nwhich he himself believed to be a vision of Christ, there can be no\ndoubt.\n\nFrom Luke we have two versions of this incident, one in the form of\nhistorical narrative, the other in that of a speech put into the mouth\nof Paul. According to these he saw a light, and heard a voice saying,\n\"Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?\" On inquiry, he learnt that the\nvoice emanated from Jesus, and he was desired to proceed to Damascus,\nwhere further instructions would be given him. Luke has not taken\nsufficient pains to make his two versions harmonize, for in the first\nwe are told that his companions heard a voice, but saw no man; in the\nsecond that they saw the light, but did not hear the voice of him that\nspoke (Acts ix. 7, and xxii. 9). At Damascus a man named Ananias,\ndirected also by a vision, went to Saul to restore his sight, which had\nbeen destroyed for the moment by the brilliancy of the celestial light.\nAfter this, Saul, subsequently called Paul, escaping from the pursuit\nof the Jews who had designs upon his life, began to preach in the name\nof Jesus (Acts ix. 1-31).\n\nAnother convert of some consideration, from his official position and\nfrom the fact that he was a heathen, was added to the community about\nthis time. This was Cornelius, the Centurion of the Italian band.\nCornelius was a religious man, much given to prayer. Tired perhaps of\nvisions, of which there had been two in the last chapter and was to be\nanother in this, Luke introduces his angel\u2014a sort of supernumerary ever\nready to appear when wanted\u2014to effect the conversion of Cornelius. The\nangel told him to apply to Peter, now at Joppa, for further advice as\nto what he should do. Meanwhile Peter had on his part been prepared\nby a vision of unclean beasts, which he was desired to eat, for the\nreception of the Gentile embassy, and the admission of Gentiles to\nthe flock. He accordingly proceeded to C\u00e6sarea, where Cornelius was,\nand baptized both him and other heathens, upon whom, to the great\nastonishment of the Jews, the Holy Ghost was poured out and the gift\nof tongues conferred. Thus did the Church of Christ begin, timidly\nand feeling her way with caution, to extend her boundaries beyond the\nlimits of the Hebrew people (Acts x).\n\nSome scandal was created in the congregation at Jerusalem by Peter's\nviolation of Jewish rules in dining with uncircumcised people, but\nthere was no gainsaying a vision like that which he produced in reply.\nShortly after these events the apostle James, one of those two brothers\nwhose mother had petitioned that they might sit on two thrones, one\non each side of Jesus, when his kingdom came, was executed by Herod,\nthe tetrarch; who also imprisoned Peter, but was unable to keep him on\naccount of the angelic intervention mentioned above. The death of this\nmonarch from a painful internal disease, is curiously perverted by the\nwriter into a sudden judgment of God, inflicted upon him because he\naccepted divine honors at the hands of his flatterers (Acts xi. xii).\n\nThe history now proceeds to follow the fortunes of Paul. It is stated\nthat there were at Antioch certain prophets and teachers, who were\ninspired by the Holy Ghost to appoint Barnabas and Saul to the work\nwhereunto they were called. Having laid their hands upon them, they\nsent them away. Paul now began to travel from place to place, making\nconverts among the heathen. At Paphos he met with a Jewish sorcerer\nnamed Elymas, who he caused to be blind for a season, thereby inducing\nthe Roman proconsul Sergius Paulus to believe in Christianity, which\nhad thus shown itself able to produce more powerful sorcerers than the\nrival creed (Acts xiii. 1-12).\n\nIt is a striking proof of the liberality of the Jews at this period\nthat when Paul and his companions had gone into the synagogue of\nAntioch in Pisidia, the rulers of the synagogue invited them to speak;\na freedom which even in the present day would scarcely be granted in\nany Christian Church to those who were regarded as heretics. Paul took\nadvantage of the proffered opportunity to deliver a speech which ended\nin the conversion of some of the Jews. On the following Sabbath great\ncrowds came to hear Paul, but the Jews, as was natural, opposed him\nand contradicted him. After this they stirred up pious women and the\nprincipal men of the city against Paul and Barnabas, and (it is stated)\nexpelled them from their coasts (Acts xiii. 50). These apostles having\nalready determined to go (Acts xiii. 46), it was not a severe treatment\nthat was thus inflicted on them. They, however, left Antioch in no very\ncharitable frame of mind, for they shook off the dust of their feet\nagainst its inhabitants (Acts xiii. 14-52).\n\nThe cure of an impotent man at Lystra led the multitude of that place\nto adore Paul and Barnabas as gods. Paul, as the orator, they called\nHermes, and Barnabas, Zeus. The priest of Zeus brought oxen and\ngarlands, and intended to sacrifice to them, an intention which the\npeople were barely prevented, by the indignant protests of the two\napostles, from carrying into effect (Acts xiv. 8-18). This was not\nthe only occasion on which Paul was taken for a god; for when he was\ncast by shipwreck on the island of Melita, his escape from injury by\na venomous reptile which had fastened on his hand was regarded by the\nsavages of that island as a proof of divinity (Acts xxviii. 1-6).\n\nExtremely similar to these incidents, especially to the first, is\na circumstance recounted by Sir Francis Drake in his voyage of\ncircumnavigation. His vessel having sprung a leak, while he was\nexploring the coast of North America, was brought to anchor to be\nrepaired, and the sailors landed to build tents and make a fort for\npurposes of defense. The natives approached them in companies, armed,\nand as if designing an attack, but it appeared that they had \"no\nhostile meaning or intent;\" for when they came near, they stood \"as men\nravished in their minds, with the sight of such things as they never\nhad seen or heard of before that time: their errand being rather with\nsubmission and feare to worship us as gods, than to have any warre\nwith us as with mortall men. Which thing, as it did partly show itself\nat that instant, so did it more and more manifest itself afterwards,\nduring the whole time of our abode amongst them.\" The General gave\nthem materials for clothing, \"withall signifying unto them we were no\ngods, but men, and had neede of such things to cover our own shame;\nteaching them to use them for the same ends, for which cause wee did\neate and drinke in their presence, giving them to understand that\nwithout that wee could not live, and therefore were but men as well as\nthey\" (\"we also are men of like passions with you\") (Acts xiv. 15).\n\"Notwithstanding nothing could persuade them, nor remove that opinion\nwhich they had conceived of us, that wee should be gods\" (W. E., p.\n120).\n\nAnd, as the heathens of Lystra were eager to sacrifice to Barnabas\nand Paul, so those of this country actually conferred this mark of\ndivinity upon some of the white men in the company of Drake, nor were\nthe utmost protests of the travelers of avail to put a stop to what\nappeared to them, just as it did to the apostles, an impious rite,\nderogating from the honor due to the true God. The people had come in\na large body, accompanied by their king, to make a formal presentation\nof the sovereignty to him, and the king had made over into his hands\nthe insignia of the royal office, when the scene now described by Sir\nFrancis took place.\n\n \"The ceremonies of this resigning and receiving of the Kingdome being\n thus performed,\" says Sir Francis, \"the common sort, both of men and\n women, leaving the king and his guard about him, with our Generall,\n dispersed themselves among our people, taking a diligent view or\n survey of every man; and finding such as pleased their fancies (which\n commonly were the youngest of us), they presently enclosing them about\n offred their sacrifices unto them crying out with lamentable shreekes\n and moanes, weeping and scratching and tearing their very flesh off\n their faces with their nails; neither were it the women alone which\n did this, but even old men, roaring and crying out, were as violent as\n the women were.\n\n \"We groaned in spirit to see the power of Sathan so farre prevaile in\n seducing these, so harmlesse soules, and labored by all meanes, both\n by shewing our great dislike, and when that served not, by violent\n withholding of their hands from that madnesse, directing them (by\n our eyes and hands lift up towards heaven) to the living God whom\n they ought to serve; but so mad were they upon their Idolatry, that\n forcible withholding them would not prevaile (for as soon as they\n could get liberty to their hands againe, they would be as violent as\n they were before) till such time, as they whom they worshiped were\n conveyed from them into the tents, whom yet as men besides themselves,\n they would with fury and outrage seeke to have again\" (W. E., p. 129).\n\nWe are again reminded of the Acts: \"And with these sayings scarce\nrestrained they the people, that they had not done sacrifice unto them\"\n(Acts xiv. 18).\n\nAn unfortunate change in the popular mind soon occurred; for on the\narrival of some Jews who stirred them up to hostility against the\nApostles, they flew from one extravagance to another, and stoned Paul\nso severely that he was left by them for dead. But as the disciples\nstood about him he rose, and was able to continue his journey on the\nnext day.\n\nThe Christians at Jerusalem were now required to consider the difficult\nquestion of the circumcision of the Gentiles; their decision upon which\nhas already been discussed. After the council Paul (who had returned\nto Antioch) proposed to revisit the places where he had formerly\npreached, and Barnabas intended to go with him. But a difference of\nopinion as to whether they should take Mark with them led to a violent\nquarrel between these two apostles; as the result of which Paul chose\nSilas as his companion, and left Barnabas to pursue his own course with\nhis friend Mark (Acts xv).\n\nThe writer now follows the fortunes of Paul in his missionary work in\nvarious countries, and it is remarkable that in the sixteenth chapter\nhe drops the third person, and begins to speak in the first person\nplural, implying that he himself was one of the company. The fact that\nfrom this point onwards the book becomes practically not the Acts of\nthe Apostles, but the Acts of Paul, who is evidently the hero of the\nstory, indicates an author who belonged to the Pauline section of\nthe Church, and to whom Paul was the chief living embodiment of the\nChristian faith. Who this author was\u2014whether Silas, or some other\ncompanion\u2014it would be hard to say, but he seems to have written under\nthe direct inspiration of Paul himself.\n\nIncreased by the addition of Timotheus, the party, guided by a vision\nseen by Paul of a Macedonian entreating them to come, went into\nMacedonia. At Philippi they met with some success among women, making\nparticular friends with a purple-seller named Lydia. But the conversion\nof a divining girl who was a source of profit to her employers, led to\nthe imprisonment of Paul and Silas, from which, however, an opportune\nearthquake set them free (Acts xvi).\n\nAt Athens Paul made a speech on the Areopagos, in which he ingeniously\navailed himself of an altar he had noticed, inscribed \"To an Unknown\nGod,\" to maintain that this unknown God was no other than the Jehovah\nof the Jews (Acts xvii. 16-34). At Corinth he was allowed to preach\nevery Sabbath in the synagogue (as he had done at Thessalonica, and did\nagain at Ephesus), another evidence of the tolerant spirit of the Jews\nas compared with Christians. Not, of course, that the Jews were not\nbigoted adherents of their narrow creed, or that they had any scruple\nabout supporting it by physical force; but they were willing to allow\nthose who had a reformation to propose to be heard in the synagogues.\nThe effect, as might be expected, was to embitter those who remained\northodox against Paul. But an attempt on their part to bring him under\nthe jurisdiction of the civil tribunals failed, and after remaining a\nlong time at Corinth, he went on to Ephesus, and thence continued his\ncourse through Galatia and Phrygia (Acts xviii. 1-23). An eloquent and\nable Alexandrian, Apollos by name, came to Ephesus, after Paul had left\nit. He was a believer in John the Baptist, and was received into the\nChurch by Paul's friends, Aquila and Priscilla, whom he had left behind.\n\nA singular incident occurred on a subsequent visit of Paul's to\nEphesus. He found some disciples there and asked them whether they\nhad received the Holy Ghost. They replied that they did not even\nknow whether there was a Holy Ghost. Such crass ignorance must have\nastonished Paul, who inquired into what they had been baptized. They\nsaid, into John's baptism, and the apostle accordingly baptized them\nin the name of Jesus, with the striking result that they immediately\nreceived the Holy Ghost and began to speak in tongues (Acts xix. 1-7).\nCurious incidental evidence is thus supplied by the case of Apollos\nand by that of these Ephesians of the existence of a Johannine sect\nwhich Christianity superseded and swept into oblivion; and it is\nremarkable, as affording a presumption that the Baptist did not regard\nhimself as the mere precursor of Christ, that these Johannists do not\nappear to have been looking forward to any further development of their\nprinciples such as the religion of Jesus supplied.\n\nAt Ephesus Paul preached for three months in the synagogue, and then,\nmeeting with much opposition, betook himself to a public room, where he\ndisputed daily. But after he had taught two years, a dangerous riot was\nexcited by the tradesmen who dealt in silver shrines for the Ephesian\nArtemis, and Paul, after the disturbance had been quelled, determined\nto go into Macedonia (Acts xix. 8-xx. 1). While he was preaching at\nTroas, a young man, who had fallen asleep, fell from the window at\nwhich he was sitting, and was supposed to have been killed. Paul,\nhowever, declared that he was still alive, and told them not to be\ndisturbed. This opinion proved to be correct. To this simple incident\nthe historian, by stating that he was \"taken up dead,\" has contrived to\ngive the aspect of a miracle. The case exactly resembles the supposed\nmiracle of Jesus, discussed above (Supra, vol. i. p. 320-323), and is\nanother illustration of the facility with which natural occurrences\nmay, by the turn of a phrase, be converted into marvels (Acts xx. 7-12).\n\nNo arguments were now availing to dissuade the apostle from visiting\nJerusalem, where it was well known that peril awaited him. Arrived at\nthe centre of Judaism, his first business was to clear himself from\nthe suspicions entertained of his rationalistic tendencies by taking\na vow according to the Mosaic ritual. After this the Asiatic Jews\nraised a clamor against him which ended in a dangerous tumult. From\nthe violent death which threatened him at the hands of the enraged\nmultitude he was rescued by the Roman troops, under cover of whose\nprotection he made his defense before the people (Acts xxi. 27-xxii.\n21). It naturally did not conciliate the Jews; and the Roman officer\nwho had made him prisoner, having been deterred from the application of\ntorture by Paul's Roman citizenship, desired his accusers to appear in\ncourt to prefer their charges on the following day (Acts xxii. 22-30).\nBut when the case came on, Paul ingeniously contrived to set the\nPharisees against the Sadducees by the assertion that he himself was\na Pharisee, and that he was charged with believing in a future state.\nBy this not very candid shift he obtained the support of the Pharisaic\nparty, and produced among his prosecutors a scene of clamor and discord\nfrom which it was thought expedient to remove him. Defeated in the\ncourts of law, the more embittered of his enemies formed a scheme of\nprivate assassination which was revealed to the captain of the guard\nby Paul's nephew, and from which he was rescued by being sent by night\nunder a strong military escort to the governor of the province, a man\nnamed Felix (Acts xxiii). Ananias, the high priest, and others of the\nprosecutors, followed Paul to C\u00e6sarea in five days, but the nature of\ntheir charges was such that they made little impression upon the mind\nof the governor. He nevertheless kept Paul in confinement, perhaps\nhoping (as the narrator suggests) that he would receive a bribe to\nset him free (Acts xxiv). After two years Festus succeeded Felix, and\nwhen this governor visited Jerusalem he was entreated by the priests\nto send for Paul, which, however, he refused to do, and required the\nprosecutors to come to him at C\u00e6sarea. They went, and charged Paul\nwith offenses which it is said they could not prove. When Festus asked\nhim whether he would go to Jerusalem to be tried by him, Paul replied\nthat he ought to be tried at C\u00e6sar's judgment-seat, as he had done the\nJews no wrong, and that he appealed to C\u00e6sar. The policy of this appeal\nwas questionable, for after a time Festus was visited by King Agrippa,\nto whom he related the facts of the case; and the king, having heard\nthe statement of the prisoner himself, declared that he might have been\nset at liberty had he not appealed to C\u00e6sar (Acts xxv., xxvi).\n\nPaul therefore was now sent with a gang of prisoners to Rome, on\nthe way to which the ship he was in was wrecked off the island of\nMelita, where the winter months were accordingly passed. Here he\ncured numerous inhabitants of diseases, and received high honors in\nconsequence. After three months an Alexandrine vessel conveyed the\nshipwrecked company to the capital. Arrived at Rome, Paul summoned the\nJews to come to the house where, guarded by a soldier, he was allowed\nto live, and endeavored to convert them. Meeting with indifferent\nsuccess, he dismissed them with insulting words drawn from Isaiah, and\nroundly informed them that the salvation of God was now sent to the\nGentiles, and that these would hear it (Acts xxvii., xxviii). What was\nthe ultimate fate of this great teacher of Christianity, whether his\ncase was ever heard, and if so, how it was decided; whether he lived\na prisoner, or was set free, or died a martyr, we have no historical\ninformation, and it is useless, in the absence of evidence, to attempt\nto conjecture.\n\n\n                    SUBDIVISION 2.\u2014_The Epistles._\n\nIn the epistles which have been preserved to us, and which are no doubt\nbut a few rescued from a much larger correspondence, the apostolic\nauthors enforce upon their respective converts or congregations\nthe doctrines of Christianity as understood by them. They explain\nthe relation of Jesus to the Jewish law; they inculcate morality;\nthey reply to objections; they hold out the prospect of the speedy\nrevolution which they expect. Since their opinions on all the topics\nupon which they touch cannot, within the limits of a general treatise,\nbe discussed in detail, all that is necessary now is to glance rapidly\nat the more general characteristics of the several writers.\n\nA letter addressed to the twelve tribes scattered abroad, and\ntraditionally ascribed to the apostle James, may best be taken in\nconnection with an anonymous epistle addressed to the Hebrews. They\nhave these two features in common, that they are written to Jewish\nChristians, and that they discuss the relation of faith to works. It\nis true that this question is treated by their authors from opposite\npoints of view. Theological controversy began early in the history\nof the Christian Church, and its first controversial treatises have\nbeen embodied in the Canon of its Sacred Books. It appears, moreover,\nto be highly probable, not only that the two epistles were written\non opposite sides of a disputed question, but that the chapter in\nthe one dealing with that question was designed as an answer to the\ncorresponding chapter in the other. It may be difficult to say which\nwas the original statement, which the reply; but when we find the very\nsame examples chosen by both, the one maintaining that Abraham and\nRahab were justified by faith, the other that they were justified by\nworks, it is not easy to believe that so exact a coincidence in the\nmode of treating their subject was accidental. The more argumentative\ntone taken by James\u2014as of one answering an opponent\u2014induces me to\nbelieve that his epistle was the later of the two. The author of the\nHebrews insists upon the paramount necessity of faith; showing by a\nnumber of historical examples that the conduct of the great heroes of\nthe Hebrew race, besides that of many inferior models of excellence,\nwas wholly due to this cause. The author of James, on the contrary,\nstrenuously maintains that faith is of no value without works, and,\nas if endeavoring to set aside the force of the examples produced\non the other side, selects for his consideration the history of two\npersons who had been held up as illustrations of the doctrine that we\nare justified by faith. Abraham, he says, was not justified by faith\nonly, but by works; for he offered Isaac on the altar, which was a very\npractical illustration of his faith (James ii. 21-23). Rahab again,\nwho according to you was saved from destruction with the unbelievers\nby faith, was in reality justified by works, for it was a work to\nreceive the messengers and send them out another way (James ii. 25).\nNot that we deny the importance of faith altogether; but we do deny the\nexclusive position which you, in your Epistle to the Hebrews, assign\nto it. Without works faith is a dead, unproductive thing; like a body\nwithout its animating spirit. Indeed a man may say to him who relies\nupon his faith alone, Show me your faith without works, and I will\nshow you mine by my works. What is the use of a faith unaccompanied by\nworks? can it save any one by itself? Certainly not, answers James;\nCertainly, says the author of the Hebrews. The whole question turns\non those hair-splitting distinctions in which theologians have ever\ndelighted; for while the one party considers faith as the producing\ncause of good actions, the other treats good actions as the evidence\nof faith. Neither the one nor the other really meant to question the\nnecessity of either element in the combination.\n\nIn other respects there is a broad difference between the two epistles.\nThat to the Hebrews is Judaic in tone and spirit; its main object being\nto prove that Christ is a sort of high-priest, endowed with authority\nto set aside the old Jewish institutions and substitute something\nbetter. James is more catholic and more practical. He insists upon the\nnecessity of not only hearing, but doing the word; of keeping the whole\nmoral law; of bridling the tongue, and of showing no respect to persons\non account of their worldly position. He is extremely hostile to the\nrich, and draws a very unfavorable picture of their conduct (James\nii. 6, 7, and v. 1-6). He encourages the poor Christians to endure\npatiently till Christ comes, which will be very soon (James v. 7, 8).\nLastly, he emphatically urges the duty of proselytism upon his flock;\nremarking that one who converts another when wandering from the truth,\nboth saves the soul of the wanderer and hides a multitude of his own\nsins (James v. 19, 20).\n\nTwo epistles are attributed to the apostle Peter, the first of which,\naddressed to the strangers in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and\nBithynia, purports to be written from Babylon. He holds out to his\ncorrespondents the hope of salvation which they have through Jesus,\nwhich is a source of joy, notwithstanding their present troubles.\nAmong other precepts he counsels husbands and wives as to their\nmutual behavior; exhorting wives to be obedient, and not to care too\nmuch for dress; and requiring husbands to honor their wives as the\nweaker vessels (1 Pet. iii. 1-7). The Second Epistle of Peter would\nappear to be by a rather later author, for he has read the epistles of\nPaul. He is troubled about \"false teachers,\" who introduce \"heresies\nof destruction,\" and denounces them in no measured terms (2 Pet. ii).\nHaving, as above described, comforted the Christians for the long delay\nin the second coming of the Savior, he exhorts them not to be led away\nby the error of the wicked, but to grow in grace and in the knowledge\nof their Lord (2 Pet. iii. 17, 18).\n\nOf the three epistles bearing the name of John, the first only is of\nany considerable length. The style of this epistle is extremely simple,\nand it reads like the kindly talk of an old man to children. He tells\nhis flock not to sin, not to love the world, and to love one another.\nSo much does he keep to these purely general maxims, that it would be\ndifficult to gather any really useful instruction from his benevolent\ngarrulity. It is characteristic of him to insist again and again upon\nlove as the cardinal virtue of a Christian. Besides this, perhaps the\nmost definite advice he gives is to pray for anything desired, and to\nentreat of God the forgiveness of a brother who has committed a sin not\nunto death (1 John v. 14-16). With great self-complacency he calmly\nasserts that he and his friends are of God, and that the whole world\nlies in wickedness (1 John v. 19); a pleasant mode of putting those\ntowards whom it was impossible to practice the love about which he\nspoke outside of the pale of brotherhood.\n\nThe writer of John's second epistle, addressed to a lady and her\nchildren, illustrates the kind of charity resulting from such views\nas this, when he tells them not to receive into their house, nor bid\n\"farewell\" to any one who does not hold correct doctrines (2 John\n10). The third epistle, written to Gaius, contains little beyond\nmatters of purely personal interest. The Epistle of Jude, who calls\nhimself brother of James, denounces certain \"ungodly men,\" who have\n\"crept in unawares,\" and are doing great mischief in the Church. It is\nprincipally interesting from its reference to the legend of the contest\nof Michael the archangel with the devil for the body of Moses, which\npopular tale the writer seems to accept as unquestionably authentic\n(Jude 9).\n\nHaving thus referred to the writings which bear, whether correctly\nor not, the names of the original apostles of Jesus, we come to\nthose of one who was far greater than any of these\u2014the apostle who\nwas not converted until after the death of his Master. Paul, to whom\nthe great majority of the epistles preserved in the New Testament\nare ascribed, and by whom many of them were undoubtedly written, is\nthe central figure of the apostolic age, and the one who redeems it\nfrom the somewhat unintellectual character it would otherwise have\nhad. Through him it principally was that Christianity passed from the\ncondition of a Jewish sect to that of a comprehensive religion. What\nChrist himself had been unable to do, he did. What the apostles of\nChrist shrunk from attempting, he accomplished. He himself was not\nunconscious of the magnitude of his labors. Hence there is noticeable\nnow and then in his writings, though veiled under respectful phrases,\na sort of intellectual contempt for the older apostles, who were not\nalways prepared for the thorough-going measures which appeared to him\nso obviously expedient. He is extremely anxious not to be thought one\nwhit inferior to them by reason of his comparatively late appointment\nto the apostleship. He carefully rebuts the suspicion that he acted\nin subordination to them, or even in conjunction with them, after\nhis conversion. His course, he is anxious to let every one know, was\ntaken in entire independence of the Church at Jerusalem. Moreover, he\ninsists emphatically upon his personal qualifications. Was any one a\nHebrew? so was he. Had others received visions or revelations? so had\nhe. Had others been persecuted? so had he. He is fond of dwelling upon\nhis individual history in order to support his claims. Thus he tells\nus that in former times he persecuted the Church of God, and that he\nwas more Jewish than the Jews, being even more zealous than they of\nthe traditions of his fathers. It was therefore entirely by special\nrevelation from God, and not by any human agency whatever, that he\nwas consecrated to his present work. Indeed his revelations were so\nabundant that it needed a \"thorn in the flesh\" to prevent him from\nbeing too proud of them\u2014a work, however, in which the thorn was not\nentirely successful. His sufferings for the sake of the gospel afforded\nhim another and more legitimate cause of satisfaction. He says of these\nthat he received thirty-nine stripes from the Jews on five occasions;\nthat he was thrice beaten with rods; once stoned; thrice shipwrecked;\na day and night in the deep (in an open boat?); often in all sorts of\nperils, in watchings, cold and thirst, hunger and nakedness. Once too\nhe escaped from arrest at Damascus, which does not seem a very serious\ncalamity (2 Cor. xi. 22-28.\u2014Gal. i. 11-24).\n\nNow the object of all these autobiographical statements is evidently to\nplace himself on a level with other apostles who might seem at first\nto be more highly privileged than he was. Not so, he contends; if they\nare ministers of Christ, I am quite as much so; if they saw Christ\nbefore his death, I have seen him after it; if they have labored in his\ncause, I have labored more; if they have suffered for his sake, I have\nsuffered more. Hence my authority is in every respect equal to theirs,\nand should there be a difference of opinion between us you must believe\nme, your pastor, rather than them. Nay, even if an angel from heaven\nshould preach any other gospel than that which I have preached, you\nmust not believe him; much more then must you disbelieve an apostle.\nBesides, appearances are deceptive, and as Satan may appear in the\ncharacter of an angel of light, so the ministers of Satan may, and do\nappear in the character of apostles of Christ (2 Cor. xi. 13-15.\u2014Gal.\ni. 8). There was therefore a section of the Church\u2014probably the Judaic\nsection, under the guidance of one of the original apostles\u2014with whom\nPaul was at issue, and whom he considered it incumbent upon him to\noppose by every argument in his power. These are they whom he refers to\nas \"troubling\" the Galatians, and perverting the Gospel of Christ (Gal.\ni. 7).\n\nSuch was the view taken by Paul of his function in the rising sect.\nWhatever may have been its logical justification, it was fully\njustified by facts. In power of reasoning, in grasp of principles,\nin comprehensiveness of view, he was not only \"not a whit behind the\nchiefest apostles,\" but far before them. His letters are by far the\nmost remarkable of the writings which the New Testament contains. They\nevince a mind almost overburdened by the mass of feelings struggling\nfor expression. He is profoundly penetrated with the new truth he has\ndiscovered, or rather which Christ has discovered to him, and he seems\nto have scarcely time to consider how he may best express it. His mind,\nthough wealthy in ideas and fertile in applying them to practice, is\nnot always clear. It seems rather to struggle with its thoughts than\nto command them. Hence a certain confusedness in style, a crowding\ntogether of notions in a single sentence, and a want of logical\narrangement in his presentation of a subject, which render his epistles\nnot altogether easy reading. It may have been those characteristics\nwhich caused another apostle (or one who wrote in that apostle's name)\nto say that there were some things in the writings of his beloved\nbrother Paul that were \"hard to be understood\" (2 Pet. iii. 16).\n\nWhen, however, the uncouth style is surmounted, the thought will be\nfound well worthy of consideration. Of all the writers in the New\nTestament Paul is the one who presents the largest materials for\nintellectual reflection. Whether or not we agree in his views, we can\nscarcely refuse to consider his arguments. And herein he is peculiar\namong his associates. He is the only one of the canonical writers who\nhas any notion of presenting arguments for consideration at all. While\nothers dogmatize, he reasons. He may reason badly, but he has at least\nthe merit of being able to enter in some degree into the views of his\nopponents, and of attempting to reply to them on rational grounds.\n\nAnother striking feature of the mind of Paul is its robustness.\nBrought up a Pharisee, a sect devoted to extending the regulations of\nthe law to the utmost minuti\u00e6, he nevertheless rose completely above\nthe domination of trifles. Even matters which in most religions are\nregarded as of capital importance, he treated as of little moment in\nthemselves. Ceremonies, observances, outward forms of every kind he\nheld in slight esteem in comparison with moral conduct. Not the mere\nknowledge of the Jewish law or the power of teaching it to others, is\nof any avail, but the observance of its ethical precepts (Rom. ii.\n17-23). Uncircumcision is just as good as circumcision, provided the\nuncircumcised man keep the law. The true Jew is not he who is a Jew\noutwardly, nor true circumcision that performed upon the flesh. He is\nthe true Jew who is one inwardly, and that is true circumcision which\nis in the heart (Rom. ii. 24-29). Indeed, in the renovated condition\nwhich is effected by Christianity, there is neither Greek nor Jew;\nneither circumcision nor uncircumcision; neither barbarian, Scythian,\nslave, nor freeman; but Christ is everything and in everything (Col.\niii. 11.\u2014Gal. iii. 28). In the same rationalistic spirit he lays down\nthe admirable rule that external forms are valuable only to those\nwho think them so. One man believes he may eat everything; another\neats only herbs. One man esteems all days alike; another esteems\none day above another. The freethinker must not despise the one who\nholds himself bound by such things, nor must this latter condemn the\nfreethinker. The really important matter is that every one should have\na complete conviction of his own. In that case, whatever conduct he\npursues in these trivialities, being dictated by his conscience, is\nreligious conduct. On the one side, the more scrupulous must not pass\njudgment on the less scrupulous, that being the office of Christ;\nbut, on the other side, the less scrupulous must endeavor not to give\noffense to the more scrupulous. In illustration of this doctrine\nPaul confesses that to him personally the Jewish distinction between\nclean and unclean meat is totally unmeaning; yet if his brother were\ngrieved by his eating the so-called unclean meats, he would rather\ngive up the practice than destroy by his meat ones for whom Christ had\ndied. All things, indeed, are pure in themselves, yet it is not well\nto eat flesh or drink wine if another is scandalized thereby. We who\nare strong-minded, and have surmounted these childish scruples of our\nforefathers, must bear the infirmities of the weak rather than please\nourselves (Rom. xiv., xv. 1).\n\nCertainly when the things are in themselves totally indifferent, the\nprinciple of concession to the superstitions of minds governed by\ntraditional beliefs may sometimes be advantageously adopted. But the\nimportance of protesting against the bondage exercised by such beliefs\nover human life is also not to be underrated, and Paul seems scarcely\nto give it sufficient weight in the preceding argument. No doubt on the\nground of policy, and in reference to the desirability of keeping the\nmembers of the nascent sect from internal quarrels, Paul was right;\nbut a principle which in certain cases may be expedient for a given\nend, is not to be set up as a universal rule of ethics. Nor is it\nobvious that Paul intended to do this. He himself, if questioned, would\nprobably have admitted that there were limits beyond which concession\nought not to go, those limits being fixed by the consideration\nthat such concession, if pushed too far, must end in the perpetual\nsubordination of the whole of the Christian body to the weaknesses of\nits least enlightened members. The morality expressed in the lines\n\n    \"Leave thou thy sister when she prays\n    Her early heaven, her happy views,\n    Nor thou with shadowed hint confuse\n    A life that leads melodious days,\"\n\nis good morality under certain conditions, but there is too great a\ntendency on the part of those who retain their \"early heaven\" to press\nthis conduct upon those whose \"faith has centre everywhere, nor cares\nto fix itself to form.\" It ought not to be forgotten that but for the\nChristian disregard of forms, persevered in in despite of the scandal\nto the Jews, Christianity must always have remained a branch of Judaism.\n\nA peculiar merit to be set to Paul's account is, that he is the only\none of all the writers in the New Testament who treats the supremely\nimportant question of the relations of the sexes, a subject so\nremarkably overlooked by Christ himself. Whether the guidance he\naffords his converts on this head is good guidance or not, he does at\nleast attempt to guide them. Let us notice first what he considers\nabnormal relations, and then proceed to what he lays down as a\nnormal one. In the first Epistle to the Corinthians he is loud in\nhis denunciations of a man who cohabited with his father's wife, the\nfather being, I presume, deceased. Whether the son had married his\nstepmother, or merely lived with her, is not altogether clear, since,\nin either case, the apostle might brand their connection with the title\nof fornication. However, he condemns it utterly and without reference\nto any accompanying circumstances, desiring the Corinthian community to\ndeliver up the man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, in the\nname and with the power of their Lord Jesus, in order that his spirit\nmight be saved at the day of judgment (1 Cor. v). Here then we have an\nearly example of excommunication, accompanied by the formula to be used\nin performing the solemnity.\n\nThat the severe reproof bestowed by Paul upon the Corinthians for\npermitting such conduct greatly affected them, we gather from the\ntenderer language employed in the subsequent epistle, where he admits\nhaving at one moment repented that he had caused them so much sorrow,\nthough he soon saw that it had been for their good (2 Cor. vii. 8-13).\nIt is gratifying, also, to find that his tone towards the unfortunate\nindividual who had been excommunicated at his desire is greatly\nsoftened, and that he desires the Corinthians to forgive him, and\nreceive him back into their body, lest he should be swallowed up with\ntoo much sorrow (2 Cor. ii. 6, 7). It would have been interesting had\nhe informed us why he considered cohabitation with a stepmother so\nterrible a crime, but such a recurrence to first principles was not to\nbe expected. He, no doubt, acted on a purely instinctive sentiment of\nrepugnance to such an arrangement.\n\nA second kind of relation between the sexes which the apostle condemns\nis that of prostitution. Here he has not left us equally in the dark\nas to the grounds upon which his condemnation is founded. Not only\ndoes he prohibit prostitution to the Christians, but he tells them\nexactly why they ought not to indulge in it; and his argument upon this\nsubject is sufficiently curious to merit a moment's examination. In the\nfirst place, then, he tells his disciples that neither fornicators,\nnor adulterers, nor Sodomites, nor practicers of various other vices\nnot of a sexual nature, will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. vi.\n9, 10; Eph. v. 5). Fornication should not even be named among the\nChristians (Eph. v. 3). They must mortify their members upon earth,\nfor impure connections and sexual license bring down the wrath of God\n(Col. iii. 5, 6). They must exclude from their society any one who is\nguilty of such irregularities (1 Cor. v. 9-11). \"The body is not for\nprostitution, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.\" The bodies\nof Christians are the members of Christ: \"Shall I then take the members\nof Christ, and make them the members of a prostitute? God forbid. What!\ndo you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute is one body? for\nthe two [he says] shall be one flesh\" (1 Cor. vi. 13-16). It was surely\na very original notion of Paul's to extend to the casual connections\nformed by the temporary passion the solemn sanction bestowed upon the\npermanent union of man and wife. It is said in Genesis that a man and\nhis wife are to be one flesh, and this is obviously an emphatic mode\nof expressing the closeness and binding character of the alliance\ninto which they enter. But what may appropriately be said of married\npersons cannot of necessity be said of persons linked together only\nby the most fleeting and mercenary kind of ties. The very evil of\nprostitution is, that the prostitute and her companion are _not_ one\nflesh in the allegorical sense in which husband and wife are so; and to\ncondemn it on account of the presence of the very circumstance which\nis conspicuously absent, is to cut the ground from under our feet. But\nlet us hear the apostle further. \"But he that is joined to the Lord is\none spirit. Flee prostitution. Every sin that a man commits is outside\nof the body [what can this mean?], but the fornicator sins against his\nown body. What! do you not know that your body is the temple of the\nHoly Spirit in you? which you have of God, and you are not your own\" (1\nCor. vi. 17-19). Now in this singular argument it is noticeable that\nthe ground taken up is entirely theological. Destroy the theological\nfoundation, and the ethical superstructure is involved in its ruin.\nThus, if we do not believe that our bodies are the members of Christ,\nnor the temples of the Holy Spirit, Paul has no moral reason to give us\nagainst the most unlimited indulgence in prostitution. While, even if\nwe admit his premises, it is not very easy to see how his conclusion\nfollows. For why should we not make the members of Christ those of a\nprostitute, unless it be previously shown that it would in any case\nbe wrong to do so with our own members? It would not (according to\nPaul himself) be wrong to make the members of Christ members of a\nwife; why, then, should it be wrong to make them members of any other\nwoman whatever? Clearly this question could not be answered without\nan attempt to prove, on independent grounds, the evil of promiscuous\nindulgence of the sexual passion. But no such attempt is made by Paul.\nHe has therefore failed completely to make out a case against even\nthe most unbridled license. Not that his conclusion need therefore be\nrejected. On the contrary, the danger of his arguments is not that\nhis view of morals is fundamentally erroneous, but that he rests an\nimportant precept upon a dangerously narrow basis.\n\nPass we now to that which he considers as the normal relation between\nthe sexes. The subject may be divided into three heads: that of the\nformation of such relations, that of their character when formed, and\nthat of their disruption. Upon all of these the apostle has advice to\ngive.\n\nIn the first place it appears that the Corinthians had applied to him\nfor a solution of some question that had been raised among them as to\nthe propriety of entering at all into the matrimonial state. In answer\nto their inquiries he begins by informing them that it is good for a\nman not to touch a woman. He would prefer it if every one were like\nhimself unmarried. To unmarried people and widows he says that they had\nbetter remain as they are. Concerning virgins of either sex he delivers\nhis private opinion that their condition is a good one for the present\nnecessity. A married man indeed should not endeavor to get rid of his\nwife; but neither should an unmarried man endeavor to obtain a wife.\nThe time is so short till the final judgment of the world that it makes\nlittle difference; before long both married and unmarried will be in\nthe same position. Meantime, however, celibacy is the preferable state;\nand that because celibates care for the things of the Lord, how they\nmay please the Lord; but married people care for one another, and study\nto please one another (1 Cor. vii. 1-34). Why Paul should suppose that\nmarried people, even while studying one another's happiness, might not\nalso endeavor to please the Lord, it is hard to understand. He seems in\nthis passage to lend his sanction to the very dangerous doctrine that\na due discharge of the ordinary duties of life is incompatible with\nattention to the service of God. As if the highest type of Christian\nlife was not precisely that in which both were combined in such a\nmanner that neither should be sacrificed to the other. But, apart from\nthis fundamental objection to his theory it is liable to the remark\nthat the assumptions on which it rests are untrue. Unmarried persons,\nunless the whole literature of fiction, dramatic and novelistic,\nutterly belies them, care at least as much to become married as married\npersons care to promote one another's comfort. Indeed, it would be no\nless true to nature to say, that the unmarried in general take more\npains to please some persons of the opposite sex than husbands take\nto please their wives, or wives their husbands. Not to dwell upon the\nfact that courtship involves a greater effort, mental and physical,\nthan the mere continuance of love assured of being returned, there\nis the obvious consideration that the mere outward circumstances of\nthe unmarried are far less favorable than those of the married to the\nenjoyment of their mutual society without considerable sacrifice of\ntime. Hence the estimate made by Paul of the relative advantages of\nthe two states is untrue to facts, except in the rare cases of those\nwho have firmly resolved upon a life of celibacy, and who, in addition\nto this, have so perfect a control over their passions, or so little\npassion at all, as to be untroubled by sexual imaginations.\n\nThat these objections are well founded might be proved by reference to\na picture (drawn either by Paul himself or by some one who assumed his\nname) of the conduct of young widows. Having to consider the question\nwhat widows may properly be supported by the charity of the Church,\nthis writer refuses to admit any of them to the number of pensioners\nuntil they are sixty years old, apparently on the ground that they\ncannot be trusted to give up flirting altogether before they have\nreached that age. Young widows are to be rejected, for when they have\nbegun to wax wanton against Christ, they wish to marry; a damnable\ntendency, but one which it is so hopeless to get rid of, that the best\nthing they can do is to marry, to have children, and manage their\nhouseholds. Otherwise they will gad about gossiping and tale-bearing\nfrom house to house; not only idle, but mischievous (1 Tim. v. 9-15).\nSo that the ideal conception of unmarried persons caring only to please\nthe Lord had at least no application to Christian widows.\n\nWhile recommending celibacy, Paul is careful not to encourage breach\nof promise of marriage. If a man thinks he is behaving unhandsomely\ntowards his betrothed, who is passing the flower of her age, he\nmay marry her: he is not doing wrong. Nevertheless, if he feel no\nnecessity for a sexual relation, and resolve to keep her a virgin, he\ndoes well. So then marriage is good, but celibacy is better (1 Cor.\nvii. 36-38).\n\nNotwithstanding these views, Paul, or at least the Pauline Christian\nwho wrote the first Epistle to Timothy, by no means contemplates a\ncelibate clergy. It is specially enumerated among the qualifications\nof a bishop that he is to be a good manager of his household, keeping\nhis children well in order; for (it is argued) if a man cannot rule\nhis own house, how will he be able to take care of the Church of God?\nThe only limitation placed upon the bishops is that they are not to be\npolygamists. They, as well as the deacons, are to keep to a single wife\n(1 Tim. iii. 1-5).\n\nNotwithstanding his general preference for celibacy, Paul recognizes\ncertain reasons as sufficing to excuse the establishment of a sexual\nrelation, and it is important to note what, in the apostle's judgment,\nthese reasons are. Now it is remarkable that he seems to perceive no\nconsideration whatever in favor of the matrimonial condition but its\nability to satisfy the sexual appetite. To avoid fornication a man\nis to have his own wife; if people cannot restrain themselves, they\nshould marry, for it is better to marry than to burn. Those who marry\nare not guilty of sin, although they will have trouble in the flesh\n(1 Cor. vii. 2, 9, 28). Such a view of the functions of matrimony\nas this is simply degrading. It treats it as exactly equivalent\nto prostitution in the uses it fulfills, and as differing only in\nthe durability of the connection. But if the whole object of the\nconnection is merely to gratify passion, its greater durability is but\na questionable advantage. For exactly as marriage is recommended \"to\navoid fornication,\" so divorce might often be recommended to avoid\nadultery. A union of which the main purpose is to give a convenient\noutlet to desire, had better be broken when it ceases to fulfill that\noffice to the satisfaction of both the parties. It is strange that\nPaul should seem to have no conception whatever of the intellectual or\nmoral advantages to be derived from the sympathetic companionship of\none of the opposite sex. Perhaps his age presented him with scarcely\nany examples of marriages in which that companionship was carried into\nthe higher fields of human thought or action. Yet he might still have\nacknowledged something more in the emotion of love than a special\ncondition of the human body. Christianity has done much to raise the\ncharacter of marriage, but not one of its achievements in that respect\ncan be credited to the writings of its chief apostle.\n\nSuch being the grounds on which the matrimonial bond was to be\ncontracted, it was natural that when contracted, the relation of the\nparties to each other should not be one of a very exalted order. Paul\nhas, in fact, little of moment to recommend under the second head\n(that of the character of these relations) except the subjection of\nwomen, and on this he is certainly emphatic enough. Wives are to submit\nthemselves to their own husbands: husbands are to love their wives\n(Col. iii. 18, 19.\u2014Eph. v. 22, 25). An extraordinary reason is given\nin one epistle (possibly indeed not written by Paul) for requiring\nwomen to learn with subjection, and forbidding them to teach, or usurp\nauthority over men. It is that Adam was formed first, and Eve after\nhim, and that Adam was not deceived, but Eve was (1 Tim. ii. 11-14).\nScarcely less absurd than this is the argument (and again I must note\nthat it occurs in an epistle of doubtful authenticity) that the husband\nis the head of the wife, as Christ is of the Church, and that just as\nthe Church is subject to Christ, so must wives be subject to their\nhusbands. And as Christ loved the Church, so are husbands to love their\nwives, considering them as equivalent to their own bodies, which they\ncannot hate (Eph. v. 22-33)\u2014although it did not appear that when man\nbecame \"one body\" with a prostitute he was therefore to love her. These\nviews of the duty of submission on the part of wives are not indeed\nsurprising in that early age, for they have continued to the present\nday. The writer of these epistles is only chargeable with not being in\nadvance of his fellow-men. It required all the genius of Plato, whom\nnot even the greatest apostle could approach, to foreshadow for women a\nposition of equality which they are but now beginning to attain.\n\nBesides these rules there is another laid down by Paul for the conduct\nof married parties which evinces his strong common sense. Husbands\nand wives are mutually to render one another their \"due.\" They have\nnot absolute power over their own bodies. They must not therefore\ndefraud one another of conjugal rights, unless for a short time with a\nview to fasting and prayer, and then only with mutual consent (1 Cor.\nvii. 3-5). Paul therefore would have given no sanction to that very\nquestionable form of asceticism in which husbands deserted their wives,\nor wives their husbands, to pursue their own salvation, regardless\nof the happiness of their unfortunate consorts. All such persons he\nwould have bidden to return to the more indisputable duties of the\nmarriage-bed.\n\nSuch a doctrine, however, to make it properly applicable to practice,\nwould require to be supplemented by a doctrine of divorce; otherwise\nthere is no provision for the case of an invincible repugnance arising\nin one of the parties towards the other, or in both towards each other.\nAnd this brings me to the third head of the apostle's teaching; his\nviews on the disruption of the marriage-tie. Here he has little to\nsay except that the wife is not to quit her husband, or that, if she\ndo, she must remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband; and\nthat the husband is not to put away his wife. In cases where one is a\nChristian and the other not, they are not absolutely under bondage:\nthey may separate, though it does not appear that they may marry\nagain. But the apostle strongly advises them to keep together, in the\nhope that the believing member of the couple may save the other (1\nCor. vii. 10-16). It is plain from this summary that the apostle, no\nmore than his Master, faces the real difficulties of the question of\ndivorce. For the case of unhappy unions, except in the single instance\nof the one party being a Christian, he has no provision whatever. It\nis remarkable, however, that he several times intimates in the course\nof this chapter that he is not speaking with the authority of Christ,\nbut simply expressing his personal opinions; a proviso which looks as\nif he himself were unwilling to invest these views with full force of\nthe sanction they would otherwise have derived from his apostolical\ncommission.\n\nThere is another subject on which the opinions expressed by Paul are\nopen to considerable comment\u2014the resurrection of the dead. In a chapter\nwhich for its beauty and its eloquence is unparalleled in the New\nTestament, he discusses the Christian prospect of another life. Had he\nconfined himself to rhetoric I should have been contented simply to\nadmire, but he has unfortunately mingled argument with poetic vision\nin a very unsatisfactory manner. In the first place, he attempts to\ndeduce the resurrection of the dead from the resurrection of Christ.\nIf, he contends, there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is\nnot risen; our preaching is vain, and so also is your faith (1 Cor.\nxv. 12-20). He fails to perceive that the resurrection of Christ\u2014a man\nwhose whole life, according to him, was full of prodigies\u2014could be\nno guarantee for the resurrection of any other individual whatever.\nChrist had already been restored to life in a manner in which no other\nperson had ever been restored. His body had been reanimated after two\ndays, before it had had time to suffer decomposition, and that without\nthe intervention of any other person, competent like Christ himself,\nto perform a miracle. How then could so unprecedented an occurrence\nwarrant the expectation of the reanimation of those who had been long\ndead, and whose bodies had suffered decomposition? Plainly there is\nhere a palpable _non sequitur_. Christ might be raised without this\nfact involving a general resurrection; and a general resurrection\nmight happen without Christ having been raised. Further on he makes\na still more amazing blunder. Answering a supposed antagonist, who\nputs the natural question, \"With what body are the dead raised?\" he\nexclaims, \"Fool! that which thou sowest is not quickened except it\ndie;\" (1 Cor. xv. 36.) implying that he conceived the change undergone\nby seed dropped into the ground to resemble the death of the human\nbody. Now it is needless to point out that the organic processes\nconstituting physical life do not cease in the grain which (as he says)\ngrows up into wheat or some other corn; and that if they did cease,\nthat \"body that shall be,\" which he compares to the bodies of men in\ntheir expected resurrection, never would appear at all. The grain, in\nshort, would not grow. An adversary, had he been on the alert, might\nhave retorted upon Paul (borrowing his own courteous phraseology):\n\"Idiot! that which thou sowest is not quickened _if_ it die.\" Such a\nretort would have been completely crushing. Another very fatal mistake\nof Paul's is the contention that if the dead do not rise, we have no\nreason to do anything but enjoy the passing hour. \"Let us eat and\ndrink, for to-morrow we die\" (1 Cor. xv. 32). Nothing can be more\ndangerous than such language as this; for if a man bases his moral\nsystem upon the belief in a future life, the destruction of that belief\nwill involve the destruction of his moral system. It is founding the\nmore certain upon the less so; universal conceptions upon special ones;\nthat which is essential to human existence upon the doctrines of a\nparticular creed held only by a portion of the human race. The argument\nis a favorite one with theologians, because it enlists in favor of the\ndoctrine of a future state all the strong attachment by which we cling\nto principles of morals. None the less is it illegitimate, and it ought\nto be sternly rejected.\n\nNext in beauty to this eloquent description of the future state of man\nmay be reckoned the extremely fine chapter on brotherly love in the\nsame epistle. Brotherly love, according to Paul, never fails, though\nintellectual gifts, such as prophecies, tongues, and knowledge, will\npass away. Hope, faith, and brotherly love are joined together by him\nas a trinity of virtues which \"now abide;\" but the greatest of these is\nbrotherly love (1 Cor. xiii).\n\nScattered about in the writings of this apostle there are also some\nadmirable maxims of conduct, extremely similar in tone to those of\nJesus. Thus, he tells his fellow-Christians to be kindly affectioned\none to another; to bless those that persecute them\u2014to bless and not to\ncurse; to return no man evil for evil; give food to a hungry enemy and\ndrink to a thirsty one; and generally, not to be overcome by evil, but\nto overcome evil by good (Rom. xii. 10-21.\u20141 Thess. v. 15). It were\nmuch to be wished that he himself had remembered these beneficent rules\nof conduct in the case of Alexander the coppersmith, who he says did\nhim \"much evil,\" and concerning whom he utters the significant prayer\nthat the Lord may reward him according to his works (2 Tim. iv. 14).\n\n\n                   SUBDIVISION 3.\u2014_The Apocalypse._\n\nThe author of the Apocalypse, or Book of Revelation, who professes\nto have seen the vision he describes at Patmos, gives himself the\nname of John; a circumstance which led in former times to the belief\nthat the work was the composition of John the disciple of Jesus. It\nis a rather late production, having been written subsequently to the\nestablishment by Paul of Gentile Christian communities in various parts\nof Asia. It also presupposes the existence of a sect of heretics termed\nNicolaitanes, who had arisen in some places, and was therefore probably\nnot written until some time after the foundation of these churches by\nthe great apostle.\n\nThe author endeavors to add lustre to his work by proclaiming at its\noutset that it was committed to writing under the direct inspiration\nof Jesus Christ himself, who dictated it to him, or rather showed it\nto him, when he was \"in the Spirit on the Lord's day.\" Notwithstanding\nthis exalted authorship, it is a production of very inferior merits\nindeed. It is conceived in that style of overloaded allegory of\nwhich the art consists in concealing the thought of the writer under\nimages decipherable only by an initiated few. The Book of Daniel is\nan example of the same kind of thing. A false interest is excited by\nthis style from the mere difficulty of comprehending the meaning. How\nwidely it differs from that mode of allegory which possesses a real\nliterary justification, may be shown by comparing the Apocalypse with\nthe \"Pilgrim's Progress.\" In Bunyan, the thought is revealed under\nclear and transparent images; in John, it is concealed under obscure\nand turbid ones. Hence there have been endless interpretations of the\nApocalypse; there has been only one of the \"Pilgrim's Progress.\" That\ncharacteristic which Holy Writ has been shown to possess of calling\nforth a multitude of comments and speculations upon its meaning belongs\nin a pre\u00ebminent degree to the Revelation of John.\n\nAfter writing by the instructions of Christ a letter to each of the\nSeven Churches, the author proceeds to describe his vision. There was\na throne in heaven, upon which God himself was seated. He had the\nsingular appearance of a jasper and a sardine stone. Beasts, elders,\nangels, saints, and a promiscuous company besides were around the\nthrone, engaged in performing the ceremonies of the celestial court.\nVarious works were executed according to orders by the attendant\nangels. A beast then arises out of the sea, and is worshiped by those\nwhose names are not in Christ's book. \"Babylon the Great,\" under the\nform of a harlot, is judged and put an end to. An angel comes down from\nheaven and binds \"that old serpent, which is the Devil and Satan,\"\nfor a thousand years. During this millennium Christ reigns on earth,\nand all who have been martyrs for his sake, or have not worshiped the\nbeast, rise from the dead to reign with him. After the thousand years\nare over Satan is unfortunately released from prison, and does a great\ndeal of mischief, but is ultimately recaptured again and cast into a\nlake of fire and brimstone. A second resurrection, for the unprivileged\nmultitude, now takes place. All the dead stand before God, and are\njudged by reference to the records which have been carefully kept in\nheaven in books provided for the purpose. All who are not in the book\nof life are thrown into the lake of fire, to which death and hell are\nconsigned also. The inspired seer is now shown a new heaven, a new\nearth, and a new Jerusalem which comes down from heaven. For a moment\nhe rises from the extremely commonplace level upon which he usually\nmoves to an eloquent picture of that happier world in which \"God shall\nwipe away all tears from\" the eyes of men; when \"there shall be no more\ndeath, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more\npain.\" The book concludes with a curse upon any one who shall in any\nmanner tamper with it, either by way of addition or erasure, and with a\npromise from Jesus that he will come quickly.\n\n\n               SUBDIVISION 4.\u2014_The God of Christendom._\n\nAlthough the God whom Jesus thought himself commissioned to represent,\nand in whom his disciples believed, is the historical continuation of\nthe Jehovah of Hebrew Scripture, yet his character is in many important\naspects widely different. No longer the arbitrary and irascible\npersonage who continually interfered with the current of human affairs,\nrewarding here, punishing there; now overthrowing a monarch, now\ndestroying a nation; he exercises a calmer and more equitable sway over\nthe destinies of the world. As the servile occupants of the bench in\nformer days too often combined the functions of prosecutors with those\nof judges, so Jehovah in the ancient times of Israel had sometimes\nthrown off the judicial dignity to act with all the _animus_ of a party\nto the cause. This was natural perhaps where the subject-matter of\nthe inquiry was the worship and honor to be paid to himself. It was\nnatural that he should take a strong personal interest in such cases;\nbut as all opposition (among the Jews at least) had passed away, and\nhe remained in exclusive possession of the throne, he could afford to\ntreat the charges with which he had now to deal\u2014mere infractions of\nmorality, for example\u2014in a much more impartial spirit.\n\nIn addition to this cause of transformation, the natural growth of\nreligious feeling had tended to replace the older deity by a modified\nconception, and Jesus, falling in in this respect with the course of\nthought already in progress, contributed to effect a still further\nmodification in the same direction. Hence, although there is nowhere\nan absolute break between the old and the new conceptions, the God of\nthe New Testament is practically a very different person from the God\nof the Old. We cannot conceive him doing the same things. The worst\naction, in the way of interference in mundane matters, of which the\nGod of the New Testament is guilty, is, perhaps, the sudden slaughter\nof Ananias and Sapphira. But what is this to such enormities as the\ndeluge, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, or the commission of\nbears to devour little children who had ridiculed the baldness of a\nprophet? Horrors like these, so consistent with the general mode of\nprocedure of the ancient Jehovah, are wholly incompatible with the\ncharacteristics so often ascribed to the more recent God. According\nto the theories of the New Testament, the crime committed by the Jews\nin executing Jesus was at least as great as the crimes for which the\nantediluvians and the Sodomites had been so ruthlessly exterminated.\nYet we cannot imagine Jesus as even wishing for the extermination\nof his contemporaries by water or by fire. The God whose love for\nmankind he had been teaching could not for a moment be thought of as\nconsenting to such a course. While Elijah the Tishbite is represented\nas positively praying for the instant death of one hundred men who\ncame to him with a message from his king, Jesus, on the contrary, is\ndepicted as actually healing the only one of his enemies who had been\nin any way injured in effecting his arrest. Plainly when the conduct of\nthe prophets is thus dissimilar, the deity whom they represent on earth\nis dissimilar also.\n\nAnother very marked alteration to be observed in passing from the\ncharacter of Jehovah to that of God, is the emancipation of the object\nof worship from the limits of race. Jehovah was altogether a Jew.\nHe kept the Sabbath-day; he loved fasts and festivals; he believed\nstrongly in the virtue of circumcision; he was interested not so much\nin the general well-being of the human species, as in the success of\nthe single people of whom he was the true leader in battle and the\nultimate sovereign at home. What happened to all the remainder of\nmankind was to him a matter of trivial moment, although it might suit\nhim occasionally to use them as instruments either for the chastisement\nor the restoration to favor of his beloved Israel. But God in the New\nTestament has largely cast off the special features of his race, and\nalthough he sometimes betrays his Judaic origin, he is in the main\ncosmopolite in his sympathies and impartial in his behavior. Though\nby no means catholic in religion, but holding exclusively to a single\nfaith, he receives all who embrace that faith, of whatever nation,\nwithin the range of his favor. This great and deeply important change,\nthough begun by Jesus, was in the main the work of Paul. If it was\nJesus who constructed the tabernacle, it was Paul who built the temple.\n\nWhile, however, there is an enormous improvement if we compare the\nadministration of human affairs by Jehovah and by God, there is\nnevertheless a blot upon the character of God which suffices, if\nrigorously balanced against the failings of Jehovah, to outweigh them\nall. It is the eternity of the punishment which he inflicts in a future\nlife. No amount of sophistry can ever justify the creation of beings\nwhose lives are to terminate in endless suffering. But while the\n_reality_ of condemnation to such endless suffering would be a far more\ngigantic crime than any of the merely terrestrial penalties inflicted\nby the Hebrew Jehovah, the _belief_ in such endless suffering is quite\nconsistent with a much higher general conception of the divinity than\nthe one that co\u00ebxisted with the belief in those terrestrial penalties.\nThe explanation of this apparent paradox is to be found in the fact\nthat the necessary injustice of eternal punishment is not very easily\nperceived; that, in fact, it is not understood at all in the ruder\nstages of social evolution, and not by every individual even in so\nadvanced a society as our own. Some degree of punishment for offenses\nis felt to be requisite; and it is not observed without considerable\nreflection that that punishment in order to be just must needs be\nfinite; must needs, if imposed by absolute power, aim at the ultimate\nreformation of the criminal, not at his ultimate misery. And it takes\na far higher degree of mental cultivation to feel this than it takes\nto feel the injustice of the violent outbursts attributed in the Old\nTestament to Jehovah. Tradition and custom alone could have prevented\nJesus and his disciples from feeling shocked at these; while it was\nintellectual capacity which was needed to enable them to reject eternal\npunishment as incompatible with justice. Add to these considerations\nthe very important fact that the conduct conducing to salvation, and\navoiding condemnation in the future state, was supposed to be known\nto all men beforehand, being fixed by unalterable rules; while the\nconduct necessary to ensure the terrestrial rewards, and escape the\nterrestrial penalties of the Old Testament, was not known till the\noccasion arose; sometimes not till after it had arisen. Thus, Jesus\nlays down in his teaching both the rules to be observed by human\nbeings if they would obtain the approbation of his Father, and the\nexact manner in which the violation of those rules will be visited\nupon them if they fail to repent and obtain forgiveness. But Jehovah\nonly made his rules from time to time, and never announced beforehand\nwhat his punishments would be. Who, for instance, could tell what he\nwould do to the Israelites for worshiping the golden calf? who could\nsay whether he would treat gathering sticks on the Sabbath, as to\nwhich there was as yet no law, as a capital crime? still more, who\ncould imagine that he would visit the action of a monarch in taking a\ncensus of Israel by a pestilence inflicted on the unoffending people?\nPlainly it was a very rude notion of deity indeed which was satisfied\nto suppose an arbitrary interposition in all such cases. The God of the\nNew Testament may be more cruel, but he is also more consistent. If I\nmay venture on a homely comparison, I should say that the Jehovah of\nthe Israelites is like a capricious Oriental despot, whose subjects'\nlives are in his hand, while the God of Christendom rather resembles\na judge administering a Draconian code in which there should be no\ngradations between capital punishment and entire acquittal. The laws\nmay in fact demand more bloodshed than the tyrant; but their existence\nand administration by fixed rules would undoubtedly imply that a people\nhad reached a higher grade of civilization. Moreover, exactly as\ngovernment conducted by laws is capable of improvement by modification\nof the legislative enactments, while despotic government is essentially\nvicious, so the character of God admits of easy adaptation to the needs\nof a more cultivated state, while that of Jehovah can by no possibility\nbe rendered consistent with a high ideal of divinity.\n\nSuch adaptation of the Christian God has actually taken place to\na very large extent. The doctrine of Purgatory, leaving only the\nmost incorrigible offenders to be consigned to hell, was already a\nconsiderable step in advance of the teaching of the New Testament.\nIt got rid of the fundamental weakness in the conception of Jesus,\nwherein there was no proportion of punishment to offense; every sin,\nsmall or great, was either absolutely forgiven or punished to the\nuttermost extent. It effected the same beneficent change as Romilly\neffected in the English law. Precisely as our former code punished\neven trifling crimes with death or not at all, so the God of Jesus\npunished sin either eternally or not at all. Precisely as the excessive\nseverity of English law led to the entire acquittal of many criminals\nwho should have received some degree of punishment, so the excessive\nseverity of God led to the belief and hope that many sinners would be\nentirely pardoned who should in justice have received some measure\nof correction. Thus, in both these cases, the undue harshness of the\nthreatened penalty tended to defeat the very object in view.\n\nBut the character of the God of Christendom admits of a much more\nthorough reformation than that effected by the Catholic Church. Tender\nspirits, offended, like Uncle Toby, at the notion that even the worst\nof beings should be damned to all eternity, have simply refused to\naccept the notion of endless torture. Thinkers, aiming at a system\nof abstract justice, have sought to prove that it could not be.\nTheologians have contrived all sorts of shifts to dispense with the\nnecessity of believing it. Modern feeling, whether on grounds of logic\nor of sentiment, has gradually come to suppress it more and more as an\ninconvenient article in the nominal creed, to be, if not consciously\nrejected, at least instinctively thrust as much as possible out of\nsight. There has resulted an idea of the Deity in which the harsher\nelements are swept away, and the gentler ones, such as his fatherhood,\nhis care, and his love, are left behind. Such writers as Theodore\nParker, Francis W. Newman, and Frances Power Cobb, have carried this\nideal to the highest point of perfection of which it appears to be\ncapable. Their God is still the God of Christendom, but refined,\npurified and exalted. The work which the Jewish prophets began, which\nJesus carried on, at which all the nations of Christendom have labored,\nthey have most worthily completed. Whether the ideal thus attained\nis destined to be final, whether it really represents the ultimate\npossibilities of religious thought that can remain as the corner-stone\nof a universal faith, are questions that can be answered only when\nwe have undertaken the complete analysis of those most general\nconstituents of all theological systems which the foregoing examination\nhas disclosed. On that last analysis we are about to enter.\n\n    \"Ach, mein Kindchen, schon als Knabe,\n    Als ich sass auf Mutters Schoss,\n    Glaubte ich an Gott den Vater,\n    Der da waltet gut und gross.\n\n    \"Der die sch\u00f6ne Erd' erschaffen,\n    Und die sch\u00f6nen Menschen d'rauf,\n    Der den Sonnen, Monden, Sternen,\n    Vorgezeichnet ihren Lauf.\n\n    \"Als ich gr\u00f6sser wurde, Kindchen,\n    Noch vielmehr begriff ich schon,\n    Und begriff, und ward vern\u00fcnftig,\n    Und ich glaub' auch an den Sohn;\n\n    \"An den lieben Sohn, der liebend\n    Uns die Liebe offenbart,\n    Und zum Lohne, wie gebr\u00e4uchlich,\n    Von dem Volk gekreuzigt ward.\n\n    \"Jetzo, da ich ausgewachsen,\n    Viel gelesen, viel gereist,\n    Schwillt mein Herz, und ganz von Herzen\n    Glaub ich an den heil'gen Geist.\"\n\n    \u2014HEINE.\n\n\n\n\n                                  THE\n\n                      RELIGIOUS SENTIMENT ITSELF.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER VII.\n\n                        THE ULTIMATE ELEMENTS.\n\n\nWe have now examined and classified the various phenomena manifested\nby the religious sentiment throughout the world. We have found these\nphenomena to have been in all ages of history, and to be now among\nall races of men, fundamentally alike. Diverse as the several creeds\nexisting on the face of the earth appear to a superficial observer,\nyet the rites, the practices, the dogmas they contain, admit of being\nranged under certain definite categories and deduced from certain\ninvariable assumptions. The two leading ideas of consecration and of\nsanctity pervade them all, and while the mode of consecration, the\nobjects consecrated, the things, places, men, or books regarded as\nsacred, differ in every quarter of the globe, the feelings of the\nreligious man remain the same.\n\nLet us take a rapid survey, before proceeding further, of the ground we\nhave already traversed. Wherever any religion exists at all, we have\nfound consecrated _actions_: that is, actions devoted to the service\nof God. Such actions, it is assumed, have some kind of validity or\nforce, either in bringing from the deities addressed by the worshipers\nsome species of temporal blessing, or in ensuring happiness in a\nfuture state, or in improving his moral character in this. Secondly,\nwe no sooner rise above the very rudest forms of religion, than we\nfind _places_ set apart for worship, and entirely abstracted from all\nprofaner uses. Thirdly, we find that it is a universal practice to\ndedicate certain _objects_ to the special use of the divine beings\nreceived in the country; such objects being various in their nature,\nbut very frequently consisting of gifts to the accredited ministers\nof the God for whom they are intended. Fourthly, we find in all\nthe greater religions\u2014the Confucians possibly excepted\u2014a number of\n_persons_ who have devoted themselves to a mode of life supposed to be\nespecially pleasing to God, and carrying with it in their minds the\nnotion of superior sanctity. Lastly, we have in almost every form of\nfaith a special _class_, generally of male persons only, who are set\napart, by some distinctive rite, to the performance of the consecrated\nactions required by the community to be done on their behalf; these\nactions thus acquiring a double consecration, derived primarily from\ntheir own nature, and secondarily from the character of those by whom\nthey are performed.\n\nPassing to the second of our main divisions, we found the conception\nof sanctity applied generally where that of consecration had been\napplied, the distinction being that while the latter was imparted by\nman, the former was the gift of God. Thus, in the first place, just as\nhuman beings consecrate some of their actions to the service of God, so\nhe, in his turn, sanctifies certain _events_ to the enlightenment of\nmankind. It is the same in the second case, that of _places_; for here\nthe deity sometimes points out a holy spot by some special mark of his\npresence, sometimes (and more commonly) condescends to sanctify those\nwhich man has devoted to his worship. And, thirdly, as men set apart\nsome of their property for him, so he imparts to some of the _objects_\nin their possession a holy character, which endows them with peculiar\npowers, either over external nature, or over the mind and conscience\nof those who see, touch, or otherwise use them. Fourthly, he endows\nthe _class_ who perform the ceremonies of religion with his peculiar\ngrace; a grace commonly evinced in their power to consecrate places,\nthings, and men, to forgive sins, to convey the apostolic succession,\nto administer sacraments, and so forth; but occasionally manifested in\nthe shape of supernatural endowments. And fifthly, as there are many of\nboth sexes who give themselves to him, so there have been a few _men_\nto whom he may be said to have given himself, having invested them\nwith authority to teach infallible truth, and found religions called\nafter their names. Sixthly, he has revealed himself in a way to which\nthere is nothing corresponding on the human side, by means of _books_\ncomposed by authors whom he inspired with the words he desired them to\nwrite.\n\nViewed in the gross, as we have viewed them now, these several\nmanifestations of religious feeling cancel one another. That feeling\nhas indeed expressed itself in the same general manner, but with\ndifferences in detail which render all its expressions equally\nunimportant in the eyes of science. For, to take the simplest instance,\nnothing can be said by a Christian, on behalf of the inspiration of his\nScriptures, which might not be said by the Buddhist, the Confucian, or\nthe Mussulman on behalf of the inspiration of theirs. If his appear to\nhim more beautiful, more perfect, more sublime, so do theirs to them;\nand even if we concede his claims, the difference is one of degree,\nand not of kind. So it is in reference to miracles. Christianity can\npoint to no miracles tending to establish its truth, which may not be\nmatched by others tending to establish the truth of rival creeds. And\nif we find believers of every kind in every clime, attaching the most\nprofound importance to the exact performance of religious rites in\ncertain exact ways, while, nevertheless, those ways differ from age to\nage and from place to place, we cannot but conclude that every form of\nworship is equally good and equally indifferent; and that the faith\nof the Christian who drinks the blood of Christ on the banks of the\nThames, stands on the same intellectual level with that of the Brahman\nwho quaffs the juice of the Soma on the banks of the Ganges.\n\nBut this line of argument seems to tend to nothing short of the\nabsolute annihilation of religion. Under the touch of a comparative\nanatomy of creeds, all that was imposing and magnificent in the\nedifice of theology crumbles into dust. Systems of thought piled up\nwith elaborate care, philosophies evolved by centuries of toilsome\npreparation, fall into shapeless ruins at our feet. And all this by\nthe simple process of putting them side by side.\n\nCan we, however, rest content in the assumption that so vast a\nsuperstructure as that of religion has no solid foundation in the mind\nof man? And is it destined, like the theologies it has evolved in the\ncourse of its existence to disappear entirely from a world enlightened\nby scientific knowledge?\n\nTwo questions must be carefully distinguished from one another in\nreplying to the doubt thus suggested. The first is whether religion,\nalthough it may contain no objective truth, or no objective truth\nascertainable by us, nevertheless possesses, from some circumstance\nin its own nature, or in the nature of the world we live in, a hold\nupon the human race, of which it cannot by any advance of knowledge\nbe deprived. Is there, in short, if not an everlasting truth, yet an\neverlasting dream from which there is to be no awakening, and in which\nspectral shapes do duty for external realities? An affirmative reply\nwould admit the existence of religious sentiment to be a necessary\nresult of the constitution of the human mind, but would not concede\nthe inference that conclusions reached by means of that sentiment\nhad any objective validity, or any intellectual worth beyond that\nwhich they derive from the imagination of those who believe them. The\nsecond question is whether there are in the fundamental composition\nof religious sentiment any elements not only necessary, but true;\nand if so, what those elements are, and what is the proof of their\ncredibility, if proof there be.\n\nAs a preliminary to answering either of these questions, it is needful\nto ascertain whether in the midst of the variety we have passed in\nreview, there is any fundamental unity; in other words, whether the\nvaried _forms_ of religion are all we can ever know of it, or whether\nunderlying those forms there is a permanent _structure_ upon which\nthey are superposed. For only when we know whether there is in all the\ncreeds of the world a common element, can we proceed to inquire whether\nthere is an element which is a necessary result of the constitution of\nour minds. If the phenomena evinced by the several religions to which\nwe have referred in the previous book have no common source in human\nnature; if, while they differ in every article of their theology,\nthere is nothing beyond theology in which they agree; then religion\nis a mere superficial product of circumstances, having no more solid\nguarantee than the authority of the particular teachers of each special\nvariety. There is in fact no religion; there are only religions. There\nis no universal Faith; there is only particular Belief.\n\nThese, then, are the queries to which our attention must be addressed:\u2014\n\n1. Are there in the several religions of mankind any common elements?\n\n2. If so, are those common elements a necessary, and therefore\npermanent, portion of our mental furniture?\n\n3. If so, are those elements the correlatives of any actual truths, or\nnot?\n\nIt may have been observed that all the phenomena we have examined\nin the previous Book imply one assumption, and cannot be understood\nwithout that assumption. All of them imply some kind of power or powers\neither behind, beyond, or external to the material world and the human\nbeings who inhabit it, or at least involved in and manifested through\nthat world and its inhabitants; some power whose nature is not clear\nto us, but whose effects are perceptible to our senses; some power\nto which we ourselves and the material world are equally subject.\nSometimes indeed the power which religion thus assumes is broken up\ninto several minor forces, and instead of a single deity we have\nseveral deities controlling the operations of nature. But, without\ndwelling now upon the fact that polytheistic creeds often look above\nthe lesser beings whom they commonly put forward to a more mysterious\nand greater God, it may be observed that these minor forces are no\nmore than forms of the one great force from which they are parted off\nby an imaginative subdivision. To place the ocean under one divinity,\nthe winds under another, and the sun under a third, is practically a\nmental process of the same kind as to place them all under a single\ndivinity; and the existence of some such cause of material phenomena\nbeing granted, it is a mere question of less or greater representative\ncapacity whether we range them under numerous chiefs or comprehend them\nall under one. In either case we assume extra-mundane and superhuman\npower, and this is the essential assumption of all religion. The least\nassumption a religion can make is that of a single such power, and this\n(or more than this) it always must assume. For without this we should\nremain within the boundaries of science; we should examine and classify\nphenomena, but we could never pass beyond the phenomena themselves to\ntheir mysterious origin or their hidden cause.\n\nBut this is not the only assumption involved in every possible\nreligion. Every religion assumes also that there is in human nature\nsomething equally hyperphysical with the power which it worships,\nwhether we call this something soul, or mind, or spirit. And between\nthis human essence and the divine power there is held to be a singular\ncorrespondence, their relationship finding its concrete expression in\nreligious worship on the one side and theological dogma on the other.\nAll the practices and all the doctrines of every positive religion are\nbut the modes in which men have sought to give body to their idea of\nthis relationship.\n\nWe have then, strictly speaking, three fundamental postulates involved\nin the religious idea:\u2014\n\nFirst, that of a hyperphysical power in the universe.\n\nSecondly, that of a hyperphysical entity in man.\n\nThirdly, that of a relation between the two.\n\nThe power assumed in the first postulate we may term the objective\nelement in religion; the entity assumed in the second postulate we may\nterm the subjective element. In the following chapter we shall deal\nwith the objective element in the religious idea.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER VIII.\n\n                        THE OBJECTIVE ELEMENT.\n\n\nThe general result which has thus been reached by the decomposition\nof religion into its ultimate constituents must now be rendered\nsomewhat more specific by illustrative examples tending to explain\nthe character of the power the idea of whose existence forms the\nfoundation of the religious sentiment, and such examples will tend to\nthrow light upon the question whether the admission of such a power\nis or is not a necessity of thought. For the proof of necessity is\ntwofold; _a posteriori_ and _a priori_. We may show by the first mode\nthat certain assumptions are always made under certain conditions as a\nmatter of fact; not that they are always made by every human being, but\nthat given the appropriate grade of culture, the beliefs in question\narise. And we may show by the second that no effort of ours is able\nto separate certain ideas which have become associated in our minds;\nthat the association persists under every strain we can put upon it,\nand that the resulting belief is therefore a necessary part of the\nconstitution of the mind. Both modes of proof must be attempted here.\n\nNow, in the first place, it must be remarked that few, if any, of the\nnations of the world are wholly destitute of some religious creed; and\nthat those which have been supposed, rightly or wrongly, to be without\nit, have generally been savage tribes of the lowest grade of culture.\nSo slender is the evidence of the presence of a people without some\ntheological conception that it may be doubted whether the travelers who\nhave reported such facts have not been misled, either by inability to\ncomprehend the language, or unfamiliarity with the order of thought, of\nthose with whom they conversed.\n\nSometimes the absence of religion seems to be predicated of a people\nwhich does not present an example of the kind of belief which the\nEuropean observer has been accustomed to consider as religious. An\ninstance of this is afforded in Angas' account of \"Savage Life in\nAustralia.\" Of the Australians he states that \"they appear to have no\nreligious observances whatever. They acknowledge no Supreme Being,\nworship no idols, and believe only in the existence of a spirit whom\nthey consider as the author of ill, and regard with superstitious\ndread.\" So that in the very act of denying a religion to these people\nhe practically ascribes one to them. They, like Christians, appear to\nacknowledge a powerful spirit; and if they dwell upon the evil side\nof his works more than upon the good side, it is to be remembered\nthat Christians too consider their deity \"as the author of ill\" by\nhis action in cursing Adam with all his posterity; and that they too\nregard him \"with superstitious dread\" as a being who will send them to\neternal torture if they fail to worship, to think, and to act as he\nenjoins them. Immediately after this, the author informs us that the\nAustralians constantly carry firesticks at night, to repel malignant\nspirits, and that they place great faith in sorcerers who profess to\n\"counteract the influence of the spirits\" (S. L. A., vol. i. p. 88).\nSo that their destitution of \"religious observances\" is in like manner\nmerely comparative.\n\nVery little, if any, belief in deity appears to exist in Kamtschatka.\nSteller, who has described the creed of its inhabitants, states that\nthey believe in no providence, and hold that they have nothing to do\nwith God, nor he with them (Kamtschatka, p. 269). Whether this amounts\nto a denial of his existence I cannot say. They have, however, another\nelement of religion, belief in a future state, as will afterwards\nappear.\n\nIn primitive religions the abstract form of Deity is often filled\nup with the concrete figures of departed relatives. Indeed this is\none of the modes in which that form acquires definiteness, becoming\ncomprehensible to the savage mind from this limitation of its\ngenerality. Thus in Fiji, although a supreme God and various other gods\nexist, the ancestors appear to be the most popular objects of worship.\nDeceased relations of the Fijians (according to Seemann) take their\nplace at once among the family gods (Viti, p. 389-391). Another author\nconfirms this testimony. In Sandwich Island, in the Fijian group, he\nstates that there are no idols. \"The people worship the spirits of\ntheir ancestors\" (N. Y., p. 394). In Savage Island again they pay\ntheir forefathers similar homage, and remark that they once had an\nimage which they worshiped, but that they broke it in pieces during an\nepidemic which they ascribed to its influence (Ib., p. 470). Among the\nKafirs the spirits of the dead are believed to possess considerable\npower for good and evil; \"they are elevated in fact to the rank of\ndeities, and (except where the Great-Great is worshiped concurrently\nwith them) they are the only objects of a Kafir's adoration\" (K. N., p.\n161).\n\nSimilar evidence is given by Acosta in reference to Peru. In that\ncountry there existed a highly-developed and elaborated worship of the\ndead. The bodies of the Incas, or governors of Peru, were kept and\nworshiped. Regular ministers were devoted to their service. Living\nIncas had images of themselves constructed, termed brothers, to which,\nboth during the life-time of their original and after his death, as\nmuch honor was shown as to the Incas themselves. These images were\ncarried in procession designed to obtain rain, and fair weather, and in\ntime of war. They were also the objects of feasting and of sacrifices\n(H. I., b. 5, ch. vi). But the adoration of the dead was not of such\nexclusive importance in Peru as in some countries of inferior culture,\nand the most prominent positions in their system were occupied by\nthe Sun and the soul of the world, Pachacamac, who was in fact their\nhighest God (C. R. b. 2, ch. iii).\n\nThese last examples introduce us to the more general conception of\ndeity which, in all religions but the very lowest, is found along with\nthe belief in supernatural beings of an inferior class, and in some\nof them overshadows and expels it. The Peruvians, as just stated,\nassigned the first rank to him whom they conceived to have created and\nto animate the universe. The Fijians adored a supreme Being Degei or\nTangaroa. Lastly, the \"Great-Great,\" mentioned in the above quotation\nfrom Shooter, is a being who seems from the somewhat contradictory\nevidence of travelers to have been regarded as God by some of the\nKafirs, but to have been wholly neglected by others. Thus, in a\npassage quoted from a work of Captain Gardiner's by Canon Callaway, we\nfind a conversation of the writer's with a native, in which the latter\ndenies all knowledge of deity whatever, and expresses a vague notion\nthat the things in the world may \"come of themselves.\" Of another tribe\nthe same writer asserts that \"they acknowledged, indeed, a traditionary\naccount of a Supreme Being, whom they called Ookoolukoolu (literally\nthe Great-Great), but knew nothing further respecting him, than that he\noriginally issued from the reeds, created men and cattle, and taught\nthem the use of the assagai.\" Canon Callaway is apparently of opinion\nthat the word Unkulunkulu was not in use among the natives of South\nAfrica in the sense of God until it was introduced by Captain Gardiner\n(R. S. A., vol. i. pp. 54, 55). Considerable suspicion is thus thrown\nupon any statements in which this name is employed for the Creator. If,\nhowever, we may accept a statement of Shooter's, \"the Kafirs of Natal\nhave preserved the tradition of a Being whom they call the Great-Great\nand the First Appearer or Exister.\" According to this writer \"he is\nrepresented as having made all things,\" but this tradition \"is not\nuniversally known among the people.\" A chief who was asked about\nUnkulunkulu, the Great-Great, knew nothing about him, but one of his\nold men, when a child, \"had been told by women stooping with age that\nthere was a great being above.\" There is also \"a tribe in Natal which\nstill worships the Great-Great, though its recollection of him is\nvery dim.\" This tribe calls upon Unkulunkulu in the act of sacrifice\nand in sickness (K. N., pp. 159, 160). While this testimony leaves it\ndoubtful whether Unkulunkulu is worshiped at all, except by this single\ntribe, the traditions collected by Canon Callaway in the first volume\nof his valuable work point to the presence of a well-marked legend\nof creation in which that deity figures as the originator of human\nlife. True, he is also spoken of as the first man, and in this fact\nwe have the probable reconciliation of the view which treats him as\nthe Supreme Being, with that which denies that his name was used with\nthis signification. Unkulunkulu was the prim\u00e6val ancestor of mankind,\nbut he was also the Creator. Ancestor-worship finds its culmination in\nhim. But he has been much neglected in comparison with minor deities,\nand the word Unkulunkulu has been applied to the ancestor of special\ntribes instead of to the ancestor of all mankind.\n\nThe general result seems to be that some, though not all of the Zulus,\nhave in their minds a more or less definite idea of a First Cause\nof existence, but that this First Cause is not worshiped and is but\nlittle spoken of. Thus, an old woman questioned by an emissary of Canon\nCallaway's related this:\u2014\n\n\"When we spoke of the origin of corn, asking, 'Whence came this?' the\nold people said, 'It came from the Creator who created all things. But\nwe do not know him.' When we asked continually, 'Where is the Creator?\nfor our chiefs we see?' the old men denied, saying, 'And those chiefs\ntoo whom we see, they were created by the Creator.' And when we asked,\n'Where is he? for he is not visible at all. Where is he then?' we heard\nour fathers pointing towards heaven and saying, 'The Creator of all\nthings is in heaven. And there is a nation of people there too'\" (R. S.\nA., vol. i. p. 52).\n\nBut while Unkulunkulu is generally considered as the Creator by the\nZulus, it would appear that a neighboring people, called the Amakxosa,\nhad heard of a \"lord in heaven\" even greater than him, whom they called\nUtikxo. According to the evidence of an old native the word Utikxo is\nnot of foreign origin. Utikxo was appealed to when a man sneezed, and\n\"as regards the use of Utikxo, we used to say it when it thundered, and\nwe thus knew that there is a power which is in heaven; and at length\nwe adopted the custom of saying, Utikxo is he who is above all. But\nit was not said that he was in a certain place in heaven; it was said\nhe filled the whole heaven. No distinction of place was made\" (Ib.,\nvol. i. p. 65). In the opinion of this authority, Utikxo had been in a\nmanner superseded by Unkulunkulu, who, because he was visible while the\noriginal power was invisible, was mistaken for the Creator and for God\n(Ib., vol. i. p. 67).\n\nTestimony of a similar nature is given in regard to other regions of\nAfrica. In Juda it is stated that the most intellectual of the great\nmen had a confused idea of the existence and unity of a God (V. G.,\nvol. ii. p. 160). Oldendorp states broadly that \"all negro peoples\nbelieve that there is a God, whom they represent to themselves as very\npowerful and beneficent.\" He adds that among all the black nations\nhe has known, there is none that has not this belief in God and that\ndoes not regard him as the author of the world. They call him by the\nsame name as heaven, and it is even doubtful whether they do not take\nheaven for the supreme Being. \"But perhaps,\" he adds, \"they do not even\nthink so definitely\" (G. d. M., p. 318). So that the conception of the\nHighest God in the regions visited by this missionary is still vague\nand indefinite, like that we have found in Juda and in Natal.\n\nIf now we turn to another quarter of the globe we find the peculiarly\ndegraded and ignorant Greenlanders asserting that, although they knew\nnothing of God before the arrival of the missionaries, yet that those\nof them who had reflected on the subject had perceived the necessity\nof creative power, and had inferred that there must be a being far\nsuperior to the cleverest man. They had, in fact, used the argument\nfrom design, and thus prepared, they had gladly believed in the God\npreached by the missionaries, for they found that it was he whom\nthey had in their hearts desired to know (H. G., p. 240). A similar\nconviction of the existence of a supreme God prevailed in the new world\nwhen it was discovered by Europeans. Such a God was acknowledged in\nMexico and Peru, as also in the less civilized regions of the North.\nSpeaking of the American Indians, Charlevoix observes that nothing\nis more certain, yet nothing more obscure, than the idea which these\nsavages have of a prim\u00e6val Being. All agree in regarding him as\nthe first Spirit, the Ruler and the Creator of the world; but when\nfurther pressed, they have nothing to offer but grotesque fancies,\nill-considered fables, and undigested systems. Nearly all the Algonquin\nnations (he adds) call the first Spirit the Great Hare; some term him\nMichabou, and others Atahocan. He was apparently supposed by some to\nhave been a kind of quadruped, and to have created the earth from a\ngrain of sand drawn from the bottom of the ocean, and men from the dead\nbodies of animals (N. F., vol. iii. p. 343).\n\nThe great religions of the world have all of them (Buddhism alone\nexcepted) acknowledged a God, whom they pictured to their minds in\nvarious ways according to the degree of their development and their\npowers of abstract thought. Dimly shadowed forth in the Confucian\nsystem under the title of Heaven, plainly acknowledged, yet mystically\ndescribed by the Hindoos under many titles, whereof Brahma is one\nof the most usual, celebrated in plainer language by the classical\nheathens as Zeus or Jupiter, this great being appears in the three\nkindred creeds of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, as Jehovah, as\nAllah, and as God. In Buddhism, however, there is no article of faith\ncorresponding to the belief in God. The Buddha is himself the most\nexalted being in the universe, and he is neither almighty nor eternal.\nThe creation of matter as also of man appears to be unaccounted for.\nThere is no single being who can be regarded as the ruler of all\nthings, and the highest object of Buddhist worship. But it must not\nbe supposed that Buddhism has escaped the universal necessity of\nadmitting spiritual powers superior to human beings. In the first place\nit retained the Indian deities, such as Brahma, Indra, and others,\nand though, subordinating all of them to Buddha, yet left them in\npossession of enormous capacities. In the second place, the Buddha in\nfact, though not in name, assumed the rank of a God. Practically, he is\nfar more than human. He himself determines the place, time, and manner\nof his incarnation. He delivers infallible doctrine. He becomes an\nobject of adoration, receiving divine honors from his followers. And\nalthough the reigning Buddha (having entered Nirv\u00e2na) is non-existent,\nand cannot aid his disciples, the future Buddha, or Bodhisattva, can\ndo so, and he is addressed in prayer for the same purposes for which\na Christian would invoke the intercession of his Savior. Thirdly, it\nis to be remarked that Buddhism, free from the single idea of God, is\nnot free from the multitudinous idea of supernatural essences. Its\ntheology, so to speak, is quite full of celestial beings of various\nranks and functions, who swarm around the terrestrial believers and\nperform all kinds of wonders. To these remarks it may be added that in\nNepaul, one of the countries where Buddhism prevails, the non-theistic\nform has been superseded by a theistic form, in which there are divine\nBuddhas corresponding to the human Buddhas; the highest of these,\nAdi-Buddha, being equivalent to the highest God of other creeds. And\nit is at least noteworthy, that in Ceylon, where the non-theistic form\nprevails in all its purity, the people have a habit of invoking demons\nto their aid, and of employing the priests of these demons, in all the\nmore important emergencies of their domestic lives.\n\nIt must not be imagined, however, that I wish to undervalue the\nimportance of the exception which Buddhism presents to the general\nrule. Far from it. It ought, in my opinion, to be always borne in mind\nas a refutation of the statement that belief in a personal God is a\nnecessary element of all religion. Europeans are apt to carry with them\nthroughout the world their clear-cut notions of deity as a powerful\nbeing who created the world, put man into it, governs it in a certain\nmanner, and assigns punishments and rewards to the souls of men in a\nfuture state. This belief appears to them so necessary and so natural\nthat they expect to find it universally prevailing, and regard it as\nthe indispensable foundation on which all religion must be built.\nBuddhism, however, the creed which, after Christianity, has probably\nexerted the greatest and most wide-spread influence on human affairs,\nknows no such article of faith; and our general ideas of the universal\nconstituents of religion must needs be modified to embrace this fact.\n\nSome superhuman power must, however, be recognized in every religion,\nand it is the manner in which this superhuman power is described,\nthe qualities ascribed to it, its unity or plurality, its relation\ntowards man, and similar distinctions, which serve to differentiate\none form of religion from another. The degree of definiteness is one\nof the most important features in this differentiation. Generally\nspeaking, the definiteness of this idea and the development of the\nreligion vary inversely as one another. This law, however, is obscured\nby the continual tendency to put forward, to worship, and to speak\nabout in ordinary cases, some inferior deity or deities, while there\nis lurking behind the vague idea of a higher entity who is seldom\nmentioned, little or never worshiped, and who possibly has no name in\nthe language. So that the gods or idols who are worshiped by the people\nmust not be taken as embodying the best expression of their religious\nthoughts. Some instances of the occurrence of this phenomenon will\nserve as illustrations of the foregoing statement.\n\nOn the coast of Guinea the people \"have a faint idea of the true\nGod, and ascribe to him the attributes Almighty and Omnipresent; they\nbelieve he created the universe, and therefore vastly prefer him\nbefore their idol-gods; but yet they do not pray to him, or offer any\nsacrifices to him; for which they give the following reasons. God,\nthey say, is too highly exalted above us and too great to condescend\nso much as to trouble himself, or think of mankind: wherefore he\ncommits the government of the world to their idols\" (C. G., p. 348).\nThe manner in which Utikxo, the highest God, is thrown into the shade\nby the more intelligible and human Unkulunkulu (as shown in a previous\nextract) is another example of the operation of this law. And it is\nespecially noteworthy that the Amazulu have also a \"lord of heaven,\"\nwith attributes corresponding to those of Utikxo, for whom they have\nno name. Anonymity, or if not absolute anonymity, the absence of any\nname commonly employed in the popular language is, as we shall see, one\nof the most usual features of this most exalted Being. Other travelers\ngive similar accounts of other regions of Africa. Winterbottom, who\nwas especially acquainted with Sierra Leone and its neighborhood, says\nthat \"the Africans all acknowledge a supreme Being, the creator of the\nuniverse; but they suppose him to be endowed with too much benevolence\nto do harm to mankind, and therefore think it unnecessary to offer him\nany homage\" (S. L., vol. i. p. 222). Of Dahomey we learn from Winwood\nReade (a writer not likely to be partial to theism, or to discover it\nwhere it does not exist), that the natives erect temples to snakes,\nbut \"have also the unknown, unseen God, whose name they seldom dare\nto mention\" (S. A., p. 49). In another country in Africa the same\nwriter found that the natives worshiped numerous spirits, and believed\nalso in an evil Genius and a good Spirit. The former they were in the\nhabit of propitiating by religious service; but the latter \"they do\nnot deem it necessary to pray to in a regular way, because he will not\nharm them. The word by which they express this supreme Being answers\nexactly to our word God. Like the Jehovah of the Hebrews, like that\nword in masonry which is only known to masters and never pronounced but\nin a whisper and in full lodge, this word they seldom dare to speak;\nand they display uneasiness if it is uttered before them.\" The writer\nstates that he only heard it on two occasions; once when his men\ncried it out in a dangerous storm, and once when having asked a slave\nthe name for God, the man \"raised his eyes, and pointing to heaven,\nsaid in a soft voice _Njambi_\" (Ib., p. 250). Again, in a lecture on\nthe Ashantees, Mr. Reade informed his hearers that \"the Oji people,\"\nalthough believing in a supreme Being, do not worship him: while they\ndo worship \"a number of inferior gods or demons,\" to whom they believe\nthe superior God, offended with mankind, has left the management of\nterrestrial affairs.\n\nStrange to say, the peculiarity thus observed in the old world is\nprecisely repeated in the new. Of the Mexicans it is stated that \"they\nnever offered sacrifices to\" Tonacatecotle who was \"God, Lord, Creator,\nGovernor of the Universe,\" and whom \"they painted alone with a crown,\nas lord of all.\" As their explanation of this conduct \"they said that\nhe did not regard them. All the others to whom they sacrificed were\nmen once on a time, or demons\" (A. M., vol. vi. p. 107, plate 1).\nConcerning the Peruvians, Acosta tells us that they give their deity\na name of great excellence, Pachacamac, or Pachayachacic (creator of\nheaven and earth), and Usapu (admirable). He remarks, however, with\nmuch surprise, that they had no proper (or perhaps general) name in\ntheir language for God. There was nothing in the language of Cuzco\nor Mexico answering to \"Deus,\" and the Spaniards used their own word\n\"Dios.\" Whence he concludes, somewhat hastily, that they had but a\nslight and superficial knowledge of God (H. I., b. 5, ch. iii).\n\nIn reference to Peru, however, we have still more trustworthy evidence\nfrom a member of the governing family, or Incas. From his statements\nit appears that the name applied to the Highest was pronounced only\non rare occasions, and then with extremest reverence. This name was\nPachacamac, a word signifying \"he who animates the whole world,\" or\nthe Universal Soul, as it would be termed in Indian philosophy. Like\nother creeds that of Peru had its secondary deity, the Sun, in whose\nhonor sacrifices were offered and festivals held, while no temples\nwere erected, and no sacrifices offered to Pachacamac, although the\nPeruvians adored him in their hearts and looked upon him as the unknown\nGod (C. R., b. 2, ch. iii).\n\nAncient religion presents similar facts. In his exhaustive work on\nSabaeism, Chwolsohn observes that the fundamental idea of that form of\nfaith was not, as is often supposed, astrolatry. To Shahrastani (the\nArabian scholar), and many others who followed him, Sabaeism expressed\nthe idea \"that God is too sublime and too great to occupy himself\nwith the immediate management of this world; that he has therefore\ntransferred the government thereof to the gods, and retained only the\nmost important affairs for himself; that further, man is too weak to\nbe able to apply immediately to the Highest; that he must therefore\naddress his prayers and sacrifices to the intermediate divinities, to\nwhom the management of the world has been intrusted by the Highest.\"\nFurther on, the author asks himself whether this conception was\npeculiar to the Harranian Sabaeans, and replies, \"Certainly not. This\nfundamental idea is tolerably old, and in later times found admission\nto some extent even among the strictly monotheistic Jews.... In the\nheathen world this view was universally shared by the cultivated\nclasses, at least in the first centuries of the Christian era\"\n(Ssabismus, vol. i. p. 725).\n\nIndian theology teems with the conception of a sublime but unknowable\ndeity far superior to the deities of popular adoration, who has no\nname and whose greatness cannot be adequately expressed in human\nlanguage. Indian philosophy loses itself in a sea of mystic terms when\nit endeavors to speak of this all-pervading and pre\u00ebminent Being. Take,\nfor example, the following from the Ch\u00e2ndogya Upanishad, one of the\ntreatises appended to the S\u00e2ma Veda. A father is instructing his son:\u2014\n\n\"'Dissolve this salt in water, and appear before me to-morrow morning.'\nHe did so. Unto him said (the father), 'My child, find out the\nsalt that you put in that water last night.' The salt, having been\ndissolved, could not be made out. (Unto Swetaketu said his father),\n'Child, do you taste a little from the top of that water.' (The child\ndid so. After a while the father inquired), 'How tastes it?' 'It is\nsaltish' (said Swetaketu).\" The same result followed with water taken\nfrom the middle and the bottom. \"'If so (throwing it away), wash your\nmouth and grieve not.' Verily he did so (and said to his father), 'The\nsalt that I put in the water exists for ever; (though I perceive it\nnot by my eyes it is felt by my tongue).' (Unto him) said (his father),\n'Verily, such is the case with the Truth, my child. Though you perceive\nit not, it nevertheless pervades this (body). That particle which is\nthe soul of all this is Truth; it is the Universal Soul. O Swetaketu,\nThou art that'\" (Ch. Up., ch. vi. sec. 13, p. 113).\n\nSimilar notions of an all-pervading and infinite Being are found in\nthe Bhagavat-G\u00edta, a theological episode inserted in the great epical\npoem known as the Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata. There Vishnu is not merely the ordinary\ngod Vishnu of Indian theology; but the universe itself is expressed as\nan incarnation of that deity who is seen in everything and himself is\neverything. \"I am the soul, O Arjuna,\" thus he addresses his mortal\npupil, \"which exists in the heart of all beings, and I am the beginning\nand the middle and also the end of existing things\" (Bh. G., ch. x. p.\n71).\n\nAgain, Vishnu thus describes himself in language which translated into\nordinary prose, would serve to convey the idea embodied in Mr. Herbert\nSpencer's Unknowable:\u2014\n\n\"Know that that brilliance which enters the sun and illumines the whole\nearth, and which is in the moon, and in fire, is of me. And I enter the\nground and support all living things by my vigor; and I nourish all\nherbs, becoming that moisture of which the peculiar property is taste.\nAnd becoming fire, I enter the body of the living, and being associated\nwith their inspiration and expiration, cause food of the four kinds to\ndigest. And I enter the heart of each one, and from me come memory,\nknowledge, and reason\" (Ib., ch. xv. p. 100).\n\nNor did the writers of the Veda and the commentaries thereupon omit to\nlook above the concrete forms of the mythological gods who people their\nPantheon to a more comprehensive and less comprehensible primordial\nSource. The gods were unfitted to serve as explanations of the origin\nof the universe by reason of the theory that they were not eternal,\nand that they came into existence subsequently to the creation of the\nworld. The writer of a hymn in the tenth book of the Rig-Veda asserted\nthat \"the One, which in the beginning breathed calmly, self-sustained,\nis developed by ... its own inherent heat, or by rigorous and intense\nabstraction.\" But this Rishi avowed himself unable to say anything of\ncreation, or even to know whether there was a creator. \"Even its ruler\nin the highest heaven may not be in possession of the great secret.\"\nExplaining this passage, a commentator, writing at a much later date,\nobserves that \"the last verse of the hymn declares that the ruler of\nthe universe knows, or that even he does not know, from what material\ncause this visible world arose, and whether that material cause exists\nin any definite form or not. That is to say, the declaration that 'he\nknows,' is made from the stand-point of that popular conception which\ndistinguishes between the ruler of the universe and the creatures\nover whom he rules; while the proposition that 'he does not know' is\nasserted on the ground of that highest principle which, transcending\nall popular conceptions, affirms the identity of all things with the\nsupreme Soul, which cannot see any other existence as distinct from\nitself\" (O. S. T., vol. v. pp. 363, 364).\n\nIn this sentence the commentator correctly points out the distinction\nbetween the Unknown Cause of philosophic thought and the gods of\npopular theology, the latter being limited, and having the universe\noutside of and objective to them, the former comprehending it within\nitself, and having nothing objective whatever. And he perceives\napparently that these are but different modes of conceiving the same\nUltimate Essence, dependent on the varying representative capacities of\nthose by whom they are employed.\n\nIn India, as elsewhere, this Ultimate Essence had no proper name.\nSometimes it is spoken of as \"That.\" Thus, in a passage quoted by\nDr. Muir from the Taittir\u012bya Br\u00e2hmana we find the following: \"This\n[universe] was not originally anything. There was neither heaven, nor\nearth, nor atmosphere. That being non-existent (asat) resolved 'Let\nme be.' That became fervent,\" and so forth. Hereupon the commentator\nstates that \"the Supreme Spirit was non-existent only in respect of\nname and form, but that nevertheless it was really existing (sat)\" (O.\nS. T., vol. v. p. 366).\n\nProf. Max M\u00fcller, in his essay on the Veda, has observed that after\nnaming the several powers of nature, and worshiping them as gods,\nthe ancient Hindu found that there was yet another power within him\nand around him for which he had no name. This he termed in the first\ninstance \"Brahman,\" force, will, wish. But when Brahman too had become\na person, he called the mysterious and impersonal power \"\u00e2tman,\"\noriginally meaning breath or spirit, subsequently Self. \"Atman remained\nalways free from myth and worship, differing in this from Brahman\n(neuter), who has his temples in India even now and is worshiped as\nBrahman (masculine), together with Vishnu and Siva and other popular\ngods\" (Chips, vol. i. pp. 70, 71). Distinguishing these two deities,\nfor the convenience of English readers, as Brahm, the neuter, and\nBrahma, the masculine God, it is to be observed that even the latter,\nwho holds in theology the function of Creator, is but little worshiped\nin India, and holds no conspicuous place in the popular mind. Thus\nWilson says, \"It is doubtful if Brahma was ever worshiped. Indications\nof local adoration of him at Pushkara, near Ajmir, are found in one\nPurana, the Brahma Purana, but in no other part of India is there the\nslightest vestige of his worship\" (W. W., vol. ii. p. 63). Elsewhere\nthe same most competent authority states \"it might be difficult to meet\nwith\" any Brahma-worshipers now; \"exclusive adorers of this deity,\nand temples dedicated to him, do not now occur perhaps in any part of\nIndia; at the same time it is an error to suppose that public homage is\nnever paid to him.\" Hereupon he mentions a few places where Brahma is\nparticularly reverenced. While, however, there may be discovered some\nfaint traces of the worship of Brahma the Creator, and first member of\nthe Hindu Trinity, there does not appear to be any worship whatever\nof the more impersonal and abstract Brahm. Brahm is related to Brahma\nmuch as the Absolute or the Unknowable of philosophy is related to\nthe God of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. In the conception of\nBrahm the idea of deity is pushed to the utmost limits of which human\nthought is capable, and we have a being whose very exaltation above the\nmythological personages who pass for gods among the people precludes\nhim from receiving the adoration of any but philosophic minds. When\ntherefore Professor Max M\u00fcller speaks of temples dedicated to Brahm I\npresume that he is speaking of the temples of Brahma, the corporeal\nform of this unembodied idea. For Brahm is stated to be \"immaterial,\ninvisible, unborn, uncreated, without beginning or end;\" to be\n\"inapprehensible by the understanding, at least until that is freed\nfrom the film of mortal blindness;\" to be devoid of attributes, or to\nhave only purity, and to be \"susceptible of no interest in the acts of\nman or the administration of the affairs of the universe.\" Conformably\nto these views, adds Wilson, \"no temples are erected, no prayers are\neven addressed to the Supreme\" (W. W., vol. ii. p. 91). Thus Brahma,\nthe God, is but little worshiped; Brahm, the infinite being, and\n\u00e2tman, spirit, are not worshiped at all. Now Brahma, the creative and\nformative power, corresponds to God the Father; while Brahm and \u00e2tman,\nespecially the latter, bear more resemblance to the Holy Ghost; a fact\nto be especially noted in reference to the comparison hereafter to be\nmade between the positions occupied by the more and the less spiritual\nmembers of the Christian Trinity.\n\nThus we have this singular neglect of the Supreme Divinity prevailing\namong ancient heathens, among modern Africans, among Hindus of all\nages, and among pre-Christian Mexicans and Peruvians. Do Judaism, and\nits offshoot, Christianity, offer no sign of a similar relegation of\nthe highest to an invisible background? I think they do. The evidence\nis not indeed quite so simple as in the other cases. But it is\ndeserving of remark that the ordinary name for God in Hebrew, Elohim,\nis plural, and must at one time have signified gods; while the word\nwhich is sometimes used alone, but more commonly in combination with\nit, is regarded as so sacred that the Jews in reading the Scriptures\nnever pronounce it, but substitute Adonai, my lord, in its place.\nOwing to this ancient custom the very sound of the word \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 has been\nabsolutely forgotten, and Jehovah, by which we commonly render it,\nhas been merely constructed by supplying the vowels from Adonai. Now\nthe existence of a most holy name, but rarely used, and then only\nwith great reverence, is a manifestation of religious feeling exactly\ncorresponding to that related by Reade concerning the African name\nNjambi. Suppose that with the progress of theological dogmas and\necclesiastical usages the use of the word Njambi should be entirely\ndropped, its pronunciation might then be entirely lost (if, as in\nHebrew, its vowel sounds were never written). And with the adoption\nof a monotheistic creed some name, now belonging to an idol, might be\nused as synonymous with Njambi. Now something of this kind may have\nhappened with the Hebrews. There can be little doubt that the Elohim\nwere originally gods accepted by the Hebrews as part of a polytheistic\nsystem. Deep in the minds of Hebrew thinkers lay the more abstract\nnotion of a single God, more powerful and more mysterious than the\nElohim. They called him Jahveh, or whatever else may have been the\nname expressed by \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4. But as the monotheistic view triumphed over\nthe polytheistic, the Elohim were adopted into the framework of the\nnew religion, and in a manner subordinated to Jahveh by a process of\nfusion. The name of Jahveh, which must once have been in common use,\nwas now treated as too holy to be ever uttered by mortal lips. The\nancient God who had stood at the head of the system of his party, was\nin a certain sense withdrawn from active life, but retained as the\nnominal occupant of supreme authority. Whether this account is probable\nor not, must be left to better judges to decide, but it tends at least\nto bring the history of the Jewish faith into harmony with that of\nother religions.\n\nMoreover, it is interesting to observe that a process extremely similar\nto that here imagined as occurring in the development of Judaism, was\nactually passed through by its younger rival. Christianity, arising\nin the midst of a people who had arrived at highly abstract views of\ndeity, proceeded at once to do what so many other creeds have done,\nto embody the conception of divine power in a concrete object. This\nconcrete object was in the Christian theology a man. And as generally\nhappens in these cases, the more abstract idea was overshadowed and to\nsome extent driven from the field by the more concrete. Christ occupies\na larger place both in authorized Christian worship and in the popular\nChristian imagination than does his Father. The creed no doubt treats\nthem both with equal reverence, as persons in a single God; but to\nunderstand what is truly felt and believed by the people, we must look\nnot to the letter of their creeds, but to their actual, and above all\ntheir unconscious practice. Doing this we find first an entire absence\nof any special festival in honor of the Father.[97] Look at the large\nplace occupied by the history of Jesus in ecclesiastical fast-days and\nfeast-days. We have the Annunciation, the Nativity, the forty days of\nLent, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, the Ascension, all referring\nto him. But we have quite forgotten to celebrate the creation of the\nhuman species, the expulsion from Eden, the deluge, the destruction\nof Sodom and Gomorrah, and other mighty works due to his Father. The\nweekly holiday, originally a memorial of his repose on the seventh day,\nhas indeed been retained from Judaism; yet even here its reference has\nbeen changed from the history of the first person to that of the second\nby its transfer from the last day of the week to the first. But this\nis not all. Didron remarks that in early works of art Jesus is made to\ntake the place of his Father in creation and in similar labors, just\nas in heathen religions an inferior divinity does the work under a\nsuperior one. Dishonorable and even ridiculous positions were assigned\nto God the Father. The more ancient artists were reluctant to paint the\nwhole of the First Person, just as Africans, Peruvians and Hebrews were\nreluctant to speak his name. A mere hand or an arm is held sufficient\nto represent him. But in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, God\nthe Father begins to manifest his figure; at first his bust only, and\nthen his whole person. In the fourteenth century we take part in the\nbirth and development of the figure of the eternal Father. At first\nequal to his Son in age and station, he begins in process of time to\nbecome slightly different, until, towards 1360, the notion of paternity\nis attached irrevocably to him; he is thenceforth uniformly older than\nhis Son, and assumes the first place in the Trinity. The middle age\nmay be divided (according to Didron) into two periods. In the first,\npreceding the fourteenth century, we have the Father in the image and\nsimilitude of the Son. In the second, after the thirteenth century\nuntil the sixteenth, Jesus Christ loses his iconographic distinctness,\nand is conquered by his Father. He in his turn puts on the likeness of\nthe Father, becoming old and wrinkled like him (Ic. Ch., p. 148-203).\nBasing his conclusions on these remarkable disclosures, Michelet,\nin his \"History of France,\" observes with considerable reason that\nfrom the first century until the twelfth God was not worshiped by\nChristians. Nay, even for fifteen centuries not a temple, not an altar\nwas erected to him. And when he did venture to appear beside his Son\nin Christian art, he remained neglected and solitary. Nobody made an\noffering to him, or caused a mass to be said in his honor (Michelet,\n\"Histoire de France,\" vol. vii. p. xlix).\n\nBut while the first Person of the Trinity has now obtained, especially\nin Protestant countries, a degree of recognition which he did not\nalways enjoy, there remains behind another Person, who is more\nabstract, more spiritual, more undefinable than either the Father or\nthe Son. Formally included in the liturgies of the Church, having an\noffice established in his honor, churches dedicated to his name, this\nmember of the Trinity has nevertheless been strangely neglected by\nall Christian nations. Nobody practically worships the Holy Ghost;\nnobody pays him especial attention; nobody appears to be much concerned\nabout his proceedings. Artists have treated him with a degree of\nindifference which they have never manifested towards Jesus Christ.\nNot only have they sometimes forgotten to include the Holy Ghost in\ntheir representations of the Godhead, but they have omitted him even\nfrom a scene where he had the best possible claim to figure, namely,\nthe reception of the Spirit by the apostles at the feast of Pentecost.\nElsewhere they have not completely left him out, but have placed him in\nan attitude of subordination and indignity, evincing but scant respect,\nas where an artist had depicted an angel as apparently restraining the\nimpetuosity of the dove by holding its tail in both his hands. While in\nthe Catacombs it was the Father who was suppressed, in the Trinities of\nthe twelfth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries it is the Holy Ghost\nwho is found to be missing. \"Thus,\" observes the Roman Catholic author\nto whom I am indebted for these facts, \"the Holy Ghost has sometimes\nhad reason to complain of the artists\" (Ic. Ch., p. 489-495).\n\nWere this Person, in fact, disposed to be punctilious, it is not only\nartists, mere reflectors of the general sentiment, but the whole\nChristian world of whom he would have reason to complain. So little\ndoes he occupy the ordinary thoughts of Christians, that Abailard\ngave the greatest offense by naming a monastery after him, and this\nprocedure of the great theologian remains, I believe, a solitary\nexample in ecclesiastical history of such an honor being paid to the\nParaclete. Yet surely he who bears the great office of the Comforter is\ndeserving of some more express recognition than he now receives! What\nis the cause of this universal oblivion? I suspect it is that which\nleads to the neglect by the Africans of their highest god, namely, his\nentire innocuousness. We saw that various tribes, while omitting to\nworship a benevolent deity, who will never do them any kind of harm,\naddress their prayers to a class of gods who are described by travelers\nas demons, or evil spirits, but whom they no doubt regard as mixtures\nof good qualities with bad; capable of propitiation by prayer, but\nresentful of irreverence. Now the Father and the Son correspond in some\ndegree to these inferior gods. Not that they are actively malevolent,\nbut they have certain characteristics of a terrifying order. God\nthe Father is throughout the Bible the author of chastisements and\nscourges. God the son, merciful though he be, yet intimates that he\nwill return to judge the world, and that he will disavow those who are\nnot truly his disciples, thus consigning them to the secular arm of\nGod the Father, who will condemn them to eternal punishment. But God\nthe Spirit has no share in these horrors. Whenever he appears upon\nthe scene, he is quiet, gentle, and inoffensive; and these qualities,\ncombined with the absence of the more definite personality possessed by\nhis colleagues, have effectually ensured his comparative insignificance\nin Christian worship and in Christian thought.\n\nWhile this has been the course of affairs in reference to the persons\nin the Trinity\u2014who, though dogmatically one, are popularly and\npractically three\u2014a simultaneous displacement of all its members by\nstill more comprehensible objects of worship has been going on. First\nin rank among these stands the Virgin Mary, so universally worshiped\nin Catholic countries. After her come the mass of saints, some of\ngeneral, some of local celebrity; but who, no doubt, receive, each\nfrom his or her particular devotees, a far larger share of devotional\nattention than the Father or the Son themselves. For they are requested\nto intercede with these more exalted potentates; and we naturally pay\nmore regard to our intercessors, show them more assiduous respect,\nfeel towards them more gratitude, than we do to those with whom they\nintercede, and who stand too far above us to be approached directly\nby us. Keightley, in his \"History of England,\" expresses himself as\nshocked by the far larger share of the offerings of the pious received\nat Canterbury by the altar of Thomas-\u00e0-Becket than was received by the\naltars of the Virgin and of the Son. The proportion is as follows:\u2014In\none year St. Thomas received \u00a3832, 12s. 3d.; the Virgin \u00a363, 5s. 6d.;\nChrist only \u00a33, 2s. 6d. Next year the martyr had \u00a3954, 6s. 3d.; Mary\n\u00a34, 1s. 8d.; and Christ nothing at all. This relation is perfectly\nnatural. Thomas-\u00e0-Becket was the local saint. He stood nearer to the\npeople, was more intelligible to their minds, than the Virgin Mary;\nand the latter, again, was more intelligible to them than Jesus\nChrist, whose mystic attributes she did not share. This fact does but\nillustrate the common tendency of mankind to neglect the worship of\nthe highest deity recognized in their formal creed, and to offer their\nprayers and their sacrifices to idols of lower pretensions and more\nhuman proportions.\n\nThat which, as the upshot of these speculations, we are chiefly\nconcerned to note, is that religion everywhere contains, as its most\nessential ingredient, the conception of an unknown power; which power,\nthus offered by religion to the adoration of mankind, becomes the\nobject of a double tendency: a tendency on the one hand to preserve it\nas a dim idea, represented to the mind under highly abstract forms; a\ntendency on the other hand, to bring it down to common comprehension\nby presenting it to the senses under concrete symbols. But under all\nimages, however material; under all embodiments, however gross; the\ncentral thought of a power hidden behind sensible phenomena, unknown\nand unknowable, still remains.\n\nSo far then as historical inquiry throws light upon the answer to the\nsecond question in the previous chapter, that answer will be in the\naffirmative. It renders it at least highly probable that the common\nelements of religion are, from their universal or all but universal\nprevalence, \"a necessary and therefore permanent portion of our mental\nfurniture.\" Nor is this conclusion invalidated by the hypothetical\nobjection that there are races without a religion at all. Granting\nthe fact, it admits of an explanation quite consistent with this view.\nFor the races which are destitute of the religious idea may be so, not\nbecause they are superior to it, and can do without it, but because\nthey are inferior to it, and have not yet perceived it. Thus, the\nsavage nations who cannot count beyond their fingers, prove nothing\nagainst the necessity of numerical relations. Even though they cannot\nadd their ten toes to their ten fingers, and thus make twenty, yet\nthe moment we perceive that ten plus ten equals twenty, we perceive\nalso that this relation is an absolute necessity, and it remains an\nunalterable fact in our intellectual treasury. No inability on the part\nof the savage to understand us can shake our conviction. Now the same\nthing may hold good of the ultimate elements of religious feeling.\nThese also, when once the conditions are realized in thought, may\nprove necessary beliefs. Whether they are so or not is a question for\nphilosophy. To the examination of that question we must now proceed.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nReligion, as the foregoing analysis has shown, puts forward as its\ncardinal truth the conception of a power which is neither perceptible\nby the senses nor definable by the intellect. For sensible perception\nrequires a material object and a material organ; and intellectual\ndefinition requires an object which can be compared with other objects\nthat are like it, discriminated from others that are unlike it, and\nclassified according to that likeness and that unlikeness. In either\ncase therefore the object must be a phenomenon having its place among\nphenomena, whether those of the sensible or those of the intelligible\nsphere. But if the power accepted by religion be neither perceptible\nnor definable, are we obliged to believe in the existence of so\nabstract an entity at all, or may we reject it as a figment of the\nhuman brain?\n\nPerhaps we shall best be able to discover whether such a belief\nis necessary or not by endeavoring to do without it, and to frame\na consistent conception of the universe from which it is entirely\nexcluded.\n\nThere are various ways in which such a conception might be attempted.\nWe may regard the world from the platform of Realism or from that of\nIdealism, and the nature of our Realism or of our Idealism may vary\nwith the special school of thought to which we may belong. Realism in\nthe first instance admits of two main subdivisions: into Common, or as\nMr. Spencer calls it, Crude Realism, and into Metaphysical Realism; and\nthese two forms of it require separate treatment.\n\nCommon Realism is the primitive opinion of uneducated and of\nunreflecting persons, and is in fact simply the absence of any genuine\nopinion at all. They, I imagine, regard the external objects by which\nthey are surrounded as so many actual entities, not only having an\nindependent existence of their own, but an existence like that which\nthey possess in our consciousness. Thus, an egg they would take to\nbe in reality a white, brittle, hard thing on the outside, having a\ncertain shape, size, and weight, and containing inside the shell a\nquantity of soft whitish and yellowish substance with a given taste.\nThese qualities, not excepting the taste, taken along with any other\nqualities that may be disclosed by more careful inquiry, they would\nconceive to constitute the whole of the egg. It is the same with other\nobjects. What we perceive by our senses is thought by them to be a copy\nof the real things as they exist in nature, much as the retina of the\neye, regarded from without, is seen to contain a copy in miniature of\nthe surrounding scene. Common Realism, however, while it tacitly takes\nfor granted an infinite number of separate entities, cannot account\neither for the origin of those entities or for their nature. Nor has\nit any account to give of the origin of life, for material things are\nin this system utterly destitute of life, and indeed opposed to it.\nThey are precisely what our senses inform us of, and nothing more.\nHence they furnish no answers to the questions: How did this world come\ninto being, and how did it reach its present shape? How do men come to\nexist in it; for matter contains no vitality and no power of infusing\nvitality into itself? Therefore it is that the adherents of Common\nRealism are invariably driven back upon a superior being, whom they\nterm a Creator, and who supplies the motive impulse which is wanting in\ntheir world.\n\nMetaphysical Realism professes to be the improvement of scholars upon\nthe unsifted notions of the vulgar. It is the system to which, in\nits earlier and cruder form, Berkeley a century ago gave what once\nappeared to be its death-blow, but what may perhaps turn out to have\nbeen a wound sufficiently severe to cause prolonged insensibility,\nbut not absolute extinction. It is not, however, with the purpose of\ncompleting the work of destruction, but of examining whether it affords\na possible escape from the necessity of the religious postulate, that\nI refer to it here. Metaphysical Realists perceived clearly enough\nthat the apparent qualities of sensible objects could not be the\nobjects themselves. Even if they did not recognize this with regard to\nall the apparent qualities, they did so with regard to those termed\n\"secondary,\" such as taste, smell, and color. Later representatives of\nthe school, such as Kant, extended the process by which this conclusion\nwas reached to all apparent qualities, whatsoever. Below the apparent\nqualities, however, these thinkers assumed a substance, \"_substantia_,\"\nin which they inhered, and by which they were bound together, so as\nto constitute the object. And this substance\u2014something unperceived\nunderlying the qualities perceived\u2014was their notion of matter. Observe\nnow the position we have arrived at. No sooner does Realism abandon the\nuntenable hypothesis that the qualities of the object are the object\nitself, than it is driven upon the assumption of an utterly unknowable\nand inconceivable entity; a matter which is not perceptible by any of\nour senses, which is below, or in addition to, phenomena concerning\nwhich we can predicate nothing, and whose relation to the qualities\nit is supposed to support we cannot understand. But the necessity of\nsome such assumption is the very assertion implied in all forms of\nreligious faith. Realism, then, does not escape the pressure of this\nnecessity, even though the entity it assumes is not precisely of the\nsame character.\n\nBut is the difference in its character one that tells in favor of this\nvariety of Realism, or in favor of religion? Assuredly substance,\nor matter, imagined as the bond between apparent qualities, is not\nan easier, simpler, or more intelligible conception than that of\na universal power as the origin, source, or objective side of all\nphysical phenomena. Granting even that the latter conception cannot\nbe represented to the mind, a representation of the former is equally\nimpossible. But does it explain the facts better? Let us see. In\nthe first place, we must demand an accurate definition of what this\nsupposed matter is. Is it passive, inanimate, incapable of independent\naction, and unable to develop out of itself the living creatures which\nin some way have come to exist? If so, we plainly require another\nentity in addition to matter, both to account for the active forces\nof our universe, and to originate the phenomenon of life. For if the\nqualities of body need a substratum, so also do those of mind. If it be\nheld that the power from which mind emanates be the same as that which\nis evinced in so-called physical forces, then we have two distinct, if\nnot independent, substances, beings, or whatever we may prefer to call\nthem: matter, pervading material objects in their statical condition,\nand force or life, pervading both consciousness and material objects in\ntheir dynamical condition. Or if the first be regarded as sufficient to\naccount for motion as well as matter, then we have still two powers,\none subsisting throughout the physical, the other throughout the mental\nworld. How are these two substances related to one another? Is the\nsubstance of mind supreme, governing its material colleague? or is\nthat of matter at the head of affairs, and that of mind subordinate?\nor are they equal and co\u00f6rdinate authorities, as in the Gnostic\nphilosophy? Suppose we endeavor to elude these difficulties by the\nassertion that there is nothing else but the unperceivable substratum\nsupporting material objects, and that in this all modes of existence\ntake their rise, we are met by further and still more troublesome\nquestions. For if, under the manifestations of this substance we\ninclude consciousness, then the distinction between matter and mind\nhas vanished, and in calling this substance matter we are simply\ngiving it an unmeaning name. In fact, it is a substance supporting\nnot only the qualities of bodies, but also the chemical, electric,\nmolar, molecular, and other forces throughout the universe, as well as\nsensation, thought, and emotion. Matter in short does everything which\ndeity can be required to do; it originates motion; it produces living\ncreatures; it feels; it thinks; it lives. Thus we have but stumbled\nupon God in an unexpected quarter. Suppose, however, that we take what\nis in this system the easier and more natural hypothesis of a substance\nof matter, a substance of mind, and a still more hidden power superior\nto both, and from which both are derived, then we have but abandoned\nthe perplexing questions raised by metaphysical Realism to take refuge\nin the religious position from which it seemed to offer a plausible\ndeliverance.\n\nDoes Idealism help us? Idealism is of several forms. That represented\nby Berkeley need not occupy us here, for Berkeley not only admitted,\nbut expressly asserted, the existence of an all-comprehending Power,\nand without this his philosophy would have appeared to himself\nunmeaning and incomprehensible. Nor need we stop to examine that more\nrecent species of Idealism, as I hold it to be, which its illustrious\nauthor, Mr. Herbert Spencer, has christened Transfigured Realism.\nWhatever differences may exist between Spencer and Berkeley\u2014and\nI believe them to be more apparent than real\u2014they are at one in\nthe cardinal doctrine that sensible phenomena are but the varied\nmanifestations of this ultimate Power. All such Idealism as this is\nin harmony with religion. But there are two forms which seem to be at\nvariance with it, one of which I will term Moderate, and the other\nExtreme Idealism.\n\nModerate Idealism agrees with Berkeley in dismissing to the limbo of\nextinct metaphysical creatures the substance supposed to lurk beneath\nthe apparent qualities of bodies. It holds that there is no such\nsubstance, and that these qualities, and therefore bodies themselves,\nexist only in consciousness. But it differs from Berkeley in omitting\nto provide any source whatever, external to ourselves, from which these\nbodies can be derived. Not only are they in their phenomenal aspect\nmere states of our own consciousness, but they have no other aspect\nthan the phenomenal one, and are in themselves nothing but phenomena.\nRather inconsistently, this school of Idealism does not push its\nreasoning to its natural results, but concedes to other human beings\nsomething more than a merely phenomenal existence. Nothing exists but\nstates of consciousness; but those peculiar states of my consciousness\nwhich I term men and women may be shown, by careful reasoning, to\npossess (in all probability) an existence of their own, even apart from\nmy seeing, hearing, or feeling them. The process by which we reach this\nconclusion \"is exactly parallel to that by which Newton proved that\nthe force which keeps the planets in their orbits is identical with\nthat by which an apple falls to the ground.\"[98]\n\nThose peculiar modifications of color, and that special mode of\nfilling up empty space which I term \"my friend,\" do indeed seem, if\nwe push matters to an extreme, to come into existence only when he\nenters my room, and to cease to exist the moment he quits it. If he\nhas any further vitality, it is only in the shape of that state of\nconsciousness which is known as recollection. But Moderate Idealism\nescapes from this consequence, on the ground that modifications of\nbody and outward actions, since they are connected with feelings in\nourselves, must be connected with feelings also in the case of those\nother phenomena which we term human beings, and perhaps in the case of\nthose we term animals.[99] But if this be so, how did so extraordinary\na fact as that of consciousness arise? _Ex hypothesi_, there was\nnothing before it. Did it then suddenly spring into being, full-grown\nlike Minerva, but, unlike Minerva, with no head of Jupiter to spring\nfrom? Or was it a gradual growth, and if so, from what origin? Go back\nas far as you will, you can find nothing but consciousness, and that\nthe consciousness of limited beings (either men or animals); and it\nis no less difficult to conceive the beginning, from nothing at all,\nof the least atom of conscious life, than to conceive that of the\nprofoundest philosopher. Observe, there is no world of any kind, and\nin this no-world (the contradiction is unavoidable) there suddenly\narises, from no antecedent, a consciousness of external objects which\nare no-objects. Geology upon this theory is a myth; so is that branch\nof astronomy which treats of the formation of our planetary system\nfrom nebular matter. Stars, suns, planets, and crust of the earth\nonly arose when they were perceived, and will cease to be when there\nis no living creature to perceive them any longer. Since, however,\nconclusions like these are in reality unthinkable, whatever efforts\nmetaphysicians may make to think them, Moderate Idealism must of\nnecessity complete its fabric by the admission of a Power from which\nboth consciousness and the objects of consciousness have taken their\nrise. Should it persist in denying anything but a mental reality to\nthe objects of consciousness, it must still suppose an unknown source\nfrom which consciousness itself has been derived; otherwise it will\nentangle itself in two unthinkable propositions. First, that before\nmen (or animals) existed there was absolute nothingness, an idea which\nwe cannot frame; secondly, that where there was nothing at one moment\nthere was the next moment something, a process which we _cannot_\nrealize without supposing a time antecedent to that something, and\nwhich we _may not_, without the contradiction of introducing time in\nthe midst of nothingness, realize by supposing a time antecedent to\nthat something.\n\nIt was no doubt the vague feeling of these perplexities that forced\nJohn Stuart Mill, the most eminent defender of this school of thought,\nto denominate matter a Permanent Possibility of Sensation. This\nsingular phrase well exemplifies the difficulties of his position.\nFor is matter an external substance, existing independently, or not?\nIf it is, then what becomes of the Berkeleyan doctrine? Mill and his\nfollowers are simply metaphysical Realists. But if not, what becomes of\nthe permanence? It is not in us, for our sensations are not permanent;\nit is not in the matter, for there is none. And what is there a\npossibility of? Causing sensation, or having it? Not the former, for\nthere is nothing to cause it; not the latter, for the possibility of\nour having sensations is a mere fact of our nature, and cannot serve\nto define matter. And where is the sensation located? The phraseology\nwould seem to imply, that matter is in the permanent condition of\npossible feeling; just as the nerve may be in the permanent condition\nof possible excitation. But this would be placing sensation in the\nwrong quarter. And if sensation be in us, we have not a permanent\npossibility, but a permanent actuality of sensation. So that unless\nthe words be construed to mean that there is outside of us a permanent\nsomething which excites sensation, of which the modes vary (for this is\nthe sense of possibility), they have no assignable meaning whatever.\nMill, in fact, had been compelled, without wishing it, to recognize an\nultimate power in nature; and his perception of this truth conflicted\nstrangely, in his candid mind, with his idealistic prepossessions.\n\nA more consistent and rigorous form of Idealism is that which has been\nreferred to as the strict consequence of Moderate Idealism. This form,\nwhich I will term Extreme Idealism, denies the existence of persons as\nwell as things. The Extreme Idealist believes himself to be the only\nbeing in the universe. There is to him no period preceding his own\nexistence; none succeeding it. Past and future, except in his own life,\nhave no meaning for him. We cannot reason with him, for all we may say\nis only a transient mode of his own sensations. Obviously, to such a\nphilosophy there is no reply but one: it is simply unthinkable. Were\nany one seriously to defend it, the very seriousness of his defense\nwould prove that he did not believe it. For against what or whom would\nhe be contending? Against a phantom of his own mind. And the more pains\nhe took to prove to us that he believed us to have no existence but as\na part of himself, the less credit should we attach to his assertions.\n\nPhilosophy, therefore, is under a logical compulsion to make the same\nfundamental assumption as Religion\u2014that of an ultimate, unknown, and\nall-pervading Power Origin, or Cause. Science, in a variety of ways,\ndoes the same. It does so, first, in its belief of a past and a future\nin the history of the solar system far transcending the past and\nfuture of humanity, or indeed of any form of life whatever. Passing\nat a glance over our brief abode on the face of the earth, Geology\npushes its researches back into a time preceding by innumerable ages\nthe existence of mankind, while her elder sister Astronomy carries her\nvision to a still remoter age, when even the planet we now inhabit was\nbut a fragment in one indistinguishable mass. But it is not only these\ntwo sciences that assume the continuance of nature quite independently\nof our presence or absence; every other science does the like. The\nbotanist, the chemist, the physicist, all believe that the facts they\nassert are facts in an external nature, the relations of which as now\ndiscovered by their several sciences held good before man existed, and\nwill hold good after he has ceased to exist. But to say this, is to\nsay in effect that there is something more than the mere phenomena\ndisclosed by investigation; namely, an external reality persisting\nthrough all time in which the varied series of phenomena take their\nrise.\n\nMore clearly still does Science assert some such reality in its great\nmodern doctrine of the Persistence of Force. Not that this doctrine is\nentirely new; for regarded in its metaphysical rather than its physical\naspect it is but an expression in the language of the day of a truth\nwhich has long been realized as a necessity of thought. It is the\nconverse of the ancient axiom, \"_Nihil ex nihilo fit_,\" for if nothing\ncan be made from nothing, neither can something pass into nothing. The\nPersistence of Force is an expression of the fact that every cause\nmust have an adequate effect; that in nature nothing can be lost, no\nparticle of force pass into nonentity. Concentrated forces may be\ndissipated, and dissipated forces may be concentrated; or one variety\nof force may pass into another. But the ultimate fund of force remains\never unchangeable; nothing is ever created, nothing destroyed.\n\nObserve, then, that Science, however cautiously it may keep within\nthe range of the material world, however eagerly it may repudiate all\ninvestigation of ultimate causes as fruitless and unprofitable, cannot\ntake one single step towards proving the propositions it advances\nwithout tacitly laying down an ontological entity as the basis of\nits demonstration. For to speak of its discoveries as laws of nature\nis simply to predicate a constant, unvarying force, which under like\nconditions always produces like results. And to declare the uniformity\nof nature, is merely to say that the methods of that force do not\nchange\u2014that it is the same now as it ever was, and will be the same\nthroughout the eternal ages.\n\n\"Thus,\" writes Mr. Herbert Spencer, \"by the Persistence of Force,\nwe really mean the persistence of some Power which transcends our\nknowledge and conception. The manifestations, as occurring in ourselves\nor outside of us, do not persist; but that which persists is the\nUnknown Cause of these manifestations. In other words, asserting the\nPersistence of Force, is but another mode of asserting an Unconditional\nReality, without beginning or end\" (Spencer's \"First Principles,\" \u00a7 60,\np. 189).\n\nPhilosophy, or Reasoned Thought, and Science, or Reasoned Observation,\nhave both led us to admit, as a fundamental principle, the necessary\nexistence of an unknown, inconceivable, and omnipresent Power, whose\noperations are ever in progress before our eyes, but whose nature is,\nand can never cease to be, an impenetrable mystery. And this is the\ncardinal truth of all religion. From all sides then, by every mode of\ncontemplation, we are forced upon the same irresistible conclusion. The\nfinal question still remains, Is this ultimate element of all religion\n\"the correlative of any actual truth or not?\"\n\nBut for the prevalence, in recent times, of a philosophy which denies\nall connection between the necessity of a belief and its truth, I\nshould have regarded such a question as scarcely worth the answering.\nTo say that a belief is necessary and to say that it is true, would\nappear to all, but adherents of the extreme experiential school, one\nand the same thing. But in the present day this cannot be taken for\ngranted, and I should be the last to complain that even that which\nseems most obvious should be tested by adverse criticism.\n\nIngenious, however, as their arguments are, philosophers of this\nschool, when driven to reason out their views, cut their own throats.\nThey commit a logical suicide. For what is the test of truth they\nhold up to us in lieu of necessity? Experience. But what in the last\nresort does our belief in experience rest upon? Simply upon a mental\nnecessity. Nobody can tell us _why_ he believes that the laws of nature\nwill hold good to-morrow as they do to-day. He can indeed tell us that\nhe has always found them constant before, and therefore expects them\nto remain so. But this is merely to state the belief, not to justify\nit. Experience itself cannot be appealed to, to support our confidence\nin experience. True, we habitually say that we believe such and such\nresults will follow such and such antecedents _because_ we have always\nfound them follow before. But our past experience is not the whole of\nthe fact involved in the belief. It is our past experience, conjoined\nwith the mental necessity of thinking that the future will resemble the\npast, that forms the convictions on which we act. Experience alone,\nwithout that mental necessity, could teach us nothing. If therefore\nour necessary beliefs need not be true, the belief in experience falls\nto the ground along with the rest, and experience cannot be put in\nplace of necessity as a test of truth. In fact, every argument drawn\nfrom the past fallibility of the test of necessity might be retorted\nwith tenfold force against the test of experience. Observation has\nconstantly misled mankind, and thousands of alleged facts, accepted\nupon imagined experience, have been disproved by more accurate\nexamination. Observation and reasoning combined (as they often are) are\nexposed to the double danger of false premises and false inferences\nfrom true premises; while the addition of an element of testimony (a\ncircumstance common in scientific inquiries) exposes every conclusion\nto a threefold possibility of error. Human beings are no more exempt\nfrom the possibility of mistaken science than from that of hasty\nmetaphysics. But as, in matters of physical research, we do not\ndiscredit the use of our eyes because their perceptions are sometimes\ninaccurate, so in matters of metaphysical inquiry we need not discredit\nthe use of our minds because their apparent intuitions are now and then\nfallacious. In the one case, as in the other, the proper course is not\nto cast contempt upon the only instruments of discovery we have, but to\napply those instruments again and again, omitting no precaution that\nmay serve to correct an observation and to test an argument. But when\nwe have done our utmost to attain whatever certainty the nature of the\nsubject permits, we cannot reasonably turn round upon ourselves and\nsay: \"True, my eyes assure me of this fact, but human eyes have erred\nso often that I cannot accept their verdict;\" or, \"No doubt my mind\nforces this conclusion upon me as a necessity of thought, but so many\nassumed necessities have turned out not to be necessary at all that I\nmust refuse to listen to my mind:\" for this is not really the caution\nof science, but the rashness of philosophic theory. For we can have no\nhigher conviction than that arising in a necessity of thought. Nothing\ncan surpass the certainty of this. Grant that we may yet be wrong: we\ncan never know it, and we can have no reason to think it. To oppose to\na necessary belief such a train of reasoning as this:\n\n Necessary beliefs (so-called) have often proved false:\n\n This is a necessary belief (so-called):\n\n Therefore it may prove false,\n\nis in reality to seek to overthrow a strong conviction by a weak one;\nan intuition by a syllogism; a proposition felt immediately to be true\nby an inference open to discussion. Arguments like this resemble the\nprocedure of a man who should tell us, when we meet a friend, that\nwe cannot possibly be sure of his identity because on some previous\noccasion in our lives we mistook Jones for Thompson.\n\nExaggerated as this doctrine of the experiential school is thus seen\nto be, yet it has done good service by putting thinkers on their\nguard, not to accept as necessary and ultimate some beliefs which are\nonly contingent and dissoluble. Two conditions must be fulfilled in\norder to effect a presumption of necessity. The belief must always\narise under certain conditions; that is, it must be universal in the\nonly sense in which that term can fitly be applied. Having arisen, it\nmust be incapable of expulsion from the mind; its terms must adhere\ntogether so firmly that they cannot be parted by adverse criticism,\neither our own or that of others. Both these conditions are fulfilled\nby the fundamental postulate of religion. Given the appropriate\nconditions\u2014human beings raised even a little above the lowest\nsavagery\u2014and it at once takes possession of their minds. After this, it\npersists in spite of every attempt to do without it, and the highest\nphilosophy is compelled to give it the place of honor in the forefront\nof its teaching.\n\nObserve now, that what this philosophy accepts and incorporates into\nits system is religion and not theology. These two must be broadly\ndistinguished from one another. Religion might be described as the soul\nof which theology is the body. Religion is an abstract, indefinable,\npervading sentiment; theology a concrete, well-defined, limited\ncreed. The one is emotional; the other intellectual. The one is a\nconstant element of our nature; the other fluctuates from generation\nto generation, and varies from place to place. Theology seeks to\nbind down religion with immovable forms. Against these forms there\nis constantly arising both an intellectual and an emotional protest.\nThe intellect objects to them as untrue in the name of science (in\nthe largest sense); the emotions struggle against them as cramping\ntheir freedom in the name of religion itself. Thus between the human\nmind and dogma, between the religious sentiment and dogma, there is\ngoing on a perpetual warfare. Religious sentiment is no sooner born\nthan the tendency to limit and to define makes itself felt. It is\nconfined within a set of dogmas, and forbidden under every species of\npains and penalties to pass over its allotted bounds. Sooner or later,\nreligious sentiment bursts through every restriction; seems for a\nmoment to breathe the invigorating air of freedom, but falls again into\nthe hands of new theologians, with another framework of dogmas; to be\nagain broken through in its turn when its fettering influence can be no\nlonger borne. In carrying on this continually renovated contest\u2014which\nis seen in its highest activity in great religious reformations\u2014the\nreligious sentiment seeks the alliance of intellect, which latter\nsupplies it with deadly weapons drawn from the armories of science,\nlogic, and historical research. Thus the overthrow of theology is in\ngreat part an intellectual work. But it must not be forgotten that\nthe very deepest hostility to theological systems is inspired by the\nvery emotion to which these systems seek to give a formal and definite\nexpression.\n\nThe historical progress of religion is thus in some degree a\ncounterpart of the progress described by Heine (in the lines heading\nthis Book) as that of his individual mind. First of all there arises\nin the mind of man, so soon as he begins to speculate on the world in\nwhich he lives, the idea of a Creator. He cannot conceive the existence\nof the material objects with which he is familiar without conceiving\nalso some being more powerful than himself who has made them what they\nare. His notions of creation may be, no doubt often are, extremely\nlimited. He may confine the operations of his God to that small portion\nof the universe with which he is most familiar. But that the idea of\nan invisible yet pre\u00ebminent deity arises very early in the mental\ndevelopment of the human race, and remains brooding dimly above the\npopular idolatry, has been abundantly shown. This is the belief in God\nthe Father. The second stage, so closely interwoven with the first as\nto be inseparable from it in actual history, is the incarnation of this\nidea. The supreme Creator is too lofty, too abstract, too great, to\nbe held steadily before the mind and worshiped in his unclouded glory.\nThe children of Israel cannot bear the immediate presence of Jehovah,\nnor can even Moses meet the brightness of his face. Hence the material\nshapes in which the objects of adoration are embodied. When divine\nattributes are given to idols; when a golden calf is taken instead of\nthe invisible God; when the Father is said to assume the form of a man\nto live a human life, and die a human death, when apostles, saints, and\nvirgins are addressed in prayer or celebrated in praise, an incarnation\nhas occurred. In the language of the traditions we have quoted, the\nsupreme God has gone away and left the government of the world to his\ninferiors. Practically, such incarnations belong to the earliest period\nof religion, and no popular creed has ever been entirely without them.\nNo sooner is the religious idea conceived in the mind, than it begins\nto be clothed in flesh and bones. But in the order of thought these two\nstages are separable. For idols are not worshiped until the notion of\nsome power which is not human, of which the nature is not understood,\nhas arisen in the worshipers. Then a concrete expression is desired,\nand we have in poetical language the belief in God the Son.\n\nLast of all comes the belief\u2014more properly an emotion than a belief\u2014in\nthe Holy Spirit. With this step a far higher grade of religious\nsentiment is reached. For God is now conceived, not only as creating\nor as governing the world without, but as entering into the mind of\nman to inspire his actions and influence his heart. A relation which\nup to this point was merely external\u2014like that of the Creator to the\ncreated, or of superior to inferior\u2014is rendered internal and intimate.\nThe Holy Spirit not only speaks _to_ our souls, but it speaks in them\nand through them. We receive, not the arbitrary command of an almighty\npotentate, but the inspiring force of a being who, while raising us\nabove ourselves, is still a part, the best part, of ourselves. This\nindeed, in the deep imagination of the poet, makes all men noble.\n\nYet not in such a creed as this, sublime as it is in comparison\nwith those that have gone before it, is the final resting-place of\nreligious feeling. For every word or phrase in which we endeavor to\ngive form to that feeling tends to lower and to corrupt it by the\nadmixture of elements which are foreign to its genuine nature. To\nclothe this sentiment in language is itself an incarnation. For whether\nwe speak of a Force, a Power, or a Spirit, of an ultimate Cause, or\nan all-pervading Essence; of the Absolute, or of the Reality beyond\nphenomena, these terms are but symbols of the Supreme, not the Supreme\nitself.\n\n    \"Name ist Schall und Rauch\n    Umnebelnd Himmelsgluth.\"\n\nAll that we can say is, that while we _know_ nothing but that which\neither our senses perceive, or our minds understand, we _feel_ that\nthere is something more. Both the world without and the world within,\nboth that which is perceived and that which perceives, require an\norigin beyond themselves. Both compel us to look, as their common\nsource, to a Being alike unknown and unknowable, whose nature is\nshrouded in a mystery no eye can pierce, and no intellect can fathom.\n\nThis is the great truth which religion has presented to philosophy,\nand which philosophy, if she be truly (as her name implies) the love\nof wisdom, will not disdain to incorporate with the more recently\ndiscovered treasures belonging to her peculiar sphere. For it is not\nthe part of wisdom to spurn as worthless even the childish lispings\nprompted by the profound idea that has inspired the faith of men, from\nthat of the far past to that of the present hour, from that of the\nrudest African to that of the most enlightened European. Rather is\nit the part of wisdom to excavate that idea from amidst the strange\nincrustations under which it is hidden, to understand its significance,\nand to recognize its value. Thus may we assign to it a fitting place\nwithin the limits of a system which does equal honor, and accords equal\nrights, to the scientific faculty and to the emotional instinct.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER IX.\n\n                        THE SUBJECTIVE ELEMENT.\n\n\nWhen speaking of the fundamental postulates involved in the religious\nidea, we pointed out that, besides the unknown cause of physical\nphenomena, \"every religion assumes also that there is in human nature\nsomething equally hyperphysical with the object which it worships,\nwhether we call this something soul, or mind, or spirit.\" Let us call\nit soul. And first let us examine what it is that religion says of the\nsoul, after which we may be in a position to consider what degree of\ntruth, if any, is involved in its assertions.\n\nNow the great fact which presents itself to our notice in this inquiry\nis the broad line of demarcation which religion has everywhere drawn\nbetween the mental and corporeal functions of man, or in other words,\nbetween his soul and his body. Generally, it expresses this grand\ndistinction by the assertion that the soul continues to live after the\nbody is dissolved. This doctrine is very ancient and very wide-spread.\nA few illustrations of its prevalence are all that can be given\nhere.[100]\n\nThe rude people of Kamtschatka, who had so little notion of a\nprovidence, believed in a subterranean life after death. The soul they\nthought was immortal, and the body would at some time rejoin it, when\nthe two would live on together, much as they do here but under happier\nconditions. Their place of abode was to be under the earth, where there\nwas another earth resembling ours. Some of them objected to being\nbaptized, because they would then be compelled to meet their enemies\nthe Russians, instead of living among their own people under ground.\nAnimals too were all of them to live again (Kamtschatka, p. 269-273).\nThe Tartars, when visited by Carpin, had some notion that after death\nthey would enjoy another life where they would perform the same actions\nas in this (Bergeron, vol. i. art. 3, p. 32). \"The most intelligent\nGreenlanders,\" writes a traveler among that people, \"assert that the\nsoul is a spiritual being quite different from the body and from all\nmatter, that requires no material nourishment, and while the body is\ndecaying in the ground, lives after death and needs a nourishment that\nis not corporeal, but which they do not know\" (H. G., p. 242). The\nAmerican Indians firmly believed in the immortality of the soul. They\nthought it would keep the same tendencies after death as the living man\nhad evinced; hence their custom\u2014one that is widely spread\u2014of burying\nthe property of the dead along with the body. The souls were obliged\nafter death to take a long journey, at the end of which they arrived\nat their appropriate places of suffering and enjoyment. The Paradise\nof virtuous Indians consisted in the very definite pleasures of good\nhunting and fishing, eternal spring, abundance of everything with\nno work, and all the satisfactions of the senses (N. F., tome 3, p.\n351-353). The Kafirs, as we have already seen, worship their ancestors,\nwhose \"Amadhlozi,\" or spirits, they believe to continue in existence\nafter death. What they mean by Amadhlozi they explain with tolerable\nclearness by saying that they are identical with the shadow. These\nspirits are the true objects of a Kafir's worship, being supposed to\npossess great power over the affairs of their descendants and relatives\nfor weal or woe. They are believed to reappear in the form of a certain\nspecies of harmless snakes, and should a man observe such a snake on\nthe grave of his deceased relation, he will say, \"Oh, I have seen him\nto-day basking on the top of the grave\" (R. S. A., pt. 2, p. 142.\u2014K.\nN., pp. 161,162). Similar reverence for the dead is shown in other\nparts of Africa. In his lecture on the Ashantees, Mr. Reade says that,\n\"on the death of a member of the household he is sometimes buried under\nthe floor of the hut, in the belief that his spirit may occasionally\njoin in the circle of the living. Food also is placed upon the grave,\nfor they think that as the body of man contains an indwelling spirit,\nso there exists in the corruptible food an immaterial essence on which\nthe ghost of the departed will feed.\"\n\nTo come to races standing higher in the scale of civilization: the\nPeruvians had definite notions of a future state, with an upper world\nin which the good lived a quiet life, free from trouble, and a lower\nworld in which the bad were punished by suffering all the miseries\nand troubles of this terrestrial condition without intermission (C.\nR., b. 2, ch. vii). In China the utmost respect is paid to deceased\nprogenitors, who are the objects of a regular _cultus_. India has\nhad from early ages its highly-developed and subtle notions of the\ndistinction of spirit from body, and the former is held to prolong its\nexistence after its separation from the latter, both as disembodied in\nheavens or hells, and embodied in animals or other men. Some schools\nbelieved in the immortality of the soul; others asserted that its final\ndestination was extinction. Buddhism ranged itself with the latter\nopinion, while still maintaining the doctrine of metempsychosis, and\nof rewards and punishments both in this world and in numerous others\nto which spirits went in the course of their wanderings. Parsee souls\nhover about the grave a few days; then proceed upon a long journey. At\nits conclusion they pass over a narrow bridge, which the good traverse\nin safety to enter Paradise, while the bad fall over it and go into\nhell. In the Mussulman faith there are likewise but two destinies open\nto man\u2014eternal happiness and eternal suffering. Among the Jews in the\ntime of Christ two doctrines prevailed. Their ancient religion, while\naware of the distinction between the spirit and the body, left the\ncontinued life of the former an open question. Hence the Pharisees\nasserted, while the Sadducees denied, a future state. Christ was in\nthis respect a Pharisee of the Pharisees. He, however, like Mahomet,\nprovided only two abodes for the souls of men; one in heaven with\nhis Father, the other in hell, where the fire was never quenched. It\nwas felt, however, by the general Christian world that this sharp\nseparation of all mankind into black and white, goats and sheep, was\nquite untenable. Hence the Catholic institution of Purgatory, which,\nwhatever may be said against it, is a wise and liberal modification\nof the harsh doctrine of Christ, affording a resource for the vast\nintermediate mass who are neither wholly virtuous nor wholly wicked,\nand providing an agreeable exercise for that natural piety which\nprompts us to mingle the names of departed friends in our devotions,\nwhether (as in Africa) to pray to them, or (as in Europe) to pray for\nthem.\n\nFrom this brief review of the opinions of various races, it will be\nevident that some conception of a spirit in man as distinguished from\nhis body prevails and always has prevailed throughout the world. The\nspecial characteristic of this spiritual essence has always been held\nto be its immateriality. All religions conceive it as distinct from\nthe body, most of them evincing this view by treating it as capable of\nindependent existence. Many of them no doubt invest the spirit after\ndeath with a material form, but this is the clothing of the idea, not\nthe idea itself. The form is received after the spirit has left its\nterrestrial body, and does not originally belong to it; as in the case\nof the serpents in South Africa, in which ancestral souls are thought\nto dwell. This immaterial nature is clearly expressed\u2014so far as such\nan abstract idea can find clear expression from a rude people\u2014by those\nKafirs who compare the soul to a shadow. Nothing in the external world\nseems to have so purely subjective a character as shadows; things which\ncannot be felt or handled, and which appear to have no independent\nsubstance.\n\nImmateriality then is universally asserted (or attempted to be\nasserted) of the soul. This is of the very essence of the idea. No\nrace believes that any portion of the body, or the body as a whole,\nis the same thing as mind or spirit. But immortality is not equally\ninvolved in the idea or inseparable from it. Notably the Buddhistic\ncreed\u2014held by a considerable fraction of mankind\u2014teaches its votaries\nto look forward to utter extinction as the _summum bonum_. True, the\nmasses of average believers may not dwell upon the hope of Nirv\u00e2na,\nbut upon that of heaven.[101] But the authorized dogma of the Church\nis, that \"not enjoyment and not sorrow is our destined end\" or goal,\nbut the absolute rest, if so it may be called, of ceasing to exist.\nAnd that this dogma was fervently accepted and thoroughly believed in\nas a genuine \"gospel,\" the early literature of Buddhism amply proves.\nThe Jews, a most religious people, had no settled hope of immortality\nprovided by their creed, though the account of the creation of Adam\nshows how clearly they distinguished mind from matter. Warburton indeed\ninfers the authenticity of the Hebrew Revelation from the very fact of\nthe absence of the doctrine of immortality; for no author of a popular\nreligion, except God himself, could have afforded to dispense with so\nimportant an article. The more defective Judaism was, the more clearly\nit was divine. Nor were the classical nations of Greece and Rome at all\nmore certain. With them also opinions differed\u2014some, like Plato and his\nfollowers, asserting the immortality of the soul; others, like Epicurus\nand his school, denying it. Cicero discusses it as an open question,\nthough himself holding to the belief in future existence. His two\npossible alternatives are continued life in a condition of happiness,\nor utter cessation of life; either of which he accepts with equal\ncalmness. The fear of hell did not torment him: \"post mortem quidem\nsensus aut optandus aut nullus est\" (Cato Major, xx. 74). Even if we\nare not to be immortal, as he hopes, nevertheless it is a happy thing\nfor man to be extinguished at the fitting season (Ibid., xxiii. 86).\nLess philosophical people, however, were troubled, like Christians,\nwith the notion of a future world of punishment; and Lucretius\naddresses himself with all the ardor of a man proclaiming a beneficent\ngospel to the dissipation of this popular delusion:\u2014\n\n    \"Nil igitur mors est, ad nos neque pertinet hilum,\n    Quandoquidem natura animi mortalis habetur.\"[102]\n\nLike other thinkers of his time, he distinguishes between the _animus_\nand _anima_\u2014spirit and soul, and this threefold division of the nature\nof man subsisted for a time in the language and ideas of Christians.\nBut the essential point is that, whatever further subdivisions may have\nbeen made, all schools, ancient and modern, pagan and Christian, agreed\nin the fundamental distinction between the spiritual principle and the\nmaterial instruments; between mind and matter, or soul and body.\n\nSuch, then, is the universal voice of the religious instinct. Let us\ntest the truth of this second postulate as we did that of the first: by\nendeavoring to do without it. Then we have matter and motion of matter;\nand the problem is:\u2014Given these elements to find the resultant, mind.\nMotion is merely change of matter from place to place; therefore the\nquestion is, whether in any kind of matter and any changes of matter\nwe can discover mind. Consider the material world statically. As known\nto science (and we have no right to go beyond scientific observation\nnow), it contains certain properties perceptible to the senses, such\nas color, sound, taste, and smell, roughness, smoothness, and other\ntangible qualities, with extension and resistance, discoverable by\nthe muscular sense and touch combined. Any further properties which\na deeper analysis may disclose will still belong to the domain of\nsensible perception, the senses being the instruments employed in their\ndiscovery. In which of these statical conditions of matter can mind be\nshown to be involved? Or what combination of statical conditions can\nproduce mind as a part of the compound? Plainly any attempt to discover\nit in matter at rest would be an absurdity. Now consider the world\ndynamically. Here we have matter in motion, matter as the recipient\nand the transmitter of certain qualities of force. The mode of motion\nmay be either molar (that of masses through space), or molecular\n(that of particles within a mass). In either case it is nothing but a\nchange of position relatively to other objects. Now, how can change of\nposition either be mind, or result in mind? Take the case of a planet\nwhirling through space. Does this molar motion, considered in any\nconceivable light, bring us one step nearer to mental phenomena? But\nall molar motion is of the same kind, and however completely analyzed,\ncan lead to nothing but matter changing its position in space. Is\nmolecular motion in better case? When light is transmitted to the\neye, the vibrations of the atmosphere, which form the objective side\nof this phenomenon, arriving at the optic nerve, cause corresponding\nvibrations in it, and these transmitted to the brain result in certain\nmovements in its component particles. Which of all these vibrations and\nmovements is sensation? At what point does the physical fact of changes\nin molecules of matter pass into the mental fact of changes in the\nquantity or quality of the light perceived? Evidently no such point\nof transition can be found. And not only can it not be found, but the\nbare hypothesis of its existence is negatived by the fact that every\nphysical movement produces an exactly equivalent amount of physical\nmovement; so that there is nothing whatever in the resultant which is\nnot accounted for in the antecedents, and nothing in the antecedents\nwhich has not its full effect in the resultant. There is thus no room\nleft for the passage of the objective fact of molecular motion into the\nsubjective fact of feeling.\n\nAlthough these considerations practically exhaust the question, yet\nanother aspect of it may, for the sake of greater clearness, be briefly\ntouched upon. If the doctrine of abiogenesis be accepted, it may be\nthought to afford some confirmation to the materialistic hypothesis\nthat mind is but a function or property of matter. Do we not here\nsee (it may be asked) life and sensation arising out of non-sentient\nmaterials? And if a single living creature can thus arise, then, by\nthe doctrine of evolution, all mind whatever is affiliated on matter.\nSuch a conclusion, however, would be quite unwarranted by the facts\nobserved. In abiogenesis unorganic matter is seen to pass into organic\nmatter, and this is the whole of the process known to science. To\nassume that at some period in this process the material constituents\nof the newly-formed creature acquire the property of sensation is, to\nsay the least, a very unscientific proceeding. For, throughout all\ntheir permutations, the component elements can (or could with improved\ninstruments) be exactly observed, measured, and weighed; enabling us to\nsay that so and so much, such and such of the inorganic elements has\nbecome so and so much, such and such of the organic compound. Now the\nfactors of this compound do not (_ex hypothesi_) contain sensation.\nHow, then, did the compound acquire it? Where is your warrant for\nsuddenly introducing a consequent sensation\u2014for which you have no\nassignable antecedent?\n\nThus it is evident that between mind and matter, between spirit and\nbody, between internal and external phenomena, there is a great gulf\nfixed, which no scientific or metaphysical cunning can succeed in\nbridging over. Matter is never sensation, and cannot be conceived as\never becoming sensation. The chain of material phenomena, with its\nseveral series of causes and effects, is never broken; no physical\ncause is without its adequate physical effect, nor is any physical\neffect without a physical cause sufficient to produce it. The body is\nto the mind an external, material phenomena; closely connected indeed\nwith mental states, and always more or less present to consciousness,\nbut no part of our true selves, no necessary element in our conception\nof what we actually are. Every portion of the bodily frame can be\nregarded by us as an outward object, wholly independent of ourselves,\nand logically, if not practically, separable from ourselves. Many\nportions, such as the limbs, are actually so separable; and all of them\nare separable in thought.\n\nStill more impassable is this chasm in nature seen to be when we\nremark, that there are two all-pervading elements in which mind and\nmatter have their being, and that the phenomena within each element\nhave definite relations to other phenomena within the same element,\nbut are incapable of being brought into a like relation with those of\nthe other element. These two elements are Space and Time. Material\nparticles are related to one another in space, and in space alone. They\nare nearer to, or more distant from, above or below, to the north,\nsouth, east, or west of, the other material particles with which we\ncompare them. But they are not earlier or later than other particles.\nThe existence of concrete objects may be earlier or later than that of\nother concrete objects; but when we talk of their existence as earlier\nor later, we are talking of their relation to consciousness, not of\ntheir relation to one another. It is the total framed and classified\nby the mind that has a relation in time to some other similar total;\neach total, analyzed into its ultimate atoms, has only relations in\nspace to the other total, likewise analyzed into its ultimate atoms.\nContrariwise, mental objects, or states of consciousness, are related\nto one another in time, and in time alone. States of consciousness can\nbe compared as earlier or later, simultaneous or successive. They have\nno space-relations either to one another or to the material world. It\nis common indeed to consider the mind as located in the body, but this\nis incorrect. For absolutely nothing is meant by saying that anything\nis in a given place except that it stands in given space-relations to\nsurrounding objects. My body is in a place because it is _upon_ the\nground, _in_ the air, _below_ the clouds, _amid_ a certain environment\nwhich constitutes the country and locality of that country which it is\nin. But my mind has no surrounding objects of this nature at all. The\nthought, say, of a distant friend can by no possibility be imagined\nas enclosed within the grey matter of the brain, just to the right\nof a nerve A, and in contact with a ganglion B. This thought, and\nits accompanying emotion, could not be found by any vivisection (if\nsuch were possible), though its correlative physical condition might.\nHence the mind is not in the body, but is an independent entity whose\nphenomena, successive in time, run parallel to but never intermingle\nwith the phenomena of body, extended in space.\n\nFrom the view here stated of the irremoveable distinction between\nmind and matter an important corollary will be seen to follow.[103]\nNo physical movement (it has been shown) can be conceived as passing\ninto a state of consciousness, for each physical movement begets\nfurther physical movement, and while it is fully spent in its physical\nconsequent is itself fully accounted for by its physical antecedent.\nThe converse of this doctrine must therefore be equally true. That is\nto say, no state of consciousness can pass into a physical movement,\nfor, if it could, this movement would have another than a physical\nantecedent. In other words, the mind can in no way influence the\nactions of the body. It cannot stand in a casual relation to any\nphysical fact whatever. Hence the doctrine of the will (not only\nof free will but of any will) falls to the ground. For the current\nconception of a will supposes that a chain of material events passes at\nsome point in its course into a state of consciousness, and that this\nstate of consciousness again originates a chain of material events. Say\nthat I hear some one call my name, and go to the window to ascertain\nwho it is. Then the common explanation would be, not only that the\natmospheric undulations, which are the material correlative of sound\npassing into the brain by the auditory nerves, produced the sensation\nof hearing, which is true, but that this sensation in its turn produced\nthose exertions of the limbs which result in my arrival at the window,\nwhich is erroneous. According to the view here adopted, the atmospheric\nundulations stand in a direct relation of causation to the affection\nof the auditory nerve, and this affection, in a direct relation of\ncausation, to the resulting movements. The states of consciousness\nin like manner stand in a direct relation of simple sequence to each\nother; the sensation of sitting in a room being followed by that of\nhearing my name, this by the thought that there is some one outside\ncalling me, this by the sensation of motion through space, and this\nlast by that of seeing the person from whom the call emanated standing\nin the expected place. But at no point can the one train of events be\nconverted into the other. And while the train of external sequences\ndoes influence the train of internal sequences, this latter has no\ncorresponding influence upon the former. For this would imply that at\nsome period in the succession physical movements lost themselves in\nconsciousness; ceased to _be_ physical movements, and became something\nof an alien nature. It would imply further that such movements\noriginated _de novo_ from something of an alien nature having no\ncalculable or measurable relation to them. Either of which implications\nwould constitute an exception to the Persistence of Force.\n\nMan is, in short, as the adherents of this opinion have called him,\na \"conscious automaton.\" He does not will his own actions, nor do\nexternal manifestations, whether those of the unconscious or the\nconscious orders of existence, influence his will. But along with\nthe set of objective facts there is always present a parallel set of\nsubjective facts, and the subjective facts stand in an invariable\nrelation to the objective facts. So that where the material\ncircumstances, both those of the surrounding world and those of the\nbody, are of a given character, the non-material circumstances,\nthe state of mind, is also of a given and precisely corresponding\ncharacter. Variations in the one imply variations in the other;\nfeelings in the one change or remain fixed with changes or fixity in\nthe other.\n\nCould the friends of dogmatic religion know the things belonging\nto their peace, they would bestow upon this doctrine their most\nearnest support; for it deals the death-blow to that semi-scientific\nmaterialism which derives a certain countenance from the discoveries\nof the day, and which is\u2014second to religious dogmas themselves\u2014the\nmost dangerous enemy of the spiritual conception of the universe and\nof mankind. Not that in lifting a voice against materialistic views, I\nmean for a moment to lend a helping hand to the vulgar and irreverent\noutcry which is so often raised against matter itself as something\ngross and degraded, and deserving only of a contemptuous tolerance\nat our hands. I should have thought that the endless beauty of the\nmaterial universe, and the varied enjoyments to be derived from its\ncontemplation, as also the profound instruction to be obtained by its\nstudy, would have sufficed to give it a higher place in the estimation\nof religious minds. With such opposition to materialism as this I can\nhave no vestige of sympathy. The form of materialism which I contend\nagainst, not as irreligious but as unphilosophic, is that which\nconfounds the two orders of phenomena\u2014physical and mental\u2014under one\nidea, that of matter. Matter is supposed in this philosophy to be the\nparent of mind. A bridge is sought to be thrown across the great gulf\nwhich is fixed between us and the world without. But the moment we seek\nto walk over this imaginary bridge it crashes beneath our feet, and we\nare hurled into the abyss below.\n\nBetween that which feels, thinks, perceives, and reasons on the one\nhand, and that which is felt, thought about, perceived, and reasoned\non, there is no community of nature. The distinction between these two,\nthough it need not be ultimate in the order of things, is absolutely\nultimate in the order of thought. In their own undiscoverable nature\nthese two manifestations may be one; in their relation to us they are\nfor ever two.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER X.\n\n       THE RELATION OF THE OBJECTIVE TO THE SUBJECTIVE ELEMENT.\n\n\nOne final postulate has been found to be involved in all religion,\nnamely, that between the human essence spoken of as the subjective\nelement, and the power spoken of as the objective element, \"there\nis held to be a singular correspondence, their relationship finding\nits concrete expression in religious worship on the one side and\ntheological dogma on the other.\" Ritual, consecration of things and\nplaces, ordination of priests, omens, inspiration of prophets and of\nbooks, all of them imply the supposed possibility of such a relation.\nAll of them, however, from their contradictory and variable character,\nprove that they are but imperfect efforts to find utterance for the\nemotion which underlies them all. But that this emotion is incapable of\nan explanation consistent with rational belief is not therefore to be\ntaken for granted.\n\nConsider, first, that in order to be aware of the existence of the\nultimate and unknown power, we must possess some faculty in our\nconstitution by which that power is felt. It must, so to speak, come in\ncontact with us at some point in our nature.\n\nNow, no sensible perception can lead us to this conception as a\ngeneralization. The whole universe, regarded merely as a series of\npresentations to the senses, contains not a single object which can\npossibly suggest it. Nor can any combination of such presentations be\nshown to include within them any such idea. Neither can the existence\nof such a power be inferred by the exercise of the reasoning faculty.\nThere is no analogical case from which the inference can be drawn. When\nwe reason we proceed from something known to something unknown, and\nconclude that the latter, resembling the former in one or more of its\nqualities, will resemble it also in the quality yet to be established.\nIn exploring, for instance, some deserted spot, we find traces of a\nbuilding. Now, previous experience has taught us that such buildings\nare only found where human builders have made them. We conclude,\ntherefore, that we have stumbled upon a work of human hands. Suppose we\nexplore further and find the remains of the building very extensive.\nWe now draw the further inference that it was inhabited by a wealthy\nman, because we know that only the wealthy can afford to live in\nmagnificent houses. But if prolonged excavation lead to the discovery\nof long rows of buildings, of various sizes and having streets between\nthem, we confidently assert that we have unearthed a ruined city; for\nwe are aware that no single man, however rich or powerful, is likely\nto have built so much. Of these three inferences, the first only is,\nstrictly speaking, infallibly true. But the others are rendered by\nfamiliar analogies so highly probable as to be practically certain. Now\nlet the thing sought be, not some single cause of a single phenomenon,\nor the various causes of various phenomena, but the ultimate cause\nof all phenomena whatever,\u2014where is the corresponding case on which\nwe can proceed to argue? Plainly there is none. There is no _other_\nworld or system to which we can appeal and say, \"Those stars and those\nplanets were made by a God, therefore our own sun and its planets must\nhave been made by a God also.\" Every single argument we can frame to\nestablish the existence of deity assumes in its major premiss the\nvery thing to be proved. It takes for granted that phenomenal objects\nrequire a cause, and were not the idea of this necessity already in the\nmind it could not take one single step. For if it be contended, say,\nthat the world could not exist without a Creator, we have but to ask,\n\"Why not?\" and our adversary can proceed no further with his argument.\nAll he can ever do is to appeal to a sentiment in us corresponding to\nthe sentiment of which he himself is conscious.\n\nThus it appears that neither direct observation, nor reasoning, which\nis generalized observation, supplies the material for an induction as\nto the existence of an Unknowable Cause. Yet this idea is so persistent\nin the human race as to resist every effort to do without it. In one\nform or another it invariably creeps in. There is but one possible\nexplanation of such a fact: namely, that it is one of those primary\nconstituents of our nature which are incapable of proof because they\nare themselves the foundations on which proof must be erected. We\ncannot demonstrate a single law of nature without supposing a world\nexternal to ourselves. And we cannot suppose a world external to\nourselves without referring explicitly or implicitly to an unknown\nentity manifested in that world. The faculty by which this truth is\nknown must be considered as a kind of internal sense. It is a direct\nperception. And precisely as objects of direct perception by the\nsenses appear widely dissimilar at different distances, to different\nmen, and to the same man at different times, so the object of the\nreligious emotion is variously conceived in different places and ages,\nby different men, and by the same man at different times. Moreover, as\nthe religious sentiment in the mind of man perceives its object, the\nUltimate Being, so that Being is conceived as making itself known to\nthe mind of man through the religious sentiment. A reciprocal relation\nis thus established; the Unknowable causing a peculiar intuition,\nthe mind of man receiving it. And this is the grain of fact at the\nfoundation of the numerous statements of religious men, that they have\nfelt themselves inspired by God, that he speaks to them and speaks\nthrough them, that they enter into communion with him in prayer,\nand obey his influence during their lives. We need not discard such\nfeelings as idle delusions. In form they are fanciful and erroneous; in\nsubstance they are genuine and true. And in a higher sense the adherent\nof the universal religion may himself admit their title to a place in\nhis nature. To use the words of a great philosopher, \"he, like every\nother man, may consider himself as one of the myriad agencies through\nwhom works the Unknown Cause;\" \"he too may feel that when the Unknown\nCause produces in him a certain belief, he is thereby authorized to\nprofess and act out that belief\" (Spencer's \"First Principles,\" 2d ed.,\n\u00a7 34, p. 123).\n\nBut we may go still deeper in our examination of the nature of the\nrelation between the Ultimate Being and the mind of man. To do so we\nmust briefly recur to the philosophical questions touched upon in the\neighth chapter of this Book. We there discussed four possible modes\nof viewing the great problem presented by the existence of sensible\nobjects: Common and Metaphysical Realism, Moderate and Complete\nIdealism. Let us briefly reconsider these several systems to discover\nwhether any of them affords a satisfactory solution.\n\nCommon Realism is excluded by the consideration that it treats the\nqualities of external objects as existing in those objects and not in\nthe percipient subject. It requires but little reflection to prove\nthat such qualities are modes of consciousness, not modes of absolute\nbeing. This defect is surmounted in Metaphysical Realism, which,\nhowever, is liable to the fatal objection, that it takes for granted\nan abstract substance in material things, which substance is like the\nUnknowable, utterly inconceivable, yet is not the Unknowable, and is\nincapable of accounting for any of the manifestations belonging to the\nmental order. So that we should have a superfluous entity brought in\nto form the substance of matter, of which entity neither our senses,\nnor our reason, nor our emotions, give us any information. For matter,\nin the abstract, is not the matter perceived by the senses; nor is it\nthe object of the religious sentiment; nor is its existence capable\nof any kind of proof save that which consists in establishing the\nnecessity of some kind of Permanent Reality below phenomena. And this\nReality is not only the substratum of material, but of all phenomena\nwhatsoever. Moderate Idealism is in no better case. For in denying all\ntrue existence except to living creatures it fails utterly to give\nany rational account of that order of events which is universally and\ninstinctively referred to external causes, nor can it find any possible\norigin for the living creatures in whose reality it believes. Extreme\nIdealism recognizes no problem to be dealt with, and can therefore\noffer no solution.\n\nEach of these systems, however, while false as a whole, contains\na partial truth. Extreme Idealism is the outcome of the ordinary,\nunreflecting Realism; for if the Common Realist be convinced that\nappearances do not imply existence, and if he believe in no existence\nbut appearances, the ground is cut from under his feet, and he remains\nstanding upon nothing. He knows only phenomena, and the phenomena are\nmere ideas of his own mind. The truth common to these two extremes is\nthat so emphatically asserted by Berkeley, that the _esse_ of material\nobjects is _percipi_; that we exhaust the physical phenomenon when\nwe describe its apparent qualities, and need not introduce besides\nthese a material substance to which those qualities are related as its\naccidents. They are not the accidents, but the actual thing, in so\nfar as it is material. Metaphysical Realism and moderate Idealism are\nunited in the recognition of the truth that the phenomena are not the\nultimate realities, and that the qualities of bodies, when analyzed,\nare subjective, not objective; forms of the human mind, and not\nindependent, external existences.\n\nHence these various philosophies, like the various religions of which\nthey are in some sort metaphysical parallels, must be considered as\npreparing the way for the admission of that all-embracing truth which\nis the common ground of metaphysics and religion.\n\nExamine a simple objective phenomenon. Then you find that you can\nseparate it into all its component qualities: its color, taste, smell,\nextension, and so forth; and that after all these qualities have\nbeen taken into account nothing of the object remains save the vague\nfeeling of an unknown cause by which the whole phenomenon is produced.\nAll the apparent qualities, without exception, are resolvable into\nmodes of consciousness, but the whole object is not so resolvable.\nFor the question still remains, How did we come to have those modes\nof consciousness? Thus the analysis of the commonest material object\nleads us straight to an unknowable origin of known manifestations.\nAnd each particular phenomenon brings us to the same result. But are\nwe to assume a special Unknowable for each special object? A little\nconsideration will show that the division and subdivision we make of\nthe objects of sensible perception resembles their apparent qualities\nin being purely subjective, and indeed more than subjective, arbitrary.\nFor I consider an object as one or many, according to the point of view\nfrom which I regard it. The glass which I hold in my hand is at this\nmoment one; but the next moment it is shivered into a thousand atoms,\nand each of these atoms is of complex character, and resolvable into\nstill simpler parts. The planet we inhabit is, for the astronomer, one\nobject; for the geologist a number of distinct rocks; for the botanist\nit is composed of mineral and vegetable constituents, and of these, the\nlatter, which alone engage his attention, are numerous and various;\nfor the chemist it consists of an infinite multitude of elementary\natoms variously combined. Hence unity and multiplicity are mere modes\nof subjective reflection; not ultimate modes of objective being. And\nthe Unknowable cannot, strictly speaking, be regarded as either one or\nmany, since each alike implies limitation and separation from something\nelse. Rather is it all-comprehending; the Universal Foundation upon\nwhich unity and multiplicity alike are built.\n\nMaterial things, then, are analyzable into modes of consciousness\nwith an unknown cause to which these modes are due. But what is\nconsciousness itself? Like matter, it has its subjective and its\nobjective aspect. The subjective aspect consists of its various\nphenomenal conditions; the sensations which we ascribe to outward\nobjects as their producing causes, and the emotions, passions,\nthoughts, and feelings which we conceive as of internal origin.\nThe objective aspect consists of the unknown essence itself which\nexperiences these various states; of the very self which is supposed\nto persist through all its changes of form; of the actual being which\nis the ultimate Reality of our mental lives. The existence of this\nultimate Ego is known as an immediate fact of consciousness, and cannot\nbe called in question without impugning the direct assurance which\nevery one feels of his own being as apart from his particular and\ntransient feelings. Nobody believes that he is the several sensations\nand emotions which he experiences in life; he believes that he _has_\nthem. And if the existence of the Unknowable underlying material\nmanifestations is perceived by a direct, indubitable inference, the\nexistence of the Unknowable underlying mental manifestations is\nperceived without an inference at all by an intuition from which there\nis no appeal. For no one can even attempt to reason with me about this\nconviction without resting his argument upon facts, and inferences from\nfacts, which are in themselves less certain than this primary certainty\nwhich he is seeking to overthrow.\n\nExistence, then, is known to us immediately in our own case; mediately\nin every other\u2014consequently, the only conception we can frame of\nexistence is derived from ourselves. Hence when we say that anything\nexists, we can only mean one of two things: either that it exists as a\nmode of human consciousness, as in the case of material things; or that\nit exists _per se_, and is the very substance of consciousness itself.\nAnd the former of these modes of existence is altogether dependent\nupon a conscious subject. A material object is a congeries of material\nqualities, none of which can be conceived at all except in relation to\nsome percipient subject. Take away the subject, and color, extension,\nsolidity, sound, smell, and every other quality, vanish into nothing.\nThe existence of these qualities, and hence the existence of matter\nitself in its phenomenal character, is relative and secondary. There\nremains therefore only the second of these two modes of existence as\nabsolute and primary. The substance of consciousness, then, is the one\nreality which is known to exist; and in no other form is existence in\nits purity conceivable by us. For if we attempt to conceive a something\nas existent which is neither object nor subject, neither that which\nis felt nor that which feels, neither that which is thought nor that\nwhich thinks, we must inevitably fail. There is no _tertium quid_\nwhich is neither mind nor matter of which we can frame the most remote\nconception. We may, if we please, imagine the existence of such a\n_tertium quid_, but the hypothesis is altogether fanciful, and would\nhave nothing in science, nothing in the construction of the human mind,\nto render it even plausible. Indeed, it would be making an illegitimate\nuse of the word \"existence\" to apply it in such a sense. Existence to\nus _means_ consciousness, and never can mean anything else. We cannot\nby any effort conceive a universe previous to the origin of life in\nwhich there was no consciousness; for the moment we attempt to conceive\nit, we import our own consciousness into it. We think of ourselves\nas seeing or feeling it. The effort, therefore, to frame an idea of\nany existing thing without including consciousness in the idea is\nself-defeating, and when we predicate Existence of the Unknown Cause,\nwe predicate its kinship to that ultimate substance of the mind from\nwhich alone our conception of absolute existence is derived.\n\nHere, then, we have a second and more intimate relationship between\nthe objective and the subjective elements in the religious emotion.\nThey are found to be of kindred nature; or, to speak with stricter\ncaution, it is found that we cannot think of them but as thus akin to\none another. We must ever bear in mind, however, that our thoughts\nupon such a subject as this can be no more than partial approximations\nto the truth; tentative explorations in a dark region of the mind\nrather than accurate measurements of the ground. Thus, in the present\ninstance, we have spoken of the Unknowable as more or less akin to\nthe mind of man; yet we cannot think of the Unknowable as resembling\nthe fleeting states which are all that we know by direct observation\nof the constitution of the mind. It is not the passing and variable\nmodes, but the fixed and unchangeable substratum on which these modes\nare conceived to be impressed, which the Unknowable must be held to\nresemble. And this substratum itself is an absolute mystery. We can in\nno way picture it to ourselves without its modes, which nevertheless\nwe cannot regard as appertaining to its ultimate being. One further\nconsideration will establish a yet closer relationship than that of\nlikeness. The Unknown Reality, which is the source of all phenomena\nwhatsoever, mental and physical, must of necessity _include_ within\nitself that mode of existence which is manifested in consciousness;\nfor otherwise, we must imagine yet another power as the originator of\nconscious life, and we should then have two unknown entities, still\nrequiring a higher entity behind them both, to effect that entire\nharmony which actually subsists between them. The Unknowable is,\ntherefore, the hidden source from which both the great streams of\nbeing, internal and external, take their rise. Since, then, our minds\nthemselves originate in that Universal Source, since it comprehends\nevery form of existence within itself, we stand to it in the relation\nof parts to a whole, in which and by which those parts subsist. There\nis thus not only likeness but identity of nature between ourselves and\nour unknown Origin. And it is literally true that in it \"we live, and\nmove, and have our being.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nFrom the summit to which we have at length attained, we may survey\nthe ground we have already traversed, and comprehend, now that they\nlie below us, a few of the intricacies which we met with on our way.\nThe apparent puzzle of automatism, for example, may be resolved\ninto a more comprehensive law. It was shown, at the conclusion of\nthe preceding chapter, that a train of physical events could in no\nway impinge upon, or pass over into, a train of mental events, nor a\nstate of consciousness be converted into physical movements. But it\nwas hinted that, while the distinction between the two great series\nof manifestations, those of mind and those of matter, was ultimate in\nthe order of thought, it need not be ultimate in the order of things.\nOf this suggested possibility we have now found the confirmation;\nfor we have seen that material phenomena, analyzed to their lowest\nterms, resolve themselves into forms of consciousness, and forms of\nconsciousness, analyzed in their turn, prove to be the varied modes\nof an unknown subject; and this unknown subject has its roots in the\nultimate Being in which both these great divisions of the phenomenal\nuniverse find their foundation and their origin. The distinction,\ntherefore, between the mental and the material train belongs to these\ntrains in their character of phenomena alone. They are distinguished\nin the human mind, not in the order of nature. Thus, if we recur to\nthe illustration used in explaining automatism, we pointed out that in\nthe circumstance of hearing a call and going to the window, two series\nmight be thus distinguished: 1. The material series, consisting of\natmospheric undulations, affections of the nerves and matter of the\nbrain, movements of the body; 2. The mental series, consisting of the\nsensations of sitting still, and hearing of the thought of a person, of\nthe sensations of motion, and seeing the person. Now, if we take the\ntrouble to observe the terms of which the first series is composed, we\nshall see that they also express states of consciousness, though states\nof a different kind from those contained in the terms of the second\nseries. Undulations, nervous affections, movements, and so forth, are\nonly intelligible by us as modifications of our consciousness. To\nconceive in any degree the atmospheric perturbations which are the\nphysical correlatives of sound, we must imagine them as somehow felt\nor perceived\u2014for instance, as a faint breeze. To conceive the cerebral\nchanges implied in hearing, we must imagine ourselves as dissecting\nand examining the interior of the brain. In other words, the external\ntrain of events to which consciousness runs over parallel can only be\nrepresented in thought by translating it into terms of consciousness;\nand the absolute harmony of both these trains, the fact that while\nstates of consciousness do not originate the movements of our bodies,\nthey yet bear so unvarying a relation to them as to be mistaken for\ntheir causes, finds its solution in the reflection that, when we look\nbelow the appearances to the reality pervading both, it is the same\nUniversal Being which is manifested in each alike.\n\nHence, too, the sense of independent power to produce physical effects\nin accordance with mental conceptions, which forms the great obstacle\nto the general admission of the doctrine of human automatism. Reason as\nwe may, we still feel that we are reservoirs of force which we give out\nin the shape of material movement whenever we please and as we please.\nAnd if the doctrine of the Persistence of Force appears, by showing\nthat every physical consequent has a purely physical antecedent, to\ncontradict this feeling, we naturally give the preference to the\nfeeling over the doctrine. But since the Persistence of Force is itself\nno less firmly seated in consciousness than the sense of independent\npower\u2014since all nature would be a chaos without the Persistence of\nForce\u2014it is the part of true philosophy to give its due to each. And\nthis may be done by admitting the particle of truth contained in the\nbelief that the human will influences the external world. We are\nindeed reservoirs of force. But it is not our own peculiar force that\nis exerted through us; it is the Universal Force, which is evinced no\nless in the actions of men than in the movements of inanimate nature.\nAnd since those actions are in constant unison with their wishes,\nthere is not, and cannot be, the sense of constraint which is usually\nopposed to voluntary performance. Thus, to take a simple illustration,\nthe necessities of our physical constitution absolutely compel us to\nsupport ourselves by food; yet no man feels that in eating his meals he\nis acting under external compulsion.\n\nIt would be a strange except ion indeed to the universal prevalence\nof unvarying law, if human beings were permitted to exert independent\ninfluence upon the order of events. Not in so slovenly a manner has\nthe work of nature been performed. We are no more free to disturb the\nharmony and beauty of the universe than are the stars in their courses\nor the planets in their orbits. Our courses and orbits are no less\nfixed than theirs, and it is but the imperfection of our knowledge, if\nthey have not been, and cannot yet be discovered. But it would be a\nlamentable blot upon a universe, where all things are fixed by a Power\n\"in whom there is no variableness nor shadow of turning,\" were there\npermitted to exist a race of creatures who were a law unto themselves.\n\nAgain, the relation now established between the human mind and the\nultimate Source both of mind and matter, serves to throw light\nupon that dark spot in the hypothesis of evolution\u2014the origin of\nconsciousness. For while in this hypothesis there is a continual\nprogression, of which each step is the natural consequence of another,\nfrom the gaseous to the solid condition of our system, from inorganic\nto organic substances, from the humblest organization to the most\ncomplex, there is absolutely no traceable gradation from the absence\nto the presence of conscious life. No cunning contrivance of science\ncan derive sensation from non-sentient materials, for the difference\nbetween the two is not a difference in degree of development, but\nin kind. There is a radical unlikeness between the two, and it is\nunphilosophic, as well as unscientific, to disguise the fact that a\nmere process of material evolution can never lead from the one to the\nother. \"The moment of arising of consciousness,\" says Mr. Shadworth\nHodgson, \"is the most important break in the world of phenomena or\nnature taken as a whole; the phenomena above and the phenomena below\nit can never be reduced completely into each other; there is a certain\nheterogeneity between them. But this is not the only instance of such\na heterogeneity\" (Hodgson's \"Theory of Practice,\" vol. i. p. 340).\nI venture to say that it is the only instance, and that there is\nnothing else in nature which can properly be compared with it. The\ninstances of similar heterogeneity which Mr. Hodgson gives appear to\nme less carefully considered than might have been expected from so\ncareful a writer. That between Time and Space, which is his first\ncase, is involved in that between mind and matter, and is only another\nexpression of it (see _supra_, p. 447); while \"curves and straight\nlines,\" and \"physical and vital forces,\" are not truly heterogeneous\nat all, unless under \"vital forces\" we include mental effort, and\nso again illustrate the primary unlikeness by a case included under\nit. But the last example is remarkable. \"Until Mr. Darwin propounded\nhis law of natural selection, it was supposed also [that there was\nheterogeneity] between species of living organisms in physiology.\"\nNow it is the great triumph of the evolutional system to have rid us\nof this unintelligible break, and to have shown that the whole of\nthe material universe, inorganic and organic, is the result of the\nunchangeable operation of laws which are no less active now than they\nhave ever been. In other words, evolution dispenses with the necessity\nof supposing the existence, at some point in the history of the planet,\nof a special law for the production of species brought into operation\n_ad hoc_.\n\nBut the general principles which apply to the origin of organic\nproducts must apply also to the origin of conscious life. This also\nmust be figured as an evolution. This also must take place without\nthe aid of a special law brought into operation _ad hoc_. Like the\nevolution of material products, it can only be conceived as taking\nplace from a pre\u00ebxisting fund, containing potentially the whole of the\neffects which are afterwards found in actual existence.\n\nLet us test this by trying to conceive the process in other ways.\nConsciousness might be supposed to arise in two ways: by special\ncreation, and by uncaused origin, from nothing. Both possibilities are\nin absolute contradiction to the fundamental principles of evolution.\nCreation by a superior power is a hypothesis standing on a level with\nthat of the creation of man out of the dust of the earth. To realize\nit in thought at all we must suppose the very thing intended to be\ndenied, namely, the material of mind already existing in the universe,\nas that of body existed\u2014in the earth. Otherwise, we should be obliged\nto admit the unthinkable hypothesis of the origin of something from\nnothing. This latter difficulty presses with its full force upon the\nsecond supposition. Mind would thereby be represented as suddenly\nspringing into being without any imaginable antecedent. For no material\nantecedent can produce it without an exception to the Persistence of\nForce, which requires a material consequent. And it cannot arise\nwithout any antecedent but by a similar exception.\n\nNeither creation nor destruction can in fact be represented as\noccurring in nature. We cannot conceive a new being arising out of\nnothing, or passing into nothing. As the development of the physical\nuniverse takes place by the change, composition, decomposition, and\nre-composition of pre\u00ebxisting constituents, so it must be with the\ndevelopment of mind. We cannot suppose the origin of sensation, its\nadvance to more varied and complex kinds, through emotions, passions,\nand reasonings to the most subtle feelings and the profoundest\nthoughts, without believing that all of these have their source in the\nUltimate Reality of nature, which comprehends not these only, but every\nfurther perfection of which we may yet be capable in ages to come.\n\nHere, then, is the solution of the difficulty which was shown (p. 690)\nto beset the theory of abiogenesis; a theory which, if ultimately\naccepted by science, as I believe it will be, will for the first\ntime bring perfect unity into our conceptions of the development\nof the world we live in. While science will thus show that there\nis no impassable break between inorganic and organic forms of\nmatter, philosophy will confirm it by showing, that there is no real\ndistinction between the universal life which is manifested in the\n(so-called) inanimate forces and constituents of our system and the\nfragmentary life which comes to light in animated creatures. There is\nheterogeneity nowhere. There are no breaks in nature. There are no\nunimaginable leaps in her unbroken course.\n\nFrom the point of view now reached we can understand also\u2014so far as\nunderstanding is possible in such a case\u2014the apparent riddle of our\nknowledge of the existence of the Unknowable. We can explain the\nuniversal sentiment of religious minds that there is some direct\nrelation between them and the object of their worship. The sense of\nan intuitional perception of that object, the sense of undefinable\nsimilarity thereto, the sense of inspiration and of guidance thereby,\nare included under and rendered intelligible by the actual identity\nin their ultimate natures of the subject and the object of religious\nfeeling. And the incomprehensibility of the latter is shown to have an\nobvious reason. For the part cannot comprehend the whole of which it\nis a part. It can but feel that there is a whole, in some mysterious\nway related to itself. But what that whole is, the conditions of its\nexistence render it impossible that it should even guess.\n\nImagine the whole of the atmosphere divided into two great currents:\na hot current continually ascending, and a cold current continually\ndescending. And let the hot current represent the stream of conscious\nlife, the cold current the stream of material things. To complete\nthe simile, conceive that there is a sharp boundary between the two\ncurrents, so that atoms of air can never cross to and fro; while yet\nthe conscious atoms in the hot current are aware of the existence of\nthe unconscious atoms in the cold one. Now if the atoms or particles\nin the conscious current should be gifted with senses in proportion to\ntheir size, they will see and feel an infinitely minute portion both\nof the ascending current in which they they themselves are placed, and\nof the descending current they are passing by. But of the whole of\nthe atmosphere of which they are themselves fragmentary portions they\nwill be able to form no conception whatever. Its existence they will\nbe aware of, for it will be needed to explain their own. But of its\nnature they will have no idea, except that in some undefinable way it\nis like themselves. Nor will they be able to form any picture of the\ncause which is continually carrying them upwards, and forcing their\nhomologues in the opposite current downwards. While, if we suppose\nthese opposite movements to represent the elements of Time and Space,\nthey will be conscious of themselves only in terms of movement upwards,\nand of the unconscious particles in terms of movement downwards. They\nwill suppose these two movements to be of the very essence of hot and\ncold particles, and will be able to conceive them only under these\nterms. Suppose, lastly, that at a certain point in their progress the\nhot particles become cold and pass into the opposing current, losing\ntheir individual, particular life, then their fellow-particles in the\nhot current will lose sight of them at that point, and they will be\nmerged in the general stream of being to emerge again in their turn\ninto the stream of conscious being.\n\nImperfect as this simile is, and as all such similes must be, it\nserves in some faint measure to express the relation of the mind of\nman to its mysterious Source. And it serves also to illustrate the\nleading characteristics of Religion and Theology, or Faith and Belief,\nthe function of the first having ever been to conceive the existence\nof that relation, and the function of the second to misconceive its\ncharacter. Thus there runs through the whole course of religious\nhistory a pervading error and a general truth. In all its special\nmanifestations these two have been mingled confusedly together, and the\nmanifold forms of error have generally obscured from sight the single\nform of truth.\n\nThe relation held by Faith to Belief, by the true elements to the\nfalse, in special creeds, may be thus expressed: That the creeds have\nsought to individualize, and thus to limit that which is essentially\ngeneral and unlimited. Thus worship, in its purest character a mere\ncommuning of the mind with its unknown Source, has been narrowed to the\npresentation of petitions to a personal deity. Particular places and\npeculiar objects have been selected as evincing, in some exceptional\nmanner, the presence of the infinite Being which pervades all places\nand things alike. Certain men have been regarded as the exclusive\norgans of the ultimate Truth; certain books, as its authorized\nexpressions; whereas the several races of men in their different modes\nof life, and in the diverse products of their art and their culture,\nare all in their variety, and even in their conflict, inspired workers\nin the hands of that Truth which is manifested completely in none,\npartially in all.\n\nAnd as it has been with the special objects upon which Theology has\nfixed its gaze, so it has been with the general object which underlies\nthem all. This, too, has been individualized, limited and defined. It\nhas been forgotten that we are but forms of that which we are seeking\nto bring within the grasp of our reason, and cannot therefore see\naround it, above it, and below it. But this truth, which Theology is\never forgetting, Religion must ever proclaim. The proclamation of this\ntruth is the title-deed of its acceptance by mankind. Without this,\nit would sink into the dishonored subject of incessant wranglings\nand profitless dispute. When it begins to define the Infinite, it\nceases, in the purer sense of the word, to be Religion, and can only\ncommand the assent of reasonable beings in so far as its assertions\ncomply with the rigorous methods of logical demonstration. But this\ncondition is in fact impossible of fulfillment, for the nature of the\nobject concerning which we reason, renders the exact terms of logical\npropositions misleading and inadequate. The Unknowable Reality does not\nadmit of definition, comprehension, or description. How should we, mere\nfragments of that Reality, define, comprehend, or describe the Infinite\nBeing wherein we have taken our rise, and whereto we must return?\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThus is Religion analyzed, explained and justified. Its varied forms\nhave been shown to be unessential and temporary; its uniform substance\nto be essential and permanent. Belief has melted away under the\ncomparative method; Faith has remained behind. From two sides, however,\nobjections may be raised to the results of this analysis. Those who\nadmit no ultimate residuum of truth in the religious sentiment at all,\nmay hold that I have done it too much honor in conceding so much; while\nthose who adhere to some more positive theology than is admitted here,\nwill think that I have left scarcely anything worth the having in\nconceding so little.\n\nTo the first class of objectors I may perhaps be permitted to point\nout the extreme improbability of the presence in human nature of a\nuniversally-felt emotion without a corresponding object. Even if they\nthemselves do not realize in their own minds the force of that emotion\nthey will at least not deny its historical manifestations. They will\nscarcely question that it has been in all ages known to history as an\ninspiring force, and often an overmastering passion. They will believe\nthe evidence of those who affirm that they are conscious of that\nemotion now, and cannot attribute it to anything but the kind of Cause\nwhich religion postulates. The actual presence of the emotion they will\nnot deny, though the explanation attempted of its origin they will.\nBut those who make the rather startling assertion that a deep-seated\nand wide-spread emotion is absolutely without any object resembling\nthat which it imagines to be its source, are bound to give some tenable\naccount of the genesis of that emotion. How did it come into being at\nall? How having come into being, did it continue and extend? How did\nit come to mistake a subjective illusion for an objective reality?\n\nThese are questions pressing for an answer from those who ask us to\nbelieve that one of our strongest feelings exists merely to deceive.\nBut it will be found, I believe, that all explanations tending to show\nthat this emotion is illusory in its nature assume the very unreality\nthey seek to prove. Should it, for example, be contended that human\nbeings, conscious of a force in their own bodies, extend the conception\nof this force to a superhuman being, which extension is illegitimate,\nit is assumed, not proved, in such an argument as this, that the force\nmanifested in the universe at large is not in some way akin to that\nmanifested in human beings. Again, should it be urged that man, being\naware of design in his own works, fancies a like design in the works of\nnature, it is a mere assumption that this attribution of the ideas of\nhis own mind to a mind greater than his is an unwarrantable process.\nThe argument from design may be, and in my opinion is, open to other\ngrave objections; but its mere presence cannot be used as explaining\nthe manner in which the religious emotion has come to exist. Rather is\nit the religious emotion which has found expression in the argument\nfrom design. The same criticism applies to all accounts of this\nsentiment which aim at finding an origin for it sufficient to explain\nits presence without admitting its truth. They all of them assume the\nvery point at issue.\n\nBut the real difficulty that is felt about religion lies deeper than in\nthe mere belief that a given emotion may be deceptive. It lies in the\ndoubt whether a mere emotion can be taken in evidence of the presence\nin nature of any object at all. Emotions are by their very nature\nvague, and this is of all perhaps the vaguest. Nor are emotions vague\nonly; they are inexpressible in precise language, and even when we\nexpress them as clearly as we can, they remain unintelligible to those\nwho have not felt them. Now this general and unspecific character of\nemotions renders it hard for those who are wanting in any given emotion\nto understand its intensity in others, and even fully to believe in\ntheir statements about it. Were religion a case of sensible perception\nthey would have no such doubt. Color-blind persons do not question\nthe faculty of distinguishing colors in others. But while the sharp\ndefinitions of these senses compel us to believe in the existence of\ntheir objects, the comparatively hazy outlines drawn by the emotions\nleave us at least a physical possibility of disputing the existence of\ntheirs.\n\nYet the cases are in their natures identical. We see a table, and\nbecause we see it we infer the existence of a real thing external\nto ourselves. The presence of the sensations is conceived to be an\nadequate warrant for asserting the presence of their cause. Precisely\nin the same way, we feel the Unknowable Being, and because we feel it\nwe infer the existence of a real object both external to ourselves and\nwithin ourselves. The presence of the emotion is conceived to be an\nadequate warrant for asserting the presence of its cause. Undoubtedly,\nthe supposed object of the sensations and the supposed object of the\nemotion _might_ be both of them illusory. This is conceivable in\nlogic, though not in fact. But there can be no reason for maintaining\nthe unreality of the emotional, and the reality of the sensible\nobject. Existence is believed in both instances on the strength of an\nimmediate, intuitional inference. The mental processes are exactly\nparallel. And if it be contended that sensible perception carries\nwith it a stronger warrant for our belief in the existence of its\nobjects than internal feeling, the reasons for this contention must\nbe exhibited before we can be asked to accept it; otherwise, it will\nagain turn out to be a pure assumption, constituting, not a reason\nfor the rejection of religion by those who now accept it, but a mere\nexplanation of the conduct of those who do not.\n\nIn fact, however, the denial of the truth of religion is no less\nemotional than its affirmation. It is not denied because those who\ndisbelieve in it have anything to produce against it, but because the\ninner sense which results in religion is either absent in them, or too\nfaint to produce its usual consequences. For this of course they are\nnot to blame, and nothing can be more irrational than to charge them\nwith moral delinquency or culpable blindness. If the Unknown Cause is\nnot perceptible to them, that surely is not a deficiency to be laid to\ntheir charge. But when they quit the emotional stronghold wherein they\nare safe to speak of those to whom that Unknown Cause is perceptible as\nthe victims of delusion, these latter may confidently meet them on the\nfield which they themselves have chosen.\n\nFirst, then, it is at least a rather startling supposition that their\nfellow creatures have always been, and are still, the victims of a\nuniversal delusion, from which they alone enjoy the privilege of\nexemption. Presumption, at all events, is against a man who asserts\nthat everybody but himself sees wrongly. He may be the only person\nwhose eyes have not deceived him, but we should require him to give\nthe strongest proof of so extraordinary an assertion. And in all cases\nwhich are in the least degree similar, this condition is complied with\nwithout the smallest hesitation. There are, so far as I am aware, no\ninstances of proved universal delusions, save those arising from the\nmisleading suggestions of the senses. That the earth is a flat surface,\nthat the sun moves round it, that the sun and moon are larger than the\nstars, that the blue sky begins at a fixed place, are inferences which\nthe uninstructed observer cannot fail to draw from the most obvious\nappearances. But those who have combated these errors have not done\nso by merely telling the world at large that it was mistaken; they\nhave pointed out the phenomena from which the erroneous inferences\nwere drawn, and have shown at the same time that other phenomena, no\nless evident to the senses than these, were inconsistent with the\nexplanation given. They have then substituted an explanation which\naccounted for all the phenomena alike, both the more obvious phenomena\nand the less so. Precisely similar is the method of procedure in\nhistory and philosophy, though the methods of proof in these sciences\nare not equally rigorous. Great historical delusions\u2014such as the Popish\nplot\u2014are put to rest by showing the misinterpreted facts out of which\nthey have grown, exposing the misinterpretation, and substituting true\ninterpretation. Imperfect psychological analysis, say of an emotion, is\nsuperseded by showing from what facts this analysis has been obtained,\nand what other facts it fails to account for.\n\nObserve, then, that in all these cases the appeal is made from the\nfirst impressions of the mistaken person to his own impressions on\nfurther examination; not to those of another. Considerations are laid\nbefore him which it is supposed will cause him to change his mind,\nand in all that class of cases where strict demonstration is possible\nactually do so. To a man who believes the earth to be a flat extended\nsurface we point out the fact that the top of a ship's mast is the\nfirst part of it to appear, and that this and other kindred phenomena\nimply sphericity. Our appeal is from the senses to the senses better\ninformed; not from another man's senses to our own. And we justly\nassume that were all the world in possession of the facts we have\nbefore us, all the world would be of our opinion.\n\nWhat, then, is the conclusion from these analogies? It surely is, that\nthose who would deny the reality of the object of religious emotion\nmust show from what appearances, misunderstood, the belief in that\nobject has arisen, and must point out other appearances leading to\nother emotions which are in conflict with it. As the astronomer appeals\nfrom sensible perception to sensible perception, so they must appeal\nfrom emotion to emotion. But it must not be their own emotions to which\nthey go as forming a standard for ours. They can demand no hearing at\nall until they attempt to influence the emotions of those whom they\naddress.\n\nGenerality of belief need not, for the purposes of this argument, be\ntaken as even a presumption of truth. We can grant our adversaries this\nadvantage which, in the parallel cases of the illusions of the senses,\nwas neither asked nor given. But we must ask them in return to concede\nto us that, if the generality of a belief entitles it to no weight in\nphilosophic estimation, the singularity of a belief entitles it to\nnone either. All mankind may be deluded: well and good: _a fortiori_ a\nfew individuals among mankind may be deluded too. Grant that the human\nfaculties at large are subject to error and deception, it follows from\nthis that the faculties of individuals lie under the same disability.\nNo word can be said as to the general liability to false beliefs, which\ndoes not carry with it the liability to false beliefs of the very\npersons who are seeking to convince us.\n\nBy whom, in fact, are we asked to admit, in the interests of their\npeculiar theory, the prevalence of a universal deception, and a\ndeception embracing in its grasp not only the ignorant multitude, but\nmen of science, thinkers and philosophers of the very highest altitude\nof culture? By whom is it that the great mass of humankind is charged\nwith baseless thoughts, illusory emotions, and untenable ideas? By\nthose who, in thus denying the capacity of the whole human race to\nperceive the truth, nevertheless maintain their own capacity to see\nover the heads of their fellow men so far as to assert that they are\nall the victims of an error. By those who, while bidding us distrust\nthe strongest feelings, nevertheless require us to trust them so far as\nto banish, at their bidding, those feelings from our hearts. Not from\nour reason to our more instructed reason do they appeal, only from our\nreason to their own. But I deny the competence of the tribunal; and I\nmaintain that until not merely disbelief, but disproof, of the position\nof Religion can be offered, Religion must remain in possession of the\nfield.\n\nYet there is one mistake which, as it may tend to obscure the issue, it\nwill be desirable to clear away. It is often contended, oftener perhaps\ntacitly assumed, that the burden of proof must rest on those who in\nany case maintain the affirmative side of a belief, while the negative\non its side requires no proof, but can simply claim reception until\nthe affirmative is established. Now this principle is true, where the\nnegative is simply a suspension of judgment; the mere non-acceptance\nof a fact asserted, without a counter-assertion of its opposite.\nTo understand the true application of the rule we must distinguish\nbetween what I will term substantial affirmations or negations, and\naffirmations or negations in form. Thus, to assert that A. B. is\nsix feet tall, is a substantial affirmation. Out of many possible\nalternatives it selects one, and postulates that one as true, while\nall the rest it discards as false. Since, however, there are numerous\npossibilities besides this one with regard to A. B.'s height\u2014since he\nmay be either taller or shorter by various degrees\u2014the negative, in the\nabsence of all knowledge on the subject, is inherently more probable,\nfor it covers a larger ground. It is a substantial negation. That is,\nit affirms nothing at all, but simply questions the fact affirmed,\nleaving the field open to countless other substantial affirmations.\nSo, in law, it is the prosecution which is required to prove its\ncase; for the prosecution affirms that this man was at a given place\nat a given time and did the criminal action. The opposite hypothesis\nof this covers innumerable alternatives: not this man but another,\nmay have been at that place, or he may have been there and not done\nthe action charged, or some other man may have done it, or the crime\nmay have not been committed at all, and so forth. These are cases of\nsubstantial affirmations; asserting one alone out of many conceivable\npossibilities, and therefore needing proof. And their opposites are\nsubstantial negations; questioning only the one fact affirmed, and even\nwith reference to that merely maintaining that in the absence of proof\nthere is an inherent probability in favor of the negative side.\n\nWidely different is the case before us. Here the affirmation and\nnegation are affirmative and negative in form alone. The assertions,\n\"An Unknowable Being exists,\" and \"An Unknowable Being does not exist,\"\nare not opposed to one another as the affirmative and the negative\nsides were opposed in the previous cases. The latter proposition does\nnot cover a number of possible alternatives whereof the former selects\nand affirms a single one. Both propositions are true and substantial\naffirmations. Both assert a supposed actual fact. And the latter does\nnot, as the previous negative propositions did, leave the judgment in\nsimple suspense. It requires assent to a given doctrine. That the one\ncast is in a negative form is the mere accident of expression, and\nwithout in any way affecting their substance, their positions in this\nrespect may be reversed. Thus, we may say for the first, \"The universe\ncannot exist without an Unknowable Being;\" and for the second, \"The\nuniverse can exist without an Unknowable Being.\" There are not here a\nmultitude of alternatives, but two only, and of these each side affirms\none. Each proposition is equally the assertion of a positive belief.\nThus, the reason which, in general, causes the greater antecedent\nprobability of a denial as against a positive assertion, in no way\napplies to the denial of the fundamental postulate of Religion. The\nstatement that there is nobody in a certain room is not in itself\nmore probable than the statement that there is somebody. And the\nproposition: \"all men are not mortal,\" though negative in form, is\ntruly as affirmative as the counter-proposition: \"all men are mortal.\"\n\nBut this argument, inasmuch as it places the denial of all truth in\nthe religious emotion on a level with its affirmation, fails to do\njustice to the real strength of the case. There are not here two\ncontending beliefs, of which the one is as probable as the other. In\nconceding so much to the skeptical party we have given them a far\ngreater advantage than they are entitled to demand. Generality of\nbelief is, in the absence of evidence or argument to the contrary, a\npresumption of truth; for, unless its origin from some kind of fallacy\ncan be shown, its generality is in itself a proof that it persists in\nvirtue of the general laws of mind which forbid the separation of its\nsubject from its predicate. And it is not only that we have here a\ngeneral belief, or, more correctly speaking, a general emotion, but we\nhave categories in the human mind which are not filled up or capable\nof being filled up by the objective element in the religious idea.\nThere is, for example, the category of Cause; Nature presents us not\nwith Cause, but with causes; and these causes are mere antecedents,\nphysical causation in general being nothing whatever but invariable\nantecedents and invariable sequence. But this analysis of the facts\nof nature by no means satisfies the conception of causation which is\nrooted in the human mind. That conception imperiously demands a cause\nwhich is not a mere antecedent, but a Power. Without that, the idea\nwould remain as a blank form, having no reality to fill it. And how do\nwe come to be in the firm possession of this idea if there be nothing\nin nature corresponding to it? From what phenomena could it be derived?\nAkin to our notion of Cause is our notion of Force. When the scientific\nman speaks of a Force, he merely means an unknown something which\neffects certain movements. And Science cannot possibly dispense with\nthe metaphysical idea of Force. Yet Force is not only unknowable; but\nit is _the_ Unknowable manifested in certain modes. Again, therefore,\nI ask, whence do we derive ineradicable feeling of the manifestation\nof Force, if that feeling be a mere illusion? Similar remarks apply\nto other categories which, like these, have no objects in actual\nexistence in the conformity of the religious sentiment to truth be\ndenied. Such is the category of Reality. Imagination cannot picture the\nworld save as containing, though in its essence unknown to us, some\nreal and permanent being. We know it only as a compound of phenomena,\nall of them fleeting, variable, and unsubstantial. There is nothing\nin the phenomena which can satisfy our mental demand for absolute\nbeing. As being transient, and as being relative, the phenomena in\nfact are nothing. But our intellectual, our emotional, and our moral\nnatures demand the \u03c4\u03cc \u1f43\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f44\u03bd\u2014that which really is, as the necessary\ncompletion of \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b1\u2014that which only appears. And it is precisely\nthe unshakeable belief in an unchangeable, though unknowable Reality;\nan everlasting Truth amid shifting forms, a Substance among shadows,\nwhich forms the universal foundation of religious faith.\n\nA ship that has been driven from her intended course is drifting,\nwith a crew who have no clear knowledge of her whereabouts, upon an\nunexplored ocean. Suddenly her captain exclaims that he sees land in\nthe distance. The mate, however, summoned to verify the captain's\nobservation, fancies that the black speck on the horizon is not land,\nbut a large vessel. The sailors and passengers take part, some with\nthe one, some with the other; while many of them form opinions of\ntheir own not agreeing with that of either, one maintaining it to be\na whale, another a dark cloud, a third something else, and so forth.\nMinor differences abound. Those who take it to be land are at issue as\nto its being a plain or a mountain, those who think it a vessel cannot\nagree as to the description of the craft. One solitary passenger sees\nnothing at all. Instead of drawing what would appear to be the most\nobvious conclusion, that he is either more shortsighted or less apt\nto discover distant objects than the rest, he infers that his vision\nalone is right, and that of all the others, captain, passengers, and\ncrew, defective and misleading. Oblivious of the fact that the mere\nfailure to perceive an object is no proof of its non-existence, he\npersists in asserting not only that the speck seen in the distance,\nbeing so variously described, probably does not resemble any of the\nideas formed of it on board the ship, but that there is no speck at\nall. Even the fact that the crews of many other ships, passing in this\ndirection, perceive the same dim outline on the horizon, does not shake\nhis conviction that it is a mere \"idol of the tribe.\" Such is the\nprocedure of those who deny the reality of the object of the religious\nidea. Instead of drawing from the diversity of creeds the legitimate\ninference that the Being of whom they severally speak is of unknown\nnature, they conclude, from the mere absence of the idea of that Being\nin their individual consciousness, that its very existence is a dream.\n\nLastly, a few words, and a few only, must be said in reply to those\nwho will think that the cenception of the Unknowable resulting from\nour analysis is too vague and shadowy to form the fitting foundation\nfor religious feeling. They will probably object that the Being whom\nthat feeling requires is not an inconceivable Cause or Substance of the\nUniverse, but a Personal God; not an undefined something which we can\nbarely imagine, but a definite Some one whom we can adore and love.\nThere is nothing, they will say, in such a conception as this either\nto satisfy the affections or to impress the moral sentiments. And both\npurposes were fulfilled by the Christian ideal of a loving Father and a\nrighteous Judge.\n\nTo these objections I would reply, first of all, that I have simply\nattempted to analyze religion as I found it, neither omitting what\nwas of the essence of the religious idea, nor inserting what was not.\nIf this analysis is in any respect defective, that is a matter for\ncriticism and discussion. But if it has been correctly performed\u2014of\nwhich I frankly admit there is abundant room for doubt\u2014then I am not\nresponsible for not finding in the universal elements of religion\nthat which is not contained within them. The expression found for the\nultimate truths must embrace within it, if possible, the crude notions\nof deity formed by the savage, and the highly abstract ideal formed by\nthe most eminent thinkers of modern times. Even then, if I myself held\nthe doctrines of the personality and the fatherhood of God, I could\nnot have required from others any admission of these views of mine as\nuniversal ingredients in religious faith. The utmost I could have done\nwould have been to tack them on as supplementary developments of the\nidea of the ultimate Being. And thus it is still open to any one who\nwishes it to do. Difficult as it is to reconcile the ideas of Love and\nJustice with unlimited Power and absolute Existence, yet if there are\nsome who find it possible to accomplish the reconciliation, it may be\nwell for them so to do.[104] Undoubtedly, however, all such efforts do\nappear to me mere hankerings after an incarnation of that idea which,\nby its very nature, does not admit of representation by incarnate\nforms, even though those forms be moral perfections. And I would reply,\nsecondly, to the above objection, that, while we lose something by\ngiving up the definite personality of God, we gain something also. If\nwe part with the image of a loving Father, we part also with that of a\nstern monarch and an implacable judge. If we can no longer indulge in\nthe contemplation of perfect virtue, embodied in an actual Person, we\nare free from the problem that has perplexed theologians of every age:\nhow to reconcile the undoubted evil in the world with the omnipotence\nof that Person. I know that there are some who think it possible to\nretain the gentler features in the popular conception of deity, while\ndropping all that is harsh and repulsive. To them the idea of God is as\nfree from terror as the idea of the Unknowable, and the first of these\ngains is therefore no gain to them. But the problem of the existence\nof evil presses perhaps with greater severity upon them than upon any\nother class of theologians. To suppose that God could not prevent the\npresence of wickedness, or could not prevent it without some greater\ncalamity, is to deny his omnipotence; to suppose that he could, and\ndid not, is to question his benevolence. But even admitting the\nimprovement made by purging from the character of God all its severity,\nits vindictiveness, and its tendency to excessive punishment, the fact\nremains that the conception thus attained is not that of the popular\ncreed at all, but that of a few enlightened thinkers. And it is with\nthe former, not with the latter, that the doctrine of the Unknowable\nmust be compared, in order fairly to estimate its advantages or\ndisadvantages in relation to the current belief in a personal God.\n\nMoreover, it must be borne in mind that the dim figure we have shadowed\nout of an inconceivable and all-embracing ultimate Existence, if\nwidely different from the more ordinary theological embodiments of the\nreligious idea, is altogether in harmony with many of its expressions\nby the most devoutly religious minds. If religion has always had a\ntendency to run to seed in dogma, it has also always had a tendency\nto revert to its fundamental mysticism. The very best and highest\nminds have continually evinced this tendency to mysticism, and it has\nmixed itself up with the logical definitions of others who did not\nrise to so exalted a level. So that the examination of the writings of\nreligious men will continually disclose that profound impression of the\nutterly incomprehensible and mysterious nature of the Supreme Being\nwhich is now, in its complete development in the form of Agnosticism,\nstigmatized as incompatible with genuine religious faith.\n\nThat tendency to be deeply sensible of the impossibility of conceiving\nthe Absolute which Religion has thus evinced, it is the result of\nScience to strengthen and to increase. Science shows the imperfection\nof all the concrete expressions which have been found for the\nUnknowable. It proves that we cannot think of the Unknowable as\nentering in any peculiar sense into special objects in nature, dwelling\nin special places, or speaking through special channels. Miraculous\nphenomena, which were supposed to constitute the peculiar sphere of its\nmanifestations, are thrown by Science completely out of the account.\nBut all phenomena whatsoever are shown to manifest the Unknowable.\nThus, while scientific inquiry tends to diminish the intensity of\nreligious ideas, it tends to widen their extension. They do not any\nlonger cling to partial symbols. They do not attach themselves with the\nsame fervor to individual embodiments. But, in becoming more abstract,\nthey become also more pervading. Religion is found everywhere and in\neverything. All nature is the utterance of the idea. And, as it gains\nin extension while losing in intensity in reference to the external\nworld, it goes through a similar process in relation to human life.\nNo longer a force seizing on given moments of our existence, at one\nmoment inspiring devotional observances, at the next forgotten in\nthe pleasures or the business of the day; at one time filling men\nwith the zeal of martyrs or crusaders, at another leaving them to the\nunrestrained indulgence of gross injustice or revolting cruelty, it\nbecomes a calm, all-pervading sentiment, shown (if it be shown at all)\nin the general beauty and spirituality of the character, not in the\nstated exercises of a rigorous piety, or in the passionate outbursts\nof an enthusiastic fervor.\n\nBut these considerations would lead me on to a subject which I had\nonce hoped to treat within the boundaries of the present volume, but\nwhich I am now compelled, owing to the enlargement of the scheme, to\npostpone to a future time. That subject is the relation of religion\nto ethics. It may have struck some readers as an omission that I have\nsaid nothing of religion as a force inspiring moral conduct, which\nis the principal aspect under which it is regarded by some competent\nauthorities. But the omission has been altogether intentional. It would\ntake me a long time to explain what in my judgment has been the actual\ninfluence of religion upon morals in the past, and what is likely\nto be its influence in the future. Meanwhile I merely note the fact\nthat this analysis professes to be complete in its own kind; that I\nhave endeavored to probe the religious sentiment to the bottom, and\nto discover all that it contains. Thus, if religion be not only an\nemotion, but a moral force, it must acquire this character in virtue\nof the relation of its emotional elements to human character, not in\nvirtue of the presence of ethical elements actually belonging to the\nreligious emotion, and comprehended under it by the same indefeasible\ntitle as the sense of the Unknowable itself.\n\nAt present, however, I can attempt no answer to the objection which\nwill no doubt be urged, that so abstract and cold a faith as that\nexpounded here can afford no satisfaction to the moral sentiments.\nIndeed I must to a certain extent admit the reality of the loss which\nthe adoption of this faith entails. There is consolation no doubt in\nthe thought of a Heavenly Father who loves us; there is strength in\nthe idea that he sees and helps us in our continual combat against\nevil without and evil within; there is happiness in the hope that\nhe will assign us in another life an infinite reward for all the\nendurances of this. Above all, there is comfort in the reflection\nthat when we are parted by death we are not parted for ever; that our\nlove for those whom we have cherished on earth is no temporary bond,\nto be broken ere long in bitterness and despair, but a possession\nnever to be lost again, a union of souls interrupted for a little\nwhile by the separation of the body, only to be again renewed in far\ngreater perfection and carried on into far higher joys than can be\neven imagined here. All this is beautiful and full of fascination: why\nshould we deny it? Candor compels us to admit that in giving it up with\nthe other illusions of our younger days we are resigning a balm for the\nwounded spirit for which it would be hard to find an equivalent in all\nthe repertories in Science, and in all the treasures of philosophy. Yet\nit must be borne in mind that every step from a lower to a higher creed\ninvolves a precisely similar loss. How much more beautiful was nature\n(as Schiller has shown us in his poem on the gods of Greece) when every\nfountain, tree and river had its presiding genius, when the Sun was\ndriven by a divine charioteer, when the deities of Olympus intervened\nin the affairs of men to prevent injustice and to maintain the right.\nHow cold and lifeless, nay, how profoundly irreligious, would our\nmodern conception of the earth and the solar system have appeared to\nthe worshiper of Poseidon and Apollon. And if the loss of the Christian\nas compared to the Pagan is thus great, how great also is the loss\nof the enlightened Protestant as compared to the ignorant Catholic\npeasant. What comfort must be found in the immediate intervention\nof the Virgin in answer to prayer, what security afforded by the\nprotection of the local saint. Or again, how great the pleasure of\ncontributing by our piety to the release of a friend from purgatorial\ntorment, and of knowing that our friends will do us the same kindly\nservice.\n\nEven without contrasting such broad and conspicuous divisions of\nChristianity as these, we shall find enough of the same kind of\ndifference within the limits of Protestantism itself. What mere\nintellectual conviction of a future state can vie with the consoling\ncertainty offered by the Spiritualistic belief, that those whom we have\nlost on earth still hover around us in our daily course; sometimes even\nappear to us in bodily form, and converse with us in human speech. No\nmere hope of meeting them again can for a moment equal the delight of\nseeing their well-known shapes and hearing their familiar tones. Hence\nthe Spiritualist has undoubtedly a source of comfort in his faith which\nmore rational creeds can offer nothing to supply. But who that does not\nshare it can envy them so baseless a conviction, so illusory a joy?\n\nIt is, in fact, the very condition of progress that, as we advance in\nknowledge and in culture, we give up something on the road. But it is\nalso a condition that we do not feel the need of that which we have\nlost. Not only as we become men do we put away childish things, but we\ncan no longer realize in thought the enjoyment which those childish\nthings brought with them. Other interests, new occupations, deeper\naffections take the place of the interests, the occupations, and the\naffections of our early years. So too should it be in religion. Men\nhave dwelt upon the love of God because they could not satisfy the\ncraving of nature for the love of their fellow men. They have looked\nforward to eternal happiness in a future life because they could not\nfind temporary happiness in this. It is these reflections which point\nout the way in which the void left by the removal of the religious\naffections should hereafter be supplied. The effort of those who cannot\nturn for consolation to a friend in heaven should be to strengthen the\nbonds of friendship on earth, to widen the range of human sympathy and\nto increase its depth. We should seek that love in one another which\nwe have hitherto been required to seek in God. Above all, we should\nsweep away those barriers of convention and fancied propriety which\ncontinually hinder the free expression of affection, and force us to\nturn from the restrictions of the world to One towards whom there need\nbe no irksome conformity to artificial regulation, and in speaking to\nwhom we are under no shadow of reserve.\n\nWere we thus permitted to find in our fellow creatures that sympathy\nwhich so many mourners, so many sufferers, so many lonely hearts, have\nbeen compelled to find only in the idea of their heavenly Father, I\nhesitate not to say that the consolations of the new religion would\nfar surpass in their strength and their perfection all those that were\noffered by the old. Towards such increasing and such deepening of the\nsympathies of humanity I believe that we are continually tending even\nnow. Meantime, while we are still far from the promised land, the\nadherents of the universal religion are not without a happiness of\ntheir own. Their faith is at least a faith of perfect peace. Untroubled\nby the storms of controversy, in which so many others are tossed about,\nthey can welcome all men as brothers in faith, for all of them,\neven the most hostile, contribute to supply the stones of the broad\nfoundation upon which their philosophy is built. Those therefore who\ncontend against them, be it even with vehemence and passion, yield,\nthem involuntary help in bringing the materials upon which their\njudgment is formed. No man can truly oppose their religion, for he\nwho seems to be hostile to it is himself but one of the notes struck\nby the Unknowable Cause, which so plays upon the vast instrument of\nhumanity as to bring harmony out of jangling sounds, and to produce\nthe universal chords of truth from the individual discords of error.\nScientific discoveries and philosophic inquiries, so fatal to other\ncreeds, touch not the universal religion. They who accept it can\nbut desire the increase of knowledge, for even though new facts and\ndeeper reasoning should overthrow something of what they have hitherto\nbelieved and taught, they will rejoice that their mistakes should be\ncorrected, and their imperfections brought to light. They desire but\nthe Truth, and the Truth has made them free. And as in their thoughts\nthey can wish nothing so much as to know and to believe that which\nis true, so in their lives they will express the serenity which that\ndesire will inevitably bring. They are not pained or troubled because\nother men see not as they see. They have no vain hope of a unity of\nthought which the very conditions of our being do not permit. They aim\nnot at conquering the minds of men; far rather would they stimulate\nand help them to discover a higher Truth than they themselves have\nbeen permitted to know. And as their action will thus be inspired with\nhope of contributing their mite to the treasury of human knowledge,\nwell-being, and moral good, so their death will be the expression of\nthat, peaceful faith which has sustained their lives. Even though\ntorn away when, in their own judgment, they have still much to do,\nthey will not repine at the necessity of leaving it undone, even\nthough they are well aware that their names, which might have been\nillustrious in the annals of our race, will now be buried in oblivion.\nFor the disappearance of a single life is but a ripple on the ocean of\nhumanity, and humanity feels it not. Hence they will meet their end\n\"sustained and soothed by an unfaltering trust,\"\n\n    \"Like one who wraps the drapery of his couch\n    About him, and lies down to pleasant dreams.\"\n\nBut the opposite fate, sometimes still more terrible, that of\ncontinuing to live when the joys of life are gone, and its purest\nhappiness is turned into the bitterest pain, will be accepted too.\nThus they will be willing, it need be, to remain in a world where\ntheir labor is not yet ended, even though that labor be wrought\nthrough suffering, despondency, and sorrow; willing also, if need be,\nto meet the universal lot\u2014even though it strike them in the midst of\nprosperity, happiness, and hope; bowing in either case to the verdict\nof fate with unmurmuring resignation and fearless calm.\n\n\n                               THE END.\n\n\n\n\n                                INDEX.\n\n\n  Abhidharma-Pitaka, its metaphysics, 473-476\n\n  Abiogenesis, the theory of, 690;\n    its destined functions, 702\n\n  Abraham, a Hanyf, 195;\n    story of, 545-546\n\n  Acts, the book of, its value, 604;\n    review of, 604-617\n\n  Aditi, the godess, 437\n\n  Africa, burial rites in, 430;\n    divination in, 114;\n    ordeals in, 119\n\n  Africans, western, sacrifice among, 42;\n    drink-offerings among, 47\n\n  Agag hewn in pieces, 598\n\n  Age, a golden, traditions of, 538, 539\n\n  Agni, the god, 430\n\n  Agnosticism allied to mysticism, ii. 489\n\n  Ahab, his troubles, 598\n\n  Ahuna-Vairya, the, 503, 504\n\n  Ahura-Mazda, and Zarathustra, 182, 183;\n    the god of the Parsees, 185;\n    ancient worship of, 486, 487;\n    praise of, 487, 488;\n    rank and character, 489;\n    address to, 489, 490;\n    worship of, 490-492;\n    fire and water given by, 493;\n    questioned by Zarathustra, 497-504;\n    things which please and things which displease, 497, 498;\n    prescribes for medical training, 499;\n    the same as Ormazd, 505;\n    throughout the god of the Parsees, 508;\n    creates the world, 535\n\n  Aischylos, his conception of the commercial relation between gods\n    and men, 38\n\n  Akaba, the vow of the first and second, 188\n\n  Ali, sign at his birth, 226\n\n  Amatongo, sacrifice to the, 40\n\n  Amuzulus, sacrifice among the, 47\n    sneezing as an omen among, 111\n\n  Amos, his prophecy and history, 61;\n    conduct towards Amaziah, 573\n\n  An\u00e2g\u00e2min, the, 478, 479 (note)\n\n  Analysis, ultimate metaphysical, 464\n\n  Ananda and the Matangi girl, 285;\n    and Buddha, 134, 136\n\n  Ananias and his wife, story of, 607\n\n  Ancestors, worship of, in Fiji and among the Kafirs, 650, 651;\n    in Peru, 651.\n\n  Angekoks, the, consecration of, 100, 101\n\n  Apocalypse, the, its author, 634;\n    its style, 634;\n    compared with the \"Pilgrim's Progress,\" 634;\n    its visions, 635, 636\n\n  Apollo, worship of, 38;\n    his sense of gratitude appealed to, 38;\n    oracle of the Clarian, 127\n\n  \u00c2ranyakas, the, 127\n\n  Arhats, the, rank of, 444, 445, 457, 458\n\n  Asceticism, various degrees of, 89;\n    in Mexico and Peru, 90-92;\n    rules of Chinese, 461\n\n  Ashem-Voh\u00fb, the, 503, 504\n\n  Asiti, the Rishi, the child and Buddha, 231\n\n  Asoka, the Buddhist king, 450, 451\n\n  Astrology, 118\n\n  Astrologers in Thibet, 144\n\n  Asvagosha, a Buddhist preacher, 122\n\n  Atharva-Veda-Sanhit\u00e2, the, 426, 427\n\n  Atman, 661\n\n  Atmospheric currents, an illustration, 471\n\n  Automatism, apparent puzzle of, resolved, 464-466\n\n  Australia, burial rites in, 77\n\n\n  Babel, confusion at, 597\n\n  Balaam, treatment of, 597\n\n  Balaki, the Brahman, 446\n\n  Banshee, the Irish, 114\n\n  Baptism, a general religious rite, 58;\n    in Fantee, 59;\n    among the Cherokees, Aztecs, &c., 59;\n    in Mexico, 59;\n    in Mongolia and Thibet, 61;\n    among the Parsees, 61;\n    in the Christian Church, 61, 62;\n    meaning of the rite, 62, 63\n\n  Barabbas, 215, 216\n\n  Barnabas, and Paul in Antioch, 611;\n    taken for Zeus, 611;\n    separation, 613\n\n  Beatitudes, the, 350, 351\n\n  Beauty and Bands, allegory of, 573\n\n  Beliefs, necessary, vindication of, 678-680;\n    conditions of, 680;\n    example, 695, 696\n\n  Benfey, translation of the S\u00e2ma-Veda Sanhit\u00e2, 425\n\n  Bhikshu, a defined, 95\n\n  Bhikshus and Bhikshun\u00ees, the, 479\n\n  Bible, the, though above, yet among the sacred books of\n    the world, 369, 370;\n    forced interpretations of 379, 380;\n    mostly anonymous, 386;\n    style of, 389, 390\n\n  Birth, religious rites at, among savage nations, 57, 58;\n    in Mexico, 59, 60;\n    in Mongolia and Thibet, 61\n\n  Bodhisattva, 175-180;\n    in the womb, 225;\n    the nature of, 477, 478;\n    their sacrifice of Nirv\u00e2na, 478\n\n  Bogda, thaumaturgic powers of, 122\n\n  Books, sacred, all civilized nations nearly have, 370, 371;\n    Greeks and Romans without, 370;\n    list of, 370;\n    their external marks\u2014recognized inspiration, 371, 372;\n    supposed merit of reading or repeating them, 372-375;\n    subjection to forced interpretations, 375-383;\n    internal marks\u2014transcendental-subject-matter, 382-384;\n    authoritativeness, 384, 385;\n    general anonymity, 23-26;\n    formlessness, 385-389;\n    of the Chinese, 390-424;\n    seldom written by the authors of the religion, 413;\n    of India, 425-448;\n    of the Buddhists, 449-482;\n    necessity for, 449;\n    of the Parsees, 482-509;\n    of the Moslems, 500-520;\n    of the Jews, 518-603;\n   of Christianity, 604-641\n\n  Bo-tree, sanctity of, in Ceylon, 127\n    Buddha, under, 180, 181\n\n  Brahma, his incest, 600;\n    not worshiped, 405, 406;\n    and Brahm, 406, 407\n\n  Brahman, the caste, 183;\n    the supreme, 405\n\n  Br\u00e2hmanas, the, 379, 425, 426;\n    their character, 444, 445;\n    ritualistic appendages to the Vedas, 444, 445;\n    teaching of apologue, 445;\n    on a universal soul, 445, 446;\n    on the future of the soul, 447;\n    on patience, 447;\n    references to moral conduct, 448\n\n  Bread and wine in the Eucharist, virtue of, 135\n\n  Buddha, Gautama, a thaumaturgist, 122;\n    the tooth of, 124, 125;\n    preparation for his last manifestation, 170;\n    uncertain data to go upon for his life, 171;\n    when he lived, 172;\n    early asceticism, 172, 173;\n    abolishes caste, his theoretic, 217;\n    his four truths, 173;\n    the interpretation of these, 173;\n    his death, 274;\n    his chief disciples, 274;\n    spread of his religion, 274;\n    essential principles, 174, 175;\n    his blamelessness, 175;\n    the mythical twelve periods of his life, i. 176;\n    resolution to be born, 176;\n    choice of parents, 176;\n    his birth, 177;\n    various names of, 177;\n    adoration by an old Rishi, 178;\n    qualifies himself for marriage, 178;\n    enjoyment of domestic life, 179;\n    departure from home and assumption of the monastic character, 178;\n    temptations, 178;\n    his horse Kantaka, 178;\n    his penances, 180;\n    his triumph over the devil, 180;\n    becomes perfect Buddha, 180, 181;\n    turns the Wheel of the Law, 180;\n    his reception by kings, 180;\n    his first conversions, 180;\n    founds monastic institutions, 180;\n    enters Nirv\u00e2na, 449;\n    funeral rites, 181;\n    relics, 181;\n    aristocratic descent, 221;\n    gestation of, 224, 225;\n    signs at his birth, 226;\n    infant, recognized Simeon-wise by the Rishi Asita, 231;\n    his temptations in the wilderness, 231;\n    and the Matangi girl, 285;\n    compared with Christ, 242-344;\n    and the widow's mite, 342, 343;\n    and the cup of cold water, 344;\n    as a fisher of men, 344;\n    exalts humility and poverty, 345;\n    on divorce, 345, 346;\n    and Christ, 362-365;\n    his sayings collected, 343;\n    sects in the Church of 449;\n    extravagant adoration 458;\n    painting the picture of, 458, 459;\n    and the two condemned felons, 136-139;\n    central figure of Buddhism, 146;\n    successive manifestations, 476;\n    worship of, 477;\n    training of, 476, 478, 481;\n    disciples of, 480\n\n  Buddha Sakymuni, leaps into the fire, 58\n\n  Buddhas, the, Pratyeka, 478.\n\n  Buddhism, ascetic nature and rules of, 93-95;\n    fathers of, miracle workers, 121, 122;\n    goal of, 120;\n    its sacred canon, 449-451;\n    ten commandments of, 467;\n    boundless charity of, 468;\n    regard for personal purity, 469-471;\n    its four truths, 473;\n    Buddha its central figure, 476;\n    gods of, 476;\n    grades in, 478, 479;\n    morality of, 480-483;\n    five commandments of, 550;\n    not without a god, ii. 655-657.\n\n  Buddhists, 93-95;\n    antecedent to Buddhism, 95;\n    in India, 96, 97;\n    of Visvamitra, 96, 97\n\n  Bunyan's \"Pilgrim's Progress\" compared with the Apocalypse, 366, 367\n\n\n  Caaba, the, 188-190.\n\n  Carlyle, Thomas, forestalled by Confucius, 167;\n    his \"Everlasting No.\" 186;\n    on Mahomet, 192\n\n  Cause, the notion of, 484;\n    the known. See POWER.\n\n  Ceylon, religious observance in, 51;\n    festivals in, 53;\n    marriage in, 75, 76;\n    burial rites in, 78;\n    omens in, 112, 113;\n    divination in, 117;\n    the Bo-tree, 127.\n\n  Child, myth of the dangerous, 227-230\n\n  China, Emperor of, praying for rain, 36;\n    sacrifice in, 42;\n    divination in, 117, 118;\n    in the days of Confucius, 159;\n    official creed of, 391;\n    sacred writings of, 39;\n    authentic history of, remote, 403;\n    fate of the early Emperors of, as good or bad,\n  403-406;\n    its sages and kings, 405-407;\n    the \"religiones licit\u00e6\" of, 413\n\n  Chinese, the, sacred books once nearly destroyed, 391;\n    their political doctrines, 394;\n    their ethics, 395, 396;\n    their loyalty to the heroes as heaven-appointed, 398, 399\n\n  Christ, Jesus, conceived necessity of his death, 47;\n    his appeal to miracles, 123;\n    divinity of, not found in the New Testament, 326, 327;\n    Mahomet's view of, 513, 514;\n    worship of, 665.\n    See JESUS.\n\n  Christians, the early, communists, 607;\n    first breach among, 608;\n    severe discipline of, 614\n\n  Christianity, fundamental conception of, 48, 49;\n    festivals of, 52;\n    ascetic spirit of early, 97;\n    ascetic development of, 98, 99;\n    powerless over the Jews since the death of Christ, 314, 315;\n    originally Judaic, 334;\n    its worship of Christ, 308;\n    its treatment of the Father and the Spirit, 309, 310\n\n  Christmas, a pagan festival, 53.\n\n  Church, the, necessary infallibility of, 152\n\n  Choo He, his criticism of preface to Chinese odes, 380, 381\n\n  Chow, the Duke of, on the favor of heaven, 406\n\n  Ch'un Ts'\u00ebw, the, forced interpretation applied to, 376-378, 411;\n    its subject matter and authorship, 411-413;\n    opinions of Dr. Legge, 411-413,\n      of Mang, 411, 412;\n    extract, 412;\n    topics, 412\n\n  Chung Yung, the, authorship of, 394;\n    its doctrine of the \"Mean,\" 394, 395;\n    its doctrine of virtue and heaven, 395, 396\n\n  Cicero on immortality, 688.\n\n  Circumcision, wide-spread practice of, 63;\n    among the Jews, 64;\n    of women among the Suzees and Mandingoes, 73, 74\n\n  Clement, quotation from, on second coming, 338, 339\n\n  Clergy, secular and regular, 100\n\n  Cobbe, Frances Power, 641\n\n  Coming, the second, apostolic doctrine on, 334-339.\n\n  Confucius, neither an ascetic recluse\n  nor a religious enthusiast, 158, 159;\n    regard for ritual, 159-201;\n    birth and early life, 159;\n    as a teacher, 159;\n    subject of his doctrines, 160;\n    refuses state endowments, 160;\n    chief magistrate of Loo, 160;\n    resignation 160;\n    death, 161;\n    character, 162;\n    wanting in the bold originality of the other reformers of\n      religion, 162;\n    charge of insincerity, 162;\n    his purity, 163;\n    his courteous manners, 164;\n    formal deportment, 165;\n    relations with his disciples, 165;\n    four virtues of which he was master, 166;\n    sense of a mission, 166, 167;\n    pain at being misunderstood, 167;\n    had no theological beliefs, 167;\n    lays all stress upon terrestrial virtues, 168;\n    had an esoteric doctrine, 169;\n    subjects on which he did not talk, 170;\n    minds not things too high for him, but is silent, 170;\n    summary of moral duties, 171;\n    moral perfection, 171;\n    doctrine of reciprocity, 172;\n    some of his sayings, 172, 173;\n    Carlylean utterances, 173;\n    Tsge-Kung's admiration for him, 173;\n    interview with and opinion of La\u00f2-ts\u00e9, 174, 175;\n    ante-natal signs, 225;\n    his teachings similar to Christ's, 342;\n    doctrine of recompense, 354-357;\n    idea of perfect virtue, 361;\n    and Christ, 362-365;\n    on unseen spiritual beings, 395, 396;\n    left writings, 414\n\n  Confucianism the official creed in China, 391\n\n  Consciousness, its rise unaccounted for by material evolution, 705;\n    necessarily of spiritual evolution, 706, 707;\n    not by creation, nor from nothing, 707\n\n  Consecration, power of, among the Mongolians, 86;\n    among the Catholics, 86;\n    differs from sacrifice, 86;\n    permanence of, 87\n\n  Consecrated objects in Sierra Leone, 84;\n    among the Tartars, 84;\n    in Ceylon, 86;\n    value of, 86\n\n  Cornelius, conversion of, 328, 610\n\n  Creation of the universe, Hebrew account of 531-533;\n    account, of the Quich\u00e9s, 533,\n      of the Mixtecs, 533, 534,\n      of the Buddhists, 534,\n      of the Parsees, 534, 535;\n    of the Rig-Veda, 535, 536;\n    of animals and man, Hebrew account, 536-538,\n      Fijian account, 538;\n    impossible, 707\n\n  Creeds, the error of, 709, 710\n\n  Cylinders, rotary, in Thibet, with sacred texts, 373, 374\n\n\n  Dakhmas, the, 79, 80\n\n  Daniel, the book of, 586, 587;\n    the prophet, 587, 588, 590\n\n  Darwinism, an epoch, 705\n\n  Death, rites at, in New South Wales, 77;\n    in Western Africa, 77, 78;\n    in Polynesia, 77;\n    in Mexico, 78;\n    in Ceylon, 77;\n    in Thibet, 88;\n    among Christians, 89, 90\n\n  Death-watch, the, in Scotland, 114\n\n  Debt a disqualification in Buddhism, 460\n\n  Delphi, oracle at, 126\n\n  Deluge, the, Hebrew account of, 541, 542;\n    other traditions, 243, 244;\n    Indian tradition, 244, 245;\n    the judgment by, 597\n\n  Demoniac possession in the days of Christ, 210, 211;\n    in Judea, Abyssinia, Polynesia, and Ceylon, 245, 246\n\n  Design, argument from, 711, 712\n\n  Destruction, impossible, 706\n\n  Devadatta, 481\n\n  Devas, the worship of, renounced by the Parsees, 490\n\n  Didron, M., on the Scriptural proof of the Trinity, 379;\n    on medi\u00e6val representations of the Father and the Son in the\n      Trinity, 665, 666\n\n  Disciples, the, rebuked by Christ for not casting out a devil, 244;\n    and Judaism, 328-341, 345\n\n  Disease, moral theory of, 141\n\n  Disease-makers in Tanna, 140\n\n  Divination a profession, 115;\n    in South Africa, 115;\n    from sticks and bones, 115, 116;\n    by familiar spirits, 116, 117;\n    among the American Indians, 117, 118;\n    among the Ostiacks, 118;\n    in China, 118, 119;\n    in Ceylon, 119;\n    by the stars, 120\n\n  Diviners, methods of, in Sierra Leone, 143;\n    in Mexico, 143;\n    among the Jews, 145\n\n  Divorce, Christ's doctrine of, 304;\n    Paul's doctrine of, 632\n\n\n  Dogs, Parsee respect for, 409, 500\n\n  Drake, Sir Francis, and his men, divine honors paid to, 256, 257\n\n  Dreams, presumed supernatural origin of, 106;\n    theory of, 107;\n    interpretation of, 107;\n    Jewish ceremony against bad, 107, 108;\n    in Scripture, 108, 109;\n    in Homer, 110;\n    horn and ivory gates of, 110\n\n  Dreams, Joseph's, as a main proof of the incarnation, 108\n\n  Dress, Buddhist rule for nuns, 467\n\n  Duty, Chinese definition of, 395\n\n\n  Easter, 55\n\n  Ebionite, the, a sect apart, 333;\n    their fate, 334\n\n  Ecclesiastes, the work of a cynic, 568;\n    account of, 569\n\n  Eddas, the Norse, 388\n\n  Ego, consciousness of the, 700\n\n  Elisha, an Amazulu, 556\n\n  Elohim, the, 663, 664\n\n  Epistles, the, of the New Testament, general burden of, 618, 619\n\n  Equilibrium of soul, Chinese definition of, 395\n\n  Essenes, the, 96\n\n  Essence, the ultimate, of Brahminism, 661, 662\n\n  Evil, origin of, Hebrew account of; 537, 538;\n    Buddhist account, 539, 540\n\n  Evolution theory, its dark spot, 705;\n    its great triumph, 706\n\n  Existence the course of evil, 474, 475;\n    at bottom, what? 702\n\n  Exorcism among the Jews, 212;\n    among the disciples of Christ, 213\n\n  Experience as a test of truth, 678, 679\n\n  Ezekiel the prophet and his prophecies, 582, 584\n\n\n  Faith and belief distinguished, 23;\n    and works, Scripture controversy on, 618, 619;\n    and belief, relations of, 709-711\n\n  Fasting as a religious rite, 55\n\n  Festivals, idea of, 52;\n    natural seasons of, 52;\n    in Guinea, China, &c., 53;\n    New Year's day in China, 53;\n    Christmas, 54;\n    among the Jews, 55;\n    three kinds of, 54, 55;\n    of Peruvians, 56\n\n  Fetish, idea of a, 132;\n    power to\n  charm, 133,\n    priests as healers, 141\n\n  Fire a sacred symbol, 56;\n    invocation of, 489;\n    Parsee worship, 494, 495\n\n  Force, persistence of, 672-677;\n    Herbert Spencer on, 677, 705;\n    the notion of, 717\n\n  Frashaostra, 183, 184\n\n  Fravashis, the, 493\n\n\n  Gadarene demoniac, the, i. 243\n\n  G\u00e2th\u00e2, the fifth, i. 182;\n    account of the first, ii. 487, 488;\n    the second, ii. 485, 486;\n    third, ii. 486, 487;\n    fourth and fifth, ii. 487, 488\n\n  G\u00e2th\u00e2s, the five, antiquity of, ii. 484;\n    account of, ii. 485-490\n\n  Gentleness, La\u00f2-ts\u00e9 on, ii. 419\n\n  Ghost, the Holy, the Christian art, ii. 666, 667;\n    generally unworshiped, 668\n\n  God, personality of, not an essential element in religious belief, 719;\n    loss of personality of, a gain, 720\n\n  God of Israel, the, his imperious attitude, 590;\n    arbitrary conduct towards man in Paradise, 591, 592;\n    his command to Abraham, 592;\n    a Bramanical contrast, 592;\n    his favoritism for Abel, 593,\n      for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, 594;\n    partizanship in delivering the Israelites from Egypt, 594,\n      and giving them Canaan, 594;\n    exacting and \"jealous,\" 594;\n    anger and the calf idolaters, 595;\n    treatment of the Israelites in the wilderness, 594, 595;\n    capriciousness, 595, 596,\n      in the punishment by deluge, 596,\n      towards the builders of Babel, 596;\n    in regard to Balaam, ii. 596,\n      Nadab and Abihu, ii. 597,\n      the man that touched the ark, ii. 597,\n      his rejection of Saul, ii. 598;\n    preference for Samuel, 598;\n    treatment of Ahab, ii. 598;\n    his treatment of alien nations, 599;\n    his legislation, 600,\n      in regard to the Sabbath, 600,\n      idolatry, 600,\n      filial impiety, 600;\n    anthropomorphic conceptions of, 602, 603;\n    better elements in the ideal, 603, 604\n\n  God of Christendom, the, differs from the God of Israel, 636;\n    his worst action, 637;\n    the change accounted for, 637, 638;\n    no longer the God of a race, 638;\n    one blot on his character, makes punishment eternal, 638, 639;\n    step toward a milder view, Purgatory, 640;\n    recent still milder conceptions, 641\n\n  God the Father in medi\u00e6val art, 665, 666\n\n  God, belief in, as Father, 682;\n    as Son, 682, 683; as Spirit, 683\n\n  God among the Fijians, 650, 651;\n    the Negroes, 653, 654;\n    the Greenlanders, 654;\n    original Americans, 654, 655;\n    the great religions of the world, 655;\n    of Buddhism, and 653-657;\n    interior superior, 657\n\n  God, the highest, recognized amidst inferior, worshiped gods,\n    in Guinea, 657;\n    among the Kafirs, 657;\n    in Sierra Leone, 658;\n    in Dahomey, 658;\n    among the Ashantees, 658, 659;\n    in Mexico and Peru, 659;\n    in Sabaeism, 659;\n    among the Hindus, 659-664;\n    in Judaism, 664, 665;\n    in Christianity, 664-666;\n    various explanations of the idea of, 669,\n      of common realism, 670, 698,\n      of metaphysical realism, 671, 672, 698;\n    comparative estimate of these theories, 672, 673;\n    of moderate idealism, 673, 676, 698;\n    philosophical conclusion, 476, 477\n\n  Gods appealed to as men, 39, 40\n\n  Goethe, quotation, 415\n\n  Gopa, wife of Buddha, 177-179\n\n  Gospels, the, 199;\n    criticism of the narratives, 199-204;\n    discrepancies in regard to the genealogies, 218-220;\n    accounts of Christ's birth, 221, 222;\n    discrepancies regarding Christ's habitation, 239;\n    regarding the calling of his first disciples, 230, 231;\n    discrepancies about the sermon on the Mount, 243;\n    hopelessness of chronology, 243;\n    account of Christ's entry into Jerusalem, 253;\n    account of the fig-tree, 254;\n    accounts of Christ's annointing, 225;\n    accounts of Christ's betrayal by Judas, 240, 241;\n    accounts of Christ's last passover, 258, 259;\n    account of Christ's passion, 260, 261;\n    account of Christ's arrest, 261, 262,\n      of Jesus before the Sanhedrim, 262, 263,\n      of Jesus before Pilate, 263-265,\n      of the crucifixion, 265-267,\n      of the resurrection, 269-275;\n    account of Christ's lineage and birthplace, 295-298\n\n  Greece, gods of, 386\n\n  Groves, sacred, Africa and the South seas, 127\n\n\n  Habakkuk, the prophet, 579\n\n  Haggai, his prophecy, 585\n\n  Hanyfites, 550\n\n  Haoma, the plant, 46, 47\n\n  Harischandra, legend of, 246-249\n\n  Harmony, Chinese spiritual, 395\n\n  Haug, Dr, on the ages of the Vedas, 428, 429;\n    his translation of the G\u00e2th\u00e2s, 482\n\n  Hea, decrees against the King of, 404, 405\n\n  Heaven and hell, Mahometan, 516, 517\n\n  Heaven, Chinese definition of, ii. 396\n\n  Hebrews, the, its teachings, as contrasted with that of James, 618-620\n\n  Hegira, the, 189\n\n  Here's conception of Hephaistos, 223\n\n  Hermits, Indian, 195\n\n  Herod and the birth of Christ, 227-229\n\n  Herod the Tetrarch, fate of, 611\n\n  Heu Hing, political economy of, 400\n\n  Hezekiah, and Isaiah, 550;\n    divine favor to, 557;\n    inglorious reign of, 558\n\n  Hilkiah, and his associates, and Josiah, 523-525\n\n  Hindus, ritual among the, 51;\n    festivals among the, 52-54\n\n  Hodgson, his discovery in Nepaul, 451\n\n  Homa, the god, 506-508\n\n  Homa-Yasht, the, 506\n\n  Homer, poems of, 388, 389\n\n  Horace, quotation, 418\n\n  Hosea, the prophet, 573\n\n  How-tseih, miraculous birth of, 224\n\n  Huran, prayer of a, 33\n\n  Hymns, Vedic, of cursing, 565, 566\n\n  Hysteria in Judea in the days of Christ, 210, 211\n\n\n  Ibos, sacrifice among the, 42\n\n  Idealism, its forms, 673;\n    moderate,\n  as a solution, 677-676;\n    extreme, 676\n\n  Idolatry, the crime of, among the Jews, 600\n\n  Immortality of the soul, not an article in either the Buddhist or\n    Jewish creed, 687;\n    the Greek and Roman philosophers on, 687, 688\n\n  Incas, the worship of, by images, 651\n\n  Indian, Nootka, prayer of, 32\n\n  Indra, his praises, 433;\n    his soma-drinking, 433;\n    the Indian Zeus, 433\n\n  Infallibility of the clergy, 153\n\n  Inspiration of sacred books, 311, 372;\n    among the Chinese, 380, 381\n\n  Instruction, Chinese definition of, 305\n\n  Interpretation, forced, of sacred books, 375-383\n\n  Isaac, the sacrifice of, an Indian parallel to, 545-548\n\n  Isaiah quoted to prove Messiahship of Christ, 297-299;\n    53d as a prophecy of Christ, 299;\n    his rank as a prophet, 517;\n    dates of his prophecies, 518;\n    earliest stratum of his prophecies, 518;\n    contrast with Joel, 519;\n    on the Jerusalem ladies, 519;\n    second part, 519;\n    accepts the divine call, 520;\n    third part, 520;\n    fourth part, 520, 521;\n    fifth, sixth, and seventh parts, 521;\n    vision of the future, 521\n\n\n  Jacob, his bargain with Jehovah, 39;\n    his conduct to Esau, 594\n\n  Jahveh, the holy name, 664\n\n  James, the Epistle of, its teaching contrasted with that of the\n    Hebrews, 619, 620\n\n  Jehovah, his praises in the Psalms, 38;\n    and Adonia, 663, 664\n\n  Jeremiah, the prophet, 579;\n    his call 579, 580;\n    denunciatory prophecies, ii. 580, 581;\n    and Pashur, 581;\n    analysis of his prophecies, ii. 581, 582;\n    lamentations of, 583\n\n  Jesus Christ, the historical (see CHRIST), difficulties in regard to\n    materials for his life, 199;\n    compared with the mythical, and the ideal, 200;\n    his sayings credibly reported, 201;\n    criticism of his doings, 202;\n    further tests applied, 202-204;\n    his parents and family, 204-206;\n    his mother, 205;\n    birth at Nazareth, 206;\n    originally a carpenter, 207;\n    influence of John the Baptist, 206, 207;\n    comes forth a Messiah, 207;\n    boldly asserts his claim, 207;\n    his early disciples, the three most intimate, 207, 208;\n    female followers, 209;\n    his own family and neighbors unfriendly to his mission, 208, 209;\n    his public teaching, 209;\n    state of Judea at the time, 209, 210;\n    casts out devils, 210, 211;\n    his sermons and parables, 212;\n    authority as a teacher, 212, 213;\n    offends the Jews by forgiving sin, 213;\n    disregard of Sabbatical customs, 213;\n    claiming Messiahship, 213, 214;\n    abusing his enemies, 214;\n    violent conduct in the Temple, 214;\n    his betrayal and apprehension, 214;\n    accusation and trial, 215, 216;\n    the witnesses and his defense, 215, 216;\n    his condemnation, 216;\n    before Pilate, 216;\n    crucifixion, 216;\n    interment, 216\n\n  Jesus, of the Gospels, indifference to alleged lineage and\n    birthplace, 294;\n    believed to be of Nazareth, 296;\n    misapplies a prophecy to himself, 298, 299;\n    and the Jewish Sabbath, 301, 302;\n    offense taken at the company he kept and free living, 302;\n    his neglect of the tradition of the elders, 303;\n    views of divorce, 304;\n    on paying tribute, 304, 305;\n    and the Sadducees in regard to the future state, 305-307;\n    two chief commandments, 307;\n    on the denunciation of the Scribes, 408, 409;\n    provokes opposition, 409;\n    expulsion of the money-changers, 409, 410;\n    defense of his conduct, 410, 411;\n    gives offense to the Sanhedrim, 312;\n    before the Sanhedrim, 312;\n    before Pilate, 313;\n    his faith in his Messiahship, 316;\n    conscious of being son of God, 316, 317;\n    comparative modesty of the claim, 317;\n    asserted inferiority to the Father, 318;\n    his relation to the law, 319, 320;\n    his mission confined to the Jews, 320, 321;\n    his idea of his mission his one thought, 321-326;\n    his warning to his disciples to be ready, 321-323;\n    his idea of his kingdom, 323;\n    his one qualification for admission, 324;\n    his kingdom to be on earth, 325;\n    Peter's confession of, 327;\n    doctrine of his divinity not found in the New Testament, 327;\n    not thought to have a design of subverting the Mosaic law, 328;\n    modern laudation of, 339;\n    materials for criticism, 339, 340;\n    his fondness for contrasts, 340, 341;\n    his resemblance to La\u00f2-ts\u00e9, 344;\n    aversion to wealth and wealthy men, 446, 447;\n    his doctrine in regard to invitations to feasts, 448;\n    parable of the laborers in in the vineyard, 449;\n    his assertion of eternal punishment, 350;\n    his false estimate of the power of prayer, 349;\n    his sermon on the Mount, 450-462;\n    his doctrine of murder, adultery, and perjury, 451, 452;\n    of resisting evil by doing good, 452, 453;\n    his model prayer, 356, 358;\n    on the superiority of heavenly to temporal interests, 358-461;\n    founder of scientific ethics, 360;\n    as a prophet, compared with Buddha and Confucius, 362-364;\n    compared with Socrates, 464, 465;\n    his transcendent moral grandeur, 366;\n    as a man of sorrows, 366-368\n\n  Jesus Christ, Mahomet's view of, 513, 514\n\n  Jesus, the ideal, of St. John, peculiarities of the narrative, 277-288;\n    improbabilities, 288;\n    raising Lazarus, 288-291;\n    at the marriage feast, 279, 280;\n    heals by a word, 282;\n    at the pool of Bethesda, 282;\n    interviews with Nathaniel, &c., 280, 281, 283;\n    symbolic teachings, 281-283;\n    last discourse to his disciples, 283;\n    as the Logos, 283, 284;\n    Oneness with God, as his father, 284;\n    last days and moments, 286, 287\n\n  Jesus, the mythical, the accounts of, 216, 217;\n    variety of these, 217;\n    the genealogies, 217-221;\n    conception and nativity, 221-223;\n    mythological parallels, 223-226;\n    medi\u00e6val painting of, in the womb, 225;\n    recognition by the shepherds, 226, 227;\n    by the Magi, 227;\n    and Herod, 227, 228;\n    a\n  dangerous child, 228-230;\n    circumcision, 230;\n    recognized by Simeon, 231;\n    by Anna, 231;\n    in the Temple, 232-233;\n    called a Nazarene, 234;\n    his baptism, 234, 236;\n    message from John the Baptist, 236;\n    temptation, 237;\n    comes to Capernaum, 238;\n    reasons for leaving Nazareth 238, 239;\n    reception in Nazareth as a preacher, 239;\n    has an abode, 239;\n    no ascetic, 240;\n    in comfortable circumstances, 240;\n    collects followers, 240, 241;\n    calls Peter, 241;\n    calls Matthew, 241;\n    appoints twelve, 241;\n    his four select, 241, 242;\n    works miracles, 242;\n    sermon on the Mount, 242, 243;\n    heals the Gadarene demoniac, 243;\n    expels a devil, and rebukes his disciples for their want of\n      faith, 244;\n    heals the Syrophenician damsel, 244, 245;\n    heals a leper, 246;\n    a paralytic, 246;\n    raises Jarius' daughter, 246, 248;\n    heals a woman with an issue of blood, 248;\n    the centurion's servant, 248, 249;\n    heals a deaf mute, 250;\n    heals a blind man, 250,\n      ten lepers, 250;\n    raises the widow's son, 250;\n    miraculously feeds a multitude, 250;\n    walks on the water, 251;\n    stills the storm, 251;\n    his transfiguration, 251, 252;\n    foretells his crucifixion and resurrection, 253;\n    triumphal entry into Jerusalem, 253, 254;\n    blasts the fig-tree, 254;\n    purges the temple, 254;\n    last anointing, 254;\n    betrayal by Judas, 257;\n    keeps his last passover, 258;\n    institutes the supper, 259;\n    washes his disciples' feet, 260;\n    in Gethsemane, 260;\n    arrest, 261;\n    before the Sanhedrim, 261, 262;\n    before Pilate, 262-265;\n    before Herod, 264;\n    mockery, 265;\n    crucifixion, 265-267;\n    last words, 267;\n    wonders accompanying his death, 267;\n    his burial, 268, 269;\n    resurrection, 269-273;\n    ascension, 275\n\n  Jews, sacrifices among the, 42-44;\n    prayers, 50;\n    festivals of, 52, 53;\n    passover among, 55;\n    rite of circumcision among, 64;\n    historical result of their rejection of Christ, 287, 288;\n    unjust treatment, 289;\n    consideration in extenuation, 289;\n    their provocations, 290, 291;\n    credulity\n  of skepticism in regard to Messianic pretensions, 292;\n    justification of their Messianic expectations, 293-294;\n    excusable ignorance as to Christ's lineage, 295, 296;\n    and their own prophecies, 296-299;\n    treatment of Christ's miracles, 299;\n    their esteem for the Sabbath law, 300, 301;\n    their offense at Christ for his disregard of ceremonial\n      observance, 300-303;\n    their right to interrogate Christ, 303;\n    question to Jesus about tribute, 304, 305;\n    just offense, as monotheists, at Christ, 313;\n    and Christianity, 314-316;\n    justification of their rejection of Christ, 315;\n    identified with their Bible, 162;\n    settlement in Judea, 162, 163;\n    under kings, 163;\n    in captivity, 163;\n    epoch in their history, 163;\n    their national god, 164-166;\n    early creed not monotheistic, 166;\n    idolatry, 167;\n    not Jehovistic, only the priests, 167, 169;\n    effects of the captivity, 170-172;\n    under the Maccabees, 173;\n    their pride and intolerance, 133, 173;\n    under the Asmoneans and the Herods, 173;\n    under the Romans, 174;\n    in Christendom, 175;\n    their toughness, 175.\n\n  Job, story of the book of, 563, 564\n\n  \"Jocelyn,\" Lamartine's, 102, 103\n\n  Joel, his prophecy, 571;\n    Isaiah, 575\n\n  John, Baptist, asceticism of, 96, 206, 207;\n    baptizes Christ, 235;\n    message from prison to Christ, 336;\n    Christ's estimate of, 336\n\n  John, Gospel of, silence about miraculous conception, 221;\n    account of Christ's baptism, 235;\n    account of the crucifixion, 268;\n    on Christ's Divinity, 327, 328;\n    its value in evidence, 328\n\n  John, the apostle, the beloved disciple, 281;\n    his Gospel, its fondness for symbolic speech, 281, 282;\n    for obscure theological questions, 383, 384;\n    doctrine of the Logos, 384, 385;\n    his Gospel as regards Christ's birthplace and lineage, 294, 295\n\n  John, the three epistles of, 620, 621\n\n  Jonah, book and story of, 586, 587\n\n  Jongleurs, the, in New France, installation of, 601\n\n  Jordan, crossing the, an Indian parallel, 553\n\n  Joseph, the father of Jesus, 204, 218, 221, 229, 233\n\n  Josiah, Jehovistic _coup d'\u00e9tat_ under, 523, 525\n\n  Judas, his betrayal of Jesus, 214;\n    slander against, 255;\n    betrays Christ, 263;\n    myth of his unhappy end, 257, 258;\n    charged with his intended crime at the last supper, 258, 259;\n    arrest of Christ, 261, 263\n\n  Judaism, antagonism to asceticism, 96;\n    of John the Baptist, 97;\n    tendency of Christianity to encourage, 97;\n    idea of, 98;\n    Protestant disregard of, 99;\n    and Christianity, 328;\n    and the apostle Paul, 330, 331;\n    and the early Church, 334\n\n\n  Kafirs, prayer of, 34;\n    sacrifice among the, 42, 43;\n    sneezing an omen among, 110;\n    other omens among, 112\n\n  Kama, burning of, 55;\n    invoked to curse, 566\n\n  Kantaka, horse of Buddha, 179\n\n  Karma, the, of Buddhist ethics, 481\n\n  Kava-Vistaspa, 183, 184\n\n  Keightley, data from, on saint worship in England, 668\n\n  Khadija, the first wife of Mahomet, 187;\n    her relations with the prophet, 187;\n    her death, 180\n\n  Khorda-Avesta, the, 502-509;\n    its use, 502;\n    subject-matter and date, 503\n\n  King, the meaning of the term, 391;\n    the five, 391, 392\n\n  Kingdom of heaven, Christ's idea of, 321-324;\n    Paul's, 335;\n    Peter's 336\n\n  Koran, style of, 194, 378-389;\n    the  staple of, 198;\n    the single authorship and unity of, 510;\n    apology for its style, 510;\n    translations, 510;\n    origin and formation of, 510;\n    original copy, 511;\n    arrangement, 511;\n    themes, 511, 512;\n    specimens, 512;\n    its paradise, 517;\n    its hell, 517\n\n  Korosi, his discovery, 451\n\n  Kosti, investure with the, 74\n\n  Kronos, his dread of his children, 229\n\n  Kun\u00e2la, legend of, 481\n\n  Kyros, a dangerous child, 230\n\n\n  Lady, a pious, 460\n\n  La\u00f2-ts\u00e9, probable date of birth, 168;\n    admonition to Confucius, 168;\n    account of himself, 168;\n    resembled Plato's philosopher, 169;\n    his style similar to Christ's, 340;\n    the Christianity of, 353;\n    left writings, 413;\n    description of Tao, 414;\n    conception of goodness, 418;\n    on gentleness, 419;\n    against luxury, 419;\n    has three cardinal virtues, 420;\n    mysticism, 420;\n    conception of God, 421, 422;\n    his character and teaching, 422\n\n  Lazarus, story of, peculiar to John's Gospel, 255;\n    his resurrection, 347, 348\n\n  Lazarus and Dives, 344, 347, 350\n\n  Legge, Dr. James, his Chinese classics, 390;\n    his opinion of the authorship of Ch'un' Tsew, 59\n\n  Legislation, Hebrew, 600-603\n\n  Libations in sacrifice, 47;\n    in Tartary, Samoa, Thibet, &c., 47\n\n  Life, vital forces, Indian apologue, 445, 446\n\n  Linga, the, worship of, 54\n\n  Lucretius on immortality, 688\n\n  Luke, his genealogy of Jesus, 218-221;\n    account of miraculous conception and birth, 222, 223;\n    account of the shepherds, 226, 227;\n    account of Christ's infancy, 230;\n    discrepancies with Matthew, 233-236;\n    his free spirit, 232;\n    account of the call of Peter, 241;\n    version of the sermon on the Mount, 243;\n    account of lunatic boy, 244;\n    his partiality for angels, 252;\n    accompanies Paul, 257\n\n  Lun Yu, the, date of, 392;\n    subject matter, 392;\n    its Boswellian minuteness of detail, 392\n\n  Luxury, La\u00f2-ts\u00e9 on, 419\n\n\n  Magi and the birth of Christ, 228-230\n\n  Mahomet, pretensions of, to the supernatural, 122;\n    the last of the great prophets, 186;\n    his religion self-derived, 187;\n    his parents and birth, 187;\n    his original social position, 187;\n    marries Khadija, 187;\n    his first revelation, 187;\n    passes through the period of the \"Everlasting No.\" 187;\n    Gabriel his guardian angel, 187;\n    first disciples,\n  187;\n    his doctrines provoke persecution, 187;\n    his momentary relapse into idolatry and repentance, 188;\n    persecution of his family, 188;\n    binds by a vow pilgrims from Medina, 188;\n    his flight to Medina, 189;\n    success there, 189;\n    war with Mecca, 189;\n    truce with the Meccans, 190;\n    summons crowned heads to submit to his religion, 190;\n    first pilgrimage to Mecca, 190;\n    enters Mecca in triumph, 191;\n    proclamation to the inhabitants, 192;\n    final triumph and death, 191;\n    his character an open question, 192;\n    his sincerity, 193-195;\n    sense of inspiration, 193;\n    time-serving withal, 193;\n    inspired poetic style, 193;\n    his predecessors, 195;\n    his sources of information, 195;\n    takes to the sword, 195;\n    conduct to the Jews, 195, 196;\n    his weak point, 196, 197;\n    his harem, 197;\n    his marriages, 198;\n    his jealousy, 198;\n    triumph of his religion, 199, 200;\n    aristocratic descent, 221;\n    ante-natal intimations of his greatness, 226;\n    the infant recognized by his grandfather, 231;\n    his awe under the new revelation, 512;\n    his stock-in-trade, 513;\n    view of his prophetic function, 513;\n    prophets acknowledged by, 514;\n    views of Christ, 514, 515;\n    of himself, 516, 517;\n    address of God to, 516\n\n  Malachi on sacrifices to God, 44;\n    prophecies of, 586, 587\n\n  Man, the wise and the fool, chapter from, 468\n\n  Mang, on high-mindedness, his teaching similar to Christ's, 341;\n    a disciple of Confucius, 396;\n    his works, 396, 397;\n    late introduction to the canon, 397, 398;\n    his democratic philosophy, 398;\n    his view how heaven makes known its will, 399, 400;\n    notions of good government, 399, 400;\n    a political economist, 401;\n    his regard for propriety, 401, 402;\n    his faith in human nature, 402, 403;\n    his moral tone, 403\n\n  Manu, code of, on legal and illegal forms of marriage, 76, 77;\n    the typical ancestors of men, 447;\n    and the deluge, 543, 544\n\n\n  Mark, Gospel of, its credibility, 203;\n    omits miraculous conception, 221;\n    account of Christ's baptism, 235;\n    reference to Christ's temptation, 237\n\n  Marriage, rites at, peculiar to civilized nations, 75;\n    in Ceylon, 75;\n    in Thibet, 76;\n    according to the code of Manu, 76;\n    among Parsees, Jews, and Christians, 77;\n    with strangers, among the Jews, 600\n\n  Marriage-tie, the, Christ on, 345\n\n  Maruts, the, prayer to, 35, 38;\n    their nature, 434\n\n  Mary, the mother of Jesus, 204, 205, 218, 221-223, 233, 234;\n    at the cross, 267\n\n  Masses for the dead, 80\n\n  Materialism, unphilosophic, 694\n\n  Matthew, his genealogy of Jesus, 218-221;\n    account of miraculous conception, and birth, 221, 222;\n    account of the Magi, 227;\n    reticence about infancy of Christ, 230;\n    discrepancies with Luke, 233-236;\n    call of, 241;\n    version of sermon on the Mount, 243;\n    his misappropriation of prophecy, 297, 298\n\n  Maya Devi, her dream, 176;\n    her pregnancy, 176;\n    delivery of a son, 177;\n    death thereafter, 177\n\n  Maya, her gestation-time, 225\n\n  Mean, the, Chinese doctrine of, 394, 395\n\n  Mencius. See MANG\n\n  Messiah, the, the term, 292, 293;\n    Jewish ideas of, 292, 293;\n    these ideas not responded to by Christ, 293;\n    presumptuous Christian interpretations, 293, 294;\n    predictions as to lineage and birth, 294-296;\n    as son of David, 295;\n    predictions of his birth from a virgin, 297, 298;\n    in 53d of Isaiah, 279\n\n  Metaphysics, Buddhist, 473, 474\n\n  Mexico, human and other sacrifices in, 41, 42, 43;\n    worship in, 51;\n    burial rites in, 78;\n    monasticism in, 91, 93\n\n  Mexican festival for rain, 35\n\n  Micah, the prophecy of, 578\n\n  Mill, J. S., a metaphysical realist, 676\n\n  Mind, not resolvable in matter, or physical cause, 689-692\n\n\n  Miracles as credentials of the divine, 120, 121;\n    of Buddhism, 121;\n    among the Mongols, 122;\n    among the Moslems, 122;\n    of Christianity, 123;\n    in the early Church, 123, 124;\n    of the Mormons, 124, 125;\n    insufficiency of the evidence in the case of Christ, 299, 300\n\n  Mite, the widow's, 342, 343\n\n  Mithra, the god, 467, 471, 493\n\n  Mitra, 435\n\n  Moments, four sacred, 57\n\n  Monasticism in Mexico and Peru, 89, 92;\n    among the Buddhists, 93-95;\n    in Siam, 96;\n    in Nepaul, 97;\n    in Christianity, 104\n\n  Monk, Buddhist, condemned, to monkeyhood, 556\n\n  Monotheism, fate of, 312\n\n  Monte\u00e7uma and human sacrifice, 41\n\n  Mormons, the, claim to supernatural gifts, 124, 125\n\n  Moses, a dangerous Child, 229;\n    address of God to, 515;\n    the ten commandments of, 549, 550;\n    commandments of the tables of stone given to, 595, 596;\n    mercifulness, 239;\n    divine manifestations to, 602\n\n  Moslems, prayer among the, 51\n\n  Muir, Dr., Sanskrit texts, 425\n\n  M\u00fcller, Max, translator of Rig-Veda-Sanhit\u00e2, 425;\n    account, of the Vedas, 427, 428;\n    on the supreme god of the Hindus, 662, 663\n\n  Myths, three classes of, about Jesus, 217;\n    instance of first order, 221, 222, 224;\n    of the dangerous child, 227;\n    Perseus's birth, 229;\n    of Oidipous, 229;\n    of Christ's baptism, 352;\n    illustration of the growth of, 234\n\n\n  Nagardjuna, thaumaturgic powers of, 122\n\n  Nahum, the prophet, and his prophecy, 578\n\n  Nathaniel, 280-285\n\n  Nature, Chinese definition of, 395\n\n  Nausikaa, a Chinese, 409\n\n  Nazareth, Christ's reputed birthplace, 296\n\n  Nazarites, the, 96\n\n  Neander on the Judaism of the early Church, 333, 334\n\n  Newman, Francis W., 640\n\n  Nicodemus, 267, 280, 282, 283, 285\n\n\n  Nid\u00e2nas, the twelve, 473-475\n\n  Nirv\u00e2na, theory of, 474, 475;\n    sacrifice of, 478\n\n\n  Obadiah, prophecy of, 577\n\n  Objects, holy, in Peru, 133;\n    trees as, 134;\n    animals as, 134;\n    serpents as, 134;\n    images as, 135\n\n  Odes, Chinese, traditional interpretation of, 379-381\n\n  Offerings, religious, in Sierra Leone, 84;\n    in Tartary, 85\n\n  Oidipous, 229\n\n  Omar, his conversion to Mahometanism, 188\n\n  Omens, divine, 106;\n    in dreams, 106;\n    in sneezing, 109-110;\n    interpretation of, 111;\n    from flight of eagles, 111;\n    from a horse turning back, 111;\n    from bleating of a sheep, 111;\n    among the Kafirs and Chinese, 112;\n    in Ceylon, 112, 113;\n    in the heavens, 113;\n    in Tacitus, 113, 114;\n    in Ireland and Scotland, 114;\n    at birth of great men, 114, 115\n\n  Ophites, the, their worship, 134\n\n  Ordeals, as a moral test, 119;\n    in Western Africa, 119;\n    among the Hebrews, 120;\n    among the Negroes, 120;\n    among the Ostiacks, 121\n\n  Orders, holy, in the Church of England, 102, 103;\n    Buddhist monastic rules, 104-106\n\n  Ormazd. See AHURA-MAZDA\n\n\n  Pachacamac, or the universal soul, 658\n\n  Palestine, state of, in days of Christ, 209, 210\n\n  Parker, Theodore, 641\n\n  Parsees, sacrifices among the, 44;\n    prayers, 50;\n    festivals of, 53;\n    baptism among, 61, 62;\n    burial rites, 78, 80\n\n  Parseeism, rise of, 484;\n    reformers' hymn, 483;\n    religious zeal of, 486;\n    objects of worship, 489;\n    fire-worship, 490, 491;\n    confession of faith, 490, 491;\n    new divinities, 491, 493;\n    respect for dogs, 499, 500;\n    later respect for purity, 500, 501;\n    times of, 507, 508;\n    eight commandments of, 550, 551\n\n  Passover, the Jewish, 55\n\n  Patets, the Parsees, 506, 507\n\n  Patria Potestas, the, in Judea and Rome, 600, 601\n\n  Paul, his independence and concession to Jewish prejudices, 330, 331;\n    his views of the Mosaic law, 332, 333;\n    idea of the coming of Christ, 334, 335;\n    as a persecutor, 608;\n    accounts of his conversion, 608-610;\n    his consecration, 611;\n    at Paphos, 611;\n    in Antioch, 611;\n    at Lystra, taken for Hermes, 611;\n    for a god, 611;\n    parallel in the case of Sir Francis Drake, 612, 613;\n    stoned, 614;\n    parts with Barnabas, 614;\n    chooses Silas, 614;\n    at Phillippi, 614;\n    at Athens, 614;\n    at Corinth, 614;\n    at Ephesus, 614, 615;\n    at Troas, 616;\n    at Jerusalem, 616, 617;\n    appeal to C\u00e6sar, 616;\n    in Rome, 617;\n    his equal apostleship, 621, 622;\n    his epistles, their style and spirit, 623;\n    his reasoning powers, 623, 624;\n    his exclusive regard for essential principles, 623, 624;\n    denunciation of cohabitation with a stepmother, 626;\n    against prostitution, 626;\n    views on matrimony, 628, 629, 630, 632;\n    rules affecting widows, 629;\n    preference for celibacy, 630;\n    allows bishops and deacons to marry, 630;\n    on divorce, 632;\n    on the resurrection of the dead, 632-634;\n    on brotherly love, 634;\n    other maxims, 634\n\n  Perseus, myth of his birth, 229\n\n  Persia, power of, 482\n\n  Peru, monasticism in, 91, 92\n\n  Peruvians, festivals of, 55;\n    baptism among, 58\n\n  Peter, call of, 240;\n    his denial of Christ, 262;\n    his confession, 327;\n    his vision, 328;\n    and Judaism, 329, 330;\n    idea of kingdom of heaven, 335, 336;\n    conduct towards Ananias and Sapphira, 606, 607;\n    deliverance by an angel, 608;\n    scandal caused by, 610;\n    his epistles, 619\n\n  Pharisee, the, and publican, 344\n\n  Pharisees, and Christ, 300, 305;\n    denounced by Christ, 308, 309\n\n  Phinehas and the Midianitish woman, 597\n\n  Pilate, as governor of Judea, 262, 263;\n    treatment of Christ, 263, 265;\n    Christ before, 313\n\n  \"Pilgrim's Progress,\" 635, 636. See BUNYAN\n\n  Places, holy, 82, 83;\n    special haunts\n  of the divine, 126, 127;\n    in Africa and South Seas, 127;\n    in Ceylon, (the Bo-tree), 127;\n    graves as, 127, 128;\n    in history, 128;\n    oracles, 128;\n    by consecration\u2014the temple, 128, 129;\n    holy of holies, 130\n\n  Plato, his description of a philosopher in his \"The\u00e6tetus,\" 170\n\n  Polynesia, burial rites in, 78\n\n  Positivism, weak point in, 157\n\n  Pourutschista, St., 183, 184\n\n  Power, the Unknown, not a suggestion of sense, 696, or of\n    reason, 696, 697, but of religious sentiment, 697, 698;\n    idea of, unaccounted for by Realism, common and metaphysical, 698;\n    moderate and extreme Idealism, 698;\n    neither one nor many, but all, 699, 700;\n    sense of, an intuition, 700, 701;\n    of kin to mind, as in man, 701, 702;\n    includes consciousness, 702;\n    includes our nature, 702;\n    the universal solvent, 703, 704;\n    fountain of all reservoirs of force, 705;\n    allows nothing to be a law to itself, 705;\n    our knowledge of, no riddle, 707;\n    illustrations, 708-712;\n    the denial of, an affirmation, 717;\n    faith in, the foundation of religious faith, 718;\n    answer to charge of vagueness, 719, 720;\n    not a father, not a judge, 720;\n    harmony of the idea of, with deep religious feeling, 721\n\n  Praise conjoined with prayer, 32-37;\n    part of worship, 37, 38;\n    Christian and heathen compared, 38\n\n  Prajapati, 535\n\n  Prayer, its influence, 32;\n    its concomitant, praise, 32;\n    its primitive form and purpose, 33;\n    specimens of primitive, 33;\n    of Indians, preparing for war, 33;\n    of a Huron, 33;\n    of Kafirs, 34;\n    of Caribbean Islanders, 34;\n    of the Samoans, 34;\n    Polynesian, 34;\n    Vedic, 35-37;\n    Solomon's, 35;\n    special, 35;\n    efficacy, 35;\n    for rain and other physical benefits, 36;\n    for Thebes, 38;\n    specimens of, 38-40;\n    and sacrifice, 39;\n    forms of, 50;\n    Christ's doctrine of, 350;\n    the Lord's, 356-358\n\n  Pre-Adamites, Buddhist, 460\n\n  Priests, special function of, 99;\n    in relation to the monastic order,\n  99, 100;\n    consecration of, in Greenland, 100;\n    among the American tribes, 100;\n    among certain Negroes, 100;\n    in Mexico, 101;\n    among the Jews, 101, 102;\n    in the Christian Church, 102, 103;\n    sanctity of, 136;\n    authority of, 136-138;\n    grades of, 137;\n    prophets _versus_, 138;\n    privileges of, 138;\n    primitive, 138;\n    formation as a separate class, as medical practitioners, 139, 140;\n    disease-making, 140;\n    as doctors in Australia, Africa, &c., 141;\n    as healers among the Negroes, 140, 141;\n    as mediators for the sick, 142;\n    irregular, 142;\n    miscellaneous functions, 142;\n    in North America as soothsayers, 144;\n    as fortune-tellers, &c., in Thibet, 145;\n    claim to inspiration, 145;\n    Jewish high, claims and powers of, 146;\n    protected by heaven, 146;\n    repute of Brahminical, 147;\n    functions of, 147;\n    as rain makers, &c., 148;\n    power and sanctity of, 148, 149;\n    in Ceylon and Siam, 149;\n    reward of, 149;\n    tithes to, 149;\n    the duty and privilege of offering, 152;\n    privileges of, 150;\n    hereditary, 151;\n    internally called, 152;\n    a demand for, 152;\n    infallibility, 153\n\n  Priestesses in Guinea, 148, 149\n\n  Prophet, anonymous, 574;\n    another, 578;\n    _the_ anonymous, his rank among the prophets, 583;\n    his prophecies, 584;\n    the prophet of consolation, 584, 585\n\n  Prophets of the world, the, 154;\n    their ultimate authority, 155;\n    mystically invested with superhuman endowment, 155;\n    their absolute consciousness, 155, 156;\n    their conservative spirit, 156;\n    the Hebrew, civil standing, 554, 555;\n    Elijah and Elisha, 555;\n    the most powerful, 570\n\n  Prophecy, Hebrew, originally oral, then written, 570;\n    constant theme of, 570, 571;\n    minor topics, 571\n\n  Prosperity, national or royal, Jewish, Chinese, and Thibetan\n    theories of, 558, 559\n\n  Protestantism and asceticism, 98\n\n  Proverbs, the, a criticism, 568\n\n  Psalms, the, their character, 564, 565;\n    of cursing (cx. and cix.), 565;\n    Vedic parallels, 565, 566\n\n  Psalmists, the, their praises of Jehovah, 38\n\n  Puberty, rites of, cruel and mysterious, 64, 65;\n    meaning of the rites, 65, 66;\n    Catlin's account of the rite among the Mandans, 66, 67;\n    Schoolcraft's account, 68;\n    rite in New South Wales, 68-70;\n    and in other parts of Australia, 70, 71;\n    of a Phallic nature in Africa, 71-73;\n    in South Seas, 73;\n    among the Hindus, 72, 73;\n    among the Parsees, 74;\n    among Jews and Christians, 74\n\n  Punishment, eternal, doctrine of, 350;\n    in the Christian system, 638-640\n\n  Purgatory, a merciful suggestion, 640\n\n  P\u00fbrna, the Christianity of, 354;\n    the legend of, 452-458\n\n  Purusha S\u00fbkta, the, a universal essence, 438, 439\n\n\n  Rain, prayer for, 35, 36\n\n  Rays of Buddha, 113\n\n  Realism, common, in relation to God, 670, 671;\n    metaphysical, do., 671, 672;\n    comparative estimate, 672, 673;\n    and Idealism, unable to solve the religious problem, 698, 699\n\n  Reality, the one, 701\n\n  Reason, the process of, 696\n\n  Relations, the, of time and space to mind and matter, 691, 692\n\n  Religion, interest and importance of the subject, 19, 20;\n    fallacious evidences, 20, 21;\n    method of inquiry, 22, 23;\n    universality and varied phases, 22, 23;\n    substance and form, 22;\n    its root principle, 27;\n    craving after, 28;\n    twofold aspect and function, 29;\n    analysis of treatment of the subject in these volumes, 28-30;\n    two distinct questions regarding, 645, 646;\n    these resolved into three, 646;\n    essential assumption, 647;\n    three fundamental postulates, 648;\n    two kinds of proof, 649;\n    universal, 649, 650;\n    meagre among the Australians, 650;\n    in Kamtschatka, 650;\n    the permanent in, 668, 669;\n    question suggested by, as regards God, 669;\n    conclusion of science, 677, 678;\n    tendency to limit itself in theology, 679, 680;\n    historical progress of, 681, 682;\n    the great truth in, offered to philosophy, 683;\n    involves a faith in the soul, 684-694;\n    final postulate, 695;\n    conclusion of, neither from sense nor reason, but sentiment, 696;\n    conclusion of, necessary, 696;\n    a pervading error and a general truth in, 709;\n    real difficulty about, 711;\n    denial of its truth emotional as well as the affirmation, 712;\n    objections met, 710, 725;\n    the one universal foundation of, 718\n\n  Religions, founders of new, 154;\n    their comparison, 645\n\n  Resurrection, of Christ, accounts of the, 269;\n    the germ of these in Mark, 269, 270;\n    Matthew's, 269, 270;\n    Luke's, 270;\n    John's, 271, 272;\n    Paul's, 272, 273;\n    summary of accounts, 272, 273;\n    psychological explanation of the myth, 275, 277;\n    of Lazarus, 278, 279\n\n  Reverend, the title of, 149\n\n  Review, general, 643-645\n\n  Rig Veda, the, 426, 427, 429\n\n  Rig-Veda, Sanhit\u00e2, its contents, 430, 435;\n    its praise of Agni, 431;\n    of Indra and the Soma, 431-434;\n    of the Maruts, 434;\n    of Ushas, the dawn, 434;\n    of Varuna, 435, 436;\n    consciousness of one God, 437, 438;\n    speculative element, 440;\n    on the Purusha S\u00fbkta, 438, 439;\n    personification of abstractions, 439, 440;\n    general estimate of, 440, 441;\n    interest to the mythologist, 441;\n    elementary religious ideas, 442, 443\n\n  Ritual, early, universal development of a fixed, 49, 50;\n    in prayer, 50;\n    in worship, 51;\n    in Mexican and other worships, 51;\n    Griggories, charms in Sierra Leone, 133\n\n  Rome, Church of, and Paganism, 56\n\n  Rudrayana, legend of his conversion to Buddhism, 458, 459\n\n\n  Sabaeism, god of, 659\n\n  Sabbath, the Jewish, Christ's treatment of, 309-302\n\n  Sacrament, the Christian, 46, 47\n\n  Sacrifice, idea and origin of, 39, 40, 42, 43, 48;\n    motive to and duty of, 49, 50;\n    to the Amatongo, 40;\n    object of, 41, 44;\n    in Kamtschatka, 42;\n    human, 41;\n    animal, among the Kafirs and in Western Africa, 42;\n    among the American Indians, 42;\n    in China, 42;\n    among the Jews, 42, 46;\n    the Ibos, 42;\n    in South Sea Islands, 43;\n    among the Mexicans, Peruvians, Incas, 43;\n    among the Hindus, 43;\n    among the Parsees, 44;\n    Malachi on, 45;\n    among the Buddhists, 45;\n    a requirement of the religious sentiment, 45;\n    part of, the priests' and worshipers', 46;\n    among the Tembus, 46;\n    by libation, 46;\n    supposed effects on the deity, 47;\n    theory of, among the Hindus, 47;\n    idea of, fundamental to Christianity, 48, 49\n\n  Sadducees, the, and Christ, 305, 308\n\n  Saints, worship of, 310, 311\n\n  Sakyamuni. See BUDDHA\n\n  Saleh, the legend of the prophet, 512-514\n\n  S\u00e2ma Veda, the, 427, 429\n\n  S\u00e2maria, the woman of, 281-284\n\n  Samoans, prayer of the, 34;\n    drink-offerings of, 47\n\n  Samson, the Jewish Hercules, 553\n\n  Samudra, the legend of, 588, 589\n\n  Samuel, government of, 553, 554\n\n  Sanhit\u00e2s, the, what? 425, 426\n\n  Satan in the book of Job, 563, 564\n\n  Saturday, holy, in the Catholic Church, 55\n\n  Scala Santa, the, 128\n\n  Sect, Johannine, trace of a, 616\n\n  Self-consecration common to all religions, 88;\n    its nature, 89;\n    its elements, 89\n\n  Sennacherib, legend of, 556, 557\n\n  Sermon on the Mount, 350, 351\n\n  Shakers, the, 98\n\n  She King, the, slight religious interest of, 407;\n    popularity of its songs, 408;\n    varied themes of these, 407;\n    the widow's protest, 408;\n    young lady's request to her lover, 408;\n    ode of filial piety, 410;\n    theory of kingly success, 560;\n    ode similar to one of psalmist David's, 567\n\n  Ship adrift, a parallel, 718, 719\n\n  Shoo, the four, 391\n\n  Shoo King, the, its antiquity, 403;\n    doctrine of imperial duties and rights, 403, 404;\n    respect for the\n  popular mind, 404;\n    on the house of Hea, 404, 405;\n    on the house of Yin, 406;\n    counsels of the Duke of Chow, 406;\n    of the Duke of Ts'in, 406\n\n  Shun, heaven's choice of, as king, 399, 400, 402, 406\n\n  Simeon, his recognition of the infant Christ, 231-235\n\n  Sin, supposed physical effects of, 36\n\n  Sincerity, a Chinese virtue, 395\n\n  Sneeze, a famous, in Xenophon, 111\n\n  Sneezing, an omen, 110;\n    exclamations connected with, in Polynesia, Germany, Africa, &c., 110;\n    as an omen in Germany, 111\n\n  Socrates, and Christ, his superior gift, 364, 366;\n    a Chinese, 417\n\n  Solomon, prayer of, 35;\n    dedication of Temple, 83;\n    an Indian, 554\n\n  Soma, a god as well as a juice, 431\n\n  Son, the, in the Trinity, 682, 683\n\n  Song of Solomon, traditional interpretation of, 379;\n    dramatic character of, 569, 570;\n    brief account of, 570\n\n  Sophocles, prayer to Apollo, 39\n\n  Soul, Indian conception of a universal, 445, 446;\n    Indian idea of the future of the, 446;\n    the universal, of the Veda, 659, 661;\n    faith in, involved in every religion, 684;\n    in Kamtschatka, Tartary, America, 685;\n    the Kafirs, the Ashantees, 686;\n    immateriality of, 687;\n    faith in its immortality not universal, 687, 688\n\n  Space and time as elements, 691\n\n  Spiegel, Dr., translation of the Zend-Avesta, 483\n\n  Spirit, the, in the Trinity, 683\n\n  Spirits, familiar, divination by, 108, 109\n\n  Spiritualism, 724\n\n  Sramana, a, defined, 94\n\n  Srot\u00e2panna, the, 479 (note)\n\n  Suddhodana and his queen worthy to produce Buddha, 176\n\n  Sunday, Jewish notions of, 301\n\n  Serpent, worship of the, 133, 134\n\n  Suras, showing how Mahomet was possessed by his idea, 512;\n    the opening of the Koran, 512;\n    of the prophet's maturity, 513\n\n  S\u00fbtras, the Buddhistic, the interpretation of, 378;\n    tediousness, 389;\n    the simple and developed, 450;\n    diffuseness and supernatural gear, 472;\n    the simple, 472\n\n  S\u00fbtra, Pr\u00e2timoksha, the, monastic rules of, 94;\n    its subject, 463;\n    antiquity, 463;\n    monastic rules of, 464-466\n\n  S\u00fbtra-Pitaka, the, 467, 468;\n    stories from, 467, 468;\n    contents of, 468\n\n  Svetaketu, the ill-educated young Brahman, 446\n\n  Syroph\u0153nicia, woman of, 244, 245\n\n  Swimming, mixed, 460\n\n\n  Tables of stone, commandments of, 551, 552\n\n  T'ae-k'ang, the Shoo King on, 403\n\n  Ta H\u00ebo, the, its doctrinal character, 293;\n    the original text, 393, 394;\n    Tsang's commentary, 394;\n    its politico-practical character, 394\n\n  Talapoins, the, 148, 149\n\n  Tantras, the, 476\n\n  Tao, description of, 414, 417;\n    his character, 421\n\n  Ta\u00f2-t\u0115-K\u012bng, book of the Ta\u00f2-sse, 413;\n    European translations, 413;\n    authenticity of, 414;\n    meaning of the title, 414;\n    its principal subjects, 414;\n    on Tao, 416, 417;\n    its ideal man, 417, 419;\n    moral doctrines, 417, 418;\n    most philosophical of sacred books, 414;\n    a perplexing study, 414;\n    its conception of God, 421, 422;\n    extract in French and German, 423, 424\n\n  Tao-ts\u00e9, the sect, 413\n\n  Tartars, drink-offerings among the, 47\n\n  Tath\u00e2gata, the, 477\n\n  Temple, rudest form of, known, 83;\n    Solomon's, its dedication, 83;\n    usual splendor of such structures, 82;\n    the Jewish, as a holy place, 129;\n    Fijian, 129, 130;\n    in Mexico and Peru, 130, 131\n\n  Testament, the Old, the sum of the literary activity of the Jews, 518;\n    historical books, 530, 563;\n    doctrine of creation of the universe, 531, 532;\n    of animals and man, 535-538;\n    account of the deluge, 542, 543;\n    of Abraham, 545, 546;\n    of the Jews in Egypt and their deliverance, 548, 549;\n    of the law, 549;\n    of the laws of the stone tablets, 552;\n    of settlement in Palestine, 554;\n    of the kings, 554, 555;\n    of the schism, 555;\n    of the captivity, 563\n\n  Testament, New, its contents, 604\n\n  Theologians, royal, 445-447\n\n  Theology and religion, 681\n\n  Theology, misconception of, 709\n\n  Therapeut\u00e6, the, 95\n\n  Thibet, marriage in, 76;\n    death rites in, 79\n\n  Thread, investiture with the, among the Hindus, 73, 74\n\n  Tombs, sacred, 127\n\n  Tongues, the gift of, at Pentecost, 605, 606;\n    Paul's view of, 606, 607\n\n  Tree, the Ruminal, 113\n\n  Trees, holy, 127, 133, 134\n\n  Tribute, Christ on paying, 304-306\n\n  Trinity, Scripture proof of the doctrine, 379;\n    rationally viewed, 681, 682\n\n  Tripitaka, the, translations of, 449;\n    its origin, 450;\n    its divisions and their authorship, 450;\n    second and third editions called for, 450;\n    real antiquity, 451;\n    discoveries connected with, 451;\n    theology and ethics of, 476\n\n  Tsang, commentary of, 393\n\n  Ts'in on the choice of rulers, 406\n\n  Tsze-Kung, hero-worship of, 168\n\n\n  Unkulunkulu, the Great-great of the Kafirs, 651, 652\n\n  Upagupta and the courtesan, 469, 470\n\n  Upanishad, the, 444, 445\n\n  Up\u00e2sakas, 479, 480\n\n  Ushas, the Indian aurora, 434\n\n  Utikxo, a greater than the Great-great, 653\n\n  Utilitarianism sanctioned by Christ, 360\n\n  Utshaka, his prayer for rain, 35\n\n\n  Varuna, his power and attributes, 435, 436\n\n  Veda, the, merit of studying, 373;\n    forced interpretation of, 377, 378;\n    its inspiration, 429\n\n  Vedas, the, meaning of the term, 425;\n    subdivisions, literature, and versions, 425, 426;\n    the Sanhit\u00e2 portion, 425;\n    the Br\u00e2hmana, 425;\n    origin of the four, 427;\n    arrangement, 427, 428;\n    antiquity, 427-429;\n    four epochs of development, 427;\n    theories of them, 428, 429;\n    division into Sruti and Smriti, 429;\n    the study of, 430\n\n  Vedic hymns, prayer and praise in, 37, 38;\n    the style of, 39\n\n  Vendidad, the, a legislative code, 497, 502;\n    on agriculture, 498, 499;\n    on penalties, 499;\n    on surgical training, 499\n\n  Vinaya-Pitaka, the date, 451, 452;\n    specimen legend of P\u00fbrna, 452, 458;\n    immediate subject of, 460, 461;\n    monastic rules, 461-463\n\n  Virgin, the term in Scripture, 297\n\n  Vishnu, the unknowable of Spencer, 659, 660\n\n  Visvamitra, his merits and trials as an ascetic, 95, 96;\n    an Indian Joshua, 553\n\n  Vocabulary, Pentaglot Buddhist, rules, 461, 462\n\n  Voice, the still small, 603\n\n  Volsunga-Saga, 388, 399\n\n\n  Water, holy, 55;\n    virtues of, 135\n\n  Wilson, H. H., translation of first five Ashtakas, 425;\n    on the age of the Vedas, 428\n\n  Wisdom, Indian hymn to, 440;\n    worship a universal necessity, 31;\n    its elements, 31;\n    its grades, 32;\n    efficacy of, 32;\n    often selfish, 37;\n    considered as pleasing to deity, 37;\n    matter of commerce, 38;\n    of Zeus and Apollo, 39;\n    ritual in, 122\n\n  Woo, King, legend of, 557, 558\n\n\n  Xenophon, encouraged by a sneeze, 111\n\n\n  Ya\u00e7na, the, of seven chapters, antiquity, 488;\n    theme of, 488-490;\n    chapter xi., 490, 491;\n    the younger, 491, 496;\n    hymn of, in praise of the good creation, 495\n\n  Yajur-Veda, the, 426, 427, 428\n\n  Yaou, the Emperor, and Shun, 398, 399;\n    a great man, 400;\n    a model ruler, 403\n\n  Yashts, the, 582, 583;\n    nature of, 585\n\n  Yin, the house of, fate of, 405, 406, 559, 560\n\n  Yu, the great, 397\n\n\n  Zacharias and Elizabeth, story of, 222, 232, 297\n\n  Zarathustra, absence of documents, 182;\n    fragment of biography, 182;\n    his daughter a disciple and apostle of his faith, 183;\n    his disciples, 183;\n    the opponents of, 183;\n    without honor in his own country, 184;\n    rejected and despised, 185;\n    chief article of his creed, 185;\n    faith in Ahura-Mazda as the one god, 185;\n    high descent of, 221;\n    his temptation, 238;\n    interrogates Ahura-Mazda, 479-502;\n    the favors he asks from Homa, 506\n\n  Zayd, a forerunner of Mahomet, 195\n\n  Zealand, a preternatural birth in, 223, 224\n\n  Zechariah, prophecies of, 229\n\n  Zend-Avesta, the interpretation of, 378, 379;\n    style, 389;\n    translation of, 483;\n    chronology of, 483;\n    ethics of, 509;\n    theology, 509\n\n  Zephaniah, the prophecy of, 578, 579\n\n  Zeus, worship of, 38, 39\n\n  Zoroaster. See ZARATHUSTRA\n\n\n\n\n                              FOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] This prayer, which is too long to quote, may be found in Aglio, A.\nM., v. 372, and in Sahagun, C. N. E., book vi. chap. 8. According to\nSahagun, it contains \"muy delicada materia.\"\n\n[2] Lewis, The Bible, &c., p. 496. For a full account of the ceremonies\non Holy Saturday at Rome, see A. M. Baggs, D. D., The Ceremonies of\nHoly Week, p. 96.\n\n[3] A. M., vol. v. p. 90 (Spanish), and vol. vi. p. 45 (English).\n\n[4] Brinton has given a very imperfect version of two of them in his M.\nN. W., pp. 127, 128.\n\n[5] Griffith, The Ramayan, vol. i. p. 268.\n\n[6] Henry IV., pt. 1, act iii. scene 1.\n\n[7] Iren\u00e6us adv. H\u00e6reses, II. xxxi. 2.\u2014A. N. L., vol. v. p. 241.\n\n[8] Ibid., II., xxxii. 4.\u2014A. N. L., vol. v. p. 246.\n\n[9] For the evidence of these miracles, see a paper by the author on\n\"The Latter-day Saints,\" in the _Fortnightly Review_ for December, 1869.\n\n[10] Bryant, a Forest Hymn.\n\n[11] After some hesitation, I have determined to adhere to the\nLatinized form of the name of the prophet of China, as more familiar to\nEnglish ears. As a general rule, I consider the movement in literature\nwhich is restoring proper names to their original spellings,\u2014giving\nus Herakles for Hercules, and Oidipous for \u0152dipus,\u2014as deserving of\nall support. But where the common form, in addition to being the more\nfamiliar, may be considered as English proper and not Latin used\nin English (as in such names as Homer, Aristotle, Jesus Christ), I\nconceive it to be more convenient to retain the accustomed designation,\neven though it may be regretted that it has come into general use.\nHence, I think, we may retain Confucius, who would scarcely be\nrecognized by English readers under his full name, Khung-fu-tsze, or\nunder his more usual abridged name, Khung-tsze, or under the name\nelsewhere given him, Chung-ne. No similar justification appears to me\nto exist for the Greek form Zoroaster, as compared with Zarathustra,\nwhich last form is as easy to pronounce as the other, and not very\ndissimilar from it in sound.\n\nMy authorities for the life of Confucius have been Dr. Legge's Chinese\nClassics, vol. i. Proleg. p. 54-113, and the Lun Yu and Chung Yung,\ntranslated in the same volume.\n\n[12] Ibid., vii. 22. The occasion of this utterance is said to have\nbeen an attack by the emissaries of an officer named Hwan T'uy, with a\nview of killing the sage.\n\n[13] For authorities on La\u00f2-ts\u00e9, see vol. ii. chap. vi. section ii.\n\n[14] Julien assigns B. C. 604 as the date, but confesses that he has no\nauthority but historical tradition. L. V. V. xix.\n\n[15] The following works may be advantageously consulted with reference\nto the Buddha Sakyamuni:\u2014Notices on the Life of Shakya, by Csoma\nKorosi; Asiatic Researches, vol. xx. part ii. p. 285: the Rgya Tch'er\nRol Pa, par Ph. Ed. Foucaux; Hardy's Manual of Buddhism; Bigandet's\nLife or Legend of Gautama, the Buddha of the Burmese; Alabaster's Wheel\nof the Law; and Koeppen's Religion des Buddha, vol. i. p. 71, ff. Some\ninformation will also be found in my article on \"Recent Publications on\nBuddhism\", in the _Theological Review_ for July, 1872.\n\n[16] For an account of all that is to be made out concerning this\nprophet, see Haug's Parsees, p. 258-264.\n\n[17] Yasna liii. 1-3. The translations contained in this section are\ntaken either from Dr. Haug's F. G., or his Parsees. Here and there I\nhave ventured to amend his English without altering the sense.\n\n[18] The source from which this notice is mainly drawn is Sprenger,\n\"Das Leben und die Lehre des Mohammed,\" 3 vols. In addition to this\nI have consulted Muir's \"Life of Mahomet;\" Caussin de Perceval, \"Les\nArabes;\" Gustav Weil, \"Mohammed der Prophet,\" and other works. The\nfacts here stated will generally be found in Sprenger. The translations\nof Koranic passages are taken from Rodwell's Koran.\n\n[19] The author of \"The Messiah\" (London, 1872) contends that he was\nnot only a master builder, but the principal builder of Nazareth. His\nremarks on this subject (pp. 91 ff.) deserve consideration, though they\nare not conclusive.\n\n[20] Lu. xi. 19. I use this verse, not as evidence that Jesus actually\nspoke the words ascribed to him, but that the practice of casting out\ndevils was common to Jesus and the disciples of the Pharisees.\n\n[21] Kings omitted in the Gospel are inserted in brackets and\nitalicized.\n\n[22] Mt. i. 1-17; Lu. iii. 23-38.\n\n[23] C. C. vol. iv. p. 465.\u2014She King, Part iii. Bk. 2. i. 1. 2.\n\n[24] Ibid., vol. ii. p. 73. It is very remarkable that the same notion\nis expressed in Christian paintings of the middle ages. On a painted\nglass of the sixteenth century, found in the church of Jouy, a little\nvillage in France, the virgin is represented standing, her hands\nclasped in prayer, and the naked body of the child in the same attitude\nappears upon her stomach, apparently supposed to be seen through the\ngarments and body of the mother. M. Didron saw at Lyons a Salutation\npainted on shutters, in which the two infants, likewise depicted on\ntheir mothers' stomachs, were also saluting each other. This precisely\ncorresponds to Buddhist accounts of the Bodhisattva's ante-natal\nproceedings.\u2014Ic. Chr. p. 263.\n\n[25] C. C., vol. iv. p.468.\u2014She King, Pt. iii. Bk. 2. i. 3.\n\n[26] Zech. xi. 12, 13. According to Ewald, this portion of Zechariah is\nby an anonymous prophet contemporaneous with Isaiah.\n\n[27] Mk. xiv. 17-21; Mt. xxvi. 20-25; Lu. xxii. 21, 22; Jo. xiii. 21-28.\n\n[28] Mk. xiv. 43-65; Mt. xxvi. 47-68; Lu. xxii. 47-53, and 63-71; Jo.\nxviii. 3-14 and 19-24.\n\n[29] Mk. xiv. 26-30, and 66-72; Mt. xxvi. 30-35, and 69-75; Lu. xxii.\n33, 34, and 55-62; Jo. xiii. 37, 38, and xviii. 15-18, and 25-27.\n\n[30] Mt. xxiii. 1-33; Mk. vii. 6. I omit the concluding verses in Mt.\nxxiii., as the allusion in verse 35 renders it impossible that Christ\ncould have uttered them. Indeed, the whole chapter is suspicious; but\nas portions of it are confirmed by Mark, I conclude that the sentiments\nat least, if not the precise words, are genuine.\n\n[31] Milton, Treatise on Christian Doctrine, Sumner's translation, p.\n100 ff.\n\n[32] This verse is so inconsistent with other declarations of Christ,\nespecially with Mt. x. 23, that I am disposed to regard it as an\ninterpolation.\n\n[33] The use of this word casts suspicion on the authenticity of the\nverse where it occurs.\n\n[34] See on this subject the truly admirable remarks of Karl Otfried\nMuller, in his Prolegomena zu einer Wissenschaftlichen Mythologie\n(G\u00f6ttingen, 1825), pp. 282-284.\n\n[35] C. C., vol. iv. p. 140.\u2014She King, pt. i. b. 7, ode 13.\n\n[36] C. C., vol. iv. p. 153.\u2014She King, pt. i. b. 8, ode 4.\n\n[37] In treating of the Sacred Books of the Confucian School in China,\nI rely entirely upon the admirable and (so far as it has yet gone)\ncomplete work of the Rev. Dr. James Legge. Although I have consulted\nother publications, I have not drawn my information from them,\nbecause it was at once evident that Dr. Legge's \"Chinese Classics\"\nwas immeasurably superior to all that had preceded it on the same\nsubject. Unfortunately, the very thoroughness of the work renders it\nvoluminous; and it thus happens that the author has not fulfilled more\nthan a portion of the promise held out at its commencement. It must\nbe the earnest hope of all who are interested in these studies that\nthe learned missionary will live to complete his design; meantime, we\nare obliged to confine ourselves to a notice of that portion of the\nClassics which he has translated. For Pauthier's French translation of\nthe Chinese Classics (in the Panth\u00e9on Litt\u00e9raire: \"Les Livres Sacr\u00e9s de\nl'Orient\") embraces only that portion of the King which is to be found\nin the hitherto-published volumes of Dr. Legge.\n\n[38] Of which an English translation by David Collie, entitled \"The\nChinese Classical Work, commonly called the Four Books,\" was published\nat Malacca in 1828.\n\n[39] Sir J. Davis (The Chinese, ii. 48) reckons only nine King, those\nenumerated above. I presume that the remaining four enjoy an inferior\ndegree of veneration.\n\n[40] Yaou and Shun are the ideal Chinese emperors, and belong to a\nmythical age. Shun was not the legitimate successor of Yaou, who had\nraised him from poverty, and given him his two daughters in marriage.\nOn Yaou's death, his son at first succeeded him, and Shun withdrew; but\nthe latter was soon called to the throne by the general desire.\n\n[41] Shoo King, b. 3, pt. iii. ch. i. pp. 6, 7.\n\n[42] She King, i. 4. 1.\n\n[43] She King, i. 7. 2.\n\n[44] Not literally a child. \"Little child\" is the usual style of\nChinese rulers when designing to express feelings of modesty and\nreligious reverence.\n\n[45] She King, iv. 1. [iii.] 1.\n\n[46] By far the best European work on the Ta\u00f2-t\u0115-K\u012bng is that of Victor\nvon Strauss, and I have followed his translation, though not without\nconsulting those of others. I am fully sensible of the inconvenience of\na double translation, and I should have preferred to follow Chalmers'\nEnglish rendering of La\u00f2-ts\u00e9, had not the obscurity of his version\nbeen so great as to render it almost unintelligible to the general\nreader. Reinhold von Pl\u00e4nckner's translation errs on the other side by\nexcess of clearness. It is a palpable attempt to force upon the ancient\nChinaman a connected system professedly unraveled from the text by the\ningenuity of the modern German. It should be used only with extreme\ncaution, or not at all.\n\n[47] It deserves to be noted, as a peculiarity of the Chinese\nprophets\u2014Confucius and La\u00f2-ts\u00e9\u2014that they alone among their peers have\nleft authentic written compositions. The Koran can scarcely be said to\nhave been written by Mahomet, in the sense in which we talk of writing\na book. And neither Zarathustra, Jesus, nor the Buddha, were authors.\nThe calmer Chinese temperament permitted, in the case of these two\ngreat teachers, a mode of conveying instructions which is repugnant,\nas a rule, to the fervid prophetic nature. Observe that of the Jewish\n(so-called) prophets, those who committed their prophecies to writing,\ngenerally belonged to a comparatively late age, in which oral prophecy\nwas no longer in vogue, and the state of feeling that had inspired it\nno longer prevalent.\n\n[48] The former view is that of Stan. Julien; the latter that of von\nPl\u00e4nckner.\n\n[49] Ch. 51. I have borrowed some expressions from Chalmers. O. P.\n\n[50] Ch. 25. For the sake of enabling the reader to compare the\ninterpretations of this important chapter given by various Sinologues,\nI subjoin in an appendix four other translations.\n\n[51] Ch. 55. Von Strauss explains this to mean that he is like the\nchild in its unconsciousness of danger from these sources.\n\n[52] Or Compassionateness. Chalmers translates \"compassion,\" but this\nterm denotes the sentiment rather than the virtue.\n\n[53] See their names in Le Livre de la Voie et de la Vertu (hereafter\nabbreviated thus\u2014L. V. V.). Compos\u00e9 dans le VI Si\u00e8cle avant l'\u00e8re\nchr\u00e9tienne par le Philosophe La\u00f2-ts\u00e9u. Traduit en Fran\u00e7ais et publi\u00e9\navec le texte chinois par Stanislas Julien. 8vo. Paris, 1872, xxxvi.\n\n[54] Such is the description of M. Julien, derived from the most\nancient Chinese commentators. I am at a loss to reconcile it even with\nhis own translation, though it would be presumptuous in me to deny\nthat the learned Sinologue may have reasons for it of which I am not\naware.\u2014See L. V. V., p. xiii.\n\n[55] M\u00e9moire sur la Vie et les Opinions de La\u00f2-ts\u00e9u, par M. Abel\nR\u00e9musat, Paris, 1823, p. 27.\n\n[56] The literature of the Veda is now copious. To mention only a few\nworks, H. H. Wilson published a translation of the first five Ashtakas\nof the Rig-Veda-Sanhit\u00e2, but I have forborne to make use of it, from a\nconviction that the advance of Vedic scholarship has to a great degree,\nif not wholly, superseded the methods of interpretation employed by\nhim. Benfey has translated the whole of the S\u00e2ma-Veda-Sanhit\u00e2 into\nGerman, and I have studied his translation, but have preferred to rely\nmainly on the labors of English scholars, both because the inherent\nobscurity of these ancient hymns might be increased by the process of\nre-translation, and also because I might possibly fail to catch the\nexact shade of meaning of the German words. His work should, however,\nbe consulted by those who desire to acquaint themselves with the style\nof the Veda. Max M\u00fcller has unhappily published but one volume of his\ntranslation of the Rig-Veda-Sanhit\u00e2, which is doubtless destined (if\ncompleted) to become the standard English version of that portion of\nthe text. The same eminent scholar has translated many of the hymns in\nhis \"Ancient Sanskrit Literature.\" Another source from which I have\nderived valuable assistance is Dr. Muir's laborious work entitled\n\"Original Sanskrit Texts.\" Such are the principal authorities on the\nhymns. Of the Br\u00e2hmanas, the whole of the Aitareya Br\u00e2hmana has been\ntranslated by Haug, and portions of others by Roer and by Rajendralal\nMitra.\n\n[57] All this will be found admirably treated in Mr. Cox's \"Mythology\nof the Aryan Nations.\"\n\n[58] No complete translation of the Tripitaka exists, or is ever likely\nto exist in any European language. Its vast extent, and the comparative\nworthlessness of many of its parts, would preclude its publication as\na whole. But complete treatises, or portions of treatises, have been\ntranslated by Burnouf, in his \"Histoire du Buddhisme Indien,\" and\n\"Lotus de la Bonne Loi;\" by Beal, in his \"Chinese Buddhist Scriptures;\"\nby Schmidt, in \"Der Weise und der Thor;\" by Hardy, in his \"Manual\nof Buddhism,\" and by Alabaster, in his \"Modern Buddhist.\" An exact\nanalysis of the contents of the hundred volumes of the great collection\ncalled the Kah-gyur is supplied by Csoma K\u0151r\u00f6si in the 20th vol. of\nthe \"Asiatic Researches.\" The leading features of the books, and parts\nof books thus translated, are so well marked and uniform, that nothing\nfurther is needed to enable us to estimate the general character of\neach division of the whole Tripitaka.\n\n[59] Southern Buddhists fix the dates of these General Councils\nsomewhat differently.\n\n[60] Apparently a people living beyond the frontiers (of the civilized\nworld). See H. B. I., p. 252, _n._\n\n[61] The state of an \"Arhat\" is the highest of four degrees which the\nhearers of the Buddha used to attain; _i. e._, the one which led most\ndirectly to Nirv\u00e2na. The other three degrees were those of Srot\u00e2patti,\nof Sakrid\u00e2g\u00e2min, and An\u00e2g\u00e2min. The Arhat was not born again; each\nof the other three had a smaller or greater number of existences to\nundergo before Nirv\u00e2na.\n\n[62] I translate \"l'Assembl\u00e9e\" by this phrase, which appears to render\nits meaning more precisely than a more literal translation.\n\n[63] These two verses are a standing formula by which the Buddha of the\nCanon summons the world to receive his law.\n\n[64] This Vocabulary is a Chinese compilation, forming one of a class\nof catalogues drawn up in ancient times by Buddhist preachers. Such\ncatalogues are found in the midst of canonical books, and are of high\nauthority among Buddhists.\n\n[65] The translation of this S\u00fbtra is due to Mr. Beal, to whose most\nuseful labors on Buddhism I am much indebted.\u2014C. B. S., p. 206.\n\n[66] This is a standing miracle on the reception of novices by Buddha.\n\n[67] I do not pretend to any certainty that the above interpretation is\ncorrect, but I have in the main followed a trustworthy guide, Burnouf.\nSee H. B. I., p. 491-507.\n\n[68] The authorities do not entirely agree in the accounts they give of\nthe speed with which these paths lead to Nirv\u00e2na. The above statement\nappears to me unquestionably the oldest and most authentic. It is\nin agreement with Eitel, Sanskrit-Chinese Dictionary, _sub vocibus_\nSakrid\u00e2g\u00e2min, however, is omitted, and with Hardy, E. M., p. 280.\n\nEitel indeed adds that an Arhat, if he does not enter Nirv\u00e2na, may\nbecome a Buddha, but this is probably a Northern perversion of the\noriginal notion. In the genuine authorities, a Bodhisattva is quite\ndistinct from an Arhat. The account derived by Burnouf (H. B. I., p.\n291 ff.) from Northern sources is palpably a corruption of the oldest\ndoctrine, proceeding from that unbounded love of exaggerated numbers\nwhich is the besetting sin of Buddhist writers. According to this\nversion, the Srot\u00e2panna must pass through 80,000 ages before his seven\nbirths; Sakrid\u00e2g\u00e2min, after 60,000 ages, is to be born once as a man\nand once as a god; the An\u00e2g\u00e2min, after 40,000 ages, is exempted from\nre-birth in the world of desire, and arrives at supreme knowledge;\nwhich the Arhat reaches after 20,000 ages. Poor comfort this to souls\nlonging for their eternal rest. Cf. K\u00f6ppen, R. B., vol. i. p. 498.\n\n[69] Aryas is a term comprehending the several classes of believers.\n\n[70] There is a complete translation of the Zend-Avesta by Spiegel. It\ncontains useful introductory essays; but in the present state of Zend\nscholarship the translation cannot be regarded as final. Dr. Haug, in\na German treatise, has elucidated as well as translated a small, but\nvery important, portion, of the Zend-Avesta, termed the five G\u00e2th\u00e2s.\nThe same scholar has also published a volume of Essays on the Parsee\nlanguage and religion, which contains some translated passages, and may\nbe consulted with advantage, though Dr. Haug's English stands in great\nneed of revision. Burnouf has translated but a very small part of the\nZend-Avesta, in a work entitled \"Le Ya\u00e7na.\" Unfortunately Dr. Haug and\nDr. Spiegel\u2014both very eminent Zend scholars\u2014are entirely at variance\nas to the proper method of translating these ancient documents; and\npending the settlement of this question, any interpretation proposed\nmust be regarded by the uninstructed reader as uncertain. I cannot\nrefrain from adding an expression of regret that Dr. Haug, to whose\nlabors in the interpretation of these obscure fragments of antiquity we\nowe so much, should have so far forgotten himself as to fall foul of\nDr. Spiegel in a tone wholly unbecoming a scholar and inappropriate to\nthe subject. It is not by this kind of learned Billingsgate that the\nsuperiority of his translation to that of his rival, as he evidently\nconsiders him, or his fellow-laborer as I should prefer to call him,\ncan be established.\n\n[71] Throughout the G\u00e2th\u00e2s I follow Haug; and I need make no\napology for neglecting Spiegel's translation, because that scholar\nhimself admits, with creditable candor, that even his indefatigable\nperseverance was baffled by the difficulties of this portion of the\nYa\u00e7na.\u2014Av., 2. xi.\n\n[72] The sentences enclosed in parentheses are Haug's explanations of\nthe sense of the text.\n\n[73] It is a satisfaction to find that Spiegel's translation does\nnot differ so widely from Haug's after we leave the territory of the\nG\u00e2th\u00e2s. As a specimen, I quote the following verses from his Avesta,\nvol. ii. p. 135, which the reader may compare with the English\nrendering of the same passage in the text:\u2014\n\n_Ya\u00e7na Hapta\u011fh\u00e2iti._\n\nxxxv. 1.\n\n 1. \"(Ra\u00e7pi). Den Ahura-Mazda, den reinen Herrn des Reinen, preisen\n wir. Die Amesha-\u00e7penta, die guten Herrscher, die weisen, preisen wir.\n 2. Die ganze Welt des Reinen preisen wir, die himmlische wie die\n irdische, 3. mit Verlangen nach der guten Reinheit, mit Verlangen nach\n dem guten mazdaya\u00e7nischen Gesetze. 4. (Zaota.) Der guten Gedanken,\n Worte und Werke, die hier und anderswo 5. gethan worden sind oder noch\n gethan werden, 6. Lobpreiser und Verbreiter sind wir, damit wir zu den\n Guten geh\u00f6ren m\u00f6gen. 7. Das glauben wir, Ahura-Mazda, Reiner, Sch\u00f6ner,\n 8. Das wollen wir denken, sagen und thun: 9. was das Beste ist unter\n den Handlungen der Menschen f\u00fcr beide Welten. 10. Durch diese besten\n Thaten nun erbitten wir, dass f\u00fcr das Vieh 11. Annehmlichkeit und\n Futter gespendet werden m\u00f6ge 12. den Gelehrten wie den Ungelehrten,\n den M\u00e4chtigen wie den Unm\u00e4chtigen.\"\n\n\n[74] I follow Burnouf's translation, because the strict accuracy of his\nmethod is acknowledged by both Haug and Spiegel. There are considerable\ndifferences in the text followed by Burnouf and Spiegel, which I need\nnot weary the reader by particularizing in detail.\n\n[75] Y., p. 146.\u2014Cf. Spiegel: 1. \"Ich lade ein und thue es kund:\ndem Sch\u00f6pfer Ahura-Mazda, dem gl\u00e4nzenden, majest\u00e4tischen, gr\u00f6ssten,\nbesten, sch\u00f6nsten, 2. dem st\u00e4rksten, verst\u00e4ndigsten, mit bestem K\u00f6rper\nversehenen, durch Heiligkeit h\u00f6chsten. 3. Der sehr weise ist, der\nweithin erfreut, 4. welcher uns schuf, welcher uns bildete, welcher uns\nerhielt, der Heiligste unter den Himmlischen\"\u2014Av., ii. 35.\n\n[76] No mention of Zarathustra here in Spiegel.\u2014Av. ii. 44.\n\n[77] Y. pp. 585, 588, 592. The concluding stanza is simpler and more\nintelligible in Spiegel.\u2014Av., ii. 44.\n\n[78] Av., vol. ii. p. 85.\u2014Ya\u00e7na, 12. The ch. xii. quoted above is No.\n13. in Spiegel.\n\n[79] \u00c7raosha is an important divinity in Parsee worship, who is\nconsidered by Spiegel to express the moral quality of obedience.\n\n[80] Av., vol. ii. p. 191.\u2014Ya\u00e7na, 61. This blessing is repeated,\nKhorda-Avesta, 11.\n\n[81] There is, indeed, a passage which permits the mutilation of a mad\ndog by cutting off an ear, or a foot, or the tail; Spiegel, however,\nregards it as interpolated, and it is palpably at variance with the\nremainder of the chapter.\n\n[82] Spiegel holds that Airyama is only a certain prayer\nhypostatized.\u2014Cf. Av., vol. iii. p. 34.\n\n[83] Av., vol. iii. p. 3.\u2014Khorda-Avesta, 1.\n\n[84] In the \"Journal Asiatique,\" 4me S\u00e9rie, tom. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. I\nhave followed it exclusively. The Homa Yasht is not formally included\nin the Khorda-Avesta; it forms the 9th chapter of the Ya\u00e7na. But the\nfact that, while utterly alien to the rest of the Ya\u00e7na, it is truly\na Yasht\u2014being in honor of a special personage\u2014induced me to defer its\nconsideration till now.\n\n[85] The term \u00c7pitama, usually coupled with the name of Zarathustra,\nis translated by Spiegel \"holy,\" but is treated by Haug and Burnouf as\na proper name. There are indications that it may have been the family\nname of the prophet. See Av., vol. iii. p. 209, _n._\n\n[86] Complete translations of the Koran into English have been made\nby Sale and by Rodwell. Considerable portions have been rendered into\nGerman by Sprenger, \"Das Leben und die Lehre des Mohammed;\" and by\nGustav Weil, \"Mohammed der Prophet;\" and into English by Dr. Muir, in\nhis \"Life of Mahomet.\"\n\n[87] L. L. M., vol. iii., Vorrede; Sale, preliminary discourse, p.\n46.\u2014K., p. vii.\n\n[88] K., p. 604.\u2014Sura, 66. 12. She is called the daughter of Imran, by\na confusion between Mary, mother of Jesus, and Mariam, sister of Moses.\n\n[89] So in 2 Chron. xxiv. 3-7. But in 2 Kings xxii. 1, 2, there is\nno mention of the period at which \"he began to seek after the God of\nDavid.\"\n\n[90] Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. iv.\u2014Die\nHeiligherrschaft, 3 Die bestimmtere Gestaltung der Zeit der neuen\nWendung.\n\n[91] Geschichte der Ost-Mongolen und ihres F\u00fcrstenhauses, verfasst von\nSsanang Ssetsen Chungtaidschi. Aus dem Mongolischen \u00fcbersetzt von I. J.\nSchmidt, St. Petersburg, 1829. 4to. p. 3.\n\nThis work will, in the following pages, always be referred to under \"G.\nO. M.\"\n\n[92] R. B., vol. i. p. 434.\u2014Lotus, p. 447.\u2014Wheel, p. xliii.\n\n[93] My attention was drawn to the fact that these were the contents\nof the tables by Goethe's interesting essay: \"Zwei wichtige, bisher\nuner\u00f6rtete biblische Fragen.\"\n\n[94] C.C., vol. iv. p. 598.\u2014She King, part 4, b. i. [iii.] 3.\n\n[95] For information on the character and signification of this book,\nsee \"Le Cantique des Cantiques,\" par Ernest Renan.\n\n[96] Throughout these descriptions of the prophetic books, I follow the\nchronological arrangement of Ewald.\n\n[97] The remark is not mine, but is made by Didron, a devout Roman\nCatholic writer, to whom I am much indebted for this and other\nhints.\u2014Ic. Ch., p. 572 n.\n\n[98] Mill's \"Examination of Sir W. Hamilton's Philosophy,\" p. 209\n(second edition).\n\n[99] Mr. Mill, in treating the point, seems to have forgotten the\nanimal world, but his argument would cover it.\u2014Mill's \"Examination of\nSir W. Hamilton's Philosophy,\" pp. 208, 209.\n\n[100] See much interesting evidence in Dulaure, \"Histoire Abr\u00e9g\u00e9e de\ndiff\u00e9rens Cultes.\" vol. i. chs. xxiv.-xxvii.; and a valuable discussion\nof the whole subject in Tylor's \"Primitive Culture.\"\n\n[101] See some evidence bearing on this point in a paper by the author,\nentitled \"Recent Publications on Buddhism.\" \"Theological Review,\" July,\n1872, p. 313.\n\n[102] De Rerum Nat., iii. 830.\n\n[103] The doctrine here stated is not my own invention. It was\nfirst published (so far as I know) by Mr. Shadworth Hodgson in his\n\"Theory of Practice,\" vol. i. p. 416-436, \u00a7 57; but I am indebted\nfor my acquaintance with it to Mr. D. A. Spalding, who discovered it\nindependently, and announced it in the _Examiner_, December 30, 1871;\nSeptember 6, 1873; March 14, 1874; and in _Nature_, January 8, 1874.\n\n[104] See an ingenious attempt to maintain the personality, along with\nthe moral Qualities of God, in Mr. Shadworth Hodgson's \"Theory of\nPractice,\" vol. i. p. 305 ff.","title":"An analysis of religious belief","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":292002}