[Illustration: Frontispiece] Ten Great Religions An Essay in Comparative Theology by James Freeman Clarke Prophets who have been since the world began. --Luke i. 70. Gentiles . .. Who show the work (or influence) of the (that) law which is written in their hearts. --Romans ii. 15. God . .. Hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth . .. That they should seek the Lord, if haply they may feel after him and find him. --Acts, xviii. 24-27. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1871, by James FreemanClarke, in the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. Copyright, 1899, By Eliot C. Clarke. ToWilliam Heney Channing, My Friend and Fellow-StudentDuring Many Years, This WorkIs Affectionately Inscribed. Preface. The first six chapters of the present volume are composed from sixarticles prepared for the Atlantic Monthly, and published in that magazinein 1868. They attracted quite as much attention as the writer anticipated, and this has induced him to enlarge them, and add other chapters. His aimis to enable the reader to become acquainted with the doctrines andcustoms of the principal religions of the world, without having to consultnumerous volumes. He has not come to the task without some preparation, for it is more than twenty-five years since he first made of this study aspeciality. In this volume it is attempted to give the latest results ofmodern investigations, so far as any definite and trustworthy facts havebeen attained. But the writer is well aware of the difficulty of beingalways accurate in a task which involves such interminable study and suchan amount of details. He can only say, in the words of a Hebrew writer:"If I have done well, and as is fitting the story, it is that which Idesired; but if slenderly and meanly, it is that which I could attainunto. " Contents. Chapter I. Introduction. --Ethnic and Catholic Religions. § 1. Object of the present Work § 2. Comparative Theology; its Nature, Value, and present Position § 3. Ethnic Religions. Injustice often done to them by Christian Apologists § 4. How Ethnic Religions were regarded by Christ and his Apostles § 5. Comparative Theology will furnish a new Class of Evidences in Support of Christianity § 6. It will show that, while most of the Religions of the World are Ethnic, or the Religions of Races, Christianity is Catholic, or adapted to become the Religion of all Races § 7. It will show that Ethnic Religions are partial, Christianity universal § 8. It will show that Ethnic Religions are arrested, but that Christianity is steadily progressive Chapter II. Confucius and the Chinese, or the Prose of Asia. § 1. Peculiarities of Chinese Civilization § 2. Chinese Government based on Education. Civil-Service Examinations § 3. Life and Character of Confucius § 4. Philosophy and subsequent Development of Confucianism § 5. Lao-tse and Tao-ism § 6. Religious Character of the "Kings. " § 7. Confucius and Christianity. Character of the Chinese § 8. The Tae-ping Insurrection Note. The Nestorian Inscription in China Chapter III. Brahmanism. § 1. Our Knowledge of Brahmanism. Sir William Jones § 2. Difficulty of this Study. The Complexity of the System. The Hindoos have no History. Their Ultra-Spiritualism § 3. Helps from Comparative Philology. The Aryans in Central Asia § 4. The Aryans in India. The Native Races. The Vedic Age. Theology of the Vedas § 5. Second Period. Laws of Manu. The Brahmanic Age § 6. The Three Hindoo Systems of Philosophy, --The Sankhya, Vedanta, and Nyasa § 7. Origin of the Hindoo Triad § 8. The Epics, the Puranas, and Modern Hindoo Worship § 9. Relation of Brahmanism to Christianity Chapter IV. Buddhism, or the Protestantism of the East. § 1. Buddhism, in its Forms, resembles Romanism; in its Spirit, Protestantism § 2. Extent of Buddhism. Its Scriptures § 3. Sakya-muni, the Founder of Buddhism § 4. Leading Doctrines of Buddhism § 5. The Spirit of Buddhism Rational and Humane § 6. Buddhism as a Religion § 7. Karma and Nirvana § 8. Good and Evil of Buddhism § 9. Relation of Buddhism to Christianity Chapter V. Zoroaster and the Zend Avesta. § 1. Ruins of the Palace of Xerxes at Persepolis § 2. Greek Accounts of Zoroaster. Plutarch's Description of his Religion § 3. Anquetil du Perron and his Discovery of the Zend Avesta § 4. Epoch of Zoroaster. What do we know of him? § 5. Spirit of Zoroaster and of his Religion § 6. Character of the Zend Avesta § 7. Later Development of the System in the Bundehesch § 8. Relation of the Religion of the Zend Avesta to that of the Vedas § 9. Is Monotheism or pure Dualism the Doctrine of the Zend Avesta § 10. Relation of this System to Christianity. The Kingdom of Heaven Chapter VI. The Gods of Egypt. § 1. Antiquity and Extent of Egyptian Civilization § 2. Religious Character of the Egyptians. Their Ritual § 3. Theology of Egypt. Sources of our Knowledge concerning it § 4. Central Idea of Egyptian Theology and Religion. Animal Worship § 5. Sources of Egyptian Theology. Age of the Empire and Affinities of the Race § 6. The Three Orders of Gods § 7. Influence upon Judaism and Christianity Chapter VII. The Gods Of Greece. § 1. The Land and the Race § 2. Idea and general Character of Greek Religion § 3. The Gods of Greece before Homer § 4. The Gods of the Poets § 5. The Gods of the Artists § 6. The Gods of the Philosophers § 7. Worship of Greece § 8. The Mysteries. Orphism § 9. Relation of Greek Religion to Christianity Chapter VIII. The Religion of Rome. § 1. Origin and essential Character of the Religion of Rome § 2. The Gods of Rome § 3. Worship and Ritual § 4. The Decay of the Roman Religion § 5. Relation of the Roman Religion to Christianity Chapter IX. The Teutonic and Scandinavian Religion. § 1. The Land and the Race § 2. Idea of the Scandinavian Religion § 3. The Eddas and their Contents § 4. The Gods of Scandinavia § 5. Resemblance of the Scandinavian Mythology to that of Zoroaster § 6. Scandinavian Worship § 7. Social Character, Maritime Discoveries, and Political Institutions of the Scandinavians § 8. Relation of this System to Christianity Chapter X. The Jewish Religion. § 1. Palestine, and the Semitic Races § 2. Abraham; or, Judaism as the Family Worship of a Supreme Being § 3. Moses; or, Judaism as the national Worship of a just and holy King § 4. David; or, Judaism as the personal Worship of a Father and Friend § 5. Solomon; or, the Religious Relapse § 6. The Prophets; or, Judaism as a Hope of a spiritual and universal Kingdom of God § 7. Judaism as a Preparation for Christianity Chapter XI. Mohammed and Islam. § 1. Recent Works on the Life of Mohammed § 2. The Arabs and Arabia § 3. Early Life of Mohammed, to the Hegira § 4. Change in the Character of Mohammed after the Hegira § 5. Religious Doctrines and Practices among the Mohammedans § 6. The Criticism of Mr. Palgrave on Mohammedan Theology § 7. Mohammedanism a Relapse; the worst Form of Monotheism, and a retarding Element in Civilization Note Chapter XII. The Ten Religions and Christianity. § 1. General Results of this Survey § 2. Christianity a Pleroma, or Fulness of Life § 3. Christianity, as a Pleroma, compared with Brahmanism, Confucianism, and Buddhism § 4. Christianity compared with the Avesta and the Eddas. The Duad in all Religions § 5. Christianity and the Religions of Egypt, Greece, and Rome § 6. Christianity in Relation to Judaism and Mohammedanism. The Monad in all Religions § 7. The Fulness of Christianity is derived from the Life of Jesus § 8. Christianity as a Religion of Progress and of universal Unity Ten Great Religions. Chapter I. Introduction. --Ethnic and Catholic Religions. § 1. Object of the present Work. § 2. Comparative Theology; its Nature, Value, and present Position. § 3. Ethnic Religions. Injustice often done to them by Christian Apologists. § 4. How Ethnic Religions were regarded by Christ and his Apostles. § 5. Comparative Theology will furnish a new Class of Evidences in Support of Christianity. § 6. It will show that, while most of the Religions of the World are Ethnic, or the Religions of Races, Christianity is Catholic, or adapted to become the Religion of all Races. § 7. It will show that Ethnic Religions are Partial, Christianity Universal. § 8. It will show that Ethnic Religions are arrested, but that Christianity is steadily progressive. § 1. Object of the present Work. The present work is what the Germans call a _Versuch_, and the English anEssay, or attempt. It is an attempt to compare the great religions of theworld with each other. When completed, this comparison ought to show whateach is, what it contains, wherein it resembles the others, wherein itdiffers from the others; its origin and development, its place inuniversal history; its positive and negative qualities, its truths anderrors, and its influence, past, present, or future, on the welfare ofmankind. For everything becomes more clear by comparison We can neverunderstand the nature of a phenomenon when we contemplate it by itself, aswell as when we look at it in its relations to other phenomena of the samekind. The qualities of each become more clear in contrast with those ofthe others. By comparing together, therefore, the religions of mankind, to see wherein they agree and wherein they differ, we are able to perceivewith greater accuracy what each is. The first problem in ComparativeTheology is therefore analytical, being to distinguish each religion fromthe rest. We compare them to see wherein they agree and wherein theydiffer. But the next problem in Comparative Theology is synthetical, andconsiders the adaptation of each system to every other, to determine itsplace, use, and value, in reference to universal or absolute religion. Itmust, therefore, examine the different religions to find wherein each iscomplete or defective, true or false; how each may supply the defects ofthe other or prepare the way for a better; how each religion acts on therace which receives it, is adapted to that race, and to the region of theearth which it inhabits. In this department, therefore, it connects itselfwith Comparative Geography, with universal history, and with ethics. Finally, this department of Comparative Theology shows the relation ofeach partial religion to human civilization, and observes how eachreligion of the world is a step in the progress of humanity. It shows thatboth the positive and negative side of a religion make it a preparationfor a higher religion, and that the universal religion must root itself inthe decaying soil of partial religions. And in this sense ComparativeTheology becomes the science of missions. Such a work as this is evidently too great for a single mind. Manystudents must co-operate, and that through many years, before it can becompleted. This volume is intended as a contribution toward that end. Itwill contain an account of each of the principal religions, and itsdevelopment. It will be, therefore, devoted to the natural history ofethnic and catholic religions, and its method will be that of analysis. The second part, which may be published hereafter, will compare thesedifferent systems to show what each teaches concerning the great subjectsof religious thought, --God, Duty, and Immortality. Finally, it willcompare them with Christianity, and will inquire whether or not that iscapable of becoming the religion of the human race. § 2. Comparative Theology; its Nature, Value, and present Position. The work of Comparative Theology is to do equal justice to all thereligious tendencies of mankind. Its position is that of a judge, not thatof an advocate. Assuming, with the Apostle Paul, that each religion hascome providentially, as a method by which different races "should seek theLord, if haply they might feel after him and find him, " it attempts toshow how each may be a step in the religious progress of the races, and "aschoolmaster to bring men to Christ. " It is bound, however, to abstainfrom such inferences until it has accurately ascertained all the facts. Its first problem is to learn what each system contains; it may then goon, and endeavor to generalize from its facts. Comparative Theology is, therefore, as yet in its infancy. The sametendency in this century, which has produced the sciences of ComparativeAnatomy, Comparative Geography, and Comparative Philology, is now creatingthis new science of Comparative Theology. [1] It will be to any specialtheology as Comparative Anatomy is to any special anatomy, ComparativeGeography to any special geography, or Comparative Philology to the studyof any particular language. It may be called a science, since it consistsin the study of the facts of human history, and their relation to eachother. It does not dogmatize: it observes. It deals only withphenomena, --single phenomena, or facts; grouped phenomena, or laws. Several valuable works, bearing more or less directly on ComparativeTheology, have recently appeared in Germany, France, and England. Amongthese may be mentioned those of Max Müller, Bunsen, Burnouf, Döllinger, Hardwicke, St. Hilaire, Düncker, F. C. Baur, Rénan, Creuzer, Maurice, G. W. Cox, and others. In America, except Mr. Alger's admirable monograph on the "Doctrine of theFuture Life, " we have scarcely anything worthy of notice. Mrs. Lydia MariaChild's work on the "Progress of Religious Ideas" deserves the greatestcredit, when we consider the time when it was written and the few sourcesof information then accessible. [2] Twenty-five years ago it was hardlypossible to procure any adequate information concerning Brahmanism, Buddhism, or the religions of Confucius, Zoroaster, and Mohammed. Hardlyany part of the Vedas had been translated into a European language. Theworks of Anquetil du Perron and Kleuker were still the highest authorityupon the Zendavesta. About the Buddhists scarcely anything was known. Butnow, though many important _lacunæ_ remain to be filled, we have amplemeans of ascertaining the essential facts concerning most of thesemovements of the human soul. The time seems to have come to accomplishsomething which may have a lasting value. § 3. Ethnic Religions. Injustice often done to them by ChristianApologists. Comparative Theology, pursuing its impartial course as a positive science, will avoid the error into which most of the Christian apologists of thelast century fell, in speaking of ethnic or heathen religions. In order toshow the need of Christianity, they thought it necessary to disparage allother religions. Accordingly they have insisted that, while the Jewish andChristian religions were revealed, all other religions were invented;that, while these were from God, those were the work of man; that, whilein the true religions there was nothing false, in the false religionsthere was nothing true. If any trace of truth was to be found inPolytheism, it was so mixed with error as to be practically only evil. Asthe doctrines of heathen religions were corrupt, so their worship was onlya debasing superstition. Their influence was to make men worse, notbetter; their tendency was to produce sensuality, cruelty, and universaldegradation. They did not proceed, in any sense, from God; they were noteven the work of good men, but rather of deliberate imposition andpriestcraft. A supernatural religion had become necessary in order tocounteract the fatal consequences of these debased and debasingsuperstitions. This is the view of the great natural religions of theworld which was taken by such writers as Leland, Whitby, and Warburton inthe last century. Even liberal thinkers, like James Foster[3] and JohnLocke, [4] declare that, at the coming of Christ, mankind had fallen intoutter darkness, and that vice and superstition filled the world. Infidelno less than Christian writers took the same disparaging view of naturalreligions. They considered them, in their source, the work of fraud; intheir essence, corrupt superstitions; in their doctrines, wholly false; intheir moral tendency, absolutely injurious; and in their result, degenerating more and more into greater evil. A few writers, like Cudworth and the Platonists, endeavored to put in agood word for the Greek philosophers, but the religions of the world wereabandoned to unmitigated reprobation. The account which so candid a writeras Mosheim gives of them is worth noticing, on account of its sweepingcharacter. "All the nations of the world, " he says, "except the Jews, wereplunged in the grossest superstition. Some nations, indeed, went beyondothers in impiety and absurdity, but all stood charged with irrationalityand gross stupidity in matters of religion. " "The greater part of the godsof all nations were ancient heroes, famous for their achievements andtheir worthy deeds, such as kings, generals, and founders of cities. " "Tothese some added the more splendid and useful objects in the naturalworld, as the sun, moon, and stars; and some were not ashamed to paydivine honors to mountains, rivers, trees, etc. " "The worship of thesedeities consisted in ceremonies, sacrifices, and prayers. The ceremonieswere, for the most part, absurd and ridiculous, and throughout debasing, obscene, and cruel. The prayers were truly insipid and void of piety, bothin their form and matter. " "The priests who presided over this worshipbasely abused their authority to impose on the people. " "The whole pagansystem had not the least efficacy to produce and cherish virtuous emotionsin the soul; because the gods and goddesses were patterns of vice, thepriests bad men, and the doctrines false. "[5] This view of heathen religions is probably much exaggerated. They mustcontain more truth than error, and must have been, on the whole, useful tomankind. We do not believe that they originated in human fraud, that theiressence is superstition, that there is more falsehood than truth in theirdoctrines, that their moral tendency is mainly injurious, or that theycontinually degenerate into greater evil. No doubt it may be justlypredicated of all these systems that they contain much which is false andinjurious to human virtue. But the following considerations may tend toshow that all the religions of the earth are providential, and that alltend to benefit mankind. To ascribe the vast phenomena of religion, in their variety andcomplexity, to man as their author, and to suppose the whole a mere workof human fraud, is not a satisfactory solution of the facts before us. That priests, working on human ignorance or fear, should be able to buildup such a great mass of belief, sentiment, and action, is like the Hindoocosmogony, which supposes the globe to rest on an elephant, the elephanton a turtle, and the turtle on nothing at all. If the people were so ignorant, how happened the priests to be so wise? Ifthe people were so credulous, why were not the priests credulous too?"Like people, like priests, " is a proverb approved by experience. Amongso many nations and through so many centuries, why has not some one priestbetrayed the secret of the famous imposition? Apply a similar theory toany other human institution, and how patent is its absurdity! Let arepublican contend that all other forms of government--the patriarchalsystem, government by castes, the feudal system, absolute and limitedmonarchies, oligarchies, and aristocracies--are wholly useless and evil, and were the result of statecraft alone, with no root in human nature orthe needs of man. Let one maintain that every system of _law_ (except ourown) was an invention of lawyers for private ends. Let one argue in thesame way about medicine, and say that this is a pure system of quackery, devised by physicians, in order to get a support out of the people fordoing nothing. We should at once reply that, though error and ignorancemay play a part in all these institutions, they cannot be based on errorand ignorance only. Nothing which has not in it some elements of use canhold its position in the world during so long a time and over so wide arange. It is only reasonable to say the same of heathen or ethnicreligions. They contain, no doubt, error and evil. No doubt priestcrafthas been carried very far in them, though not further perhaps than it hassometimes been carried in Christianity. But unless they contained more ofgood than evil, they could not have kept their place. They partiallysatisfied a great hunger of the human heart. They exercised some restrainton human wilfulness and passion. They have directed, however imperfectly, the human conscience toward the right. To assume that they are wholly evilis disrespectful to human nature. It supposes man to be the easy anduniversal dupe of fraud. But these religions do not rest on such a sandyfoundation, but on the feeling of dependence, the sense of accountability, the recognition of spiritual realities very near to this world of matter, and the need of looking up and worshipping some unseen power higher andbetter than ourselves. A decent respect for the opinions of mankindforbids us to ascribe pagan religions to priestcraft as their chiefsource. And a reverence for Divine Providence brings us to the same conclusion. Can it be that God has left himself without a witness in the world, exceptamong the Hebrews in ancient times and the Christians in modern times?This narrow creed excludes God from any communion with the great majorityof human beings. The Father of the human race is represented as selectinga few of his children to keep near himself, and as leaving all the rest toperish in their ignorance and error. And this is not because they areprodigal children who have gone astray into a far country of their ownaccord; for they are just where they were placed by their Creator. HE "hasdetermined the times before appointed and the bounds of their habitation. "HE has caused some to be born in India, where they can only hear of himthrough Brahmanism; and some in China, where they can know him onlythrough Buddha and Confucius. The doctrine which we are opposing is; that, being put there by God, they are born into hopeless error, and are thenpunished for their error by everlasting destruction. The doctrine forwhich we contend is that of the Apostle Paul, that God has "determinedbeforehand the bounds of their habitation, that they should seek the Lord, IF HAPLY THEY MAY FEEL AFTER HIM AND FIND HIM. " Paul teaches that "allnations dwelling on all the face of the earth" may not only seek and feelafter God, but also FIND him. But as all living in heathen lands areheathen, if they find God at all, they must find him through heathenism. The pagan religions are the effort of man to feel after God. Otherwise wemust conclude that the Being without whom not a sparrow falls to theground, the Being who never puts an insect into the air or a polyp intothe water without providing it with some appropriate food, so that it maylive and grow, has left the vast majority of his human children, made withreligious appetences of conscience, reverence, hope, without acorresponding nutriment of truth. This view tends to atheism; for if thepresence of adaptation everywhere is the legitimate proof of creativedesign, the absence of adaptation in so important a sphere tends, so far, to set aside that proof. The view which we are opposing contradicts that law of progress whichalone gives meaning and unity to history. Instead of progress, it teachesdegeneracy and failure. But elsewhere we see progress, not recession. Geology shows us higher forms of life succeeding to the lower. Botanyexhibits the lichens and mosses preparing a soil for more complex forms ofvegetation. Civil history shows the savage state giving way to thesemi-civilized, and that to the civilized. If heathen religions are astep, a preparation for Christianity, then this law of degrees appearsalso in religion; then we see an order in the progress of the humansoul, --"first the blade, then the ear, afterward the full corn in theear. " Then we can understand why Christ's coming was delayed till thefulness of the time had come. But otherwise all, in this most importantsphere of human life, is in disorder, without unity, progress, meaning, orprovidence. These views, we trust, will be amply confirmed when we come to examineeach great religion separately and carefully. We shall find them alwaysfeeling after God, often finding him. We shall see that in their originthey are not the work of priestcraft, but of human nature; in theiressence not superstitions, but religions; in their doctrines true morefrequently than false; in their moral tendency good rather than evil. Andinstead of degenerating toward something worse, they come to prepare theway for something better. § 4. How Ethnic Religions were regarded by Christ and his Apostles. According to Christ and the Apostles, Christianity was to grow out ofJudaism, and be developed into a universal religion. Accordingly, themethod of Jesus was to go first to the Jews; and when he left the limitsof Palestine on a single occasion, he declared himself as only going intoPhoenicia to seek after the lost sheep of the house of Israel. But hestated that he had other sheep, not of this fold, whom he must bring, recognizing that there were, among the heathen, good and honest heartsprepared for Christianity, and already belonging to him; sheep who knewhis voice and were ready to follow him. He also declared that the Romancenturion and the Phoenician woman already possessed great faith, thecenturion more than he had yet found in Israel. But the most strikingdeclaration of Jesus, and one singularly overlooked, concerning thecharacter of the heathen, is to be found in his description of the day ofjudgment, in Matthew (chap. XXV. ). It is very curious that men shouldspeculate as to the fate of the heathen, when Jesus has here distinctlytaught that all good men among them are his sheep, though they never heardof him. The account begins, "Before him shall be gathered all theGentiles" (or heathen). It is not a description of the judgment of theChristian world, but of the heathen world. The word here used (τὰ ἔθνη)occurs about one hundred and sixty-four times in the New Testament. It istranslated "gentiles" oftener than by any other word, that is, aboutninety-three times; by "heathen" four or five times; and in the remainingpassages it is mostly translated "nations. " That it means the Gentiles orheathen here appears from the fact that they are represented as ignorantof Christ, and are judged, not by the standard of Christian faith, but bytheir humanity and charity toward those in suffering. Jesus recognizes, therefore, among these ethnic or heathen people, some as belonging tohimself, --the "other sheep, " not of the Jewish fold. The Apostle Paul, who was especially commissioned to the Gentiles, must beconsidered as the best authority upon this question. Did he regard theirreligions as wholly false? On the contrary, he tells the Athenians thatthey are already worshipping the true God, though ignorantly. "Whom yeignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you. " When he said this he wasstanding face to face with all that was most imposing in the religion ofGreece. He saw the city filled with idols, majestic forms, the perfectionof artistic grace and beauty. Was his spirit then moved _only_ withindignation against this worship, and had he no sympathy with thespiritual needs which it expressed? It does not seem so. He recognizedpiety in their souls. "I see that ye are, in all ways, exceedinglypious. " He recognized their worship as passing beyond the idols, to thetrue God. He did not profess that he came to revolutionize their religion, but to reform it. He does not proceed like the backwoodsman, who fells theforest and takes out the stumps in order to plant a wholly different crop;but like the nurseryman, who grafts a native stock with a better fruit. They were already ignorantly worshipping the true God. What the apostleproposed to do was to enlighten that ignorance by showing them who thattrue God was, and what was his character. In his subsequent remarks, therefore, he does not teach them that there is one Supreme Being, but he_assumes_ it, as something already believed. He assumes him to be thecreator of all things; to be _omnipotent_, --"the Lord of heaven andearth"; _spiritual_, --"dwelleth not in temples made with hands";_absolute_, --"not needing anything, " but the source of all things. He saysthis, as not expecting any opposition or contradiction; he reserves hiscriticisms on their idolatry for the end of his discourse. He then states, quite clearly, that the different nations of the world have a commonorigin, belong to one family, and have been providentially placed in spaceand time, that each might seek the Lord in its own way. He recognized inthem a power of seeking and finding God, the God close at hand, and inwhom we live; and he quotes one of their own poets, accepting hisstatement of God's fatherly character. Now, it is quite common for thosewho deny that there is any truth in heathenism, to admire this speech ofPaul as a masterpiece of ingenuity and eloquence. But he would hardly havemade it, unless he thought it to be true. Those who praise his eloquenceat the expense of his veracity pay him a poor compliment. Did Paul tellthe Athenians that they were worshipping the true God _when they werenot_, and that for the sake of rhetorical effect? If we believe thisconcerning him, and yet admire him, let us cease henceforth to find faultwith the Jesuits. No! Paul believed what he said, that the Athenians were worshipping thetrue God, though ignorantly. The sentiment of reverence, of worship, waslifting them to its true object. All they needed was to have theirunderstanding enlightened. Truth he placed in the heart rather than theunderstanding, but he also connected Christianity with Polytheism wherethe two religions touched, that is, on their pantheistic side. Whileplacing God _above_ the world as its ruler, "seeing he is Lord of heavenand earth, " he placed him _in_ the world as an immanent presence, --"in himwe live, and move, and have our being. " And afterward, in writing to theRomans, he takes the same ground. He teaches that the Gentiles had aknowledge of the eternal attributes of God (Rom. I. 19) and saw him in hisworks (v. 20), and that they also had in their nature a law of duty, enabling them to do the things contained in the law. This he calls "thelaw written in the heart" (Rom. Ii. 14, 15). He blames them, not forignorance, but for disobedience. The Apostle Paul, therefore, agrees withus in finding in heathen religions essential truth in connection withtheir errors. The early Christian apologists often took the same view. Thus Clement ofAlexandria believed that God had one great plan for educating the world, of which Christianity was the final step. He refused to consider theJewish religion as the only divine preparation for Christianity, butregarded the Greek philosophy as also a preparation for Christ. Neandergives his views at length, and says that Clement was the founder of thetrue view of history. [6] Tertullian declared the soul to be naturallyChristian. The Sibylline books were quoted as good prophetic works alongwith the Jewish prophets. Socrates was called by the Fathers a Christianbefore Christ. Within the last few years the extravagant condemnation of the heathenreligions has produced a reaction in their favor. It has been felt to bedisparaging to human nature to suppose that almost the whole human raceshould consent to be fed on error. Such a belief has been seen to be adenial of God's providence, as regards nine tenths of mankind. Accordinglyit has become more usual of late to rehabilitate heathenism, and to placeit on the same level with Christianity, if not above it. The _Vedas_ aretalked about as though they were somewhat superior to the Old Testament, and Confucius is quoted as an authority quite equal to Paul or John. Anignorant admiration of the sacred books of the Buddhists and Brahmins hassucceeded to the former ignorant and sweeping condemnation of them. Whatis now needed is a fair and candid examination and comparison of thesesystems from reliable sources. § 5. Comparative Theology will furnish a new Class of Evidences in Supportof Christianity. Such an examination, doing full justice to all other religions, acknowledging their partial truth and use, will not depreciate, but exaltthe value of Christianity. It will furnish a new kind of evidence in itsfavor. But the usual form of argument may perhaps be changed. Is Christianity a supernatural or a natural religion? Is it a religionattested to be from God by miracles? This has been the great question inevidences for the last century. The truth and divine origin ofChristianity have been made to depend on its supernatural character, andto stand or fall with a certain view of miracles. And then, in order tomaintain the reality of miracles, it became necessary to prove theinfallibility of the record; and so we were taught that, to believe inJesus Christ, we must first believe in the genuineness and authenticity ofthe whole New Testament. "All the theology of England, " says Mr. Pattison, [7] "was devoted to proving the Christian religion credible, inthis manner. " "The apostles, " said Dr. Johnson, "were being tried one aweek for the capital crime of forgery. " This was the work of the school ofLardner, Paley, and Whately. But the real question between Christians and unbelievers in Christianityis, not whether our religion is or is not supernatural; not whetherChrist's miracles were or not violations of law; nor whether the NewTestament, as it stands, is the work of inspired men. The main question, back of all these, is different, and not dependent on the views we mayhappen to take of the universality of law. It is this: Is Christianity, astaught by Jesus, intended by God to be the religion of the human race? Isit only one among natural religions? is it to be superseded in its turn byothers, or is it the one religion which is to unite all mankind? "Art thouhe that should come, or look we for another?" This is the question whichwe ask of Jesus of Nazareth, and the answer to which makes the realproblem of apologetic theology. Now the defenders of Christianity have been so occupied with their specialdisputes about miracles, about naturalism and supernaturalism, and aboutthe inspiration and infallibility of the apostles, that they have leftuncultivated the wide field of inquiry belonging to Comparative Theology. But it belongs to this science to establish the truth of Christianity byshowing that it possesses all the aptitudes which fit it to be thereligion of the human race. This method of establishing Christianity differs from the traditionalargument in this: that, while the last undertakes to _prove_ Christianityto be true, this _shows_ it to be true. For if we can make it appear, by afair survey of the principal religions of the world, that, while they areethnic or local, Christianity is catholic or universal; that, while theyare defective, possessing some truths and wanting others, Christianitypossesses all; and that, while they are stationary, Christianity isprogressive; it will not then be necessary to discuss in what sense it isa supernatural religion. Such a survey will show that it is adapted to thenature of man. When we see adaptation we naturally infer design. IfChristianity appears, after a full comparison with other religions, to bethe one and only religion which is perfectly adapted to man, it will beimpossible to doubt that it was designed by God to be the religion of ourrace; that it is the providential religion sent by God to man, its truthGod's truth its way the way to God and to heaven. § 6. It will show that, while most of the Religions of the World areEthnic, or the Religions of Races, Christianity is Catholic, or adapted tobecome the Religion of all Races. By ethnic religions we mean those religions, each of which has always beenconfined within the boundaries of a particular race or family of mankind, and has never made proselytes or converts, except accidentally, outside ofit. By catholic religions we mean those which have shown the desire andpower of passing over these limits, and becoming the religion of aconsiderable number of persons belonging to different races. Now we are met at once with the striking and obvious fact, that most ofthe religions of the world are evidently religions limited in some way toparticular races or nations. They are, as we have said, _ethnic_. We usethis Greek word rather than its Latin equivalent, _gentile_, because_gentile_, though meaning literally "of, or belonging to, a race, " hasacquired a special sense from its New Testament use as meaning all who arenot Jews. The word "ethnic" remains pure from any such secondary oracquired meaning, and signifies simply _that which belongs to a race_. The science of ethnology is a modern one, and is still in the process offormation. Some of its conclusions, however, may be considered asestablished. It has forever set aside Blumenbach's old classification ofmankind into the Caucasian and four other varieties, and has given us, instead, a division of the largest part of mankind into Indo-European, Semitic, and Turanian families, leaving a considerable penumbra outside asyet unclassified. That mankind is so divided into races of men it would seem hardly possibleto deny. It is proved by physiology, by psychology, by glossology, and bycivil history. Physiology shows us anatomical differences between races. There are as marked and real differences between the skull of a Hindoo andthat of a Chinaman as between the skulls of an Englishman and a negro. There is not as great a difference, perhaps, but it is as real and asconstant. Then the characters of races remain distinct, the same traitsreappearing after many centuries exactly as at first. We find the samedifference of character between the Jews and Arabs, who are merelydifferent families of the same Semitic race, as existed between theirancestors, Jacob and Esau, as described in the Book of Genesis. Jacob andthe Jews are prudent, loving trade, money-making, tenacious of theirideas, living in cities; Esau and the Arabs, careless, wild, hatingcities, loving the desert. A similar example of the maintaining of a moral type is found in thecharacteristic differences between the German and Kelts, two families ofthe same Indo-European race. Take an Irishman and a German, working sideby side on the Mississippi, and they present the same characteristicdifferences as the Germans and Kelts described by Tacitus and Cæsar. TheGerman loves liberty, the Kelt equality; the one hates the tyrant, theother the aristocrat; the one is a serious thinker, the other a quick andvivid thinker; the one is a Protestant in religion, the other a Catholic. Ammianus Marcellinus, living in Gaul in the fourth century, describes theKelts thus (see whether it does not apply to the race now). "The Gauls, " says he, "are mostly tall of stature, [8] fair and red-haired, and horrible from the fierceness of their eyes, fond of strife, andhaughtily insolent. A whole band of strangers would not endure one ofthem, aided in his brawl by his powerful and blue-eyed wife, especiallywhen with swollen neck and gnashing teeth, poising her huge white arms, she begins, joining kicks to blows, to put forth her fists like stonesfrom a catapult. Most of their voices are terrific and threatening, aswell when they are quiet as when they are angry. All ages are thought fitfor war. They are a nation very fond of wine, and invent many drinksresembling it, and some of the poorer sort wander about with their sensesquite blunted by continual intoxication. " Now we find that each race, beside its special moral qualities, seems alsoto have special religious qualities, which cause it to tend toward someone kind of religion more than to another kind. These religions are theflower of the race; they come forth from it as its best aroma. Thus we seethat Brahmanism is confined to that section or race of the great Aryanfamily which has occupied India for more than thirty centuries. It belongsto the Hindoos, to the people taking its name from the Indus, by thetributaries of which stream it entered India from the northwest. It hasnever attempted to extend itself beyond that particular variety ofmankind. Perhaps one hundred and fifty millions of men accept it as theirfaith. It has been held by this race as their religion during a periodimmense in the history of mankind. Its sacred books are certainly morethan three thousand years old. But during all this time it has nevercommunicated itself to any race of men outside of the peninsula of India. It is thus seen to be a strictly ethnic religion, showing neither thetendency nor the desire to become the religion of mankind. The same thing may be said of the religion of Confucius. It belongs toChina and the Chinese. It suits their taste and genius. They have had itas their state religion for some twenty-three hundred years, and it rulesthe opinions of the rulers of opinion among three hundred millions of men. But out of China Confucius is only a name. So, too, of the system of Zoroaster. It was for a long period the religionof an Aryan tribe who became the ruling people among mankind. The Persiansextended themselves through Western Asia, and conquered many nations, butthey never communicated their religion. It was strictly a national orethnic religion, belonging only to the Iranians and their descendants, theParsees. In like manner it may be said that the religion of Egypt, of Greece, ofScandinavia, of the Jews, of Islam, and of Buddhism are ethnic religions. Those of Egypt and Scandinavia are strictly so. It is said, to be sure, that the Greeks borrowed the names of their gods from Egypt, but the godsthemselves were entirely different ones. It is also true that some of thegods of the Romans were borrowed from the Greeks, but their life was leftbehind. They merely repeated by rote the Greek mythology, having no powerto invent one for themselves. But the Greek religion they never received. For instead of its fair humanities, the Roman gods were only servants ofthe state, --a higher kind of consuls, tribunes, and lictors. The realOlympus of Rome was the Senate Chamber on the Capitoline Hill. Judaismalso was in reality an ethnic religion, though it aimed at catholicity andexpected it, and made proselytes. But it could not tolerate unessentials, and so failed of becoming catholic. The Jewish religion, until it hadChristianity to help it, was never able to do more than make proselyteshere and there. Christianity, while preaching the doctrines of Jesus andthe New Testament, has been able to carry also the weight of the OldTestament, and to give a certain catholicity to Judaism. The religion ofMohammed has been catholic, in that it has become the religion of verydifferent races, --the Arabs, Turks, and Persians, belonging to the threegreat varieties of the human family. But then Mohammedanism has neversought to make _converts_, but only _subjects;_ it has not asked forbelief, but merely for submission. Consequently Mr. Palgrave, Mr. Lane, and Mr. Vambery tell us, that, in Arabia, Egypt, and Turkistan, there aremultitudes who are outwardly Mohammedan, but who in their private beliefreject Mohammed, and are really Pagans. But, no doubt, there is a catholictendency both in Judaism and Mohammedanism; and this comes from the greatdoctrine which they hold in common with Christianity, --the _unity of God_. Faith in that is the basis of all expectation of a universal religion, andthe wish and the power to convert others come from that doctrine of theDivine unity. * * * * * But Christianity teaches the unity of God not merely as a supremacy ofpower and will, but as a supremacy of love and wisdom; it teaches God asFather, and not merely as King; so it seeks not merely to make proselytesand subjects, but to make converts. Hence Christianity, beginning as aSemitic religion, among the Jews, went across the Greek Archipelago andconverted the Hellenic and the Latin races; afterward the Goths, Lombards, Franks, Vandals; later still, the Saxons, Danes, and Normans. Meantime, its Nestorian missionaries, pushing east, made converts inArmenia, Persia, India, and China. In later days it has converted negroes, Indians, and the people of the Pacific Islands. Something, indeed, stoppedits progress after its first triumphant successes during seven or eightcenturies. At the tenth century it reached its term. Modern missions, whether those of Jesuits or Protestants, have not converted whole nationsand races, but only individuals here and there. The reason of this check, probably, is, that Christians have repeated the mistakes of the Jews andMohammedans. They have sought to make proselytes to an outward system ofworship and ritual, or to make subjects to a _dogma_; but not to makeconverts to an idea and a life. When the Christian missionaries shall goand say to the Hindoos or the Buddhists: "You are already on your waytoward God, --your religion came from him, and was inspired by his Spirit;now he sends you something more and higher by his Son, who does not cometo destroy but to fulfil, not to take away any good thing you have, but toadd to it something better, " then we shall see the process of conversion, checked in the ninth and tenth, centuries, reinaugurated. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, all teaching the strict unity of God, have all aimed at becoming universal. Judaism failed because it soughtproselytes instead of making converts. Islam, the religion of Mohammed (inreality a Judaizing Christian sect) failed because it sought to makesubjects rather than converts. Its conquests over a variety of races wereextensive, but not deep. To-day it holds in its embrace at least four verydistinct races, --the Arabs, a Semitic race, the Persians, an Indo-Europeanrace, the Negroes, and the Turks or Turanians. But, correctly viewed, Islam is only a heretical Christian sect, and so all this must be creditedto the interest of Christianity. Islam is a John the Baptist crying in thewilderness, "Prepare the way of the Lord"; Mohammed is a schoolmaster tobring men to Christ. It does for the nations just what Judaism did, thatis, it teaches the Divine unity. Esau has taken the place of Jacob in theeconomy of Providence. When the Jews rejected Christ they ceased fromtheir providential work, and their cousins, the Arabs, took their place. The conquests of Islam, therefore, ought to be regarded as the preliminaryconquests of Christianity. There is still another system which has shown some tendencies towardcatholicity. This is Buddhism, which has extended itself over the whole ofthe eastern half of Asia. But though it includes a variety ofnationalities, it is doubtful if it includes any variety of races. All theBuddhists appear to belong to the great Mongol family. And although thissystem originated among the Aryan race in India, it has let go its hold ofthat family and transferred itself wholly to the Mongols. But Christianity, from the first, showed itself capable of takingpossession of the convictions of the most different races of mankind. Now, as on the day of Pentecost, many races hear the apostles speak in theirown tongues, in which they were born, --Parthians, Medes, Elamites, dwellers in Mesopotamia, Judæa, and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygiaand Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Lybia about Cyrene, strangers ofRome, Cretes and Arabians. The miracle of tongues was a type of the effectof the truth in penetrating the mind and heart of different nationalities. The Jewish Christians, indeed, tried to repeat in Christianity their oldmistake which had prevented Judaism from becoming universal. They wishedto insist that no one should become a Christian unless he became a Jew atthe same time. If they had succeeded in this, they would have effectuallykept the Gospel of Christ from becoming a catholic religion. But theApostle Paul was raised up for the emergency, and he prevented thissuicidal course. Consequently Christianity passed at once into Europe, andbecame the religion of Greeks and Romans as well as Jews. Paul struck offfrom it its Jewish shell, told them that as Christians they had nothing todo with the Jewish law, or with Jewish Passovers, Sabbaths, or ceremonies. As Christians they were only to know Christ, and they were not to knowhim according to the flesh, that is, not as a Jew. So Christianity becameat once a catholic religion, consisting in the diffusion of great truthsand a divine life. It overflowed the nationalities of Greece and Rome, ofNorth Africa, of Persia and Western Asia, at the very beginning. Itconquered the Gothic and German conquerors of the Roman Empire. UnderArian missionaries, it converted Goths, Vandals, Lombards. Under Nestorianmissionaries, it penetrated as far east as China, and made converts there. In like manner the Gospel spread over the whole of North Africa, whence itwas afterwards expelled by the power of Islam. It has shown itself, therefore, capable of adapting itself to every variety of the human race. § 7. Comparative Theology will probably show that the Ethnic Religions areone-sided, each containing a Truth of its own, but being defective, wanting some corresponding Truth. Christianity, or the Catholic Religion, is complete on every Side. Brahmanism, for example, is complete on the side of spirit, defective onthe side of matter; full as regards the infinite, empty of the finite;recognizing eternity but not time, God but not nature. It is a vast systemof spiritual pantheism, in which there is no reality but God, all elsebeing Maya, or illusion. The Hindoo mind is singularly pious, but alsosingularly immoral. It has no history, for history belongs to time. No oneknows when its sacred books were written, when its civilization began, what caused its progress, what its decline. Gentle, devout, abstract, itis capable at once of the loftiest thoughts and the basest actions. Itcombines the most ascetic self-denials and abstraction from life with themost voluptuous self-indulgence. The key to the whole system of Hindoothought and life is in this original tendency to see God, not man;eternity, not time; the infinite, not the finite. Buddhism, which was a revolt from Brahmanism, has exactly the oppositetruths and the opposite defects. Where Brahmanism is strong, it is weak;where Brahmanism is weak, it is strong. It recognizes man, not God; thesoul, not the all; the finite, not the infinite; morality, not piety. Itsonly God, Buddha, is a man who has passed on through innumerabletransmigrations, till, by means of exemplary virtues, he has reached thelordship of the universe. Its heaven, Nirvana, is indeed the world ofinfinite bliss; but, incapable of cognizing the infinite, it calls itnothing. Heaven, being the inconceivable infinite, is equivalent to purenegation. Nature, to the Buddhist, instead of being the delusive shadow ofGod, as the Brahman views it, is envisaged as a nexus of laws, whichreward and punish impartially both obedience and disobedience. The system of Confucius has many merits, especially in its influence onsociety. The most conservative of all systems, and also the most prosaic, its essential virtue is reverence for all that is. It is not perplexed byany fear or hope of change; the thing which has been is that which shallbe; and the very idea of progress is eliminated from the thought of China. Safety, repose, peace, these are its blessings. Probably merely physicalcomfort, earthly _bien-être_, was never carried further than in theCelestial Empire. That virtue so much exploded in Western civilization, ofrespect for parents, remains in full force in China. The emperor ishonored as the father of his people; ancestors are worshipped in everyfamily; and the best reward offered for a good action is a patent ofnobility, which does not reach forward to one's children, but backward toone's parents. This is the bright side of Chinese life; the dark side isthe fearful ennui, the moral death, which falls on a people among whomthere are no such things as hope, expectation, or the sense of progress. Hence the habit of suicide among this people, indicating their small holdon life. In every Chinese drama there are two or three suicides. A soldierwill commit suicide rather than go into battle. If you displease aChinaman, he will resent the offence by killing himself on your doorstep, hoping thus to give you some inconvenience. Such are the merits and suchthe defects of the system of Confucius. The doctrine of Zoroaster and of the Zend Avesta is far nobler. Itscentral thought is that each man is a soldier, bound to battle for goodagainst evil. The world, at the present time, is the scene of a greatwarfare between the hosts of light and those of darkness. Every man whothinks purely, speaks purely, and acts purely is a servant of Ormazd, theking of light, and thereby helps on his cause. The result of this doctrinewas that wonderful Persian empire, which astonished the world forcenturies by its brilliant successes; and the virtue and intelligence ofthe Parsees of the present time, the only representatives in the world ofthat venerable religion. The one thing lacking to the system is unity. Itlives in perpetual conflict. Its virtues are all the virtues of a soldier. Its defects and merits are, both, the polar opposites of those of China. If the everlasting peace of China tends to moral stagnation and death, theperpetual struggle and conflict of Persia tends to exhaustion. The Persianempire rushed through a short career of flame to its tomb; the Chineseempire vegetates, unchanged, through a myriad of years. * * * * * If Brahmanism and Buddhism occupy the opposite poles of the same axis ofthought, --if the system of Confucius stands opposed, on another axis, tothat of Zoroaster, --we find a third development of like polar antagonismsin the systems of ancient Egypt and Greece. Egypt stands for Nature;Greece for Man. Inscrutable as is the mystery of that Sphinx of the Nile, the old religion of Egypt, we can yet trace some phases of its secret. Itsreverence for organization appears in the practice of embalming. Thebodies of men and of animals seemed to it to be divine. Even vegetableorganization had something sacred in it: "O holy nation, " said the Romansatirist, "whose gods grow in gardens!" That plastic force of nature whichappears in organic life and growth made up, in various forms, as we shallsee in the proper place, the Egyptian Pantheon. The life-force of naturebecame divided into the three groups of gods, the highest of whichrepresented its largest generalizations. Kneph, Neith, Sevech, Pascht, aresymbols, according to Lepsius, of the World-Spirit, the World-Matter, Space and Time. Each circle of the gods shows us some working of themysterious powers of nature, and of its occult laws. But when we come toGreece, these personified laws turn into men. Everything in the GreekPantheon is human. All human tendencies appear transfigured into glowingforms of light on Mount Olympus. The gods of Egypt are powers and laws;those of Greece are persons. The opposite tendencies of these antagonist forms of piety appear in thedevelopment of Egyptian and Hellenic life. The gods of Egypt weremysteries too far removed from the popular apprehension to be objects ofworship; and so religion in Egypt became priestcraft. In Greece, on theother hand, the gods were too familiar, too near to the people, to beworshipped with any real reverence. Partaking in all human faults andvices, it must sooner or later come to pass that familiarity would breedcontempt. And as the religion of Egypt perished from being kept away fromthe people, as an esoteric system in the hands of priests, that of Greece, in which there was no priesthood as an order, came to an end because thegods ceased to be objects of respect at all. * * * * * We see, from these examples, how each of the great ethnic religions tendsto a disproportionate and excessive, because one-sided, statement of somedivine truth or law. The question then emerges at this point: "IsChristianity also one-sided, or does it contain in itself _all_ thesetruths?" Is it _teres atque rotundus_, so as to be able to meet everynatural religion with a kindred truth, and thus to supply the defects ofeach from its own fulness? If it can be shown to possess this amplitude, it at once is placed by itself in an order of its own. It is not to beclassified with the other religions, since it does not share their onefamily fault. In every other instance we can touch with our finger theweak place, the empty side. Is there any such weak side in Christianity?It is the office of Comparative Theology to answer. The positive side of Brahmanism we saw to be its sense of spiritualrealities. That is also fully present in Christianity. Not merely doesthis appear in such New Testament texts as these: "God is spirit, " "Theletter killeth, the spirit giveth life": not only does the New Testamentjust graze and escape Pantheism in such passages as "From whom, andthrough whom, and to whom are all things, " "Who is above all, and throughall, and in us all, " "In him we live and move and have our being, " but thewhole history of Christianity is the record of a spiritualism almost tooexcessive. It has appeared in the worship of the Church, the hymns of theChurch, the tendencies to asceticism, the depreciation of earth and man. Christianity, therefore, fully meets Brahmanism on its positive side, while it fulfils its negations, as we shall see hereafter, by adding asfull a recognition of man and nature. The positive side of Buddhism is its cognition of the human soul and thenatural laws of the universe. Now, if we look into the New Testament andinto the history of the Church, we find this element also fully expressed. It appears in all the parables and teachings of Jesus, in which man isrepresented as a responsible agent, rewarded or punished according to theexact measure of his works; receiving the government of ten or five citiesaccording to his stewardship. And when we look into the practical workingof Christianity we find almost an exaggerated stress laid on the duty ofsaving one's soul. This excessive estimate is chiefly seen in the monasticsystem of the Roman Church, and in the Calvinistic sects of Protestantism. It also comes to light again, curiously enough, in such books as Combe's"Constitution of Man, " the theory of which is exactly the same as that ofthe Buddhists; namely, that the aim of life is a prudential virtue, consisting in wise obedience to the natural laws of the universe. Bothsystems substitute prudence for Providence as the arbiter of humandestiny. But, apart from these special tendencies in Christianity, itcannot be doubted that all Christian experience recognizes the positivetruth of Buddhism in regarding the human soul as a substantial, finite, but progressive monad, not to be absorbed, as in Brahmanism, in the abyssof absolute being. The positive side of the system of Confucius is the organization of thestate on the basis of the family. The government of the emperor ispaternal government, the obedience of the subject is filial obedience. Now, though Jesus did not for the first time call God "the Father, " hefirst brought men into a truly filial relation to God. The Roman Church isorganized on the family idea. The word "Pope" means the "Father"; he isthe father of the whole Church. Every bishop and every priest is also thefather of a smaller family, and all those born into the Church are itschildren, as all born into a family are born sons and daughters of thefamily. In Protestantism, also, society is composed of families as thebody is made up of cells. Only in China, and in Christendom, is familylife thus sacred and worshipful. In some patriarchal systems, polygamyannuls the wife and the mother; in others the father is a despot, and thechildren slaves; in other systems, the crushing authority of the statedestroys the independence of the household. Christianity alone acceptswith China the religion of family life with all its conservative elements, while it fulfils it with the larger hope of the kingdom of heaven andbrotherhood of mankind. This idea of the kingdom of heaven, so central in Christianity, is alsothe essential motive in the religion of Zoroaster. As, in the Zend Avesta, every man is a soldier, fighting for light or for darkness, and neutralityis impossible; so, in the Gospel, light and good stand opposed to darknessand evil as perpetual foes. A certain current of dualism runs through theChristian Scriptures and the teaching of the Church. God and Satan, heavenand hell, are the only alternatives. Every one must choose between them. In the current theology, this dualism has been so emphasized as even toexceed that of the Zend Avesta. The doctrine of everlasting punishment andan everlasting hell has always been the orthodox doctrine in Christianity, while the Zend Avesta probably, and the religion in its subsequentdevelopment certainly, teaches universal restoration, and the ultimatetriumph of good over evil. Nevertheless, practically, in consequence ofthe greater richness and fulness of Christianity, this tendency to dualismhas been neutralized by its monotheism, and evil kept subordinate; while, in the Zend religion, the evil principle assumed such proportions as tomake it the formidable rival of good in the mind of the worshipper. Here, as before, we may say that Christianity is able to do justice to all thetruth involved in the doctrine of evil, avoiding any superficial optimism, and recognizing the fact that all true life must partake of the nature ofa battle. The positive side of Egyptian religion we saw to be a recognition of thedivine element in nature, of that plastic, mysterious life which embodiesitself in all organisms. Of this view we find little stated explicitly inthe New Testament. But that the principles of Christianity contain it, implicitly, in an undeveloped form, appears, (1. ) Because Christianmonotheism differs from Jewish and Mohammedan monotheism, in recognizingGod "_in all things_" as well as God "_above all things_. " (2. ) BecauseChristian art and literature differ from classic art and literature in the_romantic_ element, which is exactly the sense of this mysterious life innature. The classic artist is a ποιητής, a maker; the romantic artist is atroubadour, a finder. The one does his work in giving form to a deadmaterial; the other, by seeking for its hidden life. (3. ) Because modernscience is _invention_, i. E. Finding. It recognizes mysteries in naturewhich are to be searched into, and this search becomes a serious religiousinterest with all truly scientific men. It appears to such men a profanityto doubt or question the revelations of nature, and they believe in itsinfallible inspiration quite as much as the dogmatist believes in theinfallible inspiration of Scripture, or the churchman in the infallibleinspiration of the Church. We may, therefore, say, that the essentialtruth in the Egyptian system has been taken up into our modern Christianlife. And how is it, lastly, with that opposite pole of religious thought whichblossomed out in "the fair humanities of old religion" in the wonderfulHellenic mind? The gods of Greece were men. They were not abstract ideas, concealing natural powers and laws. They were open as sunshine, bright asnoon, a fair company of men and women idealized and gracious, just alittle way off, a little way up. It was humanity projected upon the skies, divine creatures of more than mortal beauty, but thrilling with human lifeand human sympathies. Has Christianity anything to offer in the place ofthis charming system of human gods and goddesses? We answer that the fundamental doctrine of Christianity is theincarnation, the word made flesh. It is God revealed in man. Under somedoctrinal type this has always been believed. The common Trinitariandoctrine states it in a somewhat crude and illogical form. Yet somehow theman Christ Jesus has always been seen to be the best revelation of God. But unless there were some human element in the Deity, he could not revealhimself so in a human life. The doctrine of the incarnation, therefore, repeats the Mosaic statement that "man was made in the image of God. "Jewish and Mohammedan monotheism separate God entirely from the world. Philosophic monotheism, in our day, separates God from man, by teachingthat there is nothing in common between the two by which God can bemediated, and so makes him wholly incomprehensible. Christianity gives usEmmanuel, God with us, equally removed from the stern despotic omnipotenceof the Semitic monotheism and the finite and imperfect humanities ofOlympus. We see God in Christ, as full of sympathy with man, God "in usall"; and yet we see him in nature, providence, history, as "above all"and "through all. " The Roman Catholic Church has, perhaps, humanizedreligion too far. For every god and goddess of Greece she has given us, onsome immortal canvas, an archangel or a saint to be adored and loved. Instead of Apollo and the Python we have Guido's St. Michael and theDragon; in place of the light, airy Mercury she provides a St. Sebastian;instead of the "untouched" Diana, some heavenly Agnes or Cecilia. TheCatholic heaven is peopled, all the way up, with beautiful human forms;and on the upper throne we have holiness and tenderness incarnate in thequeen of heaven and her divine Son. All the Greek humanities are thusfulfilled in the ample faith of Christendom. By such a critical survey as we have thus sketched in mere outline it willbe seen that each of the great ethnic religions is full on one side, butempty on the other, while Christianity is full all round. Christianity isadapted to take their place, not because they are false, but because theyare true as far as they go. They "know in part and prophesy in part; butwhen that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall bedone away. " § 8. Comparative Theology will probably show that Ethnic Religions arearrested, or degenerate, and will come to an End, while the CatholicReligion is capable of a progressive Development. The religions of Persia, Egypt, Greece, Rome, have come to an end; havingshared the fate of the national civilization of which each was a part. Thereligions of China, Islam, Buddha, and Judæa have all been arrested, andremain unchanged and seemingly unchangeable. Like great vessels anchoredin a stream, the current of time flows past them, and each year they arefurther behind the spirit of the age, and less in harmony with itsdemands. Christianity alone, of all human religions, seems to possess thepower of keeping abreast with the advancing civilization of the world. Asthe child's soul grows with his body, so that when he becomes a man it isa man's soul and not a child's, so the Gospel of Jesus continues the soulof all human culture. It continually drops its old forms and takes newones. It passed out of its Jewish body under the guidance of Paul. In aspeculative age it unfolded into creeds and systems. In a worshipping ageit developed ceremonies and a ritual. When the fall of Rome left Europewithout unity or centre, it gave it an organization and order through thePapacy. When the Papacy became a tyranny, and the Renaissance called forfree thought, it suddenly put forth Protestantism, as the tree by thewater-side sends forth its shoots in due season. Protestantism, free asair, opens out into the various sects, each taking hold of some humanneed; Lutheranism, Calvinism, Methodism, Swedenborgianism, or Rationalism. Christianity blossoms out into modern science, literature, art, --childrenwho indeed often forget their mother, and are ignorant of their source, but which are still fed from her breasts and partake of her life. Christianity, the spirit of faith, hope, and love, is the deep fountain ofmodern civilization. Its inventions are for the many, not for the few. Itsscience is not hoarded, but diffused. It elevates the masses, whoeverywhere else have been trampled down. The friend of the people, ittends to free schools, a free press, a free government, the abolition ofslavery, war, vice, and the melioration of society. We cannot, indeed, here _prove_ that Christianity is the cause of these features peculiar tomodern life; but we find it everywhere associated with them, and so we cansay that it only, of all the religions of mankind, has been capable ofaccompanying man in his progress from evil to good, from good to better. We have merely suggested some of the results to which the study ofComparative Theology may lead us. They will appear more fully as weproceed in our examination of the religions, and subsequently in theircomparison. This introductory chapter has been designed as a sketch of thecourse which the work will take. When we have completed our survey, theresults to which we hope to arrive will be these, if we succeed in what wehave undertaken:-- 1. All the great religions of the world, except Christianity andMohammedanism, are ethnic religions, or religions limited to a singlenation or race. Christianity alone (including Mohammedanism and Judaism, which are its temporary and local forms) is the religion of all races. 2. Every ethnic religion has its positive and negative side. Its positiveside is that which holds some vital truth; its negative side is theabsence of some other essential truth. Every such religion is true andprovidential, but each limited and imperfect. 3. Christianity alone is a πλήρωμα, or a fulness of truth, not coming todestroy but to fulfil the previous religions; but being capable ofreplacing them by teaching all the truth they have taught, and supplyingthat which they have omitted. 4. Christianity, being not a system but a life, not a creed or a form, buta spirit, is able to meet all the changing wants of an advancingcivilization by new developments and adaptations, constantly feeding thelife of man at its roots by fresh supplies of faith in God and faith inman. Chapter II. Confucius and the Chinese, or the Prose of Asia. § 1. Peculiarities of Chinese Civilization. § 2. Chinese Government based on Education. Civil-Service Examinations. § 3. Life and Character of Confucius. § 4. Philosophy and subsequent Development of Confucianism. § 5. Lao-tse and Tao-ism. § 6. Religious Character of the "Kings. " § 7. Confucius and Christianity. Character of the Chinese. § 8. The Tae-ping Insurrection. NOTE. The Nestorian Inscription in China of the Eighth Century. § 1. Peculiarities of Chinese Civilization. In qualifying the Chinese mind as prosaic, and in calling the writings ofConfucius and his successors _prose_, we intend no disrespect to either. Prose is as good as poetry. But we mean to indicate the point of view fromwhich the study of the Chinese teachers should be approached. Accustomedto regard the East as the land of imagination; reading in our childhoodthe wild romances of Arabia; passing, in the poetry of Persia, into anatmosphere of tender and entrancing song; then, as we go farther East intoIndia, encountering the vast epics of the Mahá-Bhárata and theRámáyana;--we might naturally expect to find in far Cathay a still wilderflight of the Asiatic Muse. Not at all. We drop at once from unbridledromance into the most colorless prose. Another race comes to us, whichseems to have no affinity with Asia, as we have been accustomed to thinkof Asia. No more aspiration, no flights of fancy, but the worship oforder, decency, propriety, and peaceful commonplaces. As the people, sothe priests. The works of Confucius and his commentators are as level asthe valley of their great river, the Yang-tse-kiang, which the tideascends for four hundred miles. All in these writings is calm, serious, and moral They assume that all men desire to be made better, and willtake the trouble to find out how they can be made so. It is not thoughtnecessary to entice them into goodness by the attractions of eloquence, the charm of imagery, or the fascinations of a brilliant wit. Thesephilosophers have a Quaker style, a dress of plain drab, used only forclothing the thought, not at all for its ornament. And surely we ought not to ask for any other attraction than the subjectitself, in order to find interest in China and its teachers. The ChineseEmpire, which contains more than five millions of square miles, or twicethe area of the United States, has a population of five hundred millions, or half the number of the human beings inhabiting the globe. China proper, inhabited by the Chinese, is half as large as Europe, and contains aboutthree hundred and sixty millions of inhabitants. There are eighteenprovinces in China, many of which contain, singly, more inhabitants thansome of the great states of Europe. But on many other accounts this nationis deeply interesting. China is the type of permanence in the world. To say that it is older thanany other _existing_ nation is saying very little. Herodotus, who has beencalled the Father of History, travelled in Egypt about 450 B. C. He studiedits monuments, bearing the names of kings who were as distant from histime as he is from ours, --monuments which even then belonged to a grayantiquity. But the kings who erected those monuments were possiblyposterior to the founders of the Chinese Empire. Porcelain vessels, withChinese mottoes on them, have been found in those ancient tombs, in shape, material, and appearance precisely like those which are made in Chinato-day; and Rosellini believes them to have been imported from China bykings contemporary with Moses, or before him. This nation and itsinstitutions have outlasted everything. The ancient Bactrian and Assyriankingdoms, the Persian monarchy, Greece and Rome, have all risen, flourished, and fallen, --and China continues still the same. The dynastyhas been occasionally changed; but the laws, customs, institutions, allthat makes national life, have continued. The authentic history of Chinacommences some two thousand years before Christ, and a thousand years inthis history is like a century in that of any other people. The orallanguage of China has continued the same that it is now for thirtycenturies. The great wall bounding the empire on the north, which istwelve hundred and forty miles long and twenty feet high, with towersevery few hundred yards, --which crosses mountain ridges, descends intovalleys, and is carried over rivers on arches, --was built two hundredyears before Christ, probably to repel those fierce tribes who, afterineffectual attempts to conquer China, travelled westward till theyappeared on the borders of Europe five hundred years later, and, under thename of Huns, assisted in the downfall of the Roman Empire. All China wasintersected with canals at a period when none existed in Europe. The greatcanal, like the great wall, is unrivalled by any similar existing work. Itis twice the length of the Erie Canal, is from two hundred to a thousandfeet wide, and has enormous banks built of solid granite along a greatpart of its course. One of the important mechanical inventions of modernEurope is the Artesian well. That sunk at Grenelle, in France, was longsupposed to be the deepest in the world, going down eighteen hundred feet. One at St. Louis, in the United States, has since been drilled to a depth, as has recently been stated, of about four thousand. [9] But in China thesewells are found by tens of thousands, sunk at very remote periods toobtain salt water. The method used by the Chinese from immemorial time hasrecently been adopted instead of our own as being the most simple andeconomical. The Chinese have been long acquainted with the circulation ofthe blood; they inoculated for the small-pox in the ninth century; andabout the same time they invented printing. Their bronze money was made asearly as 1100 B. C. , and its form has not been changed since the beginningof the Christian era. The mariner's compass, gunpowder, and the art ofprinting were made known to Europe through stories told by missionariesreturning from Asia. These missionaries, coasting the shores of theCelestial Empire in Chinese junks, saw a little box containing amagnetized needle, called Ting-nan-Tchen, or "needle which points to thesouth. " They also noticed terrible machines used by the armies in Chinacalled Ho-pao or fire-guns, into which was put an inflammable powder, which produced a noise like thunder and projected stones and pieces ofiron with irresistible force. Father Hue, in his "Christianity in China, " says that "the Europeans whopenetrated into China were no less struck with the libraries of theChinese than with their artillery. They were astonished at the sight ofthe elegant books printed rapidly upon a pliant, silky paper by means ofwooden blocks. The first edition of the classical works printed in Chinaappeared in 958, five hundred years before the invention of Gutenberg. Themissionaries had, doubtless, often been busied in their convents with thelaborious work of copying manuscript books, and the simple Chinese methodof printing must have particularly attracted their attention. Many othermarvellous productions were noticed, such as silk, porcelain, playing-cards, spectacles, and other products of art and industry unknownin Europe. They brought back these new ideas to Europe; 'and from thattime, ' says Abel Remusat, 'the West began to hold in due esteem the mostbeautiful, the most populous, and the most anciently civilized of all thefour quarters of the world. The arts, the religious faith, and thelanguages of its people were studied, and it was even proposed toestablish a professorship for the Tartar language in the University ofParis. The world seemed to open towards the East; geography made immensestrides, and ardor for discovery opened a new vent for the adventurousspirit of the Europeans. As our own hemisphere became better known, theidea of another ceased to appear a wholly improbable paradox; and inseeking the Zipangon of Marco Polo, Christopher Columbus discovered theNew World. '" The first aspect of China produces that impression on the mind which wecall the grotesque. This is merely because the customs of this singularnation are so opposite to our own. They seem morally, no less thanphysically, our antipodes. Their habits are as opposite to ours as thedirection of their bodies. We stand feet to feet in everything. In boxingthe compass they say "westnorth" instead of northwest, "eastsouth" insteadof southeast, and their compass-needle points south instead of north. Their soldiers wear quilted petticoats, satin boots, and bead necklaces, carry umbrellas and fans, and go to a night attack with lanterns in theirhands, being more afraid of the dark than of exposing themselves to theenemy. The people are very fond of fireworks, but prefer to have them inthe daytime. Ladies' ride in wheelbarrows, and cows are driven incarriages. While in Europe the feet are put in the stocks, in China thestocks are hung round the neck. In China the family name comes first, andthe personal name afterward. Instead of saying Benjamin Franklin or WalterScott they would say Franklin Benjamin, Scott Walter. Thus the Chinesename of Confucius, Kung-fu-tsee, means the Holy Master Kung;--Kung is thefamily name. In the recent wars with the English the mandarins or soldierswould sometimes run away, and then commit suicide to avoid punishment. Ingetting on a horse, the Chinese mount on the right side. Their old men flykites, while the little boys look on. The left hand is the seat of honor, and to keep on your hat is a sign of respect. Visiting cards are paintedred, and are four feet long. In the opinion of the Chinese, the seat ofthe understanding is the stomach. They have villages which contain amillion of inhabitants. Their boats are drawn by men, but their carriagesare moved by sails. A married woman while young and pretty is a slave, butwhen she becomes old and withered is the most powerful, respected, andbeloved person in the family. The emperor is regarded with the mostprofound reverence, but the empress mother is a greater person than he. When a man furnishes his house, instead of laying stress, as we do, onrosewood pianos and carved mahogany, his first ambition is for a handsomecamphor-wood coffin, which he keeps in the best place in his room. Theinterest of money is thirty-six per cent, which, to be sure, we also givein hard times to stave off a stoppage, while with them it is the legalrate. We once heard a bad dinner described thus: "The meat was cold, thewine was hot, and everything was sour but the vinegar. " This would not somuch displease the Chinese, who carefully warm their wine, while we iceours. They understand good living, however, very well, are great epicures, and somewhat gourmands, for, after dining on thirty dishes, they willsometimes eat a duck by way of a finish. They toss their meat into theirmouths to a tune, every man keeping time with his chop-sticks, while we, on the contrary, make anything but harmony with the clatter of our knivesand forks. A Chinaman will not drink a drop of milk, but he will devourbirds'-nests, snails, and the fins of sharks with a great relish. Ourmourning color is black and theirs is white; they mourn for their parentsthree years, we a much shorter time. The principal room in their houses iscalled "the hall of ancestors, " the pictures or tablets of whom, set upagainst the wall, are worshipped by them; we, on the other hand, are onlytoo apt to send our grandfather's portrait to the garret. [10] § 2. Chinese Government based on Education. Civil-Service Examinations. Such are a few of the external differences between the Chinese customs andours. But the most essential peculiarity of this nation is the high valuewhich they attribute to knowledge, and the distinctions and rewards whichthey bestow on scholarship. All the civil offices in the Empire are givenas rewards of literary merit. The government, indeed, is called a completedespotism, and the emperor is said to have absolute authority. He is notbound by any written constitution, indeed; but the public opinion of theland holds him, nevertheless, to a strict responsibility. He, no less thanhis people, is bound by a law higher than that of any private will, --theauthority of custom. For, in China, more than anywhere else, "what is graywith age becomes religion. " The authority of the emperor is simplyauthority to govern according to the ancient usages of the country, andwhenever these are persistently violated, a revolution takes place and thedynasty is changed. But a revolution in China changes nothing but theperson of the monarch; the unwritten constitution of old usages remains infull force. "A principle as old as the monarchy, " says Du Halde, "is this, that the state is a large family, and the emperor is in the place of bothfather and mother. He must govern his people with affection and goodness;he must attend to the smallest matters which concern their happiness. Whenhe is not supposed to have this sentiment, he soon loses his hold on thereverence of the people, and his throne becomes insecure. " The emperor, therefore, is always studying how to preserve this reputation. When aprovince is afflicted by famine, inundation, or any other calamity, heshuts himself in his palace, fasts, and publishes decrees to relieve it oftaxes and afford it aid. The true power of the government is in the literary class. The government, though nominally a monarchy, is really an aristocracy. But it is not anaristocracy of birth, like that of England, for the humblest man's son canobtain a place in it; neither is it an aristocracy of wealth, like oursin the United States, nor a military aristocracy, like that of Russia, noran aristocracy of priests, like that of ancient Egypt, and of some moderncountries, --as, for instance, that of Paraguay under the Jesuits, or thatof the Sandwich Islands under the Protestant missionaries; but it is aliterary aristocracy. The civil officers in China are called mandarins. They are chosen from thethree degrees of learned men, who may be called the bachelors, licentiates, and doctors. All persons may be candidates for the firstdegree, except three excluded classes, --boatmen, barbers, and actors. Thecandidates are examined by the governors of their own towns. Of thoseapproved, a few are selected after another examination. These again areexamined by an officer who makes a circuit once in three years for thatpurpose. They are placed alone in little rooms or closets, with pencils, ink, and paper, and a subject is given them to write upon. Out of somefour hundred candidates fifteen may be selected, who receive the lowestdegree. There is another triennial examination for the second degree, atwhich a small number of the bachelors are promoted. The examination forthe highest degree, that of doctor, is held at Pekin only, when some threehundred are taken out of five thousand. These are capable of receiving thehighest offices. Whenever a vacancy occurs, one of those who have receiveda degree is taken by lot from the few senior names. But a few years since, there were five thousand of the highest rank, and twenty-seven thousand ofthe second rank, who had not received employment. The subjects upon which the candidates are examined, and the methods ofthese examinations, are thus described in the Shanghae Almanac (1852). [11] The examinations for the degree of Keujin (or licentiate) takes place atthe principal city of each province once in three years. The averagenumber of bachelors in the large province of Keang-Nan (which containsseventy millions of inhabitants) is twenty thousand, out of whom onlyabout two hundred succeed. Sixty-five mandarins are deputed for thisexamination, besides subordinate officials. The two chief examiners aresent from Pekin. When the candidates enter the examination hall they aresearched for books or manuscripts, which might assist them in writingtheir essays. This precaution is not superfluous, for many plans have beeninvented to enable mediocre people to pass. Sometimes a thin book, printedon very small type from copperplates, is slipped into a hole in the soleof the shoe. But persons detected in such practices are ruined for life. In a list of one hundred and forty-four successful candidates, in 1851, thirteen were over forty years of age, and one under fourteen years; sevenwere under twenty; and all, to succeed, must have known by heart the wholeof the Sacred Books, besides being well read in history. Three sets of themes are given, each occupying two days and a night, anduntil that time is expired no one is allowed to leave his apartment, whichis scarcely large enough to sleep in. The essays must not contain morethan seven hundred characters, and no erasure or correction is allowed. Onthe first days the themes are taken from the Four Books; on the next, fromthe older classics; on the last, miscellaneous questions are given. Thethemes are such as these: "Choo-tsze, in commenting on the Shoo-King, madeuse of four authors, who sometimes say too much, at other times toolittle; sometimes their explanations are forced, at other times tooornamental. What have you to observe on them?" "Chinshow had greatabilities for historic writing. In his Three Kingdoms he has depreciatedChoo-ko-leang, and made very light of E and E, two other celebratedcharacters. What is it that he says of them?" These public-service examinations are conducted with the greatestimpartiality. They were established about a thousand years ago, and havebeen gradually improved during the intervening time. They form the basisof the whole system of Chinese government. They make a good educationuniversally desirable, as the poorest man may see his son thus advanced tothe highest position. All of the hundreds of thousands who prepare tocompete are obliged to know the whole system of Confucius, to commit tomemory all his moral doctrines, and to become familiar with all thetraditional wisdom of the land. Thus a public opinion in favor of existinginstitutions and the fundamental ideas of Chinese government iscontinually created anew. What an immense advantage it would be to our own country if we shouldadopt this institution of China! Instead of making offices the prize ofimpudence, political management, and party services, let them be competedfor by all who consider themselves qualified. Let all offices now given byappointment be hereafter bestowed on those who show themselves bestqualified to perform the duties. Each class of offices would of courserequire a different kind of examination. For some, physical culture aswell as mental might be required. Persons who wished diplomatic situationsshould be prepared in a knowledge of foreign languages as well as ofinternational law. All should be examined on the Constitution and historyof the United States. Candidates for the Post-Office Department should begood copyists, quick at arithmetic, and acquainted with book-keeping. Itis true that we cannot by an examination obtain a certain knowledge ofmoral qualities; but industry, accuracy, fidelity in work would certainlyshow themselves. A change from the present corrupt and corrupting systemof appointments to that of competitive examinations would do more just nowfor our country than any other measure of reconstruction which can beproposed. The permanence of Chinese institutions is believed, by those whoknow best, to result from the influence of the literary class. Literatureis naturally conservative; the tone of the literature studied is eminentlyconservative; and the most intelligent men in the empire are personallyinterested in the continuance of the institutions under which they hope toattain position and fortune. The highest civil offices are seats at the great tribunals or boards, andthe positions of viceroys, or governors, of the eighteen provinces. The boards are:-- Ly Pou, Board of Appointment of Mandarins. Hou Pou, Board of Finance. Lee Pou, Board of Ceremonies. Ping Pou, Board of War. Hing Pou, Board of Criminal Justice. Kong Pou, Board of Works, --canals, bridges, &c. The members of these boards, with their councillors and subordinates, amount to twelve hundred officers. Then there is the Board of Doctors ofthe Han Lin College, who have charge of the archives, history of theempire, &c. ; and the Board of Censors, who are the highest mandarins, andhave a peculiar office. Their duty is to stand between the people and themandarins, and between the people and the emperor, and even rebuke thelatter if they find him doing wrong. This is rather a perilous duty, butit is often faithfully performed. A censor, who went to tell the emperorof some faults, took his coffin with him, and left it at the door of thepalace. Two censors remonstrated with a late emperor on the expenses ofhis palace, specifying the sums uselessly lavished for perfumes andflowers for his concubines, and stating that a million of taels of silvermight be saved for the poor by reducing these expenses. Sung, thecommissioner who attended Lord Macartney, remonstrated with the EmperorKiaking on his attachment to play-actors and strong drink, which degradedhim in the eyes of the people. The emperor, highly irritated, asked himwhat punishment he deserved for his insolence. "Quartering, " said Sung. "Choose another, " said the emperor. "Let me be beheaded. " "Choose again, "said the emperor; and Sung asked to be strangled. The next day the emperorappointed him governor of a distant province, --afraid to punish him forthe faithful discharge of his duty, but glad to have him at a distance. Many such anecdotes are related, showing that there is some moral couragein China. The governor of a province, or viceroy, has great power. He also is chosenfrom among the mandarins in the way described. The only limitations of hispower are these: he is bound to make a full report every three years ofthe affairs of the province, _and give in it an account of his ownfaults, _ and if he omits any, and they are discovered in other ways, he ispunished by degradation, bambooing, or death. It is the right of anysubject, however humble, to complain to the emperor himself against anyofficer, however high; and for this purpose a large drum is placed at oneof the palace gates. Whoever strikes it has his case examined under theemperor's eye, and if he has been wronged, his wrongs are redressed, butif he has complained unnecessarily, he is severely punished. Imperialvisitors, sent by the Board of Censors, may suddenly arrive at any time toexamine the concerns of a province; and a governor or other public officerwho is caught tripping is immediately reported and punished. Thus the political institutions of China are built on literature. Knowledge is the road to power and wealth. All the talent and knowledge ofthe nation are interested in the support of institutions which give tothem either power or the hope of it. And these institutions work well. Themachinery is simple, but it produces a vast amount of happiness anddomestic virtue. While in most parts of Asia the people are oppressed bypetty tyrants, and ground down by taxes, --while they have no motive toimprove their condition, since every advance will only expose them togreater extortion, --the people of China are industrious and happy. In nopart of the world has agriculture been carried to such perfection. Everypiece of ground in the cultivated parts of the empire, except thoseportions devoted to ancestral monuments, is made to yield two or threecrops annually, by the careful tillage bestowed on it. The ceremony ofopening the soil at the beginning of the year, at which the emperorofficiates, originated two thousand years ago. Farms are small, --of one ortwo acres, --and each family raises on its farm all that it consumes. Silkand cotton are cultivated and manufactured in families, each man spinning, weaving, and dyeing his own web. In the manufacture of porcelain, on thecontrary, the division of labor is carried very far. The best is made atthe village of Kiangsee, which contains a million of inhabitants. Seventyhands are sometimes employed on a single cup. The Chinese are veryskilful in working horn and ivory. Large lanterns are made of horn, transparent and without a flaw. At Birmingham men have tried with machinesto cut ivory in the same manner as the Chinese, and have failed. § 3. Life and Character of Confucius. Of this nation the great teacher for twenty-three centuries has beenConfucius. He was born 551 B. C. , and was contemporary with the Tarquins, Pythagoras, and Cyrus. About his time occurred the return of the Jews fromBabylon and the invasion of Greece by Xerxes. His descendants have alwaysenjoyed high privileges, and there are now some forty thousand of them inChina, seventy generations and more removed from their great ancestor. Hisis the oldest family in the world, unless we consider the Jews as a singlefamily descended from Abraham. His influence, through his writings, on theminds of so many millions of human beings is greater than that of any manwho ever lived, excepting the writers of the Bible; and in saying this wedo not forget the names of Mohammed, Aristotle, St. Augustine, and Luther. So far as we can see, it is the influence of Confucius which hasmaintained, though probably not originated, in China, that profoundreverence for parents, that strong family affection, that love of order, that regard for knowledge and deference for literary men, which arefundamental principles underlying all the Chinese institutions. His minuteand practical system of morals, studied as it is by all the learned, andconstituting the sum of knowledge and the principle of government inChina, has exerted and exerts an influence on that innumerable peoplewhich it is impossible to estimate, but which makes us admire the powerwhich can emanate from a single soul. To exert such an influence requires greatness. If the tree is to be knownby its fruits, Confucius must have been one of the master minds of ourrace. The supposition that a man of low morals or small intellect, animpostor or an enthusiast, could influence the world, is a theory whichis an insult to human nature. The time for such theories has happily goneby. We now know that nothing can come of nothing, --that a fire of strawmay make a bright blaze, but must necessarily soon go out. A light whichilluminates centuries must be more than an ignis fatuus. Accordingly weshould approach Confucius with respect, and expect to find something goodand wise in his writings. It is only a loving spirit which will enable usto penetrate the difficulties which surround the study, and to apprehendsomething of the true genius of the man and his teachings. As there is noimmediate danger of becoming his followers, we can see no objections tosuch a course, which also appears to be a species of mental hospitality, eminently in accordance with the spirit of our own Master. Confucius belongs to that small company of select ones whose lives havebeen devoted to the moral elevation of their fellow-men. Among them hestands high, for he sought to implant the purest principles of religionand morals in the character of the whole people, and succeeded in doingit. To show that this was his purpose it will be necessary to give a briefsketch of his life. His ancestors were eminent statesmen and soldiers in the small country ofLoo, then an independent kingdom, now a Chinese province. The year of hisbirth was that in which Cyrus became king of Persia. His father, one ofthe highest officers of the kingdom, and a brave soldier, died whenConfucius was three years old. He was a studious boy, and when fifteenyears old had studied the five sacred books called Kings. He was marriedat the age of nineteen, and had only one son by his only wife. This sondied before Confucius, leaving as his posterity a single grandchild, fromwhom the great multitudes of his descendants now in China were derived. This grandson was second only to Confucius in wisdom, and was the teacherof the illustrious Mencius. The first part of the life of Confucius was spent in attempting to reformthe abuses of society by means of the official stations which he held, byhis influence with princes, and by travelling and intercourse with men. The second period was that in which he was recalled from his travels tobecome a minister in his native country, the kingdom of Loo. Here heapplied his theories of government, and tested their practicability. Hewas then fifty years old. His success was soon apparent in the growingprosperity of the whole people. Instead of the tyranny which beforeprevailed, they were now ruled according to his idea of goodgovernment, --that of the father of a family. Confidence was restored tothe public mind, and all good influences followed. But the tree was notyet deeply enough rooted to resist accidents, and all his wisearrangements were suddenly overthrown by the caprice of the monarch, who, tired of the austere virtue of Confucius, suddenly plunged into a careerof dissipation. Confucius resigned his office, and again became awanderer, but now with a new motive. He had before travelled to learn, nowhe travelled to teach. He collected disciples around him, and, no longerseeking to gain the ear of princes, he diffused his ideas among the commonpeople by means of his disciples, whom he sent out everywhere tocommunicate his doctrines. So, amid many vicissitudes of outward fortune, he lived till he was seventy-three years old. In the last years of hislife he occupied himself in publishing his works, and in editing theSacred Books. His disciples had become very numerous, historiansestimating them at three thousand, of whom five hundred had attained toofficial station, seventy-two had penetrated deeply into his system, andten, of the highest class of mind and character, were continually near hisperson. Of these Hwuy was especially valued by him, as having earlyattained superior virtue. He frequently referred to him in hisconversations. "I saw him continually advance, " said he, "but I never sawhim stop in the path of knowledge. " Again he says: "The wisest of mydisciples, having one idea, understands two. Hwuy, having one understandsten. " One of the select ten disciples, Tszee-loo, was rash and impetuouslike the Apostle Peter. Another, Tszee-Kung, was loving and tender likethe Apostle John; he built a house near the grave of Confucius, wherein tomourn for him after his death. The last years of the life of Confucius were devoted to editing theSacred Books, or Kings. As we now have them they come from him. Authenticrecords of Chinese history extend back to 2357 B. C. , while the Chinesephilosophy originated with Fuh-he, who lived about 3327 B. C. He it was whosubstituted writing for the knotted strings which before formed the onlymeans of record. He was also the author of the Eight Diagrams, --eachconsisting of three lines, half of which are whole and half broken intwo, --which by their various combinations are supposed to represent theactive and passive principles of the universe in all their essentialforms. Confucius edited the Yih-King, the Shoo-King, the She-King, and theLe-Ke, which constitute the whole of the ancient literature of China whichhas come down to posterity. [1] The Four Books, which contain the doctrinesof Confucius, and of his school, were not written by himself, but composedby others after his death. One of these is called the "Immutable Mean, " and its object is to showthat virtue consists in avoiding extremes. Another--the Lun-Yu, orAnalects--contains the conversation or table-talk of Confucius, andsomewhat resembles the Memorabilia of Xenophon and Boswell's Life ofJohnson. [12] The life of Confucius was thus devoted to communicating to the Chinesenation a few great moral and religious principles, which he believed wouldinsure the happiness of the people. His devotion to this aim appears inhis writings. Thus he says:-- "At fifteen years I longed for wisdom. At thirty my mind was fixed in thepursuit of it. At forty I saw clearly certain principles. At fifty Iunderstood the rule given by heaven. At sixty everything I heard I easilyunderstood. At seventy the desires of my heart no longer transgressed thelaw. " "If in the morning I hear about the right way, and in the evening I die, Ican be happy. " He says of himself: "He is a man who through his earnestness in seekingknowledge forgets his food, and in his joy for having found it loses allsense of his toil, and thus occupied is unconscious that he has almostreached old age. " Again: "Coarse rice for food, water to drink, the bended arm for apillow, --happiness may be enjoyed even with these; but without virtue bothriches and honor seem to me like the passing cloud. " "Grieve not that men know not you; grieve that you know not men. " "To rule with equity is like the North Star, which is fixed, and all therest go round it. " "The essence of knowledge is, having it, to apply it; not having it, toconfess your ignorance. " "Worship as though the Deity were present. " "If my mind is not engaged in my worship, it is as though I worshippednot. " "Formerly, in hearing men, I heard their words, and gave them credit fortheir conduct; now I hear their words, and observe their conduct. " "A man's life depends on virtue; if a bad man lives, it is only by goodfortune. " "Some proceed blindly to action, without knowledge; I hear much, andselect the best course. " He was once found fault with, when in office, for not opposing themarriage of a ruler with a distant relation, which was an offence againstChinese propriety. He said: "I am a happy man; if I have a fault, menobserve it. " Confucius was humble. He said: "I cannot bear to hear myself called equalto the sages and the good. All that can be said of me is, that I studywith delight the conduct of the sages, and instruct men without wearinesstherein. " "The good man is serene, " said he, "the bad always in fear. " "A good man regards the ROOT; he fixes the root, and all else flows out ofit. The root is filial piety; the fruit brotherly love. " "There may be fair words and an humble countenance when there is littlereal virtue. " "I daily examine myself in a threefold manner: in my transactions withmen, if I am upright; in my intercourse with friends, if I am faithful;and whether I illustrate the teachings of my master in my conduct. " "Faithfulness and sincerity are the highest things. " "When you transgress, do not fear to return. " "Learn the past and you will know the future. " The great principles which he taught were chiefly based on familyaffection and duty. He taught kings that they were to treat theirsubjects as children, subjects to respect the kings as parents; and theseideas so penetrated the national mind, that emperors are obliged to seemto govern thus, even if they do not desire it. Confucius was a teacher ofreverence, --reverence for God, respect for parents, respect and reverencefor the past and its legacies, for the great men and great ideas of formertimes. He taught men also to regard each other as brethren, and even thegolden rule, in its negative if not its positive form, is to be found inhis writings. Curiously enough, this teacher of reverence was distinguished by aremarkable lump on the top of his head, where the phrenologists haveplaced the organ of veneration. [13] Rooted in his organization, andstrengthened by all his convictions, this element of adoration seemed tohim the crown of the whole moral nature of man. But, while full ofveneration, he seems to have been deficient in the sense of spiritualthings. A personal God was unknown to him; so that his worship wasdirected, not to God, but to antiquity, to ancestors, to propriety andusage, to the state as father and mother of its subjects, to the ruler asin the place of authority. Perfectly sincere, deeply and absolutelyassured of all that he knew, he said nothing he did not believe. His powercame not only from the depth and clearness of his convictions, but fromthe absolute honesty of his soul. Lao-tse, for twenty-eight years his contemporary, founder of one of thethree existing religions of China, --Tao-ism, --was a man of perhaps equalintelligence. But he was chiefly a thinker; he made no attempt to elevatethe people; his purpose was to repress the passions, and to preserve thesoul in a perfect equanimity. He was the Zeno of the East, founder of aChinese stoicism. With him virtue is sure of its reward; everything isarranged by a fixed law. His disciples afterwards added to his system athaumaturgic element and an invocation of departed spirits, so that now itresembles our modern Spiritism; but the original doctrine of Lao-tse wasrationalism in philosophy and stoicism in morals. Confucius is said, in aChinese work, to have visited him, and to have frankly confessed hisinability to understand him. "I know how birds fly, how fishes swim, howanimals run. The bird may be shot, the fish hooked, and the beast snared. But there is the dragon. I cannot tell how he mounts in the air, and soarsto heaven. To-day I have seen the dragon. " But the modest man, who lived for others, has far surpassed in hisinfluence this dragon of intelligence. It certainly increases our hope forman, when we see how these qualities of perfect honesty, good sense, generous devotion to the public good, and fidelity to the last inadherence to his work, have made Confucius during twenty-three centuriesthe daily teacher and guide of a third of the human race. Confucius was eminently distinguished by energy and persistency. He didnot stop working till he died. His life was of one piece, beautiful, noble. "The general of a large army, " said he, "may be defeated, but youcannot defeat the determined mind of a peasant. " He acted conformably tothis thought, and to another of his sayings. "If I am building a mountain, and stop before the last basketful of earth is placed on the summit, Ihave failed of my work. But if I have placed but one basketful on theplain, and go on, I am really building a mountain. " Many beautiful and noble things are related concerning the character ofConfucius, --of his courage in the midst of danger, of his humility in thehighest position of honor. His writings and life have given the law toChinese thought. He is the patron saint of that great empire. His doctrineis the state religion of the nation, sustained by the whole power of theemperor and the literary body. His books are published every year bysocieties formed for that purpose, who distribute them gratuitously. Hisdescendants enjoy the highest consideration. The number of temples erectedto his memory is sixteen hundred and sixty. One of them occupies ten acresof land. On the two festivals in the year sacred to his memory there aresacrificed some seventy thousand animals of different kinds, andtwenty-seven thousand pieces of silk are burned on his altars. Yet his isa religion without priests, liturgy, or public worship, except on thesetwo occasions. § 4. Philosophy and subsequent Development of Confucianism. According to Mr. Meadows, the philosophy of China, in its origin andpresent aspect, may be thus briefly described. [14] Setting aside theBuddhist system and that of Tao-ism, which supply to the Chinese theelement of religious worship and the doctrine of a supernatural world, wanting in the system of Confucius, we find the latter as the establishedreligion of the state, merely tolerating the others as suited to personsof weak minds. The Confucian system, constantly taught by the competitiveexaminations, rules the thought of China. Its first development was fromthe birth of Confucius to the death of Mencias (or from 551 B. C. To 313B. C. ). Its second period was from the time of Chow-tsze (A. D. 1034) tothat of Choo-tsze (A. D. 1200). The last of these is the real fashioner ofChinese philosophy, and one of the truly great men of the human race. Hisworks are chiefly Commentaries on the Kings and the Four Books. They arecommitted to memory by millions of Chinese who aspire to pass thepublic-service examinations. The Chinese philosophy, thus established byChoo-tsze, is as follows. [15] There is one highest, ultimate principle of all existence, --the Tae-keih, or Grand Extreme. This is absolutely immaterial, and the basis of theorder of the universe. From this ultimate principle, operating from alleternity, come all animate and inanimate nature. It operates in a twofoldway, by expansion and contraction, or by ceaseless active and passivepulsations. The active expansive pulsation is called Yang, the passiveintensive pulsation is Yin, and the two may be called the Positive andNegative Essences of all things. When the active expansive phase of theprocess has reached its extreme limit, the operation becomes passive andintensive; and from these vibrations originate all material and mortalexistences. Creation is therefore a perpetual process, --matter and spiritare opposite results of the same force. The one tends to variety, theother to unity; and variety in unity is a permanent and universal law ofbeing. Man results from the utmost development of this pulsatory actionand passion; and man's nature, as the highest result, is perfectly good, consisting of five elements, namely, charity, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and sincerity. These constitute the inmost, essential nature ofman; but as man comes in contact with the outward world evil arises by theconflict. When man follows the dictates of his nature his actions aregood, and harmony results. When he is unduly influenced by the outwardworld his actions are evil, and discord intervenes. The holy man is onewho has an instinctive, inward sight of the ultimate principle in itstwofold operation (or what we should call the sight of God, the beatificvision), and who therefore spontaneously and easily obeys his nature. Hence all his thoughts are perfectly wise, his actions perfectly good, andhis words perfectly true. Confucius was the last of these holy men. Theinfallible authority of the Sacred Books results from the fact that theirwriters, being holy men, had an instinctive perception of the working ofthe ultimate principle. All Confucian philosophy is pervaded by these principles: first, thatexample is omnipotent; secondly, that to secure the safety of the empire, you must secure the happiness of the people; thirdly, that by solitarypersistent thought one may penetrate at last to a knowledge of the essenceof things; fourthly, that the object of all government is to make thepeople virtuous and contented. § 5. Lao-tse and Tao-ism. One of the three religious systems of China is that of the Tao, the othertwo being that of Confucius, and that of Buddhism in its Chinese form. Thedifficulty in understanding Tao-ism comes from its appearing under threeentirely distinct forms: (1) as a philosophy of the absolute orunconditioned, in the great work of the Tse-Lao, or old teacher;[16] (2)as a system of morality of the utilitarian school, [17] which resolves dutyinto prudence; and (3) as a system of magic, connected with the belief inspirits. In the Tao-te-king we have the ideas of Lao himself, which wewill endeavor to state; premising that they are considered very obscureand difficult even by the Chinese commentators. The TAO (§ 1) is the unnamable, and is the origin of heaven and earth. Asthat which can be named, it is the mother of all things. These two areessentially one. Being and not-being are born from each other (§ 2). TheTao is empty but inexhaustible (§ 4), is pure, is profound, and was beforethe Gods. It is invisible, not the object of perception, it returns intonot-being (§§ 14, 40). It is vague, confused, and obscure (§ 25, 21). Itis little and strong, universally present, and all beings return into it(§ 32). It is without desires, great (§ 34). All things are born of being, being is born of not-being (§ 40). From these and similar statements it would appear that the philosophy ofthe Tao-te-king is that of absolute being, or the identity of being andnot-being. In this point it anticipated Hegel by twenty-threecenturies. [18] It teaches that the absolute is the source of being and ofnot-being. Being is essence, not-being is existence. The first is thenoumenal, the last the phenomenal. ' As being is the source of not-being (§ 40), by identifying one's self withbeing one attains to all that is not-being, i. E. To all that exists. Instead, therefore, of aiming at acquiring knowledge, the wise man avoidsit: instead of acting, he refuses to act. He "feeds his mind with a wisepassiveness. " (§ 16. ) "_Not to act_ is the source of all power, " is athesis continually present to the mind of Lao (§§ 3, 23, 38, 43, 48, 63). The wise man is like water (§§ 8, 78), which seems weak and is strong;which yields, seeks the lowest place, which seems the softest thing andbreaks the hardest thing. To be wise one must renounce wisdom, to be goodone must renounce justice and humanity, to be learned one must renounceknowledge (§§ 19, 20, 45), and must have no desires (§§ 8, 22), mustdetach one's self from all things (§ 20) and be like a new-born babe. Fromeverything proceeds its opposite, the easy from the difficult, thedifficult from the easy, the long from the short, the high from the low, ignorance from knowledge, knowledge from ignorance, the first from thelast, the last from the first. These antagonisms are mutually related bythe hidden principle of the Tao (§§ 2, 27). Nothing is independent orcapable of existing save through its opposite. The good man and bad manare equally necessary to each other (§ 27). To desire aright is not todesire (§ 64). The saint can do great things because he does not attemptto do them (§ 63). The unwarlike man conquers. [19] He who submits toothers controls them. By this negation of all things we come intopossession of all things (§ 68). _Not to act_ is, therefore, the secret ofall power (§§ 3, 23, 38, 43, 48, 63). We find here the same doctrine of opposites which appears in the Phædo, and which has come up again and again in philosophy. We shall findsomething like it in the Sánkhya-karika of the Hindoos. The Duad, with theMonad brooding behind it, is the fundamental principle of the Avesta. The result, thus far, is to an active passivity. Lao teaches that not toact involves the highest energy of being, and leads to the greatestresults. By not acting one identifies himself with the Tao, and receivesall its power. And here we cannot doubt that the Chinese philosopher waspursuing the same course with Sakya-Muni. The Tao of the one is theNirvana of the other. The different motive in each mind constitutes thedifference of their career. Sakya-Muni sought Nirvana, or the absolute, the pure knowledge, in order to escape from evil and to conquer it. Laosought it, as his book shows, to attain power. At this point the twosystems diverge. Buddhism is generous, benevolent, humane; it seeks tohelp others. Tao-ism seeks its own. Hence the selfish morality whichpervades the Book of Rewards and Punishments. Every good action has itsreward attached to it. Hence also the degradation of the system into puremagic and spiritism. Buddhism, though its course runs so nearly parallel, always retains in its scheme of merits a touch of generosity. We find thus, in the Tao-te-king, the element afterwards expanded into thesystem of utilitarian and eudæmonic ethics in the Book of Rewards andPunishments. We also can trace in it the source of the magical tendency inTao-ism. The principle, that by putting one's self into an entirelypassive condition one can enter into communion with the unnamed Tao, andso acquire power over nature, naturally tends to magic. Precisely the samecourse of thought led to similar results in the case of Neo-Platonism. Theecstatic union with the divine element in all nature, which Plotinusattained four times in his life, resulted from an immediate sight of God. In this sight is all truth given to the soul. The unity, says Plotinus, which produces all things, is an essence behind both substance and form. Through this essential being all souls commune and interact, and magic isthis interaction of soul upon soul through the soul of souls, with whichone becomes identified in the ecstatic union. A man therefore can act ondemons and control spirits by theurgic rites. Julian, that ardentNeo-Platonician, was surrounded by diviners, hierophants, andaruspices. [20] In the Tao-te-king (§§ 50, 55, 56, etc. ) it is said that he who knows theTao need not fear the bite of serpents nor the jaws of wild beasts, northe claws of birds of prey. He is inaccessible to good and to evil. Heneed fear neither rhinoceros nor tiger. In battle he needs neither cuirassnor sword. The tiger cannot tear him, the soldier cannot wound him. He isinvulnerable and safe from death. [21] If Neo-Platonism had not had for its antagonist the vital force ofChristianity, it might have established itself as a permanent form ofreligion in the Roman Empire, as Tao-ism has in China. I have tried toshow how the later form of this Chinese system has come naturally from itsprinciples, and how a philosophy of the absolute may have degenerated intoa system of necromancy. § 6. Religious Character of the "Kings. " We have seen that, in the philosophy of the Confucians, the ultimateprinciple is not necessarily identical with a living, intelligent, andpersonal God. Nor did Confucius, when he speaks of Teen, or Heaven, express any faith in such a being. He neither asserted nor denied aSupreme God. His worship and prayer did not necessarily imply such afaith. It was the prayer of reverence addressed to some sacred, mysterious, unknown power, above and behind all visible things. What thatpower was, he, with his supreme candor, did not venture to intimate. Butin the She-King a personal God is addressed. The oldest books recognize aDivine person. They teach that there is one Supreme Being, who isomnipresent, who sees all things, and has an intelligence which nothingcan escape, --that he wishes men to live together in peace and brotherhood. He commands not only right actions, but pure desires and thoughts, that weshould watch all our behavior, and maintain a grave and majestic demeanor, "which is like a palace in which virtue resides"; but especially that weshould guard the tongue. "For a blemish may be taken out of a diamond bycarefully polishing it; but, if your words have the least blemish, thereis no way to efface that. " "Humility is the solid foundation of all thevirtues. " "To acknowledge one's incapacity is the way to be soon preparedto teach others; for from the moment that a man is no longer full ofhimself, nor puffed up with empty pride, whatever good he learns in themorning he practices before night. " "Heaven penetrates to the bottom ofour hearts, like light into a dark chamber. We must conform ourselves toit, till we are like two instruments of music tamed to the same pitch. Wemust join ourselves with it, like two tablets which appear but one. Wemust receive its gifts the very moment its hand is open to bestow. Ourirregular passions shut up the door of our souls against God. " Such are the teachings of these Kings, which are unquestionably among theoldest existing productions of the human mind. In the days of Confuciusthey seem to have been nearly forgotten, and their precepts whollyneglected. Confucius revised them, added his own explanations andcomments, and, as one of the last acts of his life, called his disciplesaround him and made a solemn dedication of these books to Heaven. Heerected an altar on which he placed them, adored God, and returned thanksupon his knees in a humble manner for having had life and health grantedhim to finish this undertaking. § 7. Confucius and Christianity. Character of the Chinese. It were easy to find defects in the doctrine of Confucius. It has littleto teach of God or immortality. But if the law of Moses, which taughtnothing of a future life, was a preparation for Christianity; if, as theearly Christian Fathers asserted, Greek philosophy was also schoolmasterto bring men to Christ; who can doubt that the truth and purity in theteachings of Confucius were providentially intended to lead this greatnation in the right direction? Confucius is a Star in the East, to leadhis people to Christ. One of the most authentic of his sayings is this, that "in the West the true Saint must be looked for and found. " He has aperception, such as truly great men have often had, of some one higherthan himself, who was to come after him. We cannot doubt, therefore, thatGod, who forgets none of his children, has given this teacher to theswarming millions of China to lead them on till they are ready for ahigher light. And certainly the temporal prosperity and external virtuesof this nation, and their long-continued stability amid the universalchanges of the world, are owing in no small decree to the lessons ofreverence for the past, of respect for knowledge, of peace and order, andespecially of filial piety, which he inculcated. In their case, if in noother, has been fulfilled the promise of the divine commandment, "Honorthy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long in the land which theLord thy God giveth thee. " In comparing the system of Confucius with Christianity, it appears at oncethat Christianity differs from this system, as from most others, in itsgreater completeness. Jesus says to the Chinese philosopher, as he said tothe Jewish law, "I have not come to destroy, but to fulfil. " He fulfilsthe Confucian reverence for the past by adding hope for the future; hefulfils its stability by progress, its faith in man with faith in God, itsinterest in this world with the expectation of another, its sense of timewith that of eternity. Confucius aims at peace, order, outward prosperity, virtue, and good morals. All this belongs also to Christianity, butChristianity adds a moral enthusiasm, a faith in the spiritual world, ahope of immortal life, a sense of the Fatherly presence of God. So thathere, as before, we find that Christianity does not exclude otherreligions, but includes them, and is distinguished by being deeper, higher, broader, and more far-reaching than they. A people with such institutions and such a social life as we havedescribed cannot be despised, and to call them uncivilized is as absurd inus as it is in them to call Europeans barbarians. They are a good, intelligent, and happy people. Lieutenant Forbes, who spent five years inChina, --from 1842 to 1847, --says: "I found myself in the midst of asamiable, kind, and hospitable a population as any on the face of theearth, as far ahead of us in some things as behind us in others. " As tothe charge of dishonesty brought against them by those who judge the wholenation by the degraded population of the suburbs of Canton, Forbes says, "My own property suffered more in landing in England and passing theBritish frontier than in my whole sojourn in China. " "There is no nation, " says the Jesuit Du Halde, "more laborious andtemperate than this. They are inured to hardships from their infancy, which greatly contributes to preserve the innocence of their manners. .. . They are of a mild, tractable, and humane disposition. " He thinks themexceedingly modest, and regards the love of gain as their chief vice. "Interest, " says he, "is the spring of all their actions; for, when theleast profit offers, they despise all difficulties and undertake the mostpainful journeys to procure it" This may be true; but if a Chinesetraveller in America should give the same account of us, would it not bequite as true? One of the latest writers--the author of "The MiddleKingdom"--accuses the Chinese of gross sensuality, mendacity, anddishonesty. No doubt these are besetting sins with them, as with allnations who are educated under a system which makes submission toauthority the chief virtue. But then this writer lived only at Canton andMacao, and saw personally only the refuse of the people. He admits that"they have attained, by the observance of peace and good order, to a highsecurity of life and property; that the various classes are linkedtogether in a remarkably homogeneous manner by the diffusion of education;and that property and industry receive their just reward of food, raiment, and shelter. " He also reminds us that the religion of China differs fromall Pagan religions in this, that it encourages neither cruelty norsensuality. No human victims have ever been offered on its altars, andthose licentious rites which have appeared in so many religions have neverdisgraced its pure worship. The Chinese citizen enjoys a degree of order, peace, and comfort unknownelsewhere in Asia. "He can hold and sell landed property with a facility, certainty, and security which is absolute perfection compared with thenature of English dealings of the same kind. "[22] He can traverse thecountry for two thousand miles unquestioned by any official. He canfollow what occupation he pleases. He can quit his country and re-enter itwithout a passport. The law of primogeniture does not exist. The emperorappoints his heir, but a younger son quite as often as an elder one. Theprinciple that no man is entitled by birth to rule over them is betterknown to the three hundred and sixty millions of China than to thetwenty-seven millions of Great Britain that they have a right to a trialby their peers. [23] The principle of Chinese government is to persuaderather than to compel, to use moral means rather than physical. This restson the fundamental belief in human goodness. For, as Mr. Meadows justlyobserves: "The theory that man's nature is radically vicious is the truepsychical basis of despotic or physical-force government; while the theorythat man's nature is radically good is the basis of free or moral-forcegovernment. " The Chinese government endeavors to be paternal. It hasrefused to lay a tax on opium, because that would countenance the sale ofit, though it might derive a large income from such a tax. The sacredliterature of the Chinese is perfectly free from everything impure oroffensive. There is not a line but might be read aloud in any familycircle in England. All immoral ceremonies in idol worship are forbidden. M. Hue says that the birth of a daughter is counted a disaster in China;but well-informed travellers tell us that fathers go about with littledaughters on their arms, as proud and pleased as a European father couldbe. Slavery and concubinage exist in China, and the husband has absolutepower over his wife, even of life and death. These customs tend todemoralize the Chinese, and are a source of great evil. Woman is the slaveof man. The exception to this is in the case of a mother. She is absolutein her household, and mothers, in China, command universal reverence. Ifan officer asks leave of absence to visit his mother it must be grantedhim. A mother may order an official to take her son to prison, and shemust be obeyed. As a wife without children woman is a slave, but as amother with grownup sons she is a monarch. § 8. The Tae-ping Insurrection. Two extraordinary events have occurred in our day in China, the results ofwhich may be of the utmost importance to the nation and to mankind. Theone is the Tae-ping insurrection, the other the diplomatic mission of Mr. Burlingame to the Western world. Whatever may be the immediate issue ofthe great insurrection of our day against the Tartar dynasty, it willremain a phenomenon of the utmost significance. There is no doubt, notwithstanding the general opinion to the contrary, that it has been areligious movement, proceeding from a single mind deeply moved by thereading of the Bible. The hostility of the Chinese to the present MantchooTartar monarchs no doubt aided it; but there has been in it an element ofpower from the beginning, derived, like that of the Puritans, from itsreligious enthusiasm. Its leader, the Heavenly Prince, Hung-sew-tseuen, son of a poor peasant living thirty miles northeast of Canton, received atract, containing extracts from the Chinese Bible of Dr. Morison, from aChinese tract distributor in the streets of Canton. This was in 1833, whenhe was about twenty years of age. He took the book home, looked over itcarelessly, and threw it aside. Disappointed of his degree at twocompetitive examinations, he fell sick, and saw a vision of an old man, saying: "I am the Creator of all things. Go and do my work. " After thisvision six years passed by, when the English war broke out, and theEnglish fleet took the Chinese forts in the river of Canton. Such a greatnational calamity indicated, according to Chinese ideas, something rottenin the government; and such success on the part of the English showedthat, in some way, they were fulfilling the will of Heaven. This ledHung-sew-tseuen to peruse again his Christian books; and alone, with noguide, he became a sincere believer in Christ, after a fashion of his own. God was the Creator of all things, and the Supreme Father. Jesus was theElder Brother and heavenly Teacher of mankind. Idolatry was to beoverthrown, virtue to be practised. Hung-sew-tseuen believed that theBible confirmed his former visions. He accepted his mission and began tomake converts All his converts renounced idolatry, and gave up the worshipof Confucius. They travelled to and fro teaching, and formed a society of"God-worshippers. " The first convert, Fung-yun-san, became its most ardentmissionary and its disinterested preacher. Hung-sew-tseuen returned home, went to Canton, and there met Mr. Roberts, an American missionary, who wasinduced by false charges to refuse him Christian baptism. But he, withoutbeing offended with Mr. Roberts, went home and taught his converts how tobaptize themselves. The society of "God-worshippers" increased in number. Some of them were arrested for destroying idols, and among themFung-yun-san, who, however, on his way to prison, converted the policemenby his side. These new converts set him at liberty and went away with himas his disciples. Various striking phenomena occurred in this society. Menfell into a state of ecstasy and delivered exhortations. Sick persons werecured by the power of prayer. The teachings of these ecstatics were testedby Scripture; if found to agree therewith, they were accepted; if not, rejected. It was in October, 1850, that this religious movement assumed a politicalform. A large body of persons, in a state of chronic rebellion against theChinese authorities, had fled into the district, and joined the"God-worshippers. " Pursued by the imperial soldiers, they were protectedagainst them. Hence war began. The leaders of the religious movement foundthemselves compelled to choose between submission and resistance. Theyresisted, and the great insurrection began. But in China an insurrectionagainst the dynasty is in the natural order of things. Indeed, it may besaid to be a part of the constitution. By the Sacred Books, taught in allthe schools and made a part of the examination papers, it is the duty ofthe people to overthrow any bad government. The Chinese have no power tolegislate, do not tax themselves, and the government is a pure autocracy. But it is not a despotism; for old usages make a constitution, which thegovernment must respect or be overthrown. "The right to rebel, " says Mr. Meadows, "is in China a chief element of national stability. " TheTae-ping (or Universal-Peace) Insurrection has shown its religiouscharacter throughout. It has not been cruel, except in retaliation. At thetaking of Nan-king orders were given to put all the women together andprotect them, and any one doing them an injury was punished with death. Before the attack on Nan-king a large body of the insurgents knelt downand prayed, and then rose and fought, like the soldiers of Cromwell. Theaid of a large body of rebels was refused, because they did not renounceidolatry, and continued to allow the use of opium. Hymns of praise to theHeavenly Father and Elder Brother were chanted in the camp. And the headof the insurrection distinctly announced that, in case it succeeded, theBible would be substituted in all public examinations for office in theplace of Confucius. This would cause the Bible to be at once studied byall candidates for office among three hundred and sixty millions ofpeople. It would constitute the greatest event in the history ofChristianity since the days of Constantino, or at least since theconversion of the Teutonic races. The rebellion has probably failed; butgreat results must follow this immense interest in Christianity in theheart of China, --an interest awakened by no Christian mission, whetherCatholic or Protestant, but coming down into this great nation like therain from heaven. In the "History of the Ti-Ping Revolution" (published in London in 1866), written by an Englishman who held a command among the Ti-Piugs, there isgiven a full, interesting, and apparently candid account of the religiousand moral character of this great movement, from which I take thefollowing particulars:-- "I have probably, " says this writer, [24] "had a much greater experienceof the Ti-Ping religious practices than any other European, and as aProtestant Christian I have never yet found occasion to condemn their formof worship. The most important part of their faith is the Holy Bible, --Oldand New Testaments, entire. These have been printed and circulatedgratuitously by the government through the whole population of the Ti-Pingjurisdiction. " Abstracts of the Bible, put into verse, were circulated andcommitted to memory. Their form of worship was assimilated toProtestantism. The Sabbath was kept religiously on the seventh day. Threecups of tea were put on the altar on that day as an offering to theTrinity. They celebrated the communion once a month by partaking of a cupof grape wine. Every one admitted to their fellowship was baptized, afteran examination and confession of sins. The following was the formprescribed in the "Book of Religious Precepts of the Ti-PingDynasty":--[25] _Forms to be observed when Men wish to forsake their Sins_--"They mustkneel down in God's presence, and ask him to forgive their sins. They maythen take either a basin of water and wash themselves, or go to the riverand bathe themselves; after which they must continue daily to supplicateDivine favor, and the Holy Spirit's assistance to renew their hearts, saying grace at every meal, keeping holy the Sabbath day, and obeying allGod's commandments, especially avoiding idolatry. They may then beaccounted the children of God, and their souls will go to Heaven when theydie. " The prayer offered by the recipient of Baptism was as follows:-- "I (A. B. ), kneeling down with a true heart, repent of my sins, and praythe Heavenly Father, the great God, of his abundant mercy, to forgive myformer sins of ignorance in repeatedly breaking the Divine commands, earnestly beseeching him also to grant me repentance and newness of life, that my soul may go to Heaven, while I henceforth truly forsake my formerways, abandoning idolatry and all corrupt practices, in obedience toGod's commands. I also pray that God would give me his Holy Spirit tochange my wicked heart, deliver me from all temptation, and grant me hisfavor and protection, bestowing on me food and raiment, and exemption fromcalamity, peace in this world and glory in the next, through the merciesof our Saviour and Elder Brother, Jesus, who redeemed us from sin. " In every household throughout the Ti-Ping territory the followingtranslation of the Lord's Prayer was hung up for the use of the children, printed in large black characters on a white board:-- "Supreme Lord, our Heavenly Father, forgive all our sins that we havecommitted in ignorance, rebelling against thee. Bless us, brethren andsisters, thy little children. Give us our daily food and raiment; keepfrom us all calamities and afflictions; that in this world we may havepeace and finally ascend to heaven to enjoy everlasting happiness. We praythee to bless our brethren and sisters of all nations. We ask these thingsfor the redeeming merits of our Lord and Saviour, our heavenly brother, Jesus. We also pray, Heavenly Father, that thy will may be done on earthas in heaven: for thine are all the kingdoms, glory, and power. Amen. " The writer says he has frequently watched the Ti-Ping women teaching thechildren this prayer; "and often, on entering a house, the children ran upto me, and pulling me toward the board, began to read the prayer. " The seventh day was kept very strictly. As soon as midnight sounded onFriday, all the people throughout; Ti-Pingdom were summoned to worship. Two other services were held during the day. Each opened with a doxologyto God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Then was sung this hymn:-- "The true doctrine is different from the doctrine of this world; It saves men's souls and gives eternal bliss. The wise receive it instantly with joy; The foolish, wakened by it, find the way to Heaven. Our Heavenly Father, of his great mercy, Did not spare his own Son, but sent him down To give his life to redeem sinners. When men know this, and repent, they may go to Heaven. " The rest of the services consisted in a chapter of the Bible read by theminister; a creed, repeated by the congregation standing; a prayer, readby the minister and repeated by the whole congregation kneeling. Then theprayer was burned, the minister read a sermon, an anthem was chanted tothe long life of the king; then followed the Ten Commandments, music, andthe burning of incense and fire-crackers. No business was allowed on theSabbath, and the shops were closed. There was a clergy, chosen bycompetitive examination, subject to the approval of the Tien-Wong, orsupreme religious head of the movement. There was a minister placed overevery twenty-five families, and a church, or Heavenly Hall, assigned tohim in some public building. Over every twenty, five parishes there was asuperior, who visited them in turn every Sabbath. Once every month thewhole people were addressed by the chief Wong. The writer of this work describes his attendance on morning prayers atNan-king, in the Heavenly Hall of the Chung-Wang's household. This tookplace at sunrise every morning, the men and women sitting on oppositesides of the hall. "Oftentimes, " says he, "while kneeling in the midst ofan apparently devout congregation, and gazing on the upturned countenanceslightened by the early morning sun, have I wondered why no Britishmissionary occupied my place, and why Europeans generally preferredslaughtering the Ti-Pings to accepting them as brothers in Christ. When Ilook back, " he adds, "on the unchangeable and universal kindness I alwaysmet with among the Ti-Pings, even when their dearest relatives were beingslaughtered by my countrymen, or delivered over to the Manchoos to betortured to death, their magnanimous forbearance seems like a dream. Theirkind and friendly feelings were often annoying. To those who haveexperienced the ordinary dislike of foreigners by the Chinese, thesurprising friendliness of the Ti-Pings was most remarkable. " Theywelcomed Europeans as "brethren from across the sea, " and claimed them asfellow-worshippers of "Yesu. " Though the Ti-Pings did not at once lay aside all heathen customs, andcould not be expected to do so, they took some remarkable steps in theright direction. Their women were in a much higher position than among theother Chinese; they abolished the custom of cramping their feet; a marriedwoman had rights, and could not be divorced at will, or sold, as under theManchoos. Large institutions were established for unmarried women. Slaverywas totally abolished, and to sell a human being was made a capitaloffence. They utterly prohibited the use of opium; and this was probablytheir chief offence in the eyes of the English. Prostitution was punishedby death, and was unknown in their cities. Idolatry was also utterlyabolished. Their treatment of the people under them was merciful; theyprotected their prisoners, whom the Imperialists always massacred. TheBritish troops, instead of preserving neutrality, aided the Imperialistsin putting down the insurrection in such ways as this. The Britishcruisers _assumed_ that the Ti-Ping junks were pirates, because theycaptured Chinese vessels. The British ship Bittern and another steamersank every vessel but two in a rebel fleet, and gave up the crew of onewhich they captured to be put to death. This is the description of anothertransaction of the same kind, in the harbor of Shi-poo: "The junks weredestroyed, and their crews shot, drowned, and hunted down, until about athousand were killed; the Bittern's men aiding the Chinese on shore tocomplete the wholesale massacre. "[26] It is the deliberate opinion of this well-informed English writer that theTi-Ping insurrection would have succeeded but for British intervention;that the Tartar dynasty would have been expelled, the Chinese regainedtheir autonomy, and Christianity have been established throughout theEmpire. At the end of his book he gives a table of _forty-three_ battlesand massacres in which the British soldiers and navy took part, in whichabout four hundred thousand of the Ti-Pings were killed, and he estimatesthat more than two millions more died of starvation in 1863 and 1864, inthe famine occasioned by the operations of the allied English, French, andChinese troop's, when the Ti-Pings were driven from their territories. Inview of such facts, well may an English writer say: "It is not once ortwice that the policy of the British government has been ruinous to thebest interests of the world. Disregard of international law and of treatylaw in Europe, deeds of piracy and spoliation in Asia, one vast system ofwrong and violence, have everywhere for years marked the dealings of theBritish government with the weaker races of the globe. "[27] Other Englishmen, beside "Lin-Le" and Mr. Meadows, give the same testimonyto the Christian character of this great movement in China. CaptainFishbourne, describing his visit in H. M. S. Hermes to Nan-king, says: "Itwas obvious to the commonest observer that they were practically adifferent race. " They had the Scriptures, many seemed to him to bepractical Christians, serious and religious, believing in a specialProvidence, thinking that their trials were sent to purify them. "Theyaccuse us of magic, " said one. "The only magic we employ is prayer toGod. " The man who said this, says Captain Fishbourne, "was a littleshrivelled-up person, but he uttered words of courageous confidence inGod, and could utter the words of a hero. He and others like him haveimpressed the minds of their followers with their own courage andmorality. " The English Bishop of Victoria has constantly given the same testimony. Ofone of the Ti-Ping books Dr. Medhurst says: "There is not a word in itwhich a Christian missionary might not adopt and circulate as a tract forthe benefit of the Chinese. " Dr. Medhurst also describes a scene which took place in Shanghae, where hewas preaching in the chapel of the London Missionary Society, on the follyof idolatry and the duty of worshipping the one true God. A man arose inthe middle of the congregation and said: "That is true! that is true! theidols must perish. I am a Ti-Ping; we all worship one God and believe inJesus, and we everywhere destroy the idols. Two years ago when we began wewere only three thousand; now we have marched across the Empire, becauseGod was on our side. " He then exhorted the people to abandon idolatry andto believe in Jesus, and said: "We are happy in our religion, and look onthe day of our death as the happiest moment of life. When any of ournumber dies, we do not weep, but congratulate each other because he hasgone to the joy of the heavenly world. " The mission of Mr. Burlingame indicated a sincere desire on the part ofthe sagacious men who then governed China, especially of Prince Kung, toenter into relations with modern civilization and modern thought. From theofficial papers of this mission, [28] it appears that Mr. Burlingame wasauthorized "to transact all business with the Treaty Powers in which thosecountries and China had a common interest, " (communication of Prince Kung, December 31, 1867). The Chinese government expressly states that this stepis intended as adopting the customs of diplomatic intercourse peculiar tothe West, and that in so doing the Chinese Empire means to conform to thelaw of nations, as understood among the European states. It thereforeadopted "Wheaton's International Law" as the text-book and authority to beused in its Foreign Office, and had it carefully translated into Chinesefor the use of its mandarins. This movement was the result, says Mr. Burlingame, of the "co-operative policy" adopted by the representatives inChina of the Treaty Powers, in which they agreed to act together on allimportant questions, to take no cession of territory, and never to menacethe autonomy of the Empire. They agreed "to leave her perfectly free todevelop herself according to her own form of civilization, not tointerfere with her interior affairs, to make her waters neutral, and herland safe" (Burlingame's speech at San Francisco). There is no doubt thatif the states known as the "Treaty Powers, " namely, the United States, Belgium, Denmark, France, Great Britain, Holland, Italy, North Germany, Russia, Spain, and Sweden, will loyally abstain from aggression andinterference in China and respect her independence, that this greatEmpire will step forth from her seclusion of fifty centuries, and enterthe commonwealth of nations. The treaty between the United States and China of July 28, 1868, includesprovisions for the neutrality of the Chinese waters; for freedom ofworship for United States citizens in China, and for the Chinese in theUnited States; for allowing voluntary emigration, and prohibiting thecompulsory coolie trade; for freedom to travel in China and the UnitedStates by the citizens of either country; and for freedom to establish andattend schools in both countries. We add to this chapter a Note, containing an interesting account, fromHue's "Christianity in China, " of an inscribed stone, proving thatChristian churches existed in China in the seventh century. These churcheswere the result of the efforts of Nestorian missionaries, who were theProtestant Christians of their age. Their success in China is anotherproof that the Christianity which is to be welcomed there must bepresented in an intelligible and rational form. * * * * * NOTE. The Nestorian Inscription in China. [29] In 1625 some Chinese workmen, engaged in digging a foundation for a house, outside the walls of the city of Si-ngau-Fou, the capital of the province of Chen-si, found buried in the earth a large monumental stone resembling those which the Chinese are in the habit of raising to preserve to posterity the remembrance of remarkable events and illustrious men. It was a dark-colored marble tablet, ten feet high and five broad, and bearing on one side an inscription in ancient Chinese, and also some other characters quite unknown in China. * * * * * Several exact tracings from the stone were sent to Europe by the Jesuits who saw it. The library of their house at Rome had one of the first, and it attracted numerous visitors; subsequently, another authentic copy of the dimensions of the tablet was sent to Paris, and deposited at the library in the Rue Richelieu, where it may still be seen in the gallery of manuscripts. This monument, discovered by chance amidst rubbish in the environs of an ancient capital of the Chinese Empire, excited a great sensation; for on examining the stone, and endeavoring to interpret the inscription, it was with surprise discovered that the Christian religion had had numerous apostles in China at the beginning of the seventh century, and that it had for a long time flourished there. The strange characters proved to be those called _estrangélhos_, which were in use among the ancient inhabitants of Syria, and will be found in some Syriac manuscripts of earlier date than the eighth century. * * * * * _Monument of the great Propagation of the Luminous Doctrine in the Central Empire, composed by Khing-Tsing, a devout Man of the Temple of Ta-Thsin. _ 1. There has always been only one true Cause, essentially the first, and without beginning, supremely intelligent and immaterial; essentially the last, and uniting all perfections. He placed the poles of the heavens and created all beings; marvellously holy, he is the source of all perfection. This admirable being, is he not the _Triune_, the true Lord without beginning, _Oloho_? He divided the world by a cross into four parts. After having decomposed the primordial air, he gave birth to the two elements. Chaos was transformed, and then the sun and the moon appeared. He made the sun and the moon move to produce day and night. He elaborated and perfected the ten thousand things; but in creating the first man, he endowed him with perfect interior harmony. He enjoined him to watch over the sea of his desires. His nature was without vice and without error; his heart, pure and simple, was originally without disorderly appetites. 2. But Sa-Thang propagated lies, and stained by his malice that which had been pure and holy. He proclaimed, as a truth, the equality of greatness, and upset all ideas. This is why three hundred and sixty-five sects, lending each other a mutual support, formed a long chain, and wove, so to speak, a net of law. Some put the creature in the place of the Eternal, others denied the existence of beings, and destroyed the two principles. Others instituted prayers and sacrifices to obtain good fortune; others proclaimed their own sanctity to deceive mankind. The minds of men labored, and were filled with anxiety; aspirations after the supreme good were trampled down; thus perpetually floating about they attained to nothing, and all went from bad to worse. The darkness thickened, men lost their sight, and for a long time they wandered without being able to find it again. 3. Then our Triune God communicated his substance to the very venerable Mi-chi-ho (Messiah), who, veiling his true majesty, appeared in the world in the likeness of a man. The celestial spirits manifested their joy, and a virgin brought forth the saint in Ta-Thsin. The most splendid constellations announced this happy event; the Persians saw the splendor, and ran to pay tribute. He fulfilled what was said of old by the twenty-four saints; he organized, by his precepts, both families and kingdoms; he instituted the new religion according to the true notion of the Trinity in Unity; he regulated conscience by the true faith; he signified to the world the eight commandments, and purged humanity from its pollutions by opening the door to the three virtues. He diffused life and extinguished death; he suspended the luminous sun to destroy the dwelling of darkness, and then the lies of demons passed away. He directed the bark of mercy towards the palace of light, and all creatures endowed with intelligence have been succored. After having consummated this act of power, he rose at midday towards the Truth. Twenty-seven books have been left. He has enlarged the springs of mercy, that men might be converted. The baptism by water and by the Spirit is a law that purifies the soul and beautifies the exterior. The sign of the cross unites the four quarters of the world, and restores the harmony that had been destroyed. By striking upon a piece of wood, we make the voice of charity and mercy resound; by sacrificing towards the east we indicate the way of life and glory. Our ministers allow their beards to grow, to show that they are devoted to their neighbors. The tonsure that they wear at the top of their heads indicates that they have renounced worldly desires. In giving liberty to slaves we become a link between the powerful and weak. We do not accumulate riches, and we share with the poor that which we possess. Fasting strengthens the intellectual powers, abstinence and moderation preserve health. We worship seven times a day, and by our prayers we aid the living and the dead. On the seventh day we offer sacrifice, after having purified our hearts and received absolution for our sins. This religion, so perfect and so excellent, is difficult to name, but it enlightens darkness by its brilliant precepts. It is called the Luminous Religion. 5. Learning alone without sanctity has no grandeur, sanctity without learning makes no progress. When learning and sanctity proceed harmoniously, the universe is adorned and resplendent. The Emperor Tai-Tsoung illustrated the Empire. He opened the revolution, and governed men in holiness. In his time there was a man of high virtue named Olopen, who came from the kingdom of Ta-Thsin. Directed by the blue clouds, he bore the Scriptures of the true doctrine; he observed the rules of the winds, and traversed difficult and perilous countries In the ninth year of Tching-Kouan (636) he arrived at Tehang-ngan. The Emperor ordered Fang-hi-wen-Ling, first minister of the Empire, to go with a great train of attendants to the western suburb, to meet the stranger and bring him to the palace. He had the Holy Scriptures translated in the Imperial library. The court listened to the doctrine, meditated on it profoundly, and understood the great unity of truth. A special edict was promulgated for its publication and diffusion. In the twelfth year of Tching-Kouan, in the seventh moon, during the autumn, the new edict was promulgated in these terms:-- The doctrine has no fixed name, the holy has no determinate substance; it institutes religions suitable to various countries, and carries men in crowds in its tracks. Olopen, a man of Ta-Thsin, and of a lofty virtue, bearing Scriptures and images, has come to offer them in the Supreme Court. After a minute examination of the spirit of this religion, it has been found to be excellent, mysterious, and pacific. The contemplation of its radical principle gives birth to perfection and fixes the will. It is exempt from verbosity; it considers only good results. It is useful to men, and consequently ought to be published under the whole extent of the heavens. I, therefore, command the magistrates to have a Ta-Thsin temple constructed in the quarter named T-ning of the Imperial city, and twenty-one religious men shall be installed therein. * * * * * 10. Sou-Tsoung, the illustrious and brilliant emperor, erected at Ling-on and other towns, five in all, _luminous_ temples. The primitive good was thus strengthened, and felicity flourished. Joyous solemnities were inaugurated, and the Empire entered on a wide course of prosperity. 11. Tai-Tsoung (764), a lettered and a warlike emperor, propagated the holy revolution. He sought for peace and tranquillity. Every year, at the hour of the Nativity (Christmas), he burnt celestial perfumes in remembrance of the divine benefit; he prepared imperial feasts, to honor the _luminous_ (Christian) multitude. * * * * * 21. This stone was raised in the second year of Kien-Tchoung of the great dynasty of Thang (A. D. 781), on the seventh day of the moon of the great increase. At this time the devout Ning-Chou, lord of the doctrine, governed the luminous multitude in the Eastern country. Such is the translation of the famous inscription found at Si-ngau-Fou, in 1625. On the left of the monument are to be read the following words in the Syriac language: "In the days of the Father of Fathers, Anan-Yeschouah, Patriarch _Catholicos_. " To the right can be traced, "Adam, Priest, and Chor-Episcopus"; and at the base of the inscription: "In the year of the Greeks one thousand nine hundred and two (A. D. 781), Mar Yezd-bouzid, Priest and Chor-Episcopus of the Imperial city of Komdam, son of Millesins, priest of happy memory, of Balkh, a town of Tokharistan (Turkistan), raised this tablet of stone, on which are described the benefits of our Saviour, and the preaching of our fathers in the kingdom of the Chinese. Adam, Deacon, son of Yezd-bouzid, Chor-Episcopus; Sabar-Jesu, Priest; Gabriel, Priest, Archdeacon, and Ecclesiarch of Komdam and Sarage. " * * * * * The abridgment of Christian doctrine given in the Syro-Chinese inscription of Si-ngau-Fou shows us, also, that the propagators of the faith in Upper Asia in the seventh century professed the Nestorian errors. Through the vague and obscure verbiage which characterizes the Chinese style, we recognize the mode in which that heresiarch admitted the union of the Word with man, by indwelling plenitude of grace superior to that of all the saints. One of the persons of the Trinity communicated himself to the very illustrious and venerable Messiah, "veiling his majesty. " That is certainly the doctrine of Nestorius; upon that point the authority of the critics is unanimous. History, as we have elsewhere remarked, records the rapid progress of the Nestorian sects in the interior of Asia, and their being able to hold their ground, even under the sway of the Mussulmans, by means of compromises and concessions of every kind. Setting out from the banks of the Tigris or the Euphrates, these ardent and courageous propagators of the Gospel probably proceeded to Khorassan, and then crossing the Oxus, directed their course toward the Lake of Lop, and entered the Chinese Empire by the province of Chen-si. Olopen, and his successors in the Christian mission, whether Syrians or Persians by birth, certainly belonged to the Nestorian church. Voltaire, who did not like to trouble himself with scientific arguments, and who was much stronger in sarcasm than in erudition, roundly accuses the missionaries of having fabricated the inscription on the monument of Si-ngau-Fou, from motives of "pious fraud. " "As if, " says Remusat, "such a fabrication could have been practicable in the midst of a distrustful and suspicious nation, in a country in which magistrates and private people are equally ill-disposed towards foreigners, and especially missionaries, where all eyes are open to their most trivial proceedings, and where the authorities watch with the most jealous care over everything relating to the historical traditions and monuments of antiquity. It would be very difficult to explain how the missionaries could have been bold enough to have printed and published in China, and in Chinese, an inscription that had never existed, and how they could have imitated the Chinese style, counterfeited the manner of the writers of the dynasty of Thang, alluded to customs little known, to local circumstances, to dates calculated from the mysterious figures of Chinese astrology, and the whole without betraying themselves for a moment; and with such perfection as to impose on the most skilful men of letters, induced, of course, by the singularity of the discovery to dispute its authenticity. It could only have been done by one of the most erudite of Chinese scholars, joining with the missionaries to impose on his own countrymen. " "Even that would not be all, for the borders of the inscription are covered with Syrian names in fine _estranghélo_ characters. The forgers must, then, have been not only acquainted with these characters, but have been able to get engraved with perfect exactness ninety lines of them, and in the ancient writing, known at present to very few. " "This argument of Remusat's, " says another learned Orientalist, M. Felix Neve, "is of irresistible force, and we have formerly heard a similar one maintained with the greatest confidence by M. Quatremère, of the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles-Lettres, and we allow ourselves to quote the opinion of so highly qualified a judge upon this point. Before the last century it would have been absolutely impossible to forge in Europe a series of names and titles belonging to a Christian nation of Western Asia; it is only since the fruits of Assemam's labors have been made public by his family at Rome, that there existed a sufficient knowledge of the Syriac for such a purpose; and it is only by the publication of the manuscripts of the Vatican, that the extent to which Nestorianism spread in the centre of Asia, and the influence of its hierarchy in the Persian provinces could have been estimated. There is no reason to suppose that missionaries who left Europe in the very beginning of the seventeenth century could have acquired a knowledge which could only be obtained from reading the originals and not vague accounts of them. " The sagacity of M. Saint Martin, who was for a long time the colleague of M. Quatremère, has pointed out in a note worthy of his erudition, another special proof, which is by no means to be neglected. "Amongst the various arguments, " he says, "that might be urged in favor of the legitimacy of the monument, but of which, as yet, no use has been made, must not be forgotten the name of the priest by whom it is said to have been erected. The name _Yezd-bouzid_ is Persian, and at the epoch when the monument was discovered it would have been impossible to invent it, as there existed no work where it could have been found. Indeed, I do not think that, even since then, there has ever been any one published in which it could have been met with. "It is a very celebrated name among the Armenians, and comes to them from a martyr, a Persian by birth, and of the royal race, who perished towards the middle of the seventh century, and rendered his name illustrious amongst the Christian nations of the East. " Saint Martin adds in the same place, that the famous monument of Si-ngau-Fou, whose authenticity has for a long time been called in question from the hatred entertained against the Jesuit missionaries who discovered it, rather than from a candid examination of its contents, is now regarded as above all suspicion. Chapter III. Brahmanism. § 1. Our Knowledge of Brahmanism. Sir William Jones. § 2. Difficulty of this Study. The Complexity of the System. The Hindoos have no History. Their Ultra-Spiritualism. § 3. Helps from Comparative Philology. The Aryans in Central Asia. § 4. The Aryans in India. The Native Races. The Vedic Age. Theology of the Vedas. § 5. Second Period. Laws of Manu. The Brahmanic Age. § 6. The Three Hindoo Systems of Philosophy, --the Sánkhya, Vedanta, and Nyasa. § 7. Origin of the Hindoo Triad. § 8. The Epics, the Puranas, and Modern Hindoo Worship. § 9. Relation of Brahmanism to Christianity. § 1. Our Knowledge of Brahmanism. Sir William Jones. It is more than forty years since the writer, then a boy, was one daysearching among the heavy works of a learned library in the country tofind some entertaining reading for a summer afternoon. It was a libraryrich in theology, in Greek and Latin classics, in French and Spanishliterature, but contained little to amuse a child. Led by some happyfortune, in turning over a pile of the "Monthly Anthology" his eye wasattracted by the title of a play, "Sácontala, [30] or the Fatal Ring; anIndian Drama, translated from the original Sanskrit and Pracrit. Calcutta, 1789, " and reprinted in the Anthology in successive numbers. Gatheringthem together, the boy took them into a great chestnut-tree, amid thelimbs of which he had constructed a study, and there, in the warm, fragrant shade, read hour after hour this bewitching story. The tale wassuited to the day and the scene, --filled with images of tender girls andreligious sages, who lived amid a tropical abundance of flowers andfruits; so blending the beauty of nature with the charm of love. Naturebecomes in it alive, and is interpenetrated with human sentiments. Sákuntalá loves the flowers as sisters; the Késara-tree beckons to herwith its waving blossoms, and clings to her in affection as she bends overit. The jasmine, the wife of the mango-tree, embraces her lord, who leansdown to protect his blooming bride, "the moonlight of the grove. " The holyhermits defend the timid fawn from the hunters, and the birds, grown tamein their peaceful solitudes, look tranquilly on the intruder. The demonsoccasionally disturb the sacrificial rites, but, like well-educateddemons, retire at once, as soon as the protecting Raja enters the sacredgrove. All breathes of love, gentle and generous sentiment, and quiet joysin the bosom of a luxuriant and beautiful summer land. Thus, in this poem, written a hundred years before Christ, we find that romantic view ofnature, unknown to the Greeks and Romans, and first appearing in our owntime in such writers as Rousseau, Goethe, and Byron. He who translated this poem into a European language, and communicated itto modern readers, was Sir William Jones, one of the few first-classscholars whom the world has produced. In him was joined a marvellous giftof language with a love for truth and beauty, which detected by aninfallible instinct what was worth knowing, in the mighty maze of Orientalliterature. He had also the rare good fortune of being the first todiscover this domain of literature in Asia, unknown to the West till hecame to reveal it. The vast realm of Hindoo, Chinese, and Persian geniuswas as much a new continent to Europe, when discovered by Sir WilliamJones, as America was when made known by Columbus. Its riches had beenaccumulating during thousands of years, waiting till the fortunate manshould arrive, destined to reveal to our age the barbaric pearl and goldof the gorgeous East, --the true wealth of Ormus and of Ind. Sir William Jones came well equipped for his task. Some men are bornphilologians, loving _words_ for their own sake, --men to whom the deviouspaths of language are open highways; who, as Lord Bacon says, "have comeforth from the second general curse, which was the confusion of tongues, by the art of grammar. " Sir William Jones was one of these, perhaps thegreatest of them. A paper in his own handwriting tells us that he knewcritically eight languages, --English, Latin, French, Italian, Greek, Arabic, Persian, and Sanskrit; less perfectly eight others, --Spanish, Portuguese, German, Runic, Hebrew, Bengali, Hindi, Turkish; and wasmoderately familiar with twelve more, --Tibetian, Pâli, Phalavi, Deri, Russian, Syriac, Ethiopic, Coptic, Welsh, Swedish, Dutch, and Chinese. There have been, perhaps, other scholars who have known as many tongues asthis. But usually they are crushed by their own accumulations, and wenever hear of their accomplishing anything. Sir William Jones was not oneof these, "deep versed in books, and shallow in himself. " Language was hisinstrument, but knowledge his aim. So, when he had mastered Sanskrit andother Oriental languages, he rendered into English not only Sákuntalá, buta far more important work, "The Laws of Manu"; "almost the only work inSanskrit, " says Max Müller, "the early date of which, assigned to it bySir William Jones from the first, has not been assailed. " He alsotranslated from the Sanskrit the fables of Hitopadesa, extracts from theVedas, and shorter pieces. He formed a society in Calcutta for the studyof Oriental literature, was its first president, and contributed numerousessays, all valuable, to its periodical, the "Asiatic Researches. " Hewrote a grammar of the Persian language, and translated from Persian intoFrench the history of Nadir Shah. From the Arabic he also translated manypieces, and among them the Seven Poems suspended in the temple at Mecca, which, in their subjects and style, seem an Arabic anticipation of WaltWhitman. He wrote in Latin a Book of Commentaries on Asiatic Poetry, inEnglish several works on the Mohammedan and Civil Law, with a translationof the Greek Orations of Isæus. As a lawyer, a judge, a student of naturalhistory, his ardor of study was equally apparent. He presented to theRoyal Society in London a large collection of valuable Orientalmanuscripts, and left a long list of studies in Sanskrit to be pursued bythose who should come after him. His generous nature showed itself in hisopposition to slavery and the slave-trade, and his open sympathy with theAmerican Revolution. His correspondence was large, including such names asthose of Benjamin Franklin, Sir Joseph Banks, Lord Monboddo, Gibbon, Warren Hastings, Dr. Price, Edmund Burke, and Dr. Parr. Such a man oughtto be remembered, especially by all who take an interest in the studies towhich he has opened the way, for he was one who had a right to speak ofhimself, as he has spoken in these lines:-- "Before thy mystic altar, heavenly truth, I kneel in manhood, as I knelt in youth. Thus let me kneel, till this dull form decay, And life's last shade be brightened by thy ray, Then shall my soul, now lost in clouds below, Soar without bound, without consuming glow. " Since the days of Sir William Jones immense progress has been made in thestudy of Sanskrit literature, especially within the last thirty or fortyyears, from the time when the Schlegels led the way in this department. Now, professors of Sanskrit are to be found in all the great Europeanuniversities, and in this country we have at least one Sanskrit scholar ofthe very highest order, Professor William D. Whitney, of Yale. The systemof Brahmanism, which a short time since could only be known to Westernreaders by means of the writings of Colebrooke, Wilkins, Wilson, and a fewothers, has now been made accessible by the works of Lassen, Max Müller, Burnouf, Muir, Pictet, Bopp, Weber, Windischmann, Vivien de Saint-Martin, and a multitude of eminent writers in France, England, and Germany. [31] § 2. Difficulty of this Study. The Complexity of the System. The Hindooshave no History. Their Ultra-Spiritualism. But, notwithstanding these many helps, Brahmanism remains a difficultstudy. Its source is not in a man, but in a caste. It is not the religionof a Confucius, a Zoroaster, a Mohammed, but the religion of the Brahmans. We call it Brahmanism, and it can be traced to no individual as itsfounder or restorer. There is no personality about it. [32] It is a vastworld of ideas, but wanting the unity which is given by the life of a man, its embodiment and representative. But what a system? How large, how difficult to understand! So vast, socomplicated, so full of contradictions, so various and changeable, thatits very immensity is our refuge! We say, It is impossible to do justiceto such a system; therefore do not demand it of us. India has been a land of mystery from the earliest times. From the mostancient days we hear of India as the most populous nation of the world, full of barbaric wealth and a strange wisdom. It has attracted conquerors, and has been overrun by the armies of Semiramis, Darius, Alexander; byMahmud, and Tamerlane, and Nadir Shah; by Lord Clive and the Duke ofWellington. These conquerors, from the Assyrian Queen to the BritishMercantile Company, have overrun and plundered India, but have left it thesame unintelligible, unchangeable, and marvellous country as before. It isthe same land now which the soldiers of Alexander described, --the land ofgrotto temples dug out of solid porphyry; of one of the most ancient Paganreligions of the world; of social distinctions fixed and permanent as theearth itself; of the sacred Ganges; of the idols of Juggernaut, with itsbloody worship; the land of elephants and tigers; of fields of rice andgroves of palm; of treasuries filled with chests of gold, heaps of pearls, diamonds, and incense. But, above all, it is the land of unintelligiblesystems of belief, of puzzling incongruities, and irreconcilablecontradictions. The Hindoos have sacred books of great antiquity, and a rich literatureextending back twenty or thirty centuries; yet no history, no chronology, no annals. They have a philosophy as acute, profound and, spiritual as anyin the world, which is yet harmoniously associated with the coarsestsuperstitions. With a belief so abstract that it almost escapes the graspof the most speculative intellect, is joined the notion that sin can beatoned for by bathing in the Ganges or repeating a text of the Veda. Withan ideal pantheism resembling that of Hegel, is united the opinion thatBrahma and Siva can be driven from the throne of the universe by any onewho will sacrifice a sufficient number of wild horses. To abstract one'sself from matter, to renounce all the gratification of the senses, tomacerate the body, is thought the true road to felicity; and nowhere inthe world are luxury, licentiousness and the gratification of theappetites carried so far. Every civil right and privilege of ruler andsubject is fixed in a code of laws, and a body of jurisprudence older farthan the Christian era, and the object of universal reverence; but theapplication of these laws rests (says Rhode) on the arbitrary decisions ofthe priests, and their execution on the will of the sovereign. Theconstitution of India is therefore like a house without a foundation andwithout a roof. It is a principle of Hindoo religion not to kill a worm, not even to tread on a blade of grass, for fear of injuring life; but thetorments, cruelties, and bloodshed inflicted by Indian tyrants would shocka Nero or a Borgia. Half the best informed writers on India will tell youthat the Brahmanical religion is pure monotheism; the other half asconfidently assert that they worship a million gods. Some teach us thatthe Hindoos are spiritualists and pantheists; others that their idolatryis more gross than that of any living people. Is there any way of reconciling these inconsistencies? If we cannot findsuch an explanation, there is at least one central point where we mayplace ourselves; one elevated position, from which this mighty maze willnot seem wholly without a plan. In India the whole tendency of thought isideal, the whole religion a pure spiritualism. An ultra, one-sidedidealism is the central tendency of the Hindoo mind. The God of Brahmanismis an intelligence, absorbed in the rest of profound contemplation. Thegood man of this religion is he who withdraws from an evil world intoabstract thought. Nothing else explains the Hindoo character as this does. An eminentlyreligious people, it is their one-sided spiritualism, their extremeidealism, which gives rise to all their incongruities. They have nohistory and no authentic chronology, for history belongs to this world, and chronology belongs to time. But this world and time are to them whollyuninteresting; God and eternity are all in all. They torture themselveswith self-inflicted torments; for the body is the great enemy of thesoul's salvation, and they must beat it down by ascetic mortifications. But asceticism, here as everywhere else, tends to self-indulgence, sinceone extreme produces another. In one part of India, therefore, devoteesare swinging on hooks in honor of Siva, hanging themselves by the feet, head downwards, over a fire, rolling on a bed of prickly thorns, jumpingon a couch filled with sharp knives, boring holes in their tongues, andsticking their bodies full of pins and needles, or perhaps holding thearms over the head till they stiffen in that position. Meantime in otherplaces whole regions are given over to sensual indulgences, and companiesof abandoned women are connected with different temples and consecratetheir gains to the support of their worship. As one-sided spiritualism will manifest itself in morals in the two formsof austerity and sensuality, so in religion it shows itself in theopposite direction of an ideal pantheism and a gross idolatry. Spiritualism first fills the world full of God, and this is a true andChristian view of things. But it takes another step, which is to deny allreal existence to the world, and so runs into a false pantheism. It firstsays, truly, "There is nothing _without_ God. " It next says, falsely, "There is nothing _but_ God. " This second step was taken in India by meansof the doctrine of _Maya_, or _Illusion. Maya_ means the delusive showswhich spirit assumes. For there is nothing but spirit; which neithercreates nor is created, neither acts nor suffers, which cannot change, andinto which all souls are absorbed when they free themselves by meditationfrom the belief that they suffer or are happy, that they can experienceeither pleasure or pain. The next step is to polytheism. For if Godneither creates nor destroys, but only seems to create and destroy, these_appearances_ are not united together as being the acts of one Being, butare separate, independent phenomena. When you remove personality from theconception of God, as you do in removing will, you remove unity. Now ifcreation be an illusion, and there be no creation, still the _appearance_of creation is a fact. But as there is no substance but spirit, this_appearance_ must have its cause in spirit, that is, is a _divine_appearance, is God. So destruction, in the same way, is an appearance ofGod, and reproduction is an appearance of God, and every other appearancein nature is a manifestation of God. But the unity of will and personbeing taken away, we have not one God, but a multitude of gods, --orpolytheism. Having begun this career of thought, no course was possible for the humanmind to pursue but this. An ultra spiritualism must become pantheism, andpantheism must go on to polytheism. In India this is not a theory, but ahistory. We find, side by side, a spiritualism which denies the existenceof anything but motionless spirit or Brahm, and a polytheism whichbelieves and worships Brahma the Creator, Siva the Destroyer, Vischnu thePreserver, Indra the God of the Heavens, the Sactis or energies of thegods, Krishna the Hindoo Apollo, Doorga, and a host of others, innumerableas the changes and appearances of things. But such a system as this must necessarily lead also to idolatry. There isin the human mind a tendency to worship, and men must worship something. But they believe in one Being, the absolute Spirit, the supreme and onlyGod, --Para Brahm; _him_ they cannot worship, for he is literally anunknown God. He has no qualities; no attributes, no activity. He isneither the object of hope, fear, love, nor aversion. Since there isnothing in the universe but spirit and illusive appearances, and theycannot worship spirit because it is absolutely unknown, they must worshipthese appearances, which are at any rate _divine_ appearances, and whichdo possess some traits, qualities, character; _are_ objects of hope andfear. But they cannot worship them as appearances, they must worship themas persons. But if they have an inward personality or soul, they becomereal beings, and also beings independent of Brahm, whose appearances theyare. They must therefore have an outward personality; in other words, abody, a shape, emblematical and characteristic; that is to say, theybecome idols. Accordingly idol-worship is universal in India. The most horrible andgrotesque images are carved in the stone of the grottos, stand in rude, block-like statues in the temple, or are coarsely painted on the walls. Figures of men with heads of elephants or of other animals, or with six orseven human heads, --sometimes growing in a pyramid, one out of the other, sometimes with six hands coming from one shoulder, --grisly and uncouthmonsters, like nothing in nature, yet too grotesque for symbols, --such arethe objects of the Hindoo worship. § 3. Helps from Comparative Philology. The Aryans in Central Asia. We have seen how hopeless the task has appeared of getting any definitelight on Hindoo chronology or history. To the ancient Egyptians eventswere so important that the most trivial incidents of daily life werewritten on stone and the imperishable records of the land, covering thetombs and obelisks, have patiently waited during long centuries, tilltheir decipherer should come to read them. To the Hindoos, on the otherhand, all events were equally unimportant. The most unhistoric people onearth, they cared more for the minutiæ of grammar, or the subtilties ofmetaphysics, than for the whole of their past. The only date which hasemerged from this vague antiquity is that of Chandragupta, a contemporaryof Alexander, and called by the Greek historians Sandracottus. He becameking B. C. 315, and as, at his accession, Buddha had been dead (by Hindoostatement) one hundred and sixty-two years, Buddha may have died B. C. 477. We can thus import a single date from Greek history into that of India. This is the whole. But all at once light dawns on us from an unexpected quarter. While we canlearn nothing concerning the history of India from its literature, andnothing from its inscriptions or carved temples, _language_, comes to ouraid. The fugitive and airy sounds, which seem so fleeting and sochangeable, prove to be more durable monuments than brass or granite. Thestudy of the Sanskrit language has told us a long story concerning theorigin of the Hindoos. It has rectified the ethnology of Blumenbach, hastaught us who were the ancestors of the nations of Europe, and has givenus the information that one great family, the Indo-European, has done mostof the work of the world. It shows us that this family consists of sevenraces, --the Hindoos, the Persians, the^ Greeks, the Romans, who allemigrated to the south from the original ancestral home; and the Kelts, the Teutons, and Slavi, who entered Europe on the northern side of theCaucasus and the Caspian Sea. This has been accomplished by the newscience of Comparative Philology. A comparison of languages has made ittoo plain to be questioned, that these seven races were originally one;that they must have emigrated from a region of Central Asia, at the eastof the Caspian, and northwest of India; that they were originally apastoral race, and gradually changed their habits as they descended fromthose great plains into the valleys of the Indus and the Euphrates. Inthese seven linguistic families the roots of the most common names are thesame; the grammatical constructions are also the same; so that no scholar, who has attended to the subject, can doubt that the seven languages areall daughters of one common mother-tongue. Pursuing the subject still further, it has been found possible toconjecture with no little confidence what was the condition of family lifein this great race of Central Asia, before its dispersion. The originalstock has received the name Aryan. This designation occurs in Manu (II. 22), who says: "As far as the eastern and western oceans, between the twomountains, lies the land which the wise have named Ar-ya-vesta, or_inhabited by honorable men_. " The people of Iran receive this sameappellation in the Zend Avesta, with the same meaning of _honorable_. Herodotus testifies that the Medes were formerly called Ἄριοι (Herod. VII. 61). Strabo mentions that, in the time of Alexander, the whole regionabout the Indus was called _Ariana_. In modern times, the word _Iran_ forPersia and _Erin_ for Ireland are possible reminiscences of the originalfamily appellation. The Ayrans, long before the age of the Vedas or the Zend Avesta, wereliving as a pastoral people on the great plains east of the Caspian Sea. What their condition was at that epoch is deduced by the following method:If it is found that the name of any fact is the same in two or more of theseven tribal languages of this stock, it is evident that the name wasgiven to it before they separated. For there is no reason to suppose thattwo nations living wide apart would have independently selected the sameword for the same object. For example, since we find that _house_ is inSanskrit _Damn_ and _Dam_; in Zend, _Demana_; in Greek, Δόμος; in Latin, _Domus_; in Irish, _Dahm_; in Slavonic, _Domu_, --from which root comesalso our English word _Domestic_, --we may be pretty sure that the originalAryans lived in houses. When we learn that _boat_ was in Sanskrit _Nau_ or_nauka_; in Persian, _Naw, nawah;_ in Greek, Ναῦς; in Latin, _Navis_; inold Irish, _Noi_ or _nai_; in old German, _Nawa_ or _nawi_; and in Polish_Nawa_, we cannot doubt that they knew something of what we call inEnglish _Nau_tical affairs, or Navigation. But as the words designatingmasts, sails, yards, &c. Differ wholly from each other in all theselinguistic families, it is reasonable to infer that the Aryans, beforetheir dispersion, went only in boats, with oars, on the rivers of theirland, the Oxus and Jaxartes, and did not sail anywhere on the sea. Pursuing this method, we see that we can ask almost any questionconcerning the condition of the Aryans, and obtain an answer by means ofComparative Philology. Were they a pastoral people? The very word _pastoral_ gives us the answer. For _Pa_ in Sanskrit means to watch, to guard, as men guard cattle, --fromwhich a whole company of words has come in all the Aryan languages. The results of this method of inquiry, so far as given by Pictet, arethese. Some 3000 years B. C. , [33] the Aryans, as yet undivided intoHindoos, Persians, Kelts, Latins, Greeks, Teutons, and Slavi, were livingin Central Asia, in a region of which Bactriana was the centre. Here theymust have remained long enough to have developed their admirable language, the mother-tongue of those which we know. They were essentially apastoral, but not a nomad people, having fixed homes. They had oxen, horses, sheep, goats, hogs, and domestic fowls. Herds of cows fed inpastures, each the property of a community, and each with a cluster ofstables in the centre. The daughters[34] of the house were thedairy-maids; the food was chiefly the products of the dairy and the fleshof the cattle. The cow was, however, the most important animal, and gaveits name to many plants, and even to the clouds and stars, in which mensaw heavenly herds passing over the firmament above them. But the Aryans were not an exclusively pastoral people; they certainly hadbarley, and perhaps other cereals, before their dispersion. They possessedthe plough, the mill for grinding grain; they had hatchet, [35] hammer, auger. The Aryans were acquainted with several metals, among which weregold, silver, copper, tin. They knew how to spin and weave to some extent;they were acquainted with pottery. How their houses were built we do notknow, but they contained doors, windows, and fireplaces. They had cloaksor mantles, they boiled and roasted meat, and certainly used soup. Theyhad lances, swords, the bow and arrow, shields, but not armor. They hadfamily life, some simple laws, games, the dance, and wind instruments. They had the decimal numeration, and their year was of three hundred andsixty days. They worshipped the heaven, earth, sun, fire, water, wind; butthere are also plain traces of an earlier monotheism, from which thisnature-worship proceeded. § 4. The Aryans in India. The Native Races. The Vedic Age. Theology of theVedas. So far Comparative Philology takes us, and the next step forward brings usto the Vedas, the oldest works in the Hindoo literature, but at least onethousand or fifteen hundred years more recent than the times we have beendescribing. The Aryans have separated, and the Hindoos are now in India. It is eleven centuries before the time of Alexander. They occupy theregion between the Punjaub and the Ganges, and here was accomplished thetransition of the Aryans from warlike shepherds into agriculturists andbuilders of cities. [36] The last hymns of the Vedas were written (says St. Martin) when theyarrived from the Indus at the Ganges, and were building their oldest city, at the confluence of that river with the Jumna. Their complexion was thenwhite, and they call the race whom they conquered, and who afterward weremade _Soudras_, or lowest caste, blacks. [37] The chief gods of the Vedicage were Indra, Varuna, Agni, Savitri, Soma. The first was the god of theatmosphere; the second, of the Ocean of light, or Heaven; the third, ofFire;[38] the fourth, of the Sun; and the fifth, of the Moon. Yama was thegod of death. All the powers of nature were personified in turn, --asearth, food, wine, months, seasons, day, night, and dawn. Among all thesedivinities, Indra and Agni were the chief. [39] But behind this incipientpolytheism lurks the original monotheism, --for each of these gods, inturn, becomes the Supreme Being. The universal Deity seems to becomeapparent, first in one form of nature and then in another. Such is theopinion of Colebrooke, who says that "the ancient Hindoo religionrecognizes but one God, not yet sufficiently discriminating the creaturefrom the Creator. " And Max Müller says: "The hymns celebrate Varuna, Indra, Agni, &c. , and each in turn is called supreme. The whole mythologyis fluent. The powers of nature become moral beings. " Max Müller adds: "It would be easy to find, in the numerous hymns of theVeda, passages in which almost every single god is represented as supremeand absolute. Agni is called 'Ruler of the Universe'; Indra is celebratedas the Strongest god, and in one hymn it is said, 'Indra is stronger thanall. ' It is said of Soma that 'he conquers every one. '" But clearer traces of monotheism are to be found in the Vedas. In one hymnof the Rig-Veda it is said: "They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni;then he is the well-winged heavenly Garutmat; that which is One, the wisecall it many ways; they call it Agni, Yama, Matarisvan. " Nothing, however, will give us so good an idea of the character of theseVedic hymns as the hymns themselves. I therefore select a few of the moststriking of those which have been translated by Colebrooke, Wilson, M. Müller, E. Bumont, and others. In the following, from one of the oldest Vedas, the unity of God seemsvery clearly expressed. RIG-VEDA, X. 121. "In the beginning there arose the Source of golden light. He was the only born Lord of all that is. He established the earth, and this sky. Who is the God to whom we shall offer our sacrifice? "He who gives life. He who gives strength; whose blessing all the bright gods desire; whose shadow is immortality, whose shadow is death. Who is the God to whom we shall offer our sacrifice? "He who through his power is the only king of the breathing and awakening world. He who governs all, man and beast. Who is the god to whom we shall offer our sacrifice? "He whose power these snowy mountains, whose power the sea proclaims, with the distant river. He whose these regions are, as it were his two arms. Who is the god to whom we shall offer our sacrifice? "He through whom the sky is bright and the earth firm. He through whom heaven was stablished; nay, the highest heaven. He who measured out the light in the air. Who is the god to whom we shall offer our sacrifice? "He to whom heaven and earth, standing firm by his will, look up, trembling inwardly. He over whom the rising sun shines forth. Who is the god to whom we shall offer our sacrifice? "Wherever the mighty water-clouds went, where they placed the seed and lit the fire, thence arose he who is the only life of the bright gods. Who is the god to whom we shall offer our sacrifice? "He who by his might looked even over the water-clouds, the clouds which gave strength and lit the sacrifice; _he who is God above all gods_. Who is the god to whom we shall offer our sacrifice? "May he not destroy us, --he the creator of the earth, --or he, the righteous, who created heaven; he who also created the bright and mighty waters. Who is the god to whom we shall offer our sacrifices?"[40] The oldest and most striking account of creation is in the eleventhchapter of the tenth Book of the Rig-Veda. Colebrooke, Max Müller, Muir, and Goldstucker, all give a translation of this remarkable hymn and speakof it with admiration. We take that of Colehrooke, modified by that ofMuir:-- "Then there was no entity nor non-entity; no world, no sky, nor aught above it; nothing anywhere, involving or involved; nor water deep and dangerous. Death was not, and therefore no immortality, nor distinction of day or night. But THAT ONE breathed calmly[41] alone with Nature, her who is sustained within him. Other than Him, nothing existed [which] since [has been]. Darkness there was; [for] this universe was enveloped with darkness, and was indistinguishable waters; but that mass, which was covered by the husk, was [at length] produced by the power of contemplation. First desire[42] was formed in his mind; and that became the original productive seed; which the wise, recognizing it by the intellect in their hearts, distinguish as the bond of non-entity with entity. "Did the luminous ray of these [creative acts] expand in the middle, or above, or below? That productive energy became providence [or sentient souls], and matter [or the elements]; Nature, who is sustained within, was inferior; and he who sustains was above. "Who knows exactly, and who shall in this world declare, whence and why this creation took place? The gods are subsequent to the production of this world: then who can know whence it proceeded, or whence this varied world arose, or whether it upholds [itself] or not? He who in the highest heaven is the ruler of this universe, --he knows, or does not know. " If the following hymn, says Müller, were addressed only to the Almighty, omitting the word "Varuna, " it would not disturb us in a ChristianLiturgy:-- 1. "Let me not yet, O Varuna, enter into the house of clay; have mercy, almighty, have mercy. 2. "If I go along trembling, like a cloud driven by the wind, have mercy, almighty, have mercy! 3. "Through want of strength, thou strong and bright god, have I gone to the wrong shore; have mercy, almighty, have mercy! 4. "Thirst came upon the worshipper, though he stood in the midst of the waters; have mercy, almighty, have mercy! 5. "Whenever we men, O Varuna, commit an offence before the heavenly host; whenever we break thy law through thoughtlessness; have mercy, almighty, have mercy!" Out of a large number of hymns addressed to Indra, Müller selects one thatis ascribed to Vasishtha. 1. "Let no one, not even those who worship thee, delay thee far from us! Even from afar come to our feast! Or, if thou art here, listen to us! 2. "For these who here make prayers for thee, sit together near the libation, like flies round the honey. The worshippers, anxious for wealth, have placed their desire upon Indra, as we put our foot upon a chariot. 3. "Desirous of riches, I call him who holds the thunderbolt with his arm, and who is a good giver, like as a son calls his father. 4. "These libations of Soma, mixed with milk, have been prepared for Indra: thou, armed with the thunderbolt, come with the steeds to drink of them for thy delight; come to the house! 5. "May he hear us, for he has ears to hear. He is asked for riches; will he despise our prayers? He could soon give hundreds and thousands;--no one could check him if he wishes to give. " 13. "Make for the sacred gods a hymn that is not small, that is well set and beautiful! Many snares pass by him who abides with Indra through his sacrifice. 14. "What mortal dares to attack him who is rich in thee? Through faith in thee, O mighty, the strong acquires spod in the day of battle. " 17. "Thou art well known as the benefactor of every one, whatever battles there be. Every one of these kings of the earth implores thy name, when wishing for help. 18. "If I were lord of as much as thou, I should support the sacred bard, thou scatterer of wealth, I should not abandon him to misery. 19. "I should award wealth day by day to him who magnifies; I should award it to whosoever it be. We have no other friend but thee, no other happiness, no other father, O mighty!" 22. "We call for thee, O hero, like cows that have not been milked; we praise thee as ruler of all that moves, O Indra, as ruler of all that is immovable. 23. "There is no one like thee in heaven and earth; he is not born, and will not be born. O mighty Indra, we call upon thee as we go fighting for cows and horses. " "In this hymn, " says Müller, "Indra is clearly conceived as the SupremeGod, and we can hardly understand how a people who had formed so exalted anotion of the Deity and embodied it in the person of Indra, could, at thesame sacrifice, invoke other gods with equal praise. When Agni, the lordof fire, is addressed by the poet, he is spoken of as the first god, notinferior even to Indra. While Agni is invoked Indra is forgotten; there isno competition between the two, nor any rivalry between them and othergods. This is a most important feature in the religion of the Veda, andhas never been taken into consideration by those who have written on thehistory of ancient polytheism. "[43] "It is curious, " says Müller, "to watch the almost imperceptibletransition by which the phenomena of nature, if reflected in the mind ofthe poet, assume the character of divine beings. The dawn is frequentlydescribed in the Veda as it might be described by a modern poet. She isthe friend of men, she smiles like a young wife, she is the daughter ofthe sky. " "But the transition from _devî_, the bright, to _devî_, thegoddess, is so easy; the daughter of the sky assumes so readily the samepersonality which is given to the sky, Dyaus, her father, that we can onlyguess whether in every passage the poet is speaking of a brightapparition, or of a bright goddess; of a natural vision, or of a visibledeity. The following hymn of Vashishtha will serve as an instance:-- "She shines upon us, like a young wife, rousing every living being to go to his work. The fire had to be kindled by men; she brought light by striking down darkness. "She rose up, spreading far and wide, and moving towards every one. She grew in brightness, wearing her brilliant garment. The mother of the cows (of the morning clouds), the leader of the days, she shone gold-colored, lovely to behold. "She, the fortunate, who brings the eye of the god, who leads the white and lovely steed (of the sun), the Dawn was seen, revealed by her rays; with brilliant treasures she follows every one. "Thou, who art a blessing where thou art near, drive far away the unfriendly; make the pastures wide, give us safety! Remove the haters, bring treasures! Raise wealth to the worshipper, thou mighty Dawn. "Shine for us with thy best rays, thou bright Dawn, thou who lengthenest our life, thou the love of all, who givest us food, who givest us wealth in cows, horses, and chariots. "Thou, daughter of the sky, thou high-born Dawn, whom the Vasishthas magnify with songs, give us riches high and wide: all ye gods, protect us always with your blessings!" "This hymn, addressed to the Dawn, is a fair specimen of the originalsimple poetry of the Veda. It has no reference to any special sacrifice, it contains no technical expressions, it can hardly be called a hymn, inour sense of the word. It is simply a poem expressing, without any effort, without any display of far-fetched thought or brilliant imagery, thefeelings of a man who has watched the approach of the Dawn with mingleddelight and awe, and who was moved to give utterance to what he felt inmeasured language. "[44] "But there is a charm in these primitive strains discoverable in no otherclass of poetry. Every word retains something of its radical meaning, every epithet tells, every thought, in spite of the most intricate andabrupt expressions, is, if we once disentangle it, true, correct, andcomplete. "[45] The Vedic literature is divided by Müller into four periods, namely, thoseof the Chhandas, Mantra, Brâhmana, and Sûtras. The Chhandas periodcontains the oldest hymns of the oldest, or Rig-Veda. To that of theMantras belong the later hymns of the same Veda. But the most modern ofthese are older than the Brâhmanas. The Brâhmanas contain theology; theolder Mantras are liturgic. Müller says that the Brâhmanas, though so veryancient, are full of pedantry, shallow and insipid grandiloquence andpriestly conceit. Next to these, in the order of time, are the Upanishads. These are philosophical, and almost the only part of the Vedas which areread at the present time. They are believed to contain the highestauthority for the different philosophical systems, of which we shall speakhereafter. Their authors are unknown. More modern than these are theSûtras. The word "Sûtra" means _string_, and they consist of a string ofshort sentences. Conciseness is the aim in this style, and every doctrineis reduced to a skeleton. The numerous Sûtras now extant contain thedistilled essence of all the knowledge which the Brâhmans have collectedduring centuries of meditation. They belong to the non-revealedliterature, as distinguished from the revealed literature, --a distinctionmade by the Brâhmans before the time of Buddha. At the time of theBuddhist controversy the Sûtras were admitted to be of human origin andwere consequently recent works. The distinction between the Sûtras andBrâhmanas is very marked, the second being revealed. The Brâhmanas werecomposed by and for Brahmans and are in three collections. The Vedângasare intermediate between the Vedic and non-Vedic literature. Pânini, thegrammarian of India, was said to be contemporary with King Nanda, who wasthe successor of Chandragupta, the contemporary of Alexander, andtherefore in the second half of the fourth century before Christ. Datesare so precarious in Indian literature, says Max Müller, that aconfirmation within a century or two is not to be despised. Now thegrammarian Kâtyâyana completed and corrected the grammar of Pânini, andPatanjeli wrote an immense commentary on the two which became so famous asto be imported by royal authority into Cashmere, in the first half of thefirst century of our era. Müller considers the limits of the Sûtra periodto extend from 600 B. C. To 200 B. C. Buddhism before Asoka was but modifiedBrahmanism. The basis of Indian chronology is the date of Chandragupta. All dates before his time are merely hypothetical. Several classicalwriters speak of him as founding an empire on the Ganges soon after theinvasion of Alexander. He was grandfather of Asoka. Indian traditionsrefer to this king. Returning to the Brâhmana period, we notice that between the Sûtras andBârahmanas come the Aranyakas, which are books written for the recluse. Ofthese the Upanishads, before mentioned, form part. They presuppose theexistence of the Brâhmanas. Rammohun Roy was surprised that Dr. Rosen should have thought it worthwhile to publish the hymns of the Veda, and considered the Upanishads theonly Vedic books worth reading. They speak of the divine SELF, of theEternal Word in the heavens from which the hymns came. The divine SELFthey say is not to be grasped by tradition, reason, or revelation, butonly by him whom he himself grasps. In the beginning was Self alone. Atmanis the SELF in all our selves, --the Divine Self concealed by his ownqualities. This Self they sometimes call the Undeveloped and sometimes theNot-Being. There are ten of the old Upanishads, all of which have beenpublished. Anquetil Du Perron translated fifty into Latin out of Persian. The Brâhmanas are very numerous. Müller gives stories from them andlegends. They relate to sacrifices, to the story of the deluge, and otherlegends. They substituted these legends for the simple poetry of theancient Vedas. They must have extended over at least two hundred years, and contained long lists of teachers. Müller supposes that writing was unknown when the Rig-Veda was composed. The thousand and ten hymns of the Vedas contain no mention of writing orbooks, any more than the Homeric poems. There is no allusion to writingduring the whole of the Brâhmana period, nor even through the Sûtraperiod. This seems incredible to us, says Müller, only because our memoryhas been systematically debilitated by newspapers and the like duringmany generations. It was the business of every Brahman to learn by heartthe Vedas during the twelve years of his student life. The Guru, orteacher, pronounces a group of words, and the pupils repeat after him. After writing was introduced, the Brahmans were strictly forbidden to readthe Vedas, or to write them. Cæsar says the same of the Druids. EvenPânini never alludes to written words or letters. None of the ordinarymodern words for book, paper, ink, or writing have been found in anyancient Sanskrit work. No such words as _volumen_, volume; _liber_, orinner bark of a tree; _byblos_, inner bark of papyrus; or book, that isbeech wood. But Buddha had learnt to write, as we find by a booktranslated into Chinese A. D. 76. In this book Buddha instructs histeacher; as in the "Gospel of the Infancy" Jesus explains to his teacherthe meaning of the Hebrew alphabet. So Buddha tells his teacher the namesof sixty-four alphabets. The first authentic inscription in India is ofBuddhist origin, belonging to the third century before Christ. In the most ancient Vedic period the language had become complete. Thereis no growing language in the Vedas. In regard to the age of these Vedic writings, we will quote the words ofMax Müller, at the conclusion of his admirable work on the "History ofAncient Sanskrit Literature, " from which most of this section has beentaken:-- "Oriental scholars are frequently suspected of a desire to make the literature of the Eastern nations appear more ancient than it is. As to myself, I can truly say that nothing would be to me a more welcome discovery, nothing would remove so many doubts and difficulties, as some suggestions as to the manner in which certain of the Vedic hymns could have been added to the original collection during the Brâhmana or Sûtra periods, or, if possible, by the writers of our MSS. , of which most are not older than the fifteenth century. But these MSS. , though so modern, are checked by the Anukramanis. Every hymn which stands in our MSS. Is counted in the Index of Saunaka, who is anterior to the invasion of Alexander. The Sûtras, belonging to the same period as Saunaka, prove the previous existence of every chapter of the Brâhmanas; and I doubt whether there is a single hymn in the Sanhitâ of the Rig-Veda which could not be checked by some passage of the Brâhmanas and Sûtras. The chronological limits assigned to the Sûtra and Brâhmana periods will seem to most Sanskrit scholars too narrow rather than too wide, and if we assign but two hundred years to the Mantra period, from 800 to 1000 B. C. , and an equal number to the Chhandas period, from 1000 to 1200 B. C. , we can do so only under the supposition that during the early periods of history the growth of the human mind was more luxuriant than in later times, and that the layers of thought were formed less slowly in the primary than in the tertiary ages of the world. " The Vedic age, according to Müller, will then be as follows:-- Sûtra period, from B. C. 200 to B. C. 600. Brâhmana period, " " 600 " 800. Mantra period, " " 800 " 1000. Chhandas period, " " 1000 " 1200. Dr. Haug, a high authority, considers the Vedic period to extend from B. C. 1200 to B. C. 2000, and the very oldest hymns to have been composed B. C. 2400. The principal deity in the oldest Vedas is Indra, God of the air. In Greekhe becomes Zeus; in Latin, Jupiter. The hymns to Indra are not unlike someof the Psalms of the Old Testament. Indra is called upon as the mostancient god whom the Fathers worshipped. Next to India comes Agni, fire, derived from the root Ag, which means "to move. "[46] Fire is worshipped asthe principle of motion on earth, as Indra was the moving power above. Notonly fire, but the forms of flame, are worshipped and all that belongs toit. Entire nature is called Aditi, whose children are named Adityas. M. Maury quotes these words from Gotama: "Aditi is heaven; Aditi is air;Aditi is mother, father, and son; Aditi is all the gods and the fiveraces; Aditi is whatever is born and will be born; in short, the heavensand the earth, the heavens being the father and the earth the mother ofall things. " This reminds one of the Greek Zeus-pateer and Gee-mêteer. Varuna is the vault of heaven. Mitra is often associated with Varuna inthe Vedic hymns. Mitra is the sun, illuminating the day, while Varuna wasthe sun with an obscure face going back in the darkness from west to eastto take his luminous disk again. From Mitra seems to be derived thePersian Mithra. There are no invocations to the stars in the Veda. But theAurora, or Dawn, is the object of great admiration; also, the Aswins, ortwin gods, who in Greece become the Dioscuri. The god of storms is Rudra, supposed by some writers to be the same as Siva. The two hostile worshipsof Vishnu and Siva do not appear, however, till long after this time. Vishnu appears frequently in the Veda, and his three steps are oftenspoken of. These steps measure the heavens. But his real worship came muchlater. The religion of the Vedas was of odes and hymns, a religion of worship bysimple adoration. Sometimes there were prayers for temporal blessings, sometimes simple sacrifices and libations. Human sacrifices have scarcelyleft any trace of themselves if they ever existed, unless it be in atypical ceremony reported in one of the Vedas. § 5. Second Period. Laws of Manu. The Brahmanic Age. Long after the age of the elder Vedas Brahmanism begins. Its text-book isthe Laws of Manu. [47] As yet Vishnu and Siva are not known. The former isnamed once, the latter not at all. The writer only knows three Vedas. TheAtharva-Veda is later. But as Siva is mentioned in the oldest Buddhistwritings, it follows that the laws of Manu are older than these. In thetime of Manu the Aryans are still living in the valley of the Ganges. Thecaste system is now in full operation, and the authority of the Brahman israised to its highest point. The Indus and Punjaub are not mentioned; allthis is forgotten. This work could not be later than B. C. 700, or earlierthan B. C. 1200. It was probably written about B. C. 900 or B. C. 1000. Inthis view agree Wilson, Lassen, Max Müller, and Saint-Martin. The SupremeDeity is now Brahma, and sacrifice is still the act by which one comesinto relation with heaven. Widow-burning is not mentioned in Manu; but itappears in the Mahabharata, one of the great epics, which is thereforelater. In the region of the Sarasvati, a holy river, which formerly emptied intothe Indus, but is now lost in a desert, the Aryan race of India wastransformed from nomads into a stable community. [48] There they receivedtheir laws, and there their first cities were erected. There were foundedthe Solar and Lunar monarchies. The Manu of the Vedas and he of the Brahmans are very different persons. The first is called in the Vedas the father of mankind. He also escapesfrom a deluge by building a ship, which he is advised to do by a fish. Hepreserves the fish, which grows to a great size, and when the flood comesacts as a tow-boat to drag the ship of Manu to a mountain. [49] Thisaccount is contained in a Brahmana. The name of Manu seems afterward to have been given by the Brahmans to theauthor of their code. Some extracts from this very interesting volume wewill now give, slightly abridged, from Sir William Jones'stranslation. [50] From the first book, on Creation:-- "The universe existed in darkness, imperceptible, undefinable, undiscoverable, and undiscovered; as if immersed in sleep. " "Then the self-existing power, undiscovered himself, but making the world discernible, with the five elements and other principles, appeared in undiminished glory, dispelling the gloom. " "He, whom the mind alone can perceive, whose essence eludes the external organs, who has no visible parts, who exists from eternity, even he, the soul of all beings, shone forth in person. "He having willed to produce various beings from his own divine substance, first with a thought created the waters, and placed in them a productive seed. " "The seed became an egg bright as gold, blazing like the luminary with a thousand beams, and in that egg he was born himself, in the form of Brahma, the great forefather of all spirits. "The waters are called Nárá, because they were the production of Nara, or the spirit of God; and hence they were his first ayana, or place of motion; he hence is named Nara yana, or moving on the waters. "In that egg the great power sat inactive a whole year of the creator, at the close of which, by his thought alone, he caused the egg to divide itself. "And from its two divisions he framed the heaven above and the earth beneath; in the midst he placed the subtile ether, the eight regions, and the permanent receptacle of waters. "From the supreme soul he drew forth mind, existing substantially though unperceived by sense, immaterial; and before mind, or the reasoning power, he produced consciousness, the internal monitor, the ruler. "And before them both he produced the great principle of the soul, or first expansion of the divine idea; and all vital forms endued with the three qualities of goodness, passion, and darkness, and the five perceptions of sense, and the five organs of sensation. "Thus, having at once pervaded with emanations from the Supreme Spirit the minutest portions of fixed principles immensely operative, consciousness and the five perceptions, he framed all creatures. "Thence proceed the great elements, endued with peculiar powers, and mind with operations infinitely subtile, the unperishable cause of all apparent forms. "This universe, therefore, is compacted from the minute portions of those seven divine and active principles, the great soul, or first emanation, consciousness, and five perceptions; a mutable universe from immutable ideas. "Of created things, the most excellent are those which are animated; of the animated, those which subsist by intelligence; of the intelligent, mankind; and of men, the sacerdotal class. "Of priests, those eminent in learning; of the learned, those who know their duty; of those who know it, such as perform it virtuously; and of the virtuous, those who seek beatitude from a perfect acquaintance with scriptural doctrine. "The very birth of Brahmans is a constant incarnation of Dharma, God of justice; for the Brahman is born to promote justice, and to procure ultimate happiness. "When a Brahman springs to light, he is born above the world, the chief of all creatures, assigned to guard the treasury of duties, religious and civil. "The Brahman who studies this book, having performed sacred rites, is perpetually free from offence in thought, in word and in deed. "He confers purity on his living family, on his ancestors, and on his descendants as far as the seventh person, and he alone deserves to possess this whole earth. " The following passages are from Book II. , "On Education and thePriesthood":-- "Self-love is no laudable motive, yet an exemption from self-love is not to be found in this world: on self-love is grounded the study of Scripture, and the practice of actions recommended in it. "Eager desire to act has its root in expectation of some advantage; and with such expectation are sacrifices performed; the rules of religious austerity and abstinence from sins are all known to arise from hope of remuneration. "Not a single act here below appears ever to be done by a man free from self-love; whatever he perform, it is wrought from his desire of a reward. "He, indeed, who should persist in discharging these duties without any view to their fruit, would attain hereafter the state of the immortals, and even in this life would enjoy all the virtuous gratifications that his fancy could suggest. "The most excellent of the three classes, being girt with the sacrificial thread, must ask food with the respectful word Dhavati at the beginning of the phrase; those of the second class with that word in the middle; and those of the third with that word at the end. "Let him first beg food of his mother, or of his sister, or of his mother's whole sister; then of some other female who will not disgrace him. "Having collected as much of the desired food as he has occasion for, and having presented it without guile to his preceptor, let him eat some of it, being duly purified, with his face to the east. "If he seek long life, he should eat with his face to the east; if prosperity, to the west; if truth and its reward, to the north. "When the student is going to read the Veda he must perform an ablution, as the law ordains, with his face to the north; and having paid scriptural homage, he must receive instruction, wearing a clean vest, his members being duly composed. "A Brahman beginning and ending a lecture on the Veda must always pronounce to himself the syllable óm; for unless the syllable óm precede, his learning will slip away from him; and unless it follow, nothing will be long retained. "A priest who shall know the Veda, and shall pronounce to himself, both morning and evening, that syllable, and that holy text preceded by the three words, shall attain the sanctity which the Veda confers. "And a twice-born man, who shall a thousand times repeat those three (or óm, the vyáhrĭtis, and the gáyatri) apart from the multitude, shall be released in a month even from a great offence, as a snake from his slough. "The three great immutable words, preceded by the triliteral syllable, and followed by the gáyatri, which consists of three measures, must be considered as the mouth, or principal part of the Veda. "The triliteral monosyllable is an emblem of the Supreme; the suppressions of breath, with a mind fixed on God, are the highest devotion; but nothing is more exalted than the gáyatri; a declaration of truth is more excellent than silence. "All rites ordained in the Veda, oblations to fire, and solemn sacrifices pass away; but that which passes not away is declared to be the syllable óm, thence called acshara; since it is a symbol of God, the Lord of created beings. "The act of repeating his Holy Name is ten times better than the appointed sacrifice; an hundred times better when it is heard by no man; and a thousand times better when it is purely mental. "To a man contaminated by sensuality, neither the Vedas, nor liberality, nor sacrifices, nor strict observances, nor pious austerities, ever procure felicity. "As he who digs deep with a spade comes to a spring of water, so the student, who humbly serves his teacher, attains the knowledge which lies deep in his teacher's mind. "If the sun should rise and set, while he sleeps through sensual indulgence, and knows it not, he must fast a whole day repeating the gáyatri. "Let him adore God both at sunrise and at sunset, as the law ordains, having made his ablution, and keeping his organs controlled; and with fixed attention let him repeat the text, which he ought to repeat in a place free from impurity. "The twice-born man who shall thus without intermission have passed the time of his studentship shall ascend after death to the most exalted of regions, and no more again spring to birth in this lower world. " The following passages are from Book IV. , "On Private Morals":-- "Let a Brahman, having dwelt with a preceptor during the first quarter of a man's life, pass the second quarter of human life in his own house, when he has contracted a legal marriage. "He must live with no injury, or with the least possible injury, to animated beings, by pursuing those means of gaining subsistence, which are strictly prescribed by law, except in times of distress. "Let him say what is true, but let him say what is pleasing; let him speak no disagreeable truth, nor let him speak agreeable falsehood; this is a primeval rule. "Let him say 'well and good, ' or let him say 'well' only; but let him not maintain fruitless enmity and altercation with any man. "All that depends on another gives pain; and all that depends on himself gives pleasure; let him know this to be in few words the definition of pleasure and pain. "And for whatever purpose a man bestows a gift, for a similar purpose he shall receive, with due honor, a similar reward. "Both he who respectfully bestows a present, and he who respectfully accepts it, shall go to a seat of bliss; but, if they act otherwise, to a region of horror. "Let not a man be proud of his rigorous devotion; let him not, having sacrificed, utter a falsehood; let him not, though injured, insult a priest; having made a donation, let him never proclaim it. "By falsehood the sacrifice becomes vain; by pride the merit of devotion is lost; by insulting priests life is diminished; and by proclaiming a largess its fruit is destroyed. "For in his passage to the next world, neither his father, nor his mother, nor his wife, nor his son, nor his kinsmen will remain his company; his virtue alone will adhere to him. "Single is each man born; single he dies; single he receives the reward of his good, and single the punishment of his evil deeds. " From Book V. , "On Diet":-- "The twice-born man who has intentionally eaten a mushroom, the flesh of a tame hog, or a town cock, a leek, or an onion, or garlic, is degraded immediately. "But having undesignedly tasted either of those six things, he must perform the penance sántapana, or the chándráyana, which anchorites practise; for other things he must fast a whole day. "One of those harsh penances called prájápatya the twice-born man must perform annually, to purify him from the unknown taint of illicit food; but he must do particular penance for such food intentionally eaten. "He who injures no animated creature shall attain without hardship whatever he thinks of, whatever he strives for, whatever he fixes his mind on. "Flesh meat cannot be procured without injury to animals, and the slaughter of animals obstructs the path to beatitude; from flesh meat, therefore, let man abstain. "Attentively considering the formation of bodies, and the death or confinement of embodied spirits, let him abstain from eating flesh meat of any kind. "Not a mortal exists more sinful than he who, without an oblation to the manes or the gods, desires to enlarge his own flesh with the flesh of another creature. "By subsisting on pure fruit and on roots, and by eating such grains as are eaten by hermits, a man reaps not so high a reward as by carefully abstaining from animal food. "In lawfully tasting meat, in drinking fermented liquor, in caressing women, there is no turpitude; for to such enjoyments men are naturally prone, but a virtuous abstinence from them produces a signal compensation. "Sacred learning, austere devotion, fire, holy aliment, earth, the mind, water, smearing with cow-dung, air, prescribed acts of religion, the sun, and time are purifiers of embodied spirits. "But of all pure things purity in acquiring wealth is pronounced the most excellent; since he who gains wealth with clean hands is truly pure; not he who is purified merely with earth and water. "By forgiveness of injuries, the learned are purified; by liberality, those who have neglected their duty; by pious meditation, those who have secret faults; by devout austerity, those who best know the Veda. "Bodies are cleansed by water; the mind is purified by truth; the vital spirit, by theology and devotion; the understanding, by clear knowledge. "No sacrifice is allowed to women apart from their husbands, no religious rite, no fasting; as far only as a wife honors her lord, so far she is exalted in heaven. "A faithful wife, who wishes to attain in heaven the mansion of her husband, must do nothing unkind to him, be he living or dead. "Let her emaciate her body by living voluntarily on pure flowers, roots, and fruit; but let her not, when her lord is deceased, even pronounce the name of another man. "Let her continue till death forgiving all injuries, performing harsh duties, avoiding every sensual pleasure, and cheerfully practising the incomparable rules of virtue, which have been followed by such women as were devoted to one only husband. " The Sixth Book of the Laws of Manu relates to devotion. It seems that theBrahmans were in the habit of becoming ascetics, or, as the RomanCatholics would say, entering Religion. A Brahman, or twice-born man, whowishes to become an ascetic, must abandon his home and family, and go tolive in the forest. His food must be roots and fruit, his clothing a barkgarment or a skin, he must bathe morning and evening, and suffer his hairto grow. He must spend his time in reading the Veda, with a mind intent onthe Supreme Being, "a perpetual giver but no receiver of gifts; withtender affection for all animated bodies. " He is to perform varioussacrifices with offerings of fruits and flowers, practise austerities byexposing himself to heat and cold, and "for the purpose of uniting hissoul with the Divine Spirit he must study the Upanishads. " "A Brahman, having shuffled off his body by these modes, which great sages practise, and becoming void of sorrow and fear, it exalted into the divine essence. " "Let him not wish for death. Let him not wish for life. Let him expect his appointed time, as the hired servant expects his wages. " "Meditating on the Supreme Spirit, without any earthly desire, with no companion but his own soul, let him live in this world seeking the bliss of the next. " The anchorite is to beg food, but only once a day; if it is not given tohim, he must not be sorrowful, and if he receives it he must not be glad;he is to meditate on the "subtle indivisible essence of the SupremeBeing, " he is to be careful not to destroy the life of the smallestinsect, and he must make atonement for the death of those which he hasignorantly destroyed by making six suppressions of his breath, repeatingat the same time the triliteral syllable A U M. He will thus at lastbecome united with the Eternal Spirit, and his good deeds will beinherited by those who love him, and his evil deeds by those who hate him. The Seventh Book relates to the duties of rulers. One of these is toreward the good and punish the wicked. The genius of punishment is a sonof Brahma, and has a body of pure light. Punishment is an active ruler, governs all mankind, dispenses laws, preserves the race, and is theperfection of justice. Without it all classes would become corrupt, allbarriers would fall, and there would be total confusion. Kings are torespect the Brahmans, must shun vices, must select good counsellors andbrave soldiers. A King must be a father to his people. When he goes to warhe must observe the rules of honorable warfare, must not use poisonedarrows, strike a fallen enemy, nor one who sues for life, nor one withoutarms, nor one who surrenders. He is not to take too little revenue, and so"cut up his own root"; nor too much, and so "cut up the root of others";he is to be severe when it is necessary, and mild when it is necessary. The Eighth Book relates to civil and criminal law. The Raja is to hold hiscourt every day, assisted by his Brahmans, and decide causes concerningdebts and loans, sales, wages, contracts, boundaries, slander, assaults, larceny, robbery, and other crimes. The Raja, "understanding what isexpedient or inexpedient, but considering only what is law or not law, "should examine all disputes. He must protect unprotected women, restoreproperty to its rightful owner, not encourage litigation, and decideaccording to the rules of law. These rules correspond very nearly to ourlaw of evidence. Witnesses are warned to speak the truth in all cases bythe consideration that, though they may think that none see them, the godsdistinctly see them and also the spirit in their own breasts. "The soul itself is its own witness, the soul itself is its own refuge; offend not thy conscious soul, the supreme internal witness of men. " "The fruit of every virtuous act which thou hast done, O good man, since thy birth, shall depart from thee to the dogs, if thou deviate from the truth. " "O friend to virtue, the Supreme Spirit, which is the same with thyself, resides in thy bosom perpetually, and is an all-knowing inspector of thy goodness or wickedness. " The law then proceeds to describe the punishments which the gods wouldinflict upon false witnesses; but, curiously enough, allows false witnessto be given, from a benevolent motive, in order to save an innocent manfrom a tyrant. This is called "the venial sin of benevolent falsehood. "The book then proceeds to describe weights and measures, and the rate ofusury, which is put down as five percent. It forbids compound interest. The law of deposits occupies a large space, as in all Eastern countries, where investments are difficult. A good deal is said about the wages ofservants, especially of those hired to keep cattle, and theirresponsibilities. The law of slander is carefully laid down. Crimes ofviolence are also minutely described, and here the _Lex Talionis_ comesin. If a man strikes a human being or an animal so as to inflict muchpain, he shall be struck himself in the same way. A man is allowed tocorrect with a small stick his wife, son, or servant, but not on the heador any noble part of the body. The Brahmans, however, are protected byspecial laws. "Never shall the king flay a Brahman, though convicted of all possible crimes: let him banish the offender from his realm, but with all his property secure and his body unhurt. " "No greater crime is known on earth than flaying a Brahman; and the king, therefore, must not even form in his mind the idea of killing a priest. " The Ninth Book relates to women, to families, and to the law of castes. Itstates that women must be kept in a state of dependence. "Their fathers protect them in childhood; their husbands protect them in youth; their sons protect them in age. A woman is never fit for independence. " It is the duty of men to watch and guard women, and very unfavorableopinions are expressed concerning the female character. "Women have no business with the text of the Veda; this is fully settled; therefore having no knowledge of expiatory texts, sinful women must be as foul as falsehood itself. This is a fixed law. " It is, however, stated that good women become like goddesses, and shall bejoined with their husbands in heaven; and that a man is only perfect whenhe consists of three persons united, --his wife, himself, and his son. Manualso attributes to ancient Brahmans a maxim almost verbally the same asthat of the Bible, namely, "The husband is even one person with his wife. "Nothing is said by Manu concerning the cremation of widows, but, on theother hand, minute directions are given for the behavior of widows duringtheir life. Directions are also given concerning the marriage of daughtersand sons and their inheritance of property. The rest of the book isdevoted to a further description of crimes and punishments. The Tenth Book relates to the mixed classes and times of distress. The Eleventh Book relates to penance and expiation. In this book ismentioned the remarkable rite which consists in drinking the fermentedjuice of the moon-plant (or acid asclepias) with religious ceremonies. This Hindu sacrament began in the Vedic age, and the Sanhita of theSama-Veda consists of hymns to be sung at the moon-plant sacrifice. [51]This ceremony is still practised occasionally in India, and Dr. Hang hastasted this sacred beverage, which he describes as astringent, bitter, intoxicating, and very disagreeable. [52] It is stated by Manu that no onehas a right to drink this sacred juice who does not properly provide forhis own household. He encourages sacrifices by declaring that they arehighly meritorious and will expiate sin. Involuntary sins require a muchlighter penance than those committed with knowledge. Crimes committed byBrahmans require a less severe penance than those performed by others;while those committed against Brahmans involve a much deeper guilt andrequire severer penance. The law declares:-- "From his high birth alone a Brahman is an object of veneration, even to deities, and his declarations are decisive evidence. " "A Brahman, who has performed an expiation with his whole mind fixed on God, purifies his soul. " Drinking intoxicating liquor (except in the Soma sacrifice) is strictlyprohibited, and it is even declared that a Brahman who tastes intoxicatingliquor sinks to the low caste of a Sudra. If a Brahman who has tasted theSoma juice even smells the breath of a man who has been drinking spirits, he must do penance by repeating the Gayatri, suppressing his breath, andeating clarified butter. Next to Brahmans, cows were the objects ofreverence, probably because, in the earliest times, the Aryan race, asnomads, depended on this animal for food. He who kills a cow must performvery severe penances, among which are these:-- "All day he must wait on a herd of cows and stand quaffing the dust raised by their hoofs; at night, having servilely attended them, he must sit near and guard them. " "Free from passion, he must stand while they stand, follow when they move, and lie down near them when they lie down. " "By thus waiting on a herd for three months, he who has killed a cow atones for his guilt. " For such offences as cutting down fruit-trees or grasses, or killinginsects, or injuring sentient creatures, the penance is to repeat so manytexts of the Veda, to eat clarified butter, or to stop the breath. Alow-born man who treats a Brahman disrespectfully, or who even overcomeshim in argument, must fast all day and fall prostrate before him. He whostrikes a Brahman shall remain in hell a thousand years. Great, however, is the power of sincere devotion. By repentance, open confession, readingthe Scripture, almsgiving, and reformation, one is released from guilt. Devotion, it is said, is equal to the performance of all duties; and eventhe souls of worms and insects and vegetables attain heaven by the powerof devotion. But especially great is the sanctifying influence of theVedas. He who can repeat the whole of the Rig-Veda would be free fromguilt, even if he had killed the inhabitants of the three worlds. The last book of Manu is on transmigration and final beatitude. Theprinciple is here laid down that every human action, word, and thoughtbears its appropriate fruit, good or evil. Out of the heart proceed threesins of thought, four sins of the tongue, and three of the body, namely, covetous, disobedient, and atheistic thoughts; scurrilous, false, frivolous, and unkind words; and actions of theft, bodily injury, andlicentiousness. He who controls his thoughts, words, and actions is calleda triple commander. There are three qualities of the soul, giving it atendency to goodness, to passion, and to darkness. The first leads toknowledge, the second to desire, the third to sensuality. To the firstbelong study of Scripture, devotion, purity, self-command, and obedience. From the second proceed hypocritical actions, anxiety, disobedience, andself-indulgence. The third produces avarice, atheism, indolence, and everyact which a man is ashamed of doing. The object of the first quality isvirtue; of the second, worldly success; of the third, pleasure. The soulsin which the first quality is supreme rise after death to the condition ofdeities; those in whom the second rules pass into the bodies of othermen; while those under the dominion of the third become beasts andvegetables. Manu proceeds to expound, in great detail, this law oftransmigration. For great sins one is condemned to pass a great many timesinto the bodies of dogs, insects, spiders, snakes, or grasses. The changehas relation to the crime: thus, he who steals grain shall be born a rat;he who steals meat, a vulture; those who indulge in forbidden pleasures ofthe senses shall have their senses made acute to endure intense pain. The highest of all virtues is disinterested goodness, performed from thelove of God, and based on the knowledge of the Veda. A religious action, performed from hope of reward in this world or the next, will give one aplace in the lowest heaven. But he who performs good actions without hopeof reward, "perceiving the supreme soul in all beings, and all beings inthe supreme soul, fixing his mind on God, approaches the divine nature. " "Let every Brahman, with fixed attention, consider all nature as existing in the Divine Spirit; all worlds as seated in him; he alone as the whole assemblage of gods; and he the author of all human actions. " "Let him consider the supreme omnipresent intelligence as the sovereign lord of the universe, by whom alone it exists, an incomprehensible spirit; pervading all beings in five elemental forms, and causing them to pass through birth, growth, and decay, and so to revolve like the wheels of a car. " "Thus the man who perceives in his own soul the supreme soul present in all creatures, acquires equanimity toward them all, and shall be absolved at last in the highest essence, even that of the Almighty himself. " We have given these copious extracts from the Brahmanic law, because thiscode is so ancient and authentic, and contains the bright consummateflower of the system, before decay began to come. § 6. The Three Hindoo Systems of Philosophy, --Sánkhya, Vedanta, and Nyasa. Duncker says[53] that the Indian systems of philosophy were produced inthe sixth or seventh century before Christ. As the system of Buddhaimplies the existence of the Sánkhya philosophy, the latter must havepreceded Buddhism. [54] Moreover, Kapila and his two principles aredistinctly mentioned in the Laws of Manu, [55] and in the laterUpanishads. [56] This brings it to the Brahmana period of Max Müller, B. C. 600 to B. C. 800, and probably still earlier. Dr. Weber at one time was ofthe opinion that Kapila and Buddha were the same person, but afterwardretracted this opinion. [57] Colebrooke says that Kapila is mentioned inthe Veda itself, but intimates that this is probably another sage of thesame name. [58] The sage was even considered to be an incarnation ofVischnu, or of Agni. The Vedanta philosophy is also said by Lassen to bementioned in the Laws of Manu. [59] This system is founded on theUpanishads, and would seem to be later than that of Kapila, since itcriticises his system, and devotes much space to its confutation. [60] ButDuncker regards it as the oldest, and already beginning in the Upanishadsof the Vedas. [61] As the oldest works now extant in both systems are laterthan their origin, this question of date can only be determined from theircontents. That which logically precedes the other must be chronologicallythe oldest. The Sánkhya system of Kapila is contained in many works, but notably inthe Káriká, or Sánkhya-Káriká, by Iswara Krishna. This consists ineighty-two memorial verses, with a commentary. [62] The Vedanta iscontained in the Sutras, the Upanishads, and especially the Brahma-Sutraattributed to Vyasa. [63] The Nyaya is to be found in the Sutras of Gotamaand Canade. [64] These three systems of Hindoo philosophy, the Sánkhya, the Nyaya, and theVedanta, reach far back into a misty twilight, which leaves it doubtfulwhen they began or who were their real authors. In some points they agree, in others they are widely opposed. They all agree in having for theirobject deliverance from the evils of time, change, sorrow, into an eternalrest and peace. Their aim is, therefore, not merely speculative, butpractical. All agree in considering existence to be an evil, understandingby existence a life in time and space. All are idealists, to whom theworld of sense and time is a delusion and snare, and who regard the Ideaas the only substance. All agree in accepting the fact of transmigration, the cessation of which brings final deliverance. All consider that themeans of this deliverance is to be found in knowledge, in a perfectknowledge of reality as opposed to appearance. And all are held byBrahmans, who consider themselves orthodox, who honor the Vedas above allother books, pay complete respect to the Hinduism of the day, perform thedaily ceremonies, and observe the usual caste rules. [65] The systems ofphilosophy supplement the religious worship, but are not intended todestroy it. The Vedantists hold that while in truth there is but one God, the various forms of worship in the Vedas, of Indra, Agni, the Maruts, etc. , were all intended for those who could not rise to this sublimemonotheism. Those who believe in the Sánkhya maintain that though itwholly omits God, and is called "the system without a God, " it merelyomits, but does not deny, the Divine existence. [66] Each of these philosophies has a speculative and a practical side. Thespeculative problem is, How did the universe come? The practical problemis, How shall man be delivered from evil? In answering the first question, the Vedanta, or Mimansa doctrine, proceeds from a single eternal and uncreated Principle; declaring thatthere is only ONE being in the universe, God or Brahm, and that all elseis Maya, or illusion. The Sankhya accepts TWO eternal and uncreatedsubstances, Soul and Nature. The Nyaya assumes THREE eternal and uncreatedsubstances, --Atoms, Souls, and God. The solution of the second problem is the same in all three systems. It isby knowledge that the soul is emancipated from body or matter or nature. Worship is inadequate, though not to be despised. Action is injuriousrather than beneficial, for it implies desire. Only knowledge can lead toentire rest and peace. According to all three systems, the transmigration of the soul throughdifferent bodies is an evil resulting from desire. As long as the soulwishes anything, it will continue to migrate and to suffer. When itgathers itself up into calm insight, it ceases to wander and finds repose. The _Vedanta_ or _Mimansa_ is supposed to be referred to in Manu. [67]_Mimansa_ means "searching. " In its logical forms it adopts the method socommon among the scholastics, in first stating the question, then givingthe objection, after that the reply to the objection, and lastly theconclusion. The first part of the Mimansa relates to worship and theceremonies and ritual of the Veda. The second part teaches the doctrine ofBrahma. Brahma is the one, eternal, absolute, unchangeable Being. Heunfolds into the universe as Creator and Created. He becomes first ether, then air, then fire, then water, then earth. From these five elements allbodily existence proceeds. Souls are sparks from the central fire ofBrahma, separated for a time, to be absorbed again at last. Brahma, in his highest form as Para-Brahm, stands for the Absolute Being. The following extract from the Sáma-Veda (after Haug's translation)expresses this: "The generation of Brahma was before all ages, unfoldinghimself evermore in a beautiful glory; everything which is highest andeverything which is deepest belongs to him. Being and Not-Being areunveiled through Brahma. " The following passage is from a Upanishad, translated by Windischmann:-- "How can any one teach concerning Brahma? he is neither the known nor theunknown. That which cannot be expressed by words, but through which allexpression comes, this I know to be Brahma. That which cannot be thoughtby the mind, but by which all thinking comes, this I know is Brahma. Thatwhich cannot be seen by the eye, but by which the eye sees, is Brahma. Ifthou thinkest that thou canst know it, then in truth thou knowest it verylittle. To whom it is unknown, he knows it; but to whom it is known, heknows it not. " This also is from Windischmann, from the Kathaka Upanishad: "One cannotattain to it through the word, through the mind, or through the eye. It isonly reached by him who says, 'It is! It is!' He perceives it in itsessence. Its essence appears when one perceives it as it is. " The old German expression _Istigkeit_, according to Bunsen, corresponds tothis. This also is the name of Jehovah as given to Moses from the burningbush: "And God said unto Moses, I AM THE I AM. Thus shalt thou say untothe children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. " The idea is that Godalone really exists, and that the root of all being is in him. This isexpressed in another Upanishad: "HE WHO EXISTS is the root of allcreatures; he WHO EXISTS is their foundation, and in him they rest. " In the Vedanta philosophy this speculative pantheism is carried further. Thus speaks Sankara, the chief teacher of the Vedanta philosophy("Colebrooke's Essays"): "I am the great Brahma, eternal, pure, free, one, constant, happy, existing without end. He who ceases to contemplate otherthings, who retires into solitude, annihilates his desires, and subjectshis passions, he understands that Spirit is the One and the Eternal. Thewise man annihilates all sensible things in spiritual things, andcontemplates that one Spirit who resembles pure space. Brahma is withoutsize, quality, character, or division. " According to this philosophy (says Bunsen) the world is the Not-Being. Itis, says Sankara, "appearance without Being; it is like the deception of adream. " "The soul itself, " he adds, "has no actual being. " There is an essay on Vedantism in a book published in Calcutta, 1854, by ayoung Hindoo, Shoshee Chunder Dutt, which describes the creation asproceeding from Maya, in this way: "Dissatisfied with his own solitude, Brahma feels a desire to create worlds, and then the volition ceases sofar as he is concerned, and he sinks again into his apathetic happiness, while the desire, thus willed into existence, assumes an active character. It becomes Maya, and by this was the universe created, without exertion onthe part of Brahma. This passing wish of Brahma carried, however, noreality with it. And the creation proceeding from it is only an illusion. There is only one absolute Unity really existing, and existing withoutplurality. But he is like one asleep. Krishna, in the Gita, says: 'Theseworks (the universe) confine not me, for I am like one who sitteth aloofuninterested in them all. ' The universe is therefore all illusion, holdinga position between something and nothing. It is real as an illusion, butunreal as being. It is not true, because it has no essence; but not false, because its existence, even as illusion, is from God. The Vedantadeclares: 'From the highest state of Brahma to the lowest condition of astraw, all things are delusion. '" Chunder Dutt, however, contradictsBunsen's assertion that the soul also is an illusion according to theVedanta. "The soul, " he says, "is not subject to birth or death, but is inits substance, from Brahma himself. " The truth seems to be that theVedanta regards the individuation of the soul as from Maya and illusive, but the substance of the soul is from Brahma, and destined to be absorbedinto him. As the body of man is to be resolved into its material elements, so the soul of man is to be resolved into Brahma. This substance of thesoul is neither born nor dies, nor is it a thing of which it can be said, "It was, is, or shall be. " In the Gita, Krishna tells Arjun that he andthe other princes of the world "never were not. "[68] The Vedantist philosopher, however, though he considers all souls asemanations from God, does not believe that all of them will return intoGod at death. Those only who have obtained a knowledge of God are rewardedby absorption, but the rest continue to migrate from body to body so longas they remain unqualified for the same. "The knower of God becomes God. "This union with the Deity is the total loss of personal identity, and isthe attainment of the highest bliss, in which are no grades and from whichis no return. This absorption comes not from good works or penances, forthese confine the soul and do not liberate it. "The confinement of fettersis the same whether the chain be of gold or iron. " "The knowledge whichrealizes that everything is Brahm alone liberates the soul. It annuls theeffect both of our virtues and vices. We traverse thereby both merit anddemerit, the heart's knot is broken, all doubts are split, and all ourworks perish. Only by perfect abstraction, not merely from the senses, butalso from the thinking intellect and by remaining in the knowingintellect, does the devotee become identified with Brahm. He then remainsas pure glass when the shadow has left it. He lives destitute of passionsand affections. He lives sinless; for as water wets not the leaf of thelotus, so sin touches not him who knows God. " He stands in no further needof virtue, for "of what use can be a winnowing fan when the sweet southernwind is blowing. " His meditations are of this sort: "I am Brahm, I amlife. I am everlasting, perfect, self-existent, undivided, joyful. " If therefore, according to this system, knowledge alone unites the soul toGod, the question comes, Of what use are acts of virtue, penances, sacrifices, worship? The answer is, that they effect a happytransmigration from the lower forms of bodily life to higher ones. Theydo not accomplish the great end, which is absorption and escape from Maya, but they prepare the way for it by causing one to be born in a highercondition. The second system of philosophy, the Sánkhya of Kapila, is founded not onone principle, like the Vedanta, but on two. According to the seventyaphorisms, Nature is one of these principles. It is uncreated and eternal. It is one, active, creating, non-intelligent. The other of the twoprinciples, also uncreated and eternal, is Soul, or rather Souls. Soulsare many, passive, not creative, intelligent, and in all things theopposite to Nature. But from the union of the two all the visible universeproceeds, according to the law of cause and effect. God not being recognized in this system, it is often called atheism. Itsargument, to show that no one perfect being could create the universe, isthis. Desire implies want, or imperfection. Accordingly, if God desired tocreate, he would be unable to do so; if he was able, he would not desireto do it. In neither case, therefore, could God have created the universe. The gods are spoken of by the usual names, Brahma, Indra, etc. , but areall finite beings, belonging to the order of human souls, though superior. Every soul is clothed in two bodies, --the interior original body, theindividualizing force, which is eternal as itself and accompanies itthrough all its migrations; and the material, secondary body, made of thefive elements, ether, air, fire, water, and earth. The original body issubtile and spiritual. It is the office of Nature to liberate the Soul. Nature is not what we perceive by the senses, but an invisible plasticprinciple behind, which must be known by the intellect. As the Soulascends by goodness, it is freed by knowledge. The final result of thisemancipation is the certainty of non-existence, --"neither I am, nor isaught mine, nor do I exist, "--which seems to be the same result as that ofHegel, Being = Not-Being. Two or three of the aphorisms of the Karika areas follows:-- "LIX. As a dancer, having exhibited herself to the spectator, desists from the dance, so does Nature desist, having manifested herself to the Soul. " "LX. Generous Nature, endued with qualities, does by manifold means accomplish, without benefit (to herself), the wish of ungrateful Soul, devoid of qualities. " "LXI. Nothing, in my opinion, is more gentle than Nature; once aware of having been seen, she does not again expose herself to the gaze of Soul. " "LXVI. Soul desists, because it has seen Nature. Nature desists, because she has been seen. In their (mere) union there is no motive for creation. " Accordingly, the result of knowledge is to put an end to creation, and toleave the Soul emancipated from desire, from change, from the materialbody, in a state which is Being, but not Existence (_esse, _ not_existere_; Seyn, not Da-seyn). This Sánkhya philosophy becomes of great importance, when we consider thatit was the undoubted source of Buddhism. This doctrine which we have beendescribing was the basis of Buddhism. [69] M. Cousin has called it the sensualism of India, [70] but certainly withoutpropriety. It is as purely ideal a doctrine as that of the Vedas. Its twoeternal principles are both ideal. The plastic force which is one of them, Kapila distinctly declares cannot be perceived by the senses. [71] Soul, the other eternal and uncreated principle, who "is witness, solitary, bystander, spectator, and passive, "[72] is not only spiritual itself, butis clothed with a spiritual body, within the material body. In fact, theKarika declares the material universe to be the result of the contact ofthe Soul with Nature, and consists in chains with which Nature bindsherself, for the purpose (unconscious) of delivering the Soul. When by aprocess of knowledge the Soul looks through these, and perceives theultimate principle beyond, the material universe ceases, and both Soul andNature are emancipated. [73] One of the definitions of the Karika will call to mind the fourfolddivision of the universe by the great thinker of the ninth century, Erigena. In his work, περὶ φύσεως μερισμοῦ he asserts that there is, (1. )A Nature which creates and is not created. (2. ) A Nature which is createdand creates. (3. ) A Nature which is created and does not create. (4. ) ANature which neither creates nor is created. So Kapila (Karika, 3) says, "Nature, the root of all things, is productive but not a production. Sevenprinciples are productions and productive. Sixteen are productions but notproductive. Soul is neither a production nor productive. " Mr. Muir (Sanskrit Texts, Part III. P. 96) quotes the following passagesin proof of the antiquity of Kapila, and the respect paid to his doctrinein very early times:-- _Svet. Upanishad. _ "The God who superintends every mode of production and all forms, who formerly nourished with various knowledge his son Kapila the rishi, and beheld him at his birth. " "_Bhagavat Purana_ (I. 3, 10) makes Kapila an incarnation of Vischnu. In his fifth incarnation, in the form of Kapila, he declared to Asuri the Sankhya which defines the collection of principles. "_Bhagavat Purana_ (IX. 8, 12) relates that Kapila, being attacked by the sons of King Sangara, destroyed them with fire which issued from his body. But the author of the Purana denies that this was done in _anger_. 'How could the sage, by whom the strong ship of the Sankhya was launched, on which the man seeking emancipation crosses the ocean of existence, entertain the distinction of friend and foe'?" The Sánkhya system is also frequently mentioned in the Mahabarata. The Nyaya system differs from that of Kapila, by assuming a third eternaland indestructible principle as the basis of matter, namely, _Atoms_. Italso assumes the existence of a Supreme Soul, Brahma, who is almighty andallwise. It agrees with Kapila in making all souls eternal, and distinctfrom body. Its evil to be overcome is the same, namely, transmigration;and its method of release is the same, namely _Buddhï_, or knowledge. Itis a more dialectic system than the others, and is rather of the nature ofa logic than a philosophy. Mr. Banerjea, in his Dialogues on the Hindu philosophy, considers theBuddhists' system as closely resembling the Nyaya system. He regards theBuddhist Nirvana as equivalent to the emancipation of the Nyaya system. Apavarga, or emancipation, is declared in this philosophy to be finaldeliverance from pain, birth, activity, fault, and false notions. Even sothe Pali doctrinal books speak of Nirvana as an exemption from old age, disease, and death. In it desire, anger, and ignorance are consumed by thefire of knowledge. Here all selfish distinctions of mine and thine, allevil thoughts, all slander and jealousy, are cut down by the weapon ofknowledge. Here we have an experience of immortality which is cessation ofall trouble and perfect felicity. [74] § 7. Origin of the Hindoo Triad. There had gradually grown up among the people a worship founded on that ofthe ancient Vedas. In the West of India, the god RUDRA, mentioned in theVedic hymns, had been transformed into Siva. In the Rig-Veda Rudra issometimes the name for Agni. [75] He is described as father of the winds. He is the same as Maha-deva. He is fierce and beneficent at once. Hepresides over medicinal plants. According to Weber (Indische Stud. , II. 19) he is the Storm-God. The same view is taken by Professor Whitney. [76]But his worship gradually extended, until, under the name of Siva, theDestroyer, he became one of the principal deities of India. Meantime, inthe valley of the Ganges, a similar devotion had grown up for the Vedicgod VISCHNU, who in like manner had been promoted to the chief rank in theHindoo Pantheon. He had been elevated to the character of a Friend andProtector, gifted with mild attributes, and worshipped as the life ofNature. By accepting the popular worship, the Brahmans were able to opposeBuddhism with success. We have no doubt that the Hindoo Triad came from the effort of theBrahmans to unite all India in one worship, and it may for a time havesucceeded. Images of the Trimurtti, or three-faced God, are frequent inIndia, and this is still the object of Brahmanical worship. But besidethis practical motive, the tendency of thought is always toward a triad oflaw, force, or elemental substance, as the best explanation of theuniverse. Hence there have been Triads in so many religions: in Egypt, of_Osiris_ the Creator, _Typhon_ the Destroyer, and _Horus_ the Preserver;in Persia, of _Ormazd_ the Creator, _Ahriman_ the Destroyer, and _Mithra_the Restorer; in Buddhism, of _Buddha_ the Divine Man, _Dharmma_ the Word, and _Sangha_ the Communion of Saints. Simple monotheism does not longsatisfy the speculative intellect, because, though it accounts for theharmonies of creation, it leaves its discords unexplained. But a dualismof opposing forces is found still more unsatisfactory, for the world doesnot appear to be such a scene of utter warfare and discord as this. So themind comes to accept a Triad, in which the unities of life and growthproceed from one element, the antagonisms from a second, and the higherharmonies of reconciled oppositions from a third. The Brahmanical Triadarose in the same way. [77] Thus grew up, from amid the spiritual pantheism into which all Hindooreligion seemed to have settled, another system, that of the Trimurtti, orDivine Triad; the Indian Trinity of _Brahma, Vischnu_, and _Siva_. ThisTriad expresses the unity of Creation, Destruction, and Restoration. Afoundation for this already existed in a Vedic saying, that the highestbeing exists in three states, that of creation, continuance, anddestruction. Neither of these three supreme deities of Brahmanism held any high rank inthe Vedas. Siva (Çiva) does not appear therein at all, nor, according toLassen, is Brahma mentioned in the Vedic hymns, but first in a Upanishad. Vischnu is spoken of in the Rig-Veda, but always as one of the names forthe sun. He is the Sun-God. His three steps are sunrise, noon, and sunset. He is mentioned as one of the sons of Aditi; he is called the"wide-stepping, " "measurer of the world, " "the strong, " "the deliverer, ""renewer of life, " "who sets in motion the revolutions of time, " "aprotector, " "preserving the highest heaven. " Evidently he begins hiscareer in this mythology as the sun. BRAHMA, at first a word meaning prayer and devotion, becomes in the lawsof Manu the primal God, first-born of the creation, from the self-existentbeing, in the form of a golden egg. He became the creator of all things bythe power of prayer. In the struggle for ascendency which took placebetween the priests and the warriors, Brahma naturally became the deity ofthe former. But, meantime, as we have seen, the worship of Vischnu hadbeen extending itself in one region and that of Siva in another. Then tookplace those mysterious wars between the kings of the Solar and Lunarraces, of which the great epics contain all that we know. And at the closeof these wars a compromise was apparently accepted, by which Brahma, Vischnu, and Siva were united in one supreme God, as creator, preserver, and destroyer, all in one. It is almost certain that this Hindoo Triad was the result of an ingeniousand successful attempt, on the part of the Brahmans, to unite all classesof worshippers in India against the Buddhists. In this sense the Brahmansedited anew the Mahabharata, inserting in that epic passages extollingVischnu in the form of Krishna. The Greek accounts of India which followedthe invasion of Alexander speak of the worship of Hercules as prevalentin the East, and by Hercules they apparently mean the god Krishna. [78]The struggle between the Brahmans and Buddhists lasted during ninecenturies (from A. D. 500 to A. D. 1400), ending with the total expulsion ofBuddhism, and the triumphant establishment of the Triad, as the worship ofIndia. [79] Before this Triad or Trimurtti (of Brahma, Vischnu, and Siva) there seemsto have been another, consisting of Agni, Indra, and Surya. [80] This mayhave given the hint of the second Triad, which distributed among the threegods the attributes of Creation, Destruction, and Renovation. Of theseBrahma, the Creator, ceased soon to be popular, and the worship of Sivaand Vischnu as Krishna remain as the popular religion of India. One part, and a very curious one, of the worship of Vischnu is thedoctrine of the Avatars, or incarnations of that deity. There are ten ofthese Avatars, --nine have passed and one is to come. The object of Vischnuis, each time, to save the gods from destruction impending over them inconsequence of the immense power acquired by some king, giant, or demon, by superior acts of austerity and piety. For here, as elsewhere, extremespiritualism is often divorced from morality; and so these extremelypious, spiritual, and self-denying giants are the most cruel andtyrannical monsters, who must be destroyed at all hazards. Vischnu, byforce or fraud, overcomes them all. His first Avatar is of the Fish, as related in the Mahabharata. The objectwas to recover the Vedas, which had been stolen by a demon from Brahmawhen asleep. In consequence of this loss the human race became corrupt, and were destroyed by a deluge, except a pious prince and seven holy menwho were saved in a ship. Vischnu, as a large fish, drew the ship safelyover the water, killed the demon, and recovered the Vedas. The secondAvatar was in a Turtle, to make the drink of immortality. The third was ina Boar, the fourth in a Man-Lion, the fifth in the Dwarf who deceivedBali, who had become so powerful by austerities as to conquer the godsand take possession of Heaven. In the eighth Avatar he appears as Krishnaand in the ninth as Buddha. This system of Avatars is so peculiar and so deeply rooted in the system, that it would seem to indicate some law of Hindoo thought. Perhaps someexplanation may be reached thus:-- We observe that, -- Vischnu does not mediate between Brahma and Siva, but between the deitiesand the lower races of men or demons. The danger arises from a certain fate or necessity which is superior bothto gods and men. There are laws which enable a man to get away from thepower of Brahma and Siva. But what is this necessity but nature, or the nature of things, the lawsof the outward world of active existences? It is not till essence becomesexistence, till spirit passes into action, that it becomes subject to law. The danger then is from the world of nature. The gods are pure spirit, andspirit is everything. But, now and then, nature _seems to be something_, it will not be ignored or lost in God. Personality, activity, or humannature rebel against the pantheistic idealism, the abstract spiritualismof this system. To conquer body, Vischnu or spirit enters into body, again and again. Spirit must appear as body to destroy Nature. For thus is shown thatspirit cannot be excluded from anything, --that it can descend into thelowest forms of life, and work _in_ law as well as above law. But all the efforts of Brahmanism could not arrest the natural developmentof the system. It passed on into polytheism and idolatry. The worship ofIndia for many centuries has been divided into a multitude of sects. Whilethe majority of the Brahmans still profess to recognize the equal divinityof Brahma, Vischnu, and Siva, the mass of the people worship Krishna, Rama, the Lingam, and many other gods and idols. There are Hindoo atheistswho revile the Vedas; there are the Kabirs, who are a sort of HindooQuakers, and oppose all worship; the _Ramanujas_, an ancient sect ofVischnu worshippers; the _Ramavats_, living in monasteries; the _Panthis_, who oppose all austerities; the _Maharajas_, whose religion consists withgreat licentiousness. Most of these are worshippers of Vischnu or of Siva, for Brahma-worship has wholly disappeared. § 8. The Epics, the Puranas, and modern Hindoo Worship. The Hindoos have two great epics, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, eachof immense length, and very popular with the people. Mr. Talboys Wheelerhas recently incorporated both epics (of course much abridged) into hisHistory of India, and we must refer our readers to his work for aknowledge of these remarkable poems. The whole life of ancient Indiaappears in them, and certainly they are not unworthy products of thegenius of that great nation. According to Lassen, [81] the period to which the great Indian epics referfollows directly on the Vedic age. Yet they contain passages inserted at amuch later epoch, probably, indeed, as long after as the war which endedin the expulsion of the Buddhists from India. [82] Mr. Talboys Wheelerconsiders the war of Rama and the Monkeys against Ravana to refer to thisconflict, and so makes the Ramayana later than the Mahabharata. Themajority of writers, however, differ from him on this point. The writersof the Mahabharata were evidently Brahmans, educated under the laws ofManu. [83] But it is very difficult to fix the date of either poem with anyapproach to accuracy. Lassen has proved that the greater part of theMahabharata was written before the political establishment ofBuddhism. [84] These epics were originally transmitted by oral tradition. They must have been brought to their present forms by Brahmans, for theirdoctrine is that of this priesthood. Now if such poems had been composedafter the time of Asoka, when Buddhism became a state religion in India, it must have been often referred to. No such references appear in theseepics, except in some solitary passages, which are evidently modernadditions. [85] Hence the epics must have been composed before the time ofBuddhism. This argument of Lassen's is thought by Max Müller to beconclusive, and if so it disproves Mr. Talboys Wheeler's view of thepurpose of the Ramayana. Few Hindoos now read the Vedas. The Puranas and the two great epicsconstitute their sacred books. The Ramayana contains about fifty thousandlines, and is held in great veneration by the Hindoos. It describes theyouth of Rama, who is an incarnation of Vischnu, his banishment andresidence in Central India, and his war with the giants and demons of theSouth, to recover his wife, Sita. It probably is founded on some real warbetween the early Aryan invaders of Hindostan and the indigenousinhabitants. The Mahabharata, which is probably of later date, contains about twohundred and twenty thousand lines, and is divided into eighteen books, each of which would make a large volume. It is supposed to have beencollected by Vyasa, who also collected the Vedas and Puranas. Theselegends are very old, and seem to refer to the early history of India. There appear to have been two Aryan dynasties in ancient India, --the Solarand Lunar. Rama belonged to the first and Bharata to the second. Pandu, adescendant of the last, has five brave sons, who are the heroes of thisbook. One of them, Arjuna, is especially distinguished. One of theepisodes is the famous Bhagavat-gita. Another is called the Brahman'sLament. Another describes the deluge, showing the tradition of a floodexisting in India many centuries before Christ. Another gives the story ofSavitri and Satyavan. These episodes occupy three fourths of the poem, andfrom them are derived most of the legends of the Puranas. A supplement, which is itself a longer poem than the Iliad and Odyssey combined (whichtogether contain about thirty thousand lines), is the source of the modernworship of Krishna. The whole poem represents the multilateral characterof Hinduism. It indicates a higher degree of civilization than that of theHomeric poems, and describes a vast variety of fruits and flowers existingunder culture. The characters are nobler and purer than those of Homer. The pictures of domestic and social life are very touching; children aredutiful to their parents, parents careful of their children; wives areloyal and obedient, yet independent in their opinions; and peace reigns inthe domestic circle. The different works known as the Puranas are derived from the samereligious system as the two epics. They repeat the cosmogony of the poems, and they relate more fully their mythological legends. Siva and Vischnuare almost the sole objects of worship in the Puranas. There is asectarian element in their devotion to these deities which shows theirpartiality, and prevents them from being authorities for Hindoo belief asa whole. [86] The Puranas, in their original form, belong to a period, says Mr. Wilson, a century before the Christian era. They grew out of the conflict betweenBuddhism and Brahmanism. The latter system had offered no personal gods tothe people and given them no outward worship, and the masses had beenuninterested in the abstract view of Deity held by the Brahmans. [87] According to Mr. Wilson, [88] there are eighteen Puranas which are now readby the common people. They are read a great deal by women. Some are veryancient, or at least contain fragments of more ancient Puranas. The veryword signifies "antiquity. " Most of them are devoted to the worship ofVischnu. According to the Bhagavat Purana, [89] the only reasonable objectof life is to meditate on Vischnu. Brahma, who is called in one place"the cause of causes, " proclaims Vischnu to be the only pure absoluteessence, of which the universe is the manifestation. In the VischnuPurana, Brahma, at the head of the gods, adores Vischnu as the SupremeBeing whom he himself cannot understand. The power of ascetic penances is highly extolled in the Puranas, as alsoin the epics. In the Bhagavat it is said that Brahma, by a penitence ofsixteen thousand years, created the universe. It is even told in theRamayana, that a sage of a lower caste became a Brahman by dint ofausterities, in spite of the gods who considered such a confusion ofcastes a breach of Hindoo etiquette. [90] To prevent him from continuinghis devotions, they sent a beautiful nymph to tempt him, and theirdaughter was the famous Sakuntala. But in the end, the obstinate oldascetic conquered the gods, and when they still refused to Brahmanize him, he began to create new heavens and new gods, and had already made a fewstars, when the deities thought it prudent to yield, and allowed him tobecome a Brahman. It is also mentioned that the Ganges, the sacred river, in the course of her wanderings, overflowed the sacrificial ground ofanother powerful ascetic, who incontinently drank up, in his anger, allits waters, but was finally induced by the persuasions of the gods to setthe river free again by discharging it from his ears. Such were the freaksof sages in the times of the Puranas. Never was there a more complete example of piety divorced from moralitythan in these theories. The most wicked demons acquire power over gods andmen, by devout asceticism. This principle is already fully developed inthe epic poems. The plot of the Ramayana turns around this idea. A Rajah, Ravana, had become so powerful by sacrifice and devotion, that heoppressed the gods; compelled Yama (or Death) to retire from hisdominions; compelled the sun to shine there all the year, and the moon tobe always full above his Raj. Agni (Fire) must not burn in his presence;the Maruts (Winds) must blow only as he wishes. He cannot be hurt by godsor demons. So Vischnu becomes incarnate as Rama and the gods becomeincarnate as Monkeys, in order to destroy him. Such vast power wassupposed to be attained by piety without morality. The Puranas are derived from the same system as the epic poems, and carryout further the same ideas. Siva and Vischnu are almost the only gods whoare worshipped, and they are worshipped with a sectarian zeal unknown tothe epics. Most of the Puranas contain these five topics, --Creation, Destruction and Renovation, the Genealogy of the gods, Reigns of theManus, and History of the Solar and Lunar races. Their philosophy ofcreation is derived from the Sánknya philosophy. Pantheism is one of theirinvariable characteristics, as they always identify God and Nature; andherein they differ from the system of Kapila. The form of the Puranas isalways that of a dialogue. The Puranas are eighteen in number, and thecontents of the whole are stated to be one million six hundred thousandlines. [91] The religion of the Hindoos at the present time is very different fromthat of the Vedas or Manu. Idolatry is universal, and every month has itsspecial worship, --April, October, and January being most sacred. Aprilbegins the Hindoo year. During this sacred month bands of singers go fromhouse to house, early in the morning, singing hymns to the gods. On the1st of April Hindoos of all castes dedicate pitchers to the shades oftheir ancestors. The girls bring flowers with which to worship littleponds of water dedicated to Siva. Women adore the river Ganges, bathing init and offering it flowers. They also walk in procession round the banyanor sacred tree. Then they worship the cow, pouring water on her feet andputting oil on her forehead. Sometimes they take a vow to feed someparticular Brahman luxuriously during the whole month. They bathe theiridols with religious care every day and offer them food. This lasts duringApril and then stops. In May the women of India worship a goddess friendly to little babies, named Shus-ty. They bring the infants to be blessed by some venerablewoman before the image of the goddess, whose messenger is a cat. Socialparties are also given on these occasions, although the lower castes arekept distinct at four separate tables. The women also, not being allowedto meet with the men at such times, have a separate entertainment bythemselves. The month of June is devoted to the bath of Jugger-naut, who was one ofthe incarnations of Vischnu. The name, Jugger-naut, means Lord of theUniverse. His worship is comparatively recent. His idols are extremelyugly. But the most remarkable thing perhaps about this worship is that itdestroys, for the time, the distinction of castes. While within the wallswhich surround the temple Hindoos of every caste eat together from thesame dish. But as soon as they leave the temple this equality disappears. The ceremony of the bath originated in this legend. The idol Jugger-naut, desiring to bathe in the Ganges, came in the form of a boy to the river, and then gave one of his golden ornaments to a confectioner for somethingto eat. Next day the ornament was missing, and the priests could find itnowhere. But that night in a dream the god revealed to a priest that hehad given it to a certain confectioner to pay for his lunch; and it beingfound so, a festival was established on the spot, at which the idol isannually bathed. The other festival of this month is the worship of the Ganges, the sacredriver of India. Here the people come to bathe and to offer sacrifices, which consist of flowers, incense, and clothes. The most sacred spot iswhere the river enters the sea. Before plunging into the water each oneconfesses his sins to the goddess. On the surface of this river castes arealso abolished, the holiness of the river making the low-caste man alsoholy. In the month of July is celebrated the famous ceremony of the car ofJugger-naut, instituted to commemorate the departure of Krishna from hisnative land. These cars are in the form of a pyramid, built severalstories high, and some are even fifty feet in height. They are found inevery part of India, the offerings of wealthy people, and some containcostly statues. They are drawn by hundreds of men, it being their faiththat each one who pulls the rope will certainly go to the heaven ofKrishna when he dies. Multitudes, therefore, crowd around the rope inorder to pull, and in the excitement they sometimes fall under the wheelsand are crushed. But this is accidental, for Krishna does not desire thesuffering of his worshippers. He is a mild divinity, and not like thefierce Siva, who loves self-torture. In the month of August is celebrated the nativity of Krishna, the story ofwhose birth resembles that in the Gospel in this, that the tyrant whom hecame to destroy sought to kill him, but a heavenly voice told the fatherto fly with the child across the Jumna, and the tyrant, like Herod, killedthe infants in the village. In this month also is a feast upon which nofire must be kindled or food cooked, and on which the cactus-tree andserpents are worshipped. . In September is the great festival of the worship of Doorga, wife of Siva. It commences on the seventh day of the full moon and lasts three days. Itcommemorates a visit made by the goddess to her parents. The idol hasthree eyes and ten hands. The ceremony, which is costly, can only becelebrated by the rich people, who also give presents on this occasion tothe poor. The image is placed in the middle of the hall of the rich man'shouse. One Brahman sits before the image with flowers, holy water, incense. Trays laden with rice, fruit, and other kinds of food are placednear the image, and given to the Brahmans. Goats and sheep are thensacrificed to the idol on an altar in the yard of the house. When the headof the victim falls the people shout, "Victory to thee, O mother!" Thenthe bells ring, the trumpets sound, and the people shout for joy. Thelamps are waved before the idol, and a Brahman reads aloud from theScripture. Then comes a dinner on each of the three days, to which thepoor and the low-caste people are also invited and are served by theBrahmans. The people visit from house to house, and in the evening thereis music, dancing, and public shows. So that the worship of the Hindoosis by no means all of it ascetic, but much is social and joyful, especially in Bengal. In October, November, and December there are fewer ceremonies. January isa month devoted to religious bathing. Also, in January, the religiousHindoos invite Brahmans to read and expound the sacred books in theirhouses, which are open to all hearers. In February there are festivals toKrishna. The month of March is devoted to ascetic exercises, especially to thefamous one of swinging suspended by hooks. It is a festival in honor ofSiva. A procession goes through the streets and enlists followers byputting a thread round their necks. Every man thus enlisted must join theparty and go about with it till the end of the ceremony under pain oflosing caste. On the day before the swinging, men thrust iron or bamboosticks through their arms or tongues. On the next day they march inprocession to the swinging tree, where the men are suspended by hooks andwhirled round the tree four or five times. It is considered a pious act in India to build temples, dig tanks, orplant trees by the roadside. Rich people have idols in their houses fordaily worship, and pay a priest who comes every morning to wake up theidols, wash and dress them, and offer them their food. In the evening hecomes again, gives them their supper and puts them to bed. Mr. Gangooly, in his book, from which most of the above facts are drawn, denies emphatically the statement so commonly made that Hindoo mothersthrow their infants into the Ganges. He justly says that the maternalinstinct is as strong with them as with others; and in addition to that, their religion teaches them to offer sacrifices for the life and health oftheir children. § 9. Relation of Brahmanism to Christianity. Having thus attempted, in the space we can here use, to give an account ofBrahmanism, we close by showing its special relation as a system ofthought to Christianity. Brahmanism teaches the truth of the reality of spirit, and that spirit isinfinite, absolute, perfect, one; that it is the substance underlying allexistence. Brahmanism glows through and through with this spirituality. Its literature, no less than its theology, teaches it. It is in the dramasof Calidasa, as well as in the sublime strains of the Bhagavat-gita. Something divine is present in all nature and all life, -- "Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns, And the round ocean and the living air. " Now, with this Christianity is in fullest agreement. We have such passagesin the Scripture as these: "God is a Spirit"; "God is love; whoso dwellethin love dwelleth in God, and God in him"; "In him we live, and move, andhave our being"; "He is above all, and through all, and in us all. " Butbeside these texts, which strike the key-note of the music which was tocome after, there are divine strains of spiritualism, of God all in all, which come through a long chain of teachers of the Church, sounding on inthe Confessions of Augustine, the prayers of Thomas Aquinas, Anselm, Bonaventura, St. Bernard, through the Latin hymns of the Middle Ages, anddevelop themselves at last in what is called romantic art and romanticsong. A Gothic cathedral like Antwerp or Strasburg, --what is it but astriving upward of the soul to lose itself in God? A symphony ofBeethoven, --what is it but the same unbounded longing and striving towardthe Infinite and Eternal? The poetry of Wordsworth, of Goethe, Schiller, Dante, Byron, Victor Hugo, Manzoni, all partake of the same element. It isopposed to classic art and classic poetry in this, that instead of limits, it seeks the unlimited; that is, it believes in spirit, which alone is theunlimited; the _in_finite, that which _is, _ not that which appears; the_essence_ of things, not their _ex_istence or outwardness. Thus Christianity meets and accepts the truth of Brahmanism. But how doesit fulfil Brahmanism? The deficiencies of Brahmanism are these, --thatholding to eternity, it omits time, and so loses history. It therefore isincapable of progress, for progress takes place in time. Believing inspirit, or infinite unlimited substance, it loses person, or definitesubstance, whether infinite or finite. The Christian God is the infinite, definite substance, self-limited or defined by his essential nature. He isgood and not bad, righteous and not the opposite, perfect love, notperfect self-love. Christianity, therefore, gives us God as a person, andman also as a person, and so makes it possible to consider the universe asorder, kosmos, method, beauty, and providence. For, unless we can conceivethe Infinite Substance as definite, and not undefined; that is, as aperson with positive characters; there is no difference between good andbad, right and wrong, to-day and to-morrow, this and that, but all is oneimmense chaos of indefinite spirit. The moment that creation begins, thatthe spirit of the Lord moves on the face of the waters, and says, "Letthere be light, " and so divides light from darkness, God becomes a person, and man can also be a person. Things then become "separate and divisible"which before were "huddled and lumped. " Christianity, therefore, fulfils Brahmanism by adding to eternity time, tothe infinite the finite, to God as spirit God as nature and providence. God in himself is the unlimited, unknown, dwelling in the light which noman can approach unto; hidden, not by darkness, but by light. But God, asturned toward us in nature and providence, is the infinite definitesubstance, that is, having certain defined characters, though these haveno bounds as regards extent. This last view of God Christianity shareswith other religions, which differ from Brahmanism in the oppositedirection. For example, the religion of Greece and of the Greekphilosophers never loses the definite God, however high it may soar. WhileBrahmanism, seeing eternity and infinity, loses time and the finite, theGreek religion, dwelling in time, often loses the eternal and thespiritual. Christianity is the mediator, able to mediate, not by standingbetween both, but by standing beside both. It can lead the Hindoos to anInfinite Friend, a perfect Father, a Divine Providence, and so make thepossibility for them of a new progress, and give to that ancient andhighly endowed race another chance in history. What they want is evidentlymoral power, for they have all intellectual ability. The effeminatequality which has made them slaves of tyrants during two thousand yearswill be taken out of them, and a virile strength substituted, when theycome to see God as law and love, --perfect law and perfect love, --and tosee that communion with him comes, not from absorption, contemplation, andinaction, but from active obedience, moral growth, and personaldevelopment. For Christianity certainly teaches that we unite ourselveswith God, not by sinking into and losing our personality, in him, but bydeveloping it, so that we may be able to serve and love him. Chapter IV. Buddhism, or the Protestantism of the East. § 1. Buddhism, in its Forms, resembles Romanism; in its Spirit, Protestantism. § 2. Extent of Buddhism. Its Scriptures. § 3. Sakyamuni, the Founder of Buddhism. § 4. Leading Doctrines of Buddhism. § 5. The Spirit of Buddhism Rational and Humane. § 6. Buddhism as a Religion. § 7. Karma and Nirvana. § 8. Good and Evil of Buddhism. § 9. Relation of Buddhism to Christianity. § 1. Buddhism, in its Forms, resembles Romanism; in its Spirit, Protestantism. On first becoming acquainted with the mighty and ancient religion ofBuddha, one may be tempted to deny the correctness of this title, "The_Protestantism_ of the East. " One might say, "Why not rather the_Romanism_ of the East?" For so numerous are the resemblances between thecustoms of this system and those of the Romish Church, that the firstCatholic missionaries who encountered the priests of Buddha wereconfounded, and thought that Satan had been mocking their sacred rites. Father Bury, a Portuguese missionary, [92] when he beheld the Chinesebonzes tonsured, using rosaries, praying in an unknown tongue, andkneeling before images, exclaimed in astonishment: "There is not a pieceof dress, not a sacerdotal function, not a ceremony of the court of Rome, which the Devil has not copied in this country. " Mr. Davis (Transactionsof the Royal Asiatic Society, II. 491) speaks of "the celibacy of theBuddhist clergy, and the monastic life of the societies of both sexes; towhich might be added their strings of beads, their manner of chantingprayers, their incense, and their candles. " Mr. Medhurst ("China, " London, 1857) mentions the image of a virgin, called the "queen of heaven, "having an infant in her arms, and holding a cross. Confession of sins isregularly practised. Father Huc, in his "Recollections of a Journey inTartary, Thibet, and China, " (Hazlitt's translation), says: "The cross, the mitre, the dalmatica, the cope, which the grand lamas wear on theirjourneys, or when they are performing some ceremony out of thetemple, --the service with double choirs, the psalmody, the exorcisms, thecenser suspended from five chains, and which you can open or close atpleasure, --the benedictions given by the lamas by extending the right handover the heads of the faithful, --the chaplet, ecclesiastical celibacy, religious retirement, the worship of the saints, the fasts, theprocessions, the litanies, the holy water, --all these are analogiesbetween the Buddhists and ourselves. " And in Thibet there is also a DalaiLama, who is a sort of Buddhist pope. Such numerous and striking analogiesare difficult to explain. After the simple theory "que le diable y étaitpour beaucoup" was abandoned, the next opinion held by the Jesuitmissionaries was that the Buddhists had copied these customs fromNestorian missionaries, who are known to have penetrated early even as faras China. [93] But a serious objection to this theory is that Buddhism isat least five hundred years older than Christianity, and that many ofthese striking resemblances belong to its earliest period. Thus Wilson(Hindu Drama) has translated plays written before the Christian era, inwhich Buddhist monks appear as mendicants. The worship of relics is quiteas ancient. Fergusson[94] describes topes, or shrines for relics, of verygreat antiquity, existing in India, Ceylon, Birmah, and Java. Many of thembelong to the age of Asoka, the great Buddhist emperor, who ruled allIndia B. C. 250, and in whose reign Buddhism became the religion of thestate, and held its third Œcumenical Council. The ancient Buddhist architecture is very singular, and often verybeautiful. It consists of topes, rock-cut temples, and monasteries. Someof the topes are monolithic columns, more than forty feet high, withornamented capitals. Some are immense domes of brick and stone, containingsacred relics. The tooth of Buddha was once preserved in a magnificentshrine in India, but was conveyed to Ceyion A. D. 311, where it stillremains an object of universal reverence. It is a piece of ivory or bonetwo inches long, and is kept in six cases, the largest of which, of solidsilver, is five feet high. The other cases are inlaid with rubies andprecious stones. [95] Besides this, Ceylon possesses the "left collar-bonerelic, " contained in a bell-shaped tope, fifty feet high, and the thoraxbone, which was placed in a tope built by a Hindoo Raja, B. C. 250, besidewhich two others were subsequently erected, the last being eighty cubitshigh. The Sanchi tope, the finest in India, [96] is a solid dome of stone, one hundred and six feet in diameter and forty-two feet high, with abasement and terrace, having a colonnade, now fallen, of sixty pillars, with richly carved stone railing and gateway. The rock-cut temples of the Buddhists are very ancient, and are numerousin India. Mr. Fergusson, who has made a special personal study of thesemonuments, believes that more than nine hundred still remain, most of themwithin the Bombay presidency. Of these, many date back two centuriesbefore our era. In form they singularly resemble the earliest RomanCatholic churches. Excavated out of the solid rock, they have a nave andside aisles, terminating in an apse or semi-dome, round which the aisle iscarried. One at Karli, built in this manner, is one hundred and twenty-sixfeet long and forty-five wide, with fifteen richly carved columns on eachside, separating the nave from the aisles. The facade of this temple isalso richly ornamented, and has a great open window for lighting theinterior, beneath an elegant gallery or rood-loft. The Buddhist rock-cut monasteries in India are also numerous, though longsince deserted. Between seven and eight hundred are known to exist, mostof them having been excavated between B. C. 200 and A. D. 500. Buddhistmonks, then as now, took the same three vows of celibacy, poverty, andobedience, which are taken by the members of all the Catholic orders. Inaddition to this, _all_ the Buddhist priests are mendicants. They shavetheir heads, wear a friar's robe tied round the waist with a rope, and begfrom house to house, carrying their wooden bowl in which to receive boiledrice. The old monasteries of India contain chapels and cells for themonks. The largest, however, had accommodation for only thirty or forty;while at the present time a single monastery in Thibet, visited by MM. Hucand Gabet (the lamasery of Kounboum), is occupied by four thousand lamas. The structure of these monasteries shows clearly that the monkish systemof the Buddhists is far too ancient to have been copied from theChristians. Is, then, the reverse true? Did the Catholic Christians derive theirmonastic institutions, their bells, their rosary, their tonsure, theirincense, their mitre and cope, their worship of relics, their custom ofconfession, etc. , from the Buddhists? Such is the opinion of Mr. Prinsep(Thibet, Tartary, and Mongolia, 1852) and of Lassen (IndischeAlterthumskunde). But, in reply to this view, Mr. Hardwicke objects thatwe do not find in history any trace of such an influence. Possibly, therefore, the resemblances may be the result of common human tendenciesworking out, independently, the same results. If, however, it is necessaryto assume that either religion copied from the other, the Buddhists mayclaim originality, on the ground of antiquity. But, however this may he, the question returns, Why call Buddhism theProtestantism of the East, when all its external features so much resemblethose of the Roman Catholic Church? We answer: Because deeper and more essential relations connect Brahmanismwith the Romish Church, and the Buddhist system with Protestantism. Thehuman mind in Asia went through the same course of experience, afterwardrepeated in Europe. It protested, in the interest of humanity, againstthe oppression of a priestly caste. Brahmanism, like the Church of Rome, established a system of sacramental salvation in the hands of a sacredorder. Buddhism, like Protestantism, revolted, and established a doctrineof individual salvation based on personal character. Brahmanism, like theChurch of Rome, teaches an exclusive spiritualism, glorifying penances andmartyrdom, and considers the body the enemy of the soul. But Buddhism andProtestantism accept nature and its laws, and make a religion of humanityas well as of devotion. To such broad statements numerous exceptions maydoubtless be always found, but these are the large lines of distinction. The Roman Catholic Church and Brahmanism place the essence of religion insacrifices. Each is eminently a sacrificial system. The daily sacrifice ofthe mass is the central feature of the Romish Church. So Brahmanism is asystem of sacrifices. But Protestantism and Buddhism save the soul byteaching. In the Church of Rome the sermon is subordinate to the mass; inProtestantism and in Buddhism sermons are the main instruments by whichsouls are saved. Brahmanism is a system of inflexible castes; the priestlycaste is made distinct and supreme; and in Romanism the priesthood almostconstitutes the church. In Buddhism and Protestantism the laity regaintheir rights. Therefore, notwithstanding the external resemblance ofBuddhist rites and ceremonies to those of the Roman Catholic Church, theinternal resemblance is to Protestantism. Buddhism in Asia, likeProtestantism in Europe, is a revolt of nature against spirit, of humanityagainst caste, of individual freedom against the despotism of an order, ofsalvation by faith against salvation by sacraments. And as all revolts areapt to go too far, so it has been with Buddhism. In asserting the rightsof nature against the tyranny of spirit, Buddhism has lost God. There isin Buddhism neither creation nor Creator. Its tracts say: "The rising ofthe world is a natural case. " "Its rising and perishing are by natureitself. " "It is natural that the world should rise and perish. "[97] Whilein Brahmanism absolute spirit is the only reality, and this world is anillusion, the Buddhists know only this world, and the eternal world is soentirely unknown as to be equivalent to nullity. But yet, as no revolt, however radical, gives up _all_ its antecedents, so Buddhism has the same_aim_ as Brahmanism, namely, to escape from the vicissitudes of time intothe absolute rest of eternity. They agree as to the object of existence;they differ as to the method of reaching it. The Brahman and the RomanCatholic think that eternal rest is to be obtained by intellectualsubmission, by passive reception of what is taught us and done for us byothers: the Buddhist and Protestant believe it must be accomplished by anintelligent and free obedience to Divine laws. Mr. Hodgson, who has longstudied the features of this religion in Nepaul, says: "The one infalliblediagnostic of Buddhism is a belief in the infinite capacity of the humanintellect. " The name of Buddha means the Intelligent One, or the one whois wide awake. And herein also is another resemblance to Protestantism, which emphasizes so strongly the value of free thought and the seekingafter truth. In Judaism we find two spiritual powers, --the prophet and thepriest. The priest is the organ of the pardoning and saving love of God;the prophet, of his inspiring truth. In the European Reformation, theprophet revolting against the priest founded Protestantism; in the AsiaticReformation he founded Buddhism. Finally, Brahmanism and the RomanCatholic Church are more religious; Buddhism and Protestant Christianity, more moral. Such, sketched in broad outline, is the justification for thetitle of this chapter; but we shall be more convinced of its accuracyafter looking more closely into the resemblances above indicated betweenthe religious ceremonies of the East and West. These resemblances are chiefly between the Buddhists and the monasticorders of the Church of Rome. Now it is a fact, but one which has neverbeen sufficiently noticed, that the whole monastic system of Rome is basedon a principle foreign to the essential ideas of that church. Thefundamental doctrine of Rome is that of salvation by sacraments. Thisalone justifies its maxim, that "out of communion with the Church there isno salvation. " The sacrament of Baptism regenerates the soul; thesacrament of Penance purifies it from mortal sin; the sacrament of theEucharist renews its life; and that of Holy Orders qualifies the priestfor administering these and the other sacraments. But if the soul is savedby sacraments, duly administered and received, why go into a religiousorder to save the soul? Why seek by special acts of piety, self-denial, and separation from the world that which comes sufficiently through theusual sacraments of the church? The more we examine this subject, the morewe shall see that the whole monastic system of the Church of Rome is an_included Protestantism_, or a Protestantism within the church. Many of the reformers before the Reformation were monks. Savonarola, St. Bernard, Luther himself, were monks. From the monasteries came many of theleaders of the Reformation. The Protestant element in the Romish Churchwas shut up in monasteries during many centuries, and remained there as aforeign substance, an alien element included in the vast body. When abullet, or other foreign substance, is lodged in the flesh, the vitalpowers go to work and build up a little wall around it, and shut it in. Sowhen Catholics came who were not satisfied with a merely sacramentalsalvation, and longed for a higher life, the sagacity of the Church putthem together in convents, and kept them by themselves, where they coulddo no harm. One of the curious homologons of history is this repetition inEurope of the course of events in Asia. Buddhism was, for many centuries, tolerated in India in the same way. It took the form of a monasticismincluded in Brahmanism, and remained a part of the Hindoo religion. Andso, when the crisis came and the conflict began, this Hindoo Protestantismmaintained itself for a long time in India, as Lutheranism continued for acentury in Italy, Spain, and Austria. But it was at last driven out of itsbirthplace, as Protestantism was driven from Italy and Spain; and now onlythe ruins of its topes, its temples, and its monasteries remain to showhow extensive was its former influence in the midst of Brahmanism. § 2. Extent of Buddhism. Its Scriptures. Yet, though expelled from India, and unable to maintain its control overany Aryan race, it has exhibited a powerful propagandist element, and sohas converted to its creed the majority of the Mongol nations. It embracesnearly or quite (for statistics here are only guesswork)[98] three hundredmillions of human beings. It is the popular religion of China; the statereligion of Thibet, and of the Birman Empire; it is the religion of Japan, Siam, Anam, Assam, Nepaul, Ceylon, in short, of nearly the whole ofEastern Asia. Concerning this vast religion we have had, until recently, very few meansof information. But, during the last quarter of a century, so many sourceshave been opened, that at present we can easily study it in its originalfeatures and its subsequent development. The sacred books of this religionhave been preserved independently, in Ceylon, Nepaul, China, and Thibet. Mr. G. Turnour, Mr. Georgely, and Mr. R. Spence Hardy are our chiefauthorities in regard to the Pitikas, or the Scriptures in the Palilanguage, preserved in Ceylon. Mr. Hodgson has collected and studied theSanskrit Scriptures, found in Nepaul. In 1825 he transmitted to theAsiatic Society in Bengal sixty works in Sanskrit, and two hundred andfifty in the language of Thibet. M. Csoma, an Hungarian physician, discovered in the Buddhist monasteries of Thibet an immense collection ofsacred books, which had been translated from the Sanskrit works previouslystudied by Mr. Hodgson. In 1829 M. Schmidt found the same works in theMongolian. M. Stanislas Julien, an eminent student of the Chinese, hasalso translated works on Buddhism from that language, which ascend to theyear 76 of our era. [99] More recently inscriptions cut upon rocks, columns, and other monuments in Northern India, have been transcribed andtranslated. Mr. James Prinsep deciphered these inscriptions, and foundthem to be in the ancient language of the province of Magadha whereBuddhism first appeared. They contain the decrees of a king, or raja, named Pyadasi, whom Mr. Turnour has shown to be the same as the famousAsoka, before alluded to. This king appears to have come to the thronesomewhere between B. C. 319 and B. C. 260. Similar inscriptions have beendiscovered throughout India, proving to the satisfaction of such scholarsas Burnouf, Prinsep, Turnour, Lassen, Weber, Max Müller, andSaint-Hilaire, that Buddhism had become almost the state religion ofIndia, in the fourth century before Christ. [100] § 3. Sakya-muni, the Founder of Buddhism. North of Central India and of the kingdom of Oude, near the borders ofNepaul, there reigned, at the end of the seventh century before Christ, awise and good king, in his capital city, Kapilavastu[101]. He was one ofthe last of the great Solar race, celebrated in the ancient epics ofIndia. His wife, named _Maya_ because of her great beauty, became themother of a prince, who was named Siddârtha, and afterward known as theBuddha[102]. She died seven days after his birth, and the child wasbrought up by his maternal aunt. The young prince distinguished himself byhis personal and intellectual qualities, but still more by his earlypiety. It appears from the laws of Manu that it was not unusual, in theearliest periods of Brahmanism, for those seeking a superior piety to turnhermits, and to live alone in the forest, engaged in acts of prayer, meditation, abstinence, and the study of the Vedas. This practice, however, seems to have been confined to the Brahmans. It was, therefore, agrief to the king, when his son, in the flower of his youth and highlyaccomplished in every kingly faculty of body and mind, began to turn histhoughts toward the life of an anchorite. In fact, the young Siddârthaseems to have gone through that deep experience out of which the greatprophets of mankind have always been born. The evils of the world pressedon his heart and brain; the very air seemed full of mortality; all thingswere passing away. Was anything permanent? anything stable? Nothing buttruth; only the absolute, eternal law of things. "Let me see that, " saidhe, "and I can give lasting peace to mankind. Then shall I become theirdeliverer. " So, in opposition to the strong entreaties of his father, wife, and friends, he left the palace one night, and exchanged theposition of a prince for that of a mendicant. "I will never return to thepalace, " said he, "till I have attained to the sight of the divine law, and so become Buddha. "[103] He first visited the Brahmans, and listened to their doctrines, but foundno satisfaction therein. The wisest among them could not teach him truepeace, --that profound inward rest, which was already called Nirvana. Hewas twenty-nine years old. Although disapproving of the Brahmanicausterities as an end, he practised them during six years, in order tosubdue the senses. He then became satisfied that the path to perfectiondid not lie that way. He therefore resumed his former diet and a morecomfortable mode of life, and so lost many disciples who had beenattracted by his amazing austerity. Alone in his hermitage, he came atlast to that solid conviction, that KNOWLEDGE never to be shaken, of thelaws of things, which had seemed to him the only foundation of a trulyfree life. The spot where, after a week of constant meditation, he at lastarrived at this beatific vision, became one of the most sacred places inIndia. He was seated under a tree, his face to the east, not having movedfor a day and night, when he attained the triple science, which was torescue mankind from its woes. Twelve hundred years after the death of theBuddha, a Chinese pilgrim was shown what then passed for the sacred tree. It was surrounded by high brick walls, with an opening to the east, andnear it stood many topes and monasteries. In the opinion of M. Saint-Hilaire, these ruins, and the locality of the tree, may yet berediscovered. The spot deserves to be sought for, since there began amovement which has, on the whole, been a source of happiness andimprovement to immense multitudes of human beings, during twenty-fourcenturies. Having attained this inward certainty of vision, he decided to teach theworld his truth. He knew well what it would bring him, --what opposition, insult, neglect, scorn. But he thought of three classes of men: those whowere already on the way to the truth, and did not need him; those who werefixed in error, and whom he could not help; and the poor doubters, uncertain of their way. It was to help these last, the doubters, that theBuddha went forth to preach. On his way to the holy city of India, Benares, a serious difficulty arrested him at the Ganges, namely, hishaving no money to pay the boatman for his passage. At Benares he made hisfirst converts, "turning the wheel of the law" for the first time. Hisdiscourses are contained in the sacred books of the Buddhists. Heconverted great numbers, his father among the rest, but met with fierceopposition from the Hindoo Scribes and Pharisees, the leading Brahmans. Sohe lived and taught, and died at the age of eighty years. Naturally, as soon as the prophet was dead he became very precious in alleyes. His body was burned with much pomp, and great contention arose forthe unconsumed fragments of bone. At last they were divided into eightparts, and a tope was erected, by each of the eight fortunate possessors, over such relics as had fallen to him. The ancient books of the North andSouth agree as to the places where the topes were built, and no RomanCatholic relics are so well authenticated. The Buddha, who believed withJesus that "the flesh profiteth nothing, " and that "the word is spirit andlife, " would probably have been the first to condemn this idolatry. Butfetich-worship lingers in the purest religions. The time of the death of Sakya-muni, like most Oriental dates, isuncertain. The Northern Buddhists, in Thibet, Nepaul, etc. , vary greatlyamong themselves. The Chinese Buddhists are not more certain. Lassen, therefore, with most of the scholars, accepts as authentic the period uponwhich all the authorities of the South, especially of Ceylon, agree, whichis B. C. 543. Lately Westergaard has written a monograph on the subject, inwhich, by a labored argument, he places the date about two hundred yearslater. Whether he will convince his brother _savans_ remains to be seen. Immediately after the death of Sakya-muni a general council of his mosteminent disciples was called, to fix the doctrine and discipline of thechurch. The legend runs that three of the disciples were selected torecite from memory what the sage had taught. The first was appointed torepeat his teaching upon discipline; "for discipline, " said they, "is thesoul of the law. " Whereupon Upali, mounting the pulpit, repeated all ofthe precepts concerning morals and the ritual. Then Ananda was chosen togive his master's discourses concerning faith or doctrine. Finally, Kasyapa announced the philosophy and metaphysics of the system. Thecouncil sat during seven months, and the threefold division of the sacredScriptures of Buddhism was the result of their work; for Sakya-muni wrotenothing himself. He taught by conversation only. The second general council was called to correct certain abuses which hadbegun to creep in. It was held about a hundred years after the teacher'sdeath. A great fraternity of monks proposed to relax the conventualdiscipline, by allowing greater liberty in taking food, in drinkingintoxicating liquor, and taking gold and silver if offered in alms. Theschismatic monks were degraded, to the number of ten thousand, but formeda new sect. The third council, held during the reign of the great BuddhistEmperor Asoka, was called on account of heretics, who, to the number ofsixty thousand, were degraded and expelled. After this, missionaries weredespatched to preach the word in different lands. The names and success ofthese missionaries are recorded in the _Mahawanso_, or Sacred History, translated by Mr. George Turnour from the Singhalese. But what isremarkable is, that the relics of some of them have been recently found inthe Sanchi topes, and in other sacred buildings, contained in caskets, with their names inscribed on them. These inscribed names correspond withthose given to the same missionaries in the historical books of Ceylon. For example, according to the _Mahawanso_, two missionaries, one namedKassapo (or Kasyapa), and the other called Majjhima (or Madhyama), went topreach in the region of the Himalayan Mountains. They journeyed, preached, suffered, and toiled, side by side, so the ancient history informs us, --ahistory composed in Ceylon in the fifth century of our era, with the aidof works still more ancient;[104] and now, when the second Sanchi tope wasopened in 1851, by Major Cunningham, the relics of these very missionarieswere discovered. [105] The tope was perfect in 1819, when visited byCaptain Fell, --"not a stone fallen. " And though afterward injured, in1822, by some amateur relic-hunters, its contents remained intact. It is asolid hemisphere, built of rough stones without mortar, thirty-nine feetin diameter; it has a basement six feet high, projecting all around fivefeet, and so making a terrace. It is surrounded by a stone railing, withcarved figures. In the centre of this tope was found a small chamber, madeof six stones, containing the relic-box of white sandstone, about teninches square. Inside this were four caskets of steatite (a sacred stoneamong the Buddhists), each containing small portions of burnt human bone. On the outside lid of one of these boxes was this inscription: "Relics ofthe emancipated Kasyapa Gotra, missionary to the whole Hemawanta. " And onthe inside of the lid was carved: "Relics of the emancipated Madhyama. "These relics, with those of eight other leading men of the BuddhistChurch, had rested in this monument since the age of Asoka, and cannothave been placed there later than B. C. 220. The missionary spirit displayed by Buddhism distinguishes it from allother religions which preceded Christianity. The religion of Confuciusnever attempted to make converts outside of China. Brahmanism never wentbeyond India. The system of Zoroaster was a Persian religion; that ofEgypt was confined to the Valley of the Nile; that of Greece to theHellenic race. But Buddhism was inflamed with the desire of bringing allmankind to a knowledge of its truths. Its ardent and successfulmissionaries converted multitudes in Nepaul, Thibet, Birmah, Ceylon, China, Siam, Japan; and in all these states its monasteries are to-day thechief sources of knowledge and centres of instruction to the people. It isidle to class such a religion as this with the superstitions which debasemankind. Its power lay in the strength of conviction which inspired itsteachers; and that, again, must have come from the sight of truth, not thebelief in error. § 4. Leading Doctrines of Buddhism. What, then, are the doctrines of Buddhism? What are the essentialteachings of the Buddha and his disciples? Is it a system, as we are sooften told, which denies God and immortality? Has _atheism_ such a powerover human hearts in the East? Is the Asiatic mind thus in love witheternal death? Let us try to discover. The hermit of Sakya, as we have seen, took his departure from two profoundconvictions, --the evil of perpetual change, and the possibility ofsomething permanent. He might have used the language of the Book ofEcclesiastes, and cried, "Vanity of vanities! all is vanity!" The profoundgloom of that wonderful book is based on the same course of thought asthat of the Buddha, namely, that everything goes round and round in acircle; that nothing moves forward; that there is no new thing under thesun; that the sun rises and sets, and rises again; that the wind blowsnorth and south, and east and west, and then returns according to itscircuits. Where can rest be found? where peace? where any certainty?Siddârtha was young; but he saw age approaching. He was in health; but heknew that sickness and death were lying in wait for him. He could notescape from the sight of this perpetual round of growth and decay, lifeand death, joy and woe. He cried out, from the depths of his soul, forsomething stable, permanent, real. Again, he was assured that this emancipation from change and decay was tobe found in knowledge. But by knowledge he did not intend the perceptionand recollection of outward facts, --not learning. Nor did he meanspeculative knowledge, or the power of reasoning. He meant intuitiveknowledge, the sight of eternal truth, the perception of the unchanginglaws of the universe. This was a knowledge which was not to be attained byany merely intellectual process, but by moral training, by purity of heartand lite. Therefore he renounced the world, and went into the forest, andbecame an anchorite. But just at this point he separated himself from the Brahmans. They alsowere, and are, believers in the value of mortification, abnegation, penance. They had their hermits in his day. But they believed in the valueof penance as accumulating merit. They practised self-denial for its ownsake. The Buddha practised it as a means to a higher end, --emancipation, purification, intuition. And this end he believed that he had at lastattained. At last he _saw_ the truth. He became "wide awake. " Illusionsdisappeared; the reality was before him. He was the Buddha, --the MAN WHOKNEW. Still he was a man, not a God. And here again is another point ofdeparture from Brahmanism. In that system, the final result of devotionwas to become absorbed in God. The doctrine of the Brahmans is divineabsorption; that of the Buddhists, human development. In the Brahmanicalsystem, God is everything and man nothing. In the Buddhist, man iseverything and God nothing. Here is its atheism, that it makes so much ofman as to forget God. It is perhaps "without God in the world, " but itdoes not deny him. It accepts the doctrine of the three worlds, --theeternal world of absolute being; the celestial world of the gods, Brahma, Indra, Vischnu, Siva; and the finite world, consisting of individualsouls and the laws of nature. Only it says, of the world of absolutebeing, Nirvana, we know nothing. That is our aim and end; but it is thedirect opposite to all we know. It is, therefore, to us as nothing. Thecelestial world, that of the gods, is even of less moment to us. What weknow are the everlasting laws of nature, by obedience to which we rise, disobeying which we fall, by perfect obedience to which we shall at lastobtain Nirvana, and rest forever. To the mind of the Buddha, therefore, the world consisted of two orders ofexistence, --souls and laws. He saw an infinite multitude of souls, --ininsects, animals, men, --and saw that they were surrounded by inflexiblelaws, --the laws of nature. To know these and to obey them, --this wasemancipation. The fundamental doctrine of Buddhism, taught by its founder and receivedby all Buddhists without exception, in the North and in the South, inBirmah and Thibet, in Ceylon and China, is the doctrine of the foursublime truths, namely:-- 1. All existence is evil, because all existence is subject to change and decay. 2. The source of this evil is the desire for things which are to change and pass away. 3. This desire, and the evil which follows it, are not inevitable; for if we choose we can arrive at Nirvana, when both shall wholly cease. 4. There is a fixed and certain method to adopt, by pursuing which we attain this end, without possibility of failure. These four truths are the basis of the system. They are: 1st, the evil;2d, its cause; 3d, its end; 4th, the way of reaching the end. Then follow the eight steps of this way, namely:-- 1. Right belief, or the correct faith. 2. Right judgment, or wise application of that faith to life. 3. Right utterance, or perfect truth in all that we say and do. 4. Right motives, or proposing always a proper end and aim. 5. Right occupation, or an outward life not involving sin. 6. Right obedience, or faithful observance of duty. 7. Right memory, or a proper recollection of past conduct. 8. Right meditation, or keeping the mind fixed on permanent truth. After this system of doctrine follow certain moral commands andprohibitions, namely, five, which apply to all men, and five others whichapply only to the novices or the monks. The five first commandments are:1st, do not kill; 2d, do not steal; 3d, do not commit adultery; 4th, donot lie; 5th, do not become intoxicated. The other five are: 1st, take nosolid food after noon; 2d, do not visit dances, singing, or theatricalrepresentations; 3d, use no ornaments or perfumery in dress; 4th, use noluxurious beds; 5th, accept neither gold nor silver. All these doctrines and precepts have been the subject of innumerablecommentaries and expositions. Everything has been commented, explained, and elucidated. Systems of casuistry as voluminous as those of the Fathersof the Company of Jesus, systems of theology as full of minute analysis asthe great _Summa Totius Theologiæ_ of St. Thomas, are to be found in thelibraries of the monasteries of Thibet and Ceylon. The monks have theirGolden Legends, their Lives of Saints, full of miracles and marvels. Onthis simple basis of a few rules and convictions has arisen a vast fabricof metaphysics. Much of this literature is instructive and entertaining. Some of it is profound. Baur, who had made a special study of theintricate speculations of the Gnostics, compares them with "the vastabstractions of Buddhism. " § 5. The Spirit of Buddhism Rational and Humane. Ultimately, two facts appear, as we contemplate this system, --first, itsrationalism; second, its humanity. It is a system of rationalism. It appeals throughout to human reason. Itproposes to save man, not from a future but a present hell, and to savehim by teaching. Its great means of influence is the sermon. The Buddhapreached innumerable sermons; his missionaries went abroad preaching. Buddhism has made all its conquests honorably, by a process of rationalappeal to the human mind. It was never propagated by force, even when ithad the power of imperial rajas to support it. Certainly, it is a veryencouraging fact in the history of man, that the two religions which havemade more converts than any other, Buddhism and Christianity, have notdepended for their success on the sword of the conqueror or the frauds ofpriestcraft, but have gained their victories in the fair conflict ofreason with reason. We grant that Buddhism has not been without itssuperstitions and its errors; but it has not deceived, and it has notpersecuted. In this respect it can teach Christians a lesson. Buddhism hasno prejudices against those who confess another faith. The Buddhists havefounded no Inquisition; they have combined the zeal which convertedkingdoms with a toleration almost inexplicable to our Western experience. Only one religious war has darkened their peaceful history duringtwenty-three centuries, --that which took place in Thibet, but of which weknow little. A Siamese told Crawford that he believed all the religions ofthe world to be branches of the true religion. A Buddhist in Ceylon senthis son to a Christian school, and told the astonished missionary, "Irespect Christianity as much as Buddhism, for I regard it as a help toBuddhism. " MM. Hue and Gabet converted no Buddhist in Tartary and Thibet, but they partially converted one, bringing him so far as to say that heconsidered himself at the same time a good Christian and a good Buddhist. Buddhism is also a religion of humanity. Because it lays such stress onreason, it respects all men, since all possess this same gift. In itsorigin it broke down all castes. All men, of whatever rank, can enter itspriesthood. It has an unbounded charity for all souls, and holds it a dutyto make sacrifices for all. One legend tells us that the Buddha gave hisbody for food to a starved tigress, who could not nurse her young throughweakness. An incident singularly like that in the fourth chapter of Johnis recorded of the hermit, who asked a woman of low caste for water, andwhen she expressed surprise said, "Give me drink, and I will give youtruth. " The unconditional command, "Thou shalt not kill, " which applies toall living creatures, has had great influence in softening the manners ofthe Mongols. This command is connected with the doctrine of transmigrationof souls, which is one of the essential doctrines of this system as wellas of Brahmanism. But Buddhism has abolished human sacrifices, and indeedall bloody offerings, and its innocent altars are only crowned withflowers and leaves. It also inculcates a positive humanity, consisting ofgood actions. All its priests are supported by daily alms. It is a duty ofthe Buddhist to be hospitable to strangers, to establish hospitals for thesick and poor, and even for sick animals, to plant shade-trees, and erecthouses for travellers. Mr. Malcom, the Baptist missionary, says that hewas resting one day in a _zayat_ in a small village in Birmah, and wasscarcely seated when a woman brought a nice mat for him to lie on. Anotherbrought cool water, and a man went and picked for him half a dozen goodoranges. None sought or expected, he says, the least reward, butdisappeared, and left him to his repose. He adds: "None can ascend theriver without being struck with the hardihood, skill, energy, andgood-humor of the Birmese boatmen. In point of temper and morality theyare infinitely superior to the boatmen on our Western waters. In myvarious trips, I have seen no quarrel nor heard a hard word. " Mr. Malcom goes on thus: "Many of these people have never seen a white manbefore, but I am constantly struck with their politeness. They desist fromanything on the slightest intimation; never crowd around to betroublesome; and if on my showing them my watch or pencil-case, oranything which particularly attracts them, there are more than can get asight, the outer ones stand aloof and wait till their turn comes. .. . "I saw no intemperance in Birmah, though an intoxicating liquor is madeeasily of the juice of a palm. .. . "A man may travel from one end of the kingdom to the other without money, feeding and lodging as well as the people. " "I have seen thousands together, for hours, on public occasions, rejoicingin all ardor, and no act of violence or case of intoxication. .. . "During my whole residence in the country I never saw an indecent act orimmodest gesture in man or woman. .. . I have seen hundreds of men and womenbathing, and no immodest or careless act. .. . "Children are treated with great kindness, not only by the mother but thefather, who, when unemployed, takes the young child in his arms, and seemspleased to attend to it, while the mother cleans the rice or sitsunemployed at his side. I have as often seen fathers caressing femaleinfants as male. A widow with male and female children is more likely tobe sought in marriage than if she has none. .. . "Children are almost as reverent to parents as among the Chinese. The agedare treated with great care and tenderness, and occupy the best places inall assemblies. " According to Saint-Hilaire's opinion, the Buddhist morality is one ofendurance, patience, submission, and abstinence, rather than of action, energy, enterprise. Love for all beings is its nucleus, every animal beingour possible relative. To love our enemies, to offer our lives foranimals, to abstain from even defensive warfare, to govern ourselves, toavoid vices, to pay obedience to superiors, to reverence age, to providefood and shelter for men and animals, to dig wells and plant trees, todespise no religion, show no intolerance, not to persecute, are thevirtues of these people. Polygamy is tolerated, but not approved. Monogamyis general in Ceylon, Siam, Birinah; somewhat less so in Thibet andMongolia. Woman is better treated by Buddhism than by any other Orientalreligion. § 6. Buddhism as a Religion. But what is the religious life of Buddhism? Can there be a religionwithout a God? And if Buddhism has no God, how can it have worship, prayer, devotion? There is no doubt that it has all these. We have seenthat its _cultus_ is much like that of the Roman Catholic Church. Itdiffers from this church in having no secular priests, but only regulars;all its clergy are monks, taking the three vows of poverty, chastity, andobedience. Their vows, however, are not irrevocable; they can relinquishthe yellow robe, and return into the world, if they find they havemistaken their vocation. The God of Buddhism is the Buddha himself, the deified man, who has becomean infinite being by entering Nirvana. To him prayer is addressed, and itis so natural for man to pray, that no theory can prevent him from doingit. In Thibet, prayer-meetings are held even in the streets. Huc says:"There is a very touching custom at Lhassa. In the evening, just beforesundown, all the people leave their work, and meet in groups in the publicstreets and squares. All kneel and begin to chant their prayers in a lowand musical tone. The concert of song which rises from all these numerousreunions produces an immense and solemn harmony, which deeply impressesthe mind. We could not help sadly comparing this Pagan city, where all thepeople prayed together, with our European cities, where men would blush tobe seen making the sign of the cross. " In Thibet _confession_ was early enjoined. Public worship is there asolemn confession before the assembled priests. It confers entireabsolution from sins. It consists in an open confession of sin, and apromise to sin no more. Consecrated water is also used in the service ofthe Pagodas. There are thirty-five Buddhas who have preceded Sakya-muni, and areconsidered the chief powers for taking away sin. These are called the"Thirty-five Buddhas of Confession. " Sakya-muni, however, has beenincluded in the number. Some lamas are also joined with them in the sacredpictures, as Tsonkhapa, a lama born in A. D. 1555, and others. Themendicant priests of Buddha are bound to confess twice a month, at the newand full moon. The Buddhists have also nunneries for women. It is related thatSakya-muni consented to establish them at the earnest request of his auntand nurse, and of his favorite disciple, Ananda. These nuns take the samevows as the monks. Their rules require them to show reverence even to theyoungest monk, and to use no angry or harsh words to a priest. The nunmust be willing to be taught; she must go once a fortnight for thispurpose to some virtuous teacher; she must not devote more than two weeksat a time to spiritual retirement; she must not go out merely foramusement; after two years' preparation she can be initiated, and she isbound to attend the closing ceremonies of the rainy season. § 7. Karma and Nirvana. One of the principal metaphysical doctrines of this system is that whichit called Karma. This means the law of consequences, by which every actcommitted in one life entails results in another. This law operates untilone reaches Nirvana. Mr. Hardy goes so far as to suppose that Karma causesthe merits or demerits of each soul to result at death in the productionof another consciousness, and in fact to result in a new person. But thismust be an error. Karma is the law of consequences, by which every actreceives its exact recompense in the next world, where the soul is bornagain. But unless the same soul passes on, such a recompense isimpossible. "_Karma_" said Buddha, "is the most essential property of all beings; itis inherited from previous births, it is the cause of all good and evil, and the reason why some are mean and some exalted when they come into theworld. It is like the shadow which always accompanies the body. " Buddhahimself obtained all his elevation by means of the Karma obtained inprevious states. No one can obtain Karma or merit, but those who hear thediscourses of Buddha. There has been much discussion among scholars concerning the true meaningof Nirvana, the end of all Buddhist expectation. Is it annihilation? Or isit absorption in God? The weight of authority, no doubt, is in favor ofthe first view. Burnouf's conclusion is: "For Buddhist theists, it is theabsorption of the individual life in God; for atheists, absorption of thisindividual life in the nothing. But for both, it is deliverance from allevil, it is supreme affranchisement. " In the opinion that it isannihilation agree Max Müller, Tumour, Schmidt, and Hardy. And M. Saint-Hilaire, while calling it "a hideous faith, " nevertheless assigns itto a third part of the human race. But, on the other hand, scholars of the highest rank deny this view. Inparticular, Bunsen (_Gott in der Geschichte_) calls attention to the factthat, in the oldest monuments of this religion, the earliest Sutras, Nirvana is spoken of as a condition attained in the present life. How thencan it mean annihilation? It is a state in which all desires cease, allpassions die. Bunsen believes that the Buddha never denied or questionedGod or immortality. The following account of NIRVANA is taken from the Pali Sacred Books:-- "Again the king of Ságal said to Nágaséna: 'Is the joy of Nirvana unmixed, or is it associated with sorrow?' The priest replied that it is unmixed satisfaction, entirely free from sorrow. "Again the king of Ságal said to Nágaséna: 'Is Nirvana in the east, west, south, or north; above or below? Is there such a place as Nirvana? If so, where is it?' Nágaséna: 'Neither in the east, south, west, nor north, neither in the sky above, nor in the earth below, nor in any of the infinite sakwalas, is there such a place as Nirvana. ' Milinda: 'Then if Nirvana have no locality, there can be no such thing; and when it is said that any one attains Nirvana, the declaration is false. ' Nágaséna: 'There is no such place as Nirvana, and yet it exists; the priest who seeks it in the right manner will attain it. ' 'When Nirvana is attained, is there such a place?' Nágaséna: 'When a priest attains Nirvana there is such a place. ' Milinda: 'Where is that place?' Nágaséna: 'Wherever the precepts can be observed; it may be anywhere; just as he who has two eyes can see the sky from any or all places; or as all places may have an eastern side. '" The Buddhist asserts Nirvana as the object of all his hope, yet, if youask him what it is, may reply, "Nothing. " But this cannot mean that thehighest good of man is annihilation. No pessimism could be more extremethan such a doctrine. Such a belief is not in accordance with humannature. Tennyson is wiser when he writes:-- "Whatever crazy sorrow saith, No life that breathes with human breath Has ever truly longed for death. "'T is LIFE, whereof our nerves are scant, O life, not death, for which we pant; More life, and fuller, that I want. " The Buddhist, when he says that Nirvana is _nothing, _ means simply that itis _no thing_; that it is nothing to our present conceptions; that it isthe opposite of all we know, the contradiction, of what we call life now, a state so sublime, so wholly different from anything we know or can knownow, that it is the same thing as nothing to us. All present life ischange; _that_ is permanence: all present life is going up and down;_that_ is stability: all present life is the life of sense; _that_ isspirit. The Buddhist denies God in the same way. He is the unknowable. He is theimpossible to be conceived of. "Who shall name Him And dare to say, '_I believe in Him_'? Who shall deny Him, And venture to affirm, '_I believe in Him not?_'"[106] To the Buddhist, in short, the element of time and the finite is all, asto the Brahman the element of eternity is all. It is the most absolutecontradiction of Brahmanism which we can conceive. It seems impossible for the Eastern mind to hold at the same time the twoconceptions of God and nature, the infinite and the finite, eternity andtime. The Brahmaus accept the reality of God, the infinite and theeternal, and omit the reality of the finite, of nature, history, time, andthe world. The Buddhist accepts the last, and ignores the first. This question has been fully discussed by Mr. Alger in his very able work, "Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life, " and his conclusion iswholly opposed to the view which makes Nirvana equivalent to annihilation. § 8. Good and Evil of Buddhism. The good and the evil of Buddhism are thus summed up by M. Saint-Hilaire. He remarks that the first peculiarity of Buddhism is the wholly practicaldirection taken by its founder. He proposes to himself the salvation ofmankind. He abstains from the subtle philosophy of the Brahmans, and takesthe most direct and simple way to his end. But he does not offer low andsensual rewards; he does not, like so many lawgivers, promise to hisfollowers riches, pleasures, conquests, power. He invites them tosalvation by means of virtue, knowledge, and self-denial. Not in theVedas, nor the books which proceed from it, do we find such noble appeals, though they too look at the infinite as their end. But the indisputableglory of Buddha is the boundless charity to man with which his soul wasfilled. He lived to instruct and guide man aright. He says in so manywords, "My law is a law of grace for all" (Burnouf, Introduction, etc. , p. 198). We may add to M. Saint-Hilaire's statement, that in these words theBuddha plainly aims at what we have called a catholic religion. In hisview of man's sorrowful life, all distinctions of rank and class fallaway; all are poor and needy together; and here, too, he comes in contactwith that Christianity which says, "Come unto me, all ye that labor andare heavy-laden. " Buddha also wished to cure the sicknesses, not only ofthe Hindoo life, but of the life of mankind. M. Saint-Hilaire adds, that, in seeking thus to help man, the means of theBuddha are pure, like his ends. He tries to convince and to persuade: hedoes not wish to compel. He allows confession, and helps the weak andsimple by explanations and parables. He also tries to guard man againstevil, by establishing habits of chastity, temperance, and self-control. Hegoes forward into the Christian graces of patience, humility, andforgiveness of injuries. He has a horror of falsehood, a reverence fortruth; he forbids slander and gossip; he teaches respect for parents, family, life, home. Yet Saint-Hilaire declares that, with all these merits, Buddhism has notbeen able to found a tolerable social state or a single good government. It failed in India, the land of its birth. Nothing like the progress andthe development of Christian civilization appears in Buddhism. Somethingin the heart of the system makes it sterile, notwithstanding its excellentintentions. What is it? The fact is, that, notwithstanding its benevolent purposes, its radicalthought is a selfish one. It rests on pure individualism, --each man'sobject is to save his own soul. All the faults of Buddhism, according toM. Saint-Hilaire, spring from this root of egotism in the heart of thesystem. No doubt the same idea is found in Christianity. Personal salvation isherein included. But Christianity _starts_ from a very different point: itis the "kingdom of Heaven. " "Thy kingdom come: thy will be done on earth. "It is not going on away from time to find an unknown eternity. It is Godwith us, eternity here, eternal life abiding in us now. If some narrowProtestant sects make Christianity to consist essentially in the salvationof our own soul hereafter, they fall into the condemnation of Buddhism. But that is not the Christianity of Christ. Christ accepts the greatprophetic idea of a Messiah who brings down God's reign into this life. Itis the New Jerusalem coming down from God out of heaven. It is the earthfull of the knowledge of God, as the waters cover the sea. It is allmankind laboring together for this general good. This solitary preoccupation with one's own salvation causes the religiousteachers of Buddhism to live apart, outside of society, and take nointerest in it. There is in the Catholic and Protestant world, beside themonk, a secular priesthood, which labors to save other men's bodies andsouls. No such priesthood exists in Buddhism. Moreover, not the idea of salvation from evil, --which keeps before us evilas the object of contemplation, --but the idea of good, is the true motivefor the human conscience. This leads us up at once to God; this alone cancreate love. We can only love by seeing something lovely. God must seem, not terrible, but lovely, in order to be loved. Man must seem, not meanand poor, but noble and beautiful, before we can love him. This idea ofthe good does not appear in Buddhism, says M. Saint-Hilaire. Not a sparkof this divine flame--that which to see and show has given immortal gloryto Plato and to Socrates--has descended on Sakya-muni. The notion ofrewards, substituted for that of the infinite beauty, has pervertedeverything in his system. Duty itself becomes corrupted, as soon as the idea of the good disappears. It becomes then a blind submission to mere law. It is an outwardconstraint, not an inward inspiration. Scepticism follows. "The world isempty, the heart is dead surely, " is its language. Nihilism arrives sooneror later. God is nothing; man is nothing; life is nothing; death isnothing; eternity is nothing. Hence the profound sadness of Buddhism. Toits eye all existence is evil, and the only hope is to escape from timeinto eternity, --or into nothing, --as you may choose to interpret Nirvana. While Buddhism makes God, or the good, and heaven, to be equivalent tonothing, it intensifies and exaggerates evil. Though heaven is a blank, hell is a very solid reality. It is present and future too. Everything inthe thousand hells of Buddhism is painted as vividly as in the hell ofDante. God has disappeared from the universe, and in his place is only theinexorable law, which grinds on forever. It punishes and rewards, but hasno love in it. It is only dead, cold, hard, cruel, unrelenting law. YetBuddhists are not atheists, any more than a child who has never heard ofGod is an atheist. A child is neither deist nor atheist: he has _no_theology. The only emancipation from self-love is in the perception of an infinitelove. Buddhism, ignoring this infinite love, incapable of communion withGod, aiming at morality without religion, at humanity without piety, becomes at last a prey to the sadness of a selfish isolation. We do notsay that this is always the case, for in all systems the heart oftenredeems the errors of the head. But this is the logical drift of thesystem and its usual outcome. § 9. Relation of Buddhism to Christianity. In closing this chapter, let us ask what relation this great systemsustains to Christianity. The fundamental doctrine and central idea of Buddhism is personalsalvation, or _the salvation of the soul by personal acts of faith andobedience_. This we maintain, notwithstanding the opinion that someschools of Buddhists teach that the soul itself is not a constant elementor a special substance, but the mere result of past merit or demerit. Forif there be no soul, there can be no transmigration. Now it is certainthat the doctrine of transmigration is the very basis of Buddhism, thecorner-stone of the system. Thus M. Saint-Hilaire says: "The chief andmost immovable fact of Buddhist metaphysics is the doctrine oftransmigration. " Without a soul to migrate, there can be no migration. Moreover, the whole ethics of the system would fall with its metaphysics, on this theory; for why urge men to right conduct, in order to attainhappiness, or Nirvana, hereafter, if they are not to exist hereafter. No, the soul's immortality is a radical doctrine in Buddhism, and thisdoctrine is one of its points of contact with Christianity. Another point of contact is its doctrine of reward and punishment, --adoctrine incompatible with the supposition that the soul does not pass onfrom world to world. But this is the essence of all its ethics, theimmutable, inevitable, unalterable consequences of good and evil. In thisalso it agrees with Christianity, which teaches that "whatsoever a mansoweth that shall he also reap"; that he who turns his pound into fivewill he set over five cities, he who turns it into ten, over ten cities. A third point of contact with Christianity, however singular it may atfirst appear to say so, is the doctrine of Nirvana. Nirvana, to theBuddhist, means the absolute, eternal world, beyond time and space; thatwhich is nothing to us now, but will be everything hereafter. Incapable ofcognizing both time and eternity, it makes them absolute negations of eachother. The peculiarity of Plato, according to Mr. Emerson and other Platonistswas, that he was able to grasp and hold intellectually bothconceptions, --of God and man, the infinite and finite, the eternal and thetemporal. The merit of Christianity is, in like manner, that it is able totake up and keep, not primarily as dogma, but as life, both theseantagonistic ideas. Christianity recognizes God as the infinite andeternal, but recognizes also the world of time and space as real. Manexists as well as God: we love God, we must love man too. Brahmanism lovesGod, but not man; it has piety, but not humanity. Buddhism loves man, butnot God; it has humanity, but not piety; or if it has piety, it is by abeautiful want of logic, its heart being wiser than its head. That whichseems an impossibility in these Eastern systems is a fact of daily life tothe Christian child, to the ignorant and simple Christian man or woman, who, amid daily duty and trial, find joy in both heavenly and earthlylove. There is a reason for this in the inmost nature of Christianity ascompared with Buddhism. Why is it that Buddhism is a religion without God?Sakya-muni did not ignore God. The object of his life was to attainNirvana, that is, to attain a union with God, the Infinite Being. Hebecame Buddha by this divine experience. Why, then, is not this religiousexperience a constituent element in Buddhism, as it is in Christianity?Because in Buddhism man struggles upward to find God, while inChristianity God comes down to find man. To speak in the language oftechnical theology, Buddhism is a doctrine of works, and Christianity ofgrace. That which God gives all men may receive, and be united by thiscommunity of grace in one fellowship. But the results attained by effortalone, divide men; because some do more and receive more than others. Thesaint attained Buddha, but that was because of his superhuman efforts andsacrifices; it does not encourage others to hope for the same result. We see, then, that here, as elsewhere, the superiority of Christianity isto be found in its quantity, in its fulness of life. It touches Buddhismat all its good points, in all its truths. It accepts the Buddhisticdoctrine of rewards and punishments, of law, progress, self-denial, self-control, humanity, charity, equality of man with man, and pity forhuman sorrow; but to all this it adds--how much more! It fills up thedreary void of Buddhism with a living God; with a life of God in man'ssoul, a heaven here as well as hereafter. It gives us, in addition to thestruggle of the soul to find God, a God coming down to find the soul. Itgives a divine as real as the human, an infinite as solid as the finite. And this it does, not by a system of thought, but by a fountain and streamof life. If all Christian works, the New Testament included, weredestroyed, we should lose a vast deal no doubt; but we should not loseChristianity; for that is not a book, but a life. Out of that stream oflife would be again developed the conception of Christianity, as a thoughtand a belief. We should be like the people living on the banks of theNile, ignorant for five thousand years of its sources; not knowing whenceits beneficent inundations were derived; not knowing by what miracle itsgreat stream could flow on and on amid the intense heats, where no rainfalls, and fed during a course of twelve hundred miles by no singleaffluent, yet not absorbed in the sand, nor evaporated by the ever-burningsun. But though ignorant of its source, they know it has a source, and canenjoy all its benefits and blessings. So Christianity is a full river oflife, containing truths apparently the most antagonistic, filling the souland heart of man and the social state of nations with its impulses andits ideas. We should lose much in losing our positive knowledge of itshistory; but if all the books were gone, the tablets of the human heartwould remain, and on these would be written the everlasting Gospel ofJesus, in living letters which no years could efface and no changesconceal. Chapter V. Zoroaster and the Zend Avesta. § 1. Ruins of the Palace of Xerxes at Persepolis. § 2. Greek Accounts of Zoroaster. Plutarch's Description of his Religion. § 3. Anquetil du Perron and his Discovery of the Zend Avesta. § 4. Epoch of Zoroaster. What do we know of him? § 5. Spirit of Zoroaster and of his Religion. § 6. Character of the Zend Avesta. § 7. Later Development of the System in the Bundehesch. § 8. Relation of the Religion of the Zend Avesta to that of the Vedas. § 9. Is Monotheism or pure Dualism the Doctrine taught in the Zend Avesta? § 10. Relation of this System to Christianity. The Kingdom of Heaven. § 1. Ruins of the Palace of Xerxes at Persepolis. In the southwestern part of Persia is the lovely valley of Schiraz, in theprovince of Farsistan, which is the ancient Persis. Through the longspring and summer the plains are covered with flowers, the air is ladenwith perfume, and the melody of birds, winds, and waters fills the ear. The fields are covered with grain, which ripens in May; the grapes, apricots, and peaches are finer than those of Europe. The nightingale (orbulbul) sings more sweetly than elsewhere, and the rose-bush, the nationalemblem of Persia, grows to the size of a tree, and is weighed down by itsluxuriant blossoms. The beauty of this region, and the loveliness of thewomen of Schiraz awakened the genius of Hafiz and of Saadi, the two greatlyric poets of the East, both of whom resided here. At one extremity of this valley, in the hollow of a crescent formed byrocky hills, thirty miles northwest of Schiraz, stands an immenseplatform, fifty feet high above the plain, hewn partly out of the mountainitself, and partly built up with gray marble blocks from twenty to sixtyfeet long, so nicely fitted together that the joints can scarcely bedetected. This platform is about fourteen hundred feet long by ninehundred broad, and its faces front the four quarters of the heavens. Yourise from the plain by flights of marble steps, so broad and easy that aprocession on horseback could ascend them. By these you reach a landing, where stand as sentinels two colossal figures sculptured from great blocksof marble. The one horn in the forehead seems to Heeren to indicate theUnicorn; the mighty limbs, whose muscles are carved with the precision ofthe Grecian chisel, induced Sir Robert Porter to believe that theyrepresented the sacred bulls of the Magian religion; while the solemn, half-human repose of the features suggests some symbolic and supernaturalmeaning. Passing these sentinels, who have kept their solitary watch forcenturies, you ascend by other flights of steps to the top of the terrace. There stand, lonely and beautiful, a few gigantic columns, whose loftyfluted shafts and elegantly carved capitals belong to an unknown order ofarchitecture. Fifty or sixty feet high, twelve or fifteen feet incircumference, they, with a multitude of others, once supported the roofof cedar, now fallen, whose beams stretched from capital to capital, andwhich protected the assembled multitudes from the hot sun of SouthernAsia. Along the noble upper stairway are carved rows of figures, whichseem to be ascending by your side. They represent warriors, courtiers, captives, men of every nation, among whom may be easily distinguished thenegro from the centre of Africa. Inscriptions abound, in that strangearrow-headed or wedge-shaped character, --one of the most ancient anddifficult of all, --which, after long baffling the learning of Europe, hasat last begun yielded to the science and acuteness of the present century. One of the inscriptions copied from these walls was read by Grotefend asfollows:-- "Darius the King, King of Kings, son of Hystaspes, successor of the Ruler of the World, Djemchid. " Another:-- "Xerxes the King, King of Kings, son of Darius the King, successor of the Ruler of the World. " More recently, other inscriptions have been deciphered, one of which isthus given by another German Orientalist, Benfey:--[107] "Ahura-Mazda (Ormazd) is a mighty God; who has created the earth, the heaven, and men; who has given glory to men; who has made Xerxes king, the ruler of many. I, Xerxes, King of Kings, king of the earth near and far, son of Darius, an Achæmenid. What I have done here, and what I have done elsewhere, I have done by the grace of Ahura-Mazda. " In another place:-- "Artaxerxes the King has declared that this great work is done by me. May Ahura-Mazda and Mithra protect me, my building, and my people[108]. " Here, then, was the palace of Darius and his successors, Xerxes andArtaxerxes, famous for their conquests, --some of which are recorded onthese walls, --who carried their victorious arms into India on the east, Syria and Asia Minor on the west, but even more famous for being defeatedat Marathon and Thermopylæ. By the side of these columns sat the greatkings of Persia, giving audience to ambassadors from distant lands. Here, perhaps, sat Cyrus himself, the founder of the Persian monarchy, andissued orders to rebuild Jerusalem. Here the son of Xerxes, the Ahasuerusof Scripture, may have brought from Susa the fair Esther. For this is thefamous Persepolis, and on those loftier platforms, where only ruinousheaps of stones now remain, stood that other palace, which Alexanderburned in his intoxication three hundred and thirty years before Christ. "Solitary in their situation, peculiar in their character, " says Heeren, "these ruins rise above the deluge of years which has overwhelmed all therecords of human grandeur around them, and buried all traces of Susa andBabylon. Their venerable antiquity and majestic proportions do not morecommand our reverence, than the mystery which involves their constructionawakens the curiosity of the most unobservant spectator. Pillars whichbelong to no known order of architecture, inscriptions in an alphabetwhich continues an enigma, fabulous animals which stand as guards at theentrance, the multiplicity of allegorical figures which decorate thewalls, --all conspire to carry us back to ages of the most remoteantiquity, over which the traditions of the East shed a doubtful andwavering light. " Diodorus Siculus says that at Persepolis, on the face of the mountain, were the tombs of the kings of Persia, and that the coffins had to belifted up to them along the wall of rock by cords. And Ctesias tells usthat "Darius, the son of Hystaspes, had a tomb prepared for himself in thedouble mountain during his lifetime, and that his parents were drawn upwith cords to see it, but fell and were killed. " These very tombs arestill to be seen on the face of the mountain behind the ruins. The figuresof the kings are carved over them. One stands before an altar on which afire is burning. A ball representing the sun is above the altar. Over theeffigy of the king hangs in the air a winged half-length figure in fainterlines, and resembling him. In other places he is seen contending with awinged animal like a griffin. All this points at the great Iranic religion, the religion of Persia andits monarchs for many centuries, the religion of which Zoroaster was thegreat prophet, and the Avesta the sacred book. The king, as servant ofOrmazd, is worshipping the fire and the sun, --symbols of the god; heresists the impure griffin, the creature of Ahriman; and the half-lengthfigure over his head is the surest evidence of the religion of Zoroaster. For, according to the Avesta, every created being has its archetype orFereuer (Ferver, Fravashis), which is its ideal essence, first created bythe thought of Ormazd. Even Ormazd himself has his Fravashis, [109] andthese angelic essences are everywhere objects of worship to the discipleof Zoroaster. We have thus found in Persepolis, not only the palace of thegreat kings of Persia, but the home of that most ancient system ofDualism, the system of Zoroaster. § 2. Greek Accounts of Zoroaster. Plutarch's Description of his Religion. But who was Zoroaster, and what do we know of him? He is mentioned byPlato, about four hundred years before Christ. In speaking of theeducation of a Persian prince he says that "one teacher instructs him inthe magic of Zoroaster, the son (or priest) of Ormazd (or Oromazes), inwhich is comprehended all the worship of the gods. " He is also spoken ofby Diodorus, Plutarch, the elder Pliny, and many writers of the firstcenturies after Christ. The worship of the Magians is described byHerodotus before Plato. Herodotus gives very minute accounts of theritual, priests, sacrifices, purifications, and mode of burial used by thePersian Magi in his time, four hundred and fifty years before Christ; andhis account closely corresponds with the practices of the Pârsîs, orfire-worshippers, still remaining in one or two places in Persia and Indiaat the present day. "The Persians, " he says, "have no altars, no templesnor images; they worship on the tops of the mountains. They adore theheavens, and sacrifice to the sun, moon, earth, fire, water, andwinds. "[110] "They do not erect altars, nor use libations, fillets, orcakes. One of the Magi sings an ode concerning the origin of the gods, over the sacrifice, which is laid on a bed of tender grass. " "They paygreat reverence to all rivers, and must do nothing to defile them; inburying they never put the body in the ground till it has been torn bysome bird or dog; they cover the body with wax, and then put it in theground. " "The Magi think they do a meritorious act when they kill ants, snakes, reptiles. "[111] Plutarch's account of Zoroaster[112] and his precepts, is veryremarkable. It is as follows:-- "Some believe that there are two Gods, --as it were, two rival workmen; theone whereof they make to be the maker of good things, and the other bad. And some call the better of these God, and the other Dæmon; as dothZoroastres, the Magee, whom they report to be five thousand years elderthan the Trojan times. This Zoroastres therefore called the one of theseOromazes, and the other Arimanius; and affirmed, moreover, that the one ofthem did, of anything sensible, the most resemble light, and the otherdarkness and ignorance; but that Mithras was in the middle betwixt them. For which cause, the Persians called Mithras the mediator. And they tellus that he first taught mankind to make vows and offerings of thanksgivingto the one, and to offer averting and feral sacrifice to the other. Forthey beat a certain plant called homomy[113] in a mortar, and call uponPluto and the dark; and then mix it with the blood of a sacrificed wolf, and convey it to a certain place where the sun never shines, and therecast it away. For of plants they believe, that some pertain to the goodGod, and others again to the evil Dæmon; and likewise they think that suchanimals as dogs, fowls, and urchins belong to the good; but water animalsto the bad, for which reason they account him happy that kills most ofthem. These men, moreover, tell us a great many romantic things aboutthese gods, whereof these are some: They say that Oromazes, springing frompurest light, and Arimanius, on the other hand, from pitchy darkness, these two are therefore at war with one another. And that Oromazes madesix gods[114], whereof the first was the author of benevolence, the secondof truth, the third of justice, and the rest, one of wisdom, one ofwealth, and a third of that pleasure which accrues from good actions; andthat Arimanius likewise made the like number of contrary operations toconfront them. After this, Oromazes, having first trebled his ownmagnitude, mounted up aloft, so far above the sun as the sun itself abovethe earth, and so bespangled the heavens with stars. But one star (calledSirius or the Dog) he set as a kind of sentinel or scout before all therest. And after he had made four-and-twenty gods more, he placed them allin an egg-shell. But those that were made by Arimanius (being themselvesalso of the like number) breaking a hole in this beauteous and glazedegg-shell, bad things came by this means to be intermixed with good. Butthe fatal time is now approaching, in which Arimanius, who by means ofthis brings plagues and famines upon the earth, must of necessity behimself utterly extinguished and destroyed; at which time, the earth, being made plain and level, there will be one life, and one society ofmankind, made all happy, and one speech. But Theopompus saith, that, according to the opinion of the Magees, each of these gods subdues, and issubdued by turns, for the space of three thousand years apiece, and thatfor three thousand years more they quarrel and fight and destroy eachother's works; but that at last Pluto shall fail, and mankind shall behappy, and neither need food, nor yield a shadow. [115] And that the godwho projects these things doth, for some time, take his repose and rest;but yet this time is not so much to him although it seems so to man, whosesleep is but short. Such, then, is the mythology of the Magees. " We shall see presently how nearly this account corresponds with thereligion of the Pârsis, as it was developed out of the primitive doctrineof Zoroaster. [116] Besides what was known through the Greeks, and some accounts contained inArabian and Persian writers, there was, until the middle of the lastcentury, no certain information concerning Zoroaster and his teachings. But the enterprise, energy, and scientific devotion of a young Frenchmanchanged the whole aspect of the subject, and we are now enabled to speakwith some degree of certainty concerning this great teacher and hisdoctrines. § 3. Anquetil du Perron and his Discovery of the Zend Avesta. Anquetil du Perron, born at Paris in 1731, devoted himself early to thestudy of Oriental literature. He mastered the Hebrew, Arabic, and Persianlanguages, and by his ardor in these studies attracted the attention ofOriental scholars. Meeting one day in the Royal Library with a fragment ofthe Zend Avesta, he was seized with the desire of visiting India, torecover the lost books of Zoroaster, "and to learn the Zend language inwhich they were written, and also the Sanskrit, so as to be able to readthe manuscripts in the _Bibliothèque du Roi_, which no one in Parisunderstood. "[117] His friends endeavored to procure him a situation in anexpedition just about to sail; but their efforts not succeeding, Du Perronenlisted as a private soldier, telling no one of his intention till theday before setting out, lest he should be prevented from going. He thensent for his brother and took leave of him with many tears, resisting allthe efforts made to dissuade him from his purpose. His baggage consistedof a little linen, a Hebrew Bible, a case of mathematical instruments, andthe works of Montaigne and Charron. A ten days' march, with otherrecruits, through wet and cold, brought him to the port from whence theexpedition was to sail. Here he found that the government, struck with hisextraordinary zeal for science, had directed that he should have hisdischarge and a small salary of five hundred livres. The East IndiaCompany (French) gave him a passage gratis, and he set sail for India, February 7, 1755, being then twenty-four years old. The first two years inIndia were almost lost to him for purposes of science, on account of hissicknesses, travels, and the state of the country disturbed by war betweenEngland and France[118]. He travelled afoot and on horseback over a greatpart of Hindostan, saw the worship of Juggernaut and the monumental cavesof Ellora, and, in 1759, arrived at Surat, where was the Pârsî communityfrom which he hoped for help in obtaining the object of his pursuit. Byperseverance and patience he succeeded in persuading the Destours, orpriests, of these fire-worshippers, to teach him the Zend language and tofurnish him with manuscripts of the Avesta. With one hundred and eightyvaluable manuscripts he returned to Europe, and published, in 1771, hisgreat work, --the Avesta translated into French, with notes anddissertations. He lived through the French Revolution, shut up with hisbooks, and immersed in his Oriental studies, and died, after a life ofcontinued labor, in 1805. Immense erudition and indomitable industry werejoined in Anquetil du Perron to a pure love of truth and an excellentheart. For many years after the publication of the Avesta its genuineness andauthenticity were a matter of dispute among the learned men of Europe; SirWilliam Jones especially denying it to be an ancient work, or theproduction of Zoroaster. But almost all modern writers of eminence nowadmit both. Already in 1826 Heeren said that these books had "stood thefiery ordeal of criticism. " "Few remains of antiquity, " he remarks, "haveundergone such attentive examination as the books of the Zend Avesta. Thiscriticism has turned out to their advantage; the genuineness of theprincipal compositions, especially of the Vendidad and Izeschne (Yaçna), has been demonstrated; and we may consider as completely ascertained allthat regards the rank of each book of the Zend Avesta. " Rhode (one of the first of scholars of his day in this department) says:"There is not the least doubt that these are the books ascribed in themost ancient times to Zoroaster. " Of the Vendidad he says: "It has boththe inward and outward marks of the highest antiquity, so that we fear notto say that only prejudice or ignorance could doubt it[119]. " § 4. Epoch of Zoroaster. What do we know of him? As to the age of these books, however, and the period at which Zoroasterlived, there is the greatest difference of opinion. He is mentioned byPlato (Alcibiades, I. 37), who speaks of "the magic (or religiousdoctrines) of Zoroaster the Ormazdian" (_magedan Zoroastran tonOromazon_[120]). As Plato speaks of his religion as something establishedin the form of Magism, or the system of the Medes, in West Iran, while theAvesta appears to have originated in Bactria, or East Iran[121], thisalready carries the age of Zoroaster back to at least the sixth or seventhcentury before Christ. When the Avesta was written, Bactria was anindependent monarchy. Zoroaster is represented as teaching under KingVistaçpa. But the Assyrians conquered Bactria B. C. 1200, which was thelast of the Iranic kingdoms, they having previously vanquished the Medes, Hyrcanians, Parthians, Persians, etc. As Zoroaster must have lived beforethis conquest, his period is taken back to a still more remote time, aboutB. C. 1300 or B. C. 1250[122] It is difficult to be more precise than this. Bunsen indeed[123] suggests that "the date of Zoroaster, as fixed byAristotle, cannot be said to be so very irrational. He and Eudoxus, according to Pliny, place him six thousand years before the death ofPlato; Hermippus, five thousand years before the Trojan war, " or aboutB. C. 6300 or B. C. 6350. But Bunsen adds: "At the present stage of theinquiry the question whether this date is set too high cannot be answeredeither in the negative or affirmative. " Spiegel, in one of his latestworks, [124] considers Zoroaster as a neighbor and contemporary of Abraham, therefore as living B. C. 2000 instead of B. C. 6350. Professor Whitney ofNew Haven places the epoch of Zoroaster at "least B. C. 1000, " and addsthat all attempts to reconstruct Persian chronology or history prior tothe reign of the first Sassanid have been relinquished as futile. [125]Döllinger[126] thinks he may have been "somewhat later than Moses, perhapsabout B. C. 1300, " but says, "it is impossible to fix precisely" when helived. Rawlinson[127]| merely remarks that Berosus places him anterior toB. C. 2234. Haug is inclined to date the Gâthâs, the oldest songs of theAvesta, as early as the time of Moses. [128] Rapp, [129] after a thoroughcomparison of ancient writers, concludes that Zoroaster lived B. C. 1200 or1300. In this he agrees with Duncker, who, as we have seen, decided uponthe same date. It is not far from the period given by the oldest Greekwriter who speaks of Zoroaster, --Xanthus of Sardis, a contemporary ofDarius. It is the period given by Cephalion, a writer of the secondcentury, who takes it from three independent sources. We have no sourcesnow open to us which enable us to come nearer than this to the time inwhich he lived. Nor is anything known with certainty of the place where he lived or theevents of his life. Most modern writers suppose that he resided inBactria. Haug maintains that the language of the Zend books isBactrian[130]. A highly mythological and fabulous life of Zoroaster, translated by Anquetil du Perron, called the Zartusht-Namah[131], describes him as going to Iran in his thirtieth year, spending twentyyears in the desert, working miracles during ten years, and giving lessonsof philosophy in Babylon, with Pythagoras as his pupil. All this is basedon the theory (now proved to be false) of his living in the time ofDarius. "The language of the Avesta, " says Max Müller, "is so much moreprimitive than the inscriptions of Darius, that many centuries must havepassed between the two periods represented by these two strata oflanguage[132]. " These inscriptions are in the Achæmenian dialect, which isthe Zend in a later stage of linguistic growth. § 5. Spirit of Zoroaster and of his Religion It is not likely that Zoroaster ever saw Pythagoras or even Abraham. Butthough absolutely nothing is known of the events of his life, there is notthe least doubt of his existence nor of his character. He has left theimpress of his commanding genius on great regions, various races, and longperiods of time. His religion, like that of the Buddha, is essentially amoral religion. Each of them was a revolt from the Pantheism of India, inthe interest of morality, human freedom, and the progress of the race. They differ in this, that each takes hold of one side of morality, andlets go the opposite. Zoroaster bases his law on the eternal distinctionbetween right and wrong; Sakya-muni, on the natural laws and theirconsequences, either good or evil. Zoroaster's law is, therefore, the lawof justice; Sakya-muni's, the law of mercy. The one makes the supreme goodto consist in truth, duty, right; the other, in love, benevolence, andkindness. Zoroaster teaches providence: the monk of India teachesprudence. Zoroaster aims at holiness, the Buddha at merit. Zoroasterteaches and emphasizes creation: the Buddha knows nothing of creation, butonly nature or law. All these oppositions run back to a single root. Bothare moral reformers; but the one moralizes according to the method ofBishop Butler, the other after that of Archdeacon Paley. Zoroastercognizes all morality as having its root within, in the eternaldistinction between right and wrong motive, therefore in God; butSakya-muni finds it outside of the soul, in the results of good and evilaction, therefore in the nature of things. The method of salvation, therefore, according to Zoroaster, is that of an eternal battle for goodagainst evil; but according to the Buddha, it is that of self-culture andvirtuous activity. Both of these systems, as being essentially moral systems in the interestof humanity, proceed from persons. For it is a curious fact, that, whilethe essentially spiritualistic religions are ignorant of their founders, all the moral creeds of the world proceed from a moral source, i. E. Ahuman will. Brahmanism, Gnosticism, the Sufism of Persia, the Mysteries ofEgypt and Greece, Neo-Platonism, the Christian Mysticism of the MiddleAges, --these have, strictly speaking, no founder. Every tendency to theabstract, to the infinite, ignores personality. [133] Individual mystics weknow, but never the founder of any such system. The religions in which themoral element is depressed, as those of Babylon, Assyria, Egypt, Greece, Rome, are also without personal founders. But moral religions are thereligions of persons, and so we have the systems of Confucius, Buddha, Zoroaster, Moses, Mohammed. [134] The Protestant Reformation was a protestof the moral nature against a religion which had become divorced frommorality. Accordingly we have Luther as the founder of Protestantism; butmediæval Christianity grew up with no personal leader. The whole religion of the Avesta revolves around the person of Zoroaster, or Zarathustra. In the oldest part of the sacred books, the Gâthâs of theYaçna, he is called the _pure_ Zarathustra, good in thought, speech, andwork. It is said that Zarathustra alone knows the precepts of Ahura-Mazda(Ormazd), and that he shall be made skilful in speech. In one of theGâthâs he expresses the desire of bringing knowledge to the pure, in thepower of Ormazd, so as to be to them strong joy (Spiegel, Gâthâ Ustvaiti, XLII. 8), or, as Haug translates the same passage (Die Gâthâs desZarathustra, II. 8): "I will swear hostility to the liars, but be a stronghelp to the truthful. " He prays for truth, declares himself the mostfaithful servant in the world of Ormazd the Wise One, and therefore begsto know the best thing to do. As the Jewish prophets tried to escape theirmission, and called it a burden, and went to it "in the heat andbitterness of their spirit, " so Zoroaster says (according to Spiegel):"When it came to me through your prayer, I thought that the spreadingabroad of your law through men was something difficult. " Zoroaster was one of those who was oppressed with the sight of evil. Butit was not outward evil which most tormented him, but spiritualevil, --evil having its origin in a depraved heart and a will turned awayfrom goodness. His meditations led him to the conviction that all the woeof the world had its root in sin, and that the origin of sin was to befound in the demonic world. He might have used the language of the ApostlePaul and said, "We wrestle not with flesh and blood, "--that is, ourstruggle is not with man, but with principles of evil, rulers of darkness, spirits of wickedness in the supernatural world. Deeply convinced that agreat struggle was going on between the powers of light and darkness, hecalled on all good men to take part in the war, and battle for the goodGod against the dark and foul tempter. Great physical calamities added to the intensity of this conviction. Itappears that about the period of Zoroaster, some geological convulsionshad changed the climate of Northern Asia, and very suddenly producedsevere cold where before there had been an almost tropical temperature. The first Fargard of the Vendidad has been lately translated by bothSpiegel and Haug, and begins by speaking of a good country, Aryana-Vaêjo, which was created a region of delight by Ahura-Mazda (Ormazd). Then itadds that the "evil being, Angra-Mainyus (Ahriman), full of death, createda mighty serpent, and winter, the work of the Devas. Ten months of winterare there, two months of summer. " Then follows, in the original document, this statement: "Seven months of summer are (were?) there; five months ofwinter were there. The latter are cold as to water, cold as to earth, coldas to trees. There is the heart of winter; there all around falls deepsnow. There is the worst of evils. " This passage has been set aside as aninterpolation by both Spiegel and Haug. But they give no reason forsupposing it such, except the difficulty of reconciling it with thepreceding passage. This difficulty, however, disappears, if we suppose itintended to describe a great climatic change, by which the original homeof the Aryans, Aryana-Vaêjo, became suddenly very much colder than before. Such a change, if it took place, was probably the cause of the emigrationwhich transferred this people from Aryana-Vaêjo (Old Iran) to New Iran, orPersia. Such a history of emigration Bunsen and Haug suppose to becontained in this first Fargard (or chapter) of the Vendidad. If so, ittakes us back further than the oldest part of the Veda, and gives theprogress of the Aryan stream to the south from its original source on thegreat plains of Central Asia, till it divided into two branches, oneflowing into Persia, the other into India. The first verse of thisvenerable document introduces Ormazd as saying that he had created newregions, desirable as homes; for had he not done so, all human beingswould have crowded into this Aryana-Vaêjo. Thus in the very first verse ofthe Vendidad appears the affectionate recollection of these emigrant racesfor their fatherland in Central Asia, and the Zoroasterian faith in acreative and protective Providence. The awful convulsion which turnedtheir summer climate into the present Siberian winter of ten months'duration was part of a divine plan. Old Iran would have been tooattractive, and all mankind would have crowded into that Eden. So theevil Ahriman was permitted to glide into it, a new serpent of destruction, and its seven months of summer and five of winter were changed to ten ofwinter and two of summer. [135] This Aryana-Vaêjo, Old Iran, the primeval seat of the great Indo-Europeanrace, is supposed by Haug and Bunsen to be situated on the high plainsnortheast of Samarcand, between the thirty-seventh and fortieth degrees ofnorth latitude, and the eighty-sixth and ninetieth of east longitude. Thisregion has exactly the climate described, --ten months of winter and two ofsummer. The same is true of Western Thibet and most of Central Siberia. Malte-Brun says: "The winter is nine or ten months long through almost thewhole of Siberia. " June and July are the only months wholly free fromsnow. On the parallel of 60°, the earth on the 28th of June was foundfrozen, at a depth of three feet. But is there reason to think that the climate was ever different?Geologists assure us that "great oscillations of climate have occurred intimes immediately antecedent to the peopling of the earth by man. "[136]But in Central and Northern Asia there is evidence of such fluctuations oftemperature in a much more recent period. In 1803, on the banks of theLena, in latitude 70°, the entire body of a mammoth fell from a mass ofice in which it had been entombed perhaps for thousands of years, but withthe flesh so perfectly preserved that it was immediately devoured bywolves. Since then these frozen elephants have been found in greatnumbers, in so perfect a condition that the bulb of an eye of one of themis in the Museum at Moscow. [137] They have been found as far north as 75°. Hence Lyell thinks it "reasonable to believe that a large region inCentral Asia, including perhaps the southern half of Siberia, enjoyed atno very remote period in the earth's history a temperate climate, sufficiently mild to afford food for numerous herds of elephants andrhinoceroses. " Amid these terrible convulsions of the air and ground, these antagonismsof outward good and evil, Zoroaster developed his belief in the dualism ofall things. To his mind, as to that of the Hebrew poet, God had placed allthings against each other, two and two. No Pantheistic optimism, like thatof India, could satisfy his thought. He could not say, "Whatever is, isright"; some things seemed fatally wrong. The world was a scene of war, not of peace and rest. Life to the good man was not sleep, but battle. Ifthere was a good God over all, as he devoutly believed, there was also aspirit of evil, of awful power, to whom we were not to yield, but withwhom we should do battle. In the far distance he saw the triumph of good;but that triumph could only come by fighting the good fight now. But hisweapons were not carnal. "Pure thoughts" going out into "true words" andresulting in "right actions"; this was the whole duty of man. § 6. Character of the Zend Avesta. A few passages, taken from different parts of the Zend Avesta, will bestillustrate these tendencies, and show how unlike it is, in its wholespirit, to its sister, the Vedic liturgy. Twin children of the old Aryanstock, they must have struggled together like Esau and Jacob, before theywere born. In such cases we see how superficial is the philosophy which, beginning with synthesis instead of analysis, declares the unity of allreligions before it has seen their differences. There _is_ indeed, whatCudworth has called "the symphony of all religions, " but it cannot bedemonstrated by the easy process of gathering a few similar texts fromConfucius, the Vedas, and the Gospels, and then announcing that they allteach the same thing. We must first find the specific idea of each, and wemay then be able to show how each of these may take its place in theharmonious working of universal religion. If, in taking up the Zend Avesta, we expect to find a system of theologyor philosophy, we shall be disappointed. It is a liturgy, --a collection ofhymns, prayers, invocations, thanksgivings. It contains prayers to amultitude of deities, among whom Ormazd is always counted supreme, and therest only his servants. "I worship and adore, " says Zarathustra (Zoroaster), "the Creator of allthings, Ahura-Mazda (Ormazd), full of light! I worship the Amĕsha-çpentas(Amshaspands, the seven archangels, or protecting spirits)! I worship thebody of the primal Bull, the soul of the Bull! I invoke thee, O Fire, thouson of Ormazd, most rapid of the Immortals! I invoke Mithra, the lofty, the immortal, the pure, the sun, the ruler, the quick Horse, the eye ofOrmazd! I invoke the holy Sraosha, gifted with holiness, and Racnçu(spirit of justice), and Arstat (spirit of truth)! I invoke the Fravashiof good men, the Fravashi of Ormazd, the Fravashi of my own soul! I praisethe good men and women of the whole world of purity! I praise the Haŏma, health-bringing, golden, with moist stalks. I praise Sraosha, whom fourhorses carry, spotless, bright-shining, swifter than the storms, who, without sleeping, protects the world in the darkness. " The following passages are from the oldest part of the Avesta, theGâthâs:-- "Good is the thought, good the speech, good the work of the pure Zarathustra. " "I desire by my prayer with uplifted hands this joy, --the pure works of the Holy Spirit, Mazda, . .. . A disposition to perform good actions, . .. . And pure gifts for both worlds, the bodily and spiritual. " "I have intrusted my soul to Heaven. .. .. And I will teach what is pure so long as I can. " "I keep forever purity and good-mindedness. Teach thou me, Ahura-Mazda, out of thyself; from heaven, by thy mouth, whereby the world first arose. " "Thee have I thought, O Mazda, as the first, to praise with the soul, . .. . Active Creator, . .. . Lord of the worlds, . .. . Lord of good things, . .. . The first fashioner, . .. . Who made the pure creation, . .. . Who upholds the best soul with his understanding. " "I praise Ahura-Mazda, who has created the cattle, created the water and good trees, the splendor of light, the earth and all good. We praise the Fravashis of the pure men and women, --whatever is fairest, purest, immortal. " "We honor the good spirit, the good kingdom, the good law, --all that is good. " "Here we praise the soul and body of the Bull, then our own souls, the souls of the cattle which desire to maintain us in life, . .. . The good men and women, . .. . The abode of the water, . .. . The meeting and parting of the ways, . .. . The mountains which make the waters flow, . .. . The strong wind created by Ahura-Mazda, . .. . The Haŏma, giver of increase, far from death. " "Now give ear to me, and hear! the Wise Ones have created all. Evil doctrine shall not again destroy the world. " "In the beginning, the two heavenly Ones spoke--the Good to the Evil--thus; 'Our souls, doctrines, words, works, do not unite together. '" "How shall I satisfy thee, O Mazda, I, who have little wealth, few men? How may I exalt thee according to my wish!. .. . I will be contented with your desires; this is the decision of my understanding and of my soul. " The following is from the Khordah Avesta:-- "In the name of God, the giver, forgiver, rich in love, praise be to the name of Ormazd, the God with the name, 'Who always was, always is, and always will be'; the heavenly amongst the heavenly, with the name 'From whom alone is derived rule. ' Ormazd is the greatest ruler, mighty, wise, creator, supporter, refuge, defender, completer of good works, overseer, pure, good, and just. "With all strength (bring I) thanks; to the great among beings, who created and destroyed, and through his own determination of time, strength, wisdom, is higher than the six Amshaspands, the circumference of heaven, the shining sun, the brilliant moon, the wind, the water, the fire, the earth, the trees, the cattle, the metals, mankind. "Offering and praise to that Lord, the completer of good works, who made men greater than all earthly beings, and through the gift of speech created them to rule the creatures, as warriors against the Daêvas. [138] "Praise the omniscience of God, who hath sent through the holy Zarathustra peace for the creatures, the wisdom of the law, --the enlightening derived from the heavenly understanding, and heard with the ears, --wisdom and guidance for all beings who are, were, and will be, (and) the wisdom of wisdoms; which effects freedom from hell for the soul at the bridge, and leads it over to that Paradise, the brilliant, sweet-smelling of the pure. "All good do I accept at thy command, O God, and think, speak, and do it. I believe in the pure law; by every good work seek I forgiveness for all sins. I keep pure for myself the serviceable work and abstinence from the unprofitable. I keep pure the six powers, --thought, speech, work, memory, mind, and understanding. According to thy will am I able to accomplish, O accomplisher of good, thy honor, with good thoughts, good words, good works. "I enter on the shining way to Paradise; may the fearful terror of hell not overcome me! May I step over the bridge Chinevat, may I attain Paradise, with much perfume, and all enjoyments, and all brightness. "Praise to the Overseer, the Lord, who rewards those who accomplish good deeds according to his own wish, purifies at last the obedient, and at last purifies even the wicked one of hell. All praise be to the creator, Ormazd, the all-wise, mighty, rich in might; to the seven Amshaspands; to Ized Bahrâm, the victorious annihilator of foes. " "HYMN TO A STAR. "The star Tistrya praise we, the shining, majestic, with pleasant good dwelling, light, shining, conspicuous, going around, healthful, bestowing joy, great, going round about from afar, with shining beams, the pure, and the water which makes broad seas, good, far-famed, the name of the bull created by Mazda, the strong kingly majesty, and the Fravashi of the holy pure, Zarathustra. "For his brightness, for his majesty, will I praise him, the star Tistrya, with audible praise. We praise the star Tistrya, the brilliant, majestic, with offerings, with Haŏma bound with flesh, with Maúthra which gives wisdom to the tongue, with word and deed, with offerings with right-spoken speech. " "The star Tistrya, the brilliant, majestic, we praise, who glides so softly to the sea like an arrow, who follows the heavenly will, who is a terrible pliant arrow, a very pliant arrow, worthy of honor among those worthy of honor, who comes from the damp mountain to the shining mountain. " "HYMN TO MITHRA. "Mithra, whose long arms grasp forwards here with Mithra-strength; that which is in Eastern India he seizes, and that which [is] in the Western he smites, and what is on the steppes of Raúha, and what is at the ends of this earth. "Thou, O Mithra, dost seize these, reaching out thy arms. The unrighteous destroyed through the just is gloomy in soul. Thus thinks the unrighteous: Mithra, the artless, does not see all these evil deeds, all these lies. "But I think in my soul: No earthly man with a hundred-fold strength thinks so much evil as Mithra with heavenly strength thinks good. No earthly man with a hundred-fold strength speaks so much evil as Mithra with heavenly strength speaks good. No earthly man with a hundred-fold strength does so much evil as Mithra with heavenly strength does good. "With no earthly man is the hundred-fold greater heavenly understanding allied as the heavenly understanding allies itself to the heavenly Mithra, the heavenly. No earthly man with a hundred-fold strength hears with the ears as the heavenly Mithra, who possesses a hundred strengths, sees every liar. Mightily goes forward Mithra, powerful in rule marches he onwards; fair visual power, shining from afar, gives he to the eyes. " "A CONFESSION, OR PATET. [139] "I repent of all sins. All wicked thoughts, words, and works which I have meditated in the world, corporeal, spiritual, earthly, and heavenly, I repent of, in your presence, ye believers. O Lord, pardon through the three words. "I confess myself a Mazdayaçnian, a Zarathustrian, an opponent of the Daêvas, devoted to belief in Ahura, for praise, adoration, satisfaction, and laud. As it is the will of God, let the Zaŏta say to me, Thus announces the Lord, the Pure out of Holiness, let the wise speak. "I praise all good thoughts, words, and works, through thought, word, and deed. I curse all evil thoughts, words, and works away from thought, word, and deed. I lay hold on all good thoughts, words, and works, with thoughts, words, and works, i. E. I perform good actions, I dismiss all evil thoughts, words, and works, from thoughts, words, and works, i. E. I commit no sins. "I give to you, ye who are Amshaspands, offering and praise, with the heart, with the body, with my own vital powers, body and soul. The whole powers which I possess I possess in dependence on the Yazatas. To possess in dependence upon the Yazatas means (as much as) this: if anything happens so that it behoves to give the body for the sake of the soul, I give it to them. "I praise the best purity, I hunt away the Dévs, I am thankful for the good of the Creator Ormazd, with the opposition and unrighteousness which come from Ganâ-mainyo, am I contented and agreed in the hope of the resurrection. The Zarathustrian law created by Ormazd I take as a plummet. For the sake of this way I repent of all sins. "I repent of the sins which can lay hold of the character of men, or which have laid hold of my character, small and great which are committed amongst men, the meanest sins as much as is (and) can be, yet more than this, namely, all evil thoughts, words, and works which (I have committed) for the sake of others, or others for my sake, or if the hard sin has seized the character of an evil-doer on my account, --such sins, thoughts, words, and works, corporeal, mental, earthly, heavenly, I repent of with the three words: pardon, O Lord, I repent of the sins with Patet. "The sins against father, mother, sister, brother, wife, child, against spouses, against the superiors, against my own relations, against those living with me, against those who possess equal property, against the neighbors, against the inhabitants of the same town, against servants, every unrighteousness through which I have been amongst sinners, --of these sins repent I with thoughts, words, and works, corporeal as spiritual, earthly as heavenly, with the three words: pardon, O Lord, I repent of sins. "The defilement with dirt and corpses, the bringing of dirt and corpses to the water and fire, or the bringing of fire and water to dirt and corpses; the omission of reciting the Avesta in mind, of strewing about hair, nails, and toothpicks, of not washing the hands, all the rest which belongs to the category of dirt and corpses, if I have thereby come among the sinners, so repent I of all these sins with thoughts, words, and works, corporeal as spiritual, earthly as heavenly, with the three words: pardon, O Lord, I repent of sin. "That which was the wish of Ormazd the Creator, and I ought to have thought, and have not thought, what I ought to have spoken and have not spoken, what I ought to have done and have not done; of these sins repent I with thoughts, words, and works, " etc. "That which was the wish of Ahriman, and I ought not to have thought and yet have thought, what I ought not to have spoken and yet have spoken, what I ought not to have done and yet have done; of these sins I repent, " etc. "Of all and every kind of sin which I have committed against the creatures of Ormazd, as stars, moon, sun, and the red burning fire, the dog, the birds, the five kinds of animals, the other good creatures which are the property of Ormazd, between earth and heaven, if I have become a sinner against any of these, I repent, " etc. "Of pride, haughtiness, covetousness, slandering the dead, anger, envy, the evil eye, shamelessness, looking at with evil intent, looking at with evil concupiscence, stiff-neckedness, discontent with the godly arrangements, self-willedness, sloth, despising others, mixing in strange matters, unbelief, opposing the Divine powers, false witness, false judgment, idol-worship, running naked, running with one shoe, the breaking of the low (midday) prayer, the omission of the (midday) prayer, theft, robbery, whoredom, witchcraft, worshipping with sorcerers, unchastity, tearing the hair, as well as all other kinds of sin which are enumerated in this Patet, or not enumerated, which I am aware of, or not aware of, which are appointed or not appointed, which I should have bewailed with obedience before the Lord, and have not bewailed, --of these sins repent I with thoughts, words, and works, corporeal as spiritual, earthly as heavenly. O Lord, pardon, I repent with the three words, with Patet. "If I have taken on myself the Patet for any one and have not performed it, and misfortune has thereby come upon his soul or his descendants, I repent of the sin for every one with thoughts, " etc. "With all good deeds am I in agreement, with all sins am I not in agreement, for the good am I thankful, with iniquity am I contented. With the punishment at the bridge, with the bonds and tormentings and chastisements of the mighty of the law, with the punishment of the three nights (after) the fifty-seven years am I contented and satisfied. " The Avesta, then, is not a system of dogmatics, but a book of worship. Itis to be read in private by the laity, or to be recited by the priests inpublic. Nevertheless, just such a book may be the best help to theknowledge of the religious opinions of an age. The deepest convictionscome to light in such a collection, not indeed in a systematic statement, but in sincerest utterance. It will contain the faith of the heart ratherthan the speculations of the intellect. Such a work can hardly be otherthan authentic; for men do not forge liturgies, and, if they did, couldhardly introduce them into the worship of a religious community. The Avesta consists of the Vendidad, of which twenty-two Fargards, orchapters, have been preserved; the Vispered, in twenty-seven; the Yaçna, in seventy; and the Khordah Avesta, or Little-Avesta, which contains theYashts, Patets, and other prayers for the use of the laity. Of these, Spiegel considers the Gâthâs of the Yaçna to be the oldest, next theVendidad, lastly, the first part of the Yaçna, and the Khordah Avesta. § 7. Later Development of the System in the Bundehesch. The Bundehesch is a book later than these, and yet, in its contents, running back to a very early period. Windischmann, [140] who has recentlygiven us a new translation of this book, says: "In regard to theBundehesch, I am confident that closer study of this remarkable book, anda more exact comparison of it with the original texts, will change theunfavorable opinion hitherto held concerning it into one of greatconfidence. I am justified in believing that its author has given usmainly only the ancient doctrine, taken by him from original texts, mostof which are now lost. The more thoroughly it is examined the moretrustworthy it will be found to be. " The following summary of the Pârsî system is mostly derived from theBundehesch, and the later writings of the Pârsîs. We have abridged it fromRhode. In the time of Zoroaster himself, it was probably far from being sofully elaborated. Only the germs of it are to be found in the elder booksof the Avesta. It has been doubted if the doctrine of Zerâna-Akerana, orthe Monad behind the Duad, is to be found in the Avesta; though importanttexts in the Vendidad[141] seem indeed to imply a Supreme and InfiniteBeing, the creator both of Ormazd and Ahriman. In the beginning, the Eternal or Absolute Being (Zerâna-Akerana) producedtwo other great divine, beings. The first, who remained true to him, wasAhura-Mazda, King of Light. The other was Ahriman (Angra-Mainyus), King ofDarkness. Ormazd found himself in a world of light and Ahriman inboundless darkness, and the two became antagonists. The Infinite Being (Zerana-Akerana) now determined, in order to destroythe evil which Ahriman had caused, to create the visible world by Ormazd;and he fixed its duration at twelve thousand years. This was divided intofour periods of three thousand years each. In the first period Ormazdshould rule alone; in the second Ahriman should begin to operate, butstill be subordinate; in the third they should both rule together; and inthe fourth Ahriman should have the ascendency. Ormazd began the creation by bringing forth the Fereuers (Fravashi). Everything which has been created, or which is to be created, has itsFravashi, which contains the reason and basis of its existence. EvenOrmazd has his Fravashi in relation to Zerâna-Akerana (the Infinite). Aspiritual and invisible world preceded, therefore, this visible materialworld as its prototype. In creating the material world, which was in reality only an incorporationof the spiritual world of Fravashis, Ormazd first created the firm vaultof heaven, and the earth on which it rests. On the earth he created thehigh mountain Albordj[142] which soared upward through all the spheres ofthe heaven, till it reached the primal light, and Ormazd made this summithis abode. From this summit the bridge Chinevat stretches to the vault ofheaven, and to Gorodman, which is the opening in the vault above Albordj. Gorodman is the dwelling of the Fravashis and of the blessed, and thebridge leading to it is precisely above the abyss Duzahk, --the monstrousgulf, the home of Ahriman beneath the earth. Ormazd, who knew that after the first period his battle with Ahriman wouldbegin, armed himself, and created for his aid the whole shining host ofheaven, --sun, moon, and stars, --mighty beings of light, wholly submissiveto him. First he created "the heroic runner, who never dies, the sun, " andmade him king and ruler of the material world. From Albordj he sets out onhis course, he circles the earth in the highest spheres of heaven, and atevening returns. Then he created the moon, which "has its own light, "which, departing from Albordj, circles the earth in a lower sphere, andreturns; then the five smaller planets, and the whole host of fixed stars, in the lowest circle of the heavens. The space between the earth and thefirm vault of heaven is therefore divided into three spheres, that of thesun, of the moon, and of the stars. The host of stars--common soldiers in the war with Ahriman--was dividedinto four troops, with each its appointed leader. Twelve companies werearranged in the twelve signs of the zodiac. All these were grouped intofour great divisions, in the east, west, north, and south. The planetTistrya (Jupiter) presides over and watches that in the east, and is namedPrince of the Stars; Sitavisa (Saturn) presides over the western division;Vanant (or Mercury) over that of the south; and Hapto-iringa (Mars) overthe stars of the north. In the middle of the heavens is the great starMesch, Meschgah (Venus). He leads them against Ahriman. The dog Sirius (Sura) is another watchman of the heavens; but he is fixedto one place, at the bridge Chinevat, keeping guard over the abyss out ofwhich Ahriman comes. When Ormazd had completed these preparations in the heavens, the first ofthe four ages drew to an end, and Ahriman saw, from the gloomy depths ofhis kingdom, what Ormazd had done. In opposition to this light creation, he created a world of darkness, a terrible community, equal in number andpower to the beings of light. Ormazd, knowing all the misery that Ahrimanwould cause, yet knowing that the victory would remain with himself, offered to Ahriman peace; but Ahriman chose war. But, blinded by Ormazd'smajesty, and terrified by the sight of the pure Fravashis of holy men, hewas conquered by Ormazd's strong word, and sank back into the abyss ofdarkness, where he lay fettered during the three thousand years of thesecond period. Ormazd now completed his creation upon the earth. Sapandomad was guardianspirit of the earth, and the earth, as Hethra, was mother of all living. Khordad was chief of the seasons, years, months, and days, and alsoprotector of the water which flowed from the fountain Anduisur, fromAlbordj. The planet Tistrya was commissioned to raise the water in vapor, collect it in clouds, and let it fall in rain, with the aid of the planetSitavisa. These cloud-compellers were highly reverenced. Amerdad wasgeneral deity of vegetation; but the great Mithra was the god offructification and reproduction in the whole organic world; his work wasto lead the Fravashis to the bodies they were to occupy. Everything earthly in the light-world of Ormazd had its protecting deity. These guardian spirits were divided into series and groups, had theircaptains and their associated assistants. The seven Amshaspands (in Zend, Amĕsha-çpentas) were the chief among these, of whom Ormazd was first. Theother six were Bahman, King of Heaven; Ardibehescht, King of Fire;Schariver, King of the Metals; Sapandomad, Queen of the Earth; Amerdad, King of Vegetables; and Khordad, King of Water. So ended the second age. In it Ormazd had also produced the greatprimitive Bull, in which, as the representative of the animal world, theseeds of all living creatures were deposited. While Ormazd was thus completing his light-creation, Ahriman, in his darkabyss, was effecting a corresponding creation of darkness, --making acorresponding evil being for every good being created by Ormazd. Thesespirits of night stood in their ranks and orders, with their sevenpresiding evil spirits, or Daêvas, corresponding to the Amshaspands. The vast preparations for this great war being completed, and the end ofthe second age now coming, Ahriman was urged by one of his Daêvas to beginthe conflict. He counted his host; but as he found nothing therein tooppose to the Fravashis of good men, he sank back in dejection. Finallythe second age expired, and Ahriman now sprang aloft without fear, for heknew that his time was come. His host followed him, but he alone succeededin reaching the heavens; his troops remained behind. A shudder ran overhim, and he sprang from heaven upon the earth in the form of a serpent, penetrated to its centre, and entered into everything which he found uponit. He passed into the primal Bull, and even into fire, the visible symbolof Ormazd, defiling it with smoke and vapor. Then he assailed the heavens, and a part of the stars were already in his power, and veiled in smoke andmist, when he was attacked by Ormazd, aided by the Fravashis of holy men;and after ninety days and ninety nights he was completely defeated, anddriven back with his troops into the abyss of Duzahk. But he did not remain there, for through the middle of the earth he builta way for himself and his companions, and is now living on the earthtogether with Ormazd, --according to the decree of the Infinite. The destruction which he produced in the world was terrible. Nevertheless, the more evil he tried to do, the more he ignorantly fulfilled thecounsels of the Infinite, and hastened the development of good. Thus heentered the Bull, the original animal, and injured him so that he died. But when he died, Kaiomarts, the first man, came out of his rightshoulder, and from his left Goshurun, the soul of the Bull, who now becamethe guardian spirit of the animal race. Also the whole realm of cleananimals and plants came from the Bull's body. Full of rage, Ahriman nowcreated the unclean animals, --for every clean beast an unclean. ThusOrmazd created the dog, Ahriman the wolf; Ormazd all useful animals, Ahriman all noxious ones; and so of plants. But to Kaiomarts, the original man, Ahriman had nothing to oppose, and sohe determined to kill him. Kaiomarts was both man and woman, but throughhis death there came from him the first human pair; a tree grew from hisbody, and bore ten pair of men and women. Meschia and Meschiane were thefirst. They were originally innocent and made for heaven, and worshippedOrmazd as their creator. But Ahriman tempted them. They drank milk from agoat and so injured themselves. Then Ahriman brought them fruit, they ateit, and lost a hundred parts of their happiness, so that only oneremained. The woman was the first to sacrifice to the Daêvas. After fiftyyears they had two children, Siamak and Veschak, and died a hundred yearsold. For their sins they remain in hell until the resurrection. The human race, which had thus become mortal and miserable by the sin ofits first parents, assumed nevertheless a highly interesting position. Theman stands in the middle between the two worlds of light and darkness, left to his own free will. As a creature of Ormazd he can and ought tohonor him, and assist him in the war with evil; but Ahriman and his Daêvassurround him night and day, and seek to mislead him, in order to increasethereby the power of darkness. He would not be able at all to resist thesetemptations, to which his first parents had already yielded, had notOrmazd taken pity on him, and sent him a revelation of his will in the lawof Zoroaster. If he obeys these precepts he is safe from the Daêvas, underthe immediate protection of Ormazd. The substance of the law is thecommand, "THINK PURELY, SPEAK PURELY, ACT PURELY. " All that comes fromOrmazd is pure, from Ahriman impure; and bodily purity has a like worthwith moral purity. Hence the multitude and minuteness of preceptsconcerning bodily cleanliness. In fact the whole liturgic worship turnsgreatly on this point. The Fravashis of men originally created by Ormazd are preserved in heaven, in Ormazd's realm of light. But they must come from heaven, to be unitedwith a human body, and to go on a path of probation in this world, calledthe "Way of the Two Destinies. " Those who have chosen the good in thisworld are received after death by good spirits, and guided, under theprotection of the dog Sura, to the bridge Chinevat; the wicked are draggedthither by the Daêvas. Here Ormazd holds a tribunal and decides the fateof the souls. The good pass the bridge into the mansions of the blessed, where they are welcomed with rejoicing by the Amshaspands; the bad fallover into the Gulf of Duzahk, where they are tormented by the Daêvas. Theduration of the punishment is fixed by Ormazd, and some are redeemedearlier by means of the prayers and intercessions of their friends, butmany must remain till the resurrection of the dead. Ahriman himself effects this consummation, after having exercised greatpower over men during the last three thousand years. He created sevencomets (in opposition to the seven planets), and they went on theirdestructive paths through the heavens, filling all things with danger, andall men with terror. But Ormazd placed them under the control of hisplanets to restrain them. They will do so, till by the decree of theInfinite, at the close of the last period, one of the comets will breakfrom his watchman, the moon, and plunge upon the earth, producing ageneral conflagration. But before this Ormazd will send his ProphetSosioçh and bring about the conversion of mankind, to be followed by thegeneral resurrection. Ormazd will clothe anew with flesh the bones of men, and relatives andfriends will recognize each other again. Then comes the great division ofthe just from the sinners. When Ahriman shall cause the comet to fall on the earth to gratify hisdestructive propensities, he will be really serving the Infinite Beingagainst his own will. For the conflagration caused by this comet willchange the whole earth into a stream like melted iron, which will pourimpetuously down into the realm of Ahriman. All beings must now passthrough this stream: to the righteous it will feel like warm milk, andthey will pass through to the dwellings of the just; but all the sinnersshall be borne along by the stream into the abyss of Duzahk. Here theywill burn three days and nights, then, being purified, they will invokeOrmazd, and be received into heaven. Afterward Ahriman himself and all in the Duzahk shall be purified by thisfire, all evil be consumed, and all darkness banished. From the extinct fire there will come a more beautiful earth, pure andperfect, and destined to be eternal. * * * * * Having given this account of the Pârsî system, in its later development, let us say that it was not an _invention_ of Zoroaster, nor of any oneelse. Religions are not invented: they grow. Even the religion of Mohammedgrew out of pre-existent beliefs. The founder of a religion does notinvent it, but gives it form. It crystallizes around his own deeperthought. So, in the time of Zoroaster, the popular imagination had fillednature with powers and presences, and given them names, and placed them inthe heavens. For, as Schiller says:-- "'Tis not merely The human being's pride which peoples space With life and mystical predominance; For also for the stricken heart of Love, This visible nature and this lower world Are all too common. " Zoroaster organized into clearer thought the pre-existing myths, andinspired them with moral ideas and vital power. § 8. Relation of the Religion of the Zend Avesta to that of the Vedas. That the Vedic religion and that of the Avesta arose out of an earlierAryan religion, monotheistic in its central element, but with a tendencyto immerse the Deity in nature, seems evident from the investigations ofPictet and other scholars. This primitive religion of the Aryan racediverged early in two directions, represented by the Veda and the Avesta. Yet each retains much in common with the other. The names of the powers, Indra, Sura, Naoghaithya, are in both systems. In the Veda they are gods, in the Avesta evil spirits. Indra, worshipped throughout the Rig-Veda asone of the highest deities, appears in the Avesta as an evil being. [143]Sura (Çura), one of the most ancient names of Shiva, is also denounced andopposed in the Avesta[144] as a Daêva, or Dew. And the third (Nâoghaithya, Nâouhaiti), also an evil spirit in the Avesta, is the Nâsatya of theVeda, [145] one of the Açvinas or twins who precede the Dawn. The Dews orDaêvas of the Avesta are demons, in the Vedas they are gods. On the otherhand, the Ahuras, or gods, of the Avesta are Asuras, or demons, in theVedic belief. The original land of the race is called Aryavesta in theLaws of Manu (II. 22), and Aryana-Vaêjo in the Avesta. The God of the Sunis named Mithra, or Mitra, in both religions. The Yima of the Pârsî systemis a happy king; the Yama of the Hindoos is a stern judge in the realms ofdeath. The dog is hateful in the Indian system, an object of reverence inthat of Zoroaster. Both the religions dread defilement through the touchof dead bodies. In both systems fire is regarded as divine. But the moststriking analogy perhaps is to be found in the worship paid by both to theintoxicating fermented juice of the plant _Asclepias acida_, called Somain the Sanskrit and Haŏma in the Zend. The identity of the Haŏma with theIndian Soma has long been proved. [146] The whole of the Sáma-Veda isdevoted to this moon-plant worship; an important part of the Avesta isoccupied with hymns to Haŏma. This great reverence paid to the same plant, on account of its intoxicating qualities, carries us back to a regionwhere the vine was unknown, and to a race to whom intoxication was so newan experience as to seem a gift of the gods. Wisdom appeared to come fromit, health, increased power of body and soul, long life, victory inbattle, brilliant children. What Bacchus was to the Greeks, this divineHaŏma, or Soma, was to the primitive Aryans. [147] It would seem, therefore, that the two religions setting out from thesame point, and having a common stock of primitive traditions, at lastsaid each to the other, "Your gods are my demons. " The opposition wasmutual. The dualism of the Persian was odious to the Hindoo, while theabsence of a deep moral element in the Vedic system shocked the solemnpuritanism of Zoroaster. The religion of the Hindoo was to dream, that ofthe Persian to fight. There could be no more fellowship between them thanthere is between a Quaker and a Calvinist. § 9. Is Monotheism or pure Dualism the Doctrine of the Zend Avesta? We find in the Avesta, and in the oldest portion of it, the tendencieswhich resulted afterward in the elaborate theories of the Bundehesch. Wefind the Zeârna-Akerana, in the Vendidad (XIX. 33, 44, 55), --"The InfiniteTime, " or "All-embracing Time, "--as the creator of Ahriman, according tosome translations. Spiegel, indeed, considers this supreme being, aboveboth Ormazd and Ahriman, as not belonging to the original Persianreligion, but as borrowed from Semitic sources. But if so, then Ormazd isthe supreme and uncreated being, and creator of all things. Why, then, hasOrmazd a Fravashi, or archetype? And in that case, he must either himselfhave created Ahriman, or else Ahriman is as eternal as he; which lattersupposition presents us with an absolute, irreconcilable dualism. Thebetter opinion seems, therefore, to be, that behind the two opposingpowers of good and evil, the thesis and antithesis of moral life, remainsthe obscure background of original being, the identity of both, from whichboth have proceeded, and into whose abyss both shall return. This great consummation is also intimated by the fact that in the sameFargard of the Vendidad (XIX. 18) the future restorer or saviour ismentioned, Sosioçh (Çaoshyanç), who is expected by the Pârsîs to come atthe end of all things, and accomplish the resurrection, and introduce akingdom of untroubled happiness. [148] Whether the resurrection belongs tothe primitive form of the religion remains as doubtful, but also asprobable, as when Mr. Alger discussed the whole question in his admirablemonograph on the Doctrine of the Future Life. Our remaining fragments ofthe Zend Avesta say nothing of the periods of three thousand years'duration. Two or three passages in the Avesta refer to theresurrection. [149] But the conflict between Ormazd and Ahriman, thepresent struggle between good and evil, the ideal world of the Fravashisand good spirits, --these unquestionably belong to the original belief. § 10. Relation of this System to Christianity. The Kingdom of Heaven. Of this system we will say, in conclusion, that in some respects it comesnearer to Christianity than any other. Moreover, though so long dead, likethe great nation of which it was the inspiration and life, --though sweptaway by Mohammedanism, --its influence remains, and has permeated bothJudaism and Christianity. Christianity has probably received from it, through Judaism, its doctrine of angels and devils, and its tendency toestablish evil in the world as the permanent and equal adversary of good. Such a picture as that by Retzsch of the Devil playing chess with theyoung man for his soul, such a picture as that by Guido of the conflictbetween Michael and Satan, such poems as Milton's Paradise Lost andGoethe's Faust, could perhaps never have appeared in Christendom, had itnot been for the influence of the system of Zoroaster on Jewish, and, through Jewish, on Christian thought. It was after the return from Babylonthat the Devil and demons, in conflict with man, became a part of thecompany of spiritual beings in the Jewish mythology. Angels there werebefore, as messengers of God, but devils there were not; for till then anabsolute Providence ruled the world, excluding all interference ofantagonistic powers. Satan, in Job, is an angel of God, not a devil; doinga low kind of work, indeed, a sort of critical business, fault-finding, and looking for flaws in the saints, but still an angel, and no devil. Butafter the captivity the horizon of the Jewish mind enlarged, and it tookin the conception of God as allowing freedom to man and angels, and sopermitting bad as well as good to have its way. And then came in also theconception of a future life, and a resurrection for ultimate judgment. These doctrines have been supposed, with good reason, to have come to theJews from the influence of the great system of Zoroaster. There is no doubt, however, that the Jewish prophets had already prepareda point of contact and attachment for this system, and developedaffinities therewith, by their great battle-cry to the nation for rightagainst wrong, and their undying conviction of an ultimate restoration ofall good things. But the Jews found also in the Persian faith the oneamong all religions most like their own, in this, that it had no idols, and no worship but that addressed to the Unseen. Sun and fire were hissymbols, but he himself was hidden behind the glorious veil of being. Andit seems as if the Jews needed this support of finding another nation alsohating idolatry, before they could really rise above their tendency tobackslide into it. "In the mouth of two witnesses, " the spiritual worshipof God was established; and not till Zoroaster took the hand of Moses didthe Jews cease to be idolaters. After the return from the captivity thattendency wholly disappears. But a deeper and more essential point of agreement is to be found in thespecial practical character of the two systems, regarding life as a battlebetween right and wrong, waged by a communion of good men fighting againstbad men and bad principles. Perhaps, in reading the New Testament, we do not always see how muchChristianity turns around the phrase, and the idea behind it, of a"kingdom of Heaven. " The Beatitudes begin "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven. " Both John the Baptist and Christannounce that the _kingdom of Heaven_ is at hand. The parables revolveround the same idea of "the kingdom. " which is likened first to this, andthen to that; and so, passing on into the Epistles, we have the "kingdomof Heaven" still as the leading conception of Christianity. "The kingdomof God is not meat nor drink";--such are common expressions. The peculiar conception of the Messiah also is of the King, the Anointedone, the Head of this divine Monarchy. When we call Jesus the Christ, werepeat this ancient notion of the kingdom of God among men. He himselfaccepted it; he called himself the Christ. "Thou sayest, " said he, toPilate, "that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause cameI into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. " All through antiquity there ran the longing for a communion or associationof the wise and good, in order to establish truth and justice in theworld. The tendency of error is to divide; the tendency of selfishness isto separation. Only goodness and truth are capable of real communion, interpenetration, and so of organic life and growth. This is theirstrength, power, and hope. Hence all the efforts at associated action inantiquity, such as the College of Pythagoras, the ideal Republic of Plato, the Spartan Commonwealth, the communities of the Essenes, the monasticinstitutions of Asia and Europe; and hence, too, the modern attempts, inProtestantism, by Fourier, the Moravians, the Shakers, Saint-Simon, RobertOwen, and others. But among the Jews this desire appeared, first in their nationalorganization, as a theosophic and theocratic community, and afterward, when this broke down and the nation was divided, in a larger prophetichope of the Messianic times. There is a tendency in the human mind, whenit sees a great work to be done, to look for a leader. So the Jewish hopelooked for a leader. Their true King was to come, and under him peace andrighteousness were to reign, and the kingdom of heaven begin on earth. Itwas to be on earth. It was to be here and now. And so they waited andlonged. Meantime, in the Persian religion, the seed of the same hope was sown. There also the work of life was, to unite together a community of good menand good angels, against bad men and devils, and so make a kingdom ofheaven. Long and sore should the conflict be; but the victory at lastwould be sure. And they also looked for a Sosioch, or Mediator, who was tobe what the Messiah was to be to the Jews. And here was the deep and realpoint of union between the two religions; and this makes the profoundmeaning of the story of the Star which was seen in the East and whichguided the Magi of Zoroaster to the cradle of Christ. Jesus came to be the Messiah. He fulfilled that great hope as he didothers. It was not fulfilled, in the sense of the letter of a prophecybeing acted out, but in the sense of the prophecy being carried up and onto its highest point, and so being filled full of truth and value. Thefirst and chief purpose of Christianity was, not to save the souls of menhereafter, as the Church has often taught, but to found a kingdom ofheaven here, on earth and in time. It was not to say, "Lo here!" or "Lothere!" but to say, "_Now_ is the accepted time"; "the kingdom of God isamong you. " In thus continuing and developing to its highest point thecentral idea of his national religion, Jesus made himself the true Christand fulfilled all the prophecies. Perhaps what we need now is to come backto that notion of the kingdom of heaven here below, and of Jesus thepresent king, --present, because still bearing witness to the truth. Christians must give up thinking about Christianity as only a means ofescaping a future hell and arriving at a future heaven. They must shownow, more than ever, that, by a union of loving and truthful hearts, Godcomes here, immortality begins here, and heaven lies about us. To fightthe good fight of justice and truth, as the disciples of Zoroaster triedto fight it, --this is still the true work of man; and to make a union ofthose who wish thus to fight for good against evil, --this is still thetrue church of Christ. The old religion of Zoroaster died, Taut as the corn of wheat, which, ifit die, brings forth much fruit. A small body of Pârsîs remain to-day in Persia, and another inIndia, --disciples of this venerable faith. They are a good, moral, industrious people. Some of them are very wealthy and very generous. UntilMr. George Peabody's large donations, no one had bestowed so much onpublic objects as Sir Jamsetjee Jeejeeboy, who had given to hospitals, schools, and charities, some years since, a million and a half of dollars. During our Rebellion, some of the Pârsîs sent gifts to the SanitaryCommission, out of sympathy with the cause of freedom and Union. Who can estimate the power of a single life? Of Zoroaster we do not knowthe true name, nor when he lived, nor where he lived, nor exactly what hetaught. But the current from that fountain has flowed on for thousands ofyears, fertilizing the souls of men out of its hidden sources, and helpingon, by the decree of Divine Providence, the ultimate triumph of good overevil, right over wrong. Chapter VI. The Gods of Egypt. § 1. Antiquity and Extent of Egyptian Civilization. § 2. Religious Character of the Egyptians. Their Ritual. § 3. Theology of Egypt. Sources of our Knowledge concerning it. § 4. Central Idea of Egyptian Theology and Religion. Animal Worship. § 5. Sources of Egyptian Theology. Age of the Empire and Affinities of the Race. § 6. The Three Orders of Gods. § 7. Influence of Egypt upon Judaism and Christianity. § 1. Antiquity and Extent of Egyptian Civilization. The ancient Egyptians have been the object of interest to the civilizedworld in all ages; for Egypt was the favorite home of civilization, science, and religion. It was a little country, the gift of the riverNile; a little strip of land not more than seven miles wide, butcontaining innumerable cities and towns, and in ancient times supportingseven millions of inhabitants. Renowned for its discoveries in art andscience, it was the world's university; where Moses and Pythagoras, Herodotus and Plato, all philosophers and lawgivers, went to school. TheEgyptians knew the length of the year and the form of the earth; theycould calculate eclipses of the sun and moon; were partially acquaintedwith geometry, music, chemistry, the arts of design, medicine, anatomy, architecture, agriculture, and mining. In architecture, in the qualitiesof grandeur and massive proportions, they are yet to be surpassed. Thelargest buildings elsewhere erected by man are smaller than theirpyramids; which are also the oldest human works still remaining, thebeauty of whose masonry, says Wilkinson, has not been surpassed in anysubsequent age. An obelisk of a single stone now standing in Egypt weighsthree hundred tons, and a colossus of Ramses II. Nearly nine hundred. ButHerodotus describes a monolithic temple, which must have weighed fivethousand tons, and which was carried the whole length of the Nile, to theDelta. And there is a roof of a doorway at Karnak, covered with sandstoneblocks forty feet long. Sculpture and bas-reliefs three thousand fivehundred years old, where the granite is cut with exquisite delicacy, arestill to be seen throughout Egypt. Many inventions, hitherto supposed tobe modern, such as glass, mosaics, false gems, glazed tiles, enamelling, were well known to the Egyptians. But, for us, the most fortunatecircumstance in their taste was their fondness for writing. No nation hasever equalled them in their love for recording all human events andtransactions. They wrote down all the details of private life withwonderful zeal, method, and regularity. Every year, month, and day had itsrecord, and thus Egypt is the monumental land of the earth. Bunsen saysthat "the genuine Egyptian writing is at least as old as Menes, thefounder of the Empire; perhaps three thousand years before Christ. " Noother human records, whether of India or China, go back so far. Lepsiussaw the hieroglyph of the reed and inkstand on the monuments of the fourthdynasty, and the sign of the papyrus roll on that of the twelfth dynasty, which was the last but one of the old Empire. "No Egyptian, " saysHerodotus, "omits taking accurate note of extraordinary and strikingevents. " Everything was written down. Scribes are seen everywhere on themonuments, taking accounts of the products of the farms, even to everysingle egg and chicken. "In spite of the ravages of time, and thoughsystematic excavation has scarcely yet commenced, " says Bunsen, "wepossess chronological records of a date anterior to any period of whichmanuscripts are preserved, or the art of writing existed in any otherquarter. " Because they were thus fond of recording everything, both inpictures and in three different kinds of writing; because they were alsofond of building and excavating temples and tombs in the imperishablegranite; because, lastly, the dryness of the air has preserved for usthese paintings, and the sand which has buried the monuments has preventedtheir destruction, --we have wonderfully preserved, over an interval offorty-five centuries, the daily habits, the opinions, and the religiousfaith of that ancient time. The oldest mural paintings disclose a state of the arts of civilization soadvanced as to surprise even those who have made archæology a study, andwho consequently know how few new things there are under the sun. It is_not_ astonishing to find houses with doors and windows, with verandas, with barns for grain, vineyards, gardens, fruit-trees, etc. We might alsoexpect, since man is a fighting animal, to see, as we do, pictures ofmarching troops, armed with spears and shields, bows, slings, daggers, axes, maces, and the boomerang; or to notice coats of mail, standards, war-chariots; or to find the assault of forts by means of scaling-ladders. But these ancient tombs also exhibit to us scenes of domestic life andmanners which would seem to belong to the nineteenth century after ourera, rather than to the fifteenth century before it. Thus we see monkeystrained to gather fruit from the trees in an orchard; houses furnishedwith a great variety of chairs, tables, ottomans, carpets, couches, aselegant and elaborate as any used now. There are comic and _genre_pictures of parties, where the gentlemen and ladies are sometimesrepresented as being the worse for wine; of dances where ballet-girls inshort dresses perform very modern-looking pirouettes; of exercises inwrestling, games of ball, games of chance like chess or checkers, ofthrowing knives at a mark, of the modern thimblerig, wooden dolls forchildren, curiously carved wooden boxes, dice, and toy-balls. There aremen and women playing on harps, flutes, pipes, cymbals, trumpets, drums, guitars, and tambourines. Glass was, till recently, believed to be amodern invention, unknown to the ancients. But we find it commonly used asearly as the age of Osertasen I. , more than three thousand eight hundredyears ago; and we have pictures of glass-blowing and of glass bottles asfar back as the fourth dynasty. The best Venetian glass-workers are unableto rival some of the old Egyptian work; for the Egyptians could combineall colors in one cup, introduce gold between two surfaces of glass, andfinish in glass details of feathers, etc. , which it now requires amicroscope to make out. It is evident, therefore, that they understood theuse of the magnifying-glass. The Egyptians also imitated successfully thecolors of precious stones, and could even make statues thirteen feet high, closely resembling an emerald. They also made mosaics in glass, ofwonderfully brilliant colors. They could cut glass, at the most remoteperiods. Chinese bottles have also been found in previously unopened tombsof the eighteenth dynasty, indicating commercial intercourse reaching asfar back as that epoch. They were able to spin and weave, and color cloth;and were acquainted with the use of mordants, the wonder in moderncalico-printing. Pliny describes this process as used in Egypt, butevidently without understanding its nature. Writing-paper made of thepapyrus is as old as the Pyramids. The Egyptians tanned leather and madeshoes; and the shoemakers on their benches are represented working exactlylike ours. Their carpenters used axes, saws, chisels, drills, planes, rulers, plummets, squares, hammers, nails, and hones for sharpening. Theyalso understood the use of glue in cabinet-making, and there are paintingsof veneering, in which a piece of thin dark wood is fastened by glue to acoarser piece of light wood. Their boats were propelled by sails on yardsand masts, as well as by oars. They used the blow-pipe in the manufactureof gold chains and other ornaments. They had rings of gold and silver formoney, and weighed it in scales of a careful construction. Theirhieroglyphics are carved on the hardest granite with a delicacy andaccuracy which indicates the use of some metallic cutting instrument, probably harder than our best steel. The siphon was known in the fifteenthcentury before Christ. The most singular part of their costume was thewig, worn by all the higher classes, who constantly shaved their heads, aswell as their chins, --which shaving of the head is supposed by Herodotusto be the reason of the thickness of the Egyptian skull. They frequentlywore false beards. Sandals, shoes, and low boots, some very elegant, arefound in the tombs. Women wore loose robes, ear-rings, finger-rings, bracelets, armlets, anklets, gold necklaces. In the tombs are found vasesfor ointment, mirrors, combs, needles. Doctors and drugs were not unknownto them; and the passport system is no modern invention, for their deedscontain careful descriptions of the person, exactly in the style withwhich European travellers are familiar. We have only mentioned a smallpart of the customs and arts with which the tombs of the Egyptians showthem to have been familiar. These instances are mostly taken fromWilkinson, whose works contain numerous engravings from the monumentswhich more than verify all we have said. The celebrated French Egyptologist, M. Mariette, has very much enlargedour knowledge of the more ancient dynasties, by his explorations, firstunder a mission from the French government, and afterward from that ofEgypt. The immense temples and palaces of Thebes are all of a date atleast B. C. 1000. We know the history of Egypt very well as far back as thetime of the Hyksôs, or to the eighteenth dynasty. M. Mariette hasdiscovered statues and Sphinxes which he believes to have been the work ofthe Hyksôs, the features being wholly different from that of the typicalEgyptian. Four of these Sphinxes, found by Mariette on the site of the oldTanis, have the regular body of a lion, according to the canon of Egyptianart, but the human heads are wholly un-Egyptian. Mariette, in describingthem, says that in the true Egyptian Sphinx there is always a quietmajesty, the eye calm and wide open, a smile on the lips, a round face, and a peculiar coiffure with wide open wings. Nothing of this is to befound in these Sphinxes. Their eyes are small, the nose aquiline, thecheeks hard, the mouth drawn down with a grave expression. These Shepherd Kings, the Hyksôs, ruled Lower Egypt, according to Manetho, five hundred and eleven years, which, according to Renan, [150] brings thepreceding dynasty (the fourteenth of Manetho) as early as B. C. 2000. Monuments of the twelfth and thirteenth dynasties are common. The oldestobelisk dates B. C. 2800. Thanks to the excavations of M. Mariette, we nowhave a large quantity of sculptures and statues of a still earlier epoch. M. Renan describes[151] tombs visited by himself, which he considers to bethe oldest known, and which he regards as being B. C. 4000, [152] where wererepresented all the details of domestic life. The tone of these pictureswas glad and gay; and, what is remarkable, they had no trace of thefuneral ritual or the god Osiris. These were not like tombs, but ratherlike homes. To secure the body from all profanation, it was concealed in apit, carefully hidden in the solid masonry. These tombs belong to the sixfirst dynasties. The great antiquity of Egyptian civilization is universally admitted; butto fix its chronology and precise age becomes very difficult, from thefact that the Egyptians had no era from which to date forward or backward. This question we shall return to in a subsequent section of this chapter. § 2. Religious Character of the Egyptians. Their Ritual. But, wonderful as was the civilization of Egypt, it is not this which nowchiefly interests us. They were prominent among all ancient nations fortheir interest in religion, especially of the ceremonial part of religion, or worship. Herodotus says: "They are of all men the most excessivelyattentive to the worship of the gods. " And beside his statement to thateffect, there is evidence that the origin of much of the theology, mythology, and ceremonies of the Hebrews and Greeks was in Egypt. "Thenames of almost all the gods, " says Herodotus, "came from Egypt intoGreece" (Euterpe, 50). The Greek oracles, especially that of Dodona, healso states to have been brought from Egypt (II. 54-57), and adds, moreover, that the Egyptians were the first who introduced publicfestivals, processions, and solemn supplications, which the Greeks learnedfrom them. "The Egyptians, then, " says he, "are beyond measure scrupulousin matters of religion (§ 64). They invented the calendar, and connectedastrology therewith. " "Each month and day, " says Herodotus (II. 82), "isassigned to some particular god, and each person's birthday determines hisfate. " He testifies (II. 123) that "the Egyptians were also the first tosay that the soul of man is immortal, and that when the body perishes ittransmigrates through every variety of animal. " It seems apparent, also, that the Greek mysteries of Eleusis were taken from those of Isis; thestory of the wanderings of Ceres in pursuit of Proserpine being manifestlyborrowed from those of Isis in search of the body of Osiris. With thistestimony of Herodotus modern writers agree. "The Egyptians, " saysWilkinson, "were unquestionably the most pious nation of all antiquity. The oldest monuments show their belief in a future life. And Osiris, theJudge, is mentioned in tombs erected two thousand years before Christ. "Bunsen tells us that "it has at last been ascertained that all the greatgods of Egypt are on the oldest monuments, " and says: "It is a great andastounding fact, established beyond the possibility of doubt, that theempire of Menes on its first appearance in history possessed anestablished mythology, that is, a series of gods. Before the empire ofMenes, the separate Egyptian states had their temple worship regularlyorganized. " Everything among the Egyptians, says M. Maury, [153] took the stamp ofreligion. Their writing was so full of sacred symbols that it couldscarcely be used for any purely secular purpose. Literature and sciencewere only branches of theology. Art labored only in the service of worshipand to glorify the gods. Religious observances were so numerous and soimperative, that the most common labors of daily life could not beperformed without a perpetual reference to some priestly regulation. TheEgyptian only lived to worship. His fate in the future life was constantlypresent to him. The sun, when it set, seemed to him to die; and when itrose the next morning, and tricking its beams flamed once more in theforehead of the sky, it was a perpetual symbol of a future resurrection. Religion penetrated so deeply into the habits of the land, that it almostmade a part of the intellectual and physical organization of itsinhabitants. Habits continued during many generations at last becomeinstincts, and are transmitted with the blood. [154] So religion in Egyptbecame an instinct. Unaltered by the dominion of the Persians, thePtolemies, and Romans, it was, of all polytheisms, the most obstinate inits resistance to Christianity, and retained its devotees down to thesixth century of our era. [155] There were more festivals in Egypt than among any other ancient people, the Greeks not excepted. Every month and day was governed by a god. Therewere two feasts of the New-Year, twelve of the first days of the months, one of the rising of the dog-star (Sirius, called Sothis), and others tothe great gods, to seed-time and harvest, to the rise and fall of theNile. The feast of lamps at Sais was in honor of Neith, and was keptthroughout Egypt. [156] The feast of the death of Osiris; the feast of hisresurrection (when people called out, "We have found him! Good luck!");feasts of Isis (one of which lasted four days); the great feast atBubastis, greatest of all, --these were festivals belonging to all Egypt. On one of them as many as seven hundred thousand persons sailed on theNile with music. At another, the image of the god was carried to thetemple by armed men, who were resisted by armed priests in a battle inwhich many were often killed. The history of the gods was embodied in the daily life of the people. Inan old papyrus described by De Rougé, [157] it is said: "On the twelfth ofChorak no one is to go out of doors, for on that day the transformationof Osiris into the bird Wennu took place; on the fourteenth of Toby novoluptuous songs must be listened to, for Isis and Nepthys bewail Osirison that day. On the third of Mechir no one can go on a journey, becauseSet then began a war. " On another day no one must go out. Another waslucky, because on it the gods conquered Set; and a child born on that daywas supposed to live to a great age. Every temple had its own body of priests. They did not constitute anexclusive caste, though they were continued in families. Priests might bemilitary commanders, governors of provinces, judges, and architects. Soldiers had priests for sons, and the daughters of priests marriedsoldiers. Of three brothers, one was a priest, another a soldier, and athird held a civil employment. [158] Joseph, a stranger, though naturalizedin the country, received as a wife the daughter of the High-Priest of On, or Heliopolis. The priests in Egypt were of various grades, as the chief priests orpontiffs, prophets, judges, scribes, those who examined the victims, keepers of the robes, of the sacred animals, etc. Women also held offices in the temple and performed duties there, thoughnot as priestesses. The priests were exempt from taxes, and were provided for out of thepublic stores. They superintended sacrifices, processions, funerals, andwere initiated into the greater and lesser mysteries; they were alsoinstructed in surveying. They were particular in diet, both as to quantityand quality. Flesh of swine was particularly forbidden, and also that offish. Beans were held in utter abhorrence, also peas, onions, and garlic, which, however, were offered on the altar. They bathed twice a day andtwice in the night, and shaved the head and body every three days. A greatpurification took place before their fasts, which lasted from seven toforty-two days. They offered prayers for the dead. The dress of the priests was simple, chiefly of linen, consisting of anunder-garment and a loose upper robe, with full sleeves, and theleopard-skin above; sometimes one or two feathers in the head. Chaplets and flowers were laid upon the altars, such as the lotus andpapyrus, also grapes and figs in baskets, and ointment in alabaster vases. Also necklaces, bracelets, and jewelry, were offered as thanksgivings andinvocations. Oxen and other animals were sacrificed, and the blood allowed to flow overthe altar. Libations of wine were poured on the altar. Incense was offeredto all the gods in censers. Processions were usual with the Egyptians; in one, shrines were carried onthe shoulders by long staves passed through rings. In others the statuesof the gods were carried, and arks like those of the Jews, overshadowed bythe wings of the goddess of truth spread above the sacred beetle. The prophets were the most highly honored of the priestly order. Theystudied the ten hieratical books. The business of the stolists[159] was todress and undress the images, to attend to the vestments of the priests, and to mark the beasts selected for sacrifice. The scribes were to searchfor the Apis, or sacred bull, and were required to possess great learning. The priests had no sinecure; their life was full of minute duties andrestrictions. They seldom appeared in public, were married to one wife, were circumcised like other Egyptians, and their whole time was occupiedeither in study or the service of their gods. There was a gloomy tone tothe religion of Egypt, which struck the Greeks, whose worship was usuallycheerful. Apuleius says "the gods of Egypt rejoice in lamentations, thoseof Greece in dances. " Another Greek writer says, "The Egyptians offertheir gods tears. " Until Swedenborg[160] arrived, and gave his disciples the precise measureand form of the life to come, no religion has ever taught an immortalityas distinct in its outline and as solid in its substance as that of theEgyptians. The Greek and Roman hereafter was shadowy and vague; that ofBuddhism remote; and the Hebrew Beyond was wholly eclipsed and overborneby the sense of a Divine presence and power immanent in space and time. Tothe Egyptian, this life was but the first step, and a very short one, ofan immense career. The sun (Ra) alternately setting and rising, was theperpetually present type of the progress of the soul, and the Sothiacperiod (symbolized by the Phoenix) of 1421 years from one heliacal risingof Sirius at the beginning of the fixed Egyptian year to the next, wasalso made to define the cycle of human transmigrations. Two Sothiacperiods correspond nearly to the three thousand years spoken of byHerodotus, during which the soul transmigrates through animal forms beforereturning to its human body. Then, to use the Egyptian language, the soularrived at the ship of the sun and was received by Ra into his solarsplendor. On some sarcophagi the soul is symbolized by a hawk with a humanhead, carrying in his claws two rings, which probably signify the twoSothiac cycles of its transmigrations. The doctrine of the immortality of the soul, says Mr. Birch, [161] is asold as the inscriptions of the twelfth dynasty, many of which containextracts from the Ritual of the Dead. One hundred and forty-six chaptersof this Ritual have been translated by Mr. Birch from the text of theTurin papyrus, the most complete in Europe. Chapters of it are found onmummy-cases, on the wraps of mummies, on the walls of tombs, and withinthe coffins on papyri. This Ritual is all that remains of the HermeticBooks which constituted the library of the priesthood. Two antagonistclasses of deities appear in this liturgy as contending for the soul ofthe deceased, --Osiris and his triad, Set and his devils. The Sun-God, source of life, is also present. An interesting chapter of the Ritual is the one hundred and twenty-fifth, called the Hall of the Two Truths. It is the process of "separating aperson from his sins, " not by confession and repentance, as is usual inother religions, but by denying them. Forty-two deities are said to bepresent to feed on the blood of the wicked. The soul addresses the Lordsof Truth, and declares that it has not done evil privily, and proceeds tospecifications. He says: "I have not afflicted any. I have not toldfalsehoods. I have not made the laboring man do more than his task. I havenot been idle. I have not murdered. I have not committed fraud. I have notinjured the images of the gods. I have not taken scraps of the bandages ofthe dead. I have not committed adultery. I have not cheated by falseweights. I have not kept milk from sucklings. I have not caught the sacredbirds. " Then, addressing each god by name, he declares: "I have not beenidle. I have not boasted. I have not stolen. I have not counterfeited, norkilled sacred beasts, nor blasphemed, nor refused to hear the truth, nordespised God in my heart. " According to some texts, he declares, positively, that he has loved God, that he has given bread to the hungry, water to the thirsty, garments to the naked, and an asylum to theabandoned. Funeral ceremonies among the Egyptians were often very imposing. The costof embalming, and the size and strength of the tomb, varied with theposition of the deceased. When the seventy days of mourning had elapsed, the body in its case was ferried across the lake in front of the temple, which represented the passage of the soul over the infernal stream. Thencame a dramatic representation of the trial of the soul before Osiris. Thepriests, in masks, represented the gods of the underworld. Typhon accusesthe dead man, and demands his punishment. The intercessors plead for him. A large pair of scales is set up, and in one scale his conduct is placedin a bottle, and in the other an image of truth. These proceedings arerepresented on the funeral papyri. One of these, twenty-two feet inlength, is in Dr. Abbott's collection of Egyptian antiquities, in NewYork. It is beautifully written, and illustrated with careful drawings. One represents the Hall of the Two Truths, and Osiris sitting injudgment, with the scales of judgment before him. [162] Many of the virtues which we are apt to suppose a monopoly of Christianculture appear as the ideal of these old Egyptians. Brugsch says athousand voices from the tombs of Egypt declare this. One inscription inUpper Egypt says: "He loved his father, he honored his mother, he lovedhis brethren, and never went from his home in bad-temper. He neverpreferred the great man to the low one. " Another says: "I was a wise man, my soul loved God. I was a brother to the great men and a father to thehumble ones, and never was a mischief-maker. " An inscription at Sais, on apriest who lived in the sad days of Cambyses, says: "I honored my father, I esteemed my mother, I loved my brothers. I found graves for the unburieddead. I instructed little children. I took care of orphans as though theywere my own children. For great misfortunes were on Egypt in my time, andon this city of Sais. " Some of these declarations, in their "self-pleasing pride" of virtue, remind one of the noble justification of himself by the PatriarchJob. [163] Here is one of them, from the tombs of Ben-Hassan, over a NomadPrince:-- "What I have done I will say. My goodness and my kindness were ample. Inever oppressed the fatherless nor the widow. I did not treat cruelly thefishermen, the shepherds, or the poor laborers. There was nowhere in mytime hunger or want. For I cultivated all my fields, far and near, inorder that their inhabitants might have food. I never preferred the greatand powerful to the humble and poor, but did equal justice to all. " A king's tomb at Thebes gives us in few words the religious creed of aPharaoh:-- "I lived in truth, and fed my soul with justice. What I did to men wasdone in peace, and how I loved God, God and my heart well know. I havegiven bread to the hungry, water to the thirsty, clothes to the naked, and a shelter to the stranger. I honored the gods with sacrifices, and thedead with offerings. " A rock at Lycopolis pleads for an ancient ruler thus: "I never took thechild from its mother's bosom, nor the poor man from the side of hiswife. " Hundreds of stones in Egypt announce as the best gifts which thegods can bestow on their favorites, "the respect of men, and the love ofwomen. "[164] Religion, therefore, in Egypt, connected itself with moralityand the duties of daily life. But kings and conquerors were not above thelaws of their religion. They were obliged to recognize their power andtriumphs as not their own work, but that of the great gods of theircountry. Thus, on a monumental stele discovered at Karnak by M. Mariette, and translated by De Rougé, [165] is an inscription recording the triumphsof Thothmes III. , of the eighteenth dynasty (about B. C. 1600), whichsounds like the song of Miriam or the Hymn of Deborah. We give somestanzas in which the god Amun addresses Thothmes:-- "I am come: to thee have I given to strike down Syrian princes; Under thy feet they lie throughout the breadth of their country, Like to the Lord of Light, I made them see thy glory, Blinding their eyes with light, O earthly image of Amun! "I am come: to thee have I given to strike down Asian peoples; Captive now thou hast led the proud Assyrian chieftains; Decked in royal robes, I made them see thy glory; In glittering arms and fighting, high in thy lofty chariot. "I am come: to thee have I given to strike down western nations; Cyprus and the Ases have both heard thy name with terror; Like a strong-horned bull I made them see thy glory; Strong with piercing horns, so that none can stand before him. "I am come: to thee have I given to strike down Lybian archers; All the isles of the Greeks submit to the force of thy spirit; Like a regal lion, I made them see thy glory; Couched by the corpse he has made, down in the rocky valley. "I am come: to thee have I given to strike down the ends of the ocean. In the grasp of thy hand is the circling zone of the waters; Like the soaring eagle, I have made them see thy glory, Whose far-seeing eye there is none can hope to escape from. " A similar strain of religious poetry is in the Papyrus of Sallier, in theBritish Museum. [166] This is an epic by an Egyptian poet named Pentaour, celebrating the campaigns of Ramses II. , the Sesostris of the Greeks, ofthe nineteenth dynasty. This great king had been called into Syria to putdown a formidable revolt of the Kheta (the Hittites of the Old Testament). The poem seems to have been a famous one, for it had the honor of beingcarved in full on the walls at Karnak, a kind of immortality which noother epic poet has ever attained. It particularly describes an incidentin the war, when, by a stratagem of the enemy, King Ramses found himselfseparated from the main body of his army and attacked by the enemy in fullforce. Pentaour describes him in this situation as calling on Amun, God ofThebes, for help, recounting the sacrifices he had offered to him, andasking whether he would let him die in this extremity by the ignoble handsof these Syrian tribes. "Have I not erected to thee great temples? Have Inot sacrificed to thee thirty thousand oxen? I have brought fromElephantina obelisks to set up to thy name. I invoke thee, O my father, Amun. I am in the midst of a throng of unknown tribes, and alone. But Amunis better to me than thousands of archers and millions of horsemen. Amunwill prevail over the enemy. " And, after defeating his foes, in his songof triumph, the king says, "Amun-Ra has been at my right and my left inthe battles; his mind has inspired my own, and has prepared the downfallof my enemies. Amun-Ra, my father, has brought the whole world to myfeet. "[167] Thus universal and thus profound was the religious sentiment among theEgyptians. § 3. Theology of Egypt. Sources of our Knowledge concerning it. As regards the theology of the Egyptians and their system of ideas, wemeet with difficulty from the law of secrecy which was their habit ofmind. The Egyptian priesthood enveloped with mystery every opinion, justas they swathed the mummies, fold above fold, in preparing them for thetomb. The names and number of their gods we learn from the monuments. Their legends concerning them come to us through Plutarch, Herodotus, Diodorus, and other Greek writers. Their doctrine of a future life andfuture judgment is apparent in their ceremonies, the pictures on thetombs, and the papyrus Book of the Dead. But what these gods _mean_, whatare their offices, how they stand related to each other and to mankind, what is the ethical bearing of the religion, it is not so easy to learn. Nevertheless, we may find a clew to a knowledge of this system, if in noother way, at least by ascertaining its central, ruling idea, and pursuingthis into its details. The moment that we take this course, light willbegin to dawn upon us. But before going further, let us briefly inquireinto the sources of our knowledge of Egyptian mythology. The first and most important place is occupied by the monuments, whichcontain the names and tablets of the gods of the three orders. Then comethe sacred books of the Egyptians, known to us by Clemens Alexandrinus. From him we learn that the Egyptians in his time had forty-two sacredbooks in five classes. The first class, containing songs or hymns inpraise of the gods, were very old, dating perhaps from the time of Menes. The other books treated of morals, astronomy, hieroglyphics, geography, ceremonies, the deities, the education of priests, and medicine. Of thesesacred Hermaic books, one is still extant, and perhaps it is asinteresting as any of them. We have two copies of it, both on papyrus, onefound by the French at Thebes, the other by Champollion in Turin. AndLepsius considers this last papyrus to be wholly of the date of theeighteenth or nineteenth dynasty, consequently fifteen hundred or sixteenhundred years before Christ, and the only example of an Egyptian booktransmitted from the times of the Pharaohs. Bunsen believes it to belongto the fourth class of Hermaic books, containing Ordinances as to theFirst Fruits, Sacrifices, Hymns, and Prayers. In this book the deceasedis the person who officiates. His soul journeying on gives utterance toprayers, confessions, invocations. The first fifteen chapters, which makea connected whole, are headed, "Here begins the Sections of theGlorification in the Light of Osiris. " It is illustrated by a picture of aprocession, in which the deceased soul follows his own corpse as chiefmourner, offering prayers to the Sun-God. Another part of the book isheaded, "The Book of Deliverance, in the Hall of twofold Justice, " andcontains the divine judgments on the deceased. Forty-two gods occupy thejudgment-seat. Osiris, their president, bears on his breast the smalltablet of chief judge, containing a figure of Justice. Before him are seenthe scales of divine judgment. In one is placed the statue of Justice, andin the other the heart of the deceased, who stands in person by thebalance containing his heart, while Anubis watches the other scale. Horusexamines the plummet indicating which way the beam inclines. Thoth, theJustifier the Lord of the Divine Word, records the sentence. [168] § 4. Central Idea of Egyptian Theology and Religion. Animal Worship. We now proceed to ask what is the IDEA of Egyptian mythology and theology? We have seen that the idea of the religion of India was Spirit; the One, the Infinite, the Eternal; a pure spiritual Pantheism, from which theelements of time and space are quite excluded. The religion of Egyptstands at the opposite pole of thought as its antagonist. Instead ofSpirit, it accepts Body; instead of Unity, Variety; instead of Substance, Form. It is the physical reaction from Brahmanism. Instead of the worshipof abstract Deity, it gives us the most concrete divinity, whollyincarnated in space and time. Instead of abstract contemplation, it givesus ceremonial worship. Instead of the absorption of man into God, it givesus transmigration through all bodily forms. [169] It so completelyincarnates God, as to make every type of animal existence divine; hencethe worship of animals. It makes body so sacred, that the human body mustnot be allowed to perish. As the Brahman, contemplating eternity, forgottime, and had no history, so on the other hand the Egyptian priest, towhom every moment of time is sacred, records everything and turns everyevent into history; and as it enshrines the past time historically onmonuments, so it takes hold of future time prophetically through oracles. The chief peculiarity about the religion of Egypt, and that which hasalways caused the greatest astonishment to foreigners, was the worship ofanimals. Herodotus says (Book II. § 65), "That all animals in Egypt, wildand tame, are accounted sacred, and that if any one kills these animalswilfully he is put to death. " He is, however, mistaken in asserting that_all_ animals are sacred; for many were not so, though the majority were. Wilkinson gives a list of the animals of Egypt to the number of over onehundred, more than half of which were sacred, and the others not. Ashunting and fishing were favorite sports of the Egyptians, it is apparentthat there must have been animals whom it was lawful to kill. Nevertheless, it is certain that animal worship is a striking peculiarityof the Egyptian system. Cows were sacred to Isis, and Isis was representedin the form of a cow. The gods often wore the heads of animals; and Kneph, or Amun, with the ram's head, is one of the highest of the gods, knownamong the Greeks as Jupiter Ammon. The worship of Apis, the sacred bull ofMemphis, the representative of Osiris, was very important among theEgyptian ceremonies. Plutarch says that he was a fair and beautiful imageof the soul of Osiris. He was a bull with black hair, a white spot on hisforehead, and some other special marks. He was kept at Memphis in asplendid temple. His festival lasted seven days, when a great concourse ofpeople assembled. When he died his body was embalmed and buried with greatpomp, and the priests went in search of another Apis, who, when discoveredby the marks, was carried to Memphis, carefully fed and exercised, andconsulted as an oracle. The burial-place of the Apis bulls was, a fewyears ago, discovered near Memphis. It consists of an arched gallery hewnin the rock, two thousand feet long and twenty feet in height and breadth. On each side is a series of recesses, each containing a large sarcophagusof granite, fifteen by eight feet, in which the body of a sacred bull wasdeposited. In 1852 thirty of these had been already found. Before thistomb is a paved road with lions ranged on each side, and before this atemple with a vestibule. In different parts of Egypt different animals were held sacred. The animalsacred in one place was not so regarded in another district. These sacredanimals were embalmed by the priests and buried, and the mummies of dogs, wolves, birds, and crocodiles are found by thousands in the tombs. Theorigin and motive of this worship is differently explained. It is certainthat animals were not worshipped in the same way as the great gods, butwere held sacred and treated with reverence as containing a divineelement. So, in the East, an insane person is accounted sacred, but is notworshipped. So the Roman Catholics distinguish between Dulia and Latria, between the worship of gods and reverence of saints. So, too, Protestantsconsider the Bible a holy book and the Sabbath a holy day, but withoutworshipping them. It is only just to make a similar distinction on behalfof the Egyptians. The motives usually assigned for this worship--motivesof utility--seem no adequate explanation. "The Egyptians, " says Wilkinson, "may have deified some animals to insure their preservation, some toprevent their unwholesome meat being used as food. " But no religion wasever established in this way. Man does not worship from utilitarianconsiderations, but from an instinct of reverence. It is possible, indeed, that such a reverential instinct may have been awakened towards certainanimals, by seeing their vast importance arising from their specialinstincts and faculties. The cow and the ox, the dog, the ibis, and thecat, may thus have appeared to the Egyptians, from their indispensableutility, to be endowed with supernatural gifts. But this feeling itselfmust have had its root in a yet deeper tendency of the Egyptian mind. Theyreverenced the mysterious manifestation of God in all outward nature. Noone can look at an animal, before custom blinds our sense of strangeness, without a feeling of wonder at the law of instinct, and the special, distinct peculiarity which belongs to it. Every variety of animals is amanifestation of a divine thought, and yet a thought hinted rather thanexpressed. Each must mean something, must symbolize something. But whatdoes it mean? what does it symbolize? Continually we seem just on thepoint of penetrating the secret; we almost touch the explanation, but arebaffled. A dog, a cat, a snake, a crocodile, a spider, --what does eachmean? why were they made? why this infinite variety of form, color, faculty, character? Animals thus in their unconscious being, asexpressions of God's thoughts, are mysteries, and divine mysteries. [170] Now every part of the religion of Egypt shows how much they were attractedtoward _variety_, toward nature, toward the outward manifestations of theDivine Spirit. These tendencies reached their utmost point in theirreverence for animal life. The shallow Romans, who reverenced onlythemselves, and the Greeks, who worshipped nothing but human nature moreor less idealized, laughed at this Egyptian worship of animals and plants. "O sacred nation! whose gods grow in gardens!" says Juvenal. But itcertainly shows a deeper wisdom to see something divine in nature, and tofind God in nature, than to call it common and unclean. And there is moreof truth in the Egyptian reverence for animal individuality, than in theunfeeling indifference to the welfare of these poor relations whichChristians often display. When Jesus said that "not a sparrow falls to theground without your Father, " he showed all these creatures to be under theprotection of their Maker. It may be foolish to worship animals, but it isstill more foolish to despise them. That the belief in transmigration is the explanation of animal worship isthe opinion of Bunsen. The human soul and animal soul, according to thisview, are essentially the same, --therefore the animal was considered assacred as man. Still, we do not _worship_ man. Animal worship, then, musthave had a still deeper root in the sense of awe before the mystery oforganized life. § 5. Sources of Egyptian Theology. Age of the Empire and Affinities of theRace. But whence came this tendency in the human mind? Did it inhere in therace, or was it the growth of external circumstances? Something, perhaps, may be granted to each of these causes. The narrow belt of fertile land inEgypt, fed by the overflowing Nile, quickened by the tropical sun, teemingwith inexhaustible powers of life, continually called the mind anew to theactive, creative powers of nature. And yet it may be suspected that thelaw of movement by means of antagonism and reaction may have had itsinfluence also here. The opinion is now almost universal, that the impulseof Egyptian civilization proceeded from Asia. This is the conclusion ofBunsen at the end of his first volume. "The cradle of the mythology andlanguage of Egypt, " says he, "is Asia. This result is arrived at by thevarious ethnological proofs of language which finds Sanskrit words andforms in Egypt, and of comparative anatomy, which shows the oldestEgyptian skulls to have belonged to Caucasian races. " If, then, Egyptiancivilization proceeded from Central Asia, Egyptian mythology and religionprobably came as a quite natural reaction from the extreme spiritualism ofthe Hindoos. The question which remains is, whether they arrived at theirnature-worship directly or indirectly; whether, beginning with Fetichism, they ascended to their higher conceptions of the immortal gods; or, beginning with spiritual existence, they traced it downward into itsmaterial manifestations; whether, in short, their system was one ofevolution or emanation. For every ancient theogony, cosmogony, or ontogonyis of one kind or the other. According to the systems of India and ofPlatonism, the generation of beings is by the method of emanation. Creation is a falling away, or an emanation from the absolute. But thesystems of Greek and Scandinavian mythology are of the opposite sort. Inthese, spirit is evolved from matter; matter up to spirit works. Theybegin with the lowest form of being, --night, chaos, a mundane egg, --andevolve the higher gods therefrom. It is probable that we find in Egypt a double tendency. One is the Asiaticspiritualism, the other the African naturalism. The union of the ideal andthe real, of thought and passion, of the aspirations of the soul and thefire of a passionate nature, of abstract meditation and concrete life, hadfor its result the mysterious theology and philosophy which, twentycenturies after its burial under the desert sands, still rouses ourcuriosity to penetrate the secret of this Sphinx of the Nile. We have seen in a former section that the institutions of Egypt, based ona theocratic monarchy, reach back into a dim and doubtful antiquity. Monuments, extending through thirty-five centuries, attest an agepreceding all written history. These monuments, so far as deciphered bymodern Egyptologists, have confirmed the accuracy of the lists of kingswhich have come to us from Manetho. We have no monument anterior to thefourth dynasty, but at that epoch we find the theocracy fullyorganized. [171] The general accuracy of Manetho's list has beendemonstrated by the latest discoveries of M. Mariette, and has rendereddoubtful the idea of any of the dynasties being contemporaneous. The main chronological points, however, are by no means as yet fixed. Thus, the beginning of the first dynasty is placed by Böckh at B. C. 5702, by Lepsius B. C. 3892, by Bunsen B. C. 3623, by Brugsch B. C. 4455, by LauthB. C. 4157, by Duncker 3233. [172] The period of the builders of the greatPyramids is fixed by Bunsen at B. C. 3229, by Lepsius at B. C. 3124, byBrugsch at B. C. 3686, by Lauth at B. C. 3450, and by Böckh at B. C. 4933. [173] The Egyptian priests told Herodotus that there were three hundred andthirty-one kings, from Menes to Moeris, whose names they read out of abook. After him came eleven others, of whom Sethos was the last. FromOsiris to Amasis they counted fifteen thousand years, though Herodotus didnot believe this statement. If the three hundred and forty-two kingsreally existed, it would make Menes come B. C. 9150, --at an average oftwenty-five years' reign to each king. Diodorus saw in Egypt a list offour hundred and seventy-nine kings. But he says in another place thatMenes lived about four thousand seven hundred years before his time. Manetho tells us that from Menes there were thirty dynasties, who reignedfive thousand three hundred and sixty-six years. But he gives a list offour hundred and seventy-two kings in these dynasties, to the time ofCambyses. The contradictions are so great, and the modes of reconcilingManetho, Herodotus, Diodorus, Eratosthenes, and the monuments are soinadequate, that we must regard the whole question of the duration of themonarchy as unsettled. But from the time when the calendar must have beenfixed, from the skill displayed in the Pyramids, and other reasonsindependent of any chronology, Duncker considers the reign of Menes as oldas B. C. 3500. The history of Egypt is divided into three periods, that of the old, themiddle, and the new monarchy. The first extends from the foundation of theunited kingdom by Menes to the conquest of the country by the Hyksôs. Thesecond is from this conquest by the Hyksôs till their expulsion. Thethird, from the re-establishment of the monarchy by Amosis to its finalconquest by Persia. The old monarchy contained twelve dynasties; theHyksôs or middle monarchy, five; the new monarchy, thirteen: in all, thirty. The Hyksôs, or Shepherd Kings, were at first supposed to be the Hebrews:but this hypothesis adapted itself to none of the facts. A recent treatiseby M. Chabas[174] shows that the Hyksôs were an Asiatic people, occupyingthe country to the northeast of Egypt. After conquering Lower Egypt, Apapi was king of the Hyksôs and Tekenen-Ra ruled over the nativeEgyptians of the South. A papyrus, as interpreted by M. Chabas, narratesthat King Apapi worshipped only the god Sutech (Set), and refused to allowthe Egyptian gods to be adored. This added to the war of races a war ofreligion, which resulted in the final expulsion of the Shepherds, aboutB. C. 1700. The Hyksôs are designated on the monuments and in the papyri asthe "Scourge" or "Plague, " equivalent in Hebrew to the _Tzir'ah, _ commonlytranslated "hornet, " but evidently the same as the Hebrew _tzavaath_, "plague, " and the Arabic _tzeria_, "scourge, " or "plague. "[175] According to the learned Egyptologist, Dr. Brugsch, the Hebrew slaves inEgypt are referred to in a papyrus in the British Museum of the date ofRamses II. (B. C. 1400), in a description by a scribe named Pinebsa of thenew city of Ramses. He tells how the slaves throng around him to presentpetitions against their overseers. Another papyrus reads (Lesley, "Man'sOrigin and Destiny"): "The people have erected twelve buildings. They madetheir tale of bricks daily, till they were finished. " The firstcorroboration of the biblical narrative which the Egyptian monumentsafford, and the first synchronism between Jewish and Egyptian history, appear in the reign of Ramses II. , about B. C. 1400, in the nineteenthdynasty. It appears from the monuments and from the historians that somewhere aboutB. C. 2000, or earlier, this great movement of warlike nomadic tribesoccurred, which resulted in the conquest of Lower Egypt by the pastoralpeople known as Hyksôs. It was perhaps a movement of Semitic races, theBedouins of the desert, like that which nearly three thousand years afterunited them as warriors of Islam to overflow North Africa, Syria, Persia, and Spain. They oppressed Egypt for five hundred years (Brugsch), andappear on the monuments under the name of Amu (the herdsmen) or of Aadu(the hated ones). Their kings resided at Tanis (in Egyptian Avaris), inthe Delta. That their conquests had a religious motive, and were made, like that of Mohammed, in the interest of monotheism, seems possible. Atall events, we find one of them, Apapi, erecting a temple to Sutech (theSemitic Baal), and refusing to allow the worship of other deities. [176] The majority of Egyptologists believe that the Hebrews entered Egypt whilethese Hyksôs kings, men of the same Semitic family and monotheistictendencies, were ruling in Lower Egypt. The bare subterranean templediscovered by M. Mariette, with the well near it filled with brokenstatues of the Egyptian gods, is an indication of those tendencies. The"other king, who knew not Joseph, " was a king of the eighteenth dynasty, who conquered the Hyksôs and drove them out of Egypt. Apparently thecourse of events was like that which many centuries later occurred inSpain. In both cases, the original rulers of the land, driven to themountains, gradually reconquered their country step by step. The result ofthis reconquest of the country would also be in Egypt, as it was in Spain, that the Semitic remnants left in the land would be subject to a severeand oppressive rule. The Jews in Egypt, like the Moors in Spain, werevictims of a cruel bondage. Then began the most splendid period ofEgyptian history, during the seventeenth, sixteenth, fifteenth, andfourteenth centuries before Christ. The Egyptian armies overran Syria, Asia Minor, and Armenia as far as the Tigris. Ramses II. , the most powerful monarch of this epoch, is probably the kingwhose history is given by Herodotus and other Greek writers under the nameof Sesostris. [177] M. De Rougé believes himself able to establish thisidentity. He found in the Museum at Vienna a stone covered withinscriptions, and dedicated by a person whose name is given as RamsesMei-Amoun, exactly in the hieroglyphics of the great king. But thisperson's name is also written elsewhere on the stone _Ses_, and a thirdtime as _Ses Mei-amoun, _ showing that _Ses_ was a common abbreviation ofRamses. It is also written _Sesu_, or _Sesesu_, which is very like theform in which Diodorus writes Sesostris, namely, _Sesoosis_. [178] NowRamses II. , whose reign falls about B. C. 1400, erected a chain offortresses to defend the northeastern border of Egypt against the Syriannomads. One of these fortresses was named from the King Ramses, andanother Pachtum. The papyri contain accounts of these cities. One papyrus, in the British Museum, [179] is a description by a scribe named Pinebsa, ofthe aspect of the city Ramses, and of the petitions of the laborers forrelief against their overseers. These laborers are called _Apuru_, Hebrews. In a papyrus of the Leyden Museum, an officer reports to hissuperior thus: "May my lord be pleased. I have distributed food to thesoldiers and to the Hebrews, dragging stones for the great city RamsesMeia-moum. I gave them food monthly. " This corresponds with the passage(Exodus i. 11): "They built for Pharaoh treasure-cities, Pithom andRaamses. "[180] The birth of Moses fell under the reign of Ramses II. The Exodus was underthat of his successor, Menepthes. This king had fallen on evil times; hispower was much inferior to that of his great predecessor; and he evencondescended to propitiate the anti-Egyptian element, by worshipping itsgods. He has left his inscription on the monuments with the title, "Worshipper of Sutech-Baal in Tanis. " The name of Moses is Egyptian, andsignifies "the child. " "Joseph, " says Brugsch, "was never at the court of an Egyptian Pharaoh, but found his place with the Semitic monarchs, who reigned at Avaris-Tanisin the Delta, and whose power extended from this point as far as Memphisand Heliopolis. " The "king who knew not Joseph" was evidently therestored Egyptian dynasty of Thebes. These monarchs would be naturallyaverse to all the Palestinian inhabitants of the land. And the monumentsof their reigns represent the labors of subject people, undertask-masters, cutting, carrying, and laying stones for the walls ofcities. To what race do the Egyptians belong? The only historic document whichtakes us back so far as this is the list of nations in the tenth chapterof Genesis. We cannot, indeed, determine the time when it was written. ButBunsen, Ebers, [181] and other ethnologists are satisfied that the authorof this chapter had a knowledge of the subject derived either from thePhoenicians or the Egyptians. Ewald places his epoch with that of theearly Jewish kings. According to this table the Egyptians were descendedfrom Ham, the son of Noah, and were consequently of the same originalstock with the Japhetic and Semitic nations. They were not negroes, thoughtheir skin was black, or at least dark. [182] According to Herodotus theycame from the heart of Africa; according to Genesis (chap. X. ) from Asia. Which is the correct view? The Egyptians themselves recognized no relationship with the negroes, whoonly appear on the monuments as captives or slaves. History, therefore, helps us little in this question of race. How is itwith Comparative Philology and Comparative Anatomy? The Coptic language is an idiom of the old Egyptian tongue, which seems tobelong to no known linguistic group. It is related to other Africanlanguages only through the lexicon, and similarly with the Indo-European. Some traces of grammatic likeness to the Semitic may be found in it; yetthe view of Bunsen and Schwartz, that in very ancient times it arose fromthe union of Semitic and Indo-European languages, remains only ahypothesis. [183] Merx (in Schenkel's Bibel-Lexicon) says this view "restsupon a wish formed in the interest of the Philosophy of History; and thebelief of a connection between these tongues is not justified by anyscientific study of philology. No such ethnological affinity can begranted, --a proof of which is that all facts in its favor are derived fromcommon roots, none from common grammar. " Benfey, however, assumed twogreat branches of Semitic nationalities, one flowing into Africa, theother into Western Asia. [184] Ebers[185] gives some striking resemblancesbetween Egyptian and Chaldaic words, and says he possesses more than threehundred examples of this kind; and in Bunsen's fifth volume arecomparative tables which give as their result that a third part of the oldEgyptian words in Coptic literature are Semitic, and a tenth partIndo-European. If these statements are confirmed, they may indicate someclose early relations between these races. The anatomy of the mummies seems to show a wide departure from negrocharacteristics. The skull, chin, forehead, bony system, facial angle, hair, limbs, are all different. The chief resemblances are in the flatnose, and form of the backbone. [186] Scientific ethnologists havetherefore usually decided that the old Egyptians were an Asiatic peoplewho had become partially amalgamated with the surrounding African tribes. Max Duncker comes to this conclusion, [187] and says that the Berberlanguages are the existing representatives of the old Egyptian. This iscertainly true as concerns the Copts, whose very name is almost identicalwith the word "Gupti, " the old name from which the Greeks formed the termÆgypti. [188] Alfred Maury (Revue d. D. Mondes, September, 1867) says that, "according to all appearances, Egypt was peopled from Asia by that Hamiticrace which comprised the tribes of Palestine, Arabia, and Ethiopia. Itsancient civilization was, consequently, the sister of that which builtBabylon and Nineveh. In the valley of the Nile, as in those of theEuphrates and the Tigris, religion gave the motive to civilization, and inall the three nations there was a priesthood in close alliance with anabsolute monarchy. " M. De Rougé is of the same opinion. In his examinationof the monuments of the oldest dynasties, he finds the name given to theEgyptians by themselves to be merely "the Men" (Rut), --a word which by theusual interchange of R with L, and of T with D, is identical with theHebrew Lud (plural Ludim), whom the Book of Genesis declares to have beena son of Misraim. This term was applied by the Israelites to all the raceson the southeast shore of the Mediterranean. It is, therefore, believed byM. De Rougé that the Egyptians were of the same family with these Asiatictribes on the shores of Syria. Here, then, as in so many other cases, anew civilization may have come from the union of two different races, --oneAsiatic, the other African. Asia furnished the brain, Africa the fire, andfrom the immense vital force of the latter and the intellectual vigor ofthe former sprang that wonderful civilization which illuminated the worldduring at least five thousand years. § 6. The Three Orders of Gods. The Egyptian theology, or doctrine of the gods, was of twokinds, --esoteric and exoteric, that is, an interior theology for theinitiated, and an exterior theology for the uninitiated. The exteriortheology, which was for the whole people, consisted of the mythologicalaccounts of Isis and Osiris, the judgments of the dead, the transmigrationof the soul, and all matters connected with the ceremonial worship of thegods. But the interior, hidden theology is supposed to have related to theunity and spirituality of the Deity. Herodotus informs us that the gods of the Egyptians were in three orders;and Bunsen believes that he has succeeded in restoring them from themonuments. There are eight gods of the first order, twelve gods of thesecond order, and seven gods of the third order. The gods of the thirdorder are those of the popular worship, but those of the first seem to beof a higher and more spiritual class. The third class of gods wererepresentative of the elements of nature, the sun, fire, water, earth, air. But the gods of the first order were the gods of the priesthood, understood by them alone, and expressing ideas which they shrank fromcommunicating to the people. The spiritual and ideal part of theirreligion the priests kept to themselves as something which the people wereincapable of understanding. The first eight gods seem to have been arepresentation of a process of divine development or emanation, andconstituted a transition from the absolute spiritualism of the Hindoos tothe religion of nature and humanity in the West. The Hindoo gods wereemanations of spirit: the gods of Greece are idealizations of Nature. Butthe Egyptian gods represent spirit passing into matter and form. Accordingly, if we examine in detail the gods of the first order, who areeight, we find them to possess the general principle of self-revelation, and to constitute, taken together, a process of divine development. Theseeight, according to Bunsen, are Amn, or Ammon; Khem, or Chemmis; Mut, theMother Goddess; Num, or Kneph; Seti, or Sate; Phtah, the Artist God; Net, or Neith, the Goddess of Sais; and Ra, the Sun, the God of Heliopolis. Butaccording to Wilkinson they stand in a little different order: 1. Neph, orKneph; 2. Amun, or Ammon; 3. Pthah; 4. Khem; 5. Sate; 6. Maut, or Mut; 7. Pasht, or Diana; and 8. Neith, or Minerva, in which list Pasht, theGoddess of Bubastis, is promoted out of the second order and takes theplace of Ra, the Sun, who is degraded. Supposing these lists to be substantially correct, we have, as the root ofthe series, Ammon, the Concealed God, or Absolute Spirit. His titlesindicate this dignity. The Greeks recognized him as corresponding to theirZeus. He is styled King of the Gods, the Ruler, the Lord of Heaven, theLord of the Thrones, the Horus or God of the Two Egypts. Thebes was hiscity. According to Manetho, his name means concealment; and the root "Amn"also means to veil or conceal. His original name was Amn; thus it standsin the rings of the twelfth dynasty. But after the eighteenth dynasty itis Amn-Ra, meaning the Sun. "Incontestably, " says Bunsen, "he stands inEgypt as the head of the great cosmogonic development. " Next comes Kneph, or God as Spirit, --the Spirit of God, often confoundedwith Amn, also called Cnubis and Num. Both Plutarch and Diodorus tell usthat his name signifies Spirit, the Num having an evident relation withthe Greek πνεῦμα, and the Coptic word "Nef, " meaning also to blow. So toothe Arabic "Nef" means breath, the Hebrew "Nuf, " to flow, and the Greekπνέω, to breathe. At Esneh he is called the Breath of those in theFirmament; at Elephantina, Lord of the Inundations. He wears the ram'shead with double horns (by mistake of the Greeks attributed to Ammon), andhis worship was universal in Ethiopia. The sheep are sacred to him, ofwhich there were large flocks in the Thebaid, kept for their wool. And theserpent or asp, a sign of kingly dominion, --hence called basilisk, --issacred to Kneph. As Creator, he appears under the figure of a potter witha wheel. In Philæ he is so represented, forming on his wheel a figure ofOsiris, with the inscription, "Num, who forms on his wheel the DivineLimbs of Osiris. " He is also called the Sculptor of all men, also the godwho made the sun and moon to revolve. Porphyry says that Pthah sprang froman egg which came from the mouth of Kneph, in which he is supported byhigh monumental authority. The result of this seems to be that Kneph represents the absolute Being asSpirit, the Spirit of God moving on the face of the waters, --a movingspirit pervading the formless chaos of matter. Perhaps the next god in the series is Pthah, by the Greeks calledHephæstus, or Vulcan, representing formation, creation by the truth, stability; called in the inscriptions, Lord of Truth, Lord of theBeautiful Face, Father of the Beginnings, moving the Egg of the Sun andMoon. With Horapollo and Plutarch, we may consider the Scarabeus, orBeetle, which is his sign, as an emblem of the world and its creation. Aninscription calls him Creator of all things in the world. Iamblicus says, "The God who creates with truth is Pthah. " He was also connected with thesun, as having thirty fingers, --the number of days in a month. He isrepresented sometimes as a deformed dwarf. The next god in the series is Khem, the Greek Pan, --the principle ofgeneration, sometimes holding the ploughshare. Then come the feminine principles corresponding with these three lattergods. Amun has naturally no companion. Mut, the mother, is the consort ofKhem the father. Seti, --the Ray or Arrow, --a female figure, with the hornsof a cow, is the companion of Kneph. And Neith, or Net, the goddess ofSais, belongs to Pthah. The Greek Minerva Athênê is thought to be derivedfrom Neith by an inversion of the letters, [189]--the Greeks writing fromleft to right and the Egyptians from right to left. Her name means, "Icame from myself. " Clemens says that her great shrine at Sais has an openroof with the inscription, "I am all that was and is and is to be, and nomortal has lifted my garment, and the fruit I bore is Helios. " This wouldseem to identify her with Nature. For the eighth god of the first order we may take either Helios or Ra orPhra, the Sun-God; from whence came the name of the Pharaohs, or we maytake Pasht, Bubastis, the equivalent of the Greek Diana. On some accountsit would seem that Ra was the true termination of this cycle. We shouldthen have, proceeding from the hidden abyss of pure Spirit, first abreathing forth, or spirit in motion; then creation, by the word of truth;then generation, giving life and growth; and then the female qualities ofproduction, wisdom, and light, completed by the Sun-God, last of theseries. Amn, or Ammon, the Concealed God, is the root, then the creativepower in Kneph, then the generative power in Khem, the Demiurgic power inPtah, the feminine creative principle of Nature in Neith, the productiveprinciple in Mut, or perhaps the nourishing principle, and then the livingstimulus of growth, which carries all forward in Ra. But we must now remember that two races meet in Egypt, --an Asiatic race, which brings the ideas of the East; and an Ethiopian, inhabitants of theland, who were already there. The first race brought the spiritual ideaswhich were embodied in the higher order of gods. The Africans were filledwith the instinct of nature-worship. These two tendencies were to bereconciled in the religion of Egypt. The first order of gods was for theinitiated, and taught them the unity, spirituality, and creative power ofGod. [190] The third order--the circle of Isis and Osiris--were for thepeople, and were representative of the forms and forces of outwardnature. Between the two come the second series, --a transition from the oneto the other, --children of the higher gods, parents of the lower, --neitherso abstract as the one nor so concrete as the other, --representing neitherpurely divine qualities on the one side, nor merely natural forces on theother, but rather the faculties and powers of man. Most of this serieswere therefore adopted by the Greeks, whose religion was one essentiallybased on human nature, and whose gods were all, or nearly all, the idealrepresentations of human qualities. Hence they found in Khunsu, child ofAmmon, their Hercules, God of Strength; in Thoth, child of Kneph, theyfound Hermes, God of Knowledge; in Pecht, child of Pthah, they found theirArtemis, or Diana, the Goddess of Birth, protector of women; in Athor, orHathor, they found their Aphroditê, Goddess of Love. Seb was Chronos, orTime; and Nutpe was Rhea, wife of Chronos. The third order of gods are the children of the second series, and aremanifestations of the Divine in the outward universe. But though standinglowest in the scale, they were the most popular gods of the Pantheon; hadmore individuality and personal character than the others; were moreuniversally worshipped throughout Egypt, and that from the oldest times. "The Osiris deities, " says Herodotus, "are the only gods worshippedthroughout Egypt. " "They stand on the oldest monuments, are the centre ofall Egyptian worship, and are perhaps the oldest original objects ofreverence, " says Bunsen. How can this be if they belong to a lower orderof Deities, and what is the explanation of it? There is another historicalfact also to be explained. Down to the time of Ramses, thirteen hundredyears before Christ, Typhon, or Seth, the God of Destruction, was thechief of this third order, and the most venerated of all the gods. Afterthat time a revolution occurred in the worship, which overthrew Seth, andhis name was chiselled out of the monuments, and the name of Amun insertedin its place. This was the only change which occurred in the Egyptianreligion, so far as we know, from its commencement until the time of theCæsars. [191] An explanation of both these facts may be given, founded onthe supposed amalgamation in Egypt of two races with their religions. Supposing that the gods of the higher orders represented the religiousideas of a Semitic or Aryan race entering Egypt from Asia, and that theOsiris group were the gods of the African nature-worship, which they foundprevailing on their arrival, it is quite natural that the priests shouldin their classification place their own gods highest, while they shouldhave allowed the external worship to go on as formerly, at least for atime. But, after a time, as the tone of thought became more elevated, theymay have succeeded in substituting for the God of Terror and Destruction ahigher conception in the popular worship. The myth of Isis and Osiris, preserved for us by Plutarch, gives the mostlight in relation to this order of deities. Seb and Nutpe, or Nut, called by the Greeks Chronos and Rhea, were theparents of this group. Seb is therefore Time, and Nut is Motion or perhapsSpace. The Sun pronounced a curse on them, namely, that she should not bedelivered, on any day of the year. This perhaps implies the difficulty ofthe thought of Creation. But Hermes, or Wisdom, who loved Rhea, won, atdice, of the Moon, five days, the seventieth part of all herilluminations, which he added to the three hundred and sixty days, ortwelve months. Here we have a hint of a correction of the calendar, thenecessity of which awakened a feeling of irregularity in the processes ofnature, admitting thereby the notion of change and a new creation. Thesefive days were the birthdays of the gods. On the first Osiris is born, anda voice was heard saying, "The Lord of all things is now born. " On thesecond day, Arueris-Apollo, or the elder Horus; on the third, Typhon, whobroke through a hole in his mother's side; on the fourth, Isis; and on thefifth, Nepthys-Venus, or Victory. Osiris and Arueris are children of theSun, Isis of Hermes, Typhon and Nepthys of Saturn. Isis became the wife of Osiris, who went through the world taming it bymeans of oratory, poetry, and music. When he returned, Typhon tookseventy-two men and also a queen of Ethiopia, and made an ark the size ofOsiris's body, and at a feast proposed to give it to the one whom itshould fit. Osiris got into it, and they fastened down the lid andsoldered it and threw it into the Nile. Then Isis put on mourning and wentto search for it, and directed her inquiries to little children, who werehence held by the Egyptians to have the faculty of divination. Then shefound Anubis, child of Osiris, by Nepthys, wife of Typhon, who told herhow the ark was entangled in a tree which grew up around it and hid it. The king had made of this tree a pillar to support his house. Isis satdown weeping; the women of the queen came to her, she stroked their hair, and fragrance passed into it. She was made nurse to the queen's child, fedhim with her finger, and in the night-time, by means of a lambent flame, burned away his impurities. She then turned herself into a swallow andflew around the house, bewailing her fate. The queen watched heroperations, and being alarmed cried out, and so robbed her child ofimmortality. Isis then begged the pillar, took it down, took out thechest, and cried so loud that the younger son of the king died of fright. She then took the ark and the elder son and set sail. The cold air of theriver chilled her, and she became angry and cursed it, and so dried it up. She opened the chest, put her cheek to that of Osiris and wept bitterly. The little boy came and peeped in; she gave him a terrible look, and hedied of fright. Isis then came to her son Horus, who was at nurse at Buto. Typhon, hunting by moonlight, saw the ark, with the body of Osiris, whichhe tore into fourteen parts and threw them about. Isis went to look forthem in a boat made of papyrus, and buried each part in a separate place. After this the soul of Osiris returned out of Hades to train up his son. Then came a battle between Horus and Typhon, in which Typhon wasvanquished, but Isis allowed him to escape. There are other less importantincidents in the story, among them that Isis had another son by the soulof Osiris after his death, who is the god called Harpocrates, representedas lame and with his finger on his mouth. [192] Plutarch declares that this story is symbolical, and mentions variousexplanations of the allegory. He rejects, at once, the rationalisticexplanation, which turns these gods into eminent men, --sea-captains, etc. "I fear, " says he, "this would be to stir things that are not to bestirred, and to declare war (as Simonides says), not only against lengthof time, but also against many nations and families of mankind, whom areligious reverence towards these gods holds fast bound like menastonished and amazed, and would be no other than going about to remove sogreat and venerable names from heaven to earth, and thereby shaking anddissolving that worship and persuasion that hath entered almost all men'sconstitutions from their very birth, and opening vast doors to theatheists' faction, who convert all divine matters into human. " "Others, "he says, "consider these beings as demons intermediate between gods andmen. And Osiris afterwards became Serapis, the Pluto of the under-world. " Other explanations of the myth are given by Plutarch. First, thegeographical explanation. According to this, Osiris is Water, especiallythe Nile. Isis is Earth, especially the land of Egypt adjoining the Nile, and overflowed by it. Horus, their son, is the Air, especially the moist, mild air of Egypt. Typhon is Fire, especially the summer heat which driesup the Nile and parches the land. His seventy-two associates are theseventy-two days of greatest heat, according to the Egyptian opinion. Nepthys, his wife, sister of Isis, is the Desert outside of Egypt, butwhich in a higher inundation of the Nile being sometimes overflowed, becomes productive, and has a child by Osiris, named Anubis. When Typhonshuts Osiris into the ark, it is the summer heat drying up the Nile andconfining it to its channel. This ark, entangled in a tree, is where theNile divides into many mouths at the Delta and is overhung by the wood. Isis, nursing the child of the king, the fragrance, etc. , represent theearth nourishing plants and animals. The body of Osiris, torn by Typhoninto fourteen parts, signifies either the division of the Nile at itsmouths or the pools of water left after the drying up of the inundation. There is so much in this account which accords with the facts, that therecan be no doubt of its correctness so far as it goes. At the same time itis evidently an incomplete explanation. The story means this, butsomething more. Beside the geographical view, Plutarch therefore adds ascientific and an astronomical explanation, as well as others morephilosophical. According to these, Osiris is in general the productive, the creative power in nature; Isis, the female property of nature, hencecalled by Plato the nurse; and Typhon the destructive property in nature;while Horus is the mediator between creation and destruction. And thus wehave the triad of Osiris, Typhon, and Horus, essentially corresponding tothe Hindoo triad, Brahma, Siva, and Vishnu, and also to the Persian triad, Ormazd, Ahriman, and Mithra. And so this myth will express the Egyptianview of the conflict of good and evil in the natural world. But it seems very likely that it was the object of the priests to elevatethis Osiris worship to a still higher meaning, making it an allegory ofthe struggles, sorrows, and self-recovery of the human soul. Every humansoul after death took the name and symbols of Osiris, and then went intothe under-world to be judged by him. Connected with this was the doctrineof transmigration, or the passage of the soul through various bodies, --adoctrine brought out of Egypt by Pythagoras. These higher doctrines weretaught in the mysteries. "I know them, " says Herodotus, "but must not tellthem. " Iamblicus professes to explain them in his work on the Mysteries. But it is not easy to say how much of his own Platonism he has mingledtherewith. According to him, they taught in the mysteries that before allthings was one God immovable in the solitude of unity. The One was to bevenerated in silence. Then Emeph, or Neph, was god in hisself-consciousness. After this in Amun, his intellect became truth, shedding light. Truth working by art is Pthah, and art producing good isOsiris. Another remarkable fact must be at least alluded to. Bunsen says, that, according to the whole testimony of the monuments, Isis and Osiris notonly have their roots in the second order, but are also themselves thefirst and the second order. Isis, Osiris, and Horus comprise all Egyptianmythology, with the exception of Amun and Neph. Of this fact I have seenno explanation and know of none, unless it be a sign of the purpose of thepriests to unite the two systems of spiritualism and nature-worship intoone, and to elevate and spiritualize the lower order of gods. One reason for thinking that the religious system of the priests was acompromise between several different original tendencies is to be found inthe local worship of special deities in various places. In Lower Egypt thehighest god was Pthah, whom the Greeks identified with Vulcan; the god offire or heat, father of the sun. He was in this region the chief god, corresponding to Ammon in Upper Egypt. Manetho says that Pthah reignednine thousand years before the other gods, --which must mean that this wasby far the oldest worship in Egypt. As Ammon is the head of a cosmogonywhich proceeds according to emanation from spirit down to matter, so Pthahis at the beginning of a cosmogony which ascends by a process of evolutionfrom matter working up to spirit. For from Pthah (heat) comes light, fromlight proceeds life, from life arise gods, men, plants, animals, and allorganic existence. The inscriptions call Pthah, "Father of the Father ofthe Gods, " "King of both Worlds, " the "God of all Beginnings, " the "Formerof Things. " The egg is one of his symbols, as containing a germ of life. The scarabæus, or beetle, which rolls its ball of earth, supposed tocontain its egg, is dedicated to Pthah. His sacred city was Memphis, inLower Egypt. His son, Ra, the Sun-God, had his temple at On, near by, which the Greeks called Heliopolis, or City of the Sun. The cat is sacredto Ra. As Pthah is the god of all beginnings in Lower Egypt, so Ra is thevitalizing god, the active ruler of the world, holding a sceptre in onehand and the sign of life in the other. The goddesses of Lower Egypt were Neith at Sais, Leto, the goddess whosetemple was at Buto, and Pacht at Babastis. In Upper Egypt, as we haveseen, the chief deity was Amun, or Ammon, the Concealed God, and Kneph, orKnubis. With them belonged the goddess Mut[193] (the mother) and Khonso. The two oldest gods were Mentu, the rising sun, and Atmu, the setting sun. We therefore find traces of the same course of religious thought in Egyptas we shall afterward find in Greece. The earlier worship is of localdeities, who are afterwards united in a Pantheon. As Zeus was at firstworshipped in Dodona and Arcadia, Apollo in Crete and Delos, Aphroditê inCyprus, Athênê at Athens, and afterward these tribal and provincialdeities were united in one company as the twelve gods of Olympus, so inEgypt the various early theologies were united in the three orders, ofwhich Ammon was made the head. But, in both countries, each city andprovince persevered in the worship of its particular deity. As Athênêcontinued to be the protector of Athens, and Aphroditê of Cyprus, so, inEgypt, Set continued to be the god of Ombos, Leto of Buto, Horus of Edfu, Khem of Coptos. Before concluding this section, we must say a word of the practicalmorality connected with this theology. We have seen, above, the stresslaid on works of justice and mercy. There is a papyrus in the Imperiallibrary at Paris, which M. Chabas considers the oldest book in the world. It is an autograph manuscript written B. C. 2200, or four thousand yearsago, by one who calls himself the son of a king. It contains practicalphilosophy like that of Solomon in his proverbs. It glorifies, like theProverbs, wisdom. It says that "man's heart rules the man, " that "the badman's life is what the wise know to be death, " that "what we say in secretis known to him who made our interior nature, " that "he who made us ispresent with us though we are alone. " Is not the human race one, when this Egyptian four thousand years ago, talks of life as Solomon spoke one thousand years after, in Judæa; and asBenjamin Franklin spoke, three thousand years after Solomon, in America? § 7. Influence of Egypt on Judaism and Christianity. How much of the doctrine and ritual of Egypt were imported into Judaism byMoses is a question by no means easy to settle. Of Egyptian theologyproper, or the doctrine of the gods, we find no trace in the Pentateuch. Instead of the three orders of deities we have Jehovah; instead of theimages and pictures of the gods, we have a rigorous prohibition ofidolatry; instead of Osiris and Isis, we have a Deity above all worlds andbehind all time, with no history, no adventures, no earthly life. But itis perhaps more strange not to find any trace of the doctrine of a futurelife in Mosaism, when this was so prominent among the Egyptians. Mosesgives no account of the judgment of souls after death; he tells nothing ofthe long journey and multiform experiences of the next life according tothe Egyptians, nothing of a future resurrection and return to the body. His severe monotheism was very different from the minute characterizationof gods in the Egyptian Pantheon. The personal character of Jehovah, withits awful authority, its stern retribution and impartial justice, wasquite another thing from the symbolic ideal type of the gods of Egypt. Nothing of the popular myth of Osiris, Isis, Horus, and Typhon is found inthe Pentateuch, nothing of the transmigration of souls, nothing of theworship of animals; nothing of the future life and judgment to come;nothing of the embalming of bodies and ornamenting of tombs. The cherubimamong the Jews may resemble the Egyptian Sphinx; the priests' dress inboth are of white linen; the Urim and Thummim, symbolic jewels of thepriests, are in both; a quasi-hereditary priesthood is in each; and bothhave a temple worship. But here the parallels cease. Moses left behindEgyptian theology, and took only some hints for his ritual from the Nile. There may perhaps be a single exception to this statement. According toBrugsch[194] and other writers, the Papyrus buried with the mummycontained the doctrine of the Divine unity. The name of God was notgiven, but instead the words NUK PU NUK, "I am the I am, " correspondingto the name given in Exodus iii. 14, Jahveh (in a corrupt form Jehovah). This name, Jahveh, has the same meaning with the Egyptian Nuk pu Nuk, "Iam the I am. " At least so say Egyptologists. If this is so, thecoincidence is certainly very striking. That some of the ritualism to which the Jews were accustomed in Egyptshould have been imported into their new ceremonial, is quite inaccordance with human nature. Christianity, also, has taken up many of thecustoms of heathenism. [195] The rite of circumcision was probably adoptedby the Jews from the Egyptians, who received it from the natives ofAfrica. Livingstone has found it among the tribes south of the Zambesi, and thinks this custom there cannot be traced to any Mohammedan source. Prichard believes it, in Egypt, to have been a relic of ancient Africancustoms. It still exists in Ethiopia and Abyssinia. In Egypt it existedfar earlier than the time of Abraham, as appears by ancient mummies. Wilkinson affirms it to have been "as early as the fourth dynasty, andprobably earlier, long before the time of Abraham. " Herodotus tells usthat the custom existed from the earliest times among the Egyptians andEthiopians, and was adopted from them by the Syrians of Palestine. Thosewho regard this rite as instituted by a Divine command may still believethat it already existed among the Jews, just as baptism existed among thembefore Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize. Both in Egypt and amongthe Jews it was connected with a feeling of superiority. The circumcisedwere distinguished from others by a higher religious position. It isdifficult to trace the origin of sentiments so alien to our own ways ofthought; but the hygienic explanation seems hardly adequate. It may havebeen a sign of the devotion of the generative power to the service of God, and have been the first step out of the untamed license of the passions, among the Africans. It has been supposed that the figure of the Cherubim among the Jews wasderived from that of the Sphinx. There were three kinds of Sphinxes inEgypt, --the _andro-sphinx_, with the head of a man and the body of a lion;the _crio-sphinx_, with the head of a ram and the body of a lion; and the_hieraco-sphinx_, with the head of a hawk and a lion's body. The first wasa symbol of the union of wisdom and strength. The Sphinx was the solemnsentinel, placed to watch the temple and the tomb, as the Cherubim watchedthe gates of Paradise after the expulsion of Adam. In the Cherubim werejoined portions of the figure of a man with those of the lion, the ox, andthe eagle. In the Temple the Cherubim spread their wings above the ark;and Wilkinson gives a picture from the Egyptian tombs of two kneelingfigures with wings spread above the scarabæus. The Persians and the Greekshad similar symbolic figures, meant to represent the various powers ofthese separate creatures combined in one being; but the Hebrew figure wasprobably imported from Egypt. The Egyptians had in their temples a special interior sanctuary, more holythan the rest. So the Jews had their Holy of Holies, into which only thehigh-priest went, separated by a veil from the other parts of the Temple. The Jews were commanded on the Day of Atonement to provide a scapegoat, tocarry away the sins of the people, and the high-priest was to lay hishands on the head of the goat and confess the national sins, "putting themupon the head of the goat" (Lev. Xvi. 21, 22), and it was said that "thegoat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited. "So, among the Egyptians, whenever a victim was offered, a prayer wasrepeated over its head, "that if any calamity were about to befall eitherthe sacrifices or the land of Egypt, it might be averted on thishead. "[196] Such facts as these make it highly probable that Moses allowed in hisritual many ceremonies borrowed from the Egyptian worship. That Egyptian Christianity had a great influence on the development of thesystem of Christian doctrine is not improbable. [197] The religion ofancient Egypt was very tenacious and not easily effaced. Successive wavesof Syrian, Persian, Greek, and Roman conquest rolled over the land, scarcely producing any change in her religion or worship. Christianityconquered Egypt, but was itself deeply tinged with the faith of theconquered. Many customs found in Christendom may be traced back to Egypt. The Egyptian at his marriage put a gold ring on his wife's finger, as atoken that he intrusted her with all his property, just as in the Churchof England service the bridegroom does the same, saying, "With all myworldly goods I thee endow. " Clemens tells us that this custom was derivedby the Christians from the Egyptians. The priests at Philæ threw a pieceof gold into the Nile once a year, as the Venetian Doge did into theAdriatic. The Feast of Candles at Sais is still marked in the Christiancalendar as Candlemas Day. The Catholic priest shaves his head as theEgyptian priest did before him. The Episcopal minister's linen surplicefor reading the Liturgy is taken from the dress of obligation, made oflinen, worn by the priest in Egypt. Two thousand years before the Popeassumed to hold the keys, there was an Egyptian priest at Thebes with thetitle of "Keeper of the two doors of Heaven. "[198] In the space which we have here at command we are unable to examine thequestion of doctrinal influences from Egypt upon orthodox Christianity. Four doctrines, however, are stated by the learned Egyptologist, SamuelSharpe, to be common to Egyptian mythology and church orthodoxy. They arethese:-- 1. That the creation and government of the world is not the work of one simple and undivided Being, but of one God made up of several persons. This is the doctrine of plural unity. 2. That salvation cannot be expected from the justice or mercy of the Supreme Judge, unless an atoning sacrifice is made to him by a divine being. 3. That among the persons who compose the godhead, one, though a god, could yet suffer pain and be put to death. 4. That a god or man, or a being half god and half a man once lived on earth, born of an earthly mother but without an earthly father. The gods of Egypt generally appear in triads, and sometimes as three godsin one. The triad of Thebes was Amun-Ra, Athor, and Chonso, --or father, mother, and son. In Nubia it was Pthah, Amun-Ra, and Horus-Ra. At Philæ itwas Osiris, Isis, and Horus. Other groups were Isis, Nephthys, and Horus;Isis, Nephthys, and Osiris; Osiris, Athor, and Ra. In later times Horusbecame the supreme being, and appears united with Ra and Osiris in onefigure, holding the two sceptres of Osiris, and having the hawk's head ofHorus and the sun of Ra. Eusebius says of this god that he declaredhimself to be Apollo, Lord, and Bacchus. A porcelain idol worn as a charmcombines Pthah the Supreme God of Nature, with Horus the Son-God, andKneph the Spirit-God. The body is that of Pthah, God of Nature, with thehawk's wings of Horus, and the ram's head of Kneph. It is curious thatIsis the mother, with Horus the child in her arms, as the merciful godswho would save their worshippers from the vengeance of Osiris the sternjudge, became as popular a worship in Egypt in the time of Augustus, asthat of the Virgin and Child is in Italy to-day. Juvenal says that thepainters of Rome almost lived by painting the goddess Isis, the Madonna ofEgypt, which had been imported into Italy, and which was very popularthere. In the trial of the soul before Osiris, as represented on tablets andpapyri, are seen the images of gods interceding as mediators and offeringsacrifices on its behalf. There are four of these mediatorial gods, andthere is a tablet in the British Museum in which the deceased is shown asplacing the gods themselves on the altar as his sin-offering, and pleadingtheir merits. [199] The death of Osiris, the supreme god of all Egypt, was a central fact inthis mythology. He was killed by Typhon, the Egyptian Satan, and afterthe fragments of his body had been collected by "the sad Isis, " hereturned to life as king of the dead and their judge. [200] In connection with these facts it is deserving of notice that the doctrineof the trinity and that of the atonement began to take shape in the handsof the Christian theologians of Egypt. The Trinity and its symbols werealready familiar to the Egyptian mind. Plutarch says that the Egyptiansworshipped Osiris, Isis, and Horus under the form of a triangle. He addsthat they considered everything perfect to have three parts, and thattherefore their good god made himself threefold, while their god of evilremained single. Egypt, which had exercised so powerful an influence onthe old religion of Rome, was destined also greatly to influenceChristianity. Alexandria was the head-quarters of learning and profoundreligious speculations in the first centuries. Clemens, Origen, Dionysius, Athanasius, were eminent teachers in that school. Its doctrines were[201]that God had revealed himself to all nations by his Logos, or Word. Christianity is its highest revelation. The common Christian lives byfaith, but the more advanced believer has gnosis, or philosophic insightof Christianity as the eternal law of the soul. This doctrine soonsubstituted speculation in place of the simplicity of early Christianity. The influence of Alexandrian thought was increased by the high culturewhich prevailed there, and by the book-trade of this Egyptian city. Allthe oldest manuscripts of the Bible now extant were transcribed byAlexandrian penmen. The oldest versions were made in Alexandria. Finallythe intense fervor of the Egyptian mind exercised its natural influence onChristianity, as it did on Judaism and Heathenism. The Orientalspeculative element of Egyptian life was reinforced by the African fire;and in Christianity, as before in the old religion, we find both workingtogether. By the side of the Alexandrian speculations on the nature of Godand the Trinity appear the maniacal devotion of the monks of the Thebaid. The ardor of belief which had overcome even the tenacity of Judaism, andmodified it into its two Egyptian forms of the speculations of Philo andthe monastic devotion of the Therapeutæ, reappeared in a like action uponChristian belief and Christian practice. How large a part of our presentChristianity is due to these two influences we may not be able to say. Butpalpable traces of Egyptian speculation appear in the Church doctrines ofthe Trinity and atonement, and the material resurrection[202] of the sameparticles which constitute the earthly body. And an equally evidentinfluence from Egyptian asceticism is found in the long history ofChristian monasticism, no trace of which appears in the New Testament, andno authority for which can be found in any teaching or example of Christ. The mystical theology and mystical devotion of Egypt are yet at work inthe Christian Church. But beside the _doctrines_ directly derived fromEgypt, there has probably come into Christianity another and moreimportant element from this source. The _spirit_ of a race, a nation, acivilization, a religion is more indestructible than its forms, morepervasive than its opinions, and will exercise an interior influence longafter its outward forms have disappeared. The spirit of the Egyptianreligion was reverence for the divine mystery of organic life, the worshipof God in creation, of unity in variety, of each in all. Through theChristian Church in Egypt, the schools of Alexandria, the monks of theThebaid, these elements filtered into the mind of Christendom. They gave amaterialistic tone to the conceptions of the early Church, concerning God, Satan, the angels and devils, Heaven, Hell, the judgment, and theresurrection. They prevented thereby the triumph of a misty Orientalspiritualism. Too gross indeed in themselves, they yet were better thanthe Donatism which would have turned every spiritual fact into a ghost ora shadow. The African spirit, in the fiery words of a Tertullian and anAugustine, ran into a materialism, which, opposed to the opposite extremeof idealism, saved to the Church its healthy realism. The elaborate work of Bunsen on "Egypt's Place in Universal History" doesnot aid us much in finding the place of Egyptian religion in universalreligion. It was strictly an ethnic religion, never dreaming of extendingitself beyond the borders of the Nile, until long after the conquest ofEgypt by the Romans. Then, indeed, Egyptian temples were welcomed by thelarge hospitality of Rome, and any traveller may see the ruins of thetemple of Serapis[203] at Pozzuoli, and that of Isis at Pompeii. The godsof Greece, as we have seen, took some hints from Egypt, but the GreekOlympus, with its bright forms, was very different from the mysterioussombre worship of Egypt. The worship of variety, the recognition of the Divine in nature, thesentiment of wonder before the mystery of the world, the feeling that theDeity is in all life, in all form, in all change as well as in what ispermanent and stable, --this is the best element and the most original partof the Egyptian religion. So much we can learn from it positively; andnegatively, by its entire dissolution, its passing away forever, leavingno knowledge of itself behind, we can learn how empty is any system offaith which is based on concealment and mystery. All the vast range ofEgyptian wisdom has gone, and disappeared from the surface of the earth, for it was only a religion of the priests, who kept the truth tothemselves and did not venture to communicate it to the people. It wasonly priestcraft, and priestcraft, like all other craft, carries in itselfthe principle of death. Only truth is immortal, --open, frank, manly truth. Confucius was true; he did not know much, but he told all he knew. Buddhatold all he knew. Moses told all he heard. So they and their workscontinue, being built on faith in men. But the vast fabric of Egyptianwisdom, --its deep theologies, its mysterious symbolism, its majestic art, its wonderful science, --remain only as its mummies remain and as its tombsremain, an enigma exciting and baffling our curiosity, but not adding toour real life. Chapter VII. The Gods of Greece. § 1. The Land and the Race. § 2. Idea and General Character of Greek Religion. § 3. The Gods of Greece before Homer. § 4. The Gods of the Poets. § 5. The Gods of the Artists. § 6. The Gods of the Philosophers. § 7. The Worship of Greece. § 8. The Mysteries. Orphism. § 9. Relation of Greek Religion to Christianity. § 1. The Land and the Race. The little promontory and peninsula, famous in the history of mankind asGreece, or Hellas, projects into the Mediterranean Sea from the South ofEurope. It is insignificant on the map, its area being only two thirds aslarge as that of the State of Maine. But never was a country bettersituated in order to develop a new civilization. A temperate climate, where the vine, olive, and fig ripened with wheat, barley, and flax; arich alluvial soil, resting on limestone, and contained in a series ofvalleys, each surrounded by mountains; a position equally remote fromexcesses of heat and cold, dryness and moisture; and finally, theever-present neighborhood of the sea, --constituted a home well fitted forthe physical culture of a perfect race of men. Comparative Geography, which has pointed out so many relations between theterrestrial conditions of nations and their moral attainments, has laidgreat stress on the connection between the extent of sea-coast and acountry's civilization. The sea line of Europe, compared with its area, ismore extensive than that of any other continent, and Europe has had a morevarious and complete intellectual development than elsewhere. Africa, which has the shortest sea line compared with its area, has been mosttardy in mental activity. The sea is the highway of nations and thepromoter of commerce; and commerce, which brings different races together, awakens the intellect by the contact of different languages, religions, arts, and manners. Material civilization, it is true, does not commence onthe sea-shore, but in river intervals. The arts of life were invented inthe valleys of the Indus and Ganges, of the Yellow and Blue Rivers ofChina, of the Euphrates and the Nile. But the Phoenician navigators in theMediterranean brought to the shores of Greece the knowledge of the arts ofEgypt, the manufactures of Tyre, and the products of India and Africa. Every part of the coast of Greece is indented with bays and harbors. TheMediterranean, large enough to separate the nations on its shores, and sopermit independent and distinct evolution of character, is not so large asto divide them. Coasting vessels, running within sight of land, couldeasily traverse its shores. All this tempted to navigation, and so theGreeks learned to be a race of sailors. What the shore line of Europe wasto that of the other continents, that the shore line of Greece was to therest of Europe. Only long after, in the Baltic, the NorthernMediterranean, did a similar land-locked sea create a similar love ofnavigation among the Scandinavians. [204] Another feature in the physical geography of Greece must be noticed ashaving an effect on the psychical condition of its inhabitants. Mountainsintersected every part, dividing its tribes from each other. In numerousvalleys, separated by these mountain walls, each clan, left to itself, formed a special character of its own. The great chain of Pindus with itsmany branches, the lofty ridges of the Peloponnesus, allowed the people ofThessaly, Boeotia, Attica, Phocis, Locris, Argolis, Arcadia, Laconia, toattain those individual traits which distinguish them during all thecourse of Greek history. Such physical conditions as we have described are eminently favorable toa free and full development of national character. But this word"development, " so familiar to modern thought, implies not only outwardcircumstances to educate, but a special germ to be educated. So long asthe human being is regarded as a lump of dough, to be moulded into anyshape by external influences, no such term as "development" was needed. But philosophical historians now admit national character to be the resultof two factors, --the original ethnic germ in the race, and the terrestrialinfluences which unfold it. [205] A question, therefore, of grave momentconcerns the origin of the Hellenic people. Whence are they derived? whatare their affinities? and from what region did they come? The science of Comparative Philology, one of the great triumphs of modernscholarship, has enabled us now, for the first time, to answer thisquestion. What no Greek knew, what neither Herodotus, Plato, nor Aristotlecould tell us, we are now able to state with certainty. The Greeklanguage, both in its grammar and its vocabulary, belongs to the family ofIndo-European languages, of which the Sanskrit is the elder sister. Out ofeleven thousand six hundred and thirty-three Greek words, some twothousand are found to be Sanskrit, and three thousand more to belong toother branches of the Indo-European tongues. As the words common to theGreek and the Sanskrit must have been in use by both races before theirseparation, while living together in Central Asia, we have a clew to thedegree of civilization attained by the Greeks before they arrived inEurope. Thus it appears that they brought from Asia a familiarity withoxen and cows, horses, dogs, swine, goats, geese; that they could work inmetals; that they built houses, and were acquainted with the elements ofagriculture, especially with farinaceous grains; they used salt; they hadboats propelled by oars, but not sails; they divided the year by moons, and had a decimal notation. [206] The Greeks, as a race, came from Asia later than the Latin races. Theybelonged to that powerful Indo-European race, to which Europe owes itscivilization, and whose chief branches are the Hindoos, the Persians, theGreeks, the Latins, the Kelts, the Teutonic tribes, and the Slavi. Theoriginal site of the race was, as we have seen in our chapter onBrahmanism, in Bactria; and the earliest division of this people could nothave been later than three thousand or four thousand years before theChristian era. When the Hellenic branch entered Europe we have now nomeans of saying. It was so long anterior to Greek history that allknowledge of the time was lost, and only the faintest traditions of anAsiatic origin of their nation are to be found in Greek writers. The Hellenic tribes, at the beginning of the seventh century beforeChrist, were divided into four groups, --the Achaians, Æolians, Dorians, and Ionians, --with outlying tribes more or less akin. But this Hellenicpeople had been preceded in Greece by another race known as Pelasgians. Itis so difficult to say who these were, that Mr. Grote, in despair, pronounces them unknowable, and relinquishes the problem. Some factsconcerning them may, however, be considered as established. Theirexistence in Greece is pronounced by Thirwall to be "the firstunquestionable fact in Greek history. " Homer speaks (Iliad, II. 681) of"Pelasgian Argos, " and of "spear-skilled Pelasgians, " "noble Pelasgians, ""Pelasgians inhabiting fertile Larissa" (II. 840; X. 429). Herodotusfrequently speaks of the Pelasgians. He says that the Dorians were aHellenic nation, the Ionians were Pelasgic; he does not profess to knowwhat language the Pelasgians used, but says that those who in his timeinhabited Crestona, Placia, and other regions, spoke a barbarous language, and that the people of Attica were formerly Pelasgic. He mentions thePelasgians as remaining to his time in Arcadia, after the Dorians hadexpelled them from the rest of the Peloponnesus; says that theSamothracians adopted the mysteries of the Kabiri from the Pelasgians;that the Pelasgians sacrificed victims to unknown gods at Dodona, andasked that oracle advice about what names they should give their gods. These names, taken from Egypt, the Grecians received from them. Hellas wasformerly called Pelasgia. The Athenians expelled the Pelasgians fromAttica (whether justly or unjustly, Herodotus does not undertake to say), where they were living under Mount Hymettus; whereupon the Pelasgians ofLemnos, in revenge, carried off a number of Athenian women, and afterwardmurdered them; as an expiation of which crime they were finally commandedby the oracle at Delphi to surrender that island to Miltiades and theAthenians. Herodotus repeatedly informs us that nearly the whole Ionianrace were formerly called Pelasgians. [207] From all this it appears that the Pelasgians were the ancient occupants ofnearly all Greece; that they were probably of the same stock as theirHellenic successors, but of another branch; that their language wassomewhat different, and contained words of barbaric (that is Phoenician orEgyptian) origin, but not so different as to remain distinct after theconquest. From the Pelasgian names which remain, it is highly probablethat this people was of the same family with the old Italians. [208] Theymust have constituted the main stem of the Greek people. The Ionians ofAttica, the most brilliant portion of the Greeks, were of Pelasgic origin. It may be therefore assumed, without much improbability, that while theDorian element gave the nation its strength and vital force, the Pelasgicwas the source of its intellectual activity and success in literature andart. Ottfried Muller remarks that "there is no doubt that most of theancient religions of Greece owed their origin to this race. The Zeus andDiônê of Dodona, Zeus and Hêrê of Argos, Hêphæstos and Athênê of Athens, Dêmetêr and Cora of Eleusis, Hermês and Artemis of Arcadia, together withCadmus and the Cabiri of Thebes, cannot properly be referred to any otherorigin. "[209] Welcker[210] thinks that the ethnological conceptions of Aeschylus, in his"Suppliants, " are invaluable helps in the study of the Pelasgic relationsto the Greeks. The poet makes Pelasgos the king of Argos, and representshim as ruling over the largest part of Greece. His subjects he callsGreeks, and they vote in public assembly by holding up their hands, sodistinguishing them from the Dorians, among whom no such democracyprevailed. [211] He protects the suppliant women against their Egyptianpersecutors, who claimed them as fugitives from slavery. The characterassigned by Aeschylus to this representative of the Pelasgian race is thatof a just, wise, and religious king, who judged that it was best to obeyGod, even at the risk of displeasing man. It is evident, therefore, that from the earliest times there were inGreece two distinct elements, either two different races or two verydistinct branches of a common race. First known as Pelasgians andHellênes, they afterwards took form as the Ionian and Dorian peoples. Andit is evident also that the Greek character, so strong yet so flexible, somighty to act and so open to receive, with its stern virtues and itstender sensibilities, was the result of the mingling of these antagonisttendencies. Two continents may have met in Greece, if to the genius ofthat wonderful people Asia lent her intellect and Africa her fire. It wasthe marriage of soul and body, of nature and spirit, of abstractspeculation and passionate interest in this life. Darkness rests on theperiod when this national life was being created; the Greeks themselveshave preserved no record of it. That some powerful influence from Egypt was acting on Greece during thisforming period, and contributing its share to the great result, there canhardly be a question. All the legends and traditions hint at such arelation, and if this were otherwise, we might be sure that it must haveexisted. Egypt was in all her power and splendor when Greece was beingsettled by the Aryans from Asia. They were only a few hundred miles apart, and the ships of Phoenicia were continually sailing to and fro betweenthem. The testimony of Greek writers to the early influence of Egypt on theircountry and its religion is very full. Creuzer[212] says that the Greekwriters differed in regard to the connection of Attic and Egyptianculture, only as to How it was, not as to Whether it was. Herodotus saysdistinctly and positively[213] that most of the names of the Greek godscame from Egypt, except some whose names came from the Pelasgians. ThePelasgians themselves, he adds, gave these Egyptian names to the unnamedpowers of nature whom they before ignorantly worshipped, being directed bythe oracle at Dodona so to do. By "name" here, Herodotus plainly intendsmore than a mere appellation. He includes also something of thepersonality and character. [214] Before they were impersonal beings, powersof nature; afterwards, under Egyptian influence, they became persons. Heparticularly insists on having heard this from the priestesses of Dodona, who also told him a story of the black pigeon from Egypt, who firstdirected the oracle to be established, which he interpreted, according towhat he had heard in Egypt, to be a black Egyptian woman. He adds that theGreeks received, not only their oracles, but their public processions, festivals, and solemn prayers from the Egyptians. M. Maury admits theinfluence of Egypt on the worship and ceremonies of Greece, and thinks itadded to their religion a more serious tone and a sentiment of venerationfor the gods, which were eminently beneficial. He doubts the story ofHerodotus concerning the derivation of gods from Egypt, giving as asufficient proof the fact that Homer's knowledge of Egyptian geography wasvery imperfect. [215] But religious influences and geographical knowledgeare very different things. Because the mediæval Christian writers had animperfect knowledge of Palestine, it does not follow that theirChristianity was not influenced in its source by Judaism. The objection tothe derivation of the Greek gods from Egypt, on account of the names onthe monuments being different from those of the Hellenic deities, issufficiently answered by Creuzer, who shows that the Greeks translated theEgyptian word into an equivalent in their own language. Orphic ideas camefrom Egypt into Greece, through the colonies in Thrace andSamothrace. [216] The story of the Argive colony from Egypt, with theirleader Danaus, connects some Egyptian immigration with the old Pelasgicruler of that city, the walls of which contained Pelasgic masonry. Thelegends concerning Cecrops, Io, and Lelex, as leading colonies from Egyptto Athens and Megara, are too doubtful to add much to our argument. Theinfluence of Egypt on Greek religion in later times is universallyadmitted. [217] § 2. Idea and General Character of Greek Religion. The idea of Greek religion, which specially distinguishes it from allothers, is the human character of its gods. The gods of Greece are men andwomen, idealized men and women, men and women on a larger scale, but stillintensely human. The gods of India, as they appear in the Sacred Books, are vast abstractions; and as they appear in sculpture, hideous andgrotesque idols. The gods of Egypt seem to pass away into mere symbols andintellectual generalizations. But the gods of Greece are persons, warmwith life, radiant with beauty, having their human adventures, wars, loves. The symbolical meaning of each god disappears in his personalcharacter. These beings do not keep to their own particular sphere nor confinethemselves to their special parts, but, like men and women, have manydifferent interests and occupations. If we suppose a number of humanbeings, young and healthy and perfectly organized, to be gifted with animmortal life and miraculous endowments of strength, wisdom, and beauty, we shall have the gods of Olympus. Greek religion differs from Brahmanism in this, that its gods are notabstract spirit, but human beings. It differs also from Buddhism, the godin which is also a man, in this, that the gods of Greece are far lessmoral than Buddha, but far more interesting. They are not trying to savetheir souls, they are by no means ascetic, they have no intention ofmaking progress through the universe by obeying the laws of nature, butthey are bent on having a good time. Fighting, feasting, and making loveare their usual occupations. If they can be considered as governing theworld, it is in a very loose way and on a very irregular system. Theyinterfere with human affairs from time to time, but merely from whim orfrom passion. With the common relations of life they have little to do. They announce no moral law, and neither by precept nor example undertaketo guide men's consciences. The Greek religion differs from many other religions also in having no onegreat founder or restorer, in having no sacred books and no priestlycaste. It was not established by the labors of a Zoroaster, Gautama, Confucius, or Mohammed. It has no Avesta, no Vedas, no Koran. Everyreligion which we have thus far considered has its sacred books, but thatof Greece has none, unless we accept the works of Homer and Hesiod as itsBible. Still more remarkable is the fact of its having no priestly caste. Brahmanism and Egypt have an hereditary priesthood; and in all otherreligions, though the priesthood might not be hereditary, it alwaysconstituted a distinct caste. But in Greece kings and generals and commonpeople offer sacrifices and prayers, as well as the priests. Priestsobtained their office, not by inheritance, but by appointment or election;and they were often chosen for a limited time. Another peculiarity of the Greek religion was that its gods were notmanifestations of a supreme spirit, but were natural growths. They did notcome down from above, but came up from below. They did not emanate, theywere evolved. The Greek Pantheon is a gradual and steady development ofthe national mind. And it is still more remarkable that it has threedistinct sources, --the poets, the artists, and the philosophers. Jupiter, or Zeus in Homer, is oftenest a man of immense strength, so strong that ifhe has hold of one end of a chain and all the gods hold the other, withthe earth fastened to it beside, he will be able to move them all. Farmore grand is the conception of Jupiter as it came from the chisel ofPhidias, of which Quintilian says that it added a new religious sentimentto the religion of Greece. Then came the philosophers and gave an entirelydifferent and higher view of the gods. Jupiter becomes with them theSupreme Being, father of gods and of men, omnipotent and omnipresent. One striking consequence of the absence of sacred books, of a sacredpriesthood, and an inspired founder of their religion, was the extremefreedom of the whole system. The religion of Hellas was hardly a restrainteither to the mind or to the conscience. It allowed the Greeks to thinkwhat they would and to do what they chose. They made their gods to suitthemselves, and regarded them rather as companions than as objects ofreverence. The gods lived close to them on Olympus, a precipitous andsnow-capped range full of vast cliffs, deep glens, and extensive forests, less than ten thousand feet in height, though covered with snow on the topeven in the middle of July. According to the Jewish religion, man was made in the image of God; butaccording to the Greek religion the gods were made in the image of men. Heraclitus says, "Men are mortal gods, and the gods immortal men. " TheGreek fancied the gods to be close to him on the summit of the mountainwhich he saw among the clouds, often mingling in disguise with mankind; arace of stronger and brighter Greeks, but not very much wiser or better. All their own tendencies they beheld reflected in their deities. Theyprojected themselves upon the heavens, and saw with pleasure a race ofdivine Greeks in the skies above, corresponding with the Greeks below. Adelicious religion; without austerity, asceticism, or terror; a religionfilled with forms of beauty and nobleness, kindred to their own; with godswho were capricious indeed, but never stern, and seldom jealous or verycruel. It was a heaven so near at hand, that their own heroes had climbedinto it, and become demigods. It was a heaven peopled with such a varietyof noble forms, that they could choose among them the protector whom theyliked best, and possibly themselves be selected as favorites by someguardian deity. The fortunate hunter, of a moonlight night, might evenbehold the graceful figure of Diana flashing through the woods in pursuitof game, and the happy inhabitant of Cyprus come suddenly on the fair formof Venus resting in a laurel-grove. The Dryads could be seen glancingamong the trees, the Oreads heard shouting on the mountains, and theNaiads found asleep by the side of their streams. If the Greek chose, hecould take his gods from the poets; if he liked it better, he could findthem among the artists; or if neither of these suited him, he might go tothe philosophers for his deities. The Greek religion, therefore, did not guide or restrain, it onlystimulated. The Greek, by intercourse with Greek gods, became more a Greekthan ever. Every Hellenic feeling and tendency was personified and took adivine form; which divine form reacted on the tendency to develop it stillfurther. All this contributed unquestionably to that wonderful phenomenon, Greek development. Nowhere on the earth, before or since, has the humanbeing been educated into such a wonderful perfection, such an entire andtotal unfolding of itself, as in Greece. There, every human tendency andfaculty of soul and body opened in symmetrical proportion. That smallcountry, so insignificant on the map of Europe, so invisible on the map ofthe world, carried to perfection in a few short centuries every human art. Everything in Greece is art; because everything is finished, doneperfectly well. In that garden of the world ripened the masterpieces ofepic, tragic, comic, lyric, didactic poetry; the masterpieces in everyschool of philosophic investigation; the masterpieces of history, oforatory, of mathematics; the masterpieces of architecture, sculpture, andpainting. Greece developed every form of human government, and in Greecewere fought and won the great battles of the world. Before Greece, everything in human literature and art was a rude and imperfect attempt;since Greece, everything has been a rude and imperfect imitation. § 3. The Gods of Greece before Homer. The Theogony of Hesiod, or Book of Genesis of the Greek gods, gives us thehistory of three generations of deities. First come the Uranids; secondly, the Titans; and thirdly, the gods of Olympus. Beginning as powers ofnature, they end as persons. [218] The substance of Hesiod's charming account of these three groups of godsis as follows:-- First of all things was Chaos. Next was broad-bosomed Earth, or Gaia. Thenwas Tartarus, dark and dim, below the earth. Next appears Eros, or Love, most beautiful among the Immortals. From Chaos came Erebus and blackNight, and then sprang forth Ether and Day, children of Erebus and Night. Then Earth brought forth the starry Heaven, Uranos, like to herself insize, that he might shelter her around. Gaia, or Earth, also bore themountains, and Pontus or the barren Sea. Then Gaia intermarried with Uranos, and produced the Titans and Titanides, namely, Ocean, Koeos, Krios, Hyperion, Iapetus, Theia and Rhea, Themis, Mnêmosynê, Phoebe with golden coronet, and lovely Thethys. Lastly cameKronos, or Time; with the Cyclôpes and the hundred-headed giants. Allthese children were hid in the earth by Uranos, who dreaded them, till bya contrivance of Gaia and Kronos, Uranos was dethroned, and the first ageof the gods was terminated by the birth from the sea of the last andsweetest of the children of the Heaven, Aphroditê, or ImmortalBeauty, --the only one of this second generation who continued to reign onOlympus; an awful, beauteous goddess, says Hesiod, beneath whose delicatefeet the verdure throve around, born in wave-washed Cyprus, but floatingpast divine Cythera. Her Eros accompanied, and fair Desire followed. Thus was completed the second generation of gods, the children of Heavenand Earth, called Titans. These had many children. The children of Oceanand Tethys were the nymphs of Ocean. Hyperion and Theia had, as children, Helios, Selênê and Eôs, or Sun, Moon, and Dawn. Koeos and Phoebê had Lêtôand Asteria. One of the children of Krios was Pallas; those of Iapetuswere Prometheus, Epimetheus, and Atlas. Kronos married his sister Rhea, and their children were Hestia, Dêmêtêr and Hêrê; Hadês, Poseidôn, andZeus, --all, except Hadês or Pluto, belonging to the subsequent Olympiandeities. The Olympian gods, with their cousins of the same generation, have growninto persons, ceasing to be abstract ideas, or powers of nature. Five werethe children of Kronos, namely, Zeus, Poseidôn, Hêrê, Hestia, and Dêmêtêr;six were children of Zeus, Apollo and Artemis, Hephæstos and Arês, Hermêsand Athênê. The twelfth of the Olympian group, Aphroditê, belonged to thesecond generation, being daughter of Uranos and of the Ocean. Beauty, divine child of Sky and Sea, was conceived of as older than Power. These are the three successive groups of deities; the second supplantingthe first, the third displacing the second. The earlier gods we must needsconsider, not as persons, but as powers of nature, not yet humanized. [219]The last, seated on Olympus, are "fair humanities. " But now, it is remarkable that there must have been, in point of fact, three stages of religious development, and three successive actualtheologies in Greece, corresponding very nearly to these three legendarygenerations of gods. When the ancestors of the Hellenic race came from Asia, they must havebrought with them a nature-worship, akin to that which subsequentlyappeared in India in the earliest hymns of the Vedas. ComparativePhilology, as we have before seen, has established the rule, that whateverwords are common to all the seven Indo-European families must have beenused in Central Asia before their dispersion. From this rule Pictet[220]has inferred that the original Aryan tribes all worshipped the Heaven, theEarth, Sun, Fire, Water, and Wind. The ancestors of the Greeks must havebrought with them into Hellas the worship of some of these elementarydeities. And we find at least two of them, Heaven and Earth, representedin Hesiod's first class of the oldest deities. Water is there in the formof Pontus, the Sea, and the other Uranids have the same elementarycharacter. The oldest hymns in the Vedas mark the second development of the Aryandeities in India. The chief gods of this period are Indra, Varuna, Agni, Savitri, Soma. Indra is the god of the air, directing the storm, thelightning, the clouds, the rain; Varuna is the all-embracing circle of theheavens, earth, and sea; Savitri or Surja is the Sun, King of Day, alsocalled Mitra; Agni is Fire; and Soma is the sacred fermented juice of themoon-plant, often indeed the moon itself. As in India, so in Greece, there was a second development of gods. Theycorrespond in this, that the powers of nature began, in both cases, toassume a more distinct personality. Moreover, Indra, the god of theatmosphere, he who wields the lightning, the thunderer, the god of stormsand rain, was the chief god in the Vedic period. So also in Greece, thechief god in this second period was Zeus. He also was the god of theatmosphere, the thunderer, the wielder of lightning. In the name "Zeus" isa reminiscence of Asia. Literally it means "the god, " and so was not atfirst a proper name. Its root is the Sanskrit _Div_, meaning "to shine. "Hence the word _Deva_, God, in the Vedic Hymns, from which comes Θεος andΔις, Διος in Greek, Deus in Latin. Ζευς Πατερ in Greek is Jupiter inLatin, coming from the Sanskrit _Djaus-piter. _ Our English words "divine, ""divinity, " go back for their origin to the same Sanskrit root, _Div_. Somarvellously do the wrecks of old beliefs come drifting down the stream oftime, borne up in those frail canoes which men call words. In how manysenses, higher and lower, is it true that "in the beginning was _theWord_. " This most ancient deity, god of storms, ruler of the atmosphere, favoritedivinity of the Aryan race in all its branches, became Indra when hereached India, Jupiter when he arrived in Italy, Zeus when in Epirus hebecame the chief god of the Pelasgi, and was worshipped at that mostancient oracular temple of all Greece, Dodona. To him in the Iliad (XVI. 235) does Achilles pray, saying: "O King Jove, Dodonean, Pelasgian, dwelling afar off, presiding over wintry Dodona. " A reminiscence of thisold Pelasgian god long remained both in the Latin and Greek conversation, when, speaking of the weather, they called it Zeus, or Jupiter. Horacespeaks of "cold Jupiter" and "bad Jupiter, " as we should speak of a coldor rainy day. We also find in Horace (Odes III. 2: 29) the archaic form ofthe word "Jupiter, " _Diespiter_, which, according to Lassen (I. 755), means "Ruler of Heaven"; being derived from Djaus-piter. _Piter_, inSanskrit, originally meant, says Lassen, Ruler or Lord, as well as Father. In Arcadia and Boeotia the Pelasgi declared that their old deities wereborn. By this is no doubt conveyed the historic consciousness that thesedeities were not brought to them from abroad, but developed graduallyamong themselves out of nameless powers of nature into humanized andpersonal deities. In the old days it was hardly more than a fetichworship. Hêrê was worshipped as a plank at Samos; Athênê, as a beam atLindus; the Pallas of Attica, as a stake; Jupiter, in one place, as arock; Apollo, as a triangle. Together with Jupiter or Zeus, the Pelasgi worshipped Gaia or MotherEarth, in Athens, Sparta, Olympia, and other places. One of her names wasDiônê; another was Rhea. In Asia she was Cybele; but everywhere shetypified the great productive power of nature. Another Pelasgic god was Hêlios, the Sun-God, worshipped with his sisterSêlêne, the Moon. The Pelasgi also adored the darker divinities of thelower world. At Pylos and Elis, the king of Hades was worshipped as theawful Aïdoneus; and Persephonê, his wife, was not the fair Kora ofsubsequent times, but the fearful Queen of Death, the murderess, homologous to the savage wife of Çiva, in the Hindoo Pantheon. To this agealso belongs the worship of the Kabiri, nameless powers, perhaps ofPhoenician origin, connected with the worship of fire in Lemnos andSamothrace. The Doric race, the second great source of the Hellenic family, enteredGreece many hundreds of years after[221] the first great Pelasgicmigration had spread itself through Asia Minor, Greece, and Italy. Itbrought with it another class of gods and a different tone of worship. Their principal deities were Apollo and Artemis, though with these theyalso worshipped, as secondary deities, the Pelasgic gods whose homes theyhad invaded. The chief difference between the Pelasgic and Dorianconception of religion was, that with the first it was more emotional, with the second more moral; the first was a mystic natural religion, thesecond an intellectual human religion. Ottfried Müller[222] says that theDorian piety was strong, cheerful, and bright. They worshipped Daylightand Moonlight, while the Pelasgians also reverenced Night, Darkness, andStorm. Funeral solemnities and enthusiastic orgies did not suit the Doriancharacter. The Spartans had no splendid processions like the Athenians, but they prayed the gods "to give them what was honorable and good"; andZeus Ammon declared that the "calm solemnity of the prayers of theSpartans was dearer to him than all the sacrifices of the Greeks. "[223] Two facts are to be noticed in connection with this primitive religion. One is the local distribution of the different deities and modes ofworship through Greece. Every tribe had its own god and its own worship. In one place it was Zeus and Gaia; in another, Zeus and Cybele; in athird, Apollo and Artemis. At Samothrace prevailed the worship of theHeaven and the Earth. [224] Dione was worshipped with Zeus at Dodona. [225]The Ionians were devoted to Poseidôn, god of the sea. In Arcadia, Athênêwas worshipped as Tritonia. Hermês was adored on Mount Cyllene; Erôs, inBoeotia; Pan, in Arcadia. These local deities long remained as secondarygods, after the Pan-Hellenic worship of Olympus had overthrown theirsupremacy. But one peculiarity of the Pre-Homeric religion was, that itconsisted in the adoration of different gods in different places. Thereligion of Hellas, after Homer, was the worship of the twelve greatdeities united on Mount Olympus. The second fact to be observed in this early mythology is the change ofname and of character through which each deity proceeds. Zeus aloneretains the same name from the first. [226] Among all Indo-European nations, the Heaven and the Earth were the twoprimordial divinities. The Rig-Veda calls them "the two great parents ofthe world. " At Dodona, Samothrace, and Sparta they were worshippedtogether. But while in India, Varuna, the Heavens, continued to be anobject of adoration in the Vedic or second period, in Greece it fadedearly from the popular thought. This already shows the opposite genius ofthe two nations. To the Hindoos the infinite was all important, to theGreeks the finite. The former, therefore, retain the adoration of theHeavens, the latter that of the Earth. The Earth, Gaia, became more and more important to the Hellenic mind. Passing through various stages of development, she became, successively, Gaia in the first generation, Rhea in the second, and Dêmêtêr (Γή μήτηρ), Mother Earth, in the third. In like manner the Sun is successivelyHyperiôn, son of Heaven and Earth; Hêlios, son of Hyperiôn and Theia; andPhoebus-Apollo, son of Zeus and Latona. The Moon is first Phoebe, sisterof Hyperiôn; then Selênê, sister of Hêlios; and lastly Artemis, sister ofApollo. Pallas, probably meaning at first "the virgin, " became afterwardidentified with Athênê, daughter of Zeus, as Pallas-Athênê. The UraniaPontus, the salt sea, became the Titan Oceanos, or Ocean, and in anothergeneration Poseidôn, or Neptune. The early gods are symbolical, the later are personal. The turning-pointis reached when Kronos, Time, arrives. The children of Time and Earth areno longer vast shadowy abstractions, but become historical characters, with biographies and personal qualities. Neither Time nor History existedbefore Homer; when Time came, History began. The three male children of Time were Zeus, Poseidôn, and Hadês;representing the three dimensions of space. Height, Breadth, and Depth;Heaven, Ocean, and Hell. They also represented the threefold progress ofthe human soul: its aspiration and ascent to what is noble and good, itsdescent to what is profound, and its sympathy with all that is various: inother words, its religion, its intelligence, and its affection. The fable of Time devouring his children, and then reproducing them, evidently means the vicissitudes of customs and the departure and returnof fashions. Whatever is born must die; but what has been will be again. That Erôs, Love, should be at the origin of things from chaos, indicatesthe primeval attraction with which the order of the universe begins. Themutilation of Uranos, Heaven, so that he ceased to produce children, suggests the change of the system of emanation, by which the gods descendfrom the infinite, into that of evolution, by which they arise out of thefinite. It is, in fact, the end of Asia, and the beginning of Europe; foremanation is the law of the theologies of Asia, evolution that of Europe. Aphroditê, Beauty, was the last child of the Heavens, and yet born fromthe Ocean. Beauty is not the daughter of the Heavens and the Earth, but ofthe Heavens and the Ocean. The lights and shadows of the sky, the tints ofdawn, the tenderness of clouds, unite with the toss and curve of the wavein creating Beauty. The beauty of outline appears in the sea, that oflight and color in the sky. [227] § 4. The Gods of the Poets. Herodotus says (II. 53), "I am of opinion that Hesiod and Homer lived fourhundred years before my time, and not more, and these were they who frameda theogony for the Greeks, and gave names to the gods, and assigned tothem honors and arts, and declared their several forms. But the poets, said to be before them, in my opinion, were after them. " That two poets should create a theology and a worship for a great people, and so unite its separate tribes into a commonwealth of united states, seems to modern minds an absurdity. But the poets of Greece were itsprophets. They received, intensified, concentrated, the tendencies ofthought already in the air. All the drift was toward Pan-Hellenic worshipand to a humanized theology, when the Homeric writers sang their song. The Greeks must be conceived of as a nation of poets; hence all theirmythology was poetry. Poetry was their life and joy, written or unwritten, sung or spoken. They were poets in the deeper sense of the word; not bywriting verses, but by looking at all nature and all life from its poeticside. Their exquisite mythology arose out of these spontaneous instincts. The tendency of the Greek mind was to vitalize and harmonize nature. [228] All the phenomena of nature, all the powers of the human soul, and all theevents of life, became a marvellous tissue of divine story. They walkedthe earth, surrounded and overshadowed by heavenly attendants andsupernatural powers. But a striking peculiarity of this immensespiritualism was that it was almost without superstition. Their gods werenot their terror, but their delight. Even the great gods of Olympus werearound them as invisible companions. Fate itself, the dark Moira, supremepower, mistress of gods and men, was met manfully and not timorously. Sostrong was the human element, the sense of personal dignity and freedom, that the Greek lived in the midst of a supernatural world on equal terms. No doubt the elements of mythology are in all nations the same, consistingof the facts of nature and the facts of life. The heavens and the earth, day and night, the sun and moon, storms, fire, ocean, and rivers, love andbeauty, life and progress, war, wisdom, doom, and chance, --these, amongall nations, supply the material for myths. But while, with some races, these powers remain solemn abstractions, above and behind nature, amongthe Greeks they descended into nature and turned to poetry, illuminatingall of life. Let us imagine a Greek, possessed by the spirit of his nation andacquainted with its legendary history, visiting the holy places of thatideal land. On the northern boundary he sees the towering summit ofOlympus, on whose solemn heights reside the twelve great gods of hiscountry. When the dark clouds roll along its defiles, and the lightningflashes from their black depths, it is Zeus, striking with his thunderboltsome impious offender. There was held the great council of the Immortals. When the ocean was quiet, Poseidôn had left it to visit Olympus. Therecame Hephæstos, quitting his subterranean fires and gloomy laborers, tojest and be jested with, sitting by his beautiful queen. There, while thesun hung motionless in mid-heaven, Apollo descended from his burningchariot to join the feast. Artemis and Dêmêtêr came from the woods andfields to unite in the high assembly, and war was suspended while Arêsmade love to the goddess of Beauty. The Greek looked at Parnassus, "soaring snow-clad through its native sky, " with its Delphic cave and itsCastalian fount, or at the neighboring summits of Helicon, where Pegasusstruck his hoof and Hippocrênê gushed forth, and believed that hidden inthese sunny woods might perhaps be found the muses who inspired Herodotus, Homer, Aeschylus, and Pindar. He could go nowhere without finding somespot over which hung the charm of romantic or tender association. Withinevery brook was hidden a Naiad; by the side of every tree lurked a Dryad;if you listen, you may hear the Oreads calling among the mountains; if youcome cautiously around that bending hill, you may catch a glimpse of thegreat Pan himself. When the moonlight showers filled the forests with amagical light, one might see the untouched Artemis gliding rapidly amongthe mossy trunks. Beneath, in the deep abysses of earth, reigned thegloomy Pluto with the sad Persephonê, home-sick for the upper air. By thesea-shore Proteus wound his horn, the Sirens sang their fatal song amongthe rocks, the Nereids and Oceanides gleamed beneath the green waters, thevast Amphitrite stretched her wide-embracing arms, and Thetis with herwater-nymphs lived in their submarine grottos. When the morning dawned, Eôs, or Aurora, went before the chariot of the Sun, dropping flowers uponthe earth. Every breeze which stirred the tree-tops was a god, going onsome errand for Aeolus. The joy of inspired thought was breathed into thesoul by Phoebus; the genial glow of life, the festal mirth, and the gladrevel were the gift of Dionysos. All nature was alive with some touch of adivine presence. So, too, every spot of Hellas was made interesting bysome legend of Hercules, of Theseus, of Promêtheus, of the great Dioscuri, of Minos, or Dædalus, of Jason and the Argonauts. The Greeks extendedtheir own bright life backward through history, and upward through heroesand demigods to Zeus himself. In Homer, the gods are very human. They have few traits of divinity, scarcely of dignity. Their ridicule of Vulcan is certainly coarse; thethreats of Zeus are brutal. As a family, they live together on Olympus, feasting, talking, makinglove, making war, deceiving each other, angry, and reconciled. They feedon nectar and ambrosia, which makes them immortal; just as the Amritamakes the Hindoo gods so. So in the Iliad we see them at their feast, withVulcan handing each the cup, pouring out nectar for them all. "And theninextinguishable laughter arose among the immortal gods, when they sawVulcan bustling through the mansion. So they feasted all day till sundown;nor did the soul want anything of the equal feast, nor of the beautifulharp which Apollo held, nor of the Muses, who accompanied him, respondingin turn with delicious voice. " "But when the splendid light of the sun was sunk, they retired to repose, each one to his house, which renowned Vulcan, lame of both legs, hadbuilt. But Olympian Zeus went to his couch, and laid down to rest besidewhite-armed Hêrê. "[229] Or sometimes they fight together, or with mortals; instances of bothappear in the Iliad. It must be admitted that they do not appear toadvantage in these conflicts. They usually get the worst of it, and goback to Zeus to complain. In the Twenty-first Book they fight together, Arês against Athênê, Athênê also against his helper, Aphroditê; Poseidônand Hêrê against Apollo and Artemis, Vulcan against the river god, Scamander. Arês called Athênê impudent, and threatened to chastise her. She seized a stone and struck him on the neck, and relaxed his knees. Seven acres he covered falling, and his back was defiled with dust; butPallas-Athênê jeered at him; and when Aphroditê led him away groaningfrequently, Pallas-Athênê sprang after, and smote her with her hand, dissolving her knees and dear heart. Apollo was afraid of Poseidôn, anddeclined fighting with him when challenged, for which Artemis rebuked him. On this, Hêrê tells her that she can kill stags on the mountains, but isafraid to fight with her betters, and then proceeds to punish her, holdingboth the hands of Artemis in one of hers, and beating her over the headwith her own bow. A disgraceful scene altogether, we must confess, and itis no wonder that Plato was scandalized by such stories. Thus purely human were these gods; spending the summer's day in feastingbeneath the open sky; going home at sundown to sleep, like a parcel ofgreat boys and girls. They are immortal indeed, and can make men sosometimes, but cannot always prevent the death of a favorite. Above themall broods a terrible power, mightier than themselves, the dark Fate andirresistible Necessity. For, after all, as human gods they were like men, subject to the laws of nature. Yet as men, they are free, and in thefeeling of their freedom sometimes resist and defy fate. The Homeric gods move through the air like birds, like wind, likelightning. They are stronger than men, and larger. Arês, overthrown byPallas, covers seven acres of ground; when wounded by Diomêdês he bellowedas loud as nine or ten thousand men, says the accurate Homer. The bodiesof the gods, inexpressibly beautiful, and commonly invisible, are, whenever seen by men, in an aureola of light. In Homer, Apollo is the godof archery, prophecy, and music. He is the far-darter. He shoots hisarrows at the Greeks, because his prophet had been ill-treated. "Hedescended from Olympus, " says Homer, "enraged in heart, having his bow andquiver on his shoulders. But as he moved the shafts rattled on theshoulders of him enraged; and he went onward like the night. Then he satnear the ships, and sent an arrow, and dreadful was the clangor of thesilver bow. " Later in the Iliad he appears again, defending the Trojans and deceivingAchilles. In the Homeric Hymn his birth on Delos is sweetly told; and how, when he was born, Earth smiled around, and all the goddesses shouted. Themis fed him on nectar and ambrosia; then he sprang up, called for alyre and bow, and said he would declare henceforth to men the will ofJove; and Delos, exulting, became covered with flowers. [230] The Second Book of the Iliad begins thus: "The rest, both gods andhorse-arraying men, slept all the night; but Jove sweet sleep possessednot; but he pondered how he might destroy many at the Greek ships, andhonor Achilles. But this device appeared best to his mind, to send a fataldream to Agamemnon. And he said, 'Haste, pernicious dream, to the swiftships, and bid Agamemnon arm the Achæans to take wide-streeted Troy, sinceJuno has persuaded all the gods to her will. '" This was simply a lie, sent for the destruction of the Greeks. In the First Book, Jupiter complains to Thetis that Juno is alwaysscolding him, and good right had she to do so. Presently she comes in andaccuses him of plotting something secretly with Thetis, and never lettingher know his plans. He answers her by accusations of perversity: "Thou artalways suspecting; but thou shalt produce no effect, but be further frommy heart. " He then is so ungentlemanly as to threaten her with corporalpunishment. The gods murmur; but Vulcan interposes as a peacemaker, saying, "There will be no enjoyment in our delightful banquet if you twainthus contend. " Then he arose and placed the double cup in her hands andsaid, "Be patient, my mother, lest I again behold thee beaten, and cannothelp thee. " He here refers to a time when Jupiter hung his wife up in mid-heaven withanvils tied to her heels; and when Vulcan untied them he was pitched fromOlympus down into the island of Lemnos, whence came his lameness. A rudeand brutal head of a household was the poetic Zeus. No doubt other and much more sublime views of the gods are to be found inHomer. Thus (Il. XV. 80) he compares the motion of Juno to the rapidthought of a traveller, who, having visited many countries, says, "I washere, " "I was there. " Such also is the description (Il. XIII. 17) ofNeptune descending from the top of Samothrace, with the hills and foreststrembling beneath his immortal feet. Infinite power, infinite faculty, thegods of Homer possessed; but these were only human faculty and powerpushed to the utmost. Nothing is more beautiful than the description ofthe sleep of Jupiter and Juno, "imparadised in each other's arms" (Il. XIV. 350), while the divine earth produced beneath them a bed of flowers, softly lifting them from the ground. But the picture is eminently human;quite as much so as that which Milton has imitated from it. After Homer and Hesiod, among the Greek poets, come the lyrists. Callinus, the Ephesian, made a religion of patriotism. Tyrtæus (B. C. 660), somewhatlater, of Sparta, was devoted to the same theme. Pindar, the Theban, beganhis career (B. C. 494) in the time of the conquests of Darius, and composedone of his Pythian odes in the year of the battle of Marathon. He taught adivine retribution on good and evil; taught that "the bitterest end awaitsthe pleasure that is contrary to right, "[231] taught moderation, and that"a man should always keep in view the bounds and limits of things. "[232]He declared that "Law was the ruler of gods and men. " Moreover, heproclaimed that gods and men were of one family, and though the gods werefar higher, yet that something divine was in all men. [233] And in afamous fragment (quoted by Bunsen[234]) he calls mankind the majesticoffspring of earth; mankind, "a gentle race, beloved of heaven. " The tragic poet, Aeschylus, is a figure like that of Michael Angelo inItalian art, grand, sombre, and possessed by his ideas. The one whichrules him and runs darkly through all his tragedies is the supreme powerof Nemesis, the terrible destiny which is behind and above gods and men. The favorite theme of Greek tragedy is the conflict of fate and freedom, of the inflexible laws of nature with the passionate longings of man, of"the emergency of the case with the despotism of the rule. " This conflictappears most vividly in the story of Promêtheus, or Forethought; he, "whose godlike crime was to be kind"; he who resisted the torments andterrors of Zeus, relying on his own fierce mind. [235] In this respect, Prometheus in his suffering is like Job in his sufferings. Each refuses tosay he is wrong, merely to pacify God, when he does not see that he iswrong. As Promêtheus maintains his inflexible purpose, so Job holds fasthis integrity. Sophocles is the most devout of the Greek tragedians, and reverence forthe gods is constantly enjoined in his tragedies. One striking passage iswhere Antigonê is asked if she had disobeyed the laws of the country, andreplies, "Yes; for they were not the laws of God. They did not proceedfrom Justice, who dwells with the Immortals. Nor dared I, in obeying thelaws of mortal man, disobey those of the undying gods. For the gods livefrom eternity, and their beginning no man knows. I know that I must diefor this offence, and I die willingly. I must have died at some time, anda premature death I account a gain, as finishing a life filled withsorrows. "[236] This argument reminds us of the higher-law discussions ofthe antislavery conflict, and the religious defiance of the fugitive slavelaw by all honest men. Euripides represents the reaction against the religious tragedy. His isthe anti-religious tragedy. It is a sneering defiance of the religioussentiment, a direct teaching of pessimism. Bunsen ("God in History") goesat length into the proof of this statement, showing that in Euripides thetheology of the poets encountered and submitted to the same scepticalreaction which followed in philosophy the divine teachings of Plato. [237]After this time Greek poetry ceased to be the organ of Greek religion. Itis true that we have subsequent outbreaks of devout song, as in the hymnof Cleauthes, the stoic, who followed Zeno as teacher in the Porch (B. C. 260). Though this belongs rather to philosophy than to poetry, yet onaccount of its truly monotheistic and also devout quality, I add atranslation here:[238]-- Greatest of the gods, God with many names, God ever-ruling and ruling all things! Zeus, origin of nature, governing the universe by law, All hail! For it is right for mortals to address thee; Since we are thy offspring, and we alone of all That live and creep on earth have the power of imitative speech. Therefore will I praise thee, and hymn forever thy power. Thee the wide heaven, which surrounds the earth, obeys; Following where thou wilt, willingly obeying thy law. Thou holdest at thy service, in thy mighty hands, The two-edged, flaming, immortal thunderbolt, Before whose flash all nature trembles. Thou rulest in the common reason, which goes through all, And appears mingled in all things, great or small, Which, filling all nature, is king of all existences. Nor without thee, O Deity, does anything happen in the world, From the divine ethereal pole to the great ocean, Except only the evil preferred by the senseless wicked. But thou also art able to bring to order that which is chaotic, Giving form to what is formless, and making the discordant friendly; So reducing all variety to unity, and even making good out of evil. Thus, through all nature is one great law, Which only the wicked seek to disobey, -- Poor fools! who long for happiness, But will not see nor hear the divine commands. * * * * * But do thou, O Zeus, all-bestower, cloud-compeller! Ruler of thunder! guard men from sad error. Father! dispel the clouds of the soul, and let us follow The laws of thy great and just reign! That we may be honored, let us honor thee again, Chanting thy great deeds, as is proper for mortals. For nothing can be better for gods or men Than to adore with perpetual hymns the law common to all. The result of our investigation thus far is, that beside all thepolytheistic and anthropomorphic tendencies of the old religion, there yetlingered a faith in one supreme God, ruler of all things. This is thegeneral opinion of the best writers. For example, Welcker thus speaks ofthe original substance of Greek religion:[239]-- "In the remotest period of Greek antiquity, we meet the words θεός and δαίμων, and the names Ζεός and Κρονίων; anything older than which is not to be found in this religion. Accordingly, the gods of these tribes were from the first generally, if not universally, heavenly and spiritual beings. Zeus was the immortal king of heaven, in opposition to everything visible and temporal. This affords us a permanent background of universal ideas, behind all special conceptions or local appellations. We recognize as present in the beginnings of Greek history the highest mental aspirations belonging to man. We can thus avoid the mistaken doubts concerning this religion, which came from the influence of the subsequent manifestations, going back to the deep root from which they have sprung. The Divine Spirit has always been manifested in the feelings even of the most uncultivated peoples. Afterwards, in trying to bring this feeling into distinct consciousness, the various childish conceptions and imperfect views of religious things arise. " § 5. The Gods of the Artists. The artists, following the poets, developed still further the divinelyhuman character of the gods. The architects of the temples gave, in theirpure and harmonious forms, the conception of religious beauty and majesty. Standing in some open elevated position, their snowy surface bathed insunshine, they stood in serene strength, the types of a bright and joyfulreligion. A superstitious worship seeks caves and darkness; the noblemajesty of the Greek temples said plainly that they belonged to a religionof light and peace. The sculptor worked originally in company with the architect. The statueswere meant to adorn the temples, the temples were made as frames andpedestals for the statues. The marble forms stood and walked on thepediments and gave life to the frieze. They animated the exterior, or sat, calm and strong, in the central shrine. The poets, in giving a moral and human character to the gods, never quiteforgot their origin as powers of nature. Jupiter Olympus is still the godof the sky, the thunderer. Neptune is the ruler of the ocean, theearth-shaker. Phoebus-Apollo is the sun-god. Artemis is the moonlight, pure, chaste, and cold. But the sculptors finally leave behind thesereminiscences, and in their hands the deities become purely moral beings. On the brow of Jupiter sits a majestic calm; he is no angry wielder of thethunderbolt, but the gracious and powerful ruler of the three worlds. Thisconception grew up gradually, until it was fully realized by Phidias inhis statues at Olympia and Elis. Tranquil power and victorious reposeappear even in the standing Jupiters, in which last the god appears asmore youthful and active. The conception of Jupiter by Phidias was a great advance on that of Homer. He, to be sure, professed to take his idea from the famous passage of theIliad where Jove shakes his ambrosial curls and bends his awful brows;and, nodding, shakes heaven and earth. That might be his text, but thesermon which he preached was far higher than it. This was the great statueof Jupiter, his masterpiece, made of ivory and gold for the temple atOlympia, where the games were celebrated by the united Hellenic race. These famous games, which occurred every fifth year, lasting five days, calling together all Greece, were to this race what the Passover was tothe Jewish nation, sacred, venerable, blending divine worship and humanjoy. These games were a chronology, a constitution, and a church to thePan-Hellenic race. All epochs were reckoned from them; as events occurringin such or such an Olympiad. The first Olympiad was seven hundred andseventy-six years before Christ; and a large part of our present knowledgeof ancient chronology depends on these festivals. They bound Greecetogether as by a constitution; no persons unless of genuine Hellenic bloodbeing allowed to contend at them, and a truce being proclaimed for allGreece while they lasted. Here at Olympia, while the games continued, all Greece came together; thepoets and historians declaimed their compositions to the grand audience;opinions were interchanged, knowledge communicated, and the national lifereceived both stimulus and unity. And here, over all, presided the great Jupiter of Phidias, within a Dorictemple, sixty-eight feet high, ninety-five wide, and two hundred andthirty long, covered with sculptures of Pentelic marble. The god wasseated on his throne, made of gold, ebony, and ivory, studded withprecious stones. He was so colossal that, though seated, his head nearlyreached the roof, and it seemed as if he would bear it away if he rose. There sat the monarch, his head, neck, breast, and arms in massiveproportions; the lower part of the body veiled in a flowing mantle;bearing in his right hand a statue of Victory, in his left a sceptre withhis eagle on the top; the Hours, the Seasons, and the Graces around him;his feet on the mysterious Sphinx; and on his face that marvellousexpression of blended majesty and sweetness, which we know not only by theaccounts of eyewitnesses, but by the numerous imitations and copies inmarble which have come down to us. One cannot fail to see, even in thesecopies, a wonderful expression of power, wisdom, and goodness. The head, with leonine locks of hair and thickly rolling beard, expresses power, thebroad brow and fixed gaze of the eyes, wisdom; while the sweet smile ofthe lips indicates goodness. The throne was of cedar, ornamented withgold, ivory, ebony, and precious stones. The sceptre was composed ofevery kind of metal. The statue was forty feet high, on a pedestal oftwelve feet. To die without having seen this statue was regarded by theGreeks as almost as great a calamity as not to have been initiated intothe mysteries. [240] In like manner the poetic conception of Apollo was inferior to that of thesculptor. In the mind of the latter Phoebus is not merely an archer, notmerely a prophet and a singer, but the entire manifestation of genius. Heis inspiration; he radiates poetry, music, eloquence from his sublimefigure. The Phidian Jupiter is lost to us, except in copies, but in theBelvedere Apollo we see how the sculptor could interpret the highestthought of the Hellenic mind. He who visits this statue by night in theVatican Palace at Rome, seeing it by torchlight, has, perhaps, the mostwonderful impression left on his imagination which art can give. Afterpassing through the long galleries of the Vatican, where, as the torchesadvance, armies of statues emerge from the darkness before you, gaze onyou with marble countenance, and sink back into the darkness behind, youreach at last the small circular hall which contains the Apollo. Theeffect of torchlight is to make the statue seem more alive. One limb, onefeature, one expression after another, is brought out as the torches move;and the wonderful form becomes at last instinct with life. Milman hasdescribed the statue in a few glowing but unexaggerated lines:-- "For mild he seemed, as in Elysian towers, Wasting, in careless ease, the joyous hours; Haughty, as bards have sung, with princely sway Curbing the fierce flame-breathing steeds of day; Beauteous, as vision seen in dreamy sleep By holy maid, on Delphi's haunted steep. " * * * * * All, all divine; no struggling muscle glows, Through heaving vein no mantling life-blood flows, But, animate with Deity alone, In deathless glory lives the breathing stone. "[241] In such a statue we see the human creative genius idealized. It is amagnificent representation of the mind of Greece, that fountain oforiginal thought from which came the Songs of Homer and the Dialogues ofPlato, that unfailing source of history, tragedy, lyric poetry, scientificinvestigation. In the Belvedere Apollo we see expressed at once the geniusof Homer, Aristotle, Herodotus, Aeschylus, Pindar, Thales, and Plato. With Apollo is associated his sister Artemis, or Diana, another exquisiteconception of Greek thought. Not the cold and cruel Diana of the poets;not she who, in her prudish anger, turned Actæon into a stag, who slewOrion, who slew the children of Niobe, and demanded the death ofIphigenia. Very different is the beautiful Diana of the sculptors, theArtemis, or untouched one, chaste as moonlight, a wild girl, pure, free, noble; the ideal of youthful womanhood, who can share with man manlyexercises and open-air sports, and add to manly strength a womanly grace. So she seems in the statue; in swift motion, the air lifting her tunicfrom her noble limbs, while she draws a shaft from the quiver to kill ahind. No Greek could look at such a statue, and not learn to reverence thepurity and nobleness of womanhood. Pallas-Athênê was the goddess of all the liberal arts and sciences. Inbattle she proves too strong for Arês or Mars, as scientific war is alwaystoo strong for that wild, furious war which Mars represented. She was thecivilizer of mankind. Her name Pallas means "virgin, " and her name Athênêwas supposed to be the same as the Egyptian Neith, reversed; though modernscholars deny this etymology. The Parthenon, standing on the summit of Athens, built of white marble, was surrounded by columns 34 feet high. It was 230 feet long, 102 feetwide, and 68 high, and was perhaps the most perfect building ever raisedby man. Every part of its exterior was adorned with Phidian sculpture; andwithin stood the statue of Athênê herself, in ivory and gold, by the samemaster hand. Another colossal statue of the great goddess stood on thesummit of the Acropolis, and her polished brazen helmet and shield, flashing in the sun, could be seen far out at sea by vessels approachingAthens. The Greek sculptors, in creating these wonderful ideals, were alwaysfeeling after God; but for God incarnate, God in man. They sought for andrepresented each divine element in human nature. They were prophets of thefuture development of humanity. They showed how man is a partaker of thedivine nature. If they humanized Deity, they divinized humanity. § 6. The Gods of the Philosophers. The problem which the Greek philosophers set themselves to solve was theorigin of things. As we have found a double element of race and religionrunning through the history of Greece, so we find a similar dualism in itsphilosophy. An element of realism and another of idealism are inopposition until the time of Plato, and are first reconciled by that greatmaster of thought. Realism appears in the Ionic nature-philosophy;idealism in Orphism, the schools of Pythagoras, and the Eleatic school ofSouthern Italy. Both these classes of thinkers sought for some central unity beneath theoutward phenomena. Thales the Milesian (B. C. 600) said it was water. Hisdisciple, Anaximander, called it a chaotic matter, containing in itself amotive-power which would take the universe through successive creationsand destructions. His successor, Anaximenes, concluded the infinitesubstance to be air. Heraclitus of Ephesus (B. C. 500) declared it to befire; by which he meant, not physical fire, but the principle ofantagonism. So, by _water_, Thales must have intended the fluid element inthings. For that Thales was not a mere materialist appears from thesayings which have been reported as coming from him, such as this: "Of allthings, the oldest is God; the most beautiful is the world; the swiftestis thought; the wisest is time. " Or that other, that, "Death does notdiffer at all from life. " Thales also taught that a Divine power was inall things. The successor of Heraclitus, Anaxagoras (B. C. 494), firstdistinguished God from the world, mind from matter, leaving to each anindependent existence. While the Greek colonies in Asia Minor developed thus the Asiatic form ofphilosophy, the colonies in Magna Græcia unfolded the Italian or idealside. Of these, Pythagoras was the earliest and most conspicuous. Born atSamos (B. C. 584), he was a contemporary of Thales of Miletus. He taughtthat God was one; yet not outside of the world, but in it, wholly in everypart, overseeing the beginnings of all things and their combinations. [242] The head of the Italian school, known as Eleatics, was Xenophanes (bornB. C. 600), who, says Zeller, [243] both a philosopher and a poet, taughtfirst of all a perfect monotheism. He declared God to be the one and all, eternal, almighty, and perfect being, being all sight, feeling, andperception. He is both infinite and finite. If he were only finite, hecould not _be_; if he were only infinite, he could not _exist_. He livesin eternity, and exists in time. [244] Parmenides, scholar and successor of Xenophanes at Elea, taught that God, as pure thought, pervaded all nature. Empedocles (about B. C. 460)[245]followed Xenophanes, though introducing a certain dualism into hisphysics. In theology he was a pure monotheist, declaring God to be theAbsolute Being, sufficient for himself, and related to the world as unityto variety, or love to discord. We can only recognize God by the divineelement in ourselves. The bad is what is separate from God, and out ofharmony with him. After this came a sceptical movement, in which Gorgias, a disciple ofEmpedocles (B. C. 404) and Protagoras the Abderite, taught the doctrine ofnescience. The latter said: "Whether there are gods or not we cannot say, and life is too short to find out. "[246] Prodicus explained religion asfounded in utility, Critias derived it from statecraft. They argued thatif religion was founded in human nature, all men would worship the samegods. This view became popular in Greece at the time of the PeloponnesianWar. Euripides, as we have seen, was a sceptic. Those who denied thepopular gods were persecuted by the Athenians, but the sceptical spiritwas not checked by this course. [247] Anaxagoras escaped with his life onlythrough the powerful protection of Pericles. Protagoras was sentenced todeath, and his writings were burned. Diogenes was denounced as an atheist, and a reward of a talent was offered to any one who should kill him. Foran unbelieving age is apt to be a persecuting one. When the kernel ofreligion is gone, more stress is laid on keeping the shell untouched. It was in the midst of these dilapidated opinions that Socrates came, thatwonderful phenomenon in human history. A marvellous vision, glorifyinghumanity! He may be considered as having created the science of ethics. Hefirst taught the doctrine of divine providence, declaring that we can onlyknow God in his works. He placed religion on the basis of humanity, proclaiming the well-being of man to be the end of the universe. Hepreferred the study of final causes to that of efficient causes. He didnot deny the inferior deities, but regarded them only as we regard angelsand archangels, saints and prophets; as finite beings, above man, butinfinitely below the Supreme Being. Reverence for such beings is quiteconsistent with the purest monotheism. In Plato, says Rixner[248] the two polar tendencies of Greek philosophywere harmonized, and realism and idealism brought into accord. The schoolof realism recognized time, variety, motion, multiplicity, and nature; butlost substance, unity, eternity, and spirit. The other, the ideal Eleaticschool, recognized unity, but lost variety, saw eternity, but ignoredtime, accepted being, but omitted life and movement. The three views may be thus compared:-- Italian Philosophy, Plato. Ionian or Asiatic Atomic. Or Eleatic. The One. The One in All. The All. Unity. Unity and Variety. Variety. Being. Life. Motion. Pantheism. Divine in Nature. Naturalism. Substance. Substance and Manifestation. Phenomena. The philosophy of Plato was the scientific completion of that of Socrates. Socrates took his intellectual departure from man, and inferred nature andGod. Plato assumed God, and inferred nature and man. He made goodness andnature godlike, by making God the substance in each. His was a divinephilosophy, since he referred all facts theoretically and practically toGod as the ground of their being. The style of Plato singularly combined analysis and synthesis, exactdefinition with poetic life. His magnificent intellect aimed at unitingprecision in details with universal comprehension. [249] Plato, as regards his method of thought, was a strict and determinedtranscendentalist. He declared philosophy to be the science ofunconditioned being, and asserted that this was known to the soul by itsintuitive reason, which is the organ of all philosophic insight. Thereason perceives substance, the understanding only phenomena. Being το όν, which is the reality in all actuality, is in the ideas or thoughts of God;and nothing exists or appears outwardly, except by the force of thisindwelling idea. The WORD is the true expression of the nature of everyobject; for each has its divine and natural name, beside its accidentalhuman appellation. Philosophy is the recollection of what the soul hasseen of things and their names. The life and essence of all things is from God. Plato's idea of God is ofthe purest and highest kind. God is one, he is Spirit, he is the supremeand only real being, he is the creator of all things, his providence isover all events. He avoids pantheism on one side, by making God a distinctpersonal intelligent will; and polytheism on the other, by making himabsolute, and therefore one. Plato's theology is pure theism. [250] Ackermann, in "The Christian Element in Plato, "[251] says: The Platonictheology is strikingly near that of Christianity in regard to God's being, existence, name, and attributes. As regards the existence of God, heargues from the movements of nature for the necessity of an originalprinciple of motion. [252] But the real Platonic faith in God, like that ofthe Bible, rests on immediate knowledge. He gives no definition of theessence of God, but says, [253] "To find the Maker and Father of this Allis hard, and having found him it is impossible to utter him. " But the ideaof Goodness is the best expression, as is also that of Being, thoughneither is adequate. The visible Sun is the image and child of the GoodBeing. Just so the Scripture calls God the Father of light. Yet the ideaof God was the object and aim of his whole philosophy; therefore he callsGod the Beginning and the End;[254] and "the Measure of all things, muchmore than _man_, as some people have said" (referring to Protagoras, whotaught that "man was the measure of all things"). So even Aristotledeclared that "since God is the ground of all being, the first philosophyis theology"; and Eusebius mentions that Plato thought that no one couldunderstand human things who did not first look at divine things; and tellsa story of an Indian who met Socrates in Athens and asked him how he mustbegin to philosophize. He replied that he must reflect on human life;whereupon the Indian laughed and said that as long as one did notunderstand divine things he could know nothing about human things. There is no doubt that Plato was a monotheist, and believed in one God, and when he spoke of gods in the plural, was only using the common form ofspeech. That many educated heathen were monotheists has been sufficientlyproved; and even Augustine admits that the mere use of the word "gods"proved nothing against it, since the Hebrew Bible said, "the God of godshas spoken. " Aristotle (B. C. 384), the first philologian and naturalist of antiquity, scholar of Plato, called "the Scribe of Nature, " and "a reversed Plato, "differing diametrically from his master in his methods, arrived at nearlythe same theological result. He taught that there were first truths, knownby their own evidence. He comprised all notions of existence in that ofthe κόσμος, in which were the two spheres of the earthly and heavenly. Theearthly sphere contained the changeable in the transient; the heavenlysphere contained the changeable in the permanent. Above both spheres isGod, who is unchangeable, permanent, and unalterable. Aristotle, however, omits God as Providence, and conceives him less personally than is done byPlato. In the Stoical system, theism becomes pantheism. [255] There is one Being, who is the substance of all things, from whom the universe flows forth, and into whom it returns in regular cycles. Zeller[256] sums up his statements on this point thus: "From all that hasbeen said it appears that the Stoics did not think of God and the world asdifferent beings. Their system was therefore strictly pantheistic. The sumof all real existence is originally contained in God, who is at onceuniversal matter and the creative force which fashions matter into theparticular materials of which things are made. We can, therefore, think ofnothing which is not either God or a manifestation of God. In point ofbeing, God and the world are the same, the two conceptions being declaredby the Stoics to be absolutely identical. " The Stoic philosophy was materialism as regards the nature of things, andnecessity as regards the nature of the human will. The Stoics denied theeverlasting existence of souls as individuals, believing that at the endof a certain cycle they would be resolved into the Divine Being. Nevertheless, till that period arrives, they conceived the soul asexisting in a future state higher and better than this. Seneca calls theday of death the birthday into this better world. In that world therewould be a judgment on the conduct and character of each one; therefriends would recognize each other, and renew their friendship andsociety. While the Epicureans considered religion in all its usual forms to be acurse to mankind, while they believed it impious to accept the popularopinions concerning the gods, while they denied any Divine Providence orcare for man, while they rejected prayer, prophecy, divination, andregarded fear as the foundation of religion, they yet believed, as theirmaster Epicurus had believed, in the existence of the immortal gods. Thesebeings he regarded as possessing all human attributes, except those ofweakness and pain. They are immortal and perfectly happy; exempt fromdisease and change, living in celestial dwellings, clothed with bodies ofa higher kind than ours, they converse together in a sweet society ofpeace and content. Such were the principal theological views of the Greek philosophers. Withthe exception of the last, and that of the Sceptics, they were eithermonotheistic or consistent with monotheism. They were, on the whole, farhigher than the legends of the poets or the visions of the artists. Theywere, as the Christian Fathers were fond of saying, a preparation forChristianity. No doubt one cause of the success of this monotheisticreligion among the Greek-speaking nations was that Greek philosophy hadundermined faith in Greek polytheism. This we shall consider in another section. § 7. The Worship of Greece. The public worship of Greece, as of other ancient nations, consisted ofsacrifices, prayers, and public festivals. The sacrifices were forvictories over their enemies, for plentiful harvests, to avert the angerof some offended deity, for success in any enterprise, and those speciallycommanded by the oracles. In the earliest times fruits and plants were all that were offered. Afterward the sacrifices were libations, incense, and victims. Thelibation consisted of a cup brimming with wine, which was emptied upon thealtars. The incense, at first, was merely fragrant leaves or wood, burntupon the altar; afterward myrrh and frankincense were used. The victimswere sheep, oxen, or other animals. To Hecate they offered a dog, to Venusa dove, to Mars some wild animal, to Ceres the sow, because it rooted upthe corn. But it was forbidden to sacrifice the ploughing ox. Thesacrifices of men, which were common among barbarous nations, were veryrare in Greece. On great occasions large sacrifices were offered of numerous victims, --asthe hecatomb, which means a hundred oxen. It is a curious fact that theyhad a vessel of holy water at the entrance of the temples, consecrated byputting into it a burning torch from the altar, with which or with abranch of laurel the worshippers were sprinkled on entering. Theworshippers were also expected to wash their bodies, or at least theirhands and feet, before going into the temple; a custom common also amongthe Jews and other nations. So Ezekiel says: "I will sprinkle you withclean water and you shall be clean. " And the Apostle Paul says, inallusion to this custom: "Let us draw near, having our hearts sprinkledfrom an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. " All these customs had a natural origin. The natural offering to the godsis that which we like best ourselves. The Greeks, eminently a socialpeople, in the enjoyment of their feasts, wished to give a part ofeverything to the gods. Loving wine, perfumes, and animal food, theyoffered these. As it was proper to wash before feasting with each other, it seemed only proper to do the same before offering the feast to thegods. The essential part of the sacrifice was catching and pouring out theblood of the victim; for, in the view of the ancients, blood was the seatof life. Part of the victim was burned, and this was the portion supposedto be consumed by the god. Another part was eaten by the worshippers, whothus sat at table with the deity as his friends and companions. The joyfulcharacter of Greek worship also appeared in the use of garlands offlowers, religious dances and songs. All the festivals of the Greeks were religious. Some were of the seasons, as one in February to Zeus, the giver of good weather; and another inNovember to Zeus, the god of storms. There were festivals in honor of theplough, of the threshing-floor; festivals commemorating the victories atMarathon, Salamis, etc. ; of the restoration of democracy by Thrasybulus;feasts of the clothing of the images, on which occasion it was not lawfulto work; feasts in commemoration of those who perished in the flood ofDeucalion; feasts of nurses, feasts of youth, of women, of trades. Thenthere were the great national festivals, celebrated every four years atOlympia and Delphi, and every three and five years at Nemea and theisthmus of Corinth. The Panathenæic festival at Athens was held every fiveyears in honor of Athênê, with magnificent processions, cavalcades ofhorsemen, gymnastic games, military dances, recitations of the Homericpoems, and competition in music. On the frieze of the Parthenon wasrepresented by the scholars of Phidias the procession of the Peplos. Thiswas a new dress made for the statue of Athênê by young girls of Athens, between the ages of seven and eleven years. These girls, selected at aspecial ceremony, lived a year on the Acropolis, engaged in their sacredwork, and fed on a special diet. Captives were liberated on this occasion, that all might share in the festival. Such festivals constituted the acme of Greek life. They were celebrated inthe open air with pomp and splendor, and visitors came from far to assiston these occasions. Prizes were given for foot and chariot races; forboxing, leaping, music, and even for kissing. The temples, therefore, werenot intended for worship, but chiefly to contain the image of the god. The _cella_, or _adytum_, was small and often dark; but along themagnificent portico or peristyle, which surrounded the four sides of theDoric temples, the splendid processions could circulate in full view ofthe multitude. [257] The temple was therefore essentially an out-doorbuilding, with its beauty, like that of a flower, exposed to light andair. It was covered everywhere, but not crowded, with sculpture, which wasan essential part of the building. The pediments, the pedestals on theroofs, the metopes between the triglyphs, are as unmeaning without thesculpture as a picture-frame without its picture. So says Mr. Fergusson;[258] and adds that, without question, color was also everywhereused as an integral part of the structure. Priesthood was sometimes hereditary, but was not confined to a class. Kings, generals, and the heads of a family acted as priests and offeredsacrifices. It was a temporary office, and Plato recommends that thereshould be an annual rotation, no man acting as priest for more than oneyear. Such a state of opinion excludes the danger of priestcraft, and isopposed to all hierarchal pretensions. The same, however, cannot be saidof the diviners and soothsayers, who were so much consulted, and whoseopinions determined so often the course of public affairs. They were oftenin the pay of ambitious men. Alcibiades had augurs and oracles devoted tohis interests, who could induce the Athenians to agree to such a course ashe desired. For the Greeks were extremely anxious to penetrate the future, and the power and influence of their oracles is, says Döllinger, aphenomenon unique in history. Among these oracles, Delphi, as is well known, took the highest rank. Itwas considered the centre of the earth, and was revered by thePan-Hellenic race. It was a supreme religious court, whose decisions werebelieved to be infallible. The despotism of the Pythian decisions was, however, tempered by their ambiguity. Their predictions, if they failed, seldom destroyed the faith of the believers; for always some explanationcould be devised to save the credit of the oracle. Thus, the Pythianpromised the Athenians that they would take all the Syracusans prisoners. They did not take them; but as a muster-roll of the Syracusan army fellinto their hands, this was considered to fulfil the promise. [259]Aristides, the rhetorician, was told that the "white maidens" would takecare of him; and receiving a letter which was of advantage, he was fullyconvinced that this was the "white maiden. " But neither imposition nordelusion will satisfactorily explain the phenomena connected with oracles. The foundation of them seems to have been a state allied to the modernmanifestations of magnetic sleep and clairvoyance. "As the whole life of the Greeks, " says Döllinger, "was penetrated byreligion, " they instinctively and naturally prayed on all occasions. Theyprayed at sunrise and sunset, at meal-times, for outward blessings of allkinds, and also for virtue and wisdom. They prayed standing, with a loudvoice, and hands lifted to the heavens. They threw kisses to the gods withtheir hands. So we see that the Greek worship, like their theology, was natural andhuman, a cheerful and hopeful worship, free from superstition. Thiselement only arrives with the mysteries, and the worship of the Cthonicgods. To the Olympic gods supplications were addressed as to free moralagents, who might be persuaded or convinced, but could not be compelled. To the under-world deities prayer took the form of adjuration, anddegenerated into magic formulas, which were supposed to force thesedeities to do what was asked by the worshipper. § 8. The Mysteries. Orphism. The early gods of most nations are local and tribal. They belong only tolimited regions, or to small clans, and have no supposed authority orinfluence beyond. This was eminently the case in Greece; and after thegreat Hellenic worship had arrived, the local and family gods retainedalso their position, and continued to be reverenced. In Athens, down tothe time of Alexander, each tribe in the city kept its own divinities andsacrifices. It also happened that the supreme god of one state would beadored as a subordinate power in another. Every place had its favoriteprotector. As different cities in Italy have their different Madonnas, whom they consider more powerful than the Madonna of their neighbors, soin Greece the same god was invoked in various localities under differentsurnames. The Arcadian Zeus had the surname of Lycæus, derived, probably, from Λυξ, Lux, light. The Cretan Jupiter was called Asterios. At Karia hewas Stratios. Iolaus in Euripides (the Herakleidæ, 347) says: "We havegods as our allies not inferior to those of the Argives, O king; for Juno, the wife of Jove, is their champion, but Minerva ours; and I say, to havethe best gods tends to success, for Pallas will not endure to beconquered. "[260] So, in the "Suppliants" of Aeschylus, the Egyptian Heraldsays (838): "By no means do I dread the deities of this place; for theyhave not nourished me nor preserved me to old age. "[261] Two modes of worship met in Greece, together with two classes of gods. ThePelasgi, as we have seen, worshipped unnamed impersonal powers of theuniverse, without image or temple. But to this was added a worship whichprobably came through Thrace, from Asia and Egypt. This element introducedreligious poetry and music, the adoration of the muses, the rites andmysteries of Dêmêtêr, and the reverence for the Kabiri, or dark divinitiesof the lower world. Of these, the MYSTERIES were the most significant and important. Theirorigin must be referred to a great antiquity, and they continued to bepractised down to the times of the Roman Emperors. They seem not to belongto the genuine Greek religion, but to be an alien element introduced intoit. The gods of the Mysteries are not the beings of light, but ofdarkness, not the gods of Olympus, but of the under-world. Everythingconnected with the Mysteries is foreign to the Hellenic mind. Thisworship is secret; its spirit is of awe, terror, remorse; its object isexpiation of sin. Finally, it is a hieratic worship, in the hands ofpriests. All this suggests Egypt as the origin of the Mysteries. The oldest werethose celebrated in the island of Samothrace, near the coast of AsiaMinor. Here Orpheus is reputed to have come and founded the BacchicMysteries; while another legend reports him to have been killed by theBacchantes for wishing to substitute the worship of Apollo for that ofDionysos. This latter story, taken in connection with the civilizinginfluence ascribed to Orpheus, indicates his introducing a purer form ofworship. He reformed the licentious drunken rites, and established inplace of them a more serious religion. He died a martyr to this purerfaith, killed by the women, who were incited to this, no doubt, by thepriests of the old Bacchic worship. The worship of Dionysos Zagreus, which was the Orphic form of Bacchism, contained the doctrines of retribution in another life, --a doctrine commonto all the Greek Mysteries. It would seem probable, from an investigation of this subject, that twoelements of worship are to be found in the Greek religion, which werenever quite harmonized. One is the worship of the Olympian deities, godsof light and day, gods of this world, and interested in our present humanlife. This worship tended to promote a free development of character; itwas self-possessed, cheerful, and public; it left the worshipper unalarmedby any dread of the future, or any anxiety about his soul. For the Olympicgods cared little about the moral character of their worshippers; and thedark Fate which lay behind gods and men could not be propitiated by anyrites, and must be encountered manfully, as one meets the inevitable. The other worship, running parallel with this, was of the Cthonic gods, deities of earth and the under-world, rulers of the night-side of nature, and monarchs of the world to come. Their worship was solemn, mysterious, secret, and concerned expiation of sin, and the salvation of the soulhereafter. Now, when we consider that the Egyptian popular worship delighted in justsuch mysteries as these; that it related to the judgment of the soulhereafter; that its solemnities were secret and wrapped in dark symbols;and that the same awful Cthonic deities were the objects of itsreverence;--when we also remember that Herodotus and the other Greekwriters state that the early religion of the Pelasgi was derived fromEgypt, and that Orpheus, the Thracian, brought thence his doctrine, --thereseems no good reason for denying such a source. On the other hand, nothingcan be more probable than an immense influence on Pelasgic worship, derived through Thrace, from Egypt. This view is full of explanations, andmakes much in the Greek mythology clear which would otherwise be obscure. The Greek myth of Dêmêtêr and Persephonê, for example, seems to be anadaptation to the Hellenic mind and land of the Egyptian myth of Osirisand Isis. Both are symbols, first, of natural phenomena; and, secondly, ofthe progress of the human soul. The sad Isis seeking Osiris, and the sadDêmêtêr seeking Persephonê constitute evidently the same legend; onlyOsiris is the Nile, evaporated into scattered pools by the burning heat, while Persephonê is the seed, the treasure of the plant, which sinks intothe earth, but is allowed to come up again as the stalk, and pass a partof its life in the upper air. But both these nature-myths werespiritualized in the Mysteries, and made to denote the wanderings of thesoul in its search for truth. Similar to these legends was that ofDionysos Zagreus, belonging to Crete, according to Euripides and otherwriters. Zagreus was the son of the Cretan Zeus and Persephonê, and washewn in pieces by the Titans, his heart alone being preserved by Athênê, who gave it to Zeus. Zeus killed the Titans, and enclosed the heart in aplaster image of his child. According to another form of the story, Zeusswallowed the heart, and from it reproduced another Dionysos. Apollocollected the rest of the members, and they were reunited, and restored tolife. The principal mysteries were those of Bacchus and Ceres. The Bacchicmysteries were very generally celebrated throughout Greece, and were awild nature-worship; partaking of that frenzy which has in all nationsbeen considered a method of gaining a supernatural and inspired state, orelse as the result of it. The Siva worship in India, the Pythoness atDelphi, the Schamaism of the North, the whirling dervishes of theMohammedans; and some of the scenes at the camp-meetings in the WesternStates, belong to the same class as the Bacchic orgies. The Eleusinian mysteries were very different. These were in honor ofCeres; they were imported from Egypt. The wanderings of Isis in search ofOsiris were changed to those of Ceres or Dêmêtêr (the mother-earth = Isis)in search of Persephonê. Both represented in a secondary symbolism thewanderings of the soul, seeking God and truth. This was the same idea asthat of Apuleius in the beautiful story of Psyche. These mysteries were celebrated at Eleusis by the Athenians every fourthyear. They were said to have been introduced B. C. 1356, and were verysacred. All persons were required to be initiated. If they refused it theywere supposed to be irreligious. "Have you been initiated?" was asked indangerous situations. The initiated were said to be calm in view of death. It was the personal religion of the Greeks. In the greater mysteries at Eleusis the candidates were crowned withmyrtle, and admitted by night into a vast temple, where they were purifiedand instructed, and assisted at certain grand solemnities. The doctrinestaught are unknown, but are supposed to have been the unity of God and theimmortality of the soul. But this is only conjecture. Bacchus is believed to have been originally an Indian god, naturalized inGreece, and his mysteries to be Indian in their character. The genial lifeof nature is the essential character of Bacchus. One of the names of theIndian Siva is Dionichi, which very nearly resembles the Greek name ofBacchus, Dionysos. He was taken from the Meros, or thigh of Jupiter. NowMount Meru, in India, is the home of the gods; by a common etymologicalerror the Greeks may have thought it the Greek word for _thigh_, and sotranslated it. The Bacchic worship, in its Thracian form, was always distasteful to thebest of the Greeks; it was suspected and disliked by the enlightened, proscribed by kings, and rejected by communities. It was an interpolatedsystem, foreign to the cheerful nature of Greek thought. As to the value of the mysteries themselves, there was a great differenceof opinion among the Greeks. The people, the orators, and many of thepoets praised them; but the philosophers either disapproved them openly, or passed them by in silence. Socrates says no word in their favor in allhis reported conversations. Plato complains of the immoral influencederived from believing that sin could be expiated by such ceremonies. [262]They seem to have contained, in reality, little direct instruction, but tohave taught merely by a dramatic representation and symbolic pictures. Who Orpheus was, and when he lived, can never be known. But theprobabilities are that he brought from Egypt into Greece, what Moses tookfrom Egypt into Palestine, the Egyptian ideas of culture, law, andcivilization. He reformed the Bacchic mysteries, giving them a moreelevated and noble character, and for this he lost his life. No betteraccount of his work can be given than in the words of Lord Bacon. "The merits of learning, " says he, "in repressing the inconveniences which grow from man to man, was lively set forth by the ancients in that feigned relation of Orpheus' theatre, where all beasts and birds assembled; and, forgetting their several appetites, some of prey, some of game, some of quarrel, stood all sociably together, listening to the airs and accords of the harp; the sound thereof no sooner ceased or was drowned by some louder noise, but every beast returned to his own nature; wherein is aptly described the nature and condition of men, who are full of savage and unreclaimed desires of profit, of lust, of revenge, which, as long as they give ear to precepts, to laws, to religion, sweetly touched by eloquence and persuasion of books, of sermons, of harangues, so long is society and peace maintained; but if these instruments be silent, or that sedition and tumult make them not audible, all things dissolve into anarchy and confusion. "[263] Of the Orphic doctrines we are able to give a somewhat better account. Asfar back as the sixth century before Christ, there were scattered throughGreece hymns, lyrical poems, and prose treatises, treating of theologicalquestions, and called Orphic writings. These works continued to beproduced through many centuries, and evidently met an appetite in theGreek mind. They were not philosophy, they were not myths nor legends, butcontained a mystic and pantheistic theology. [264] The views of thePythagoreans entered largely into this system. The Orphic writingsdevelop, by degrees, a system of cosmogony, in which Time was the firstprinciple of things, from which came chaos and ether. Then came theprimitive egg, from which was born Phanes, or Manifestation. This being isthe expression of intelligence, and creates the heavens and the earth. Thesoul is but the breath which comes from the whole universe, thusorganized, and is imprisoned in the body as in a tomb, for sins committedin a former existence. Life is therefore not joy, but punishment andsorrow. At death the soul escapes from this prison, to pass through manychanges, by which it will be gradually purified. All these notions arealien to the Greek mind, and are plainly a foreign importation. The trueGreek was neither pantheist nor introspective. He did not torment himselfabout the origin of evil or the beginning of the universe, but took lifeas it came, cheerfully. The pantheism of the Orphic theology is constantly apparent. Thus, in apoem preserved by Proclus and Eusebius it is said:[265]-- "Zeus, the mighty thunderer, is first, Zeus is last, Zeus is the head, Zeus the middle of all things. From Zeus were all things produced. He is both man and woman; Zeus is the depth of the earth, and the height of the starry heavens; He is the breath of all things, the force of untamed fire; The bottom of the sea; sun, moon, and stars; Origin of all; king of all; One Power, one God, one great Ruler. " And another says, still more plainly:-- "There is one royal body, in which all things are enclosed, Fire and Water, Earth, Ether, Night and Day, And Counsel, the first producer, and delightful Love, For all these are contained in the great body of Zeus. " § 9. Relation of Greek Religion to Christianity. One of the greatest events in the history of man, as well as one of themost picturesque situations, was when Paul stood on the Areopagus atAthens, carrying Christianity into Europe, offering a Semitic religion toan Aryan race, the culmination of monotheism to one of the most elaborateand magnificent polytheisms of the world. A strange and marvellous scene!From the place where he stood he saw all the grandest works of humanart, --the Acropolis rose before him, a lofty precipitous rock, seeminglike a stone pedestal erected by nature as an appropriate platform for theperfect marble temples with which man should adorn it. On this noble baserose the Parthenon, temple of Minerva; and the temple of Neptune, with itssacred fountain. The olive-tree of Pallas-Athênê was there, and hercolossal statue. On the plain below were the temples of Theseus andJupiter Olympus, and innumerable others. He stood where Socrates had stoodfour hundred years before, defending himself against the charge ofatheism; where Demosthenes had pleaded in immortal strains of eloquence inbehalf of Hellenic freedom; where the most solemn and venerable court ofjustice known among men was wont to assemble. There he made the memorablediscourse, a few fragments only of which have come to us in the Book ofActs, but a sketch significant of his argument. He did not begin, as inour translation, by insulting the religion of the Greeks, and calling ita superstition; but by praising them for their reverence and piety. Paulrespected all manifestations of awe and love toward those mysteries andglories of the universe, in which the invisible things of God have beenclearly seen from the foundation of the world. Then he mentions hisfinding the altar to the unknown God, mentioned also by Pausanias andother Greek writers, one of whom, Diogenes Lærtius, says that in a time ofplague, not knowing to what god to appeal, they let loose a number ofblack and white sheep, and whereever any one laid down they erected analtar to an unknown god, and offered sacrifices thereon. Then he announcedas his central and main theme the Most High God, maker of heaven andearth, spiritual, not needing to receive anything from man, but giving himall things. Next, he proclaimed the doctrine of universal humanbrotherhood. God had made all men of one blood; their varieties anddifferences, as well as their essential unity, being determined by aDivine Providence. But all were equally made to seek him, and in theirvarious ways to find him, who is yet always near to all, since all are hischildren. God is immanent in all men, says Paul, as their life. Havingthus stated the great unities of faith and points of agreement, heproceeds only in the next instance to the oppositions and criticisms; inwhich he opposes, not polytheism, but idolatry; though not blaming themseverely even for that. Lastly, he speaks of Jesus, as a man ordained byGod to judge the world and govern it in righteousness, and proved by hisresurrection from the dead to be so chosen. Here we observe, in this speech, monotheism came in contact withpolytheism, and the two forms of human religion met, --that which makes manthe child of God, and that which made the gods the children of men. The result we know. The cry was heard on the sandy shore of Eurotas and ingreen Cythnus. --"Great Pan is dead. " The Greek humanities, noble andbeautiful as they were, faded away before the advancing steps of theJewish peasant, who had dared to call God his Father and man his brother. The parables of the Prodigal Son and the Good Samaritan were strongerthan Homer's divine song and Pindar's lofty hymns. This was the religionfor man. And so it happened as Jesus had said: "My sheep hear my voice andfollow me. " Those who felt in their hearts that Jesus was their trueleader followed him. The gods of Greece, being purely human, were so far related toChristianity. That, too, is a human religion; a religion which makes itits object to unfold man, and to cause all to come to the stature ofperfect men. Christianity also showed them God in the form of man; Goddwelling on the earth; God manifest in the flesh. It also taught that theworld was full of God, and that all places and persons were instinct witha secret divinity. Schiller (as translated by Coleridge) declares thatLOVE was the source of these Greek creations:-- "'Tis not merely The human being's pride that peoples space With life and mystical predominance, Since likewise for the stricken heart of Love This visible nature, and this common world Is all too narrow; yea, a deeper import Lurks in the legend told my infant years That lies upon that truth, we live to learn. For fable is Love's world, his home, his birthplace; Delightedly dwells he 'mong fays and talismans, And spirits, and delightedly believes Divinities, being himself divine. The intelligible forms of ancient poets, The fair humanities of Old Religion, The Power, the Beauty, and the Majesty, That had their haunts in dale or piny mountain, Or forest by slow stream, or pebbly spring, Or chasms or wat'ry depths;--all these have vanished. They live no longer in the faith of Reason. But still the heart doth need a language; still Doth the old instinct bring back the old names. " _The Piccolomini_, Act II. Scene 4. As a matter of fact we find the believers in the Greek religion more readyto receive Christianity than were the Jews. All through Asia Minor andGreece Christian churches were planted by Paul; a fact which shows thatthe ground was somehow prepared for Christianity. It was ready for themonotheism which Paul substituted for their multitude of gods, and fortheir idolatry and image-worship. The statues had ceased to be symbols, and the minds of the Greeks rested in the image itself. This idolatrousworship Paul condemned, and the people heard him willingly, as he calledthem up to a more spiritual worship. We think, therefore, that the Greekreligion was a real preparation for Christianity. We have seen that it wasitself in constant transition; the system of the poets passing into thatof the artists, and that of the artists into that of the philosophers; sothat the philosophic religion, in turn, was ready to change into aChristian monotheism. It may be said, since philosophy had undermined the old religion andsubstituted for it more noble ideas, why did it not take the seat of thedethroned faith, and sufficiently supply its place? If it taught a puremonotheism and profound ethics, if it threw ample and adequate light onthe problem of God, duty, and immortality, what more was needed? If ideasare all that we want, nothing more. That Greek philosophy gave way beforeChristianity shows that it did not satisfy all the cravings of the soul;shows that man needs a religion as well as a religious philosophy, a faithas well as an intellectual system. A religion is one thing, a speculationis a very different thing. The old Greek religion, so long as it was aliving faith, was enough. When men really believed in the existence ofOlympian Jove, Pallas-Athênê, and Phoebus-Apollo, they had something abovethem to which to look up. When this faith was disintegrated, no system ofopinions, however pure and profound, could replace it. Another faith wasneeded, but a faith not in conflict with the philosophy which haddestroyed polytheism; and Christianity met the want, and therefore becamethe religion of the Greek-speaking world. Religion is a life, philosophy is thought; religion looks up, philosophylooks in. We need both thought and life, and we need that the two shall bein harmony. The moment they come in conflict, both suffer. Philosophy haddestroyed the ancient simple faith of the Hellenic race in their deities, and had given them instead only the abstractions of thought. Then camethe Apostles of Christianity, teaching a religion in harmony with thehighest thought of the age, and yet preaching it out of a living faith. Christianity did not come as a speculation about the universe, but as atestimony. Its heralds bore witness to the facts of God's presence andprovidence, of his fatherly love, of the brotherhood of man, of a risingto a higher life, of a universal judgment hereafter on all good and evil, and of Jesus as the inspired and ascended revealer of these truths. Thesefacts were accepted as realities; and once more the human mind hadsomething above itself solid enough to support it. Some of the early Christian Fathers called on the heathen poets andphilosophers to bear witness to the truth. Clement of Alexandria[266]after quoting this passage of Plato, "around the king of all are allthings, and he is the cause of all good things, " says that others, throughGod's inspiration, have declared the only true God to be God. He quotesAntisthenes to this effect: "God is not like to any; wherefore no one canknow him from an image. " He quotes Cleanthes the Stoic:-- "If you ask me what is the nature of the good, listen: That which is regular, just, holy, pious, Self-governing, useful, fair, fitting, Grave, independent, always beneficial, That feels no fear or grief; profitable, painless, Helpful, pleasant, safe, friendly. " "Nor, " says Clement, "must we keep the Pythagoreans in the background, whosay, 'God is one; and he is not, as some suppose, outside of this frame ofthings, but within it; in all the entireness of his being he pervades thewhole circle of existence, surveying all nature, and blending inharmonious union the whole; the author of his own forces and works, thegiver of light in heaven, and father of all; the mind and vital power ofthe whole world, the mover of all things. '" Clement quotes Aratus the poet:-- "That all may be secure Him ever they propitiate first and last. Hail, Father! great marvel, great gain to man. " "Thus also, " says Clement, "the Ascræan Hesiod dimly speaks of God:-- 'For he is the king of all, and monarch Of the immortals, and there is none that can vie with him in power. ' "And Sophocles, the son of Sophilus, says:-- 'One, in truth, one is God, Who made both heaven and the far-stretching earth; And ocean's blue wave, and the mighty winds; But many of us mortals, deceived in heart, Have set up for ourselves, as a consolation in our afflictions, Images of the gods, of stone, or wood, or brass, Or gold, or ivory; And, appointing to these sacrifices and vain festivals, Are accustomed thus to practise religion. ' "But the Thracian Orpheus, the son of Oeagrus, hierophant and poet, atonce, after his exposition of the orgies and his theology of idols, introduces a palinode of truth with solemnity, though tardily singing thestrain:-- 'I shall utter to whom it is lawful; but let the doors be closed, Nevertheless, against all the profane. But do thou hear, O Musæus, for I will declare what is true. ' "He then proceeds:-- 'He is one, self-proceeding; and from him alone all things proceed, And in them he himself exerts his activity; no mortal Beholds him, but he beholds all. '" Professor Cocker, in his work on "Christianity and Greek Philosophy, " hasdevoted much thought to show that philosophy was a preparation forChristianity, and that Greek civilization was an essential condition tothe progress of the Gospel. He points out how Greek intelligence andculture, literature and art, trade and colonization, the universal spreadof the Greek language, and especially the results of Greek philosophy, were "schoolmasters to bring men to Christ. " He quotes a striking passagefrom Pressensé to this effect. Philosophy in Greece, says Pressensé, hadits place in the divine plan. It dethroned the false gods. It purified theidea of divinity. Cocker sums up this work of preparation done by Greek philosophy, asseen, -- "1. In the release of the popular mind from polytheistic notions, and the purifying and spiritualizing of the theistic idea. "2. In the development of the theistic argument in a logical form. "3. In the awakening and enthronement of conscience as a law of duty, and in the elevation and purification of the moral idea. "4. In the fact that, by an experiment conducted on the largest scale, it demonstrated the insufficiency of reason to elaborate a perfect ideal of moral excellence, and develop the moral forces necessary to secure its realization. "5. It awakened and deepened the consciousness of guilt and the desire for redemption. "[267] The large culture of Greece was evidently adapted to Christianity. TheJewish mind recognized no such need as that of universal culture, and thistendency of Christianity could only have found room and opportunity amongthose who had received the influence of Hellenic culture. The points of contact between Christianity and Greek civilization aretherefore these:-- 1. The character of God, considered in both as an immanent, ever-workingpresence, and not merely as a creating and governing will outside theuniverse. 2. The character of man, as capable of education and development, who isnot merely to obey as a servant, but to co-operate as a friend, with thedivine will, and grow up in all things. 3. The idea of duty, as a reasonable service, and not a yoke. 4. God's revelations, as coming, not only in nature, but also in inspiredmen, and in the intuitions of the soul; a conception which resulted in theChristian doctrine of the Trinity. The good of polytheism was that it saw something divine in nature. Bydividing God into numberless deities, it was able to conceive of somedivine power in all earthly objects. Hence Wordsworth, complaining thatwe can see little of this divinity now in nature, cries out:-- "Good God! I'd rather be A Pagan suckled in a creed outworn; So might I, standing on this pleasant lea, Have glimpses that would make me less forlorn; Have sight of Proteus rising from the sea, Or hear old Triton blow his wreathéd horn. " Chapter VIII. The Religion of Rome. § 1. Origin and essential Character of the Religion of Rome. § 2. The Gods of Rome. § 3. Worship and Ritual. § 4. The Decay of the Roman Religion. § 5. Relation of the Roman Religion to Christianity. § 1. Origin and essential Character of the Religion of Rome. In the Roman state nothing grew, everything was made. The practicalunderstanding was the despotic faculty in the genius of this people. Fancy, imagination, humor, seem to have been omitted in the character ofthe Latin race. The only form of wit which appeared among them was satire, that is, wit used for a serious purpose, to punish crimes not amenable toother laws, to remove abuses not to be reached by the ordinary police. Thegay, light-hearted Greek must have felt in Rome very much as a Frenchmanfeels in England. The Romans did not know how to amuse themselves; theypursued their recreations with ferocious earnestness, making always alabor of their pleasure. They said, indeed, that it was well _sometimes_to unbend, _Dulce est desipere in locis_; but a Roman when unbent was likean unbent bow, almost as stiff as before. In other words, all spontaneity was absent from the Roman mind. Everythingdone was done on purpose, with a deliberate intention. This also appearsin their religion. Their religion was not an inspiration, but anintention. It was all regular, precise, exact. The Roman cultus, like theRoman state, was a compact mass, in which all varieties were merged into astern unity. All forms of religion might come to Rome and take theirplaces in its pantheon, but they must come as servants and soldiers ofthe state. Rome opened a hospitable asylum to them, just as Rome hadestablished a refuge on the Capitoline Hill to which all outlaws mightcome and be safe, on the condition of serving the community. As everything in Rome must serve the state, so the religion of Rome was astate institution, an established church. But as the state can onlycommand and forbid outward actions, and has no control over the heart, sothe religion of Rome was essentially external. It was a system of worship, a ritual, a ceremony. If the externals were properly attended to, it tookno notice of opinions or of sentiments. Thus we find in Cicero ("De NaturaDeorum") the chief pontiff arguing against the existence of the gods andthe use of divination. He claims to believe in religion as a pontifex, while he argues against it as a philosopher. The toleration of Romeconsisted in this, that as long as there was outward conformity toprescribed observances, it troubled itself very little about opinions. Itsaid to all religions what Gallio said to the Jews: "If it be a questionof words and names and of your law, look ye to it; for I will be no judgeof such matters. " Gallio was a genuine representative of Roman sentiment. With religion, as long as it remained within the limits of opinion orfeeling, the magistrate had nothing to do; only when it became an act ofdisobedience to the public law it was to be punished. Indeed, the veryrespect for national law in the Roman mind caused it to legalize in Romethe worship of national gods. They considered it the duty of the Jews, inRome, to worship the Jewish God; of Egyptians, in Rome, to worship thegods of Egypt. "Men of a thousand nations, " says Dionysius ofHalicarnassus, "come to the city, and must worship the gods of theircountry, according to their laws at home. " As long as the Christians inRome were regarded as a Jewish sect, their faith was a _religio licita_, when it was understood to be a departure from Judaism, it was then acriminal rebellion against a national faith[268]. The Roman religion has often been considered as a mere copy of that ofGreece, and has therefore been confounded with it, as very nearly the samesystem. No doubt the Romans were imitators; they had no creativeimagination. They borrowed and begged their stories about the gods, fromGreece or elsewhere. But Hegel has long ago remarked that the resemblancebetween the two religions is superficial. The gods of Rome, he says, arepractical gods, not theoretic; prosaic, not poetic. The religion of Romeis serious and earnest, while that of Greece is gay. Dionysius ofHalicarnassus thinks the Roman religion the better of the two, because itrejected the blasphemous myths concerning the loves and quarrels of theheavenly powers. But, on the other hand, the deities of Greece were moreliving and real persons, with characters of their own. The deities of Romewere working gods, who had each a task assigned to him. They all had someofficial duty to perform; while the gods of Olympus could amuse themselvesas they pleased. While the Zeus of Greece spent his time in adventures, many of which were disreputable, the Jupiter Capitolinus remained at home, attending to his sole business, which was to make Rome the mistress of theworld. The gods of Rome, says Hegel, are not human beings, like those ofGreece, but soulless machines, gods made by the understanding, even whenborrowed from Greek story. They were worshipped also in the interest ofthe practical understanding, as givers of earthly fortune. The Romans hadno real reverence for their gods; they worshipped them in no spirit ofadoring love, but always for some useful object. It was a utilitarianworship. Accordingly the practical faculties, engaged in useful arts, weredeified. There was a Jupiter Pistor, presiding over bakers. There was agoddess of ovens; and a Juno Moneta, who took care of the coin. There wasa goddess who presided over doing nothing, Tranquillitas Vacuna; and eventhe plague had an altar erected to it. But, after all, no deities were sogreat, in the opinion of the Romans, as Rome itself. The chief distinctionof these deities was that they belonged to the Roman state[269]. Cicero considers the Romans to be the most religious of all nations, because they carried their religion into all the details of life. This istrue; but one might as well consider himself a devout worshipper of ironor of wood, because he is always using these materials, in doors and out, in his parlor, kitchen, and stable. As the religion of Rome had no doctrinal system, its truths werecommunicated mostly by spectacles and ceremonies, which chiefly consistedin the wholesale slaughter of men and animals. There was somethingfrightful in the extent to which this was carried; for when crueltyproceeds from a principle and purpose, it is far worse than when arisingfrom brutal passion. An angry man may beat his wife; but the deliberate, repeated, and ingenious torments of the Inquisition, the massacre ofthousands of gladiators in a Roman amphitheatre, or the torture ofprisoners by the North American Indians, are all parts of a system, andreinforced by considerations of propriety, duty, and religious reverence. Mommsen remarks[270], that the Roman religion in all its details was areflection of the Roman state. When the constitution and institutions ofRome changed, their religion changed with them. One illustration of thiscorrespondence he finds in the fact that when the Romans admitted thepeople of a conquered state to become citizens of Rome, their gods wereadmitted with them; but in both cases the new citizens _(novensides_)occupied a subordinate position to the old settlers _(indigites[271]_). That the races of Italy, among whom the Latin language originated, were ofthe same great Asiatic stock as the Greeks, Germans, Kelts, and Slavictribes, is sufficiently proved by the unimpeachable evidence of language. The old Latin roots and grammatic forms all retain the analogies of theAryan families. Their gods and their religion bear marks of the sameorigin, yet with a special and marked development. For the Roman nationwas derived from at least three secondary sources, --the Latins, Sabines, and Etruscans. To these may be added the Pelasgian settlers on the westerncoast (unless these are included in the Etruscan element), and the veryancient race of Siculi or Sikels, whose name suggests, by its phoneticanalogy, a branch of that widely wandering race, the Kelts[272]. But theobscure and confused traditions of these Italian races help us very littlein our present inquiry. That some of the oldest Roman deities were Latin, others Sabine, and others Etruscan, is, however, well ascertained. Fromthe Latin towns Alba and Lavinium came the worship of Vesta, Jupiter, Juno, Saturn and Tellus, Diana and Mars. Niebuhr thinks that the Sabineritual was adopted by the Romans, and that Varro found the real remains ofSabine chapels on the Quirinal. From Etruria came the system ofdivination. Some of the oldest portions of the Roman religion were derivedfrom agriculture. The god Saturn took his name from sowing. Picus andFaunus were agricultural gods. Pales, the goddess of herbage, hadofferings of milk on her festivals. The Romans, says Döllinger, had nocosmogony of their own; a practical people, they took the world as theyfound it, and did not trouble themselves about its origin. Nor had theyany favorite deities; they worshipped according to what was proper, everyone in turn at the right time. Though the most polytheistic of religions, there ran through their system an obscure conception of one supreme being, Jupiter Optimus-Maximus, of whom all the other deities were but qualitiesand attributes. But they carried furthest of all nations thispersonifying and deifying of every separate power, this minute subdivisionof the deity. Heffter[273] says this was carried to an extent which wasalmost comic. They had divinities who presided over talkativeness andsilence, over beginnings and endings, over the manuring of the fields, andover all household transactions. And as the number increased, it becamealways more difficult to recollect which was the right god to appeal tounder any special circumstances. So that often they were obliged to callon the gods in general, and, dismissing the whole polytheistic pantheon, to invoke some unknown god, or the supreme being. Sometimes, however, inthese emergencies, new deities were created for the occasion. Thus theycame to invoke the pestilence, defeat in battle, blight, etc. , asdangerous beings whose hostility must be placated by sacrifices. A betterpart of their mythology was the worship of Modesty (Pudicitia), Faith orFidelity (Fides), Concord (Concordia), and the gods of home. It was thebusiness of the pontiffs to see to the creation of new divinities. So theRomans had a goddess Pecunia, money (from Pecus, cattle), dating from thetime when the circulating medium consisted in cows and sheep. But whencopper money came, a god of copper was added, Æsculanus; and when silvermoney was invented, a god Argentarius arrived. § 2. The Gods of Rome. Creuzer, in speaking of the Italian worship, says that "one fact whichemerges more prominently than any other is the concourse of Oriental, Pelasgic, Samothracian, and Hellenic elements in the religion of Rome. " Inlike manner the Roman deities bear traces of very different sources. Wehave found reason to believe, in our previous chapters, that the religionof Egypt had a twofold origin, from Asiatic and African elements, and thatthe religion of Greece, in like manner, was derived from Egyptian andPelasgic sources. So, too, we find the institutions and people of Romepartaking of a Keltic and Pelasgic origin. Let us now see what was thecharacter of the Roman deities. * * * * * One of the oldest and also most original of the gods of Rome was theSabine god JANUS. He was the deity who presided over beginnings andendings, over the act of opening and shutting. Hence the month whichopened the year, January, received its name from this god, who also gavehis name to Janua, a gate or door[274], and probably to the hillJaniculum[275]. The Romans laid great stress on all beginnings; believing that thecommencement of any course of conduct determined, by a sort of magicalnecessity, its results. Bad success in an enterprise they attributed to awrong beginning, and the only remedy, therefore, was to begin anew. Ovid(Fasti, I. 179) makes Janus say, "All depends on the beginning. " Whenother gods were worshipped, Janus was invoked first of all. He was god ofthe year. His temple had four sides for the four seasons, and each sidehad three windows for the months. That his temple was open in war, butclosed in peace, indicated that the character of Rome in times of war wasto attack and not to defend. She then opened her gates to send her troopsforth against the enemy; while in seasons of peace she shut them in athome. This symbol accords well with the haughty courage of the Republic, which commanded victory, by not admitting the possibility of defeat[276]. This deity is believed by Creuzer and others to have had an Indian origin, and his name to have been derived from the Sanskrit "Jan, " _to be born_. He resembles no Greek god, and very probably travelled all the way fromBactria to Rome. On the Kalends of January, which was the chief feast of Janus, it was theduty of every Roman citizen to be careful that all he thought, said, ordid should be pure and true, because this day determined the character ofthe year. All dressed themselves in holiday garb, avoided oaths, abusivewords, and quarrels, gave presents, and wished each other a happy year. The presents were little coins with a Janus-head, and sweetmeats. It wascustomary to sacrifice to Janus at the beginning of all importantbusiness. Janus was the great god of the Sabines, and his most ancient templeappears to have been on Mount Janiculum[277]. The altar of Fontus, son ofJanus, and the tomb of Numa, a Sabine king, were both supposed to bethere. Ovid also[278] makes Janus say that the Janiculum was his citadel. Ampère remarks as a curious coincidence, that this god, represented with akey in his hand, as the heavenly gate-keeper, should have his home on thehill close to the Vatican, where is the tomb of Peter, who also bears akey with the same significance. The same writer regards the Sabines asinhabiting the hills of Rome before the Pelasgi came and gave this name ofRoma (meaning "strength") to their small fortress on one side of thePalatine. In every important city of Etruria there were temples to the three gods, JUPITER, JUNO, and MINERVA. In like manner, the magnificent temple of theCapitol at Rome consisted of three parts, --a nave, sacred to Jupiter; andtwo wings or aisles, one dedicated to Juno and the other to Minerva. Thistemple was nearly square, being two hundred and fifteen feet long and twohundred feet wide; and the wealth accumulated in it was immense. The wallsand roof were of marble, covered with gold and silver. JUPITER, the chief god of Rome, according to most philologists, deriveshis name (like the Greek Ζεὸς) from the far-away Sanskrit word "Div" or"Diu, " indicating the splendor of heaven or of day. Ju-piter is from"Djaus-Pitar, " which is the Sanskrit for _Father of Heaven_, or else from"Diu-pitar, " _Father of Light_. He is, at all events, the equivalent ofthe Olympian Zeus. He carries the lightning, and, under many appellations, is the supreme god of the skies. Many temples were erected to him in Rome, under various designations. He was called Pluvius, Fulgurator, Tonans, Fulminator, Imbricitor, Serenator, --from the substantives designatingrain, lightning, thunder, and the serene sky. Anything struck withlightning became sacred, and was consecrated to Jupiter. As the supremebeing he was called Optimus Maximus, also Imperator, Victor, Invictus, Stator, Prædator, Triumphator, and Urbis Custos. And temples or shrineswere erected to him under all these names, as the head of the armies, andcommander-in-chief of the legions; as Conqueror, as Invincible, as theTurner of Flight, as the God of Booty, and as the Guardian of the City. There is said to have been in Rome three hundred Jupiters, which must meanthat Jupiter was worshipped under three hundred different attributes. Another name of this god was Elicius, from the belief that a methodexisted of eliciting or drawing down the lightning; which belief probablyarose from an accidental anticipation of Dr. Franklin's famous experiment. There were no such myths told about Jupiter as concerning the Greek Zeus. The Latin deity was a much more solemn person, his whole time occupiedwith the care of the city and state. But traces of his origin as a rulerof the atmosphere remained rooted in language; and the Romans, in the timeof Augustus, spoke familiarly of "a cold Jupiter, " for a cold sky, and ofa "bad Jupiter, " for stormy weather. The Juno of the Capitol was the Queen of Heaven, and in this sense was thefemale Jupiter. But Juno was also the goddess of womanhood, and had theepithets of Virginensis, Matrona, and Opigena; that is, the friend ofvirgins, of matrons, and the daughter of help. Her chief festival was theMatronalia, on the first of March, hence called the "Women's Kalends. " Onthis day presents were given to women by their husbands and friends. Junowas the patroness of marriage, and her month of June was believed to bevery favorable for wedlock. As Juno Lucina she presided over birth; asMater Matuta, [279] over children; as Juno Moneta, over the mint. The name of Minerva, the Roman Athênê, is said to be derived from an oldEtruscan word signifying mental action. [280] In the songs of the Sabiansthe word "promenervet" is used for "monet. " The first syllable evidentlycontains the root, which in all Aryan languages implies thought. TheTrinity of the Capitol, therefore, united Power, Wisdom, and Affection, asJupiter, Minerva, and Juno. The statue of Minerva was placed in schools. She had many temples and festivals, and one of the former was dedicated toher as Minerva Medica. The Roman pantheon contained three classes of gods and goddesses. First, the old Italian divinities, Etruscan, Latin, and Sabine, naturalized andadopted by the state. Secondly, the pale abstractions of theunderstanding, invented by the College of Pontiffs for moral and politicalpurposes. And thirdly, the gods of Greece, imported, with a change ofname, by the literary admirers and imitators of Hellas. The genuine deities of the Roman religion were all of the first order. Some of them, like Janus, Vertumnus, Faunus, Vesta, retained theiroriginal character; others were deliberately confounded with some Greekdeity. Thus Venus, an old Latin or Sabine goddess to whom Titus Tatiuserected a temple as Venus Cloacina, and Servius Tullius another as VenusLibertina, [281] was afterward transformed into the Greek Aphroditê, goddess of love. If it be true, as is asserted by Nævius and Plautus, thatshe was the goddess of gardens, as Venus Hortensis and Venus Fruti, thenshe may have been originally the female Vertumnus. So Diana was originallyDiva Jana, and was simply the female Janus, until she was transformed intothe Greek Artemis. The second class of Roman divinities were those manufactured by thepontiffs for utilitarian purposes, --almost the only instance in thehistory of religion of such a deliberate piece of god-making. The purposeof the pontiffs was excellent; but the result, naturally, was small. Theworship of such abstractions as Hope (Spes), Fear (Pallor), Concord(Concordia), Courage (Virtus), Justice (Æquitas), Clemency (Clementia), could have little influence, since it must have been apparent to theworshipper himself that these were not real beings, but only his ownconceptions, thrown heavenward. The third class of deities were those adopted from Greece. New deities, like Apollo, were imported, and the old ones Hellenized. The Romans had nostatues of their gods in early times; this custom they learned fromGreece. "A full river of influence, " says Cicero, "and not a little brook, has flowed into Rome out of Greece[282]. " They sent to Delphi to inquireof the Greek oracle. In a few decades, says Hartung, the Roman religionwas wholly transformed by this Greek influence; and that happened whilethe senate and priests were taking the utmost care that not an iota of theold ceremonies should be altered. Meantime the object was to identify theobjects of worship in other countries with those worshipped at home. Thiswas done in an arbitrary and superficial way, and caused great confusionin the mythologies[283]. Accidental resemblances, slight coincidences ofnames, were sufficient for the identification of two gods. As long as theservice of the temple was unaltered, the priests troubled themselves verylittle about such changes. In this way, the twelve gods of Olympus--Zeus, Poseidôn, Apollo, Arês, Hêphæstos, Hermes, Hêrê, Athênê, Artemis, Aphroditê, Hestia, and Dêmêtêr--were naturalized or identified as Jupiter, Neptune, Apollo, Mars, Vulcan, Mercury, Juno, Minerva, Diana, Venus, Vesta, and Ceres, Dionysos became Liber or Bacchus; Persephonê, Proserpina; and the Muses were accepted as the Greeks had imagined them. To find the true Roman worship, therefore, we must divest their deities ofthese Greek habiliments, and go back to their original Etruscan or Latincharacters. Among the Etruscans we find one doctrine unknown to the Greeks and notadopted by the Romans; that, namely, of the higher "veiled deities, "[284]superior to Jupiter. They also had a dodecad of six male and six femaledeities, the Consentes and Complices, making a council of gods, whomJupiter consulted in important cases. Vertumnus was an Etruscan; so, according to Ottfried Müller, was the Genius. So are the Lares, orhousehold protectors, and Charun, or Charon, a power of the under-world. The minute system of worship was derived by Rome from Etruria. The wholesystem of omens, especially by lightning, came from the same source. After Janus, and three Capitoline gods (Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva), abovementioned, the Romans worshipped a series of deities who may be classed asfollows:-- I. Gods representing the powers of nature:-- 1. SOL, the Sun. A Sabine deity. In later times the poets attributed tohim all the characters of Helios; but as a Roman god, he never emergedinto his own daylight. 2. LUNA, the Moon. Also regarded as of Sabine origin. 3. MATER MATUTA. Mother of Day, that is, the dawn. Worshipped at theMatronalia in June, as the possessor of all motherly qualities, andespecially as the protector of children from ill-treatment. As the stormswere apt to go down at morning, she was appealed to to protect marinersfrom shipwreck. The consul Tib. Semp. Gracchus dedicated a temple to herB. C. 176. 4. TEMPESTATES, the tempests. A temple was dedicated to the storms, B. C. 259. 5. VULCANUS. This name is supposed to be from the same root as "fulgeo, "_to shine_. He was an old Italian deity. His temple is mentioned asexisting B. C. 491. 6. FONTUS, the god of fountains. The Romans valued water so highly, thatthey erected altars and temples to this divinity, and had a feast offountains (Fontinalia) on October 13th. There were also goddesses offountains, as Lynapha Juturna, the goddess of mineral springs. Egeria isthe only nymph of a fountain mentioned in Roman mythology. 7. DIVUS PATER TIBERINUS, or Father Tiber, was of course the chief rivergod. The augurs called him Coluber, the snake, from his meandering andbending current. 8. NEPTUNUS. The origin of this word has been a great puzzle to thelearned, who, however, connect it with nebula, a cloud, as the clouds comefrom the sea. He had his temple and his festivals at Rome. Other deities connected with the powers of nature were PORTUNUS, the godof harbors; SALACIA, a goddess of the salt sea; TRANQUILLITAS, the goddessof calm weather. II. Gods of human relations:-- 1. VESTA, an ancient Latin goddess, and one of the oldest and mostrevered. She was the queen of the hearth and of the household fire. Shewas also the protector of the house, associated with the Lares andPenates. Some offering was due to her at every meal. She sanctified thehome. Afterward, when all Rome became one vast family, Vesta became the goddessof this public home, and her temple was the fireside of the city, in whichburned always the sacred fire, watched by the vestal virgins. In thisworship, and its associations, we find the best side of Romanmanners, --the love of home, the respect for family life, the hatred ofimpurity and immodesty. She was also called "the mother, " and qualified asMater Stata, that is, the immovable mother. 2. The PENATES and LARES. These deities were also peculiarly Roman. TheLar, or Lares, were supposed to be the souls of ancestors which resided inthe home and guarded it. Their images were kept in an oratory or domesticchapel, called a Lararium, and were crowned by the master of the house tomake them propitious. The paterfamilias conducted all the domestic worshipof the household, whether of prayers or sacrifices, according to the maximof Cato, "Scito dominum pro tota familia rem divinam facere[285]. " ThePenates were beings of a higher order than the Lares, but having much thesame offices. Their name was from the words denoting the interior of themansion (Penetralia, Penitus). They took part in all the joys and sorrowsof the family. To go home was "to return to one's Penates. " In the sameway, "Lar meus" meant "my house "; "Lar conductus, " "a hired house ";"Larem mutare" meant to change one's house. Thus the Roman in his homefelt himself surrounded by invisible friends and guardians. No othernation, except the Chinese, have carried this religion of home so far. This is the tender side of the stern Roman character. Very little ofpathos or sentiment appears in Roman poetry, but the lines by Catullus tohis home are as tender as anything in modern literature. The littlepeninsula of Sirmio on the Lago di Garda has been glorified by these fewwords. 3. The GENIUS. The worship of the genius of a person or place was alsopeculiarly Italian. Each man had his genius, from whom his living powerand vital force came. Tertullian speaks of the genius of places. On coinsare found the Genius of Rome. Almost everything had its genius, --nations, colonies, princes, the senate, sleep, the theatre. The marriage-bed iscalled genial, because guarded by a genius. All this reminds us of theFravashi of the Avesta and of the Persian monuments. Yet the Genius alsotakes his place among the highest gods. III. Deities of the human soul:-- 1. MENS, Mind, Intellect. 2. PUDICITIA, Chastity. 3. PIETAS, Piety, Reverence for Parents. 4 FIDES, Fidelity. 5. CONCORDIA, Concord. 6. VIRTUS, Courage. 7. SPES, Hope. 8. PALLOR or PAVOR, Fear. 9. VOLUPTAS, Pleasure. IV. Deities of rural and other occupations:-- 1. TELLUS, the Earth. 2. SATURNUS, Saturn. The root of this name is SAO = SERO, _to sow_. Saturnis the god of planting and sowing. 3. OPS, goddess of the harvest. 4. MARS. Originally an agricultural god, dangerous to crops; afterwardsgod of war. 5. SILVANUS, the wood god. 6. FAUNUS, an old Italian deity, the patron of agriculture. 7. TERMINUS, an old Italian deity, the guardian of limits and boundaries. 8. CERES, goddess of the cereal grasses. 9. LIBER, god of the vine, and of wine. 10. BONA DEA, the good goddess. The worship of the good goddess wasimported from Greece in later times; and perhaps its basis was the worshipof Dêmêtêr. The temple of the good goddess was on Mount Aventine. At herfeast on the 1st of May all suggestions of the male sex were banished fromthe house; no wine must be drunk; the myrtle, as a symbol of love, wasremoved. The idea of the feast was of a chaste marriage, as helping topreserve the human race. 11. MAGNA MATER, or Cybele. This was a foreign worship, but earlyintroduced at Rome. 12. FLORA. She was an original goddess of Italy, presiding over flowersand blossoms. Great license was practised at her worship. 13. VERTUMNUS, the god of gardens, was an old Italian deity, existingbefore the foundation of Rome. 14. POMONA, goddess of the harvest. 18. PALES. A rural god, protecting cattle. At his feast men and cattlewere purified. The Romans had many other deities, whose worship was more or lesspopular. But those now mentioned were the principal ones. This list showsthat the powers of earth were more objects of reverence than the heavenlybodies. The sun and stars attracted this agricultural people less than thespring and summer, seedtime and harvest. Among the Italians the countrywas before the city, and Rome was founded by country people. § 3. Worship and Ritual. The Roman ceremonial worship was very elaborate and minute, applying toevery part of daily life. It consisted in sacrifices, prayers, festivals, and the investigation by augurs and haruspices of the will of the gods andthe course of future events. The Romans accounted themselves anexceedingly religious people, because their religion was so intimatelyconnected with the affairs of home and state. The Romans distinguished carefully between things sacred and profane. Thisword "profane" comes from the root "fari, " _to speak_; because the godswere supposed to speak to men by symbolic events. A _fane_ is a place thusconsecrated by some divine event; a _profane_ place, one notconsecrated. [286] But that which man dedicates to the gods (_dedicat_ or_dicat_) is sacred, or consecrated. [287] Every place which was to bededicated was first "liberated" by the augur from common uses; then"consecrated" to divine uses by the pontiff. A "temple" is a place thusseparated, or cut off from other places; for the root of this word, likethat of "tempus" (time) is the same as the Greek τέμνω, _to cut_. The Roman year was full of festivals (_feriæ_) set apart for religioususes. It was declared by the pontiffs a sin to do any common work on thesedays, but works of necessity were allowed. These festivals were forparticular gods, in honor of great events in the history of Rome, or ofrural occurrences, days of purification and atonement, family feasts, orfeasts in honor of the dead. The old Roman calendar[288] was as carefullyarranged as that of modern Rome. The day began at midnight. The followingis a view of the Roman year in its relation to festivals:-- _January_. 1. Feast of _Janus_, the god of beginnings. 9. _Agonalia_. 11. _Carmentalia_. In honor of the nymph Carmenta, a woman's festival. 16. Dedication of the _Temple of Concord_. 31. Feast of the _Penates_. _February_. 1. Feast of _Juno Sospita_, the Savior: an old goddess. 13. _Faunalia_, dedicated to Faunus and the rural gods. 15. _Lupercalia_. Feast of fruitfulness. 17. _Fornacalia_. Feast of the oven goddess Fornax. 18 to 28. The _Februatio_, or feast of purification and atonement, and the _Feralia_, or feast of the dead. Februus was an old Etrurian god of the under-world. Also, the _Charistia_, a family festival for putting an end to quarrels among relations. 23. Feast of _Terminus_, god of boundaries. Boundary-stones anointed and crowned. _March_. 1. Feast of _Mars_. Also, the _Matronalia_. The Salii, priests of Mars, go their rounds, singing old hymns. 6. Feast of _Vesta_. 7. Feast of _Vejovis_ or _Vedius_, i. E. The boy Jupiter. 14. _Equiria_, or horse-races in honor of Mars. 15. Feast of _Anna-Perenna_, goddess of health. 17. _Liberalia_, Feast of Bacchus. Young men invested with the Toga-Virilis on this day. 19 to 23. Feast of _Minerva_, for five days. Offerings made to her by all mechanics, artists, and scholars. _April_. 1. Feast of _Venus_, to whom the month is sacred. 4. _Megalesia_. Feast of Cybele and Altys. It lasted six days, and was the Roman analogue of the feast of Ceres in Greece and of Isis in Egypt. 12. _Cerealia_. Feast of Ceres. Games in the circus. 15. _Fordicicia_. Feast of cows. 21. _Palililia_. Feast of Pales, and of the founding of Rome. 23. _Vinalia_. Feast of new wine. 25. _Robigalia_. Feast of the goddess of blight, Robigo. 28. _Floralia_. Feast of the goddess Flora; very licentious. _May_. 1. Feast of the _Bona Dea_, the good goddess; otherwise Maia, Ops, Tellus, or the Earth. This was the feast held by women secretly in the house of the pontiff. 9. _Lemuralia_. Feast of the departed spirits or ghosts. 12. Games to _Mars_. 23. _Tubilustria_, to consecrate wind instruments. _June_. 1. Feast of _Carna_, goddess of the internal organs of the body, and of _Juno Moneta_. 4. Feast of _Bellona_. 5. Feast of _Deus Fidius_. 7 to 15. Feast of _Vesta_. 19. _Matralia_. Feast of Mater Matuta. Other lesser festivals in this month to _Summanus, Fortuna, Fortis, Jupiter Stator_, etc. _July_. 1. Day devoted to changing residences, like the 1st of May in New York. 4. _Fortuna Muliebris_. 5. _Populifuga_. In memory of the people's flight, on some occasion, afterward forgotten. 7. Feast of _Juno Caprotina_. 15. Feast of _Castor and Pollux_. Other festivals in this month were the _Lucaria, Neptunalia_, and_Furinalia_. _August_. 1. Games to _Mars_. 17. Feast of the god _Portumnus_. 18. _Consualia_, feast of Consus. Rape of the Sabines. 23. _Vulcanalia_, to avert fires. 25. _Opeconsivia_. Feast of Ops Consiva. _September_. The chief feasts in this month were the games (_Ludi Magni_ or _Romani_)in honor of Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva. _October_. 13. _Fontinalia_. Feast of fountains, when the springs were strewed with flowers. 15. Sacrifice of a horse to _Mars_. The feasts in November are unimportant. _December_. 5. _Faunalia_, in honor of Faunus. 19. _Saturnalia_, sacred to Saturn. A Roman thanksgiving for the harvest. It lasted seven days, during which the slaves had their liberty, in memory of the age of Saturn, when all were equal. The rich kept open table to all comers, and themselves waited on the slaves. Presents were interchanged, schools were closed. The Senate did not sit. Thus religion everywhere met the public life of the Roman by itsfestivals, and laid an equal yoke on his private life by its requisitionof sacrifices, prayers, and auguries. All pursuits must be conductedaccording to a system, carefully laid down by the College of Pontiffs. Sacrifices and prayers of one or another kind were demanded during most ofthe occasions of life. Hidden in our word "inaugurate" is the record ofthe fact that nothing could be properly begun without the assistance ofthe augurs. Sacrifices of lustration and expiation were very common, notso much for moral offences as for ceremonial mistakes. The doctrine of the_opus operatum_ was supreme in Roman religion. The intention was of littleimportance; the question was whether the ceremony had been performedexactly in accordance with rule. If not, it must be done again. Sometimesfifty or a hundred victims were killed before the priestly etiquette wascontented. Sometimes magistrates must resign because the college of augurssuspected some informality in the ceremonies of their election. Laws wereannulled and judicial proceedings revoked for the same reason. If theaugurs declared the signs unfavorable, a public meeting must be adjournedand no business done. A single mistake in the form of a prayer would makeit ineffectual. If a man went out to walk, there was a form to be recited;if he mounted his chariot, another. All these religious acts were of thenature of _charms_, which acted on the gods by an inherent power, andcompelled them to be favorable, whatever their own wishes might be. Thegods were, therefore, as much the slaves of external mechanical laws asthe Romans themselves. In reality, the supreme god of Rome was law, in theform of rule. But these rules afterward expanded, as the Romancivilization increased, into a more generous jurisprudence. Regularitybroadened into justice. [289] But for a long period the whole of the Romanorganic law was a system of hard external method. And the rise of law asjustice and reason was the decline of religion as mere prescription andrule. This one change is the key to the dissolution of the Roman system ofreligious practices. The seat of Roman worship in the oldest times was the Regia in the ViaSacra, near the Forum. This was the house of the chief pontiff, and herethe sacrifices were performed[290] by the Rex Sacrorum. Near by was thetemple of Vesta. The Palatine Hill was regarded as the home of the Latingods, while the Quirinal was that of the Sabine deities. But the Penatesof Rome remained at Lavinium, the old metropolis of the LatinConfederation, and mother of the later city. Every one of the highestofficers of Rome was obliged to go and sacrifice to the ancient gods, atthis mother city of Lavinium, before entering on his office. The old worship of Rome was free from idolatry. Jupiter, Juno, Janus, Ops, Vesta, were not represented by idols. This feature was subsequentlyimported by means of Hellenic influences coming through Cuma and othercities of Magna Græcia. By the same channels came the Sibylline books. There were ten Sibyls, --the Persian, Libyan, Delphian, Cumæan, Erythræan, Samian, Amalthæan, Hellespontine, Phrygian, and Tiburtine. The Sibyllinebooks authorized or commanded the worship of various Greek gods; they wereintrusted to the Decemviri. Roman worship was at first administered by certain patrician families, andthis was continued till B. C. 300, when plebeians were allowed to enter thesacred colleges. A plebeian became Pontifex Maximus, for the first time, B. C. 253. The pontiffs (Pontifices) derived their name (bridge-builders) from abridge over the Tiber, which it was their duty to build and repair inorder to sacrifice on either bank. They possessed the supreme authority inall matters of worship, and decided questions concerning marriage, inheritance, public games. The Flamens were the priests of particular deities. The office was forlife, and there were fifteen Flamens in all. The Flamen Dialis, or priestof Jupiter, had a life burdened with etiquette. He must not take an oath, ride, have anything tied with knots on his person, see armed men, look ata prisoner, see any one at work on a Festa, touch a goat, or dog, or rawflesh, or yeast. He must not bathe in the open air, pass a night outsidethe city, and he could only resign his office on the death of his wife. This office is Pelasgic, and very ancient. The Salii were from early times priests of Mars, who danced in armor, andsang old hymns. The Luperci were another body of priests, also of veryancient origin. Other colleges of priests were the Epulones, Curiones, Tities. The Vestal virgins were highly honored and very sacred. Their work was totend the fire of Vesta, and prevent the evil omen of its extinction. Theywere appointed by the Pontifex Maximus. They were selected when veryyoung, and could resign their office after thirty years of service. Theyhad a large revenue, enjoyed the highest honors, and to strike them was acapital offence. If a criminal about to be executed met them, his life wasspared. Consuls and prætors must give way to them in the streets. Theyassisted at the theatres and at all public entertainments. They could goout to visit and to dine with their relations. Their very presenceprotected any one from assault, and their intercession must not beneglected. They prepared the sacred cakes, took part in many sacrifices, and had the charge of a holy serpent, keeping his table supplied withmeat. The duty of the augurs was to inquire into the divine will; and they couldprevent any public business by declaring the omens unfavorable. The nameis probably derived from an old Aryan word, meaning "sight" or "eye, "which has come to us in the Greek αὐγή, and the German _auge_. Our words"auspicious" and "auspicate" are derived from the "auspices, " or outlookon nature which these seers practised. For they were in truth the Roman_seers_. Their business was to look, at midnight, into the starry heavens;to observe thunder, lightning, meteors; the chirping or flying of birds;the habits of the sacred chickens; the appearance of quadrupeds; orcasualties of various kinds, as sneezing, stumbling, spilling salt orwine. The last relics of these superstitions are to be found in the littlebooks sold in Rome, in which the fortunate number in a lottery isindicated by such accidents and events of common life. The Romans, when at prayer, were in the habit of covering their heads, sothat no sound of evil augury might be heard. The suppliant was to kiss hisright hand, and then turn round in a circle and sit down. Many formulæ ofprayers were prescribed to be used on all occasions of life. They must berepeated three times, at least, to insure success. Different animals weresacrificed to different gods, --white cattle with gilded horns to Jupiter, a bull to Apollo, a horse to Mars. Sometimes the number of victims wasenormous. On Caligula's accession, one hundred and sixty thousand victimswere killed in the Roman Empire. Lustrations were great acts of atonement or purification, and are oftendescribed by ancient writers. The city was lustrated by a grand processionof the four colleges of Augurs, Pontifices, Quindecemviri, and Septemviri. Lucan, in his Pharsalia, describes such a lustration. [291] Tacitus gives alike description, in his History, [292] of the ceremonies attending therebuilding the Capitol. On an auspicious day, beneath a serene sky, theground chosen for the foundation was surrounded with ribbons and flowers. Soldiers, selected for their auspicious names, brought into the enclosurebranches from the trees sacred to the gods. The Vestal virgins, followedby a band of children, sprinkled the place with water drawn from threefountains and three rivers. The prætor and the pontiff next sacrificed aswine, a sheep, and a bull, and besought Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva tofavor the undertaking. The magistrates, priests, senators, and knightsthen drew the corner-stone to its place, throwing in ingots of gold andsilver. The Romans, ever anxious about the will of the gods, naturalized amongthemselves the Etruscan institution of the Haruspices. The prodigiesobserved were in the entrails of animals and the phenomena of nature. Theparts of the entrails observed were the tongue, lungs, heart, liver, gallbladder, spleen, kidneys, and caul. If the head of the right lobe of theliver was absent, it was considered a very bad omen. If certain fissuresexisted, or were absent, it was a portent of the first importance. But theRomans were a very practical people, and not easily deterred from theirpurpose. So if one sacrifice failed they would try another and another, until the portents were favorable. But sceptical persons were naturallyled to ask some puzzling questions, such as these, which Cicero puts inhis work on Divination:[293] How can a cleft in a liver be connected, byany natural law, with my acquisition of a property? If it is so connected, what would be the result, if some one else, who was about to _lose_ hisproperty, had examined the same victim? If you answer that the divineenergy, which extends through the universe, directs each man in the choiceof a victim, then how happens it that a man having first had anunfavorable omen, by trying again should get a good one? How happens itthat a sacrifice to one deity gives a favorable sign, and that to anotherthe opposite? But these criticisms only arrived after the old Roman faithhad begun to decline. Funeral solemnities were held with great care and pomp, and festivals forthe dead were regularly celebrated. The dead father or mother wasaccounted a god, and yet a certain terror of ancestral spectres was shownby a practice of driving them out of the house by lustrations. For it wasuncertain whether the paternal Manes were good spirits, Lares, or evilspirits, and Lemures. Consequently in May there was the Lemuria, or feastfor exorcising the evil spirits from houses and homes, conducted withgreat solemnity. § 4. The Decay of the Roman Religion. "The more distinguished a Roman became, " says Mommsen, "the less was he afree man. The omnipotence of law, the despotism of the rule, drove himinto a narrow circle of thought and action, and his credit and influencedepended on the sad austerity of his life. The whole duty of man, with thehumblest and greatest of the Romans, was to keep his house in order, andbe the obedient servant of the state. " While each individual could benothing more than a member of the community, a single link in the ironchain of Roman power; he, on the other hand, shared the glory and might ofall-conquering Rome. Never was such _esprit de corps_ developed, neversuch intense patriotism, never such absolute subservience and sacrificeof the individual to the community. But as man is manifold and cannot beforever confined to a single form of life, a reaction against this narrowpatriotism was to be expected in the interest of personal freedom, and itcame very naturally from Greek influences. The Roman could not contemplatethe exuberant development of Greek thought, art, literature, society, without bitterly feeling how confined was his own range, how meagre andempty his own life. Hence, very early, Roman society began to beHellenized, but especially after the unification of Italy. To quoteMommsen once more: "The Greek civilization was grandly human andcosmopolitan; and Rome not only was stimulated by this influence, but waspenetrated by it to its very centre. " Even in politics there was a newschool, whose fixed idea was the consolidation and propagandism ofrepublicanism; but this Philhellenism showed itself especially in therealm of thought and faith. As the old faith died, more ceremonies wereadded; for as life goes out, forms come in. As the winter of unbelieflowers the stream of piety, the ice of ritualism accumulates along itsbanks. In addition to the three colleges of Pontiffs, Haruspices, andQuindecemviri, another of Epulones, whose business was to attend to thereligious feasts, was instituted in A. U. 558 (B. C. 196). Contributions andtithes of all sorts were demanded from the people. Hercules, especially, as is more than once intimated in the plays of Plautus, became very richby his tithes. [294] Religion became more and more a charm, on the exactperformance of which the favor of the gods depended; so that ceremonieswere sometimes performed thirty times before the essential accuracy wasattained. The gods were now changed, in the hands of Greek statuaries, intoornaments for a rich man's home. Greek myths were imported and connectedwith the story of Roman deities, as Ennius made Saturn the son of Coelus, in imitation of the genealogy of Kronos. That form of rationalism calledEuhemerism, which explains every god into a mythical king or hero, becamepopular. So, too, was the doctrine of Epicharmos, who considered thedivinities as powers of nature symbolized. According to the usual courseof events, superstition and unbelief went hand in hand. As the old faithdied out, new forms of worship, like those of Cybele and Bacchus, came in. Stern conservatives like Cato opposed all these innovations andscepticisms, but ineffectually. Gibbon says that "the admirable work of Cicero, 'De Naturâ Deorum, ' is thebest clew we have to guide us through this dark abyss" (the moral andreligious teachings of the philosophers). [295] After, in the first twobooks, the arguments for the existence and providence of the gods havebeen set forth and denied, by Velleius the Epicurean, Cotta theacademician, and Balbus the Stoic; in the third book, Cotta, the head ofthe priesthood, the Pontifex Maximus, proceeds to refute the stoicalopinion that there are gods who govern the universe and provide for thewelfare of mankind. To be sure, he says, as Pontifex, he of coursebelieves in the gods, but he feels free as a philosopher to deny theirexistence. "I believe in the gods, " says he, "on the authority andtradition of our ancestors; but if we reason, I shall reason against theirexistence. " "Of course, " he says, "I believe in divination, as I havealways been taught to do. But who knows whence it comes? As to the voiceof the Fauns, I never heard it; and I do not know what a Faun is. You saythat the regular course of nature proves the existence of some orderingpower. But what more regular than a tertian or quartan fever? The worldsubsists by the power of nature. " Cotta goes on to criticise the Romanpantheon, ridiculing the idea of such gods as "Love, Deceit, Fear, Labor, Envy, Old Age, Death, Darkness, Misery, Lamentation, Favor, Fraud, Obstinacy, " etc. He shows that there are many gods of the same name;several Jupiters, Vulcans, Apollos, and Venuses. He then deniesprovidence, by showing that the wicked succeed and the good areunfortunate. Finally, all was left in doubt, and the dialogue ends with atone of triumphant uncertainty. This was Cicero's contribution totheology; and Cicero was far more religious than most men of his period. Many writers, and more recently Merivale, [296] have referred to theremarkable debate which took place in the Roman Senate, on the occasion ofCatiline's conspiracy. Cæsar, at that time chief pontiff, the highestreligious authority in the state, gave his opinion against putting theconspirators to death; for death, says he, "is the end of all suffering. After death there is neither pain nor pleasure (_ultra neque curæ, nequegaudii locum_). " Cato, the Stoic, remarked that Cæsar had spoken wellconcerning life and death. "I take it, " says he, "that he regards as falsewhat we are told about the sufferings of the wicked hereafter, " but doesnot object to that statement. These speeches are reported by Sallust, andare confirmed by Cicero's fourth Catiline Oration. The remarkable fact is, not that such things were said, but that they were heard with totalindifference. No one seemed to think it was of any consequence one way orthe other. Suppose that when the question of the execution of Charles I. Was before Parliament, it had been opposed by the Archbishop of Canterbury(had he been there) on the ground that after death all pain and pleasureceased. The absurdity of the supposition shows the different position ofthe human mind at the two epochs. In fact, an impassable gulf yawned between the old Roman religion andmodern Roman thought. It was out of the question for an educated Roman, who read Plato and Zeno, who listened to Cicero and Hortensius, to believein Janus and the Penates. "All very well for the people, " said they. "Thepeople must be kept in order by these superstitions. "[297] But the secretcould not be kept. Sincere men, like Lucretius, who saw all the evil ofthese superstitions, and who had no strong religious sense, _would_ speakout, and proclaim _all_ religion to be priestcraft and an unmitigatedevil. The poem of Lucretius, "De Rerum Naturâ, " declares faith in the godsto have been the curse of the human race, and immortality to be a sillydelusion. He denies the gods, providence, the human soul, and any moralpurpose in the universe. But as religion is an instinct, which will breakout in some form, and when expelled from the soul returns in disguise, Lucretius, denying all the gods, pours out a lovely hymn to Venus, goddessof beauty and love. The last philosophic protest, in behalf of a pure and authoritative faith, came from the Stoics. The names of Seneca, Epictetus, and AureliusAntoninus gave dignity, if they could not bring safety, to the decliningreligion of Rome. Seneca, indeed, was inferior to the other two in personal character, andwas more of a rhetorician than a philosopher. But noble thoughts occur inhis writings. "A sacred spirit sits in every heart, " he says, "and treatsus as we treat it. " He opposed idolatry, he condemned animal sacrifices. The moral element is very marked in his brilliant pages. Philosophy, hesays, is an effort to be wise and good. [298] Physical studies he condemnsas useless. [299] Goodness is that which harmonizes with the naturalmovements of the soul. [300] God and matter are the two principles of allbeing; God is the active principle, matter the passive. God is spirit, andall souls are part of this spirit. [301] Reason is the bond which unitesGod and other souls, and so God dwells in all souls. [302] One of the best sayings of Epictetus is that "the wise man does not merelyknow by tradition and hearsay that Jupiter is the father of gods and men;but is inwardly convinced of it in his soul, and therefore cannot helpacting and feeling according to this conviction. "[303] Epictetus declared that the philosopher could have no will but that of thedeity; he never blames fate or fortune, for he knows that no real evil canbefall the just man. The life of Epictetus was as true as his thoughtswere noble, but he had fallen on an evil age, which needed for its reform, not a new philosophy, but a new inspiration of divine life. This steadycurrent downward darkened the pure soul of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, ofwhom Niebuhr says, [304] "If there is any sublime human virtue, it is his. "He adds: "He was certainly the noblest character of his time; and I knowno other man who combined such unaffected kindness, mildness, and humilitywith such conscientiousness and severity towards himself. " "If there isanywhere an expression of virtue, it is in the heavenly features of M. Aurelius. His 'Meditations' are a golden book, though there are things init which cannot be read without deep grief, for there we find this purestof men without happiness. " Though absolute monarch of the Empire, and richin the universal love of his people, he was not powerful enough to resistthe steady tendency to decay in society. Nor did he know that the powerthat was to renew the life of the world was already present inChristianity. He himself was in soul almost a Christian, though he did notknow it, and though the Christian element of faith and hope was wanting. But he expressed a thought worthy of the Gospel, when he said: "The man ofdisciplined mind reverently bids Nature, who bestows all things andresumes them again to herself, 'Give what thou wilt, and take what thouwilt. '"[305] Although we have seen that Seneca speaks of a sacred, spirit which dwellsin us, other passages in his works (quoted by Zeller) show that he was, like other Stoics, a pantheist, and meant the soul of the world. He says(Nat. Qu. , II. 45, and Prolog. 13): "Will you call God the world? You maydo so without mistake. For he is all that you see around you. " "What isGod? The mind of the universe. What is God? All that you see, and all thatyou do not see. "[306] It was not philosophy which destroyed religion in Rome. Philosophy, nodoubt, weakened faith in the national gods, and made the national worshipseem absurd. But it was the general tendency downward; it was the loss ofthe old Roman simplicity and purity; it was the curse of Cæsarism, which, destroying all other human life, destroyed also the life of religion. Whatit came to at last, in well-endowed minds, may be seen in this extractfrom the elder Pliny:-- "All religion is the offspring of necessity, weakness, and fear. _What_ God is, if in truth he be anything distinct from the world, it is beyond the compass of man's understanding to know. But it is a foolish delusion, which has sprung from human weakness and human pride, to imagine that such an infinite spirit would concern himself with the petty affairs of men. It is difficult to say, whether it might not be better for men to be wholly without religion, than to have one of this kind, which is a reproach to its object. The vanity of man, and his insatiable longing after existence, have led him also to dream of a life after death. A being full of contradictions, he is the most wretched of creatures; since the other creatures have no wants transcending the bounds of their nature. Man is full of desires and wants that reach to infinity, and can never be satisfied. His nature is a lie, uniting the greatest poverty with the greatest pride. Among these so great evils, the best thing God has bestowed on man is the power to take his own life. "[307] The system of the Stoics was exactly adapted to the Roman character; but, naturally, it exaggerated its faults instead of correcting them. Itsupplanted all other systems in the esteem of leading minds; but thenarrowness of the Roman intellect reacted on the philosophy, and made thatmuch more narrow than it was in the Greek thought. It became simpleethics, omitting both the physical and metaphysical side. Turning to literature, we find in Horace a gay epicureanism, which alwayssays: "Enjoy this life, for it will be soon over, and after death there isnothing left for us. " Virgil tells us that those are happy who know thecauses of things, and so escape the terrors of Acheron. The seriousTacitus, a man always in earnest, a penetrating mind, is by Bunsen called"the last Roman prophet, but a prophet of death and judgment. He saw thatRome hastened to ruin, and that Cæsarism was an unmixed evil, but an evilnot to be remedied. "[308] He declares that the gods had to mingle in Romanaffairs as protectors; they now appeared only for vengeance. [309] Tacitusin one passage speaks of human freedom as superior to fate, [310] but inanother expresses his uncertainty on the whole question. [311] Equallyuncertain was he concerning the future life, though inclined to believethat the soul is not extinguished with the body. [312] But the tone of the sepulchral monuments of that period is not so hopeful. Here are some which are quoted by Döllinger, [313] from Muratori andFabretti: "Reader, enjoy thy life; for, after death, there is neitherlaughter nor play, nor any kind of enjoyment. " "Friend, I advise thee tomix a goblet of wine and drink, crowning thy head with flowers. Earth andfire consume all that remains at death. " "Pilgrim, stop and listen. InHades is no boat and no Charon; no Eacus and no Cerberus. Once dead, weare all alike. " Another says: "Hold all a mockery, reader; nothing is ourown. " * * * * * So ended the Roman religion; in superstition among the ignorant, inunbelief among the wise. It was time that something should come to renewhope. This was the gift which the Gospel brought to the Romans, --hope fortime, hope beyond time. This was the prayer for the Romans of the ApostlePaul: "Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost. "[314] Aremarkable fact, that a Jewish writer should exhort Romans to hope andcourage! § 5. Relation of the Roman Religion to Christianity. The idea of Rome is law, that of Christianity is love. In Roman worshiplaw took the form of iron rules; in Roman theology it appeared as a sternfate; in both as a slavery. Christianity came as freedom, in a worshipfree from forms, in a view of God which left freedom to man. Christianitycame to the Roman world, not as a new theory, but as a new life. As, during the early spring, the power of the returning sun penetrates thesoil, silently touching the springs of life; so Christianity during twohundred years moved silently in the heart of Roman society, creating a newfaith, hope, and love. And as, at last, in the spring the grass shoots, the buds open, the leaves appear, the flowers bloom; so, at last, Christianity, long working in silence and shadow, suddenly becameapparent, and showed that it had been transforming the whole tone andtemper of Roman civilization. But wherever there is action there is also reaction, and no power or forcecan wholly escape this law. So Roman thought, acted on by Christianity, reacted and modified in many respects the Gospel. Not always in a bad way, sometimes it helped its developments. For the Providence which made theGospel for the Romans made the Romans for the Gospel. The great legacy bequeathed to mankind by ancient Rome was law. Othernations, it is true, had codes of law, like the Institutes of Manu inIndia, or the jurisprudence of Solon and the enactments of Lycurgus. ButRoman law from the beginning was sanctified by the conviction that it wasfounded on justice, and not merely on expediency or prudence. Insubmitting to the laws, even when they were cruel and oppressive, theRoman was obeying, not force, but conscience. The view which Plato gave asan ideal in Crito was realized in Roman society from the first. Considerthe cruel enactments which made the debtors the slaves of the creditor, and the fact that when the plebeians were ground to the earth by thatoppression, they did not attempt to resist the law, but in their despairfled from their homes, beyond the jurisdiction of Rome, to establish a newcity where these enactments could not reach them. Only when the laws arethus enforced by the public conscience as something sacred, does societybecome possible; and this sense of the divinity which hedges a code oflaws has been transmitted from ancient Rome into the civilization ofEurope. Cicero, in his admirable treatise on the laws, which unfortunately we havein an imperfect condition, devotes the whole of the first book toestablishing eternal justice as the basis of all jurisprudence. No bettertext-book could have been found for the defence of what was called "thehigher law, " in the great American antislavery struggle, than this work ofCicero. "Let us establish, " he says, "the principles of justice on thatsupreme law which has existed from all ages before any legislativeenactments were written, or any political governments formed. " "Among allquestions, there is none more important to understand than this, _that manis born for justice_; and that law and equity have not been established byopinion, but by nature. " "It is an absurd extravagance in somephilosophers to assert that all things are necessarily just which areestablished by the laws and institutions of nations. " "Justice does notconsist in submission to written laws. " "If the will of the people, thedecrees of the senate, the decisions of magistrates, were sufficient toestablish rights, then it might become right to rob, to commit adultery, to forge wills, if this was sanctioned by the votes or decrees of themajority. " "The sum of all is, that what is right should be sought for itsown sake, because it is right, and not because it is enacted. " Law appears from the very beginnings of the Roman state. The oldesttraditions make Romulus, Numa, and Servius to be legislators. From thattime, after the expulsion of the Tarquins, Rome was governed by laws. Eventhe despotism of the Cæsars did not interfere with the generaladministration of the laws in civil affairs; for the one-man power, thoughit may corrupt and degrade a state, does not immediately and directlyaffect many persons in their private lives. Law continued to rule incommon affairs, and this legacy of a society organized by law was the giftof Rome to modern Europe. How great a blessing it has been may be seen bycomparing the worst Christian government with the best of the despoticgovernments of Asia. Mohammedan society is ruled by a hierarchy oftyranny, each little tyrant being in turn the victim of the one above him. The feudal system, introduced by the Teutonic races, attempted to organizeEurope on the basis of military despotism; but Roman law was too strongfor feudal law, and happily for mankind overcame it and at last expelledit. Christianity, in its ready hospitality for all the truth and good which itencounters, accepted Roman jurisprudence and gave to it a new lease oflife. [315] Christian emperors and Christian lawyers codified the long lineof decrees and enactments reaching back to the Twelve Tables, andestablished them as the laws of the Christian world. But the spirit ofRoman law acted on Christianity in a more subtle manner. It reproduced theorganic character of the Roman state in the Western Latin Church, and itreproduced the soul of Roman law in the Western Latin theology. It has not always been sufficiently considered how much the Latin Churchwas a reproduction, on a higher plane, of the old Roman Commonwealth. Theresemblance between the Roman Catholic ceremonies and those of Pagan Romehas been often noticed. The Roman Catholic Church has borrowed fromPaganism saints' days, incense, lustrations, consecrations of sacredplaces, votive-offerings, relics; winking, nodding, sweating, and bleedingimages; holy water, vestments, etc. But the Church of Rome itself, in itscentral idea of authority, is a reproduction of the Roman state religion, which was a part of the Roman state. The Eastern churches were sacerdotaland religious; the Church of Rome added to these elements that of anorganized political authority. It was the resurrection of Rome, --Romanideas rising into a higher life. The Roman Catholic Church, at first anaristocratic republic, like the Roman state, afterwards became, like theRoman state, a disguised despotism. The Papal Church is therefore a legacyof ancient Rome. [316] And just as the Roman state was first a help and then a hindrance to theprogress of humanity, so it has been with the Roman Catholic Church. Ancient Rome gradually bound together into a vast political unity thedivided tribes and states of Europe, and so infused into them thecivilization which she had developed or received. And so the Papal Churchunited Europe again, and once more permeated it with the elements of law, of order, of Christian faith. All intelligent Protestants admit the gooddone in this way by the mediæval church. For example, Milman[317] says, speaking of Gregory the Great and his work, that it was necessary that there should be some central power like thePapacy to resist the dissolution of society at the downfall of the RomanEmpire. "The life and death of Christianity" depended, he says, "on therise of such a power. " "It is impossible to conceive what had been theconfusion, the lawlessness, the chaotic state of the Middle Ages, withoutthe mediæval Papacy. " The whole history of Rome had infused into the minds of Western nations aconviction of the importance of centralization in order to union. FromRome, as a centre, had proceeded government, law, civilization. Christianity therefore seemed to need a like centre, in order to retainits unity. Hence the supremacy early yielded to the Bishop of Rome. Hisprimacy was accepted, because it was useful. The Papal Church would neverhave existed, if Rome and its organizing ideas had not existed beforeChristianity was born. In like manner the ideas developed in the Roman mind determined the courseof Western theology, as differing from that of the East. It is well knownthat Eastern theological speculation was occupied with the nature of Godand the person of Christ, but that Western theology discussed sin andsalvation. Mr. Maine, in his work on "Ancient Law, " considers thisdifference to have been occasioned by habits of thought produced by Romanjurisprudence. I quote his language at some length:-- "What has to be determined is whether jurisprudence has ever served as themedium through which theological principles have been viewed; whether, bysupplying a peculiar language, a peculiar mode of reasoning, and apeculiar solution of many of the problems of life, it has ever opened newchannels in which theological speculation could flow out and expanditself. " "On all questions, " continues Mr. Maine, quoting Dean Milman, "whichconcerned the person of Christ and the nature of the Trinity, the Westernworld accepted passively the dogmatic system of the East. " "But as soon asthe Latin-speaking empire began to live an intellectual life of its own, its deference to the East was at once exchanged for the agitation of anumber of questions entirely foreign to Eastern speculation. " "The natureof sin and its transmission by inheritance, the debt owed by man and itsvicarious satisfaction, and like theological problems, relating not to thedivinity but to human nature, immediately began to be agitated. " "Iaffirm, " says Mr. Maine, "without hesitation, that the difference betweenthe two theological systems is accounted for by the fact that, in passingfrom the East to the West, theological speculation had passed from aclimate of Greek metaphysics to a climate of Roman law. For some centuriesbefore these controversies rose into overwhelming importance, all theintellectual activity of the Western Romans had been expended onjurisprudence exclusively. They had been occupied in applying a peculiarset of principles to all combinations in which the circumstances of lifeare capable of being arranged. No foreign pursuit or taste called offtheir attention from this engrossing occupation, and for carrying it onthey possessed a vocabulary as accurate as it was copious, a strict methodof reasoning, a stock of general propositions on conduct more or lessverified by experience, and a rigid moral philosophy. It was impossiblethat they should not select from the questions indicated by the Christianrecords those which had some affinity with the order of speculations towhich they were accustomed, and that their manner of dealing with themshould not borrow something from their forensic habits. Almost every onewho has knowledge enough of Roman law to appreciate the Roman penalsystem, the Roman theory of the obligations established by contract ordelict, the Roman view of debts, etc. , the Roman notion of the continuanceof individual existence by universal succession, may be trusted to saywhence arose the frame of mind to which the problems of Western theologyproved so congenial, whence came the phraseology in which these problemswere stated, and whence the description of reasoning employed in theirsolution. " "As soon as they (the Western Church) ceased to sit at the feetof the Greeks and began to ponder out a theology of their own, thetheology proved to be permeated with forensic ideas and couched in aforensic phraseology. It is certain that this substratum of law in Westerntheology lies exceedingly deep. "[318] The theory of the atonement, developed by the scholastic writers, illustrates this view. In the East, for a thousand years, the atoning workof Christ had been viewed mainly as redemption, as a ransom paid toobtain the freedom of mankind, enslaved by the Devil in consequence oftheir sins. It was not a legal theory, or one based on notions ofjurisprudence, but it was founded on warlike notions. Men were captivestaken in war, and, like all captives in those times, destined to slavery. Their captor was Satan, and the ransom must be paid to him, as he heldthem prisoners by the law of battle. Now as Christ had committed no sin, the Devil had no just power over him; in putting Christ to death he hadlost his rights over his other captives, and Christ could justly claimtheir freedom as a compensation for this injury. Christ, therefore, strictly and literally, according to the ancient view, "gave his life aransom for many. " But the mind of Anselm, educated by notions derived from Romanjurisprudence, substituted for this original theory of the atonement onebased upon legal ideas. All, in this theory, turns on the law of debt andpenalty. Sin he defines as "not paying to God what we owe him. "[319] Butwe owe God constant and entire obedience, and every sin deserves eitherpenalty or satisfaction. We are unable to make it good, for at everymoment we owe God all that we can do. Christ, as God-man, can satisfy Godfor our omissions; his death, as offered freely, when he did not deservedeath on account of any sin of his own, is sufficient satisfaction. Itwill easily be seen how entirely this argument has substituted a legalbasis for the atonement in place of the old warlike foundation. This, therefore, has been the legacy of ancient Rome to Christianity:firstly, the organization of the Latin Church; secondly, the scholastictheology, founded on notions of jurisprudence introduced into man'srelations to God. In turn, Christianity has bestowed on Western Europewhat the old Romans never knew, --a religion of love and inspiration. Inplace of the hard and cold Roman life, modern Europe has sentiment andheart united with thought and force. With Roman strength it has joined aChristian tenderness, romance, and personal freedom. Humanity now isgreater than the social organization; the state, according to our view, ismade for man, not man for the state. We are outgrowing the hard and drytheology which we have inherited from Roman law through the scholasticteachers; but we shall not outgrow our inheritance from Rome of unity inthe Church, definite thought in our theology, and society organized bylaw. Chapter IX. The Teutonic and Scandinavian Religion. § 1. The Land and the Race. § 2. Idea of the Scandinavian Religion. § 3. The Eddas and their Contents. § 4. The Gods of Scandinavia. § 5. Resemblance of the Scandinavian Mythology to that of Zoroaster. § 6. Scandinavian Worship. § 7. Social Character, Maritime Discoveries, and Political Institutions of the Scandinavians. § 8. Relation of this System to Christianity. § 1. The Land and the Race. The great Teutonic or German division of the Indo-European family enteredEurope subsequently to the Keltic tribes, and before the Slavicimmigration. This people overspread and occupied a large part of NorthernCentral Europe, from which the attempts of the Romans to dispossess themproved futile. Of their early history we know very little. Bishop Percycontrasts their love of making records, as shown by the Runicinscriptions, with the Keltic law of secrecy. The Druids forbade anycommunication of their mysteries by writing; but the German Scalds put alltheir belief into popular songs, and reverenced literature as a gift ofthe gods. Yet we have received very little information concerning thesetribes before the days of Cæsar and Tacitus. Cæsar describes them aswarlike, huge in stature; having reverence for women, who were theiraugurs and diviners; worshipping the Sun, the Moon, and Fire; having noregular priests, and paying little regard to sacrifices. He says that theyoccupied their lives in hunting and war, devoting themselves fromchildhood to severe labors. They reverenced chastity, and considered it asconducive to health and strength. They were rather a pastoral thanagricultural people; no one owning land, but each having it assigned tohim temporarily. The object of this provision was said to be to preventaccumulation of wealth and the loss of warlike habits. They fought withcavalry supported by infantry. In the time of Augustus all attempts atconquering Germany were relinquished, and war was maintained only in thehope of revenging the destruction of Varus and his three legions by thefamous German chief Arminius, or Herrman[320]. Tacitus freely admits that the Germans were as warlike as the Romans, andwere only inferior in weapons and discipline. He pays a generous tributeto Arminius, whom he declares to have been "beyond all question theliberator of Germany, " dying at thirty-seven, unconquered in war. [321]Tacitus quotes from some ancient German ballads or hymns ("the onlyhistoric monuments, " says he, "that they possess") the names of Tuisto, agod born from the earth, and Mannus, his son. Tacitus was much struck withthe physical characteristics of the race, as being so uniform. There was afamily likeness, he says, among them all, --stern blue eyes, yellow hair, large bodies. Their wealth was in their flocks and herds. "Gold and silverare kept from them by the anger, or perhaps by the favor, of Heaven. "Their rulers were elective, and their power was limited. Their judges werethe priests. They saw something divine in woman, and her judgments wereaccepted as oracles. Such women as Veleda and Aurinia were reverenced asprophets; "but not adored or made into goddesses, " says Tacitus, with aside-glance at some events at home. Their gods, Tacitus chooses to callMercury, Hercules, and Mars; but he distinctly says that the Germans hadneither idols nor temples, but worshipped in sacred groves[322]. He alsosays that the Germans divined future events by pieces of sticks, by theduel, and by the movements of sacred horses. Their leaders might decidethe less important matters, but the principal questions were settled atpublic meetings. These assemblies were held at regular intervals, wereopened by the priest, were presided over by the chief, and decided allpublic affairs. Tacitus remarks that the spirit of liberty goes to suchan extreme among the Germans as to destroy regularity and order. They willnot be punctual at their meetings, lest it should seem as if they attendedbecause commanded to come. [323] Marriage was sacred, and, unlike otherheathen nations, they were contented with one wife. They were affectionateand constant to the marriage vow, which meant to the pure German woman onehusband, one life, one body, and one soul. The ancient Germans, like theirmodern descendants, drank beer and Rhenish wine, and were divided intonumerous tribes, who afterward reappeared for the destruction of the RomanEmpire, as the Goths, Vandals, Lombards, and Franks. The Scandinavians were a branch of the great German family. Theirlanguage, the old Norse, was distinguished from the Alemannic, or HighGerman tongue, and from the Saxonic, or Low German tongue. From the Norsehave been derived the languages of Iceland, of the Ferroe Isles, ofNorway, Sweden, and Denmark. From the Germanic branch have come German, Dutch, Anglo-Saxon, Mæso-Gothic, and English. It was in Scandinavia thatthe Teutonic race developed its special civilization and religion. Cut offfrom the rest of the world by stormy seas, the people could there unfoldtheir ideas, and become themselves. It is therefore to Scandinavia that wemust go to study the German religion, and to find the influence exercisedon modern civilization and the present character of Europe. This influencehas been freely acknowledged by great historians. Montesquieu says:[324]-- "The great prerogative of Scandinavia is, that it afforded the great resource to the liberty of Europe, that is, to almost all of liberty there is among men. The Goth Jornandes calls the North of Europe the forge of mankind. I would rather call it the forge of those instruments which broke the fetters manufactured in the South. " Geijer, in his Swedish History, tells us:-- "The recollections which Scandinavia has to add to those of the Germanic race are yet the most antique in character and comparatively the most original. They offer the completest remaining example of a social state existing previously to the reception of influences from Rome, and in duration stretching onward so as to come within the sphere of historical light. " We do not know how much of those old Northern ideas may be still mingledwith our ways of thought. The names of their gods we retain in those ofour weekdays, --Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. Their popularassemblies, or Things, were the origin of our Parliament, our Congress, and our general assemblies. If from the South came the romantic admirationof woman, from the North came a better respect for her rights and thesense of her equality. Our trial by jury was immediately derived fromScandinavia; and, according to Montesquieu, as we have seen, we owe to theNorth, as the greatest inheritance of all, that desire for freedom whichis so chief an element in Christian civilization. Scandinavia proper consists of those regions now occupied by the kingdomsof Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. The geographical peculiarity of thiscountry is its proximity everywhere to the sea, and the great extent ofits coast line. The great peninsula of Sweden and Norway, with theNorthern Ocean on its west, the Baltic and Gulf of Bothnia on its east, penetrated everywhere by creeks, friths, and arms of the sea, surroundedwith innumerable islands, studded with lakes, and cleft with rivers, isalso unrivalled, except by Switzerland, in the sublime and picturesquebeauty of its mountains. The other peninsula, that of Denmark, surroundedand penetrated also everywhere by the sea, differs in being almost level;rising nowhere, at its highest point, more than a thousand feet above theocean. Containing an area of only twenty-two thousand square miles, it isso penetrated with bays and creeks as to have four thousand miles ofcoast. Like the northern peninsula, it is also surrounded with a multitudeof islands, which are so crowded together, especially on its easterncoast, as to make an archipelago. It is impossible to look at the map ofEurope, and not be struck with the resemblance in these particularsbetween its northern and southern geography. The Baltic Sea is theMediterranean of Northern Europe. The peninsula of Denmark, with itsmultitudinous bays and islands, corresponds to Greece, the Morea, and itsarchipelago. We have shown in our chapter on Greece that modern geographyteaches that the extent of coast line, when compared with the superficialarea of a country, is one of the essential conditions of civilization. Whocan fail to see the hand of Providence in the adaptation of races to thecountries they are to inhabit? The great tide of human life, flowingwestward from Central Asia, was divided into currents by the Caspian andBlack Seas, and by the lofty range of mountains which, under the name ofthe Caucasus, Carpathian Mountains, and Alps, extends almost in anunbroken line from the western coast of the Caspian to the northern limitsof Germany. The Teutonic races, Germans, Saxons, Franks, and Northmen, were thus determined to the north, and spread themselves along the coastand peninsulas of the Northern Mediterranean. The other branch of thegreat Indo-European variety was distributed through Syria, Asia Minor, Greece, Southern France, Italy, and Spain. Each of these vast Europeanfamilies, stimulated to mental and moral activity by its proximity towater, developed its own peculiar forms of national character, which wereafterwards united in modern European society. The North developedindividual freedom, the South social organization. The North gave force, the South culture. From Southern Europe came literature, philosophy, laws, arts; from the North, that respect for individual rights, that sense ofpersonal dignity, that energy of the single soul, which is the essentialequipoise of a high social culture. These two elements, of freedom andcivilization, always antagonist, have been in most ages hostile. Theindividual freedom of the North has been equivalent to barbarism, and fromtime to time has rolled down a destroying deluge over the South, almostsweeping away its civilization, and overwhelming in a common ruin arts, literature, and laws. On the other hand, civilization at the South haspassed into luxury, has produced effeminacy, till individual freedom hasbeen lost under grinding despotism. But in modern civilization a thirdelement has been added, which has brought these two powers of Northernfreedom and Southern culture into equipoise and harmony. This new elementis Christianity, which develops, at the same time, the sense of personalresponsibility, by teaching the individual destiny and worth of everysoul, and also the mutual dependence and interlacing brotherhood of allhuman society. This Christian element in modern civilization saves it fromthe double danger of a relapse into barbarism on the one hand, and a toorefined luxury on the other. The nations of Europe, to-day, which are themost advanced in civilization, literature, and art, are also the mostdeeply pervaded with the love of freedom; and the most civilized nationson the globe, instead of being the most effeminate, are also the mostpowerful. The Scandinavian people, destined to play so important a part in thehistory of the world, were, as we have said, a branch of the greatIndo-European variety. We have seen that modern ethnology teaches that allthe races which inhabit Europe, with some trifling exceptions, belong toone family, which originated in Central Asia. This has appeared and isproved by means of glossology, or the science of language. The closestresemblance exists between the seven linguistic families of Hindostan, Persia, Greece, Rome, Germany, the Kelts, and the Slavi; and it is a moststriking fact of human history, that from the earliest period of recordedtime down to the present day a powerful people, speaking a languagebelonging to one or other of these races, should have in a great measureswayed the destinies of the world. Before the birth of Christ the peninsula of Denmark was called by theRomans the Cimbric Chersonesus, or Cimbric peninsula. This name came fromthe Cimbri, a people who, one hundred and eleven years before Christ, almost overthrew the Roman Republic, exciting more terror than any eventsince the days of Hannibal. More than three hundred thousand men, issuingfrom the peninsula of Denmark and the adjacent regions, poured like atorrent over Gaul and Southern Germany. They met and overthrew insuccession four Roman armies; until, finally, they were conquered by themilitary skill and genius of Marius. After this eruption was checked, thegreat northern volcano slumbered for centuries. Other tribes fromAsia--Goths, Vandals, Huns--combined in the overthrow of the Roman Empire. At last the inhabitants of Scandinavia appear again under the name ofNorthmen, invading and conquering England in the fifth century as Saxons, in the ninth century as Danes, and in the eleventh as Normans againoverrunning England and France. But the peculiarity of the Scandinavianinvasions was their maritime character. Daring and skilful navigators, they encountered the tempests of the Northern Ocean and the heavy roll ofthe Atlantic in vessels so small and slight that they floated likeeggshells on the surface of the waves, and ran up the rivers of France andEngland, hundreds of miles, without check from shallows or rocks. In thesefragile barks they made also the most extraordinary maritime discoveries. The sea-kings of Norway discovered Iceland, and settled it A. D. 860 andA. D. 874. They discovered and settled Greenland A. D. 982 and A. D. 986. Onthe western coast of Greenland they planted colonies, where churches werebuilt, and diocesan bishoprics established, which lasted between four andfive hundred years. Finally, in A. D. 1000, they discovered, by sailingfrom Greenland, the coast of Labrador, Nova Scotia, and Massachusetts Bay;and, five hundred years before the discovery of Columbus, gathered grapesand built houses on the southern side of Cape Cod. These facts, longconsidered mythical, have been established, to the satisfaction ofEuropean scholars, by the publication of Icelandic contemporaneous annals. This remarkable people have furnished nearly the whole population ofEngland by means of the successive conquests of Saxon, Danes, and Normans, driving the Keltic races into the mountainous regions of Wales and NorthScotland, where their descendants still remain. Colonizing themselves alsoeverywhere in Northern Europe, and even in Italy and Greece, they haveleft the familiar stamp of their ideas and habits in all our moderncivilization[325]. § 2. Idea of the Scandinavian Religion. The central idea of the Scandinavian belief was the free struggle of soulagainst material obstacles, the freedom of the Divine will in its conflictwith the opposing forces of nature. The gods of the Scandinavians werealways at war. It was a system of dualism, in which sunshine, summer, andgrowth were waging perpetual battle with storm, snow, winter, ocean, andterrestrial fire. As the gods, so the people. War was their business, courage their duty, fortitude their virtue. The conflict of life withdeath, of freedom with fate, of choice with necessity, of good with evil, made up their history and destiny. This conflict in the natural world was especially apparent in thestruggle, annually renewed, between summer and winter. Therefore the lightand heat gods were their friends, those of darkness and cold theirenemies. For the same reason that the burning heat of summer, Typhon, wasthe Satan of Egypt; so in the North the Jotuns, ice-giants, were theScandinavian devils. There are some virtues which are naturally associated together, such asthe love of truth, the sense of justice, courage, and personalindependence. There is an opposite class of virtues in like mannernaturally grouped together, --sympathy, mutual helpfulness, and a tendencyto social organization. The serious antagonism in the moral world is thatof truth and love. Most cases of conscience which present a realdifficulty resolve themselves into a conflict of truth and love. It ishard to be true without hurting the feelings of others; it is hard tosympathize with others and not yield a little of our inward truth. Thesame antagonism is found in the religions of the world. The religions inwhich truth, justice, freedom, are developed tend to isolation, coldness, and hardness. On the other hand, the religions of brotherhood and humansympathy tend to weakness, luxury, and slavery. The religion of the German races, which was the natural growth of theirorganization and moral character, belonged to the first class. It was areligion in which truth, justice, self-respect, courage, freedom, were theessential elements. The gods were human, as in the Hellenic system, withmoral attributes. They were finite beings and limited in their powers. They carried on a warfare with hostile and destructive agents, in which atlast they were to be vanquished and destroyed, though a restoration of theworld and the gods would follow that destruction. Such was the idea in all the faith of the Teutonic race. The chief virtueof man was courage, his unpardonable sin was cowardice. "To fight a goodfight, " this was the way to Valhalla. Odin sent his Choosers to everybattlefield to select the brave dead to become his companions in the joysof heaven. § 3. The Eddas and their Contents. We have observed that Iceland was settled from Norway in the ninthcentury. A remarkable social life grew up there, which preserved theideas, manners, and religion of the Teutonic people in their purity formany hundred years, and whose Eddas and Sagas are the chief source of ourknowledge of the race. In this ultimate and barren region of the earth, where seas of ice make thousands of square miles desolate andimpenetrable, where icy masses, elsewhere glaciers, are here mountains, where volcanoes with terrible eruptions destroy whole regions of inhabitedcountry in a few days with lava, volcanic sand, and boiling water, wasdeveloped to its highest degree the purest form of Scandinavian life. The religion of the Scandinavians is contained in the Eddas, which aretwo, --the poetic, or elder Edda, consisting of thirty-seven poems, firstcollected and published at the end of the eleventh century; and theyounger, or prose Edda, ascribed to the celebrated Snorro Sturleson, bornof a distinguished Icelandic family in the twelfth century, who, afterleading a turbulent and ambitious life, and being twice chosen suprememagistrate, was killed A. D. 1241. The principal part of the prose Edda isa complete synopsis of Scandinavian mythology. The elder Edda, which is the fountain of the mythology, consists of oldsongs and ballads, which had come down from an immemorial past in themouths of the people, but were first collected and committed to writing bySæmund, a Christian priest of Iceland in the eleventh century. He was aBard, or Scald, as well as a priest, and one of his own poems, "TheSun-Song, " is in his Edda. This word "Edda" means "great-grandmother, " theancient mother of Scandinavian knowledge. Or perhaps this name was givento the legends, repeated by grandmothers to their grandchildren by thevast firesides of the old farm-houses in Iceland. This rhythmical Edda consists of thirty-seven poems[326]. It is in twoparts, --the first containing mythical poems concerning the gods and thecreation; the second, the legends of the heroes of Scandinavian history. This latter portion of the Edda has the original and ancient fragmentsfrom which the German Nibelungen-lied was afterward derived. These songsare to the German poem what the ante-Homeric ballad literature of Greeceabout Troy and Ulysses was to the Iliad and Odyssey as reduced to unity byHomer. The first poem in the first part of the poetic Edda is the Voluspa, orWisdom of Vala. The Vala was a prophetess, possessing vast supernaturalknowledge. Some antiquarians consider the Vala to be the same as theNornor, or Fates. They were dark beings, whose wisdom was fearful even tothe gods, resembling in this the Greek Prometheus. The Voluspa describesthe universe before the creation, in the morning of time, before the greatYmir lived, when there was neither sea nor shore nor heaven. It beginsthus, Vala speaking:-- "I command the devout attention of all noble souls, Of all the high and the low of the race of Heimdall; I tell the doings of the All-Father, In the most ancient Sagas which come to my mind. "There was an age in which Ymir lived, When was no sea, nor shore, nor salt waves; No earth below, nor heaven above, No yawning abyss and no grassy land. "Till the sons of Bors lifted the dome of heaven, And created the vast Midgard (earth) below; Then the sun of the south rose above the mountains, And green grasses made the ground verdant. "The sun of the south, companion of the moon, Held the horses of heaven with his right hand; The sun knew not what its course should be, The moon knew not what her power should be, The stars knew not where their places were. "Then the counsellors went into the hall of judgment, And the all-holy gods held a council. They gave names to the night and new moon; They called to the morning and to midday, To the afternoon and evening, arranging the times. " The Voluspa goes on to describe how the gods assembled on the field ofIda, and proceeded to create metals and vegetables; after that the race ofdwarfs, who preside over the powers of nature and the mineral world. ThenVala narrates how the three gods, Odin, Honir, and Lodur, "the mighty andmild Aser, " found Ask and Embla, the Adam and Eve of the Northern legends, lying without soul, sense, motion, or color. Odin gave them their souls, Honir their intellects, Lodur their blood and colored flesh. Then comesthe description of the ash-tree Yggdrasil, of the three Norns, or sistersof destiny, who tell the Aser their doom, and the end and renewal of theworld; and how, at last, one being mightier than all shall arrive:-- "Then comes the mighty one to the council of the gods, He with strength from on high who guides all things, He decides the strife, he puts an end to struggle, He ordains eternal laws. " In the same way, in the Song of Hyndla, another of the poems of this Edda, is a prediction of one who shall come, mightier than all the gods, and putan end to the strife between Aser and the giants. The song begins:-- "Wake, maid of maidens! Awake, my friend! Hyndla, sister, dwelling in the glens! It is night, it is cloudy; let us ride together To the sacred place, to Valhalla. " Hyndla sings, after describing the heroes and princes born of the gods:-- "One shall be born higher than all, Who grows strong with the strength of the earth; He is famed as the greatest of rulers, United with all nations as brethren. "But one day there shall come another mightier than he; But I dare not name his name. Few are able to see beyond The great battle of Odin and the Wolf. " Among the poems of the elder Edda is a Book of Proverbs, like those ofSolomon in their sagacious observations on human life and manners. It iscalled the Havamal. At first we should hardly expect to find these maximsof worldly wisdom among a people whose chief business was war. But wardevelops cunning as well as courage, and battles are won by craft no lessthan by daring. Consequently, among a warlike people, sagacity isnaturally cultivated. The Havamal contains (in its proverbial section) one hundred and tenstanzas, mostly quatrains. The following are specimens:-- 1. "Carefully consider the end Before you go to do anything, For all is uncertain, when the enemy Lies in wait in the house. 4. "The guest who enters Needs water, a towel, and hospitality. A kind reception secures a return In word and in deed. 7. "The wise man, on coming in, Is silent and observes, Hears with his ears, looks with his eyes, And carefully reflects on every event. 11. "No worse a companion can a man take on his journey Than drunkenness. Not as good as many believe Is beer to the sons of men. The more one drinks, the less he knows, And less power has he over himself. 26. "A foolish man, in company, had better be silent. Until he speaks no one observes his folly. But he who knows little does not know this, When he had better be silent. 29. "Do not mock at the stranger Who comes trusting in your kindness; For when he has warmed himself at your fire, He may easily prove a wise man. 34. "It is better to depart betimes, And not to go too often to the same house. Love tires and turns to sadness When one sits too often at another man's table. 35. "One's own house, though small, is better, For there thou art the master. It makes a man's heart bleed to ask For a midday meal at the house of another. 36. "One's own house, though small, is better; At home thou art the master. Two goats and a thatched roof Are better than begging. 38. "It is hard to find a man so rich As to refuse a gift. It is hard to find a man so generous As to be always glad to lend. 42. "Is there a man whom you distrust, And who yet can help you? Be smooth in words and false in thought, And pay back his deceit with cunning. 48. "I hung my garments on two scarecrows, And, when dressed, they seemed Ready for the battle. Unclothed they were jeered at by all. 52. "Small as a grain of sand Is the small sense of a fool; Very unequal is human wisdom. The world is made of two unequal halves. 53. "It is well to be wise; it is not well To be too wise. He has the happiest life Who knows well what he knows. 54. "It is well to be wise; not well To be too wise. The wise man's heart is not glad When he knows too much. 55. "Two burning sticks placed together Will burn entirely away. Man grows bright by the side of man; Alone, he remains stupid. " Such are the proverbs of the Havamal. This sort of proverbial wisdom mayhave come down from the days when the ancestors of the Scandinavians leftCentral Asia. It is like the fables and maxims of the Hitopadesá. [327] Another of these poems is called Odin's Song of Runes. Runes were theScandinavian alphabet, used for lapidary inscriptions, a thousand of whichhave been discovered in Sweden, and three or four hundred in Denmark andNorway, mostly on tombstones. This alphabet consists of sixteen letters, with the powers of F, U, TH, O, R, K, H, N, I, A, S, T, B, L, M, Y. Theletters R, I, T, and B very nearly resemble the Roman letters of the samevalues. A magical power was ascribed to these Runes, and they were carvedon sticks and then scraped off, and used as charms. These rune-charms wereof different kinds, eighteen different sorts are mentioned in this song. A song of Brynhilda speaks of different runes which she will teach Sigurd. "_Runes of victory_ must those know, to conquer thine enemies. They mustbe carved on the blade of thy sword. _Drink-Runes_ must thou know to makemaidens love thee. Thou must carve them on thy drinking horn. _Runes offreedom_ must thou know to deliver the captives. _Storm-Runes_ must thouknow, to make thy vessel go safely over the waves. Carve them on the mastand the rudder. _Herb-Runes_ thou must know to cure disease. Carve them onthe bark of the tree. _Speech-Runes_ must thou know to defeat thine enemyin council of words, in the Thing. _Mind-Runes_ must thou know to havegood and wise thoughts. These are the Book-Runes, and Help-Runes, andDrink-Runes, and Power-Runes, precious for whoever can use them. " The second part of the poetic Edda contains the stories of the old heroes, especially of Sigurd, the Achilles of Northern romance. There is also theSong of Volund, the Northern Smith, the German Vulcan, able to make swordsof powerful temper. These songs and ballads are all serious and grave, andsometimes tender, having in them something of the solemn tone of the oldGreek tragedy. The prose Edda, as we have said, was the work of Snorro Sturleson, born inIceland in 1178[328]. He probably transcribed most of it from themanuscripts in his hands, or which were accessible to him, and from theoral traditions which had been preserved in the memory of the Skalds. Hisother chief work was the Heimskringla, or collection of Saga concerningthe history of the Scandinavians. In his preface to this last book he sayshe "wrote it down from old stories told by intelligent people"; or from"ancient family registers containing the pedigrees of kings, " or from "oldsongs and ballads which our fathers had for their amusement" The prose Edda begins with "The deluding of Gylfi, " an ancient king ofSweden. He was renowned for his wisdom and love of knowledge, anddetermined to visit Asgard, the home of the Æsir, to learn something ofthe wisdom of the gods. They, however, foreseeing his coming, preparedvarious illusions to deceive him. Among other things, he saw threethrones raised one above another. "He afterwards beheld three thrones raised one above another, with a man sitting on each of them. Upon his asking what the names of these lords might be, his guide answered: 'He who sits on the lowest throne is a king; his name is Har (the High or Lofty One); the second is Jafnhar (i. E. Equal to the High); but he who sitteth on the highest throne is called Thridi (the Third). ' Har, perceiving the stranger, asked him what his errand was, adding that he should be welcome to eat and drink without cost, as were all those who remained in Háva Hall. Gangler said he desired first to ascertain whether there was any person present renowned for his wisdom. "'If thou art not the most knowing, ' replied Har, 'I fear thou wilt hardly return safe. But go, stand there below, and propose thy questions; here sits one who will be able to answer them. ' "Gangler thus began his discourse: 'Who is the first, or eldest of the gods?' "'In our language, ' replied Har, 'he is called Alfadir (All-Father, or the Father of All); but in the old Asgard he had twelve names. ' "'Where is this God?' said Gangler; 'what is his power? and what hath he done to display his glory?' "'He liveth, ' replied Har, 'from all ages, he governeth all realms, and swayeth all things great and small. ' "'He hath formed, ' added Jafnhar, 'heaven and earth, and the air, and all things thereunto belonging. ' "'And what is more, ' continued Thridi, 'he hath made man, and given him a soul which shall live and never perish, though the body shall have mouldered away, or have been burnt to ashes. And all that are righteous shall dwell with him in the place called Gimli, or Vingólf; but the wicked shall go to Hel, and thence to Niflhel, which is below, in the ninth world. '" Of the creation of the world the Eddas thus speak: In the day-spring ofthe ages there was neither seas nor shore nor refreshing breeze; there wasneither earth below nor heaven above. The whole was only one vast abyss, without herb and without seas. The sun had no palace, the stars no place, the moon no power. After this there was a bright shining world of flame tothe South, and another, a cloudy and dark one, toward the North. Torrentsof venom flowed from the last into the abyss, and froze, and filled itfull of ice. But the air oozed up through it in icy vapors, which weremelted into living drops by a warm breath from the South; and from thesecame the giant Ymir. From him came a race of wicked giants. Afterward, from these same drops of fluid seeds, children of heat and cold, came themundane cow, whose milk fed the giants. Then arose also, in a mysteriousmanner, Bor, the father of three sons, Odin, Vili, and Ve, who, afterseveral adventures, --having killed the giant Ymir, and made out of hisbody Heaven and Earth, --proceeded to form a man and woman named Ask andEmbla. Chaos having thus disappeared, Odin became the All-Father, creatorof gods and men, with Earth for his wife, and the powerful Thor for hisoldest son. So much for the cosmogony of the Edda. On this cosmogony, we may remark that it belongs to the class ofdevelopment, or evolution, but combined with a creation. The Hindoo, Gnostic, and Platonic theories suppose the visible world to have emanatedfrom God, by a succession of fallings, from the most abstract spirit tothe most concrete matter. The Greeks and Romans, on the contrary, supposeall things to have come by a process of evolution, or development from anoriginal formless and chaotic matter. The resemblance between the Greekaccount of the origin of gods and men and that of the Scandinavians isstriking. Both systems begin in materialism, and are radically opposed tothe spiritualism of the other theory; and in its account of the origin ofall things from nebulous vapors and heat the Edda reminds us of the modernscientific theories on the same subject. After giving this account of the formation of the world, of the gods, andthe first pair of mortals, the Edda next speaks of night and day, of thesun and moon, of the rainbow bridge from earth to heaven, and of the greatAsh-tree where the gods sit in council. Night was the daughter of agiant, and, like all her race, of a dark complexion. She married one ofthe Æsir, or children of Odin, and their son was Day, a child light andbeautiful, like its father. The Sun and Moon were two children, the Moonbeing the boy, and the Sun the girl; which peculiarity of gender stillholds in the German language. The Edda gives them chariot and horses withwhich to drive daily round the heavens, and supposes their speed to beoccasioned by their fear of two gigantic wolves, from Jotunheim, or theworld of darkness, which pursue them. The rainbow is named Bifrost, wovenof three hues, and by this, as a bridge, the gods ride up every day toheaven from the holy fountain below the earth. Near this fountain dwellthree maidens, below the great Ash-tree, who decide every man's fate. These Fates, or Norns, are named Urd, Verdandi, and Skuld, --three wordsmeaning "past, " "present, " and "future. " From Urd comes our word "weird, "and the weird sisters of Shakespeare. The red in the rainbow is burningfire, which prevents the frost-giants of Jotunheim from going up toheaven, which they otherwise might do. This region of the gods is calledAsgard, and contains Valhalla, where they feast every day, with all heroeswho have died in battle; drinking mead, but not out of their enemies'skulls, as has been so often said. This mistake modern scholars haveattributed to a mistranslation of a word in the original, which means"curved horns, " the passage being, "Soon shall we drink ale out of thecurved branches of the skull, " that is, of an animal. Their food is theflesh of a boar, which is renewed every day. It is not to be supposed that Odin and the other gods lived quietly ontheir Olympus without adventures. Many entertaining ones are narrated inthe Edda, had we room to tell them. One of these describes the death ofBaldur the Good, whom all beings loved. Having been tormented with baddreams, indicating that his life was in danger, he told them to theassembled gods, who made all creatures and things, living or dead, take anoath to do him no harm. This oath was taken by fire and water, iron andall other metals, stones, earths, diseases, poisons, beasts, birds, andcreeping things. After this, they amused themselves at their meeting insetting Baldur up as a mark; some hurling darts or shooting arrows at him, and some cutting at him with swords and axes; and as nothing hurt him, itwas accounted a great honor done to Baldur. But wicked Loki, or Loke, wasenvious at this; and, assuming the form of a woman, he inquired of thegoddess who had administered the oath, whether all things had taken it. She said everything except one little shrub called mistletoe, which shethought too young and feeble to do any harm. Therefore Loki got themistletoe, and, bringing it to one of the gods, persuaded him to throw itat Baldur, who, pierced to the heart, fell dead. The grief was immense. Anespecial messenger was despatched to Queen Hela, in Hell, to inquire if, on any terms, Baldur might be ransomed. For nine days and nights he rodethrough dark chasms till he crossed the river of Death, and entering thekingdom of Hela, made known his request. Hela replied that it should nowbe discovered whether Baldur was so universally loved as was represented;for that she would permit him to return to Asgard if all creatures and allthings, without exception, would weep for him. The gods then despatchedmessengers through the world to beg all things to weep for Baldur, whichthey immediately did. Then you might have seen, not only crocodiles butthe most ferocious beasts dissolved in tears. Fishes wept in the water, and birds in the air. Stones and trees were covered with pelluciddew-drops, and, for all we know, this general grief may have been theoccasion of some of the deluges reported by geology. The messengersreturned, thinking the work done, when they found an old hag sitting in acavern, and begged her to weep Baldur out of Hell. But she declared thatshe could gain nothing by so doing, and that Baldur might stay where hewas, like other people as good as he; planting herself apparently on thegreat but somewhat selfish principle of non-intervention. So Baldurremains in the halls of Hela. But this old woman did not go unpunished. She was shrewdly suspected to be Loki himself in disguise, and on inquiryso it turned out. Whereupon a hot pursuit of Loki took place, who, afterchanging himself into many forms, was caught, and chained undersharp-pointed rocks below the earth. The adventures of Thor are very numerous. The pleasantest, perhaps, is theaccount of his journey to Jotunheim, to visit his enemies, the giants ofCold and Darkness. On his way, being obliged to pass the night in theforest, he came to a spacious hall, with an open door, reaching from oneside to the other. In this he went to sleep, but being aroused by an awfulearthquake, Thor and his companions crept into a chamber which opened outof the hall. When day came they found, sleeping near them, an enormousgiant, so large, that, as it appeared, they had passed the night in thethumb of his glove. They travelled with him all day; and the next nightThor considered himself justified in killing this giant, who was one oftheir enemies. Three times he launched his mallet with fearful force atthe giant's head, and three times the giant awoke to inquire whether itwas a leaf or an acorn which had fallen on his face. After taking leave oftheir enormous and invulnerable companion, they arrived at the abodes ofJotunheim, and the city of Utgard, and entered the city of the king, Utgard Loki. This king inquired what great feat Thor and his companionscould do. One professed to be a great eater; on which the king of giantscalled one of his servants named Logi, and placed between them a troughfilled with meat. Thor's companion ate his share, but Logi ate meat andbone too, and the trough into the bargain, and was considered to haveconquered. Thor's other companion was a great runner, and was set to runwith a young man named Hugi, who so outstripped him that he reached thegoal before the other had gone half-way. Then Thor was asked what he coulddo himself. He said he would engage in a drinking-match, and was presentedwith a large horn, and was requested to empty it at a single draught, which he expected easily to do, but on looking in the liquor seemedscarcely diminished. The second time he tried, and lowered it slightly. Athird, and it was still only sunk half an inch. Whereupon he was laughedat, and called for some new feat. "We have a trifling game here, "answered the king, "in which we exercise none but children. It is merelyto lift my cat from the ground. " Thor put forth his whole might, but couldonly lift up one foot, and was laughed at again. Angry at this, he calledfor some one to wrestle with him. "My men, " said King Utgard, "would thinkit beneath them to wrestle with thee, but let some one call my old nurseEld, and let Thor wrestle with her. " A toothless old woman entered thehall, and after a violent struggle Thor began to lose his footing, andwent home excessively mortified. But it turned out afterward that all thiswas illusion. The three blows of the mallet, instead of striking thegiant's head, had fallen on a mountain, which he had dexterously putbetween, and made three deep ravines in it, which remain to this day. Thetriumphant eater was Fire itself, disguised as a man. The successfulrunner was Thought. The horn out of which Thor tried to drink wasconnected with the ocean, which was lowered a few inches by his tremendousdraughts. The cat was the great Midgard Serpent, which goes round theworld, and Thor had actually pulled the earth a little way out of itsplace; and the old woman was Old Age itself[329]. According to this mythology, there is coming a time in which the worldwill be destroyed by fire and afterward renewed. This will be, preceded byawful disasters; dreadful winters; wars, and desolations on earth; crueltyand deceit; the sun and moon will be devoured, the stars hurled from thesky, and the earth violently shaken. The Wolf (Fenrir), the awful MidgardSerpent, Loki, and Hela come to battle with the gods. The great Ash-treewill shake with fear. The Wolf (Fenrir) breaks loose, and opens hisenormous mouth. The lower jaw reaches to the earth, and the upper toheaven. The Midgard Serpent, by the side of the Wolf, vomits forth floodsof poison. Heaven is rent in twain, and Surtur and the sons of Muspellride through the breach. These are the children of Light and Fire, whodwell in the South, and who seem to belong neither to the race of gods norto that of giants, but to a third party, who only interfere at the closeof the conflict. While the battle goes on between the gods and the giantsthey keep their effulgent bands apart on the field of battle. MeantimeHeimdall--doorkeeper of the gods--sounds his mighty trumpet, which isheard through the whole universe, to summon the gods to conflict. Thegods, or Æsir, and all the heroes of Valhalla, arm themselves and go tothe field. Odin fights with the Wolf; Thor with the Midgard Serpent, whomhe kills, but being suffocated with the floods of venom dies himself. TheWolf swallows Odin, but at that instant Vidar sets his foot on its lowerjaw, and laying hold of the upper jaw tears it apart. He accomplishes thisbecause he has on the famous shoe, the materials of which have beencollecting for ages, it being made of the shreds of shoe-leather which arecut off in making shoes, and which, on this account, the religiousScandinavians were careful to throw away. Loki and Heimdall fight and killeach other. After this Surtur darts fire over the whole earth, and thewhole universe is consumed. But then comes the restitution of all things. There will rise out of the sea a new heaven and a new earth. Two gods, Vidar and Vali, and two human beings, a man and woman, survive theconflagration, and with their descendants occupy the heavens and earth. The suns of Thor come with their father's hammer and put an end to war. Baldur, and Hodur, the blind god, come up from Hell, and the daughter ofthe Sun, more beautiful than its mother, occupies its place in the skies. § 4. The Gods of Scandinavia. We can give no better account of the Norse pantheon than by extracting thepassages from the prose Edda, which describe the gods. We take thetranslation in Mallet's Northern Antiquities:-- "OF ODIN. "'I must now ask thee, ' said Gangler, 'who are the gods that men are bound to believe in?' "'There are twelve gods, ' replied Har, 'to whom divine honors ought to be rendered. ' "'Nor are the goddesses, ' added Jafhhar, 'less divine and mighty. ' "'The first and eldest of the Æsir, ' continued Thridi, 'is Odin. He governs all things, and although the other deities are powerful, they all serve and obey him as children do their father. Frigga is his wife. She foresees the destinies of men, but never reveals what is to come. For thus it is said that Odin himself told Loki, "Senseless Loki, why wilt thou pry into futurity? Frigga alone knoweth the destinies of all, though she telleth them never. "' "'Odin is named Alfadir (All-father), because he is the father of all the gods, and also Valfadir (Choosing Father), because he chooses for his sons all those who fall in combat. For their abode he has prepared Valhalla and Vingólf, where they are called Einherjar (Heroes or Champions). Odin is also called Hangagud, Haptagud, and Farmagud, and, besides these, was named in many ways when he went to King Geirraudr. '. .. . "OF THOR. "'I now ask thee, ' said Gangler, 'what are the names of the other gods? What are their functions, and what have they brought to pass?' "'The mightiest of them, ' replied Har, 'is Thor. He is called Asa-Thor and Auku-Thor, and is the strongest of gods and men. His realm is named Thrúdváng, and his mansion Bilskirnir, in which are five hundred and forty halls. It is the largest house ever built. Thus it is called in the Grímnismál:-- "Fire hundred halls And forty more, Methinketh, hath Bowed Bilskirnir. Of houses roofed There's none I know My son's surpassing. " "'Thor has a car drawn by two goats called Tanngnióst and Tanngrisnir. From his driving about in this car he is called Auku-Thor (Charioteer-Thor). He likewise possesses three very precious things. The first is a mallet called Mjölnir, which both the Frost and Mountain Giants know to their cost when they see it hurled against them in the air; and no wonder, for it has split many a skull of their fathers and kindred. The second rare thing he possesses is called the belt of strength or prowess (Megingjardir). When he girds it about him his divine might is doubly augmented; the third, also very precious, being his iron gauntlets, which he is obliged to put on whenever he would lay hold of the handle of his mallet. There is no one so wise as to be able to relate all Thor's marvellous exploits, yet I could tell thee so many myself that hours would be whiled away ere all that I know had been recounted. ' "OF BALDUR. "'I would rather, ' said Gangler, 'hear something about the other Æsir. ' "'The second son of Odin, ' replied Har, 'is Baldur, and it may be truly said of him that he is the best, and that all mankind are loud in his praise. So fair and dazzling is he in form and features, that rays of light seem to issue from him; and thou mayst have some idea of the beauty of his hair when I tell thee that the whitest of all plants is called Baldur's brow. Baldur is the mildest, the wisest, and the most eloquent of all the Æsir, yet such is his nature that the judgment he has pronounced can never be altered. He dwells in the heavenly mansion called Breidablik, in which nothing unclean can enter. As it is said, -- "'T is Breidablik called, "Where Baldur the Fair Hath built him a bower, In that land where I know The least loathliness lieth. "' "OF NJÖRD. "'The third god, ' continued Har, 'is Njörd, who dwells in the heavenly region called Noátún. He rules over the winds, and checks the fury of the sea and of fire, and is therefore invoked by seafarers and fishermen. He is so wealthy that he can give possessions and treasures to those who call on him for them. Yet Njörd is not of the lineage of the Æsir, for he was born and bred in Vanaheim. But the Vanir gave him as hostage to the Æsir, receiving from them in his stead Hoenir. By this means was peace re-established between the Æsir and Vanir. Njörd took to wife Skadi, the daughter of the giant Thjassi. She preferred dwelling in the abode formerly belonging to her father, which is situated among rocky mountains, in the region called Thrymheim, but Njörd loved to reside near the sea. They at last agreed that they should pass together nine nights in Thrymheim, and then three in Noátún. One day, when Njörd came back from the mountains to Noatun, he thus sang:-- "Of mountains I'm weary, Not long was I there, Not more than nine nights; But the howl of the wolf Methought sounded ill To the song of the swan-bird. " '"To which Skadi sang in reply:-- "Ne'er can I sleep In my couch on the strand, For the screams of the sea-fowl. The mew as he comes Every morn from the main Is sure to awake me. " "'Skadi then returned to the rocky mountains, and abode in Thrymheim. There, fastening on her snow-skates and taking her bow, she passes her time in the chase of savage beasts, and is called the Ondur goddess, or Ondurdís. .. .. ' "OF THE GOD FREY, AND THE GODDESS FREYJA. "'Njörd had afterwards, at his residence at Nóatún, two children, a son named Frey, and a daughter called Freyja, both of them beauteous and mighty. Frey is one of the most celebrated of the gods. He presides over rain and sunshine, and all the fruits of the earth, and should be invoked in order to obtain good harvests, and also for peace. He, moreover, dispenses wealth among men. Freyja is the most propitious of the goddesses; her abode in heaven is called Fólkváng. To whatever field of battle she rides, she asserts her right to one half of the slain, the other half belonging to Odin. .. .. ' "OF TYR. "'There is Tyr, who is the most daring and intrepid of all the gods. 'T is he who dispenses valor in war, hence warriors do well to invoke him. It has become proverbial to say of a man who surpasses all others in valor that he is _Tyr-strong_, or valiant as Tyr. A man noted for his wisdom is also said to be "wise as Tyr. " Let me give thee a proof of his intrepidity. When the Æsir were trying to persuade the wolf, Fenrir, to let himself be bound up with the chain, Gleipnir, he, fearing that they would never afterwards unloose him, only consented on the condition that while they were chaining him he should keep Tyr's right hand between his jaws. Tyr did not hesitate to put his hand in the monster's mouth, but when Fenrir perceived that the Æsir had no intention to unchain him, he bit the hand off at that point, which has ever since been called the wolf's joint (úlflidr). From that time Tyr has had but one hand. He is not regarded as a peacemaker among men. ' "OF THE OTHER GODS. "'There is another god, ' continued Har, 'named Bragi, who is celebrated for his wisdom, and more especially for his eloquence and correct forms of speech. He is not only eminently skilled in poetry, but the art itself is called from his name _Bragr_, which epithet is also applied to denote a distinguished poet or poetess. His wife is named Iduna. She keeps in a box the apples which the gods, when they feel old age approaching, have only to taste of to become young again. It is in this manner that they will be kept in renovated youth until Ragnarök. .. .. "'One of the gods is Heimdall, called also the White God. He is the son of nine virgins, who were sisters, and is a very sacred and powerful deity. He also bears the appellation of the Gold-toothed, on account of his teeth being of pure gold, and also that of Hallinskithi. His horse is called Gulltopp, and he dwells in Himinbjörg at the end of Bifröst. He is the warder of the gods, and is therefore placed on the borders of heaven, to prevent the giants from forcing their way over the bridge. He requires less sleep than a bird, and sees by night, as well as by day, a hundred miles around him. So acute is his ear that no sound escapes him, for he can even hear the grass growing on the earth, and the wool on a sheep's back. He has a horn called the Gjallar-horn, which is heard throughout the universe. .. .. "'Among the Æsir, ' continued Har, 'we also reckon Hödur, who is blind, but extremely strong. Both gods and men would be very glad if they never had occasion to pronounce his name, for they will long have cause to remember the deed perpetrated by his hand. "'Another god is Vidar, surnamed the Silent, who wears very thick shoes. He is almost as strong as Thor himself, and the gods place great reliance on him in all critical conjunctures. "'Vali, another god, is the son of Odin and Rinda; he is bold in war, and an excellent archer. "'Another is called Ullur, who is the son of Sif, and stepson of Thor. He is so well skilled in the use of the bow, and can go so fast on his snow-skates, that in these arts no one can contend with him. He is also very handsome in his person, and possesses every quality of a warrior, wherefore it is befitting to invoke him in single combats. "'The name of another god is Forseti, who is the son of Baldur and Nanna, the daughter of Nef. He possesses the heavenly mansion called Glitnir, and all disputants at law who bring their cases before him go away perfectly reconciled. .. .. ' "OF LOKI AND HIS PROGENY. "'There is another deity, ' continued Har, 'reckoned in the number of the Æsir, whom some call the calumniator of the gods, the contriver of all fraud and mischief, and the disgrace of gods and men. His name is Loki or Loptur. He is the son of the giant Farbauti. .. .. Loki is handsome and well made, but of a very fickle mood, and most evil disposition. He surpasses all beings in those arts called Cunning and Perfidy. Many a time has he exposed the gods to very great perils, and often extricated them again by his artifices. .. .. "'Loki, ' continued Har, 'has likewise had three children by Angurbodi, a giantess of Jötunheim. The first is the wolf Fenrir; the second Jormungand, the Midgard serpent; the third Hela (Death). The gods were not long ignorant that these monsters continued to be bred up in Jötunheim, and, having had recourse to divination, became aware of all the evils they would have to suffer from them; their being sprung from such a mother was a bad presage, and from such a sire, one still worse. All-father therefore deemed it advisable to send one of the gods to bring them to him. When they came he threw the serpent into that deep ocean by which the earth is engirdled. But the monster has grown to such an enormous size that, holding his tail in his mouth, he encircles the whole earth. Hela he cast into Niflheim, and gave her power over nine worlds (regions), into which she distributes those who are sent to her, that is to say, all who die through sickness or old age. Here she possesses a habitation protected by exceedingly high walls and strongly barred gates. Her hall is called Elvidnir; Hunger is her table; Starvation, her knife; Delay, her man; Slowness, her maid; Precipice, her threshold; Care, her bed; and Burning Anguish forms the hangings of her apartments. The one half of her body is livid, the other half the color of human flesh. She may therefore easily be recognized; the more so, as she has a dreadfully stern and grim countenance. "'The wolf Fenrir was bred up among the gods; but Tyr alone had the daring to go and feed him. Nevertheless, when the gods perceived that he every day increased prodigiously in size, and that the oracles warned them that he would one day become fatal to them, they determined to make a very strong iron fetter for him, which they called Læding. Taking this fetter to the wolf, they bade him try his strength on it. Fenrir, perceiving that the enterprise would not be very difficult for him, let them do what they pleased, and then, by great muscular exertion, burst the chain, and set himself at liberty. The gods, having seen this, made another fetter, half as strong again as the former, which they called Drómi, and prevailed on the wolf to put it on, assuring him that, by breaking this, he would give an undeniable proof of his vigor. "'The wolf saw well enough that it would not be so easy to break this fetter, but finding at the same time that his strength had increased since he broke Læding, and thinking that he could never become famous without running some risk, voluntarily submitted to be chained. When the gods told him that they had finished their task, Fenrir shook himself violently, stretched his limbs, rolled on the ground, and at last burst his chains, which flew in pieces all around him. He thus freed himself from Drómi, which gave rise to the proverb "_at leysa or læðingi eða at drepa or dróma_" (to get loose out of Læding, or to dash out of Drómi), when anything is to be accomplished by strong efforts. ' "'After this, the gods despaired of ever being able to bind the wolf; wherefore All-father sent Skirnir, the messenger of Frey, into the country of the Dark Elves (Svartálfaheim) to engage certain dwarfs to make the fetter called Gleipnir. It was fashioned out of six things; to wit, the noise made by the footfall of a cat; the beards of women; the roots of stones; the sinews of bears; the breath of fish; and the spittle of birds. Though thou mayest not have heard of these things before, thou mayest easily convince thyself that we have not been telling thee lies. Thou must have seen that women have no beards, that cats make no noise when they run, and that there are no roots under stones. Now I know what has been told thee to be equally true, although there may be some things thou art not able to furnish a proof of. ' "'I believe what thou hast told me to be true, ' replied Gangler, 'for what thou hast adduced in corroboratiou of thy statement is conceivable. But how was the fetter smithied?' "'This I can tell thee, ' replied Har, 'that the fetter was as smooth and soft as a silken string, and yet, as thou wilt presently hear, of very great strength. When it was brought to the gods they were profuse in their thanks to the messenger for the trouble he had given himself; and taking the wolf with them to the island called Lyngvi, in the Lake Amsvartnir, they showed him the cord, and expressed their wish that he would try to break it, assuring him at the same time that it was somewhat stronger than its thinness would warrant a person in supposing it to be. They took it themselves, one after another, in their hands, and after attempting in vain to break it, said, "Thou alone, Fenrir, art able to accomplish such a feat. " "'"Methinks, " replied the wolf, "that I shall acquire no fame in breaking such a slender cord; but if any artifice has been employed in making it, slender though it seems, it shall never come on my feet. " "'The gods assured him that he would easily break a limber silken cord, since he had already burst asunder iron fetters of the most solid construction. "But if thou shouldst not succeed in breaking it, " they added, "thou wilt show that thou art too weak to cause the gods any fear, and we will not hesitate to set thee at liberty without delay. " "'"I fear me much, " replied the wolf, "that if ye once bind me so fast that I shall be unable to free myself by my own efforts, ye will be in no haste to unloose me. Loath am I, therefore, to have this cord wound round me; but in order that ye may not doubt my courage, I will consent, provided one of you put his hand into my mouth as a pledge that ye intend me no deceit. " "'The gods wistfully looked at each other, and found that they had only the choice of two evils, until Tyr stepped forward and intrepidly put his right hand between the monster's jaws. Hereupon the gods, having tied up the wolf, he forcibly stretched himself, as he had formerly done, and used all his might to disengage himself, but the more efforts he made, the tighter became the cord, until all the gods, except Tyr, who lost his hand, burst into laughter at the sight. "'When the gods saw that the wolf was effectually bound, they took the chain called Gelgja, which was fixed to the fetter, and drew it through the middle of a large rock named Gjöll, which they sank very deep into the earth; afterwards, to make it still more secure, they fastened the end of the cord to a massive stone called Thviti, which they sank still deeper. The wolf made in vain the most violent efforts to break loose, and, opening his tremendous jaws, endeavored to bite them. The gods, seeing this, thrust a sword into his mouth, which pierced his under jaw up to the hilt, so that the point touched the palate. He then began to howl horribly, and since that time the foam flows continually from his mouth in such abundance that it forms the river called Von. There will he remain until Ragnarök. '" There are also goddesses in the Valhalla, of whom the Edda mentionsFrigga, Saga, and many others. § 5. Resemblance of the Scandinavian Mythology to that of Zoroaster. These are the main points of the Scandinavian mythology, the resemblanceof which to that of Zoroaster has been often remarked. Each is a dualism, having its good and evil gods, its worlds of light and darkness, inopposition to each other. Each has behind this dualism a dim presence, avague monotheism, a supreme God, infinite and eternal. In each the evilpowers are for the present conquered and bound in some subterraneanprisons, but are hereafter to break out, to battle with the gods andovercome them, but to be destroyed themselves at the same time. Eachsystem speaks of a great conflagration, in which all things will bedestroyed; to be followed by the creation of a new earth, more beautifulthan the other, to be the abode of peace and joy. The duty of man in eachsystem is war, though this war in the Avesta is viewed rather as moralconflict, while in the Edda it is taken more grossly for physicalstruggle. The tone of the theology of Zoroaster is throughout higher andmore moral than that of the Scandinavians. Its doctrine of creation is nota mere development by a dark, unintelligent process, nor, on the otherhand, is it a Hindoo or Gnostic system of emanation. It is neither purematerialism on the one hand nor pantheism on the other; but a truedoctrine of creation, for an intelligent and moral purpose, by theconscious and free act of the Creator. But in many of the details, again, we find a singular correspondence between these two systems. Odincorresponds to Ormazd, Loki to Ahriman, the Æsir to the Amschaspands, thegiants of Jótunheim to the Daêvas. So too the ox (Adudab) is theequivalent of the giant Ymir, and the creation of the man and woman, Meshia and Meshiane, is correlated to Ask and Embla. Baldur resembles theRedeemer Sosiosh. The bridge, Bifrost, which goes up to heaven, is thebridge Chinevat, which goes from the top of Albordj to heaven. The dogSirius (Sura), the watchman who keeps guard over the abyss, seems also tocorrespond to Surtur, the watchman of the luminous world at the South. Theearth, in the Avesta, is called Hethra, and by the ancient Germans andScandinavians, Hertha, --the name given by Tacitus to this goddess, signifying the earth, in all the Teutonic languages. In like manner, theGerman name for heaven, Himmel, is derived from the Sanskrit word"Himmala, " the name of the Himmalah Mountains in Central Asia, believed bythe ancient inhabitants of Asia to be the residence of their gods[330]. § 6. Scandinavian Worship. The religious ceremonies of the Scandinavians were simple. Their worship, like that of the followers of Zoroaster, was at first held in the openair; but in later times they erected temples, some of which were quitesplendid. There were three great festivals in the year. The first was atthe winter solstice, and on the longest night of the year, which wascalled the Mother Night, as that which produced the rest. This great feastwas called Yul, whence comes the English Yule, the old name for Christmas, which festival took its place when the Scandinavians became Christians. Their festival was in honor of the sun, and was held with sacrifices, feasting, and great mirth. The second festival was in spring, in honor ofthe earth, to supplicate fruitful crops. The third was also in the spring, in honor of Odin. The sacrifices were of fruits, afterward animals, andoccasionally, in later times, human beings. The people believed in divineinterposition, and also in a fixed destiny, but especially in themselves, in their own force and courage. Some of them laughed at the gods, somechallenged them to fight with them, and professed to believe in nothingbut their own might and main. One warrior calls for Odin, as a foemanalone worthy of his steel, and it was considered lawful to fight the gods. The quicken-tree, or mountain-ash, was believed to possess great virtues, on account of the aid it afforded to Thor on one occasion. Beside the priests, the Northern nations had their soothsayers. They alsobelieved that by the power of runes the dead could be made to speak. Theserunes were called galder, and another kind of magic, mostly practised bywomen, was called seid. It was thought that these wise women possessed thepower of raising and allaying storms, and of hardening the body so thatthe sword could not cut it. Some charms could give preternatural strength, others the power of crossing the sea without a ship, of creating anddestroying love, of assuming different forms, of becoming invisible, ofgiving the evil eye. Garments could be charmed to protect or to destroythe wearer. A horse's head, set on a stake, with certain imprecations, produced fearful mischief to a foe. [331] Very few remains of temples have been found in the North. But (as Laingremarks in his "Sea-Kings of Norway") the most permanent remains of thereligion of Odin are found in the usages and languages of the descendantsof those who worshipped him. These descendants all retain, in the names ofWednesday, Thursday, and Friday, the recollections of the chief gods ofthis mythology. Mara (the nightmare) still torments the sleep of theEnglish-speaking people; and the Evil One, Nokke (so says Laing), is theancestor of Old Nick. Every ninth year solemn sacrifices were held in the great temple at Upsalin Sweden. The king and all citizens of importance must appear in personand bring offerings. Crowds came together on these occasions, and no onewas excluded, except for some base or cowardly action. Nine human beingswere sacrificed, usually captives or slaves, but in times of greatcalamity even a king was made a victim. Earl Hakon, of Norway, offered hisson in sacrifice to obtain a victory over some pirates. The bodies wereburied in groves, which thence were regarded as very sacred. One, calledOdin's grove, near the temple of Upsal, was sacred in every twig and leaf. § 7. Social Character, Maritime Discoveries, and Political Institutions ofthe Scandinavians. Of the manners, customs, and habits of the Scandinavians, we cannot speakat length. Society among them was divided into two classes, --thelandholder or bondsmen, and the thralls or slaves. The duty of the lastwas to perform domestic service and till the ground, and they consisted ofprisoners taken in war and their children. The business of the landholderor bondsman was war, and his chief virtue courage. His maxim was, toconquer a single opponent, to attack two, not to yield to three, and onlyto give way to four. To die in battle was their high ambition; then theybelieved that they should pass to the halls of Odin. King Ragnar diedsinging the pleasure of receiving death in battle, saying, "The hours ofmy life have passed away; I shall die laughing. " Saxo, describing a duel, said that one of the champions fell, laughed, and died. Rather than die intheir bed, some, when sick, leaped from a rock into the sea. Others, whendying, would be carried into a field of battle. Others induced theirfriends to kill them. The Icelandic Sagas are filled with stories ofsingle combats, or _holm-gangs_. When not fighting they were fond offeasting; and the man who could drink the most beer was counted the best. The custom of drinking toasts came from the North. As the English give theQueen, and we the President, as the first health on public occasions, sothey begin with a cup, first to Odin, and afterward to other deities, andthen to the memory of the dead, in what was called grave-beer. Theirinstitutions were patriarchal; the head of the family was the chief of thetribe and also its priest. But all the freemen in a neighborhood met inthe Thing, where they decided disputes, laid down social regulations, anddetermined on public measures. The Thing was, therefore, legislature, court of justice, and executive council in one; and once a year, in somecentral place, there was held a similar meeting to settle the affairs ofthe whole country, called the Land-Thing or All-Thing. At this the kingwas chosen for the whole community, who sometimes appointed subordinateofficers called Yarls, or earls, to preside over large districts. Respectfor women was a marked trait among the Scandinavians, as Tacitus hasnoticed of their congeners, the Germans. They were admired for theirmodesty, sense, and force of character, rather than for the fascinationswhich the nations of the South prefer. When Thor described his battle withthe sorceress, the answer was, "Shame, Thor! to strike a woman!" The wifewas expected to be industrious and domestic. She carried the keys of thehouse; and the Sagas frequently mention wives who divorced their husbandsfor some offence, and took back their dowry. The Skalds, or Bards, had ahigh place and great distinction among this people. Their songsconstituted the literature and history of the Scandinavians, and thepeople listened, not as to the inspiration of an individual mind, but tothe pulsation of its own past life. Their praises were desired, theirsatire feared, by the greatest heroes and kings. Their style wasfigurative, sometimes bombastic, often obscure. Of the maritime expeditions of the Northmen we have already spoken. Formany centuries they were the terror of Europe, North and South. Thesea-kings of Norway appeared before Constantinople in 866, and afterward abody-guard of the emperors of the East was composed of these pirates, whowere called the Varangians. Even before the death of Charlemagne theirdepredations brought tears to his eyes; and after his death they pillagedand burnt the principal cities of France, and even his own palace atAix-la-Chapelle. They carried their arms into Spain, Italy, and Greece. In844 a band of these sea-rovers sailed up the Guadalquiver and attackedSeville, then in possession of the Moors, and took it, and afterwardfought a battle with the troops of Abderahman II. The followers ofMohammed and the worshippers of Odin, the turbaned Moors and thefair-haired Norwegians, here met, each far from his original home, eachhaving pursued a line of conquest, which thus came in contact at theirfurthest extremes. The Northmen in Italy sold their swords to different princes, and underCount Rainalf built the city of Aversa in 1029[332]. In Sicily theNorthern knights defeated the Saracens, and enabled the Greek Emperor toreconquer the island. Afterward they established themselves in SouthernItaly, and took possession of Apulia. A league formed against them by theGreek and German Emperors and the Pope ended in the utter defeat of thePapal and German army by three thousand Normans, and they afterwardreceived and held Apulia as a Papal fief. In 1060 Robert Guiscard becameDuke of Apulia and Calabria, and at last of the whole kingdom of Naples. Sicily was conquered by his brother, Count Roger, who, with a fewNorthmen, routed vast numbers of the Saracens and completed the subjectionof the island, after thirty years of war. Meantime his brother Robertcrossed the Adriatic and besieged and took Durazzo, after a fierce battle, in which the Scandinavian soldiers of the Greek Emperor fought with theNormans descended from the same Scandinavian ancestors. § 8. Relation of this System to Christianity. The first German nation converted to Christianity was that of the Goths, whose teacher was Ulphilas, born 318, consecrated a bishop in 348. Havingmade many converts to Christianity among his people, a persecution aroseagainst them from the pagan Goths; and in 355, in consequence of thispersecution, he sought and obtained leave to settle his converts in Mæsia. He preached with fervor, studied the Scripture in Greek and Latin, andmade the first translation of the Bible into any German language. Fragments of his Gothic version are preserved at Upsal. This copy, calledthe "Codex Argenteus, " was captured by the Swedes at Prague during theThirty Years' War. This manuscript is of the sixth century, and, togetherwith some palimpsests, is the only source of our knowledge of this ancientversion[333]. Ulphilas was an Arian, and died confessing his faith in that form ofUnitarianism. Neander says it is to the credit of the orthodox historiansthat they do not on that account abate anything of their praise ofUlphilas for his great labors as a missionary, confessor, and doctor. Histranslation was, for a long time, used all over Europe by the varioustribes of German descent. Ulphilas, therefore, led the way in that work which resulted in one of thegreatest events of modern history; namely, the conversion of the Germanrace to Christianity. It was by various families of this Teutonicstem--Goths, Vandals, Saxons, Lombards, Burgundians, Franks--that theRoman Empire was overthrown. If they had not been converted toChristianity before and during these conquests, what would have been thefate of European civilization? The only bond uniting the modern andancient world was the Christian faith, and this faith was so adapted tothe German character that it was everywhere accepted by them[334]. Theconversion of the Anglo-Saxons by Augustin (A. D. 597), of the Germans byBoniface (A. D. 718-755), of the Saxons (A. D. 803), and the universaldownfall of German heathenism, was a condition _sine qua non_ of thatunion of Latin and Greek culture with the German vitality, which was atthe root of modern European civilization. Previous to this the Visigothswere converted, as we have seen; then the Ostrogoths; then the Vandals andGepidæ, --all in the fourth century. The Franks became Christians in thefifth century, the Alemanni and Lombards in the sixth. All of these tribeswere converted by Arian missionaries, except the Franks. But the recordsof these missions have perished, for the historians were Catholics, "who, "says Milman[335], "perhaps destroyed, or disdained to preserve, the fameof Arian conquests to a common Christianity. " "It was a surprisingspectacle, " says he, "to behold the Teutonic nations melting graduallyinto the general mass of Christian worshippers. In every other respectthey were still distinct races. The conquering Ostrogoth or Visigoth, theVandal, the Burgundian, the Frank, stood apart from the subjugated Romanpopulation, as an armed or territorial aristocracy. They maintain, ingreat part at least, their laws, their language, their habits, theircharacter; in religion alone they are blended into one society, constituteone church, worship at the same altar, and render allegiance to the samehierarchy. This is the single bond of their common humanity. " The German races also established everywhere the feudal system, thatcurious institution, which has been the subject of so much discussion, andhas perplexed the readers of history by its incongruities. Theseperplexities, however, may perhaps be relieved if we see that theessential character of this institution was this, that it was an armypermanently quartered on a subject people. This definition contains theexplanation of the whole system. The Germans had overrun and conquered theRoman Empire. They intended to possess and retain it. But being much fewerin numbers than the conquered people, how could they do this? Suppose thatwhen the Confederate States had been conquered by the Union Army it hadbeen determined to hold them permanently as a conquered territory. Itcould be done thus. First, the original inhabitants must be disarmed andput under stringent laws, like that of the curfew, etc. Then to everyprivate soldier in the Union Army a farm, say of fifty acres, would beassigned, on condition that whenever summoned by the captain of hiscompany he would present himself armed to do military duty. In like mannerthe captain would receive, say a hundred acres, on condition of appearingwith his company when summoned by his colonel. Then the colonel wouldreceive five hundred acres, on condition of appearing with his regimentwhen summoned by the general. The general (_dux_, duke) must appear withhis brigade when summoned by the commander-in-chief (_imperator_, emperor), and he would hold perhaps a thousand acres on this condition. All this land, thus held on condition of military service, would be heldin fee, and would exemplify the actual foundation of the whole feudalsystem, which was simply an arrangement by which a conquering army couldhold down the conquered nation. Of course, such a system as this was one of tyranny and cruelty, andduring several centuries it was tempered and softened only by themediatorial influence of the Christian Church. This was the only powerstrong enough to shield the oppressed and to hold back the arm of thetyrant. Feudalism served, no doubt, some useful purposes. It was a methodof riveting together, with iron nails, the conquerors and conquered, untilthey could come into a union of a better kind. It was about the year 1000 that the people of the North were converted toChristianity. This process of conversion was a long time going on, andthere were several relapses into paganism; so that no precise time can befixed for the conversion of a single nation, much less for that of thedifferent branches of the Scandinavian stock separately situated in Swedenand Denmark, Iceland and Greenland, and colonized in England and Normandy. A mission was established in Denmark, A. D. 822, and the king was baptized;but the overthrow of this Christian king restricted the labors of themissionary. An attempt was made in Sweden in 829, and the missionary, Anschar, remained there a year and a half; but the mission thereestablished was soon overthrown. Uniting wisdom with his ardor, Anscharestablished at Hamburg schools where he educated Danish and Swedish boysto preach Christianity in their own language to their countrymen. But theNormans laid waste this city, and the Christian schools and churches weredestroyed. About 850 a new attempt was made in Sweden, and there thesubject was laid by the king before his council or parliament, consistingof two assemblies, and they decided to allow Christianity to be preachedand practised, apparently on the ground that this new god, Christ, mighthelp them in their dangers at sea, when the other gods could not. Andthus, according to the independent character of this people, Christianitywas neither allowed to be imposed upon them by their king against theirwill, nor excluded from the use of those who chose to adopt it. It tookits chance with the old systems, and many of the Danes and Normansbelieved in worshipping both Odin and Christ at the same time. King Haroldin Denmark, during the last half of the tenth century, favored the spreadof Christianity, and was himself baptized with his wife and son, believingat first that the Christian God was more powerful than the heathen gods, but finally coming to the conclusion that these last were only evilspirits. On the other hand, some of the Danes believed that Christ was agod, and to be worshipped; but that he was a less powerful god than Odinor Thor. The son of King Harold, in 990, returned to paganism and droveout the Christian priests; but his son, Canute the Great, who began toreign in 1014, was converted to Christianity in England, and became itszealous friend. But these fierce warriors made rather poor Christians. Adam of Bremen says: "They so abominate tears and lamentations, and allother signs of penitence which we think so salubrious, that they willneither weep for their own sins nor at the death of their best friends. "Thus, in these Northern regions, Christianity grew through one or twocenturies, not like the mustard-seed, but like the leaven, infusing itselfmore and more into their national life. According to the testimony of aneye-witness, Adam of Bremen, the Swedes were very susceptible to religiousimpressions. "They receive the preachers of the truth with greatkindness, " says he, "if they are modest, wise, and able; and our bishopsare even allowed to preach in their great public assemblies. " In Norway, Prince Hacon, in the middle of the tenth century, attempted to establishChristianity, which he had learned in England. He proposed to the greatnational assembly that the whole nation should renounce idolatry, worshipGod and Christ, keep Sundays as festivals, and Fridays as fasts. Greatopposition was made, and there was danger of universal insurrection, sothat the king had to yield, and even himself drink a toast to Odin and eathorse-flesh, which was a heathen practice. Subsequent kings of Norwayintroduced Christianity again; but the people, though willing to bebaptized, frequently continued Pagans, and only by degrees renounced, withtheir old worship, their habits of piracy. The Icelanders embracedChristianity at their All-Thing in the year 1000, but with the conditionthat they might also continue their old worship, and be permitted theeating of horse-flesh and exposition of infants. When the All-Thing brokeup, the assembled multitudes went to the hot-baths to be baptized, preferring for this rite hot water to cold. The Scandinavians seem at thisperiod to have lost their faith in their old religion, and to have been ina transition state. One warrior says that he relies more on his ownstrength and arms than upon Thor. Another says, "I would have thee knowthat I believe neither in idols nor spirits, but only in my own force andcourage. " A warrior told King Olaff in Norway, "I am neither Christian norPagan. My companions and I have no other religion than confidence in ourown strength and good success. " Evidently Christianity for a long time satvery lightly on these nations. They were willing to be baptized and acceptsome of the outward ceremonies and festivals of the Catholic Church, whichwere considerately made to resemble their old ones. Nevertheless Christianity met many of the wants of this noble race of men;and, on the other hand, their instincts as a race were as well adapted topromote an equal development of every side of Christian life. The Southernraces of Europe received Christianity as a religion of order; the Northernraces, as a religion of freedom. In the South of Europe the CatholicChurch, by its ingenious organization and its complex arrangements, introduced into life discipline and culture. In the North of EuropeProtestant Christianity, by its appeals to the individual soul, awakensconscience and stimulates to individual and national progress. The nationsof Southern Europe accepted Christianity mainly as a religion of sentimentand feeling; the nations of Northern Europe, as a religion of truth andprinciple. God adapted Christianity to the needs of these Northern races;but he also adapted these races, with their original instincts and theirprimitive religion, to the needs of Christianity. Without them, we do notsee how there could be such a thing in Europe to-day as Protestantism. Itwas no accident which made the founder of the Reformation a Saxon monk, and the cradle of the Reformation Germany. It was no accident whichbrought the great Gustavus Adolphus from the northern peninsula, at thehead of his Swedish Protestants, to turn the tide of war in favor ofProtestantism and to die on the field of Lutzen, fighting for freedom ofspirit. It is no accident which makes the Scandinavian races to-day, inSweden and Norway, in Denmark and North Germany and Holland, in Englandand the United States, almost the only Protestant nations of the world. The old instincts still run in the blood, and cause these races to ask oftheir religion, not so much the luxury of emotion or the satisfaction ofrepose, in having all opinions settled for them and all actionsprescribed, as, much rather, light, freedom, and progress. To themto-day, as to their ancestors, "Is life a simple art Of duties to be done, A game where each man takes his part, A race where all must run; A battle whose great scheme and scope They little care to know; Content, as men at arms, to cope Each with his fronting foe. " Chapter X. The Jewish Religion. § 1. Palestine, and the Semitic Races. § 2. Abraham; or, Judaism as the family Worship of a Supreme Being. § 3. Moses; or, Judaism as the national Worship of a just and holy King. § 4. David; or, Judaism as the personal Worship of a Father and Friend. § 5. Solomon; or, the Religious Relapse. § 6. The Prophets; or, Judaism as the Hope of a spiritual and universal Kingdom of God. § 7. Judaism as a Preparation for Christianity. § 1. Palestine, and the Semitic Races. Palestine is a word equivalent to Philistia, or the land of thePhilistines. A similar name for the coast region of Syria has been foundon a monument in Nineveh, [336] and at Karnak in Egypt. [337] Josephus andPhilo use the term "Palestine, " as applying to the Philistines; and theaccurate learning of Milton appears in his using it in the samesense. [338] "The land of Canaan, " "The land of Israel, " and "Judæa" werethe names afterward given to the territory of the children of Israel. Itis a small country, like others as famous; for it is only about onehundred and forty English miles in length, and forty in width. Itresembles Greece and Switzerland, not only in its small dimensions, but bybeing composed of valleys, separated by chains of mountains and by rangesof hills. It was isolated by the great sea of sand on the east, and theMediterranean on the west. Sharply defined on the east, west, and south, it stretches indefinitely into Syria on the north. It is a hilly, high-lying region, having all the characters of Greece except proximity tothe sea, and all those of Switzerland except the height of the mountains. Its valleys were well watered and fertile. They mostly ran north andsouth; none opened a way across, Judæa to the Mediterranean. Thisgeographical fact assisted in the isolation of the country. Two greatroutes of travel passed by its borders without entering its hills. On thewest the plains of Philistia were the highway of the Assyrian and Egyptianarmies. On the north the valley of the Orontes, separated by the chain ofLebanon from Palestine, allowed the people of Asia a free passage to thesea. So, though surrounded by five great nations, all idolatrous, --theBabylonians, Medes, Assyrians, Phoenicians, and Egyptians, --the people ofJudæa were enabled to develop their own character and institutions withoutmuch interference from without. Inaccessible from the sea, and surrounded, like the Swiss, by the natural fortifications of their hills, like theSwiss they were also protected by their poverty from spoilers. But beingat the point of contact of three continents, they had (like theMahommedans afterwards) great facilities for communicating their religiousideas to other nations. Palestine is so small a country that from many points the whole of it maybe overlooked[339]. Toward the east, from all points, may be seen the highplateau of Moab and the mountains of Gilead. Snow-capped Hermon is alwaysvisible on the north. In the heart of the land rises the beautifulmountain Tabor, clothed with vegetation to its summit. It is almost aperfect cone, and commands the most interesting view in all directions. From its top, to which you ascend from Nazareth by a path which Jesus mayhave trod, you see to the northeast the lofty chain of Hermon (Jebel esSheikh = the Captain) rising into the blue sky to the height of tenthousand feet, covered with eternal snow. West of this appears the chainof Lebanon. At the foot of Tabor the plain of Esdraelon extends northerly, dotted with hills, and animated with the camps of the Arabs[340]. The Lakeof Galilee gleams, a silver line, on the east, with Bashan and themountains of Gilead in the distance, and farther to the southeast thegreat plateau of Moab rises like a mountain wall beyond the Jordan. Thevalley of the Jordan itself, sunk far below the level of theMediterranean, is out of sight in its deep valley; nor is anything seen ofthe Dead Sea. To the northwest rises rocky Carmel, overhanging the Bay ofAccha (or Acre), on the Mediterranean. The whole country stands high. Hebron, at the south, is three thousandfeet above the level of the sea; Jerusalem is twenty-six hundred; theMount of Olives, twenty-seven hundred; and Ebal and Gerizim in Samaria, the same. The valley in which Nazareth stands is eight hundred and twentyfeet above the sea; that at the foot of Tabor, four hundred andthirty-nine; while the summit of Tabor itself is seventeen hundred andfifty. From Judæa the land plunges downward very rapidly toward the eastinto the valley of Jordan. The surface of Lake Galilee is already fivehundred and thirty-five feet below that of the Mediterranean, and that ofthe Dead Sea is five hundred feet lower down. [341] Palestine is thereforea mountain fastness, and most of the waves of war swept by, leaving ituntouched and unassailed. From Jerusalem to Jericho the distance is onlythirteen miles, but the latter place is a thousand feet lower than theformer, so that it was very proper to speak of a man's "going down fromJerusalem to Jericho. " The Jews belonged to what has been called the Semitic race. This family, the only historic rival of the Japhetic (or Aryan) race, is ethnologicallycomposed of the Assyrians and Babylonians, the Phoenicians, the Hebrewsand other Syrian tribes, the Arabs and the Carthaginians. It is a racewhich has been great on land and at sea. In the valley of the Euphratesand that of the Tigris its sons carried all the arts of social life to thehighest perfection, and became mighty conquerors and warlike soldiers. Onthe Mediterranean their ships, containing Phoenician navigators, exploredthe coasts, made settlements at Carthage and Cadiz, and sailing out of theStraits of Gibraltar went as far north as Great Britain, andcircumnavigated Africa two thousand years before Vasco da Gama. This racehas given to man the alphabet, the Bible, the Koran, commerce, and inHannibal the greatest military genius of all time. That the different nations inhabiting the region around the Euphrates andTigris, Syria and Arabia, belonged to one great race, is proved by theunimpeachable testimony of language. The Bible genealogies trace them toShem, the son of Noah. Ewald, [342] who believes that this region wasinhabited by an aboriginal people long before the days of Abraham, --apeople who were driven out by the Canaanites, --nevertheless says that theyno doubt were a Semitic people. The languages of all these nations isclosely related, being almost dialects of a single tongue, the differencesbetween them being hardly greater than between the subdivisions of theGerman group of languages. [343] That which has contributed to preserve theclose homogeneity among these tongues is, that they have little power ofgrowth or development. As M. Renan says, "they have less lived thanlasted. "[344] The Phoenicians used a language almost identical with the Hebrew. Asarcophagus of Ezmunazar, king of Sidon, dating from the fifth centurybefore Christ, was discovered a few years since, and is now in the Museumof the Louvre. It contains some thirty sentences of the length of anaverage verse in the Bible, and is in pure Hebrew. [345] In a play ofPlautus[346] a Carthaginian is made to speak a long passage in his nativelanguage, the Punic tongue; this is also very readable Hebrew. The blackbasalt stele, lately discovered in the land of Moab, contains aninscription of Mesha, king of Moab, addressed to his god, Chemosh, describing his victory over the Israelites. This is also in a Hebrewdialect. From such facts it appears that the Hebrews, Phoenicians, andCanaanites were all congeners with each other, and with the Babyloniansand Assyrians. But now the striking fact appears that the Hebrew _religion_ differedwidely from that of these other nations of the same family. The Assyrians, Babylonians, Phoenicians, and Carthaginians all possessed a nearlyidentical religion. They all believed in a supreme god, called by thedifferent names of Ilu, Bel, Set, Hadad, Moloch, Chemosh, Jaoh, El, Adon, Asshur. All believed in subordinate and secondary beings, emanations fromthis supreme being, his manifestations to the world, rulers of theplanets. Like other pantheistic religions, the custom prevailed among theSemitic nations of promoting first one and then another deity to be thesupreme object of worship. Among the Assyrians, as among the Egyptians, the gods were often arranged in triads, as that of Ann, Bel, and Ao. Anu, or Cannes, wore the head of a fish; Bel wore the horns of a bull; Ao wasrepresented by a serpent. These religions represented the gods as thespirit within nature, and behind natural objects and forces, --powerswithin the world, rather than above the world. Their worship combinedcruelty and licentiousness, and was perhaps as debasing a superstition asthe world has witnessed. The Greeks, who were not puritans themselves intheir religion, were shocked at the impure orgies of this worship, andhorrified at the sacrifice of children among the Canaanites andCarthaginians. How then did the Hebrews, under Moses and the later prophets, originate asystem so widely different? Their God was above nature, not in it. Hestood alone, unaccompanied by secondary deities; he made no part of atriad; he was not associated with a female representative. His worshiprequired purity, not pollution; its aim was holiness, and its spirithumane, not cruel. Monotheistic in its spirit from the first, it became anabsolute monotheism in its development. Whence this wide departure in theHebrews from the religious tendencies and belief of the surroundingnations, who spoke the same language and belonged to the same stock? M. Renan considers this a question of race. [347] He says: "TheIndo-European race, distracted by the variety of the universe, never byitself arrived at monotheism. The Semitic race, on the other hand, guidedby its firm and sure sight, instantly unmasked Divinity, and withoutreflection or reasoning attained the purest form of religion that humanityhas known. " But the Assyrians, Babylonians, Arabians before Mohammed, Phoenicians, and Carthaginians, and perhaps the Egyptians, belonged to theSemitic race. Yet none of these nations attained to any monotheism purerthan that of the Veda or the Avesta. The Arabs, near relations of theHebrews, were divided between a worship like that of Babylon and Sabæism, or star-worship. No doubt in all these Semitic families the idea of onesupreme god lay behind that of the secondary deities; but this was alsothe case in the Aryan races. And in both this primitive monotheism recededinstead of becoming more distinct, with the single exception of theHebrews. M. Renan's view is not, therefore, supported by the facts. Wemust look further to find the true cause, and therefore are obliged toexamine somewhat in detail the main points of Hebrew history. It would beeasy, but would not accord with our plan, to accept the common Christianexplanation, and say, "Monotheism was a direct revelation to Moses. " Forwe are now not able to assume such a revelation, and are obliged toconsider the subject from the outside, from the stand-point of purehistory. § 2. Abraham; or, Judaism as the family Worship of a Supreme Being. We have been so accustomed to regard the Jewish religion as a part of ourown, and so to look at it from within, that it is hard to take thehistoric position, and to look at it from without. But to compare it withother religions, and to see what it really is and is not, this isnecessary. It becomes more difficult to assume the attitude of animpartial observer, because of the doctrine of verbal inspiration, souniversally taught in the Protestant Church. From childhood we have lookedon the Old Testament as inspired throughout, and all on the same level ofabsolute infallibility. There is no high, no low, no degrees of certitudeor probability, where every word is assumed to be the very word of God. But those who still hold to the plenary inspiration of the Old Testamentmust consent, for our present purpose, to suspend their faith in thisdoctrine, and provisionally to look at the Old Testament with the sameimpartial though friendly scrutiny with which we have regarded the sacredbooks of other nations. Not a little will be gained for the JewishScriptures by this position. If they lose the authority which attaches tothe Word of God, they will gain the interest which belongs to theutterance of man. While M. Renan finds the source of Hebrew monotheism in a like tendency inthe whole Semitic race, --a supposition which we have seen to becontradicted by the facts, --Max Müller regards the true origin of thistendency to be in Abraham himself, the friend of God, and Father of theFaithful. He calls attention to the fact that both Moses and Christ, andsubsequently Mohammed, preached no new God, but the God of Abraham. "Thus, " says he, "the faith in the one living God, which seemed to requirethe admission of a monotheistic instinct grafted in every member of theSemitic family, is traced back to one man. " He adds his belief that thisfaith of Abraham in one supreme God came to him by a special revelation. And if, by a special revelation, is meant a grand profound insight, aninspired vision of truth, so deep and so living as to make it a realitylike that of the outward world, then we see no better explanation of themonotheism of the Hebrews than this conviction transmitted from Abrahamthrough father and son, from generation to generation. For the most curious fact about this Jewish people is, that every one ofthem[348] is a child of Abraham. All looked back with the same ancestralpride to their great progenitor, the friend of God. This has never beenthe case with any other nation, for the Arabs are not a nation. One canhardly imagine a greater spur to patriotism than this union of pride ofdescent with pride in one's nation and its institutions. The proudest andpoorest Jew shared it together. There was one distinction, and that themost honorable, which belonged equally to all. We have seen that, in all the Semitic nations, behind the numerous divinebeings representing the powers of nature, there was dimly visible oneSupreme Being, of whom all these were emanations. The tendency to losesight of this First Great Cause, so common in the race, was reversed inAbraham. His soul rose to the contemplation of the Perfect Being, aboveall, and the source of all. With passionate love he adored this Most HighGod, Maker of heaven and earth. Such was his devotion to this AlmightyBeing, that men, wondering, said, "Abraham is the friend of the Most HighGod!" He desired to find a home where he could bring up his children inthis pure faith, undisturbed and unperverted by the gross and low worshiparound him. In some "deep dream or solemn vision" it was borne in on hismind that he must go and find such a home. We are not to suppose, however, that the mind of Abraham rose to a clearconception of the unity of God, as excluding all other divine beings. Theidea of local, tribal, family gods was too deeply rooted to be at oncerelinquished. Abraham, as described in Genesis, is a great Arab chief, atype of patriarchal life, in which all authority is paternal. The religionof such a period is filial, and God is viewed as the protector and friendof the family or tribe. Only the family God of Abraham was the highest ofall gods, the Almighty (Gen. Xvii. 1), who was also the God of Isaac (Gen. Xxviii. 3) and of Jacob (Gen. Xxxv. 11). Stanley[349] expresses his satisfaction that the time has past in whichthe most fastidious believer can object to hearing Abraham called aBedouin sheik. The type has remained unchanged through all the centuries, and the picture in the Bible of Abraham in his tent, of his hospitality, his self-respect, his courage, and also of his less noble traits, occasional cunning and falsehood, and cruelty toward Hagar andIshmael, --these qualities, good and bad, are still those of the desert. Only in Abraham something higher and exceptional was joined with them. In the Book of Genesis Abraham enters quite abruptly upon the scene. Hisgenealogy is given in Genesis (chap, xi. ), he being the ninth in descentfrom Shem, each generation occupying a little more than thirty years. Thebirth of Abraham is usually placed somewhere about two thousand yearsbefore Christ. His father's name was Terah, whom the Jewish and Mohammedantraditions describe as an idolater and maker of idols. He had twobrothers, Nahor and Haran; the latter being the father of Lot, and theother, Nahor, being the grandfather of Rebecca, wife of Isaac. Abraham'sfather, Terah, lived in Ur of the Chaldees (called in Scripture Casdim). The Chaldees, who subsequently inhabited the region about the PersianGulf, seemed at first to have lived among the mountains of Armenia, at thesource of the Tigris; and this was the region where Abraham was born, aregion now occupied by the people called Curds, who are perhapsdescendants of the old Chaldees, the inhabitants of Ur. The Curds areMohammedans and robbers, and quite independent, never paying taxes to thePorte. The Chaldees are frequently mentioned in Scripture and in ancientwriters. Xenophon speaks of the Carduchi as inhabitants of the mountainsof Armenia, and as making incursions thence to plunder the country, justas the Curds do now. He says they were found there by the younger Cyrus, and by the ten thousand Greeks. The Greeks, in their retreat, were obligedto fight their way through them, and found them very skilful archers. Sodid the Romans under Crassus and Mark Antony. And so are they described bythe Prophet Habakkuk (chap, i. 6-9):-- "For lo, I raise up the Chaldeans, A bitter and hasty nation, Which marches far and wide in the earth, To possess the dwellings that are not theirs. They are terrible and dreadful, Their decrees and their judgments proceed only from themselves. Swifter than leopards are their horses, And fiercer than the evening wolves. Their horsemen prance proudly around; And their horsemen shall come from afar and fly, Like the eagle when he pounces on his prey. They all shall come for violence, In troops, --their glance is ever forward! They gather captives like the sand!" As they were in the time of Habakkuk, so are they to-day. Shut up on everyside in the Persian Empire, their ancestors, the Carduchi, refusedobedience to the great king and his satraps, just as the Curds refuse toobey the grand seignior and his pashas. They can raise a hundred and fortythousand armed men. They are capable of any undertaking. Mohammed himselfsaid, "They would yet revolutionize the world. " The ancient Chaldees seem to have been fire-worshippers, like thePersians. They were renowned for the study of the heavens and the worshipof the stars, and some remains of Persian dualism still linger among theirdescendants, who are accused of Devil-worship by their neighbors. That Abraham was a real person, and that his story is historicallyreliable, can hardly be doubted by those who have the historic sense. Suchpictures, painted in detail with a Pre-Raphaelite minuteness, are not ofthe nature of legends. Stories which are discreditable to his character, and which place him in a humiliating position towards Pharaoh andAbimelech, would not have appeared in a fictitious narrative. The mythicalaccounts of Abraham, as found among the Mohammedans and in theTalmud, [350] show, by their contrast, the difference between fable andhistory. The events in the life of Abraham are so well known that it is notnecessary even to allude to them. We will only refer to one, as showingthat others among the tribes in Palestine, besides Abraham, had a faith inGod similar to his. This is the account of his meeting with Melchisedek. This mysterious person has been so treated by typologists that all humanmeaning has gone out of him, and he has become, to most minds, a veryvapory character. [351] But this is doing him great injustice. One mistake often made about him is, to assume that "Melchisedek, King ofSalem, " gives us the name and residence of the man, whereas both are hisofficial titles. His name we do not know; his office and title hadswallowed it up. "King of Justice and King of Peace, "--this is hisdesignation. His office, as we believe, was to be umpire among the chiefsof neighboring tribes. By deciding the questions which arose among them, according to equity, he received his title of "King of Justice. " By thuspreventing the bloody arbitrament of war, he gained the other name, "Kingof Peace. " All questions, therefore, as to where "Salem" was, fall to theground. Salem means "peace"; it does not mean the place of his abode. But in order to settle such intertribal disputes, two things werenecessary: first, that the surrounding Bedouin chiefs should agree to takehim as their arbiter; and, secondly, that some sacredness should attach tohis character, and give authority to his decisions. Like others in thosedays, he was both king and priest; but he was priest "of the Most HighGod, "--not of the local gods of the separate tribes, but of the highestGod, above all the rest. That he was the acknowledged arbiter ofsurrounding tribes appears from the fact that Abraham paid to him tithesout of the spoils. It is not likely that Abraham did this if there were noprecedent for it; for he regarded the spoils as belonging, not to himself, but to the confederates in whose cause he fought. No doubt it was thecustom, as in the case of Delphi, to pay tithes to this supreme arbiter;and in doing so Abraham was simply following the custom. The Jewishtraveller, Wolff, states that in Mesopotamia a similar custom prevails atthe present time. One sheik is selected from the rest, on account of hissuperior probity and piety, and becomes their "King of Peace andRighteousness. " A similar custom, I am told, prevails among some Americantribes. Indeed, where society is organized by clans, subject to localchiefs, some such arrangement seems necessary to prevent perpetual feuds. This "King of Justice and Peace" gave refreshments to Abraham and hisfollowers after the battle, blessing him in the name of the Most High God. As he came from no one knows where, and has no official status or descent, the fact that Abraham recognized him as a true priest is used in the Bookof Psalms and the Epistle to the Hebrews to prove there is a truepriesthood beside that of the house of Levi. A priest after the order ofMelchisedek is one who becomes so by having in him the true faith, thoughhe has "no father nor mother, beginning of days nor end of life, " that is, no genealogical position in an hereditary priesthood. The God of Abraham was "The Most High. " He was the family God of Abraham'stribe and of Abraham's descendants. Those who should worship other godswould be disloyal to their tribe, false to their ancestors, and must beregarded as outlaws. Thus the faith in a Supreme Being was firstestablished in the minds of the descendants of Abraham by family pride, reverence for ancestors, and patriotic feeling. The faith of Abraham, thathis God would give to his descendants the land of Palestine, and multiplythem till they should be as numerous as the stars or the sand, was thatwhich made him the Father of the Faithful. The faith of Abraham, as we gather it from Genesis, was in God as aSupreme Being. Though almighty, God was willing to be Abraham's personalprotector and friend. He talks with Abraham face to face. He comes to him, and agrees to give to him and to his posterity the land of Canaan, and inthis promise Abraham has entire faith. His monotheism was indeed of animperfect kind. It did not exclude a belief in other gods, though theywere regarded as inferior to his own. His family God, though almighty, wasnot omnipresent. He came down to learn whether the rumors concerning thesinfulness of Sodom were correct or not. He was not quite sure ofAbraham's faith, and so he tested it by commanding him to sacrifice Isaac, in whom alone the promise to Abraham's descendants could be fulfilled. Butthough the monotheism of Abraham was of so imperfect a kind, it had in itthe root of the better kind which was to come. It was imperfect, but notfalse. It was entire faith in the supreme power of Jehovah to do what hewould, and in his disposition to be a friend to the patriarch and hisposterity. It was, therefore, trust in the divine power, wisdom, andgoodness. The difference between the religion of Abraham and that of thepolytheistic nations was, that while they descended from the idea of aSupreme Being into that of subordinate ones, he went back to that of theSupreme, and clung to this with his whole soul. § 3. Moses; or, Judaism as the national Worship of a just and holy King. In speaking of Moses and of his law, it may be thought necessary to beginby showing that such a man as Moses really existed; for modern criticismhas greatly employed itself in questioning the existence of great men. Asthe telescope resolves stars into double, triple, and quadruple stars, andfinally into star-dust, so the critics, turning their optical tubes towardthat mighty orb which men call Homer, have declared that they haveresolved him into a great number of little Homers. The same process hasbeen attempted in regard to Shakespeare. Some have tried to show thatthere never was any Shakespeare, but only many Shakespeare writers. Inlike manner, the critics have sought to dissolve Moses with their powerfulanalysis, and, instead of Moses, to give us a number of fragmentarywritings from different times and hands, skilfully joined together; infact, instead of Moses, to give us a mosaic. Criticism substitutes humantendencies in the place of great men, does not love to believe in genius, and often appears to think that a number of mediocrities added togethercan accomplish more than one man of genius. Certainly this is a mistake. The easiest and most natural solution ofwonderful results is the supposition of genius, inspiration, heroism, astheir cause. Great men explain history. Napoleon explains the history ofEurope during a quarter of a century. Suppose a critic, a thousand yearshence, should resolve Napoleon into half a dozen Napoleons; would theyexplain the history of Europe as well? Given a man like Napoleon, and wecan understand the French campaigns in Italy and Germany, the overthrow ofAustria, the annihilation of Prussia, the splendid host of field-marshals, the Bonaparte circle of kings, the Codex, the Simplon Road, and the manychanges of states and governments on the map of Europe. One man of geniusexplains it all. But take away the man of genius, and substitute a groupof small men in his place, and the thing is much more obscure andunintelligible. So, given Moses, the man of genius and inspiration, and wecan understand the Exodus, understand the Jewish laws, understand thePentateuch, and understand the strange phenomenon of Judaism. But, insteadof Moses, given a mosaic, however skilfully put together, and the thing ismore difficult. Therefore, Moses is to be preferred to the mosaic, as themore reasonable and probable of the two, just as Homer is preferable tothe Homerids, and Shakespeare to the Shakespeare Club. [352] We find in Moses the three elements of genius, inspiration, andknowledge. Perhaps it is not difficult to distinguish them. We see thenatural genius and temperament of Moses breaking out again and againthroughout his career, as the rocky strata underlying the soil crop out inthe midst of gardens, orchards, and fields of corn. The basis of hisnature was the hardest kind of rock, with a surging subterranean fire ofpassion beneath it. An awful soul, stem and terrible as Michael Angeloconceived him, the sublime genius carving the sublime lawgiver incongenial marble. The statue is as stern as law itself. It sits in one ofthe Roman churches, between two columns, the right hand grasping thetables of the law, the symbolic horns of power protruding from the brow, and the austere look of the judge bent upon those on the left hand. Afiery nature, an iron will, a rooted sense of justice, were strangelyoverflowed and softened by a tenderness toward his race, which was not somuch the feeling of a brother for brethren as of a parent for children. Educated in the house of Pharaoh, and adopted by his daughter as herchild, taken by the powerful and learned priesthood of Egypt into theirranks, and sharing for many years their honors and privileges, his heartyearned toward his brethren in the land of Goshen, and he went out to seethem in their sufferings and slavery. His impetuous nature broke out insudden indignation at the sight of some act of cruelty, and he smote theoverseer who was torturing the Jewish slave. That act made him an exile, and sent him to live in Arabia Petrea, as a shepherd. If he had thoughtonly of his own prospects and position, he would not have gone near theIsraelites at all, but lived quietly as an Egyptian priest in the palaceof Pharaoh. But, as the writer to the Hebrews says, he "refused, to becalled the son of Pharaoh's daughter; choosing rather to suffer afflictionwith the people of God than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for aseason. "[353] Another instance of his generous and tender feelings towardhis nation is seen in his behavior when the people made the golden calf. First, his anger broke out against them, and all the sternness of thelawgiver appeared in his command to the people to cut down theiridolatrous brethren; then the bitter tide of anger withdrew, and that oftenderness took its place, and he returned into the mountain to the Lordand said, "O, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them godsof gold. Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, Ipray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written. " Moses did not makemuch account of human life. He struck dead the Egyptian who wasill-treating a Jew; he slew the Jews who turned to idolatry; he slew theMidianites who tempted them; but then he was ready to give up his own lifetoo for the sake of his people and for the sake of the cause. This spiritof Moses pervades his law, this same inconsistency went from his characterinto his legislation; his relentless severity and his tender sympathy bothappear in it. He knows no mercy toward the transgressor, but toward theunfortunate he is full of compassion. His law says, "Eye for eye, toothfor tooth, hand for hand, burning for burning, stripe for stripe. " But italso says, "Ye shall neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him, for ye werestrangers in the land of Egypt. Ye shall not afflict any widow orfatherless child. " "If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor bythee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer. " "If thou at all take thyneighbor's raiment to pledge, thou shalt deliver it unto him by that thesun goeth down, for that is his covering. " "If thou meet thine enemy's oxor his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. " Such severities joined with such humanities we find in the character ofMoses, and such we find to have passed from his character into his laws. But perhaps the deepest spring of character, and its most essential trait, was his sense of justice as embodied in law. The great idea of a just law, freely chosen, under its various aspects of Divine command, ceremonialregulations, political order, and moral duty, distinguished his policy andlegislation from that of other founders of states. His laws rested on nobasis of mere temporal expediency, but on the two pivots of an absoluteDivine will and a deliberate national choice. It had the double sanctionof religion and justice; it was at once a revelation and a contract. Therewas a third idea which it was the object of his whole system, andespecially of his ceremonial system, to teach and to cultivate, --that ofholiness. God is a holy God, his law is a holy law, the place of hisworship is a holy place, and the Jewish nation as his worshippers are aholy people. This belief appears in the first revelation which he receivedat the burning bush in the land of Midian. It explains many things in theLevitical law, which without this would seem trivial and unmeaning. Theceremonial purifications, clean and unclean meats, the arrangements of thetabernacle, with its holy place, and its Holy of Holies, the Sabbath, thedresses of the priests, the ointment with which the altar was anointed, are all intended to develop in the minds of the people the idea ofholiness. [354] And there never was a people on whose souls this notion wasso fully impressed as it was upon the Jews. Examined, it means the eternaldistinction between right and wrong, between good and evil, and theessential hostility which exists between them. Applied to God, it showshim to have a nature essentially moral, and a true moral character. Heloves good and hates evil. He does not regard them with exactly the samefeeling. He cannot treat the good man and the bad man in exactly the sameway. More than monotheism, this perhaps is the characteristic of thetheology of Moses. The character of Moses had very marked deficiencies, it had its weaknessas well as its strength. He was impetuous, impatient, wanting inself-possession and self-control. There is a verse in the Book of Numbers(believed by Eichhorn and Eosenmuller to be an interpolation) which callshim the meekest of men. Such a view of his character is not confirmed bysuch actions as his killing the Egyptian, his breaking the stone tables, and the like. He declares of himself that he had no power as a speaker, being deficient probably in the organ of language. His military skillseems small, since he appointed Joshua for the military commander, whenthe people were attacked by the Amalekites. Nor did he have, what seemsmore important in a legislator, the practical tact of organizing theadministration of affairs. His father-in-law, Jethro, showed him how todelegate the details of government to subordinates, and to reserve forhimself the general superintendence. Up to that time he had tried to doeverything by himself. That great art, in administration, of selectingproper tools to work with, Moses did not seem to have. Having thus briefly sketched some of the qualities of his natural geniusand character, let us see what were the essential elements of hislegislation; and first, of his theology, or teachings concerning God. Monotheism, as we all know, lay at the foundation of the law of Moses. Butthere are different kinds of monotheism. In one sense we have seen almostall ancient religions to have been monotheisms. All taught the existenceof a Supreme Being. But usually this Supreme Being was not the object ofworship, but had receded into the background, while subordinate gods werethose really reverenced. Moses taught that the Supreme Being who madeheaven and earth, the Most High God, was also the only object of worship. It does not appear that Moses denied the existence of the gods who wereadored by the other nations; but he maintained that they were all inferiorand subordinate, and far beneath Jehovah, and also that Jehovah alone wasto be worshipped by the Jews. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"(Exod. Xx. 3; Deut. V. 7). "Ye shall not go after other gods" (Deut. Vi. 14). "Ye shall make no mention of the name of other gods" (Exod. Xxiii. 13). "For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords" (Deut. X. 17). The first great peculiarity of the theology of Moses was thereforethis, that it taught that the Infinite and Supreme Being, who in mostreligions was the hidden God, was to the Jews the revealed andever-present God, the object of worship, obedience, trust, and love. Hisname was Jahveh, the "I am, " the Being of beings. [355] In a certain sense Moses taught the strict unity of God. "Hear, O Israel;the Lord our God is one Lord" (Deut. Vi. 4), is a statement which Jesuscalls the chief of the commandments (Mark xii. 29, 30). For when God isconceived of as the Supreme Being he becomes at once separated by aninfinite distance from all other deities, and they cease to be gods in thesense in which he is God. Now as Moses gave to Jehovah infiniteattributes, and taught that he was the maker and Lord of heaven and earth, eternal (Deut. Xxxiii. 27), a living God, it followed that there was noGod with him (Deut. Xxxii. 39), which the prophets afterwards wrought outinto a simple monotheism. "I am God, and there is no other God beside me"(Isaiah xliv. 8). Therefore, though Moses did not assert in terms a simplemonotheism, he taught what contained the essential germ of that idea. This one God, supreme and infinite, was also so spiritual that no idol, nostatue, was to be made as his symbol. He was a God of truth and sternjustice, visiting the sins of parents on the children to the third andfourth generation of those who hated him, but showing mercy to thousandsof those who loved and obeyed him. He was a God who was merciful, long-suffering, gracious, repenting him of the evil, and seeking still topardon and to bless his people. No doubt there is anthropomorphism inMoses. But if man is made in God's image, then God is in man's image too, and we _must_, if we think of him as a living and real God, think of himas possessing emotions like our human emotions of love, pity, sorrow, anger, only purified from their grossness and narrowness. Human actions and human passions are no doubt ascribed by Moses to God. Agood deal of criticism has been expended upon the Jewish Scriptures bythose who think that philosophy consists in making God as different anddistant from man as possible, and so prefer to speak of him as Deity, Providence, and Nature. But it is only because man is made in the image ofGod that he can revere God at all. Jacobi says that, "God, in creating, _theo_morphizes man; man, therefore, necessarily _anthropo_morphizes God. "And Swedenborg teaches that God is a man, since man was made in the imageof God. Whenever we think of God as present and living, when we ascribe tohim pleasure and displeasure, liking and disliking, thinking, feeling, andwilling, we make him like a man. And _not_ to do this may be speculativetheism, but is practical atheism. Moses forbade the Jews to make any imageor likeness of God, yet the Pentateuch speaks of his jealousy, wrath, repentance; he hardens Pharaoh's heart, changes his mind about Balaam, andcomes down from heaven in order to see if the people of Sodom were aswicked as they were represented to be. These views are limitations to theperfections of the Deity, and so far the views of Moses were limited. Butthis is also the strong language of poetry, which expresses in a strikingand practical way the personality, holiness, and constant providence ofGod. But Moses was not merely a man of genius, he was also a man of knowledgeand learning. During forty years he lived in Egypt, where all the learningof the world was collected; and, being brought up by the daughter ofPharaoh as her son, was in the closest relations with the priesthood. TheEgyptian priests were those to whom Pythagoras, Herodotus, and Plato wentfor instruction. Their sacred books, as we have seen, taught the doctrineof the unity and spirituality of God, of the immortality of the soul, andits judgment in the future world, beside teaching the arts and sciences. Moses probably knew all that these books could teach, and there is nodoubt that he made use of this knowledge afterward in writing his law. Like the Egyptian priests he believed in one God; but, unlike them, hetaught that doctrine openly. Like them he established a priesthood, sacrifices, festivals, and a temple service; but, unlike them, he allowedno images or idols, no visible representations of the Unseen Being, andinstead of mystery and a hidden deity gave them revelation and a present, open Deity. Concerning the future life, about which the Egyptians had somuch to say, Moses taught nothing. His rewards and punishments wereinflicted in this world. Retribution, individual and national, took placehere. As this could not have been from ignorance or accident, it must havehad a purpose, it must have been intentional. The silence of thePentateuch respecting immortality is one of the most remarkable featuresin the Jewish religion. It has been often objected to. It has beenasserted that a religion without the doctrine of immortality and futureretribution is no religion. But in our time philosophy takes a differentview, declaring that there is nothing necessarily religious in the beliefof immortality, and that to do right from fear of future punishment orhope of future reward is selfish, and therefore irreligious and immoral. Moreover it asserts that belief in immortality is a matter of instinct, and something to be assumed, not to be proved; and that we believe inimmortality just in proportion as the soul is full of life. Therefore, though Moses did not teach the doctrine of immortality, he yet made itnecessary that the Jews should believe in it by the awakening influence ofhis law, which roused the soul into the fullest activity. But beside genius, beside knowledge, did not Moses also possess that whichhe claimed, a special inspiration? And if so, what was his inspirationand what is its evidence? The evidence of his inspiration is in that whichhe said and did. His inspiration, like that of Abraham, consisted in hisinward vision of God, in his sight of the divine unity and holiness, inhis feeling of the personal presence and power of the Supreme Being, inhis perception of his will and of his law. He was inwardly placed by theDivine Providence where he could see these truths, and become the mediumof communicating them to a nation. His inspiration was deeper than that ofthe greatest of subsequent prophets. It was perhaps not so large, nor sofull, nor so high, but it was more entire; and therefore the power thatwent forth from the word and life of Moses was not surpassed afterward. "There arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lordknew face to face. " No prophet afterward till the time of Jesus did such awork as he did. Purity, simplicity, and strength characterized his wholeconduct. His theology, his liturgy, his moral code, and his civil codewere admirable in their design and their execution. We are, indeed, not able to say how much of the Pentateuch came fromMoses. Many parts of it were probably the work of other writers and ofsubsequent times. But we cannot doubt that the essential ideas of the lawproceeded from him. We have regarded Moses and his laws on the side of religion and also onthat of morals; it remains to consider them on that of politics. What wasthe form of government established by Moses? Was it despotism or freedom?Was it monarchy, aristocracy, democracy, or republicanism? Were the Jews afree people or an enslaved people? Certainly the Jews were not enslaved. They had one great protection fromdespotism, --a constitution. The Mosaic law was their constitution. It wasa written constitution, and could therefore be appealed to. It was apublished constitution, and was therefore known by all the people. It wasa sacred constitution; given on the authority of God, and therefore couldnot be modified, except by the same authority. This constitution thereforewas a protection against despotism. A constitution like this excludes allarbitrary and despotic authority. We can therefore safely say that the lawof Moses saved the nation from despotism. Thus he gave them an importantelement of political freedom. No matter how oppressive laws are, agovernment of fixed law involves in the long run much more real freedomthan the government, however kind, which is arbitrary, and thereforeuncertain and changeable. But were these laws oppressive? Let us look at them in a few obviouspoints of view. What did they exact in regard to taxation? We know that in Easterngovernments the people have been ground to the earth by taxation, and thatagriculture has been destroyed, the fruitful field become a wilderness, and populous countries depopulated, by this one form of oppression. It isbecause there has been no fixed rate of taxation. Each governor is allowedto take as much as he can from his subordinates, and each of thesubordinates as much as he can get from his inferiors, and so on, till thepeople are finally reached, out of whom it must all come. But under theMosaic constitution the taxes were fixed and certain. They consisted in apoll-tax, in the first-fruits, and the tithes. The poll-tax was ahalf-shekel paid every year at the Temple, by every adult Jew. Thefirst-fruits were rather an expression of gratitude than a tax. The titheswere a tenth part of the annual produce of the soil, and went for thesupport of the Levites and the general expenses of the government. Another important point relates to trials and punishments. What securityhas one of a fair trial, in case he is accused of crime, or what assuranceof justice in a civil cause? Now we know that in Eastern countrieseverything depends on bribery. This Moses forbade in his law. "Thou shalttake no gift, for the gift blindeth the eyes; thou shalt not wrest thejudgment of the poor, but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor. " Again, the accuser and accused were to appear together before the judge. The witnesses were sworn, and were examined separately. The people hadcheap justice and near at hand. "Judges and officers shalt thou make theein all thy gates, throughout thy tribes; and they shall judge the peoplewith just judgment. " There were courts of appeal from these local judges. There seems to have been no legislative body, since the laws of Moses werenot only a constitution but also a code. No doubt a common law grew upunder the decisions of the local courts and courts of appeal. Butprovision was made by Moses for any necessary amendment of his laws by thereference which he made to any prophet like himself who might afterwardarise, whom the people were to obey. [356] There was no provision in the Jewish constitution for a supreme executive. But the law foretold that the time would come in which they would desire aking, and it defined his authority. He should be a constitutional king. (Deut. Xvii. 14-20. ) We have already said that one great object and purpose of the ceremoniallaw of Moses was to develop in the minds of the people the idea ofholiness. This is expressed (Lev. Xix. 2), "Speak unto all thecongregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall beholy; for I the Lord your God am holy. " Another object of the ceremonial law was to surround the whole nation withan impenetrable hedge of peculiarities, and so to keep them separate fromsurrounding nations. The ceremonial law was like a shell which protectedthe kernel within till it was ripe. The ritual was the thorny husk, thetheology and morality were the sacred included fruit. In this point ofview the strangest peculiarities of the ritual find an easy explanation. The more strange they are, the better they serve their purpose. Thesepeculiarities produced bitter prejudice between the Jews and thesurrounding nations. Despised by their neighbors, they despised them againin turn; and this mutual contempt has produced the result desired. TheJews, in the very heart of the world, surrounded by great nations far morepowerful than themselves, conquered and overrun by Assyrians, Medes, Persians, Syrians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, have been more entirelyseparated from other nations than the Chinese or the people of Japan. Dispersed as they are, they are still a distinct people, a nation withinother nations. Like drops of oil floating on the water but never minglingwith it, so the Jews are found everywhere, floating drops of national lifein the midst of other nationalities. In Leviticus (xviii. 3) we find thecommand, "After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shallye not do; and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bringyou, shall ye not do; neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. " Theyhave not obeyed this command in its letter, but continue to obey itsspirit in its unwritten continuation: "After the doings of the English andFrench and Americans shall ye not do, nor walk in their ordinances, butshall still continue a peculiar people. " § 4. David; or, Judaism as the personal Worship of a Father and friend. Many disasters befell the Jews after their settlement in Palestine, whichwe should allude to were we writing the heads of their history rather thangiving an account of their religion. Among these were their long conflictwith the Philistines, and their subjection by that people during twentyyears. The Philistines, it has been recently discovered, were not aSemitic nation, and were not in the land in the time of Moses. They arenot mentioned as a powerful people in the Pentateuch or the Book ofJoshua, but suddenly appear as invaders in the time of the Judges, completely defeating and subduing the Canaanites along the shore. In fact, the Philistines were probably an Indo-European or Aryan people, and theirname is now believed to be the same as that of the Pelasgi. They wereprobably a body of Pelasgi from the island of Crete, who, by successiveinvasions, overran Palestine, and gave their name to it. [357] They werefinally reduced by David; and as his reign is the culminating period ofJudaism, we will devote some space to his character and influence. The life of David makes an epoch in Jewish history and human history. Nations, like plants, have their period of flowers and of fruit. They havetheir springtime, their summer, autumn, and winter. The age of David amongthe Jews was like the age of Pericles among the Greeks, of Augustus amongthe Romans, of Louis XIV. In France, of Charles V. In Spain. Such periodsseparate themselves from those which went before and from those whichfollow. The period of David seems a thousand years removed from that ofthe Judges, and yet it follows it almost immediately. As a few weeks inspring turn the brown earth to a glad green, load the trees with foliage, and fill the air with the perfume of blossoms and the song of birds, so afew years in the life of a nation will change barbarism into civilization, and pour the light of literature and knowledge over a sleeping land. Artsflourish, external enemies are conquered, inward discontents are pacified, wealth pours in, luxury increases, genius accomplishes its triumphs. Summer, with its flowers and fruits, has arrived. When a nation is ripe for such a change, the advent of a man of geniuswill accomplish it. Around him the particles crystallize and take form andbeauty. Such a man was David, --a brave soldier, a great captain, asagacious adventurer, an artist, musician, and poet, a man of profoundreligious experience; he was, more than all these, a statesman. By hisgreat organizing ability he made a powerful nation out of that which, whenhe came to the throne, consisted of a few discordant and half-conqueredtribes. In the time of Saul the Israelites were invaded by all thesurrounding nations; by the Syrians on the north, the Ammonites andMoabites on the east, the Amalekites and Edomites on the south, and thePhilistines on the west. In the time of David all these nations werecompletely subdued, their cities garrisoned, and the power of theIsraelites submitted to from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean. Most great men are contented to be distinguished in one thing, and to leada single life; but David led three lives, each distinct from theother, --the life of a soldier and statesman, the life of a poet andartist, the life of deep religious experience. We will look at hischaracter in each of these three directions. We have already said that David found the Israelites divided and halfconquered, and left them united and conquerors. By means of his personalqualities he had made himself popular among the tribes. He was known as abrave and cautious guerilla chief. His native generosity andopen-heartedness won him the love of the people. His religious tendenciesgained for him the friendship of the priests, and the great influence ofSamuel was always exerted in his favor. He was thus enabled to unite thepeople, and gain their confidence till he could make use of them in largerenterprises. The Jews were not naturally a military nation, and were nevermeant to be such. Yet when their strength was united they were capable, bytheir determination and tenacity of purpose, of extraordinary militaryexploits. Everything depended on their _morale_. Demoralized and weakenedby doubts and scruples, or when conscious that they were disobeying thelaws of Moses, they were easily defeated by any invader. The first duty oftheir general was to bring them back from their idolatries andbackslidings to the service of God. Under Joshua it only needed two greatbattles to conquer the whole land of Palestine. So, reunited under David, a few campaigns made them victorious over the surrounding nations. The early part of David's life was a perpetual discipline in prudence. Hewas continually beset with dangers. He had to fly from the presence andferocious jealousy of Saul again and again, and even to take refuge withthe Philistines, who had reason enough to be his enemies. He fled fromSaul to Samuel, and took shelter under his protection. Pursued to thisretreat by the king, he had no resource but to throw himself on the mercyof the Philistines, and he went to Gath. When he saw himself in dangerthere, he pretended to be insane; insanity being throughout the East aprotection from injury. His next step was to go to the cave Adullam, andto collect around him a body of partisans, with whom to protect himself. Saul watched his opportunity, and when David had left the fastnesses ofthe mountain, and came into the city Keilah to defend it from thePhilistines, Saul went down with a detachment of troops to besiege him, sothat he had to fly again to the mountains. Betrayed by the Ziphites, as hehad been before betrayed by the men of Keilah, he went to anotherwilderness and escaped. The king continued to pursue him whenever he couldget any tidings of his position, and again David was obliged to takerefuge among the Philistines. But throughout this whole period he neverpermitted himself any hostile measures against Saul, his implacable enemy. In this he showed great wisdom, for the result of such a course would havebeen a civil war, in which part of the nation would have taken sides withone and part with the other, and David never could have ascended thethrone with the consent of the whole people. But the consequence of hisforbearance was, that when by the death of Saul the throne became vacant, David succeeded to it with scarcely any opposition. His subsequent courseshowed always the same prudence. He disarmed his enemies by kindness andclemency. He understood the policy of making a bridge of gold for a flyingenemy. When Abner, the most influential man of his opponents, offered tosubmit to him, David received him with kindness and made him a friend. Andwhen Abner was treacherously killed by Joab, David publicly mourned forhim, following the bier, and weeping at the grave. The historian saysconcerning this: "And all the people took notice of it and it pleasedthem: as whatsoever the king did pleased all the people. For all thepeople understood that day that it was not of the king to slay Abner theson of Ner. " His policy was to conciliate and unite. When Saul's son wasslain by his own servants, who thought to please David by that act, heimmediately put them to death. Equally cautious and judicious was hiscourse in transferring the Ark and its worship to Jerusalem. He did thisonly gradually, and as he saw that the people were prepared for it. We next will look at David in his character as man of genius, musician, artist, poet. It is not often that an eminent statesman and soldier is, atthe same time, a distinguished poet and writer. Sometimes they can writehistory or annals, like Cæsar and Frederick the Great; but the imaginativeand poetic element is rarely found connected with the determined will andpractical intellect of a great commander. Alexander the Great had a tastefor good poetry, for he carried Homer with him through his campaigns; butthe taste of Napoleon went no higher than a liking for Ossian. But David was a poet, in whom the tender, lyrical, personal element roseto the highest point. The daring soldier, when he took his harp, becameanother man. He consoled himself and sought comfort in trial, and sang histhankfulness in his hours of joy. The Book of Psalms, so far as it is thework of David, is the record of his life. As Horace says of Lucilius andhis book of Odes, that the whole of the old man's life hangs suspendedtherein in votive pictures; and as Goethe says that his Lyrics are a bookof confessions, in which joy and sorrow turn to song; so the Book ofPsalms can only be understood when we consider it as David's poeticalautobiography. In this he anticipates the Koran, which was the privatejournal of Mohammed. "The harp of David, " says Herder, "was his comforter and friend. In hisyouth he sang to its music while tending his flocks as a shepherd on themountains of Judæa. By its means he had access to Saul, and could soothwith it the dark mood of the king. In his days of exile he confided to ithis sorrows. When he triumphed over his enemies the harp became in hisroyal hands a thank-offering to the deity. Afterward he organized on amagnificent scale music and poetry in the worship of God. Four thousandLevites, distinguished by a peculiar dress, were arranged in classes andchoirs under master-singers, of whom the three most distinguished, Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun, are known to us by specimens of their art. In hisPsalms his whole kingdom lives. " We speak of the inspiration of genius, and distinguish it from theinspiration of the religious teacher. But in ancient times the prophet andpoet were often the same, and one word (as, in Latin, "vates") was usedfor both. In the case of David the two inspirations were perfectly at one. His religion was poetry, and his poetry was religion. The genius of hispoetry is not grandeur, but beauty. Sometimes it expresses a singlethought or sentiment, as that (Psalm cxxxiii. ) describing the beauty ofbrotherly union, or as that (Psalm xxiii. ) which paints trust in God likethat of a sheep in his shepherd. Of the same sort is the fifteenth Psalm, "Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle?" the twenty-ninth, a descriptionof a thunderstorm; the sixty-seventh, "O God, be merciful to us and blessus"; the eighty-fourth, "How lovely are thy tabernacles"; and the lastPsalm, calling on mankind to praise God in all ways. It is a striking fact that these Hebrew lyrics, written long before thefoundation of Rome, and before the time of Homer, should be used to-day inChristian worship and for private devotion all over the world. In speaking of the Vedas and the Avesta we said that in such hymns andliturgies the truest belief of a nation can be found. What men say to Godin their prayers may be assumed to express their practical convictions. The Jewish religion is not to be found so surely in its Levitical code asin these national lyrics, which were the liturgy of the people. [358] What then do they say concerning God? They teach his universal dominion. They declare that none in the heaven can be compared to him (Psalmlxxxix. ); that he is to be feared above all gods (Psalm xcvi. ). They teachhis eternity; declaring that he is God from everlasting to everlasting;that a thousand years in his sight are as yesterday; that he laid thefoundations of the earth and made the heavens, and that when these perishhe will endure; that at some period they shall be changed like a garment, but that God will always be the same (Psalm xc. , cii. ). They teach innumerous places that God is the Creator of all things. They adore andbless his fatherly love and kindness, which heals all our diseases andredeems our life, crowning us with loving-kindness, pitying us, andforgiving our sins (Psalm ciii. ). They teach that he is in all nature(Psalm civ. ), that he searches and knows all our thoughts, and that we cango nowhere from his presence (Psalm cxxxix. ). They declare that heprotects all who trust in him (Psalm xci. , cxxi. ), and that he purifiesthe heart and life (Psalm cxix. ), creating in us a clean heart, and notasking for sacrifice, but for a broken spirit (Psalm li. ). These Psalms express the highest and best moments of Jewish life, and risein certain points to the level of Christianity. They do not contain theChristian spirit of forgiveness, nor that of love to one's enemy. They arestill narrowed to the range of the Jewish land and nation, and do notembrace humanity. They are mountain summits of faith, rising into the pureair and light of day from hidden depths, and appearing as islands in theocean. They reach, here and there, the level of the vast continent, thoughnot broad enough themselves to become the home of all races and nations. There is nothing in the Vedas, nothing in the Avesta, nothing in thesacred books of Egypt, or the philosophy of Greece and Rome, which sounites the grandeur of omnipotence with the tenderness of a father towardhis child. § 5. Solomon; or, the Religious Relapse. We have seen how the religion of Abraham, as the family worship of theSupreme Being, was developed into that of Moses, as the national worshipof a just and holy King. We have seen it going onward from that, ascendingin the inspirations of David into trust in an infinite God as a friend, and love to him as a father. We now come to a period of relapse. UnderSolomon and his successors, this religion became corrupted and degraded. Its faith was changed into doubt, its lofty courage into the fear of kingsand tyrants, its worship of the Most High into adoration of the idols ofits neighbors. The great increase of power and wealth in the hands ofSolomon corrupted his own heart and that of his people. Luxury came in;and, as in Rome the old puritanic virtues were dissolved by the desire forwealth and pleasure, so it happened among the Jews. Then came theretribution, in the long captivity in Babylon, and the beginning of a newand better life under this hard discipline. And then comes the age of theProphets, who gradually became the teachers of a higher and broader faith. So, when the Jews returned to Jerusalem, they came back purified, andprepared to become once more loyal subjects of Jehovah. The principle of hereditary succession, but not of primogeniture, had beenestablished by an agreement between David and the people when he proposederecting a Temple at Jerusalem. He had appointed his son Solomon as hissuccessor before his own death. With the entrance of Solomon we have anentirely different personality from any whom we have thus far met. Withhim also is inaugurated a new period and a different age. The age of Moseswas distinguished as that of law, --on the side of God absolute authority, commanding and forbidding; on the side of man the only question wasbetween obedience and disobedience. Moses was the Law-giver, and his agewas the age of law. In the time of the Judges the question concernednational existence and national independence. The age of the Judges wasthe heroic age of the Jewish nation. The Judges were men combiningreligious faith with patriotism; they were religious heroes. Then came thetime of David, in which the nation, having become independent, became alsopowerful and wealthy. After his time the religion, instead of being a lawto be obeyed or an impulse to action, became ceremony and pageant. Goingone step further, it passed into reflection and meditation. In the age ofSolomon the inspiration of the national religion had already gone. A greatintellectual development had taken the place of inspiration. So that theJewish nation seems to have passed through a fourfold religiousexperience. Religion was first law, then action, next inspiration andsentiment, afterward ceremony, and lastly opinion and intellectualculture. It is the belief of Herder and other scholars that the age of Solomon gavebirth to a copious literature, born of peace, tranquillity, andprosperity, which has all passed away except a few Psalms, the Book ofProverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon. Solomon is personally a much less interesting character than David; forpolicy is never so interesting as impulse, and the crimes of policy seemworse than those of passion. The first act of Solomon was of this sort. Heput his brother Adonijah to death for his attempt to seize the throne. Joab, who supported Adonijah against Solomon, was also put to death, forwhich we do not grieve, when we remember his assassination of Abner andAmasa, shedding the blood of war in peace. But the cold, unscrupulouscharacter of Solomon is seen in his ordering Joab to be slain in thetabernacle while holding the horns of the altar, and causing Adonijah tobe taken by force from the same place of refuge. No religiousconsideration or superstitious fear could prevent Solomon from doing whathe thought necessary for his own security. He had given Adonijah aconditional pardon, limited to good behavior on his part. But after hisestablishment on the throne Adonijah requested the mother of Solomon, Bathsheba, to ask her son to give him for a wife the beautiful Abishag, the last wife of David. Solomon understood this to mean, what his motherdid not understand, that his brother was still intriguing to supplant himon the throne, and with cool policy he ordered him to immediate execution. Solomon could pardon a criminal, but not a dangerous rival. He deposed thehigh-priest for the same reason, considering him to be also dangerous. Shimei, who seems to have been wealthy and influential as well as adetermined character, was ordered not to leave Jerusalem under penalty ofdeath. He did so, and Solomon put him to death. David, before his death, had warned Solomon to keep an eye both on Joab and on Shimei, for Davidcould forgive his own enemies, but not those of his cause; he was notafraid on his own account, but was afraid for the safety of his son. By the death of Joab and Shimei, Solomon's kingdom was established, andthe glory and power of David was carried to a still higher point ofmagnificence. Supported by the prophets on the one hand and by the priestson the other, his authority was almost unlimited. We are told that "Judahand Israel were many, as the sand which is by the sea in multitude, eatingand drinking and making merry. And Solomon reigned over all kingdoms fromthe river unto the land of the Philistines, and unto the border of Egypt;they brought presents, and served Solomon all the days of his life. AndSolomon's provision for one day was thirty measures of fine flour, andthreescore measures of meal, ten fat oxen, and twenty oxen out of thepastures, and an hundred sheep, beside harts, and roebucks, and fallowdeer, and fatted fowl. " The wars of David were ended. Solomon's was areign of peace. "And Judah and Israel dwelt safely, every man under hisvine and under his fig-tree, from Dan even to Beersheba, all the days ofSolomon. And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. " "And God gave Solomon wisdom andunderstanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart, even as the sandthat is on the sea-shore. And Solomon's wisdom excelled the wisdom of allthe children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt. For he waswiser than all men; than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, and Chalcol, andDarda, the sons of Mahol; and his fame was in all nations round about. ""And there came of all people to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from allkings of the earth, which had heard of his wisdom. " The great power andwealth of the Jewish court at this period are historically verified by thetraditions still extant among the Arabs of Solomon's superhuman splendor. The story (1 Kings iii. 5) of Solomon's dream, in which he chose anunderstanding heart and wisdom, rather than riches and honor, reminds usof the choice of Hercules. It is not unlikely that he had such a dream, itis quite probable that he always preferred wisdom to anything else, and itis certain that his wisdom came from God. This is the only connection wecan trace between the dream and its fulfilment. Solomon inaugurated a new policy by entering into alliances and makingtreaties with his powerful neighbors. He formed an alliance with the kingof Egypt, and married his daughter. He also made a treaty of commerce andfriendship with the king of Tyre on the north, and procured from him cedarwith which to build the Temple and his own palace. He received an embassyalso from the queen of Sheba, who resided in the south of Arabia. By meansof the Tyrian ships he traded to the west as far as the coasts of Spainand Africa, and his own vessels made a coasting voyage of three years'duration to Tarshish, from which they brought ivory, gold, silver, apes, and peacocks. This voyage seems to have been through the Red Sea toIndia. [359] He also traded in Asia, overland, with caravans. And for theiraccommodation and defence he built Tadmor in the desert (afterward calledPalmyra), as a great stopping-place. This city in later days became famousas the capital of Zenobia, and the remains of the Temple of the Sun, standing by itself in the midst of the Great Desert, are among the mostinteresting ruins in the world. [360] The great work of Solomon was building the Temple at Jerusalem in theyear B. C. 1005. This Temple was destroyed, and rebuilt by Nehemiah B. C. 445. It was rebuilt by Herod B. C. 17. Little remains from the time ofSolomon, except some stones in the walls of the substructions; and themosque of Omar now stands on the old foundation. No building of antiquityso much resembles the Temple of Solomon as the palace of Darius atPersepolis. In both buildings the porch opened into the large hall, bothhad small chambers on the side, square masses on both sides of the porch, and the same form of pillars. The parts of Solomon's Temple were, first, aporch thirty feet wide and fifteen feet deep; second a large hall sixty bythirty; and then the holy of holies, which was thirty feet cube. The wholeexternal dimensions of the building were only sixty feet by one hundredand twenty, or less than many an ordinary parish church. The explanationis that it was copied from the Tabernacle, which was a small building, andwas necessarily somewhat related to it in size. The walls were of stone, on extensive stone foundations. Inside it was lined with cedar, withfloors of cypress, highly ornamented with carvings and gold. The brasswork consisted of two ornamented pillars called Jachin and Boaz, a brazentank supported by twelve brass oxen, and ten baths of brass, ornamentedwith figures of lions, oxen, and cherubim. The Book of Kings says of Solomon (1 Kings iv. 32) that "he spake threethousand proverbs, and his songs were a thousand and five. And he spake oftrees, from the cedar-tree that is in Lebanon even unto the hyssop thatspringeth out of the wall: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl and ofcreeping things, and of fishes. " He was, according to this account, avoluminous writer on natural history, as well as an eminent poet andmoralist. Of all his compositions there remains but one, the Book ofProverbs, which was probably in great part composed by him. It is truethat three books in the Old Testament bear his name, --Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. But of these Ecclesiastes wasprobably written afterward, and though the Song of Songs may have beenwritten by Solomon, it was probably the work of another, living at ornear his time. But of the Book of Proverbs there cannot be much doubt. It contains someof the three thousand of which Solomon was the reputed author. It showshis style of mind very clearly, --the cool understanding, the calculatingprudence, the continual reference to results, knowledge of the world asdistinguished from knowledge of human nature, or of individual character. The Book of Proverbs contains little heroism or poetry, few large ideas, not much enthusiasm or sentiment. It is emphatically a book of wisdom. Ithas good, hard, practical sense. It is the "Poor Richard's Almanac" ofHebrew literature. We can conceive of King Solomon and Benjamin Franklinconsulting together, and comparing notes of their observations on humanlife, with much mutual satisfaction. It is curious to meet with such athoroughly Western intellect, a thousand years before Christ, on thethrone of the heroic David. Among these proverbs there are many of a kindly character. Some aresemi-Christian in their wise benevolence. Many show great shrewdness ofobservation, and have an epigrammatic wit. We will give examples of eachkind:-- PROVERBS HAVING A SEMI-CHRISTIAN CHARACTER. "If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread; If thirsty, give him water to drink, For thou wilt heap coals of fire on his head, And Jehovah will reward thee. " "To deliver those that are dragged to death, Those that totter to the slaughter, Spare thyself not. If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not, Doth not He that weighs the heart observe it? Yea, He that keeps thy soul knows it. And He will render to every man according to his works. " "Put not thyself forth in the presence of the king, Nor station thyself in the place of great men. Far better it is that one should say to thee, Come up hither! Than that he should put thee in a lower place, In the presence of the prince. " "The lip of truth shall be established forever, But the tongue of falsehood is but for a moment. " PROVERBS SHOWING SHREWDNESS OF OBSERVATION. "As one that takes a dog by the ears, So is he that passing by becomes enraged on account of another's quarrel. " "Where there is no wood the fire goes out; So where there is no talebearer contention ceases. " "The rich rules over the poor, And the borrower is servant to the lender. " "The slothful man says, There is a lion without, I shall be slain in the streets. " "A reproof penetrates deeper into a wise man Than a hundred stripes into a fool. " "Hope deferred makes the heart sick. " "The way of transgressors is hard. " "There is that scatters, and yet increases. " "It is naught, it is naught, saith the buyer, But when he goeth his way then he boasteth. " PROVERBS WITTILY EXPRESSED. "The legs of a lame man are not equal, So is a proverb in the mouth of fools. "[361] "As a thorn runs into the hand of a drunkard, So is a proverb in the mouth of a fool. "[362] "As clouds and wind without rain, So is a man who boasts falsely of giving. " "A soft tongue breaks bones. " "As vinegar to the teeth, and smoke to the eyes, So is the sluggard to him that sends him. " "The destruction of the poor is their poverty. " "A merry heart is a good medicine. " But what are human wisdom and glory? It seems that Solomon was toillustrate its emptiness. See the king, in his old age, sinking intoidolatry and empty luxury, falling away from his God, and pointing themoral of his own proverbs. He himself was the drunkard, into whose handthe thorn of the proverb penetrated, without his heeding it. This prudentand wise king, who understood so well all the snares of temptation and allthe arts of virtue, fell like the puppet of any Asiatic court. What acontrast between the wise and great king as described in I Kings iv. 20-34and the same king in his degenerate old age! It was this last period in the life of Solomon which the writer ofEcclesiastes took as the scene and subject of his story. With marvellouspenetration and consummate power he penetrates the mind of Solomon andpaints the blackness of desolation, the misery of satiety, the dreadfuldarkness of a soul which has given itself to this world as its onlysphere. Never was such a picture painted of utter scepticism, of a mind whollydarkened, and without any remaining faith in God or truth. These three books mark the three periods of the life of Solomon. The Song of Songs shows us his abounding youth, full of poetry, fire, andcharm. The Proverbs give his ripened manhood, wise and full of all earthlyknowledge, --Aristotle, Bacon, Socrates, and Franklin, all in one. And Ecclesiastes represents the darkened and gloomy scepticism of his oldage, when he sank as low down as he had before gone up. But though so sadand dark, yet it is not without gleams of a higher and nobler joy to come. Better than anything in Proverbs are some of the noble sentiments breakingout in Ecclesiastes, especially at the end of the book. The Book of Ecclesiastes is a wonderful description of a doubt so deep, adespair so black, that nothing in all literature can be compared to it. Itdescribes, in the person of Solomon, utter scepticism born of unlimitedworldly enjoyment, knowledge, and power. The book begins by declaring that all is vanity, that there is nothingnew under the sun, no progress in any direction, but all things revolvingin an endless circle, so that there is neither meaning nor use in theworld. [363] It declares that _work_ amounts to nothing, for one cannot doany really good thing; that knowledge is of no use, but only producessorrow; that pleasure satiates. [364] Knowledge has only this advantageover ignorance, that it enables us to see things as they are, but it doesnot make them better, and the end of all is despair. [365] Sensual pleasureis the only good. [366] Fate and necessity rule all things. Good and evilboth come at their appointed time. Men are cheated and do not see thenullity of things, because they have the world in their heart, and areabsorbed in the present moment. [367] Men are only a higher class of beasts. They die like beasts, and have nohereafter. [368] In the fourth chapter the writer goes more deeply into this pessimism. Hesays that to die is better than to live, and better still never to havebeen born. A fool is better than a wise man, because he does nothing andcares for nothing. [369] Success is bad, progress is an evil; for these take us away from others, and leave us lonely, because above them and hated by them. [370] Worship is idle. Do not offer the sacrifice of fools, but stop when youare going to the Temple, and return. Do not pray. It is of no use. Goddoes not hear you. Dreams do not come from God, but from what you weredoing before you went to sleep. Eat and drink, that is the best. [371] Allmen go as they come. So the dreary statement proceeds. Men are born for no end, and go no onecan tell where. Live a thousand years, it all comes to the same thing. Whocan tell what is good for a man in this shadowy, empty life?[372] It is better to look on death than on life, wiser to be sad than to becheerful. If you say, "There _have been_ good times in the past, " do notbe too sure of that. If you say, "We can be good, at least, if we cannotbe happy, " there is such a thing as being _too_ good, and cheatingyourself out of pleasure. [373] Women are worse than men. You may find one good man among a thousand, butnot one good woman. [374] It is best to be on the right side of the powers that be, for they can dowhat they please. Speedy and certain punishment alone can keep men fromdoing evil. The same thing happens to the good and to the wicked. Allthings come alike to all. This life is, in short, an inexplicable puzzle. The perpetual refrain is, eat, drink, and be merry. [375] It is best to do what you can, and think nothing about it. Cast your breadon the waters, very likely you will get it again. Sow your seed either inthe morning or at night; it makes no difference. [376] Death is coming to all. All is vanity. I continue to preach, because I seethe truth, and may as well say it, though there is no end to talking andwriting. You may sum up all wisdom in six words: "Fear God and keep hiscommandments. "[377] The Book of Ecclesiastes teaches a great truth in an unexampled strain ofpathetic eloquence. It teaches what a black scepticism descends on thewisest, most fortunate, most favored of mankind, when he looks only tothis world and its joys. It could, however, only have been written by onewho had gone through this dreadful experience. The intellect alone neversounded such depths as these. Moreover, it could hardly have been writtenunless in a time when such scepticism prevailed, nor by one who, havinglived it all, had not also lived _through_ it all, and found the cure forthis misery in pure unselfish obedience to truth and right. It seems, therefore, like a Book of Confessions, or the Record of an Experience, and as such well deserves its place in the Bible and Jewish literature. The Book of Job is a still more wonderful production, but in a whollydifferent tone. It is full of manly faith in truth and right. It has nojot of scepticism in it. It is a noble protest against all hypocrisies andall shams. Job does not know why he is afflicted, but he will neverconfess that he is a sinner till he sees it. The Pharisaic friends tellhim his sufferings are judgments for his sins, and advise him to admit itto be so. But Job refuses, and declares he will utter no "words of wind"to the Almighty. The grandest thought is here expressed in the noblestlanguage which the human tongue has ever uttered. § 6. The Prophets; or, Judaism as the Hope of a spiritual and universalKingdom of God. Before we proceed to examine the prophetic writings of the Old Testament, it is desirable to make some remarks upon prophecy in general, and on thecharacter of the Hebrew prophets. Prophecy in general is a modification of inspiration. Inspiration issight, or rather it is insight. _All_ our knowledge comes to us throughthe intellectual power which may be called sight, which is of twokinds, --the sight of external things, or outsight; and the sight ofinternal things, which is insight, or intuition. The senses constitute theorganization by which we see external things; consciousness is theorganization by which we perceive internal things. Now the organs of senseare the same in kind, but differ in degree in all men. All human beings, as such, have the power of perceiving an external world, by means of thefive senses. But though all have these five senses, all do not perceivethe same external phenomena by means of them. For, in the first place, their senses differ in degrees of power. Some men's eyes are telescopic, some microscopic, and some are blind. Some men can but partiallydistinguish colors, others not at all. Some have acute hearing, othersare deaf. And secondly, what men perceive through the senses differsaccording to what is about them. A man living in China cannot see MontBlanc or the city of New York; a man on the other side of the moon cannever see the earth. A man living in the year 1871 cannot see Alexanderthe Great or the Apostle Paul. And thirdly, two persons may be looking atthe same thing, and with senses of the same degree of power, and yet onemay be able to see what the other is not able to see. Three men, one ageologist, one a botanist, and one a painter, may look at the samelandscape, and one will see the stratification, the second will see theflora, and the third the picturesque qualities of the scene. As regardsoutsight then, though men in general have the same senses to see with, what they see depends (1) on their quality of sense, (2) on their positionin space and time, (3) and on their state of mental culture. That which is true of the perception of external phenomena is also true ofthe perception of internal things. Insight, or intuition, has the same limitations as outsight. These are (1)the quality of the faculty of intuition; (2) the inward circumstances orposition of the soul; (3) the soul's culture or development. Those whodeny the existence of an intuitive faculty, teaching that all knowledgecomes from without through the senses, sometimes say that if there weresuch a faculty as intuition, men would all possess intuitively the sameknowledge of moral and spiritual truth. They might as well say that, asall men have eyes, all must see the same external objects. All men have more or less of the intuitive faculty, but some have muchmore than others. Those who have the most are called, by way of eminence, inspired men. But among these there is a difference as regards the objectswhich are presented by God, in the order of his providence, to theirintuitive faculty. Some he places inwardly among visions of beauty, andthey are inspired poets and artists. Others he places inwardly amidvisions of temporal and human life, and they become inspired discoverersand inventors. And others he places amid visions of religious truth, andthey are inspired prophets, lawgivers, and evangelists. But these againdiffer in their own spiritual culture and growth. Moses and the ApostlePaul were both inspired men, but the Apostle Paul saw truths which Mosesdid not see, because the Apostle Paul had reached a higher degree ofspiritual culture. Christ alone possessed the fulness of spiritualinspiration, because he alone had attained the fulness of spiritual life. Now the inspired man may look inwardly either at the past, the present, orthe future. If he look at the past he is an inspired historian; if at thepresent, an inspired lawgiver, or religious teacher; if at the future, aninspired prophet. The inspired faculty may be the same, and the differencemay be in the object inwardly present to its contemplation. The seer maylook from things past to things present, from things present to things tocome, and his inspiration be the same. He fixes his mind on the past, andit grows clear before him, and he sees how events were and what they mean. He looks at the present, and sees how things ought to be. He looks at thefuture, and sees how things shall be. The Prophets of the Old Testament were not, as is commonly supposed, menwho only uttered predictions of the future. They were men of action morethan of contemplation. Strange as it may seem to us, who are accustomed toconsider their office as confined to religious prediction, their chiefduty was that of active politicians. They mixed religion and politics. They interfered with public measures, rebuked the despotism of the kingsand the political errors of the people. Moreover, they were theconstitutional lawyers and publicists of the Hebrews, inspired to lookbackward and explain the meaning of the Mosaic law as well as to lookforward to its spiritual development in the reign of the Messiah. Prediction, therefore, of future events, was a very small part of the workof the Prophets. Their main duty was to warn, rebuke, teach, exhort, andencourage. The Hebrew prophets were under the law. They were loyal to Moses and tohis institutions. But it was to the spirit rather than to the letter, theidea rather than the form. They differed from the priests in preferringthe moral part of the law to the ceremonial. They were great reformers inbringing back the people from external formalism to vital obedience. Theyconstantly made the ceremonial part of the law subservient to the moralpart of the law. Thus Samuel said to Saul: "Hath the Lord as great delightin burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord?Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat oframs. " And so afterward Isaiah declared in the name of the Lord, that thesacrifices of a wicked people were vain, and their incense an abomination. We read of the schools of the Prophets, where they studied the law ofMoses, and were taught the duties of their office. In these schools musicwas made use of as a medium of inspiration. But the office of a prophet was not limited by culture, sex, age, orcondition. Women, like Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Huldah, and Noadiah;inexperienced youths, like Jeremiah; men of high standing in society, likeIsaiah and Daniel; humble men, like the ploughman Elisha and the herdsmanAmos; men married and unmarried, are numbered among the Prophets. Livingpoorly, wearing sackcloth, feeding on vegetables, imprisoned orassassinated by kings, stoned by the people, the most unpopular of men, sometimes so possessed by the spirit as to rave like madmen, obliged todenounce judgments and woes against kings and people, it is no wonder thatthey often shrank from their terrible office. Jonah ran to hide in a shipof Tarshish. They have called their message a burden, like Isaiah; theyhave cried out like Jeremiah, "Ah, Lord God, I cannot speak, for I am achild"; like Ezekiel, they have been obliged to make their faces harderthan flints in order to deliver their message. Dean Stanley, in speaking of the Prophets of the Old Testament, says thattheir theology consisted in proclaiming the unity of God against allpolytheism, and the spirituality of God against all idolatry, in declaringthe superiority of moral to ceremonial duties, and in announcing thesupremacy of goodness above the letter, ceremony, or dogma. This makesthe contrast between the Prophets and all other sacred persons who haveexisted in pagan and, he adds, even in Christian times. Dean Stanley saysthe Prophets were religious teachers, without the usual faults ofreligious teachers, and he proposes them as an example to the Christianclergy. He says: "O, if the spirit of our profession, of our order, of ourbody, were the spirit, or anything like the spirit, of the ancientProphets! If with us truth, charity, justice, fairness to opponents, werea passion, a doctrine, a point of honor, to be upheld with the same energyas that with which we uphold our own position and our own opinions!" The spirit of the world asks first, Is it safe? secondly, Is it true? Thespirit of the Prophets asks first, Is it true? secondly, Is it safe? Thespirit of the world asks first, Is it prudent? secondly, Is it right? Thespirit of the Prophets asks first, Is it right? secondly, Is it prudent?Taken as a whole, the prophetic order of the Jewish Church remains alone. It stands like one of those vast monuments of ancient days, with rampartsbroken, with inscriptions defaced, but stretching from hill to hill, conveying in its long line of arches the pure rill of living water overdeep valley and thirsty plain, far above all the puny modern buildingswhich have grown up at its feet, and into the midst of which it strideswith its massive substructions, its gigantic height, its majesticproportions, unrivalled by any erection of modern time. The predictions of the future by the Prophets of Judæa were far higher intheir character than those which come occasionally to mankind throughdreams and presentiments. Yet no doubt they proceeded from the sameessentially Iranian faculty. This also is asserted by the Dean ofWestminster, who says that there is a power of divination granted in someinexplicable manner to ordinary men, and he refers to such instances asthe prediction of the discovery of America by Seneca, that of theReformation by Dante, and the prediction of the twelve centuries of Romandominion by the apparition of twelve vultures to Romulus, which was sounderstood four hundred years before its actual accomplishment. If suchpresentiments are not always verified, neither were the predictions ofthe Prophets always fulfilled. Jonah announced, in the most distinct andabsolute terms, that in forty days Nineveh should be destroyed. But thepeople repented, and it was _not_ destroyed. Their predictions of theMessiah are remarkable, especially because in speaking of him and his timethey went out of the law and the spirit of the law, and became partakersof the spirit of the Gospel. The Prophets of the Jews, whatever else wedeny to their predictions, certainly foresaw Christianity. They describethe coming of a time in which the law should be written in the heart, of aking who should reign in righteousness, of a prince of peace, of one whoshould rule by the power of truth, not by force, whose kingdom should beuniversal and everlasting, and into which all nations of the earth shouldflow. What the Prophets foresaw was not times nor seasons, not dates nornames, not any minute particulars. But they saw a future age, they livedout of their own time in another time, which had not yet arrived. Theyleft behind them Jewish ceremonialism, and entered into a moral andspiritual religion. They dropped Jewish narrowness and called all mankindbrethren. In this they reach the highest form of foresight, which is notsimply to predict a coming event, but to live in the spirit of a futuretime. Thus the Prophets developed the Jewish religion to its highest point. Thesimple, childlike faith of Abraham became, in their higher vision, thesight of a universal Father, and of an age in which all men and nationsshould be united into one great moral kingdom. Further than this, it wasnot possible to go in vision. The difference between the Prophets andJesus was, that he accomplished what they foresaw. His life, full of faithin God and man, became the new seed of a higher kingdom than that ofDavid. He was the son of David, as inheriting the loving trust of David ina heavenly Father; he was also the Lord of David, by fulfilling David'slove to God with his own love to man; making piety and charity one, faithand freedom one, reason and religion one, this life and the life to comeone. He died to accomplish this union and to make this atoning sacrifice. § 7. Judaism as a Preparation for Christianity. After the return from the captivity the Jewish nation remained loyal toJehovah. The dangers of polytheism and idolatry had passed. We no morehear of either of these tendencies, but, on the contrary, a rigid andalmost bigoted monotheism was firmly established. Their sufferings, theteaching of their Prophets, perhaps the influence of the Persian worship, had confirmed them in the belief that Jehovah was one and alone, and thatthe gods of the nations were idols. They had lost forever the sacred arkof the covenant and the mysterious ornaments of the high-priest. Theirkings had disappeared, and a new form of theocracy took the place of aroyal government. The high-priest, with the great council, became thesupreme authority. The government was hierarchal. Hellenic influences began to act on the Jewish mind, and a peculiardialect of Hebrew-Greek, called the Hellenistic, was formed. TheSeptuagint, or Greek version of the Old Testament, was made in Alexandriaabout B. C. 260. In Egypt, Greek philosophy began to affect the Jewishmind, the final result of which was the system of Philo. Greek influencesspread to such an extent that a great religious revolution took place inPalestine (B. C. 170), and the Temple at Jerusalem was turned into a templeof Olympic Jupiter. Many of the priests and leading citizens accepted thischange, though the heart of the people rejected it with horror. UnderAntiochus the Temple was profaned, the sacrifices ceased, the keeping ofthe Sabbath and use of the Scriptures were forbidden by a royal edict. Then arose the Maccabees, and after a long and bitter strugglere-established the worship of Jehovah, B. C. 141. After this the mass of the people, in their zeal for the law and their oldinstitutions, fell in to the narrow bigotry of the Pharisees. TheSadducees were Jewish Epicureans, but though wealthy were few, and hadlittle influence. The Essenes were Jewish monks, living in communities, and as little influential as are the Shakers in Massachusetts to-day. Theywere not only few, but their whole system was contrary to the tone ofJewish thought, and was probably derived from Orphic Pythagoreanism. [378] The Talmud, that mighty maze of Jewish thought, commencing after thereturn from the captivity, contains the history of the gradual progressand development of the national mind. The study of the Talmud is necessaryto the full understanding of the rise of Christianity. Many of theparables and precepts of Jesus may have had their origin in thesetraditions and teachings. For the Talmud contains much that is excellent, and the originality of Jesus was not in saying what never had been thoughtbefore, but in vitalizing all old truth out of a central spiritual life. His originality was not novelty, but vitality. We have room here but for asingle extract. [379] "'Six hundred and thirteen injunctions, ' says the Talmud, 'was Mosesinstructed to give to the people. David reduced them all to eleven, in thefifteenth Psalm: Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle who shall dwellon thy holy hill? He that walketh uprightly, ' &c. "'The Prophet Isaiah reduced them to six (xxxiii. 15): He that walkethrighteously, ' &c. "'The Prophet Micah reduced them to three (vi. 8): What doth the Lordrequire of thee but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humblywith thy God? "'Isaiah once more reduced them to two (lvi. 1): Keep ye judgment and dojustice. "'Amos (v. 4) reduced them all to one: Seek ye me and ye shall live. "'But lest it might be supposed from this that God could be found in thefulfilment of his whole law only, Habakkuk said (ii. 4): The just shalllive by his faith. '" Thus we have seen the Jewish religion gradually developed out of thefamily worship of Abraham, through the national worship of the law to thepersonal and filial trust of David, and the spiritual monotheism of Joband the Prophets. Through all these changes there ran the one goldenthread of faith in a Supreme Being who was not hidden and apart from theworld, but who came to man as to his child. At first this belief was narrow and like that of a child[380] We readthat when Noah went into the ark, "the Lord shut him in"; that when Babelwas built, "the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which thechildren of men had built"; that when Noah offered burnt-sacrifices, "theLord smelled a sweet savor"; that he told Moses to make him a sanctuary, that he might dwell among the Israelites. We have seen, in our chapter onGreece, that Homer makes Jupiter send a pernicious dream to Agamemnon, todeceive him; in other words, makes Jupiter tell a lie to Agamemnon. Buthow is the account in I Kings xxii. 20-23, any better?[381] But how all this ignorance was enlightened, and this narrowness enlarged, let the magnificent theism of the Psalms, of Job, and of Isaiah testify. Solomon declares "The heaven of heavens cannot contain him, how much lessthis house that I have builded. " Job and the Psalms and Isaiah describethe omniscience, omnipresence, and inscrutable perfections of the Deity inlanguage to which twenty centuries have been able to add nothing. [382] Thus Judaism was monotheism, first as a seed, then as a blade, and then asthe ear which the sun of Christianity was to ripen into the full corn. Thehighest truth was present, implicitly, in Judaism, and became explicit inChristianity. The law was the schoolmaster to bring men to Christ. Ittaught, however imperfectly, a supreme and living God; a Providence rulingall things; a Judge rewarding good and punishing evil; a holy Being, ofpurer eyes than to behold iniquity. It announced a moral law to beobeyed, the substance of which was to love God with all the heart, andone's neighbor as one's self. Wherever the Apostles of Christ went they found that Judaism had preparedthe way. Usually, in every place, they first preached to the Jews, andmade converts of them. For Judaism, though so narrow and so alien to theGreek and Latin thought, had nevertheless pervaded all parts of the RomanEmpire. Despised and satirized by philosophers and poets, it had yet wonits way by its strength of conviction. It offered to men, not aphilosophy, but a religion; not thought, but life. Too intolerant ofdifferences to convert the world to monotheism, it yet made a preparationfor its conversion. This was its power, and thus it went before the faceof the Master, to prepare his way. Chapter XI. Mohammed and Islam. § 1. Recent Works on the Life of Mohammed. § 2. The Arabs and Arabia. § 3. Early Life of Mohammed, to the Hegira. § 4. Change in the Character of Mohammed after the Hegira. § 5. Religious Doctrines and Practices among the Mohammedans. § 6. The Criticism of Mr. Palgrave on Mohammedan Theology. § 7. Mohammedanism a Relapse; the worst Form of Monotheism, and a retarding Element in Civilization. Note. § 1. Recent Works on the Life of Mohammed. Dr. Samuel Johnson once declared, "There are two objects of curiosity, theChristian world and the Mohammedan world; all the rest may be consideredas barbarous. " Since Dr. Johnson's time we have learned to be curiousabout other forms of human thought, and regard the famous line of Terenceas expressing more accurately the proper frame of mind for a Christianphilosopher. Nevertheless, Mohammedanism still claims a special interestand excites a peculiar curiosity. It is the only religion which hasthreatened Christianity with a dangerous rivalry. It is the only otherreligion, whose origin is in the broad daylight of history. Its author isthe only one among the great men of the world who has at the same timefounded a religion, formed a people, and established an empire. Themarvellous spread of this religion is a mystery which never ceases tostimulate the mind to new inquiry. How was it that in the short space of acentury the Arab tribes, before always at war among themselves, shouldhave been united into an irresistible power, and have conquered Syria, Persia, the whole of Northern Africa and Spain? And with this religiousoutbreak, this great revival of monotheism in Asia, there came also asremarkable a renaissance of learning, which made the Arabs the teachers ofphilosophy and art to Europe during a long period. Arab Spain was a focusof light while Christian Europe lay in mediæval darkness. And still moreinteresting and perplexing is the character of Mohammed himself. What washe, --an impostor or a prophet? Did his work advance or retard humanprogress? What is his position in history? Such are some of the questionson which we shall endeavor to throw light in the present chapter. Within a few years new materials for this study have been made accessibleby the labors of Weil, Caussin de Perceval, Muir, Sprenger, Döllinger, andArnold. Dr. Gustav Weil published his work[383] in 1843. It was drawn fromArabic manuscripts and the Koran. When Weil began his studies on Mohammedin 1837, he found no book except that of Gagnier, published in 1732, fromwhich he could derive substantial aid. But Gagnier had only collected, without any attempt at criticism, the traditions and statements concerningMohammed believed by orthodox Moslems. Satisfied that a literary wantexisted at this point, Dr. Weil devoted himself to such studies as shouldenable him to supply it; and the result was a work concerning which Milmansays that "nothing has escaped" the diligence of its author. But fouryears after appeared the book of M. Caussin de Perceval, [384] a work ofwhich M. Saint-Hilaire says that it marks a new era in these studies, onaccount of the abundance and novelty of its details, and the light thrownon the period which in Arabia preceded the coming of Mohammed. Dr. A. Sprenger, an eminent German scholar, early determined to devote himself tothe study of Oriental literature in the East. He spent a long time inIndia, and was for twelve years principal of a Mohammedan school in Delhi, where he established, in 1845, an illustrated penny magazine in the Hindoolanguage. After returning to Europe with a vast number of Orientalmanuscripts, he composed his Life of Mohammed, [385] the result ofextensive studies. Among the preparations for this work we will cite onlyone. Dr. Sprenger edited in Calcutta the first volume of the Içâba, whichcontains the names and biographies of _eight thousand_ persons who werepersonally acquainted with Mohammed. [386] But, as if to embarrass us withriches, comes also Mr. Muir[387] and presents us with another life of theprophet, likewise drawn from original sources, and written with learningand candor. This work, in four volumes, goes over the whole ground of thehistory of Arabia before the coming of the prophet, and then, from Arabicsources, narrates the life of Mohammed himself, up to the era of theHegira. The result of these researches is that we know accurately what Mr. Hallam in his time despaired of knowing, --all the main points of thehistory of Mohammed. There is no legend, no myth, to trouble us. M. Saint-Hilaire says that the French are far less acquainted withCharlemagne than the Moslems are with their prophet, who came twocenturies earlier. A Mohammedan writer, Syed Ahmed Khan Bahador, has lately published, inEnglish, a series of Essays on the life of Mohammed, Arabia, the Arabs, Mohammedan traditions, and kindred topics, written from the stand-point ofa believer in Islam. [388] He is dissatisfied with all the recent works onMohammed, including those of Dr. Sprenger and Mr. Muir. He believes thatthe Arabic sources from which these biographies are derived are not themost authentic. The special objections, however, which this ableMohammedan urges against these European biographies by Sprenger and Muirdo not affect any of the important points in the history, but only detailsof small moment. Notwithstanding his criticisms, therefore, we may safelyassume that we are in a condition to understand the actual life andcharacter of Mohammed. All that the Syed says concerning the duty of animpartial and friendly judgment of Islam and its author is, of course, true. We shall endeavor in our treatment of Mohammed to follow thisexhortation. Something, however, is always gained by hearing what the believers in asystem have to say in its behalf, and these essays of the Mohammedanscholar may help us in this way. One of the most curious parts of thevolume is that in which he treats of the prophecies concerning Mohammed inthe Old and New Testament. Most of our readers will be surprised atlearning that any such prophecies exist; and yet some of them are quite asstriking as many of those commonly adduced by writers on prophecy asreferring to Jesus Christ. For example (Deut. Xviii. 15, 18), when Mosespredicts that the Lord will raise up a prophet for the Jews, _from amongtheir brethren_; by emphasizing this latter clause, and arguing that theJews had no brethren except the Ishmaelites, from whom Mohammed was born, an argument is derived that the latter was referred to. This isstrengthened by the declaration of Moses, that this prophet should be"_like unto me_, " since Deuteronomy xxxiv. 10 declares that "there aroseno prophet _in Israel_ like unto Moses. " Habakkuk iii. 3 says: "The Holy One came from Mount Paran. " But MountParan, argues our friend, is the mountain of Mecca. The Hebrew word translated "desire" in Haggai ii. 7, "The desire of allnations shall come, " is said by Bahador to be the same word as the nameMohammed. He is therefore predicted by his name in this passage. When Isaiah says (xxi. 7), according to the Septuagint translation, thathe "saw two riders, one on an ass and one on a camel, " Bahador argues thatthe rider on the ass is Jesus, who so entered Jerusalem, and that therider on the camel is Mohammed. When John the Baptist was asked if he were the Christ, or Elijah, or "thatprophet, " Mohammedans say that "that prophet, " so anticipated, was theirown. § 2. The Arabs and Arabia. The Arabs are a Semitic people, belonging to the same great ethnologicfamily with the Babylonians, Assyrians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, Ethiopians, and Carthaginians. It is a race which has given to civilized man hisliterature and his religion; for the alphabet came from the Phoenicians, and the Bible from the Jews. In Hannibal, it produced perhaps the greatestmilitary genius the world has seen; and the Tyrian merchants, circumnavigating Africa, discovering Great Britain, and trading withIndia, ten centuries before Christ, had no equals on the ocean until thetime of the Portuguese discoveries, twenty-five centuries after. The Arabsalone, of the seven Semitic families, remained undistinguished and unknowntill the days of Mohammed. Their claim of being descended from Abraham isconfirmed by the unerring evidence of language. The Arabic roots are, ninetenths of them, identical with the Hebrew; and a similarity of grammaticalforms shows a plain glossological relation. But while the Jews have ahistory from the days of Abraham, the Arabs had none till Mohammed. Duringtwenty centuries these nomads wandered to and fro, engaged in mutual wars, verifying the prediction (Gen. Xvi. 12) concerning Ishmael: "He will be awild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand againsthim. " Wherever such wandering races exist, whether in Arabia, Turkistan, or Equatorial Africa, "darkness covers the earth, and gross darkness thepeople. " The earth has no geography, and the people no history. During allthis long period, from the time of Abraham to that of Mohammed, the Arabswere not a nation, but only a multitude of tribes, either stationary orwandering. But of these two the nomad or Bedouin is the true type of therace as it exists in Northern Arabia. The Arab of the South isin many respects different, --in language, in manners, and incharacter, --confirming the old opinion of a double origin. But theNorthern Arab in his tent has remained unchanged since the days of theBible. Proud of his pure blood, of his freedom, of his tribe, and of hisancient customs, he desires no change. He is, in Asia, what the NorthAmerican Indian is upon the western continent. As the Indian's, his chiefvirtues are courage in war, cunning, wild justice, hospitality, andfortitude. He is, however, of a better race, --more reflective, morereligious, and with a thirst for knowledge. The pure air and the simplefood of the Arabian plains keep him in perfect health; and the necessityof constant watchfulness against his foes, from whom he has no defence ofrock, forest, or fortification, quickens his perceptive faculties. But theArab has also a sense of spiritual things, which appears to have a root inhis organization. The Arabs say: "The children of Shem are prophets, thechildren of Japhet are kings, and the children of Ham are slaves. " Havingno temples, no priesthood, no religious forms, their religion is lessformal and more instinctive, like that of children. The Koran says: "Everychild is born into the religion of nature; its parents make it a Jew, aChristian, or a Magian. " But when Mohammed came, the religion of the Arabswas a jumble of monotheism and polytheism, --Judaism, Christianity, idolatry, and fetichism. At one time there had been a powerful andintolerant Jewish kingdom in one region. In Yemen, at another period, theking of Abyssinia had established Christianity. But neither Judaism norChristianity had ever been able to conquer the peninsula; and at the endof the sixth century idolatry was the most prevailing form of worship. At this time Mohammed appeared, and in a few years united in one faith allthe warring tribes of Arabia; consolidated them into a single nation, andthen wielded their mighty and enthusiastic forces against Syria, Persia, and North Africa, triumphant wherever they moved. He, certainly, if everman possessed it, had the rare gift of natural empire. To him, more thanto any other of whom history makes mention, was given "The monarch mind, the mystery of commanding, The birth-hour gift, the art Napoleon, Of wielding, moulding, gathering, welding, banding, The hearts of thousands till they moved as one. " § 3. Early Life of Mohammed, to the Hegira. But it was not as a soldier or ambitious conqueror that Mohammed began hiscareer. The first forty years of his life were passed in the quietpursuits of trade, or taking care of the property of Khadîjah. Serious, thoughtful, devout, he made friends of all about him. His youth wasunstained by vice, and his honorable character early obtained for him thetitle, given him by common consent, of Al Amîn, "the faithful. " At onetime he tended sheep and goats on the hills near Mecca. At Medina, afterhe became distinguished he referred to this, saying, "Pick me the blackestof those berries; they are such as I used to gather when I fed the flocksat Mecca. Verily, no prophet has been raised up who has not performed thework of a shepherd. " When twenty-five years of age, he entered into theservice of Khadîjah, a rich widow, as her agent, to take charge of hermerchandise and to sell it at Damascus. When the caravan returned, and hisadventure had proved successful, Khadîjah, then forty years old, becameinterested in the young man; she was wise, virtuous, and attractive; theywere married, and, till her death, Mohammed was a kind and loving husband. Khadîjah sympathized with her husband in his religious tendencies, and washis first convert. His habit was to retire to a cave on Mount Hira to prayand to meditate. Sadness came over him in view of the evils in the world. One of the Suras of the Koran, supposed to belong to this period, is asfollows:-- _Sura 103. _ "By the declining day I swear! Verily, man is in the way of ruin; Excepting such as possess faith, And do the things which be right, And stir up one another to truth and steadfastness. " About this time he began to have his visions of angels, especially ofGabriel. He saw a light, and heard a voice, and had sentences like theabove put into his mind. These communications were accompanied by strongconvulsions (epilepsy, says Weil), in which he would fall to the groundand foam at the mouth. Sprenger considers it to have been a form ofhysteria, with a mental origin, perhaps accompanied with catalepsy. Theprophet himself said: "Inspiration descends on me in two ways. SometimesGabriel cometh and communicateth the revelation, as one man to another. This is easy. But sometimes it is as the ringing of a bell, which rends mein pieces, and grievously afflicts me. " One day, when Abu Bakr and Omarsat in the Mosque at Medina, Mohammed came suddenly upon them, lifting uphis beard and looking at it; and Abu Bakr said, "Ah thou, for whom I wouldsacrifice father and mother; white hairs are hastening upon thee!" "Yes, "said the prophet, "Hûd" (Sura 11) "and its sisters have hastened my whitehairs. " "And who, " asked Abu Bakr, "are its sisters?" "The _Inevitable_"(Sura 56) "and the _Striking_" (Sura 101), replied Mohammed. These threeare called the "terrific Suras. " But these last Suras came later than the period now referred to. At thistime his visions and revelations possessed _him_; he did not possess norcontrol _them_. In later years the spirit of the prophet was more subjectto the prophet. But the Koran is an unintelligible book unless we canconnect it with the biography of its writer. All the incidents of his lifetook shape in some revelation. A separate revelation was given toencourage or to rebuke him; and in his later years the too subservientinspiration came to appease the jealousy of his wives when a new one wasadded to their number. But, however it may have been afterward, in thebeginning his visions were as much a surprise to him as to others. Acareful distribution of the Suras, according to the events which befellhim, would make the Koran the best biography of the prophet. As we said ofDavid and his Psalms, so it may be said of Mohammed, that his life hangssuspended in these hymns, as in votive pictures, each the record of somegrave experience. [389] Now, it is impossible to read the detailed accounts of this part of thelife of Mohammed, and have any doubt of his profound sincerity. Hisearliest converts were his bosom-friends and the people of his household, who were intimately acquainted with his private life. Nor does a maneasily begin an ambitious course of deception at the age of forty; havinglived till that time as a quiet, peaceful, and unobtrusive citizen, [390]what was he to gain by this career? Long years passed before he could makemore than a handful of converts. During these weary years he was theobject of contumely and hatred to the ruling tribe in Mecca. His life washardly safe from them. Nothing could be more hopeless than his positionduring the first twelve years of his public preaching. Only a strongconviction of the reality of his mission could have supported him throughthis long period of failure, loneliness, and contempt. During all theseyears the wildest imagination could not have pictured the success whichwas to come. Here is a Sura in which he finds comfort in God and hispromises. -- _Sura 93. _ "By the rising sunshine! By the night when it darkeneth! Thy Lord hath not removed from thee, neither hath he been displeased. And verily the future shall be better than the past. .. . What! did he not find thee an orphan, and give thee a home? And found thee astray, and directed thee?" In this Sura, Mohammed refers to the fact of the death of his mother, Amina, in his seventh year, his father having died a few months before. Hevisited her tomb many years after, and lifted up his voice and wept. Inreply to the questions of his companions, he said: "This is the grave ofmy mother; the Lord hath permitted me to visit it, and I asked leave topray for her, and it was not granted. So I called my mother toremembrance, and the tender memory of her overcame me, and I wept. " Thechild had been taken by his grandfather, Abd al Mut-talib, then eightyyears old, who treated him with the greatest indulgence. At his death, shortly after, Mohammed was adopted by his uncle, Abu Tâlib, the chief ofthe tribe. Abu Tâlib brought him up like his own son, making him sleep byhis bed, eat by his side, and go with him wherever he went. And whenMohammed, assuming his inspired position, declared himself a prophet, hisuncle, then aged and universally respected, protected him from hisenemies, though Abu himself never accepted his teaching. Mohammedtherefore had good reason to bless the Providence which had provided suchprotectors for his orphaned infancy. Among the earliest converts of Mohammed, after Khadîjah, were his twoadopted children, Ali and Zeid. Ali was the son of his guardian, AbuTâlib, who had become poor, and found it hard to support his family. Mohammed, "prompted by his usual kindness and consideration, " says Mr. Muir, went to his rich uncle Abbas, and proposed that each of them shouldadopt one of Abu Tâlib's children, which was done. His other adopted son, Zeid, belonged to a Syrian tribe, and had been taken captive by marauders, sold into slavery, and given to Khadîjah, who presented him to herhusband. After a while the father of Zeid heard where he was, and comingto Mecca offered a large sum as ransom for his son. Mohammed had becomevery fond of Zeid, but he called him, and gave him his choice to go orstay. Zeid said, "I will not leave thee; thou art in the place to me offather and mother. " Then Mohammed took him to the Kaaba, and touching theBlack Stone said, "Bear witness, all here! Zeid is my son. I shall be hisheir, and he mine. " So the father returned home contented, and Zeid washenceforth known as "Zeid ibn Mohammed, "--Zeid, the son of Mohammed. It is reported that when Ali was about thirteen years old Mohammed was oneday praying with him in one of the retired glens near Mecca, whither theyhad gone to avoid the ridicule of their opponents. Abu Tâlib, passing by, said, "My nephew! what is this new faith I see thee following?" "O myuncle, " replied Mohammed, "it is the religion of God, his angels andprophets, the religion of Abraham. The Lord hath sent me as his apostle;and thou, uncle, art most worthy to be invited to believe. " Abu Tâlibreplied, "I am not able, my nephew, to separate from the customs of myforefathers, but I swear that while I live no one shall trouble thee. "Then he said to Ali, "My son, he will not invite thee to anything which isnot good; wherefore thou art free to cleave to him. " Another early and important convert was Abu Bakr, father of Mohammed'sfavorite wife, Ayesha, and afterward the prophet's successor. Ayesha saidshe "could not remember the time when both her parents were not truebelievers. " Of Abu Bakr, the prophet said, "I never invited any to thefaith who did not show hesitation, except Abu Bakr. When I proposed Islamto him he at once accepted it. " He was thoughtful, calm, tender, and firm. He is still known as "Al Sadîch, " the true one. Another of his titles is"the Second of the Two, "--from having been the only companion of Mohammedin his flight from Mecca. Hassan, the poet of Medina, thus says of him:-- "And the second of the two in the glorious cave, while the foes were searching around, and they two were in the mountain, -- And the prophet of the Lord, they well knew, loved him more than all the world; he held no one equal unto him. "[391] Abu Bakr was at this time a successful merchant, and possessed some fortythousand dirhems. But he spent most of it in purchasing and giving freedomto Moslem slaves, who were persecuted by their masters for their religion. He was an influential man among the Koreish. This powerful tribe, therulers of Mecca, who from the first treated Mohammed with contempt, gradually became violent persecutors of him and his followers. Their mainwrath fell on the unprotected slaves, whom they exposed to the scorchingsun, and who, in their intolerable thirst, would sometimes recant, andacknowledge the idols. Some of them remained firm, and afterward showedwith triumph their scars. Mohammed, Abu Bakr, Ali, and all who wereconnected with powerful families, were for a long time safe. For theprincipal protection in such a disorganized society was the principle thateach tribe must defend every one of its members, at all hazards. Ofcourse, Mohammed was very desirous to gain over members of the greatfamilies, but he felt bound to take equal pains with the poor andhelpless, as appears from the following anecdote: "The prophet was engagedin deep converse with the chief Walîd, for he greatly desired hisconversion. Then a blind man passed that way, and asked to hear the Koran. But Mohammed was displeased with the interruption, and turned from himroughly. "[392] But he was afterward grieved to think he had slighted onewhom God had perhaps chosen, and had paid court to a reprobate. So hisremorse took the form of a divine message and embodied itself asfollows:-- "The prophet frowned and turned aside Because the blind man came to him. Who shall tell thee if he may not be purified? Or whether thy admonition might not profit him? The rich man Thou receivest graciously, Although he be not inwardly pure. But him who cometh earnestly inquiring, And trembling with anxiety, Him thou dost neglect. "[393] Mohammed did not encourage his followers to martyrdom. On the contrary, heallowed them to dissemble to save themselves. He found one of hisdisciples sobbing bitterly because he had been compelled by ill-treatmentto abuse his master and worship the idols. "But how dost thou find thyheart?" said the prophet. "Steadfast in the faith, " said he. "Then, "answered Mohammed, "if they repeat their cruelty, thou mayest repeat thywords. " He also had himself an hour of vacillation. Tired of the severeand seemingly hopeless struggle with the Koreish, and seeing no way ofovercoming their bitter hostility, he bethought himself of the method ofcompromise, more than seven centuries before America was discovered. Hehad been preaching Islam five years, and had only forty or fifty converts. Those among them who had no protectors he had advised to fly to theChristian kingdom of Abyssinia. "Yonder, " said he, pointing to the west, "lies a land wherein no one is wronged. Go there and remain until the Lordshall open a way for you. " Some fifteen or twenty had gone, and met with akind reception. This was the first "Hegira, " and showed the strength offaith in these exiles, who gave up their country rather than Islam. Butthey heard, before long, that the Koreish had been converted by Mohammed, and they returned to Mecca. The facts were these. One day, when the chief citizens were sitting near the Kaaba, Mohammedcame, and began to recite in their hearing one of the Suras of the Koran. In this Sura three of the goddesses worshipped by the Koreish werementioned. When he came to their names he added two lines in which heconceded that their intercession might avail with God. The Koreish were sodelighted at this acknowledgment of their deities, that when he addedanother line calling on them to worship Allah, they all prostratedthemselves on the ground and adored God. Then they rose, and expressedtheir satisfaction, and agreed to be his followers, and receive Islam, with this slight alteration, that their goddesses and favorite idols wereto be respected. Mohammed went home and began to be unhappy in his mind. The compromise, it seems, lasted long enough for the Abyssinian exiles tohear of it and to come home. But at last the prophet recovered himself, and took back his concession. The verse of the Sura was cancelled, andanother inserted, declaring that these goddesses were only names, inventedby the idolaters. Ever after, the intercession of idols was condemned withscorn. But Mohammed records his lapse thus in the seventeenth Sura of theKoran:-- "And truly, they were near tempting thee from what we taught thee, that thou shouldst invent a different revelation; and then they would have inclined unto thee. And if we had not strengthened thee, verily thou hadst inclined to them a little. Then thou shouldst not have found against us any helper. " After this, naturally, the persecution became hotter than ever. A secondbody of exiles went to Abyssinia. Had not the venerable Abu Tâlibprotected Mohammed, his life might have been lost. As it was, thepersecutors threatened the old man with deadly enmity unless he gave upMohammed. But Abu Tâlib, though agreeing with them in their religion, andworshipping their gods, refused to surrender his nephew to them. Once, when Mohammed had disappeared, and his uncle suspected that the Koreishhad seized him, he armed a party of Hâshimite youths with dirks, and wentto the Kaaba, to the Koreish. But on the way he heard that Mohammed wasfound. Then, in the presence of the Koreish, he told his young men to drawtheir dirks, and said, "By the Lord! had ye killed him, not one of you hadremained alive. " This boldness cowed their violence for a time. But as theunpopularity of Mohammed increased, he and all his party were obliged totake refuge with the Hâshimites in a secluded quarter of the citybelonging to Abu Tâlib. The conversion of Omar about this time onlyincreased their rage. They formed an alliance against the Hâshimites, agreeing that they would neither buy nor sell, marry, nor have anydealings with them. This oath was committed to writing, sealed, and hungup in the Kaaba. For two or three years the Hâshimites remained shut up intheir fortress, and often deprived of the necessaries of life. Theirfriends would sometimes secretly supply them with provisions; but thecries of the hungry children would often be heard by those outside. Theywere blockaded in their intrenchments. But many of the chief people inMecca began to be moved by pity, and at last it was suggested to Abu Tâlibthat the bond hung up in the Kaaba had been eaten by the ants, so as to beno longer valid. This being found to be the case, it was decided that theleague was at an end, and the Hâshimites returned to their homes. Butother misfortunes were in store for Mohammed. The good Abu Tâlib soondied, and, not long after, Khadîjah. His protector gone, what couldMohammed do? He left the city, and went with only Zeid for a companion ona mission to Tâyif, sixty or seventy miles east of Mecca, in hopes ofconverting the inhabitants. Who can think of the prophet, in this lonelyjourney, without sympathy? He was going to preach the doctrine of One Godto idolaters. But he made no impression on them, and, as he left the town, was followed by a mob, hooting, and pelting him with stones. At last theyleft him, and in the shadow of some trees he betook himself to prayer. Hiswords have been preserved, it is believed by the Moslems, and are asfollows: "O Lord! I make my complaint unto thee of the feebleness of mystrength, and the weakness of my plans. I am insignificant in the sight ofmen. O thou most merciful! Lord of the weak! Thou art my Lord! Do notabandon me. Leave me not a prey to these strangers, nor to my foes. Ifthou art not offended, I am safe. I seek refuge in the light of thycountenance, by which all darkness is dispersed, and peace comes. There isno power, no help, but in thee. " In that hour of prayer, the faith ofMohammed was the same as that of Luther praying for protection against thePope. It was a part of the universal religion of human nature. Certainlythis man was no impostor. A man, going alone to summon an idolatrous cityto repentance, must at least have believed in his own doctrine. But the hour of success was at hand. No amount of error, no bitterness ofprejudice, no vested interest in falsehood, can resist the determinedconviction of a single soul. Only believe a truth strongly enough to holdit through good report and ill report, and at last the great world ofhalf-believers comes round to you. And usually the success comes suddenlyat last, after weary years of disappointment. The great tree, which seemsso solid and firm, has been secretly decaying within, and is hollow atheart; at last it falls in a moment, filling the forest with the echoes ofits ruin. The dam, which seems strong enough to resist a torrent, has beenslowly undermined by a thousand minute rills of water; at last it issuddenly swept away, and opens a yawning breach for the tumbling cataract. And almost as suddenly came the triumph of Mohammed. At Medina and in its neighborhood there had long been numerous andpowerful tribes of Jewish proselytes. In their conflicts with theidolaters, they had often predicted the speedy coming of a prophet likeMoses. The Jewish influence was great at Medina, and that of the idolaterswas divided by bitter quarrels. Now it must be remembered that at thistime Mohammed taught a kind of modified Judaism. He came to revive thereligion of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He continually referred to the OldTestament and the Talmud for authority. He was a prophet and inspired, butnot to teach anything new. He was to restore the universal religion whichGod had taught to man in the beginning, --the religion of all truepatriarchs and prophets. Its essential doctrine was the unity of God, andhis supremacy and providence. Its one duty was Islam, or submission to theDivine will. Its worship was prayer and almsgiving. At this time he didnot make belief in himself the main point; it was to profess the unity ofGod, and to submit wholly to God. So that the semi-Judaized pilgrims fromMedina to Mecca were quite prepared to accept his teachings. Mohammed, atthe time of the pilgrimage, met with many of them, and they promised tobecome his disciples. The pledge they took was as follows: "We will notworship any but the one God; we will not steal, nor commit adultery, norkill our children (female): we will not slander at all, nor disobey theprophet in anything that is right. " This was afterward called the "Pledgeof Women, " because it did not require them to fight for Islam. This faithspread rapidly among the idolaters at Medina, --much more so than theJewish system. The Jews required too much of their proselytes; theyinsisted on their becoming Jews. They demanded a change of all theirprevious customs. But Mohammed only asked for submission. About this time Mohammed had his famous dream or vision, in which he wascarried by Gabriel on a winged steed to Jerusalem, to meet all theprophets of God and be welcomed by them to their number, and then to theseventh heaven into the presence of God. It was so vivid that he deemed ita reality, and maintained that he had been to Jerusalem and to heaven. This, and the Koran itself, were the only miracles he ever claimed. The Medina Moslems having entered into a second pledge, to receiveMohammed and his friends, and to protect them, the prophet gave orders tohis followers to leave Mecca secretly in small parties, and repair toMedina. As the stout sea-captain remains the last on a sinking vessel, Mohammed stayed quietly at Mecca till all the others had gone. Only AbuBakr's family and his own remained. The rest of the believers, to thenumber of about two hundred, had disappeared. The Koreish, amazed at these events, knew not what to do. Why had theMoslems gone? and why had Mohammed remained? How dared he to stay, unprotected, in their midst? They might kill him;--but then his tribewould take a bloody vengeance on his murderers. At last they proposed toseize him, and that a number of men, one from each tribe and family, should at the same moment drive their dirks into him. Or perhaps it mightbe better to send an assassin to waylay him on his way to Medina. Whilethey were discussing these alternatives, news was brought to them thatMohammed also had disappeared, and Abu Bakr with him. They immediatelywent to their houses. In that of Mohammed they found the young Ali, who, being asked where his father was, replied, "I do not know. I am not hiskeeper. Did you not order him to go from the city? I suppose he is gone. "Getting no more information at the house of Abu Bakr, they sent outparties of armed men, mounted on swift horses and camels, to search thewhole route to Medina, and bring the fugitives back. After a few days thepursuers returned, saying that there were no signs of any persons havinggone in that direction. If they had gone that way they would certainlyhave overtaken them. Meantime where were the fugitives? Instead of going north to Medina, theyhad hidden in a cave on a mountain, about five or six miles to the southof Mecca. Here they remained concealed three days and nights, in imminentdanger from their pursuers, who once, it is said, came to the mouth of thecave, but, seeing spiders' webs spun across the opening, concluded no onecould have gone in recently. There was a crevice in the roof through whichthe morning light entered, and Abu Bakr said, "If one of them were tolook down, he would see us. " "Think not so, Abu Bakr, " said the prophet. "We are two, but God is in the midst, a third. " The next day, satisfied that the heat of the pursuit had abated, they tookthe camels which had privately been brought to them from the city by theson of Abu Bakr, and set off for Medina, leaving Mecca on the right. Bythe calculations of M. Caussin de Perceval, it was on the 20th of June, A. D. 622. § 4. Change in the Character of Mohammed after the Hegira. From the Hegira the Mohammedan era begins; and from that point of theprophet's history his fortunes rise, but his character degenerates. He hasborne adversity and opposition with a faith and a patience almost sublime;but prosperity he will not bear so well. Down to that time he had been aprophet, teaching God's truth to those who would receive it, and by themanifestation of that truth commending himself to every man's conscience. Now he was to become a politician, the head of a party, contrivingexpedients for its success. Before, his only weapon was truth; now, hischief means was force. Instead of convincing his opponents, he nowcompelled them to submit by the terror of his power. His revelationschanged their tone; they adapted themselves to his needs, and on alloccasions, even when he wanted to take an extra wife, inspiration came tohis aid. What sadder tragedy is there than to see a great soul thus conquered bysuccess? "All these things, " says Satan, "I will give thee, if thou wiltfall down and worship me. " When Jesus related his temptation to hisdisciples he put it in the form of a parable. How could they, how can we, understand the temptations of a nature like that of Christ! Perhaps he sawthat he could have a great apparent success by the use of worldly means. He could bring the Jew and the Gentile to acknowledge and receive histruth. Some slight concession to worldly wisdom, some little compromisewith existing errors, some hardly perceptible variation from perfecttruthfulness, and lo! the kingdom of God would come in that very hour, instead of lingering through long centuries. What evils might not bespared to the race, what woes to the world, if the divine gospel of loveto God and man were inaugurated by Christ himself! This, perhaps, was oneof the temptations. But Jesus said, "Get thee behind me, Satan. " He woulduse only good means for good ends. He would take God's way to do God'swork. He would die on the cross, but not vary from the perfect truth. Thesame temptation came to Mohammed, and he yielded. Up to the Hegira, Mohammed might also have said, "My kingdom is not of this world. " But nowthe sword and falsehood were to serve him, as his most faithful servants, in building up Islam. His _ends_ were the same as before. His object wasstill to establish the service of the one living and true God. But his_means_, henceforth, are of the earth, earthy. What a noble religion would Islam have been, if Mohammed could have goneon as he began! He accepted all the essential truths of Judaism, herecognized Moses and Christ as true teachers. He taught that there was oneuniversal religion, the substance of which was faith in one Supreme Being, submission to his will, trust in his providence, and good-will to hiscreatures. Prayer and alms were the only worship which God required. Amarvellous and mighty work, says Mr. Muir, had been wrought by these fewprecepts. From time beyond memory Mecca and the whole peninsula had beensteeped in spiritual torpor. The influences of Judaism, Christianity, andphilosophy had been feeble and transient. Dark superstitions prevailed, the mothers of dark vices. And now, in thirteen years of preaching, a bodyof men and women had risen, who rejected idolatry; worshipped the onegreat God; lived lives of prayer; practised chastity, benevolence, andjustice; and were ready to do and to bear everything for the truth. Allthis came from the depth of conviction in the soul of this one man. To the great qualities which Mohammed had shown as a prophet andreligious teacher were now added those of the captain and statesman. Hehad at last obtained a position at Medina whence he could act on the Arabswith other forces than those of eloquence and feeling. And now the man whofor forty years had been a simple citizen and led a quiet family life--whoafterward, for thirteen years, had been a patient but despised teacher ofthe unity of God--passed the last ten years of his strange career inbuilding up a fanatical army of warriors, destined to conquer half thecivilized world. From this period the old solution of the Mohammedanmiracle is in order; from this time the sword leads, and the Koranfollows. To this familiar explanation of Mohammedan success, Mr. Carlylereplies with the question: "Mohammedanism triumphed with the sword? Butwhere did it get its sword?" We can now answer that pithy inquiry. Thesimple, earnest zeal of the original believers built up a power, whichthen took the sword, and conquered with it. The reward of patient, long-enduring faith is influence; with this influence ambition servesitself for its own purpose. Such is, more or less, the history of everyreligion, and, indeed, of every political party. Sects are founded, not bypoliticians, but by men of faith, by men to whom ideas are realities, bymen who are willing to die for them. Such faith always triumphs at last;it makes a multitude of converts; it becomes a great power. The deep andstrong convictions thus created are used by worldly men for their ownpurposes. That the Mohammedan impulse was thus taken possession of byworldly men is the judgment of M. Renan. [394] "From all sides, " says he, "we come to this singular result: that the Mussulman movement was startedalmost without religious faith; that, setting aside a small number offaithful disciples, Mahomet really wrought very little conviction inArabia. " "The party of true Mussulmans had all their strength in Omar; butafter his assassination, that is to say, twelve years after the death ofthe prophet, the opposite party triumphed by the election of Othman. ""The first generation of the Hegira was completely occupied inexterminating the primitive Mussulmans, the true fathers of Islamism. "Perhaps it is bold to question the opinions of a Semitic scholar of theforce of M. Renan, but it seems to us that he goes too far in supposingthat such a movement as that of Islam could be _started_ without atremendous depth of conviction. At all events, supported by such writersas Weil, Sprenger, and Muir, we will say that it was a powerful religiousmovement founded on sincerest conviction, but gradually turned aside, andused for worldly purposes and temporal triumphs. And, in thus diverting itfrom divine objects to purely human ones, Mohammed himself led the way. Headds another, and perhaps the greatest, illustration to the long list ofnoble souls whose natures have become subdued to that which they workedin; who have sought high ends by low means; who, talking of the noblesttruths, descend into the meanest prevarications, and so throw a doubt onall sincerity, faith, and honor. Such was the judgment of a greatthinker--Goethe--concerning Mohammed. He believes him to have been atfirst profoundly sincere, but he says of him that afterward "what in hischaracter is earthly increases and develops itself; the divine retires andis obscured: his doctrine becomes a means rather than an end. All kinds ofpractices are employed, nor are horrors wanting. " Goethe intended to writea drama upon Mohammed, to illustrate the sad fact that every man whoattempts to realize a great idea comes in contact with the lower world, must place himself on its level in order to influence it, and thus oftencompromises his higher aims, and at last forfeits them[395]. Such a man, in modern times, was Lord Bacon in the political world; such a man, amongconquerors, was Cromwell; and among Christian sects how often do we seethe young enthusiast and saint end as the ambitious self-seeker andJesuit! Then we call him a hypocrite, because he continues to use thefamiliar language of the time when his heart was true and simple, thoughindulging himself in luxury and sin. It is curious, when we are all soinconsistent, that we should find it so hard to understand inconsistency. We, all of us, often say what is right and do what is wrong; but are wedeliberate hypocrites? No! we know that we are weak; we admit that we areinconsistent; we say amen to the "video meliora, proboque, --deteriorasequor, " but we also know that we are not deliberate and intentionalhypocrites. Let us use the same large judgment in speaking of the faultsof Cromwell, Bacon, and Mohammed. No one could have foreseen the cruelty of which Mohammed, hitherto alwaysa kind-hearted and affectionate man, was capable toward those who resistedhis purpose. This first showed itself in his treatment of the Jews. Hehoped to form an alliance with them, against the idolaters. He hadadmitted the divine authority of their religion, and appealed to theirScriptures as evidence of the truth of his own mission. He conformed totheir ritual and customs, and made Jerusalem his Kibla, toward which heturned in prayer five times a day. In return for this he expected them toreceive him as a prophet; but this they refused to do. So he departed bydegrees from their customs, changed his Kibla to Mecca, and at lastdenounced the Jews as stiff-necked unbelievers. The old quarrel betweenEsau and Jacob could not be appeased, nor an alliance formed between them. M. Saint-Hilaire[396] does not think that the character of Mohammedchanged when he became the founder of a state and head of a conqueringparty. He thinks "that he only yielded to the political necessities of hisposition. " Granted; but yielding to those necessities was the cause ofthis gradual change in his character. The man who lies and murders fromthe necessity of his political position can hardly remain a saint. Plunder, cold-blooded execution of prisoners, self-indulgence, became thehabit of the prophet henceforth, as we shall presently see. The first battle against the Koreish, that of Badr, took place in January, A. D. 624. When Mohammed had drawn up his army, he prayed earnestly forthe victory. After a desperate struggle, the Koreish fled. Mohammedclaimed, by a special revelation, the fifth part of the booty. As thebodies of his old opponents were cast into a pit, he spoke to thembitterly. When the prisoners were brought before him he looked fiercely atone of them. "There is death in that glance, " said the unhappy man, andpresently the prophet ordered him to be beheaded. Two days after, anotherwas ordered for execution. "Who will take care of my little girl?" saidhe. "Hell-fire, " replied Mohammed, and ordered him to be cut down. Shortlyafter the battle, a Jewess who had written verses against Mohammed, wasassassinated by one of his followers; and the prophet praised him for thedeed in the public mosque. Another aged Jew, for the same offence, wasmurdered by his express command. A quarrel between some Jews and Moslemsbrought on an attack by Mohammed upon the Jewish tribe. They surrenderedafter a siege of fifteen days, and Mohammed ordered all the prisoners tobe killed; but at last, at the urgent request of a powerful chief inMedina, allowed them to go into exile, cursing them and their intercessor. Mr. Muir mentions other cases of assassination of the Jews by the commandof the prophet. All these facts are derived from contemporaneous Moslemhistorians, who glorify their prophet for this conduct. The worst actionperhaps of this kind was the deliberate execution of seven or eighthundred Jewish prisoners, who had surrendered at discretion, and the saleof their wives and children into slavery. Mohammed selected from amongthese women one more beautiful than the rest, for his concubine. WhetherM. Saint-Hilaire considers all this as "yielding to the politicalnecessities of his position, " we do not know. But this man, who couldstand by and see hundreds of captives slaughtered in cold blood, and thenretire to solace himself with the widow of one of his victims, seems to usto have retained little of his early purity of soul. About this time Mohammed began to multiply wives, and to receiverevelations allowing him to do so beyond the usual limit of his law. Headded one after another to his harem, until he had ten wives, besides hisslaves. His views on such subjects are illustrated by his presenting threebeautiful female slaves, taken in war, one to his father-in-law, and theothers to his two sons-in-law. So, in a series of battles, with the Jewish tribes, the Koreish, theSyrians, passed the stormy and triumphant years of the Pontiff King. Meccawas conquered, and the Koreish submitted in A. D. 630. The tribesthroughout Arabia acquiesced, one by one, in the prophet's authority. Allpaid tribute, or accepted Islam. His enemies were all under his feet; hisdoctrines accepted; the rival prophets, Aswad and Museilama, overcome. Then, in the sixty-third year of his age, death drew near. On the last dayof his life, he went into the mosque to attend morning prayer, then backto the room of his favorite wife, Ayesha, and died in her arms. Wild withgrief, Omar declared he was not dead, but in a trance. The grave Abu Bakrcomposed the excited multitude, and was chosen caliph, or successor to theprophet. Mohammed died on June 8, A. D. 632, and was buried the next day, amid the grief of his followers. Abu Bakr and Omar offered the prayer:"Peace be unto thee, O prophet of God; and the mercy of the Lord, and hisblessing! We bear testimony that the prophet of God hath delivered themessage revealed to him; hath fought in the ways of the Lord until Godcrowned his religion with victory; hath fulfilled his words commandingthat he alone is to be worshipped in unity; hath drawn us to himself, andbeen kind and tender-hearted to believers; hath sought no recompense fordelivering to us the faith, neither hath sold it for a price at any time. "And all the people said, "Amen! Amen!" Concerning the character of Mohammed, enough has been already said. He wasa great man, one of the greatest ever sent upon earth. He was a man of thedeepest convictions, and for many years of the purest purposes, and wasonly drawn down at last by using low means for a good end. Of his visionsand revelations, the same explanation is to be given as of those receivedby Joan of Arc, and other seers of that order. How far they had anobjective basis in reality, and how far they were the result of someabnormal activity of the imagination, it is difficult with our presentknowledge to decide. But that these visionaries fully believed in theirown inspiration, there can be little doubt. § 5. Religious Doctrines and Practices among the Mohammedans. As to the religion of Mohammed, and its effects on the world, it is easierto come to an opinion than concerning his own character. Its essentialdoctrine, as before indicated, is the absolute unity and supremacy of God, as opposed to the old Arab Polytheism on the one hand and the ChristianTrinity on the other. It however admits of angels and genii. Gabriel andMichael are the angels of power; Azriel, angel of death; Israfeel, angelof the resurrection. Eblis, or Satan, plays an important part in thismythology. The Koran also teaches the doctrine of Eternal Decrees, orabsolute Predestination; of prophets before Mohammed, of whom he is thesuccessor, --as Adam, Noah, Moses, and Jesus; of sacred books, of which allthat remain are the Pentateuch, Psalms, Gospels, and Koran; of anintermediate state after death; of the resurrection and judgment. Allnon-believers in Islam go into eternal fire. There are separate hells forChristians, Jews, Sabians, Magians, idolaters, and the hypocrites of allreligions. The Moslem is judged by his actions. A balance is held byGabriel, one scale hanging over heaven and another over hell, and his gooddeeds are placed in one and his bad ones in the other. According as hisscale inclines, he goes to heaven or hell. If he goes to heaven, he findsthere seventy-two Houris, more beautiful than angels, awaiting him, withgardens, groves, marble palaces, and music. If women are true believersand righteous, they will also go to heaven, but nothing is said abouthusbands being provided for them. Stress is laid on prayer, ablution, fasting, almsgiving, and the pilgrimage to Mecca. Wine and gaming areforbidden. There is no recognition, in the Koran, of human brotherhood. Itis a prime duty to hate infidels and make war on them. Mohammed made it aduty for Moslems to betray and kill their own brothers when they wereinfidels; and he was obeyed in more cases than one. The Moslem sects areas numerous as those of Christians. The Dabistan mentions seventy-three. The two main divisions are into Sunnites and Shyites. The Persians aremostly Shyites, and refuse to receive the Sunnite traditions. They acceptAli, and denounce Omar. Terrible wars and cruelties have taken placebetween these sects. Only a few of the Sunnite doctors acknowledge theShyites to be Moslems. They have a saying, "to destroy a Shyite is moreacceptable than to kill seventy other infidels of whatever sort. " The Turks are the most zealous of the Moslems. On Friday, which is theSabbath of Islam, all business is suspended. Prayers are read and sermonspreached in the mosques. No one is allowed to be absent. The Ramadan fastis universally kept. Any one who breaks it twice is considered worthy ofdeath. The fast lasts from sunrise to sunset. But the rich feast in thenight, and sleep during the day. The Turks have no desire to makeproselytes, but have an intolerant hatred for all outside of Islam. TheKalif is the Chief Pontiff. The Oulema, or Parliament, is composed of theImans, or religious teachers, the Muftis, or doctors of law, and Kadis, orministers of justice. The priests in Turkey are subordinate to the civilmagistrate, who is their diocesan, and can remove them at pleasure. Thepriests in daily life are like the laity, engage in the same business, andare no more austere than they. Mr. Forster says, in regard to their devotion: "When I contrast thesilence of a Turkish mosque, at the hour of public prayer, with the noiseand tumult so frequent in Christian temples, I stand astonished at thestrange inversion, in the two religions, of the order of things whichmight naturally be expected. " "I have seen, " says another, "a congregationof at least two thousand souls assembled in the mosque of St. Sophia, withsilence so profound, that until I entered the body of the building I wasunaware that it contained a single worshipper. " Bishop Southgate, long a missionary bishop of the Episcopal Church of theUnited States, says: "I have often met with Mussulmans who seem to possessdeep religious feeling, and with whom I could exercise something of areligious communion. I have sometimes had my own mind quickened andbenefited by the reverence with which they spoke of the Deity, and havesometimes mingled in harmonious converse with them on holy things. I haveheard them insist with much earnestness on the duty of prayer, when theyappeared to have some spiritual sense of its nature and importance. I havesometimes found them entertaining elevated views of moral duty, andlooking with contempt on the pleasures of this world. These are indeedrare characters, but I should do injustice to my own conviction if I didnot confess that I had found them. In these instances I have beenuniformly struck with a strong resemblance to patriarchal piety. " Hecontinues: "When we sat down to eat, the old Turkish Bey implored ablessing with great solemnity, and rendered his thanks when we arose. Before he left us he spread his carpet, and offered his evening devotionswith apparent meekness and humility; and I could not but feel howimpressive are the Oriental forms of worship when I saw his aged headbowed to the earth in religious homage. " Bishop Southgate adds further: "I have never known a Mussulman, sincere inhis faith and devout and punctilious in his religious duties, in whommoral rectitude did not seem an active quality and a living principle. " In seasons of plague "the Turks appear perfectly fearless. They do notavoid customary intercourse and contact with friends. They remain with andminister to the sick, with unshrinking assiduity. .. . In truth, there issomething imposing in the unaffected calmness of the Turks at such times. It is a spirit of resignation which becomes truly noble when exercisedupon calamities which have already befallen them. The fidelity with whichthey remain by the bedside of a friend is at least as commendable as thealmost universal readiness among the Franks to forsake it. " Five times a day the Mezzuin proclaims the hour of prayer from theminaret in these words: "There is no God but God. Mohammed is his prophet. Come to prayer. " In the morning call he adds, "Prayer is better thansleep. " Immediately every Mussulman leaves his occupation, and prostrateshimself on the floor or ground, wherever he may he. It is verydisreputable to omit this. An interesting account is given of the domestic life of Moslem women inSyria, by Miss Rogers, in her little book called "Domestic Life inPalestine, " published in 1862. Miss Rogers travelled in Palestine with her brother, who was Britishconsul at Damascus. The following passage illustrates the character of thewomen (Miss Rogers was obliged to sleep in the same room with the wives ofthe governor of Arrabeh, near Naplous):-- "When I began to undress the women watched me with curiosity; and when Iput on my night-gown they were exceedingly astonished, and exclaimed, 'Where are you going? Why is your dress white?' They made no change forsleeping, and there they were, in their bright-colored clothes, ready forbed in a minute. But they stood round me till I said 'Good night, ' andthen all kissed me, wishing me good dreams. Then I knelt down, andpresently, without speaking to them again, got into bed, and turned myface to the wall, thinking over the strange day I had spent. I tried tocompose myself to sleep, though I heard the women whispering together. When my head had rested about five minutes on the soft red silk pillow, Ifelt a hand stroking my forehead, and heard a voice saying, very gently, 'Ya Habibi, ' i. E. 'O beloved. ' But I would not answer directly, as I didnot wish to be roused unnecessarily. I waited a little while, and my facewas touched again. I felt a kiss on my forehead, and a voice said, 'Miriam, speak to us; speak, Miriam, darling. ' I could not resist anylonger; so I turned round and saw Helweh, Saleh Bek's prettiest wife, leaning over me. I said, 'What is it, sweetness, what can I do for you?'She answered, 'What did you do just now, when you knelt down and coveredyour face with your hands?' I sat up, and said very solemnly, 'I spoke toGod, Helweh. ' 'What did you say to him?' said Helweh. I replied, 'I wishto sleep. God never sleeps. I have asked him to watch over me, and that Imay fall asleep, remembering that he never sleeps, and wake up rememberinghis presence. I am very weak. God is all-powerful. I have asked him tostrengthen me with his strength. ' By this time all the ladies were sittinground me on the bed, and the slaves came and stood near. I told them I didnot know their language well enough to explain to them all I thought andsaid. But as I had learned the Lord's Prayer, by heart, in Arabic, Irepeated it to them, sentence by sentence, slowly. When I began, 'OurFather who art in heaven, ' Helweh directly said, 'You told me your fatherwas in London. ' I replied, 'I have two fathers, Helweh; one in London, whodoes not know that I am here, and cannot know till I write and tell him;and a Heavenly Father, who is here now, who is with me always, and seesand hears us. He is your Father also. He teaches us to know good fromevil, if we listen to him and obey him. ' "For a moment there was perfect silence. They all looked startled, and asif they felt that they were in the presence of some unseen power. ThenHelweh said, 'What more did you say?' I continued the Lord's Prayer, andwhen I came to the words, 'Give us day by day our daily bread, ' they said, 'Cannot you make bread yourself?' The passage, 'Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us, ' is particularly forcible inthe Arabic language; and one of the elder women, who was particularlysevere and relentless-looking, said, 'Are you obliged to say that everyday?' as if she thought that sometimes it would be difficult to do so. They said, 'Are you a Moslem?' I said, 'I am not called a Moslem. But I amyour sister, made by the same God, who is the one only God, the God ofall, my Father and your Father. ' They asked me if I knew the Koran, andwere surprised to hear that I had read it. They handed a rosary to me, saying, 'Do you know that?' I repeated a few of the most striking andcomprehensive attributes very carefully and slowly. Then they criedout, 'Mashallah, the English girl is a true believer'; and theimpressionable, sensitive-looking Abyssinian slave-girls said, with oneaccord, 'She is indeed an angel. ' "Moslems, men and women, have the name of Allah constantly on their lips, but it seems to have become a mere form. This may explain why they were sostartled when I said, 'I was speaking to God. '" She adds that if she hadonly said, "I was saying my prayers, " or, "I was at my devotions, " itwould not have impressed them. Next morning, on awaking, Miss Rogers found the women from theneighborhood had come in "to hear the English girl speak to God, " andHelweh said, "Now, Miriam, darling, will you speak to God?" At theconclusion she asked them if they could say Amen, and after a moment ofhesitation they cried out, "Amên, amên!" Then one said, "Speak again, mydaughter, speak about _the bread_. " So she repeated the Lord's Prayer withexplanations. When she left, they crowded around affectionately, saying, "Return again, O Miriam, beloved!" After this pleasant little picture, we may hear something on the otherside. Two recent travellers, Mr. Palgrave and Mr. Vambéry, have describedthe present state of Mohammedanism in Central Arabia and Turkistan, orCentral Asia. Barth has described it as existing among the negroes inNorth Africa. Count Gobineau has told us of Islam as it is in Persia atthe present day[397]. Mr. MacFarlane, in his book "Kismet, or the Doom ofTurkey, " has pointed out the gradual decay of that power, and the uttercorruption of its administration. After reading such works as these, --andamong them let us not forget Mr. Lane's "Modern Egyptians, "--theconclusion we must inevitably come to is, that the worst Christiangovernment, be it that of the Pope or the Czar, is very much better thanthe best Mohammedan government. Everywhere we find arbitrary will takingthe place of law. In most places the people have no protection for lifeor property, and know the government only through its tax-gatherers. Andall this is necessarily and logically derived from the fundamentalprinciple of Mohammedan theology. God is pure will, not justice, notreason, not love. Christianity says, "God is love"; Mohammedanism says, "God is will. " Christianity says, "Trust in God"; Mohammedanism says, "Submit to God. " Hence the hardness, coldness, and cruelty of the system;hence its utter inability to establish any good government. According toMr. MacFarlane, it would be a blessing to mankind to have the Turks drivenout of Europe and Asia Minor, and to have Constantinople become thecapital of Russia. The religion of Islam is an outward form, a hard shellof authority, hollow at heart. It constantly tends to the two antagonisticbut related vices of luxury and cruelty. Under the profession of Islam, polytheism and idolatry have always prevailed in Arabia. In Turkistan, where slavery is an extremely cruel system, they make slaves of Moslems, in defiance of the Koran. One chief being appealed to by Vambery (whotravelled as a Dervish), replied, "We buy and sell the Koran itself, whichis the holiest thing of all; why not buy and sell Mussulmans, who are lessholy?" § 6. The Criticism of Mr. Palgrave on Mohammedan Theology. Mr. Palgrave, who has given the latest and best account of the conditionof Central and Southern Arabia, [398] under the great Wahhabee revival, sums up all Mohammedan theology as teaching a Divine unity of pure will. God is the only force in the universe. Man is wholly passive and impotent. He calls the system, "A pantheism of force. " God has no rule but arbitrarywill. He is a tremendous unsympathizing autocrat, but is yet jealous ofhis creatures, lest they should attribute to themselves something whichbelongs to him. He delights in making all creatures feel that they are hisslaves. This, Mr. Palgrave asserts, is the main idea of Mohammedanism, and of the Koran, and this was what lay in the mind of Mohammed. "Ofthis, " says he, "we have many authentic samples: the Saheeh, theCommentaries of Beydāwee, the Mishkat-el-Mesabeeh, and fifty similarworks, afford ample testimony on this point. But for the benefit of myreaders in general, all of whom may not have drunk equally deep at thefountain-heads of Islamitic dogma, I will subjoin a specimen, knownperhaps to many Orientalists, yet too characteristic to be here omitted, arepetition of which I have endured times out of number from admiring andapproving Wahhabees in Nejed. "Accordingly, when God--so runs the tradition, --I had better said theblasphemy--resolved to create the human race, he took into his hands amass of earth, the same whence all mankind were to be formed, and in whichthey after a manner pre-existed; and, having then divided the clod intotwo equal portions, he threw the one half into hell, saying, 'These toeternal fire, and I care not'; and projected the other half into heaven, adding, 'And these to paradise, and I care not. ' "Commentary would here be superfluous. But in this we have before us theadequate idea of predestination, or, to give it a truer name, pre-damnation, held and taught in the school of the Koran. Paradise andhell are at once totally independent of love and hatred on the part of theDeity, and of merits and demerits, of good or evil conduct, on the part ofthe creature; and, in the corresponding theory, rightly so, since the veryactions which we call good or ill deserving, right or wrong, wicked orvirtuous, are in their essence all one and of one, and accordingly meritneither praise nor blame, punishment nor recompense, except and simplyafter the arbitrary value which the all-regulating will of the greatdespot may choose to assign or impute to them. In a word, he burns oneindividual through all eternity, amid red-hot chains and seas of moltenfire, and seats another in the plenary enjoyment of an everlastingbrothel, between forty celestial concubines, just and equally for his owngood pleasure, and because he wills it. "Men are thus all on one common level, here and hereafter, in theirphysical, social, and moral light, --the level of slaves to one solemaster, of tools to one universal agent. But the equalizing process doesnot stop here: beasts, birds, fishes, insects, all participate of the samehonor or debasement; all are, like man, the slaves of God, the tools andautomata of his will; and hence Mahomet is simply logical andself-consistent when in the Koran he informs his followers that birds, beasts, and the rest are 'nations' like themselves, nor does any intrinsicdistinction exist between them and the human species, except whataccidental diversity the 'King, ' the 'Proud One, ' the 'Mighty, ' the'Giant, ' etc. , as he styles his God, may have been pleased to make, justas he willed it, and so long as he may will it. " "The Wahhabee reformer, " continues Mr. Palgrave, "formed the design ofputting back the hour-hand of Islam to its starting-point; and so far hedid well, for that hand was from the first meant to be fixed. Islam is inits essence stationary, and was framed thus to remain. Sterile like itsGod, lifeless like its First Principle and Supreme Original, in all thatconstitutes true life, --for life is love, participation, and progress, andof these the Koranic Deity has none, --it justly repudiates all change, alladvance, all development. To borrow the forcible words of Lord Houghton, the 'written book' is the 'dead man's hand, ' stiff and motionless;whatever savors of vitality is by that alone convicted of heresy anddefection. "But Christianity, with its living and loving God, begetter and begotten, spirit and movement; nay more, --a Creator made creature, the Maker and themade existing in one; a Divinity communicating itself by uninterruptedgradation and degree, from the most intimate union far off to the faintestirradiation, through all that it has made for love and governs in love;one who calls his creatures not slaves, not servants, but friends, --naysons, --nay gods: to sum up, a religion in whose seal and secret 'God inman is one with man in God, ' must also be necessarily a religion ofvitality, of progress, of advancement. The contrast between it and Islamis that of movement with fixedness, of participation with sterility, ofdevelopment with barrenness, of life with petrifaction. The first vitalprinciple and the animating spirit of its birth must, indeed, abide everthe same, but the outer form must change with the changing days, and newoffshoots of fresh sap and greenness be continually thrown out aswitnesses to the vitality within; else were the vine withered and thebranches dead. I have no intention here--it would be extremely out ofplace--of entering on the maze of controversy, or discussing whether anydogmatic attempt to reproduce the religious phase of a former age islikely to succeed. I only say that life supposes movement and growth, andboth imply change; that to censure a living thing for growing and changingis absurd; and that to attempt to hinder it from so doing by pinning itdown on a written label, or nailing it to a Procrustean framework, istantamount to killing it altogether. Now Christianity is living, and, because living, must grow, must advance, must change, and was meant to doso: onwards and forwards is a condition of its very existence; and Icannot but think that those who do not recognize this show themselves sofar ignorant of its true nature and essence. On the other hand, Islam islifeless, and, because lifeless, cannot grow, cannot advance, cannotchange, and was never intended so to do; stand-still is its motto and itsmost essential condition; and therefore the son of Abd-el-Wahhāb, in doinghis best to bring it back to its primal simplicity, and making its goal ofits starting-point, was so far in the right, and showed himself wellacquainted with the nature and first principles of his religion. " § 7. Mohammedanism a Relapse; the worst Form of Monotheism, and aretarding Element in Civilization. According to this view, which is no doubt correct, the monotheism ofMohammed is that which makes of God pure will; that is, which exaggeratespersonality (since personality is in will), making the Divine One anInfinite Free Will, or an Infinite I. But will divorced from reason andlove is wilfulness, or a purely arbitrary will. Now the monotheism of the Jews differed from this, in that it combinedwith the idea of will the idea of justice. God not only does what hechooses, but he chooses to do only what is right. Righteousness is anattribute of God, with which the Jewish books are saturated. Still, both of these systems leave God outside of the world; _above_ allas its Creator and Ruler, _above_ all as its Judge; but not _through_ alland _in_ all. The idea of an Infinite Love must be added and made supreme, in order to give us a Being who is not only above all, but also throughall and in all. This is the Christian monotheism. Mohammed teaches not only the unity but also the spirituality of God, buthis idea of the divine Unity is of a numeric unity, not a moral unity; andso his idea of divine spirituality is that of an abstractspirituality, --God abstracted from matter, and so not to be represented bypictures and images; God withdrawn out of the world, and above all, --in atotal separation. Judaism also opposed idolatry and idol-worship, and taught that God wasabove all, and the maker of the world; but it conceived of God as _with_man, by his repeated miraculous coming down in prophets, judges, kings;also _with_ his people, the Jews, mysteriously present in their tabernacleand temple. Their spirituality was not quite as abstract then as that ofthe Mohammedans. But Christianity, as soon as it became the religion of a non-Semitic race, as soon as it had converted the Greeks and Romans, not only imparted tothem its monotheism, but received from them their strong tendencies topantheism. They added to the God "above all, " and the God "with all, " theGod "in us all. " True, this is also to be found in original Christianityas proceeding from the life of Jesus. The New Testament is full of thiskind of pantheism, --God _in_ man, as well as God _with_ man. Jesus madethe step forward from God with man to God in man, --"I in them, thou inme. " The doctrine of the Holy Spirit is this idea, of God who is not onlywill and power, not only wisdom and law, but also love; of a God whodesires communion and intercourse with his children, so coming anddwelling in them. Mohammed teaches a God above us; Moses teaches a Godabove us, and yet with us; Jesus teaches God above us, God with us, andGod in us. According to this view, Mohammedanism is a relapse. It is going back to alower level. It is returning from the complex idea to the simple idea. Butthe complex is higher than the simple. The seed-germ, and the germ-cell, out of which organic life comes, is lower than the organizations which aredeveloped out of it. The Mollusks are more complex and so are higher thanthe Radiata, the Vertebrata are more complex than the Mollusks. Man is themost complex of all, in soul as well as body. The complex idea of God, including will, thought, and love, in the perfect unity, is higher thanthe simplistic unity of will which Mohammed teaches. But the higher oughtto come out of and conquer the lower. How, then, did Mohammedanism comeout of Christianity and Judaism? The explanation is to be found in the law of reaction and relapse. Reaction is going back to a lower ground, to pick up something which hasbeen dropped, forgotten, left behind, in the progress of man. Thecondition of progress is that nothing shall be lost. The lower truth mustbe preserved in the higher truth; the lower life taken up into the higherlife. Now Christianity, in going forward, had accepted from theIndo-Germanic races that sense of God in nature, as well as God abovenature, which has always been native with those races. It took up naturalreligion into monotheism. But in taking it up, it went so far as to losesomething of the true unity of God. Its doctrine of the Trinity, at leastin its Oriental forms, lost the pure personal monotheism of Judaism. Nodoubt the doctrine of the Trinity embodies a great truth, but it has beencarried too far. So Mohammedanism came, as a protest against this tendencyto plurality in the godhead, as a demand for a purely personal God It isthe Unitarianism of the East. It was a new assertion of the simple unityof God, against polytheism and against idolatry. The merits and demerits, the good and evil, of Mohammedanism are to befound in this, its central idea concerning God. It has taught submission, obedience, patience; but it has fostered a wilful individualism. It hasmade social life lower. Its governments are not governments. Its virtuesare stoical. It makes life barren and empty. It encourages a savage prideand cruelty. It makes men tyrants or slaves, women puppets, religion thesubmission to an infinite despotism. Time is that it came to an end. Itswork is done. It is a hard, cold, cruel, empty faith, which should giveway to the purer forms of a higher civilization. No doubt, Mohammedanism was needed when it came, and has done good servicein its time. But its time is almost passed. In Europe it is an anachronismand an anomaly, depending for its daily existence on the support receivedfrom Christian powers, jealous of Russian advance on Constantinople. Itwill be a blessing to mankind to have the capital of Russia on theBosphorus. A recent writer on Turkey thus speaks:-- "The military strength of Mohammedanism was in its steady and remorseless bigotry. Socially, it won by the lofty ideality of its precepts, without pain or satiety. It accorded well, too, with the isolate and primitive character of the municipalities scattered over Asia. Resignation to God--a motto well according with Eastern indolence--was borne upon its banners, while in the profusion of delight hereafter was promised an element of endurance and courage. It had, too, one strikingly Arabic characteristic, --simplicity. "One God the Arabian prophet preached to man; One God the Orient still Adores, through many a realm of mighty span, -- God of power and will. "A God that, shrouded in his lonely light, Rests utterly apart From all the vast creations of his might, From nature, man, and art. "A Power that at his pleasure doth create To save or to destroy; And to eternal pain predestinate, As to eternal joy. "It is the merit and the glory of Mohammed that, beside founding twenty spiritual empires and providing laws for the guidance through centuries of millions of men, he shook the foundations of the faith of heathendom. Mohammed was the impersonation of two principles that reign in the government of God, --destruction and salvation. He would receive nations to his favor if they accepted the faith, and utterly destroy them if they rejected it. Yet, in the end, the sapless tree must fall. " M. H. Blerzey, [399] in speaking of Mohammedanism in Northern Africa, says:-- "At bottom there is little difference between the human sacrifices demanded by fetichism and the contempt of life produced by the Mussulman religion. Between the social doctrines of these Mohammedan tribes and the sentiments of Christian communities there is an immense abyss. " And again:--- "The military and fanatic despotism of the Arabs has vested during many centuries in the white autochthonic races of North Africa, without any fusion taking place between the conquering element and the conquered, without destroying at all the language and manners of the subject people, and, in a word, without creating anything durable. The Arab conquest was a triumph of brute force, and nothing further. " And M. Renan, a person well qualified to judge of the character of thisreligion by the most extensive and impartial studies, gives thisverdict:[400]-- "Islamism, following as it did on ground that was none of the best, has, on the whole, done as much harm as good to the human race. It has stifled everything by its dry and desolating simplicity. " Again:-- "At the present time, the essential condition of a diffused civilization is the destruction of the peculiarly Semitic element, the destruction of the theocratic power of Islamism, consequently the destruction of Islamism itself. "[401] Again:-- "Islamism is evidently the product of an inferior, and, so to speak, of a meagre combination of human elements. For this reason its conquests have all been on the average plane of human nature. The savage races have been incapable of rising to it, and, on the other hand, it has not satisfied people who carried in themselves the seed of a stronger civilization. "[402] Note to the Chapter on Mohammed. We give in this note further extracts from Mr. Palgrave's description ofthe doctrine of Islam. "This keystone, this master thought, this parent idea, of which all therest is but the necessary and inevitable deduction, is contained in thephrase far oftener repeated than understood, 'La Ilāh ílla Allāh, ' 'Thereis no God but God. ' A literal translation, but much too narrow for theArab formula, and quite inadequate to render its true force in an Arabmouth or mind. "'There is no God but God' are words simply tantamount in English to thenegation of any deity save one alone; and thus much they certainly mean inArabic, but they imply much more also. Their full sense is, not only todeny absolutely and unreservedly all plurality, whether of nature or ofperson, in the Supreme Being, not only to establish the unity of theUnbegetting and Unbegot, in all its simple and uncommunicable Oneness, butbesides this the words, in Arabic and among Arabs, imply that this oneSupreme Being is also the only Agent, the only Force, the only Actexisting throughout the universe, and leave to all beings else, matter orspirit, instinct or intelligence, physical or moral, nothing but pure, unconditional passiveness, alike in movement or in quiescence, in actionor in capacity. The sole power, the sole motor, movement, energy, and deedis God; the rest is downright inertia and mere instrumentality, from thehighest archangel down to the simplest atom of creation. Hence, in thisone sentence, ' La Ilāh illa Allāh, ' is summed up a system which, for wantof a better name, I may be permitted to call the Pantheism of Force, or ofAct, thus exclusively assigned to God, who absorbs it all, exercises itall, and to whom alone it can be ascribed, whether for preserving or fordestroying, for relative evil or for equally relative good. I say'relative, ' because it is clear that in such a theology no place is leftfor absolute good or evil, reason or extravagance; all is abridged in theautocratic will of the one great Agent: 'sic volo, sic jubeo, stet proratione voluntas'; or, more significantly still, in Arabic, 'Kemāyesha'o, ' 'as he wills it, ' to quote the constantly recurring expressionof the Koran. "Thus immeasurably and eternally exalted above, and dissimilar from, allcreatures, which lie levelled before him on one common plane ofinstrumentality and inertness, God is one in the totality of omnipotentand omnipresent action, which acknowledges no rule, standard, or limitsave his own sole and absolute will. He communicates nothing to hiscreatures, for their seeming power and act ever remain his alone, and inreturn he receives nothing from them; for whatever they may be, that theyare in him, by him, and from him only. And secondly, no superiority, nodistinction, no pre-eminence, can be lawfully claimed by one creature overits fellow, in the utter equalization of their unexceptional servitude andabasement; all are alike tools of the one solitary Force which employsthem to crush or to benefit, to truth or to error, to honor or shame, tohappiness, or misery, quite independently of their individual fitness, deserts, or advantage, and simply because he wills it, and as he wills it. "One might at first think that this tremendous autocrat, this uncontrolledand unsympathizing power, would be far above anything like passions, desires, or inclinations. Yet such is not the case, for he has withrespect to his creatures one main feeling and source of action, namely, jealousy of them lest they should perchance attribute to themselvessomething of what is his alone, and thus encroach on his all-engrossingkingdom. Hence he is ever more prone to punish than to reward, to inflictthan to bestow pleasure, to ruin than to build. It is his singularsatisfaction to let created beings continually feel that they are nothingelse than his slaves, his tools, and contemptible tools also, that thusthey may the better acknowledge his superiority, and know his power to beabove their power, his cunning above their cunning, his will above theirwill, his pride above their pride; or rather, that there is no power, cunning, will, or pride save his own. "But he himself, sterile in his inaccessible height, neither loving norenjoying aught save his own and self-measured decree, without son, companion, or counsellor, is no less barren for himself than for hiscreatures, and his own barrenness and lone egoism in himself is the causeand rule of his indifferent and unregarding despotism around. The firstnote is the key of the whole tune, and the primal idea of God runs throughand modifies the whole system and creed that centres in him. "That the notion here given of the Deity, monstrous and blasphemous as itmay appear, is exactly and literally that which the Koran conveys, orintends to convey, I at present take for granted. But that it indeed isso, no one who has attentively perused and thought over the Arabic text(for mere cursory reading, especially in a translation, will not suffice)can hesitate to allow. In fact, every phrase of the preceding sentences, every touch in this odious portrait, has been taken, to the best of myability, word for word, or at least meaning for meaning, from the 'Book, 'the truest mirror of the mind and scope of its writer. "And that such was in reality Mahomet's mind and idea is fully confirmedby the witness-tongue of contemporary tradition. " Chapter XII. The Ten Religions and Christianity. § 1. General Results of this Survey. § 2. Christianity a Pleroma, or Fulness of Life. § 3. Christianity, as a Pleroma, compared with Brahmanism, Confucianism, and Buddhism. § 4. Christianity compared with the Avesta and the Eddas. The Duad in all Religions. § 5. Christianity and the Religions of Egypt, Greece, and Rome. § 6. Christianity in Relation to Judaism and Mohammedanism. The Monad in all Religions. § 7. The Fulness of Christianity is derived from the life of Jesus. § 8. Christianity as a Religion of Progress and of Universal Unity. § 1. General Results of this Survey. We have now examined, as fully as our limits would allow, ten of thechief religions which have enlisted the faith of mankind. We are preparedto ask, in conclusion, what they teach us in regard to the prospects ofChristianity, and the religious future of our race. First, this survey must have impressed on every mind the fact that man iseminently a religious being. We have found religion to be his supreme andengrossing interest on every continent, in every millennium of historictime, and in every stage of human civilization. In some periods men arefound as hunters, as shepherds, as nomads, in others they are livingassociated in cities, but in all these conditions they have theirreligion. The tendency to worship some superhuman power is universal. The opinion of the positivist school, that man passes from a theologicalstage to one of metaphysics, and from that to one of science, from whichlater and higher epoch both theology and philosophy are excluded, is notin accordance with the facts we have been observing. Science and art, inEgypt, went hand in hand with theology, during thousands of years. Sciencein Greece preceded the latest forms of metaphysics, and both Greek scienceand Greek philosophy were the preparation for Christian faith. In Indiathe Sankhya philosophy was the preparation for the Buddhist religion. Theology and religion to-day, instead of disappearing in science, are asvigorous as ever. Science, philosophy, and theology are all advancingtogether, a noble sisterhood of thought. And, looking at facts, we mayask, In what age or time was religion more of a living force, acting onhuman affairs, than it is at present? To believe in things not seen, toworship a power above visible nature, to look forward to an unknownfuture, this is natural to man. In the United States there is no established religion, yet in no countryin the world is more interest taken in religion than with us. In theProtestant denominations it has dispensed with the gorgeous and imposingritual, which is so attractive to the common mind, and depends mainly onthe interest of the word of truth. Yet the Protestant denominations makeconverts, build churches, and support their clergy with an ardor seeminglyundiminished by the progress of science. There are no symptoms that man islosing his interest in religion in consequence of his increasing knowledgeof nature and its laws. Secondly, we have seen that these religions vary exceedingly from eachother in their substance and in their forms. They have a great deal incommon, but a great deal that is different. Mr. Wentworth Higginson, [403]in an excellent lecture, much of which has our cordial assent, says, "Every race believes in a Creator and Governor of the world, in whomdevout souls recognize a Father also. " But Buddhism, the most extensivereligion on the surface of the earth, explicitly denies creation, andabsolutely ignores any Ruler or Governor of the world. The Buddha neithermade the world nor preserves it, and the Buddha is the great object ofBuddhist worship. Mr. Higginson says: "Every race believes inimmortality. " Though the Buddhists, as we have seen, believe inimmortality, it is in so obscure a form that many of the best scholarsdeclare that the highest aim and the last result of all progress inBuddhism is annihilation. He continues, "Every race recognizes in itsreligious precepts the brotherhood of man. " The Koran teaches no suchdoctrine, and it is notorious that the Brahmanical system of caste, whichhas been despotic in India for twenty-five hundred years, excludes suchbrotherhood. Mr. Higginson therefore is of opinion that caste has grown upin defiance of the Vedas. The Vedas indeed are ignorant of caste, but theyare also ignorant of human brotherhood. The system of caste was not adefiance of the Vedas. Nothing is gained for humanity by such statements, which are refutedimmediately by the most evident facts. The true "sympathy of religions"does not consist in their saying the same thing, any more than a trueconcord in music consists in many performers striking the same note. Variety is the condition of harmony. These religions may, and we believewill, be all harmonized; but thus far it is only too plain that they havebeen at war with each other. In order to find the resemblances we mustbegin by seeing the differences. Cudworth, in his great work, speaks of "the symphony of all religions, " anexpression which we prefer to that of Mr. Higginson. It expressesprecisely what we conceive to be the fact, that these religions are allcapable of being brought into union, though so very different. They maysay, "Are not we formed, as notes of music are, For one another, though dissimilar? Such difference, without discord, as shall make The sweetest sounds. " But this harmony can only be established among the ethnic religions bymeans of a catholic religion which shall be able to take each of them upinto itself, and so finally merge them in a higher union. The Greek, Roman, and Jewish religions could not unite with each other; but they wereunited by being taken up into Christianity. Christianity has assimilatedthe essential ideas of the religions of Persia, Judæa, Egypt, Greece, Rome, and Scandinavia; and each of these religions, in turn, disappearedas it was absorbed by this powerful solvent. In the case of Greece, Rome, Germany, and Judæa, this fact of their passing into solution inChristianity is a matter of history. Not all the Jews became Christians, nor has Judaism ceased to exist. This is perhaps owing to the doctrines ofthe Trinity and the Deity of Christ, which offend the simplisticmonotheism of the Jewish mind. Yet Christianity at first grew out ofJudaism, and took up into itself the best part of the Jews in and out ofPalestine. The question therefore is this, Will Christianity be able to do for theremaining religions of the world what it did for the Greeks, the Romans, and the Teutonic nations? Is it capable of becoming a universal religion? § 2. Christianity a Pleroma, or Fulness of Life. It is evident that Christianity can become the universal human religiononly by supplying the religious wants of all the races of men who dwell onall the face of the earth. If it can continue to give them all the truththeir own religions contain, and add something more; if it can inspirethem with all the moral life which their own religions communicate, andyet more; and, finally, if it can unite the races of men in one family, one kingdom of heaven, --then it is fitted to be and will become theuniversal religion. It will then not share the fate of those which havepreceded it. It will not have its rise, progress, decline, and fall. Itwill not become, in its turn, antiquated, and be left behind by theadvance of humanity. It will not be swallowed up in something deeper andbroader than itself. But it will appear as the desire of all nations, andChrist will reign until he has subdued all his enemies--error, war, sin, selfishness, tyranny, cruelty--under his feet. Now, as we have seen, Christianity differs from all other religions (onthe side of truth) in this, that it is a pleroma, or fulness of knowledge. It does not differ, by teaching what has never been said or thoughtbefore. Perhaps the substance of most of the statements of Jesus may befound scattered through the ten religions of the world, some here and somethere. Jesus claims no monopoly of the truth. He says. "My doctrine is notmine, but his who sent me. " But he _does_ call himself "the Light of theWorld, " and says that though he does not come to destroy either the law orthe prophets, he comes to fulfil them in something higher. His work is tofulfil all religions with something higher, broader, and deeper than whatthey have, --accepting their truth, supplying their deficiencies. If this is a fact, then it will appear that Christianity comes, not as anexclusive, but as an inclusive system. It includes everything, it excludesnothing but limitation and deficiency. Whether Christianity be really such a pleroma of truth or not, must beascertained by a careful comparison of its teachings, and the ideas lyingback of them, with those of all other religions. We have attempted this, to some extent, in our Introduction, and in our discussion of eachseparate religion. We have seen that Christianity, in converting thenations, always accepted something and gave something in return. Thus itreceived from Egypt and Africa their powerful realism, as in the writingsof Tertullian, Origen, Augustine, and gave in return a spiritual doctrine. It received God, as seen in nature and its organizations, and returned Godas above nature. Christianity took from Greece intellectual activity, andreturned moral life. It received from Rome organization, and returnedfaith in a fatherly Providence. It took law, and gave love. From theGerman races it accepted the love of individual freedom, and returnedunion and brotherly love. From Judaism it accepted monotheism as theworship of a Supreme Being, a Righteous Judge, a Holy King, and added tothis faith in God as in all nature and all life. But we will proceed to examine some of these points a little moreminutely. § 3. Christianity, as a Pleroma, compared with Brahmanism, Confucianism, and Buddhism. Christianity and Brahmanism. The essential value of Brahmanism is itsfaith in spirit as distinct from matter, eternity as distinct from time, the infinite as opposed to the finite, substance as opposed to form. The essential defect of Brahmanism is its spiritual pantheism, whichdenies all reality to this world, to finite souls, to time, space, matter. In its vast unities all varieties are swallowed up, all differences cometo an end. It does not, therefore, explain the world, it denies it. It isincapable of morality, for morality assumes the eternal distinctionbetween right and wrong, good and evil, and Brahmanism knows no suchdifference. It is incapable of true worship, since its real God is spiritin itself, abstracted from all attributes. Instead of immortality, it canonly teach absorption, or the disappearance of the soul in spirit, asrain-drops disappear in the ocean. Christianity teaches a Supreme Being who is pure spirit, "above all, through all, and in all, " "from whom, and through whom, and to whom areall things, " "in whom we live, and move, and have our being. " It is a morespiritual religion than Brahmanism, for the latter has passed on intopolytheism and idolatry, which Christianity has always escaped. Yet whileteaching faith in a Supreme Being, the foundation and substance below allexistence, it recognizes him as A LIVING GOD. He is not absorbed inhimself, nor apart from his world, but a perpetual Providence, a personalFriend and Father. He dwells in eternity, but is manifested in time. Christianity, therefore, meets the truth in Brahmanism by its doctrine ofGod as Spirit, and supplies its deficiencies by its doctrine of God as aFather. Christianity and the system of Confucius. The good side in the teaching ofConfucius is his admirable morality, his wisdom of life in its temporallimitations, his reverence for the past, his strenuous conservatism of alluseful institutions, and the uninterrupted order of the social systemresting on these ideas. The evil in his teaching is the absence of the supernatural element, which deprives the morality of China of enthusiasm, its social system ofvitality, its order of any progress, and its conservatism of anyimprovement. It is a system without hope, and so has remained frozen in anicy and stiff immobility for fifteen hundred years. But Christianity has shown itself capable of uniting conservatism withprogress, in the civilization of Christendom. It respects order, reveresthe past, holds the family sacred, and yet is able also to make continualprogress in science, in art, in literature, in the comfort of the wholecommunity. It therefore accepts the good and the truth in the doctrines ofConfucius, and adds to these another element of new life. Christianity and Buddhism. The truth in Buddhism is in its doctrine of therelation of the soul to the laws of nature; its doctrine of consequences;its assurance of a strict retribution for every human action; its promiseof an ultimate salvation in consequence of good works; and of a redemptionfrom all the woes of time by obedience to the truth. The evil in the system is that belonging to all legalism. It does notinspire faith in any living and present God, or any definite immortality. The principle, therefore, of development is wanting, and it leaves theMongol races standing on a low plane of civilization, restraining themfrom evil, but not inspiring them by the sight of good. Christianity, like Buddhism, teaches that whatever a man sows that shallhe also reap; that those who by patient continuance in well-doing seek forglory, honor, and immortality shall receive eternal life; that the booksshall be opened in the last day, and every man be rewarded according tohis works; that he whose pound gains five pounds shall be ruler over fivecities. In short, Christianity, in its Scriptures and its practicalinfluence, has always taught salvation by works. Yet, beside this, Christianity teaches justification by faith, as the rootand fountain of all real obedience. It inspires faith in a Heavenly Fatherwho has loved his every child from before the foundation of the world;who welcomes the sinner back when he repents and returns; whose forgivinglove creates a new life in the heart. This faith evermore tends to awakenthe dormant energies in the soul of man; and so, under its influence, onerace after another has commenced a career of progress. Christianity, therefore, can fulfil Buddhism also. § 4. Christianity compared with the Avesta and the Eddas. The Duad in allReligions. The essential truth in the Avesta and the Eddas is the same. They bothrecognize the evil in the world as real, and teach the duty of fightingagainst it. They avoid the pantheistic indifference of Brahmanism, and theabsence of enthusiasm in the systems of Confucius and the Buddha, by thedoctrine of a present conflict between the powers of good and evil, oflight and of darkness. This gives dignity and moral earnestness to bothsystems. By fully admitting the freedom of man, they make the sense ofresponsibility possible, and so purify and feed morality at its roots. The difficulty with both is, that they carry this dualistic view of naturetoo far, leaving it an unreconciled dualism. The supreme Monad is lostsight of in this ever-present Duad. Let us see how this view of evil, orthe dual element in life, appears in other systems. As the Monad in religion is an expression of one infinite supremepresence, pervading all nature and life, so the Duad shows the antagonismand conflict between truth and falsehood, right and wrong, good and evil, the infinite perfection and the finite imperfection. This is a conflictactually existing in the world, and one which religion must accept andaccount for. Brahmanism does not accept it, but ignores it. This wholeconflict is Maya, a deception and illusion. Yet, in this form of illusion, it makes itself so far felt, that it must be met by sacrifices, prayers, penances, and the law of transmigration; until all the apparent antagonismshall be swallowed up in the Infinite One, the only substance in theuniverse. Buddhism recognizes the conflict more fully. It frankly accepts the Duadas the true explanation of the actual universe. The ideal universe asNirvana may be one; but of this we know nothing. The actual world is atwofold world, composed of souls and the natural laws. The battle of lifeis with these laws. Every soul, by learning to obey them, is able toconquer and use them, as steps in an ascent toward Nirvana. But the belief of Zoroaster and that of Scandinavia regard the Duad asstill more deeply rooted in the essence of existing things. All life isbattle, --battle with moral or physical evil. Courage is therefore thechief virtue in both systems. The Devil first appears in theology in thesetwo forms of faith. The Persian devil is Ahriman; the Scandinavian devilis Loki. Judaism, with its absolute and supreme God, could never admitsuch a rival to his power as the Persian Ahriman; yet as a beingpermitted, for wise purposes, to tempt and try men, he comes into theirsystem as Satan. Satan, on his first appearance in the Book of Job, is oneof the angels of God. He is the heavenly critic; his business is to testhuman virtue by trial, and see how deep it goes. His object in testing Jobwas to find whether he loved virtue for its rewards, or for its own sake. "Does Job serve God for naught?" According to this view, the man who isgood merely for the sake of reward is not good at all. In the Egyptian system, as in the later faith of India, the evil principleappears as a power of destruction. Siva and Typhon are the destroyingagencies from whom proceed all the mischief done in the world. Nevertheless, they are gods, not devils, and have their worship andworshippers among those whose religious nature is more imbued with fearthan with hope. The timid worshipped the deadly and destructive powers, and their prayers were deprecations. The bolder worshipped the good gods. Similarly, in Greece, the Chtonic deities had their shrines andworshippers, as had the powers of Blight, Famine, and Pestilence at Rome. Yet only in the Avesta is this great principle of evil set forth in fullantagonism against the powers of light and love. And probably fromPersia, after the captivity, this view of Satan entered into Jewishtheology. In the Old Testament, indeed, where Satan or the Devil as aproper name only occurs four times[404], in all which cases he is asubordinate angel, the true Devil does not appear. In the Apocrypha he issaid (Wisdom ii. 24) to have brought death into the world. The NewTestament does not teach a doctrine of Satan, or the Devil, as somethingnew and revealed then for the first time, but assumes a general thoughvague belief in such a being. This belief evidently existed among the Jewswhen Christ came. It as evidently was not taught in the Old Testament. Theinevitable inference is that it grew up in the Jewish mind from itscommunication with the Persian dualism. But though the doctrine of a Devil is no essential part ofChristianity[405], the reality and power of evil is fully recognized inthe New Testament and in the teachings of the Church. Indeed, in thedoctrine of everlasting punishment and of an eternal hell, it has beencarried to a dangerous extreme. The Divine sovereignty is seriouslyinfringed and invaded by such a view. If any outlying part of the universecontinues in a state of permanent rebellion, God is not the absolutesovereign. But wickedness is rebellion. If any are to continue eternallyin hell, it is because they continue in perpetual wickedness; that is, therebellion against God will never be effectually suppressed. Only whenevery knee bows, and every tongue confesses that Christ is Lord to theglory of God the Father; only when truth and love have subdued all enemiesby converting them into friends, is redemption complete and the universeat peace. Now, Christianity (in spite of the illogical doctrine of everlastingpunishment) has always inspired a faith in the redeeming power of love toconquer all evil. It has taught that evil can be overcome by good. Itasserts truth to be more powerful than error, right than wrong. It teachesus in our daily prayer to expect that God's kingdom shall come, and hiswill shall be done on earth as it is in Heaven. It therefore fulfils thetruth in the great dualisms of the past by its untiring hope of a fullredemption from all sin and all evil. § 5. Christianity and the Religions of Egypt, Greece, and Rome. The Religion of Egypt. This system unfolded the truth of the Divine inthis world, of the sacredness of bodily organization, and the descent ofDeity into the ultimate parts of his creation. Its defect was itsinability to combine with this an open spiritualism. It had not thecourage of its opinions, so far as they related to the divine unity, spirituality, and eternity. Christianity also accepts the doctrine of God, present in nature, in man, in the laws of matter, in the infinite variety of things. But it adds tothis the elevated spiritualism of a monotheistic religion, and so acceptsthe one and the all, unity and variety, substance and form, eternity andtime, spirit and body, as filled with God and manifesting him. The Religions of Greece and Rome. The beauty of nature, the charm of art, the genius of man, were idealized and deified in the Greek pantheon. Thedivinity of law, organizing human society according to universal rules ofjustice, was the truth in the Roman religion. The defect of the Greektheology was the absence of a central unity. Its polytheism carriedvariety to the extreme of disorder and dissipation. The centrifugal force, not being properly balanced by any centripetal power, inevitably ends indissolution. The defect of Roman worship was, that its oppressive rulesended in killing out life. Law, in the form of a stiff externalorganization, produced moral death at last in Rome, as it had producedmoral death in Judæa. Now Christianity, though a monotheism, and a monotheism which hasdestroyed forever both polytheism and idolatry wherever it has gone, isnot that of numerical unity. The God of Christianity differs in this fromthe God of Judaism and Mohammedanism. He is an infinite will; but he ismore. Christianity cognizes God as not only above nature and the soul, butalso as in nature and in the soul. Thus nature and the soul are madedivine. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity expresses this enlargementof the Jewish monotheism from a numerical to a moral unity. The God ofChrist is human in this respect, that he is conceived of in the image ofman. Man is essentially a unit through his will, in which lies the secretof personal identity. But besides will he has intellect, by which he comesinto communion with the universe; and affection, by which he comes intocommunion with his race. Christianity conceives of God in the same way. Heis an omnipresent will as the Father, Creator, and Euler of all things. Heis the Word, or manifested Truth in the Son, manifested through allnature, manifested through all human life. He is the Spirit, orinspiration of each individual soul. So he is Father, Son, and Spirit, above all, through all, and in us all. By this larger view of DeityChristianity was able to meet the wants of the Aryan races, in whom thepolytheistic tendency is so strong. That tendency was satisfied by thisview of God immanent in nature and immanent in human life. Judaism and Mohammedanism, with their more concrete monotheism, have notbeen able to convert the Aryan races. Mohammedanism has never affected themind of India, nor disturbed the ascendency of Brahmanism there. Andthough it nominally possesses Persia, yet it holds it as a subject, not asa convert. Persian Sufism is a proof of the utter discontent of the Aryanintellect with any monotheism of pure will. Sufism is the mystic form ofMohammedanism, recognizing communion with God, and not merely submission, as being the essence of true religion. During the long Mohammedan dominionin Turkey it has not penetrated the minds or won the love of the Greekraces. It is evident that Christianity succeeded in converting the Greeksand Romans by means of its larger view of the Deity, of which thedoctrine of the Trinity, as it stands in the creeds, is a crude illogicalexpression. § 6. Christianity in Relation to Judaism and Mohammedanism. The Monad inall Religions. There are three religions which teach the pure upity of God, or truemonotheism. These three Unitarian religions are Judaism, Christianity, andMohammedanism. They also all originated in a single race, the Semiticrace, that which has occupied the central region of the world, the centreof three continents. It is the race which tends to a religious unity, asthat of our Aryan ancestors tended to variety. But what is pure monotheism? It is the worship of one alone God, separatedby the vast abyss of the infinite from all finite beings. It is theworship of God, not as the Supreme Being only, not as the chief among manygods, as Jupiter was the president of the dynasty on Olympus, not merelythe Most High, but as the only God. It avoids the two extremes, one ofmaking the Supreme Being head of a council or synod of deities, and theother of making him indeed infinite, but an infinite abstraction, or abyssof darkness. These are the two impure forms of monotheism. The firstprevailed in Greece, Rome, Egypt, Scandinavia. In each of these religionsthere was a supreme being, --Zeus, Jupiter, Ammon, Odin, --but this supremegod was only _primus inter pares_, first among equals. The other impureform of monotheism prevailed in the East, --in Brahmanism, Buddhism, andthe religion of Zoroaster. In the one Parabrahm, in the otherZerana-Akerana, in the third Nirvana itself, is the Infinite Being orsubstance, wholly separate from all that is finite. It is so whollyseparate as to cease to be an object of adoration and obedience. NotParabrahm, but Siva, Vischnu, and Brahma; not Zerana-Akerana, but Ormazdand the Amschaspands; not the infinite world of Nirvana, nor the mightyAdi-Buddha, but the Buddhas of Confession, the finite Sakya-Muni, are theobjects of worship in these systems. Only from the Semitic race have arisen the pure monotheistic religions ofJudaism, Christianity, and Mohammedanism. Each of these proclaims one onlyGod, and each makes this only God the object of all worship and service. Judaism says, "Hear! O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord!" (Deut. Vi. 4. ) Originally among the Jews, God's name as the "Plural of Majesty"indicated a unity formed from variety; but afterward it became in the wordJahveh a unity of substance. "By my name Jehovah I was not known to them"(i. E. To the Patriarchs). [406] That name indicates absolute Being, "I amthe I am. "[407] Ancient Gentile monotheism vibrated between a personal God, the object ofworship, who was limited and finite, and an infinite absolute Being whowas out of sight, "whose veil no one had lifted. " The peculiarity of theMosaic religion was to make God truly the one alone, and at the same timetruly the object of worship. In this respect Judaism, Christianity, and Mohammedanism agree, and inthis they differ from all other religions. Individual thinkers, likeSocrates, Æschylus, Cicero, have reached the same conviction; but thesethree are the only popular religions, in which God is at once the infiniteand absolute, and the only object of worship. Now it is a remarkable fact that these three religions, which are the onlypure monotheistic religions, are at the same time the only religions whichhave any claim to catholicity. Buddhism, though the religion of numerousnations, seems to be the religion of only one race, namely, the Turanicrace, or Mongols. The people of India who remain Buddhists, the Singalese, or inhabitants of Ceylon, belong to the aboriginal Tamul, or Mongol race. With this exception then (which is no exception, as far as we know theethnology of Eastern Asia), the only religions which aim at Catholicismare these three, which are also the only monotheistic religions. Judaismaimed at catholicity and hoped for it. It had an instinct of universality, as appeared in its numerous attempts at making proselytes of othernations. It failed of catholicity when it refused to accept as its Christthe man who had risen above its national limitations, and who consideredRoman tax-gatherers and Samaritans as already prepared to enter thekingdom of the Messiah. The Jews required all their converts to becomeJews, and in doing this left the catholic ground. Christianity in themouth of Paul, who alone fully seized the true idea of his Master, said, "Circumcision availeth nothing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. "In other words, he declared that it was _not_ necessary to become a Jew inorder to be a Christian. The Jewish mind, so far forth as it was monotheistic, aimed atcatholicity. The unity of God carries with it, logically, the unity ofman. From one God as spirit we infer one human family. So Paul taught atAthens. "God that made the world and all things therein, . .. Hath made ofone blood all races of men to dwell on all the face of the earth. " But the Jews, though catholic as monotheists, and as worshipping aspiritual God, were limited by their ritual and their intense nationalbigotry. Hereditary and ancestral pride separated them, and still separatethem, from the rest of mankind. "_We have Abraham to our Father_" is thetalisman which has kept them together, but kept them from union withothers. Christianity and Mohammedanism, therefore, remain the only two reallycatholic religions. Each has overpassed all the boundaries of race. Christianity, beginning among the Jews, a Semitic people, passed intoEurope, and has become the religion of Greeks, Romans, Kelts, Germans, andthe Slavic races of Russia, and has not found it impossible to convert theAfricans, the Mongols, and the American Indians. So too the Mohammedanreligion, also beginning among the Semitic race, has become the nominalreligion of Persia, Turkey, Northern Africa, and Central Asia. Monotheism, therefore, includes a tendency to catholicity. But Islam has everywheremade subjects rather than converts, and so has failed of entire success. It has not assimilated its conquests. The monotheism of Christianity, as we have already seen, while acceptingthe absolute supremacy of the Infinite Being, so as to displace foreverall secondary or subordinate gods, yet conceives of him as the presentinspiration of all his children. It sees him coming down, to bless them inthe sunshine and the shower, as inspiring every good thought, as aprovidence guiding all human lives. And by this view it fulfils bothJudaism and Mohammedanism, and takes a long step beyond them both. § 7. The Fulness of Christianity is derived from the Life of Jesus. Christianity has thus shown itself to be a universal solvent, capable ofreceiving into itself the existing truths of the ethnic religions, andfulfilling them with something higher. Whenever it has come in contactwith natural religion, it has assimilated it and elevated it. This is oneevidence that it is intended to become the universal religion of mankind. This pleroma, or fulness, integrity, all-sidedness, or by whatever name wecall it, is something deeper than thought. A system of thought might bedevised large enough to include all the truths in all the religions of theworld, putting each in its own place in relation to the rest. Such asystem might show how they all are related to each other, and all are inharmony. But this would be a philosophy, not a religion. No suchphilosophy appears in the original records of Christianity. The NewTestament does not present Jesus as a philosopher, nor Paul as ametaphysician. There is no systematic teaching in the Gospels, nor in theEpistles. Yet we find there, in incidental utterances, the elements ofthis many-sided truth, in regard to God, man, duty, and immortality. Butwe find it as life, not as thought. It is a fulness of life in the soul ofJesus, passing into the souls of his disciples and apostles, and from themin a continuous stream of Christian experience, down to the present time. The word pleroma (πλήρωμα), in the New Testament, means that which fillsup; fulness, fulfilling, filling full. The verb "to fulfil" (πληρόω)carries the same significance. To "fulfil that which was spoken by theprophets, " means to fill it full of meaning and truth. Jesus came, not todestroy the law, but to fulfil it; that is, to carry it out further. Hefulfilled Moses and the prophets, not by doing exactly what they foretold, in their sense, but by doing it in a higher, deeper, and larger sense. Hefulfilled their thought as the flower fulfils the bud, and as the fruitfulfils the flower. The sense of the fulness of life in Jesus and in theGospel seems to have struck the minds of the early disciples, andpowerfully impressed them. Hence the frequency with which they use thisverb and noun, signifying fulness. Jesus fulfilled the law, the prophets, all righteousness, the Scriptures. He came in the fulness of time. His joywas fulfilled. Paul prays that the disciples may be filled full of joy, peace, and hope, with the fruits of righteousness, with all knowledge, with the spirit of God, and with all the fulness of God. He teaches thatlove fulfils the law, that the Church is the fulness of Christ, thatChrist fills all things full of himself, and that in him dwells all thefulness of the godhead bodily. One great distinction between Christianity and all other religions is inthis pleroma, or fulness of life which it possesses, and which, to allappearance, came from the life of Jesus. Christianity is often said to bedifferenced from ethnic religions in other ways. They are naturalreligions: it is revealed. They are natural: it is supernatural. They arehuman: it is divine. But _all_ truth is revealed truth; it all comes fromGod, and, therefore, so far as ethnic religions contain truth, they alsoare revelations. Moreover, the supernatural element is to be found in allreligions; for inspiration, in some form, is universal. All great birthsof time are supernatural, making no part of the nexus of cause and effect. How can you explain the work of Confucius, of Zoroaster, of the Buddha, ofMohammed, out of the existing state of society, and the educationalinfluences of their time? All such great souls are much more the makers oftheir age than its result; they are imponderable elements in civilization, not to be accounted for by anything outside of themselves. Nor can we urgethe distinction of human and divine; for there is a divine element in allethnic religions, and a broadly human element in Christianity. Jesus isas much the representative of human nature as he is the manifestation ofGod. He is the Son of man, no less than the Son of God. One great fact which makes a broad distinction between other religions andChristianity is that _they_ are ethnic and _it_ is catholic. They are thereligions of races and nations, limited by these lines of demarcation, bythe bounds which God has beforehand appointed. Christianity is a catholicreligion: it is the religion of the human race. It overflows allboundaries, recognizes no limits, belongs to man as man. And this it does, because of the fulness of its life, which it derives from its head andfountain, Jesus Christ, in whom dwells the fulness both of godhead and ofmanhood. It is true that the great missionary work of Christianity has long beenchecked. It does not now convert whole nations. Heathenism, Mohammedanism, Judaism, Brahmanism, Buddhism, stand beside it unmoved. What is the causeof this check? The catholicity of the Gospel was born out of its fluent and full life. Itwas able to convert the Greeks and Romans, and afterward Goths, Vandals, Lombards, Franks, Scandinavians, because it came to them, not as a creed, but as a life. But neither Roman Catholics nor Protestants have had theselarge successes since the Middle Ages. Instead of a life, Christianitybecame a church and a creed. When this took place, it gradually lost itsgrand missionary power. It no longer preached truth, but doctrine; nolonger communicated life, but organized a body of proselytes into a rigidchurch. Party spirit took the place of the original missionary spirit. Even the majority of the German tribes was converted by Arianmissionaries, and orthodoxy has not the credit of that last grand successof Christianity. The conversion of seventy millions of Chinese in our ownday to the religion of the Bible was not the work of Catholic orProtestant missionaries, but of the New Testament. The Church and thecreed are probably the cause of this failure. Christianity has beenpartially arrested in its natural development, first by the Papal Church, and secondly by the too rigid creeds of orthodoxy. If the swarming myriads of India and Mongolia are to be converted toChristianity, it must be done by returning to the original methods. Wemust begin by recognizing and accepting the truth they already possess. Wemust be willing to learn of them, in order to teach them. ComparativeTheology will become the science of missions if it help to show toChristians the truth and good in the creeds outside of Christendom. For tothe Church and to its sects, quite as much as to the world, applies thesaying, "He that exalteth himself shall be abased, but he that humblethhimself shall be exalted. " § 8. Christianity as a Religion of Progress and of Universal Unity. As long as a tree or an animal lives it continues to grow. An arrest ofgrowth is the first symptom of the decline of life. Fulness of life, therefore, as the essential character of Christianity, should produce aconstant development and progress; and this we find to be the case. Otherreligions have their rise, progress, decline, and fall, or else arearrested and become stationary. The religions of Persia, Egypt, Greece, Rome, Scandinavia, have come to an end. As ethnic religions, they sharedthe fortunes of the race or nation with which they were associated. Thesystems of Confucius, of the Buddha, of Brahmanism, of Judæa, of Mohammed, are arrested. They remain stationary. But, thus far, Christianity andChristendom advance together. Christianity has developed; out of itsprimitive faith, several great theologies, the mediæval Papacy, Protestantism, and is now evidently advancing into new and larger forms ofreligious, moral, and social activity. The fact of a fulness of divine and human life in Jesus took form in thedoctrines of the incarnation and the Trinity. The fact of the reconcilingand uniting power of this life took form in the doctrine of the atonement. Both of these doctrines are illogical and false, in their form, as churchdoctrines. But both of them represent most essential facts. We have seenthe truths in the doctrines of incarnation and the Trinity. The truth inthe atonement is, as the word itself signifies, the at-one-making power ofthe Gospel. The reconciliation of antagonist truths and opposingtendencies, which philosophy has always unsuccessfully endeavored to statein theory, Christianity accomplishes in practice. Christianity continuallyreproduces from its depths of life a practical faith in God, both as lawand as love, in man, both as a free and yet as a providentially guidedbeing. It gives us God as unity and as variety, as the substance and asthe form of the world. It states the reality of evil as forcibly as anysystem of dualism, and yet produces a practical faith in good as beingstronger than evil and sure to conquer it. In social life it reconcilesthe authority of human law with the freedom of individual thought andaction. In the best Christian governments, we find all the order which adespotism can guarantee, with all the freedom to which a democracy canaspire. No such social organization is to be found outside of Christendom. How can this be, unless it is somehow connected with Christianity? The civilization of Christendom consists in a practical reconciliation ofantagonist tendencies. It is a "pleroma" in social life, a fulness ofconcord, a harmony of many parts. The harmony is indeed by no meanscomplete, for the millennium has not arrived. As yet the striking featureof Christendom is quantity, power, variety, fulness; not as yetco-operation, harmony, peace, union. Powers are first developed, which areafterward to be harmonized. The sword is not yet beaten into aploughshare, nor has universal peace arrived. Yet such is the inevitabletendency of things. As knowledge spreads, as wealth increases, as themoral force of the world is enlarged, law, more and more, takes the placeof force. Men no longer wear swords by their sides to defend themselvesfrom attack. If attacked, they call the policeman. Towns are no longerfortified with walls, nor are the residences of noblemen kept in a stateof defence. They are all folded in the peaceful arms of national law. Sofar the atonement has prevailed. Only nations still continue to fight; butthe time is at hand when international law, the parliament of the world, the confederation of man, shall take the place of standing armies andiron-clad navies. So, in society, internal warfare must, sooner or later, come to an end. Pauperism and crime must be treated according to Christian methods. Criminals must be reformed, and punishment must be administered inreference to that end. Co-operation in labor and trade must take the placeof competition. The principles by means of which these vast results willbe brought about are already known; the remaining difficulties are intheir application. Since slavery fell in the United States, one greatobstacle to the progress of man is removed. The next social evils in orderwill be next assailed, and, one by one, will be destroyed. Christianity isbecoming more and more practical, and its application to life isconstantly growing more vigorous and wise. The law of human life is, that the development of differences must precedetheir reconciliation. Variety must precede harmony, analysis must preparethe way for synthesis, opposition must go before union. Christianity, as apowerful stimulus applied to the human mind, first develops all thetendencies of the soul; and afterward, by its atoning influence on theheart, reconciles them. Christ is the Prince of Peace. He came to makepeace between man and God, between man and man, between law and love, reason and faith, freedom and order, progress and conservatism. But hefirst sends the sword, afterward the olive-branch. Nevertheless, universalunity is the object and end of Christianity. Index of the Principal Authors Consulted in the Preparation of thisWork. ACKERMANN (D. C. ). Das Christliche im Plato. Hamburg. 1835. (Translated inClark's Theological Library. ) (Greece. ) ÆSCHYLUS, and other Greek Poets. (Greece. ) ALGER (WM. R. ). A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life. Philadelphia: Childs. 1864. ALLEN (JOSEPH H. ). Hebrew Men and Times. Boston. 1861. (Judæa. ) American Oriental Society, Journal of the. New Haven; published annually. (Oriental Religions. ) AMPÈRE (J. J. A. ). L'Histoire Romaine. Paris. 1864. (Rome. ) ------ ------ La Science en Orient. Anthropological Society of London, Memoirs of (commenced in 1863-64). Asiatic Journal, 1816-1843. London. Asiatic Researches (commenced London. 1801). BALDWIN (JOHN D. ). Pre-Historic Nations. New York. 1869. BANHERJEA (Rev. K. M. ). Dialogues on Hindoo Philosophy, comprising theNyaya, Sankhya, and Vyasa. London. 1861. (Brahmanism. ) BAUR (F. C. ). Symbolik und Mythologie. Stuttgart. 1829. BLEEK (ARTHUR HENRY). Avesta. The religious Books of the Parsees. Translated into English from Spiegel's German translation. Hertford. 1864. (Zoroaster. ) BÖEKH. Manetho und der Hundstern period. Berlin. 1840. (Egypt. ) BURNOUF (EUGENE). Commentaire sur le Yaçna. Paris. 1823. ------ ------ Introduction à l'Histoire du Buddhisme Indien. Paris. 1844. ------ ------ Le Bhâgavata Purana, on Histoire Poetique de Krichna. Paris. 1840. BURNOUF (EMILE). Essai sur le Veda. 1863. BRUGSCH. Histoire de l'Egypte. Leipzig. 1859. ------- Aus dem Orient. BUNSEN (C. C. J. ). Bibelwerk. Leipzig: Brockhaus. 1858. (Judæa. ) ------ ------ Gott in der Geschichte. Leipzig. 1857. ------ ------ Ægypten's Stelle in der Weltgesehichte. Hamburg. 1845-1867. English translation, 1868. CHABAS (F. ). Les Pasteurs en Egypt. Amsterdam. 1868. CHASTEL (ETIÉNNE). Histoire de la Destruction du Paganisme dans l'Empired'Orient. Paris. 1850. Chinese Reeorder and Missionary Journal. Foochow. COCKER (B. F. ). Christianity and Greek Philosophy. New York 1870. (Greece. ) COLEBROOKE (H. T. ). Miscellaneous Essays; in two vols. London. 1837. (India. ) CREUZER (FRIEDRICH). Symbolik und Mythologie der alten Völker. Leipzig. 1836. (Greece, India, Persia. ) CUDWORTH (RALPH). The True Intellectual System of the Universe. Americanedition. 2 vols. 1837. CUNNINGHAM (ALEXANDER). The Ancient Geography of India. London. 1871. (Buddhism. ) ------ ------ Bhilsa Topes of India. (Buddhism. ) Dabistan, The. Translated from the Persian. Oriental Translation Fund. 1843. (Persia, Brahmanism, Judæa, Islam. ) DALL (Mrs. CAROLINE H. ). Egypt's Place in History. Boston. 1868. DAUMAS (LE GENERAL E. ). La vie Arabe et la Société Musulmane. Paris. 1869. DAVID (EMERIC). Jupiter et sa Culte. Paris. 1833. (Rome. ) DE ROUGÉ (VICOMTE DE). Examen critique de l'ouvrage de M. Bunsen. Paris. 1847. (Egypt. ) ------ ------ Études sur le rituel Funeraire. Paris. 1860. ------ ------ Le poéme de Pentaour. Paris. 1856. (Egypt. ) ------ ------ Mémoire sur les Monuments des six premieres dynasties. Paris. 1866. (Egypt. ) DOLLINGER (JOHN J. I. ). The Gentile and the Jew. London. Longman, 1862. (Greece, Rome, Judæa, Egypt, &c. ) DUNCKER (MAX). Geschichte des alterthums. Berlin. 1863. (Egypt, Babylon, Judæa, Assyria, India, Persia. ) DUPERRON (ANQUETIL). Le Zendavesta. Paris. 1771. 3 vols. (Zoroaster. ) DUTT (SHOSHEE CHUNDER). Essays. Calcutta. 1854. (Brahmanism. ) EBERS. Ægypten und die Bücher Mosis. 1870. EWALD (HEINRICH). Geschichte des volkes Israel (the first two volumestranslated by Russell Martineau). Göttingen. 1845-1851. (Judæa. ) FARRAR (F. W. ). Families of Speech. London. 1870. FAUCHE (HIPPOLYTE). Le Maha-Bharata, traduit complètement du Sanscrit enFrançais. Paris. 1863. ------ ------ Le Ramayana, traduit en Français. Paris. 1864. (Brahmanism. ) FERGUSSON (JAMES). The Illustrated Handbook of Architecture. London. 1855. FRIEDLIEB (J. H. ). Die Sibyllinischen Weissagungen. Leipzig. 1852. (Rome. ) GOBINEAU. Les Religions et les Philosophies dans l'Asie Centrale. 1866. GERHARD (EDUARD). Griechische Mythologie, 3 Banden. Berlin. 1854. (Greece. ) GIBBON (EDWARD). Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. GRIMM (JACOB). Deutsche Mythologie, Dritte Ausgabe. Göttingen. 1854. (Germany. ) GROTE (GEORGE). History of Greece. New York: Harper and Brothers. 1854. (Greece. ) ------ ------ Plato and the other Companions of Socrates. London: Murray. 1867. (Greece. ) HARDWICK (CHARLES). Christ and other Masters. London: Macmillan. 1863. (Judæa, India, China, Egypt, Persia. ) HARDY (R. SPENCE). Eastern Monachism. London: Partridge and Oakey. 1850. (Buddhism. ) ------ ------ A Manual of Buddhism in its Modern Development. London:Partridge and Oakey. 1853. (Buddhism. ) HARIVANSA. Appendix to the Mahabharata, translated by Langlois. OrientalTranslation Fund. London. 1834. (India. ) HARTUNG, (J. A. ). Die Religion der Römer. Erlangen. 1836. ------ ------ Die Religion und Mythologie der Griechen. Leipzig. 1865. HAUG (MARTIN). Essays on the Sacred Language, Writings, and Religion ofthe Parsees. Bombay. 1862. (Persia. ) HEDGE (F. H. ). The Primeval World of Hebrew Tradition. Boston: Roberts &Brothers. 1870. (Judæa. ) HEEREN (A. H. L. ). Historical Researches into the Polities, Intercourse, and Trade of the Principal Nations of Antiquity. (English translation. )Oxford. 1833. HEFFTER (M. W. ). Mythologie der Griechen und Römer. Leipzig. 1854. (Greeksand Romans. ) HERODOTUS, and other Greek Historians. (Greece. ) HIGGINSON (EDWARD). The Spirit of the Bible. London. 1863. (Judæa. ) Hitopadésa. Translated by Francis Johnson. London and Hertford. 1848. (India. ) HUC (L'ABBÉ ÉVARISTE REGIS). Souvenirs d'un voyage dans la Tartaric, leThibet et la Chine pendant les années 1844, 1845, et 1846. Paris. 1852. ------ ------ Le Christianisme en Chine. (1857. ) (Both these works havebeen translated into English. ) (Buddhism. ) INMAN (F. ). Ancient Faiths embodied in Ancient Names. 2 vols. London. 1868. JONES (Sir WILLIAM). Works. 13 vols. 1807. JULIEN (M. STANISLAS). Memoires sur les contrées occidentales, traduitesdu Chinois en Francais. Paris. 1857. (China. ) ------ ------ Le Livre des Recompenses et des Peines. Paris. 1835. (Oriental Translation Fund. ) (China. ) ------ ------ Le Tao-te King, le livre de la voie, et de la vertu, par lephilosophe Lao-tseu. Paris. 1842. (China. ) KENRICK (JOHN). Ancient Egypt under the Pharaohs. Redfield. New York. 1852. KLAUSSEN (R. H. ). Aeneas und die Penaten. (Influence of the Greek Religionon Italian Religions. ) 1839. KLEUKER (JOHANN FRIEDRICH). Anhang zum Zend-avesta. Leipzig und Riga. 1781. ------ ------ Zend-avesta, Zoroaster's Lebendiges Wort. Riga. 1777. (Fromthe French of A. Du Perron. ) KNOX (R. ). The Races of Men. London. 1850. KOEPPEN (C. F. ). Die Religion des Buddha. Berlin. 1857. ------ ------ Die Lamaische hierarchie. Berlin. 1859. KREMER (ALFRED VON). Geschichte der herrchenden Ideen des Islams. Leipzig. 1868. KURTZ (FRIEDRICH). Allgemeine Mythologie. Leipzig. 1869. LAING (SAMUEL). Chronicle of the Kings of Norway. London: Longman. 1844. (Scandinavia. ) LANDSEER (JOHN). Sabæán Researches. London. 1823. LANE (EDWARD WILLIAM). Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians. 2vols. 5th edition. London. 1848. ------ ------ Selections from the Kuran, with an interwoven Commentary. London. 1843. LANOYE (F. DE). Rameses the Great. New York: Scribner. 1870. (Egypt. ) LASSEN (C. ). Indische Alterthumskunde. (4 Bande. ) Bonn. 1847. LATHAM (R. G. ). The Natural History of the Varieties of Man. London. 1850. Descriptive Ethnology. London. 1859. LEGGE (JAMES). The Chinese Classics, with a Translation, Critical andExegetical Notes, Prolegomena, and copious Indexes. Hongkong. 1861-1865. LENORMANT (FRANÇOIS). A Manual of the Ancient History of the East. London:Asher & Co. 1869. (Judæa, Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Phoenicia, Carthage, Arabia. ) LEPSIUS (RICHARD). Letters from Egypt, Ethiopia, and the Peninsula ofSinai. London: Bohn. 1853. (Egypt. ) ------ ------ Uber die gotter der vier elemente. Berlin. 1856. (Egypt. ) ------ ------ Das Todtenbuch der Ægypter. Leipzig. 1842. LESLEY (J. P. ). Man's Origin and Destiny. Philadelphia: Lippincott & Co. 1868. (Egypt, &c. ) LIN-LE. The History of the Ti-Ping Revolution. London. 1866. (China. ) MAINE. Ancient Law. London. MALAX (S. C. ). God in China. Shin or Shangte? London (no date). MACKAY (ROBERT WILLIAM). The Progress of the Intellect as exemplified inthe Religious Development of the Greeks and Hebrews. 2 vols. London. 1850. MAURY (L. J. ALFRED). Histoire des Religions de la Grèce Antique. Park. 1857. (Greece. ) ------ ------ Croyance et l'Antiquité. Paris. 1863. MARIETTE (A. E. ). Choix des Monuments decouverts pendantle déblayement duSérapeum de Memphis. Paris. 1856. ------ ------ Memoire sur le mère d'Apis. 1856. MEADOWS (T. TAYLOR). The Chinese and their Rebellions. 1856. (China. ) MILMAN (HENRY HART). The History of the Jews. London. 1835. (Judæa. ) ------ ------ The History of Latin Christianity. 4th edition. London. 1867. Mohammedan Dynasties in Spain. Oriental Translation Fund. London. 1840. (Islam. ) MOMMSEN (THEODORE). Romische Geschichte. 3d edition. Berlin. 1861. 3 vols. 8vo. Translated into English. London. 1862. (Rome. ) MUIR (J. ). Original Sanskrit Texts on the Origin and Progress of theReligion and Institutions of India. Four parts. Williams and Nordgate. 1857-1863. MUIR (W. ). Life of Mahomet and History of Islam to the Era of the Hegira. London. 1858. MULLENS (Rev. JOSEPH). The Religious Aspects of Hindu Philosophy statedand discussed. London. 1860. MÜLLER (C. OTTTFRIED). Ancient Art and its Remains. London: Bonn. 1852. (Greece. ) Literature of Ancient Greece. London: Baldwin. 1850. (Greece. ) Die Dorier. Breslau. 1825. Translated into English by Sir G. C. Lewis. Oxford. 1830. MULLER (MAX). Rig-Veda Sanhita, translated and explained. Volume I. Hymnsto the Maruts, or Storm Gods. London. 1869. History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature. 1860. Chips from a German Workshop. 1870. MÜLLER (WILHELM). Geschichte und System der Altdeutschen Religion. Gottingen. 1844. (Germany. ) NIEBUHR. Lectures on the History of Rome. London. 1852. NÖLDEKE (THEODOR). Geschiehte des Quorân. Gottingen. 1860. NOTT (J. C. ) and GLIDDON (Geo. R. ). Types of Mankind. Philadelphia. 1854. Indigenous Races of the Earth. Philadelphia. 1857. OUVAROFF (M. ). Essai sur les Mysteres d'Eleusis. Paris. 1816. PALGRAVE (WILLIAM GIFFORD). A Year's Journey through Central and EasternArabia. Third edition. 1866. London. (Islam. ) PAUTHIER (G. ). Les Livres sacres de l'Orient (containing the Chou-king, the four books of Confucius and Mencius, the Laws of Manu, and the Coran). Paris. 1843. PERCEVAL (CAUSSIN DE). Essai sur l'Histoire des Arabs, avant Islamisme, pendant l'époque de Mahomet, et jusqu'à la réduction de toutes les tribussous la loi Mussalmane. Paris. 3 vols. 8vo. 1847-48. (Islam. ) PICKERING (CHARLES). The Races of Men. Boston. 1846. PICTET (A. ). Les Origines Indo-Européennes, on les Aryas primitives. Paris. 1859. PIGOTT (GRENVILLE). A Manual of Scandinavian Mythology. London: Pickering. 1839. POOLE (MRS. ). Englishwoman in Egypt. Letters from Cairo. First and SecondSeries. London, republished in Philadelphia. (Islam. ) PRELLER (L. ). Griechische Mythologie. Leipzig. 1854. PRIAULX (OSMOND DE B. ). Quæstiones Mosaicæ. London. 1842. PRICHARD (JAMES COWLES). The Eastern Origin of the Celtic Nations. Editedby R. G. Latham. London. 1857. PRICHARD (J. C. ) The Natural History of Man. London: Ballière. 1855. (Egypt. ) PRINSEP (JAMES). Essays on Indian Antiquities. 2 vols. London. 1858. RAPP (ADOLPH). Die Religion und Sitte der Perser. 1865. RAWLINSON (GEORGE). Herodotus. Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World. London. 1862-1868. Manual of Ancient History. New York: Harper and Brothers. 1871. (Assyria, Egypt, Greece, Rome, etc. ) RENAN (J. E. ). Articles in the Revue des Deux Mondes. Études d'Histoire religieuse. Paris, 1857. Translated by O. B. Frothingham. New York. 1864. Histoire générale et systèmes comparés des langues Sémitiques. Paris. 1863. Revue Archéologique. Paris (containing the principal articles of De Rougéon Egypt). RHODE (J. G. ). Die heilige Sage und Religions-System der alten Baktrer, Meder und Perser. Frankfurt am Main. 1820. RITTER (CARL). The Comparative Geography of Palestine and the SinaiticPeninsula. Translated by William L. Gage. New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1866. (Judasa. ) Ritual of the Buddhist Priesthood. (In Miscellaneous OrientalTranslations. ) Oriental Translation Fund. 1834. RIXNER (T. A. ). Haudbuch der Geschichte der Philosophic. (3 vols. ) 1829. RODWELL (Rev. I. M. ). The Coran, translated from the Arabic. The Suras, arranged in Chronological Order. London. 1861. RÖTH (EDUARD). Die Ägyptische und die Zoroastrische Glaubenslehre. Mannheim. 1846. SALVADOR (J. ). Histoire des Institutions de Moise. Paris. 1862. (Judæa. ) SAINT-HILAIRE (J. BARTHÉLEMY). Mahomet et le Coran. Paris. 1865. (Islam. ) Le Bouddha et sa religion. Paris. 1860. (Buddhism. ) SALE (GEORGE). The Koran, with preliminary Dissertations. Philadelphia. 1833. (Islam. ) Sánkhya Káriká, The, translated by Colebrooke and Wilson. OrientalTranslation Fund. 1837. (India. ) SCHLAGINTWEIT (EMIL). Buddhism in Thibet. Leipzig and London. 1863. SCHLEICHER (AUGUST). Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik derIndo-Germanischen Sprachen. Weimar. 1866. SCHWENCK (KONRAD). Die Mythologie der Römer. Frankfurt am Main. 1846. (Rome. ) Die Mythologie der Ægypter. Frankfurt am Main. 1846. (Egypt. ) SMITH (WILLIAM). Dictionary of the Bible. Boston: Little, Brown, & Co. 1860. (Judæa. ) SMITH (Lieut. -Col. C. H. ). Natural History of the Human Species. SPIEGEL (F. ). Avesta, die heiligen schriften der parsen. Vienna. 1860, 1863. (Persia. ) Eran, das Land zwischen dem Indus und Tigris. Commentar uber das Avesta. Leipzig. 1864. (Persia. ) SPRENGER (Dr. A. ). Das Leben und die Lehre des Mohammed. Berlin. 1861. (Islam. ) STANLEY (ARTHUR P. ). Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church. NewYork: Scribner. 1863. (Judæa. ) STEVENSON (Rev. J. ) Translation of the Sanhita of the Sama-Veda. OrientalTranslation Fund. 1842. (India. ) TACITUS, The Works of. (Rome and Germany. ) THORPE (BENJAMIN). Northern Mythology. London. 1851. (Scandinavia. ) TOWNLEY (JAMES). The Reasons of the Laws of Moses. London. 1827. TURNOUR (Hon. GEO. ). The Maháwanso, with an introductory Essay onPáli-Buddhistic Literature, in 2 vols. Ceylon. 1837. TZSCHIRNER (H. G. ). Der Fall der Heidenthums. UPHAM (EDWARD). Sacred and Historical Books of Ceylon. 3 vols. 1833. URQUHART (D. ). The Spirit of the East. 2 vols. London. 1839. VAMBÉRY. Travels in Turkistan. WASSILJEW (W. ). Der Buddhismus, seine Dogmen, Geschichte, und Literatur. St. Petersburg. 1860. WEBER (ALBRECHT). Indische Skizzen. Berlin. 1857. (Buddhism. ) WEIL (Dr. G. ). Mohammed der Prophet, sein Leben und seine Lehre. Stuttgart. 1843. WELCKER (F. G. ). Griechische Götterlehre. 3 Banden. Göttingen. 1857. WESTCOTT (B. A. ). Introduction to the Study of the Gospels. Boston. 1862. WESTERGAARD (N. L. ). Ueber Buddha's Todesjahr. Breslau. 1862. WHEELER (J. TALBOYS). History of India from the Earliest Times. London. 1869. WILKINS (CHARLES). The Bhagvat-Gheeta. London. 1785. WILKINSON (Sir J. GARDNER). The Ancient Egyptians. London: Murray. 1854. 5vols. 8vo. (Egypt. ) WILLIAMS (MONIER). Sakoontala, or the Lost Ring. Hertford. 1856. WILSON (ANDREW). The ever-victorious Army. Edinburgh. 1868. (China. ) WILSON (HORACE HAYMAN). Select Works of. London. 1861. Containing Essayson the Religion of the Hindoos. 2 vols. Essays on Sanskrit Literature. 3vols. Vischnu Purana. 3 vols. 1861-1866. Select Specimens of the Theatre of the Hindoos. 3 vols. 1827. Rig-Veda-Sanhita. Translated from the original Sanskrit. 4 vols. London. 1850-1866. WINDISCHMANN (FRIEDRICH). Ursagen des Arischen Volker. Munich. 1853. Zoroastriche Studien. 1863. Über das Bunddehesch. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft. Leipzig. Commenced 1847. ZELLER (E. ). The Stoics. Epicureans, and Sceptics (English translation). London. 1870. Index of Subjects Treated in this Work. A. Abraham, source of Hebrew monotheism, 403. " his inspiration, 403. " his worship of the Most High God, 404. " his native home at the source of the Tigris, 405. " his historic character and events of his life, 406. " his relation to Melchisedek, 406. " character of his faith, 408. " his monotheism imperfect, 408. Adam of Bremen, his account of Northern Christians, 394. Æschylus, big religious character, 284. Anschar, missionary to the Swedes, 393. Antoninus, M. Aurelius, his religious character, 344. Apollo Belvedere, in the Vatican, 289. Arabs, the, and Arabia, 452. " without a history till the time of Mohammed, 452. Aristotle, his view of God, 296. Artemis, or Diana as represented by the sculptors, 290. Aryana-Vaêjo, a region of delight, 184. " its climate changes to cold, 185. " supposed to be in Central Asia, 186. Aryans, the, in Central Asia, 85. " consist of seven races, 86. " their name mentioned in Manu, in the Avesta, and by Herodotus, 87. " their original home, 87. " their mode of life, 88. " they arrive in India, 89. Atonement, Christian, in its early form, influenced by Egyptian thought, 255. " in its scholastic form, derived from Roman law, 352. Augurs, their duties, 337. Avesta, discovered by Duperron, 179. B. Baldur, his character described, 378. " death of, the story, 373. Baltic Sea, the Mediterranean of modern Europe, 359. Bona Dea, the good goddess, 330. Bragi, the Scandinavian Apollo, 380. Brahma, chief deity in the Laws of Manu, 125. " his worship has entirely disappeared, 128. Brahmanism, a difficult study, 81. " no individual founder, 81. " is a one-sided spiritualism, 83. " passes into pantheism, 84. " becomes idolatry, 85. Buddha, his early tendency to devotion, 148. " not a proper name, but an official title, 148. " his birthplace In India, 148. " his different names (note), 148. " his father, a prince of the solar race, 148. " his early tendency to devotion, 148. " he arrives at Nirvana, 149. " devotes himself to teaching, 150. " dies at the age of eighty years, 150. " period of his death, 150. Buddhism, Protestantism of the East, 139. " resemblance of its customs to those of the Romish Church, 139. " its worship of relics very ancient, 140. " its singular and beautiful architecture, 140. " its shrines for relics, 141. " its rock-cut temples and monasteries, 141. " cannot have been copied from Catholicism, 141. " its interior resemblance to Protestantism, 142. " its respect for human freedom and human rights, 143. " its belief in the capacity of the human intellect, 144. " its monastic character, 144. " its expulsion from India, 145. " the religion of the Mongol nations, 146. " its scriptures and their discovery, 147. Buddhists, their general councils, 151. " their missionaries and missionary spirit, 151. " their leading doctrines, 153. " their idea of human development and progress, 154. " their four great truths, 155. " their moral commandments, 156. " their system rational and humane, 156. " their toleration, 157. " their benevolence and hospitality, 158. " their worship and ritual, 159. " their doctrines of Karma and Nirvana, 161. " good and evil of their system, 164. " their doctrine of transmigration, 167. " how far their teaching resembles Christianity, 167. Bundehesch, opinion of Windischmann concerning it, 194. " doctrinal system of, 195. Burlingame, Anson, his mission, 70. C. Carthaginians, their language a form of Hebrew, 400. Catholic religious, three, 18. " " teach the unity of God, 18. " " which have failed of universality, 19. Ceres, Liber, Flora, and Pomona, rural deities, 330. Chaldees of Ur, same as modern Curds, 405. Chandragupta, contemporary of Alexander, 86. Cherubim, its derivation from the Sphinx, 252. Chinese civilization, its peculiarities, 32. " " prose of Asia, 32. " " its antiquity, 33. " " its grotesque character, 36. Chinese empire, its size, 33. " history commences, 34. " language, 34. " wall and canals, 34. " artesian wells, 34. " inoculation, bronze money, mariner's compass, gunpowder, 35. " art of printing, and libraries, 35. " people possess freedom (note), 37. " government based on education, 38. " monarchy a family, 38. " government a literary aristocracy, 38. " civil-service examinations, 39. " public boards and their duties, 42. " viceroys, or governors of provinces, 42. " agriculture carried to perfection, 43. " "Kings, " or sacred books, 47. " philosophy in its later developments, 52. " doctrine of the grand extreme, 52. " doctrine of Yang and Yin, or the positive and negative essences, 52. " doctrine of holy men, 53. " people, their amiable character, 59. " " described by Lieutenant Forbes, 59. " " described by Du Halde, 60. " " described by Meadows, 60. " " treatment of woman, 61. Christian apologists, their errors, 4. " " have regarded most religions as human inventions, 4. " " have considered them as debasing superstitions, 4. Christianity adapted to the Northern races, 395. " a pleroma, or fulness of life, 492. " an inclusive system, not exclusive, 493. " summary of its relation to other religions, 494. " a religion of progress, 507. " a religion of universal unity, 508. " has the power of continued progress, 29. " in its various developments, 29. " meets the positive and negative side: of Brahmanism, 24. Of Buddhism, 25. Of Confucius, 26. Of Zoroaster, 26. Of Egypt, 27. Of Greece, 28. Cicero, his work "De Natura Deorum, " 341. " on the speech of Cæsar, 342. Circumcision, its origin and extent, 251. Cleanthes, the Stoic, his hymn, 285. Comparative Philology, its discoveries, 86. " Theology either analytical or synthetical, 2. " " its relation to Comparative Geography, 2. " " its relation to human progress, 2. " " must do justice to all religions, 3. " " is still in its infancy, 3. " " is a science, 3. " " will furnish new evidence to the truth of Christianity, 13. " " will show Christianity to be a catholic religion, adapted to all races, 15. " " will show Christianity to be all-sided, 21. " " will show Christianity capable of progress, 29. " " in its probable results, 30. Confucius, his birth and ancestors, 44, 45. " his influence, 44, 45. " events of his life, 45, 46. " edits the sacred books, or Kings, 47. " his own writings, 47. " his Table-Talk, extracts from, 48, 49. " had a large organ of veneration, 50. " had great energy and persistency, 51. " his books distributed by tract societies, 51. " one thousand six hundred and sixty temples erected to his memory, 51. " defects in his doctrine, 58. " his system compared with Christianity, 59. " good influence of his teachings, 58. Conversion of the German races to Christianity, 390. Cudworth and the Platonists have defended the Greek philosophers, 5. D. David, his life and epoch in human history, 422. " his great military successes, 422. " his prudence and sagacity in affairs, 423. " a man of genius, poet, musician, 425. " Book of Psalms a record of his life, 425. " his Psalms often rise to the level of Christianity, 426. Decay of the Roman religion, 339. Denmark and Norway converted to Christianity, 392. Devil, the, in Old and New Testament, 498. Divination, Cicero speaks concerning, 339-341. Doctrinal influence of the Egyptian religion on Christianity, 258. Downfall of German heathenism, 391. Druids and Scalds, 355. Duad, the, in all religions, 396. Dualism or monotheism the doctrine of the Avesta, 203. " of the Scandinavian system, 384. " in Christianity, 496. Duperron, Anquetil, his zeal for science, 178. " " discovers the Avesta in India, 179 E. Ecclesiastes, a wonderful description of utter despair, 435. Eddas, the, chief source of our knowledge of the early Scandinavians, 363. " elder, or poetic, described, 364. " its author, Sæmund, 364. " prose, by Snorro Sturteson, 369. " " its contents, 369. " " its account of creation, 370. " " its account of the gods and giants, 371. " " story of Baldur, 372. " " adventures of Thor, 374. " " consummation of all things, 375. Egyptian chronology, its uncertainty, 231. " " opinions of Egyptologists concerning, 231, 232. " " point of contact with that of the Hebrews, 233. Egyptian civilization, its extent, 209. " architecture, its characteristics, 209. " knowledge of arts, 210. " love for making records, 210. " mural paintings in tombs, 210. " sphinxes discovered by Marietta, 210. " mummies, their anatomy, 237. " religion, its influence on Judaism, 250 " " its influence on Christianity, 253. " " its triads, 254. Egyptians, ancient, their great interest in religion, 214. " their gods on the oldest monuments, 215. " lived in order to worship, 215. " number of their festivals, 216. " their priests, 217. " their doctrine of immortality, 218. " their ritual of the dead, 219. " their funeral ceremonies, 220. " their domestic and social virtues, 221. " specimen of their hymns, 222, 223. " mysterious character of their theology, 223. " sources of our knowledge concerning, 224. " modern works upon (note), 225. " their doctrine of transmigration (note), 226. " their animal worship, 227. " their tendency to nature-worship, 229. " their origin, 230-236. Epictetus, his view of religion, 343. Epicureans, believed in God, but not in religion, 297. Essential idea of Brahmanism, 21. " " of Buddhism, 21. " " of Confucius, 22. " " of Zoroaster, 22. " " of Egypt, 23. " " of Greece, 24. Ethnic religions, defined, 15. " " most religions are such, 15. " " related to ethnology, 15. " " limited to races, 17. Euripides, his tragedy anti-religious, 285. F. Faunus, an old Italian god, 330. Fenrir, the wolf, how he was fastened, 382. Feudal system, its essential character, 391. Flamens, priests of particular deities, 336. Fontus, god of fountains, 328. Frey, and his daughter Freyja, 379. G. Geiger, Swedish history quoted, 357. Genius, a Roman god, 329. German races essentially Protestant, 395. German tribes converted by Arian missionaries, 506. Gods of Egypt, the three orders of, 239. " " " names of the first order, 239. " " " character of the first order, 240. " " " significant of the divine unity, 242. " " " second order of, their human qualities, 243. " " " third order of, the Osiris group, 242. Gods of Greece before Homer, 270. " " " oldest were the Uranids, 270. " " " second race of, the Titans, 271. " " " third race of, the Olympians, 271. " " " the oldest were gods of the elements, 272. " " " worshipped by the Dorians, were Apollo and Artemis, 274. " " " local distribution of, 275. " " " first symbolical, afterward personal, 276. " " " in Hesiod and Homer, 277. " " " poetic character of, 279. " " " in Homer very human beings, 280. " " " as described by the lyric poets, 283. " " " as described by the tragedians, 284. " " " as unfolded by the artists, 286. " " " as seen in the works of Phidias, 287. " " " as described by the philosophers, 291. " " " how related to Christianity, 310. Gods of the Vedas are the evil spirits of the Avesta, 202. Greece, its physical geography, 259. " its mountains, climate, and soil, 260. " its language akin to Sanskrit, 261. " its people an Aryan race, 262. " first inhabited by the Pelasgians, 262. " afterward received the Dorians, 264. " influenced powerfully by Egypt, 265. Greek mysteries, derived from Asia and Egypt, 302. " " gods of belong to the underworld, 302. " " alien to the Greek mind, 303. " " Eleusinian, in honor of Ceres, 305. " " in honor of Bacchus, derived from India, 305. " " Orphic, and their doctrines, 306. " religion, an essentially human religion, 266. " " its gods, men and women, 267. " " has no founder or restorer or priesthood, 267. " " its gods evolved, not emanations, 268. " " its freedom and hilarity, 269. " " as viewed by Paul, 308. " " as regarded by the early Christian fathers, 312. " " and philosophy, a preparation for Christianity, 313. " worship, sacrifices, prayers, and festivals, 297. " " in early times, 298. " " had numerous festivals, 299. " " connected with augurs and oracles, 300. Gylfi, deluding of, in the Edda, 369. H. Haruspices, derived from Etruria, 338. Havamal, or proverbs of the Scandinavians, 366. Heathen religions must contain more truth than error, 6. " " cannot have been human inventions, 6. " " must contain some revolution from God, 8. " " how viewed by Christ and his apostles, 9. " " how treated by Paul at Athens, 10. " " how regarded by the early apologists, 12. Heimdall, warder of the gods, 380. Herder, his description of David, 425. Hesiod, his account of the three groups of gods, 270. Hindoo Epics, Ramayana and Mahabharata, 128. " " they refer to the time succeeding the Vedic age, 128. " " composed before the time of Buddhism, 129. Hindoos, antagonisms of their character, 82. " acute in speculations, but superstitious, 82. " unite luxury and asceticism, 82. " tend to idealism and religious spiritualism, 83. " their doctrine of Maya, 84. Hindoo year, calendar of, 132. " " begins in April, a sacred month, 132. Holy of Holies, in the Egyptian and Jewish temples, 252. Homer his description of the gods, 280. Horace, his view of religion, 346. Hyksôs, constitute the middle monarchy, 232. " expelled from Egypt after five hundred years, 233. " Hebrews in Egypt during their ascendency, 234, 235. " or Shepherd Kings in Egypt, 213. " a Semitic people from Asia, 232. " conquered Lower Egypt B. C. 2000, 233. Hyndla, song of, extracts from, 366. I. Icelanders converted to Christianity, 394. Incarnation, the fundamental doctrine of Christianity, 28. India, always a land of mystery, 81. " overrun by conquerors, 81. Infinite and finite elements in Brahmanism and Christianity, 137. Injustice done to ethnic religions, 4. Inspiration, its origin in the intuitive faculty, 439. Isis and Osiris, their legend, from Plutarch, 244. " " " explanations of their myth, 246. " " " identified with the first and second order, 248. J. Janus, one of the oldest of Roman gods, 322. " presided over beginnings and endings, 322. " invoked before other gods, 322. " his temple open in war, closed in peace, 322. " believed by Creuzer to have an Indian origin, 323. " has his chief feast in January, 323. " a Sabine god on Mount Janiculum, 323. Jews, a Semitic race, 399. Job, its grandeur of thought and expression, 438. Jones, Sir William, his life and works, 78. " progress since his time, 80. Judaism, a preparation for Christianity, 444. " monotheistic after the captivity, 444. " influenced by Greek philosophy, 444. " its process of development, 445. " at first childlike and narrow, 446. " the seed of Christianity, 446. Juno, queen of heaven, and female Jupiter, 324. " goddess of womanhood, 324. " her chief feast the Matronalia in March, 324. " her month of June favorable for wedlock, 325. Jupiter, derived his name from the Sanskrit, 324. " had many temples in Rome, 324. " god of the weather, of storm, of lightning, 324. K. "Kings, " Chinese, names and number, 47. " teach a personal God, 57. " republished by Confucius, 47. L. Language of Ancient Egypt, 236. Lao-tse, founder of Tao-ism, 50, 52. " called a dragon by Confucius, 51. " three forms of his doctrine, 54. Lares, gods of home, 328. Loki, the god of cunning, 381. Lower Egypt, gods worshipped in, 248. Lucretius, his view of religion, 343. Luna, the moon, a Sabine deity, 327. Lustrations, or great acts of atonement, 338. M. Magna Mater, a foreign worship at Rome, 330. Maine, his work on ancient law quoted, 351. Mann, laws of, when written, 100. " account of Creation, 101. " dignity of the Brahmans, 103. " importance of the Gayatari, 104. " account of the twice-born man, 105. " description of ascetic duties, 106. " the anchorite described, 107. " duties of the ruler described, 109. " crimes and penalties described, 110. " the law of castes described, 110. " penance and expiation described, 110. " respect for cows enjoined, 111. " transmigration and final beatitude, 112. Maritime character of the Scandinavians, 361. Mars, originally an agricultural god, 330. Materialism in Christian doctrines, derived from Egypt, 256. Mater Matuta, Latin goddess of the dawn (note), 325, 327. Melchisedek, king of justice and king of peace, 407. Minerva, her name derived from an Etruscan word, 325. Goddess of mental activity, 325. One of the three deities of the capitol, 325. Missionary work of Christianity, why checked, 506. Moabite inscription in the Hebrew dialect, 400. Mohammed, recent works concerning, 448. " lives of, by Muir, Sprenger, Weil, and others, 449. " essays on his life by Babador, 450. " prophecies of, in the Old Testament, 451. " lived a private life for forty years, 454. " his early religious tendencies, 454. " his inspirations, 454. " his biography in the Koran, 455. " his mother's death, 456. " his first converts, 457. " protected by his tribe, 458. " his temporary relapse, 460. " and his followers persecuted, 461. " his first teaching a modified Judaism, 463. " his departure to Medina with his followers, 464. " change in his character after the Hegira, 465. " in his last ten years a political leader, 467. " Goethe's view of his character, 468. " his cruel treatment of the Jews, 469. " his numerous wives, 470. " his death and character, 471. Mohammedanism, its special interest, 448. " its essential doctrine the absolute unity of God, 472. " its teaching concerning the Bible and Koran, 472. " does not recognize human brotherhood, 473. " among the Turks, its character, 473. " promotes religious feeling, 474. " inspires courage and resignation, 474. " in Palestine, described by Miss Rogers, 475. " in Central Arabia, described by Mr. Palgrave, 478. " in Central Asia, described by M. Vambéry, 477. " in Persia, described by Count Gobmeau, 477. " in Egypt, described by Mr. Lane, 477. " in Turkey, described by Mr. MacFarlane, 478, 484. " in Northern Africa, described by Barth and Blerzey, 477, 485. " its character given by M. Renan, 485. " its monotheism lower than that of Judaism and Christianity, 481. " does not convert the Aryan races, 500. " pure from Polytheism, 502. " has a tendency to catholicity, 503. " a relapse to a lower stand point, 483. " summary of its good and evil influence, 484. Monotheism (or Dualism), the doctrine of the Avesta, 203. Montesquieu quoted, 357. Moses, his historic character, 409. " described by Strabo (note), 410. " his natural genius and temperament, 411. " his seventy and tenderness, 412. " his sense of justice embodied in law, 412. " his object to teach the holiness of God, 413. " defects of his character, 413. " character of his monotheism, 414. " his monotheism described by Stanley (note), 414. " his anthropomorphic view of God, 415. " his acquaintance with Egyptian learning, 416. " nature of his inspiration, 417. " political freedom secured to the Jews by his law, 418. " object of his ceremonial law, 420. Mythology of Scandinavia and that of Zoroaster compared, 384. N. Names of our week-days Scandinavian, 358. Neptunus, origin of the name, 328. Nestorian inscription in China, 71-78. Njord, ruler of the winds, 378. Northern and Southern Europe compared, 359. Northmen in France, Spain, Italy, and Greece, 389. Number of Christians in the world, 146. " of Buddhists in the world, 146. " of Jews in the world, 146. " of Mohammedans in the world, 146. " of Brahmans, 146. Nyaya, system of philosophy, assumes three principles, 122. " system of philosophy, described by Banerjea, 123. O. Odin, or All-father, eldest of the Æsir, 377. " corresponds to Ormazd, 385. " his festival in the spring, 386. Opa, goddess of the harvest, 330. P. Pales, a rural god, 330. Palestine, or the land of the Philistines, 397. " resembles Greece and Switzerland, 397. " its mountainous character, 397. " a small country, 398. " its mountains and valleys, 399. Palgrave, note giving an extract from his book, 486. Papacy, mediæval, good done by it, 350. " a reproduction of the Roman state religion, 350. Parsî religion, its influence on Judaism, 205. " " its influence on Christianity, 204. " " teaches a kingdom of heaven, 207. " " still continues in Persia and India, 208. Parthenon, the, temple of Minerva, described, 290. Penates, gods of home, 328. Persepolis, ruins of the palace of Xerxes at, 170. " inscriptions of Darius and Xerxes at, 170. " tombs of the kings of Persia at, 174. Pharisees, Sadducets, and Essenei, 444. Phidias, his statue of Jupiter described, 288. Philistines, probably Pelasgi from Crete, 421. Philosophy, early Greek, 291. " Greek, in Asia Minor, 291. " in Italy, 292. Phœnicians, their language a form of Hebrew, 400. Plato harmonizes realism and idealism, 293. " his philosophy completes that of Socrates, 294. " his method that of transcendentalism, 294. " his idea of God pure and high, 295. " Christian element in, 295. Pliny, the elder, his view of religion, 345. Present work, an essay, or attempt, 1. " " companson of religions its object, 1. Prophecy, a modification of inspiration, 438. Prophets of the Old Testament, men of action, 440. " politicians and constitutional lawyers, 440. " preferred the moral law to ceremonial, 441. " described by Dean Stanley, 441. " their inspiration came through a common human faculty, 442. " their predictions not always realized, 443. " their foresight of Christianity, 443. " developed Judaism to its highest point, 443. Proverbs, Book of, in the Edda, 365. Pontiffs, their authority, 336. Positivism, its law of progress examined, 489. Puranas, the, much read by the common people, 130. " devoted to the worship of Vischnu, 131. " extol the power of penances, 132. " ideas those of the epics, 132. " their philosophy that of the Sunkhya, 132. R. Ramses II. A powerful king B. C. 1400, 233. " supposed to be the same as Sesostris, 234. " birth of Moses during his reign, 335. Recognition of God in nature, best element of Egyptian religion, 257. Relation of the religion of the Avesta to the Vedas, 201. Results of the survey of ten religions, 489. " in regard to their resemblance and difference, 490. Resemblance of the Roman Catholic ceremonies to those of Pagan Rome, 350. Roman calendar, described, 332. Roman Catholic Church, teaches an exclusive spiritualism, 143. " " " is eminently a sacrificial system, 143. " " " its monastic system an included Protestantism, 145. Roman deities adopted from Greece, 326. " " manufactured by the pontiffs, 326. " " representing the powers of nature, 327. " " representing human relations, 328. " " presiding over rural occupations, 330. " " derived from the Etruscans, 327. " empire gave to Christianity its outward form (note), 350. " " united the several states of Europe, 350. " law, its influence on Western theology, 351. " legal notions transferred to theology, 352. " mind, wanting in spontaneity, 316. " " serious, practical, hard, 316. " religion, an established church, 317. " " regarded chiefly external conduct, 317. " " tolerant of questions of opinion, 317. " " not a mere copy from Greece, 318. " " described by Hegel, 318. " " described by Cicero, 317-319. " " described by Mommsen, 319. " " a polytheism, with monotheism behind it, 320. " " deified all events, 321. Romans, as a race, whence derived, 319. " " belong to the Aryan family, 319. " " composed of Latins, Sabines, and Etruscans, 320. " " related to the Pelasgi and Celts, 320. " their oldest deities, Latin, Sabine, and Etruscan, 320. Roman sepulchral monuments, their tone, 346. Roman thought and Roman religion opposed, 342. Roman worship, very elaborate and minute, 331. " " full of festivals, 331. " " distinguished between things sacred and profane, 331. " " a yoke on the public life of the Romans, 334. " " directed by the College of Pontiffs, 334. " " chief seat in the Via Sacra, 335. " " governed by etiquette, 335. " " originally free from idolatry, 336. " " acted like a charm, 340. Rome, ancient, its legacy to Christianity, 353. Runes, Odin's song of, in the Edda, 368. S. Salii, ancient priests of Mars, 336. Sánkhya philosophy, 114. " founded on two principles, 120. " considered atheistic, 120. " the basis of Buddhism, 121. " a very ancient system, 122. Saturnus, Saturn, god of planting, 330. Scandinavia, consisting of what regions, 358. " surrounded by the sea, 358. " its adaptation to the Teutonic race, 359. " formerly inhabited by the Cimbri, 360. " the home of the Northmen, 361. Scandinavian religion, a system of dualism, 362. " " war its essential idea, 362. " " its virtues, truth, justice, courage, 362. Scandinavians, their early history, 355. " described by Cæsar, 355. " described by Tacitus, 356. " a branch of the great German family, 357. " their language, the Norse and its derivatives, 357. " our inheritance from, 358. " their manners and institutious, 387. " their respect for women, 388. " their Scalds, or bards, 388. " their maritime expeditions, 389. Sea-Kings of Norway, their discoveries, 361. Seat of the Scandinavian race, 355. Secrecy, the evil in Egyptian religion, 257. Semitic races, their character and exploits, 399. " " great navigators and discoverers, 399. " " identity of their languages, 400. " " nations of which they consist, 399. " " their religion and gods, 401. " " their tendency to monotheism, 402. Seneca, his view of religion, 343, 344. Serapis, the same as Osiris-Apis, 257. Sibylline books, derived from Greece, 336. Siculi, supposed to be Kelte (note), 320. Silvanus, god of the woods, 330. Siva, does not appear in the Vedas, 125. " worshipped with Brahma and Vischnu at the present time, 127. " worshipped in the Puranas, 132. " girls worship him with flowers, 132. " his wife Doorga, festival of, 134. " men swing on hooks in honor of, 135. Solomon, and the relapse of Judaism, 428. " a less interesting character than David, 429. " his unscrupulous policy, 429. " the splendor and power of his reign, 430. " his alliances with Egypt, Phoenicia, and Arabia, 341. " his temple described, 432. " his Book of Proverbs and its character, 433. " account of his last days, 434. " his scepticism described in Ecclesiastes, 435. Socrates, his character and work, 293. Sol, the sun, a Sabine deity, 327. Soma plant of the Veda, the Haŏma, 202. Sophocles, the most devout of the Greek tragedians, 284. Spiritualism, in Brahmanism and Christianity, 136. Stoics, as described by Zeller, 296. T. Tacitus, the spirit of his writings, 346. Tae-Ping (or Ti-Ping) insurrection, its origin, 62. " " its leader the heavenly prince, 62. " " essentially a religious movement, 64. " " based on the Bible, 65. Tae-Pings (or Ti-Pings), their prayers, 65. " their public religious exercises, 66. " their moral reforms, 68. " put down by British intervention, 68. " worshipped one God, and believed in Jesus, 69. Talmud, the, extracts from, 445. Tao-te-king, its doctrines described, 54. " resembles the system of Hegel, 54. " its doctrine of opposites, 55. " its resemblance to Buddhism, 55. " its tendency to magic, 56. Tellus, the earth, a Roman god, 330. Tempestates, the tempests, worshipped at Rome, 327. Terminus, an old Italian god, 330. Three classes of Roman gods, 325. Tiberinus, or father Tiber, a Roman god, 328. Things, or popular assemblies of the Scandinavians, 358. Thor, his character and prowess, 377. " his famous mallet, 378. " his journey to Jotunheim, 374. " his fight with the Midgard serpent, 376. Triad, the Hindoo, its origin, 124. " compared with other Triads, 124. Trinity, Christian, derived from Egypt, 255. Trinity the, its meaning in Christianity, 500. Truths and errors of the different systems, 21. Tyr, the Scandinavian war god, 379. " how he lost his hand, 380, 383. U. Ulphilas, the Arian, first Christian teacher of the Germans, 390. " his translation of the Bible into Gothic tongue, 390. V. Vedanta philosophy assumes a single principle, 116. " " knows no substance but God, 119. " " described by Chunder Dutt, 118. " " souls absorbed in God, 119. Vedas, the, when written, 89-99. " their chief gods, 89-99. " traces of monotheism in, 90. " some hymns given, 91, 92, 93, 95. Vedic literature, divided into four periods, 95. " " contains Chhandas, Mantras, Brâhmans, Upanishads, Sûtras, and Vedângas, 96. " " at first not committed to writing, 97. Venus, an early Latin or gabine goddess, 325. Vertumnus, god of gardens, 330. Vesta, goddess of the hearth, 328. Vestal Virgins, their duties, 337. Vischnu, mentioned in the Rig-Veda as Sun-God, 125. " his Avatars, 126. " one of the Triad, 126. " incarnate as Juggernaut, 133. " worshipped as Krishna, 134, 135. " worshipped in the Puranas, 132. Völuspa, or wisdom of Vala, extracts from, 364. Vulcanus, an Italian deity, 328. W. Wahhabee, revival in Arabia, described by Palgrave, 478. Wedding ring, in Egypt and Christendom, 253. Welcker, his opinion of the substance of Greek religion, 286. Works on Scandinavian religion (note), 362. Worship of the Scandinavians, 385. Z. Zend Avesta, a collection of hymns, prayers, and thanksgivings, 187. " " extracts from the Gathas, 188. " " extract from the Khordah Avesta, 189. " " hymn to the star Tistrya, 190. " " hymn to Mithra, 190. " " a confession of sin, 191. Zoroaster, mentioned by Plato, Diodorus, and other classic writers, 175. " account of him by Herodotus, 175. " account of him by Plutarch, 176. " inquiry as to his epoch, 180. " resided in Bactria, 181. " spirit of his religion, 182. " he continually appears in the Avesta, 186. " oppressed with the sight of evil, 184. The End. Footnotes [1] It is one of the sagacious remarks of Goethe, that "the eighteenthcentury tended to analysis, but the nineteenth will deal with synthesis. " [2] Professor Cocker's work on "Christianity and Creek Philosophy, " shouldalso be mentioned. [3] James Foster has a sermon on "The Advantages of a Revelation, " inwhich he declares that, at the time of Christ's coming, "just notions ofGod were, in general, erased from the minds of men. His worship wasdebased and polluted, and scarce any traces could be discerned of thegenuine and immutable religion of nature. " [4] John Locke, in his "Reasonableness of Christianity, " says that whenChrist came "men had given themselves up into the hands of their priests, to fill their heads with false notions of the Deity, and their worshipwith foolish rites, as they pleased; and what dread or craft once began, devotion soon made sacred, and religion immutable. " "In this state ofdarkness and ignorance of the true God, vice and superstition held theworld. " Quotations of this sort might be indefinitely multiplied. See anarticle by the present writer, in the "Christian Examiner, " March, 1857. [5] Mosheim's Church History, Vol. I. Chap. I. [6] Neander, Church History, Vol. I. P. 540 (Am. Ed. ). [7] Essays and Reviews, Article VI. [8] In this respect the type has changed. [9] The actual depth reached in the St. Louis well, before the enterprisewas abandoned, was 3, 843½ feet on August 9, 1869. This well was bored forthe use of the St. Louis County Insane Asylum, at the public expense. Itwas commenced March 31, 1866, under the direction of Mr. Charles H. Atkeson. At the depth of 1, 222 feet the water became saltish, thensulphury. The temperature of the water, at the bottom of the well, was105°F. Toward the end of the work it seemed as if the limit of thestrength of wood and iron had been reached. The poles often broke atpoints two or three thousand feet down. "Annual Report (1870) of theSuperintendent of the St. Louis County Insane Asylum. " [10] Andrew Wilson ("The Ever-Victorious Army, Blackwood, 1868") says that"the Chinese people stand unsurpassed, and probably unequalled, in regardto the possession of freedom and self-government. " He denies thatinfanticide is common in China. "Indeed, " says he, "there is nothing aChinaman dreads so much as to die childless. Every Chinaman desires tohave as large a family as possible; and the labors of female children arevery profitable. " [11] Quoted by Mr. Meadows, who warrants the correctness of the account. "The Chinese and their Rebellions, " p. 404. [12] Dr. Legge thus arranges the Sacred Books of China, or the ChineseClassics:-- A. The Five _King_. [_King_ means a web of cloth, or the warp which keeps the threads in their place. ] (a) _Yih-King_. (Changes. ) (b) _Shoo-King_. (History. ) (c) _She-King_. (Odes. ) (d) _Le-Ke-King_. (Rites. ) (e) _Ch'un-Ts'eu_. (Spring and Autumn. Annals from B. C. 721 to 480. ) B. The Four Books. (a) _Lun-Yu_. (Analects, or Table-Talk of Confucius. ) (b) _Ta-Hio_. (Great Learning. Written by _Tsang-Sin_, a disciple of Confucius. ) (c) _Chung-Yung_ (or Doctrine of the Mean), ascribed to _Kung-Keih_, the grandson of Confucius. (d) Works of _Mencius_. After the death of Confucius there was a period in which the Sacred Bookswere much corrupted, down to the _Han_ dynasty (B. C. 201 to A. D. 24), which collected, edited, and revised them: since which time they have beenwatched with the greatest care. "The evidence is complete that the Classical Books of China have come downfrom at least a century before our era, substantially the same as we havethem at present. "--_Legge_, Vol. I. Chap. 1. § 2. The Four Books have been translated into French, German, and English. Dr. Marshman translated the Lun-Yu. Mr. Collie afterward published at Calcuttathe Four Books. But within a few years the labors of previous sinologueshave been almost superseded by Dr. Legge's splendid work, still in processof publication. We have, as yet, only the volumes containing the FourBooks of Confucius and his successors, and a portion of the Kings. Dr. Legge's work is in Chinese and English, with copious notes and extractsfrom many Chinese commentators. In his notes, and his preliminarydissertations, he endeavors to do justice to Confucius and his doctrines. Perhaps he does not fully succeed in this, but it is evident that herespects the Chinese sage, and is never willingly unfair to him. If to thebooks above mentioned be added the works, of Pauthier, Stanislas Julien, Mohl, and other French sinologues, and the German works on the samesubject we have a sufficient apparatus for the study of Chinese thought. [13] "On the top of his head was a remarkable formation, in consequence ofwhich he was named Kew. "--Legge, Vol. I. Chap. VI. (note). [14] Meadows, "The Chinese and their Rebellions, " p. 332. [15] Meadows, p. 342. [16] "Le Tao-te-king, le livre de la voie et de la vertu, composé dans, lavie siècle avant l'ère Chrétienne, par le philosophe Lao-tseu, traduit parStanislas Julien. Paris, 1842. " [17] "Le livre des Récompenses et des Peines. Julien, 1835. " [18] "Seyn and Nichte ist Dasselbe. " Hegel. [19] "The meek shall inherit the earth. " [20] See "La Magie et l'Astrologie, par Alfred Maury. " [21] Was it some pale reflection of this Oriental philosophy which tookform in the ode of Horace, "Integer vitæ" (i. 22), in which he describesthe portentous wolf which fled from him? [22] Meadows, p. 28. [23] Meadows, p. 18. [24] Ti-Ping Tien-Kwoh; The History of the Ti-Ping Revolution, by Lin-Le, special agent of the Ti-Ping General-in-Chief, &c. Davy and Son, London, 1866. Vol. 1. P. 806. Mr. Andrew Wilson, author of "The Ever-Victorious Army" (Blackwood, 1868), speaks with much contempt of Lin-Le's book. In a note (page 389) hebrings, certain charges against the author. Mr. Wilson's book is written toglorify Gordon, Wood, and others, who accepted roving commissions againstthe Ti-Pings; and of course he takes their view of the insurrection. Theaccusations he brings against Lin-Le, even if correct, do not detract fromthe apparent accuracy of that writer's story, nor from the weight of hisarguments. [25] Ibid. , Vol. I. P. 315. These forms are given, says the writer, partlyfrom memory. [26] Hong-Kong Gazette, October 12, 1855. [27] Intervention and Non-Intervention, by A. G. Stapleton. [28] Official Papers of the Chinese Legation. Berlin: T. Calvary & Co. , Oberwasser Square. 1870. [29] From Hue's "Christianity in China. " [30] Now usually written Sákoontalá or Sákuntalá. [31] To avoid multiplying footnotes, we refer here to the chief sources onwhich we rely in this chapter. _C. Lassen_, Indische Altherthumskunde;_Max Müller_, History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature (and other works);_J. Muir_, Sanskrit Texts; _Pictet_, Les Origines Indo-Européennes; _SirWilliam Jones_, Works, 13 vols. ; _Vivian de Saint-Martin, _ Etude, &c. , andarticles in the Revue Germanique; _Monier Williams_, Sakoontalá (a newtranslation), the Rámayána, and the Mahá Bhárata; _Horace Hayman Wilson_, Works (containing the Vischnu Purana, &c. ); _Burnouf_, Essai sur la Vêda, Le Bhagavata Purana; _Stephenson_, the Sanhita of the Sama Veda; _Ampère_, La Science en Orient; _Bunsen_, Gott in der Geschichte; _Shea_ and_Troyer_, The Dabistan; _Hardwick_, Christ and other Masters; _J. TalboysWheeler_, History of India from the Earliest Times; Works published by theOriental Translation Fund; _Max Duncker_, Die Geschichte der Arier;_Rammohun Roy_, The Veds; _Mullens, _ Hindoo Philosophy. [32] "The soul knows no persons. "--EMERSON. [33] All Indian dates older than 300 B. C. Are uncertain. The reasons forthis one are given carefully and in full by Pictet. [34] Our English word _daughter_, together with the Greek θυγἀτηρ, theZend _dughdar_, the Persian _docktar_, &c. , corresponds with the Sanskrit_duhitar_, which means both daughter and milkmaid. [35] _Hatchet_, in Sanskrit _takshani_, in Zend _tasha_, in Persian_tosh_, Greek τόχος, Irish _tuagh_, Old German _deksa_, Polish _tasalc_, Russian _tesaku. _ And what is remarkable, the root _tak_ appears in thename of the hatchet in the languages of the South Sea Islanders and theNorth American Indians. [36] M. Vivien de Saint-Martin has determined more precisely than has beendone before the primitive country of the Aryans, and the route followed bythem in penetrating into India. They descended through Cabul to thePunjaub, having previously reached Cabul from the region between theJaxartes and the Oxus. [37] The Rig-Veda distinguishes the Aryans from the Dasjus. Mr. Muirquotes a multitude of texts in which Indra is called upon to protect theformer and slay the latter. [38] Agni, whence Ignis, in Latin. [39] See Talboys Wheeler, "History of India. " [40] Müller's Ancient Sanskrit Literature, page 569. He adds the followingremarks: "There is nothing to prove that this hymn is of a particularlyancient date. On the contrary, there are expressions in it which seem tobelong to a later age. But even if we assign the lowest possible date tothis and similar hymns certain it is that they existed during the Mantraperiod, and before the composition of the Brâhmanas. For, to spite of allthe indications of a modern date, I see no possibility how we couldaccount for the allusions to it which occur in the Brâhmanas, or for itspresence in the Sanhitâs, unless we admit that this poem formed part ofthe final collection of the Rig-veda-Sanhitâ, the work of the Mantraperiod. " [41] Max Müller translates "breathed, breathless by itself; other than itnothing since has been. " [42] Max Müller says, "Love fell upon it. " [43] Müller, Sanskrit Lit. , p. 546. [44] Müller, Sanskrit Lit. , p. 552. [45] Ibid. , p. 553. [46] That heat was "a form of motion" was thus early discovered. [47] It is the opinion of Maine ("Ancient Law") and other eminentscholars, that this code was never fully accepted or enforced in India, and remained always an ideal of the perfect Brahmanic state. [48] See Vivien de Saint-Martin, Revue Germanique, July 16, 1862. TheSarasvati is highly praised in the Rig-Veda. Talboys Wheeler, II. 429. [49] Max Müller, Sanskrit Lit. , p. 425. [50] Institutes of Hindu Law, or the Ordinances of Manu, according to theGloss of Calluca, Calcutta, 1796, §§ 5, 6, 7, 8. [51] See translation of the Sanhita of the Sama-Veda, by the Rev. J. Stevenson. London, 1842. [52] Max Müller, "Chips, " Vol. I. P. 107. [53] Geschichte der Arier, Buch V. § 8. [54] Lassen, I. 830. [55] Laws of Manu (XII. 50) speaks of "the two principles of nature in thephilosophy of Kapila. " [56] Duncker, as above. [57] Müller, Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 102. [58] Colebrooke, Miscellaneous Essays, I. 349. [59] Lassen, I. 834. [60] Colebrooke, I. 350, 352. [61] Duncker, I. 204 (third edition, 1867). [62] The Sánkhya-Káriká, translated by Colebrooke. Oxford, 1837. [63] Essay on the Vedanta, by Chunder Dutt. Calcutta, 1854. [64] Colebrooke, I. 262. [65] The Religious Aspects of Hindu Philosophy: A Prize Essay, by JosephMullens, p. 43. London, 1860. See also Dialogues on the Hindu Philosophy, by Rev. K. M. Banerjea. London, 1861. [66] Mullens, p. 44. [67] Duncker, I. 205. He refers to Manu, II. 160. [68] The Bhagavat-Gita, an episode in the Maha-Bharata, in an authoritywith the Vedantists. [69] Burnouf, Introduction à l'Histoire du Buddhisme Indien, I. 511, 520. He says that Sukya-Muni began his career with the ideas of the Sánkhyaphilosophy, namely, absence of God; multiplicity and eternity of humansouls; an eternal plastic nature; transmigration; and Nirvana, ordeliverance by knowledge. [70] Cours de l'Histoire de Philosophie, I. 200 (Paris, 1829); quoted byHardwick, I. 211. [71] Karika, 8. "It is owing to the subtilty of Nature . .. That it is notapprehended by the senses. " [72] Karika, 19. [73] Karika, 58, 62, 63, 68. [74] Quoted from the Lalita Vistara in Dialogues on the Hindu Philosophy. By Rev. R. M. Banerjea. London: Williams and Nordgate, 1861. [75] Muir, Sanskrit Texts, Part IV. P. 253. [76] Journal Am. Orient. Soc. , III. 318. [77] Even in the grammatical forms of the Sanskrit verb, this threefoldtendency of thought is indicated. It has an active, passive, and middlevoice (like that of the cognate Greek), and the reflex action of itsmiddle voice corresponds to the Restorer or Preserver. [78] See Colebrooke, Lassen, &c. [79] Lassen, I. 838; II. 446. [80] See Muir, Sanskrit Texts, Part IV. P. 136. [81] Lassen, Ind. Alterthum, I. 357. [82] Max Müller, Sanskrit Lit. , 37. [83] Ibid. , p. 46. [84] Ind. Alterthum, I. 483-499. Müller, Sanskrit Lit. , 62, _note_. [85] As of the Atheist in the Ramayana, Javali, who advises Rama todisobey his dead father's commands, on the ground that the dead arenothing. [86] Preface to the Vischnu Purana, translated by Horace Hayman Wilson. London, 1864. [87] Duncker, Geschichte, &c. , II. 318. [88] Preface to his English translation of the Vischnu Purana. [89] Translated by E. Burnouf into French. [90] The Ramayana, &c. , by Monier Williams Baden Professor of Sanskrit atOxford. [91] Preface to the translation of the Vischnu Purana, by H. H. Wilson. [92] Kesson, "The Cross and the Dragon" (London, 1854), quoted byHardwick. [93] See Note to Chap. II. On the Nestorian inscription in China. [94] Illustrated Handbook of Architecture, p. 67. [95] Hardy, Eastern Monachism, p. 224. Fergusson, p. 9. [96] Fergusson, p. 10. Cunningham, Bhilsa Topes of India. [97] Upham, Sacred and Historical Books of Ceylon. [98] Here are a few of the guesses:-- Cunningham, _Bhilsa Topes_. Christians 270 millions. Buddhist 222 " Hassel, _Penny Cyclopædia_. Christians 120 millions. Jews 4 " Mohammedans 252 " Brahmans 111 " Buddhists 315 " Johnston, _Physical Atlas_. Christians 301 millions. Jews 5 " Brahmans 133 " Mohammedans 110 " Buddhists 245 " Perkins, _Johnson's American Atlas_. Christians 369 millions. Mohammedans 160 " Jews 6 " Buddhists 320 " _New American Cyclopædia_. Buddhists 290 millions. And Professor Newmann estimates the number of Buddhists at 369 millions. [99] Le Bouddha et sa Religion. Par J. Barthélemy Saint-Hilaire. --EasternMonachism. By Spence Hardy. --Burnouf, Introduction, etc. --Koeppen, DieReligion des Buddha. [100] The works from which this chapter has been mostly drawn arethese:--Introduction à l'Histoire du Buddhisme indien. Par E. Burnouf. (Paris, 1844) Le Bouddha et sa Religion. Par J. Barthélemy Saint-Hilaire. (Paris, 1860. ) Eastern Monachism. By R. Spence Hardy. (London, 1850. ) AManual of Buddhism in its Modern Development. By R. Spence Hardy. (London, 1853. ) Die Religion des Buddha. Von Karl F. Koeppen. (Berlin, 1857. )Indische Alterthumskunde. Von Christian Lassen. (Bonn, 1852. ) DerBuddhismus, Seine Dogmen, Geschichte, und Literatur. Von W. Wassiljew. (St. Petersburg, 1860. ) Ueber Buddha's Todesjahr. Von N. L. Westergaard. (Breslau, 1862. ) Gott in der Geschichte. Von C. C. J. Bunsen. (Leipzig, 1858. ) The Bhilsa Topes, or Buddhist Monuments of Central India. By A. Cunningham. (London, 1854. ) Buddhism in Thibet. By Emil Schlagintweit. (Leipzig and London, 1863. ) Travels in Eastern countries by Hue and Gabet, and others. Eeferences to Buddhism in the writings of Max Müller, Maurice, Baur, Hardwick, Fergusson, Pritchard, Wilson, Colebrooke, etc. [101] At the end of the fourth century of our era a Chinese Buddhist madea pilgrimage to the birthplace of Buddha, and found the city in ruins. Another Chinese pilgrim visited it A. D. 632, and was able to trace theremains of the ruined palace, and saw a room which had been occupied byBuddha. These travels have been translated from the Chinese by M. Stanislas Julien. [102] _Buddha_ is not a proper name, but an official title. Just as weought not to say Jesus Christ, but always Jesus _the_ Christ, so we shouldsay _Siddârtha_ the Buddha, or _Sakya-muni_ the Buddha, or _Gautama_ theBuddha. The first of these names, Siddârtha (contracted from_Sarvârtha-siddha_) was the baptismal name given by his father, and means"The fulfilment of every wish. " Sakya-muni means "The hermit of the raceof Sakya, "--Sakya being the ancestral name of his father's race. The name_Gautama_ is stated by Koeppen to be "der priesterliche Beiname desGeschlechts der Sakya, "--whatever that may mean. [103] The Sanskrit root, whence the English "bode" and "forebode, " means"to know. " [104] Saint-Hilaire. [105] Bhilsa Topes. [106] Goethe, Faust. [107] Die Persischen Keilinscriften (Leipzig, 1847. ) See also the accountof the inscription at Behistun, in Lenormant's "Manual of AncientHistory. " [108] Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies. --Duncker, Geschichte desAlterthums, B. II. --Heeren, The Persians. --Fergusson, IllustratedHand-Book of Architecture. --Creuzer, Schriften. See also the works ofOppert, Hinks, Menant, and Lassen. [109] Vendidad, Fargard, XIX. --XLVI. Spiegel, translated into English byBleek. [110] Herodotus, I. 131. [111] Herodotus, in various parts of his history. [112] "Plutarch's Morals. Translated from the Greek by several hands. London. Printed for W. Taylor, at the Ship in Pater-noster Eow. 1718. "This passage concerning Zoroaster is from the "Isis and Osiris" in Vol. IV. Of this old translation. We have retained the antique terminology andspelling. (See also the new American edition of this translation. Boston, Little and Brown, 1871. ) [113] This is the Haôma spoken of on page 202. [114] These, with Ormazd, are the seven Amshaspands enumerated on page197. [115] See the account, on page 195, of these four periods of threethousand years each. [116] Kleuker (Anhang zum Zend Avesta) has given a full _résumé_ of thereferences to Zoroaster and his religion in the Greek and Roman writers. More recently, Professor Bapp of Tubingen has gone over the same ground ina very instructive essay in the Zeitschrift der Deutsohen MorgenlândisshenGesellschaft. (Leipzig, 1865. ) [117] Anq. Du Perron, Zend Avesta; Disc. Prèlim. , p. Vi. [118] At the time Anquetil du Perron was thus laboring in the cause ofscience in India, two other men were in the same region devotingthemselves with equal ardor to very different objects. Clive was layingthe foundations of the British dominion in India; Schwartz was givinghimself up to a life of toil in preaching the Gospel to the Hindoos. Howlittle would these three men have sympathized with each other, orappreciated each other's work! And yet how important to the progress ofhumanity was that of each! [119] And with this conclusion the later scholars agree. Burnouf, Lassen, Spiegel, Westergaard, Haug, Bunsen, Max Müller, Roth, all accept the ZendAvesta as containing in the main, if not the actual words of Zoroaster, yet authentic reminiscences of his teaching. The Gâthâs of the Yaçna arenow considered to be the oldest part of the Avesta, as appears from theinvestigations of Haug and others. (See Dr. Martin Haug's translation andcommentary of the Five Gâthâs of Zarathustra. Leipzig, 1860. ) [120] Even good scholars often follow each other in a false direction forwant of a little independent thinking. The Greek of Plato was translatedby a long succession of writers, "Zoroaster the _son_ of Oromazes, " untilsome one happened to think that this genitive might imply a differentrelation. [121] Duncker (Gesch. Des Alterthums, B. II. ) gives at length the reasonswhich prove Zoroaster and the Avesta to have originated in Bactria. [122] Duncker (B. II. S. 483). So Döllinger. [123] Egypt's Place in Universal History, Vol. III. P. 471. [124] Eran, das Land zwischen dem Indus und Tigris. [125] Journal of the Am. Or. Soc. , Vol. V. No. 2, p. 353. [126] The Gentile and Jew, Vol. I. P. 380. [127] Five Great Monarchies, Vol. III. P. 94. [128] Essays, &c. , by Martin Haug, p. 255. [129] Die Religion und Sitte der Perser. Von Dr. Adolf Rapp. (1865. ) [130] Bunsen, Egypt, Vol. III. P. 455. [131] Written in the thirteenth century after Christ. An Englishtranslation may be found in Dr. J. Wilson's "Pârsî Religion. " [132] Chips, Vol. I. P. 88. [133] So Mr. Emerson, in one of those observations which give us a systemof philosophy in a sentence, says, "The soul knows no persons. " Perhaps heshould have said, "The Spirit. " [134] Islam is, in this sense, a moral religion, its root consisting inobedience to Allah and his prophet. Sufism, a Mohammedan mysticism, is aheresy. [135] Vendidad, Farg. I. 3. "Therefore Angra-Mainyus, the death-dealing, created a mighty serpent and snow. " The _serpent_ entering into the IranicEden is one of the curious coincidences of the Iranic and Hebrewtraditions. [136] Lyell, Principles of Geology (eighth edition), p. 77. [137] Idem. , p. 83. A similar change from a temperate climate to extremecold has taken place in Greenland within five or six centuries. [138] The Daêvas, or evil spirits of the Zend books, are the same as theDêvas, or Gods of the Sanskrit religion. [139] The Patets are formularies of confession. They are written in Pârsî, with occasional passages inserted in Zend. [140] Zoroast. Stud. 1863. [141] Vendidad, Fargard XIX. 33, 44, 55. [142] The Albordj of the Zend books is doubtless the modern range of theElbrooz. This mighty chain comes from the Caucasus into the northernfrontier of Persia. See a description of this region in "Histoire desPerses, par le Comte de Gobineau. Paris, 1869. " [143] See Burnouf, Comment, sur le Yaçna, p. 528. Flotard, La Religionprimitive des Indo-Européens. 1864. [144] Vendidad, Fargard X. 17. [145] See Spiegel's note to the tenth Fargard of the Vendidad. [146] See Windischmann, "Ueber den Soma-Cultus der Arien. " [147] Perhaps one of the most widely diffused appellations is that of thedivine being. We can trace this very word _divine_ back to the ancientroot _Div_, meaning to shine. From this is derived the Sanskrit Devas, theZend Daêva. The Latin Deus, the German Zio, the Greek Zeus, and alsoJupiter (from Djaus-piter). See Spiegel, Zend Avesta, Einleitung, Cap. I. [148] Spiegel, Vend. Farg. XIX. Note. [149] Vendidad, Farg. XVIII. 110. Farvardin-Yasht, XVI. [150] Article in Revue des Deux Mondes, April, 1865. [151] Article in Revue des Deux Mondes, April, 1865. [152] Other Egyptologists would not agree to this antiquity. [153] Revue des Deux Mondes, September 1, 1887. [154] Revue des Deux Mondes, p. 195. [155] Yet this very organic religion, "incorporate in blood and frame, "was a preparation for Christianity; and Dr. Brugsch (Aus dem Orient, p. 73) remarks, that "exactly in Egypt did Christianity find most martyrs;and it is no accident, but a part of the Divine plan, that in the veryregion where the rock-cut temples and tombs are covered with memorials ofthe ancient gods and kings, there, by their side, other numerous rock-cutinscriptions tell of a yet more profound faith and devotion born ofChristianity. " [156] It is yet marked in the almanacs as Candlemas Day, or thePurification of the Virgin Mary. [157] De Rougé, Revue Archéologique, 1853. [158] Ampère, Revue Arch. 1849, quoted by Döllinger. [159] These designations are the Greek form of the official titles. [160] I do not know if it has been noticed that the principle ofSwedenborg's. Heaven was anticipated by Milton (Paradise Lost, V. 573), -- "What surmounts the reach Of human sense I shall delineate so By likening spiritual to corporeal forms, As may express them best; _though what if Earth Be but the shadow of Heaven, and things therein. Each to the other like, more than on earth is thought_. " [161] Bunsen, Egypt's Place, Vol. V. P. 129, _note_. [162] This Museum also contains three large mummies of the sacred bull ofApis, a gold ring of Suphis, a gold necklace with the name of Menes, andmany other remarkable antiquities. [163] Book of Job, Chap. Xxix. [164] Brugsch, as above. [165] Lenormant, Ancient History of the East, I. 234, in the Englishtranslation. [166] Translated by De Rougé. See Revue Contemporaine, August, 1856. [167] Egypt 3300 Years ago. By Lanoye. [168] Beside the monuments and the papyri, we have as sources ofinformation the remains of the Egyptian historians Manetho andEratosthenes; the Greek accounts of Egypt by Herodotus, Plato, DiodorusSiculus, Plutarch, Jamblichus; and the modern researches of Heeren, Champollion, Rossalini, Young, Wilkinson. The more recent writers to beconsulted are as follows:-- Bunsen's "Ægypten's Stelle in der Weltgeschichte. Hamburg. " (First volumeprinted in 1845. ) This great work was translated by C. C. Cottrel in five8vo volumes, the last published in 1867, after the death of both authorand translator. The fifth volume of the translation contains a fulltranslation of the "Book of the Dead, " by the learned Samuel Birch of theBritish Museum. Essays in the Revue Archéologique and other learned periodicals, by theVicomte de Rougé, Professor of Egyptian Philology at Paris. Works by M. Chabas, M. Mariette, De Brugsch, "Aus dem Orient, " etc. , Samuel Sharpe, A. Maury, Lepsius, and others. [169] The Egyptian doctrine of transmigration differed from that of theHindoos in this respect, that no idea of retribution seems to be connectedwith it. According to Herodotus (II. 123), the soul must pass through allanimals, fishes, insects, and birds; in short, must complete the wholecircuit of animated existence, before it again enters the body of a man;"and this circuit of the soul, " he adds, "is performed in three thousandyears. " According to him, it does not begin "until the body decays. " Thismay give us one explanation of the system of embalming; for if the circuitof transmigration is limited to three thousand years, and the soul cannotleave the body till it decays (the words of Herodotus are, "the bodydecaying, " τοῦ σώματος δὲ καταφθίνοντος), then if embalming delays decayfor one thousand years, so much is taken off from the journey throughanimals. That the soul was believed to be kept with the body as long as itwas undecayed is also expressly stated by Servius (Comm. On the Æneid ofVirgil): "The learned Egyptians preserve the corpse from decay in tombs inorder that its soul shall remain with it, and not quickly pass into otherbodies. " Hence, too, the extraordinary pains taken in ornamenting the tombs, as thepermanent homes of the dead during a long period. Diodorus says that theyornamented the tombs as the enduring residences of mankind. Transmigration in India was retribution, but in Egypt it seems to havebeen a condition of progress. It was going back into the lowerorganizations, to gather up all their varied life, to add to our own. SoTennyson suggests, -- "If, through lower lives I came, Though all experience past became Consolidate in mind and frame, " etc. Beside the reason for embalming given above, there may have been themotive arising from the respect for bodily organization, so deeply rootedin the Egyptian mind. [170] Animals and plants, more than anything else, and animals more thanplants, are the types of variety; they embody that great law ofdifferentiation, one of the main laws of the universe, the law which isopposed to that of unity, the law of centrifugal force, expressed in ourhumble proverb, "It takes all sorts of people to make a world. " [171] Maury, "Revue des Deux Mondes, 1867. " "Man's Origin and Destiny, J. P. Lesley, 1868. " "Recherches sur les Monumens, etc. , par M. De Rougé, 1866. " [172] Article "Ægypten, " in Schenkel's Bibel-Lexicon, 1869. Duncker, "Geschichte des Alterthums, Dritte Auflage, 1863. " [173] See Duncker, as above. [174] Les Pasteurs en Egypt, par F. Chabas. Amsterdam, 1868. [175] The "hornets, " Ex. Xxiii. 28, and Josh. Xxiv. 11, 12, are notinsects, but the Hyksôs, who, driven from Egypt were overrunning Syria. See New York Nation, article on the Hyksôs, May 13, 1869. [176] Pap. Tallier (Bunsen IV. 671) as translated by De Rougé, Goodwin, &c. : "In the days when the land of Egypt was held by the invaders, KingApapi (at Avaris) set up Sutekh for his lord; he worshipped no other godin the whole land. " [177] I follow here De Rougé, Brugsch, and Duncker, rather than Bunsen. [178] Athenæum Français, 1856. [179] Lesley, Man's Origin and Destiny, p. 149. Brugsch, Aus dem Orient, p. 37. [180] A common title on the monuments for the king is Per-aa, in thedialect of Upper Egypt, Pher-ao in that of Lower Egypt, meaning "The loftyhouse, " equivalent to the modern Turkish title, "The Sublime Porte. " [181] "Ægypten und die Bücher Mosis, von Dr. Georg Ebers. Leipzig, 1868. ""Bunsen, Bibel-Werk, " Erster Theil, p. 63. [182] Æschylus calls the Egyptian sailors μελάγχιμος. Lucian calls a youngEgyptian "black-skinned, " but Ammianus Marcellinus says, "Ægyptii pleriquesubfusculi sunt et atrati. " [183] "Ægypten und die Bücher Mosis, von Ebers, Vol. I. P. 43. " [184] "Th. Benfey, Ueber das verhältniss der ägyptîschen Sprache zumsemitischen Sprachstamme, 1844. " [185] Ægypten, &c. [186] "The skulls of the mummies agree with history in proving that Egyptwas peopled with a variety of tribes; and physiologists, when speakingmore exactly, have divided them into three classes. The first is theEgyptian proper, whose skull is shaped like the heads of the ancientTheban statues and the modern Nubians. The second is a race of men morelike the Europeans, and these mummies become more common as we approachthe Delta. These are perhaps the same as the modern Copts. The third is ofan Arab race, and are like the heads of the laborers in thepictures. "--Sharpe, Hist. Of Egypt, I. 3. He refers to Morton's CraniaÆgyptiaca for his authority. Prichard (Nat. Hist. Of Man and Researches, &c. ), after a full examinationof the question concerning the ethnical relations of the Egyptians, and ofMorton's craniological researches, concludes in favor of an Asiatic originof the Egyptians, connected with an amalgamation with the Africanautocthones. [187] "Dieser Völkerschaften gehorten der kaukasischen Race an; ihreSprachen waren dem Semitischen am nächsten Verwandt. " G. Des A. I. 11. [188] Brugsch derives it from Ki-Ptah = worshippers of Ptah. [189] Plato, Timæus. Herod. II. 59. Gutschmidt and others deny thisetymologic relation of Neith to Athênê. [190] "There is a profound consolation hidden in the old Egyptianinscribed rocks. They show us that the weird figures, half man and halfbeast, which we find carved and painted there, were not the true gods ofEgypt, but politico-religious masks, concealing the true godhead. Theserocks teach that the real object of worship was the one undivided Being, existing from the Beginning, Creator of all things, revealing himself tothe illuminated soul as the Mosaic "I AM THE I AM. " It is true that thispure doctrine was taught only to the initiated, and the stones forbid itto be published. 'This is a hidden mystery; tell it to no one; let it beseen by no eye, heard by no ear: only thou and thy teacher shall possessthis knowledge. '" Brugsch, Aus dem Orient, p. 69. May not one reason for concealing this doctrine of the unity andspirituality of God have been the stress of the African mind to varietyand bodily form? The priests feared to encounter this great current ofsentiment in the people, and so outwardly conformed to it. [191] So says Wilkinson. [192] The finger on the mouth symbolizes, not silence, but childhood. [193] The name "Mut" was also given to Neith, Pacht, and Isis. [194] Brugsch, Aus dem Orient, p. 48. [195] See Merivale, Conversion of the Northern Nations, p. 187, note, where he gives examples of "the inveterate lingering of Pagan usages amongthe nominally converted. " But many of these were sanctioned by theCatholic Church. [196] Kenrick, I. 372 (American edition). [197] See for proofs, Egyptian Mythology and Egyptian Christianity, bySamuel Sharpe, 1863. [198] Sharpe, Egyptian Mythology and Egyptian Christianity. [199] Sharpe, as above. [200] The earliest form of the Christian doctrine of the atonement wasthat the Devil killed Jesus in ignorance of his divine nature. The Devilwas thus deceived into doing what he had no right to do, consequently hewas obliged to pay for this by giving up the souls of sinners to which hehad a right. The Osiris myth of the death of a god, which deeply coloredthe mysteries of Adonis and Eleusis, took its last form im this peculiardoctrine of atonement. [201] Hase, Kirchengeschichte, § 87. [202] Which continues in Christianity, in spite of Paul's plain statement, "Thou sowest _not_ the body which shall be. " [203] Serapis was not a god of the Pharaonic times, but came into Egyptunder the Ptolemies. But lately M. Mariette has shown that Serapis was thedead bull Apis = Osiris-Apis. (Ὀσοραπις. ) [204] Mr. Grote (Vol. II. P. 222, American edition) refers to Strabo'sremark on the great superiority of Europe over Asia and Africa in regardto the intersection and interpenetration of the land by the sea. He alsoquotes Cicero, who says that all Greece is in close contact to the sea, and only two or three tribes separated from it, while the Greek islandsswim among the waves with their customs and institutions. He says that theancients remarked the greater activity, mutability, and variety in thelife of maritime nations. [205] Mr. Buckle is almost the only marked exception. He nowhererecognizes the doctrine of race. [206] The ox is, in Sanskrit _go_ or _gaûs_, in Latin _bos_, in Greek βοῦς. The horse is, in Sanskrit _açva_, in Zend _açpa_, in Greek ἵππος, in Latin_equus_. The sheep is, in Sanskrit _avis_, in Latin _ovis_, in Greek ὄϊs. The goose is, in Sanskrit _hansa_, in Latin _anser_, in Old German _kans_, in Greek χήν. House is, in Sanskrit _dama_, in Latin _domus_, in Greek δόμος. Door is, in Sanskrit _dvâr_ or _duâra_, in Greek θύρα, in Irish _doras_. Boat or ship is, in Sanskrit _naûs_, in Latin _navis_, in Greek ναύς. Oaris, in Sanskrit _aritram_, in Greek ἐρετμός in Latin _remus_. The Greeks distinguished themselves from the Barbarians as a grain-eatingrace. Barbarians ate acorns. [207] Herod. , I. 56, 57, 146; II. 51, 171; IV. 145; V. 26; VI. 137; VII. 94; VIII. 44, 73. [208] Maury, Histoire des Religions de la Grèce Antique, Chap. I. P. 5. Hementions several Pelasgic words which seem to be identical with oldItalian or Etruscan names. [209] Müller, Dorians, Introduction, § 10. [210] Griechische Gotterlehre, Einleitung, § 6. [211] See Müller, Dorians. [212] Symbolik und Mythologie, Th. III. , Heft 1, chap. 5, § 1. [213] Herod. II. 50 _et seq_. [214] Among the ancients Ονὸμα often had this force. It denotedpersonality. The meaning, therefore, of Herodotus is that the Egyptianstaught the Greeks to give their deities proper names, instead of commonnames. A proper name is the sign of personality. [215] Maury, Religions de la Grèce, III. 263. [216] Diod. Sic. , I. 92-96. [217] Gerhard, Griechische Mythologie, § 50, Vol. 1. [218] Mr. Grote (History of Greece, Part I. Chap. 1. ) maintains thatHeaven, Night, Sleep, and Dream "are Persons, just as much as Zeus andApollo. " I confess that I can hardly understand his meaning. The firsthave neither personal qualities, personal life, personal history, norpersonal experience; they appear only as vast abstractions, and sodisappear again. [219] Keats, in his Hyperion, is the only modern poet who has caught thespirit of the mighty Titanic deities and is able to speak "In the large utterance of the early gods. " [220] Pictet, Les Origines Indo-Européenes. [221] B. C. 1104. Döllinger. [222] Die Dorier, X. 9. [223] Ottfried Müller, Die Dorier. [224] Varro, quoted by Maury. [225] Dione was the female Jupiter, her name meaning simply "the goddess, "identical with the Italic "Juno, " formed from Διος. [226] But not the same character. At Dodona he was invoked as the Eternal. Pausanias (X. C. 12, § 5) says that the priestesses of that shrine usedthis formula in their prayer: "Zeus was, Zeus is, Zeus shall be! O greatZeus!" On Olympus he was not conceived as eternal, but only as immortal. [227] Rev. G. W. Cox (A Manual of Mythology, London, 1867. The Mythologyof the Aryan Nations, London, 1870) has shown much ingenuity in hisefforts to trace the myths and legends of the Greeks, Germans, etc. , backto some original metaphors in the old Vedic speech, most of which relateto the movements of the sun, and the phenomena of the heavens. It seemsprobable that he carries this too far; for why cannot later ages originatemyths as well as the earlier? The analogies by which he seeks toapproximate Greek, Scandinavian, and Hindoo stories are often fanciful. And the sun plays so overwhelming a part in this drama, that it remindsone of the picture in "Hermann and Dorothea, " of the traveller who lookedat the sun till he could see nothing else. "Schweben sichet ihr Bild, wohin er die Blicke nur wendet. " [228] See Le Sentiment Religieux en Grèce, d'Homère à Eschyle, par JulesGirard, Paris, 1869. [229] Iliad, Book I. V. 600. [230] Margaret Fuller used to distinguish Apollo and Bacchus as Genius andGeniality. [231] Isthmian, VI. [232] Pythian, II. [233] Nemean, VI. [234] God in History, IV. 10. [235] "Atrocem animam Catonis. "--Horace. [236] Antigonê, 450. [237] Yet, even in Euripides, we meet a strain like that (Hecuba, line800), which we may render as follows:-- "For, though perhaps we may be helpless slaves, Yet are the gods most strong, and over them Sits LAW supreme. The gods are under law, -- So do we judge, --and therefore we can live While right and wrong stand separate forever. " [238] See the original in Herder's Greek text, Hellenische Blumenlese, andin Cudworth's Intellectual System. [239] Welcker, Grieschische Gotterlehre, § 25. [240] Ottfried Müller, History of Greek Art, §§ 115, 347. [241] Oxford Prize Poems, Poem for 1812. [242] Ὁ μέν θεὸς εις· κοὗτος δὲ οὐκ, ὡς τινὲς ὑπονοῦσιν, ἐκτὸς τὰςδιακοσμήσεας· ἀλλ ἐν αὐτᾷ, ὅλος ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ κύκλῳ, ἐπίσκοπος πάσας γενέσεςκαι κράσεως τῶν ὅλων. --Clem. Alex. Cohort. Ad gentes. [243] Monotheism among the Greeks, translated in the Contemporary Review, March, 1867. Victor Cousin, Fragments de Philosophie Ancienne. [244] Quotations from Aristotle, in Rixner, I. § 75. [245] See Rixner, Zeller, and the poem of Empedocles on the Nature ofThings (περὶ φάσεως), especially the commencement of the Third Book. [246] His famous doctrine, that "man is the measure of all things, " meantthat there is nothing true but that which appears to man to be so at anymoment. He taught, as we should now say, the subjectivity of knowledge. [247] Zeller, as before cited. [248] Geschichte der Philosophie. [249] The sentence which Plato wrote over his door, οὐδεις ἀγεωμέτρητοςεἰσίτω, probably means, "Let no one enter who has not _definite_thoughts. " So Goethe declared that _outline_ went deepest into themysteries of nature. [250] For Proofs, see Ackermann, Cudworth, Tayler Lewis, and theNew-Englander, October, 1869. [251] Page 28, German edition. [252] Laws, X. 893. [253] Timæus, IX. [254] Laws, IV. 715. [255] Zeller, as above. Also Zeller, "Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics, "translated by Reichel. London: Longmans, 1870. [256] Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, p. 140. [257] Mr. Fergusson thinks the peristyle not intended for an ambulatory, but is unable to assign any other satisfactory purpose. [258] Illustrated Hand-Book of Architecture. [259] Plutarch, quoted by Döllinger. [260] Buckley's translation, in Bohn's Classical Library. [261] Ibid. [262] Republic, II. 17. See Döllinger's discussion of this subject, in"The Gentile and the Jew, " English translation, Vol. I. P. 125. [263] Advancement of Learning. [264] Ottfried Müller has shown that some of these writings existed in thetime of Euripides. [265] Cudworth's Intellectual System, I. 403 (Am. Ed. ). Rixner, Handbuchder Geschichte der Philosophie, Anhang, Vol. I. [266] Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. IV. P. 71. [267] Christianity and Greek Philosophy. By B. F. Cocker, D. D. New York:Harper and Brothers. 1870. [268] See Neander, Church History, Vol I. P. 88, American edition. [269] Hegel's Philosophic in Wörtlichen Ausüzgen. Berlin, 1843. [270] Romische Geschichte, von Theodor Mommsen, Kap. XII. [271] Janus, Picus, Faunus, Romulus, were _indigites_. Funke, RealLexicon. [272] See Niebuhr's Lectures on the History of Rome, for facts concerningthe Siculi. The sound _el_ appears in Keltic, Gael, Welsch, Welsh, Belgians, Gauls, Galatians, etc. M. Grotefend (as quoted by Guigniaut, inhis notes to Creuzer) accepts this Keltic origin of the Siculi, believingthat they entered Italy from the northwest, and were gradually drivenfarther south till they reached Sicily. Those who expelled them were thePelasgic races, who passed from Asia, south of the Caspian and Black Seas, through Asia Minor and Greece, preceding the Hellenic races. This accountsfor the statement of Herodotus that the Pelasgi came from Lydia in AsiaMinor, without our being obliged to assume that they came by sea, --a facthighly improbable. They were called Tyrrheanians, not from any city orking of Lydia, but, as M. Lepsius believes, from the Greek τύῤῥις (Latin, _turris_), a tower, because of their Cyclopean masonry. The Roman state, on this supposition, may have owed its origin to the union of the twogreat Aryan races, the Kelts and Pelasgi. [273] Mythologie der Griechen und Romer, von Dr. M. W. Heffter. Leipzig, 1854. [274] And so our word "janitor" comes to us from this very old Italiandeity. [275] Ampère, L'Histoire Romaine. [276] This seems to us more probable than Buttman's opinion, that thetemple of Janus was originally by the gate of the city, which gate wasopen in war and closed in peace. In practice, it would probably bedifferent. [277] "Quis ignorat vel dictum vel conditum a Jano Janiculum?" Solinus, II. 3, quoted by Ampère. [278] "Arx mea collis erat, quem cultrix nomine nostro Nuncupat hæc ætas, Janiculumque vocat. "--Fasti, I. 245. [279] Mater Matuta ("matutina, " matinal) was a Latin goddess of the dawn, who was absorbed into Juno, as often happened to the old Italian deities. Hartung says: "There was no limit to the superficial levity with which theRomans changed their worship. " [280] The Etruscans worshipped a goddess named Menerfa orMenfra. --Heffter. [281] Heffter, p. 525. _Cloaca_ is derived from _cluere_, which means _towash away. _ Libertina or Libitina is the goddess of funerals. [282] Republic, II. 19. [283] Hartung. [284] "Diis quos superiores et involutes vocant. "--Seneca, Quæst. Nat. , II. 41. [285] "De re rustica"; quoted by Merivale in the Preface to The Conversionof the Roman Empire. [286] From the same root come our words "fate, " "fanatic, " etc. "Fanaticumdicitur arbor fulmine icta. "--Festus, 69. [287] From "sacrare" or "consecrare. " Hence sacrament and sacerdotal. [288] The word "calendar" is itself derived from the Roman "Kalends, " thefirst day of the month. [289] See Merivale, The Conversion of the Roman Empire, Lect. IV. P. 74. [290] Döllinger, Gentile and Jew. Funke, Real Lexicon. Festus. [291] Book I. 592. [292] IV. 593. [293] De Divinatione, II. 12, etc. [294] A Greek epigram, recently translated, alludes to the same fact:-- "Honey and milk are sacrifice to thee, Kind Hermes, inexpensive deity. But Hercules demands a lamb each day, For keeping, so he says, the wolves away. Imports it much, meek browsers of the sod, Whether a wolf devour you, or a god?" [295] Gibbon, Decline and Fall, Chap. II. [296] Conversion of the Roman Empire, Note A. [297] "Expedit civitates falli in religione, " said Varro. [298] "Philosophia sapientiæ amor est. " "Nec philosophia sine virtute, necsine philosophia virtus. " Epist. XCI. 5. [299] "Physica non faciunt bonos, sed doctos. " Epist. CVI. 11. [300] "Bonum est, quod ad se impetum animi secundum naturam movet. " Epist. CXVIII. 9. [301] "Universa ex materia et Deo constant. " Epist. LXV. 24. [302] "Socii Dei sumus et membra. Prope a te Deus est, tecum est, intusest. Sacer intra nos Spiritus sedet, malorum bonorumque nostrorumobservator et custos. Deus ad homines venit; immo, in homines. " Epist. XCII. 41, 73. [303] Arrian's "Discourses of Epictetus, " III. 24. [304] Lectures on the History of Rome, III. 247. [305] Monolog. , X. 14. [306] Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, p. 150. [307] Quoted by Neander, Church History, I. 10 (Am. Ed. ). [308] Gott in der Geschichte, Zweiter Theil, Seite 387. [309] Tacitus, History, I. 3. [310] Ibid. , Annals, IV. 20. [311] Ibid. , Annals, VI. 22. [312] Ibid. , Agricola, 46. [313] The Greek and the Jew, Vol. II. P. 147. [314] Epistle to the Romans, xv. 13. [315] "The legislation of Justinian, as far as it was original, in hisCode, Pandects, and Institutes, was still almost exclusively Roman. Itmight seem that Christianity could hardly penetrate into the solid andwell-compacted body of Roman law; or rather the immutable principles ofjustice had been so clearly discerned by the inflexible rectitude of theRoman mind, and so sagaciously applied by the wisdom of her great lawyers, that Christianity was content to acquiesce in these statutes, which shemight despair, except in some respects, of rendering moreequitable. "--Milman, Latin Christianity, Vol. II. P. 11. [316] See Ranke, History of the Popes, Chap. I. , where he says that theRoman Empire gave its outward form to Christianity (meaning _Latin_Christianity), and that the constitution of the hierarchy was necessarilymodelled on that of the Empire. [317] History of Latin Christianity, Vol. II. P. 100. [318] Maine, Ancient Law, Chap. IX. [319] "Non aliud peccare quam Deo non reddere debitum. " [320] Cæsar, Bell. Gall. , I. 36, 39, 48, 50; VI. 21, 22, 23. [321] "Præliis ambiguus, bello non victus. "--Annals, II. 88. [322] Tacitus, Germania, §§ 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9. [323] "Illud ex libertate vitium, quod non simul, nec ut jussi, conveniunt. "--Germania, § 11. [324] Esprit des Loix. [325] See, for the history and religion of the Teutonic and Scandinavianrace, Cæsar; Tacitus; Grimm's Deutsche Mythologie; Geschichte und Systemder Altdeutschen Religion, von Wilhelm Muller; Northern Mythology, byBenjamin Thorpe; The Sea-Kings of Norway, by S. Laing; Manual ofScandinavian Mythology, by G. Pigott; Literature and Romance of NorthernEurope, by William and Mary Hewitt; Die Edda, von Karl Simrock; AryanMythology, by George W. Cox; Norse Tales, by Dasent, etc. But one of thebest as well as the most accessible summaries in English of this mythologyis Mallet's Northern Antiquities, in Bohn's Antiquarian Library. Thisedition is edited by Mr. Blackwell with great judgment and learning. [326] See Die Edda, von Karl Simrock. Stuttgart, 1855. Literature andRomance of Northern Europe, by William and Mary Howitt. London, 1852. Geschichte und System der Altdeutschen Religion, von Withelm Muller. Gottingen, 1844. Mallet's Northern Antiquities, edited by Blackwell, inBohn's Antiquarian Library. [327] Hitopadesá; or, Salutary Counsels of Vishnu Sarman. Translated fiomthe Sanskrit by Francis Johnson. London and Hertford, 1848. [328] See Memoir of Snorro Sturleson, in Laing's Sea-Kings of Norway. [329] It would appear from this legend that the gods are idealizations ofhuman will set over against the powers of nature. The battle of the godsand giants represents the struggles of the soul against the inexorablelaws of nature, freedom against fate, the spirit with the flesh, mind withmatter, human hope with change, disappointment, loss; "the emergency ofthe case with the despotism of the rule. " [330] Physical circumstances produced alterations in the mythologies, whose origin was the same. Thus, Loki, the god of fire, belongs to theÆsir, because fire is hostile to frost, but represents the treacherous andevil subterranean fires, which in Iceland destroyed with lava, sand, andboiling water more than was injured by cold. [331] Northern Mythology, by Benjamin Thorpe. [332] Gibbon, Chap. LVI. [333] Smith's Dictionary of the Bible. Neander, Church History, Vol. II. Appendix. [334] See, for the conversion of the German races, Gibbon; Guizot, Historyof Civilization; Merivale, Conversion of the German Nations; Milman, LatinChristianity; Neander, History of the Christian Church; Hegel; Lecky, History of European Morals. [335] Latin Christianity, Book III. Chap. II. [336] Palaztu, on the Western Sea. Rawlinson's Herodotus, Vol. I. , p. 487. [337] The word has been deciphered "Pulusater. " Smith's Dictionary of theBible, Palestine. [338] Ibid. [339] Palestine, and the Sinaitic Peninsula. By Carl Ritter. Translated byWilliam L. Gage. New York. 1866. [340] Ritter's Palestine, Vol. II. P. 315. [341] Lynch makes it thirteen hundred feet below the surface of theMediterranean. See Ritter. [342] History of Israel, translated by Russell Martineau, Vol. I. P. 231. [343] New American Cyclopædia, art. Semitic Race. [344] Quoted by Le Normant, Manual of Ancient History of the East, Vol. I. P. 71. [345] Remarks on the Phoenician Inscription of Sidon, by Professor WilliamW. Turner, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. VII. No. 1. [346] Poenulus, Act V. Sc. 1. [347] See his Essay on the People of Israel, in Studies of ReligiousHistory and Criticism, translated by O. B. Frothingham. [348] Except the proselytes, who are adopted children. [349] History of the Jewish Church, Lect. I. [350] See, for these marvellous stories, Weil, Legends of the Mussulmans. [351] See my sermon on "Melchisedek and his Moral, " in "The Hour thatCometh, " second edition. [352] Strabo, who probably wrote in the reign of Tiberius, thus describesMoses:-- "Moses, an Egyptian priest, who possessed a considerable tract of Lower Egypt, unable any longer to bear with what existed there, departed thence to Syria, and with him went out many who honored the Divine Being. For Moses taught that the Egyptians were not right in likening the nature of God to beasts and cattle, nor yet the Africans or even the Greeks, in fashioning their gods in the form of men. He held that this only was God, --that which encompasses all of us, earth and sea, that which we call heaven, the order of the world, and the nature of things. Of this, who that had any sense would venture to invent an image like to anything which exists among ourselves? Far better to abandon all statuary and sculpture, all setting apart of sacred precincts and shrines, and to pay reverence without any image whatever. The course prescribed was that those who have the gift of divination for themselves or others should compose themselves to sleep within the Temple, and those who live temperately and justly mjiy expect to receive lome good gift from God. " [353] "Esteeming the reproach of the Christ" (that is, of the anointed, or, the anointed people) "greater riches than the treasures of Egypt. " [354] See this well explained in The Philosophy of the Plan of Salvation, by James B. Walker. [355] "'Behold, when I shall come to the children of Israel, and shall sayunto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you, and they shallsay, What is his name? What shall I say unto them? And God said untoMoses, I AM THE I AM. .. .. Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you!' "It has been observed that the great epochs of the history of the ChosenPeople are marked by the several names, by which in each the Divine Natureis indicated. In the patriarchal age we have already seen that the oldestHebrew form by which the most general idea of Divinity is expressed is'El-Elohim, ' 'The Strong One, ' 'The Strong Ones, ' 'The Strong, ' 'Beth-El, ''Peni-El, ' remained even to the latest times memorials of this primitivemode of address and worship. But now a new name, and with it a new truth, was introduced. I am Jehovah; I appeared unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, by the name of El-Shaddai (God Almighty); but by my name Jehovah was I notknown unto them. The only certain use of it before the time of Moses is inthe name of 'Jochebed, ' borne by his own mother. It was the declaration ofthe simplicity, the unity, the self-existence of the Divine Nature, theexact opposite to all the multiplied forms of idolatry, human, animal, andcelestial, that prevailed, as far as we know, everywhere else. "--Stanley'sJewish Church. [356] A man became a prophet only by his powers of insight and foresight;until that was certified to the people, he was no prophet to them. When itwas, it was because he _convinced_ them by his manifestation of the truth;consequently any revision of the law by a prophet was a constitutionalamendment by the people themselves. [357] Hitzig, Urgeschichte und Mythologie der Philister. Tacitus probablyreferred to the Cretan origin of the Philistines, when he says that theJews were originally natives of the island of Crete. See his account ofMoses and his institutions, Historia, V. 1-6. [358] "Out from the heart of nature rolled The burdens of the Bible old; The litanies of nations came, Like the volcano's tongue of flame, Up from the burning core below, -- The canticles of love and woe. " Emerson, _The Problem_. [359] See this point fully discussed in Ritter, Palestine (Am. Ed. ), Vol. I. Pp. 81-151. [360] See Weil, Biblical Legends, for the Mohammedan traditions concerningSolomon. [361] For he perceives the idea, but not its application to himself. [362] Neither of them perceives that he is the object of the injury. [363] Eccles. I. 2-11. [364] Ibid. I. 12; ii. 11. [365] Ibid. Ii. 12-20. [366] Ibid. Ii. 24. [367] Ibid. Iii. 1-11. [368] Ibid. Iii. 18-21. [369] Ibid. Iv. 1-3. [370] Ibid. Iv. 9-12. [371] Ibid. V. 1-7, 18. [372] Ibid. Vi. [373] Eccles. Vii. 2, 10, 15, 16. [374] Ibid. Vii. 26-28. [375] Ibid. Viii. 2, 3, 4, 11, 14(ix. 2, 3), 15, 17. [376] Ibid. Xi. 1, 2, 6. [377] Ibid. Xii. 1-8, 9, 12, 13. [378] Döllinger, The Gentile and the Jew. [379] See article on the Talmud, Quarterly Review, 1867. [380] An anecdote was recently related of a little girl, five years old, who was seen walking along the road, looking up into the trees. Beingasked what she was seeking, she replied: "Mamma told me God waseverywhere, but I cannot see him in that tree. " The faith of thepatriarchs was like that of this child, --not false, but unenlightened. [381] "And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up andfall at Ramoth-Gilead? And one said on this manner, and another said onthat manner. And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, andsaid, I will persuade him. And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? And hesaid, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of allhis prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: goforth and do so. " [382] See Greg, The Creed of Christendom, Chap. V. Also, The Spirit of theBible, by Edward Higginson. [383] Mohammed der Prophet, sein Leben und seine Lehre. Stuttgart, 1843. [384] Essai sur l'histoire des Arabes, avant l'Islamisme, pendant l'époquede Mahomet, et jusqu'à la réduction de toutes les tribus sous la loimussulmane. Paris. 3 vols. 8vo. 1847-48. [385] Das Leben und die Lehre des Mohammed, etc. Von A. Sprenger. Berlin, 1861. [386] Sprenger, Vorrede, p. Xii. [387] The Life of Mahomet and History of Islam. By William Muir, Esq. London, 1858. [388] A Series of Essays on the Life of Mohammed, and Subjects subsidiarythereto. By Syed Ahmed Khan Bahador. London: Trabner & Co. 1870. [389] "Quo fit ut omnis Votiva pateat velut descripta tabella Vita senis. " HORACE. [390] The same remark will apply to Cromwell. [391] "Mohammed once asked Hassan if he had made any poetry about AbuBakr, and the poet repeated these lines; whereupon Mohammed laughed soheartily as to show his back teeth, and said, 'Thou hast spoken truly, OHassan! It is just as thou hast said. '"--Muir, Vol. II. P. 256. [392] Muir, Vol. II. P. 128. [393] Koran, Sura 80. [394] Mahomet and the Origin of Islam. Studies of Religious History. Translated by O. B. Frothingham. [395] Lewes, Life of Goethe, Vol. I. P. 207. [396] Mahomet et le Coran, par J. Barthélemy Saint-Hilaire, Paris, 1865, p. 114. [397] Les Religions et les Philosophies dans L'Asíe Centrale. Par M. LeComte Gobineau. Paris. [398] A Year's Journey through Central and Eastern Arabia. By WilliamGifford Palgrave. Third edition. 1866. London. [399] Article in Revue des Deux Mondes, January 15, 1868. [400] Studies in Religious History and Criticism. The Future of Religionin Modem Society. [401] Ibid. , "The Part of the Semitic People in the History ofCivilization. " [402] Ibid. The Future of Religion in Modern Society, The Origins ofIslamism. [403] The Sympathy of Religions, an Address by Thomas Wentworth Higginson. Boston, 1871. [404] Job i. 6, 12; ii. 1; Zech. Iii. 1; 1 Chron. Xxi. 1. [405] In the passages where Satan or the Devil is mentioned, the truthtaught is the same, and the moral result the same, whether we interpretthe phrase as meaning a personal being, or the principle of evil. In manyof these passages a personal being cannot be meant: for example, John vi. 70; Matt. Xvi. 23; Mark viii. 33; 1 Cor. V. 5; 2 Cor. Xii. 7; 1 Thess. Ii. 18; 1 Tim. I. 20; Heb. Ii. 14. [406] Exodus vi. 2. [407] Exodus iii. 14.